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

TimelessJade.com

TimelessArtifact.com

Jade Through The Ages Show

Mullen Collection Song Dynasty Wooden Guanyin measurements: 202cm Height X 82cm Width X 75cm Depth

To begin this new series in microscopic detection of Authentic vs. Restored vs. the differing Grades of Replications, we have chosen this first article to show a magnificent wooden Guanyin from the Mullen Estate, of which we represent some exquisite and extremely rare items. This massive wooden Guanyin was made from a single tree, with no ‘attached’ parts, and was purchased by the Mullen Estate many years ago at a Californian auction. We have been representing this marvelous piece of Northern Song Dynasty workmanship since long before the current UNESCO Treaty (effective date for both countries, January 14th, 2009), which permanently‘ grandfathers’ the piece legally in the US. Besides the overall beauty of this very important work of fine art, its tremendous size is of particular note. It towers above the famous Song Dynasty Guanyin in a well-known English museum, and also the one that just sold this year at auction in HongKong for well over one million US dollars. It is so large that just to take the full photograph with our new Canon EOS T1i Camera, using our Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L lens, I had to stand in a completely different gallery at our location, over 20 feet away. With a quality lens, it can not be taken in the same room in which it sits. When first loaded for delivery to Tucson years ago, the weight of the statue broke a one-thousand pound pallet upon which it was loaded, and had to be reattached to a much larger wooden pallet for delivery. Since it has been in Tucson, Arizona for many years, we are very certain it has lost much of its water weight (perhaps even as much as third of its original weight), but one simply does not just move this statue around, for reasons beyond the weight alone. It is close to a thousand years old, and while in exquisite condition, the less one moves an authentic Song period wooden masterpiece around, the better;  the original paint is fragile, and the original rotting to the outside surface of the lower portion (which will be shown in higher detail) can flake off. However, given its age, the overall condition of this piece is incredible, and totally lacks the much more common degradation from termites, beetles, and such, which one would expect on a sacred item of its age. We will explore this in more depth as we continue on with the article.

The above three photographs were taken with the same equipment mentioned above (as far away from the Guanyin as we could get in the gallery in which it sits), and had to be photographed in three sections of bottom, middle and top thirds. We have never seen a wooden Guanyin of the period, in any museum collection, or one having ever been sold at auction, as large as this one, and its presence in the gallery is truly magnificent. We believe the Guanyin to be of the Northern Song Period (960-1127 CE) due to its remarkable condition, which in our opinion, would have to have been from a colder climate, and most likely was in an indoor temple setting, due to the highly unusual lack of aforementioned degradation from beetles, ants and termites. As can be easily seen in the top photograph, the wooden base has sustained some water damage in the form of ‘wood rot’ over its long history (most likely from ‘wicking’ moisture from the stone floor upon which it most probably rested). There are places on the back of its massive base which are even further degraded, but the overall integrity of the base is extremely sound, and just minor areas of darker wood rot lie on top of the more solid, original wood beneath. In the years we have shown this Guanyin, experts from both sides of the Pacific Ocean have marveled at it, and we can not remember anyone seriously questioning its authenticity. At the same time, the experts who have viewed it have stood far away (one would expect to take in its grandiose beauty), but we have yet to see anyone wishing to examine the piece closely and in detail. As this is not our nature, we have examined the entire Guanyin and have inspected it under 10, 20, and 30x power loupes. This is how we found the old repairs, which only contribute further to the authenticity;  old things are old, and should most definitely display some indicators of age. Take for example, the old repair, as can be seen vaguely in the last photograph above, where the natural cracking has taken place down through the left eye of the Guanyin, spreading downward through the chest area, separating beads in the necklace. The fact that this area has been repaired long ago will be examined further in this article; however, the original piece had cracking in it from the natural ‘seasoning’ of the tree before it was sculpted into this magnificent Guanyin.

With the above three close-up photographs, again taken with the Canon EOS T1i camera using Canon’s EF 24-70mm f/2.8L lens, we will be exploring some of the original techniques for preparation of the tree for sculpting, and get a look at portions of the later repair in some detail. [Please note: while all our photographs, here and on our Timeless Jade website, are run through Photoshop's Lightroom program, we only adjust the cropping, lighting (as different lighting conditions vary the clarity) and the tone settings. No false color images are used in our articles, and we adjust the settings only to help us reveal what our eyes really see under normal lighting conditions, and what our equipment reveals]. In the first photograph above, we are looking at the right hand of the Guanyin where it lies resting over the naturally shaped tree stump she sits upon. In this photo we can see how the wood was prepared, prior to final, colored paint application. As our next article here will be regarding two in-situ Song Dynasty Cizhou white-with-brown decoration Mei vases, and an (at minimum) eight-year old replication, under microscopic examination, we are concerned here with the same type of base coatings applied to both the wood Guanyin and the Song Vases. While the pottery slip coatings were fired onto the finished shapes, before the final two glazes (white and then brown decoration) were applied and fired on, it is obvious that these slip coatings could not be fired onto a wooden piece (these white slip coatings were also used during the Tang Dynasty). However, the principle of use is much the same – to seal the rough clay surfaces, and to seal the grain pores on the wooden objects prior to final design features. As we will see in the Macro photos to come, there were three different sealant coatings used on the Mullen Guanyin before the application of the final colored paint. The first base layer was a thick grey colored coating, the second was the much more familiar white coating (found on Cizhou and Cizhou-type pottery wares), and the third was another thinly applied and finer- textured grey sealant. The first, heavier, grey layer appears to be used primarily to seal the wood pores. The second (also heavier) white layer of of what seams to be a lime-based sealant also would have helped seal the wood, and at the same time smooth out any minuscule imperfection from the carving and sanding of the wood. The third grey coating (which can be seen just below the bangle area, in the viewers upper left of the photo) lies between the yellow paint and the thicker white sealant, and appears to be much thinner and more refined.

In the final two photos above, we are looking at an area of the old repaired section mentioned earlier. In both of the photographs, only the center section from a developing crack were repaired, with the sides retaining their original coatings and final Song Period paint. (These two photos were also taken with Canon’s EF 24-70mm f/2.8L lens). In the center of each photo, we can quite clearly see the cloth used to repair the developing crack. What is harder to see is in the last photo, in the area of the hole from a missing piece of the repair, are the tiny fibers of the cloth surrounding the hole. While it is not possible for us to just pick this massive Guanyin up and take it to our microscope for more in depth photography, it appears under a common loupe quite clearly – but only in this section of the Guanyin and over the top of the original three sealants and final paint of the Song Dynasty Period. It has resisted detection for so long by viewers simply because it shows up far better under the brighter lights we had on the sculpture while photographing. From just a foot away, under normal lighting, this repair takes a very trained eye to be observed in any detail. That it is an old repair is not in doubt by us at this time (there may be enough material to Carbon 14 date) as it shows its own particular wear and penetration of airborne incenses and possibly coal oils, as does the entire statue. These types of penetrations are to be highly expected on above-ground artifacts of worship, as the temple often had incense burning (some incense ‘sticks’ were coiled and so massive they burned for over 50 years). All wear on the original painted surfaces shows up as natural, from touching, wind-borne particles, and natural bacterial decomposition, and no signs of artificial aging can be detected.

In the three photographs above, we are looking at an area just to the left of the Guanyin’s left hand (as shown in the previous set of photos), and in an area in which the wood rot extends from the very bottom of the statue up to the edge of the tree on which the Guanyin rests her hand. There are much deeper wood rot areas (some as deep as 3-4″) on the bottom area of the statue, but we chose this spot because it is the least rotted away, and meets the original three sealants on the edge. The grey we see in the three photos above is not the first grey sealant coating, but rather a minor rotted portion of the wood that has turned grey with exposure to sunlight. The lighter portions of the wood are areas where the grey has ‘chipped’ off over time with the movement, handling and shipping of the Guanyin. Pieces of this fragile rotted wood still ‘flake’ off from time to time, on their own, and we are very careful in letting no one pick at it (as it is always a great temptation for most people to want to touch an authentic piece – much the same as it was when the item was in its original place of worship, and the Chinese would offer prayers and touch items like the wooden Guanyin and the bronzes and ceramic deities). In all three photographs above, we can easily see the rot extending deeper into the wood in both the grey and the lighter areas. The one marvelous advantage to having these exposed areas of the original hard wood surface is that the Guanyin can be easily Carbon 14 tested, should any Chinese museum (as both the owners and ourselves would prefer for the piece to return home) desire to have the test performed for themselves, as there so many places in which it could be tested (the wood of the tree should date back into the Tang Dynastic period), without harming the sculptural beauty. Also, the lack of termite and other bug damage can be easily viewed in all three close-up photos above. This would lend us to believe the Guanyin was an inside temple artifact which rested on a solid stone foundation. As mentioned earlier, the rot may have come over the centuries from the wicking up of moisture, into the original bottom of the statue. This moisture may have been present on a stone floor, and it was probably the stone floor which protected the Guanyin from the insect damage so commonly found in these and later period pieces from the Ming and Qing Dynasties. The fact that it is in such remarkable condition would also lead us to believe in the Northern Song Dynasty dating, as it would logically have tended to have more vector damage if it were from the Southern Song Dynasty area, which comprised an area of warmer temperate regions, which would have been less resistant to these vectors than a much cooler Northern climate.

In the two photographs above, we get as close as we reasonably need to for this beginning article on microscopic detection techniques of ancient artifacts (almost all the following articles will be accompanied with microscopic photography). Because of the massive nature of this Guanyin, and not wanting to build any scaffolding on which to mount our microscopic equipment, with its fully articulating arm, which will lock into a myriad of positions, we chose to use our Canon EOS T1i camera using Canon’s MPE 65mm f/2.8 1-5X Macro lens. The Canon Macro lens is not what is found on the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L lens. It is a true magnifier and a wonderful complement to any photographer’s inventory. With this wonderful lens, we could get clear photos under the 1X and 3X settings on the lens, as can be seen in the photos above. However, we could not get the 5X setting photos to come out, as we did not have enough lighting for the lens to be so close to the subject. With Canon’s light attachment for the Camera and lens, we would have been able to show the 5X, but then it narrows down the field of vision to such a point where the depths of the original Song Dynasty final paint and the three sealant coatings would not be seen.

In both of the photographs above, we can see all four of the original coatings of sealants and final paint. In the first photograph, it shows up the clearest as the depth of field is not as exaggerated as we find in the second photo taken at 3X. By studying the first photo above in detail, you will be able to discern the original wood surface, the first grey layer of sealant, the second layer of thicker white sealant, the final thin layer of grey sealant, and the original layer of Song Dynasty blue paint. This is not just a particular area we chose to show specific findings, but rather the entire Guanyin can be viewed the same as we see above (with the only exception being in the repaired area, photographed and shown above in this article). On top of the final layer of Song Dynasty period paint, we can also detect the aforementioned, darkened areas of either incense or coal oil (or both) penetration and coating.

David Fredericks –Yulongwei — US # 520-991-2153

TimelessJade.com

TimelessArtifact.com

Jade Through The Ages Show

In October, 2010 David Fredericks gave a Keynote Speaker Presentation at the Big Sur Jade Festival In California. On Friday it was attended by a wonderful lady attending this most wonderful Jade Festival. For the Saturday two hour presentation she wanted to YouTube the entire two hour event (which ran almost three hours every day).

So, from darshini-inspirit.com all thirteen video’s are under : inspirit.darshini and each video link is posted below.

We hope you all enjoy the links and the presentation, which in accordance to the Big Sur Jade Fest , as a whole, is casual and free-flowing. We thank Darshini from the bottom of our heart for all the hard work and attention she freely and most generously provided.

