Search Results (3)

The study of rare objects requires the use of mobile non-invasive methods such as a portable X-ray fluorescence instrument (pXRF), but this involves an analysis from the outer surface, while the depth analyzed depends on the element measured and, in addition, the material can be very heterogeneous at different scales. The concept of elemental composition, therefore, has no “absolute” meaning for painted enamel decorations. This work evaluates this concept by comparing the pXRF measurements made with different configuration procedures, allowing to evaluate the consequences on the variability of the XRF signals, and discusses the contents of certain chemical elements. For this, two shards from the Qianlong period are analyzed, a shard of blue and white (underglazed) porcelain and a fragment of an ‘imperial’ bowl with painted enamel decoration (huafalang). The variability of measurements is compared for visually appearing homogeneous or heterogeneous areas. Full article

The combined use of non-invasive on-site portable techniques, Raman microscopy, and X-ray fluorescence spectroscopy on seven imperial bowls and two decorated dishes, attributed to the reigns of the Kangxi, Yongzheng, Qianlong, and Daoguang emperors (Qing Dynasty), allows the identification of the coloring agents/opacifiers and composition types of the glazes and painted enamels. Particular attention is paid to the analysis of the elements used in the (blue) marks and those found in the blue, yellow, red, and honey/gilded backgrounds on which, or in reserve, a floral motif is principally drawn. The honey-colored background is made with gold nanoparticles associated with a lead- and arsenic-based flux. One of the red backgrounds is also based on gold nanoparticles, the second containing copper nanoparticles, both in lead-based silicate enamels like the blue and yellow backgrounds. Tin and arsenic are observed, but cassiterite (SnO₂) is clearly observed in one of the painted decors (dish) and in A676 yellow, whereas lead (calcium/potassium) arsenate is identified in most of the enamels. Yellow color is achieved with Pb-Sn-Sb pyrochlore (Naples yellow) with various Sb contents, although green color is mainly based on lead-tin oxide mixed with blue enamel. The technical solutions appear very different from one object to another, which leads one to think that each bowl is really a unique object and not an item produced in small series. The visual examination of some marks shows that they were made in overglaze (A608, A616, A630, A672). It is obvious that different types of cobalt sources were used for the imprinting of the marks: cobalt rich in manganese for bowl A615 (Yongzheng reign), cobalt rich in arsenic for bowl A613 (but not the blue mark), cobalt with copper (A616), and cobalt rich in arsenic and copper (A672). Thus, we have a variety of cobalt sources/mixtures. The high purity of cobalt used for A677 bowl indicates a production after ~1830–1850. Full article

In a noninvasive determination, Raman and XRF analyses showed the possibility of identifying specific phases and elements characteristic of the use of recipes and ingredients imported from Europe, according to the information documented in Chinese and European archives. Two sets of objects, supposed to have been produced during the Qing Dynasty (1662–1912) at the Forbidden City (‘imperial bowls’ of the Baur Foundation, Geneva) and in the customs district of Guangzhou (Musée Ariana, Geneva), were analyzed with pXRF and also for some objects with Raman microspectroscopy also on-site. The heterogeneity of the colored zones, in three spatial directions, requires the development of a new methodology. We focused particular attention on the cobalt used in the colored areas and marks, drawn either on the body layer (standard underglaze) or on the glaze itself (overglaze). Comparison is made with previous data on Chinese and Vietnamese porcelains from the Yuan (1271–1368) and Ming Dynasty (1368–1644) periods. Combined data for objects attributed to Guangzhou from the Kangxi and Yongzheng periods indicates the use of the same raw materials containing cobalt, associated with arsenic, nickel, zinc, copper and bismuth, according to the European sources. Similarity of the glaze composition and impurities promotes the production of the glazed body with the same raw materials as those used at Jingdezhen. A consistent shift in data for Qianlong style items, which are significantly richer in manganese, is compatible with their partial mixing with Asian cobalt. The deliberate selection of conflicting objects—namely, examples belonging to the other places of production or different periods—are well-observed outside the ‘Guangzhou’ cluster. Some artifacts have anachronistic purity characteristics that support a production after ca. 1850. For instance, two objects on which certain attributions had been made concerning the stylistic analysis are definitive examples of ceramics using a refined ‘cobalt’, and therefore now may be assigned to the later production period of the first half of the 19th century. Full article