In his still-significant "Classification of Beads and Pendants" (1928), Beck said that pendants are essentially beads with off-center perforations, that facilitate their use as hanging objects typically incorporated into constructions that are most often beads. Pendants are specialized beads.

The idea that "anything with a hole in it is or can be a 'bead'" is nonsense—not to say very unhelpful as well. There are billions of holed things that are not beads (to say the least).

Beads are essentially elements of personal adornment, and range in size from very small to very large—IN RELATION TO the size of the human body. (Beads are also amuletic—though I will mostly ignore this aspect in this monologue, to remain reasonably brief.) Something too small to be seen is most likely not a bead—whether perforated or not. The "too large" phenomenon is more difficult, because some extant beads are remarkably large, and some initially might presume that these are too large to have been worn by anyone—though in fact there are MANY examples of personal adornment (not just beads) that seem gigantic in relation to the size of a regular person. Then, we have the issue of beads made for monumental statues and as architectural features that are clearly based upon wearable beads (as I showed here in December, on a Tibetan temple). And, before we leave this area, let's recall that beads, as amulets, are also worn by animals, and placed in homes and vehicles (for protective and decorative functions).

So that is the issue of functionality—that beads perform the object of being personal adornments (but are also apotropaic amulets). Nevertheless, the issue of beadwork (a phenomenon I tend to separate from other beads), can be looked upon as crossing the line from adornment to decoration—because many beadwork constructions are "art"—intended to be placed on a wall or pedestal (or whatever), and do not decorate people nor animals, per se.

It can be said that there are "true beads," and "functional beads." A functional bead is a perforated object of some material that can be adapted to the use of any typical (or nontypical) bead usage. If I buy 1,000 brass washers at the hardware store, I can use these "as beads" by placing them into a necklace construction (and have, many times)—though they remain brass washers. But their context makes it germane to think of these things as "beads." (I am famous, or perhaps infamous for making necklaces that use non-beady things in necklace designs.)

There are MANY "beadlike" objects that are not beads. This forces us to "take a stand" and decide what we will accept a "a bead," and what should or will be excluded. From 5,000 years ago, the perforated cylinder seal is essentially a bead, and was most likely worn on the body. Nevertheless, my good friend Dr. Robert Liu has expressed the opinion that "these are not beads"—because they have a specific function (acting as seals). How about the ojime from Japan? These are used specifically to hold the cords that close and secure an inro emsemble—typically a box (the inro) and the netsuke (a kind of toggle suspended from the obi/sash) worn with a traditional kimono (robe) in Japan. Some would say these are not "beads"—though presently they are mostly worn in necklaces as beads. Likewise, the spindle whorl is a VERY "beadlike" object, that has a specific function, and technically may not be a "bead." However, I believe (based on nothing but my guts) that weavers and other fiber artisans MAY have worn whorls as beads (in antiquity). In part, I think this because so many of them are beautifully made—well beyond what's necessary for their intrinsic function. For sure, nowadays, many people wear them as "beads."

But when a perforated object can be shown to have some specific function that is not "beady" a case can be made that it is not "a bead," but rather is the thing that it is. At Peter Francis' site (www.thebeadsite.com), he has a page where these issues are discussed and illustrated, and he even composed a "quiz" to make these points, based on the identification of such objects. We recently discussed mace-heads—which, as I said, I have long documented because they are so beadlike (and beautifully made).

Not only are not all perforated objects beads, but not all beads are perforated (!). This was originally a hard one for me to wrap my brain around. However, with some logical discourse with Peter Francis, and some contemplation, I came to concede that an item that was made to function as an element of personal adornment, though it has no perforation can be "a bead." In parts of the world (including from a very long time ago and respecting various levels of technology), there may have been no reasonable way to perforate an object intended to be strung together with others to form personal adornments (the basic definition of "beads"). These items were sometimes grooved so that a string could be wrapped around them (and tied) for suspension. Some were just notched. As there is no specific and separate name for these things, they are "beads" for want of a name.

Ultimately, a pendant, being an object of personal adornment, usually or often combined with beads, often or usually made from the same materials and via the same skills and techniques as beads, IS a bead. I do not think this is a controversial proposition, at all.

By the way, I have said all of the above MANY times over the years, in lectures, in consulting, in articles—and even here. This represents my slant on the issue, from as early as ca. 1980—from the standpoint of being a hands-on working artist specializing in beads and beadwork, and as an historian and a conceptual theorist.

Jamey