Jade Lecture – (Part 1 of 13) TimelessJade – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJybsJFUoHs

Jade Lecture – (Part 2 of 13) TimelessJade – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55z6kBTa3yI

Jade Lecture – (Part 3 of 13) TimelessJade – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vy0HJcxCoN4

Jade Lecture – (Part 4 of 13) TimelessJade – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UH4Ti1qJiec

Jade Lecture – (Part 5 of 13) TimelessJade – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAvxyqLS8Uw

Jade Lecture – (Part 6 of 13) TimelessJade – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzHv7DPKejI

Jade Lecture – (Part 7 of 13) TimelessJade – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbNjI9j0IcM

Jade Lecture – (Part 8 of 13) TimelessJade – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNOBlCl6MW8

Jade Lecture – (Part 9 of 13) TimelessJade – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9y6eaNIYYvE

Jade Lecture – (Part 10 of 13) TimelessJade – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAdW8dPfeNY

Jade Lecture – (Part 11 of 13) TimelessJade – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7LGKrItnaQ

Jade Lecture – (Part 12 of 13) TimelessJade – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beLX8pD3D_s

Jade Lecture – (Part 13 of 13) Timeless Jade – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCY7uIW6-no

David Fredericks — Yulongwei

TimelessJade.com

TimelessArtifact.com

]]> http://timelessartifact.com/thirteen-youtube-presentations-david-fredericks-keynote-speaking-big-sur-jade-fest-1090/feed 0 http://timelessartifact.com/antiquities-timelessjade-present-jade-ages-show-2011-1028 http://timelessartifact.com/antiquities-timelessjade-present-jade-ages-show-2011-1028#comments Tue, 30 Nov 2010 17:00:16 +0000 david http://timelessartifact.com/?p=1028

Fredericks – McIntire Collection – Large Eastern Zhou Hotan-Hetian Jade Vessel – original repair visible on back Dragon foot

Fredericks-McIntire Collection – Dawenkou/Liangzhu  Culture Hairpiece shown in cleaned condition – original lacquer glued break showing across face – highly iron oxidized original green Khotan JadeGeorg Schmerholz of Jade Fine Art “Ohanna” sculpture of an actual child’s face in jade – by  special commission only

This next year’s “Jade Through The Ages Show 2011″ will be presented at the world’s largest gem and mineral show – The 57th Annual Tucson Gem And Mineral Show – Main Four Day Event – in the Tucson Convention Center Arena.

On display this year will be new works of Jade Art from some of the finest Jade Carvers in the world, along with some of the most exquisite jade artifacts (dating back thousands of years) from ancient China – all in a beautiful setting at the Tucson Convention Center.

Our Annual Jade Through The Ages Show dinner will held the evening of February 8th, between 6pm and 10pm at Yuki’s Sushi & Seafood at 2962 N. Campbell Avenue Tucson, AZ 85719. This past year’s dinner here was so successful, and enjoyed by so many, that it was decided by the committee to reserve the entire restaurant for next year’s dinner. Come and meet the artists and some of the top ‘characters’ in the Jade World, in a relaxed setting, before enjoying the show at the Tucson Convention Center.

The official web site for the show is at Jade Through The Ages, and we will continue to add new photographs of this year’s creations and artifacts as they are provided to us. We will show some of the fine pieces to be displayed, here and on our TimelessJade.com site, but it will certainly not include the entire show. For official inquiries please contact David Fredericks – david@antiquitiesplus.com or phone 520-991-2153.Steve & Kathleen Martinek Collection – Three Eastern Han Dynasty Whit to Celadon Jade Vessels (see article on TimelessJade)Peter Schilling of Taking Form Jade – Blue “Sea Form” NephriteDante Lopez Cancun, Mexico – Green Guatemalan Jadeite – “Tree Frog”

Fredericks-McIntire Collection – Large Han Dynasty White Jade Vessels in repaired & cleaned conditionTom Finneran’s – “Wicked Witch of the West” sculptureShamrock Collection – Large 14th – 15th Century Pure White Jadeite Siam-Thailand (see TimelessJade.com article on all nine of these amazing figures)K. C. Bell Collection – White-Grey Nephrite Western Han Dynasty ‘Casket’ in cleaned conditionGeorg Schmerholz of Jade Fine Art – “Spirit of the Wind” sculptureKim Stewart Collection – Qing Dynasty (Kangzi Period) White & Green Jadeite, silver inlayed Ruyi in original conditionFredericks-McIntire Collection – Mated Waring States Period Yellow Jade Spiral BisJustin Barrett of “Just in Jade” – Big Sur California Blue Nephrite Jade pendantAng Collection – Shang Period “Sardine Can Opener Man” (see full article on TimelessJade.com)Peter Schilling of Taking Form Jade – “Octopus Form” Snowflake Wyoming nephrite jadeFredericks-McIntire Collection – Large Warring States Period Gold Gilt Vessel (see full article on TimelessJade.com)K. C. Bell Collection – Liangzhu Culture pendant – partially re-etched, cleaned condition with original iron oxide depositsFredericks-McIntire Collection – Shang-Western Zhou Period “figure in the round” in cleaned conditionFredericks-McIntire Collection – Liangzhu Culture pendant- 100% in-situ condition – cleanedFredericks-McIntire Collection – Hongshan Culture crested pig dragon slightly re-polished and cleaned conditionAng Collection – Late Shang-Early Western Zhou Yellow Jade Dragon in cleaned conditionFredericks-McIntire Collection – Shang Period Green Khotan Jade Knife in cleaned conditionBob Reiger Collection – Chenghua Emperor’s Covered bowl – background ‘color’ piece to be shown (see full article here on TimelessArtifact.com)Bob Reiger Collection – Hongzhi Emperor’s Rice Bowl – to be shown as background ‘color’ piece (see full article here on TimelessArtifact.com)Fredericks-McIntire Collection – Yuan Dynasty Red Under-Glazed Charger – to be shown as background ‘color’ piece

[We invite all Chinese or Indonesian Museums, Auction Houses or Buyers (by appointment only) to view both the items at the show, or in our Gallery, of which they may be interested in while visiting Tucson, either before, during, or after, the Tucson Gem And Mineral Show - please contact either David Fredericks at 520-991-2153 or Dr. Timothy William Jones at 520-429-0177 - our interpreter will be available during this period]

Fredericks-McIntire Collection Song Dynasty Cizhou Shipwreck Bowl

Measurements:  7 Cm Height X 14-1/2 Cm Top Diameter

In the three photographs showing above, we have a wonderful 11Th – 12Th Century Song Dynasty Cizhou type bowl which shows why we have always considered this type of glaze to be absolutely the hardest kind of glaze ever made. This bowl sat on the bottom of the ocean for approximately 700 years, and the beautiful shine we see above is totally original, with no re-firing and no re-polishing. In this article, we will try to explain the reasons why this type of glaze is so amazing to us, as we believe it has truly never been equaled in hardness. By the time this bowl was made, the Chinese had already been using different types of iron-oxide-based glazes for well over 2,000 years; the rest of the world really had no clear idea of the true genius of these glazes, which by the time of the great Song Dynasty had become so refined. In the Song Dynasty, we find the true masterpieces of both eloquent design and wondrous glazing techniques that are still copied today by some of the world’s finest artisans in pottery, along with the common wares (which are taken so much for granted) that we find at discount stores across the world. While we truly love all glazed Chinese artifacts, and find many amazing aspects according to their period of manufacture, the pieces of the Song Dynasty will forever be my personal favorites, simply because there were such major advances (brought about during the aforementioned years of experimentation), in both design and creative firing techniques. At the height of this marvelous period in Chinese history, there was an astonishing explosion in creativity in all the arts, with the exception of funeral pieces, as the excesses of the Tang Dynasty funeral items had been outlawed. While the Tang Dynasty did have some incredibly beautiful advances in metallurgical works, pottery designs and glaze experimentation, we believe it was the more sound return to Confucianism and Taoism during the Song Period which led to marvelous advances in simplistic, yet eloquent designs in pottery, new techniques, materials, and styles in painting, and the flowing designs in jades, to name just a few. We hope you enjoy this journey into one of the rarest types of pottery to be found:  an in-situ, Song Dynasty shipwreck Cizhou type bowl, in remarkable condition.

This particular bowl was purchased by us here in the USA at a small private auction, and is entirely Pre-UNESCO Treaty legal. This beautifully symmetrical, hand-turned bowl, with its exquisitely designed russet colored striping, has been displayed at our last three jade shows as a background piece, to rave reviews.

All above images taken with Canon EOS XSI Using Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L Lens

In the three above photographs of the bottom of the bowl, we can start to see the original coral, sea shell and tube- worm growth which we will be examining in the microscopic photos to follow. As will be seen in detail in those coming photographs, this bowl had most likely been out of the water for quite some time before we acquired it. When and where it was recovered is not known to us; however, the fact of its authenticity is absolutely doubtless. While in future articles we will be exploring some other amazing specimens from differing eras (we always preferred to collect the rare and unusual), and will be writing articles showing other types of artifacts, authentication techniques, real vs replication, and the newest replication designs (which are remarkable) and how to detect them, for this article we just wanted to show that which cannot be faked, as the replicators do not have coral growing farms filled with pottery, nor the time it takes to accomplish such growth.

Having been known to love this type of ‘Black Ware’, we were presented by a Harvard University Museum employee with what we consider to be the finest book ever produced in English on the subject of the various Black Wares -Hare’s Fur, Tortoiseshell, and Partridge Feathers – Chinese Brown- and Black-Glazed Ceramics, 400 – 1400, Robert D. Mowry, Harvard University Art Museum. While it is not permissible to quote from this marvelous book directly, we will still try to explain, and show under microscopic conditions, all that we have learned from this book, and other sources, along with our own microscopic analyses. For anyone wishing to learn more about these wonderful types of Black and Brown Wares, we would highly recommend the aforementioned resource, as the studies performed, while not being the only ones ever in this country, or in China, are extremely notable. Between the author’s expansive knowledge, phenomenal equipment (which is not in the average person’s realm), and the help of some of the finest assistants in both research and photography, we would consider this book a ‘must own’ for those interested in these marvelous black and brown wares.

All microscopic photos taken with Canon EOS XSi under microscopic powers of 10X, 20X and 30X respectively.

With the three microscopic photographs above, we looking at a portion of the foot rim which shows a section where the coral and sea shells were attached, right next to a portion that was not encrusted. Again, we are showing all the microscopic photographs at the most popular loupe powers of 10X, 20X and 30X. Of particular note in the first photo, at 10X power, we can see where the coral grew over the top of an older shell growth at the viewer’s top right hand corner of the picture. In all three photographs, we can see the old white porcelain body of the foot rim, along with small particles of iron impurities in the original clay that have degraded away to the iron oxide stage. This clay body has a mostly white/grey look to it; this is one of the reasons we refer to the piece as Cizhou Type ware and not Jian ware, as Jian ware has a much more distinctive red/purple look to it, and is more of a stoneware than the item we are examining here. This white underbody clay vessel is closer to what is considered a true porcelain, and even after having been underwater for so long, it still has a bit of a ‘ring’ to it, when tapped (most old shipwreck pottery produces a dull ‘thud’ when tapped, from being underwater  in the ocean for long periods. Long ago, we found some of the famous Vietnamese shipwreck pottery sold at auction that had been faked and mixed in with the real pieces for sale. All the authentic pieces we examined had this dull ‘thud’, and some of the pieces sold in the same lots had the familiar ‘ping’ of newly high-fired clay with the same type of coloring, but no authentic wear could be observed; both types had the same Government ‘Certificates of Authenticity’, and the ‘official’ stamps on the bottom). Getting back to the photos above, the shiny portion to the viewer’s lower right in the photographs is another adhered portion of a nacreous sea shell. The rounded and finely trimmed foot rim identifies this piece as more than just a common storage ware item, as does the spectacular design, which is shown in the first six photographs of this article. This was most definitely not a trade item, but would have been personal bowl of some elite on the original ship, as this particular bowl is as fine as what the royalty received and used, in our opinion.

