Except the bead to the left these are "European" beads? Somewhat between 1700/1800...?
I would guess, the bead at the left was grind into this shape longer time ago. My first thought was "a blue Hebron bead", but India came to my mind too...
The other three are 12.5 -17.5mm in length with 3-4mm opening, the first one to the left a conical opening from 4 -6mm and some black inside, but this is same for Indian or Hebron beads...

The one on the left does look like a Hebron to me.

For me more unusual shaped is this smaller 3-sided bead. First I thought, that it lost his decoration, but now I think, this line running around is part of the manufacturing process. There is no rest of color visible...
And again the question for origin and age...

8 x 12.5mm, with 3.4mm opening

This one looks like the same variety as your first image, wound, but paddled to 3 sides instead of 5. The lines are from the texture in the wound glass, as it has worn and responded to it's chemical environment over time.

Same shape, different color and size...conical with 4 facets on each end...There is a similar bead with this beautiful necklace at the home page here, the small blue one I mean, so maybe Joyce will know, where this one comes from and what it´s age.

9 x 9mm the blue one, with 2mm opening; 15.5 x 14.8mm the clear one, with 4.7mm opening

It looks like the blue one is starting to irridesce! Wound and paddled to soft 5-sided "facets" - like the pentagonal ones at the top of the thread, I believe they thought to be 18th c. Dutch. I like these beads a lot! Posted somewhere is a strand of clear ones that I knotted with purple leather.

"Cornerless-cube" beads are square—that is, having four sides (a cube), with the tips of the corners ground-off, providing eight facets. This is an ancient shape, and many stone specimens are well known.

The so-called "Russian" (glass) beads were made similarly, except that the parent canes were 6- or 7-sided, and the beads faceted by having the ends of their edges cut. Hence, "cornerless hexagonals" and the like.

The present beads are called "pentagon" beads (because the eight paddled facets are five-sided), and they're also called "twisted squares" (by Peter Francis, or noted by him) because they are shaped like what would happen if you could magically twist a cube 45 degrees between one end and the other. Like the cylindrical 5-sided "pentagonal faceted" (actually "prismatic") beads, these are wound glass beads.

Jamey

The green one has some black inside, so that´s why I think, it could be from India...My first thoughts to the other one was "unusual Venetian", but from a closer look I would guess "Ghana" now, whenever I haven´t seen this kind of bead from there before.

16 x 13mm the green one, with conical opening 4-4.6mm
15 x 11mm the other one, with lightly conical opening 2.9-3.4mm

Note the perforation—the stuff inside. It does not appear to have been drilled.

There's a class of old probably Nigerian beads, that were very well-fired and look stony. These are most often green. Usually a nice sea-green.

JDA.

you starting taking some other things into consideration. To me, the perforation is too large, and not smooth enough for a stone bead, what would be the need?

The shape is fairly typical of Ghanaian work.

It's cool bead.

Hi Carl,

Among the koli beads of Ghana—these beads almost always being cobalt blue of various tones and diapheneities, including dichroic specimens—there is a group of beads called "koli-of-the-water" that are green and/or teal blue. All of these koli beads may have a variety of origins and techniques, including being lapidary-worked, drawn, and powderglass types.

In Ghana, koli beads are regarded as exotic, and not as "local" beads—even though they are locally important for ritual and social purposes. They came from somewhere else. It is speculated (and I tend to agree) that a likely source for koli-of-the-water beads was Nigeria.

Nevertheless, I don't know of any koli-of-the-water beads with impressed melon-form shapes. So it is possible that these particular beads were made in Ghana. However, this class of beads has seldom been brought to the US—which I believe is because there was not an established market for them here, and bead traders did not include them in their inventories. I had to go to Ghana to acquire the few strands I have. So, it's entirely possible there are variations of koli-of-the-water beads that I have not seen (and few outsiders may have seen).

I would not call a melon-form shape "typical of Ghana," and well-represented in their traditional beads. I don't doubt there are some.

