As a continuation of this ongoing series concerning microscopic detection and authentication techniques, we are going to be exploring in this article three white-glazed Cizhou vases with brown decoration. The two on the left are the authentic Song Dynasty vases, and the one on the right is an approximately ten-year old reproduction, sold as authentic. In the course of this article, we will be taking our readers progressively deeper, from full photo to close-up to microscopic shots at differing powers. In this series of articles, we shall be discussing the pluses and minuses of calibrated machine testings, “Certificates of Authenticity”, the differences between an item being what we would call 100% authentic vs. authentic items with restoration (which is very common, highly normal, and extremely authenticating), the differences in qualities of replication, and replication techniques of varying ages. While it is impossible for any one person to know everything about all the artifacts from around the world (there are many artifacts we do not know about – some we have are still under investigation – and others that we know we need professional museum help with, and are working towards this goal), there are similarities in old stone work, pottery, and bronze, to name a few, which make microscopic examination (in lieu of actual archeological excavation) our own top choice of authentication methods. Microscopes do not ever have to be calibrated, nor have their software constantly updated (their ‘software’ consists of a soft lint-free cloth used to clean the lenses), and if one wishes to know if an item is authentic (and not just that it came with an ‘authentic’ piece of questionable or meaningless paper), it is in our opinion, the finest and most precise scientific method of teaching oneself what is real and what is not. For the price of a single TL-test, one can own a phenomenal piece of equipment that will show exactly what IS there, with the only ‘tricks’ being in not letting the replicators fool the examiner with their methods (many of which we show here and at TimelessJade), and not allowing oneself to be swayed just because one spends money on an item, therefore purchasing a serious interest in its ‘real-ness’. This is always one of the hardest things to do when authenticating one’s own pieces – staying objective – and in our opinion, is a primary ‘rule of thumb’; to approach every item one authenticates with the assumption that it is a replication. The item will always tell you, together with a true expert’s evaluation in each particular field, with a high degree of personal comfort, what it really is, IF it is studied properly and thoroughly, and only when it cannot be a replication should an item be considered real, or real and restored. While all our articles are to be considered as our opinion and scientific evaluation, it should be noted that they are not to be considered as derogatory towards other authentication methods, nor companies that employ such means, as each has its own good points and bad, and all things can be manipulated, should there be the desire to defraud. All our past, present (and future) photographs are run through PhotoShop’s Lightroom program to adjust the lighting and tone of the photographs to what I actually see under the natural daylight fluorescent lighting conditions in our location, and what I actually see under microscopic conditions. As lighting affects viewing (bright outside light shows artifacts differently than on a cloudy day), we always endeavor to maintain the closest as possible to true, and no artificial computer program coloring is ever used. It is with this in mind that we write these articles – to teach what we have learned, as well as we are able, for the general public to use in any manner they so choose. We have not sold advertising space on any of our web sites, nor do we sell names of subscribers to ‘lists’ of any kind (nor will we, ever). We hope you enjoy our articles, even while subscribing to your own opinions that may differ – and as always, any qualified buyer or professional is welcome (by appointment) to view and discuss in a professional manner any item we have, or represent, in our gallery.
Measurements Left Cizhou Vessel: 22cm Height X 13cm Diameter
Measurements Center Cizhou Vessel: 17-1/2 cm Height X 8-1/2cm Diameter
Measurements Right Reproduction Cizhou Vessel: 24-1/2cm Height X 14cm Diameter
All Vessels – Fredericks-McIntire Collection
In the four close-up photographs above, we are showing what we believe is the oldest of our Cizhou ware items, and we are starting with this vase in an effort to show what it really takes to be able to authenticate old pottery items. While this vase represents a bit of an extreme, it is not without studying authentic old clays, slips, and glazes – whether in whole condition, or in shards and mis-fired kiln pieces – that one truly can see how the old items were manufactured, and the effects of differing conditions of burial and wear. [To many, this vase would be considered 'junk'; to us, it is an ancient masterpiece of a type of Song Dynasty construction which allows us to intensively study the following: the original clay body, manufacturing techniques, original under-glaze slip, white over-glaze, and the final brown decoration glaze. To think of an artifact such as the one pictured here as 'junk', would be, to us, like thinking of the famous Nefertiti bust in the British Museum as junk because it is broken, or the Qin Emperor's bronze chariot and four horses as junk because they were put back together out of over 20,000 pieces, or all those wonderful examples of pottery items which have had their missing parts replaced with white plaster, and which adorn some of the finest museums in the world, as being junk. Old items are old; earthquakes and tremors happen and pottery breaks; bronze, iron and even jade all degrade, and to us, all authentic items have their own intrinsic beauty. It is by studying these degraded items that we have found some of what we believe are the best authenticating methods available to be used, by anyone in the world willing to take the time and be objective. With intensive study of replications from all eras (remembering that the Great Alexander's troops were sold reproduction Egyptian 'artifacts' in the BCE period), coupled with current archeological data, it is possible to explore one's own 'passions' in ancient art without spending fortunes on calibrated tests (most of which have huge disclaimers stating that even after being tested, they are not guaranteed 'either way'), or getting opinions