Asian Arts | Associations | Articles | Exhibitions | Galleries | Message Board

Greetings and Happy New Year!

I could use some input from any experienced archaic bronze collectors. Your advice would be much appreciated.

I bought this piece as a lamp (drilled). The lamp is a bronze double socket type from 1900-1920 and was intact, so the vessel is not a modern copy....this much I can guarantee.

I thought it might be a Ming dynasty copy of Western Zhou vessel, but upon further inspection I am beginning to think it is much older. I'm hoping a more experienced collector can offer some help.

Here are a few of the ideas/theories I've been contemplating....

First, I ruled out that this was a 19th c. Japanese copy. Casting and form looks correct for it to be Chinese. There are also archaic Chinese characters cast on the inside of the vessel and I'm not aware of any Japanese copies with those kind of marks. Also, the Japanese copies tend to utilize taote mask designs for the loops and scrolling geometric designs, while this vessel has interlocking dragons and simpler round loops.

So, if there is consensus that the vessel is Chinese, then how old is it?

Only the bottom has a substantial accumulation of malachite patina (there are a few small areas throughout the rest of the body). Look closely at the drill hole, you can see the malachite was there before the drilling. How long does it take for malachite to form?

While there appears to be limited malachite formation on the body, the body is entirely covered in cuprite.

The cuprite is heavily pitted, so it gives the surface the appearance of being lacquered, but I believe the close up photos show that mineralization.

I did not have space to post photos of the interior, and would be happy to do so if there is interest, but there is a good amount of dirt/clay covering the interior surface, but it looks as though the interior is also heavily mineralized...I just don't know if I should try and remove the dirt or not.

Regarding the overall shape and design of interlocking dragons, I've found some examples of bronze vessels that look similar from the Spring and Autumn period (770-476 BCE) period, but I have no idea if Ming or Qing copies of this period were ever made.

Finally, the inside bottom is inscribed with archaic characters...5 rows of 4 characters.

Looking forward to comments and questions. Thanks for the help!

Happy New year!

Ming dynasty or early Qing period.

Thank you for your comment. Could you elaborate as to why you believe Ming to early Qing? If you have seen documented vessels of similar design, could you post a photo.

As of now, I have not found a Ming or Wing example with same design.

Thx.

Not sure if the style (Warring States?) is correct or not but I'm more concerned about some of the green "patina", which appears to have been be sprayed on in some places, for example under the base. The piece also shows some red patina often seen in ancient bronzes, but I think even that can be faked. Should try to consult a museum expert.

Robert, I appreciate your comments. Warring States does seem to be the latest era that the interlocking dragon design appears, at least as far as I can find.

Regarding spray patina.... I'm the photo showing the drill hole you can see the malachite chipped away when the hole was drilled. I did not include photos of the lamp, but I'm certain it is pre-1920. The lamp parts were custom made to the vessel.

Did they use spray patina then?

I'm having the vessel verified by a metalugist who has extensively researched archaic bronzes as part of his doctoral thesis. I was hoping to see if anyone could produce photos of similar examples that might save me $600, but alas....

Thx!

I received my results from the lab. Han dynasty 206BC-220AD. At least I know I didn't waste my time or money on a copy.

Which is the name of the lab? This is never a Han dynasty bronze. At a maximum, it is a Ming/Qing copy, rather the later. The patina is fake - it is a verdigris without any pretence to be real patina. It is also stilistically wrong. Entirely.

The problem with this one is the detail.
The patina is good, but there are foundries out there that have studied bronze patina for hundreds of years and this is not what distinguishes good from not so much. Look closely, there are even knobbles & casting flaws the manufacturer has considered too much bother to remove. If a bronze is real, you should always be able to see through the patina to the way it looked new. Crisp, precise, and accurate. Finished in other words. This one unfortunately is not. It was cast and that was it. No finishing. Never new. Never made to be sold as a product. Always looking like it had just come out of the mould.

Interesting actually.
Of course if I'm wrong I'll have to to admit it.
Which lab is this?

I'm a bit confused as to how the postings posted as to whether or not you got my response to Michael Banyai's post.

The lab where the tests were performed is at
California State University, Northridge, and were performed by Bezad Bavarian, PhD.

I've attached a few screen shots of the PDF report he sent me.

