These jades that follow allegedly come from within Yunnan, and correspond to the broad SouthEast Asian form known as Dong Son culture. This culture is named after a vietnamese site, but the culture was present in parts Burma, Thailand, north Viet Nam and southern China.
The Chinese material seems to date to around ZHou period (according to the central plains history) and may have lasted longer outside of China.
These areas (Yunnan) include many diverse peoples in even modern China and still have a relationship to cultures outside of China. The influence of the central plains is only felt in areas to the north, and more particularily to the south as late as Han.
In this way these pieces are attributed to Yunnan, correspond to archaeolgical examples in South East Asia. This group, and others not shown here were gifted to me by Chad Herrington, author of "Early Chinese Stone & Circular Art", and a former San Diego Natural History Museum paleontologist.
These pieces were given to me as study pieces for familiarisation of original tooling and alterations that occur on nephrite jade over time.
This first picture shows a page from his book, with a pair of these typical jade disc/bangles placed atop. They are very similar to bangles excavated from graves dating to Thailands bronze age.

Nephrite jade bangle, repaired with 2 bronze pins in ancient times.
All the following jades date to around the ZHou period or earlier, and allegedly come from Yunnan.
These bangles are attributed to the Dong Son culture, by during this time southeast asia was working bronze.
Traces of plant roots from the jades burial can be seen at about 1-2 o'clock, earth encrustations (quite cemented on) are visable as well & some sort of deposit at 9-10 o'clock which I would loosely term 'calcination'.
The areas of whitening around jade are a feature of great age, and often faked on market forgeries to decieve..this is also reffered to loosely as 'calcination' althought I would consider when calcite or limestone fas affixed on the surface a better use of the term.
The whitening which most commonly occurs on archiac jade is also, and more correctly reffered to as 'crystal degradation' and should be understood as like the difference between ice & snow.
Snow is cloudy, but ice can be clear; even though both are H2o.
In the same way an ancient jade can alter to white, this includes what Chinese jade scholars call 'chickenbone white' or 'beancurd white' jade.
The whitening on the market forgery jades (when faked on jades to decieve a buyer) is primarily done by extreme heat which over a course of hours damages a jade to white...or a chemical fake jade where the chemical itself damages the jade and turns it white.
The primary difference commented on, and visible on these ancient jades and fakes, is between lustre (or natural reflective shine) of some real ancient jades.
Because a true whiteneing by age alone is just an alteration to the crystals (as snow and ice) of the nephrite jade without any minerological change the jade can be oiled or polished and still have 'lustre' return even if white.
A real 'chickenbone white' ancient jade can even be oiled and reveal the colour of the jade beneath...while a fake jade has been damaged to white and will not reveal its colour through the damaged layer. A fake can appear duller looking under light also, and oil and moisture will not lift the original colour of the jade again.
For instance..this jade here is a dark green like NZ nephrite 'greenstone', and it can be seen by wetting and putting a light behind the jade (via transmitted light).
The modern fakes do not reveal their colour in this way.

bangle, opp side. Whitening to the dark green jade. Bronze pins from ancient repair (as well as modern glued fragments). Earth encrustation and plant root traces.

images from a text on archaic chinese jades, most in this text being Beijing National Palace jades. This object is discussed without its location being identified. The author mentions the natural appearance of the jade when uncleaned and uses this example. A chinese phrase which translates as 'spitting dust' is the old scholarly way to refer to such jades. A light dry polishing will restore some lustre however he notes.
The author discusses the disc/bangle and says he believes the identification fo these as jewellery is incorrect and they likely are a smaller version of a ritual disc like a Bi, or the jade tubes Tsong/Cong etc. He considers this too small to be a bangle. I disagree.
His dimensions are 10cm diameter, and 5.5cm internal diameter. This seems small, as do the actual objects when I show them to people..but some fragments I fit around my wifes hand shows they can be worn....but not nessecarily taken on and off easily. The idea of comfort is often secondary to cultural fashion, and we might have trouble understanding metal rings for stretching of necks if we didnt see them on living tribal people...or lip discs found in a grave would not make sense without a living example of the cut and stretched lips etc.
These bangles are not so hard to believe, and this text picture is comparible to the stlye of Dong Son/South East Asian which have been found on skeletons arms many times.
The measurments are comparible to the hundreds of such discs that Chad has in his book...and the 10cm and 5.5cm bangle would be an average size.



Edit; all of the thumbnail pictures on this thread can be expanded by clicking, but since I have taken a better image of this bracelet since I will directly link this image;

this piece is more interesting than it first appears...again there are traces of two pieces of bronze wire/pins and earth encrustation, plant root traces etc. but this is actually 2 totally different bangles worked into one. I am of the opinion that the 2 bangles were worked together in ancient times before being broken again (missign pieces).
It was so skillfully done that I didn't notice this was 2 different bangles untill I held it edge on and saw incised conectric circles as decoration and variations in width alone the internal collar. (shown below).
Another feature of an ancient worked stone is the cutting/tooling mark that still remains at 9 - 12 o'clock along the top thin edge of the internal collar. It shows the beginnign of a cut to remove the centre of the unfinished disc that was then re-alligned and then cut through (such jades are cut from two sides, or drilled from 2 sides and then meet in the middle).

another view of the same bangle, showing the concentric circles on the outside fo the collar. These were added as decoration, and are absent from the second half from which the bangle was constructed.
With the amout of repairs made to these nephrite bangles it shows they must have broken through wear fairly often. This form is not as robust as the jade rings commonly worn by Chinese women on the wrist today...and yet these still break with a fall, and I am told by my Chinese in-laws the jade protects the wearer when it breaks.

2 images of jade bangles (and other objects) in Dong Son graves.
Note the bronze pin repair on the bottom picture and it being on the arm of a skeleton. The function and the dimensions confirm these are bangles and worn on the forearms.

another in-situ grave. The bangle of is again clearly worn on the arm at the time fo burial and the dimensions (ruler in picture) shows a size very close to the 10cm diameter and 5.5cm internal diameter of such pieces.

It should be remembered that these are very ancient populations and may be smaller in stature than modern populations.....I often find that the handles for swords of 2,000 or more years ago tend to feel uncomforatbly small in my hands.
This is not just genetics=smaller race but also nutrition during childhood. Even Europeans as late as the 18th century tended to be smaller than the modern populations.

this jade bangle is again a dark green nephrite with black bands that had partially altered to white. There is a cemented mineral encrustation at 1 o'clock and 2 o'clock and this is much like some fo the minerals which can be found on ancient bronze. This has made me aware (as I had been told earlier) that some minerals on bronze like this could affix from the soil too, rather than arising in the bronze.

