| Original Message: Re: Other thoughts on identifying agate beads? |
|---|
|
Hello Floorkasp, As I post below, many shapes exist from antiquity, including the longitudinal faceting of fusiform beads (in the region of India). But these are not typical Chinese shapes. The point of faceting a stone is to affect its refraction or reflection of light. A multifaceted stone glints in the light. (The modern brilliant-cut diamond is the greatest achievement of this arena,) As I understand it, the glinting of stones is not an effect that Chinese folks appreciated or desired. They much preferred stones to glow. And the glowing of stones is accomplished through making smooth rounded shapes. Nevertheless, when I look at the beads in question, in addition to their shapes, I am looking at the material. The carnelian of India is distinct from that of China. Both are distinct from the carnelian of Germany (actually derived from Brazil, after 1881); and from the South American carnelian of pre-Columbian antiquity (for instance). The beads in question do not look Chinese. But I would not support the generalizations you list. They are over-simplified. Jamey All rights reserved by Bead Collector Network and its users |
|
|