Some of Dr. B's results showed repair using modern lead solder around the base and foot rim, which he concluded that the base was re-attached, perhaps when the vase was converted to a lamp.

Anyway, I realize that art is somewhat subjective, and that there will always be doubts of authenticity when an artifact does not conform 100% percent with what scholar's have deemed 'typical of the period'.

But in this case, science at least suggests the origin of this vessel is quite old, even if the style is unique and no other comparable 'authentic' example exists at this time.

I can live with that.

Hi Kirk!
I agree with everything you've stated, which is why I had a chemical analysis is the bronze performed. Read my response I just posted to Michael.
There is one more test available that identifies specific lead isotopes from various lead mines in ancient China.
It's costly and it would involve a different lab than what Dr. Bavarian has access to at this time, so I have not pursued it.

Prof. Behzad Bavarian of the Cal State Univ. Northridge physically inspected and performed the metallurgical analysis of the bronze. He does not operate a 'authentication' business, but performed the procedure as a professional courtesy to me.

Dr. B had written extensively on the casting techniques and the chemical composition of the bronze used during various period of ancient China.

His expertise is in the casting and chemical composition of the metal, not the stylistic design - pure unadulterated science.

However, he maintains numerous museum contacts in China who viewed my vessel, translated the inscription, and concurred his findings that the vessel appears of the period.

Your assessment seems based upon only a visual assessment, which we can all agree is unreliable. So, I'll choose science over professional opinion.

That said, I don't think the piece is terribly valuable, there are signs of old restorations, but it's a nice keepsake.

Dear Tim

Porcelain is more my thing, but there are aspects of this object that concern me. I am not sure if I can put everything I am thinking of into words.

I know very little about ancient Chinese bronzes beyond what is written in Anthony Allen's "Authentication Of Ancient Chinese Bronzes" (Allen), but here it is.

First, Allen, page 19 rejects metallurgical testing as a confirmation of the antiquity of a bronze object. You call it "pure unadulterated science" compared to the "unreliable" eyes of a visual assessor.

However, the science applied here is merely the determination of the percentages of elemental metals contained in the alloy being tested. You and I both know from basic archaeology that this does not directly test the age of the object in any way. Allen page 19 states that modern Chinese fakers are finding it trivially easy to duplicate the alloy content of fake bronzes; and he even states that he has inside knowledge that ancient bronze bits and pieces are occasionally being melted down to form modern fakes.

Second, Allen page 20 states that thermoluminescence and carbon 14 dating are far more useful as a test of age (the latter being, however, possibly too expensive to be worthwhile). However, the former requires ceramic components to be tested (such as clay cores), and the latter requires organic material. In your object both seem unlikely.

Cheaper than any other form of testing is X-Raying; Allen page 39 suggests only 12 to 30 US dollars per shot - I have no idea how to interpret such X-Rays, though.

Third, the metallurgist you consulted seems to have taken samples only from the "wall" of the object and not the "floor". This is a pity, because although the green patina inside the foot does look very strange to me, Allen page 51 states that fake patination, including genuine ancient malachite ground up and applied with glue, can be used to conceal a modern repair. The most favourable interpretation of the strange patination of your object is that the "floor" is modern, and was attached to a Han dynasty bronze jar that, although genuine, was lacking a "floor". A metallurgical sample taken from the floor area might have been interesting.

Fourth, I would never take for granted that a seeming-1910s era lamp installed in your jar "proves" that the jar must date to before 1920. I have seen too many fiendish Chinese fakes to discount the idea that genuine or fake 1920s lamps are simply being bought up and installed in modern fake Chinese jars (or maybe genuine ones with modern "floors" being added?).

Fifth, I would take your jar to someone who knows what they are looking at, and I mean visually. I would choose "professional opinion" over science and "visual assessment" over metallurgy. Check out Allen's book on fake Chinese ceramics (the green one) to see the various ways that well meaning scientists are being hoodwinked by Chinese fakers (for example, by installing genuine ancient potsherds in fake modern ceramic horses, and then "suggesting" that the scientists take samples from said areas. And these scientists comply. Seriously.)

Sixth, I am not competent to assess this object visually - I mean, at all - but I would like to hear more from people as to whether this is a plausible Han Dynasty object. The doubts that have been raised here should concern you, because there are people here that know their stuff.

