What size beads are appropriate for western beaver country 1810-1820? I've heard seed beads aren't right. Anybody know of anyone who does beadwork in the correct size and style for a reasonable price?

1) Pound aka mistakenly called pony beads in size 8/0 were a typical size that was widely used
2) While not used as much, seed beads are in fact well documented for the pre-1840 western fur trade - documentation includes original pieces with seed beads and the fur trade lists
include them in fair numbers. The idea that they were not used pre-1840 is old news and any body who says different is mistaken.

Here's some examples of beads actually dug up at various sites - as you can see some were small seed beads, down to size 12/0....


Price? - Depends on what you consider reasonable I reckon - beadwork is time consuming work - voice of experience - I make my living in great part by doing pre-1850 style western beadwork.

FWIW - for the 1810-20 period quillwork would be more common in the west except perhaps amongst the metis who did mostly floral style beadwork.......western beadwork was sparse until the mid-1830's and later - stylistically it was mostly solid blocks of colors, white and various shades of blue being the most popular.

Hope this helps.....

If you get into bead work get some good reference books on the subject so you can stay away from the reservation period stuff there used to be a lot of it at events out here.

Went to Google Typed in SMITHSONIAN INDIAN BEADS there are 14,200 hits from the SMITHSONIAN in DC with pictures and text.Might check it out and answer some of your questions.

quote:

Originally posted by GreyWolf:
Pound aka mistakenly called pony beads

GreyWolf,
Why do you say that referring to pound beads as "pony beads" is mistaken? I apparently have been misinformed, as for many years I have been calling them thus (I also bought into the scarcity of seed beads in the pre-1840 West theory). It is clear that you have researched this topic, so could you educate me a little. What documentation (or lack of it) indicates that the term "pony bead" is wrong?

I'm not being argumentative, I just want my portrayals to be accurate.

According to !!!!!! Richard C. Schneider,Professor of Art at the University of Wisconsin-Seven Point in his book "Crafts of the North American Indians,A Craftsman Manual", page 140 lower left.List the following beads,CROW,FACETED,PONY,BUGLE,SEED and Petite.The same page reads the PONY BEAD were used by the plain indians from 1800-1850.It also reads that SEED beads come in after that period.Then it goes on to give the use/period and in some case the tribes most likely to have used them.Then at the end of every chapter in the book he gives an indepth referance listing of where the information was gathered from.and the dates of the referances in this case they date from 1929-1968. some from the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Museun of Natural History,U S Department of the Interior.
Lets contact the SMITHSONIAN and ask,they just might be able to shed some light on this.

With all due respect Walking Crow the info you gave is incorrect whether or not it was written by a professor or is so listed by even the Smithsonian - continuing research has shown otherwise.
PONY vs POUND
As best as students of the subject can tell the term pony beads was never used prior to that date of 1929 mentioned, so unless further research turns up primary documentation for it, than HISTORICALLY pony bead is incorrect - but it is so commonly used today that there is nothing "wrong" in using it - personally I prefer to keep as "historically correct" as possible when the correct info is available.
In ALL of the primary documents (i.e. trade lists) currently available, what are commonly called pony beads (unfortunately even by many "experts") are listed as POUND beads or just plain beads. Allen Chronister's article in BOB VIII on pre-1850 beadwork, includes more on the subject, but that is the gist of it.
SEED BEADS
I repeat - while seed beads were not as popular as pound beads prior to 1850 it is also OLD and refuted information that seed beads were not available until after 1850. Many/most older books that state that as hard fact are in ERROR - new research has proved otherwise. And yes that statement and teh info I have offered is based on extensive and continued research of the subject (40+ years worth), so WC if you do more in depth research, you willd find the info I have posted is not wrong - I have NO problem admitting when I am wrong, but in this case I am not and I say that after years worth of much more extensive research than looking at a couple of books and doing a Google search - not that that is a bad start, but it is just a beginning by comparison and FWIW I DO NOT claim to be an expert by any means, just a well read student who tries his best to keep up with the most current info. All students need to be aware when doing research that unfortunately even respected scholars and other authors far too often repeat second hand information rather than researching the primary documentation available and thus pass on "myth-conceptions" as fact which continues to get passed on ad infinitum.
As proof that seed beads were available and used prior to 1850, you only have to look at the picture I posted above to see just a few samples of pre-1850 seed beads - and thst is just one example.

