Commenting is deactivated.

Please post all new topics and queries to the Discussion Forum

Comments for CA porcelain artifact

Click here to add your own comments

Feb 26, 2010
 CA porcelain pottery
by: Anonymous

Hello
this is regarding the CA porcelain artifact. It was discovered in a
location where there is an old home site with stone walls and the terrain is the foundation. At the site there was also found evidence
of hand forged wrought iron.
Feb 23, 2010
 porcelain shard
by: Anonymous

Hi,
I removed the other post as its picture was the same.
I did have another look at the foot rim and it is not really conical, as I originally thought. So, this "point" is not valid on my side. But still, the mark is a problem. And decorations were sometimes copied in Japan.

The bit of decoration on the new shard picture uploaded looks similar to some Qing or Ming dynasty decorations. But, as the glaze is in good state the possibility of a Ming shard is remote. A 19th century production would be more possible, this taking the crackling also into account.

I am not sure if you mean that the item was made in America, but if that is what you meant, the I have some doubts.
Please consider the following: the shard is porcelain (china), not pottery. I don't know much about the pottery the Indians could make, but for porcelain Kaolin clay would be required. All other clays result just in pottery, whether glazed or not. Europe tried to imitate Chinese porcelain for about a hundred years, but only after discovering Kaolin clay in Europe later in the 18th century were they capable of producing porcelain proper.
The other point I would like to make is that for firing such high quality porcelain considerable knowledge and skill is required. Porcelain needs to be fired at much higher temperatures than pottery, the firing takes several days with natural methods. During this time temperature, etc. needs to be controlled day and night without a break. Although there is a chance that a Chinese immigrant was a skilled kiln worker who could do it, where would the kiln site be? The question would also be where the Kaolin clay would have come from, and would the immigrants have had the knowledge to produce the glaze (ingredients) in an area that is geologically different from the one in China? Further, the decorations were usually made by porcelain painters, which in fact requires considerable artistic skills.

I would think it possible that some immigrants took the item(s) over from China.
But, all the above is speculation and only a scientific research could prove this.

On the "scientific authentication" page of this website you will find a link to a scientific authentication method, namely Laser Ablation Spectrometry Analysis. This scientific method would be capable to prove or disprove the theory that it was produced at location in CA, or be able to tell you where the item was probably made. The clay elements in America would probably be essentially different from those in China.

As to the mark, as I still think there is a possibility that it could be Japanese (they also use Chinese characters, aka Kanji), and I cannot find the corresponding mark here, I would suggest that you post it in this forum: http://asianart.com/phpforum/index.php
There are some people there who seem to be more knowledgable on Japanese art.
Anyway, if you can find any information on the mark I would appreciate if you could post it here.

Sorry for the lengthy comment!

Peter

Click here to add your own comments

Return to CA porcelain artifact.

Return to Ask a question or contribute - archived 2011.