from as many 'professionals' as one can find (which we have too often found to be biased, agenda- ridden, and just plain erroneous). It is well worth remembering that learning is a process, often a very long one, replete with many ups and downs. Mistakes will be made, and conclusions drawn will be revealed as faulty along the way - do not be discouraged; remember that the greatest athlete is not born to perfection, but rather achieves greatness by hard work, dedication and discipline, while learning from mistakes. This process is, by necessity, a path of discipline, and it is the continued study that brings confidence; critical thinking mandates that one must always question and aim for perfection, not settling for the quick and easy answer, but remembering that there will always be another learning experience right around the corner - a new replication coating to be found, a previously overlooked means of artificial aging, etc. We offer helpful information and hard-earned knowledge in our scientific sites, to help those who desire to learn, as we have from our own study and mistakes.] After examining this vase for years, we would place its most likely date of manufacture sometime during the early Song Period – the late 10th to mid-11th century. The reasons for this dating will be discussed (as they will for all three vessels in this article) as we progress from the full to close-up to microscopic photographs to come. All full and close-up photographs for this article were taken with our Canon EOS T1i camera, using our Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L lens. All microscopic photographs for this article were taken with a Canon EOS XSi camera mounted directly to the tri-port of our microscope, and will be explained in detail as we progress.
With all the above having been said, it should be understood as we go now into the actual descriptions of the vessels in this article, that no one article can cover all points of interests to every reader. This is why we will be addressing different points in other articles in this series. With these first four close-up photos of the vessel shown on the left in the first pictures, we can start to get views of the details visible to the naked eye under good lighting. In the first photo above (also all the other photographs of this early vessel) showing the top rim of the Mei vase, the extreme extent of glaze loss can be examined. The soil and detritus penetration of all portions of the body, underglaze, and top glazes can also be discerned. In the whitest portions, with darkened soil penetration adjacent to them, are ‘fresher’ areas where the glaze has ‘popped’ off since the item was first removed and cleaned after a long cache burial (these types of artifacts were not funereal during the Song Period, as the ‘excesses’ of burial objects from the Tang period were outlawed at the time; and result from the burials to protect the items from the advancing Mongols). Bits of the final remaining glazes are still coming off, and the vase must be handled with extreme care. The grey ‘proto-porcelain’ of the early Song Cizhou period shows up very nicely in these photos, as does the white under-coating, once used to smooth this rougher stoneware surface and prepare it for the final glazes. In the last photograph, one can see the definitive line where some of the final glaze holds tight, having sunk more deeply into the seam where the two parts were joined during the two-piece construction of the vase. On this particular vase, there appears to be only one seam, and that the top of the Mei style rim was part the second section, as no seam appears on the outside nor inside of the vessel under microscopic examination; this may – or may not – be the case, as the seam for a top-most portion may just have been very well- melded, but we would expect to show under x-ray conditions to be a one-part top portion (some larger specimens of this ware would have been made in three to four parts, conjoined). This would show exemplary craftsmanship in a hand-made vase from the Song Dynasty. In many Tang Dynasty items of this quality, one finds that they were two-piece molded casts, melded together as one.
In the above two close-up photographs, we are again looking at what we believe is the older of the two Mei-style vases shown in this article. In all the above photos of this vase, we see the thinness of the original white overglaze. We believe this is particular to the oldest style of Cizhou (Zichou) ware that was produced during the Song Dynasty Period. Later pieces are much thicker in their glaze, and more resemble the thickness of glazing on Jian ware, Cizhou type ware, Junyao ware, etc. One of the most difficult tasks of dating correctly, outside of China, is that there are over 200,000 publications on artifacts that have never been translated into English. I truly believe some bright museum intern or master in China might well know the exact kiln this vase came from because of the extensive studies the Chinese have performed on the old kilns. Not having access to either the written material or the kiln sites does pose a bit of a problem in dating; however, we believe the evidence of the thin white glaze leads to this logical conclusion. All the photos showing this thin-white-with-brown-decoration-glazed-vase most definitely show the original body clay and the white undercoating used to smooth the slightly tempered clay body. This undercoating of white is especially visible in the last photo above. The reason for all the glaze loss, we believe, was that this particular vessel endured a very moist burial condition, for an extended time. With the inside of the vessel not being glazed, this led to moisture penetration from the inside of the vessel outward to the glaze, causing swelling and an eventual ‘popping off’ of the portions of the glaze which had become pressure-cracked and loosened (we often see this with authentic Tang Dynasty Sancai pottery horses, and other items – and is why so many of the Tang items have the small glaze repairs that will negate a TL test every time). This moisture wicking effect, coupled with the freezing and thawing that would be associated with a Northern Song Dynastic piece, would predispose the vase to undergo such glaze loss. We do not believe it was caused by damage to the vase, and the vessel’s body is quite sound, and no hairline cracks are apparent over the entire vessel. It also does not appear to be ‘under-fired’ in any regard. As we go now into the microscopic photos of this particular vase, we believe this will become much clearer to the viewer.
