Archive for July, 2010

Authentic dZi & Indus Valley Beads De-Mystified

Fredericks-McIntire & Partner Collection

In these two first grouping photographs of the beads, which will be taken down to the microscopic level to show why a bead is truly old and not a reproduction, we offer a sample of what we have acquired (Pre-UNESCO Treaty- imported into the US). In this first article on beads, we have only the space to show the positive authenticating identifiers to look for in old beads of this type. Our ongoing research into our collection will result in future articles comparing authentic beads with their later replications from the 17Th, 18Th and 19Th Centuries, and will run all the way to the modern reproductions so often sold as authentic. The lots we have purchased came to us from two ‘adventurer’ types who first acquired these beads (and other pottery items we obtained) in the  Mid-East and Far East countries, and had stored them in a desert warehouse since the early 60′s to early 70′s period. [Some of the Song Dynastic Period pottery items still have their original coal oil and other contents still inside, along with their original straw and cloth stoppers]. The boxes of pottery and bags of beads we acquired were filthy with old dust from their long storage here in the desert, and accompanying all such lots were the obligatory reproductions collected from that time period. In between work on our other authentications, we have investigated some of the beads and have taken their authentication to the extreme, even further than we do for most of the jades shown on our Timeless Jade web site. All of the beads above have been subjected to repeated soakings in acetone, light oxalic acid, light bleach and intensive scrubbing with high concentrations of soap and water, both inside the holes and on the external surfaces. They have also been shot with our high pressure water sprayer (which will put a hole in human skin, if caution is not used). What you will be seeing in the photographs in this article are totally “in-situ” condition beads with only portions of their original dirt removed during the cleaning process.There were no recent waxes or artificial treatments ever discovered on any of the beads shown above. Some residual iron deposits have been found on some of the beads we have looked at, simply because they had been kept for a period of time in a metal container long ago, and then, some of the beads were the best efforts of the replicators up until the 60′s – 70′s period (none of which are shown here, but will be shown in a future article).

In this article we will be staying away from all the ‘mystifying’ stories that surround such beads, and will leave everyone to their own beliefs and imaginings. We also will not be delving into the techniques of manufacture in any great length, as we simply do not know enough about this process. What we will show is how to tell the many different identifiers of authentic age that still, to date, cannot be duplicated by the best of the replicators. Ages will also be approximated based on basic research, as we were not there when they were made, nor when they were lost or buried.

show

In the four above photographs, we have a type of small bead that appears similar to a type of bead shown in the wonderful book on beads – The History of Beads From 100,000 B. C. to the Present, Revised And Expanded Edition by Lois Sherr Dubin, showing up on her timeline chart from the Pakistan area (India) at approximately 600 BCE. While her description of the beads pictured on her timeline state ‘banded agate’, these two particular beads show more of an ‘etched agate’ style, with their definitive white band, the result of intentionally-added alkali treatment. They may be the same type of bead as described, or perhaps they were from another valley or location, but by the type of wear and degradation to the original tooling marks, and the extremely dense covering of manganese to be seen in the last two above photos under 20X & 30X microscopic power respectively, we would have no problem saying these two beads would fall into the 600 BCE timeline. However, the very heavy white coating on the beads could lead to a later date, as we find this thicker-layered, fired-on coating to be more in line with later beads from India, which, most likely, eventually worked their way up into the Himalayas, by way of trade, etc. As will be seen in the photographs of the older, most likely Indus Valley Period beads (currently described as 2,500 – 1,500 BCE, with evidence showing the original culture could be much older, and coming down to the Indus Valley area from the foothills above), the alkaline coatings do not appear as heavily applied (some with three well-defined layers eroding away) as the two beads above. In the first two photographs above, we see the obvious wear on both of the beads, and an unusual green tinting in some areas. In some places, this green has actually penetrated the agate surface to a slight degree and could well be associated with some type of copper or copper alloy penetration, from either the original stringing of the beads or an associated burial object (if the beads were once burial items). As with all the beads we will be showing in this article, none of our treatments that expose reproduction dyeing techniques changed any of these beads in appearance (while it did on the artificially treated beads we handled in the same manner).

