Blog - Ascot Court Antiques

Late Ming Kraak Porcelain, the VOC, and 17th Century Dutch Still Life Paintings

June 18, 2018

Pronkstilleven with Holbein Bowl, Nautilus Cup, Glass Goblet and Fruit Dish, Willem Kalf (Rotterdam), 1678. Source: National Gallery of Denmark.

Dutch citizens of the 17th century enjoyed, perhaps, what was at the time the highest living standard in the world. The Eighty Years’ War had ended with the Treaty of Westphalia cementing Dutch independence over Habsburg rule. Booming trade, bulwarked by the all-powerful Dutch East India Company, brought to the low countries new wealth and a bevy of foreign luxury objects — including blue and white porcelain from Ming dynasty China.

It is during this era that Chinese porcelain became a quasi-subject of its own in Dutch art, appearing regularly in still life paintings draped with fruits, blanketed by flowers, and paired with fine silver and glassware. That porcelain imported from distant shores would form so prominent a feature in Dutch material culture is remarkable, demonstrating the rapid extent the East Indies trade was able to influence and mold popular taste.

Still Life with Pie, Silver Ewer and Crab, Willem Claeszoon Heda (Haarlem), 1658. Source: Frans Halsmuseum, Haarlem

But even the emergence of still life painting as an independent genre is extraordinary for the transformational socio-cultural forces that facilitated its development. Prior to the Dutch Golden Age, there was no precedence for the widespread production of large-scale oil paintings featuring inanimate objects. Although its roots can be traced to Greco-Roman mosaics and Medieval illuminated manuscripts, still-life art had heretofore been relegated to the realm of decoration and niche novelty. But in the decades before and after 1600, Dutch and Flemish (Flanders being part of the Dutch Republic until the Belgian Revolution of 1830) artists began painting material things with unabashed focus and fervor.

A century prior, the Protestant Reformation had led to a banning of religious iconography in denominations under the Dutch Reformed Protestant Church; this effectively ended the church and clergy’s age-old role as art patrons. This benefaction vacuum was gradually re-filled by the rising Dutch middle classes, who found the rich material world portrayed in still life art particularly appealing. The subject matter, at the discretion of the artist (but informed by popular taste), usually combined flora and fauna—such as botanical specimens, food, and hunted game—with lavish or exotic objects, all presented in a state of frenzied artifice, as if to proclaim, “there’s no end to food, wine, and song.”

Still Life, Jacob van Hulsdonck (Antwerp), 1582 – 1647. Source: Sotheby’s

The Netherlands, with its low-lying fenlands and marshes, perpetual threat of floods, and weather bordering on gray, has traditionally bred a frugal pragmatism that still informs the Dutch national character today. But the 17th century was the age of the Tulip Mania— one during which exotic fineries were traded and acquired by the growingly prosperous upper and middle-classes as an exercise of newfound purchasing power, as a rebellion against austerity, and as a diversion from the everyday ordinary.

Looking at these paintings, one is overwhelmed by a sense of gleeful exuberance. These are images of a society self-assured in its affluent materialism. Thriving commerce had led to rapid urbanization of Dutch cities such as Antwerp, Amsterdam, and Haarlem, and with it, a degree of social modernization towards consumerism and personal avarice. Well-to-do patrons no longer cared if art was the dominion of angels and revelations; still-life compositions found popular success by parading material wealth with reckless abandon, as exemplified by the carelessly broken roemer goblet in Hulsdonck’s painting (above).

Pantry, Pieter Boel (Antwerp), c. 1600-50. Source: Museo Nacional Del Prado

The genre also came at a moment when philosophies and intellectual ideas fomented during the Southern European Renaissance and Age of Exploration came to occupy the Northern European consciousness. The shift towards humanism and secularism had encouraged the rise of an educated middle class with an insatiable curiosity for the natural world, the sciences, and the globe beyond. There was real interest amongst “gentleman scientists” to collect and study fossils, natural artifacts, and geological specimens. A still life by Frans Francken the Younger (below) shows a Renaissance-style ‘cabinet of curiosities’, where a Wanli blue and white wine cup is juxtaposed with exotic seashells, excavated Roman coins, and preserved oceanic creatures.

Chamber of Art and Curiosities, Frans Francken the Younger (Antwerp), 1636. Note the Kraak blue and white wine cup to the right corner. Source: Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna

Subgenres emerged. A style called Pronkstilleven (Dutch for ‘ostentatious’ or ‘sumptuous’ still life) became a specialty of Antwerp painters. Bedriegertje (“little deception”) utilized trompe-l’œil techniques and optical illusions to depict objects in a three-dimensional conceit. Vanitas paintings presented sumptuous arrangements of jewelry, finery, musical and scientific instruments, and flowers (ostensibly to remind viewers to eschew worldly pleasures, but were really admired for their visual virtuosity.)

