Lot 808. An exceptional Junyao purple-splashed zhadou-form flowerpot, Ming dynasty, early 15th century; d. 23.5cm. Lot Sold 10,200,000HKD (Estimate 8,000,000 - 15,000,000 HKD). © Sotheby's

sturdily potted with a globular body rising from a splayed foot to a flared mouth, the elegant well-proportioned body applied with a thick opalescent glaze in an alluring blend of purple and blue with characteristic 'earthworm tracks' pattern, the interior applied with an even sky-blue glaze, the exterior further accentuated with washes of mottled purple, transmuting to a vibrant crimson hue around the foot and thinning to a softer mushroom tone at the rims, the base covered with an olive-brown wash and inscribed with a numeral san (three).

Provenance: Collection of Pan Baoheng (1862-1927), grandson of Pan Zhengwei, then by family descent and entered the Canton Collection, Hong Kong.

Exhibited: In Pursuit of Antiquities: Thirty-fifth Anniversary Exhibition of the Min Chiu Society, Hong Kong Museum of Art, Hong Kong, 1995-1996, cat. no. 96.

Ethereal Colours
Regina Krahl

The concept of Chinese imperial works of art goes back to the reign of the Yongle Emperor (r. 1403-1424). Throughout history, every court required table wares and palace furnishings for its own use or to bestow as gifts. Ceramic and other workshops had for centuries supplied the various courts with their goods, and the courts may have patronised favourite providers. The Yongle Emperor took patronage a step further, as he seems to have identified more directly with the works he commissioned than the rulers before him. He took over some of the best workshops in his empire and had them produce more or less exclusively for the court; and he started the fashion of having his reign name inscribed on objects, albeit at first mainly on objects intended for Buddhist ritual. He demanded much increased and more consistent standards of quality than had been available with the traditional methods of ceramic manufacture; and he expected much more carefully conceived overall designs than had been possible when forms and ornaments were dependent on the potters’ dexterity. Although ceramic production in the Yongle period was clearly subject to strict supervision and control, this did not limit variety or stifle innovation.

Many of the Yongle imperial wares were not meant for use at court: imperial gilt-bronze Buddhist images were sent to Tibet, imperial lacquer wares to Japan, and imperial porcelains to Persia and other countries of western Asia. While until recently we considered imperial ceramics of this period to have been provided exclusively by the Jingdezhen kilns of Jiangxi province, two other kiln centres have now come into focus, which seem to have been recruited to produce imperial wares: the Longquan celadon kilns of Zhejiang, and the Juntai kilns of Henan. While the imperial celadon wares of this period – like the blue-and-white porcelains – seem to have been destined mainly for distribution abroad, imperial Jun wares did not leave China and must have been intended to furnish imperial palaces.

The group of Jun flower vessels, mostly inscribed on the base with numbers from one to ten, to which the present piece belongs, form a closely coherent group. They are distinctly different from the general pool of Jun bowls, dishes and vases that are characterised by the haphazard variations of hand-made ceramics. Unlike the typical ceramic wares of the Song (960-1279), Jin (1115-1234) and Yuan (1271-1368) periods, they were all shaped in twin moulds. They are all finely made and exactingly finished, displaying the precision guaranteed by government surveillance. They do not seem to have undergone any development, either stylistically or qualitatively, but seem to have been made within a very short span of time. Imperial orders of such calibre are not known from before the early fifteenth century. The kilns must have had a distinct brief to provide flower vessels in a prescribed range of shapes and sizes. The most obvious occasion for such a large commission of wares for display would have been the Yongle Emperor’s move of the capital from Nanjing to Beijing, where new palaces were constructed and had to be fitted out. Work on the Emperor’s new residence in the Forbidden City took place largely in 1417 and by 1420 the main construction projects had been completed, allowing the court to be transferred.1

