Very good points.

Some refinements, such as dating and getting a good overall sense of manufacture-place of 'Islamic period' beads, await careful archaeological results -- especially careful and well-illustrated reports, combined with historical understanding of trade patterns. Much is still being learned about who was trading what.

Snap

It seems only common sense to veer away from romantic and arbitrary naming of bead types towards a more scientific approach - the evidence never lies, as Gil Grissom reminds us in CSI.

Apart from careful 'forensic' excavation of beads from ancient burials, what scientific tests are available to assist in the identification of manufacturing processes and composition?

The identification of genetic markers in the human genome sequence has revolutionised human studies. Are there any identifying markers in old beads that can tell us as much about age and composition?

As ever I'd like to remind everyone of the Glossary of Bead terms (link below) .
Bearing in mind the fluctuations in bead names, it does not at present contain very many "names", but does contain most useful terms with which a bead may be described, -so far I have never found a more comprehensive list which is even approximately what we might call accurate.

Stefany

Hi all,

I have seen this link. It helps but not much for the beginner like me. Simple words like wound bead , bow shaped ( I've just read the other post recently asking about this glossary ) , rolled -pad , Faience etc. I think they need to update this page.

Thank you
Pk

Hello
"Bow" referring to shape is less clear than "Elbow" a term more commonly used, as "Bow" could be a different shape, such as "Bowtie".

"Faience" is there, but for some reason not slotted in at the correct alphabetical order position. Thanks for pointing it out.

Stefany

Two commom approaches are EDX (electron dispersive xray) and SEM (scanning electron microscopy); the former provides a qualitative elemental analysis, and the latter provides detail surface morphology. Two others are ICP (Inductively Coupled Plasma Emission Spectrophotometry)--providing a quantitative elemental analysis, and Auger spectrosopy-- providing localized surface quantitative analysis. FTIR (Fourier Transform Infrared Spectrometry) is also a great tool for discerning between various organic surface constituents - resins, epoxys, polyamides.

About three years ago, I began to notice a flurry of what were termed tabular Roman face beads (typically 5 to 10 mm diameter, perhaps a little larger). Some of the yellow colors just seemed (to me) too vivid. I spent a few weeks running elemental and compound scans on the yellow portions of these beads and found compounds such as strontium chromate, which produces a distinctive spectrum. This compound mainly came into use after WWII as a non-organic pigment and as a corrosion preventive for the metal surface-finishing industry, e.g., primers, topcoats. Too, I also conducted scans (FTIR) on the seams of what were termed "ancient repairs" for these same tabular Roman face beads only to find cross-linked exoxy polyamides and epoxy siloxane; the latter is a constituent in Super Glue.

Just wanted to share what I thought were some interesting findings. No intention to bore anyone, but rather just to make folks think twice (not that they aren't already) about some of the claims regarding "ancient repairs" / "old repairs."

ac

I was hoping you could find the time to comment. And oh yes, aren't we familiar with those little "Roman" "tabulars"...the sellers always seem to have more, exactly the same...thanks so much for passing along your findings.

That term takes me back to a time I knew about arrays and vectors. Sigh.

But thank you very much for the rundown. Same techniques are being used on ceramic sherds to mark composition of body and glaze, with beginnings of being able to distinguish geographic areas from which materials were obtained.

Great help!

Snap

I remember Elizabeth Harris's periodic group meetings for the purpose of discussing bead classification / origin and the like. She, like you, and a small handful of others certainly have been great pioneers.

Keep up your excellent leadership, Jamey; many of us are grateful for all that you do. Too, your enduring patience over the years certainly has not gone unnoticed.

a

Jamey is much, much appreciated here. His commitment seems infinite. He really has been doing this as long as he says he has, being a founding member of the N. California Bead Society back in 1977, after perhaps 10 years of a passionate interest in beads at that time. So Jamey's career in beads predates the internet by some 28 years. He is the bead researcher who has chosen to be the most accessible via the net, and we surely appreciate it. When considering the time to make his posts here, added to the doubtless hours of private on-line assistance he gives to many, what can I say, but Thank You.

