I like your comment about who can really know what went through the mind of this bead's creator. Whatever it was had to have been important to them, as jade is difficult and time-consuming to carve, even if one is well-off and has a lot of leisure! I.e., it's not like sitting down and whittling something out of wood or modelling in clay. Even bronze casting is easier.

Hey RM - could you show us a picture of a pig head bead with the pig's head attached?
I like your comment about your hands shaking-been there, done that. I also like your cultural contributions to BCN. You add a lot to the forum!

Carole,
This is the best I can do regarding a ZHULONG Pig Dragon bead, its photo of an image from the book Jade. As Red Mountain said no one really knows the meaning of the beads, all I know is that there were quite a few found related to the Hongshan Culture 3500 -2500 BC

All my best ..... Danny

...of the carving pictured in Jade - over 4 inches or 10+ cm. That's quite a chunk of stone!

Hello Danny,

This piece is very helpful in seeing the iconography on redmountain's bead. Just one other note and I think this has been discussed before on BCN. As I have been researching beads, I have arbitrarily taken the definition of a bead to include a hole pierced through the center of the piece. (This definition is problematic in that flat thin pieces like Chinese bis which have holes at their center, yet would not be thought by most to be beads, would also be included. Otherwise it is helpful in that I do not have to consider many kinds of pendants with holes pierced asymmetrically as this would enlarge an already too large subject. )

Others have taken the position that anything with a hole in it can be considered to be a bead. Even the smallest of zhulongs can be heavy and I have never seen anything to show them being strung together in a group. Many zhulongs are the size of the one in your photo - four inches across - and quite substantial. I would prefer to think of it as a pendant, or when truly large - some pig dragons are more than a foot across- as a sculptural "something else."

This is not a question with an absolute answer and, as I recall, the definition of a bead versus pendant was not resolved in the previous discussion. Does anyone remember this?

Terry

In his still-significant "Classification of Beads and Pendants" (1928), Beck said that pendants are essentially beads with off-center perforations, that facilitate their use as hanging objects typically incorporated into constructions that are most often beads. Pendants are specialized beads.

The idea that "anything with a hole in it is or can be a 'bead'" is nonsense—not to say very unhelpful as well. There are billions of holed things that are not beads (to say the least).

Beads are essentially elements of personal adornment, and range in size from very small to very large—IN RELATION TO the size of the human body. (Beads are also amuletic—though I will mostly ignore this aspect in this monologue, to remain reasonably brief.) Something too small to be seen is most likely not a bead—whether perforated or not. The "too large" phenomenon is more difficult, because some extant beads are remarkably large, and some initially might presume that these are too large to have been worn by anyone—though in fact there are MANY examples of personal adornment (not just beads) that seem gigantic in relation to the size of a regular person. Then, we have the issue of beads made for monumental statues and as architectural features that are clearly based upon wearable beads (as I showed here in December, on a Tibetan temple). And, before we leave this area, let's recall that beads, as amulets, are also worn by animals, and placed in homes and vehicles (for protective and decorative functions).

So that is the issue of functionality—that beads perform the object of being personal adornments (but are also apotropaic amulets). Nevertheless, the issue of beadwork (a phenomenon I tend to separate from other beads), can be looked upon as crossing the line from adornment to decoration—because many beadwork constructions are "art"—intended to be placed on a wall or pedestal (or whatever), and do not decorate people nor animals, per se.

It can be said that there are "true beads," and "functional beads." A functional bead is a perforated object of some material that can be adapted to the use of any typical (or nontypical) bead usage. If I buy 1,000 brass washers at the hardware store, I can use these "as beads" by placing them into a necklace construction (and have, many times)—though they remain brass washers. But their context makes it germane to think of these things as "beads." (I am famous, or perhaps infamous for making necklaces that use non-beady things in necklace designs.)

There are MANY "beadlike" objects that are not beads. This forces us to "take a stand" and decide what we will accept a "a bead," and what should or will be excluded. From 5,000 years ago, the perforated cylinder seal is essentially a bead, and was most likely worn on the body. Nevertheless, my good friend Dr. Robert Liu has expressed the opinion that "these are not beads"—because they have a specific function (acting as seals). How about the ojime from Japan? These are used specifically to hold the cords that close and secure an inro emsemble—typically a box (the inro) and the netsuke (a kind of toggle suspended from the obi/sash) worn with a traditional kimono (robe) in Japan. Some would say these are not "beads"—though presently they are mostly worn in necklaces as beads. Likewise, the spindle whorl is a VERY "beadlike" object, that has a specific function, and technically may not be a "bead." However, I believe (based on nothing but my guts) that weavers and other fiber artisans MAY have worn whorls as beads (in antiquity). In part, I think this because so many of them are beautifully made—well beyond what's necessary for their intrinsic function. For sure, nowadays, many people wear them as "beads."

