Post: Post Reply: Re: Zi Beads by Beadman

Original Message: Re: Zi Beads

Dear PK,
As mentioned by Joyce, my Yahoo Group is a good place to seek information. I'll try to respond to some points you raise.
The name of the bead is traditionally spelled "gZi." "dZi" is a modern rendering from 25 years ago. The "d" (or "g") is NOT capitalized. In my article, I render the name "zi" for simplicity, to avoid the problems of small letters combined with capitals, and based on an historical account from nearly eighty years ago, where the beads were called "zi."
"Purity" is too complicated to discuss here and now. The primary idea of "pure" zi beads was first expressed by David Ebbinghouse in his Ornament article in 1982. What he wrote is still pretty valid, but he'd be the first to admit that even his perceptions have changed over the years, and that what he wrote may not reflect the views of all Tibetans, nor even many of them. Even now, David is consulting with a Tibetan family (introduced by me), specifically to disccus this issue.
What I call a "chung" zi is not what everyone else necessarily calls a chung zi (as I have been informed at this forum several times). I limit the name to banded zi that appear to have "untreated" ends. Others include all banded zi, and some say it refers to "any except 'pure' zi." (I think thats much too inclusive.)
It is a current Chinese mistake that certain beads are called "tiger teeth." They are called "tiger zi," and the name compares the pattern to the STRIPES of a tiger. The mistake occurred a few years ago, by some author who had confused horse's tooth zi with tiger zi, and added the "teeth" to the tiger.
Chung beads ARE zi. If you consult a Tibetan dictionary, the word "chung" means "lesser" or "smaller." (That is one sort of definition.) My take on the name is that, as non-eyed beads, chung beads are not considerd as important (valuable) as eyed zi beads.
I have long accepted the idea that many or most "pure" zi beads are practically opaque. And, there are late imitatiosn that I know are translucent. So I think it is a reasonably valid point being made. But chung beads, whether opaque or not would not be pure beads, because they are already conceived to be "lesser."
I hope this is helpful.
Jamey
Copyright 2024
All rights reserved by Bead Collector Network and its users

Original Message: Re: Zi Beads
Dear PK, As mentioned by Joyce, my Yahoo Group is a good place to seek information. I'll try to respond to some points you raise. The name of the bead is traditionally spelled "gZi." "dZi" is a modern rendering from 25 years ago. The "d" (or "g") is NOT capitalized. In my article, I render the name "zi" for simplicity, to avoid the problems of small letters combined with capitals, and based on an historical account from nearly eighty years ago, where the beads were called "zi." "Purity" is too complicated to discuss here and now. The primary idea of "pure" zi beads was first expressed by David Ebbinghouse in his Ornament article in 1982. What he wrote is still pretty valid, but he'd be the first to admit that even his perceptions have changed over the years, and that what he wrote may not reflect the views of all Tibetans, nor even many of them. Even now, David is consulting with a Tibetan family (introduced by me), specifically to disccus this issue. What I call a "chung" zi is not what everyone else necessarily calls a chung zi (as I have been informed at this forum several times). I limit the name to banded zi that appear to have "untreated" ends. Others include all banded zi, and some say it refers to "any except 'pure' zi." (I think thats much too inclusive.) It is a current Chinese mistake that certain beads are called "tiger teeth." They are called "tiger zi," and the name compares the pattern to the STRIPES of a tiger. The mistake occurred a few years ago, by some author who had confused horse's tooth zi with tiger zi, and added the "teeth" to the tiger. Chung beads ARE zi. If you consult a Tibetan dictionary, the word "chung" means "lesser" or "smaller." (That is one sort of definition.) My take on the name is that, as non-eyed beads, chung beads are not considerd as important (valuable) as eyed zi beads. I have long accepted the idea that many or most "pure" zi beads are practically opaque. And, there are late imitatiosn that I know are translucent. So I think it is a reasonably valid point being made. But chung beads, whether opaque or not would not be pure beads, because they are already conceived to be "lesser." I hope this is helpful. Jamey Copyright 2024 All rights reserved by Bead Collector Network and its users

Back Post Reply

Name
  Register

Password

E-Mail

Subject

Private Reply   Make all replies private

Message
HTML tags allowed in message body. Browser view     Display HTML as text.

Link URL

Link Title

Image URL

Attachment file (<256 kb)

Attachment file (<256 kb)