For centuries, Europeans have been sending Baltic amber to Africa (and many places).

They tend to send the "less desirable" but still dramatic and attractive sorts. Often, this means large opaque beads (because "large is good" in the eyes of many folks), and also, from the Baltic/North Europe, opaque amber is more common and less desirable than transparent amber.

Once Europeans had learned to treat amber—including pressing it (making big pieces from small pieces)—they sent THIS amber to Africa.

Once Europeans learned to make decent-looking imitations, they sent THIS material to Africa (and continued to call it "amber").

Amber is not native to Africa. (They only have copal, which is sort-of related, but probably not exploited before actual amber was available to them.) Amber is a received-product. That means when they receive something, and they are told "it's amber," Africans are probably inclined to believe that (in the long run).

Once 1926 rolled around, and phenolic plastic beads were sent to Africa, and said to be "amber," THIS became the standard. Many African people repeat traditional stories about earlier beads they used to have (both amber and copal), but the stories are now applied to plastic beads. (This can happen anywhere, of course.)

In 1972, when phenolic plastic beads began to arrive (in California, where I live), we were told these beads were "African amber." After some research, when I determined that there was really no such thing as "African amber," but only imported European amber in an African context AND/OR local "copal," I then determined to understand what copal was, and whether the beads in question might be copal. By 1974 I understood that the beads were synthetic plastics, but I didn't know which plastic specifically (though I knew it was unlikely they were "Bakelite"—though this was an idea that circulated). In my article, I described them as "Bakelite-type" and "phenolic" plastics. (It wasn't until the mid 1980s that I met a fellow plastics-researcher, who gave me the critical information that identified and dated these materials in the best precise and objective manner.)

Once we understood that "African amber" beads were actually plastic (from the late '20s), that substituted for earlier imported beads and/or local (copal) beads, it became commonplace to characterize these beads as "cultural amber" (from a region that didn't HAVE amber, but received it and received substitutes for it)—and to characterize these beads as being "valuable and collectible." My friend Liza Wataghani (whom I met in 1976) was among the African bead-sellers who took this marketing approach, and had a strong effect upon the marketplace and the terminology of beads (that otherwise wouldn't HAVE many of the names we still use today). I can't disagree with this opinion. To me, it is clear that the beads "are valuable and collectible." However, they ARE NOT "amber," In part, their desirability—and the boost in the cost of buying them, has continued to raise and even explode based on the false premise that "these are African amber beads." (A premise I disproved in 1975.)

So, yes—still desirable and still collectible, and likely to be pricey. But is the price raise reasonable? In some ways it is, and in others it is NOT. Many African bead sellers continue to insist that their beads "are amber." They are vehement and even defensive about it. And their position is understandable. But it is not the truth.

Jamey