Another still life, by Antwerp’s Peter Boel (below), displays the worldly cosmopolitanism of a society fully cognizant of the world and its vastness. There’s a kind of captivating possibility in these paintings: Boel’s composition seems to stage the known world for all to see— the Ottoman carpet, Australian cockatiel, Ming bowls, Iberian gilt-silver tray, and South American Tarantula are each representative of their corner of the globe, which is fully realized in the center-right, with the American, African, European, and Asian continents fully visible.

Still Life with a Globe and a Parrot, Peter Boel (Antwerp). c. 1658. Source: public domain

-~-

The Dutch Golden Age, with its sweeping urbanity and global awareness, was in large part underwritten by the Dutch East India Company (Vereenigde Oostindische Compagnie, or VOC), which was the largest company of its kind in history, and at the height of its powers was considered a formidable ‘state within a state’.

Return of the Second Asia Expedition of Jacob van Neck, Cornelius Vroom, 1630-60. Source: Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam

Formed in 1594 as a humble trading company outfitted with two fleets, the organization quickly evolved into a state-chartered company with the reach of a multinational corporation. The VOC was a pioneer of corporate-driven globalization, and was the first company in history to be listed on an official stock exchange. Its colossal growth coincided with the acquisition of government-like powers, which included the ability to wage war, execute prisoners and enemies, strike coins, and establish overseas colonies.

Much of the VOC’s early success was dependent upon victory over rival power Portugal for naval and territorial dominance. Between 1600 – 1660, the company essentially waged war on Portuguese merchant interests via land and sea. In 1605, it drove the Portuguese off Ambon, Tidore, and the Moluccas (modern-day Indonesia); Jakarta was then forcibly converted into a VOC colony (and renamed ‘Batavia’) in 1619. Portugues power in the east diminished as the Dutch established a firm foothold in Coromandel, Bengal, Iran, Gujarat, and Formosa (Taiwan). VOC command of the high seas was then secured by the establishment of Cape Town (South Africa) as a naval base to safeguard entry into the Far East. The final two decades of the conflict, 1640 – 1660, saw Malacca, Ceylon, and Malabar switch hands from the Portuguese to the Dutch.

The Capture of Cochin (modern-day Kochi, India) in 1656. Atlas van der Hagen.

To boast, publicize, and monetize its growing victory over its rival, the VOC had turned to wholesale piracy. It became habit and practice for VOC ships to seize Portuguese merchant vessels, and then to sell stolen loot in highly publicized public auctions. In 1602 and 1604, the Dutch seized the Portuguese carracks Santa Catarina and San Yago. The 15000-ton Santa Catarina was a particularly lucrative capture: proceeds from auction increased VOC capital by more than 50%. Among the looted goods were Chinese Wanli period blue and white porcelain made for the European export market. To this day, this type of late Ming export blue and white is generally known by its Dutch moniker: kraakporselein; kraak being a Dutch transliteration of “Carrack”— a type of large ship the Portuegues utilized for maritime trade.

Kraak porcelain was something of a new development in Chinese ceramics: for the first time, Jingdezhen designed and fired vast numbers of porcelain exclusively for European taste and consumption. A significant portion of these export pieces would bear motifs and shapes with no precedence in China. Special forms such as the klapsmut bowl (which featured a broad everted rim to accommodate heavy European soup spoons), and “sparrows-beak” ewer (spout reduced for the pouring of hot chocolate rather than wine) were designed specifically with European gastronomical habits in mind. Other shapes such as roemer goblets, square wine jugs, and salt cellars were copied from existing European glass and metalwork. Painted decorations would include uniquely European motifs such as tulip scrolls, armorial shields, and Greco-Roman style mythological masks.

Ming Wanli Kraak Porselein Blue and White Charger

A late Ming Wanli period Kraak Porselein Blue and White Charger. © Ascot Court Antiques

Prior to the late 16th century, Chinese porcelain was already known to Europeans, but entered Europe indirectly—and in limited numbers—through older Silk Road trade routes engaging Central Asian and Mediterranean middlemen. No large production specifically dedicated to a European market existed at Jingdezhen or elsewhere, and export supplies dwindled after the Xuande reign, when the 15th century ushered an era of political instability and isolationism in Ming China. What little porcelain making its way to Europe were considered so scarce that even pieces of average minyao quality were mounted in silver or gold, and tucked away in the collections of kings and queens.

When a direct-line importation of Jingdezhen porcelain was first opened by the Portuguese and then sustained by the Dutch, Europeans consumers responded with thirst bordering on febrility. Attentive buyers of kraak porcelain at the VOC-organized Santa Catarina and San Yago auctions included Henri IV of France and James I of England. In subsequent decades, Ming blue and white porcelain entered Europe in astonishing numbers: by 1625, when Dutch foothold in China was strengthened by the establishment of a trading post at Fermosa (Taiwan), inventories regularly listed between 100,000 to 250,000 pieces of porcelain per ship. A VOC vessel might be stocked with a smorgasbord of goods, from spices (nutmeg, pepper, cinnamon, cloves etc) to tea and silk. But among these, only porcelain was entirely water-proof and thus formed a major bulk of the goods by serving as ship ballast.

