So I have a slightly different take on this. My sense is that most people's collections are best placed with other collectors, not museums. I have some pretty wonderful beads, but they were largely collected by others collectors and don't come with audit-quality provenance. It's good certainly enough for most collectors; but I think museums will want to (and should) focus more on beads coming out of an archeological context. If most purely academic researchers are never going to be able to use beads sourced from the general art market to conduct serious peer-reviewed research, then do they really want them sitting in some museum? My fear is that even the nicest beads may effectively always be treated as second-class bead citizens in that context, where they would be cherished by a collector.

Now there are some specialty museums that are a little different. I remember being (a small) part of running the Washington DC Bead Museum. There, the history of beads was the topic, the place was run by collectors, and they had access to Jamie’s immense knowledge and the Lankton collection. So they were able to focus on qualitative analysis of bead histories. Other museums focusing on glass manufacturing processes, for example, may likewise be willing to accept items without perfect provenance, because they illustrate the underlying science. Both those places are few and far between, and as we’ve seen, are not necessarily reliable long-term solutions.

Now maybe Jamie or a select group of others will have collections that could be taken seriously by a serious museum. But they are a very small part of the overall collecting community. And I would much rather have my beads sent back out into the world on my own timescale than sent to a museum warehouse without the resources (or frankly, the interest) in studying them.

Interesting in hearing from others on this!

It is certainly up to the owner to determine where his or her collection will go. In that most museums don't want beads, it might be best to pass them on to other collectors. I should point out that much of what Corning has in the way of beads was purchased in the 1960s and 70s by Alastair Lamb in West Africa so not much background on that material. As for archaeological beads, those excavated by universities, museums, and other organizations generally remain with the funding organization and may or may not be accessible by researchers. Beads from looted archaeological sites are less useful to researchers as they lack chronological and cultural contexts but can still provide information. In any event, beads were made to adorn people and their possessions, and not necessarily end up in museum collections.

Let beads and collections be recycled with people who enjoy and appreciate them.
JP

I want to remark that while archaeological beads are and should be of great interest, there are two other classes of beads (and more if we think about it) that are significant too.

We also have ethnographic beads (sometime called "living beads"), from cultures of the past and recent past, that are still in the hands of users (or have been collected recently), that are or may be significant parts of material culture. These, by definition, are not "archaeological."

There are also, mainly over the previous thirty-something years, extraordinary products, made by industries, and individual artisans, that are highly worthy of being collected and conserved (for future posterity). Also very different from "Archaeology."

Since 1993 I have presented myself as, not only a collector, researcher, archivist, and consultant, but also as an appraiser. I have appraised quite a few collections, large and small, since that time—that began with the Liese Collections for The Bead Museum. It took me sixteen (16) years to document these impressive objects. Most appraisals are not so demanding (!).

I am in the same quandary as anyone else. Until 2011, when The Bead Museum folded, I had an actual will that donated everything I own to The Bead Museum. At this time I only have vague provisional ideas about what to do.... So I would be the first one to say—there are no easy answers.

Jamey

Regarding the Corning project— I was advised by multiple people to apply for this position. As much as I might have liked to do that, there are too many obstacles in the way. Actually moving to Corning for a year or more would be impossible for me. I have to care for my partner, who is 90 and almost 91. That is the most-important thing for me.

I actually wanted to write to Corning, and suggest that they allow me to vet whatever is produced by whomever receives the responsibility. Frankly, I am not hopeful they (or anyone) could do the job that I can do. I hope I am mistaken.

Nevertheless, judging by the imprints Corning has produced, related to beads—some of these being routinely mistaken, under-described, or superficial, I can see that they need help. Also, having been to Corning three times, myself, the idea that they have "thousands of beads" is slightly overstated—unless they were not candid with me. I think I have a reasonably good perspective upon their holdings. (And upon some of the mistaken ideas they have promoted—that seem to have been based on seller or auction-house proclamations.)

In any event—there are A LOT of beads that are not glass beads.

Jamey