In the three microscopic photographs above, we are staying with our usual 10X, 20X and 30X magnifications simply because these are the most commonly available loupe powers for those not possessing a microscope. While viewing under microscopic conditions, or with good lighting and good loupes, one can easily adjust the depth of field as the surfaces dip and curve; however, with a still shot, one has to train one’s eye a bit, to see beyond the point in focus on curved surfaces. The three photos above show an area of the top rim of the vase where the glaze still holds tight to its original surface. It is easy to see the slight temper used in the proto-porcelain in all three photos, and we can even see the partial vitrification of the body in the viewer’s lower right corner, especially in the last photo at 30X where it shows up (subtly) as the more ‘shiny’ area (not the blurry area above it). Also, the extremely thin white glaze over the much thicker undercoating can be discerned, as will be seen in the following microscopic photographs of this vase. All detritus and ‘slime’ deposits on this vase are also natural and not man- made (a technique which, it must be noted, the replicators can now use to almost completely duplicate this effect, and about which we will discuss more in this article and others to come).
With these three microscopic photographs above, you can see the ‘depth of field’ problems using still-magnification photography. Each photo, at 10X, 20X and 30X, is focused on a slightly different portion of the same area. The equipment is also so sensitive that if a large 16-wheel truck drives past our gallery/research facility, it vibrates the area in which we are located and often blurs a photograph. I alway take two to three photos of each magnification, and choose the best and clearest one to publish. When authenticating using microscopic techniques, this problem does not present itself, as we are always adjusting the item with our hands and not locking the microscope down in a solid position. This may seem to be even less stable, but actually it is the reverse. By maintaining a ‘semi-tight’ lock-down of the boom which holds the microscope, one can rest ones arms on a pad on the table which holds the microscope and boom, and freely move the item one is examining , walking the viewing area around the curved surfaces. This takes very little practice to become efficient, and we have taught novices this technique in a matter of minutes. The larger the item, the higher you set the boom and scope. If you have a flat area of an item you wish to view, then the item can be laid flat, and then you can adjust the scope, the zoom and the depth settings. It is really very easy to learn and has unlimited possibilities for rotation, adjustment, and focus. In the three photos above, we can again see the temper, iron impurities in the original clay, and in varying degrees, the thick white under-slip beneath the final thin white glaze on this wonderful Song Dynasty vase. The white slip is best found both on the grayish clay body and attached to the underside of thin overglaze white, along the edge of the above-shown glazed portion. The detritus on the glazed portion shows remnants of old tree root adhesions, and can be found all over the vase.
With the three microscopic photographs above, we show what is truly an authenticator’s ‘dream’. This is an area, spoken of above, where the two portions (at least) of the original Song Dynasty Cizhou vessel were joined. This took a minimum of three (or possibly four) separate kiln firings of the same vessel to achieve: one to fire the bottom and top after they have been joined together into one piece, one to apply the thin white overglaze, and another to fire on the the brown iron-oxide based decoration. (Alternatively, it is possible that in some cases, the parts may have been fired separately and then joined together with slips/sealants, requiring an additional firing). These items were not made in a day, but over extended periods that took months for simple pieces, and often years for polychromed pieces due to the need for multiple firings, to complete. The old kilns of the Northern Song Dynasty were said to reach up to (or over) three miles long, up a mountainside, taking six months to load – two months to fire the adjacent chambers (as the heat rose) – two months to cool – and another 6 months to unload. This does not take into account the time of actual clay preparation and vessel manufacture. Some items definitely went to royalty, others were used for more practical ware, and some were exported to all known parts of the globe for trade items.
[Note: Just to grind the cobalt for one fine blue-&-white vase took one man (on average) six months, grinding an extremely caustic and toxic material to a powder fine enough to be mixed into a glaze to be fired. So, when someone mentions to me "This is just an unsigned blue and white plate of Shunzhi dating", or "This is just a cloisonne' vase from the late Qing period", I admit that I personally don't have much tolerance for ignorance in my old days. Art is art, and should not be dictated by those with an excessive need to control what is and what is not in fashion today. All art fluctuates in value according to the dictates of a few, when it should, in our opinion, be much more stabilized based on age, artistic value, and technique of the particular periods, taking into account the difficulties in each period in obtaining the raw materials and master workmanship.]
