Alison K Carter
University of Oregon, Anthropology, Faculty Member
- Anthropology, Archaeology, Prehistoric Archaeology, Material Culture Studies, Archaeological Method & Theory, Archaeological GIS, and 38 moreExperimental Archaeology, Archaeological Science, Southeast Asian Studies, Archaeometry, Public Archaeology, Ethnoarchaeology, Ancient Technology (Archaeology), Southeast Asia, Archaeological Chemistry, South Asian Archaeology, Cambodia, Southeast Asian Archaeology, Dress and Personal Adornment (Archaeology), Archaeology of Personal Adornment, Archaeology of States, South East Asian Archaeology, Khmer Studies, Cambodian History, Laser Ablation - Inductively Coupled Plasma - Mass Spectrometry, Beads, Thailand, Ancient Glass, Thai Studies, LA-ICP-MS, Agate, Compositional Analysis, Science, Prehistory, Political Economy, Archaeology of Colonialism, Historical Archaeology, Ritual Economy, Household Archaeology, Angkor, Cambodian Iron Age, Anthropology of Globalization, Archaeology of Globalisation, and Khmer art and architectureedit
- https://anthropology.uoregon.edu/profile/acarter4/ https://sites.google.com/site/alisonkyracarter/home I am an Assis... morehttps://anthropology.uoregon.edu/profile/acarter4/
https://sites.google.com/site/alisonkyracarter/home
I am an Assistant Professor in the Department of Anthropology at the University of Oregon. My research interests include the political economy and evolution of complex societies in Southeast Asia. Other research interests include the archaeology of East and South Asia, materials analysis and LA‐ICP‐MS, craft technology and specialization, household archaeology, ritual and religion, trade and exchange, and bead studies.edit
This link allows for up to 50 free eprint downloads. If it no longer works, please let me know: https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/SeEbAUkK5AC7gCfEZTqT/full The Khmer Empire (9th–15th centuries a.d.), centered on the Greater Angkor... more
This link allows for up to 50 free eprint downloads. If it no longer works, please let me know: https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/SeEbAUkK5AC7gCfEZTqT/full
The Khmer Empire (9th–15th centuries a.d.), centered on the Greater Angkor region, was the most extensive political entity in the history of mainland Southeast Asia. Stone temples constructed by Angkorian kings and elites were widely assumed to have been loci of ritual as well as habitation, though the latter has been poorly documented archaeologically. In this paper, we present the results of two field seasons of excavation at the temple site of Ta Prohm. Using LiDAR data to focus our excavations, we offer evidence for residential occupation within the temple enclosure from before the 11th century a.d. until the 14th century. A comparison with previous work exploring habitation areas within the Angkor Wat temple enclosure highlights similarities and differences between the two temples. We argue that temple habitation was a key component of the Angkorian urban system and that investigating this unique form of urbanism expands current comparative research on the diversity of ancient cities.
The Khmer Empire (9th–15th centuries a.d.), centered on the Greater Angkor region, was the most extensive political entity in the history of mainland Southeast Asia. Stone temples constructed by Angkorian kings and elites were widely assumed to have been loci of ritual as well as habitation, though the latter has been poorly documented archaeologically. In this paper, we present the results of two field seasons of excavation at the temple site of Ta Prohm. Using LiDAR data to focus our excavations, we offer evidence for residential occupation within the temple enclosure from before the 11th century a.d. until the 14th century. A comparison with previous work exploring habitation areas within the Angkor Wat temple enclosure highlights similarities and differences between the two temples. We argue that temple habitation was a key component of the Angkorian urban system and that investigating this unique form of urbanism expands current comparative research on the diversity of ancient cities.
Research Interests:
A short report in The Bead Forum.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
A short article I wrote for the Khmer Times newspaper in Cambodia on fieldwork at Angkor Wat in June-July 2015.