In the above three photographs, we are looking at the bottom of the bowl in the darkest of the three places as shown in the initial ‘full view’ photos of the underside of the vessel. This is a place which was not fully cleaned when the bowl was recovered from its underwater resting place, and shows an area of undisturbed pottery and the seaweed growth on the bottom of the bowl. Clearly observable are the hand-turned-wheel marks on the underside of the bowl, which show up in the top two photos extremely well as deep ridges from its initial construction. The fine, ‘hair-like’ feeder roots where the underwater plant growth was attached are discernible in all three photos. For as long as we suspect this bowl was underwater, this could well be third- or fourth-growth organic matter (as some of it crosses over the coral deposits – meaning the sea shell grew first and the coral came later), and can be identified in all three areas where there are darkened spots on the bottom of the bowl.

In the three photographs above, we are looking at an area just off center of the bottom of the Cizhou Type bowl which shows three very interesting aspects. We have sea shell growth with coral growing over the top (to the viewer’s upper left in photos one and two), and tube-worm tracks that have clearly eaten away at the nacreous sea shell, leaving the original porcelain body of the bowl exposed. It the second and third photos above, we can also detect what are most likely  small seaweed root tracks on the sea shell, in the lower portion of the photographs. Some unknown ridges show up in the shiniest portion of the microscopic photos above. These do not appear to have been caused by any purposeful sanding (during the cleaning process), and even though they are linear in their effect, the softer coral exhibits no sanding marks anywhere that be detected. Perhaps it is due to underwater abrasion long ago, or it is just part of the way the sea shell formed and weathered away over the centuries at the bottom of the sea. Note: The tiny tube-worm mark is visible with the naked eye.

In the three microscopic photographs above, we are looking again at the bottom of the bowl in a place that is completely covered in natural coral growth. In the last photo, we can clearly see where no modern abrasives were used to sand or clean the bottom of the bowl, as the coral is as natural as the day it was lifted from the bottom of the ocean. We can also see the original ocean sediments inside the coral structure, and not any later abrasive sediments from any attempt at sanding. There is no scratching to the surface of the coral, and it appears the coral was broken off naturally many years ago, and was smoothed over time from the movements of tectonics and tidal abrasion. Some parts of the coral show more recent damages in the jagged portions, as is shown clearly in the photos above, but whether this occurred above or below the surface, or when the bowl was first retrieved from the sea floor, is unknown to us.

The three photographs above were taken just to the outside of the foot rim (which can be seen the first photo) and show three differing layers of marine growths that have occurred over time. In the top photo, it can easily be discerned that the first growth was the sea shell which had attached to the outer ridge of the foot rim; then, the tube worm growth over the remains of the sea shell; and last, we see the coral growth over the top of the tube worm casing. This is all a fairly firm indication of the bowl having spent a long time under the ocean’s surface. (This tube-worm casing is also visible with the naked eye, and is quite a bit larger than the one noted inside the rim).

For the three microscopic photographs above, I choose an area of the upper rim on the Cizhou Type bowl that had received some of the most extensive wear to be found on the entire bowl. With just a naked-eye viewing of the rim, it still appears to have a shine to it, and to not be in anywhere near the condition we see above under magnification. The remains of a sea-shell attachment can still be viewed even after the cleaning of the bowl (for what must have been viewing purposes long ago). However, all the scratching we will see in these and the microscopic photos of the glazed portions to follow only show older scratches, and this is one of the main reasons we believe this bowl was removed from the sea and cleaned well over a hundred years ago. Our best estimate is that the bowl lay on the ocean floor for approximately 700 years before it was discovered, cleaned and made its rounds, until it ended up in our collection. We can see in the photos above the little ‘hairline’ cracks that developed probably during the initial firing of the bowl, as there are no long cracks or hairlines to be found over the entire bowl’s surface, both inside and out. The original glazing would have most likely covered these small hairlines, and it is through mostly natural wear over a long time only, that they are visible under magnification today. Remembering that this item was tossed around on the ocean floor for centuries, and it was the top rim which would have taken the most abuse during the time the bowl was in an upside-down position, the inside of the bowl would still be affected by shifting sands and movements, along with the corrosive salts and natural growing organisms. What we find in some of the following photographs, to us, is absolutely amazing.

With this next set of three microscopic photographs, we see a portion of the glaze on the inside bottom of the bowl where there is a rough ridge in the clay surface, present since firing, which was glazed over during the different re-firings. In the first photograph above, at 10X, power it is extremely easy to see the lack of natural degradation and scratching which occurred to the black area of iron oxide based glaze. The slight ridge can also be seen with a piece of sea shell still attached. In the two following photos, at higher magnifications, we can see the sea shell attachment better, and even the fact that the ridge of the raised area still retains its glaze, with no real apparent chips or scratches. The same is true with the surrounding russet colored areas. While there are obvious signs of wear, either from use or from sea-floor sand-scratches, the fact that some of the areas look like they were made yesterday is what we find most uncommon to glazed artifacts which have obviously seen some rather abrasive conditions, whether from burial in the ground, or from hundreds of years of being tossed around on an ocean floor. To gaze with the naked eye inside this magnificent Cizhou Bowl is to be amazed at the shine still remaining.

The three above photographs were taken of another area inside the bowl in a portion where it is blackest, the bottom of which has a slight portion of the russet, or persimmon color running through it. The lack of degradation due to abrasives at the bottom of this bowl is nothing short of amazing, and a further conclusive proof, to us, of the inherent ‘toughness’ of these Song Dynasty types of glazes. The scratches we see here are much more like common use ware scratches found in a very lightly used, much more modern porcelain from the Qing Dynasty, and not those that have been tossed around by the currents and typhoons of the areas where most shipwreck pieces have been found. It is always this type of natural wear (with scratches going in all directions – as they should be) that we love to see, and we find (almost without exception), the true Song Dynastic period items of Jian ware, Cizhou ware and Junyao ware to be among the most durable of the older glazes.

In the three photographs above, we are looking at an area on the interior of the bowl where the decorative russet stripes were added during an additional firing of the bowl, after the initial firing of the main black/brown glaze. It could be said that perhaps this bowl took most of the damage on the upper rim because it spent almost all of its time upside down and rubbing on the top rim. However, we have seen the sea-shell growth on the inside of the bowl, and there are other photos coming in this article which will show more. The bowl was most definitely not filled with air the entire time it was under water, and like ground-burial items, they tend to fill with dirt and silt over years of burial, which leads to scratching from tectonic movements and tidal shifts. What we see in the photos above is an area almost devoid of scratching and degradation from long-term underwater burial conditions. These secondary-firing, russet decorations show extremely light wear use, oxidation or degradation of any kind, and the entire area is in remarkable condition. It is almost inconceivable that this bowl did not fill with sand and silt during the time it was under the ocean, and the fact that sea shells grew over the inner surfaces would surely indicate the presence of salt water, and with that comes sand and silts. The metallic particles we see in the above photos was created when the secondary russet glaze was first mixed and then fired. The metallic particles are extremely well defined and studied in the aforementioned book in this article. The analysis of the metal particles would be foolish to doubt, as the people from Harvard University are consummate professionals. What we are showing here is the fact that the glaze and firing techniques led to an extremely hard end-product that took natural wear very well, and in fact, better than any other glaze we have ever examined.

With the above microscopic photographs, we are again looking at an area of the inside decorative russet strips of the Cizhou Type Bowl. In the first photo at 10X power, we can see the area does have some light scratching of the glaze, which is more typical of an authentic Song Dynasty glaze that has seen both use and burial wear. In this first photo, we also start to see a bit of crazing to the glaze which shows up much better in the second photo under 20X power. This area is an exception to the rest of the bowl which shows very little crazing to its surface, yet it was surrounded by moisture during nearly its entire lifespan, and obviously subjected to fathomed pressures. As this is not an intentionally crazed glaze, such as a Ge or Ruyao glazed item from the Song Dynasty, one would expect to see much more crazing (similar to the famous Tang Dynasty Sancai funeral items) than what is found on this and every other true Cizhou type glazed artifact we have examined under microscopic conditions. Even the everyday wares that were used for storage (and buried in caches during the Mongol invasion) show very little crazing of the glaze, while they do show the use ware scratches from being banged around and stacked together (we have quite a few of these types still filled with their coal oil and supposedly sorghum contents intact, original strings and even one with its original straw and cloth stopper). In photo two above, we can also see a minor glaze chip, just to the viewer’s left of the larger seashell attachment and on top of one of the crazing cracks. This is also an exception, as it is the only true rounded glaze chip we have, as yet, found on the bowl. All of the rest of the scratching was either from use, prior to the unfortunate accident, which led to its internment in the sea, or from wear caused by other abrasives during its time under water.

In the three photographs above, we are looking at an exquisitely colored area, caused by a combination of the different firings, that is located just inside the top rim of the bowl. This particular area was photographed as an area of curiosity, and for the beautiful coloring it displays best in the first photo above at 10X. In this first photo, you actually see the top rim of the bowl and the lack of damage sustained. The area which looks like ‘chipping’ (best seen in photos two and three at higher magnifications) is what we believe was at one time a sea shell attachment area which broke off, most likely due to underwater movement, perhaps hundreds of years before the bowl was recovered from the sea. In the last two photographs, we believe we see the remnants of the sea shell attachment in the half-circle, white-line area, and the white lined area just below. We believe this breaking off of the attachment took a smooth-glazed area off the bowl and allowed sea weed roots to attach and penetrate the glaze, leaving what looks like root tracks trailing off in all directions from the main break. We did our very best to photograph this, but it truly looks much better under actual microscopic viewing, as one can manipulate the bowl slightly (under differing lighting conditions) and actually follow the root tracks more effectively.

In the last three microscopic photographs of this article, we are looking at an area where the glaze stops on the outside of the bowl, and the clay body is unglazed (see first photo). This is an area on the bowl which has seen the most oxidation effects, and is often a portion we look at in our verification process in detail, as this is one of the areas which most truly authentic items receive the most natural wear. On a used item, the top rims should show wear use, as would any high spots of decorations, and some other areas, like the widest portion around the middle of  a pottery artifact, and the bottoms of the insides of eating vessels. These are all areas that are more prone to chips and scratches from natural use, cleaning and the ravages of burial, either underground or undersea. What we look for most in a black or brown ware Cizhou piece is its resistance to the smoothing and rounding effects that we find on other glazes. We believe these glazes are so durable that they resist the smoothing effects of further cleaning and wear simply because the material is so dense. In the photographs above, it can be discerned that some of the older scratches have oxidized more than others, and are most likely older scratches. The fact that they still show some portions which remain jagged tells us that they resisted the smoothing effects of fine silts and salt water motion to a high degree. There are some scratches, which can be best seen in the last photo, which are fairly well rounded and oxidized, which would lead us to believe that these could be from original use wear to the bowl before it lay on the bottom of the sea. Under even higher magnification, they show up better in support of this theory. The more jagged and deeper scratches most likely came from contact with other items, such as corals, seashells or other pieces from the same shipwreck, over long periods in the sea.