On the inside of the bange at the top is a cutting/tooling mark that hasnt been removed, as well as 2 small drilled holes, one open through the cross section. I suspect this ring had a broad thin edge like the arlier examples which broke. The holes were drilled to reattach a corner (as examples Chad Herrington text shows) but when this broke or was unsuccesful they simple ground the outer ring down to a narrower band. The outer ring is almost ground down to the collar at the top (although not clear in this picture) but the second modification left it as shown here.
Again the white alteration on this jade can be temporarily removed by water or oiling, and the dark green jade revealed. Not all jades whiten in the same way but the 'crystal degradation' on this jade must not be complete and the original colour can be lifted briefly.

jade jue (earing).
This style of earing is a feature of the Chinese neolithic jade cultures...and continued as late as Shang. Some people find this form appearing in the south of China as late as Zhou suprising but earler forms of bronze which had vanished in the central plains continued in this area to later dates also.
This shows a kind of cultural contact, or broader cultures...and that fashions were adopted by some and dropped by others. For instance the Shang can be linked to the LongShan neolithic by neolithic pottery prototypes that the Shang rendered in bronze, as well as two jade forms (TSong and Bi) of which Bi ritual discs in particular remained a popular form untill later dynasties long after its religious meaning had been forgotten.
At these times areas of southern China might not be considered strictly 'Chinese' by a traditional view of Chinese history.
This form of Jue found in Dong Song areas suggests there was cultural contact between distant groups in early times, and some materials (stone/shell & later glass) were evidently traded long distances.
Note the lustre of this jade, despite being altered to white.


text to follow......and more items.

maybe just one more.....
a tiny jade axe...matchbox sized.
Probably a token.


.....more tommorow

Signs of jade tooling. Concentric circles from a rotating cutting tool are visable here.
These aren't for decoration but show the marking made from 'coring' the nephrite pre-form. (I will show examples of jade 'rough outs' or pre-forms shortly)
These concentric rings were puzzling at first but between discussing with Chad and also a report from the Acta Geologica Tawian (for all its faults) the contributer Prof. Tsien provides diagrams of marks on ancient jades and the cross sections of drill holes and tools that may have made them in his 'archiac Yu (jade) carving technique' section.
The Dong Son seem to use a technology similar to what he attributes to the Shang method of cutting the jade.
A cast tubular metal tool (bronze or perhaps iron) is impregnated with an abraisive grit (like sandpaper) and this is attached to a rotating shaft. This leaves these concentric parralell bands on the inside as it slowly abrades away through the jade...which is how jade is cut through. This is not unlike neolitic hole drilling, which is generally from two sides. The ability to cast a metal tube and attach to a shaft for coring jade seems to be a logical for the south east asian/Dong Son culture since there must have been quite an industry around manufacturing bangles of jade, calcite and other materials.
I have seen images of several sets of bangles on the arms of skeletons in graves, and a rotating tool like this would make the shaping on jade much more efficient.
The marks correspond very closely to the tooling mark diagrams in Prof. Tsiens paper on archaic Yu.

A couple of the jade beads here have the same remains of these concentric rings and show they are fragments of once circular jades (other discs or bangles). Another jade piece in there I have had suggested is a forms are made form reworked Jue (an earring type as shown above).
The holes for threads are drilled with most likely a number of thin bamboo stalks, abrasive grit, water and a lot of patience.
The use of bamboo allowed the drilling of much finer holes than those using a stone drill point on a rotating wooden shaft/pump drill.
This type of simple stone drill point was used to drill jade in NZ by the Maori, and examples I have seen on NZ jade, stone and bone artefacts show a much more angular crossectioned hole which meets in the middle (drilled from 2 sides). The pre-historic Chinese drilled jade & stone in this fashion too, however by the late neolithic and certainly by the early dynasties the jade drilling is much finer (although still not comparible to modern tools).

As for the moment I can't edit in more information into the images I posted earlier (for unknown reason) I will expand upon what I had wanted to say about the above jade adze here;
(above)
"""A tiny jade axe, altered to white. This is a puzzling piece and I am not sure if it is functional or a token (symbol).
There are stone adze I have seen in NZ that can get down this small, as a result of a lifetime of reworking, resharpening and repairing of the adze over time they can be reduced into a near matchbox sized piece more like a chisel. I am unsure this is reworked, or simply a piece for exchange or some meaning beyond a tool. Other small stone adze pieces Chad gave me were even smaller, and most either be chisels or not even tools at all as they are too small to be used unless hafted and tapped with a mallet.
Regardless this is a nice piece and has a sharpened bevel as good as any stone tool.
Note; in the South East of China even as late as East Zhou there was still some use of stone tools, as a cheaper and freely availible alternative to iron and bronze. If the skill existed to manufacture stone axes/adzes then in the areas outside the central plain again this practice lasted longer when it had vanished in the north. In this way the age of this piece could be anything from truly pre-historic (thousands of years BC) to as late as several centuries BC as the area it originates from is allegedly Yunnan."""

Good article. I understand that the abrasive grit was fixed in an animal fat. As you mentioned, a lot of patience was required. The tool used in jade carving, yet seldom mentioned, is time. Often pieces were past from father to son to be completed.

Thanks for your reply!
There were a variety of methods at a variety of times, and you are correct. Tsiens paper (as well as another I put a link to earlier here) listed various methods, although simple were effective. It also appears the Liangzhu may well have sometimes gathered diamond powder or ultra hard particles from alluvial deposits (like silt) and 'panned' for it (as a gold miner does) by using animal skin. This could cut down jade to ultra fine polishes, and the infered evidence for this being used in some cases is strong.
As for the length of time, the father to son carving jade story is repeated for the pre-historic jade carving industry of the Maori too, but I reasonably would put it at weeks to produce an item. Longer fine art works might require huge periods of time of course but when an industry and skill base is effecient I would anticipate sites that produced these items as a speciality and in numbers. These will be the Chinese equivalent I have found in NZ of stone working/industrial areas, and I have a number of ancient jade & calcite 'cores as well as 'pre-forms & 'blanks' of unfinshed Dong Son jades I will post soon.
The fact these have turned up provides some insight into the industry, and suggests people have found workshop sites where jades were made.
Early settlers noted that Maori in quiet times might pull out a jade and rub it on a stone while they talk, but the length of time by simple abrasion does not need to be years.
I know of archeaologists in NZ who made perfect stone adzes in the traditonal way (and length of time is something I pondered when I began to find stone workshops and fragments or whole adzes during my fieldwrk) and he can work, flake, fine polish and haft and stone adze in 2 days and then chop down a tree with it!.
The tools worked well, and the investment was not for a tool for the grandchildren (or a bangle in this case), although I have heard that 'generations of work' idea before I dont believe it will be born out by any real test.

I'm not so sure as you about that. The entire concept of 'industry' and 'production', doesn't seem to apply to these ancient ritual objects. I'm sure you are also aware of the stories about the craftsmen living with a piece of raw jade for years and seeing the finished work within,...until all that becomes necessary to do is to carve away the excess. Where jade is concerned, the values and mystical qualities associated with it put it in a class by itself. I mean diamonds were valued because they could abrade jade, and philospophical concepts such as the 'uncarved block' and the character of a man were/are intimately bound up in jade lore. It is only in recent history that we find commercial production of jade pieces (correct me if I'm wrong). I'm sure the archaeologists did make utilitarian adzes in a short amount of time...but didn't archaic socities have a fundamentally different value system when it came to producing jade ritual objects?

It'd be more like local blacksmith back pre-Qin times. They make the tools by request, instead of making a bunch of pre-made tools for the customers to buy.

