We left off with the scan from The Bead Chart, found in the first edition of The History of Beads, showing the area encompassing the 17th century, and the region of Holland. The author (my friend, Lois Dubin) displays specimens 99 through 111, presenting thirty-one beads that are purported to be Dutch. But are they all Dutch, and are they all from the 17th C.? In fact, no. Some mistaken identity has occurred, in terms of origin and time of origin. Let’s go through them, and let’s refer to the altered scan seen below.

The specimens that are most likely Dutch are: 99a (possibly) & b, 100a b & c, possibly 102a b c & d, 106, 107a and perhaps b, and perhaps 111. In the new scan, these beads remain uncircled.

Beads 101a b & c, and 102e & f, are large plain furnace-wound beads that mostly date from the 19th or early 20th Cs, and were made elsewhere in Europe. Specimen 107c is supposed to represent an early “gooseberry” bead, but is a more-modern Venetian bead, and composed from the wrong glass colors. Number 109 is the only true chevron bead present (except possibly 105a); and as such must be a Venetian bead, and is most likely from later. 110a & b are 19th or early 20th C. beads from Venice. One or both of these is/are trailed lampworked wound glass—and as there is no evidence that Holland made such beads, and since the types from Venice are later, these do not belong here. Note that all of these beads are circled in red—to indicate they have a mistaken placement in the Chart.

Beads 103a & b, 104, 105a b & c, and 108a b & c, are all rosetta beads finished a-speo. As such, it would be difficult to say with any certainty whether they are Venetian or Dutch—as they might be either. I am not confident that all of these beads are from the 17th C., and in fact suspect some must be or may be later. All of these beads are circled in orange, to indicate their uncertain status.

Why must the chevron bead be Venetian, if the Dutch made rosetta canes? This is a very good question. And many people will ask it because over the past thirty-five years quite a few conventional blue chevron beads have been misidentified and sold as “old Dutch trade beads”—and this still happens. Initially, in my experience, the most likely candidates for this story were a group of 4-layer (white, red, white, blue) beads that remain almost cylindrical, but have some grinding of the edges to reveal the patterned interior. (I will show these beads.) Later, almost any conventional chevron bead, whether an early 7-layer bead or a late 4-layer or 6-layer bead, might be so-identified by some sellers and collectors. The late beads are too late to be Dutch—and so must be Venetian. The early beads are essentially too early, dating from the late 15th and 16th Cs—before the Dutch were involved in drawn beadmaking.

But, how can we know that NO similar beads were made in Holland, that remain unidentified? The answer is pretty simple. On one of my early trips to Amsterdam, in consulting with the staff who guided me through the beads that had been recovered, he showed me a conventional and typical early 7-layer bead. He said, in no uncertain terms, this was the ONLY such bead recovered in Holland—and that they were comfortable that it was an imported bead. In 2004, when I met a local bead store owner, he also showed me a 7-layer bead, found in Holland (it was said), that he believed indicated that such beads were made there. Unfortunately, this is wishful thinking. His bead would be the second such bead that I know of. Rather than saying the recovery of two beads indicates that such beads were made in Holland, let’s turn it around. If the Dutch made conventional chevron beads, where are the thousands of beads, and wasters from beadmaking, that we should expect to find, recovered from factory and refuse sites? That there aren’t any is pretty condemning of such ideas. Plus, let’s say there were some reasonable number of such beads in Holland. Even then, since Amsterdam was an entrepot, we should expect there to be some earlier Venetian beads—lost in canals, or from the inventories of trade businesses who imported beads from Venice. The presence of such beads in no way would indicate they were MADE locally.

The closest thing to chevron beads, made in Holland, were heat-rounded a-speo rosetta beads (many of which are white with colored stripes—as we can see in Lois’ illustration). It’s also possible and even likely that some beads were essentially cut cylinders (their ends being tidied-up), or cut square cylinders (some twisted). For sure, star canes, in conventional color combinations, featuring a blue exterior and red and white interior, are known from glasswoking refuse. But not cut chevron beads.

Returning to Lois Dubin’s Bead Chart—let us remember that her book was composed twenty-two years ago. We ought to expect there would be a need for revisions and additions after such a long time. Although I was a consultant, and warned that some of the “Dutch” beads were not that, they were published as we see here. Nevertheless, the new edition of The History of Beads, that will be released in October, will present Dutch beads more accurately than previous attempts.

Jamey