Research Interests:
Until July 10, 2016 you can download this PDF for free following this link: http://authors.elsevier.com/a/1T4U48MrPrspCp Stone and glass beads are important artifacts in Southeast Asia as they are amongst the earliest objects from... more
Until July 10, 2016 you can download this PDF for free following this link:
http://authors.elsevier.com/a/1T4U48MrPrspCp
Stone and glass beads are important artifacts in Southeast Asia as they are amongst the earliest objects from South Asia found in the region, and frequently seen as symbols of Indian influence and increasing socio-political complexity. Peter Francis Jr.'s writings regarding the production and exchange of beads in Southeast Asia have been influential to archaeologists who have viewed beads as prestige objects that were traded widely and produced at important urban centers in Southeast Asia. However, the field of beads studies in Southeast Asia has greatly expanded in the past 15 years and benefitted from new excavations and scientific techniques. In this article, I review Peter Francis' hypotheses regarding the production and exchange of beads in Southeast Asia from 500 BCE to the early second millennium CE. I then synthesize recent work by scholars that has transformed our understanding of the manufacture and trade of beads. I argue that this work has largely disproven Francis' model of bead production and interaction between South and Southeast Asia. Instead, there appear to have been multiple phases of bead production and exchange between the two regions, which reflect complex interaction networks between South and Southeast Asia and within Southeast Asia.
http://authors.elsevier.com/a/1T4U48MrPrspCp
Stone and glass beads are important artifacts in Southeast Asia as they are amongst the earliest objects from South Asia found in the region, and frequently seen as symbols of Indian influence and increasing socio-political complexity. Peter Francis Jr.'s writings regarding the production and exchange of beads in Southeast Asia have been influential to archaeologists who have viewed beads as prestige objects that were traded widely and produced at important urban centers in Southeast Asia. However, the field of beads studies in Southeast Asia has greatly expanded in the past 15 years and benefitted from new excavations and scientific techniques. In this article, I review Peter Francis' hypotheses regarding the production and exchange of beads in Southeast Asia from 500 BCE to the early second millennium CE. I then synthesize recent work by scholars that has transformed our understanding of the manufacture and trade of beads. I argue that this work has largely disproven Francis' model of bead production and interaction between South and Southeast Asia. Instead, there appear to have been multiple phases of bead production and exchange between the two regions, which reflect complex interaction networks between South and Southeast Asia and within Southeast Asia.
Research Interests:
Control over the exchange of prestige goods is an important component of emerging socio-political complexity in many ancient societies. During the Iron Age period (500 bce–ce 500), communities in mainland Southeast Asia were undergoing... more
Control over the exchange of prestige goods is an important component of emerging socio-political complexity in many ancient societies. During the Iron Age period (500 bce–ce 500), communities in mainland Southeast Asia were undergoing rapid socio-political changes, due in part to new interactions with societies from South Asia. As objects made from exotic raw materials and using complex technologies, stone and glass beads are one type of prestige object from South Asia that were exchanged widely across Southeast Asia. This study examines beads from 12 sites in Cambodia and Thailand. Morphological and compositional analyses using LA-ICP-MS resulted in the identification of different bead types that were circulated in distinct exchange networks. Initially, beads were exchanged within a pre-existing South China Sea network. However, as trade with South Asia intensified in the late Iron Age, exchange networks in Southeast Asia expanded, with an increase in the quantities of beads circulated. These results show the utility of studying beads as a means of examining trade and emerging socio-political complexity. Lastly, in considering evidence for control over the exchange of beads, I propose looking to an emerging state in the Mekong Delta.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Beads made of glass and stone found at Iron Age period sites (500 BC – AD 500) in Southeast Asia are amongst the first signs for sustained trade and sociopolitical contact with South Asia. Because of this, they have become important... more
Beads made of glass and stone found at Iron Age period sites (500 BC – AD 500) in Southeast Asia are amongst the first signs for sustained trade and sociopolitical contact with South Asia. Because of this, they have become important artifacts for scholars wishing to better understand trade networks and sociopolitical development during this period. Using compositional analysis scholars can identify the recipes used to make these glass beads and in some cases this can be tied back to specific places or time periods. Current research indicates there were multiple glass bead production centers across South and Southeast Asia during this period. However there has not yet been a comprehensive examination of glass beads from Iron Age sites in Cambodia. This paper aims to fill this gap by presenting the results from a compositional analysis of glass beads from six Iron Age sites in Cambodia. Using a virtually non-destructive compositional technique (LA-ICP-MS), I was able to determine the presence of at least two glass bead-trading networks in Cambodia during the Iron Age.