Hello,

Jamey, I just want to say Pyu beads are from Burma , NOT THAILAND . So when you wrote this article maybe only Foreigner who call any ancient beads from both Burma and Thailand are Pyu period. We..Thai people don't call Pyu as Thai beads ...Even though some beads are look alike but it happens over the world...like the ancient glass beads in the other post . My ancient glass beads were found in Burma but they were found in Thailand too. But we don't call Pyu period bead . Actually we call them Roman period beads!....I just want to clarify " Pyu" is Burma , don't mix pls.

Best regards,
Pk

Dear PK,

I'm not sure I follow you.

I wrote: "In the 1990s, Pyu beads from Burma first appeared in the marketplace..., And now, ANY old beads from Burma/Thailand are being called "Pyu" beads." Note I wrote "...from BURMA...." And, I wrote "...from Burma/Thailand...."

It seems to me we are in agreement about that.

The point I am not sure you get is that the mosaic-glass beads you have shown that you have characterized as "Pyu"—and now as "Roman," are NOT Roman (nor Pyu). They are Islamic Period beads, from roughly 100 to maybe 700 years later than the Roman Period.

THAT was my point in suggesting you read this post as well as the Pyu article posted here. I do not believe any (or virtually no) mosaic-glass beads were included among Pyu beads—and, in fact, I believe such beads were made much later in time (so that they could be "Pyu" is impossible).

My point in the present post was to give notice that the popular marketplace in Thailand NOW identifies Islamic Period beads as "Pyu beads" mistakenly, and for the reasons I discussed (above). And that is what you did in your post. You are repeating a fallacy.

Does this make my position more clear?

Jamey

Hello Jamey,

This time I get it now. No more confusing. When you tell me something , pls explain clearly otherwise I might get it wrong the other way round. I'm learning from you : ) Like the glass bead post , telling you the truth I was very upset when you said my ancient bead were too late to be Pyu...but how late you didn't clarify...I thought you thought they were not authentic !
So in your point of view , those glass beads ( Mr.Thomas's and mine ) are the same period of time....Islamic period ? If not , why ?
Jamey, let me ask you the other question pls. When you are talking about the time period , how you guys categorize them ? So next time when you talk about time period I will understand the same time as yours.

Thank you for your clarification
All the bests,
Pk

Dear PK,

The question and problem(s) associated with characterizing beads by time periods has been discussed here a number of times. My opinion is only my opinion. Not everyone agrees.

It is a matter of convenience that certain groups of beads are described through association with big and significant time periods. For instance, Mediterranean beads from ca. 500 BCE (+ or -) are routinely called "Phoenician" beads. Those dating from the turn of the millennium are called "Roman" beads. Those from ca. a thousand years later are "Islamic Period" beads.

But these names are misleading, and subject to misuse and/or misinterpretation. For instance, many "Phoenician" beads were not made by the Canaanites of the Eastern Mediterranean, but rather were acquired by them from Egypt, and sold all around the region. The Canaanites are now called "Phoenicians"—and whatever beads they made and/or sold are ALL called "Phoenician beads."

The Romans were not involved very much in hands-on glass-beadmaking. They didn't care much about glass as a material, except as it provided them with products to sell to folks they probably thought of as "barbarians." What they did was to place glassmakers and glassworkers in areas where they demanded products be manufactured. And thus they tended to spread the knowledge of glass into areas where it was formerly unknown. But "Roman" glass is a convenience that allows a seller to garner a higher profit than if the beads in question were called "Taxila" or "Syrian" beads (or whatever). The name is practically meaningless, EXCEPT as a general time designation, and as long as it is understood that the work was not (usually) pursued by actual Romans.

