From an eBay auction (see link below):

Here's a typical example of bead "research" poverty.  I'm curious if there's any serious anthro/archeo evidence to support any of the conjecture put forth as "identification" of this bead.  Is it people are too lazy to track down supporting documentation?  Is the supporting documentation impossible to read because of language problems?  Is there any supporting documentation or are we merely dependent upon the new emerging bead folklore put forth by self-proclaimed experts?  Now we all know mosquitobay is very careful in his judgments on old beads, but what supports these judgments other than conjecture?  Really!  Where does this ID come from?  Where does this beat up bead come from?  Add it to your list of unrequited "research" topics.  I'll bet this bead proves to be early Modern Middle East.

Also, you can't expect to get much for such a beat bead on eBay without greatly exaggerating the poppycock in the style of that criminal eBay co-conspirator with the "museum" in England.  The description in this auction is too honest in its misrepresentation.

http://cgi.ebay.com/Chinese-Warring-States-Period-Stratified-Eye-Bead-RARE_W0...