In the first photograph above, we see three authentic Three-Eyed zDi bead types that average between 15 – 17 mm in length. The two microscopic photos above (taken at 20X & 30X power respectively) and the three microscopic photographs to follow after this paragraph, are of the center bead in the top photograph. All three beads display exactly the same type of construction, degradation and manganese deposits, and were almost certainly from the same necklace at one time (as are the others we have that match these three). The manganese growth deposits shown in the bottom two microscopic photos are inside the suspension hole running through the bead. All these types of true manganese growths, which will be shown throughout this article, are naturally occurring, and are not the usual ‘burnt-on’ carbonized sugars, or black paints used to simulate manganese on many types of replications (these artificial applications would have come right off in the extensive cleaning process all the beads have undergone). In the top photograph, we can see the lack of uniformity common to true beads with age, as these would have been hand made, one-at-a-time, from different agates. The other extreme authenticator can be found in the oxidation seen on the outside of the beads, and especially on the inside, in the deep degradation appearing as the whitened area beneath the manganese growth. This is natural degradation to the agate and not the light acid-etching we would find on a simulated bead. Seeing this type of degradation to the inside of these beads would lead us to suspect a rather moist burial environment for an extended period of time . In one of our earlier Timeless Jade articles which shows this type of degradation on old Paleolithic agates from Agate Basin in Utah, USA (which has seen a much drier climate), we partially explained this type of degradation. I once thought it was mostly caused by ultraviolet light, but am now beginning to believe it is caused more by moisture in the environment, as would be suggested by the difference between the inside of these beads (showing much more depth of degradation) and the outside. There are absolutely no signs of any type of modern re-polishing efforts, under microscopic examination, on any of the beads we will be showing in this article. What we are finding is degradation being more in-tune to the varying environments to which all the different beads were subjected – some conditions drier, some moister, and some more subjected to freezing and thawing.

In the three photographs above, we see a section of the the Three-Eyed dZi bead under 10X, 20X and 30X microscopic power respectively. In the center of all three photos, we can define a triangular-shaped, manganese crystalline growth that lies in a slight depression in the bead. What truly defines the authentic age of the bead, in conjunction with the manganese growth, is the track ‘eaten’ into the bead by a root of some plant over an extended period of time. This type of identifier can be found on most types of objects of ancient burial, but on stone objects it obviously takes a longer period to achieve the degree of depth we see here, than it does on pottery objects, as shown in our last Timeless Artifact article on a restored Tang Dynasty camel with riders. It would also stand to reason that a softer type stone (like a steatite) would be effectively ‘eaten into’ more quickly than a harder agate. To us, the most interesting aspect of this tree root track is best shown in the first photo, as the track starts over the lower, white, fired-on alkali portion, travels over the lower agate surface, and then rises over the upper alkaline application. This is not an anomaly of the agate stone, and can only be produced naturally over time. Stylistically, we would put this set of beads at an early period in their history, perhaps somewhere in the early CE timeframe, from India, but they could have a  500 – 700 CE timeframe as well. We will leave this determination to the dZi bead experts; however, their age is not modern.

In the above two photographs, we see two different sides of what Lois Sherr Dubin describes in her fabulous, aforementioned book as a “pure” Nine-Eyed dZi bead. While she puts this type of bead on her timeline around the 700 CE era, she explains that no one is truly sure of their exact dating. What we see here is an exquisite example of a Nine-Eyed dZi bead, with no damaged areas having been re-glued together. Measuring approximately 5 cm in length, it is like all the later beads (shown first in this article; the older beads will be explored in the second part of this article); drilled from both ends, the holes never meet up perfectly in the middle, as they do in most of the newer modern-tooled beads. All patinas seen in these two photos, and the following microscopic photographs, is original and un-altered in any way.

The three above photographs were all taken at 30X microscopic power over different areas of the surface on the Nine-Eyed dZi bead. After repeated cleanings in the solutions mentioned above, along with the many scrubbings of the dZi bead, what we see above are soils and manganese deposits that are literally adhering to the surface of the bead due to the extended period of time this bead has been in soil-surrounded conditions. We can also see the natural cracking to the surface of an old bead which has more than likely gone through hundreds of years of freezing and thawing. We see this crazing effect more in some beads, and less in others. There are some beads in our collection that are extremely split, and chips are coming off the wider cracks as a result of the continual contraction and expansion from the temperature changes. Indeed, some of beads have been broken into parts and re-glued together, while some are just fragments of beads, showing entire open drilled areas that are very nice for studying the old drilling marks and through-degradation. The main reason we present these particular photos above is that they show the continuity of deposits on the outside surface to the inside of the drilled hole, of original soils and manganese growth, which will be shown in the following photographs taken at the edge of the drill hole.

