Glass Trade Beads in Seventeenth-Century Wendake yehen’
Glass trade beads are one of a small suite of European trade artifacts that archaeologists consistently recover from early colonization period sites across northeastern North America, including sites of the Wendat confederacy. They are found on most Indigenous archaeological sites from the late sixteenth century forward (e.g., Bradley Reference Bradley2007; Loewen Reference Loewen, Loewen and Chapdelaine2016), with colors and forms varying across space and time. Archaeologists long have recognized the opportunity this presents with respect to dating sites, and arguably the most common archaeological inferences drawn from glass beads in regional archaeological investigations relate to chronology. In addition to typo-chronological studies (Fitzgerald et al. Reference Fitzgerald, Knight and Bain1995; Karklins Reference Karklins2012; Kenyon and Kenyon Reference Kenyon, Kenyon, Charles and Hayes1983; Kidd and Kidd Reference Kidd and Kidd1970), numerous studies have characterized the chemistry of trade beads, allowing researchers to identify major recipe ingredients and chronological changes in composition (Billeck Reference Billeck2021; Dadiego et al. Reference Dadiego, Gelinas and Schneider2021; Dussubieux and Karklins Reference Dussubieux and Karklins2016; Hancock Reference Hancock2005, Reference Hancock and Janssens2013).
In this article, we move beyond the use of beads as clocks and explore the idea that beads connect people. In addition to being useful chronological tools, beads also carry stories of the artisans who fabricated them (Loewen Reference Loewen2019), the merchants who purchased them (Turgeon Reference Turgeon2001), the missionaries and traders who carried beads with them into the interior of the North American continent (Glencross et al. Reference Glencross, Warrick and Fletcher2021, Reference Glencross, Conolly and Warrick2025), and the many Indigenous peoples who traded for and manipulated beads (Kenyon Reference Kenyon1984), gifted them, used them as personal adornment, and eventually intentionally or unintentionally parted with them. As consumer products, they connect colonial agents (traders, missionaries) with Indigenous people; as gifts circulated among communities and between individuals, they connect Wendat and other Indigenous peoples (Creese Reference Creese and Cipolla2017).
The centrality of glass trade beads in the early North American fur trade is widely recognized (as reviewed in Mullins Reference Mullins2011). The reasons for this pertain to qualities of glass beads that were important to not only European traders (relative low cost, ease of transport, stability) but also Indigenous consumers. Ethnologist and historian Laurier Turgeon (Reference Turgeon2019), in a general work on the significance of beads to Indigenous peoples of the Northeast, notes several uses that indicate their worth. Drawing on the work of Hamell (Reference Hamell, Charles and Hayes1983, Reference Hamell1992) and archaeological data, he argues that beads had such protective qualities that all members of communities—regardless of age or gender—wore them. Using ethnohistoric and archaeological sources (Kidd Reference Kidd1953; Thwaites Reference Thwaites1896–1901), Turgeon points out that strings of beads were worn on many parts of the body (e.g., wrists, ankles, waist, knees, neck), but specifically, places that could be considered fragile and/or flexible, leading him to conclude that beads symbolically tied together and strengthened the body (Turgeon Reference Turgeon2019:210). Historical photographs and dress from the nineteenth century demonstrate that this is a long-lasting practice (de Stecher Reference de Stecher2017; Figure 1). Throughout the last several centuries, Wendat artisans, often women, continually innovated to combine glass beads with other adornment techniques, such as weaving, quillwork, and embroidery (de Stecher Reference de Stecher2022).
Two examples of early nineteenth-century Wendat beadwork: (a) woven sash made of wool yarn and glass beads dated to circa AD 1830 and attributed to Wendat artisans; (b) lithograph of Wendat Grand Chief Nicolas Vincent Tsawenhohi around AD 1825, wearing a similar sash around his waist and other adornments at flexible points, such as wrists and elbows; (c) detail of woven sash chevron beadwork, including a single blue bead; (d) detail of beaded sash fringe; (e) detail of Tsawenhohi’s sash fringe and chevron design. (Public domain images: a, c, d: Metropolitan Museum of Art, Charles and Valerie Diker Collection of Native American Art, Gift of Charles and Valerie Diker, 2019, Object No. 2019.456.24; https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/751500; b, e: Edward Chatfield and Charles Joseph Hullmandel, Nicolas Vincent Tsawenhohi holding the wampum symbolizing the alliance between the British crown and the Seven Nations of Canada, 1825, McCord Stewart Museum Montreal, Object No. M20855; https://collections.musee-mccord-stewart.ca/en/objects/details/8722?ctx=d58adfa9b2b47c562e4338174f03e0fe7d337060&idx=0). (Color online)
Ethnohistoric documents also reveal that the reasons for which beads were worn, and the ways individuals did this differed based on social positions, frequently related to age and gender. The protective qualities of beads appear to have been particularly important to young people and to warriors. In the feminine domain, beads were associated with fertility and reproduction (Turgeon Reference Turgeon2019:211); unsurprisingly, beads seem to have been of lesser importance to older individuals. Turgeon (Reference Turgeon2019:205) also notes that Indigenous wearers of strings of beads had an aesthetic different from European wearers: the former favored variation in size, color, brilliance, and material within the same string of beads. Finally, he points out the spiritual value of beads, noting that many ancestors were richly buried with glass beads; in taking beads out of the domain of the living, the protective value of the beads was conferred on the ancestors.
Relationships, Value Systems, and Technological Styles
The arrival of European-made glass trade beads is an early marker of the colonial intrusion into eastern North America. Gosden (Reference Gosden2004:3) defines colonialism as “a particular grip that material culture gets on the bodies and minds of people, moving them across space and attaching them to new values.” This definition emphasizes the social value of objects and integrates two of the hallmarks of colonial encounters: the movement of people and possessions and the restructuring of material values based on new experiences of other cultures. In a different American context, Scaramelli and Scaramelli (Reference Scaramelli and de Scaramelli2005:157) argued that glass beads uniquely enhance Indigenous value systems; this explained not only their rapid adoption and acceptance but differences in the ways that they were used, worn, and manipulated. Turgeon’s work suggests that this was also the case in northeastern North America: the widespread archaeological occurrence of glass beads arises from the ease with which they were incorporated in important ways into Indigenous lives. Creese (Reference Creese and Cipolla2017:279) examines relational-affective attributes of beads and other adornments in Wendat contexts, exploring how Wendat people may have used them to “cultivate and extend social relationships.” Recognizing that the presence of European-made material culture in “colonial spaces” (sensu Silliman Reference Silliman2010) need not represent discontinuity of Indigenous practices, interaction networks, ontologies, or power structures, we ask how Indigenous peoples used these objects to reinforce Indigenous values and ways of being.
