Talk:Jingdezhen porcelain

Blue-and-white

(from memory, as I haven't got the sources) The shade of blue varied depending on the source and availability of the cobalt used; this can be used to give an approximate date to a piece, as can the "heaped and piled" effect. The Topkapi has a room decorated with blue-and-white porcelain stuck to the walls and ceiling. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 06:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

There's plenty that could be added - even a general intro to Chinese ceramics like Vainker has over 40 pages just on J Imperial wares. At the moment it is the overglaze decorated periods that need more urgent expansion. Johnbod (talk) 13:18, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I added some info from a general history: an online source gives a different timeline and more detail, so it'll need to be rewritten if another RS can be found. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 05:58, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

• According to the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston the mineral used is called asbolite, manganese oxide with 2-20% cobalt oxide. This site also mentions asbolite in some detail, but unfortunately doesn't give a reference. I'll try and obtain on loan Chinese blue and white porcelain by Duncan Macintosh which might sort things out. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 08:57, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps this should go to the main blue and white pottery. I'm a bit puzzled by the dates, as the Ming only start in 1368 nationally, and there was a lot of late Yuan b&w, with a large export trade, in fact it was mainly for export (a trade the Ming banned in 1368, not entirely effectively). For example, the David Vases are dated 1351. Vainker deals with subject on pp. 137-140, plus see index on "cobalt". I've also added re the awkward 1352-68 interregnum there. The website seems in line with other sources - note that the start of the Ming saw a reduction in cobalt imports. Valenstein is fully online, & has about 20 index listings for "cobalt". Johnbod (talk) 15:26, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

• I suspect the BM book is incorrect. I just acquired a small jar with mark for factory number 42- according to this site. If that's correct then during the 1980s there were at least 123 numbered factories there. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 15:58, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect how? Johnbod (talk) 16:15, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

• The author particularly associates the Ming dynasty with the start of importation from Persia. I thought the author implied that the Persian ore was free of manganese, but that was a misreading on my part. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 18:54, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Do you mean Vainker? She says (p. 82) that Persian cobalt is low in manganese, at least compared to Chinese cobalt, which has a high m content. Johnbod (talk) 20:00, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, Cooper (which is a general history, also published by the British Museum). This glossary (link) has some details, but is confusing (mentions a "high proportion of lead" when it seems to be referring to ferric oxide). Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 21:41, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

That's a useful site, which seems generally reliable, but of course no refs. I'm not quite sure it is an RS. Afaik, the manganese has no effect on the colour itself, but is considered a diagnostic feature for the source of the cobalt. Johnbod (talk) 03:14, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I've obtained the Macintosh book; on pp. 11 to 13 he states that the Buddhist court of Kublai Khan required large quantities of white porcelain for rituals. Large numbers of workers from Cizhou were brought in; they'd previously been employed making Cizhou ware and introduced the techniques of underglaze painting to Jingdezhen, changing from brown or black to blue. He states that there was an increase in production at Jingdezhen between 1295 and 1324, with production other than for the court being permitted from 1324; no blue-and-white was mentioned in a work by Jiang Qi in 1322 or found in a wreck (Sinan Shipwreck) off Korea dated to 1328 so production for the Middle East probably started late 1320s or early 1330s. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 05:28, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Vainker (p. 180) and Valenstein (pp 126-9) deal more cautiously with this - there is evidently some controversy, alluded to by Valenstein. I notice Macintosh originally dates to 1977, and is not in Vainker's bibliography (nor those of any of my books). I'm away for a few days, but will look around further. Johnbod (talk) 13:15, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I've just found this useful 2010 MMA catalogue, which needs looking at. Also seems to take a rather vague line. I think a lot of the intensive archaeological and scholarly work on Chinese ceramics over recent decades is creating less certainty, not more. Johnbod (talk) 13:24, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Rawson, Jessica (ed). The British Museum Book of Chinese Art, 2007 (2nd edn), British Museum Press, ISBN 9780714124469, suggests that Jizhou ware, using "Cizhou technique for ornament" was perhaps the intermediary link with the Jingdezhen style (p. 240). Johnbod (talk) 15:09, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

• Used for "competitive tea drinking" as the darkness of the glaze made it easier to judge the white froth! Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 15:22, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Copied from DYK talk

• ... that Jingdezhen, though a remote mountain town, has been the largest producer of Chinese porcelain (example pictured) for over 600 years?

