TAXONOMY AND NOMENCLATURE OF ORNAMENTS
The bead world is once again contemplating problems of bead classification and terminology.  The great bead researcher Horace Beck published a classification system in 1928, while a modified and expanded Beck system was developed by Kidd and Kidd around 1970.  Both of these systems are alphanumeric and, therefore, they are difficult to use, especially for the casual student of beads.  These systems are also limited because no discrete boundaries are specified between beads and nonbeads, they describe only specific beads, and origins of beads are not considered, among many other shortcomings.  In fact, only an incomplete subset of beads, let alone ornaments, can be incompletely classified with these two systems. There is an enormous population of cultural objects in the world called "ornaments".  Beads are an important subset of this population.  Beads are made in almost all parts of the world.  Beads have been made throughout history.  (We cannot say prehistory because their existence serves to elevate societies from the darkness of prehistory into history.)  Beads have also been made of most every material imaginable.  Furthermore, objects not originally made as beads become beads, while beads sometimes drop out of the ornament realm when adapted to nonornamental purposes. Practical classification of beads, and ornaments in general, would appear analogous to classifications of plants, animals, and soils, all of which are complex phenomena with multiple essences.  Thus, the Plant and Animal Kingdoms include numerous taxa descending from general to specific properties of biological organisms.  Elsewhere, soil taxonomy has experienced considerable development in recent decades and is perhaps the best model for a taxonomy of ornaments in that it has evolved from common names for soils. A workable classification system must be detailed enough to capture with precision the significant features of the variable phenomena being classified.  The major taxa of early soil systems considered environment, genesis, and virgin condition, relying mainly upon colloquial terminology.  More recent classifications focus strictly upon specific soil properties as the soil currently exists.  In both the biological and soil systems, Greek and Latin roots are used extensively, such roots resulting in great verbal economy, while tending to exclude the lay person.  Thus, the cottontail rabbit is of the Leporidae family, genus Sylvilagus.  Culinary sage is the species Salvia officinalis.  The Great Soil Group Chernozem (from Russian, "black earth") is now divided among the Boroll, Ustoll, and Xeroll suborders of Mollisols. Ornaments are analogous to animals, plants, soils, and other complex populations in that there are numerous distinct properties that differentiate members.  Among these features are type of ornament, region, material, technique, shape, size, color, decoration, and myriad finer features of interest to specialists. There already exists an informal mnemonic (as opposed to alphanumeric) taxonomy for ornaments and beads, the nomenclature of which is frequently ambiguous, misleading, or unspecific.  For example, terms such as "Russian", "Dutch", "vaseline", and "sand-cast", when applied to beads, do little for the scientist or bead researcher seeking to compare objectively multiple populations of beads.  Yet, the colloquial system has its uses, despite the need for a more formal system, much as many of the colloquial soil names of the older soil system are still useful in certain contexts.   Thus, efforts should be made to retain common English terminology and not try to apply sophisticated Latin and Greek words. A proposed taxonomy for the Ornament Kingdom follows.  It is, by no means, complete.  A useful structure of a taxonomy emerges, as do areas where consensus on nomenclature is lacking.  Can a random "unknown" bead be identified with this taxonomy?  Maybe.  Can we compare the hodgepodge of a Hausa trader's bead bag to the potpourri in one of Anita's shoe boxes?  Probably.       A TAXONOMY OF THE ORNAMENT KINGDOM Class (4):        (I)        True Ornaments.  Subclasses:  beads, buttons, pendants, earrings, bracelets, rings, netsukes, ojimes, sequins, etc.               (II)        Introduced Ornaments.  Subclasses:  bells, cylinder seals, spindle whorls, washers, toilet floats, grommets, coins, etc.               (III)        Introduced Natural Ornaments.               (IV)        Composite Ornaments.  Subclasses:  beadwork, ornamented garments, earrings, necklaces, bracelets, rings, brooches, badges, etc. Region (8):                North America; South America; Africa; Europe; Middle East; India; Asia; Oceania. Order (7):        General Materials:  Animal, Vegetable, Mineral, Metal, Glass, Plastic, Other Materials.       Suborders:        Specific Materials:  soda-lime glass, copper alloy, opal, whale bone, bear claws, eagle feathers, thermosetting plastic, Fimo, scented paste, paper, etc. Great Group                Class, Region, and Order combined.  There are 224 Great Groups. Group                Replace Class with Subclass in the Great Group. Subgroup                Add Suborder to the Group. Family:        Specific Origin (place)       Subfamilies:  factories, artists, ethnic groups, etc. Genus:        General Techniques:  blown, wound, drawn, molded, folded, ground, faceted, carved, drilled, cooked, painted, cast, forged, no treatment, etc.       Subgenera:        Specific Techniques:  lamp-wound, furnace-wound, stone-ground, twisted, marvered, cold-worked, hot-worked, trailed, combed, inlaid, layered, pecked, bow-drilled, hot-tumbled, lacquered, etc. Species:        shape and size       Subspecies:  color and decoration       ORNAMENT NOMENCLATURE It is relatively easy to construct a framework for ornament taxonomy.  