The koli beads of Ghana, in recent times (the 20th C.) have also included modern trade beads that may or may not be altered by Ghanain women, for the purpose of making them appear similar to old beads. These are usually characterized as "cooked koli beads." The name "koli" is forever linked to the name "kori"—the local name for what Europeans have come to call "aggrey" beads. In the Krobo language, there is no "R"—and (as in a reversal of the Japanese language) the "L" is substituted.

Jamey

Hi Jamey,

It's interesting that I did not think of this bead as a "melon" bead at all. When you look at the overall shape, the only "melon" aspect are the indentations. Nothing round about this bead at all AND typical "melon" bead do not have the indentations at an angle do they?.

Instead of seeing a "melon" bead I saw a powder glass bead that had decoration loss.

Thanks for your interesting input.

Carl

Hi Carl,

Beads with longitudinal indentations have a variety of names—and people seem to prefer some over others. Almost anytime I have discussed this topic, I find there's a lot of disagreement.

I think it would be appropriate to call this bead a "cylinder with melon-form indentations." However, your point is taken. Among drawn beads (that remain cylindrical in shape, being derived from dented canes), even when the ends are cut (rounding or at least semi-rounding the shape) these have still been referred to as "melon-form" beads. The class includes early chevron beads, but also many plain beads.

In fact, it's not so unusual for melon beads to be twisted, in their manufacture, to make the indentations spiral, just a bit or a lot. It's also pretty common among Ghana powderglass beads, that the maker turns the bead while it's hot, inside the mold (and perhaps outside of it), to cause the structure to twist. Or, the dent might be haphazard and placed without much care, and thus be non-parallel.

It hadn't occurred to me that the dents represent decorations that have fallen out. And looking again, I would be inclined to not think so.

Be well. Jamey

Hi again,
I was surprised too, that you, Carl, said „...fairly typical of Ghanaian work“ and understand better now (and no, I don´t think too, that there were stripes fallen out). If the edges, where the stripes were in, became that rounded, the other edges on the outsides of the bead and at the perforation, would became rounder, as they are. But I searched for this „typical“ shape at websites, showing beads from Ghana, and didn´t found any beads from there with a similar (melon-)shape. And by accident I found a sold strand at „African Trade Beads“, with similar looking beads, from shape and color (please see the link). I wouldn´t say, that my bead is the same, therefor it doesn´t look old enough, but these beads may be a kind of prototypes for the Ghanaian bead workers?!
Jamey, I never had to do with „Faience“ beads and so I read at „Wikipedia“ and an older post from you in 2006 here about these kind of beads and the question came up, if there is a „simple“ method/test, to find out, if a bead is made by the „faience“-technique or made by the „glass bead technique“. Any idea...? Thanks in advance...!! And best wishes for a great Sunday to all...

Hello Uwe,

The thing is, both faience and powderglass beads—in terms of their manufacture—can have a lot in common. In both manufactures, the maker can begin with crushed material, that is often made into a paste (with water and/or another binder), and sculpted or used to charge a mold.

Faience is sintered—meaning it's heated enough so that glass forms around each granule of quartz, and this glass/glaze is what holds everything together. A glaze also usually forms on the exterior of faience beads (and artifacts)—though it can also be placed there intentionally as an operation. And, over a long period, this external glaze can tend to disappear (depending on conditions). But most faience was shiny and glassy-looking when it was new/

Powderglass beads likewise sinter, rather than fusing to a homogenous mass. So they can look very much like faience, and they can seem different from conventional glass.

The difference is, faience beads are only colored on the exterior, and remain white, off-white (or whatever) inside—whereas the glass beads are colored throughout their masses. (However, there is a faience-like material, usually called "Egyptian Blue" that is colored a bright distinctive blue throughout its mass. It is said that Egyptian Blue—which came from other regions too, by the way—was not ever self-glazing. )

If you have an opportunity to view the end of a bead, you might get an indication of its structure. Your bead appears to be glass all the way through, and so is not faience. If you could see the Egyptian beads on the end, there would probably be some indication of the white base color.

