Post: Post Reply: Re: Dating Southeast Asian beads by Beadman

Original Message: Re: Dating Southeast Asian beads

Hi Will,
If Persia was sending glass beads to China as early as ca 500 BCE, it should be no surprise that glass beads were recovered in Eastern or SE Asia from 400 BCE. Finding beads is not proof of making beads. Not by a long shot.
I don't know what the conservative date for glassworking and/or glassmaking may have been in Eastern Asia and SE Asia. But that is not the point.
We are talking about DRAWN glass beads. These are a LATE development. My comments (unless specifically otherwise) were confined to this issue.
I'm not sure how anyone could affirm that '300 BCE is not too early,' when it would make the beads 100 to 200 years earlier than any beads conventionally believed to be ancient at this time. Pushing the development of a technical process back a century or two is sort of a big deal in historical archaeology....
Some months ago, I heard from a contact of mine that ideas about glassworking in SE Asia were in need of some revision. There was even a suggestion that maybe India learned drawn beadmaking from those folks—making SEA the home of this technique. Right now, I have no idea how far-fetched this idea may be, or if it is even based on anything sound. But when the proposition is made, it doesn't automatically become "true" overnight. It will, no doubt, be controversial for a while, in all likelihood. And after a while it might be dismissed as untenable.
Regarding Peter, at the time, I considered his actions despicable and self-serving—because I had quite a few ideas about Javanese beads that were at odds with Peter's ideas, and he was just temporarily protecting his stake. It turns out, I was on the right track, and he was not. Nevertheless, my paper did include some mistakes that I am glad (in retrospect) were not published. I would have included a bead that I now know is a fake, in my classification. A lot of the information I developed was used in Magical Ancient Beads, and by Jim Lankton for his Timeline book for the Bead Museum-DC; and in the paper we wrote together a few years ago on jatim in Korea. So, it is not as though this information was never presented. I talked about it many times in public lectures, in exhibit materials for The Bead Museum, and like that.
Be well. Jamey
Copyright 2024
All rights reserved by Bead Collector Network and its users

Original Message: Re: Dating Southeast Asian beads
Hi Will, If Persia was sending glass beads to China as early as ca 500 BCE, it should be no surprise that glass beads were recovered in Eastern or SE Asia from 400 BCE. Finding beads is not proof of making beads. Not by a long shot. I don't know what the conservative date for glassworking and/or glassmaking may have been in Eastern Asia and SE Asia. But that is not the point. We are talking about DRAWN glass beads. These are a LATE development. My comments (unless specifically otherwise) were confined to this issue. I'm not sure how anyone could affirm that '300 BCE is not too early,' when it would make the beads 100 to 200 years earlier than any beads conventionally believed to be ancient at this time. Pushing the development of a technical process back a century or two is sort of a big deal in historical archaeology.... Some months ago, I heard from a contact of mine that ideas about glassworking in SE Asia were in need of some revision. There was even a suggestion that maybe India learned drawn beadmaking from those folks—making SEA the home of this technique. Right now, I have no idea how far-fetched this idea may be, or if it is even based on anything sound. But when the proposition is made, it doesn't automatically become "true" overnight. It will, no doubt, be controversial for a while, in all likelihood. And after a while it might be dismissed as untenable. Regarding Peter, at the time, I considered his actions despicable and self-serving—because I had quite a few ideas about Javanese beads that were at odds with Peter's ideas, and he was just temporarily protecting his stake. It turns out, I was on the right track, and he was not. Nevertheless, my paper did include some mistakes that I am glad (in retrospect) were not published. I would have included a bead that I now know is a fake, in my classification. A lot of the information I developed was used in Magical Ancient Beads, and by Jim Lankton for his Timeline book for the Bead Museum-DC; and in the paper we wrote together a few years ago on jatim in Korea. So, it is not as though this information was never presented. I talked about it many times in public lectures, in exhibit materials for The Bead Museum, and like that. Be well. Jamey Copyright 2024 All rights reserved by Bead Collector Network and its users

Back Post Reply

Name
  Register

Password

E-Mail

Subject

Private Reply   Make all replies private

Message
HTML tags allowed in message body. Browser view     Display HTML as text.

Link URL

Link Title

Image URL

Attachment file (<256 kb)

Attachment file (<256 kb)