You have written, "The existing terminology is very confusing, as it arose prior to a time when electron scanning micrographs and specific analysis by X-ray and laser technology were possible."

In fact, I think what is confusing is that someone took the name of a type of ceramic (the "faience" wares of Faenza, Italy), and applied it to the ancient products of Egypt and the Middle East, based on a supposed similarity of appearance. If a non-ceramic body has the name of a well-known type of ceramic, what are the chances that anyone is going think the ancient material is anything except a "ceramic"?

Regarding Chinese beads, I would agree that there is some confusion, but I wouldn't call it a "similar confusion." The bases of the beads in question are probably variable, and I don't know if they have been analyzed and qualified/classified comprehensively yet. However, I do know that they are sometimes characterized as being "ceramic" when an allusion or comparison to faience (that is, quartz paste materials) might be more apt. But the situation is complicated by the fact that many imitations of these beads ARE based upon ceramic constructions. So, the mistaken attribution of the authentic beads (that their bases are "ceramic"—when in fact they are not) tends to make it easier to "authenticate" beads that are imitations (because their bases ARE ceramic).

Jamey