But when a perforated object can be shown to have some specific function that is not "beady" a case can be made that it is not "a bead," but rather is the thing that it is. At Peter Francis' site (www.thebeadsite.com), he has a page where these issues are discussed and illustrated, and he even composed a "quiz" to make these points, based on the identification of such objects. We recently discussed mace-heads—which, as I said, I have long documented because they are so beadlike (and beautifully made).

Not only are not all perforated objects beads, but not all beads are perforated (!). This was originally a hard one for me to wrap my brain around. However, with some logical discourse with Peter Francis, and some contemplation, I came to concede that an item that was made to function as an element of personal adornment, though it has no perforation can be "a bead." In parts of the world (including from a very long time ago and respecting various levels of technology), there may have been no reasonable way to perforate an object intended to be strung together with others to form personal adornments (the basic definition of "beads"). These items were sometimes grooved so that a string could be wrapped around them (and tied) for suspension. Some were just notched. As there is no specific and separate name for these things, they are "beads" for want of a name.

Ultimately, a pendant, being an object of personal adornment, usually or often combined with beads, often or usually made from the same materials and via the same skills and techniques as beads, IS a bead. I do not think this is a controversial proposition, at all.

By the way, I have said all of the above MANY times over the years, in lectures, in consulting, in articles—and even here. This represents my slant on the issue, from as early as ca. 1980—from the standpoint of being a hands-on working artist specializing in beads and beadwork, and as an historian and a conceptual theorist.

Jamey

I just got to this post. Thank you Jamey. I hope I remember it this time and the information does not slip through the hole in my brain which is not a bead.

Terry

Doesn't seem to be terribly active, but 72 members are listed, and maybe there's a photo archive?

I am a "member" of this group and it is not useful in any respect. It is not a true group or forum as there has never been any discussion since its inception.

Terry

Wow! Don't miss this one!

I know this book well and there are several other books of similar Hongshan jades which have been published in Chinese. I am wondering if redmountain accepts these as true Hongshan jades. My guess is that he does not. I am on the fence on these. (This is one reason why I am not considering Hongshan jade beads until after I've shown everything else.)

Redmountain, what do you think about these jades?

I am reading all the posts and it will take some time.
I fail to open the link, could you open it?

well In china there are quite a few hongshanmania but in fact not many people really know it. and also there are plenty of fakes that make it more difficult to identify even for people who live on the ancient jade trading. but in a another way it is the comparetively good time for a good collector.

yes I live in beijing for about ten years and for me the most interesting place of the whole city is its antique city near east 3rd ring road. I have friends there sometimes I could spend whole weekend there and there is just like a big box of chocalates you never know what you gonna find! :) I love that feeling and enjoy it very much!

I start to miss there.

R.M.
zhoushan

Very interesting piece! It seems to be two pig dragon heads back to back: 4 ears, 4 eyes and two snouts. Is this correct? Those not familiar with the Hongshan pig dragon can see the lines on Danny's zhulong's snout. These lines are what appear on redmountain's bead just where the snout should be.

I'm wondering if it is not just a coincidence that this piece was found on a string of spindle whorls. It has the feel of a spindle whorl to it. We know that spindle whorls were used in neolithic times and I have recently found evidence of a jade spindle whorl from the late neolithic Shijiahe culture.

hello cicada
I have looked through all your posts for me
quite alot questions :)

first I want to give some notes for this pig head bead.
It is of a type of hongshan culture jadeware which you could find in some exhibitions but no official excavation example.

yes as you said 4 ears 4 eyes 4 snouts make 4 faces of pig dragon for 4 directions.

acctually I personally think it is more like a macehead or symbol of some kind of power rather than just wear.

below is some examples of the same kind.
some are from taiwan Zhendan collection

http://www.aurora.org.tw/

they have a lot of materpiece of ancient chinese jadeware.

R.M.

Hello cicada

I enjoy reading this thread exceedingly but am a bit blur. Where are the 4 ears, 4 eyes and two snouts in the zhulong referred to ? Thanks.

Sallie

....I doubt the authenticity of almost all of them. On stylistic grounds alone, I would question 70 or 80% of them, and probably any close inspection would reveal an even greater percentage to be doubtful for technical reasons. These are not so much fakes as modern fantasy pieces. But the effect is the same, because they get sold as the real thing; people collect them and become "experts" and write books on the basis of their collections. It's pathetic and alarming, and it has become a common phenomenon in China in the past fifteen years, not just with jade but in ceramics and bronze as well. There's nothing inherently bad about such objects individually, but as a phenomenon they tell us a lot about a culture that is acquisitive rather than genuinely appreciative. In the end there's much more reality, much more mystery in RM's lovely fragment than in any of these seductive fakes.

