CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 46

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Beadmaking at Arikamedu and beyond

Francis, Peter·1991·World Archaeology
DOI 10.1080/00438243.1991.9980157
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Arikamedu in southeast India was the birthplace of a glass bead industry which supplied much of the Old World with drawn monochrome Indo‐Pacific beads for more than 2,000 years. The industry was begun in the third century BC, and the beadmakers subsequently moved to other sites in Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Vietnam and Thailand to continue their craft. A remnant of the industry still survives in southern India. In addition, other types of beads were made from the raw stock of the Indo‐Pacific beads at Arikamedu and the other sites. Arikamedu was also a major lapidary center, and stone beadmaking there and at the other sites is also reviewed. Both of these craft/industries called for many specialized operations, comparable to modern Indian glass and stone beadmaking operations.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/00438243.1991.9980157

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Francis (1991) demonstrated Arikamedu's important role in the production of Indo-Pacific beads, highlighting its eastward connections along and across the Bay of Bengal and the diversity of trading links.

    “Francis (1991) demonstrated the site's important role in the production of Indo-Pacific beads, thus highlighting its eastward connections along and across the Bay of Bengal and the diversity of trading links.”

    From Archaeology of Trade in the Western Indian Ocean, 300 BC–AD 700 (2014) · cites this paper as Francis (1991)

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 48

  1. Basa, K. K. 1988. Early glass beads in Thailand. Paper presented at the second conference of the Association of Southeast Asian Archaeologists in Western Europe. July1988, Paris. n.d.
  2. 10.2307/504104 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Begley V., 1986, Studies in the Archaeology of India and Pakistan, 297
  4. Boon G. C., 1966, Bulletin of the Board of Celtic Studies, 22, 104
  5. Braddell R., 1949, Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, 22, 1
  6. Braddell R., 1980, Lembah Bujang, 32
  7. Campbell J. M., 1880, Gazetteer of the Bombay Presidency
  8. Casal J. M., 1949, Fouilles de Virampatnam‐Arikamedu
  9. Dikshit M. G., 1969, History of Indian Glass
  10. Eichholz D. E., 1962, Pliny Natural History, 10
  11. Francis P., 1982, World of Beads Monograph Series 7
  12. Francis P., 1982, Indian Agate Beads
  13. Francis, P. Some thoughts on glass beadmaking. Proceedings of the 1982 Glass Trade Bead Conference. Edited by: Hayes, C. F. pp.193–202. Rochester: Rochester Museum and Science Center. Research Records 16
  14. Francis P., 1984, Journal of Glass Studies, 26, 152
  15. Francis P., 1984, Bead Forum, 5, 7
  16. Francis P., 1986, Bulletin of the Deccan College Postgraduate and Research Institute, 45, 117
  17. Francis P., 1986, Ornament, 9, 53
  18. Francis P., 1987, Bead Emporium: A Guide to the Beads from Arikamedu in the Pondicherry Museum
  19. Francis P., 1987, Report on the beads from Nishapur, Iran in the Metropolitan Museum of Art
  20. Francis P., 1988, Lapidary Journal, 42, 57
  21. Francis P., 1988, Asian Perspectives, 1
  22. Francis P., 1989, The Type Collection of Beads from Archaeological Contexts in the Philippine National Museum
  23. Francis P., 1989, Beads and the Bead Trade in Southeast Asia
  24. Francis P., 1989, The Margaretologist, 2, 3
  25. Francis P., 1990, Asian Perspectives, 1
  26. Francis P., Glastechnische Berichte.
  27. Francis P., Mantai excavation report
  28. Francis P., Mantai excavation report
  29. Gerini G. E., 1909, Researches on Ptolemy's Geography of Eastern Asia (Further India and Indo‐Malay Archipelago)
  30. Glover I. C., 1989, Early Trade between India and Southeast Asia. A Link in the Development of a World Trading System
  31. Gwinnett A. J., 1988, Archaeomaterials, 2, 187
  32. Huvelin P., 1904, Dictionnaire des Antiquités Greques et Romaines, Tome Troisiéme, Deuxiéme Partie L‐M, 1731
  33. Kangle R. P., 1972, The Kautiliya Arthasasta.
  34. Lamb A., 1966, Journal of Glass Studies, 80
  35. Laufer B., 1915, Field Museum of Natural History Anthropology Series, 1
  36. Malleret L., 1962, L'Archéologie du Delta du Mékong, vol. 3, La Culture du Fou‐Nan
  37. Newbold C., 1844, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 20
  38. Peck H. T., 1962, Harper's Dictionary of Classical Literature and Antiquities
  39. Prasad P. C., 1977, Foreign Trade and Commerce in Ancient India
  40. von Saldern A., 1980, Ancient and Byzantine Glass from Sardis
  41. Shamasastry R., 1915, Kautilya's Arthasastra
  42. Singh R., 1983, Puratattva, 12, 157
  43. Sinkankas J., 1966, Mineralogy: A First Course
  44. Surleau R., 1944, Rapport sur le Fonctionnement du Service des Travaux Publics pendant l'Année 1943
  45. Trivedi R. K., 1964, The Census of India
  46. Wheatley P., 1961, The Golden Khersonese
  47. Wheeler R. E. M., 1946, Ancient India, 2, 17
  48. Wheeler R. E. M., 1954, Rome Beyond the Imperial Frontiers, 10.2307/3886825 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Francis, P.
Venue
World Archaeology
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
1991-06
Volume
23
Issue
1
Pages
28-43
ISSN
  • 0043-8243
  • 1470-1375
DOI
10.1080/00438243.1991.9980157
Cited by
46
References
0
Language
en

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review