Kraak Porcelain: Late Ming blue and white porcelain for the export market. Source (from top to bottom): Stockholms Auktionsverk, Ascot Court Antiques, Koller Auktionen

Commenting some years earlier about the Portuguese trade, Bartholomew of Braga wrote in 1592:

“In portugal we have vessels with many advantages over gold and silver. I would counsel all princes to buy this material and forego the use of silver. We call it porcelain. It comes from the Indies, but it is made in China, a material so fine and translucent that its beauty is as great as glass or alabaster. Sometimes it has blue decoration, which appears to be a mixture of alabaster and sapphire. Of course it is fragile, but it is also cheap. Such vessels are esteemed for their beauty as well as their rarity, and that is why we use them in Portugal.”

When the Dutch seized control of the East Indies trade, ownership of Chinese porcelain became even more attainable and prevalent in Europe. No longer were fine china gifts of diplomacy between kings and statesmen; direct importation brought kraak wares into the realm of the fetishized everyday-ordinary. Along with silverware, roemer glass, Islamic textiles, pewter and brass vessels, Chinese porcelain belonged to a class of objects that were theoretically affordable even by the middle-classes, but still attained allure as luxury objects loaded with social capital and prestige.

Still-life with peaches and a lemon, Juriaen van Streek (Amsterdam), 1632 – 1687. Source: Public domain/ wikiart

As foreign exotica, Chinese porcelain also came to be viewed as a spoil of colonialism. A still-life by Juriaen van Streek (above) pairs a kraak dish laden with fantastic fruits with a young black man. Although bejeweled and richly attired, he wears a rather theatrical ‘costume’ generally associated with page boys (the tunic with the puffy slashed sleeves would have been considered outdated and infantilizing for a grown man during the 17th century). Although frequently categorized as “servants” and “pages”, the black men and women portrayed in Dutch golden age paintings were de facto slaves gifted or purchased by those who can afford them as status symbols and fanciful “playthings”. In this sense, both the kraak porcelain and black man are portrayed — and indeed, regarded — as the fruits of empire, literal trophies from distant shores … the material manifestation of colonial ambitions, treacherous sea voyages, and battles fought and won. They become status symbols with layered significance: one, a triumph of personal wealth; two, a triumph of Dutch exceptionalism against the world.

-~-

As Kraak porcelain settled into Dutch interiors and the material home, it too came to take on meaning and symbolism in the private sphere. Among Dutch still-life compositions, there is a group of paintings that depict kraak porcelain in hushed and intimate settings:

Still Life with Goblet and Fruit, Jan van de Velde (Haarlem), 1619. Source: Museum of Fine Arts Boston

Fruit still life with shells, Balthasar van der Ast (Middelburg), 1620. Source: public domain

The paintings of van der Ast and van de Velde (above) are reserved, pulling back from the riotous ostentation of pronkstilleven painters like Boel. Aside from a single kraak bowl, van Hilsdonck (below) eschews the trappings of wealth altogether. These works are less ambitious in compositional scope, if not for a reduction in the sheer number of objects depicted, then for a decreased optical distance between our gaze and the subject, as if the painter is inviting viewers in for a closer look.

This narrowing of distances produces an intimation of seduction: at once the fruits appear tantalizingly ripe, the insects buzzing with activity; we are called to touch, smell, and taste. The kraak porcelain in these paintings is not so much a status symbol but an object of beauty, celebrated for the way its vitreous surface catches light, for its striking blue-and-white aesthetic, and for whatever tactile or sensory pleasure it may bring.

Still-life with Wild Strawberries, Jacob van Hulsdonck (Antwerp), 1582 – 1647. Source: Sotheby’s

It is through various subgenres of still-life that one can trace the levels in which kraak porcelain had penetrated Dutch life in the half century between 1600 – 1650, from ship to market to the private home. The earlier-discussed displays of materialism or colonial dominance are public expressions. But perhaps more fascinating are the private expressions— elusive instances of Chinese porcelain occupying the private imagination.

A Maid Asleep, Johannes Vermeer (Delft), 1656-7. Source: The Metropolitan Museum of Art

In Vermeer’s thematically intricate A Maid Asleep, a miniature still-life composition is staged to the lower left corner, featuring all the familiar cues: the fruits, the Ottoman carpet, the roemer goblet filled with wine, and a blue and white kraak dish. But beyond decoration and display, the objects evoke psychological intrigue. According to MET curator Walter Liedke:

On the table, a large Chinese bowl of fruits hints at temptation […]; the wine pitcher, a roemer on its side, and a knife and form support the impression that an intimate party was in progress […] the knife and white jug lying open-mouthed under gauzy material intimate that the tête-à-tête could have become another kind of intercourse.