In the two photographs above, we are looking at an edge-view of the Nine-Eyed dZi bead at 20X and 30X microscopic power respectively. As mentioned in the above paragraph, the soil and manganese deposits are adhering to the inside of the drill hole the same way as on the outside, with the only difference being that they are more abundant on the inside of the drill hole. Remembering that the inside of the drill holes on all the beads in this article have had the same type of cleaning and scrubbing (we like to use the bristle-brush pipe cleaners on the inside of these small-bore holes) as the outsides have undergone, we would view the inside of the hole being more impregnated with deposits as an indication that the outside of the bead endured more wind-weathering (wind polish), due to having spent more time exposed to the elements, with the hole having more tendency to fill with dirt and detritus, which would naturally leave more deposits while protecting the internal surface from abrasion. The naturally weathered drilling-tool-marks shown in the top portion of  the drill hole above demonstrate this effect of extreme weathering on this bead, while the dirt packed into the center of the hole prevented similar wind-polishing, except at the very edge of the hole, where swirling sand and dirt particles partially polished this transitional area.

Starting now with the oldest beads we have in the collection, we come to the Indus Valley Civilization era. This first bead is an ‘etched agate’ approximately 4 cm in length. As mentioned before, this civilization most likely started thousands of years before in the foothills, and moved down into the Indus Valley as agriculture and city-states became larger and more centralized. In the first two photographs above, we have a design we have never seen in print before, which came scattered among other beads from the same time period. There are lots of beads with flower designs and some early “Earth Door-Sky Door” beads of etched agate. The main differences we can see with these earlier beads is the alkali was not as thickly applied (much like the etched carnelians of the Iran and Indus areas – sometimes only three distinct layers, weathering away naturally), and the age indicators are even more highly defined. While much of the manganese deposits are similar to the later beads, this can be explained simply as some areas had more natural manganese than others (similar to uranium, or any other mineral). In the last photograph above, we are looking into the drilled hole of the bead, and still find bits of manganese adhering to the old, degraded tooling marks left from the original drilling, approximately 3,500 years ago. In the next two sets of photographs, we will be looking at an indicator of extreme age that can not be faked, which we have found on selected items from China, the Americas and from the Indus Valley (and presumably, under the right conditions, could happen anywhere). Another great indicator of true age shown in the first two photographs above would be the manganese dendrites starting to grow into the white alkaline areas of the bead. This will be explained further with the last two massive topaz beads we will be presenting in this first article on authenticating and dating beads.

In the two above photographs (taken at 10X and 20X microscopic power respectively), we find an anomaly which we consider to be one of the rarest authenticating indicators that we look for on extremely old artifacts. What is being shown in the two photos above, and three photographs to follow, are petrified tree roots, in what we would consider their final stage, before they also start to wear and degrade away. This type of petrification only occurs under certain conditions of burial; what we find much more often is the tree root tracks (as shown above) where the root has eaten at the stone, died, and degraded away. We plan another article soon here on Timeless Artifact showing this process from the beginning stages, through the first mineralization stage, to what we see above in a fully petrified root that has actually exchanged ions with the mother material and become the material it once was growing upon. This process can be also be seen in the Ang Estate Collection – Shang Period Sardine Can Opener Man article, on a more-than-3,000-year-old nephrite jade figure on our Timeless Jade web site. This petrification process, even to the mineralization stage, we have never seen on anything buried in earth under 2,000 years old. We have seen it occur on shipwreck items from approximately 700 years, but those are much different conditions, and are more mineralized, with none of them (so far) reaching the stage of full petrification we see above.

In the three photographs above, we are looking at the opposite side of the bead shown in the previous two photos, at fully petrified tree roots which extend to both sides of a degraded crack; the white degradation is spreading into each side of the crack in the agate, another true indicator of age. With these types of petrified roots, we find the mass of the original root to have decreased in size, as would be expected of any plant material, while the ion exchange has been occurring. This type of fully agatized tree roots always stick up above the surface of the original stone, or pottery, on which they occur. While common thinking on such petrification is that it takes millions of years to occur, this is simply not the case, and actually starts to occur rather rapidly (under the right conditions), as can be seen in studies of the early detection of mineral exchange going on now in the Mount St. Helens, Washington State, USA volcanic eruption area, which most recently erupted only thirty years ago, in 1980. On an atomic and molecular level, the exchange actually starts fairly quickly, and it can certainly happen to something as small as a tree or grass root in the approximate 2,000 year old range. Also, in the above three photos, we can see the small, dark spots of manganese growth on top of the petrified roots, and in the first photo above, the manganese dendrites starting to penetrate and grow into the surface of the white, fired-on alkali. Again, none of the surfaces of any of the beads presented in this article show any signs, under even higher magnification, of any re-cutting or re-polishing efforts, and it is inconceivable to suggest that anyone has the tooling expertise to ‘manufacture’ such an effect as seen above.

