I'm not an expert nor a scholar by any means when it comes to beads. I'm afraid I will always be an "adult beginner.) But because of my interest in prehistoric art and artifacts, I know your thoughts are in line with the latest history/prehistory of beads.

Beads were considered irrelevant to understanding ancient cultures. My realization that we can't trust opinions from many "science based" studies when cultural bias plays a powerful role. I believe a book called "The Descent of Woman" by Elaine Morgan, published in 1972 (in response to the "man the killer ape" culture presented in "The Naked Ape" by Desmond Morris in 1969. (He stated that the first artifacts were weapons.)

Since then, there's a 100,000 year old shell bead that some archeologists now believe is the earliest known artifact. Predating finds of artifacts used as weapons by a loooooong time.

So, adornment probably came first. Either as a sign of a specific community, or a way to be seen as an individual (or both) Two powerful forces in our human psyche, all wrapped up in a single bead, and topped with the desire to display something beautiful.

And I'm glad to know that collectors et al. have contributed so much to the expanding knowledge of our deep past. Thank you for sharing that, Will, I did not realize it.

Anyhoo, I will always prefer to be part of the bead-humanity thing than the weapon-humanity thing. :^)