I have discussed these beads quite a few times, online, over the past ten years (and many times in lectures and articles over the past twenty-five years)—most recently in my paper on the misrepresentation of modern beads as "ancient," for the IBBC (Istanbul Bead and Beadwork Conference, 2007). I also composed a pictorial post at my Yahoo Bead Group in 2002, for which the text messages are still available. (See the link below, and refer to Messages beginning with #76.)

Briefly, these are modern trade beads that have been misrepresented in the antiquities marketplace as "ancient" for quite a few years now. I have seen them said to be as old as from "the Phoenician Period" (ca. 2,500 years ago), and as "Egyptian," "Bactrian," "Roman," and "Islamic." I have also see them offered for sale for thousands of dollars (however, in the extreme case, strung with gold beads—which affects the price, to be sure).

There are several reasons why I believe these are trade beads. However, in my opinion, the most-telling clue is that they are LAMPWORK beads. Until quite recently (the 19th C. in Japan, the early 20th C. in China, and the tail-end of the 20th C./early 21st. C. elsewhere in Asia), lampworking was exclusively a European industry in terms of the commercial production of glass beads for export—and was initially developed in Europe. This being the case, lampwork beads cannot be "ancient" beads.

The same thing can be said for the dark beads with combed trailed lines (usually white with red or blue). These are MAINLY European (most likely Venetian) beads. However, in this instance, the European beads actually copy an Islamic Period bead, and it can be difficult to distinguish between them. The clue is that the modern European version uses translucent red glass (that did not exist for the Islamic Period beadmakers); and the Venetian beads are likewise lampworked—whereas the Islamic Period beads were furnace-worked.

Jamey