We will end this article showing two of the massive Topaz beads which belong to a set we acquired at the same time as all the other beads shown here. In the two photographs above, we are looking at the most degraded of the two beads shown in the first photos of this article, the one to the viewer’s right. Measuring approximately 11 cm in length, 4-1/2 cm in width and 2-1/2 cm in depth, it is one of over twenty beads in what believe is a matching set. There are another five or six massive topaz beads we acquired along with these that do not quite match this particular set in color and similar degradation. These other beads and the rest of this set are still under investigation, as only five beads have undergone the cleaning process described above. At first, we thought these beads to be drilled completely through and remnants of original string observed inside. We resisted the cleaning of these beads for years because they were so “in-situ” in appearance. It was decided that for this article, we would subject some of the beads to the exacting cleaning process we used on all the beads shown here. What we have found after the cleaning is that they are truly in an almost pure “in-situ” condition, as all deposits, degradation and wear are natural; what we did not expect to find, after shooting out the holes with our high pressure water sprayer, was that they were never drilled all the way through. Only the ends of all the beads were drilled, and all to the depth of approximately 1-1/2 cm. We can only surmise as to why this occurred, but it was likely due to the hardness of the topaz, the length of the beads themselves, and because they were not strung, but rather, were pinned with a metallic substance and fashioned into an extremely large necklace using ornate metal, which was either not recovered with the beads, or was removed by the original finders of these magnificent specimens. In the last photo of this article, we will show that it was most likely the latter of the two reasons why the accompanying metal was not passed on with the beads.

All three of the above photographs were taken at 30X microscopic power. The first two show portions of the outside of the first, large bead above, and the last photo is of the worn tooling marks and degradation to the inside edge of one side of a drilled hole. In both of the top two photos, we can easily see the depth of the pitting from natural degradation, soil penetration into the topaz after long term burial, and the manganese deposits that have grown inside of some of the depression areas. What needs to be explained here is that the red coloring to the topaz bead appears to be some sort of an applied iron oxide, just as the white alkali was applied and fired on. It is our opinion that they chose these magnificent topaz beads for their “power”, but still wanted to have the etched agate look to them. On the white alkali ‘Eyes’ (some of these beads have as many as 30 Eyes on them), we can detect three distinct coatings of the alkali, and whether they were fired on at separate times, or all at once, we do not know. The layering of the oxides to color the stone red was performed in the same manner in successive layers. In the last photograph above, the ancient tooling marks in the bead show exactly the type of degradation we would expect to see, both to the pitting and rounding of the drilling marks and the whitish degradation appearing on the outside of the tooling grooves. Bits of original soil and detritus can also be seen in this last photo, clinging to the degradation even after undergoing such a powerful water spraying and prior cleaning.

With these above three ‘full’ photographs of the last bead in this article, we find that one of two beads in this set shows several anomalies, and yet the fact that they belong to the set of over twenty is not in question. The anomalies stem more from the fact that topaz, like nephrite jade, jadeites and all stone, are not as homogenous as thought when examining specimens of differing origins. Not all stones are absolutely pure in all areas of the specimen, as can easily be understood and demonstrated with diamonds. That is why there is a grading system, and even different parts of the same stone, or gem, differ. This particular bead above shows different aspects to it, yet still comes from the same set, in our studied opinion. In this first photograph above, we see very similar characteristics to the bead shown in the previous set of photos above; the same coloring, much of the same degradation and the same type of natural soil penetration from long term burial. However, at the bottom of the stone we see, under microscopic conditions, what appear to be extremely deep (for this type of material) tree root penetration tracks. While this bead alone could make for an entire article here on Timeless Artifact, we only have a limited amount of space and time (this time) to show some of the features of this bead. In the second photograph above, we see that most of the bead surface has been altered by some condition of burial, in that almost the entire side of the bead has a yellowish tint to it, and has degraded in a different manner than the top, and the opposite side of the bead. Perhaps this was caused from corrosive, decomposing body fluids, or perhaps the yellowing and darkened area in the middle were the effect of excessive heat, such as could be created by a pre-internment ritual burning. The fact is, we do not know the exact cause, and more research is most assuredly needed on these beads. In this article, we can only generalize, but when viewed in the third photo above, the effect can be clearly discerned. In the following microscopic photographs, we can again only go into a portion of this exquisite, specimen bead, and as our intention in this article is only to show true age identifiers, we will have to focus on certain areas more than others. As always, we would invite any qualified scholar (by appointment only) to view any item in our collection, or any collection we represent.