Working in the 1650s, Vermeer and his audience would have been familiar with the image of the fruit-laden kraak dish; its immediate effectiveness as a symbol for seduction relied on its ubiquity and popularity, and of the inviting power of still-life paintings such as those by van de Velde and van Hilsdonck.

In the case of A Maid Asleep, the kraak dish works in concert with a cleverly woven web of visual clues to stage a psychologically complex image-beyond-the-image. Half-obscured in the shadows of the upper left corner is a painting, shown in fragment, of Cupid’s leg and a carnival mask. The latter is a reference to the Commedia dell’arte, a form of masked theatre from Italy that had spread to the rest of Europe in the 16th century. Together with Cupid, there is suggestion of love unmasked, or perhaps more sinisterly, of courtship and deception. A visible key, a literary and visual symbol of domestic fidelity, in the lock of an open door hints, in the words of Liedke, “that not only household but also feminine virtue has been left unprotected”.

It is owing to Vermeer’s power as a genre painter that so much tension crouches just beyond the canvas. Together, the choice, placement, and meaning of still objects create a kind of visual kinesis for ‘offstage’ action. The nearly-depleted goblet of wine, indolently rumpled Ottoman carpet, and half-turned chair hint at recently departed company. Indeed, an x-radiograph examination of the work by the MET revealed the ghost of a departing man, posing in profile by the far chamber, whom Vermeer had ultimately painted over to heighten the ambiguous drama already realized through the interplay of still-life objects.

(Closeup) A Maid Asleep, Johannes Vermeer (Delft), 1656-7. Source: The Metropolitan Museum of Art

Princely Taste: the 1913 Sale of Works of Art from the Prince Gong Mansion

June 1, 2018

Title Page, Illustrated Catalog of the Remarkable Collection of the Imperial Prince Kung of China. New York: 1913. Source: Google Books (public domain)

February, 1913. The American Art Gallery at New York’s Madison Square South hosted an unrestricted public auction, promising “a wonderful treasury of Celestial art.” According to the sales catalogue, the pieces came entirely from the collection of Imperial Prince Gong, heretofore housed in “his spacious Pekin mansion … northwest of the Imperial Palace.”

That spacious mansion is a well-known Beijing landmark today, having been restored and re-opened to the public in 2008 (just in time for the summer olympics). Now officially known as Prince Gong Mansion or Gong Wang Fu (恭王府), this princely estate’s history stretches back to 1777, when it’d been built as a lavish home for the Qianlong era official, He Shen (和珅).

The entrance to Prince Gong’s Mansion, as it appeared in 1911-12. Source: Google Books (public domain)

He Shen, a brilliant and corrupt court favorite under Qianlong’s rule, exercised no restraint in furnishing his mansion lavishly. Such extravagant display of personal power backfired when Qianlong’s son, the Jiaqing Emperor, summarily executed He Shen upon coming to power. The mansion subsequently passed hands until 1825, when it went to Yixin, Prince Gong of the First Rank and sixth son of the Daoguang Emperor. Having been passed over for the throne, Yixin received the lavish estate as a conciliatory present of sorts.

Famous in history books as one of late Qing’s most competent statesman, Prince Gong enjoyed a brief career as prince-counselor (yizhiwang議政王) during the Tongzhi Restoration of 1862-74. He led a movement towards modernization, spearheaded various reforms, and founded a government school (Tongwen guan同文舘) to teach Chinese scholars foreign languages and technologies.

But in 1884 Yixin was ousted from power and forced into retirement by the Empress Dowager Cixi, whose policies the Prince was often at odds. The next 14 years saw the disgraced statesman languishing in his mansion and gardens until his death in 1898.

1872: Prince Gong seated in his mansion garden, at about 40 years of age. Source: John Thompson, Illustrations of China and it’s people, vol.1, plate I, London, 1873 (public domain)

Today, the Prince Gong mansion remains the largest and most prominent princely seat (wangfu) in Beijing—and is one of the few to survive China’s turbulent history mostly in tact. But despite this ultimate survival, its 20th century history was a somber one: it passed through various owners and functioned under different guises, from Catholic university to government offices to air condition factory. Suffering the common fate of China’s historic buildings, the princely estate was gutted of its furnishings, valuables, objects, and works of art.

-~-

The Mansion’s last years as a wangfuwere as turbulent as the era it occupied. Puwei, the last Prince “Gong” and Yixin’s grandson, advocated reform and — like his grandfather — was removed from power by court reactionaries. Seeking refuge with the German protectorate and in dire economic straits, Puwei offered his mansion and properties as a mortgage to the Catholic Benedictine Order.

