| Original Message: Encapsulating My Observations |
|---|
|
I want to summarize my efforts in this arena. In 1986, when I worked with Lois Dubin for producing The History of Beads, "Jenne beads" had only been circulating for three years. But I had already speculated upon and challenged two then-popular ideas that were also circulating: 1) That the stone beads were "very ancient and derived from ca. 3000 BCE or earlier, and were associated with 'a pre-Saharan culture complex, from a time before the climate had become a vast desert.' I contended that these Mali beads were Indian, from much later, and only resembled the beads they were presumed to be--and were, in fact, just revival beads. I maintained, and still say, I can see their significant DIFFERENCES as well as similarities. I recognize these beads on-sight. But it has been a challenge to convince anyone. Now, forty years later, I am still challenging this spurious idea--because the unfounded notion of "great antiquity" still circulates. 2) That the glass beads recovered in Mali are "Roman." First, in my stated opinion, "CE 500" was a post-Roman time! But I believed these beads were from much later, well-into the Islamic Period. In my work with Lois, she wanted to place Jenne beads in the Timeline at the Roman Period, counter to my suggestion that they were from some 100s (or even 1000) of years later. She based this on the McIntosh exposition--that I had not read at that time. So I did not have a better argument than my gut-feeling. And into the Roman Period they went. I maintained (and still do) that, because actual Roman Period beads have been avidly discussed and described, it is possible to separate Jenne beads from them.** At the same time, in bead study as it has transpired, I have challenged the idea that countless other beads are "Roman" (in other regions of the world) because this attribution has been based on naive "folk beliefs." And such beads are mostly either from the Islamic Period; OR they are actual European trade beads (!). By now I should be famous for clearing up this rather huge mistake. Nevertheless, I was not entirely alone. Working separately, Robert Liu and Peter Francis had voiced similar ideas with which I mostly agreed. It was not until 2009, and the second edition of The History of Beads, that Lois concluded my ideas were accurate--and Jenne beads were moved in the Timeline to CE 1200 (+ or -)--which is where they belong. Well, since I have been saying all this for forty years, it is not exactly "news." But it has been my experience that bead mythology spreads farther and faster than does less-colorful but grounded information. ** Regarding Jenne beads--we should note that among them are conventional folded beads. The few folded beads that have been archaeologically recovered and published have dated from ca. CE 1000--well-into the Islamic Period. All rights reserved by Bead Collector Network and its users |
|
|