In the photos above, we again find all the same components we have found in all the previous photographs, yet with a couple of wonderful exceptions. When looking at the seam where the two pieces were joined, we find the original makers of this beautiful vase covered the joint with a deep layer of white undercoating, used to adhere the two pieces together. This also smoothed the grayish clay surface so it would better accept a fine layer of white overglaze, to which they could add the final, iron-oxide brown glaze decoration. The brown glaze decoration was applied much thicker than the white, using by the ‘painting on’ technique, rather than ‘dipping’ the item into the glaze solution (this deep infusion of bubbles can be seen in the more ‘common’ Song Dynasty wares and will become clearer in the next authentic Song Dynasty white Cizhou vase with a much deeper glaze, and most likely, of a somewhat later dating). This deep infusion of bubbles shows up after long term burial as pits, where the tops of the bubbles wore off, and the detritus and mineral salts have been infused into one with the original materials (both clay and glazes) of the vase. But, one needs just to carefully observe the photographs above in order to see the difference in the depths of the under-white, over-white and the brown glaze used for decoration. The under-white coating and the brown decoration show up the clearest and thickest, while the white overglaze is very thin and barely discernible in these microscopic photographs.
With this last microscopic photo of the bottom (foot) rim of the above vase (taken only at 10X) we can see the original condition of the rim after long-term burial. This rim has not been ‘sanded’ or worn due to repetitive cleaning or dusting over years of being out of the ground (as will be shown in the following Song Dynasty period Meiping vase). This would lead us to conclude that the vase has not been out of the ground for an extended period of time. It is an extremely common misconception that ALL old vases have smooth foot-rims – this is simply not the case and is easily verified by a quick search on the internet of old kiln misfires from the period. Foot rims start off rough and are worn smooth by use, some more, some less. This can also be found in almost any period (see shipwreck items and their foot-rims, as they were fresh from the kiln and unused) and from any country of origin. While this vase feels smooth to the touch, it is not as smooth as the following Mei vase. We believe this vase did see extensive wear during the Song period, but while it most likely had a smoother foot rim when it was buried, it has also been altered by degradation from its burial environment, including long-term exposure to moist conditions and the microbial and fungal decomposition with would be associated with such conditions. Also, the vibrations of tectonic movement around the vase during its interment would wear softer portions of the clay away while it was being subjected to the aforementioned degrading elements. This can be seen in the first article on this site, on the glaze-loss area of a Tang Dynasty Sancai glazed horse, and we will delve deeper into these degradation effects as we continue this series of articles with some wonderful examples, in differing media and periods, which are extremely difficult to deny.
With the three close-up photographs of the smaller (middle) Mei Vase shown in the first photos of this article, we will begin to show original wear on a 100%, unrestored Song Dynasty white-with-brown-decoration vase from what we would consider mid-11th century to early 12th century. In the first photograph above, we are looking at an extremely use-worn top rim of the Mei vase. This style of vase, we believe, originated in the Song Dynasty, off of the much wider-rimmed vase styles dating back into the 4th century. While it is definitely possible the style was first defined in the late Tang Dynasty, we have yet to find any example dating to the Tang period, and believe it to be one of the many incredible achievements of the Song Dynasty Masters of design and glaze refinements. (While I personally love all eras of artifacts, the Song pottery is my second-highest personal passion, next to jade). In all three photos above, we easily see the crazing on the vase and the deep penetration of soil and organic detritus. Cizhou white-ware was not intentionally crazed, while the Ge ware was. The crazing on this vessel came as a result of pressure, moisture, and the freezing and thawing associated with long-term burial in cold regions. This will be shown in much more detail in the microscopic photos of this vase. The white overglaze is much thicker on this later Cizhou Song vase than the previous vase in this article, both from the same kiln area. Also, as can start to be detected in the last photograph above, the glaze towards the bottom of an authentic Song Dynasty period item starts to go to a grey as it gets thinner when fired. This is a technique used in almost all replications of this ware, showing us that the modern replicators are extremely adept at their craft (this will be shown in greater detail in both the microscopic photos of this vase, and on the replication which will follow). By this later period, we believe the Cizhou kilns’ experts knew their original white glaze was proving to be too thin and had switched to a thicker Jian and Cizhou-type glaze. The thinner glaze appears, under microscopic conditions, to have been extremely durable and resistant to scratch-wear (as are all the incredible Song Period glazes which show blunt trauma chips, but some original period scratch-wear cannot be seen under lower-power magnifications, and sometimes can only be found at 30X magnification or higher), but lacked the deep shine seen in this and other later Cizhou white-ware. Perhaps this is the reason for the change, but to be more certain, we would have to confer with the experts in the Chinese museums, and examine more shards, kiln mis-fires and other items than we currently possess. One also has to take into consideration that each artifact has its own particular ‘history’ of use (or lack of), and that different items have had varying conditions of usage or burial. Some items have been unearthed longer than others, and have been repeatedly cleaned over the long years, and will not appear the same under either normal or microscopic viewing. This is where patience and study meet.
