I'm not sure I follow you.

I wrote: "In the 1990s, Pyu beads from Burma first appeared in the marketplace..., And now, ANY old beads from Burma/Thailand are being called "Pyu" beads." Note I wrote "...from BURMA...." And, I wrote "...from Burma/Thailand...."

It seems to me we are in agreement about that.

The point I am not sure you get is that the mosaic-glass beads you have shown that you have characterized as "Pyu"—and now as "Roman," are NOT Roman (nor Pyu). They are Islamic Period beads, from roughly 100 to maybe 700 years later than the Roman Period.

THAT was my point in suggesting you read this post as well as the Pyu article posted here. I do not believe any (or virtually no) mosaic-glass beads were included among Pyu beads—and, in fact, I believe such beads were made much later in time (so that they could be "Pyu" is impossible).

My point in the present post was to give notice that the popular marketplace in Thailand NOW identifies Islamic Period beads as "Pyu beads" mistakenly, and for the reasons I discussed (above). And that is what you did in your post. You are repeating a fallacy.

Does this make my position more clear?

Jamey