Hi Scott,

Earlier this year, I middle-manned a deal between two collectors, for a collection of heirloom beads from Borneo. Included were specimens of Lukut beads.

I had seen Borneo heirloom beads in the past, when I was hired to restring several necklaces, but I don't have any close-up photos from that time. The new group provides a nice opportunity for me.

Anyway, Lukut beads, I believe, are just Venetian trade beads of a certain design. They are not "Roman" nor even of a manufacture comparable to Roman Period makes. As such, the beads were traded to Island SE Asia, and are not nearly as old as many people suppose.

MANY beads that are said to be "Roman" are actually from about 1,000 or more years later. Only in the past 15 or so years have bead researchers (particularly me) begun to understand these issues, to promote a more realistic interpretation of beads, and to encourage the term "Islamic Period" for later ancient beads—as well as properly identifying modern trade beads that are also mistaken for ancient beads. Peter Francis, of course, was another sane voice on this issue.

Jamey

Hello Jamey,
I would've never guessed that they were Venetian. You didn't mention the color of the beads that you saw. I only mention the eye and roman beads as I have an old eye bead(Roman/Islamic) that looks just like the photo of the Lukut Sekala on the most expensive bead site. However, all I can tell from the photo on that site is that the background color of the bead is dark and the eyes or circles are lighter. Also, I guess if the Lukut's are Venetian then they are made of glass. I was wondering about the composition as well.

Hi Beadnik,

The "Lukut sekala" (as I understand it) is a specific glass bead. It has a black base, and is decorated with appliques that are ochre-yellow and brick-red (two common Venetian colors—but also common in antiquity). The applique (I believe) is a bicolored twisted cane (a "retorto" cane) that has been laid down in a tiny compact circle, and then manipulated with a tool—becoming spiraled, and sometimes resembling like a "yin-yang" design. This makes it look like a piece of millefiori cane with a spiral pattern, but I think in fact it is not that. The beads also have (usually or often, but not always) a similar-looking decoration at or around the apertures of the perforation. (This is also a device found in Islamic Period beads, and suggests that the Lukut beads were intended to copy those beads. And, as mentioned here recently in another context, some similar-looking modern Venetian beads appear to copy Japanese beads with this decoration, that themselves copy Venetian beads. These earlier Venetian beads are or can be pretty much on-par with the Lukut beads. In other words, all of these beads share some characteristics that tend to jumble them together, and that make distinction problematic.)

There are also other—let's say—varieties—of Lukut beads, that may have different surnames. These beads share certain characteristics with Lukut sekala beads, but are not the same in terms of details and colors.

I think there has been some tendency to take this corpus of beads, that formerly had distinct names and characteristics, and lately to call them all "Lukut sekala" beads, even though formerly they were considered distinct and had their own names (in Borneo). Consequently, I hesitated to be so specific in discussing them with you in general terms—since I don't know WHICH Lukut beads you may have seen.

Since you didn't realize these are glass beads, what material did you think they were composed from?

Jamey

Hello Jamey,
And thanks for all of the information on the Lukut, but like a lot of the others it's a lot of speculation involved, huh? I was thinking that they were glass, but I hadn't even considered that they were Venetian. That's why I made the comment that then they must certainly be glass. The only thing I knew about them is what I could find when you type in the most expensive bead on the internet, or Lukut Sekala. There is not a lot out there that I could find. I'll see if I can get my neighbor to take a photo of my ancient bead to compare to the one that is shown on "the most expensive bead" site. The body of the ancient bead is I'd say a teal blue with what I would say are three ochre colored eyes. I would swear that they have a very similar, almost identical appearance to the eyes on the bead on that site. And in the right lighting the blue could appear to be black. Okay, so I'm deluding myself to think I may have a Lukut Sekala. And as there appears to be no exact definition of one that I can find.......well. It's just like someone mentioned in refernce to the Kiffa's, I should learn to speak whatever language it is they speak in Borneo and then go and talk to someone that has or knows what a Lukut Sekala is and then I could say I've done the field research, right? I guess, sounds good! I do go "borneo" for beads!
Scott

Dear Scott and Whomever,

Since the time that this series of posts was deposited (2006), considerable work on Borneo and Lukut beads has been produced.

I presented a paper on Heirloom Beads at the Borneo International Beads Conference (BIBCo), at Borneo in 2010. And there have been subsequent papers since that time. The Proceedings of the Borneo Conferences are excellent publications. However, I do not personally know which volumes would be available now. You can inquire by joining the BIBCo Group at FaceBook.

One of the things I found in Borneo—that I predicted— is that currently people do identify any number of other Lukut beads as "Lukut Sekala." By the way, this name is pronounced "loo-KOOT SS'KAL-lah." The second name is two syllables, with the "se" and "ka" run-together and emphasized. The "se" is a sort of hiss—as happens in Japanese. The the name is almost like "looKOOT SKAlah."

Jamey D. Allen