In the two close-up photographs above, we have another close-up view of the top rim of the smaller Mei vase, and one of the foot rim. In the first photo, we can again see the extensive wear to the rim edges and the original dark burial penetration of the crazing. (We own a wonderful example of a Song Dynasty white-ware replication which shows this same type of penetration deep inside the glazed portions. Now, all of this type of Cizhou ware we have examined has unglazed interiors, much as the old Cizhou-type ware, and the replication is truly of Gaofang quality, and will be shown in another article). The differences between the two types of penetration are not easily seen from any distance other than extreme close-up viewing and microscopic examination. On this vessel, what can not be seen (and we do not have the photographic equipment to take such photos) is the mineralized tree roots inside the mouth of the top rim and running down the side. The ancient tree roots which once grew on this vase have long since degraded away, but extremely definitive tree root mineralization is unmistakable when we use our flex-light to view the interior of the vase. All exterior wear on this vase is natural and not man-made. On the Gaofang vessel we possess, referred to above, the deep penetration effect actually came from the vessel being filled with coal oil or kerosine after the replication was made. This oil was left in the gaofang so long that it penetrated under the glaze from the inside out. This replication vase bears raised Song Dynasty style calligraphy over the the entire outside of the vase, but no wear is detectable on these high portions. We have many examples of gaofangs and zhongfangs covering many periods of Chinese history, and it is only by extensive cleaning and microscopic study that some of the finest replications can be discerned (not by viewing from five feet away). Some of the finest replications were made using marvelous techniques, and each replicator used differing techniques (including artificial wear, but – artificial wear never looks the same as natural wear under microscopic conditions). We can honestly say we have learned as much from the study of replications (towards authenticating real artifacts) as we have learned from the authentic items themselves, in all media. As has been mentioned before, we will explore these differing replication techniques, and restoration techniques, and some 100% authentic items, as we progress through this series of articles, using not only Chinese items to display the differences, but also Pre-Columbian pieces, as well as others. Another unique feature to this particular vessel is the underglaze white sealant used, but not nearly as readily identified on this vase, except on the bottom, which best shows this white sealant, and will be further explored in the microscopic photographs to follow. We can also see in the second photo above the smoother foot rim of this vase, as partially explained in the discussion on the previous, and older vase.
In the above three microscopic photographs, we are again going to 10X, 20X, and 30X on the top rim to show not only true and original wear to the rim, but also the natural manganese deposits found as a result of long-term burial. As can be seen in the close up photos of the top rim, as well as these microscopic photos above, the rim shows extensive wear to the very top and the bottom areas. This would lead us to believe this vase, or vessel, most likely was heavily used, probably passing through successive generations before its eventual cache burial. Like most Cizhou white ware, the raised parts of the vases and other items intended for daily use, along with the incised decorated items and the few true Song Period animal figures which have survived intact, tend to be more thinly glazed (due to the fluid nature of glazes) on those raised surfaces . This leads to more wear use on the higher areas and is often where we see the most chipping and worn-through glazed portions. In the photos above, the manganese growth can best be seen in the 10X and 20X photos, as we are trying to show not only the natural wear of an eight-hundred-plus-year-old used Song item, but also the natural manganese growth (appearing as the small black areas in the first two photos) from long-term burial. In the last photograph, at 30X power, we are concentrating more on the surviving glaze of the top rim to show the deeper infusion of bubbles in the white overglaze from the thicker composition. This vase has been cleaned (much as we do the jades and other authentic and replication stones we authenticate – these can be seen and are described in great detail on the TimelessJade web site) in a long-soaking acetone bath, short and in a weak solution oxalic-acid bath, and in bleach, to remove any artificial coatings used to make the replications. In most cases, our high- pressure water sprayer is also used to remove foreign matter not natural to the item. The first vase in this article was not subjected to such vigorous cleaning techniques for what should be obvious reasons. All deposits, including the manganese, soil penetrations and iron oxides now seen on this vase are natural to its original composition and degradation. As an additional note, after studying this Cizhou vase for years, I believe it well could have been a vessel used for the purpose of pouring liquids, like wine, instead of the more usual flower vase applications. The heavy, blunt-trauma chipping on the rim leads us more in this direction. Perhaps this article will stimulate a few comments from the true experts in China concerning this possibility.