In closing, while we believe this particular Cizhou type bowl spent much of its time at the bottom of the ocean in an upside down position, we do not believe it spent all of its time in such a manner. There are parts of the external surface of the bowl which are just as shiny as some on the interior of the bowl, and some of the insides are a bit oxidized and show wear similar to that which we see on the external glazed portions. However, those of us who have a particular affinity for this type of Song Dynasty ware, and the beautiful experimental glazes which have proven themselves to withstand the ravages of time and elements, should all recognize the exquisite workmanship involved in this bowl, as it is as beautiful a specimen as we have ever personally observed, and in our opinion,  worthy of royal use.

David Fredericks — Yulongwei

Timeless Artifact

Timeless Jade

Chernysh Family Estate Collection

Measurements with stand: 3-3/4″ Height X 6-1/2″ Diameter

Measurements without stand: 2-5/8″ Height X 6-1/2″ Diameter

With this absolutely exquisite Junyao Narcissus Bowl, we find the earliest such bowl we have ever seen or authenticated, and it should be considered one of the truly oldest Narcissus Bowls in existence today. While the Junyao Kiln is considered by many to have started with the Song Dynasty in exactly the year 960 CE, we would have to question that to a great degree. Written history and the claims that certain potteries and glazes came during such an exacting period, to us, seem more stories for history books and general explanations than we actually find when looking at authentic period artifacts. In short, the fabulous glazes of this period, and any other, were not just created on just one day, or even over the period of one year, but rather were extenuations of glaze experimentations dating back hundreds of years, and giving credit to those who came before, with their constant vigilance in experimentation; this should be explored much more in depth than it is today. Granted, the Song Dynasty did favor certain “Royal Kilns”, and the wonderful pieces of the Ruyao and Junyao kilns (and others) were certainly among those favored by the Royalty of the period. We have seen it written that only thirty-six pieces of Junyao ware were allowed to be built in any given year during the Song Dynasty, and commoners were forbidden to own it. Of this we are also doubtful. Perhaps as the kiln gained Imperial favor during the the beginning of the Song Dynasty this could have been true, but later in the period, we believe, many more than just thirty-six pieces were made by this famous kiln site. From what we have seen in 12Th – 13Th Century pieces, when the kilns were numbered up to ten (as high as we have seen), it seems somewhat incredible to have ten kilns producing only thirty-six pieces of Junyao ware. As to the declared ‘fact’ that the several different glazes ~ the white ‘phosphorus’, the blues, the purple ‘splashes’ and exquisite iron red glazes, were all developed (each taking a different thickness and firing heat to produce, for the high-copper-content glaze), in a period of one year, strains the imagination and seems more than a bit too simplified. While anything is possible, we will present here what to us, seems much more realistic and logical, given the science of clay formulations and qualities and applications of each, and the science of glaze formulations, with their multitude of variations of mineral compositions, hardness, firing ranges and environments, fuel factors, and numerous other technical (and not so technical) components of glazed pottery creation.

In the above three photographs, we are starting to see some of the first signs of an extremely early Junyao ware of the beginning of the Song Dynasty Period. As will be explained in later photographs, the white with blue ‘phosphorus’ glazes had already been on their path to perfection during the Tang Dynasty period (618 – 960 CE). The particular type of brilliant ‘iron red’, as seen on the exterior of this exquisite bowl, begins to make its appearance during the very early Song Dynasty Era. Later, in the 11Th – 12Th Century period, we believe this iron red gave way to more of the classic blues and purples, as we do not see this brilliant red from the later periods of the Song Dynasty, and indeed, it seems to have been ‘re-discovered’ during the Qing Dynasty in their famous Iron Red Porcelains of the period. The wonderful ‘orange peel’ texture of the exterior red glaze can be easily discerned in the photographs above, as well as the beginnings of the Song Dynasty simplicity of shape, of which the Song Dynasty artisans were (and alway will be) the true masters, along with their exquisite glazings, which make them my own personal favorites of all Chinese porcelains and proto-porcelains. The fact that the original piece was broken from its sagger at the bottoms of the the legs, with no polishing or trimming around the feet, is another indication of an extremely early work (as will be better shown in the following microscopic photographs). Additionally, that this narcissus bowl stands on three very simple legs, added after to replace the ones that broke off  (much like an old Bronze Ding, made for Royalty since the Shang Period), is another indicator of an older period piece (in the later 11-Th – 12Th century Narcissus bowls, we see the later style of the three Lianzhu Fungus feet). The wonderful drip we see on the inner edge of the bottom rim is representative of a quality that has always been considered a most desirable trait on Song Dynasty glazed porcelains, and remains today as one of the most sought-after features of truly great pieces.

The custom-made rosewood stand in the three photographs above easily attests to the time period when this marvelous bowl was exhumed from the ground. It is, in our opinion, an 1800′s era stand that was custom-made to fit the bowl after it was removed from its original burial place, and the bowl’s legs fit on this stand in one position only. In the last photo above, we can see the obvious, natural ‘shelf wear’ the wooden stand has endured over time. These wonderful Song Dynasty buried items were not the same as we find in the Tang Dynasty, as by the the time of the Song Dynasty, the ‘excesses’ of burial items had been outlawed, and Song Dynastic funeral pieces exhibit a much cruder look than their elaborate predecessors from the Tang Dynasty. Rather, the finest of the Song Dynasty burial items were cache-buried to hide the best of their National and Royal Treasures from the advancing Mongols, who later set up the short-lived Yuan Dynasty. As the Northern Song culture was progressively overrun by the Mongols, the people systematically buried their finest treasures, and even common household storage jars; we have some original jars with their original contents of sorghum and coal oil, and even the straw and cloth stoppers and original Song period woven strings remain attached. The main purpose of showing the old, custom-made rosewood stand is to establish, at minimum, when the item first was unburied, and as it has been incontestably in the Naples, Florida USA area since long before the UNESCO treaty with China, it is a legal and very desirable early Junyao Narcissus Bowl.

In our last two full, close-up photographs above (before we start the microscopic examination), we would like to explain a bit more about the progression of glazes in China in general. As stated earlier, glazes did not just appear overnight, in any period throughout Chinese history (or any other, for that matter). There was always a progression, with much experimentation, from the earliest ‘true glazes’ in the world, most likely dating from the end of the Shang Period to the beginning of the Western Zhou Period. There is so much left to be learned about the early exploration of this unique Chinese form of decoration of common pottery items, that we believe we will never see everything fully unveiled in our lifetime. Just a few years ago, the plain pottery items themselves were only known to have existed in China back to the earlier years of the Neolithic Period (approximately 6,500 BCE), and now they have definitively dated pottery items back to almost 20,000 BCE. As information from more archeological digs, and the knowledge they provide, becomes more accessible and contributory to the public database, the more we will understand about the cultures and environments that produced  them; this is as with every culture studied (the likes of which often first start out with what now seem ludicrous speculations, such as early Clovis man only living in Clovis, New Mexico, USA ~ now, Clovis points have been found in every state of the US and as far south as Oaxaca, Mexico ~ and they are currently ‘building the bridge’ to Europe. The same happens with Chinese glazes. There were times of expansion and broad experimentation (with the 350 CE through to the late 18Th Century period being the most productive, from our standpoint), and times where there were natural digressions, due to war, famine, or other non-supportive periods in their history. But, the overall growth in quality and advancement of technique is hardly questionable. What you are seeing in the above two photographs is the white and blue that is well-known to have been established in the Tang Dynastic period, and can be found on Tang brown-ware with the white and blue phosphoric splashes, and the purple splashes which were not found during the Tang era. These represent a melange of techniques developed at differing times, and incorporated together. This took time, experimentation, and ingenuity, which did not happen on a selected date on a calendar.

In these first three microscopic photographs of this article, we are showing the bottom of one the three ding-style legs on the narcissus bowl. All microscopic photographs will be shown at 10X, 20X, and 30X respectively, as they are the most common of the loupe powers used, and with the wider field of vision from our microscope, will allow the viewer to see very clearly what we wish to identify as age and authentication indicators. In the first photo above, we can see the impurities in what was considered ‘pure’ porcelain. The vessel was fired high enough to vitrify the proto-porcelain, yet still does not have the that ring of a later, higher-temperature-fired piece. Still, this is quite a high firing for the period, as many other kilns in China did not reach this type of vitrification until a bit later in their time-frames. The fact that the legs were broken directly off the sagger, leaving jagged edges, is also an indication of an earlier firing of Junyao ware. The bottoms of all three legs have been smoothed by wear over time, yet there are many areas around the feet which show the result of jagged snapping-off of the legs, where the glaze flowed down and then adhered to the sagger.

In the three microscopic photographs above, we are showing a top indicator of true age which is very difficult to see with only the usual 10X power loupe. Porcelains and glazes can be extremely hard (ie:  porcelain knife sharpeners are very effective), and we have a Song Dynasty Cizhou shipwreck bowl with the bottom covered in coral growth, and yet, if viewed with a 10X loupe (even after rolling in sandy silt for hundreds of years), the inside looks like it was made yesterday. It really takes a higher power to start to see some of the anomalies which occur to high-fired porcelains over time. It the first photo above, we see two scratches to the red outer portion of the narcissus bowl which look as if they could have been made around the same time period – both looking jagged, which is an indicator of a newer scratch. However, in the second and the third photos, we start to see under higher magnification the differences between the two scratches. In all three photos, we see the scratch to the viewer’s left is jagged, like a new scratch, but under 20X power, the scratch to the right not only begins to look smoothed, but it also shows oxidation iridescence. The same can be seen in the last photo above, with the tip of the right scratch being at the bottom of the photo. The scratch to the viewer’s left was most likely made after the narcissus bowl was removed from burial, and the one to the right, prior to its burial. Minuscule cleaning scratches also start to show up between the natural crazings in the last photo at 30X power.

In the three photographs above, the use-wear (scratching) on the narcissus bowl is much more easily discerned. This is a particularly roughed-up area of the top rim which took a lot of abrasion over the period of time when the bowl was used. Some parts of the rim have much less abrasion, and this area shown may be just a particularly high spot of the rim which took more abrasion. What is most definite in the photos above is the different types of scratching and the differing depths to which these original period-scratches go. Some are deeply scratched, and some are just minor cleaning scratches, but the fact that they run in all different directions is an indicator of true age-wear. These are not the intentional sanded areas we find on modern replications, nor the marks from pieces being carried back and forth to market. Natural wear always looks natural, and old Song Dynasty pottery items have some natural wear because they were used items. It is true that some piece were collected for display during the Song Period, but even those that were rarely used, or used only on special occasions, still were cleaned from time to time, and will, under higher powers, show their natural scratching from use and cleaning. If a piece shows none, or very little wear (and usually on the interior bases of bowls from stacking, and taking them to market), they should be considered highly suspicious. It is also somewhat safe to assume that a narcissus bowl, used for 200-300 years, before being rapidly cache-buried ahead of invading forces, would see more use wear than one from the later Northern Song Dynasty period.

The three microscopic photos above were taken on the interior of the narcissus bowl in a area where the white glaze is the heaviest. Most of the naturally-occurring damage from burial conditions is exhibited on the white portion of the glaze on the interior of this bowl. Best seen in photograph one, the areas with the heaviest glaze loss are the portions where the deeply infused bubbles (so common to the Junyao kiln items) are now exposed, and soil has intruded. The more shiny areas, with no open bubbles, are the original surface of the glaze. We have seen the same type of glaze loss on deeper, exterior white ‘phosphorous splashes’ on Tang Dynasty ewers. Whether or not it is caused from a higher firing temperature in a more naturally thick area of the glaze, we do not yet know. The cause would probably be best known in China, but as yet we have not seen anything in publication as to why this effect occurs (there are some 200,000 relevant publications written in Chinese that have yet to be translated to English). In the photos above, we can easily see the glaze loss areas, the original penetration of burial soils, and the fact that the the white-glazed areas flow over the tops and around the sides of the underlying naturally blue areas of glaze. We expect this is a result of the combination of factors; the depth of the glaze, temperature, and the mineral compounds which make up these marvelous Junyao kiln glazes. This white glaze effect, to the best of our knowledge, is also found mostly on the earlier pieces of the Tang and Song Dynasties, as we do not see this thick white sheen of glaze on later items we have seen, both in publications and under personal microscopic study.

