I was looking at a very nice strand of ancient glass beads from Mali (so-called "Jenne beads"). when we spotted and discussed a very odd and unexpected bead, shown in the middle of the photograph below.

Looking at this under magnification, I realized it is a muracad (Kiffa) bead, of remarkable smallness and fidelity of pattern. The color scheme is simple, being just blue and white, and the pattern and shape suggest an ancient combed or folded glass bead. This is a tour de force of its type.

Jamey

Continuing with this strand, I spotted another bead I didn't recognize, and was again surprised to realize it is also a muracad. In this case, not only is the bead very small, but it copies an unusual pattern (an eye bead) in black and white glass, when one usually thinks of muracad beads are being colorful.

JDA.

I have not seen this type, but I am still in the process of searching through several hundred I haven't yet checked! I'll keep my fingers crossed maybe I find one!

Here is a similar bead, I have seen maybe 4 or 5 of these in all the years i have focused on Kiffa beads, thanks for showing Jamey!

Jamey, Thomas,
since the vast majority of "Kiffas" are one-of-a-kind, it´s difficult to discuss their scarcity.

I own about several (ca. 5?) beads of that kind, as shown by both posters. How rare is 5 from 3000? 0.15% of all specimen in my collection seems to point towards rare. If Thomas and me alone have seen or own about 10 with that (general)design, I can´t consider this bead to be as rare as you, Jamey, think.

The same goes for that little black specimen with white lines and dots. I own some 10 such pieces and have seen many more. There are way-way rarer "Kiffas" around.

PS
There is one thing about "Jamey and Kiffas" I forgot to mention, in my previous "Kiffa-posts". Indeed, it has been BEADMAN who brought the beads to the attention of a wider audience. That must have been some time around the middle or late eighties. VERY early indeed and some 10 years before I felt stunned by the true beauty of my very first own one. In Bamako, Mali that has been - 1994! The funny thing is this bead is still the most beautiful one in my K-ollection. Naaaah..., definitely not for emotional reasons, not because the "first cut is the deepest". Just by chance! I tiny little green bottle-glass triangular!

nööö!

Since chevron (rosetta) beads are a particular interest of mine, and are the subject of a book I have worked on since 1980, I continue to gather data and to document specimens of them, or beads that are related to them.

An interesting sub-group of this topic are beads that were made in imitation of chevron beads, including certain porcelain beads that were hand-painted or enamelled. These are considered to be "ugly" by some folks, and "very collectible" by others. A number of different types have been shown here, and I have documented many since about 1977.

Usually, or often, these porcelain beads can be hollow or solid, cylindrical, spherical, or ellipsoidal, copy a standard four-layer blue bead more than other editions, and can be in good shape, or poor. They are usually fairly large specimens, often about an inch and a half in length or longer.

Imagine my surprise, when I saw for the first time, a strand of SMALL porcelain copies of rosetta beads. These, I think, are way cool (!).

JDA.

Here we can see the cross sections of these beads.

JDA.

Nobody knows where such beads might have been made?

...aaaaah! Interesting!
thanx John,
~J~

actually it is not exactly the same beads since i cannot see the red color on the edge as the ones from yone, but close enough to believe they are of his production
Bapterosses had tried quite a few times to simulate chevrons or star beads from Venice. There are examples in their museum showing them
JP
here is a card

yes Bapterosses products were all porcelain/ceramic looking. he was using the Prosser method to make his products; The process consisted of molding a cold paste under great pressure and then firing it. Additional hand painting was also used for decoration on many items
I don't think he tried to make beads other ways
here are some experimental and more elaborated chevrons he made to copy the Venetian which are on display in Briare, I think they are very interesting and unique
JP

Dear John,

I think you did not understand the question.

Prosser beads should be considered an exception, because of both how they are made, and what they are made from. The material is a combination of clay and ground glass, made into a paste (probably), and formed inside a mold into a bead—and then unmolded and fired. It is a complete process. Some of these beads may be further embellished (usually by the addition of colored slip, possibly glass trailing, or just painting), and may be fired again if this is required.

The material is not "ceramic," though it contains some clay. It is a mixture.

The beads I am discussing here are not Prosser beads.

They are probably slip-molded ceramic beads. My question, perhaps, should have been phrased something like, do any of the Bapterosses beads with which you are familiar consist of ceramic clay, as opposed to being Prosser beads (?), and are you showing such beads?

