Page 18 - Yuan Dynasty Ceramics

Chapter 07 (pp. 330-385)_Layout 1 7/7/10 5:42 PM Page 347

At the Cizhou kilns, peacock blue glaze was first used
during the Jin dynasty, although rare occurrences of this
copper-based glaze are seen on an unusual Han vessel and
60
on a few Tang sancai wares. During the Yuan dynasty,
Cizhou’s painted vessels with turquoise underglazes were
apparently emulated at the imperial kilns of Jingdezhen
during the reign of the Wenzong emperor (see Figs. 7.15,
7.16). There may be a link between Chinese turquoise-
glazed wares and those of Kashan (in present-day Iran)
produced during the Seljuk (1055–1256) and Il-Khanid
periods (1256–1353; Fig. 7.25). 61
Turquoise-glazed wares with underglaze decoration
had long been made in Mesopotamia and Egypt, and al-
though Cizhou wares are not one of the dominant Chi-
nese wares found at Asian archaeological sites to the west
of China, they have been recovered in these regions.
From the late thirteenth to early fourteenth centuries, the
Mongols’ superintendent of taxes in Iran and Iraq, Jamal
al-Din Ibrahim ibn Muhammad al-Tibi, ran an extensive
trading operation from his base on the island of Qais
near Hormuz in the Persian Gulf—an enterprise that
7.24. Jar with cover in the shape of a lotus leaf and painted with supposedly ran so efficiently that produce from the re-
underglaze iron slip, Southern Song dynasty, thirteenth century, motest regions of China was consumed in the farthest
22.8 cm tall, 24.1 cm diameter. Probably made at the Jizhou kilns
62
West. A letter of 1309 preserved in the papers of the Il-
at Yonghe near Ji’an, Jiangxi province, The Art Institute of
Chicago. Khan vizier Rashid al-Din (1242–1318) notes the receipt
of Chinese wares from Ala al-Din Muhammad Shah I,

During the Ming dynasty, Cizhou kilns continued to
create works with a peacock blue glaze applied over black
slip painting. In fact, it is not always easy to distinguish
early Ming works of this type from similar Yuan works.
In some instances, the shape of an object or style of
painting can be a clue to a work’s more likely Ming date,
as in the case of a meiping with peacock blue glaze in the
Musée Guimet sometimes attributed to the Yuan, but in
this author’s view more likely to be early Ming (see Fig.
7.21). The Hongwu emperor favored the chrysanthe-
mum motif and secondary motifs on the meiping resemble
those on works recovered from dated early Ming tombs
and on blue and white wares popular in that era. In addi-
tion, related bottles with peacock blue glaze, especially
those with painted figures, are now also generally consid-
58
ered to be Ming. By contrast, a meiping with more tightly
C&C: Silo image
painted motifs of lotus (rendered in a style seen on a
Hongwu imperial bowl) and secondary floral bands is
more akin to the denser, more exuberant style associated
7.25. Frieze tile with composite body, molded phoenix design,
with Yuan ware; in addition, the meander motif banding
and overglaze painted luster, ca. 1270–1280, 37.5 cm tall, 36.2 cm
is similar to that on the British Museum Cizhou jar with wide. Probably made in Kashan, Iran, The Metropolitan Museum
an inscription equivalent to 1305 (see Fig. 7.22). 59 of Art.

Yuan Dynasty Ceramics 347