The three microscopic photographs shown above are from an area on the overglazed brown flower decoration, which is the decorative focal point on the vase. In all three photos above , at varying microscopic powers, all show the deep infusion of bubbles, due to the thicker glaze and the old wood firing techniques used. The natural ‘orange peel’ effect of the glaze is most prevalent, as is the natural crazing and embedded soil and detritus deposits inside the crazing itself. On naturally crazed items showing long-term burial effects, we often find this wider separation in the crazing than we find on more modern replications, and the soil deposits are adhered to the original clay structure much more tightly than on the reproductions’ artificially applied deposits. Oftentimes, this crazing (because of pressure) tends to curve upwards along the edges of the actual cracks, cup-like, depressed in the center (think of a dried mud riverbed, cracked, with edges curved upward). These higher edges tend to be more tectonically worn (appearing duller than the shinier center portions) because of their higher relative position. This effect can be seen in all the above photos, but is best viewed in the last two at higher magnification. This effect is often (but not always) also seen on Tang Dynasty glazed funereal items. The area on the above photos was chosen because of the glaze-loss portion in the center of all three photos. On this vase, the glaze loss was most likely due to use-damage prior to the cache burial (remembering that the Song had outlawed the excesses of the Tang Period for funeral items, and most Song period funeral items were purposefully made less finely than the funeral items of the Tang period).
In the above three photographs we are again looking at a different angle of the wear damage on the top rim of this same Cizhou vase. We use this comparison area to show the continuity of natural use-wear, natural degradation, original microscopic views of the glaze, and original deposits on the clay and in the crazing after long-term burial. In future articles we will be showing many different attempts at replication of these natural use-wear and burial effects. We will also be showing minute and original wear, not normally detectable, such as the extremely fine wear-scratches from normal washing and drying of period wares, not detected with a 10X or 20x power loupe (remembering that the true artifacts of the period were not washed with purified water, but with water from streams and wells which contained minute particle of quartz and corundums, which scratched even the hardest of old glazed surfaces). Of note also, in the photos above, is the lack of thickness of the underglaze white slip used on both Cizhou and Cizhou-type wares. The later Cizhou wares, we believe, were made of finer clays and were slipped much less vigorously. Another note to serious students of these type of wares is that the insides of the deep vessels appear to not have been slipped – only the outsides (in all the examples of true period wares we have examined). The plates and shallow bowls were underglaze-slipped. We can also see in the photos above where the hardest particles of the original clay rise above the softer portions, which wear away more readily. However, on authentic artifacts, even these harder particles in the clay are still worn smooth, which is often not the case in the replication vessels, unless they were purposefully sanded to a smoothness. These are easily detectable after cleaning, showing up as newly sanded portions, with their accompanying white and very jagged markings under high magnification.
In the above three microscopic photographs, we are looking at the bottom of the vase and inside the foot rim at 10X, 20X, and 30X power. In all three of the photos above, we can detect the thinner white slip over the grayer proto-porcelain clay (best seen inside the vessel, and cannot be microscopically photographed at this time). We can detect the original turning marks on the bottom, a smoothed and very worn circular grooving. This is not the case with the most modern replications, as the wheel turning marks, after cleaning, will show much sharper, distinctive grooving. There appears to be iron oxide particles that were mixed into the white underglaze slip – especially notable on the bottom of this vase. The approximately eight-year-old replication we purchased at the the same time as the real vessel shows the attempt to replicate this red iron oxide look, and will be shown later in this article. The red iron oxide could conceivably, in our opinion, be iron impurities degrading in either the clay or the slip, but we do not believe this to be the case. We believe this was an intentional application of the sacred iron oxides that have been used around the world, in and on top of great quantities of artifacts from China, reaching at least as far back as the Neolithic Period. In all three photographs above, the natural soil deposits, potassium salts and detritus can easily be discerned in the grooves and pitting of this true artifact. These deposits have become adhered to the original vessel and can be easily researched as being an integral part of detection methods in archeological research.
In the three photographs above, we are showing another area on this (smaller) middle Cizhou vase where the brown iron- oxide-based decoration was applied. Again, we see the deeper infusion of bubbles, the orange-peel effect and original detritus that has adhered to the vase from centuries of burial. Having studied these detritus and soil adhesions for over fifty years on ‘Native American’ pottery specimens, from shards to whole items (it was in 1979 when I first started my hypothesis on microbial and fungal degradation to artifacts, while sitting on the ground examining old pottery fragments in Wapatki National Monument, here in Arizona, USA; here in the US, the detritus is sometimes called “desert slime”), and having literally thousands of closely examined specimens I have worked on to clean, this type of natural adhesion of soil and organic material, along with manganese deposits, almost totally resist removal, except by abrasive means. In all three of the microscopic photos above, we can discern the beginnings of newer pressure and expansion cracks, or crazing, as they should appear on any true artifact; not all crazing occurs on glazed items at exactly the same time, but rather develop over a period of time, as will be shown in subsequent photos and in coming articles.