Our work is inspired by Blair’s (Reference Blair, Joyce and Gillespie2015, Reference Blair, Roddick and Stahl2016) research, which employs a “communities of practice” (Lave and Wenger Reference Lave and Wenger1991) framework to better understand how glass beads can offer pertinent information about shared group identities developed through immediate interactions. For example, a European craft workshop producing star-chevron beads would represent a single community of practice; a Wendat household or family obtaining and potentially modifying these objects would represent another. Each community would have a particular way of making and using glass beads in their sociocultural context, defining a unique technological style (Lechtman Reference Lechtman, Lechtman and Merrill1977). The two communities are connected by the chaîne opératoire of these polychrome beads.
To demonstrate how this approach applies to Wendat sites, we take the well-known example of the preference for (Hamell Reference Hamell, Charles and Hayes1983) and manipulation of red beads during the second quarter of the seventeenth century (Figure 2). Kenyon and Kenyon (Reference Kenyon, Kenyon, Charles and Hayes1983) hypothesized that the transition to red glass beads from white and blue ones in assemblages may have been related to “demand” on the part of Indigenous consumers. Fitzgerald (Reference Fitzgerald1983) and Fox (Reference Fox2023) both discuss reasons for this “red shift.” Fitzgerald (Reference Fitzgerald1983) suggests that it arose from changes in control of trade in the St. Lawrence valley. Fox (Reference Fox2023), drawing on Hamell (Reference Hamell, Charles and Hayes1983), links the change to red color symbolism and the occurrence of epidemic disease in the 1630s. Additionally, archaeologists have observed that some red tubular beads from circa AD 1640–1650 are roughened by grinding and/or faceting (Kenyon Reference Kenyon1984), resulting in beads that more closely resemble red stone beads produced by Indigenous craftspeople (Fox Reference Fox2023; Figure 2). Modifying trade items in this way exemplifies technological style: a distinct way of manipulating a novel material (glass) within extant Wendat value systems. In at least two cases, polychrome beads were also modified to remove blue and white glass, leaving only the ground surface of red glass exposed (Kenyon Reference Kenyon1984).
Culturally modified and ground red glass beads from the Ellery site. Enlarged ends show faceting and grinding. Image by authors. (Color online)
This demonstrates how one community of practice may influence another. European missionaries and traders such as Sagard (Reference Sagard and Wrong1939) observed the popularity of red beads among Wendat communities. European merchants providing beads for trade may have observed this preference and perhaps extended this information to the glasshouses, each of which had their own unique technological style or established set of beadmaking procedures. Within our theoretical framework, we consider that Wendat color choices may have shaped the practices of European merchants or workshops. Using this framework and the concepts just described, we highlight Wendat and other Indigenous communities of southern Ontario as actively participating in both regional exchange and global trade networks of sixteenth- and seventeenth-century colonial enterprises.
Glass Chemistry and Wendat Communities
Studies by Hancock and colleagues (e.g., Hancock et al. Reference Hancock, Chafe and Kenyon1994, Reference Hancock, Aufreiter and Kenyon1996; Sempowski et al. Reference Sempowski, Nohe, Hancock, Moreau, Kwok, Aufreiter, Karklins, Baart, Garrad and Kenyon2001) and Dussubieux and colleagues (e.g., Dussubieux and Gratuze Reference Dussubieux and Gratuze2012; Dussubieux and Karklins Reference Dussubieux and Karklins2016) have demonstrated that European glasses of the sixteenth century and later may be similar in appearance but chemically different. This reflects changes in glass recipes over time or differences in the location of glass production. Therefore, to investigate variation in glass bead assemblages between communities, typological classification is insufficient; characterization of chemistry can reveal differences and similarities that typology cannot.
To examine glass bead assemblages across Wendake yehen’ (former Wendake) and through time, the dataset for this article includes 413 glass samples from a total of 296 beads (82 polychrome and 214 monochrome) from 13 Wendat archaeological sites representing a range of ages, nation affiliations, and sizes (Figure 3; Supplementary Material 1). These sites are located in “historic Huronia” in modern-day Simcoe County, Ontario, within Wendake yehen’—the Wendat homeland of the first half of the seventeenth century and earlier. The nature of available glass bead samples was highly variable owing to different excavation and recovery strategies that archaeologists used through time in this region. Because of the greater range of elements quantified, in this study, we only include beads analyzed with laser ablation inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (LA-ICP-MS), rather than including the extensive previously published instrumental neutron activation analysis (INAA) dataset (Hancock Reference Hancock and Janssens2013). Compositions (n = 229) referenced in other articles (Hawkins and Walder Reference Hawkins and Walder2022; Walder and Hawkins Reference Walder and Hawkins2024; Walder et al. Reference Walder, Petrus, Dussubieux, Hancock and Hawkins2021) are examined here alongside an additional 184 previously unpublished compositions (Supplementary Material 2) collected at the Harquail School of Earth Sciences laboratory (at Laurentian University) by Joseph Petrus.
Wendake yehen’ in the seventeenth century: location of villages with sampled beads, coded by age (Glass Bead Period) and size of the community, and geographic distribution of nations of the Wendat Confederacy. Image by authors. (Color online)
The Wendat Confederacy and Sites Included in the Analysis
The sample covers geographic territory associated with the different nations of the Wendat confederacy in the seventeenth century (Figure 3): individual villages are identified as belonging to Hatindiawanten (Bear), Yarendahrönon (Rock), Tahonhtayenrat (Deer), or Hatingënnoniahahk (Cord) Nations. Community composition was likely heterogeneous, with people from multiple nations and individuals from outside the Wendat confederacy also present within villages because of intermarriage, adoptions, and other factors. Nation affiliations of archaeological sites are determined based on site locations and proposed identification of historically documented villages, where the latter exist. Named villages are mentioned in ethnohistoric documents (Tooker Reference Tooker1991), and some appear on historical maps (Heidenreich Reference Heidenreich1966; Latta Reference Latta1985). Although they lack geographic details, these maps provide an indication of the general locations of villages. Through combining cartographic information with descriptions of village affiliation in ethnohistoric texts, territories of the different confederacy nations have been estimated (Heidenreich Reference Heidenreich1971).