In these final three photographs (taken at 30X microscopic power), we will be showing three entirely different types of extreme age identifiers, which have been touched on previously in this article, with a few more bits of additional explanation. In the first photo above, we find evidence on this last bead of archaic tooling marks found on certain portions on the outside surface. These  rounded and degraded tooling marks, left from when the bead was first formed, have been found on a few portions of this set of topaz beads. In particular, they have been found on areas that test to the highest levels of topaz on a Presidium Gem Tester (even under the degraded condition of the beads). They appear to be the hardest and most dense areas of the beads, which we see under microscopic conditions. Whatever some lab testers may say about the ‘Presidium’, we have personally worn out five of these machines and are now working on our sixth. If used properly, and with literally millions of probes on differing materials, we have found the machine to be a fabulous guide in determining certain stones. While anomalies exist with this machine (as with all calibrated testing equipment), it can be used on most common gem stones with a high degree of accuracy, in our opinion. So much so, we have yet to be seriously challenged by any ‘high’ laboratory – and again, it is described as a ‘guide’. Any qualified expert wishing to test this set of beads is more than welcome to have a test sample at their expense. As these are the only tooling marks found on the outside of either the agate beads or the topaz beads, and under microscopic examination the structure appears extremely dense in this area, and given the fact that these areas seem to have taken on less degradation than other parts, all this would collectively indicate to us that these areas are indeed a bit ‘tougher’, which should be expected, as stones are not all homogenous.

In the second photograph above, we find a very clear area of manganese dendritic growth occurring inside a natural fissure in the topaz, and down into the minuscule cracks and pores of the topaz bead. While there are all kinds of stones with manganese dendrites to be found, all over the world, these ones are occurring only on the surface portions of an ancient polished bead. We have nephrite jade examples from Wyoming, USA that have dendrites going through 5″ of jade ‘rough’, but these have grown over periods of millions of years as the stone worked its way up to the surface from approximately 30 miles below, and then have weathered there for an extreme amount of time. This is not what we find on this bead and the other Indus Valley timeframe bead above. Here, we are seeing manganese dendritic growth on the surface only, and not inside the interior of the stones. This is a true indicator of artifact age and not just the stone’s age.

In the last photograph above, we are looking into the the drill hole of this bead, and as with the similar bead above, we can see the ancient weathered, degraded drill tooling marks and the degradation to the topaz in the whitened area on top of the tooling marks. Dark manganese deposits can be seen as well going deeper into the drilling hole, that most likely held the metallic pins for a superb necklace of archaic origin. On the outside edge of the drilling hole we have found on this bead only (so far), the remnants of what could have been the metal used for the pins and perhaps the entire necklace — gold. While only a portion of this set of beads has been cleaned to date, what we originally thought to be the remnants of string are, under closer examination, more like a waxy or resinous coating to the inner walls of the beads, which has picked up some fibers over time. More of these beads will be cleaned in the future, and we may leave some of them as they are now to show the contrast. Obviously, we hope to find more gold around and inside other drill holes, as well.

Again in closing, we will never know all there is to know about all of the beads shown in this first bead article, mainly because they were not received directly from a controlled archeological dig, but at least they can still be studied under controlled circumstances, and they are not completely broken up, nor hiding in a warehouse, or out traveling through uncontrolled hands at present.

All full bead photographs were taken with Canon EOS XSi using Canon’s Ef 24-70mm f/2.8L Lens

All high magnification photographs were taken with Canon EOS XSi under microscopic power.

David Fredericks — Yulongwei

Timeless Jade

Timeless Artifact

Your email:

 



Incredibly Restored Tang Dynasty Camel With Riders

Fredericks-McIntire Collection Restored Camel Measurements: 17-1/2″ H X 12-1/2″ W X 5-1/4″ D

In this modern world of art-collecting, we have been seeing a trend of items having to be in perfect condition for some people to find any value or wonderment. Yet when we see a fine piece of artwork that has had restoration, we personally still feel the same type of awe and wonder that we experienced when we were young and strolled the different museums with their marvelous collections. We saw so many fine, old examples of ancient pottery with pieces missing and filled in with white plaster, and it never took the wonderment away, as old burial artifacts were always supposed to be ‘old’ and restorations were always, to us, more authenticating. To me personally, the fact that the Qin Dynasty Emperor’s famous four bronze horses, with chariot, were restored out of over 20,000 pieces, does not take away the value of those marvelous bronze period pieces, but rather, adds to both their authenticity and their magical beauty. Old things should look old. Old bronzes deteriorate over time – old pottery items break and need restoration, as well. Old jade and stone items degrade and many times are re-polished, so that the beauty of the original stone can be seen again. While the occasional unbroken piece is found, to us, this does not suggest that restored items of artistic and historical significance have no value, just because they have deteriorated or broken, and are now fixed and ready for the world to examine. So many fine restored pieces reside in all the world’s most famous museums, and the fact that they are not always disclosed by a giant brass placard, nor the degree of restoration described, does not diminish the fact that the item is authentic and culturally significant.