The above three microscopic photographs were taken just inside the top rim of this marvelous example of Song Dynasty Cizhou ware. When authenticating true period, pressure- and moisture-crazed glazed pottery items of this and older dynastic periods under microscopic conditions, one should ALWAYS try with utmost diligence to find the above-shown markers of genuine, old, glazed artifacts. As shown in our article here on TimelessArtifact.com under the ’10th Century Junyao Bowl’, the side-to- side, deep degradation and penetrated crazing can be seen, as in these above photos. This type of deep, side-to-side degradation has been found by us only on authentic items from the older dynastic periods. I have personally never seen this type of effect on any replication to date, nor have I ever seen this effect on verifiable Qing and Ming Dynastic burial items. This effect comes only with time and extensive degradation, surrounding old cracks in the glazes (noting that not all authentic glazed artifacts of the older periods will show this effect, as some were not subjected to the same burial conditions). We will be showing this feature in other Cizhou white wares, Junyao wares and glazes of the Tang Dynastic period in future articles, including one which will show and prove the existence of the first red-to-pink glaze decoration (that we know of) on a lightly foot-rim-restored Cizhou brush washer (and will include the replication of this effect on a fairly modern zhongfang). In the three photos above, we can see the extreme difference in degradation between these cracks and the minuscule ones that are just developing in the previous three photographs on the same vase. The width of the degradation and oxidation of the glaze is quite apparent, and the portions with dark brown manganese growth under them stand out as true authenticators of age. This degradation and lifting of the crazed glaze, coupled with the unusual manganese growth beneath, shows true age and a deep penetration of organic and mineral components that has spread side-to-side under natural conditions, and would lead us to believe that this is the first portion of the vessel to start crazing, as it is the most deeply affected. In the first two photos above, at 10X and 20X power, we can see, where the light shines brightest on the curving inner lip, a series of old and minuscule scratches running diagonally across the shiny area. These are older scratches, as they themselves are worn smooth and are not the sharp and jagged scratches one would find on a newly- (or purposefully-) sanded glazed surface, to simulate age. When they were first made on the top, glassy surface of the glaze, these scratches would have been jagged, but have been worn smooth over time, with cleaning and polishing of the surface. These rounded and polished scratches could well be the result of the initial cleaning of the vase after removal from the burial site (as this is the only area on the vessel showing this particular type of wear). This and the smoother foot rim on the bottom of the vase are the primary reason we believe this particular vase to have been unearthed many, many years ago – with a high possibility of 200 years, plus or minus. It takes extended to time to round and wear these types of scratches smooth, and there is absolutely no evidence, under microscopic examination, of purposeful re-polishing.
With this last microscopic photograph of the foot rim (taken at 10X power only), we can again see the iron oxide reds in the upper left portion. While the bottom of this vase is extremely smooth to the touch, under just 10X power we can observe that it is still rough on its surface, with the hardest particles of the original clay surface being slightly raised. The darker coloring on the foot rim itself is most likely from repeated handling and cleaning over an extended period. This handling and cleaning allows natural skin oils to penetrate what would not normally be considered a porous material; however, pottery items, glass, jade and even steel are all still porous to varying degrees, and will take on polishes and skin oils, etc., over long periods of time. On the left side of the photograph above, we are going down inside the foot rim and can see the remnants of the original white underglaze slip, with minute darker areas of manganese growths and darker particles in the original Cizhou clay body (which can seen inside the foot rim itself).
In the four close up photographs above, we are getting our first clearer views of what eight to ten years ago would have been considered a nice Gaofang Cizhou vase, but today, due the the replicators’ advancements in glaze-aging, would best be considered a Zhongfang, or medium-quality reproduction. The vase above was purchased by us in the same lot as the smaller Cizhou vase shown just above, and was most likely this particular replicator’s best efforts of that time period. In the first two photos above, after cleaning the applied deposits on its surface, the reproduction qualities of this particular vase become fairly obvious to the naked eye. In the third and fourth photos above, we can see a better attempt to fool the uninitiated. The area on the bottom of the vase shows how the glaze goes grey in its more thinly-applied areas, and the addition of fingerprints in the glaze lends a bit of an authentic look, especially when it was first received in its ‘coated’ condition. The last photo above shows the foot of the vase and the added deposits that remain on and inside the foot rim. The addition of the reddish oxides, or pigments, was an attempt to duplicate the natural deposits we saw on the last authentic vase, and the ‘cement-like’ coatings on the rim and covering the bottom of the vase were further replication techniques added at the time. The portions of the bottom where the surface is shiny in between the deposits, is where some spots were removed by our high pressure water sprayer, and will be examined in greater detail in the microscopic photos to follow. [Note: In future articles, we will be going into depth on some of the finest gaofangs we have ever seen, amazing restored pottery and pottery glaze-loss areas of authentic items which can only be detected under higher magnifications (perhaps MRI or X-ray - but the idea is to keep the costs down for the common collector), complete timeline articles on the mineralization of organic materials adhered to authentic artifacts of bronze, stone and pottery - including total petrification, where ancient tree roots have completely turned into the stone on which they first grew, or agatized on ancient pottery, and a series of photographs and discussions on manganese growths of wonderful differing shapes, from dendritic to masses of flower-like patterns.]