Craig, you didnt note I completely refute the idea these are 'ritual objects'. They are common bangles and not rare objects in that culture, and I still have more illustrative pieces to post.
There are forms worked from ordinary stone and others from calcite too.
The numbers found in graves show maybe a dozen on one lucky individual...and you can be sure they are NOT making a work of art that requires meditating and staring at the raw jade for weeks like the craftsman you refer to...nor are they starting work decades beforehand for the unborn grandson to wear. Real industry is about action.
The preforms I have of nephrite (to be posted yet) are rough hewn hammer dressed and flaked circular blanks, not delicate. This is not perfect shaping method but as I discussed with Chad it is convenient, nephrite is resistant to flaking due to its tough structure, but bashing out a circe is possible. The cutting of them by a tools is also quite efficient as the number of flaws from the tooling show they cut, re-adjust and then cut again and the 'mistake' marks often remain. This suggests the ancient workshop I mentioned, and something like the stone working areas I have come accross in NZ.
Some of the nephrite in Chads book is pecked out, or broken along a scoring line a bit too hastily and there is a flaw as a result.
I have one example of a hollow tube cut jade that has been seperated before the cut was complete and it snapped a little which left traces on the preform. This is just like was I see where people work bone of stone too.
I would see them making these in a workshop areas by a group of skilled people....much as other sites...and surrounded by debris, broken pieces that are discarded, unfinished pieces ..their tools, grinders, hammer stones. etc.
These are not jades being made for an Emperor which are commisioned for a tomb....and even those are finished well within one lifetime clearly as jade burial suits of hundreds of pieces of fitting jades are constructed over years, therefore a bangle is not going to take as long especially when the cutting and shaping is a relatively simple process once the skill and technique is there.
Great numbers of these have turned up.
Nephrite is tough but it is only around a 6 out of 10 on a Mohs scale. Abrasion can cut it and shape it, as people have known for many centuries. It is a labourious process, but there is no point imagining the craftsman needs to stare and contemplate any more than a good carpenter before he starts.
Take a look at this Thai bronze age bangle, clusters of these are found in nephrite too. (yes, that is a human limb bone sticking out...and this isnt a piece I have nor would want to have). The nephrite or bronze bangles may be the expensive versions of others made from calcite or stone but they are still mundane objects and needed in some numbers beyond the impractical model you have suggested.
Again, believe what you like but I will post those pre-forms and debris from the workshops in time too.

Naruwan, I dont know where you get the ideas about the pre-Qin 'local blacksmith'. There was no blacksmith at all because the Chinese didnt work harden iron or bronze over a bloomery and the techniques for Chinese metal work revolved around casting in a mould, including iron.
Of course the artisans produced mundane items in bulk by casting, and of variable quality. Again flaws in the casting of bronze (air bubbles and misalligned moulds etc.) are not uncommon. Mundane day to day needs could have been satisfied at the village level, and the military and luxury items at the proffesional/government level. Even if anyone made a bronze or jade piece to order (as would happen also) the point is that it doesn' have to involve lifetimes of work, or any idle staring and contemplating of belly buttons. That is a luxury for an artist, but not a businessman or a pragmatic artisan who has real work to do.

Edit; There is reference in Yang Hong's text where it discusses iron working to 'casting & forging'. Whether he means forging 'pig iron to wrought iron' or forging 'hammering out impurities' I am unsure. The possibility of work hardening iron at this time might be possible...but R. Wagners analysis of Chinese iron and steel working at these times makes no mention of this, instead he refers to 'heat decarburistation' & 'fining' to make iron & steel respectively. Both these indistries still largely revolved around cast forms.
Since there is some to work hardening specifically in the very late warring states period in Yan state...with 3 layered iron. The work hardening of bronze seems to not have been commented on whether Chinese iron workers hammered at iron from early times is unclear. Based on the labour efficient extreme heat decarburising technique of cast iron the Chinese developed it seems possibly the Chinese never needed to do this to purify or shape iron objects, but for battlefield weapons by Han there are blades that are folded 20 or more times, and quenched edges for tough and hard blades.
Regardless, in pre-Qin times iron industry was still in the development stage (with steel a rarity) and Yang Hong comments it only comes of age during West Han.

Edit again;
D. Wagners article which was misleading is an early version which has been amended since then. His comments that the bloomery was unknown in China has been completely overturned in new dating of sites and examination of earliers iron in China by region.
D. Wagner produced a follow up article in 1999 to his 1993 article. http://www.staff.hum.ku.dk/dbwagner/EARFE/EARFE.html
He states there is evidence of bloomery iron in China from the beginning. It appears casting iron is a Chinese adaption to iron technology that came in via steppes people. Work hardening bronze was unknown in CHina since casting was the shaping method but the best present evidence is that the bloomery iron technique entered China via Xinjiang.
Yang Hong also confirms early iron was folded and worked in the usual fashion so both techniques existed (cast/annealed) depending on the final article. Heat de-carburisation was also invented in China as a way of removing carbon from high carbon white iron. The early iron & steel produced however was not of superior quality to bronze in hardness and the technolgy was developed very unevenly in China. The Qin army paradoxically lagged behind but unified China without the iron working of states like Han & Yan. The first Emperor was put in power by bronze weapons.
For these reasons of scale & skill bronze lingers untill the mid-West Han period. At this date both the quality and quantity of steel produced was enough to see the end of bronze cast weapons.

It now would be useful to post some pre-forms ('blanks' or unfinished 'rough-outs' means the same thing). The debris, flaws, tooling marks and what Chad has got me also calling the 'cores' tell a story here.

On the left is a disc, probably of nephrite. It is very very fine object, thin and delicate. The cutting that removed the centre to make the disc has a gently flared cone cross section, showing it was thin enough to be cut from one side only by a rotating tool.
Othe rpieces holes drilled from two sides can be quite paralell, but with marks from where the two drillings may have met a little misalligned (as shown in a clacite core below).
More simple drillings from 2 sides can leave an hourglass cross section such as earlier Chinese stone working or other neolithic cultures.
The disc here has many traces of root marks adhering to the surface, although not really clear in the picture.

On the right is a hammered into shape rough-out of nephrite. It is an unusual way to shape a tough material like jade but as Chad outlined to me it seems a simple enough way to just create a circular shape though force alone. A rough piece like this may look unremarkable but I think it is a remarkable thing. For a simple jade collecting for 'art' ethos this rates low perhaps, but for an insight into a process and understanding the construction of the finished piece this is very insightful.
The jade could be polished flat by abrasion and then a hole cut out of the middle to make a form similar to the finished piece beside it.

these 2 pieces are unlikely to be from the same nephrite 'tab', but together they demonstrate the cutting out of the centre.
I channel like a V can be seen in the cross section left by the cutting tool as it rotated and cut its way through.
Based on marks on other pieces the cutting tools seem to be even thinner than this so the centre piece is probabaly from a slightly smaller disc. It is one of several central cores that I have. These have probably been found on a site where they were made, and left as debris, or off-cuts around a stone working area.

A core cut from a bangle of calcite. Calcite is related to minerals like limestone and marble and can be opaque, and comes in a range of colours.
The forms of bangles in calcite and nephrite are different, with calcite tending to be heavier and less delicate bracelets. I will show some examples shortly.

