Asianart.com | Associations | Articles | Exhibitions | Galleries

This forum has not had enough laughter lately, so I present for your enjoyment what I consider to be an example of fakery by a good potter who could not resist showing us his or her craft.

Most of the ewers with iron-bearing glazes that have come on the market in the past 25 years were excavated from graves. A few have been found in organized 'digs' in datable sites ranging from about 260 CE (AD) through the Six Dynasties era.

Archaeologists found at the Deqing kiln site both green-glazed and brown-glazed examples, in several sizes, from which one can conclude that there was a good market suited to people of varying degrees of prosperity.

Those examples found at Deqing and one or two other kiln sites do not account for all of the forms. From the datable series it appears that the proportions of the ewer changed over time; beginning with compact proportions, they became taller compared to width. It appears that the appearance of a dragon-head where the handle joins the mouth was added some decades after production of this form began.

There were differences that don't seem to be mainly developments over time. One of these is the number (2 or 4) and shape (rounded or squared) of lugs applied to the upper shoulder, and in what direction they were placed (parallel to or perpendicular to the neck). Another is whether the green-glazed examples had brown underglaze spots.

A third of these is whether the ewer had two chicken head spouts or a double handle.

One surprising feature is that the way the handles were applied to the mouth made sealing the jars with a tied-on piece of fabric or leather nearly impossible. I have seen no comment on whether something else was used to plug the mouth--possibly wax or something else that could be used as a cork. Addition of the dragon-head features made closure more questionable. While these seem to have been made only for burial, does it make sense to provide the beloved with something that could not be practical?

Moving toward the Tang dynasty, the proportions seem to become even more elongated, with more emphasis on the dragon-head handles. Quite abruptly the dragon-head handles appear to either side on ewers with no spout, most examples on the maket having multi-colored glazes. These may not have been intended to be practical pouring vessels at all, and I am not aware of whether this latter type has been found at kiln sites. Geographic distribution of the 6th-century and later types has been hard to track by means of documented excavations -- at least in English-language reports.

The example here has a fairly typical chicken head, and the bits of clay applied to the top of the handle to simulate a dragon-head also seem pretty typical. This is one of the very few that has no lugs. With that sweet little dragon around the shoulder on one side, the lug would have been hard to place and, well, would have spoiled the design. So the lug was left off of the other side as well. The brown spot above the tail nicely filled the 'blank' spot where the lug would have been: the potter was aware that *something* should have been there. But on the side with the dragon head the spot had to be placed ahead of the dragon. Not symmetry, precisely, but surely one was required to balance the spot on the other side. Much more attention was devoted to forming this dragon than to anything else on the pot: fork in the tail, scales, claws and considerable detail in the head. This dragon appears to have been the part of the project that the potter really enjoyed.

Comments on the form, its history, and on this version are welcome.

Best regards,
Judy

Judy,

Thanks for the lesson! While the lugs on large storage jars serve an obvious, useful purpose, I�m curious as to why they were used on relatively small pots, and on pieces where (as you pointed out) a protruding handle or some other accoutrement would have prevented the effective use of a tied-down lid cover. In such cases, perhaps the lugs were used secondarily for their decorative effect and perhaps a bow to tradition too.

Stylistic considerations aside, how do you know for sure that the present piece is a �fake�; just because it appears to break with tradition? Granted, craftsman and artisans throughout the ages seemed unwilling (or unable?) do things that broke with tradition. Obviously, they were consumer driven (i.e., they needed to provide a product that would sell) and were also constrained by their supervisors, fellow craftsman and by the tenants of their craft. This situation existed essentially unchanged into the nineteenth century, the advent of the highly individualistic (as opposed to communal) �artist potters�. But without doubt earlier potters were also artists, although fairly constrained to work within their tradition as part of a larger group as opposed to being individualists. I guess what I�m getting at is that evolution/revolution in any art or craft begins incrementally with a single individual who is creative and perhaps also brave enough to �buck the trend�, to take a chance. Then the issue becomes whether that change, be it in form, decoration, etc., will be accepted by the wider community of craftsman and, more importantly, the end consumer. If so, the change might become incorporated into a new style, part of the greater tradition; otherwise, it will be relegated to the dustbin of history. Collectors are right to be wary of �deviant� pieces, although a very small fraction of these might not be fakes, just �mutations�, failed �experiments�.

