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
Dear PK.
To join any Yahoo Group, you have to establish a unique identity and join. It is free and relatively easy. Once you're a Yahoo Member, you can sign-in and join any Group.
As I use the name "chung," it refers ONLY to beads with plain bands (usually parallel to each other or in groups at an angle to each other), and with "untreated" ends. (The ends are not truly untreated—but they have this appearance.) Other banded beads are not "chung" beads as far as I am concerned, nor are beads with other patterns.
Tiger zi and horse's teeth zi are beads with other specific patterns. Their patterns are various types of zigzag bands. I would not consider these to be "lesser" zi, except that horse-toorh zi tend to be small. Actually, tiger beads may command nearly the greatest dollars in the marketplace, and are considered by some to the among the most desirable and valuable of zi beads. So, they clearly are not "lesser" beads.
There is no evidence that ANY stone beads were made in Tibet. The idea that beads were or are made where they are found is a sort of simplistic notion, made by people who are not thinking about how PORTABLE beads are, and that the world-wide trade in beads has been pursued for nearly 5,000 years.
The idea that zi bead were made in Tibet is founded by the fact that these beads are quite rare elsewhere. Nevertheless, the TECHNOLOGY of putting decorations on agate, and of making it various colors is essentially an Indian development. It is industries in India (and now Pakistan) that made and traded beads abroad, and also exported the technology (as to Burma, where pumtek and other decorated stone beads were made).
Making beads from stone demands being proficient in a number of technologies—not the least of which is the skilled drilling of the stone. Until someone demonstrates that beadmaking used to be pursued in Tibet, there is no logical reason to presume zi beads were made there. (The local manufacture of prayer beads from soft materials—like seeds and wood—does not count!)
Jamey