With this early Tang Dynasty ‘braying’ style camel with man and monkey riders, we are going to attempt to show that not only is the sculpture original (although partially restored), but also, that  the extent to which it was restored is remarkable in its own right, and to us an absolute masterpiece of creative workmanship. We considered originally doing a two-part series, with one part showing what you will see in this article, and a second article after the restorations had been mostly removed. But, to us, it is also in the amount of time and care taken to do this type of restoration that  lies part of its intrinsic beauty, and we just do not wish to destroy literally years of work. It is also a great item to view under microscopic conditions, showing authenticating indicators that would never stand a chance of being accurately TL tested, no matter where it was drilled, due to its having been re-fired,.

In the three photos above, we find by far the strongest indicators for the initial work of creative restoration. In the first photo above, you are looking at the bottom of the restored plinth (or platform) to which the feet of the camel are attached. In this photo, you will see dark black spots of paint that were applied to imitate the original manganese deposits still remaining on the untouched portions of the camel and riders (this will be much better defined in the following Macro and microscopic photographs). In the second photograph above, we can see the same black paint spots added to the hole on the underside of the camel, and in the third photo we are looking down inside the hole at the same type of black paint spots used to simulate true manganese deposits. What we are seeing here is a restored and ‘strengthened’ portion of the hole in the belly. It appears that the hole had developed a crack along the middle mold line, and the restorer wanted to stabilize this portion of the camel so it would not proceed any further. When we get up deeper inside of the hole, we find no more of the black paint spots, and the remaining dirt and deposits are much closer to what one would find on a more in-situ sculpture. The inside of the camel has just been rinsed with water, and the dirt that had adhered to the repaired portion came right off, while the remaining dirt on the upper portion stayed in place. It also reeked of the ‘tomb’ odor we all look for in an old artifact, but then, this piece had been buried after the initial repairs for so long, that it would have taken on this smell, anyway. The fact that the plinth and bottom portion of the hole cleaned up so easily would indicate that the repairs to these areas were later, and would hint that further inside, we would be looking at more authentic soil deposits. This comprises the entire cleaning efforts performed by us on this camel and riders, and we left the external surface in “as received” condition, for reasons which will become obvious as we progress with this study.

All above photos taken with Canon EOS XSi using Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L Lens

In these first close-up photographs above, we can start to see some of the extent of the restoration, which will become increasingly clear as we go on. Now, some people will say  ”I can tell by the bright colored paint that this camel and riders are either fakes, or restored”. However, this would not be a ‘true’ statement, as there are literally thousands of examples of bright mineral pigment-colored items dating back thousands of years that show no differently in photographs than the colors above. There are extremely well known Han Dynasty oranges that show no different than what we see in the above photographs. The same is true with the yellows and greenish-yellows. There are dark reds and brighter reds on old authentic artifacts, and all the colors mentioned can be found on a true authentic piece, including the pinks.

Now, with all that said, what we are starting to see in the above photos is the contrasts of colors from two different burial periods. One of the contrasts is mostly from original long-term burial, and the other is from creative use of pigments under a much shorter term burial (but not a month or two, as is usual). Tree root tracks are starting to become visible over much of the exterior, as indeed are the tree and grass roots themselves in the current coating of soils in most (but not all) places. In the top photo above, in this series of four, we start to see original manganese, and there are traces of original pigment becoming visible in small areas. We have new root tracks over old manganese in the first photo, and fresh paint bleeding down into original paint, as can be seen around the tip of the camel’s tail in the second photo. In the third photo, we see a huge piece of original manganese growth in the upper left of the picture, and a new root hanging down between the body and the leg. In the fourth photo we can start to see more of the original red on the leg of the rider (which is a very close match to the rider’s red jacket – but not close enough, as will be seen later) to the left of the picture, and new tree roots in the folds of the saddle/tent.

Above three photos taken with Canon EOS XSi using Canon MPE 65mm f/2.8 1-5X Lens

In the three photographs above, we are looking at the bottom of the plinth and the fake black paint spots, made to represent the true manganese deposits we will be seeing in the microscopic photos. Taken at 1X, 3X and 4X Macro respectively, these paints spots actually look closer to the way real manganese can look (especially in the higher magnification photos), simply because of the rougher surface of the bottom of the plinth on which they were applied. On the smooth surfaces, it looks much more like paint spots, with softer color in the middle and darker black edges where the fresh paint ‘ran’ to, before drying. In the first photograph above and the previous close-up of the bottom of the plinth, it is quite evident that this is not manganese crystalline growth.

Three above photos & all following photos taken with Canon EOS XSI under Microscopic Power At 10X – 20X – 30X Power in succession,  except where noted.