However, a consensus nomenclature with which to complete the taxonomy and render it universally useful is another matter.  It is the nomenclature of ornaments, rather than the taxonomy, that poses severe, if not unresolvable, problems.  Accurate classification of any ornament requires expertise in numerous disciplines, while at the same time, many of the divisions in the taxonomy presented here are open-ended.  A discussion of the nomenclature problems of each taxonomic division presented above follows. Kingdom.  What is an ornament?  An ornament may be defined as a solid object that adorns people.  With this definition, objects that adorn animals, Christmas trees, houses, or anything else but people are excluded.  There is, however, provision for such nonhuman ornaments in the taxonomy.  Other exclusions are such things as tattoos, makeup, hair dye, and other nonsolid ornamental devices.  Thus, it is hoped that the Ornament Kingdom has a strict boundary. Class.  Upon reflection, it has become apparent that there are four discrete classes of ornaments.  First, there is the Class of True Ornaments, objects of homogeneous material made or modified specifically with human ornamentation in mind.  A set of Subclasses may be construed, including, for example, beads.  Second, there is the Class of Introduced Ornaments, objects made or modified initially for non-ornamental purposes, but adapted to human ornamentation.  This Class includes a set of Subclasses, including, for example, grommets, washers, and toilet floats. Third, there is the Class of Introduced Natural Ornaments.  This Class includes unmodified naturally occurring objects used directly for adornment, such as flowers.  No Subclasses of Introduced Natural Ornaments are envisioned on the assumption that Nature does not intentionally produce objects with ornamentation in mind.  Thus, a plucked flower placed directly in the hair would be of this Class, while a seed drilled by a craftsman becomes a manmade human adornment and belongs in the Class of True Ornaments, Subclass Beads.  Fourth, there is the Class of Composite Ornaments or objects made of multiple discrete ornaments drawn from the other three Classes.  Each component of a Composite Ornament would have its own taxonomy.  Subclasses would include, for example, beadwork, necklaces, and bracelets.  Any ornament may be assigned to one of these four Classes. Agreement on limited sets of Subclasses appears possible without having excessively large ones called "Other" or "Miscellaneous". Region.  In this taxonomy, the second major division of the Ornament Kingdom is geographic and eight discrete Regions are proposed.  Problems immediately arise when the boundaries of these Regions are considered and it is obvious that, depending upon one's perspective, there will be disagreement.  However, practical definitions can be established and any ornament can be assigned to one of eight Regions.  By all means, Regional assignments should be based upon where the object is/was made, not where it is/was found.  The following regions are proposed:       1.        North America:  north of the Rio Grande;       2.        South America:  the rest of the Western Hemisphere;       3.        Africa:  south of the Tropic of Cancer;       4.        Europe:  Christian Eurasia, excluding modern Greece;       5.        Middle East:  modern Greece, North Africa, and Islamic Eurasia west and north of India;       6.        India:  Modern India, Sri Lanka, the Maldives, and the Himalayas;       7.        Asia:  the rest of Asia including modern Japan, Indonesia, and the Philippines; and       8.        Oceania:  Australia, New Guinea, and Pacific islands not included in Asia. Among the endless boundary disputes that may be envisioned, the so-called "Indo-Pacific" beads come to mind.  In such a case, when "identical" beads cannot be placed in the established taxonomy, a Superregion could be created as the combination of India and Asia.  Otherwise, see the Family division below. Order.  Discrete ornaments, that is, those of the first three Classes and the components of Class IV ornaments, may be differentiated by material.  Thus, seven Orders present themselves:  Animal Materials, Vegetal Materials, Non-Metallic Minerals, Metals, Glass, Plastic, and Other Materials.  Sets of Suborders may be devised for each of the Orders based upon more specific knowledge of materials.  Materials, notably those of plant and animal origin, have their own complex taxonomies that, at times, could range beyond the practical needs of the ornamentologist. It is envisioned that, over time, a consensus set of Suborders could be developed.  In some Orders, such as Vegetal Materials, a Suborder such as "complex scented paste" may suffice, leaving the exact formula of the paste, if known, to footnotes.  A defined number of Suborders is envisioned without resorting to large catch-all categories. Great Groups.  With four all-inclusive Classes, eight all-inclusive Regions, and seven all-inclusive Orders, discrete Great Groups may be devised as the union of these first three major divisions of the Ornament Kingdom.  Thus, 224 discrete Great Groups are presented, such as True Ornaments--Asia--Glass.  It would appear that such Great Groups are typical or manageable levels of scientific study and that the taxonomy and nomenclature developed so far have rather few ambiguities. Groups.  Within each Great Group are Groups formed by substituting Subclass for Class.  Thus, Groups such as Asian Glass Beads are formed.  Such Groups are also manageable levels of scientific study.  Indeed, many publications concerning ornaments have titles that sound similar to Groups defined by the taxonomy and nomenclature presented here. Subgroups.  