DESCRIPTION, IDENTIFICATION, CLASSIFICATION

This short essay addresses the apparent confusion in the bead world with respect to the Description, Identification, and
Classification of beads, all of which are, at one time or another, activities of bead researchers.  There are bead researchers
out there who try to separate these activities, arguing that each of them is somehow independent, that they can be
performed discretely, that one does not necessarily involve the others, etc.  In fact, these three activities share or ought to
share the same nomenclature, not only for simplicity, but because they are, in reality, manifestations of the same overall
process.  One cannot perform one of these activities without elements of the others and those who deny this are either
naïve or insensitive to the advancement of “bead science”.

Description.  What does it mean when someone says “describe this bead”?  Even more fundamentally, why do we even
care about bead description?  Is it not adequate just to provide a set of visible physical characteristics in any haphazard
way for each bead that comes along?  Fine!  I just measured twelve features of a certain bead, so I hope this is
“descriptive” enough for you.  What about that?  Suppose the next guy comes along with a would-be identical bead, but
comes up with fourteen “descriptive” characteristics, ten of which match those in my set, four of which are new?   Are
we really dealing with the same bead anymore?  Maybe.  Maybe not.  Hence the need for a consensus set of “descriptive”
variables and consensus nomenclature for the “descriptive” terms within each set.  I wonder who can argue against these
imperatives.  “Description” is the process of recording the visible and quantifiable features of beads.  Example of bead
description:  This bead may be “described” as glass, wound, 12 mm, oval, symmetrical, opaque red, white eyes, (and
other measurable physical characteristics).

Identification.  What does it mean when someone says “identify this bead”?  What information does he seek?  Is it enough
to provide the bead’s descriptive features?  I don’t think so.  When someone says “identify this bead”, he is really asking
for the bead’s origin.  Colloquial bead names do not constitute “identification” for a variety of reasons.  A bead purportedly
“identified” by name is, in fact, unidentified, unless the bead name happens to reflect accurately the bead’s origin.  Few
bead names meet this requirement and, furthermore, bead names are usually ambiguous and usually too language specific,
while the vast majority of beads do not have names at all.  “Identification” is the process of determining the origins of
beads and amounts to conclusions drawn from the analysis of  “descriptive” variables.  Example of bead identification:  
This bead may be “identified” as European or, more specifically, Venetian, based upon an analysis of its “descriptive”
physical characteristics.

Classification.  What does it mean when someone says “classify this bead”?  What information does he seek?  Is
“classification” merely synonymous with origin?  I don’t think so.  “Classification” and “classification” systems attempt to
relate similar objects and, once again, a standardized nomenclature is imperative.  Beck did a lot of work standardizing
“descriptive” nomenclature in his efforts to develop his “classification” system applicable to “beads of all countries”.  He
proceeded to sort the world bead population into four divisions, based upon bead form.  The Bead Classification System
developed by the National Bead Society sorts beads first by regional origin, the objective of bead “identification”, and uses
a cascading structure based upon the measurable “descriptive” characteristics.  Thus, the BCS portrays fifty-six discrete
“region-material” Groups, each of which contains several Families derived from specific origins and techniques.  The
nomenclature for these regions, specific origins, materials, and techniques is already highly standardized and in common
usage among bead researchers.  Thus, in terms of the BCS, a bead is fully “classified” when it’s origin, material, and
technique are known.  The lower order “descriptive” variables merely give rise to bead “identification” and make possible
bead “classification”.  Example of bead classification:  Europe-Glass Group; Venetian-wound Family.



Description, Identification, and Classification are intimately intertwined and it would be senseless to develop separate
nomenclatures for each of these activities.  “Description” amounts to the observation and measurement of the physical
features of beads.  These data are then used to “identify” the origins of beads.  Together, the “description” and
“identification” of beads give rise to “classification”.  In this regard, colloquial bead names are irrelevant and distracting
and should be relegated to curiosity footnotes in the Bead Classification System, along with other cultural baggage that
certain beads have attracted.  Beads cannot be “classified” by name and the quaint shape-based Beck system, with its
alphanumeric coding, is unwieldy and incomplete, a deterrent to progress in “bead science”.  


Summary