Zhadou, as the present shape is known, is an ancient form that was popular in the Song dynasty, but at the time probably as a refuse vessel to collect dregs at table. In the present form, with its base pierced for drainage, it has been turned into a flower pot. Apart from flower pots and vases, only a small number of food vessels seems to come from the same Juntai production line, in the form of bowls, dishes and stem bowls, which echo early Ming (1368-1644) shapes from Jingdezhen. They don’t seem to have been made in similar quantities, however, since the delicate porcelain of Jingdezhen was probably preferred for table wares. The sturdier Jun stoneware body, on the other hand, must have seemed better suited to the rougher handling planters were subjected to. At Jingdezhen, the zhadou shape was in the Xuande period (1426-1435) still produced as a container with a closed base.2

With their pierced bases, these vessels were meant to be filled with earth and planted with flowers and, when used indoors, required another vessel underneath to collect water draining through the holes. The angular and barbed forms have supporting basins of matching shape. For circular flower pots, such as the present vessel, the only suitable type of receptacle would have been the well-known tripod basins with applied bosses reminiscent of drum nails. While the inscribed numbers do seem to relate to sizes, their purpose is unclear. They might have been added to match flower pots with supporting basins of the right size, or to find saggars of suitable dimension, or else to clearly display some kind of ranking, which in a society where all benefits were strictly graded according to rank would not be surprising.

In the scholarly community, there seems to be unanimity that these outstanding vessels are imperial. In terms of dating, however, there is still no general agreement. An early Ming attribution is now widely accepted, for example, by Yu Peijin at the Palace Museum, Taipei, and by Lu Minghua at the Shanghai Museum.3 There is a group of scholars, however, that prefers a more cautious dating to the Jin or Yuan dynasties; and another group, mainly at the Palace Museum, Beijing, which supports the traditional dating to the Northern Song period (960-1127).4

The former attribution would seem unlikely. We know that these vessels were well represented in the imperial collection, where wares from the foreign-ruled Jin and Yuan dynasties are scarce, since they attracted imperial attention already in the eighteenth century. The dating to the Northern Song dynasty was originally based on a mould made of Jun ware clay found nearby, that was believed to have been used to mint coins of the Xuanhe period (1119-25); this evidence has in the meantime been refuted.5

No textual evidence of Jun wares is known prior to the Ming dynasty.6 The excavation report of the kiln site supports a Northern Song dating based on stratigraphy. The interpretation of the five strata at the Juntai excavation site is, however, rather surprising.7 Distinguished have been a Ming stratum – not dated more precisely – at the top, a Tang (618-907) stratum at the bottom, and three strata in between. These three have all been attributed to the Northern Song dynasty, to an early, a middle and a late period. The imperial Jun wares were discovered directly below the ‘Ming’ stratum, in the layer labelled ‘late Northern Song’. Jin, Yuan, and possibly early Ming layers are not taken into account. Other finds from the so-called ‘late Northern Song’ stratum, such as painted Cizhou-type stonewares, for example, clearly suggest a Yuan or early Ming date.8

What is undisputed, however, is the exceptional beauty and quality of these imperial, or official, ‘guan Jun’ wares, and the present vessel, with its striking variegated glaze tones and deftly incised number is a prime example. With its opalescent optical blue caused by refraction of light where the glaze layer is thick, its intense purple tones derived from copper, and its finely mottled structure that gives the impression of surface texture and depth, this extraordinary glaze was a unique development of the Juntai kilns. Nothing comparable could be produced at the Jingdezhen kilns, although they experienced a peak of ingenuity and experimentation in the Yongle period. The streaks in Jun glazes known in China as ‘earthworm tracks’ – distinctly visible on the present piece – which can appear during cooling after firing, much like the crackle in celadon glazes, became an admired trademark of these imperial wares, although they represented basically a flaw in the glaze.

The Yongzheng Emperor (r. 1723-1735) seems to have fallen in love with these vessels while still Prince. A bracket-lobed purple-glazed Jun jar and matching basin planted with flowers can be seen in an interior featuring a beautiful lady, that was painted for him (fig. 1).9 As Emperor he sent originals to the kilns at Jingdezhen, which resulted in close copies – a flower pot and support as depicted in that painting, both inscribed with Yongzheng reign marks, are in the Palace Museum, Taipei – as well as in a related new glaze type, known in the West as flambé (fig. 2).10 Neither of these Jingdezhen creations succeeded, even three hundred years later, to recreate the mysterious aura of the Ming glazes that might transport a sensitive viewer into ethereal realms.