This 'core' (to use Chad's term) has been cut from 2 sides by another rotating abrasive tube, the 2 angles were slighty misalligned. This is shown by the appearance of two bands, and an edge in the middle.
Along the top are signs of a cut that was begun and then re-alligned. This shows the imperfection of ancient tools, and the judgement is by eye alone. In this case the unfiniushed cut shows another circular tool, and a fine one at that. The cut into it is <1mm wide.
It must be either a bronze hollow tube, or an iron cast tube (casting of iron was done in southern China by at least 500bc) with this impregnated grit in it (even powdered rock of sand on the inside of the clay mould. The tube doesnt have to be a perfect circle, but in rotating it will always produce a perfect circular cut. Castings of bronze <1mm thick are possible as I have flat gold gilt bronze sheets attached to other objects as fragments, and even in the earliest times the bronzes of the Erlitou, and those of early Shang are described as remarkable castings and 'egg-shell thin'.
The rough concentric circles that are left on some of the pieces I have already shown are as a result of this cutting by abrasion, as opposed to those concentric circles left as a deilberate decoration.

This piece shows a different technique where the jade has had the rotating tool cut into it and another sawing cut has been made from the base to disengage it from the pre-form.
This sawing of jade is effective, but the breaking along the narrow points if done too soon lead to imperfections. One of the collared bangles may heve been made from what was lifted off this core since what they lifted off could be thick enough so they could cut into it to make a collar, or a thin edge with the look of the first pieces I pictured.

This is a close up of the 2 different tool marks on the one piece, and the jade saw is equally as fine as the coring tool. In seperating the 2 pieces before the cut was complete they had a small break, of which a small edge is left that would result in a flaw on the bangle they made from this cut.
The portion left behind of the break mark can be seen where the 2 cuts havent quite met before seperation, on the right of the picture. (note; all pictures can be viewed at full size with a click on the thumbnail).
In this way the techniques for jade working might differ to those I have seen on stone work areas in NZ, but the little errors in the cutting of slabs and seperating are comparible. I think these people could have turned out some numbers of these items in a reasonable amount of time to explain the small errors and re-adjustments made while on the job. The pace and action in the bangles construction suggests that these workshops were making these objects in some numbers.

I would like to show mine neolithic nephrite disc which shows all the characteristics of neolithic workmanship. As mentioned by by Kenneth,it is probably bored from a preform which is unevenly cut. Some of the cuttings were very uneven in thickness,some is almost the same thickness and some have the cutting ridge which is not smoothen.The coring of the preform can be clearly seen from the boring marks on its side. Most of the discs are bored from one side as one of the surface is very cleanly cut while the other shows breaking off which resulted in imperfections on the sides. This is due to breaking off before the cut is completed.

The middle hole shows a hollow boring as the mark left by the tools can be clearly seen. The hole is bored to almost the other end and then it is pecked from the other side to break off the core,thus resulting in breakages which is not smoothen and left just like that. It can be seen that the boring tubes is about 1mm in width and the resulting in a groove of about 2mm in width.

What I do not understand is why the disc are not made to perfections as the condition of them looks like they are done in a hurry. I understand that for common graves,most of the disc are like that condition. I have 20 pieces of the disc and all of them shows the same workmanship and condition.

Daryl

I dont see the picture;
Use image shack at the bottom of the page when posting to show a large size image. Browse, click 'host it' and then select the 2nd link and paste it on your post.
I would like to see these too.
Bear in mind that the ritual discs 'Bi' go for huge sums, and the main reason these jades here are availible cheaper is they arent as desirable in the Chinese market, being essentially 'non-Chinese', and possibly even from VietNam for all I know.
Bi are faked endlessly, but I must say your description of it sounds more convincing than most I have seen in private hands.
The rough tool (pecking) makes it sound like something other than a ritual disc though, so I would like to see the images and get an idea of the size.

Hi Kenneth,Please find the picture of the disc.I show two of the bi.The diameter range from 5.9cm to 6.4cm and thickness,ranging from 1.5mm to 6mm as they are unevenly cut. The inner diameter of the hole range from : 1.7cm to 2.5cm. Some of the discs are thicker at the center and tapers towards the edge.The measurement of the thickness was taken at the edge.

Kenneth,
I was surprised that you mentioned Bi is 'non Chinese'. There have been various documentation and also objects discovered at Neolithic tombs in China which have 'jade bi'. The Liangzhu culture tomb which were discovered has 'bi' as burial offering.Where did you get the idea that they are 'non-Chinese'?

The following picture shows one of the bi's, internal wall of the hole which has the boring marks. Most of the discs have which are not polished. From the 2nd picture,it can be seen that the edge of the discs is broken at a few places and this should be the bottom during coring process where else the edge of the top is in good condition. The surface of all the discs are very finely polished.

Daryl

I didnt say Bi were non-Chinese, as I assure you I am quite aware of the Liangzhu and even the Bi being one form that even the later dynasties still rendered in jade.
I said....Bear in mind that the ritual discs 'Bi' go for huge sums, and the main reason these jades here are availible cheaper is they arent as desirable in the Chinese market, being essentially 'non-Chinese', and possibly even from VietNam for all I know.
i.e The jades shown here are not identified with the central plains or what at the time would have been considered 'Chinese'. The discs I have are NOT bi, and therefore are not as sought by Chinese collectors. These are allegedly from Yunnan, but they may well have come from Vietnam or Thailand if you follow.
I have already explained that the jades I have shown are not Bi or ritual items.

Your own pieces are very interesting, and are a type not shown amongst the jade collectors forums I have seen. They show some signs of ancient tooling and are remarkably tiny if the diameter is only 6cm or so. The pictures are so large that the rough workmanship is hard to understand, but with your measurements the drilling from one side only makes more sense.
They are as you said probably only for burial, and representative of Bi.
They certainly look unfinished but the speed they were made at is probably not as important as the basic symbol.
They are more convincing because of this oddness but I dont claim to be an expert of jade.
I for one largely give my own pieces the benefit of the doubt as far as authenticity goes because Chad seems to have gotten confirmation on pieces from some very competent sources but root marks, or reproducing ancient tooling can not be called 'unfakable' nonetheless. These jades were given to me as study pieces, but I wouldnt go shopping for ancient jade myself. There is so much trickery.
Those discs of yours are not the typical e-bay fare however and might just be right.
I would be curious to know how you came across them.

PS;If you include a ruler with a mm scale on it in the pictures then the fact these are about the size of a coin would be clearer. Thats actually one reason I think they are more reliable pieces!
When people buy decorated Han bi 8 inches accross for $20 then you have to assume they are fake (as a dealer wont selll a $100,000 item for pocket money unless he is mad).
These little jades do seem possible to find, as I have seen little 'ancient' jades like this in coin albums belonging to a Chinese friend of mine.
Probably something like yours that he had....but the tourists instead generally get sold the copys of Emperor's jades when in truth they dont actually grow on trees.
If you see an ancient jade the size of a watermelon in an antique shop then you should give it a wide berth.
Thats some nice conversation pieces you have there, and a nice change to some of the other jade that nieve and fanciful collectors produce for discussion.
HongShan pig dragons they proudly show that somebody in HongKong sold them for $12.50 and such.

thanks Kenneth for your information.

where did you guys find these picutres?

Hi Kenneth,

I am sorry as I misunderstand your comment.You were refering to your pieces only. I think you have mistaken about the size,it is in cm and not mm. The dimension of the pieces are about 6cm which is not that small as most pieces that were excavated are of this dimension except for those that are very big,over 20cm. Sometimes,in a grave there are lots of this small jade pieces.

The drilling of all the holes is one side drilling and using hollow boring. I have seen one side drilling using solid drill,of which the hole is conical.