In the three above photographs, what you are seeing is new tree-root growth (and most likely from different years and perhaps plant species, with some starting to deteriorate, already) from extended burial after the camel and riders were first restored. This is the same area as seen above in the vicinity where the saddle meets the wide part of the camel’s body. With the ‘depth of field’ causing some areas to be less focused, we can still clearly see the different root growths, and especially in photos one and two, the roots as they were growing into the dirt that was by that time, starting to adhere to the surface of the pottery camel. Natural detritus from rotting vegetive matter is now adhering over what is left of the old original dirt, detritus and manganese deposits. While there are still large spaces that remain in almost-original burial condition after the subsequent removal from the secondary burial, and the cleaning that followed to make the camel appear more “natural” and less completely covered in mud, this original burial-condition ‘look’ also occurs because large sections of the original camel were left untouched by this master restorer, as he/she did such a wonderful job of re-painting, and not-re-painting, that which was fixed and not fixed. The restraint demonstrated by such a restorer is to be respected and admired, in our opinion.

In the above three photographs, we can start to see the more of definitive signs of restoration, re-burial and deposits from the original Tang Dynasty Period. The area photographed above is on the saddle, an area that was re-painted after the camel had been fixed and re-fired. In all three photos, we can see the greenish yellow paint that was applied. What needs to be explained here is that this paint was applied over original manganese deposits (best seen in the first photograph, because it has a larger field of view). It is the blackest areas under the yellow paint which are the true manganese deposits that take so much time to naturally occur in such large quantities. Not all Tang Dynasty burial items have such a degree of natural manganese deposits on them, for many reasons, one of which is that at the height of the Tang Dynasty, the land area under its control was massive, and not all regions were supportive of such manganese crystalline growth. One could look at it in this manner :  you do not go mining for uranium in a place with no uranium deposits. The same holds true for gold, copper, zinc, etc., or anything else, for that matter.  Some areas have more manganese than others, and some areas are moister and are more prone to growth of the manganese crystals, which, I believe, would take a lifetime or two of study to truly understand all of its secrets. (We will be doing an article here, in the future, on different manganese crystalline growth patterns) Suffice it to say that enough is known at present from studies of ancient pottery and other items from around the world, along with known manganese dendrites growing deep into nephrite jade and other stones, that we can ‘expound’ on it a bit.

The three photographs above were taken on the rounded edge of the left leg of the camel rider, as seen in the very first photograph of this article. This area was chosen because it shows original wear to the sculpture that has not been re-painted. In fact, the entire leg of the rider shows up with original paint, looking slightly darker than the repaired body of the rider, which was masterfully painted to match, after the the body was most likely re-attached. Having undergone an extensive re-burial, with the resulting degradation to the mineral-based replacement paint from the soil, tree roots, microbial and fungal growth ‘attacks’ (which, interestingly, we never find mentioned in most journals as a cause of degradation), the matching is quite remarkable, but still detectable to those looking with a trained eye and microscopic view. Even on the rounded area of the original, unrestored or re-painted leg (which would receive the most tectonic wear from both burials), we find original manganese deposits in all progressive magnifications. Other areas of the re-painted surfaces (with their added black paint spots) will be shown in the additional photos below.

In the above three photographs, we find once again the painted black spots on a portion of the face of the ‘foreigner’ rider on the top of the camel. We chose this section because it shows that the paint was first put on the rider’s face and then scuffed to make it look like the paint had worn off naturally (as it does from tectonic movements and subsequent cleaning after removal from a burial site). The black-painted spots were added after the partial removal of the pink, to help make it appear that the manganese had grown on this portion after years of burial. It is a tremendous effect, and the planning effort was superb. After this, the entire piece was re-buried for an extreme amount of time. This type of advanced planning is definitely not unknown in history, as here in Tucson, a grandfather once made old-looking pottery and then buried it for his grandson, to uncover and then sell digging rights on their property (this scheme was uncovered, however). The difference here is the extent of perfection this master took to think out all the possibilities, from restoring the plinth and putting the head and body back on, and most likely the arms of the monkey, to the well-thought-out re-painting, the use of the right painting materials and their matching colors, the ‘aging’ process of abrading off the paints in certain areas to appear authentic, and the addition of the black paint spots that in some cases really do look similar to genuine manganese deposits. If he/she had gone a bit further and added some crystalline black sand (finally ground) to the black paint before re-burial, and re-worked the newer painted areas a bit more carefully, we would have had a much harder time detecting the restorations. The re-burial portion was so well-executed, and an absolute masterpiece of the restorer’s art (estimated between 25-50 years), that with all of this taken into consideration, this original Tang Dynasty camel is, to us, still a piece of perfection, even if it may have been meant to deceive, and not just restore.