Western Wendake yehen’ is accepted as Hatindiawanten territory, and Ossossané, Ahatsistari, Le Caron, and Robitaille easily fall within this territory (Heidenreich Reference Heidenreich1971). Charity is the historically described multiethnic community on Gahoendoe (Christian) Island (Jackson et al. Reference Jackson, Rose, Ariss and Theriault1992). Ball and Warminster are located in eastern Wendat territory ascribed to the Yarendahrönon Nation (Heidenreich Reference Heidenreich1971), whereas Ellery, with its location near Orr Lake on the southern margins of seventeenth century Wendake yehen’, is likely a Tahonhtayenrat site (Archaeological Services Inc. 1993). Attributions for the four villages that lie on the Mount St. Louis ridge (Auger, Dunlop, Peden, and Max Oné Onti Gros-Louis) are more difficult to determine, but some or all of these are likely to be villages of the Hatingënnoniahahk Nation. Edwards, lying slightly west of the Wye River, occupies a similar location as the mission of St. Francis Xavier, which appears on several historical maps. This mission is attributed to the Ataronchrönon (People of the Marsh), a group of uncertain political status that may have been a subdivision of the Hatindiawanten (Trigger Reference Trigger1976:30).
Some sites are identified as historically documented locations of political importance. Ossossané is considered the “capital” of the southern Hatindiawanten (Ridley Reference Ridley1947), whereas Ahatsistari is possibly Carhagouha, the principal village of the northern Hatindiawanten (Glencross et al. Reference Glencross, Warrick and Fletcher2021, Reference Glencross, Conolly and Warrick2025). The Ellery site could be Scanonaenrat, the single village of the Tahonhtayenrat (Warrick Reference Warrick2008). Warminster, if correctly identified as Cahiagué, was the key village of the Yarendahrönon (Tooker Reference Tooker1991:150). Many of the other sites have been identified as historically documented Wendat villages and/or mission locations (Supplementary Material 1; Warrick Reference Warrick2008), but the confidence of these identifications is lower.
As the French presence in Wendake yehen’ increased in intensity and duration, the material evidence of this occupation also increased. There are relatively few Wendat sites with glass bead assemblages that correspond with the Glass Bead Period (GBP) 1, circa AD 1580–1600 (Warrick Reference Warrick2008), and in this study, we include only one: Ball. Occupied until the end of the sixteenth century or early seventeenth century (Manning et al. Reference Manning, Birch, Conger, Dee, Griggs and Hadden2019), the bead assemblage from Ball is classified as GBP 1/2 (Fitzgerald et al. Reference Fitzgerald, Knight and Bain1995). Later sites—assigned to GBPs 2 (ca. AD 1600–1625/30), 3a (ca. AD 1625/30–1640), and 3b (ca. AD 1640–1650)—are better represented in the region and in our sample (Supplementary Materials 1 and 3).
Following Warrick (Reference Warrick2008), we also use a rough size-based categorization of villages, but we caution that size estimations may be incorrect because many of the sites have only seen limited excavation or reporting. Small villages are those that are 2 ha or less, and these include Edwards, Robitaille, Dunlop, Le Caron, and potentially Peden (at 2 ha). Larger sites include Ossossané, Warminster, Ball, Auger, Ahatsistari, Ellery, Max Oné Onti Gros-Louis, and likely Charity.
Methods: LA-ICP-MS and Other Compositional Analysis Approaches
Glass samples were analyzed using LA-ICP-MS at two facilities, and the results of that work are directly comparable both across LA-ICP-MS laboratories and to earlier published work conducted using INAA (Walder et al. Reference Walder, Petrus, Dussubieux, Hancock and Hawkins2021). As a methodology, LA-ICP-MS is minimally invasive, and it produces quantitative results that allow researchers to identify primary ingredients in glasses, such as fluxes, stabilizers, colorants, and trace elements related to sources of raw materials. See Walder and Dussubieux (Reference Walder, Dussubieux, Dussubieux and Walder2022) for further discussion of LA-ICP-MS as a method of analyzing glass beads from archaeological contexts globally.
The chemical composition of glass beads includes elements that derive from various ingredients necessary to produce different colors and types of glass (Degryse and Shortland Reference Degryse and Shortland2020). In general, the major components of glass in beads are a made of a base network former, a flux to reduce the melting temperature, and a stabilizer. Various colorants and opacifiers are added in (usually) smaller amounts. The samples in this study are silica based, although lead-based beads were also produced. Use of different sands as a base can be determined using both trace elements, such as zirconium (Zr) and hafnium (Hf), and elements present in greater amounts. For example, alumina (Al2O3) is an indicator that quartz sources contained the mineral feldspar, and titanium oxide (TiO2) signals the presence of other heavy minerals (Coutinho et al. Reference Coutinho, Campaña, Cerqueira Alves and Medici2021). Fluxes are potash and soda, with calcium acting as a stabilizer. Colorants include cobalt and copper for blue glass, copper and iron for red glass, and tin or antimony as an opacifier for white glass.
Results: Defining Technological Styles of Seventeenth-Century European-Produced Glass Beads
We compare beads from Wendat sites and consider variation in their chemistries resulting from possible changes in bead production methods over time and from manufacture in different European workshops. By sampling a diverse range of glass bead types, some of which are integral to the GBP seriation (Fitzgerald et al. Reference Fitzgerald, Knight and Bain1995; Kenyon and Kenyon Reference Kenyon, Kenyon, Charles and Hayes1983), we necessarily identify some temporally based changes in glass recipes (e.g., a decrease in unstable low calcium turquoise blue beads over time [Hancock et al. Reference Hancock, Chafe and Kenyon1994]). However, glass composition also varies based on the general region(s) from which the raw materials derive and the bead-making traditions in different European centers and workshops.
In the following section, we describe several different glass chemistries that we suggest reflect different technological styles of production in different regions in Europe. To help reveal which chemistries may have been associated with which hypothesized production location(s), we reference other work on European glasses (Cagno, De Raedt, et al. Reference Cagno, Brondi Badano, Mathis, Strivay and Janssens2012; Coutinho et al. Reference Coutinho, Campaña, Cerqueira Alves and Medici2021; De Raedt et al. Reference De Raedt, Janssens, Veeckman, Vincze, Vekemans and Jeffries2001; Dussubieux Reference Dussubieux2009; Dussubieux and Gratuze Reference Dussubieux and Gratuze2012). However, given that most of these studies examined glass compositions more generally, and not specifically glass beads, at this time, we consider the association between styles and production locations to be provisional.