The jade that I have are mostly greenish in colour except a few that is whittish and one which is of dark green which is shown here.If looked at inside a room,it appears black but when exposed to sunlight or bright light,one can see the dark green.

The jade pieces show signs of age, crystal degradation which is inside the body of jade, black veining,pitting of surface,inclusion,marks left by the tooling.The slicing of the jade pieces also shows sign of inconsistence in thickness,cutting ridge due to uneven cutting.Yes,roots and tooling marks can be faked but not the tiny drilling marks of inconsistency width and thickness.

It is very sad in China,everywhere one goes to antique markets,there are tonnes of fakes jade.However,one can still find some good antique jade among the fakes but mostly small jade items.Buyers are humans and sometimes greeds got into them,thinking they can purchase genuine 4000 years old jade and as big as watermelon for peanuts.E-bay is another venue to be avoided as there are too many fakes.

All the twenty pieces that I owned came from excavation but I am not sure if they were from the same grave.

[img=http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/7704/dsc010328np.th.jpg]

Hi Naruwan,
The pictures were all taken by me.

Daryl

umm....excavation?
You mean by yourself?. If you pick an item out of the ground yourself you know it is old, but most market items have no provenance...and specifics about the site are unusual.
You dont need to name names or anything as that is a risky business in China, but do you mean a friend or somebody you know excavated them?
I'm curious. A picture of the grave or something would be handy then.
Just a little hint please!
I generally have no details with items I purchase, but sometimes am told that some objects came from the same grave but not much else.
They are cool pieces those jades of yours, I didn't get any of the little ones of my dealer friend had like them as I have focused on bronze as an easier to authenticate item. Most my efforts are now towards researching bronze, but I thought I would post these images here as study pieces since that was their intention.
I have some bronzes I will post here too, as I enjoy the study of patina and try to capture them in photographs.

PS; when you say this size is 'normal' I would say it might be normal as an item unto itself, but I dont think these are Bi or the type used by Shaman in rituals, and a 6cm Bi is not going to be found in texts that typically show examples of Liangzhu or the ancient dynasties.
That these occur in some numbers is not in dispute, but at what size a disc with a hole is a true ritual 'Bi' would be the unclear area.

Hi Kenneth,

I purchased these bi from a dealer and the dealer said they are part of the items from the excavation. As it is not appropriate for me to reveal the place,I will not reveal it.

I have read somewhere how to differentiate between a bi, huan and a yuan. It depends on the diameter of the inner hole.

I also collect ancient bronze and I have a few items from Han Dynasty like a bronze hook,mirror and a wash basin. I have a bronze double fish basin which I am trying to find more information,but unfortunately I am unable to find.I am not sure if it is a fake or a genuine. From the design,it looks like from Song/Yuan period. I will post if you are interested.

I attached a bronze,probably from Warring States.It is probably a chariot fittings but I am not sure. The OD: 7.5cm, ID: 4.6cm. Do you know what it is? Tqs







Daryl

Yeah, true I have heard the distinction based on measurment of internal diameters before too...but one thing you find with interpretign artefacts is that even museums and authors contradict each other. It really is over to personal decision what an items is or is not. That is kind of fun anyway, makes you think a little for yourself!

If you post the bronze washbasin I can probably find a picture of a similar piece in a text of mine, and I think I know the ones you mean. I do have pictures of bronzes from Han with fish in the bottom, and varios washbasins. Fish at the bottom of a bowl is an auspicious symbol Chinese still use even today.

That bronze ring I have seen attached to the harnesses of horses from the Warring States period, near the mouth & bit. I may have an image saved on my home PC. I will check tonight.
I have seen them sold as part of the axles of chariots but the picture reconstruction I have seen on them included on horses harnesses is pretty conclusive in that instance.
Quite a nice piece for incast detail.

PS; when you say the dealer sold them as from an 'excavation'....he means a plunder of a grave more likely. Excavation is scientific, and not for sale unless a museum official is selling them on the sly (see below). I have heard of this happening, and occasionally there are people executed for it.
Almost everything sold will be found in unrecorded and unofficial digs. Impolite people like me might call them tomb robbers.
Chinese grave robbers do deliberately target ancient graveyards that are discovered during construction projects or in farmland and the level of skill varies from careful tunnelling through to excavation with homemade dynamite.

here's a few snippets;


these are just a few saved on my PC...but it is just the tip of the iceberg.

China is a such a vast country and it is next to impossible to police all the sites couple with corrupt officials and greedy villagers. I heard the antiques seller told me in China,in order to get rich fast,go and dig for antiques. There are reports stating over 200,000 graves have been plundered which goes to show money is more important than ancestor. The only way to stamp this madness is stop the exportation to US and Europe which China is currently applying to. Once the prohibition is enforced in US,hopefully the plunder will minimised as I do not think it can be stop at all as Chinese collectors will take over the buying and selling. We as collectors are aslo responsible for these plunders through our buying.Think of it,shall we stop collecting excavation items or not.
There are no records of excavation of these tombs by antiques hunter. Sometimes,these graves are nothing unless on the surface to indicate there are graves.

The bronze is a chariot fittings and the condition of it is still very good.The bronze basin I have is not Han but probably Song/Yuan period or fake.

This is the Han basin with three rings design on the outside.It is very thin on the side wall but very thick at the base.



Daryl

This is the bronze basin I was refering to. The decoration on the basin looks like Yuan porcelain basin with two fish at the bottom but in this basin,at the bottom centre,there is a 'yin/yang' design in a circle. The pittings on the surface looks like caused by being under water for a long period of time. I have tried looking for more information but cannot find them.

Bronze is another are of collecting which is very demanding on the cash as they are expansive especially good bronze items like ding,hu etc. They are much easier to take care of and to prevent corrosion, wax can be applied to the surface for protection. I applied my bronze with a layer of wax for protection. There are lots of small bronze pieces for sale,fittings,nails,arrow head etc which are quite affordable.

Kenneth, What types of bronze do you collect? You have good knowledge of bronze as can be seen from your posting on bronze.







Daryl

The issue of collecting is complex, and nothing will stop destruction of many many sites. The pace of development in China will see to that. Sites are sacrificed knowingly for prestige projects like the three gorges dam.
The main reason behind looting is rural poverty. Making the US or whoever make laws in their own countries will not happen, nor woudl it help the destruction.
It makes no sense when anyone...anyone...can buy Chinese antiques and export them from Hong Kong. Unless they get every nation in the world to ban ownership then leaving an open door in Hong Kong is the the height failed logic.
It is an easy matter to smuggle items into Hong Kong and yet I saw no efforts to change this.
The really should be NO distinction between a Chinese market for tomb robbed goods and an overseas market, apart from some sort of National pride it doesnt help the science any whether a Chinese or an American has an item in a display case.
The fact I saw more real ancient artefacts/antiques for sale in PRC CHina than even Hong Kong...clearly all dug illegally...and the recent legalisation of the artefact market and citizen ownership in PRC CHina...makes lamenting destruction of sites quite hypocritical to go to the US and ask for action.