In the three microscopic photographs above, we are looking at an area best seen in the third photograph of this article, as the portion which lies between the brighter blue area at the bottom and the large purple splash portion above it. It is an area that would best be described here in the US as a “robin’s egg” color. What we are looking at is one of the great indicators of true Song Dynasty Junyao authenticators; it is these areas which lie between the cracks, of which we have not seen a replication ever having been made. It is these thick areas of whitened degradation to the originally small crazing cracks that we find on truly old Song burial pieces. The bowl must have sat upright during its burial, with water collecting inside over hundreds of years; we believe that this is the main reason we find almost all the degradation to the inside of the narcissus bowl. These deep, side-to-side degradations to the original blue/green glazed portion of the bowl will also be explored in other microscopic photos of the different colors inside the bowl, but the fact that they do not occur on the exterior red portion tells us this bowl collected and held the water inside. The natural remaining soils from burial can also be easily seen in the photos above. It is also appropriate to note here that we have Junyao artifacts in our personal collection that exhibit the deep, side-to-side degradation right next to restored areas on the same piece of pottery; on one item, the restorers did a marvelous job of crazing the piece widely enough to be able to mimic the whitened degradation by rubbing some substance into the cracks, but there will never be the side-to-side degradation, such as what is seen above. The replicators also use this technique on many fine Tang Dynasty reproductions, crackling the glazes and rubbing into the fine cracks substances that are intended to mimic the potassium salts and mineralization, but without the consistent wear from tectonic scratching, and other indicating factors, these fine Tang Dynasty replications can be fairly readily discerned. The big trick in this is in not going so fast that one misses the authentication indicators of a restored item which has been over-glazed.

With the three microscopic photographs above, we are again looking down inside the narcissus bowl to the area of the brightest blue glazed portion, pooling at the bottom of the bowl. For some reason, we suspect due to the way the blue glaze pooled around the slighter higher mound in the center of the base, forming a thicker layer, this area degraded less than the white and purple crazed areas inside the remainder of the bowl. However, we can still see some of the side-to-side degradation to the cracked areas in the three photos above. This portion of the glazed interior also shows us the best views of the highly infused bubbles, most likely because of its glaze depth. This area has beautiful, natural oxidation iridescence, as well as a minor triangular glaze loss, which can easily be seen in all three photographs.

The three microscopic photographs above show a particular area in the purple slash portion on the interior of the narcissus bowl, which has an effect we had never seen before, which is of particular interest to us from an authentication standpoint. As can be easily discerned, this part of the glaze was much more stable than the whitened areas, and sustained much less degradation and glaze loss than the side with the white phosphorous glaze. However, we still find the deep side-to-side degradation to the cracked areas, but with one amazing difference – the color of the purple splash somehow continued to spread through the whitened degradation over the hundreds of years of burial. In some areas of the photographs above, it appears that the red flows right through the white and could actually be just under the surface, and reflecting back with the lighting. However, there are clear areas also shown (which can be extremely well-discerned under direct microscopic viewing), where the purple, copper-based glaze actually has continued to flow up and into the whitened degradation. The fact that the copper alloys were actually still traveling is much like the ion exchanges we see when viewing pseudomorphs and other anomalies in jade (which can be best seen in articles at Timeless Jade). This is a wonderful phenomena to have discovered on this marvelous early Song Dynasty Junyao Narcissus Bowl, and one not so unlikely, given the moist conditions and approximately 750 years of burial.

In the three microscopic photos above, we are looking at an area of extremely degraded white glaze that is exactly across from the purple splash area in the three preceding photos. This is a portion of the interior which is very high up toward the rim, and as a result, received the least amount of cleaning when it was removed from burial. This bowl, same as all our authenticated pieces, underwent both a long acetone bath and a very short oxalic acid bath to determine if any modern waxes or coatings had been applied. The only coating that showed up came with the ten-minute oxalic acid bath, as someone had put a modern spray wax coating on the piece, which came right off. The only other residue found was that of old bees-wax, which still remains, and was most likely put on the bowl during the time it was first cleaned of its potassium salts (as some minuscule areas remain). This bees-wax application is considered to be prior to the 1900 period, as it was not affected by the acetone at all, and remained its original color, with no whitening as more modern waxes do. The minute particles of wax were so old, they would not scratch off with a fingernail, and so we decided to leave them on as an authenticating factor. In the photos above, we can see how some of the ‘glassy’ surface of the white glaze remained intact, while other portions of it have flaked away, exposing the bubbles in the glaze below. We can also see the different, side-to-side detritus penetration in the cracks, best shown in photo three above at 30X power. The blue glaze under the white can also be seen, as in prior microscopic photographs above. What we love the most with this set of photographs is the penetration of the white glaze by soils and detritus, and even the minuscule, worn-out scratches that can be barely discerned upon the original surface (best seen in the 20X and 30X power photos).

In the three microscopic photographs above, we are again looking at the brilliant blue area, deep in the center of the narcissus bowl. This is an area which shows new cleaning scratches to the mineralized glaze. These minute scratches, and the mineralization, showed up after the ten-minute soaking in the weak oxalic acid solution, which dissolved the modern Pledge-like wax that had been applied in recent times. After this cleaning, the minerals could not be removed with either a further soaking in acetone, nor with a vigorous scrubbing with Tub and Tile Cleaner (which does a great job with recent accumulations of dust and grime). This left us with a wonderful view of the original mineral deposits on the bowl that had been left from its earlier cleaning (most likely with a weak vinegar solution) after removal from its burial site. The beautiful oxidation iridescence  can be seen best in the last two photos (it was very difficult to capture this iridescence on this particular bowl, as the fluorescent lighting around the microscope kept ‘washing-out’ the colors).  In the first photograph above at 10X power, the degradation to the cracking can be best seen, as can the soil and detritus penetration of the cracks. We can see in this area how much less the degradation effected it, as there is very little glaze loss, which is found much more in the white glazed areas.

With the three photos above, we are looking at an area on the iron red exterior portion of the narcissus bowl (this iron red portion is just breath-taking), which shows none of the side-to-side, white degradation to the crazed areas. Again, we believe this was a result of the bowl being buried upright and the moisture collecting inside, leading to much more interior degradation. If the bowl had been artificially aged, we would not be seeing the same types of effects shown with all the microscopic photographs. The outside of the iron red glaze simply did not have the moisture retention which occurred on the interior surface. We can also again see the mineralization to the exterior, which became apparent after the light oxalic acid bath, and the accompanying minor scratching from cleaning of these mineralized areas when the bowl was first removed from its place of burial.

With these last three microscopic photographs of this article, we are looking at a particular phenomena which was not discovered until after the final cleaning of the bowl, while I was taking the photographs for this article. Under a 10X power loupe it probably would never have been discovered. What we believe we are looking at here are traces of minerals (agreed upon by myself and Dr. Timothy Jones PhD) in the exterior glaze in the central portion of the indented base of the narcissus bowl. Due to the fact that we can not get a wide enough photograph of the glaze displaying the effect that we are going to explain here, which occurs over the entire base and portions of the sides, it can not all be seen here, but can be easily viewed in person under the microscope. It appears that these minute, linear mineral particles started lining up in relation to the earth’s magnetic field at the time, either during the firing, or during the cooling period just following, while the glaze was still in a fluid state. Some of these linear particles form lines that are over an inch long, and some form into complete circles, part of one which can be seen close to the bottom in the photographs above. Over these particles, you can see the the remaining mineralization over the surface of the glazed area. To see these particulates lining up in such a manner is truly a wonder to behold, and while this effect is not a new discovery, it is an extremely rare event.

In closing, we have no doubts as to the correct dating of this Royal piece of China’s history, and would encourage any qualified professional from China (and especially the Beijing Museum) to come and view it in person, as we truly believe, like many items in our collection and others we represent, that they should ultimately be returned home to be displayed with their mated pieces in the land where the culture first expressed and produced such genius and creativity. This wonderful Junyao Kiln Narcissus Bowl could well be one of only thirty-six pieces allowed to have been made for the Royal family in the early 10Th Century.

David Fredericks — Yulongwei

Timeless Artifact

Timeless Jade

Robert Rieger Family Estate Collection

Chenghua Emperor Covered Bowl Measurements: 6″ Diameter X 3-1/4″ Height

Hongzhi Emperor Rice Bowl Measurements: 6-3/4″ Diameter X 3″ Height

We have been blessed to be able to authenticate and represent these two Imperial Emperor’s bowls for the last two years. They were first legally acquired by Mr Robert Rieger, businessman and former Director of the MBA Program, College of Management, University of Arizona, on one his  more than forty-six long- ago trips to China. Mr. Rieger was not a prolific collector of antiquities, and as such, had very few pieces he purchased in the Orient. Of the several pieces we did authenticate for him and his family, most were newer reproductions that he liked because of their intricacy, and the fact that he has long worked in the industrial porcelain business. The two particular bowls featured above are the result of a distant approach by a old Chinese man offering these bowls for purchase. It was a wise decision he made when he agreed to buy them, and his ‘feel’ for the pieces was perfect, as he loved their delicate construction – especially the exquisite Hongzhi rice bowl that he felt was a piece of perfection. In this microscopic study you will see why these pieces had that ‘special feel’ he described to us when we first saw the bowls.

Both of these bowls initially underwent an intensive, month-long cleaning and extensive study by myself and Dr. Timothy William Jones, PhD, before we first announced their authenticity. In preparation for the composition of this article, I personally re-cleaned the bowls, as initially performed, in acetone and then a strong solution of soap and water, to determine that all remaining deposits were indeed natural to the bowls, and not later replicators’ attempts at deception, nor hiding a repair. In the last cleaning, we even briefly used a solution of oxalic acid to make sure no aliphatic cements or petroleum based glues had been used. Initially these bowls were most likely cleaned in China, in a weak vinegar solution to remove any deposits that were on them (later microscopic photographs will show where this had occurred and the accompanying, minuscule new scratches that are associated with this cleaning).

These two truly Imperial Bowls are Pre-UNESCO Treaty Legal and have been displayed at our last two jade shows, including our Jade Through The Ages Show. We will be showing, with the progressive microscopic photographs throughout this article, authenticating identifiers, in response to which some skeptics might say the usual “Oh, the Chinese replicators can do that” – they cannot! These are authentic Ming Dynasty Imperial Porcelain Bowls and carry the ‘Antiquities, Plus… Guarantee’ as long as they are in our possession to sell. Out of respect to the father of the Emperor Hongzhi, we will be starting this article with the Emperor Chenghua’s Covered bowl, and will be ending it with the Hongzhi Emperor’s rice bowl.

