In recent years, the debate on the use of that kind of appraisal method to accurately identify cultural relics has lasted for many years, and the archaeological school, museum school, academic school and other factions within the cultural relics system have their own reasons.
Non-governmental factions outside the system, such as the TV star expert faction, the collecting association faction, the combat collection research faction, the national treasure gang, and the ordinary collection hobby, are also very different.
The main points of contention are: collection concept, traditional theoretical ophthalmology, traditional practice synthesis, identification of scientific and technological means, and microscopic aging trace identification. Some people say that it is a dispute over the authority of appraisal, a dispute over the right to speak, and even more a dispute over economic interests.
But such a conclusion is very inaccurate, we need to know that among the above identification methods, which means is the most effective and the closest to accuracy? After solving these problems, we can talk about the development trend of effective identification methods for cultural relics, otherwise it is all empty talk.
The identification of cultural relics suitable for the collection of the public is the traditional practice of the eye school, which is a very simple truth, and a comprehensive understanding of the diversity of cultural relics and the various characteristics of the excavated pits, coupled with the comparative study of various levels of imitations, will accurately identify cultural relics. This is also the reason why the traditional practice of ophthalmic identification methods is practical and scientific.
Of course, simply advocating the traditional practice of ophthalmic identification methods also faces many problems. For example, legal disputes over hair color and the sentencing of cultural relics crimes will encounter embarrassment. The law is about solid evidence, and it depends on the comparison of data and physical evidence. In terms of legal application, according to the provisions of the Cultural Relics Law, three cultural relics appraisal experts can only use the authenticity of a cultural relics to recognize the authenticity of a cultural relic.
What we want to say is that the "traditional practice of ophthalmic identification method" still does not exclude the human factor of cultural relics experts. So how can we be sure that a cultural relic is true or false without fail? Undoubtedly, it is a comprehensive identification method for cultural relics, namely: traditional practical ophthalmic method + scientific and technological detection method + microscopic aging trace method. This is also the trend of the development of cultural relics appraisal in the future.
With the development of network electronic technology, in order to shorten the distance and time of appraisers, cultural relics appraisal can be a face-to-face appraisal of physical objects, or it can be identified through high-definition electronic pictures on the network. Now the popular network cultural relics exchange and identification, can be electronic pictures, can also be high-definition remote video.
This convenient and safe way is good, but the specimens on it must be high-definition and comprehensive, such as the overall map of the cultural relics, the front view, the back map, the foot map, the top map, the internal map, the local map, the microscopic map, the cross-sectional diagram (for the residual specimen) and so on as comprehensive as possible, as well as indoor lighting, natural light, flash three kinds of shooting environment picture comparison. In this way, we can see carefully and comprehensively, and we can accurately make identification.
Whether it is a physical object or a network of electronic picture cultural relics, we must first pass the traditional practice of ophthalmic identification, and then use the principle of microscopic aging traces for inspection, and finally verify the cultural relics identified by traditional practice ophthalmology by carbon-14 determination, thermal emission determination, and X-ray fluorescence spectroscopy under conditions. If they all pass, then this is a collection that can be confirmed.
It is worth noting that first of all, the cultural relics identified by the traditional practice of ophthalmic methods must pass, if it is a new "big blind" artifact, the traditional practice of ophthalmology can not pass, microscopic traces of aging are impossible to pass, machine detection is even more meaningless. This is because the imitator can use the means to fake the high-precision imitation cultural relics to make it false for the scientific and technological detector, so that it meets or is close to the detection basis range in the proportion of tire material, glaze, glaze composition, etc.
The cultural relics that have passed the test of cultural relics and scientific and technological experiments in some state institutions are not recognized in the industry, and even ridiculed as not even low-level imitations. It shows that the personnel operating the testing instrument do not understand the traditional practice of eye identification of cultural relics, and do not understand the fact that the distributor of high-imitation cultural relics raw materials is required to batch materials. It is not surprising that a fake imitation has been detected as a substitute for genuine cultural relics.
There is a popular saying in serious antiquities collection circles: the real thing is often a glance. It is really not necessary to look at the "dead" cultural relics or insurance, and only then use scientific and technological testing methods to confirm the results of traditional practice ophthalmic identification. Because the microscopic aging trace identification method is still in the experimental stage, it is still very strange in the serious industry. In general, serious practitioners and circles believe in "eyesight", and they are not tested by scientific and technological instruments until they have to.
This is like a simple cold community hospital to buy cold medicine can be solved, why do you need to do a comprehensive CT, blood routine and so on a series of tests and then prescribe medicine to treat the disease? In the case of an object opening the door but there is an objection, it is necessary to make a comprehensive judgment. This is also the only direction for the future development of porcelain appraisal in our country, because this involves the substantive issue of legal acceptance of evidence in the future.
