Skip to main content
Pendant with monster masks
Pendant with monster masks

Pendant with monster masks

Place of OriginChina
Date1900-1940
DynastyQing dynasty (1644-1911) or Republic period (1912-1949)
CultureLiangzhu culture
MaterialsNephrite
DimensionsH. 1 5/8 in x W. 3/8 in x D. 2 3/8 in, H. 4.13 cm x W. 0.09 cm x D. 6 cm Diameter of middle hole at top 3/16 in
Credit LineThe Avery Brundage Collection
Object numberB60J623
DepartmentChinese Art
ClassificationsJade And Stones
On View
Not on view
More Information

A green hetian jade plaque has an area of opaque beige erosion with partially brown edges. The two rectangular sections of the front face are decorated with the monster-mask design in shallow relief; the back is plain. The eyes and backgrounds of the mask sections differ from each other. The jade cutter inserted a central hole in the flat top cross section by drilling two small holes from opposite directions, forming a cow-nostril hole with a big opening and a smaller bottom.

This piece was previously identified as a Neolithic Liangzhu jade (Asian Art Museum 1994, 128). Liangzhu plaque pendants were made mainly in three forms: a crownlike trapezoid, a semi-ellipse, and a semicircle (Zhejiang Institute of Archaeology 1989, 83–95, 119–28). Perforations were usually made in the two faces but not on the top cross-sections. The monster-mask design was the primary theme of Liangzhu jades. It was exemplified by extremely refined line work done with soft and hard tools (made of leather, plants, animal bones, or stones) and cylindrical drill heads (perhaps made of bamboo) working with sand. Under the microscope, the lines of Liangzhu pieces reveal unevenly chipped traces.

This pendant has a number of errors commonly seen in recent copies. The material used was not available in the Zhejiang and Jiangsu regions at the time the piece was supposed to be made. The craftworker used a chemical treatment to produce an artificially eroded surface. The shape, a curved profile with three holes on the top cross section, was not known in the Liangzhu culture but is rather close to a Han model. Finally, the line work, poorly done in an attempt to imitate the Liangzhu working method, betrays its modern origin.