In the three photographs above, we show the top of the Chenghua Emperor’s covered bowl, the bottom of the bowl, and a close-up of the reign mark and part of the foot rim. For those who do not know, the Chenghua Emperor preferred as his reign mark a calligraphy of his own making, done while he was a child; these marks do not have the usual perfection of a ‘typical’ reign mark. The bowl in general is not quite as finely produced as is the Hongzhi Emperor’s bowl, and is a bit heavier in construction, but still is a masterpiece for a porcelain made at the start of the Emperor’s reign in 1465 CE (remembering that this is not just an Imperial factory porcelain, but actually made for Imperial use). Additional research will lead the reader to the many different types and colors of Imperial Family porcelains which were traditionally produced for each Emperor upon his ascension to the throne; however, in this article we will be dealing only with these two bowls and their history of usage, along with their burial conditions. The exact  ’how and why’ particulars of their burial may never be known (unless some record exists in the archives in China), but we suspect these two items may have been among those known objects, which upon retirement from service when the new Emperor took the throne, were appropriated by eunuchs of the Forbidden City and ‘hidden away’ for posterity, or perhaps they were ‘discovered’ when the foreign industrialists routed the old railways through the Ming Dynasty tomb areas. However they were found, they are at least now safe and ready for their possible return home.

The three microscopic photographs above, taken at 10X, 20X and 30X microscopic power (as will be all the microscopic photograph sets in this article), will show much clearer detail than using the three common loupe powers, because we have a much wider field of view under the microscope, and much less shaky hand movement common to loupe usage. The three photos above show only a portion of the Chinese word for ‘Great’ in the reign sign; however, over the entire bottom surface we can see the pitting of the glaze, and glaze loss from extended burial. The main feature to be seen in the photos above, and which will be shown on many following photographs of both bowls, is the track of a tree root just to the right of the word Great in the first photo, and shown at greater detail in the following higher powers (look for a shallow depression in a Y-shape). What is easily discernible, in all three photographs, is the natural degradation and pitting caused by the tree root to this portion of the bowl from the root’s extended time of attachment to the high-fired glaze. The large firing bubbles, which are a natural condition of old wood-fired kiln pieces, will be seen throughout this article (some in clearer detail where the bowls, in some areas, took less damage from degrading conditions, which is exactly what one finds in almost all naturally covered and buried artifacts). Even old Tang Dynasty Sancai items, which have seen extremely degrading conditions, will have some portions of the smaller triangular crazing still shiny and with iridescence, while all around it will be degraded areas with potassium salts and a total lack of the fine outer, glass-like surface (this will be shown in future articles). It is also true that some glazes show more oxidation iridescence than others, due to their various components, burial conditions and associated burial objects, among a myriad of other conditions.

We are looking at the foot rim of the Chenghua bowl in the three above microscopic photographs. The high kaolin content and general quality of porcelain used in the making of this bowl is quite obvious, as is the lack of extensive wear often seen in more utilitarian items from the same period. As different colored sets were made  for each Emperor, one would expect to see less wear than what we find on daily use items; however, the bottom of the foot rim on both bowls are wonderfully smoothed, as they should be, and show the slight reddish tinge of an originally wood-fired Ming Dynasty porcelain of Imperial Factory quality. The trimming and perfection of the foot rim itself is another indicator of Imperial quality.

With the above three microscopic photographs, we find in an area on the side of the bottom of the Chenghua covered bowl many ‘tree-root-eaten’ areas like the example magnified above. This one was taken near the cloud decorations next to one of the celestial dragons. The trail the tree roots took in most portions of the two bowls were in the lower lying areas of the exterior of the Ming Dynasty’s famous ‘orange peel’-textured areas, as they generally took the path of least resistance. In our last article, we showed a root track on an old Indus Valley bead which went over two raised areas and through a shallow area. It does occur; however, on this much younger glazed burial bowl, the tracks seem to have preferred following the lower areas. In all three microscopic photographs above, we can see not only the tracks the roots took but the natural pitting and degradation that has followed  after the root had eaten away at the glazed portions on the exterior. Both of the bowls we are presenting in this article must have been well-covered when buried, as the tree-root track growth occurs only on the exterior of the bowls. The interior of both bowls have deposits remaining from minor soil and water penetration, but do not exhibit these tracks, where the roots were free to roam over the surface in a natural way. The effect we see above can not be equally simulated by using any acids or high alkalis. Acids and alkalis will effect stone and jade items to differing degrees of depth, as they are not as homogenous (having harder and softer areas) as a cleanly-fired-on high-vitrification glaze. They also penetrate the jades to differing depths, which we do not see in the photos above. We have seen many replications of Song Dynasty and later items on which acids were used to produce a more matte finish, and all of the surface, under microscopic analysis, looks exactly the same and never has these natural tree- root patterns eaten through the glaze. We have seen the effects of acids to make an identical reproduction of an original Ming Dynasty porcelain (so as to replace one of a pair), but the one which was aged with acid, and the repaired top of the original, were completely homogenous in nature, and it could be easily discerned which was the original surface and which had been acid-etched. Many other microscopic photos to follow in this article will show other identifiers of natural age, so we start here and work our way through to conclusion.

The three photographs above, taken at 10X, 20X and 30X microscopic power of a minor iron particle (which can be seen inside the Chenghua bowl in the third opening photo of this article), examines the result of a slight imperfection in the initial cleaning of the porcelain, or an iron particle that was imbedded under the glazed portion before final firing of the bowl. Through use wear on the interior, with subsequent cleanings and burial, this slightly raised spot has been worn through to the point where the glaze was sufficiently thin to allow the iron particle to oxide with the moisture it had received over the years. Obviously, this is not an effect of acids or any other treatments, as the glaze next to the particle inside the bowl is in almost perfect condition, as can easily be seen in the large bubble areas around it. Acids or high alkalis would have dulled the entire surface to which they were applied.

In the above three microscopic photographs, we are looking at the only true damage to the Chenghua Emperor’s bowl. It is a slight hairline fracture which extends down from the top rim of the bottom bowl, approximately 1″ in length. We believe this small hairline developed at some date after the piece was first buried. The bottom-third portion of the hairline is ‘fresh’ and has no soil intrusion, and may well have been a minor continuation of the hairline after the item was recovered, as we find the soil-penetration in only the upper portion of the crack. This hairline has been stabilized using low viscosity Paleo Bond glue. On the top portion of the rim, we left an extra little drop of 100 viscosity Paleo Bond (seen in the photos above) for protection, knowing the bowl would be handled and inspected, and we wished to give it a bit of extra insurance while this was occurring. This extra drop can easily be removed by us for the final owner of the bowl, but in the meantime we prefer to keep this delicate piece of important Chinese history better protected. The low viscosity glue has penetrated the hairline, and we know of no finer stabilization solution, other than a re-fire of the porcelain itself, which presents its own set of risks, complications, and drawbacks, and we personally feel this is unnecessary, and would not benefit the item. There are no other chips or hairlines to either of the bowls. With the minor soil penetration seen in the photos above, it is assumed this hairline either occurred late in the burial (as burial for a longer period would have caused more side-to-side penetration), or the bowl may have sustained the fracture when it was exhumed long ago. From the condition of the cleaned surfaces, we expect this bowl has been out of burial conditions for many years now, well cared for, and most likely was sold as an urgent financial necessity rather than an actual attempt to properly market it.

In the three microscopic photographs above (and the three to follow), we are going to show a particular affect which occurs on this type of covered bowl. This style of bowl was used to serve food  (as with the Hongzhi rice bowl); however, the food served in this kind of bowl was not eaten directly from the bowl itself, but rather was scooped into the lid, and then eaten out of the lid, held in the hand. What we see above are old, natural scratches on the top portion of the lid, as it was the part which received the most natural wear from being used and set down again, over and over, while the bottom portion remained more stable as it was used only to bring the food to the dining surface. This type of wear use is to be found all over the top portion of the Chenghua Emperor’s bowl and the sides of the lid. The original wear, pitting and smoothing to the scratches is due to the repeated cleanings after the meal, which smoothed the scratches when washing and drying with cloth, and then again while underground, by natural wear that occurred from minor tectonic activity and degradation while in their burial environment. We have never seen this natural effect duplicated successfully in any of the hundreds of reproductions and restored areas that we have studied under microscopic conditions. Natural wear looks natural, and forced wear scratches always appear to be much more defined, with the look of fresh abrasion, being much more ‘jagged’ in appearance, resembling fresh sanding marks.

The three above photographs are of an area on the side of the lid of the covered bowl. What we are looking at is the same type of scratches we saw on the top portion of the bowl, the only difference being the angle of the photos, and consequently, the lighting is a bit different, causing the bright yellow of the glaze to appear a bit more faded. Again, we can see the natural scratches caused from the heavier use of the lid portion and their further degradation from burial wear, but the main aspect of these photos shows that not all of the scratches are going in the same direction. This is what we find on authentic artifacts – the scratches follow a much more random pattern than on artificially abraded surfaces.The other aspect seen in these photos is best viewed in the last of the three, at 30X power. While this bowl does not quite show the same oxidation iridescence as the Hongzhi Emperor’s rice bowl, we still can see the iridescence in the yellow of the high portions of glaze, above the old, worn, scratched areas. The natural pitting of the scratches shows up extremely well as we reach the higher power photographs, which by far out-perform what can be normally seen using only the usual 10 power loupe.

With this next set of three microscopic photographs, we again find on the top of the lid of the Chenghua Emperor’s bowl an area of the clouds, next to one of the five claws of the Celestial Dragon, which has the same type of naturally-pitted use-scratches, but with the addition of an obvious tree-root track running mostly in the opposite direction to the scratches. We know of absolutely no way this effect can be faked by any replicator, as they have never used microscopic drills and polishing tools, and then naturally aged the artifacts to this extent. Parts of the original glaze also show oxidation iridescence in the photographs above, giving us conclusive evidence of an original burial artifact. The wear and root growth patterns extend to all portions of the exterior of both of the bowls presented in this article – all in the same random patterns we see here, and all with the exact type of natural pitting one finds from almost all long-term burial items. Burial pieces from extremely dry areas of the furthest reaches of the old Chinese Empires will obviously show less root growth tracks, but they are still sometimes found on items even from the driest of regions.

The three microscopic photographs above illuminate an area of high iridescence on the Chenghua bowl lid where the original degradation, potassium salts and detritus still remain. The scratching we find in all three of the microscopic photographs above are from the cleaning of the bowl after it was removed from the burial surroundings. We can easily see the difference in these new cleaning scratches compared to the original, worn and pitted ones we saw above.

In these last three microscopic photographs of the Chenghua Emperor’s covered bowl, we are looking into the interior of the lid, which was the portion which was actually used for eating. What are seeing is very hard to see with the highly fired, blue-white glaze, and even harder to photograph because of the illumination from the florescent light around the microscope, but with an additional light we managed to capture enough shadows to show the very shallow scratching from the eating surface of the bowl. These scratches would be from both the utensils used while eating and from abrasion during the  cleaning process, after the bowl was used. While this last process is rarely considered from a layman’s viewpoint, it is a valid authentication method, as not all water used in the cleaning process of old porcelains was totally free of abrasive materials. It is also good to mention the difference in the depths of the outside scratches to those we see in the interior of the bowl. We would not expect to see the depth of scratches inside as we would on the outside of the bowl (and eating utensils such as bamboo or wooden chopsticks would abrade much less than metal, despite the high silica content in bamboo, although porcelain spoons were also known at this time), since it was the exterior that would have been subject to the heaviest abrasion from use, tectonic activity, tree root growth, water penetration and mineralization.

