One of the reasons I like using archeological reports as sources is because they provide much more information about the beads than a simple image from a museum does. In the case of the image below, we can see the size of the perforation for some of the beads. This picture is also at a 1 to 1 scale, which allows us to measure the size of the bead and the bead perforations accurately. As you can see, the size of the perforation varies, and this variation is what I want to talk about. Why are the perforation sizes so different on the same necklace.
Now, the answer to this question could easily be because the beads were made by different workers who had different size mandrels, so, I suppose the real question is: are there any reasons why an artisan would prefer one size over the other.
The only real commentary I've seen in my research so far giving a reason behind the size of bead perforations was given in relation to transparent beads. I'd have to go back to find the source, but I think it may have been Birte Brugmann's book which mentioned this idea. I should go back to her book when I get home. But, the basic idea she talked about is this:
-the thinner the layer of transparent glass, the lighter the color of the bead.
-building up a thick layer of transparent glass will result in a bead that has a comparatively darker color.
-as a result, one way to keep a lighter color in a larger sized transparent bead would be to make that large bead with a large hole.
There are only three monochrome transparent glass beads in this necklace (three melon shaped beads). The two beads whose hole sizes are shown do not seem to have an unusually large perforation sizes (between 2-3mm), so I'm not sure that was a considering factor here. Though with small number of monochrome transparent beads here, it is hard to say. I might have to look at larger sample sizes. The mandrel sizes on the transparent beads with decoration also seem to vary pretty widely (1-6 mm). This brings me to my next point.
Another very logical reason for using a mandrel with a larger size is that making beads with a larger hole would also mean that the artisan could make a larger bead using less glass. This idea would seem to make a lot of sense, especially as raw glass was a valuable resource in England, since it was most likely imported from abroad. It would make sense then to suspect that larger bead would regularly have larger perforations. But, in fact, this doesn't seem to be the case with regards to this necklace. While a few larger beads have large perforations (#34 for example) other large beads have small perforations. Bead number #23 for example, which is the largest glass bead on this necklace has a rather small perforation of 3mm or so.
So, in conclusion, while there might be some very good reasons for artisans to prefer larger mandrels over smaller ones, the size of the mandrels and the beads they produce seem rather random, a if most of the time mandrel size was not a serious consideration.
When I am making my recreations, I will try to follow the size of the perforation listed for an historic bead, just to keep my recreation as accurately as possible. When I don't know the size of the perforation, I generally use larger mandrels for larger beads, so as not to use up as much glass, and so that it will take me less time to build up a larger bead.
However, I do find the larger mandrels (4+mm) a bit heavy and unwieldy, and so I tend to use them only for the largest beads. Did period artisans feel the same, not liking to use larger mandrels because they were less comfortable to use. Its hard to know, because so few tools survive. The one photo of a period mandrel (or what is thought to be one) that I have seen comes from the Ribe excavation (Scandinavia). It is 30 cm's long (almost 12 inches), but the tip where the bead would go is much smaller. The sizing on the image in the article makes it seem as if the tip would be about 3-4mm, while the rest of the mandrel would be twice that width, making it heavier, but perhaps more sturdy than if the entire mandrel were narrow.
Overall, this mandrel seems as if it would be a heavier mandrel than the ones I like to use most. But it is also likely that they were used differently, making their weight less of a factor for the comfort of the period bead maker. When I make beads I hold the mandrel in the air and spin it. But, perhaps period artisans were able to rest the mandrel on the side of a fire/kiln. I have read articles and watched videos where people do this when trying to recreate historic bead making methods.
Overall, with this blog entry, it feels like I've thought about this issue a bit and not come to any definite conclusions. That is slightly annoying, but, i'm also ok with it, because in a few of the articles I'm reading on experimental archeology, the authors also speak in terms of possibilities and conjecture, because it is almost impossible to know some things for sure: "however the question does not deal with "right" or wrong because we will never be able to verity or refute our theories" (Tine Gam). Basically, we can only do our best based on the archeological remains available to us.