Template:Did you know nominations/Jingdezhen ware @Johnbod, Casliber, and Yoninah:

Jingdezhen is a city with 1.5 million inhabitants, easily accessible along river plains, with an elevation of 35m. Jingdezhen ware was first produced in remote mountain towns like Yaoli, Jiangxi[1], which is some 50km from Jingdezhen. "Jingdezhen" is either the big cuty itself, or (as in the name of the porcelain) a larger region surrounding the city, but it isn't nor ever was a "remote mountain town". Pulled. Fram (talk) 08:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh dear, I didn't look at that part of it - just checked the porcelain bit. Well, my vote would be to remove the "though a remote mountain town" and restore. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:16, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

The hook remains interesting even with the clause between commas removed, so I would support Cas' suggestion. Vanamonde (talk) 11:59, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Whatever they tell the tourists, after poking around the sources, I can't see that anything produced at Yaoli, Jiangxi counts as Jingdezhen ware, which was produced in or very close to the town. The tourist site source for that article is completely non-RS. The altitude may not be high, but it would be lower still without the pottery sherds which apparently underlie the whole place. The pages following this, by an expert give much information, though their archaeologist hosts didn't think it worth stopping at Yaoli, and just drove them through. The source I used included, re the town "From its apparently remote situation...". Using "town" rather than "city" reflected the historical size, but I can see the hook needs altering. Please hold the thing while I find a better alt. Johnbod (talk) 12:46, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I'll copy this to the nom for the record. Johnbod (talk) 12:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Now added to the nom: ALT1 ".... that in Imperial China, a concubine of the first rank was allowed 121 pieces of Jingdezhen ware, that were yellow with a white interior? Source: pp. 211, Vainker, S.J., Chinese Pottery and Porcelain, 1991, British Museum Press, 9780714114705

1.5 million is a backwaters town by Chinese standard. "Remote" is relative distance. (I was a resident of Jilin City, a "3rd-rate city" of 2 million inhabitants.) But since we're having a petty dispute of what is a "remote town" compared to a "big city", I approve the simplest solution which is to remove "though a remote mountain town" and restore, as Casliber suggested. Deryck C. 13:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I prefer the alt, particularly in relation to the age of the Vainker source and the concern I have over the promoted hook that I noted in the section above. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:00, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I think I prefer the Alt as well, given several issues with orignal hook. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:05, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

• Emperor, empress and empress dowager yellow inside and out; first rank concubines yellow with white insides, and then it's dragons of various colours all the way down (Kerr, p 26). The yellow's a deep yellow, classed by Kerr (p 91) as a low-fired enamel containing lead and antimony, "very slightly poisonous", hence the white insides- except on the emperor's bowls! The potters appear to be aware of the risks, because bright lime green and brilliant lemon glazes were discontinued because they "were dangerous to both potters and patrons alike". Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 15:57, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Cup in the imperial yellow, Kangxi emperor

I promoted the hook with the "remote mountain town" in good faith, as it was sourced to an offline source. However, I like Johnbod's alt1 better. It is also offline and therefore is AGF and cited inline. @Johnbod: Would you like to use this image for the lead slot? (Is this yellow cup in fact Jingdezhen ware?) Yoninah (talk) 17:03, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

• I think it's Jingdezhen ware (seems to be modelled on an archaic bronze form). Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 19:40, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Unless it is illegally using the imperial yellow, it is. Johnbod (talk) 03:51, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• Just to note that this is exactly why I've been urging nominators to quote the source in the nomination, thus helping to ensure that interpretations like "remote mountain town" don't creep in unsourced. EEng 20:11, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