We use three general criteria to define the main technological styles: zirconium and hafnium concentrations, the ratios of three major oxides (silica, alumina, and titania), and the nature of fluxes (Table 1). Defining specific regional glass compositions in Europe is complicated by several factors, including (1) use of the same or similar recipes across regions because of the movement of glassmakers, (2) use of raw materials that originate at some distance from the glass production, (3) glass recycling, and (4) use of glass from different sources in production of finished polychrome objects. For this reason, we recognize that some objects simply may not fit within the defined technological styles and that there may be additional variations or subgroups within those styles.
Characteristics of Three Defined Technological Styles in Glass Beads.
The amount of zirconium and hafnium is reflective of the silica source, with Venetian glass having very low concentrations of both elements (De Raedt et al. Reference De Raedt, Janssens, Veeckman, Vincze, Vekemans and Jeffries2001; confirmed for beads by Blair et al. Reference Blair, Blanton and Dussubieux2024). Verità (Reference Verità and Richet2021:1328) describes selection of pebbles from two rivers in northern Italy to avoid contaminants such as iron in the silica used for Venetian glass. This relative purity is reflected in concentrations of Zr that fall between 20 and 40 ppm, and Hf levels of less than 1 ppm. By contrast, glasses from France can have Zr levels over 200 ppm (Paris; Walder and Hawkins Reference Walder and Hawkins2024) or 300 ppm (Rouen; Dussubieux Reference Dussubieux2009). Our analysis of beads from Amsterdam showed that they had variable levels of Zr and Hf (Hawkins and Walder Reference Hawkins and Walder2022), including some that were in the hypothesized Venetian range, and others that were up to 100 ppm; façon-de-Venise glass from Antwerp had Zr concentrations of 80 ± 20 µg/g (i.e., ppm; Cagno, De Raedt, et al. Reference Cagno, Brondi Badano, Mathis, Strivay and Janssens2012:842205–842207).
To further examine the silica sand source, following the work of Coutinho and colleagues (Reference Coutinho, Campaña, Cerqueira Alves and Medici2021:8), we considered the values of oxides that may be present in low amounts because they are impurities in the raw sands and pebbles used for glass production. Aluminum (Al), titanium (Ti), and iron (Fe) are the elements that are best indicators of variation in sand sources (Coutinho et al. Reference Coutinho, Campaña, Cerqueira Alves and Medici2021:8). Here, we use ratios of the oxides TiO2/Al2O3 versus Al2O3/SiO2 to examine whether there are differences within technological groups. Silica sources with high TiO2 values indicate the presence of heavy minerals, whereas those with high Al2O3 are more indicative of the presence of feldspars.
Gratuze (Reference Gratuze and Janssens2013) defined four groups of glass based on the relative proportion of oxides present in flux: soda-lime, mineral origin; soda-lime, plant origin; mixed alkali; and potash. Almost all the samples we analyzed have a plant-origin soda-lime flux profile. Therefore, in defining possible technological styles, we narrow the focus to comparison of different glass types using biplots of normalized values of soda and potash.
Verità’s (Reference Verità and Richet2021) summary of the Venetian glassmaking tradition provides a valuable description of different fluxes used by glassmakers in that region. Venetian glassmakers preferred a soda plant ash flux produced from burning salt-loving coastal plants. The original sources were Egypt and the Levant, with ash production in Spain and southern France starting in the sixteenth century. Venetian glass may be differentiated based on whether the ash used for fluxing was purified (cristallo) or not (vero comun and vitrum blanchum; Cagno, Brondi Badano, et al. Reference Cagno, Brondi Badano, Mathis, Strivay and Janssens2012). The purification process removed most lime and magnesia, which could be problematic because calcium was necessary for stability against weathering. However, copper and iron oxides fulfill the same function, allowing for production of stable glass (Verità Reference Verità and Richet2021:1332). Verità (Reference Verità and Richet2021:1332) notes that combining frit from cristallo and vitrum blanchum would have the same effect; this would, of course, result in glass with lower soda and high potash.
Outside of the Venetian region, in northern Europe, glass producers used different fluxes. Imitation cristallo—termed “façon-de-Venise”—has higher lime, higher magnesia, and lower soda. Some northern European glassmakers originated in southern Europe, which may explain the production of façon-de-Venise glass in the Low Countries and in England (Kurinsky Reference Kurinsky1991). Additionally, in England, ash from forest plants provided a high potash–low soda flux, often also containing high proportions of iron (Cagno, De Raedt, et al. Reference Cagno, Brondi Badano, Mathis, Strivay and Janssens2012). A second high-iron flux type included higher proportions of lime (15%) and relatively low proportions of alkalis (10%; Cagno, De Raedt, et al. Reference Cagno, Brondi Badano, Mathis, Strivay and Janssens2012).
Technological Style 1: The Ball Site Beads Exemplify Early Drawn Beads in Wendake yehen’
With an estimated terminal date of between cal AD 1598 and 1607 (Manning et al. Reference Manning, Birch, Conger, Dee, Griggs and Hadden2019:702), the Ball site is the earliest site in our study and is the only sampled site that can be assigned to the period before the arrival of Europeans in Wendake yehen’. Furthermore, it is unique in the study because archaeologists excavated 100% of the 3.4 ha site (Michelaki et al. Reference Michelaki, Hancock, Warrick and Knight2013). Although white tubular (n = 35) and round turquoise (n = 18) beads predominate, the assemblage is otherwise quite diverse, with a further 17 general types in a total of 91 recovered drawn glass beads (Supplementary Material 3). We analyzed glass from 14 turquoise, cobalt, and white monochromes and 15 polychromes. The 47 compositions obtained come from red, cobalt blue, turquoise, white, and colorless glasses.
To examine the source of sands, we examined trace element concentrations and major oxides. Following De Raedt et alia (Reference De Raedt, Janssens, Veeckman, Vincze, Vekemans and Jeffries2001:1014) and Blair et alia (Reference Blair, Blanton and Dussubieux2024), we plotted the concentrations of Zr and Hf. All but two of the glass samples from Ball, regardless of color or type, have concentrations in the range that Blair and colleagues (Reference Blair, Blanton and Dussubieux2024) documented for Venetian glass beads (Zr: 20–40 ppm; Hf: <1 ppm; Figure 4a).Footnote 1 To examine whether this low Zr, low Hf silica all derived from a single source, we followed Coutinho et alia (Reference Coutinho, Campaña, Cerqueira Alves and Medici2021) and plotted ratios of SiO2, Al2O3, and TiO2 (Figure 4b). We note that in several cases, glass of the same color clusters, but that there are outliers suggesting that differences are not (entirely) attributable to addition of colorants. This is most notably the case for turquoise, white, and colorless glass. Interestingly, the turquoise bead (B3246) with a high value for Zr and Hf also has an anomalously high TiO2:Al2O3 ratio, suggesting that glassmakers may have used several silica sources in the same region or that this bead originated from a non-Venetian workshop.