Puwei (溥偉; 1880–1936), Prince Gongxian of the First Rank, and grandson of Yixin, Prince Gong. Source: Google Books (public domain)

1911-12 saw the final collapse of Qing authority, as well as wholesome disposal of Chinese works of art overseas, as palace eunuchs and members of the Manchu nobility began selling valuables to art dealers.
One such buyer was Yamanaka Sadajiro, who opened a store in New York’s west twenty-seventh street near Broadway, and bought aggressively in Beijing following the revolution. It was to him that Puwei sold the bulk of the Prince Gong Mansion collection.

Yamanaka & co. in turn staged a three-day auction at the American Galleries Feb. 27th – March 1st of 1913. Buyers flocking to acquire a piece of imperial treasure included names such as Louis Comport Tiffany, C.T. Loo, Charles Lang Freer, and John D. Rockefeller Jr. For various Shang dynasty ritual bronzes and archaic jades, Freer reportedly spent over $5000 (about $120,000 in today’s money after adjusting for inflation).

-~-

The 1913 Yamanaka catalogue remains an interesting and important document. For one, it offers an inventory of Prince Gong’s estate when much of China’s imperial treasures disappeared undocumented through the ‘backdoor’ during decades of unrest. To this day, the catalogue is often cited in provenance and lot notes in major auctions around the world.

The Prince Gong sale is also representative of an early 20th century movement towards collecting Chinese art in the West; it is during this time that major collections were formed (such as the Sackler, Freer, Rockefeller, Brundage, and David holdings). The expanded volume of Chinese works of art in the West helped to establish independent Asian art wings in major museums, and heavily influenced design movements such as art nouveau and the aesthetic movement.

Cover, Illustrated Catalog of the Remarkable Collection of the Imperial Prince Kung of China. New York: 1913. Source: Christie’s Images

For the Chinese Art historian, the Yamanaka catalogue offers valuable insight into the kind of art that befitted a princely mansion during the Qing dynasty, as well as Prince Gong’s private taste as an connoisseur and collector.

Compared to works of art made for the imperial court, the Prince Gong collection is decidedly more refined and subdued. In the Song literati-antiquarian tradition, much of his estate included archaic bronzes and jades dating to the Shang, Zhou, and Han dynasties.

Lot 234: A Han dynasty ritual jade disk, bi. Yamanaka catalogue. Source: Google Books

Lot 297: a warring states period gold-inlaid bronze wine vessel, bianhu (mistakenly dated to Han in the original catalogue).

Lot 325: a manificent Western Zhou period bronze fanghu.

Of course, the collection also included pieces that suitably reflected the wealth and power of its owner, such as these Qianlong period jade and crystal vessels:

Lot 122: a Qianlong period white jade “marriage” bowl, which were popular status symbols amongst the Manchu nobility.

Lot 124, A spinach jade Mughal style ewer, Qianlong period.

Lot 163: a Qianlong imperial crystal hu vase.

The Prince Gong collection of Chinese ceramics is especially refined and tasteful. The catalogue mentioned almost no imperial porcelains from the Qianlong era and onward. Instead, Prince Gong seemed to have preferred white wares (the imperial choice of the early Ming and Yuan) of all kinds, including Song “ding”, Yongle “tianbai”, and Dehua blanc-de-chine pieces:

Lot 365-8: A group of Yongzheng period white-glazed porcelain (Jingdezhen ware).

Lot 382: A Dehua Blanc-de-chine alm’s bowl, 18th century. Yamanaka catalogue. Source: Google Books

Lot 385: A rare Yongle tianbai dish, marked with a four-character “yongle nianzhi” in archaic script.

Lot 387: Dingyao bowl, Song dynasty.

Lot 388: rare Song dingyao dish with molded relief.

Lot 393: 17th century Dehua Blanc-de-chine Guanyin.

Lot 394: a well-modeled 17th century Dehua Songzi Guanyin

The collection also included some Ming wares from regional kilns other than Jingdezhen:

Lot 464: imperial “Jun” narcissus bowl, numbered 1, early Ming.

Lot 489: A Ming Cizhou polychrome figural shrine of Guanyin.

Prince Gong had a passion for Kangxi porcelain, and collected fine pieces from both imperial and private kilns:

Lot 413: an extremely rare Kangxi blue and white ‘prunus’ balluster vase.

Very few vases of the above design (white reserve against blue ground) has been recorded. One painted with magnolias is in the Morgan collection. Consider a similar one offered by Christie’s Hong Kong:

A VERY RARE CARVED BLUE AND WHITE ‘PRUNUS’ BALUSTER VASE. Christie’s Hong Kong sale 2963 lot 2131. Source: Christie’s

Lot 416: late Kangxi famille verte phoenix tail vase, painted with beauties admiring a painting.

Late 451: Imperial Kangxi mark and period yellow-glazed taibaizun.

Lots 447-450: A group of late Kangxi imperial peachbloom (jiangdouhong red) scholar’s vessels, including two water coups, a taibaizun, and two paste boxes.

