| Original Message: Perhaps not.... |
|---|
|
Hello Steve, If there were any ceramic beads from the Warring States Period that were in any way related to the conventional glass and faience beads that are often discussed, this relationship would have been worked-out and published by now. When any of these beads are identified as being "ceramic" or "clay" or "terra-cotta," these are instances of mistaken identity. The faience bases of the "composite" beads can be any of a number of colors, including off-white (gray), buff, red, and dark gray. Nevertheless, it is all faience (in a generic sense). And the glass that is used to decorate these beads is just colored glass. As I mentioned before, this is foreign technology that was assimilated by the Chinese. So making comparisons to traditional Chinese arts (such as ceramics) may be pointless. Of course they are different; AND they are alike in some ways. There is no such thing as "faience glaze." Glaze is glaze, is glass. Faience is the quartz-based material, and may or may not have a "glazing aspect" to its composition. But in the context of polychrome-decorated vessels and objects, these colors are made intentionally and separately, and are added..., and are GLASS. A lot of confusion surrounds faience and faience-like materials, because they have usually been relegated to being classified as "ceramics." These materials are not really ceramic-like, and ought to have their own classification groups. (The exact thing used to be true of glass, 100 years ago..., but glass made it to its own category, eventually.) Glass and faience have certain characteristics in-common with ceramics. However, they are also distinctly different from ceramics. So, like anything else, you can discuss how two things are alike, and you can discuss how they are different. Both give us valid and useful information. But to say that "faience is ceramic" is a mistake, and it misleads many people into thinking an untrue thing. (For instance, that faience is based on clay—which it is not.) The beads in question are NOT "ceramic" beads, even if they look like ceramic beads. I wish I had a nickel for every time I have had to write this over the past twenty-five years.... I highly recommend the writings of Robert Liu, in relation to Warring States beads. I mostly agree with him; and he mostly agrees with me. On the other hand, I am reasonably sure that some poorly made and nearly always obvious fakes of Warring States beads ARE made from ceramics (because this is what is available to the fakers--and the fakers know almost nothing about faience-making). One problem (that concerns me) is, when anyone comes along and says "these are ceramic Warring States beads," this statement makes it possible to pass-off the fakes as real. Because some fakes ARE ceramic. There is also the more fundamental problem of misidentifying the material content and structure of the authentic beads in question, that is significant in a number of ways. It pays to be cautious and to become educated..., and to not draw conclusions until you are informed. And, above all, listen to reason. Listen to the people who figured out these issues a long time ago. Jamey All rights reserved by Bead Collector Network and its users |
|
|