Jamey

Jamey, you say:

"The material is a combination of clay and ground glass, made into a paste (probably), and formed inside a mold into a bead—and then unmolded and fired."

And "The material is not "ceramic," though it contains some clay. It is a mixture."

A wide variety of dishes and containers have been made in areas between Iran and England, combinations of varying clays and varying sources of silica (especially quartz), known generally by European scholars as 'faience' after Faenza, Italy, but retroactively applied to those made in Iran and Turkey. They are considered to be ceramics, regardless of the silica source. In England a small number of types are called 'soft-paste porcelain,' a highly glassy result of attempts to make translucent Chinese-type porcelain, but before the potters knew about kaolin.

There are a lot of hefty guides to ceramics, but Sotheby's little guide to pottery and porcelain should be available fairly inexpensively and gives a decent overview.

Best wishes,
Snap

Dear Snap,

My point was that Prosser beads have a big picture that makes them different from other conventional ceramics, and particularly conventional slip-molded ceramics (such as porcelain). The compound of clay and powdered glass, made into a paste (not a slip or slurry), being formed inside a mold, unmolded, and fired is a whole process that is unto itself in BEADMAKING. This is at least partially why Richard Prosser was able to patent it (albeit it essentially for button making). The resulting beads are neither purely glass nor ceramic, but (because of definitions for ceramics) are more conventionally "ceramic." But I don't see there is a problem with stating the specifics. And all of this remains apart from my original point within this thread.

It is not a matter of "silica source."

As far as faience goes, over the past thirty-something years I have promoted a view that remains unappreciated by many folks, but that I maintain is logical and has merit. Some people (I am sure) think it's pedantic..., but one man's pedantic is another's fine point. And, as I said, this is a point that has merit because of its perspective and usefulness.

Faience is NOT a "ceramic." Ceramics are derived from mineral clays, and are naturally-occurring compounds formed in the earth. In contrast, faience is mankind's first artificial material, being compounded more or less with a formula, from constituents and via preparations that have specific goals and/or purposes. Faience is an artificial silicate made from sand, a flux, and mineral colorants, that is formed (shaped) and fired, with the expectation that a superficial glassy glaze will form that is often brightly colored. (Glassy faience is glassy throughout its structure, and is harder and stronger at the time of its manufacture.)

Even if a very small amount of clay is added to a batch (as supposedly happens under some circumstances), this does not in itself, make the material a "ceramic." On the level of microscopic structure (and CERTAINLY in terms of manufacture and processes), faience and ceramics (clays) are quite distinguishable from one another.

What faience and clays have in common is that they are pliable fabrics that can be sculpted, modeled, or molded, are allowed to dry, are fired, form glaze (or may be separately glazed) and become relatively hard and unpliable.

There is a very good reason WHY faience is mistakenly regarded as a "ceramic"—and it has to do with classification schemata. When the scientific method began to be employed (facilitating classification), and when museums began to study, display, and store antiquities, they divided different things into different "departments." Often (more often than not) no one ever knew what to do with beads and other small articles. In the investigations of old cultures it was discerned that ceramics were important for distinguishing between one culture and another, and even the phases within cultures and regions. Consequently, museums developed "Ceramics Departments"—and these were considered "important."

Because of its similarity to ceramics (and totally avoiding its dissimilarity), faience was placed under the heading of being a "ceramic" and housed with those materials. As a matter of fact, because of the similarity with glass, glasses ALSO used to be housed with ceramics collections. (Glass is not a "ceramic" anymore than faience is a "ceramic.") Eventually, once glass became more appreciated, many institutions separated glass articles from ceramic articles, and gave them their own Departments. Now, whole museums are dedicated to glass (while often also having ceramics and faience in their collections as well). But faience is still relegated to the Ceramics Departments, and the uniqueness of this material goes somewhat unrecognized and unappreciated.

NONE of this pertains to the original point. The beads I showed in this thread, I believe (until it's demonstrated otherwise) are conventional ceramics. They are not glass, and certainly not Prosser beads. They are most likely slip-molded. If they are going to be compared to beads made by the Bapterosse Company, it is reasonable to inquire whether Bapterosse made any slip-molded ceramic beads (?). In the past John and Ruth have shown Bapterosse beads that do not look like Prosser beads (but rather look like glass). But since my beads are ceramic, I asked whether they made ceramic beads (?). I KNOW about Prosser beads already.

