Message
It is very disappointing that many opinions expressed on jade carvings in this forum or other forum regarding their authenticities or ages are based on personal opinions without any evidence or proofs. It is equally sad that similar comments on their material, tool marks and unique characteristics are also based on personal judgments that may not be backed up by any studies or references. Of course personal opinions expressed by jade experts based on their professional experiences and researches should be well respected. The problem is that there are simply not too many jade experts who are professional jade experts or appraisers or they simply do not explain how they have obtained their conclusions.
It is worse when I tried to share some of my findings here I would be attacked with having personal agendas in selling my jades pieces on eBay. Actually, I do not believe it is a sin even I really try to sell my jades on eBay since many of the “respected” members here seem to sell their wares on eBay or in their own sites. It is funny that sometimes they are the one who will attack the most. Are they trying to protect their territories from the newcomers? If I am starting selling my pieces on eBay, I would make an official announcement here because at least one thing I can guarantee is that all my pieces would be tested and verified to the materials they were made of. Therefore, if I label a piece as “genuine nephrite piece” you know it would be indeed made of 100% nephrite jade. If I call it agate, it would be 100% agate. I would further list their exact weights, dimensions, specific gravity and hardness there. If I am not sure of their ages, I would label them as “Modern”. Cannot be fair than that, will it?
It is puzzling that many jade collectors do not bother to study jade carving material or tool marks but seem to immediately attack many “jade” pieces (both mine and others’) and called them “modern” without any types of evidences or proofs. That is truly amazing. Many times, even jade experts and professional appraiser cannot do so by just examining low-resolution pictures (this forum only allows pictures that are 100kb or less).
Many of them seem to know so much about “jade” material but yet not too many people have taken up this fun challenge in naming the jade material I posted on the other site:
http://www.chicochai.com/jadeforum/read.php?forum=1&id=29669
May be you can try and see how good you are. I have painstakingly studies and tested over 1,000 pieces of jade carvings, rocks, cabs, slacks and continue in acquiring more for my studies. I still miss 20% of the time.
I have never claimed that “jade” material is the most important or only criterion in the authenticating and dating of any jade carvings. However, the study of such material is probably the easier stepping stone for jade novices and they are vital because:
(1) Jade materials used in different Chinese dynasties for making jade carvings are unique and limited. The supplies of quality jade materials in ancient China were always very limited and were constrained by their sources. For example, during Shang and Zhou dynasties or even later dynasties, based on pieces excavated from known tombs, most excavated jade carvings were made of these three major jade materials:
http://www.chicochai.com/jadeforum/read.php?forum=1&id=29339#29366
“According to analysis performed on jades excavated from famous tombs including the Lady Fu Hou at late Shang, late Western Zhou, early Spring-Autumn and early Warring States, the materials of all excavated jade pieces can attribute to known Chinese jade mines and their jade materials are as follow:
http://www.chinajades.cn/asp_club/read_zj_paper.asp?id=181&zj_name=%B9%C5%B7%BD
(1) Hetian jade - mined from Khotan, XinJiang. Many pieces found in these tombs are indeed made of Hetian jades, mostly in white or celadon colors. (hardness: usually 6.0; S.G. 2.92 or higher)
(2) Xiu Yan jade - many jade pieces, especially found in lesser nobles, were made of a serpentine jade very similar to Xiu Yan jade (found in Xiu Yan, Liaoning). (Bowenite: hardness >5; S.G. 2.50 – 2.67, very seldom over 2.70)
(3) Nam Yan jade - also known as Dushan jade which is a feldspar with hardness as high as 6.5 (found in Nam yang, Henan) (S.G. between 2.50 – 2.70; hardness 6-7)
Therefore, most early jade pieces (Shang, Zhou, Spring Autumn and Warring States) are made of high quality Hetian jades (resistant to weathering) or lower qulity non-jade materials (not as resistant to heavy weathering) but never this kind of low quality green nephrite found with heavy weathering.”