For more info on the names used for beads, I suggest you look through the trade lists at the link below - you will find NO references to Pony beads, but several for pound and seed beads as well as for just beads or beads of varying types (i.e whitehearts):
http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/bizrecs.html
Here are just a few examples from the lists:
Seed Beads
60" (the " stands for lbs) Seed Beads assorted - 1836 RMO List
27 bunches Seed Beeds - 1832 Robert Campbell's Accounts
19 3/4 lb white seed beads - 1834 Fort Hall Records

On the 1837 RMO list you have a mix of beads:
100" White Pound Beads
25" Blue Pound Beads 25" Black Pound Beads
15" Assorted Colors Pound Beads
48" Sead Beads
11 1/2" Carnelian Fine Beads
100 doz Snake Beads
190 doz assorted color cut glass beads
10 bunches Mock Garnets (a type of bead)
BTW - A recently published book "Supply & Demand: The Ledgers & Gear of the Western Fur Trade by McCloskey and Olsen" is a compendium of many of the trade lists as wekk as some other pertinent info.
It is sold by our hosts here:
http://store.scurlockpublishin...closkeyandolsen.aspx
I have not yet gotten a copy, but those that have report it is an excellent resource

This link has a pretty good article on seed beads in the Canadian NW area although the author continues to use the term pony bead for pound beads.
http://www.northwestjournal.ca/IV2.htm

The Museum of the Fur Trade Journal, from which that picture was scanned, is another excellent resource and they have many back copies available as well as offering a service to send copies of articles out of print, plus for $15.00 a year you can become a member and receive the new editions of the journal.

....and that's just the tip of the proverbial iceberg when it comes to the research currently available regarding beads and the Fur Trade and new info is being discovered and/or published....

Finally - as TG noted above you have to search fairly hard to find early beadwork samples - they are not the same as the more common beadwork from the rez period of post 1870 and not many have been published, although that is beginning to change. Allen Chronister's article is one of the best sources for pre1850 beaded goods and includes an excellent bibliography.

To repeat myself - IMO for the early 1810-1820 period, quillwork with or without minimal beaded borders would be more common, that is if any decoration at all was used on the clothing of the RMFT trappers.

Anything else I can do to help ask away....

This message has been edited. Last edited by: GreyWolf,

I the process of research,how does one decide/conclude one source/reference is more correct than another?Do we go with the one that supports our beliefs or do we accept what we read/find as correct because who it was written by or where the references were gathered. As was brought to light the Term PONY BEAD was refered to as POUND bead before 1929,so if we refered to them as Pony Bead now it would be correct as I read it.
I reread my posting and could not find any word or phrase that would indicate I was indicating the information stated in your posting was wrong or that I was challanging it in anyway.I was only adding to as the information/referances I have,as you had stated yours. As in your posting "as new info is discovered and/or published" how would/could that support/refute the accepted work that is available today.

Chuck is very correct in his information and termanology. Pony Bead is a term that started being used in the early 20th. Cent. as you stated, but is not historically correct or should be used now. It was a name given at the time because someone did not know what they were called or is sure sounded romantic to describe them that way. Such as the useage of 'lazy stitch' which seem to show up around the start of the 20th. Cent. Better term would be lane stitch describing the actual beading and is now being introduced more and more into the beadworld termanology.

If you are going to practice History...we need to try to be close in the description or termanology of the material or what did those traders originially call these beads when ordering them from the supplier?

In useing modern material for backing up your arguments/disscussion, make sure it is what is called 'first person' or an actual observer at the time it happened. Not passed on by hearsay or third person. Always check where your souce got their information. In the case of your Smithsonian material..that is considered 3rd. person. So that is how you decide/conclude one source/reference is more correct than another. In this case...who saw it, used, and observed it first at the time it happened.