See?

Once again, I wish I had a nickel for every time I had to write-out my opinions on faience classification issues....

Jamey

looking at faience (e.g., mummy beads) and ceramic mediums using EDX and SEM methods, among others. The microstructure of faience is significantly different than that of clays / ceramics and also somewhat different that that of glass. The differences between faience and glass are not as marked as those between faience and various clays. My lab work over the past 2 decades fully supports Jamey's foregoing points. There are also a variety of frits similar to faience; however, their differences are subtle (though distinct) in nature - at least from a microstructure standpoint. Hope that this helps as oppose to creating confusion for anyone.
Thanks.
Austin

In the "family" to which faience belongs (quartz-paste compounds) are similar compounds/products, that have different appearances and properties, but are closely related. I didn't want to unnecessarily complicate the post by mentioning them. However, the list includes Egyptian Blue (of which there are E. Mediterranean and Egyptian types), and "frit" (a name I dislike and disagree with). I already mentioned glassy faience.

I think that an important part of the problem of dealing with these materials is that it's complicated by the condition of the piece at the time it's being studied.

"Frit" is often classified as a material distinct from faience. However, I am not convinced this is true. I sometimes wonder if it is just highly weathered faience, or even weathered glass (?). (Weathered glass is OFTEN mistaken for faience.

Then, there are similar materials from China, that I am inclined to believe they got from (Greater) Persia, but eventually made themselves, that form the bases of beads—including beads from the Warring States Period. I am sometimes inclined to refer to these as "composition," rather than faience (since the glazing is clearly applied in complex ways).

I wish some compendium handled all this in a comprehensive manner....

Jamey

I have "zoomed in" on some of the boundaries of the concentrically applied layers on a small number of WS beads using EDX, FTIR spectroscopy, etc. I smile when I find compounds (e.g., strontium chromate, strontium aluminate, uranyl acetate salts, et al., chelated to uniformly structured silica lattices) and whose relative concentrations are statistically identical between specimens. Some of these compounds / pigments were initially used in Eastern Block countries (and I am sure elsewhere) before finding their way to the West, circa early 60s, for similar purposes. If what this means is that these beads (specifically only those examined by me and were presented to me as WS and Roman face tabulars) are doctored fakes or are entirely fake, I cannot and dare not say openly with certainty because I do not know what specific efforts, if any, are underway the past 20 or so years to modify these latter types of beads. (There would be too much rhubarb to shoot out at me from all directions from some fellow forumites; at this point in my life, all folks hit is scar tissue when taking stab at me, as I don't even bleed anymore -- perhaps a good thing. Ain't that a sight for sore eyes!) Anyway, I did receive a few WS beads from Dirk Ross (NERIMA-KU, TOKYO) a few years ago, and did a similar evaluation with the following (simple) findings: non-uniform (mildly stratified) ceramic interior with what I believe is "weathered faience" (quoting Jamey) on the outside. There were no asynchronous or out-of-the-ordinary compounds detected. Too, these beads look worn and plain ... and in their own way, absolutely beautiful. Again, no intent or effort to begin a debate, but did want to share what I have seen. Finally, Robert L. did publish an excellent article in one of his (early) Bead Journals on faience. If anyone is interested, I am happy to provide a citation for the latter.
ac

The ceramic definition of faience is of a material that contains both clay and a silica compound, whether glass or quartz.

There are materials called 'faience' by the archaeological community which contain no clay but are composed of quartz particles or quartz and glass. Some are glazed, some not. They have been heated to varying extents. In some the quartz is partially melted, in some not. This may possibly vary within even a specific workshop, depending on how high the kiln temperature and how well maintained.

The existing terminology is very confusing, as it arose prior to a time when electron scanning micrographs and specific analysis by X-ray and laser technology were possible.

There is similar confusion about the inner compounds in many Chinese beads of the early Sarmatian (Spring-and-Autumn to Warring States) period. Analyses of these compounds have been undertaken only within the past 25 years or so. It is still unknown what the constituents of many types are.

Best wishes,
Snap

Dear Snap,

You have written, "The existing terminology is very confusing, as it arose prior to a time when electron scanning micrographs and specific analysis by X-ray and laser technology were possible."