Also, see:
Jade materials using in Shang and Zhou dynasties
http://www.chicochai.com/jadeforum/read.php?forum=1&id=29339#29381
Jade materials found in ancient China:
http://www.chicochai.com/jadeforum/read.php?forum=1&id=29339#29379
Therefore if one sees some authentic Shang or Zhou dynasty jade pieces made of some cheap green nephrite materials that were never found in ancient China, what should one think?
(2) Importance of Local (Area) jades:
Each culture employed jades that could be found in their localities to make their jade carvings. In each dynasty, when an emperor passed away, there would be a large demand for making a large quantity of burial jades. Very often, not enough quality jades such as Hetian jades could be found to meet the demand and deadline (for burial), therefore many local jades found in the proximity of the tomb were being used. By comparing the jade materials of unknown pieces with those excavated from known tombs, one can then either confirm or reject the authenticities of know pieces. It is not true that every nephrite piece is identical in their physical properties. It is almost like DNA typing of jade material. Each jade material has its unique fingerprinting.
There have been great debates even among many Hongshan jade experts regarding the “credible” jade materials found in authentic Hongshan jade carvings. The one jade material that seems to be liked by many experts is the dark green Manassa (River) nephrite material used to make many large C dragons. However they also believe the OLD Xiu Yu (xiu yan jade) which was a nephrite jade or a nephrite-serpentine combination material are also credible. Some believe New Xiu Yu (xiu yan jade) that is similar to bowenite (with a hardness of at least 5.0 and higher) is also a credible material especially on large carvings (harder to find large nephrite pieces).
I have seen several credible jade materials on Hongshan and Hongshan style jade carvings. The most common one are Cai Shi (colorful stone) which is a green nephrite with orange-red colors mixed in it. The first time I saw them I believe they were dyed because when I soaked the piece in water, the water turned yellow. However, I believe its color were natural. Such stone has been documented in many Hongshan jade books and were found in Hongshan areas. This type of nephrite has a hardness that is between 5.0 to 6.0 and usually a S.G. between 2.90 to 2.96 They were found in the making of many cheaper Hongshan style jade carvings that couldn’t possibly be Neolithic based on the quality of their carvings and the tool marks found on them. There is also a better quality darker green nephrite material with S.G. as high as 3.00 and a hardness of around 6.0. I am not sure this is a local jade or simply jade materials used in later dynasties to make Hongshan style jade carvings. There is one unique nephrite jade, always appears to be almost “red” in appearance and with a S.G. between 2.86 – 2.93 and variable hardness on their surfaces. I am not sure if their red color is due to some types of stains such as from iron elements or from cinnabar. They are unique because many times fissures and old tool marks are found on them. Although again they cannot be genuine Neolithic, but I believe this type of material is indeed old and unique. I believe it is possibly a mixture of nephrite-serpentine..
I have also seen three types of serpentine materials. One dark green serpentine material that could be scratched and is not often encountered on Hongshan style pieces, believe or not. Most modern xiu yu (serpentine) jade carvings that were imported from China are now that of celadon (light green) color. Although once a while you may see some large dark green serpentine pieces. There are two types of yellowish-brown bowenite or serpentine materials I have seen in Hongshan styles pieces. The better and older one is the one that cannot be scratched, with better stains and old tool marks and the newer one can be scratched, with suspicious stains and in lesser carving quality. Again, while the older one is still not good enough to be Neolithic, they are indeed much older. I have seen many “authentic” Hongshan pieces (jade bird, Apollo) sold on big auctions and listed on Hongshan jade books, made of this beautiful and lustrous yellow jade material
but I cannot confirm if it is nephrite or serpentine.
However, the most convincing jade materials I have seen so far on authentic Hongshan jade carvings such as bird, pig dragons, etc. is this type of celadon nephrite material that is of a quality that is equivalent to that of Hetian jade. Many of them has a S.G. exceeds 3.0 and a hardness exceeds 6.0. On the earlier Hongshan period pieces, they were made in a celadon nephrite material with some types of white-spot like texture inside the jade material, most were not highly polished, with tougher surfaces full of convincible stains and weathering. On later Hongshan pieces, they were carved much more refined, with fine details of even feathers on the bird’s talon being shown vividly. The surface is finely polished and often lustrous. Of course, in theory it is still possible to find high quality celadon Hetian jade to make such fakes. However, this type of jade material, for some reason, is rarely seen on “fake” Hongshan jades, even the high-priced one. Rather, they were often made in white Hetian jades or with lesser jade materials.