  I support this attitude!! Yay! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Quoting the source, which uses the word "remote" would not have helped, I think. Johnbod (talk) 03:50, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand. What exactly did the source say? EEng 04:00, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Johnbod, you dismiss Yaoli rather out of hand, using e.g. the Gotheborg source. Looking at that source[2], I notice that the Porcelain Exhibition Hall in Jingdezhen, described as "an exhibition of what has been produced in Jingdezhen through the ages", has Yaoli porcelain in showcase 1 (1279-1436 CE), and nothing but Yaoli porcelain in showcase 2 (1436-1464) ("One cannot say that it was exactly at Yaoli they made the best porcelain, but Yaoli was the largest, so then quite a few should have been good." Emphasis mine) It seems clear that Yaoli was the first important site producing Jiangdezhen ware, and then faded as a pottery producer and just became one of the main clay providers. Fram (talk) 07:16, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, life is peaceful there, in the open air, where the skies are blue, that's what we gonna do. Try this link instead. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 07:28, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• This site has photos of a couple of dragon kilns at Yaoli. According to Kerr (p 39) the climbing or dragon kiln was "sufficient for the needs of the smaller potteries". Larger concerns used the Jingdezhen egg-shaped kiln, developed from an earlier gourd type, containing a very large number of pieces at high temperatures in a reducing atmosphere (e.g. carbon monoxide) which enabled them to produce pieces with "high-fired" glazes. The yellow enamel was fired in a muffle kiln at lower temperatures on already-fired pots. I'm guessing from the photos of the area that there's no room at Yaoli to build large kilns. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 08:02, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

It isn't at all clear to me! Note, at the top of the linked page "All exhibited pottery here is called Minyao, meaning the People's Wares, in the sense of that this porcelain have been made at private kilns and for the use by ordinary people." All the pieces in the case 2, as described, come from well after Jiangdezhen was producing wares for the court, and look very popular in quality. None of the sources I have, including eg Vainker, S.J., Chinese Pottery and Porcelain, 1991, British Museum Press, 9780714114705, with over 40 pages on Jingdezhen ware, mentions Yaoli, either for kilns or clay deposits, though other places are mentioned. The museum just shows Blue & White, with no Qingbai, Jingdezhen's earliest high-quality ware, from some 400 years before the Ming onwards. Johnbod (talk) 03:38, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

• The "All exhibited pottery here ..." appears to be a translation from the exhibit caption. The British Museum (link here) refers to Ming-period kilns at Yaoli, nothing earlier, producing min yao. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 05:28, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this is the only hit for "Yaoli" in the over 2 million items in the BM database, and shows a popular Ming bowl just like those in the museum case. Note "Where the rim is ground down a dark red-brown body is revealed contrasting starkly with the pure white porcelain clays used contemporaneously at the imperial factory.". But they do call it "Made in: Jingdezhen (probably Yaoli.)". I think we're done here; I'll copy this to the article talk, as it has thrown up some relevant issues. Johnbod (talk) 13:55, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I've added a bit on kiln technology, which I need to expand. It appears that the egg type (and an earlier gourd type) are specific to Jingdezhen. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 22:29, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Comments

I've expanded the kiln technology section; it maybe should be hived off into a separate article, as there's more to be added on fuel (and deforestation around Jingdezhen). The relationship between the court and Jingdezhen seems to be pretty complex; Kerr (15-16) states that there were no imperial workshops until the early Ming, when they were established at Pearl Hill, with part corvée labour. During the Transitional period the ability of the workshops to produce was severely affected. The kilns were destroyed in 1674, and an imperial kiln was functioning by 1683, using waged workmen. Over the Qing period there was a tendency to use private kilns under official "quality inspectors" (my phrase) to produce official ware. Also Tang Ying needs to make an appearance. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 09:28, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks - what we really, really need is an article on dragon kiln, or Chinese kiln technology generally. A section, perhaps in Chinese ceramics, on the business side of Chinese pottery - who owned, who worked, who bought - would be very welcome. Perhaps from lack of sources, the art history of Chinese pottery has not caught up with the increased emphasis on this side of things found in most areas of art history. What seems unclear at J is how the relationship with the court functioned in the Yuan. There was a "bureau" at J, but what what they did seems uncertain, and sources go vague (as they do for Song "official" wares). From the Ming the situation is mostly more clear. Johnbod (talk) 13:21, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I was browsing the topic after it came up at DYK. I started reading China's Porcelain Capital which can be previewed online and which seems quite interesting and relevant. I've added it to the references section FYI. Andrew D. (talk) 17:08, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