Glass compositions and Technological Style 1: probable Venetian glasses: (a) Ball samples are in the range of Venetian glass for Zr (20–40 ppm) and Hf (<1 ppm); (b) ratios of SiO2, Al2O3, and TiO2, useful for identifying sand sources as described by Coutinho et alia (Reference Coutinho, Campaña, Cerqueira Alves and Medici2021); (c) characterization of fluxes, after Cagno, Brondi Badano, et alia (Reference Cagno, Brondi Badano, Mathis, Strivay and Janssens2012) and Cagno, De Raedt, et alia (Reference Cagno, De Raedt, Jeffries, Janssens, Meulebroeck, Nys, Vanclooster and Thienpont2012), who plot normalized values for soda and potash. Two correlation lines represent purified ash (upper) and unpurified ash (lower). At right, a representative sample of polychrome and monochrome bead types matching Technological Style 1 are illustrated. Image by authors. (Color online)
To characterize the fluxes, we followed Cagno, Brondi Badano, and colleagues (Reference Cagno, Brondi Badano, Mathis, Strivay and Janssens2012) and Cagno, De Raedt, and colleagues (Reference Cagno, De Raedt, Jeffries, Janssens, Meulebroeck, Nys, Vanclooster and Thienpont2012), who plot normalized values for soda and potash. “Normalized values” are determined by dividing the values for the oxides by the sum of possible introductions with the plant ash used as a flux (Na2O, MgO, P2O5, CaO, K2O) and are identified with an asterisk (*; Cagno, Brondi Badano, et al. Reference Cagno, Brondi Badano, Mathis, Strivay and Janssens2012; Cagno, De Raedt, et al. Reference Cagno, Brondi Badano, Mathis, Strivay and Janssens2012). Two correlation lines represent purified ash (upper) and unpurified ash (lower; Figure 4c). For the most part, the flux in the Ball bead glass corresponds to unpurified ash. Glass analyzed by other researchers shows that Venetian vitrum blanchum has a lower proportion of potash, and that glass from northern Europe (Amsterdam and Antwerp) may have higher amounts of potash (Cagno, De Raedt, et al. Reference Cagno, Brondi Badano, Mathis, Strivay and Janssens2012; Coutinho et al. Reference Coutinho, Campaña, Cerqueira Alves and Medici2021). The Ball glass generally falls within the range defined for Levantine plant ash, such as was used in Murano, where according to Verità (Reference Verità2009), glassmakers were not permitted to use “low-quality . . . potash plant ash.” We note, however, that several samples do have elevated levels of potash, similar to that of façon-de-Venise glass / European barilla of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Five of the turquoise beads have flux compositions that are similar to that of cristallo (crystal) glass produced in Murano.
Despite typological diversity of the bead assemblage, chemically, the Ball glass is remarkably homogeneous and is representative of Technological Style 1 (TS1). This consistency in ingredients and recipes arises, we suggest, from production in a single center, with ingredients obtained from nearby, similar sources, and use of similar production processes. Based on the late sixteenth-century date of the assemblage, and similarities with published values for glass compositions from Venice (Blair et al. Reference Blair, Blanton and Dussubieux2024; De Raedt et al. Reference De Raedt, Janssens, Veeckman, Vincze, Vekemans and Jeffries2001), we hypothesize that Venice-Murano may be the likely production site of glass for these beads. However, both finished beads and unfinished glass tubes and rods were likely traded from Venice to other locations in Europe, potentially Paris. Vanriest and Loewen’s (Reference Vanriest and Brad2021:48) archival work on Parisian beadmaking in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth century documents suppliers from Altare, in northwest Italy. Vanriest and Loewen (Reference Vanriest and Brad2021:48) also note indirect evidence for the import of Venetian glass ingots to Paris. We observe that the Ball assemblage contains bead types resembling some beads reported from the AD 1583 Venetian shipwreck, the Gnalić (IIa15, IIa55, IIb18, IIb19, and similar to IIb3, a red variety with white stripes; Delmas Reference Delmas2016:107). Production in Paris of beads using glass products originating in Venice could explain the similarity in composition of the Ball beads to Venetian beads (Blair et al. Reference Blair, Blanton and Dussubieux2024) and observed slight typological differences between the Ball beads and those from the Gnalić. The compositional homogeneity of the Ball bead glass may arise from the early date of the site, when products from multiple European workshops were less available in Wendake yehen’.
Technological Style 1: Other Reputedly Venetian Sourced Beads: Star Chevrons and Compound Red Beads
Researchers assert that specific bead types are of Venetian origin (Francis Reference Francis1988:23–29). Among these are star-chevron beads and compound red beads, mistakenly referred to by some as “cornaline d’Aleppo” (Billeck Reference Billeck2008). Beads and production tubes for these types have been recovered in other parts of Europe (Karklins Reference Karklins1974; Karklins and Bonneau Reference Karklins and Bonneau2019), but their presence may arise from trade within Europe of both finished and unfinished glass objects. Researchers distinguish different forms of star chevrons based on the number of layers of glass, on the number of points on the stars, and on whether their form is round or faceted (Loewen Reference Loewen, Loewen and Chapdelaine2016); here, we treat them as a single group, noting that our analyzed sample includes faceted and round types and four- and seven-layer chevrons.
We compared the compositions of star-chevron and compound red beads recovered from other sites with compositions of the Ball beads (Figure 5). We obtained compositions for star-chevron beads from eight villages assigned to GBPs 2 through 3b. These include both large and small settlements and locations attributed to all four nations. We note that star-chevron beads appear more commonly on sites dated to GBP 2 and 3a (Supplementary Material 3) than GBP 3b (ca. AD 1640–1650). The chemistry of the star chevrons matches TS1, supporting Francis’s (Reference Francis1988) long-standing hypothesis that these were produced in Venice. The Zr and Hf levels (Figure 5a) and TiO2-Al2O3 ratios (Figure 5b) demonstrate use of similar silica to that used for the Ball beads, and the K2O* and Na2O* biplot (Figure 5c) shows similar flux ingredients. Hypothetically, throughout the French colonization period, beads made of glass likely produced in Venice continued to reach Wendat communities. We do not suggest that there was direct trade between Venetian merchants and Indigenous peoples in eastern North America; rather, we suggest that French traders may have obtained Venetian products within Europe from the late sixteenth into the seventeenth century.