In fact, I think what is confusing is that someone took the name of a type of ceramic (the "faience" wares of Faenza, Italy), and applied it to the ancient products of Egypt and the Middle East, based on a supposed similarity of appearance. If a non-ceramic body has the name of a well-known type of ceramic, what are the chances that anyone is going think the ancient material is anything except a "ceramic"?

Regarding Chinese beads, I would agree that there is some confusion, but I wouldn't call it a "similar confusion." The bases of the beads in question are probably variable, and I don't know if they have been analyzed and qualified/classified comprehensively yet. However, I do know that they are sometimes characterized as being "ceramic" when an allusion or comparison to faience (that is, quartz paste materials) might be more apt. But the situation is complicated by the fact that many imitations of these beads ARE based upon ceramic constructions. So, the mistaken attribution of the authentic beads (that their bases are "ceramic"—when in fact they are not) tends to make it easier to "authenticate" beads that are imitations (because their bases ARE ceramic).

Jamey

Jamey,

Indeed, the appearances were not the best guide for applying terminology.

You wrote:

"Regarding Chinese beads, I would agree that there is some confusion, but I wouldn't call it a "similar confusion." The bases of the beads in question are probably variable, and I don't know if they have been analyzed and qualified/classified comprehensively yet. However, I do know that they are sometimes characterized as being "ceramic" when an allusion or comparison to faience (that is, quartz paste materials) might be more apt. But the situation is complicated by the fact that many imitations of these beads ARE based upon ceramic constructions."

Some Chinese beads, attributed to Early Sarmatian period by persons much more knowledgeable than I, are described as having three layers: the obvious glass decoration on glass surface, then a layer of "terra cotta" over a material called "frit" but which would not properly be called that (as most likely not composed of sintered glass particles). Analysis of the inner two layers have not been published in these particular beads in some place I can get hold of the results. Maybe some day.

Best wishes,
Snap

hi Jamey
Can you show me what is for you a specific Prosser bead?
To me it is a different process using different materials (containing 70% clay) which by extention

hi Jamey Can you show me what is for you a specific Prosser bead? To me it is a different process using different materials (containing 70% clay) which by extension categorize such products
by the way I said ceramic looking not ceramic but Maybe they should be called ceramic beads since they look like it
what do you call slip molded?
In Briare they had only one way to make their products, it is well described in "une aventure industrielle"by Pascal Nourisson
JP

Some people have said Prosser beads should be called "ceramiglass," or something like that.

Prosser beads are certainly not something unique "for me." I don't have a perspective that makes them one thing and not another that is different from anyone else that understands Prosser beadmaking.

Thus, if I show any Prosser beads, they are going to be the exact same beads anyone else would show, who shows Prosser beads.

Jamey

Here are some old scans of slides I took some years ago. Not the best quality, but they do certainly depict typical Prosser beads. The right or lower card holds what are usually called "tile" beads.

Whereas a typical Prosser bead has the thick raised equatorial seam seen in the left card beads, tile beads have a seam that is placed at the thicker end of each bead—so the seam is that edge.

Slip-molded beads come out of two-part molds, and very likely had a reasonably obvious seam (that may be either longitudinal or equatorial)—but this is easy smoothed away before (or even after) the bead is fired. Usually a trace can be found. But slip-molded beads do not have the thick and obvious seams of Prosser beads (plus, they are ceramic!).

JDA.

hello Jamey
I understand they are using different molds for every item, some leaving an equatorial seam, others with the seam at one end of the bead, But all those beads are made with the same technique, using the same paste formula and they all are looking like ceramic, so why should we call one Prosser and not the other one ? is it just a mold question?
From what I have read and when we were buying in the factory in Jablonex they were not making any distinction between their numerous products, only naming them differently, the round ones you mentioned were called "oriental beads" the other ones "tile or rocaille"
Actually neither the French nor the Czech use the word Prosser for their products,they just used the method he patented, but Prosser beads will be a name to stay even though Prosser himself never made any beads
JP

Hello John,

Sorry, I am not following your train-of-thought and point.

Prosser beads do not look like ceramics, in my opinion. They look like an odd sort of glass. This is because they ARE largely glass—often being translucent, colored through the mass, and in a fairly broad variety of colors.

You remark "...so why should we call one Prosser and not the other one ?"

