| Original Message: What's In A Name? |
|---|
|
"What's In A Name?" is the title of a column I write for the newsletter of The Bead Museum, in which I occasionally discuss issues related to be names, descriptions, and terms. I suspect that many people think I am overly involved in creating, using, and/or correcting bead terminology. And they likewise think I am obsessed with bead manufacture (perhaps to the exclusion of any other enjoyment of these marvelous artifacts). This has been suggested to me by people who already know me pretty well. So I have to think many others must REALLY think that too.... But here's the thing. Bead study is severely hampered by the lack of a body of terminology that the majority of people understand and willingly use. There are way too few names and terms, than there are beads—and consequently those names become applied inaccurately. Or, new (often silly) names are invented (and then suffer the same fate). But if we don't have meaningful names and descriptions, it can be very difficult to know whether we are all discussing the same bead at the same time or not. The way we can manage to discuss the same thing at the same time is to have a uniform and consistent jargon that the majority of people find agreeable (or at least are used to). And the way to classify beads, and to be able to distinguish one from another—particularly glass beads—is to comprehend their manufacture. THIS is why I stress these topics so often. It is not out of obsession nor an A-type (controlling) personality. It is to try to get (interested) people onto the same page—so to speak. But then, this just gets the ball rolling. There is still a LOT more to do to come to consensus..., but terminology is a start. Added to that, there is the unfortunate problem that, once a name is promoted, someone is going to use it to pump-up the reputation of a different bead—either by mistake, or as a selling feature (to get the big bucks or prestige), or both. Back in the 1950s-'60s, in the antiquities marketplace, certain beads were said to have come from "Amlash" (a city in Iran). I don't think it has been demonstrated that ANY particular beads came from there—but at the least I haven't figured out who started this suggestion. But I do know that it became commonplace to market ANY "ancient" (because they were not always ancient) beads as "Amlash beads"—because this became the popular name that would guarantee the high price, and made the beads "prestige artifacts." Much the same can be said, for the 1960s-'70s, of the identifier "Roman bead" for MANY beads that were not from that Period (and at a time when the more accurate "Islamic Period" —for certain beads—had not been recognized and devised—as I did in the 1980s). In the 1970s, among trade bead sellers, any bead that was not a Venetian bead (and some that were), were routinely called "Dutch" beads—basically just to have a name. I've now spent over twenty years trying to counter that proposition (with very limited success). In the 1980s, when ancient/old beads from Mali began to be available, these were called "Jenne" beads..., and now ALL old beads from Mali (and some not-so-old) are called "Jenne beads." In the 1990s, Pyu beads from Burma first appeared in the marketplace (from a source with which I was directly involved). And now, ANY old beads from Burma/Thailand are being called "Pyu" beads. And so it goes.... It is helpful to recognize that all of the above happens, and to understand why it happens. This will allow us to remain appropriately skeptical—hopefully without becoming unduly cynical. A little skepticism can be a healthy thing. Be well. Jamey All rights reserved by Bead Collector Network and its users |
|
|