Robert

Robert,

Thank you for your comments. This was not intended as a lesson (nor do I have the expertie to offer such a thing), but as an exploration.

I do not *know* this is a fake in a scientific manner: TL testing at Oxford would cost more than it's worth. I do not have access to the means of analyzing glaze and body components that might reveal where it was made.

With your theme of "deviant" vs. artistic license, you say, "without doubt earlier potters were also artists, although fairly constrained to work within their tradition as part of a larger group as opposed to being individualists . . ."

My understanding is that in the caste/class system of the time the potter was regarded as among the lowest. I would think that those producing mingci would be quite at the bottom of that particular barrel. While in the US, Europe and to some extent in Africa, potters have been seen as having some artistic possibility, this has not been a prevailing view in East Asia until quite recently. Craftsman, yes; artist, not really.

While there obviously have been innovations and watersheds in development of Chinese ceramics, I wonder if anyone has a sense as to how most of these occurred. Glaze changes could occur accidentally, but bodies -- perhaps not. Northern potters didn't come up with the right body components to reproduce jianyao, but took peculiar measures to represent that they did.

Market forces prompted innovation, such as when traders from the middle east presented the possibility of combining the Yuan porcelain body with cobalt coloration. Wouldn't you love to have been there? Were Arab, Persian, or Medean potters present to collaborate?

You are right to point to the emphasis on production. I have long wondered why suddenly there was a market for the chicken's head on an ewer (which was not a very common form). Was there a sudden migration of people who raised chickens, for whom these birds had practical significance and more? Did these people have different meal customs? I wish for a broad ethnographic survey of artifacts found alongside this type of ewer.

I guess one could imagine a specific individual for whom this type of dragon was desired to combine with the other symbols. But that's a big speculation.

Exploration of kiln-site material really has not included evaluation of whether innovation was part of the mix. The focus, instead, has been to validate existing collections. I wouldn't say that innovation has been a very popular theme in the last few decades when serious archaeology in the People's Republic has begun to bear fruit. Perhaps one day.

Again, thank you for your thoughts.

Best regards,
Judy

Hi, Judy and Robert. Interesting points of speculation in regards to the origin of design and manufacture, the purpose, cause and effects.

We would need to first examine the historical record for accuracy. It is true that the medium of potting was considered a craft, and not an art form. The accepted form of art according to Chinese standards, would first be caligraphy, then painting, and poetry; all other mediums are considered craft.

But even in the various forms of Chinese craft, such as wood carving, lacquer work, pottery, etc. Nothing would have been done by chance, with the exception to glaze formulas and the refinement of a better fired paste. The experiment would have been for commercial reasons to make the product more suitable to the taste and whims of the people.

Constraints to the manufacturing process, did not appear before the Tang period; when the imperial decree placed strict control on the amount and size that were to be buried with the deceased; but to a degree this was at times ignored. It was in the Song period that size began to be regulated on the utility wares, often placing a number on the base bottom to indicate a specific size, but these are however rarely seen, but the system did exist. It was only in the Ming dynasty, that you find strict control of the manufacturing process, and design. If the painter were to deviate from the imperial guide books, or the potter were to fashioned a new shape; this would have meant their death warrant or exile; few ever had the option of exile.

" The Chicken, one of the six domestic animals, symbolically takes on the same meaning as the phoenix. As it represents the female, it smybolizes a good marriage. Folk stories assert that if a female chicken crows, it has the omen of a female run goverment." pg. 41, from the book, 'Symbols and rebuses in Chinese art, by Fang Jing Pei.

