If you, Fredo, allow to speak my mind, I would like to add my (hopefully encouraging) three Cents too:

The history of beads - like any other history - is one of many facets - geographically, socially, psychologically etc. It all depends who's history is meant. That of the maker, the dealer, the collector, the researcher, the writer and others. History is never and can never be the ultimate and universal truth.

Most people do not read, do not research and are not really interested in the deeper truth of things - beads or not. People seem to cared less and less about the various aspects of history!

Instead they look at photos, follow the sermon of the media and assumed "authorities". People like to have it easy and do not take the highroad to find answers.

All that - and more - leads to a superficial idea of things, or beads, in this case. Millefioris turn into "Milles", Muraqat are "Kiffa Beads" and Perla Fiorato are "Wedding Cakes". The list is endless. Understandable? Yes. Helpful? Not really.

Though this is just the superficial part of a history-made-up, it is nevertheless telling.

Of course we know major parts of the history of beads. Do we know all about it? Of course not! That will and cannot ever be the case. We are left to use theories or hypothesises to connect the dots. Unfortunately many fill the blank spots with hearsay, made-up facts, and naive assumptions that seems to help folks to rationalize.

To sum it up I like to freely quote the poster "Beadstore.com" who righteously stated that history should be based on facts and has, or should have, NOTHING to do with anybody's personal view!

Beauty can be in the eye of the beholder - history cannot (leave alone your question is an "unusual one" in the first place, as Tasart righteously claims)!

History are facts - Beauty or an aestetic appreciation is a riddle of philosophy!