Within each Group, Subgroups may be defined by adding the Suborder to the Group.  Among the set of Subgroups so formed would be would be Asian Soda-lime Glass Beads.  These Subgroups also appear to be manageable levels of scientific analysis.       *   *   * The Great Groups, Groups, and Subgroups of the Ornament Kingdom, defined above and based upon discrete Classes, Regions, and Orders, are useful divisions for study and provide useful general taxonomies.  Furthermore, the above nomenclature is virtually unambiguous, allowing most ornamentologists to agree on the general nature of any ornament.   We turn now to lower divisions of the taxonomy where ambiguities and difficulties with the nomenclature become more severe. Family.  The eight Regions permit a general regionalization of Ornaments and, sometimes, it is only the region of origin that is known, especially for old objects.  For this reason, no Subregions are proposed.  However, specific geographic origins of objects are sometimes well known, such that Families of Ornaments may be specified.  Family is a virtually infinite division of the taxonomy, but should be confined to subregions, countries, cities, towns, villages, i.e., geographic places.  Within the Families, one may envision Subfamilies based upon known artists or craftsmen, factories or workshops, ethnic groups, etc.  Families should reflect the political geography at the time the ornaments were made, not contemporary political geography.  Thus, the so-called "Roman" face bead, albeit made in the Roman Empire, might better be classified in the Alexandria Family, Subfamily Jewish.  (Please do not jump on me; this just an example.)  Family is one of the most debatable and speculative divisions of this proposed taxonomy and is the stuff of bead research. Genus.  This division refers to the techniques used to make discrete ornaments.  Each Family is likely to have a rather short set of general techniques applicable to it.  Genera may be further divided into Subgenera to allow for inclusion of further detail, but as with the Orders, which describe materials, Genera can perhaps get too detailed for the practical everyday purposes of the ornamentologist.  Genus nomenclature is well enough established, in most cases, to cause little debate.  Agreement on the sets of Genera and Subgenera applicable to each Family is the work of specialists. Species.  Nomenclature problems rise significantly at the Species division proposed here and perhaps this is the most difficult of all divisions.  Shape and size are related and every three-dimensional object that we are classifying as an ornament may be given a mathematical formula that describes its shape in terms of its measurements.  At a minimum, each ornament should be measured in its longest and shortest dimensions and, with respect to beads, the length and width of the perforation(s) should be ascertained.  Otherwise, it seems reasonable to assume that mathmeticians or topologists must have studied "shape" to the extent that charts of shapes, each with a unique name, could be developed.  Beck, in his alphanumeric classification, made considerable progress in classifying shape. In addition to geometric shapes, there is a near endless variety of "natural" or "manmade" shapes that are given to ornaments.  Thus, there are pineapple-shaped beads and car-shaped pendants.  Beyond the geometric, natural, or manmade shapes, there must ultimately be "shapeless" or "irregular" objects.  Such objects shaped thus would be, for example, rough stones or gold nuggets. Size and shape are related in their various dimensions and charts of shapes useful for bead scholars could be developed.   Most shapes already have names and most beads have common shapes.  It is a matter of standardizing shapes to eliminate ambiguity. With respect to size, it is not recommended that subjective size terms, such as "small" or "large" be used.  Indeed, a small toilet float makes a large bead!  There is no ambiguity when objects are described by standardized (preferably metric) lengths.  However, certain objects, such as "seed" beads, have size classification systems that are useful in certain contexts. Subspecies in this division are defined by color and decoration.  Color can be unambiguously determined through use of the Munsell Color Charts and decoration can be described in terms of color and shape.  Diaphaneity and pleochroism are introduced at this level.  With respect to beads, a consensus set of decoration nomenclature needs to be developed.  Where relevant, mention should be made as to whether decorations are raised, recessed, inlaid, etc. A practical full taxonomy of the so-called "Kitty Fisher" bead is as follows:       TAXONOMY OF A "KITTY FISHER" BEAD       Kingdom:                  Ornaments       Class:                        True Ornaments       Subclass:                Beads       Region:                Europe       Order:                Glass       Suborder:                Soda-Lime Glass       Great Group:        True Ornaments--Europe--Glass       Group:                European Glass Beads       Subgroup:                European Soda-Lime Glass Beads       Family:                Venetian       Subfamily:                Moretti(?)       Genus:                Wound       Subgenus:                Lamp-wound       Species:                7 mm spheroid, straight 7 mm perforation       Subspecies:                Clear base with multiple white dots having either blue or pink centers. If given such a taxonomy, the ornamentologist could build in his mind's eye an image of the bead described.  Indeed, are beads not commonly described with colloquial terms for Family, Genus, and Species, as defined above?  Thus, a bead described as a clear, round, 7 mm, wound Venetian with polychrome eyes sounds a lot like a "Kitty Fisher" bead.   