In these first three photographs of the Hongzhi Emperor’s rice bowl (on the viewer’s right in the first photo above), we can see the advances that had been made by the Imperial Factory in the brighter yellow (which almost matches the lemon yellows of the Kangxi to those of the Qianlong periods of the Qing Dynasties), the more thinly-constructed walls of the bowl, and the finer incising of the designs (the discussion of which we will save for the final three photographs of this article). Also, very apparent is the much more common Imperial reign mark on the bottom of the bowl. Perfectly centered, exquisite calligraphy are the hallmarks of a true Hongzhi Emperor Imperial reign mark. The slightly cloudy areas seen in the reign mark (and are also on the sides in the green Celestial Dragons, fire and clouds) on the last photo above are only slight degradation from burial and original mineral deposits left from its cleaning. The microscopic photos to follow will leave no doubt as to the original burial condition this bowl had endured, the same as the Chenghua Imperial bowl addressed in the first portion of this article.

In the first three microscopic photographs above, taken on top of the Chinese word for Ming, we are looking at the glaze wear, degradation, pitting, and natural soil and detritus inside of the glaze loss. The obviously larger wood- firing bubbles of the period piece can also easily be discerned (under higher powers the microscope will actually penetrate the glaze all the way to the high-kaolin-content porcelain below).The glazing on the Hongzhi Emperor’s bowl was superior to that of the Chenghua bowl glaze, as many strides had been made during the numerous periods of advancement, throughout the entire illustrious Chinese history of ceramics and glazes; relatively speaking, significant advancements occurred in amazingly short period of times. The Chenghua Imperial pieces used by the father would have been made in approximately the year 1465 CE, and the Hongzhi Emperor’s Imperial pieces, used by the son, would have been made during approximately the year 1488 CE. In the following microscopic photos we will all be able to see the differences, despite the degradation due to natural burial conditions, made by some of these historic advances. [But for all the advances, which tend to cluster in times of peace and prosperity, there also come times of regression during war, invasion, and unrest; the arts are later brought back to life by the Chinese in their never ending attempts at perfection].

In this next set of microscopic photographs, we see at 10X, 20X and 30X the foot rim of an Imperial Factory bowl.The perfect trimming is much like the one we examined in the Chenghua bowl; in this case, the rim on the rice bowl is thinner and more exquisite in every detail. This bowl saw less use-wear than the covered bowl, yet it is still smoothed from slight wear and cleaning, with no artificial colorings added (the same as with the covered bowl above). In the last two photos above we can see an area where old dark red lacquer had gotten into the minuscule pores of the foot rim, and has remained there ever since. We believe these lacquer spots are original to the era and have been on the bowl since before burial, as they will not come off even with a high pressure water- gun blasting. Most likely they became attached through their use on an old red lacquer table and have now become a portion of the rim through adhesion. Under higher powers, the red lacquer becomes much more obvious, and at 90X you can view the lacquer all by itself.

Believing these two bowls may well have been from the exact same burial conditions, and may have been appropriated by the Palace eunuchs some 500-plus years ago (it is just too hard to believe that one man ended up with these two bowls from two different Emperors’ tombs), we see in the above microscopic photographs the start of what we believe were the same exacting conditions working on two different glazes. In the first photograph above (taken at an incised area of the Celestial Clouds), we see that minor scratching has occurred to the viewer’s left side of the photograph, with a tree root track crossing over, and then around it. In the following higher magnification photos, we can see the effect the tree root had on eroding the finer, shinier glaze finish of the Hongzhi Emperor’s bowl. The apparently more glassy finish to the bowl will be seen in many of the following photographs. The fine crazing to the thinner and glassier surface also shows the effect of long-term burial pressures (as this bowl was never intentionally crazed when produced). The iridescence we see on this bowl is also much higher on the remaining glassy surface where glaze loss, degradation and trailings of the same type of tree roots have removed portions naturally.

In the three photographs above, we are looking at an incised area on the Celestial Dragon in which the green glaze can be seen as being much thicker in depth inside the incised line (best seen in the first photo). This thicker area seems to have held its original shine and integrity more than the surrounding thinner areas of glaze. While there is still some crazing to this area, it is in remarkable condition considering its having been through burial conditions for such a long period of time. The section of yellow to the right of the incised line bears the marks of tree root tracks in the deeper ‘eaten away’ areas, and these appear to be very fine ‘feeder’ root tracks. The natural crazing to this yellow area between the root tracks can be best seen in the second photograph above. With their incredible natural oxidation iridescence, these photographs show just how beautiful an original burial porcelain can appear. Even with the degradation, mineralization, and natural wear, these items have a special power of their own, not to mention the important historical aspects of both of these exquisite bowls from the famous Imperial Kilns of Jiangdezhen, made exclusively for Imperial use.

Even though these wonderful bowls, when gazed upon with the naked eye, show high glazing and wonderful shine, it is in these types of microscopic photographs that we can view them in their true conditions. As this is a microscopic study, this is what you truly see on old burial artifacts when viewing under clear, higher powers. In all three of the microscopic powers above, all the true iridescence, crazing to the glaze, root tracks, original burial soil, and detritus can be well discerned. Even the minute flaking of the exterior glassy portions of the glaze can be easily seen in the second and third photos above. These effects show aspects of authentication of old porcelain artifacts that have not been duplicatable by the replicators of any age.

In the above three photographs, we are looking into the interior of the Hongzhi Emperor’s rice bowl. As with the inside of the Chenghua Emperor’s covered bowl, we would expect to see use-wear on the inside. The surprising aspect of this particular bowl is that  it does not show as much extensive use-wear as his father’s covered bowl; however, it does have ample wear to verify the bowl. As seen in the photographs above, it was either more gently used, or not used as frequently during the Hongzhi Emperor’s reign. Whether the Emperor preferred the other colors of his sets more, or as suggested before, more gently used in this period, we do not know. However, the scratches found inside the bowl are original to its period, as can be determined by the obvious iridescence which can be seen best in the last photo above at 30X power. In the first photograph above, we can also see one of the incised decoration lines, just above the scratching, which will be highlighted in the final photographs of this article.

In these final three microscopic photographs of this article, we are looking at a portion on the rim of the Hongzhi Emperor’s bowl (just found after many viewings, while I was taking these photographs) which shows what we would most definitely consider an utter impossibility to fake. It is an area which can be viewed best directly under the microscope, as the field of view is larger than those taken in the photos, and the bowl can be rotated slightly to take in the entire original, worn fingerprint, which can still be well discerned in the three photographs above. The natural curving lines of the fingerprint can still be seen, as can all the subsequent wearing away of the depressions left on the bowl more than 500 years ago. These lines are most definitely not scratch marks that have been worn away, as under the microscope they have all the characteristics that are to be found with original fingerprints, which occur on artifact pottery throughout the ages. It was truly a wonderful discovery, and a very exciting one for any verifier of artifacts to discover. It is doubtful this fingerprint has ever really been seen, even in the past, as it lies so subtly on the rim of the Hongzhi Emperor’s bowl. The three following photographs will not be microscopic, but are taken with our regular camera and lens and will be the last three of this article.

With these last three photographs, we show with back-lighting the exquisite incising on the Hongzhi Emperor’s rice bowl. While the same type of incising was used in the making of the Chenghua Emperor’s bowl, the extreme fineness and magnificent workmanship of original Ming Dynasty Imperial Jiangdezhen porcelain, made especially for the Hongzhi Emperor, shows the advancements made in such a short period of time, as mentioned before.

In closing, it has been our extreme pleasure to be chosen to verify and authenticate these marvelous two pieces of truly Imperial Porcelain, and also to be chosen to represent them. It has been our further grace to have met a man such as Mr. Rieger who placed so much trust in us, not only for the authentication, but for just being the kind man he truly is – unassuming and gracious to a fault.

All regular photos taken with Canon EOS XSi using Canon EF 24-70mm f/2,8L Lens

All microscopic photos taken with Canon EOS XSi under microscopic power

David Fredericks — Yulongwei

Timeless Jade

Timeless Artifact

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

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

100% Authentic Ming Dynasty

Rhino Horn Cup In Museum Condition

Above Photos Taken With Canon EOS XSi Using Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L Lens

To us, this wonderful Rhinoceros horn libation cup is one of the finest examples of a true Ming Dynasty (1368- 1644 CE) cup we have ever examined, or owned. From its typical low relief design, to the Ming Dynasty wave patterns, to its wonderful feeling of peace so reminiscent of the fine Chinese silk paintings of the Song and Ming Dynasties, this fabulous, almost entirely in-situ Rhinoceros horn libation cup is truly the essence of the masters’ art of the middle Ming Dynastic Period. Many people have commented on this cup while it has been in our possession over the years. We were even reported by a nasty one to the Fish, Game and Wildlife Department simply because he could not “steal” it from us. Obviously, we have passed the test with them, as we still have the cup in our possession. Many have called it “ugly”, many have said it was a reproduction Water Buffalo horn. It has even been called, by another dealer, an American Bison horn reproduction, in an attempt to discredit it and discourage potential buyers from purchasing it. The lies that have been told about this horn have been so ludicrous and defaming that we figured it was finally time to publish this exquisite horn, and let people decide themselves on what is a true Ming Dynasty horn, from a scientific perspective.

In this article we will, as we do on our Timeless Jade web site, take you deeper and deeper into what a true Rhinoceros horn cup of extreme age should look like under high quality photography, including true Macro Lens photos and microscopic photos. We hope all who read this article will enjoy it and come back at later times to this site as more articles are produced.

Above Photos taken With Canon EOS XSi Using Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L Lens

In the above photographs, we start to get a clearer view of different aspects of this horn including the remaining “honey” color of the original horn. This honey color is so in vogue; today most true old horns have had their original lacquer finished removed by abrasion techniques. Many, if not most, of the truly old horns were lacquer finished, as during the Ming Dynasty they knew full well the ravages that time would place upon the horns if they were left carved and unprotected in their ‘original’ state. Rhinoceros horn is tightly compressed hair, and one can read about in detail in the wonderfully published book by Jan Chapman, The Art Of Rhinoceros Horn Carving in China – Christies Books. Jan’s book on Rhinoceros horn carving is an absolute masterpiece, and there are many examples of darker colored horns to be explored in this magnificent book. However, like most books, there is some slight misinformation, and what Ms. Chapman refers to as black painted horns were in reality mostly a brown lacquer coating. Due to the fact the Chinese knew well just how protective a coating lacquer truly is, they used it to keep the hair follicles of the Rhinoceros horn from separating due to moisture, temperature extremes, dehydration, and the ravages of time. It is one of the most fascinating coatings (and glues) that man has ever used – resistant to water and acetone like no other glue or coating with which we have ever dealt. Having been used by the Chinese since at least the late Neolithic Period, they have known about all its amazing qualities down through their illustrious periods of creative genius, and it is no wonder they chose this material to ‘protect’ Rhinoceros horn carvings from the natural tendency to split, and from the bugs that love to eat it. To make a treasure from an extremely rare material that had to be brought, through perilous journeys from so far away (Rhinoceros had long disappeared from mainland China by the time of the Ming Dynasty), it likely was viewed as a necessity, considering the Ming Dynasty literati were extremely well-versed in how old burial items degraded over centuries and millennia.

For this particular libation horn cup, we will attempt to show not only its extreme age (very few of which exist), but also, beyond a reasonable doubt, that this marvelous libation cup was a Ming Dynasty funereal piece unearthed many years ago, had been minimally cleaned, and was lightly re-waxed long ago to preserve its beauty and authenticity of both style and original degradation. This libation cup has been soaked four separate times in acetone for short periods and the old wax removed by successive ‘shootings’ of our water gun (which can break skin). It took four different cleaning sessions to remove the light waxing it had received since its cleaning after removal from burial. The older the wax (75-100 years on the re-waxing on this cup), the harder it is to remove. Rhino horn is not as ‘tough’ as jade and has to be treated more gently (the acetone baths had to be of much shorter duration than we use for the far tougher jades we clean, described on TimelessJade.com), relying more on the successive water jet cleanings. Indeed, we will be showing microscopic photographs in this article of original Ming Dynasty wax, put over the lacquer coating that has withstood the ravages of long term burial. With all the cleanings in acetone and with all the high pressure water gun spraying approximately 95% of the original lacquer that was initially on the cup has remained, and only minuscule ‘grains’ were lost.