Of course, there are a few other local jades that had been used in the making of authentic Hongshan jades, however, since I do not have the privilege in studying them yet, I do not want to discuss them here.
Conclusion:
Once again I want to stress that by itself, jade material is not good enough in the authenticating and dating of a jade carving. However, when a supposedly archaic jade carving was made of jade material that was not known or found in its time period or locality, that something is definitely wrong with such piece. In the same token, if a jade carving is made of such fine jade material that is similar to those of archaic one and with credible tool marks and workmanship, then one should look further into such piece. For example, I have not yet seen any authentic Hongshan carvings (in human or animal forms) that were made of either lapis lazurite or agate. The reasons may be such materials are either not available at the time or locality or the tools available at the time were not good enough to carve them.
It is a misconception that a few forum members believe that it is easy to make a modern “archaic” jade carving. They believe if they can combine “new’ technology with “old” materials/technology they can achieve the production of a convincing “archaic” jade carving. They also believe many “old” tool marks found on jade pieces are “modern”. They do not understand even with today’s modern technology, they cannot even accomplish or copy some of the Neolithic or ancient carving skills. They may not understand that modern electrical carving tools are operated with high speed (rpm) and often in one direction (clockwise) while older manual tools were low speed (rpm) and often in two directions (both counter-clockwise and clockwise) (*Note: Mr. Randy Li said he had seen manual tu operated in one direction also.) The tool marks left by such modern and older tools are distinctly different from each other, the holes drilled by them are not only different in their overall width but also in the threads left by them inside the holes. There are also certain characteristic one can look for inside those holes and around their edges, the shape of the holes to tell if they are authentic. However, one can never confirm the authenticity of a piece by its holes alone.
Furthermore, on the grooves in authentic Hongshan jade pieces, if one can examine carefully, there are unique tool marks inside the grooves that were actually three different tool marks left by three different tools. Although many times not all three tool marks are visible at the same time, however the last tool mark is a distinct tool mark found only on authentic Hongshan pieces.
There are many unique tool marks and characteristics found on authentic Neolithic pieces because at that time metal tools were supposedly unavailable (there are debates on that) and carvings were done with the minimal stone tools. Unfortunately, the jade carving tools at those time period are simply no longer available for later study. Therefore even among jade experts, there are big debates in whether these Neolithic people were using stone tu or string cut in carving their jade pieces. However, if you would examine the celadon stone slit ring I posted in another message, it would not be difficult for you to find traces of tool marks left by such old tools. Of course I am not claiming such ring is a Neolithic piece but I do not believe another jade collector’s claim that it is modern and indeed make an offer in buying up every single “modern” ring similar in material and workmanship to the one I have posted. We believe such slit ring was used as “burial ear ring” at ancient time. Also, we had found concrete evidence on some of the tabular beads that they were also used as burial pieces.
I am fortunate in not having to depend on myself in obtaining and studying my jade pieces. I have many jade friends who travel in China and who knows Neolithic jades. We correspond all the time and compare our pieces with each other. In short, while we do not always agree with each other, however we do learn from each other.
I have come to the point that I believe I am starting to learn more about jades especially Hongshan jades. I no longer enjoy getting into any argument with people who simply love to argue. I find that I can never learn anything from them and by fighting with them it only raise my blood pressure. I am also too tired even to explain things to them because many of the stuff I have since learned I cannot share with them due to my promises. Even I explain to them, they would find other arguments so the fight can continue. That simply serves on purpose whatsoever. Therefore if there are indeed some jade lovers out there sincerely want to talk about jades and not in fighting about them, please do drop me an e-mail. Thank you.
Bill
|
Note that we are now reviewing postings before posting due to the large volume of SPAM and inappropriate postings on the forum. The validation process may take up to 12 hours. |
|
- Stan - Feb 10, 2008 (11:20 AM)