With the three photographs above, we find ourselves again at the area where the yellowish paint was applied over the saddle, but in a grooved spot between the folds. In the first photo, we can again see the yellow paint over original manganese, as shown before. What we start to see in these three photographs is all about the time of re-burial. While the original pictures of the roots we showed around the saddle area were mostly of those not quite touching the camel, these photos show better how long the re-burial was, as we start to see where roots are growing above the surface, removed roots which show they had just stated to attach to the new yellow painted area, and one root which has actually burrowed under and through the new surface. It takes time, and only time, for this effect to occur. It means the root had to live long enough on the piece to actually start to effect the surface conditions. In addition, the microbial and fungal growths would be occurring at the same time and effecting the surface conditions, as well. This is what we see under the microscope as the newest re-painted areas are starting to minutely deteriorate as well. There is still a vast difference seen between these areas and the ancient, almost in-situ areas of the original painted surfaces, but it is very hard to detect with the naked eye or even with a 10-power loupe. A highly trained eye could detect it, but to one unaccustomed to such things, the sight of the tree roots alone would convince them of the item’s originality. Also, if we had not cleansed the inside of the camel and the bottom of the plinth of its re-burial mud, it would have been even that much harder to detect. As we know of no true forensic studies completed on these type of reproductions with extensive new root growth, we may actually be off in our dating of re-burial by as much as 50 years earlier. What we do know for sure is that we see no evidence of new manganese growth, which is the true indicator, on this aged piece of original art.                                                         The next two photos were both taken with our Canon EOS XSi under 20 X magnification, and will show some of the further restoration, before we get to the final photographs of this article, which show true age conclusively.

In these two photographs above, taken at 20X magnification, under the microscope we get a further glimpse of the abilities of this phenomenal restorer (at least in our opinion). In photo one, we can see an area of the camel which has been just lightly touched with the new red paint over the authentic Tang Dynasty Period surface. The red paint, in photo one, overlays the true manganese deposits below. In the second photograph, we find another original period surface with original period red paint. The only possible addition to in-situ conditions would be some of the remaining dirt (from re-burial) on the area shown in photo two. In some places where the ‘scuffing’ of the re-painted surface and subsequent long term re-burial have occurred, it is only here in these smallest of details that we can find evidence of a masterful restoration.

With these final three photographs, we have on this camel with riders, the indicators of a true artifact of the Tang Dynastic Period that we consider impossible to replicate. Under actual microscopic viewing, it is much easier to get the full depth of what we are going to explain, simply because the piece can be moved around, eliminating the ‘depth of field’ issues which accompany this type of photography. In all three photos, what you are viewing is the track of a tree root, decomposed long ago, that grooved deeply into the original clay surface and deposited the manganese it had taken up during its growth, directly onto the surface on which it grew and eventually died. This can be seen as a distinct line of manganese deposits amongst the crystalline growths of original manganese that grew to each side of the line. The depth of the groove in which the tree root ate away at the clay body, and the extent of the manganese deposited, will always be true indicators of extreme age in ancient burial objects. We can be reasonably assured that this artifact came from a rather moist area, rich in manganese, but as discussed earlier, the Tang Dynasty at its height was a vast country, and not all Tang artifacts will show anywhere near this amount of true manganese deposits – other examples and identifiers for differing areas will be coming for items of this general age, older and newer – from some of the earliest potteries to some of the newest porcelains, in future articles slated for this educational site. We have heard of some very interesting studies being conducted at Harvard University explaining this effect, and the dating of artifacts by root growth and deposit analysis. On our Timeless Jade web site, we show some petrified tree roots on a Shang Period jade artifact from the Ang Collection, and indeed intend an article here soon showing some of the different stages of petrification of organic matter on true artifacts from different sources and locations. While some readers may find this hard to believe, the actual process of petrification begins, under the right conditions, rather quickly on a microscopic level, and is not what used to be commonly declared in the older text books, nor is it widely accepted to this day by many folks who still adhere to what they learned in the past. As is true in all subjects, there is no limit to learning, and if allowed and nurtured, the process continues, often in unexpected directions and ways.

In closing, what we have tried to do in this article is provide interested parties some new ways of looking at authentic artifacts, whether in-situ or restored, and to bring back into focus that a genuine artifact is still real, even if restored. And, some restorations are just simply incredible. We would estimate (without destroying the restoration) that this wonderful piece is still in almost 90% authentic condition, as most of the restoration appears to be for the purpose of stabilizing the plinth area (and not by replacing it with a new plinth), and the hole in the belly of the camel, the very likely re-attachment of the head and body of the rider, and some restorations to the arms and perhaps head of the monkey. The rest was mostly cosmetic, and was marvelously conceived and executed.

David Fredericks — Yulongwei

Timeless Jade

Timeless Artifact

Your email: