I took apart the two strands on the right, matched them into sets.

Many of the beads have a "greasy" quality to the glass, with some more translucent than others.

Some of the larger, more matte, slightly "stripey" (wound??) ones look like some reddish-brown ones I bought recently, but can't remember where (of course.) I'm trying to buy more. I posted them here, and I think Jamey & others said India/Nepal. Haven't found similar ones yet, though....

This and more found in Archaeological essays in honor of Irving B. Rouse, Google Books.

http://beadcollector.net/cgi-bin/anyboard.cgi?fvp=/openforum/&cmd=iYz&aK=67962&iZz=67962&gV=0&kQz=&aO=1&iWz=0

Regarding your beads, at one time I thought a lot of plain wound mostly-turquoise-blue glass beads, found in S. Asian tribal contexts (mainly East India) were Chinese. I have come to suspect they are mainly from India, and may sometimes include some European beads.

However, a LOT of Chinese beads come out of Thailand and the region of SE Asia.

I have shown the only "actual padre beads" I have been able to document. I am reasonably confident these are not Chinese beads—because they have no mandrel release compound in the perforations. I'll show this photo when I can find it. JDA.

I'll try to find a scan in my archive. Or I'll make a new scan when I come across the transparency.

JDA.

Before the 18th century, Russia did not exploit its own gold and silver deposits.
Siberian fur was the government's main currency and it provided its suppliers with enormous
profits. These super profits ensured the rapid advancement of Russian promyshlenniki,
merchants and Cossack detachments into Siberia during the 16th and 17th centuries. Every
method possible was used to catch or acquire the valuable pelts of sable, beaver and the reddishbrown
fox. Two of these were: 1) the actual commercial hunting by Russians and 2) the
collection of iasak (tribute) from the indigenous Siberians. Yet, in many 17th and early 18th
century documents--official dispatches and customs' records from the Siberian border at the
Urals--one encounters numerous reports concerning goods being brought to Siberia for trade
with the local population. On one such list, following an entry for copper cauldrons and iron
axes, are odekui orpronizki--large beads--deep blue, light blue, or white in color. Each hunting
artel can-ied several kinds ofthese trade beads (sviazkii, snizkii) with them. Agents representing
merchant trade houses in Ustiug Velikii, Sola VYrchgodskaia, Vologda, Yaroslavia, and Moscow
brought beads to Siberian ostrogi by the pud. Beads of mammoth ivory, animal teeth, and
semi-precious stones, previously handmade by indigenous people, quickly disappeared. Clothes
began to be decorated with this imported good -- beads made of glass.
Beads were not manufactured in Russia before the mid-18th century. From where, then,
did this extremely popular trade item come? Lois Dubin in her book, The History of Beads,
writes that Russia, like all the Baltic countries, imported beads from Moravia and Bohemia, and
even some from Venice (Dubin 1987: 110, 111). This assertion is hard to accept. Continual
military conflicts between Russia, the Crimean Khanate and Poland during the 17th century
would have made large-scale deliveries of beads from central Europe difficult. A northern
approach into Russia would have been the more likely route for beads coming from Eastern
Europe rather than an overland route. Beginning in the mid-16th century and lasting throughout
the 17th, Holland carried on an active trade of colonial goods with the Moscow government
through the mouth of the Northern Dvina River (Platonov 1922). By 1584, Archangel had
emerged as the major Russian trade port of that era. This particular period marked a flourishing
of bead manufacturing m Amsterdam (Dubm 1987: 112-113). During excavations at the
Colonial Glass Production in Irkutsk
Mangazeia ostrog, a whole series of Dutch and English colonial trade goods, including large
beads, was discovered. The ostrog is located above the Arctic Circle in the area between the Ob
and Enisei Rivers and it was active from the 1500s until 1643 (Belov, et al. 1981). Visually,
these beads are comparable to samples from the Dutch East India Company which appear in Lois
Dubin's "Bead Chart" (Dubin 1987).
By delivering the beads to Archangel, they followed the shortest route to reach their
main users in Siberia and in the Urals. Documents from the Imperial Commercial Collegium (the
Russian Ministry of Trade at that time) point indirectly to a Dutch interest in the Russian market
as early as the mid-18th century. In 1750 there were 2,123 pud and 38 pounds (nearly 77,000
pounds) of [small] beads sent through the port at St. Petersburg and 19,786,000 large beads, and
4 pud, 6 pounds (approximately 150 pounds) of cut glass (Staniukovich 1988: 156). Such a
large importation of beads into Russia can be explained by the mid-18th century fashion of
embellishing women's clothing with intricate details and embroidering festive headgear. This
style of using beads was embraced in the Russian cities and villages, among the nobility and the
peasantry. Beads and cut glass were used in icon rizas, to decorate smoking pipes, in letter cases
and for picture panels in drawing rooms. Beginning with the sea mammal hunting trade in the
Aleutian Islands in the 1740s to the 1750s, there arose a great demand for the less expensive
odekui (pronizki) for trade with the indigenous people of North America.

Late Precontact and Protohistoric Glass Beads of Alaska by
Margan Allyn Grover

Glass trade beads are tiny packets of information that are commonly misunderstood by archaeologists. Evidence is accumulating to indicate that they were introduced to Alaska before contact through existing indigenous trade networks. This study identifies a pattern of bead types from the precontact or protohistoric in western and northern Alaska. Green-, clear-, and gray-centered red varieties (Type IVa) were introduced into the Bering Strait region during the historic period, probably during the 19th century. However, large wound pale blue, turquoise, or white glass beads (Type WIb) were reported in the late precontact to protohistoric range. Another characteristic of glass beads during this period was split, or half beads. These early bead types were quickly integrated into existing socioeconomic systems and material culture, so much so that by 1791, glass beads were valued commodities.

I've had no response, Karlis, so guess I'd better pony up the $17, unless you think she'd be more responsive to an inquiry from you instead of me.

It is difficult to interpret the intent or scope of this remark. Does the writer mean "glass beads"—or any/all beads? There are published papers that purport glassmaking and beadmaking in Russia from earlier times. In one instance quite early (though this is a work that inspires my personal doubt). At the Danish Bead Conference (1992, I think), a paper was presented showing glass beads distinct to Russia. However, I don't think it was advanced (nor demonstrated) that the beads were MADE in Russia. But they were/are difficult to compare to other assemblages.

For the issue of "trade" and "trade houses," I recommend the essay posted at my Yahoo Group, Trade Bead Talk.

This is simplistic thinking! Don't complain about Dubin. Track down her source, and see exactly what was proposed. (Dubin is not a "bead expert." She is a competent writer who did a worthy task of compounding together all of the [assumed appropriate] information she could find on any topic of concern.) She cites her sources—and anyone should consult these sources, when there are any questions.

Dubin does not say anything like 'the Russians went to Bohemia to get beads." But this is what the present author seems to think, and to take exception to. As I read it, Dubin is talking about the origins of the beads. The industries that made them. She is not discussing HOW the beads got marketed (as a process).

Since Amsterdam was an entrepôt for glass beads (and many products including other beads), it is very possible that Bohemian glass beads made it into Russian hands via Holland. This does not require some stretch of the imagination. It is pragmatic.

JDA.

It would be necessary to view the REVISED Bead Chart, 2009, to understand that the "Dutch beads" shown in 1987 had been replaced by actual Dutch beads (due to my consultation on this topic).

Or the beads described in the Russian accounts cited above.

I don't recollect accounts of Dutch beads that could be described as sky blue and about the size of a large pea - but have I missed or forgotten something?

As far as going by mandrel release left in the holes, many of the beads in the strands I took apart are so worn that it seems possible that the holes were abraded and polished in the same manner as the ends - rotating on a thick stringing cord that accumulated abrasive dust.

Many variants of opaque blue wound beads were found at the Chinook Middle Village at the Station Camp site: Western Terminus of the Lewis and Clark Expedition, Pacific County, Washington. I saw a prelim report years ago, but apparently nothing detailed has been published on them. Some are shown in "Wilson: Exploring the Chinook Culture Contact at Station Camp at the Mouth of the Columbia River" (1792-1825). One small image shows some of the beads (see attached). The configuration of the two conjoined beads with protruding projections is identical to that described for the furnace-wound beads made in the Fichtelgebirge of Bavaria. Chinese beads usually don't exhibit this feature.

I think I'll re-read the chapters from this book on the Amur (Black Dragon) River.

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-wWm1ghHqakM/W18F-Vf5sYI/AAAAAAAA9WM/1fb-iu2s9nsjrUB47YT7pAYKUU3Wj1ZOACLcBGAs/s1600/1056193443.jpg

A new chapter in the history of Chinese glassmaking began
in i696, the thirty-fifth year of the reign of Kangxi, when a
glass factory was established within the imperial city in
Beijing under the direction of the Jesuit missionary Kilian
Stumpf (i6gg-I720). The type of glass produced there, of
which this vase is an example, was subsequently known in
the West as Peking glass. Craftsmen were recruited from
Boshan, the traditional center of glassmaking in China, and
from Guangzhou (Canton). The workshop's peak period, in
both quantity and quality of its wares, was between 1740
and 1760, in the early reign of the Qianlong emperor. Palace
records show that Jesuits with expertise in certain Western
glassmaking techniques were active in the workshop at this
time. After 1760, glass production in the palace workshop
declined rapidly, as did the quality of the wares. This was also
true of other workshops producing decorative arts for the
palace-a result of the emptying of the imperial coffers.

As to materials analysis of the Chinese glass:

"In the late period (i4th century and after), potash-lime glass continued to be produced, along with potash-lead glass. During the eighteenth century, soda-lime glass became quite common, with a chemical composition similar to that of contemporaneous European glass. [bolding mine] It is likely that this type of glass was introduced by Jesuits at the imperial workshop in Beijing."

https://www.metmuseum.org/pubs/bulletins/1/pdf/3269166.pdf.bannered.pdf