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

Antiquities, Plus…

Timeless Jade

Timeless Artifact