That's good- it seems to have accounts of 20th century Jingdezhen particularly the Communist period. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 17:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Renaming article

The title "J ware" doesn't reflect the content; the industry at Jingdezhen pioneered or adopted many innovations in kiln and glaze technology, and business organisation which are or will be mentioned. I don't think the title should be changed to "Jingdezhen porcelain" as I think that stoneware was also produced (but that's OR)- although the Chinese referred to all high-fired ware as "porcelain". Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 06:41, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Depending slightly on the definition, all the wares produced from when J became a centre of any importance were porcelain, and no stonewares are mentioned in the article, so I think "Jingdezhen porcelain" is fine. Otherwise what? Johnbod (talk) 15:08, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Well I haven't got any strong objections to "J porcelain"- are there any other centres of production which would have produced blue-and-white stoneware in the Kangxi period? Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 15:24, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I think it was mostly also porcelain, but there were others, though only producing very popular or export wares, eg Swatow ware. After the Yuan J very largely had the "fine" end of the market pretty wrapped up, & most other centres declined, went downmarket or into tiles etc. Johnbod (talk) 15:52, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I think we are happy to do this, no? Johnbod (talk) 16:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine. According to Soame Jenyns there's a source of "seggar earth" close to Jingdezhen, but I've not found any other reference to it. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 18:29, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

This conversation makes no sense from the outside. What did the editors think the difference was between "Jingdezhen ware" and "Jingdezhen porcelain"? The only issue is which is the more common English term in reliable sources, which doesn't seem to have been part of the discussion. — LlywelynII 16:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

More careful reading required. As is apparent from the first line, this 8 year-old thread dates to when the article was called Jingdezhen ware. What did the editors think the difference was between "Jingdezhen ware" and "Jingdezhen porcelain"? is a pretty silly question, also answered by reading the thread properly. Obviously "ware" would have covered stoneware and earthenware production too. Johnbod (talk) 14:19, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

What a strange article

I mean, obviously a labor of love with a lot of work... but what exactly is the topic supposed to be? Porcelain styles in western museums and their bureaucratic history?

The focus (at least for this name) should be the porcelain industry in Jingdezhen, Jiangxi. All of it.

The article (not just a sentence in the lead) should build up from the initial kilns under the Southern Chen to major production under the Song and not start with the imperial kilns centuries later in the wrong dynasty. The kiln info should lead the article, along with other information about the use of kaolinite (and whatever the heck "pih-tun-tsze"/"pai-tun-tsze"/"petuntse" was) that made Jingdezhen so internationally prominent for its porcelain. Obviously kaolin is named for Gaoling Village in the same (medieval) county as Jingdezhen but why did Jingdezhen become the center for the local trade? and why was almost all of the raw material being imported from Qimen in Anhui by the mid-19th century (at least per the Enc. Brit., 9th ed.)? Had the local resources been exhausted? Are they still? etc. — LlywelynII 16:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Imperial porcelain redirects here, and perhaps it should be called that. I believe the coverage reflects WP:RS, at least in English. I doubt Chinese museums are much different. Johnbod (talk) 02:30, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

We'd need another article on Jingdezhen porcelain if this one were moved. The move discussion is actually the thread above this one.

This section is just noting that this article (or the future JDZ pottery article if the current one is moved to a new namespace) needs to be organized better and refine its focus in places. Regarding its legacy, this UNESCO article is at least one source documenting that direct samples of Chinese kaolin were first returned to Europe in the 1520s and claiming that European attempts at recreating JDZ ware led directly to some important insights into geology and the history of the Earth. — LlywelynII 12:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Similarly, it can be hard to get access to a copy but, even though Needham's treatment of Chinese pottery technology is already listed, it almost certainly has more information than just the discussion of what a dragon kiln was. Dates and the chemical composition of the main ingredients for starters. — LlywelynII 12:43, 23 June 2024 (UTC)