In the three above microscopic photographs of the gaofang Cizhou vase, we are looking at a chip to the top rim in the same 10X, 20X, and 30X microscopic powers (as was used in all the microscopic photos of this vase, except where noted). In all three of the above photos, it is quite apparent that the chip to the top rim is recent. We can see the jagged and unworn edge of the overglaze iron-oxide brown and the white underglaze. The new, gray-to-red outside clay surface is also very apparently new, in that it has had no wear to its very jagged and particle-embedded exterior. There is no evidence of color loss (which is another indicator of old clay surfaces and which will be explored in further articles), tectonic wear, or microbial and/or fungal decomposition.
In the above three microscopic photographs, we are looking at a portion of the glaze on the exterior of the vase which has been extensively cleaned. As can easily be seen, the cleaning process did not harm the exterior of the glazed vessel. There is no additional or artificial pitting caused by the short bath in weak oxalic acid solution (it is just a bit quicker than a longer vinegar soaking, we have found over the years), nor damage from the acetone or bleach, nor from our high pressure water sprayer to the exterior glaze. What is left is just a clear look at a clean surface. We can easily see in the photos above the lack of natural degradation to the glaze associated with long-term use and extended burial conditions. The smaller ‘bubbling’ effect from a gas-fired kiln is also readily seen, and there is no deep infusion of bubbles (from an old wood-fired kiln) as was seen on the second vessel of this article with the much thicker Song Period glaze. All these effects, and especially the lack of use-wear and degradation, are extreme indicators of a newer firing, and are seen in all portions of the exterior of this vessel.
While fingerprints can certainly be found on ancient artifact pottery, in the three microscopic photos above, we are seeing what newer fired-on finger prints look like. The original old ones (as can be seen in the Chenghua & Hongzhi Imperial ware article here on Timeless Artifact) show extensive wear and smoothing to the fingerprints, almost to the point where the entire fingerprint is obscured and worn down, even barely recognizable. These fingerprint marks, while being melted and rounded in the firing process, are still far too clear to be old and authentic Song Period prints. The lack of wear and scratches on the prints is very telling (even though they took more time to create this effect). Interestingly, a higher degree of quality coatings to simulate natural deposits at the bottom of this gaofang vase was employed than that used on the upper portions. This can be seen in the above photos as small replication dirt and detritus deposits in the grooves around the fingerprints. On some of the newer gaofangs we will be showing in future articles, the replicators have actually fired soil mixtures into the final glazes.
In the above three microscopic photos, we are looking at the area inside of the foot rim on the bottom of the vase. Once again we see where the replication deposits have been removed, the small bubbles associated with a gas-fired glaze to the bottom of the vessel, and the lack of any degradation to this glaze. In the first place, an authentic Song Dynasty Cizhou vase was not glazed on the inside of the foot rim, but rather white slip-sealed as was shown in the two previous vases in this article. In addition, an authentic Song Period piece would show extensive degradation and wear. The coating, made to resemble natural deposits, was very professionally concocted when this vase was made, and resembles some of the finest coatings we have found even on the modern gaofangs.
In this last microscopic photo of this article (taken at only 10X power), we are looking at the foot rim of the gaofang vase. By the red pigments used in the replicator’s coatings, along with the dark particles shown above, we can see the extent to which even the older reproductions were being subjected, to look as close as possible to authentic items of the period. This technique was most likely used to try to duplicate what you have seen in the microscopic photographs of the second vase in this article. The glazed foot rim itself is a dead giveaway, but remember that this was not visible until we used our high pressure water sprayer to remove portions of it. [Last note: even the famed, later Qianlong Imperial vases will show signs of wear under high magnification. These later items still had to be dusted and cleaned periodically of incense oil and the oily residues from the burning of coal fires. This will leave marks, on even the finest of porcelains, which can be viewed microscopically. If a vase or vessel does not show these fine wear marks, it is, in our opinion, either a reproduction or a totally re-glazed and re-fired item.]
David Fredericks – Yulongwei — US # 520-991-2153
