| Original Message: Chinese Fakes Revisited |
|---|
|
April 28, 2020 This past year, on a trip abroad, I was shown two "ancient Chinese head pendants." I immediately said they were fakes, and that I was familiar with them—and had published several in my Istanbul paper from 2007. I remarked that these were loosely based on Phoenician Period head beads and pendants, and were made differently—so their authenticity was easily challenged. He said, "But these are Chinese antiquities, so they need not look like the Mediterranean pieces." And then he showed me a short published report, by a Chinese archaeologist, purporting to affirm that the two pendants shown (that were nearly identical to the two pieces I was looking at) were indeed ancient and authentic. I took a photo of the report. And also photos of the pendants we were discussing. Once I returned to the US, I contacted Robert Liu, and told him about this exchange. And said I had seen the person's two head pendants, and the short report. (I knew Robert would be interested, and his connection to the situation was that he supplied me with photos for my Istanbul paper of 2007.) Robert said, "I know this report." (!) "The Chinese archaeologist is in big trouble in China, for having been duped into writing a report about fake beads, being passed off as authentic antiquities." (I am paraphrasing all of the above dialogues from my memory. But they present the gist of actual conversations.) So, from all this, we know: 1) Fake Chinese head pendants that slightly resemble Phoenician Period specimens, are being manufactured and passed-off as Chinese antiquities. 2), A Chinese archaeologist was duped into contributing to the scam—and will suffer professionally for the error. 3) A report exists and is being circulated, that purports to affirm the authenticity of these products—but it is a scam. Jamey All rights reserved by Bead Collector Network and its users |
|
|