Chuch cited some great inforamtion/documentation that has been available for many years but more so today with the vast spread of the internet. So why not try to make the it the defining term as it is being now used today by scholars, researchers, and craftsmen.....pound bead. I hear this now in beads more than the made up term 'pony bead'. If you do not want to be left behind..say 'pound beads'.

Painting the Smithsonian's material with a broad brush as "THIRD" hand is rather bold.

I did not point out that Smithsonian's material was 'third' hand. I pointed out that you need to see where any material is coming from or when it was written giving you a description of original first hand as compared to third hand or handed down but not seen by the observer.

You are muddying the waters in trying to defend your source of material. I am just trying to get you to look at that material in a different light.

The Smithsonian has great original first person material...learn to see what that is.:-)

I was into pre i840 bead work for several years and I think Grey Wolf has a pretty firm handle on what was around at the time,all my books I used are gone now but he has it pretty well nailed down as I recall.

In the case of your Smithsonian material..that is considered third person.......
I did not point out that Smithsonian's material was 'third' hand. I pointed out that you need to see where any material is coming from or when it was written giving you a description of original first hand as compared to third hand or handed down but not seen by the observer.

??????????????? Confused!! the referances I posted in the original was from the book I had available,Though I did not check the referances,so to attest to their accuracy I can not.
I had/have NO Smithsonian material,I wrote we might get enlightenment from them as a source.As I did when a question come up about the SGT.YORK RIFLE,see the posting on this site.
It could/might be that the referances I used may have other referances that would support one or the other.
In closing,I am in no way defending my source,for the only source I have is what is provided by the writers on this site and materials I read.I admittanly have limited experiance nor have I ever said I have made any area of study as it applies to beads/nomenclarture or their period of use.That said I am always willing to learn.

Walking Crow -
Sorry if I sounded a bit "defensive" - it was not intended - it's one of the problems of a virtual Campfire rather than the real McCoy.....
1) My use of "new" is admittedly a bit confusing - it rather should be current or appended information - i.e info that adds to and may or may not refute previous info......
2) The "touchstone" for me and IMO should be for any serious student is primary documentation

quote:

In historiography, a primary source (also called original source) is a document, recording, artifact, or other source of information that was created at the time under study, usually by a source with direct personal knowledge of the events being described. It serves as an original source of information about the topic. In journalism, a primary source can be a person with direct knowledge of a situation, or a document created by such a person.
Primary sources are distinguished from secondary sources, which cite, comment on, or build upon primary sources. "Primary" and "secondary" are relative terms, with sources judged primary or secondary according to specific historical contexts and what is being studied

Still one must be aware that previously unpublished primary documentation is constantly being brought to light so IMO one must be very careful of claimed absolutes..
3) While generally the best info, even primary sources should be cross referenced in order to verify them. In traditional scholarship it takes three primary references to satisfy verification - that doesn't mean that if we have only one well provenanced single artifact or artifacts that an item didn't necessarily exist (the Iceman is a good example - he definitely existed), but rather having three verifies that said example was not a unique one off piece.....
4) And yes things can get confusing - scholars by their very nature are often at odds with each other due to several circumstances including money and prestige, so I generally take everything with the proverbial grain of salt and am willing to accept verified changes when they appear since I have no dog in the fight.
And then there are the strange cases - example - in the beadwork article by Allen Chronister he notes that pound bead was and should be the correct term based on the knowledge base, but then he uses pony bead throughout the article! Still scratching my head...
5) Another problem is certain scholars at certain times become the "big dog" and their word becomes gospel whether if they are right or not...Sometimes this is due to their acolytes touting them as THE authority and other times it's their own ego......again a good dose of scepticism is often necessary to weed out the dogmatism from the known facts...but then that's part of the fun!

I also include in my studies the ideas of period possible and period probable i.e while one may prove that a certain item existed in a time and place and was thus available to the general public, in addition I look at whether was it probable for a certain person to have that item in that place and time.......

Hope this helps......

This message has been edited. Last edited by: GreyWolf,

GreyWolf very clear and well written.I am in total agreement with your assesment.The ability to ask questions as the conversation unfolds would go along way to ensure all are on the same page.Thank you for the education on this subject it is clear that you have put in the time to be a person who understands,not just knows a topic.See you at the point.