MANY mistakes are made with old beads. I recommend the paper by Rosanne Pfeifer (if I remember correctly) from the Proceedings of the Glass Trade Bead Conference, 1982, in which she discusses beads recovered at Caesaria—MANY of which were trade beads that were locally believed to be much older. (I helped her with this paper, after the Conference, prior to publication.)

The beads in question cannot be "well-documented"—or else it would be common knowledge that they are trade beads. I have been one of the very few authors to write about them. Peter Francis was another. However, his glass technology was poor, and he didn't make the "lampwork" argument that I have offered for a long time. Also, if the beads were well-documented I would not expect there to be so many different crazy ideas about what they are—this ranging over 2,500 years of time, and several regional areas.

Nevertheless, I would be very interested to read any report that pertains to these beads.

Remember, archaeology is not an exact science. It relies upon decent, proficient work, unambiguous stratigraphy or providential associations, and correct interpretation. In addition, it helps (a lot) to have a consultant handy who understands glass-beadmaking.

Anyone who recovers a lampworked bead and says it dates from 500 to 1,000 years ago will have a LOT of explaining to do. If this were credible, it would change the perspective of glassworking in a very unexpected and dynamic manner. It is infinitely easier to believe the beads are from later and have been misidentified.

Jamey