Also, faience was most likely NOT "invented in Egypt." Like glass technology, it was probably invented in Mesopotamia, and taken to Egypt.

Even in the professional world, people make mistakes when trying to identify materials. LOTS of people still call faience a "ceramic" (a practice I discourage, because it is not composed from clay). Many times, glass beads are identified as clay/ceramic (as happened with the beads from Ban Chiang some years ago--until I told them differently at the U of PA Museum); and many people are confused about faience and glass. MANY Chinese scholars and collectors fervently believe that Han Dynasty glass beads "are faience"—because the glass can be very decayed. However, the winding striations are usually easy to see—and faience is NOT wound to make a bead. But even European and American scholars cannot identify glass (when it is decayed) and other materials properly, and make similar mistakes. Thus, we get names like "frit," "paste," and "glassy faience" for what are probably something else.....

I hope this helps. Jamey

this clears a lot...Jamey, I´m excited, pleased and deeply grateful for your answer(s). It´s nearly unbelievable, that you always find the time for such detailed answers, for people like me, so far away, you only know by some posts here and endless questions...Thanks so much...!!!

Uwe

I have no idea about this one and don´t remember to see a similar one in the past...

11 x 16.8mm, 3.6mm opening

I have no idea about this one and don´t remember to see a similar one in the past...

11 x 16.8mm, 3.6mm opening

I don´t remember a Venetian bead with eyes like this one...If it is a Venetian bead, would it date more to the 1850´s...? Or could it be older and from the Islamic era...?

13.5 x 11.8mm, 3.3mm opening

That´s it so far...Thanks for your interest...Would be great, to have some answers...Have a great day all the best...

Uwe

Ah...yes-

"Egg on face" doesnt apply to the bead but to me looking stupid...

Nevertheless the bead with the greeny blue eye also looked Turkish to me, the eye appears like a turkish one where the white ring is a melted bead itself.
The Pakistan types were in a previous image.
I would like to handle this one...
Stefany

I think these are thought to be Dutch, wound and paddled, 18th c. Sometimes referred to as "pentagonal" cylinders. The Van Der Sleen collection clarifies a lot - Jamey documented it a few years ago - he has lots of info.

I have talked about these beads quite a lot.

There is no real proof related to where they are from, nor what their timeline may be. However, they are recovered in Holland—so it's a reasonable guess they may have been made there. Because they are furnace-wound beads, there is no historical "factory waste" that could be recovered archaeologically. These, and pentagon ("twisted square") beads are placed in the early 18th C. as a matter of convenient speculation. I have no reason to suspect this is incorrect. Plus, the places where any of these beads have gone are sometimes noteworthy for having had known trade relations with Holland.

Apart from the van der Sleen Collection, the Archaeological Centre in Amsterdam has specimens of these beads. They told me none were dated, but that this suggested the beads were late. (Meaning ca. the 18th C.) The glass that was used has a severe tendency to break-down—indicting the the constituents were combined in a disadvantageous proportion. The outcome is, the glass decays easily (via leeching of the lime), and the beads OFTEN look much older than they are. The beads are routinely clear/colorless, white, translucent cobalt blue (from pale to dark), translucent yellow (sometimes modulated to an almost reddish tone, but mostly resembling amber), and violet.

When recovered in a Middle Eastern/Asian context, these beads are routinely mistaken to be and sold as "ancient."

Jamey

Thanks so much, Joyce, Jamey and Stefany (I´m not sure, which bead you mean at the book, Stef...). I know, about most of this beads was spoken here before, but I am a distracted scholar...it didn´t became better after all these years...I really hope, I will not ask again about one or the other bead 2 years or so later...LOL...
Again, thanks for taking the time to answer my questions...all is perfect now...Have a great day there...
Uwe