However, there is no consensus as to what a "Kitty Fisher" is because other beads have come to be called "Kitty Fisher".   Thus, the classification problem really amounts only to a problem of nomenclature. There are more details that have so far escaped the taxonomy.  Further details will interest scientific researchers to an extent that the general ornamentologist may have no interest.  Some further details are as follows: Varieties.  When a large number, even more than one, of the "same" bead are at hand, subtle differences among them begin to surface.  The a speo technique of finishing, for example, can lead to "twinning".  Other finishing techniques can lead to bent or slumped varieties.  Decorations can be distorted enough to result in separate varieties.  Sometimes there are subtle differences in material composition from batch to batch, thereby resulting in small color changes that are not so significant as to yield new Subspecies.  A bead with multiple perforations could be considered a variety of a "standard" single-perforated bead.  In contrast, original beads that are modified or reworked become different ornaments with new taxonomies.  An example of this latter phenomenon would be certain African beads made of recycled Venetian beads.  The line between wear and modification can sometimes be blurred. Other material characteristics.  At times, scientists may be interested in highly specific material characteristics.  Yet, the inclusion of such details in the taxonomic Orders and Suborders would soon render the taxonomy too unwieldy for practical purposes.  Thus, it seems appropriate to limit the Orders and Suborders to general material nomenclature.   Otherwise, almost every ornament would require its own unique Suborder, thereby rendering the taxonomy practicably useless.  The determination of many of the more detailed material characteristics require sophisticated equipment and/or scientific training and need only be developed as the need for them arises.  Detailed material characteristics include pleochroism, density, melting point, hardness, fracture, cleavage, scent, texture, durability, longevity, etc. Other technical considerations.  Over-attention to technical details would also render the taxonomy unwieldy.  Thus, the Genera and Subgenera should be limited to general and specific techniques, respectively, and not get bogged down in excessive minute descriptions of technique.  As with the Orders and Suborders, the Genera and Subgenera should be accessible to the general ornamentologist, while scientific detail should only be elaborated as needed.  Such technical considerations include methods of stringing and mounting, quality of workmanship, specific tools used in the process, etc. Cultural attributes.  At a certain point, ornament research focuses on the objects' unquantifiable attributes.  Thus, the functions ornaments perform in various societies become important.  Naturally, uses vary among cultures for the same ornament, while different ornaments perform similar functions in any particular society.  Symbolism is important and variable, as is value, both use value and exchange value.  Numerous invisible essences of an ornament, even its colloquial name, vary in space and time and are not easily placed into a general taxonomy. Other features.  There are yet more aspects to any ornament that are not easily codified.  Among these are its age, history and future, migration route (where it's from versus where it's found), rarity, legality, and condition.  Full descriptions of single objects can fill books.       *   *   * The above taxonomy, structured after biological and soil taxonomies, draws upon the colloquial vocabulary (or nomenclature) already in use for ornaments.  There are few divisions requiring substantial efforts to remove ambiguities before ornamentologists at all levels of studious pursuit can agree on the nature of a particular ornament and compare it to others.  Tests of this taxonomy's robustness will be if two obviously different beads, for example, could be classified the same way or if two seemingly identical beads could be classified differently, the latter case then requiring additional taxa.   At the microscopic level, no two beads are identical and, beyond this taxonomy, there are invisible essences that further render each bead unique. The thrust of this current exercise is to identify weaknesses in the evolution of ornament taxonomy.  A colloquial taxonomy and nomenclature already exist.  Ornamentologists, and beadologists in particular, need to standardize their nomenclature to reduce ambiguities, and this task does not appear excessively formidable.  Let's not replace our ignorance of objects with banal dickering over nomenclature.  And, even if the nomenclature is standardized, will we know more?  I doubt it.  With a standardized taxonomy and nomenclature, we will be able to discuss better what we know without having the actual beads or photos. Standardization is important for archeologists, who seem to guard jealously the fruits of their digs by hiding these fruits in museum basements or by playing politics with them or by leaving the things in the ground until that future century when they get around to digging them up.  It is archeologists who have the exclusive right to excavate, but should not the anthropologists claim a similar exclusive right for beads gathered from current cultures?   Let's standardize the nomenclature soon so the rest of us can have at least an inkling as to the discoveries of the privileged classes when they get around to making these discoveries.       The truth is the whole.--Hegel Note:  The author is the spiritual leader of Teranja Beadworks, Odumase-Krobo, Ghana. 7 February 2000