Sorry I can't go into more detail. I'm passing through Bangkok and have a very doubtful wifi connection. I just got cut off once, so I'm keeping my fingers crossed that this gets through. The wonders of modern technology - they'll drive us all crazy!

All the best,

Will

There's nothing inherently bad about such objects individually, but as a phenomenon they tell us a lot about a culture that is acquisitive rather than genuinely appreciative. In the end there's much more reality, much more mystery in RM's lovely fragment than in any of these seductive fakes.

??

I learn a new phrase "keeping one's fingers crossed"

R.M.

Hi Will,

I am surprised by your reply. But what it means is that I have to take a closer look and not just let the images whiz by. I felt some of these pieces were probably fakes/reproductions, but I did not have the extreme response that you generate. (Of course, there is also the issue of presuming that whomever composes such pieces of exposition knows what he/she is talking about—which can be a very dicey assumption.)

As I was discussing with Joyce yesterday on the phone, the problem with presentations such as these, and in various books, is that there is some implied archaeological authenticity—as though these items were recovered from tombs or other sites, when MANY are just found in the marketplace (as you well know). But a presentation that suggests the archaeological "rightness" of a piece just dilutes what people think they know about "tomb jade," or whatever one wants to call it (and whatever the topic may be).

Consequently, we find that someone who implicitly believes his/her "ancient jade" is authentic uses these very publications (or Net articles) to bolster-up the pedigree of the ersatz artifacts—further muddying the waters that are already densely cloudy.

The Chinese have been making reproductions of earlier styles of carving for generations—and anyone who knows this field even a little has known for a very long time that the misrepresentation of copies is rampant. Nevertheless, it is in the past ten years that the marketplace has been FLOODED with a new generation of fakes, that (if they copy anything) imitate beads/objects that are so esoteric and generally unknown as to have no easily-found prototypes for comparison. So it is easy to understand how it comes to be that people are fooled into believing a fake is authentic—even when various authorities say otherwise.

As with fake amber (the subject of my original fame as a bead researcher over thirty years ago), I have to say—I LIKE this stuff..., but I struggle to help people understand that the pretty and cunning is not necessarily ancient and authentic—but can be not-without-merit in terms of its charm.

Jamey

ScienceDaily (Jan. 2, 2008) — Analysing the origins of jade used in ancient jewellery has revealed a trading arena that was active for more than 3,000 years and sprawled over 3,000km in Southeast Asia – possibly the largest such network discovered in the region to date.

An international research team led by archaeologists from The Australian National University used electron probe microanalysis to examine jade earrings excavated from sites all over Southeast Asia, and were able to pinpoint the origin of the precious stone to a source in Taiwan.

“People have noted the widespread use of jade in Southeast Asia since the early 20th century, so one of the big questions has been about where the stone was sourced and how it was distributed,” explained research leader Hsiao-Chun Hung, a PhD student in archaeology at ANU.

Archaeologists have long thought that the earrings were made from local jade by Austronesian peoples as they migrated and traded across Southeast Asia – but the researchers have now shown that much of the stone was sourced from Taiwan and then transported in raw form to places like the Philippines, Borneo, central Vietnam and southern Thailand – up to thousands of kilometres by sea from its source.

Team member Dr Yoshiyuki Iizuka from the Institute of Earth Sciences at the Academia Sinica in Taiwan used electron probe microanalysis to study the variable chemical composition of raw jade samples from all over Southeast Asia, building up a geographic database of the precious stone. By applying the same technique to the 144 jade artefacts, they found that 116 specimens could be traced back to Eastern Taiwan.

“We know that ancient people elsewhere in the world traded over great distances,” team member Professor Peter Bellwood said. “But this is the first time that such a large trading network has been established in Southeast Asia.”

Ms Hung is studying the migration of Austronesian people throughout the region to Australia’s north between 5,000 and 3,000 years ago. The researchers say their work suggests that Austronesian people, who shared a common language and resembled contemporary Southeast Asians, had a vast, complex system of trade and transportation.

The work was supported by a Discovery Grant from the Australian Research Council, and also by the National Geographic Society, and is written up in the latest Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA.

What I think would be additionally helpful would be to see some comparative information on the similarity or dissimilarity of the stones recovered from this variety of places. If it all comes from Formosa/Taiwan, I would expect it to be predictably translucent green with or without small darker spots—and to be recognizable, on sight, as "Taiwanese jade." However, I don't know how many varieties of jade there might be from this source (apart from what I have seen and own).

Jamey

Interesting reading, Thomas.

Did you follow-up on the link to pig dispersion? "Pigs are good swimmers, but not good enough to reach Hawaii."

;^)

RM, I keep examining your pictures, trying to determine the composition of the design, and it seems to be a double pig head - 4 ears? 4 eyes? with the "wrinkled snout" lines all around between the "eyes"?

I love the way the remaining pair of ears show such a soft polish.