Technological Style 1: Star-chevron and red compound beads likely from Venice: (a) range of Zr and Hf for most star-chevron and red compound beads are similar to Ball, in the Venetian range; (b) TiO2, Al2O3, and SiO2 ratios also indicate use of similar sand sources to that used for the Ball beads for some but not all star-chevron and red compound beads; (c) K2O* and Na2O* ranges indicate probable Venetian flux ingredients. At right, a representative sample of star-chevron and red compound beads of Technological Style 1 is illustrated. Image by authors. (Color online)
Compound red beads (Kidd and Kidd [Reference Kidd and Kidd1970] types IVa1–IVa8) are a compositionally diverse group. These beads are known from slightly later contexts, being present on some sites of GBP2 but on almost all sites of GBP3a and 3b. The red compound beads include many that have levels of Zr and Hf that are in the same range as the star-chevron and Ball beads, but there are others with Zr >40ppm and Hf >1ppm. Some red compound beads from GBP3b also have high values of alumina and titania for both interior (green/black) and exterior (red) layers, indicating that these may have been produced in different centers or with a different recipe. These high-alumina beads are present in Wendat villages of different sizes in three Wendat Nations. Most of the red compound beads have levels of K2O* and Na2O* similar to those of star chevrons and Ball beads. However, there is a small group with higher levels of potash that is similar to façon-de-Venise glass.
Technological Style 2: Possibly French Manufactured Beads
Although the earliest European beads in Wendake yehen’ were almost certainly manufactured in Venice, several lines of evidence point to a supply of beads produced in France (possibly both in Normandy and Paris) being traded into Wendake yehen’ in the early seventeenth century. Loewen’s (Reference Loewen2019) archival research documents the establishment of glasshouses in Normandy starting in the late sixteenth century; he argues that these glasshouses supplied French traders to North America. Turgeon (Reference Turgeon2001) finds evidence of purchase of beads in Paris in the early seventeenth century with the intent of using these in the North American fur trade. Our examination of the chemistry of French glass analyzed by other researchers showed that glass recovered from Rouen (Normandy) has particularly high levels of Zr (>300 ppm), whereas that from Paris includes some glass with values in the 200 ppm range and others with lower quantities (Walder and Hawkins Reference Walder and Hawkins2024). White, turquoise, and cobalt-colored monochrome beads all have high Zr levels.
Figure 6a shows the concentrations of Zr and Hf in monochrome beads from sites dating to GBP 2 to 3b. Many cobalt-colored and copper-colored blue beads and a few white beads have levels over 100 ppm of Zr, though beads of the same visual type also occur in the published Venetian range. To determine if other aspects of the glass chemistry are distinctive for the higher Zr and Hf beads, we plotted the contribution of alumina and titania, and of fluxes for monochrome beads based on the amount of Zr present. High-Zr glass clearly separates based on TiO2/Al2O3 ratios (Figure 6b), and different fluxes appear to have been employed in some cases (Figure 6c). Some high-Zr beads have a mixed alkali flux, but most are in the range of unpurified ash, similar to that found for the Ball beads. We suggest that this combination—high Zr and Hf, TiO2/Al2O3 ratios, and, in some cases, Na2O* and K2O* values consistent with use of mixed alkali fluxes—characterizes Technological Style 2 (TS2), which are probably French beads manufactured with local silica sands and other ingredients.
Technological Style 2: Monochrome beads of possible French origin: (a) Zr and Hf in monochrome beads from sites dating to GBP 2 to 3b, showing both inferred Venetian and French ranges; (b) contribution of alumina and titania for monochrome beads based on the amount of Zr present; high Zr glass clearly separates based on titania content; (c) distinct fluxes indicated by K2O* and Na2O* ranges represent manufacturing differences between Venetian and French sources, likely a mixed alkali flux for the latter. At right, a representative sample of monochrome beads of Technological Style 2 is illustrated. Image by authors. (Color online)
Technological Style 3: Possibly Dutch Manufactured Beads
Although French colonizers dominated the direct exchange with Wendat peoples in the early to mid-seventeenth century, the Dutch and English explorers and traders were also present in the region (Trigger Reference Trigger1976). Researchers have defined two periods during which Dutch beads may have been traded in Ontario: the Polychrome Horizon (1609–1624) and the Dutch Cored Horizon (1624–1660s; Fitzgerald et al. Reference Fitzgerald, Knight and Bain1995). Additionally, some glass bead assemblages—including some reasonably attributed to glass production sites—are known from the Netherlands (Karklins Reference Karklins1974) and England (Karklins et al. Reference Karklins, Dussubieux and Hancock2015). Based on this, Fitzgerald, Karklins, and others proposed certain bead types (e.g., IIbb1, IIbb2, IIbb7, IVb15, IVb29–36, IVk3, IVn3, IVnn4, IVa13, IIIa12, IIa31, IIa6, IIa7, Ia19, IIIc’3) that may have originated in the Netherlands.
To characterize the composition of beads possibly of Dutch origin for Technological Style 3 (TS3), we examined both the composition of several beads recovered from a glassmaking house in Amsterdam (Asd/Kg10) and the chemistry of beads suggested to be Dutch types. The Zr and Hf levels of these beads (Zr = 9–83 ppm, Hf = 0.2–2.0 ppm) are somewhat higher than the probable Venetian beads (Figure 7a), and the illustrated rations of titania, alumina, and silica (Figure 7b) are distinct from TS1 but overlap with TS2 ranges. The fluxes indicate unpurified ash (Figure 7c) and also overlap with the composition of a large portion of the TS2 beads, potentially indicating use of common recipes across northern Europe.