The reason why it is chaotic now, the law can not finally accept effective evidence, the main thing is that the appraisal community really has the ability to identify traditional heirlooms and unearth porcelain (specimens) There is indeed a big problem, why not? Just because it is not like some collectors, go to the front line to collect the real unearthed specimens, to study the characteristics of the real unearthed specimens, to really go to the high imitation line to understand the old high imitations, and to compare their respective characteristics.
Therefore, these so-called experts encounter high imitations suspected of being unearthed, can only be identified by feeling and story, and when they encounter problems, they are handed over to the machine for testing, and the machine detects that the human factor is very large, so there is today's chaotic situation.
If a senior collector or a true appraiser does not have a minimum of traditional practice ophthalmology, does not use specimens as a basis, does not take correct practice as a basis, there will be a collection full of old fakes. More 52 pieces of (actually high imitation) porcelain will be taken to the testing center, and 48 elements will be taken to the testing center, and 48 elements will be taken to match the better joke.
If the real ophthalmology of traditional practice is put first, and the microscopic aging traces are combined with identification, will such a joke still occur? This fully shows that they do not have the ability to practice ophthalmology in the traditional way. Don't look at the problem in a single and extreme way, but look at it comprehensively.
It is always good to refer to a very scientific identification path or an effective method, do not be solipsistic, Lao Tzu is the first authority in the world, so the risk will be greater.
In any case, microscopic aging traces is a new discipline that has evolved from the identification system to cultural relics, but it is based on our traditional ophthalmic identification of cultural relics, borrowing microscopic magnification to observe the aging characteristics of artifacts. It is not a discipline that exists in isolation.
The identification of microscopic aging traces is wide- and includes: bronze, lacquerware, woodware, ancient ceramics, jade, calligraphy and painting and so on.
Many people immediately think of looking at bubbles when they mention microscopy, in fact, this simple identification method of looking at bubbles, in addition to the natural aging discoloration bubbles and bubbles have reference value, the size of the bubbles, the density, the boundaries of the bubbles, etc. have no reference value.
Don't take a simple bubble picture to talk about the problem, such a micro can not solve any problem, we want to study the microscopic is to observe the aging traces left by the erosion of the artifacts after a long period of time, or the modern imitation of artificial old traces (Deshibao and Kejian company mainly study this system), not to take a double-tube magnifying glass, to see the size or dense distribution of bubbles, which can only bring serious misunderstandings to the entire identification system of microscopic aging traces.
A mature and unique cultural relics appraiser first has the basic skills of traditional practice (specimen-based), which is not only the problem of identifying genuine fakes first, but also a series of issues such as artistic value, cultural generation, and cultural content.
At present, the reason why many scientific research institutes on the mainland have frequent problems is that these scientific and technological researchers do not have the skills of traditional practice.
A single scientific research, in the end, made a lot of jokes, and even became a stumbling block hindering the research of cultural relics science and technology. For example, Professor Cao of the Jingdezhen Ceramics Institute recognized these drawbacks very early and paid great attention to the idea of combining traditional practice with scientific and technological research, which is gratifying.
Now the Ministry of Justice is preparing to approve the establishment of such a comprehensive appraisal body, a scientific research unit that can serve as a legal basis, and it is said that they attach great importance to the principle of combining traditional practice ophthalmology with microscopic trace aging science, and use machine (element) detection as a scientific research aid.
Vigorously excavate the Palace Museum and the traditional practice of folk experts. This shows that they all incorporate traditional practices into the most important position.
What should be explained here is that traditional ophthalmology and traditional practice ophthalmology are not the same, traditional ophthalmology is mostly based on book knowledge, and it is basically impossible to contact the first-line unearthed specimens and high imitation markets behind closed doors, which is what we respect, that is, the tradition of theory plus practice, rather than the tradition of light theory not to practice.
The traditional practice of ophthalmology, microscopic aging traces, and scientific research equipment detection disciplines should themselves corroborate each other. The joint appraisal of the three is actually not contradictory, but there is a question of the order between them. If inverted, there will be a big problem that is now prevalent. If this problem is not recognized, it will bring profound disasters to the identification of cultural relics.
Of course, what I said here is not entirely correct, and we still need to discuss and deepen it together. As a folk collection, if it is an artifact that is identified at a glance when the door is opened, the traditional practice of ophthalmology can solve the problem, eliminating the unnecessary trouble of the last few scientific research, why not enjoy it? If a legal basis for admissibility is required, the latter two must be done. Otherwise, the judge will not be able to rely on a more scientific basis to finalize the case.
From this point of view, the development of cultural relics appraisal, there are still many problems that need to be continuously improved and explored, and finding a comprehensive appraisal method that is scientific and effective, accurate and conclusive evidence is the only way to get out of the doubts of all parties.