I used to feel bad about collecting, but the more I learn the less I see the point of feeling bad. The graves were being dug up for valuables long before a White even saw a Chinese face to face. Pressuring America to stop the trade when CHina itself doesnt will achieve nothing. I assure you objects will just be sold in secret instead of the open, just like Eypgt. The prices increase and the tradign continues.
Protection of sites in China varies from excellent to non-existent, and it often doesnt relate to science as much as tourism and visibility.
If the objects weren't bought and sold destruction would not end. The practical rural folk are said to sell bronze to scrap dealers if they are just less expensive items like arrow heads and such.
In some instances the sites are going to be destroyed anyway, so it might as well be valued.
I recognise the damage being done by actual looting..but it isn't just a Western market anymore, and so many sites are just found by accident and never reported to the government who pays tiny tiny sums..enough for a meal...to finders of quite fantastic items who hand them in. No wonder many just hand them on to dealers for what we see is next to nothing but to them is perhaps one months wages.

Back to your question; I have a number of study items of bronze as I am mainly learning and dont find ritual vessels more intersting than rusty nails.
I just like ancient. I now focus on weapons, and hope to continue on them.
Here are some of what I have posted so far; (note; All of these would have at some time come out of Hong Kong markets)
Warring States period sword (the first is real, the second fake & the third is the one I bought)

http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread.ph...&threadid=52970

crossbow mechanism & ancient arrow heads

http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php?showtopic=4470

Sichuan style sword hilts & Dian culture short swords (only the hilts are mine)
http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread.ph...&threadid=44472

Bronze patina

http://s8.invisionfree.com/Bronze_Age_Cent...hp?showtopic=16

Bronze mirrors with fibre

http://s8.invisionfree.com/Bronze_Age_Cent...hp?showtopic=22

Gold domes & fibre traces (click to enlarge pictures of silk)

http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php?showtopic=6318

Bronze belthook

http://s8.invisionfree.com/Bronze_Age_Cent...hp?showtopic=18

Bronze belthooks

http://s8.invisionfree.com/Bronze_Age_Cent...hp?showtopic=18

Parasol tips

http://s8.invisionfree.com/Bronze_Age_Cent...hp?showtopic=15

Small bronze axes

http://s8.invisionfree.com/Bronze_Age_Cent...p?showtopic=177

Dagger-axes (only the first 2 are mine)

http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread.ph...&threadid=44473

Bronze spears

http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread.ph...&threadid=44474

I have many many coins from Warring States to Ching(as they can be found cheapily & authentic for study of real bronze alterations)...and other bits and pieces, a horse bit, and several Xiongnu bronze knives I mean to post shortly.

I dont feel too hopeful about those basins/bowls actually. BTW, the first pics can be viewed full size too by clicking on them so you dont need to post each one twice.
The 'Song' one just doesn't look old at all. It would need showing to somebody who studies the period to pinpoint errors in stlye too. Some bronzes escape patina/corrosion but it really does look like something dating from the Deng Xiaoping dynasty at best.
The Han basin seems to have an eroded surface...like a chemical. It is possible that real ancient bronze can be eroded like this by clumsy cleaning processes (like my spear shown in the link below was damaged like this before I bought it)....but chemical is also one way to fake patina. I copied the images to my PC so I could look at it at full size, and yet it doesnt look convincing. There isnt any real good signs on it. Compare it to you bronze disc thingy, under a 20x magnification, and you should see some differences.
I cant say for certain its not old but without any other sign of authenticity I would doubt it is Han. I simply dont trust items unless they wear their age with many signs, hence my pieces with all the extreme features I show on the links.
All of these are agreed on in the east & West by collectors as the type of thing to ease doubts. Tony Allens 'Authentication of Ancient Chinese Bronzes' is a good start.
i.e Your horse harness fitting/chariot fixture looks correct. It has malachite and cuprite (green/red) as well as variation in the colour and texture on the surface as a real bronze should. It looks like an item type which is correct for bronze of that period...and it has a good incast detail. A nice piece. By comparison the Song bowl is made with much less skill, and joined poorly with a vivid casting line.
I suggest you get a second opinion on the bowls and dont spend any more good money at those shops untill then!

PS here is an example of a chemical fake patina I was shown, on the reverse of a modern bronze.

&

For authentication of ancient bronze,one must also be aware of the environment the bronze was exposed to.The study of the style,design,motive,corrosion and also the malachite and cuprite on a bronze item is a sure way of authentication an item. However,one must also be aware of the effects of different environment on an ancient bronze.
An item discovered in southern China might be different in condition compared from one that was discovered in western China.The soil condition, wetness, soil composition,acidicity,alkaline,minerals are totally different. An item discovered in a water logged soil is different from an item discovered in a very dry area or an item immersed fully in water.
Therefor one has to find a representative of different area bronze item and study the characteristic of each item. It will be good if a collector can collect artifacts from different environment/area and study the effects of the environment. What type of corrosion or malachite and cuprite one can observe from an item from western China,compared it with the effects on an item discovered in southern China. After one is able to learn all the characteristics of the effects of environment of different are,then one's knowledge will be greatly enhanced.
Another point to be considered is whether an item was protected or not.
The corrosion is different for an item if it is protected from the environment due to it being kept inside a pottery vessel. Sometimes this protected artifacts looks like new if it is porcelain.Therefor to say an item is not genuine based on one's experience with certain kind of corrosion, is to be taken with caution. Without the knowledge of the effect of environment,one has to be caution when assesing an item.

This does not only apply to bronze item but to other ancient artifacts as well such as jade,stone,wood,fabric,iron etc. If one is familiar with the effect of the soil from different area/environment,one is able to tell immediately from where an item originated,whether it is from west or east China or northern China. This also applies to the design of an item as different area produces different design.

Daryl

What you say is true enough and like I said some pieces escape patina, however what reason is there to assume that basin is old?
You dont need to suggest an 'acid soil' when it could simply be an acid (or sand blasting erosion now I look at the pictures again).
Can you show me another ancient bronze that looks like this, or tell me based on the burial condition what part of China this comes from?
When buying bronze there are those bronzes that have neutral features and without X-ray or electron scanning microscope analysis the surface look itself is inconclusive.
It pays to not buy pieces that are 'inconclusive' when upwards of 90% of bronze for sale are modern fakes.
Certain features in patina are unlikely to be faked, botryiodal formations viewed under magnification, or crystals of correct geometry for mineral types..i.e sometimes needlelike cerrustie or squat for cuprite etc. or any of the other complexities of patina I have posted so far.
Some bronzes dont even develop patina, for the reasons you have correctly explained, and that is perfectly acceptable and well understood. But unless you study a bronze under a 20x or 30x magnification at least then such differences in fake patinas are not always clear.
There is not much to suggest either basin is old, and unless you can match the item type itself (i.e find one in a museum collection) or match its surface condition to a textbook or authentic example....then all it resembles is itself and it will be a fantasy piece.
I suggest you get a second opinion before buying such pieces, & don't just take my word for it.
However, if your mind is made up then I cannot do you any good. I have encountered this kind of discussion before.
I dont enjoy being a bearer of bad news & I am not trying to be confrontational but unless you can give me a good reason you think this is the correct look for a 2,000 year old bronze I suggest you spend your money on other pieces. I see no reason to assume it is of great age.
OK, to put your knowledge of what you have just said to a little test;
i.e What stylistic or surface features about it DO tell you it is from Han?

