A correction to your missive.

I have been the only bead researcher to challenge the supposed origins of these beads, now spanning well over two decades.

It has been my contention that, because these are lampwork beads, they must be much-more-recent than any of the propositions that they are "Phoenician," "Roman," or "ancient."

I have remarked that these beads are either Venetian or Bohemian.

I suggested Bohemia for the specific reason that Bohemia devised the translucent red glass that is used for the red/white beads (that often appear to be "pink"). As a side-issue, for thirty (30) years I have promoted the idea that translucent red glass, as made in Bohemia, was taken up by Venetian glassmakers as early as ca. 1825—and was used for the creation of cornaline d'Aleppo beads. I contend that this is essentially the same glass made in Bohemia (used to make false garnets), and routinely used by Venetians AFTER ca. 1825, for many different beads. These dates are, of course, provisional, and are based on North American archaeology, as published at the time my propositions were made. And I remarked, from the beginning that archaeology MIGHT suggest a somewhat different time range, based upon future findings. (But, to my knowledge, nothing has surfaced in this arena.)

My proposition is that the agate-glass beads we are discussing would be more-likely to be Bohemian, if they predate ca. 1825. After 1825, these beads could be Bohemian or Venetian.

At no time did I express the idea that these agate-glass beads cannot be Venetian!

As far as I am concerned, the question(s) of origin remain open. However, the glass itself is the most-telling factor we can deal with now.

My primary intent has been to demonstrate and expose precisely why I believe these beads are trade beads—and not "ancient beads." Please do not misunderstand this. I consider the time and origin to be placed much later than had been previously presumed. And I have discussed two possible scenarios for their manufacture.

Jamey