oops. sm
yes
terra cotta bead of warring states
my father is of the same age as you steve
seems you have some chinese knowlege
Dear RM,
Beads such as these were made from a Chinese version of faience (also called "composition" or "paste" by some writers).
Terra-cotta is a red clay of fairly coarse texture, used in common pottery functions.
In contrast, Faience-making would have been introduced into China in the Warring States Period (as was glassmaking), from the Mediterranean. Faience is made from ground-up quartz dust (and is therefore very different from clay). The external patterns seen on Chinese faience beads are "glaze," or actual colored glass.
In all likelihood, the dates of these beads are not as early as Steve suggests. I would guess that the glass beads (may) predate the faience beads, judging by comparing them to one another, and noting that some glass beads (not so many) and some faience beads (rather more numbers) share a similar design style that suggests some probable evolutionary development. Specifically, the eyes that are found inside squares or diamonds (squares positioned with a corner up, down, left, and right).
Jamey
P.S. I'm a year older than Steve, and a "rabbit."
..materials. The bead in the most recent post appears to have a fired terracotta core overlaid with perhaps a faience "glaze". It doesn't appear to be the same as the early glazes that were appearing on Chinese pots around the same time. I have several of these pots, and the glaze is thin, somewhat olivish in color, and does not resemble the vibrant beads in any way. Has there been TML dating attempted on the beads? I suspect the cores of some of the beads could be dated. I use the early date simply because it is the accepted beginning date of the Warring States period. I guess the most obvious comparison, since you believe they are faience cored, would be the ushabti of Egypt. I have had these as well, and even a broken one, and at least to my amateur eye the beads(cores of them) do not appear to be made from the same material. I am willing to accept your opinion since that is what I heard about these beads when I first encountered them. But now I am not so sure that all the cores are faience. Seems easy to solve if TML has been attempted on some of them. Thank you Jamey. Steve
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
Here is an example (bead number 1430), which is badly chipped or broken on one side, showing a good view of typical construction of this type of
"composite" bead. I agree that they are probably later in the general time period of the W.S. era.
I was cataloging all of the W.S beads in my collection and coould not find a separate picture handy, so you get some other examples without damage.
Jan