We are here for a discussion and in a discussion not everybody will agree on everything.It is up to the individual to provide supporting arguments to back up one's argument on why it is genuine or fake. Even experts sometimes have different opinion when it comes to antique appraisal.There is no confrontational in a discussion if everybody is open minded in the discussion. I can take it if an item is a fake as it is part of collecting.
I do not agree that everything has to be matched with an item in the museum as there are ancient artifacts out there that museum does not have. Most museum collections that are on display or are printed in books are mostly of the higher quality and not the lower quality. Therefor,it is not necessary that one can be matched with the museum collection. There are countless artifacts oversea that not even the Chinese have them.

Like I said of the double fish basin,I am not sure whether it is old or a fake.However,I am certain that the other basin is genuine based on the patina which is of dark green and very hard on its surface and can't be peeled or scratched off. On the top part,there is a two ring design which is typical of earlier bronze,Han or earlier. The wall of the basin is about 1.5mm which is very thin and to cast it,takes skills. This feature cannot be seen in the picture and I do not think forgers will go to the extent of casting such thinness. I will provide a close up of the basin for a clearer view. The basin is not from Southern China but western China.


I post a few items which I do not think can be seen in a museum.

This is a small jade mask which has calcified and it is from Sichuan province. If looking at the design,I do not think it can be find in books.


This is a Neolithic stone utensil which is not found in a museum.


This is a pottery which is made in the shape of a cong with square sides. I have not seen one in books yet but this exhibits a great age such as mineralised fungus on its side. For a fungus to mineralised,it takes a long period of time.


This is a bronze cup with open work base.From the design,I think it belongs to the minority group in Inner Mongolia. The decoration consisted of three cartouche of which three serpents formed the border.Inside the cartouch,there is a stylised leaping deer and a stylised bird.The bronze shows a dark green hard verdigris and can't be scratch using knife. It looks like a layer of the bronze is about to peel off but it can't,as it is part of the bronze body.It does not exhibits the characteristic of bronze found in southern China. I would put the period of this bronze to pre Song,a conservative guess.




Daryl

Fair enough. Again what you say is true, and not in dispute. That experts dont always agree on every item is also true!
I said elsewhere some interpreting of artefacts is down to personal logic, since nobody (even experts) have an answer, and this just makes the thinking & study more fun (or fustrating)!
That not all artefacts will not be found in museums is also true...but trying to match them up to archeaolgical texts for ordinary items is not futile however as there is strong basic cultural conservatism in most periods, and therefore dating by types & chronology are possible .
BTW I wouldnt assume that anything of the last items you show could 'not be found in a museum/textbook' as they are all simple forms. Your last bronze vessel is in the form of an incense burner type, but without the lid. This shape is found in ceramics types too. Lids were often mountain scenes.
Re; The 'Tsong' jar; Ceramic containers come in a vast variety of styles..over thousands of years...and some forms can be standardised exported around ancient China during Imperial times. At any given moment there will be many for sale, from Neolithic through to later dynasties. It just requires a good selection of sourcebooks. Devotional vessels from buddhist eras take on many shapes and motifs for example. The imprinted cord design near the base and the root marks on it can be seen on ancient unglazed ceramics...I am sure you will see something exactly like it if you scan enough books, and it once would have had a lid.
Your stone item is not a unique type either (even if you haven't seen it elsewhere), and is comparible to stone hoes/spades from various neolithic sites. The round blade is reflected in early bronze adzes. A friend of mine purchased a similar stone tool a few months back and sent pictures to me, since my initial interest is in stone tools. I took pictures of such 'waisted for hafting' tools when at the Banpo museum. His was strikingly similar (with the 'horns') to yours but I didnt keep the image. Here is a rougher example from Banpo of an object about the size of a dinner plate. The hafting of course is just speculative.

On the discussion I am glad you are not offended...and I will leave any further commentry on market issues or individual items authenticity unsaid. It is a nasty business.
Take care!

The bronze item is not an incense burner as on its side is a square hole for attaching a wooden handle. What I suspect is,it is used as some kind of ladle to scoop either milk or wine. It definately is not used to scoop molten metal as there is no residue left.

With regard to the stone,it is not special as sometime I collect not for monetary value but cultural value. The jade mask is also not unique and not worth a lot but the cultural value is there. Not everything collected must be in terms of monetary,just like you collecting of bronze objects for study and me for cultural appreciation.

I have been trying to find information but couldn't find.I even sent the picture to a few expert in US and an Asian expert,they agree is looks Neolithic but they have not seen this type before. As they have not seen it published or from digging,they are not certain. It will be good if you have a picture of the item you friend has.

Daryl

A knowledgable member on Antiquities_Science@yahoogroups.com ,Will Stuart, has commented more on the sorts of jade bangles I started this thread on. He refers to Ban Chiang which is a cultural marker site in Thailand from the bronze age and comparible in the type of burials with jade bangles.
His comments on these items, repairs and even the stature of ancient people are worth adding to this thread.





extracts from a discussion there;

Me;
"Hi Will,
There are quite a number of images of Dong Son bracelets (and
repairs) on http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php?showtopic=5505
These came from Chad Herrington, whose book I show in the first
thumbnails. His published collection has masses of material. He must
have bought up an entire settlement sites worth before his HK supply
ran dry some years ago. Kind of sad and several of the bracelets had
bits of limb bones in the encrusted soil, but at the same time there
were even partially made bracelets and blanks and quite a lot to be
learnt in such a large sample suggesting a broader settlement was
uncovered.
Many are softer calcite and heavy bracelets of different form &
cross section which I don't show. The nephrite as revealed by
unfinished 'blanks' could be roughly bashed into a rough circle
shape-preform (quite surprising) before being drilled and sawn into
rings.
Children smaller bracelets could be made from interiors cut-offs as
the larger discs were made I expect. No point wasting the centre.
A hollow rotating tool was used, impregnated with grit. The traces
of this can often be seen and even adjustments that have been made
during cutting have left marks on several pieces interiors. These
rotating lines from drilling were not removed on some and even
bronze forms have the concentric rings added externally so must have
been considered aesthetic.
Repairs are not uncommon in his books pieces (several hundred in
total). Bronze wire/pins are most typical but I think gold sheet was
used on some book examples IIRC. Quite a bit of glass was shown too
in the book .

It seems there was a very broad cultural practice across Yunnan,
Vietnam, Thailand, Cambodia etc. were pre-historic peoples decked
themselves out in such finery.
Collared rings of about 10cm across have been found in ancient China
too, some identical to these types, but these are (perhaps wrongly
IMO) referred to as ritual forms due to the very well know jade bi -
discs- of the ancient period."


Will;
Re: [Antiquities_Science] Re: New photos Dian pieces from Will posted to group {intially discussing Dian sword hilts}






&

wow, these are beautiful artifacts.

ok, one question, regarding the bronze posted on here.

Are the bronze wares made by mold casting? Some of the pictures shows signs of that.

Also if they are casted from molds, does it mean they used to manufacture many of the same design? or are the molds somehow useless after one casting?

All Chinese bronze were created by casting using molds. The Chinese are noted in particular for casting using complex many section molds. In the earliest periods there seemed to be some working by hot and cold hammering, at the very on-set of the use of bronze (perhaps influenced by Neolithic concepts of hammering and flaking stone) but this was touching up finished items and was never used to any extent in ancient China proper, unlike in Europe.
There is some reference to a hammering of a sheet as a rare type of example in one study I read but essentially Chinese bronze is working exclusively by casting and molds.