Finally, you indicate that some "inscription" exists on this object that was assessed by "museum contacts in China." Perhaps you could show us images of this inscription itself, which would obviously be of the greatest importance in judging the age of the piece. If if if you can.


Kind regards

Jonathan

Hello Jonathan.

You provide a lot of points of view (thank you)...let me go point by point.

Your first point - So, it is certainly possible for someone to have gone to the trouble of reproducing the near identical composition of elements used to recreate a modern vessel with the same chemical composition as an ancient one. However, I just don't think such an investment of time/materials/technical knowledge would have been invested in this vessel....it just don't think it is characteristic of the more valuable forms - Why make a fake of a unknown style?

Furthermore, the testing also included a visual inspection of the decomposition of the metal (I think the 2 photos I post show an electron microscopic image of the bronze surface). The surface and patina of the bronze shows the natural corrosion of the metal over hundreds of years...possibly thousands.
I have submitted other bronzes to Dr. B that turned out to be fakes, and chemically created patinas are easily identified.
So, it is not just the composition of the bronze that was taken into consideration, but it was a core component of the determination of the time of creation.

Your second point about other forms of testing being more reliable - I'm familiar with all three tests....I don't think they work on bronze unless there is a remnant of the clay mold used to create the vessel. Given your assertion that there are elaborate forgeries being made, someone could easily attach an ancient fragment of clay to the bronze, and the test would show positive for being archaic, so not much value in spending the money on that.
At the end of the day, authentication is almost always based upon forensic science, but that does not mean that collector's won't have contrary opinions on authenticity based upon stylistic design or quality of construction.

3rd - testing locations....Actually, Dr. B took samples from all parts of the vessel, including inner wall, mouth, exterior wall, and several spots on the base and foot. I just didn't have time to screen shoot the entire PDf and post photos to the Forum. All were consistent to being about 2000 yrs old, except for areas of repair that showed modern lead compounds.

4th....old lamps can be put on new vases. Agreed. But, I've bought probably 300 lamps in my time collecting...I've got a pretty good sense of what has been re-lamped, and what has not. Furthermore, I know the consignment store owner and had them call the consignor to see if she had more Asian items. We spoke by phone, but she had since moved into assisted living, so no more 'treasures'. However, she confirmed the lamp was in her family for as long as she could remember. Not a guarantee of anything, but I didn't get the feeling that the 80 something year old lady was part of a lamp swapping scam.

5th - Get outside opinions by other experts - Dr. B contacted some Chinese archaeologist college of his. The vessel shape and loop handles are fairly typical for Warring States and Han period, but the extensive dragon design is unusual. There are known examples with the dragon design, just not in this shape
...I'll look for some photos and post if possible. This is the reason why I posted on the Forum, too. It is natural that most response posts challenge the ascertains of the post's author....I completely understand the process.

6th - you don't need to be an expert to have an opinion....sometimes 'fresh eyes' see things that experts overlook. It happens more often than experts like to admit. I certainly hope for more response by collector's of Han dynasty bronzes.

Inscription - I don't have pics on this laptop. I have the vessel stored since I just moved. So, in a few days I'll unpack and take some new photos.

Meantime, Dr. B had forwarded these comments from his contact in China who viewed the inscriptions and photos of the vessel:

"This inscription is: state that this wine vessel(bronze ware) made (no date mentioned), in order to present to their predecessor. Their descendants can also use it generation by generation.
There were differences of these old Chinese in different parts of China before Qin dynasty. But it is important where this vessel might be unearthed. Based on this search, this types of inscription are usually seen in West Zhou Dynasty. The shape of this vessel looks like a Lei (罍) to me, which is an ancient urn-shaped wine-vessel. This type of vessel was once famous in the period from Shang dynasty to Zhou dynasty, possibly to the west and East Han dynasty (200AD)."

It was the comment 'it is important where this vessel might be unearthed' that made me consider having the lead isotopes tested to determine which lead mine was the source. However, I don't think the vessel is of much historical value and its condition is not so great, either. So, I've just kind of hung on to the piece as a keepsake.

Actually, the fact that this post resurfaced was a big surprise...I've been really busy with other matters and have not had much time to participate or even read what has been going on lately on the AsianArtForum. This has been a really pleasant distraction from my other responsibilities.

Thank you!

Asian Arts | Associations | Articles | Exhibitions | Galleries | Message Board