Lot 453: An imperial Kangxi mark and period clair-de-lune glazed amphora (now in the Yale University Art Gallery).

-~-

In haunting testament to the resilience of valued works of art against the tides of history, several of the Prince Gong pieces have re-emerged to light in recent years– some to change lives and owners before the cycle repeats yet again.

Lot 238: a brown and grayish jade figure of Yanzhi in deer skin carved in the round refers to a story from “The Twenty-four Filial Exemplars”.

2011: 98 years later, the same jade figure, photographed for an exhibition at the Hong Kong Museum of Art. Source: HK Musem of art; private collection, Benjamin W Yim

Lot 186: A large pale celadon jade vase, Qianlong fanggu mark and of the period.

The same offered for sale at Christie’s Hong Kong in 2006 (sale 2322 lot 1387). Source: Christie’s

Finally, there’s lot 199, the magnificent pair of zitan hardwood embellished screens from the Qianlong period.

Finally, there’s lot 199, the magnificent pair of zitan hardwood embellished screens from the Qianlong period.

And in 2010, when the pair fetched $4.1 million at Christie’s Hong Kong fall imperial sale:

A MAGNIFICENT MASSIVE PAIR OF JADE EMBELLISHED ZITAN MOON-SHAPED SCREENS QIANLONG PERIOD (1736-1795). Source: Christies SALE 2832 lot 3008

New Archeological Evidence from Jiangxi Province Extend the Age of Oldest Known Pottery

May 20, 2018

20,000-year-old fragments of simple concave vessels that were likely used for cooking food, excavated from Xianrendong Cave. Source: Science/AAAS.

According to Prof. Li Zhiyan’s chapter, “Prehistoric Earthenware”, in Chinese Ceramics (Yale University Press, 2010), Neolithic earthenware began to emerge in large numbers between 8000 – 6000 B.C.E.

However, for the earliest dated archeological example, he cites a finding published by Prof. Zhao Chaohong of Peking University, which asserts that some 17,000-year-old pottery pieces have been discovered in China.

It seems that this date has been since pushed earlier: Harvard’s Ofer Bar-Yosef and his team of archaeologists have unearthed fragments of simple concave vessels from Xianrendong Cave. Radiocarbon dating has yielded an age of 19,000 to 20,000 years old. According to Bar-Yosef et al, these early examples were produced by mobile foragers who hunted and gathered during the Late Glacial Maximum, and may have once served as cooking devices.

This finding also suggests that the Xianrendong ceramics were made …

2000 to 3000 years older than other pottery (so far) found in East Asia and elsewhere
10 millennia or more before the emergence of agriculture

While Neolithic pottery has been unearthed in both northern (Nanzhuangtou, Hebei; Xinluo culture, Liaoning; Inner Mongolia) and southern China (Yuchanyan & Pengtoushan, Hunan), Prof. Bar-Yosef’s finding was excavated from Xianrendong cave, which is a mere 100 miles from Jingdezhen, China’s de facto capital for porcelain production since the 14th century.

The Xianrendong region in Dayuan county, Jiangxi Province, with its cavernous mountain terrain.

In a NY Times article, Prof. Bar-Josef explained China’s headstart in pottery making along gastronomical terms:

“What it seems is that in China, the making of pottery started 20,000 years ago and never stopped. The Chinese kitchen was always based on cooking and steaming; they never made, as in other parts of Asia, breads. The kitchen of the Middle East was probably based on barbecues and pita breads. For pita breads, you don’t have to have pottery — you can grind the seeds and mix it with water, and make it over the fire.”

Cooking traditions aside, the delta regions along the Yangtze and Yellow rivers has historically been blessed with rich deposits of clay, which is necessary for any production of ceramics. Prof. Li Zhiyan has also pointed out that many Chinese soils good for agriculture are also particularly well-suited for pottery (such a river valley sediment soil, red clays, yellow clays, and black clays.) This convergence of utility proved encouraging to the development of long-term, stable human communities.

It should be further noted that Prof. Bar-Josef’s work in Xianrendong is not novel; the region is a well-known archeological area, and teams of Chinese scientists have been making archeological discoveries there since the at least the 1960s. The Bar-Josef discovery is however indeed the oldest known example yet uncovered.

A team of Chinese archeologists working in the Xianrendong area, circa 1999. Source: Science Magazine

A 10,000-year-old pottery vessel unearthed from Xianrendong in 1962. Source: National Museum of China

Featured Museum Object: Cizhou-type Sancai Ovoid Pillow with Decoration of Blossoming Lotus Plants, Jin Dynasty (1115-1234)

May 20, 2018

Ovoid Pillow with Decoration of Blossoming Lotus Plants, 12th-early 13th century, Jin dynasty, Cizhou-type sancai ware. ©Harvard Art Museums/Arthur M. Sackler Museum.