Above Photo Taken With Canon EOS XSi Using Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L Lens

In the above photograph, we can see the end of an old lacquer glue repair to an inside natural crack that had developed in the Rhinoceros horn cup. It is visible to the viewer as the white line at the top of the crack on the side of the cup in the lower part of the photo. Under the microscope, this old lacquer repair appears more clear and less whitish, as it does in this photo. The lacquer appears to have only been used at the top of the crack, to stabilize it and prevent it from reaching any further towards the rim of the cup, and was never repaired lower than the existing line. Had this been a modern glue, it would never have survived the acetone baths, which never affect true lacquer, as will be seen in some of the following microscopic photographs. The losses of the old lacquer coating sustained on the outside surfaces of the Rhino horn cup (we try to reveal both the lacquer and the honey color in almost all photographs, whether regular or microscopic) is most assuredly from moisture penetration into minute, original cracking in the lacquer coating, causing the horn to swell. This effect of lacquer loss is also accelerated by expansion and contraction due to moisture penetration and subsequent evaporation, along with temperature changes such as freezing and thawing in extended burial conditions.

Above Photos Taken With Canon EOS XSi Using Canon MPE 65mm f/2.8 1-5X Lens

In the three above photos, we begin to get a better close-up view of the original degradation to the cup after the successive removals of the light coating of wax which was put on the cup to enhance its sheen long ago. By the number of dunkings in acetone and the cleanings with the water gun, we would estimate this secondary wax was put over the cleaned  burial horn approximately 75-100 years ago, and was a very thin coating when applied. Newer, heavier covering waxes will turn white with acetone soaking very quickly, and are usually removed with one single spraying (even thick coatings). Approximately 50-year-old waxes take longer to remove and usually require two soakings and two shootings with the water gun (even on jades). Later in this article, we will see that the original Ming Dynasty waxes which were put over the original lacquers were never effected either by the acetone or the water gun. The soil penetration (as one would normally see in an old burial jade) might be better described here as soil and detritus ‘adhesion’. Under microscopic conditions, it readily shows up similar to the potassium salts and calcifications which ‘grow’ on old burial pottery. In the three photos above, it appears as a ‘muddy’ colored coating on the top of the remaining original lacquer. This adhesion of soils and organic matter are in areas that were hard to get to when the item was first cleaned years ago, and are extremely indicative of long term burial, as newer, applied soils and fake calcifications will easily clean off under the conditions to we subject our items.

"Orange Peel" Effect Of Hair Fibers On Bottom Of Ming Cup At 1X Macro

"Orange Peel" Effect Of Hair Fibers On Bottom Of Ming Cup At 2X Macro

"Orange Peel" Effect Of Hair Fibers On Bottom Of Ming Cup At 3X Macro

Above Photos Taken With Canon EOS XSi Using Canon MPE 65mm f/2.8 1-5X Lens

In the three above photos, we see the famous “orange peel” effect found on Rhinoceros horn pieces, which shows the ‘jammed-together’ hair follicles from an end view. This effect is found on all Rhinoceros horns, from all species around the world. Another major feature shown in the above three photos is that, contrary to what has been written and practically taken as ‘gospel’, is the fact that Rhinoceros horn does have a tendency, with age, to crack around the inside fibers in an arching manner. However, it is never as deeply defined as in Water Buffalo horns where the chitin is formed in layers – one upon another. Also, under microscopic conditions, Water Buffalo will sometimes appear as if it has a ‘hair-like’ fibrousness much the same as Rhinoceros horn (microscopic comparisons between the two types of horn should be performed, as one does not look like the other, with Rhinoceros horn fibering being much more distinct). The biggest true telling differences are that Water Buffalo horn will never have this “orange peel” effect, and it will always show the minuscule, thin, side-to-side, hair-line fractures, so commonly noted in writings. As the bottom of this horn was treated and cleaned in exactly the same manner as the sides, we can see in the above photos the remainder of original burial soil and detritus in these aforementioned arch-shaped cracks.

Vertical Hair Fibers On Ming Rhino Cup At 10X Microscopic Power

Vertical Hair Fibers On Ming Rhino Cup At 20X Microscopic Power

Vertical Hair Fibers On Ming Rhino Cup At 30X Microscopic Power

Vertical Hair Fibers On Ming Rhino Cup At 45X Microscopic Power

Above Four Photos Taken With Canon EOS XSI Under Microscopic Power

In the series of Microscopic photographs above, we can easily see the famous hair fibering of true Rhinoceros horn. The ‘splitting’ of the pictures between areas that have lost their lacquer coating and adjacent portions with the lacquer remaining is intentional. In the above four photographs, the differing widths of the Rhinoceros horn hair strands can be discerned. Similar to tree rings, not all strands grow too exactly the same width, and differing pressures, as the horn grows, may account for some of this effect. It is also interesting to note the differences in the remaining original lacquer as it goes from a very shiny surface to a rather dull surface. Lacquer is applied in successive layers, and given that fact, it is not a big leap to expect that in different areas it will have differing thicknesses, weaknesses and strengths. It would be our best assumption that the portions that have taken the most wear from long-term burial would have started out as the thinnest, weakest layers of the lacquer, and with moisture working into and drying out of minute cracks, a cause of ‘crazing’, along with freezes and thaws from temperature changes in the burial environment, that all these combined factors would cause some of the layers of the lacquer to degrade faster than in other, more secure areas. It would also be our observation, given the extreme shininess of some segments of the original lacquer, that this horn’s burial origin would have most likely been inland, away from the more tectonically active Pacific Rim of Fire region, along the coastal area of China. With heavy tectonic movement, we would expect to see, under microscopic conditions, heavy scratching on the shinier portions of the lacquer which remains on this cup. As the Macro photos above of the remaining original soil deposits, and the following microscopic photographs will show, the burial was contaminated with soil and detritus. With the next set of photographs, we will also examine what we believe is another reason for the lacquer to be in rather fine shape after having been in extreme conditions.

Adhered Cloth Fiber Found On Rhino Horn Cup Under 10X Microscopic Power

Adhered Cloth Fiber Found On Rhino Horn Cup Under 20X Microscopic Power

Adhered Cloth Fiber Found On Rhino Horn Cup Under 30X Microscopic Power

Adhered Cloth Fiber Found On Rhino Horn Cup Under 45X Microscopic Power

Above Four Photographs Taken With Canon EOS XSi Under Microscopic Power

This piece of fabric still clings precariously to the inside of a deep groove of one of the carved pine tree branches on the upper portion of the handle on the Rhino horn Cup. This piece of cloth has withstood all four of the acetone soakings and all four of the high pressure water sprayings to which this cup was subjected. Whether it was a part of a swath of fabric to protect the piece during burial, or a piece of cloth from application of the lacquer, or just an associated burial fabric, it nonetheless remains adhered to the cup after all this time. Unfortunately, because of the ‘field of depth’ while taking these photos, coupled with the lack of lighting available to us, we thought it best to show the fabric in these photographs. Soil adhesion can be at least faintly seen in in the second photograph above, with the same colored dirt as on the fabric, at the bottom of the depression in which it lies (to the immediate right of the fiber). Under first-hand viewing, it is much easier to ‘work’ the piece around under the lighted microscope area, and the detritus on the fabric becomes quite a bit more discernible. If the libation cup was first covered in fabric (as many tomb items were, or placed on wood with swaths of silk,) this could also explain why some of the lacquer still shines today much as it did approximately 500 years ago. However, some things will always remain a bit of a mystery, never to be truly explained. That fact that it remains now still leaves us with that desire to go forward – always looking for new anomalies and possibilities.

Original Ming Dynasty Wax In Wave Grooves At 10X Microscopic Power

Original Ming Dynasty Wax In Wave Grooves At 20X Microscopic Power

Original Ming Dynasty Wax In Wave Grooves At 30X Microscopic Power

Original Ming Dynasty Wax In Wave Grooves At 45X Microscopic Power

Above Four Photos Taken With Canon EOS XSI Under Microscopic Power

In the above four photos, we find one of the only places left on the Ming Dynasty Rhinoceros horn cup where the original wax, which was used over the lacquer, still remains. The old waxes we find on the old jade items which are truly of age, like this artifact, are much the same, in that very little is found. This will vary from artifact to artifact, and especially with a re-cut and re-polished jade, as can be seen in some of our articles on our Timeless Jade web site. Of particular note in these photographs is the obvious soil and detritus adhering to the outside of the wax. As can easily be seen in the photographs, the adhered dirt appears much more defined on the wax inside the carved grooves of the Ming style waves, and less on the lacquer which lies above these grooves. However, small amounts of the same type of dirt still adhere in the natural cracks of the lacquer, which can be most easily seen in the last photograph above at 45X Power. As is also clearly visible, the shine of the least-effected portions of the old lacquer, and the lack of tectonic scratching has lead us to believe that this exquisite cup was from a more stable region. While one can never be 100% certain without having been at the original ‘dig’ site, it is at least a reasonable assumption, as lacquer will scratch, much as glazed pottery items do, through the constant movement of soils around long-term burial items. The more tectonic movement, the more one would reasonably expect an artifact to show more wear.

Original Soil Detritus On Ming Rhino Cup Under 10X Microscopic Power

Original Soil Detritus On Ming Rhino Cup Under 20X Microscopic Power

Original Soil Detritus On Ming Rhino Cup Under 30X Microscopic Power

Original Soil Detritus On Ming Rhino Cup Under 45X Microscopic Power

Above Four Photos Taken With Canon EOS XSi Under Microscopic Power

In these last four photographs above, we find undeniable soil adhesion to a portion of the Ming Dynasty Rhinoceros horn libation cup, on an area that has a high spot on a curve, which then undercuts through a hole to the viewer’s left, in each photograph. Again, because of ‘depth of field’ in the photographing process, we had to make a decision on which area to focus the lens. We have another fine, flatter area, photographed with the same soil adhesion, but we chose this series for the article as it will help our viewers to start recognizing the same effect while the photo goes out of focus around the curve. This particular area (and all areas which show the most soil adhesion) are in the more deeply cut areas of the libation cup carving – the hardest areas to clean when a person is readying a cup for showing. This curving portion where the carving has actually been drilled (many areas on this cup were drilled as part of the carving process) underneath a pine branch, is ‘pierced’ clear through the horn. It is an area where soil and detritus would collect and remain mostly undisturbed during extended burial conditions. We always focus on these types of areas during the authentication of jade artifacts, as they too, are often missed, or only slightly touched in the re-cutting and re-polishing process. Once again, under actual microscopic viewing conditions, one can have the microscope, on its moveable boom, set high and just ‘walk’ the section in the above photographs back and forth and up and down to see extremely clearly the soil and mineral adhesion through the entire area of the hole.

In closing, this is a true museum piece, at least in our hearts, and our highest hope for it would be that someday it will reside back in its native land in a beautiful climate controlled setting, to be shown to the world as one of the rarest types of Rhinoceros Horn Libation Cups in existence. If not there, then at least in a museum like the Asian Art Museum Of San Francisco – The “Met” in New York – Harvard’s wonderful Museum, or the Smithsonian, someplace where original art, in its original form, is fully appreciated . Some people only desire the “pretty honey horns” (which I do find to be marvelous), while our greatest passion is for the old, in as close to in-situ condition as possible.

David Fredericks — Yulongwei

Timeless Jade