Technological Style 3: Beads of possible Dutch Origin. This figure includes beads of a known provenance in Amsterdam and beads of types proposed to have originated in the Low Countries: (a) Zr and Hf are higher than most probable Venetian beads (Zr = 9–83 ppm, Hf = 0.2–2.0 ppm); (b) the TiO2, Al2O3, and SiO2 ratios are distinctive but overlap with Technological Style 2; (c) fluxes are unpurified ash, overlap with the composition of a large portion of the Technological Style 2 beads, and do not fit the Venetian range. At right, beads of Dutch origin from Amsterdam and examples of proposed Dutch bead types recovered from Wendake yehen’ are illustrated. Image by authors. (Color online)
We also note a difference between at least some of the probable Dutch polychromes and probable Venetian polychromes: whereas different colored glass within a single Venetian polychrome bead all has similar chemistry, different colored glasses in probable Dutch polychromes varies within some individual beads. This could be explained by artisans obtaining glass production rods sourced from different locations, which is indicative of a distinct technological style to produce polychrome beads outside of Venetian workshops.
The three technological styles outlined here are based mainly on glass samples found in Ontario and comparison with published and unpublished chemistries from a few locations in Europe (Blair et al. Reference Blair, Blanton and Dussubieux2024; Dussubieux Reference Dussubieux2009; Dussubieux and Gratuze Reference Dussubieux and Gratuze2012; Dussubieux and Karklins Reference Dussubieux and Karklins2016). Further analysis of well-provenanced beads and bead-making waste from European glasshouses will be essential to testing our assertions about the European origin of different glasses.
Mapping Technological Styles
For monochrome beads, mapping the technological styles by site size and time period (Figure 8) shows the prevalence of TS1 at the Ball site during GBP1/2. With the introduction of French and Dutch manufactured beads during GBP2, TS1 beads remain prevalent at the nearby Warminster site, but at all other sites, French and Dutch manufactured monochromes together comprise the majority of the analyzed samples. Interestingly, TS1 beads are a significant portion of the monochromes analyzed from two small GBP3a sites in the study, although we note that the samples sizes for some of these small sites are quite small. By GBP3b, TS3 became more prevalent across Wendake yehen’. Because monochrome beads of different technological styles are visually indistinguishable from one another, these patterns of difference do not reflect individual preferences but rather the established networks of exchange across Wendake yehen’ and the widespread accessibility of beads in both large and small villages.
Maps of technological styles according to Glass Bead Period (GBP) for monochrome beads across Wendat sites of different sizes. Image by authors. (Color online)
For polychrome beads (Figure 9), mapping the spatial pattern of technological styles over time shows the dominance of glass workshops in producing TS1 polychrome varieties such as star chevron and red compound beads throughout the early and mid-seventeenth century. We suggest this can be explained by the combined factors of restricted knowledge of these technically complicated bead styles within Venetian glassmaking guilds (Trivellato Reference Trivellato, Epstein and Prak2008) and, hypothetically, the relative ease of French traders obtaining goods from Venice compared with the Low Countries. One exception is the Charity site on Gahoendoe (Christian Island), where our analysis found a lack of TS1 polychrome beads and relatively few monochrome beads of that composition. This village was established and occupied between AD 1649 and 1651 in very difficult circumstances, with many people dying during the short occupation (Warrick Reference Warrick2008). It is possible that both interment of beads with deceased ancestors and abandonment of goods before fleeing to Gahoendoe contributed to the unusual composition of the bead assemblage compared with other GBP3b sites.
Maps of technological styles according to Glass Bead Period (GBP) for polychrome beads across Wendat sites of different sizes. Image by authors. (Color online)
By delineating and mapping these technological styles, we can observe both temporal shifts and how beads connect people: as communities changed and new sites became important Wendat centers, the availability of beads across Wendake yehen’ appears relatively consistent in large and small communities and in communities associated with distinct nations of the Wendat confederacy.
Expectations and Interpretations: Connecting Places and People
The technological styles we have defined, when examined alongside existing archaeological data, serve as a basis for considering the role of glass beads in the lives of seventeenth-century Wendat peoples. Here, we combine typological and technological characterizations: bead typologies show how people perceived and valued glass beads, whereas chemical compositions offer information on the origins of those beads. We employ some of Turgeon’s (Reference Turgeon2019) observations as a framework for expectations about glass-bead assemblages from communities and nations of the Wendat confederacy. Specifically, if beads played the roles he suggests, were valued for uniqueness and variety, and were usually sent into the next world as grave goods within the lifetime of a single individual, we would expect to find the following:
1. Demand for beads in all communities, regardless of size. The strengthening and protective quality of beads would have made them desirable in all Wendat communities, large and small. Although excavation methods in Wendake yehen’ have been quite variable, where screening was employed, sites that contain other European trade goods also have yielded glass beads. They are found in smaller communities in more remote locations (e.g., Robitaille) as well as in the larger settlements where French traders had a physical presence (e.g., Ahatsistari, Ossossané).
2. Little evidence for significant heirlooming and relatively rapid turnover in bead types. Archaeologically, this does appear to be supported and explains why traditional use of bead seriations as chronological indicators has been effective. Glass beads have frequently been found in mortuary contexts (e.g., Kenyon and Kenyon Reference Kenyon, Kenyon, Charles and Hayes1983). Additionally, the delineation of the three technological styles through chemical analysis reveals that some typologically similar beads differ within the five decades spanning GBP 1 to 3b. For example, IIa31/40* are assigned to each of the three identified technological styles, occur at sites of different ages, and were almost certainly brought to Wendake yehen’ at different times (Fitzgerald et al. Reference Fitzgerald, Knight and Bain1995).
3. Visually variable glass bead assemblages. Turgeon (Reference Turgeon2019:205) observes historical Indigenous preferences for difference in size, color, brilliance, and material within the same string of beads. To compare the variability in types represented in the study assemblages, which were collected and analyzed under different conditions, we calculated diversity indices for a condensed type list (Supplementary Material 3). We focused on dominance (D), which evaluates evenness, and Margalef’s richness (dl), which is an expression of the number of types in the assemblage that accounts for sample size (Table 2). Except for two sites with very small sample sizes (Dunlop and Edwards) there is general consistency across sites. We tested this statistically using runs tests to determine whether site size (categorized as large or small) or whether sites were political centers could account for richness or evenness values. These tests showed nonsignificant results: overall, regardless of site size, many bead types are present, and the assemblages have similar evenness. We note that the Ball assemblage—the earliest site with glass beads in Wendake yehen’ in our study—has a range of types present, even though their compositions are largely limited to TS1. Ahatsistari and Max Oné Onti Gros-Louis have somewhat higher richness of types. In the case of Ahatsistari, this may be a result of French traders living in the village (Glencross et al. Reference Glencross, Warrick and Fletcher2021, Reference Glencross, Conolly and Warrick2025).