Sectional mold lines on bronzes are not hard to spot in many instances either because they were never removed completely, or the mold slipped a little during casting and a misalignment can be seen. In places where it hardly mattered, like the hilts of swords or tangs of arrows, because the casting lines were covered by binding these lines are often not ground away at all. Late East Zhou arrows for this reason can be seen to use a 3 sectioned mold.

Molds could be re-used. Ceramic versions suffer stress and may or may not last but stone molds are more durable. Stone molds for casting coins or even iron implements have been found.
Ceramic molds could be used for casting more complex shapes since they can work in design, like ritual bronzes.
Many of the most impressive items would be commissioned for a person of power and like the saying goes they probably "broke the mold when they made it".
There are various bronzes that would be unique creations of artists and personal statements for the owner. In some cases bronzes were cast with 'lost wax method' where a wax version was impressed in clay, then the mold hardened, so when the bronze enters the wax melts and leaves complex spirals and forms that normal molds could never capture. As an example see the hilt of this knife from the Spring & Autumn period, cast via 'lost wax'.
These were certainly 'once only' castings as the mold would almost need to be chipped away from the knotwork handle. I have seen one like this in Shaanxi with the hilt cast in gold so the depth of the interlocking patterns were not blocked by mineral corrosion. Other examples of lost wax casting are rather more impressive than this even.
Several castings could be soldered together into larger items, and decorate bronze vessels.

thank you, that is very detailed. Now I can understand how some of these bronze wear can have such intricate designs. So they do use wx olding for those. If they didn't I'd be wrecking my mind trying to figure out just how they did that.

I just found this thread and I have enjoyed reading it. I have reasons to doubt that diamonds or diamond dust were used by Chinese to polish jades, but that is another story.

I believe these jades may be older Neolithic Jade Cultures co;;ected from tombs from as early as the Liangzhu or dawenko Cultures. Like other Neolithic nephrite carvings found in the collections of the early dynasties were probably taken from older tombs.

I am interested in the origin of the nephrite from which the carvings were made. I have over the years don some work in the unique nature of the chemical composition and impurities different nephrite deposits. It appears that these properties may be unique and that there are none destructive tests that may reveal the origin of the stone. The primary early source of Neolithic nephrite was a mountain west of Shanhai. Nephrite from Xinjiang is reported to have been traded and used in eastern China as early as 4000 years ago. there are also soures of small deposits in central China, and there is a small deposit near the Bwoenite/Serpentine Deposits in Liaoning Provicne. Recently there is reported Neolithic use of nephrite from northern Heilongjiang Province.

The nephrite could be identified I am sure, but I don't believe it would come from the same sources as the well-known jade cultures to the north. I haven't looked into this but there should be rivers and sources for jade in southeast asia also. Such material can be traded across hundreds of kilometres.

These items are attributed to the Dong Son culture, and not from the neolithic cultures you mentioned. This is based on information from the source and he knows the culture well enough to judge.
About the appearances, many archaic features are preserved in border/minority peoples which may have connection to the neolithic period in China. This can be seen in bronze and ceramics, and the jade yue is one example here.
Shang aspects for instance might be kept in material culture by people on the borders after they have died out in the 'central plains' of China. The socketed bronze spears & and early-style halberds of the southern minorities for example.
The fixing of the broken nephrite bangles with bronze wire for instance, and the style of the heavier calcite bangles (quite a number of calcite bracelets I didnt post here BTW, which are not like Chinese and quite distinctive) all fit within a cultural type which is different to neolithic Chinese.
The collared bangles like shown here have been found on Shang sites also, but otherwise the function is an ornamentation and not as the more well known discs in the neolithic period related to shamanism in stone-age China.
The pictures of similar bangles to these on the thread on the arms of skeleton in southeast-asian sites shows a clear link to these people, and a more mundane use. The cultural practice of adornment like this was spread over a wide area of 'Indo-China'
The alleged locality of these pieces in my collection is Yunnan, and that is quite likely as Sino-Viet artefacts in the Zhou period exist both within and inside the area of modern China.
These might be called 'Dong Son' in modern times but at the period the people lived the Chinese would call them the Yue, or Nan-Yue tribes. These peoples different tribes numbered in the hundreds. 'The Hundred Yue' is another name from the time.
One other suggestion that this is different to Chinese material is the commonly afixed traces of plant roots. On the calcite objects these are fused into the surface. I believe an entire cemetery and even a workshop area, maybe an extended single site, was found under well established vegetation in Yunnan during clearing and excavation, and the entire hoard came to Hong Kong and was purchased. A fraction came to me as a study gift. No more of these items have come to market via the same source since I am told. The amount of plant roots clinging to these items is not something I have seen on 'Chinese' objects. This means both lush plant growth and shallow burials. This was probably a tribal graveyard discovered during some work project in the warm & humid south of China and sadly the entire find was dug out and sold for profit.
I am sure this happens quite often in the pace of industrial progress and development.

The problem with this is there are not any potential sources of nephrite in Southeast Asia, or South China, even Yunnan, because they lack the Blue Schist formations necessary for nephrite. Myanmar has the formations necessary for the formation of jadeite, bit not nephrite. I have catalogued and visited most of the possible sources of nephrite in china and the surrounding countries.

I am interested in cooperative projects in the use of non-destructive methods of identifying the sources of nephrite, and possibly other jade-like stones of Asia like Bowenite, used in ancient carvings if anyone is interested.



OK, but I still believe there is a possibility that these artifacts originated from late Neolithic cultures in Central Eastern China, based in part on the fact of the lack of geologic sources in the south.



I believe trade was quite wide spread even in the Neolithic, even glass ear rings have been found in Vietnam dated as early as 200 AD.




Is what you call calcite, marble or an amorphous white limestone? Usually calcite is crystaline and fractures to easilly to be used for carvings.

I will ask if there is knowledge of the geological sources for Dong Son jades. I have a couple of people who I could question, who are more specialised in the Dong Son area.

The calcite is named according to what I was told, but the collection it came from has been under laboratory testing even if not the exact items I possess.
A simple reaction can be seen by adding vinegar to the surface, but this would not identify whether it is in the limestone end of the spectrum or if it is marble.
The items are however translucent if I look below the calcinated white-chalky layer. They are opaque green or pale green-blue in colour and would have been used as a jade-like stone. It is more than just dull limestone then.
I have sanded one piece a little to see the translcent colour, but almost all of them have had alterations so the surface are dull & white now. Most are pure white.
The calcite bracelets are made much more robust than the nephrite examples so were likely more fragile. I didnt show all the pieces but the bulk and cross section of the calcite bangles is heavier. Some have quite a bit of weight, one I have must weigh a few pounds.
A few calcite objects I have are more like thin circular 'bi' and quite delicate. These are in fragments though. In China there were even pottery 'bi' in Han era tombs and likely all cultures looked for substitutes to outfit tombs. Calcite may be inferior but it is a more common mineral.
Nephrite, especially if from afar like you say, would not be something that came cheapily.
This is why these bangles are carefully repaired even after breaks.
Some of the calcite bangles are repaired too btw, but seems to be cord instead of bronze wire as no trace exists of the linking material, having decomposed.

Perhaps when I have time I will post some of the calcite examples. They have a triangular cross section, are thicker, and in a short cone shape as they narrow from one broader end.

Thank you for the cosideration of looking into this further. I am looking forward to corresponding to you on the nature of these nephrite carvings and others.