My point here is, that designs were not an after thought, but were very much a part of the culture and language of the people. Animals and various symbols often made a rebus, that when the symbol or a various set of symbols were used in the manufacturing and design process, it made up a sentence structure or simple message that was well understood by the common folk that could not read. This was done right up to the end of the Qing dynasty.

Judy, no offence, but the chicken ewer just does not cut the bill... No pun intended.

Ed

Ed,

Nice to hear your thoughts here.

From your last paragraph is a nugget that has been at the center of my rumination about this: "designs were not an after thought, but were very much a part of the culture and language of the people. Animals and various symbols often made a rebus, that when the symbol or a various set of symbols were used in the manufacturing and design process, it made up a sentence structure or simple message that was well understood by the common folk . . . ."

Perhaps you mean to suggest that the symbols on this form foretended the phoenix-dragon theme.

I wonder more about the cultural setting for the chicken-head as 'spout' (although how many of the genuine examples' chicken-heads were actually hollowed out to be functional is questionable). Some have asserted that this form arose from small jars that had such heads applied, of which not very many examples are known.

Best regards,
Judy

"I wonder more about the cultural setting for the chicken-head as 'spout'"

Of the functional type, it communicates fertility, and the hope to bear children, or in the male dominated society, the hope to bear sons. Water is life giving, in this case it would signify sucessful birth. The Chi dragon (young dragon) shown on the ewer would symbolize the need for guidance,to nurture,which this falls to a mother's responsibilty. The two symbols, I believe, as shown on your ewer; would indicate the delicate balance and nurture of a new life begining.

Hope this helps Judy, have a pleasant day.

Ed

Ed,

Thank you for your elucidation. Interesting conjunction of motifs for burial goods in the genuine examples, although I am not sure how the sketchy dragons-heads at top of handle would be conceived as "young" dragons. I am still of the persuasion that the dragon applied to this one is a modern artifact applied to enhance marketing as a fake. I doubt that an imitation of mingci would be made for modern use or presentation, even with the auspicious combination of motifs.

Best regards,
Judy

1. Quote: "although I am not sure how the sketchy dragons-heads at top of handle would be conceived as "young" dragons."
2. Quote: " I am still of the persuasion that the dragon applied to this one is a modern artifact applied to enhance marketing as a fake."
3. Quote: "I doubt that an imitation of mingci would be made for modern use or presentation, even with the auspicious combination of motifs."

Judy, I will address each quoted statement in decending order, begining with the first quote.

1. Historically there has been a distinction between the imperial dragon and the more common Chi dragon. Study the imperial dragons vs the dragons shown on the common mingci. This can be understood by comparing the ancient paintings throughout Chinese history, as well as on your common stonewares and imperial wares. If you do research on Chi dragons, then your questions would come to rest. There is degrees by which a dragon will mature; according to Chinese mythology, it takes 1500 years for a dragon to mature.

2. We both agreed that your artifact was indeed a fake, but rather than to focus on fakery, I addressed how rebuses and symbols were used on the common wares, and how they might be interpeted. By understanding the placement of symbols that form rebuses, one can determine if something is not in order and thus conclude the artifact considered is a bleating fake, or quack, and certainly not something to crow about.

3. I agree, certainly not for use, but for deception. The potter in this case by artistic means has parted the unwary from his/her hard earned cash. Now that is an art form that we all deplore.

Ed

Ed,

Ahh, a glimmer of understanding beings to circle around between my ears.

In particular re: your #1, I have seen many references to the chi dragon described as the "floral" or "vegetal" dragon, sometimes depicted as seemingly a "water" dragon. But if this was in conjunction with the idea of a *young* dragon I did not absorb the thought.

Now I begin to see the firefly.

Thank you very much.

I still would like to have some understanding of how chickens entered China and the development of that symbolism. Do we have to hope that someone is doing DNA studies before all indigenous stock dies or is slaughtered?

Again, many thanks.

Best regards,
Judy

Asianart.com | Associations | Articles | Exhibitions | Galleries |