One what; and what is the other one? Please clarify.

About five years ago, I posted a series of messages about Prosser beads (and how they compare to other molded glass beads that are not Prosser beads), that I happen to have as a PDF file. Unfortunately, it will not load here. But I will e-mail it to anyone who is interested.

It doesn't matter to me whether factories or museums distinguish or can't distinguish between types of beads—except that if they cannot their knowledge is limited and unreliable. As a technical historian, it's my job to be able to make these distinctions, and to present the information in a way that is understandable and useful.

Jamey

yes Jamey we are not exactly on the same line. I was talking about Bapterosses and their Czech counterpart. In both their paste formula (70% clay,15% feldspath, 9% Gypsum, 6% lime carbonate) for Briare, similar but maybe not exactly the same for Jablonex
This would not permit translucent colors and none of their sample cards show that. All items, beads and others look like the same, like ceramic
I really thought Prosser was a process of fabrication not a specific bead.
Because Bapterosses bought the Prosser patent and ameliorate it for its own designs, using the same technique and the same material, I believed that their products would be classified as such
I am not aware of translucent glass Prosser beads. who made them?
Here are pictures of sample cards from Briare from our museum
I am not sure if they show well on the screen, You can see the round beads have a seam in the middle,they and all the others I can assure you have the same ceramic look
Have a good thanksgiving
JP

Jamey, I have been trying for a while to explain that Bapterosses did not work with glass, only with that type of ceramic composition that I have mentioned before
All the items he produced and are on his sample cards are made with the same material.
JP

Thank you John,

I have been trying to explain to you that it is difficult for me to follow your train of thought. It still is.

There is nothing about the card you show (on the right) that identifies it as a Bapterosses card.

I wish you would TRY to understand my meaning. When I say "I would be surprised...," it means just that. I am not saying you're wrong; I am not saying I disagree; I am not arguing with you. Sometimes (many times) a statement is just the statement it seems to be.

JDA.

hello Jamey
yes I should have said that this is one of a few cards that were given to our museum from the museum in Briare
here is a full picture of the card. On the top of the card it says '
"le poids per mille'"{the weight per 1000 beads)
It is confusing because some of the beads were made also in glass by the Czech
JP

Was the pressure applied during firing, or only during forming (in moulds)?

Shouldnt we be using the term Sintering?
-then whether the glass ingredients are translucent or opaque the fired product comes out opaque and further clouds the issue -excuse the pun...

Stefany

Hi Stefany,

it is difficult to imagine how anyone could apply pressure to an object while it's being fired (particularly in antiquity up to the 19th C.).

Sintering, as I understand it, pertains to the fusing of grainy bodies, generally quartz granules and glass granules (these being already melted quartz, but in a ground-up state) one to another. Sintering explains what happens when these granules are heated enough so that individual granules form a glass around their circumferences, allowing one to stick to any that touch it. In faience-making, this holds the granules of quartz together. In powderglass beadmaking this holds the granules of glass together.

Because I am weaker in ceramics technology and strategy, I can't say what happens with the fusion of clays—though I understand there is a great deal of science devoted to this. But I would be surprised if it were (essentially) sintering, as happens with quartz and glass. Perhaps it is.

Jamey

Those are really cool! I've never seen any like that before. Where were they made? They look like tile - is this material synonymous - tile / porcelain? Time period? My best, Stephen Parfitt in Springfield, Illinois.

These beads are mentioned in the first paragraph of the article. Thanks, John!

This is an imitation of a Roman Period face bead, of the type perhaps made at Alexandria around 2,000 years ago. The bead is quite small, and the details are not easy to see, even under magnification. It's a bead I would love to scan at high resolution, so we can see what's really going on. But I suspect it is a fake, and that the details are cleverly painted in and suggested (rather than accurately copied). A scan would most likely reveal all.

JDA.

Definitely a fake, no matter the resolution! Gorgeous piece for a fake-collection, though!

Thank you Jamey, for showing these very interesting examples. I first shopped at Yone in the early 80s - it's a historic bead landmark, truly. Yone is to my knowledge the oldest bead store in California with original owner in it's original location. Clientele in the 1960s included Janis Joplin.....

I just got my first glimpse of Yone Beads & can't wait til I can visit San Francisco again--because I'm for sure gonna visit this shop! Joyce, thanks for the info on the history of the store, too.