Ovoid Pillow with Decoration of Blossoming Lotus Plants

12th-13th century

Jin dynasty, 1115-1234

Creation Place: China, Hebei province or surrounding regions

Medium: Cizhou-type sancai ware: brick-red earthenware with lead-fluxed, emerald-green and canary- yellow glazes over an all-over coating of white slip that has been incised and carved. From northern China.

Dimensions: H. 14.3 x W. 40.8 x D. 25.5 cm (5 5/8 x 16 1/16 x 10 1/16 in.)

Provenance: J.J. Lally & Co., New York

Museum: Harvard Art Museums/Arthur M. Sackler Museum [Link]

Curatorial Description: This unusually large, bean-shaped pillow, or headrest, has a flat bottom, slightly convex sides, and a wide, concave top. Three white lotus blossoms surrounded by green lily pads and arrow-shaped leaves emblazon the top, the scene set against a a well-articulated background of bright yellow scrolling foliage in shallow relief on a reddish brown ground. A wide outer border of repeating triple-leaf clusters in green reserved on a dark chocolate ground encloses the multiple-line border that immediately frames the D-shaped pictorial panel. The bulging sides boast a continuous foliate scroll freely incised and covered with bright green glaze that stops short of the flat base, revealing the chalk white slip generously applied over the brick red earthenware body, the flat base with a Song-dynasty inscription of ten large characters brush-written in black ink over the white slip. The inscription on the base reads “Quan shi qi bai zhi, san yue san ri zhi,” which may be translated as, “Purchased by Master Quan for seven hundred cash on the third day of the third month.” In terms of technique of manufacture, the pillow was constructed of slabs of brick-red earthenware clay, presumably over a form. After the clay had dried, the pillow was generously covered all over with a coating of white slip. Once the slip had stabilized but before it was completely dry, the outlines of the floral scene on top were incised through the white slip on the top and sides; then the white slip was shaved from the background areas of the pattern to reveal the brick-red earthenware below–i.e., the slip was shaved away from the reddish background areas on the top and the dark areas between the leaf clusters on the border. After the piece had dried, lead-fluxed, clear, emerald-green, and amber-yellow glaze slurries were applied to localized areas of the pictorial design, the colored glazes used in descriptive fashion. The glazes show their actual colors over the white slip–the clear glaze over the lotus flowers; the green glaze over the leaves, borders, and sides; and the yellow glaze over the background areas of the top. Where the slip was shaved away, the glaze appears directly over the background areas of the top. Where the slip was shaved away, the glaze appears directly over the brick-red earthenware body, with different effect; over the exposed body clay, the yellow glaze appears rust red, and the green glaze grayish-brownish green. The inscription was written in ink after firing, perhaps by the pillow’s first owner.

Ovoid Pillow with Decoration of Blossoming Lotus Plants, 12th-early 13th century, Jin dynasty, Cizhou-type sancai ware. ©Harvard Art Museums/Arthur M. Sackler Museum

From China to Americana: The Founding Fathers, Chinese Export Porcelain, and the Old China Trade

May 20, 2018

The White House China Room, ca. 1927. Source: The White House Museum.

In the White House, there is a room set aside for the display of fine china. Conceptualized in 1917 by Mrs. Woodrow Wilson, the China Room commands a significant role in the social life of the First Lady, by playing host to her teas, meetings, and smaller receptions.

The White House China Room, 1999 Clinton Era. Washington’s Chinese export porcelain collection is visible to the right of the fireplace. Source: The White House Museum.

Porcelain from nearly every presidency is represented in the China Room, starting chronologically from the fireplace right. The more recent presidential china were manufactured by makers fairly well-known to the American public today: the Reagan china by Lennox, and the Linden B Johnson set by Castleston China (both being major American porcelain manufacturers.)

However, at the beginning of the presidential timeline is a decidedly more “foreign” presence:

A Selection from the George Washington China. Clockwise from the back: Chinese export plate with “Fitzhugh” border and Order of the Cincinnati emblem, ca. 1784- 86; Chinese export sugar bowl with the names of the thirteen states in linking ovals, ca. 1790s; French Sevres sauce boat, ca. 1775. Source: The White House Historical Association.

A notable share of porcelain in the George and Martha Washington collection were crafted in Jingdezhen China, enameled at Canton, and imported to the United State via maritime trade in the 1780s-90s (see plate and sugar bowl, pictured above). Most of the Chinese potters who handcrafted these porcelain were impoverished and illiterate, and would have had little understanding of the text, symbolism, and imagery garnishing these pieces, nor a full grasp of the 15,000-mile oceanic voyage traveled before the pieces could be transported from Canton to a port along the American Atlantic seacoast.