Table 2.Dominance and Richness of Condensed Glass Bead Types in the Study Sample Sites.
Examining beads through the lens of technological style allows us to consider changes to European bead manufacturing in response to the rising demand for beads of specific colors and forms in the transatlantic trade. We infer that the glass components of the visually diverse beads from Ball likely originate from Venice, but fairly quickly, beads produced in France from French materials appear on Wendat sites. We suggest that French producers, although possibly eager to participate in this trade, may not have had access to the same ingredients, recipes, or technological knowledge as Venetian glass producers. Although turquoise, cobalt, and white monochrome glass beads are classified as TS2, our sample lacks examples of red glass produced in this style, and no polychrome beads bear the hallmarks of French production (Table 3). Nevertheless, typologically, GBP2 assemblages are slightly richer and more even compared with Ball, indicating demand for diverse beads (Table 2). Glass-bead manufacturers in the Low Countries, the probable producers of TS3, appear to have technological know-how similar to Venetian producers, but they accessed different ingredients. Monochromes of all four colors are assigned to TS3; interestingly, some polychrome types (IVa1–5) are assigned to both TS1 and TS3 and therefore could have been produced in both Venice and the Low Countries, whereas others (IIIc’3, IIbb2) are linked to TS3 only (Table 3).
Monochrome and Select Polychrome Types by Technological Style. (Color online)
The presence of TS3 beads on sites of all GBPs bears consideration. With the exception of a short period when the French lost control of trade in the St. Lawrence valley, through the first half of the seventeenth century, the primary European trading partners for the Wendat were French. Why then, if TS3 can be attributed to production in the Low Countries—something that we emphasize at this point is a hypothesis—are TS3 beads present at most sites and in all periods? One likelihood is that French traders were obtaining beads produced in Europe from multiple sources, and that glass components such as ingots, tubes, and rods were traded among workshops. Alternatively, beads may have been traded through Indigenous networks, moving from the Dutch-allied Haudenosaunee to Attawandaron and/or Susquehannock hands and finally to the Wendat.
Conclusion
As demonstrated above, glass beads provide insight about seventeenth-century human interaction on multiple scales. Serving as more than chronological markers, beads connect the artisans who crafted them in European centers and in more rural areas with the Wendat people, who incorporated them into their own value systems. Beads are social signifiers that represent communities of practice of artisans connected across continents: European glass producers are linked with Wendat bead workers because glass beads were integrated into Wendat artistic expression, clothing, and adornment. The significance of glass beads in colonial contexts derives from both their role in building relationships across cultural divides and the distance these small items traveled.
Within the time frame of the study, we suggest that bead production for the North American market begins with Venetian manufacture and export, expanding to include producers in the Low Countries who had direct connections with Venetian artisans (Karklins Reference Karklins1974:64). These connections are evident typologically (IVa5) and technologically with the production of red glass; innovations also developed in the production of types that do not bear the Venetian signature. French producers, although physically closer to the ports from which traders departed, only appear to have filled a portion of the market demand, focusing on monochrome white and blue beads.
Although beads were brought to the Americas by trading colonizers to facilitate relationships with Indigenous peoples, the chronology of beads on sites in Wendake yehen’ and elsewhere clearly demonstrates that beads were quickly integrated into existing Indigenous (trading) relationships. Their existence on sites such as Ball, well before any European trader was ever physically present in the region, denotes acceptance of this new material culture; at the same time, Wendat people physically manipulated beads to enhance particular colors or surface textures (Figure 2; Kenyon Reference Kenyon1984). Integration into existing social systems suggests transformation in the meanings or significance—from objects of trade to objects of expression.
Varied bead assemblages are found on sites of different sizes and with different political roles and affiliations with the four distinct Wendat nations. Although a few of the sites we examined have particularly diverse assemblages, overall, we see that all sites—and therefore Wendat people in all communities—had access to a range of these small colorful items. Evidence of the specific ways in which Wendat peoples wore and used glass beads in the seventeenth century is limited: a string of beads recovered from the Auger site, depictions of beads on sketches accompanying seventeenth-century maps, and passing references in ethnohistoric documents. We interpret the ubiquity of glass beads as a testament to the cultural importance of gifting and egalitarianism within and among Wendat communities.
With the establishment of workshops in Venice, in France, and in centers in the Low Countries to serve global market, the people who crafted beads did not have the opportunity to meet or imagine the worlds of Indigenous peoples of North America; yet through global exchange, they are connected in a new way—unfathomable earlier. Likewise, seventeenth-century Wendat communities were not cognizant of the chaîne opératoire involved in bead making and the many hands that touched the objects that became integral to their own daily practices. This foreshadows the twenty-first-century capitalist system, in which the vast majority of material involved in consumer culture (such as electronics and cars and their raw materials) changes hands and crosses borders in highly complex and opaque (to the consumer) systems. Yet, the involvement of the unknown-to-another maker and user is essential to both systems. Tiny objects, seemingly insignificant, tell the story of people and relationships through time.
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to the Wendat Nation for the opportunity to study the belongings of Wendat ancestors and for providing insight on an earlier draft of this article. We thank Ron Hancock, Brad Loewen, Gary Warrick, and an anonymous reviewer for insightful comments on an earlier version of this article. We thank the institutions that granted access to collections and permitted LA-ICP-MS analysis of beads, including the Huronia Museum (Peden, Ossossané), the Anthropology Department at Trent University (Le Caron), the former School of the Environment at Laurentian University (Ellery, Max Oné Onti Gros-Louis, Dunlop), the Anthropology Department at the University of Toronto (Robitaille, Warminster, Auger), the Department of Archaeology and Heritage Studies at Wilfrid Laurier University (Ahatsistari), Archaeological Research Associates (Ball), and Northeastern Archaeological Associates (Charity).
Funding Statement
Funding for the analysis of previously unpublished glass samples was provided by a Laurentian University Research Fund grant to Alicia Hawkins.
Data Availability Statement
All data are available in the supplementary material or in cited publications.
Competing Interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Supplementary Material
The supplementary material for this article can be found at https://doi.org/10.1017/aaq.2026.10184.
Supplementary Material 1. Key information about sites discussed in the text (table).
Supplementary Material 2. Bead chemistries from samples analyzed at the Harquail School of Earth Sciences Laurentian University (table).
Supplementary Material 3. Bead types and condensed type list for sites discussed in the text (table).
Open access