In the post-Roman Era, glassmaking and working continued to be pursued in the regions where it was first developed and perfected. That is, the Middle East. Because of the importance placed upon the "Romans" as bringers of culture (an accomplishment that is dubious—because what they did was to continue to spread their version of Greek culture), it is VERY common to see art and artifacts represented as "Roman" that really post-date the Roman Empire. And, in fact, these products would have been made whether the Romans had ever exploited these folks or not. The Middle East is the HOME of glassmaking and glass-beadmaking (and the Romans are given much too much credit for it).

Prior to the 1980s, it was very common for beads that date from after CE 500 to be called "Roman" beads. This is basically a mistake because this is AFTER the Roman Empire, and for the reasons I have just mentioned. In the 7th century, Middle Eastern society and politics were profoundly influenced by the founding of the Islamic religion. Glass beads from this time (and slightly earlier, and up to ca. CE 1400) are conveniently called "Islamic Period beads." Again, it refers to a general trend, that took place at that general time. Beads did not profoundly change because of Mohammed. But the beads made in his time, and thereafter are NOT "Roman" beads. I have promoted the general name "Islamic Period beads" to encompass post-Roman Period beadmaking for just over twenty years. Fortunately, many authors have now written about 'glass of the Islamic Period,' similar to my example. That is convenient too.

I consider the "Islamic Period" of antiquity to have ended, in the context of glass, at the year 1400—for two practical reasons: 1) Tamerlane came along and destroyed Damascus and Aleppo (the primary glass centers of the Eastern Mediterranean); and 2) glassmaking at Venice became internationally celebrated, and moved into this Middle Eastern marketplace. In my opinion, this marks the dividing line between ancient and modern glassmaking. It is true that glassmaking at Egypt (at Fustat) persisted for a while longer; and it is true that in modern times glass-beadmaking has been taken up again by Middle Easterners (at Turkey, Palestine, and Egypt—and even at Bukhara in Central Asia). But although these glassmakers are Islamic, these are essentially modern industries. That these folks would insist that they are still participating "in the Islamic Period" will not be argued by me—except to make the points I have just made above.

So, you see, it's all a matter of convenience. Saying "Islamic Period" is short-hand for saying "about a thousand years ago." Saying "Roman Period" is short-hand for saying "about two thousand years ago. Saying "Phoenician Period" refers to "about two-thousand five hundred years ago." "Modern glass" means "since CE 1400."

I hope this helps.

Jamey

The standard major historical periods that cover the whole planet are Ancient, Medieval, and Modern. The standard geographic regions that span the whole of recorded history and that are of use to bead collectors are Europe, Middle East, India, and Asia.

Beads are identified by origin and age and these standard periods and regions are the ingredients of unambiguous simple IDs. All what you have been reading here otherwise concerning these matters is just a bunch of sophistry put forth by silly amateur hobbyists.

"Islamic" or "Roman" or "Phoenician" or "Helenistic" or "Byzantine" are meaningful terms for lots of things, but not bead identification. Think about it before you fall into the quagmire of ambiguity.

Decide for yourselves whether you want to believe a raving maniac, or a considered and thoughtful advisor.

Your choice.

Hello all,

Thank you for your info Mr. Imp Ortant. Frankly speaking I don't care the time period for other things else except the time period of ancient beads when I talk to Jamey and other forumites in this forum. And the answer of my question Jamey has already told me clearly. I have to say I not only believe Jamey but I also admire him. However; I don't agree with him in every issue but it's not the big deal. As long as I don't have any evidence to show , I will believe him. Even though my knowledge of about ancient beads is so little but the answers from Jamey are not much different from the books that I have read and Jamey never forces anyone to believe him. Like he said " my opinion is only my opinion, not everyone agrees." The most important is he has always had an ariticle that he did the research or the link to support his idea. He is an expert about beads over the world in my opinion. He has always had the answer in every question and also educated everyone.

What about you, Mr. Imp Ortant ? Should I believe you who come from no where and no real name ? I always open my mind to accept the new info. if you have any. Pls tell me which article or link that you write , I will read them but ancient beads only! Right now what I can tell , you are just an agitator!

This is my choice !
Cheers,
Pk