Fig. 1. Twelve Beauties at Leisure Painted for Prince Yinzhen, The Future Yongzheng Emperor, Qing Dynasty, Late Kangxi Period, Palace Museum, Beijing, Accession No. Gu6458

FFig. 2. A flambé animal mask-handled vase, Yongzheng period, Palace Museum, Taipei, Accession No. Zhong CI 562

Imperial Jun flowerpots of this form, with various numbers and different glazes have been preserved, for example, in the Palace Museum, Beijing, see Jun ci ya ji. Gugong Bowuyuan zhencang ji chutu Junyao ciqi huicui/Selection of Jun Ware. The Palace Museum’s Collection and Archaeological Excavation, Palace Museum, Beijing, 2013, pls 73, 74, 106, and with cut-down neck, pl. 107. Two jars of the same form and number are in the Harvard Art Museums, which in 1942 acquired the largest collection of imperial Jun wares, assembled by Ernest B. and Helen Pratt Dane: one of them (acquisition no. 1942.185.38) very similar in its colour range, the other (acquisition no. 1942.185.37) with the glaze colours separated, showing a light blue neck and purple body. Many base fragments from jars of the present shape or else of inverted bell shape have been excavated from the kiln site, see Yuzhou Juntai yao/The Juntai Kilns in Yuzhou, Zhengzhou, 2008, col. pls 9–13; some specifically identified as coming form zhadou-shaped vessels are illustrated in Jun ci ya ji, op.cit., pl. 75.

Similar zhadou-form flowerpots can also be seen in Lü Ji and Lü Wenying, Birthday gathering in the bamboo garden, Ming dynasty, detail, Courtesy of The Palace Museum, Beijing, Accession No. XIN196761.

1 Frederick W. Mote and Denis Twitchett, The Cambridge History of China, vol. 7: The Ming Dynasty, 1368 – 1644, part I, Cambridge, 1988, pp. 239-41.
2 Mingdai Xuande guanyao jinghua tezhan tulu/Catalogue of the Special Exhibition of Selected Hsüan-te Imperial Porcelains of the Ming Dynasty, Palace Museum, Taipei, 1998, cat. nos 17 and 18.
3 See Yongzheng. Qing Shizong wenwu dazhan/Harmony and Integrity. The Yongzheng Emperor and His Times, Palace Museum, Taipei, 2009, p. 228; and expressed at a symposium on monochrome wares at the Musée Guimet, Paris, 12th June 2024. Western scholars had long argued against a Northern Song date; see Regina Krahl, ‘On the Forefront of Research: Breakthrough Lectures at the Oriental Ceramic Society’, Orientations, November-December, 2021, pp. 32-3.
4 E.g. Gugong taoci guan/Ceramics Gallery of the Palace Museum, 5 vols, Beijing, 2021; in Jun ci ya ji. Gugong Bowuyuan zhencang ji chutu Junyao ciqi huicui/Selection of Jun Ware. The Palace Museum’s Collection and Archaeological Excavation, Palace Museum, Beijing, 2013, most (but not all) of the imperial Jun wares are labelled Northern Song.
5 Li Baoping, ‘Numbered Jun Wares: Controversies and New Kiln Site Discoveries’, Transactions of the Oriental Ceramic Society, vol. 71, 2006-7, pp. 65-77.
6 Feng Xianming, Zhongguo gu taoci wenxian jishi/Annotated Collection of Historical Documents on Ancient Chinese Ceramics, Taipei, 2000, pp. 74-6.
7 Yuzhou Juntai yao/The Juntai Kilns in Yuzhou, Zhengzhou, 2008, with a table, p. 16.
8 Ibid., p. 38, fig. 17 and col. pls 40 and 41.
9 China. The Three Emperors 1662-1795, Royal Academy of Arts, London, 2005-6, cat. no. 173 bottom right.
10 Yongzheng. Qing Shizong wenwu dazhan, op.cit., cat. nos II-54 and 55; and II-52 and 53.

Sotheby's. Power & Culture – Heirlooms from the Poon Family Collection, Hong Kong, 16 October 2024