Many familiar with early American history consider Chinese export porcelain a staple of old Americana. Indeed, much the early Sino-American trade evolved against the spirit of American Independence. After signing the Treaty of Paris fall of 1783, Congress plotted for China all winter, and sent the first American merchant ship to Canton as soon as New York harbor thawed the following spring (1784). The ensuing ship, christened Empress of China, was headed by officers who fought in the Revolution, and departed for Canton on February 22, (Washington’s birthday) to ceremonial gun salutes, all while another ship (The Edward) carried a ratified Treaty of Paris to London. There was celebration not for the new nation’s hard-fought independence— but also for her entry onto the stage of international commerce.

The Empress of China, as it appeared in 1876 at Mart’s Jetty, Port Pirie, 1876. Source: State Library of Queensland

The china trade’s induction to the pantheon of old American heritage has much to do with the romance of its narratives. Major sites of activity included old sea ports in Salem, Boston, New York, and Philadelphia. Tales of maritime engagements invoked something of the Yankee spirit, sketched around lone-wolf merchant ships, championing American free enterprise against old European corporatism (e.g. East India companies).

Drawing upon American maritime history, Herman Melville wrote in Moby Dick’s opening chapter,

“Posted like silent sentinels all around the town, stand thousands upon thousands of mortal men fixed in ocean reveries … some looking over the bulwarks of ships from China.”

-~-

But there too were elements of controversy to early America’s fascination with Chinese porcelain.

Chinaware had made its debut in North America as a European fad, fueled by the Old World’s mania for all things exotic, ‘oriental’, and chinoiserie. Colonial-era Americans had no direct access to Chinese goods, and all porcelain had to be purchased through the British East India Company prior to 1776. British-market Chinese export porcelain generally feature ornate decorations in underglaze blue and overglaze enamels, as well as an excess of native- Chinese scenes and motifs. The overall look is gorgeous, extravagant, and very fine (see picture below).

Chinese export one-quart mugs from Washington’s Mount Vernon Collection, ca. 1760s. Source: Mount Vernon Midden Project

American socio and political culture experienced something of a paradigm shift when Revolution and Independence birthed a nascent republican commonwealth which demanded far more “morally” from their citizens than monarchies did of their subjects. In the years following 1783, many Americans questioned the place and legitimacy of Chinese luxury goods (by then categorized as “ruinous” finery) in an era of Republic simplicity. Mercy Warren Otis, for instance, likened fine china to “Medea’s poison”, which Americans must forsake to “save the nation from the curse of standing troops; or name a plaque still worse.” The 1780s and 90s also saw various attempts to manufacture American-made porcelain when the homespun movement was at its full height.

Nonetheless, with the 1784 voyage of the Empress of China, Chinese porcelain and products (e.g. silk, tea, textiles, etc) secured a place in the new nation’s consumer economy. Independence, though initiated by revolution, was never a violent and complete rejection of pre-existing British traditions. Rather, the new Republic re-adapted British inheritances into an American mold. Sino-American trade was thus framed as another revolution of its kind: a rejection and subversion of British monopoly of the high seas and of international trade.

And afterall, decorative material goods are pliable and can be easily refashioned to reflect new ideologies and politically relevant imagery:

American market Chinese export plate with emblem of the Society of Cincinnati, ca. 1784-5. Source: The Metropolitan Museum of Art

When the Empress of China established direct trade with Canton, the Founding Fathers took advantage of the opportunity to re-design Chinese porcelain and curb its “anti-republican” undertone of luxury consumerism. On the appearance of Chinese exprot porcelain, George Washington wrote:

“I think it of very great importance to fix the taste of our Country properly … Every Thing should be substantially good and majestically plain; made to endure.”

The initial movement towards revamping Chinese export porcelain can be traced to Samuel Shaw, who, serving as senior supercargo in Canton, wished “to have something emblematic of the institution of the order of the Cincinnati executed upon a set of porcelain” (see image above). Noting in his journal that it’s difficult to regard his design “without smiling,” Shaw went on to supply custom ordered Chinese porcelain for many members of the Society of Cincinnati (an exclusive and elite order of men who fought in the Revolution).

John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, two other giants from the pantheon of Founding Fathers, were both notable consumers of Chinese export porcelain, as demonstrated by the following survival examples:

Dish the “JAA” monogram, for John & Abigail Adams, ca. 1800-1820. Source: Chinese Export Porcelain, Herbert & Nancy Schiffer, P. 67

The Thomas Jefferson Service, ca. 1780-1800. Source: US Department of State.

Young America thus bargained with itself not to eschew Chinese finery. Fears and anxieties had been primarily focused on goods and commodities derived from European taste. But as American-taste Chinese export porcelain came to its own, even republican simplicity acquired its own modes of dignity, class distinction, and prestige. Owning a dinner service of Chinese porcelain, decorated in the “correct” republican taste, became a mark of elite status and good taste, and was an indispensable presence in the mantles and dining rooms of Founding generation Americans.

Chinese export porcelain jug, grisaille decorated in Canton with a bust of Washington (after the engraving by David Edwin). Circa 1800-1820. Source: the Metropolitan Museum of Art