Chinese Art-Asian Antiques News This Week

Bidamount News Nov. 7, 2025, Vol 607

Bits and Pieces

NEWS!

The 12th to 13th C. LARGE Korean Goryeo Bronze Buddha From a Long Time Private Italian Collection. At Marcopolo Milan, December 2, 2025

Coming back to the market after more than 100 years.

Being Sold on December 2, 2025 in Milan Italy.

Click Here to View Brochure

Hand Made and Handheld..Exhibit and Catalog

The catalog of the pieces for the above exhibit can be seen in this catalog. Made available through Arts Of Asia magazine. CLICK HERE TO ORDER

Note: I have already bought this catalog, it is a very good reference on the topic, an essential I think if you are a collector. Best Peter

By Alex W. Palmer Photography by Bartholomew Cooke

The Butler Collection DATA BASE, A Research Project.

Abstract

From the vast quantities of Chinese porcelain produced between 1550 to 1750, a very limited number are inscribed with dates which provide the vital building blocks for establishing a chronology. This article describes the research project, led by Katharine Butler and relying on the work of many earlier scholars including Professor Wang Qingzheng and her father, Sir Michael Butler (1927–2013), to compile a comprehensive list of all known dated porcelain in collections around the world from the mid-16th to 18th centuries. To date, the list includes over 450 objects. Often dated porcelains were commissioned as votive offerings to temples and are typically conservative in design, thus their usefulness in charting stylist changes is questioned. The article describes the various ways dates are inscribed on porcelain and the confusions this has led to, particularly for the group known as ‘high transitional’. Special attention is given to porcelains dated within the Shunzhi reign, as well as to pieces bearing apocryphal reign marks, including those of the Shunzhi and Chongzhen reigns. A hitherto overlooked group of small bowls with dates from 1666–1670 are examined, while new research is discussed concerning the better-known group of high-quality objects inscribed with the hall name Zhonghe Tang (‘Hall of Central Harmony’) dated respectively to 1671, 1672 and 1673.

Keywords

Dated porcelain

Inscriptions

Zhao Fu (Princedom of Zhao)

Shunzhi

Chongzhen

Zhonghe Tang

Rucheng

High transitional

In order to date works of art, researchers rely on social history, literature, works in other media, science, archaeology and, of course, comparisons of the objects themselves. A very limited number of the vast quantities of Chinese porcelain objects produced between 1550 and 1750 are inscribed with dates, and it is with these we can lay the foundations for a chronology of the porcelain production of this period.

While working on the book, Leaping the Dragon Gate [1], I led a research initiative¹ to create a comprehensive list of all known dated Chinese porcelains in collections around the world from the mid-16th to 18th centuries. We relied on the work of many earlier scholars including Professor Wang Qingzheng (1931–2005) and my father, Sir Michael Butler (1927–2013). In 1981, Richard Kilburn curated the first exhibition in the world of Chinese porcelain of the 17th century [2]; and illustrated 21 dated pieces in the catalogue. In 1987, Professor Wang provided a list of 120 in an annex [3], as did Sir Michael in his exhibition catalogue of 1990, in which he listed 189 [4], unfortunately neither of these two lists are illustrated nor cross-referenced. Many other publications listing dated porcelain have contributed to the database, now standing at around 450 objects (Fig. 1). Unfortunately, it is only possible to illustrate a tiny proportion of these in this paper, so it will focus on a few groups to which the research has greatly expanded the number of objects known, it will discuss how date and reign marks are inscribed and how sometimes these inscriptions can be misleading.

A group of dated incense burners reveals why early 20th century scholars believed porcelain of the 17th century, a period when the imperial kilns had ceased production, was uncreative and unimportant. Six,² with dates from the Chongzhen reign (1627–44), are almost identical. They are thickly and unevenly potted and are decorated formulaically in a dull-grey, underglaze cobalt blue usually with dragons chasing flaming pearls. These cylindrical-shaped objects were offered by devout worshippers to temples and clearly there was no demand for innovation. A group of 11 bombé-shaped incense burners with dates spanning from 1626 to 1732, is of higher quality but shows a similarly conservative uniformity over more than a century. An incense burner, inscribed Da Ming Chongzhen jimao (Jimao year of Chongzhen of the Great Ming), corresponding to 1639, is one such object (Fig. 2) in which the composition and style of its decoration have evolved little from the time of Jiajing (1522–1566).

Another group of porcelains that are conservative in style is a series of exquisitely painted dishes inscribed on their base with the characters ‘Jiaxu chun meng Zhao Fu zao yong’ (Jiaxu year, First Spring Month, made for the use of the Zhao Mansion) equivalent to 1634. Zhao Fu refers to the Princedom of Zhao established by the first Ming Emperor, Hongwu (1368–98). So far we have found eight dishes painted predominantly in green and red overglaze enamels with a front-facing dragon (Fig. 3), as well as six dishes with the same decoration in underglaze blue (Fig. 4) [5].³ Shards excavated from the Shibaqiao site, Jingdezhen which exactly correspond to the underglaze blue dishes from this group, clearly demonstrate this kiln’s importance in the production of the highest quality wares for the most prestigious clients at a time when the imperial kiln at Zhushan was not operating [6].⁴

The practice of inscribing ceramics with the emperor’s reign title (or nianhao) became widespread soon after the start of the Ming dynasty (1368–1644). If an exact date was required, it could be written in one of two ways: either the ordinal year was inscribed beside the reign mark, or, the cyclical year name or ganzhi, together with the reign mark. Professor Wang defined such unambiguous dates ‘absolute’ [7], in contrast to a new way dates began to be written in the last decade of the Ming Dynasty. In what may have been a subtle repudiation of a decadent regime, the emperor’s name was omitted and the cyclical characters were inscribed alone. Such a formulation can be termed ‘indefinite’, and although contemporary readers would have known to which year of the sixty-year cycle the cyclical characters referred, four centuries later there is much more opportunity for confusion [8].⁵

A baluster vase (Fig. 5) has a 14-character inscription including the two characters of wuyin; these could be understood as corresponding to 1638 in the 73rd sexagenary cycle⁶ or to 1698, 60 years later. The vase comes from a group of porcelain of superb quality and completely innovative style known as ‘high transitional’ [9],⁷ which some scholars in the 1980s considered too excellent to have been made in the chaotic last decades of the Ming dynasty when imperial patronage of the Jingdezhen kilns had been withdrawn. Instead, these scholars [10] preferred to date such objects to the Kangxi period (1662–1722) after 1681 when the Zhushan kilns were formally re-opened and imperial supervision of porcelain production had been restored.

Despite ‘high transitional’ being an exceptionally attractive and unique style, its appearance was short-lived. It was a time of great experimentation with brand new shapes, painted in a brilliant new blue colour, in a new painting style and with innovative subject matters. Of the large number of extant pieces, we found only 32 with inscribed dates, of which 12 are rolwagens (one illustrated at Fig. 6), four are gu-shaped vases, seven are brushpots (one illustrated at Fig. 7) and two are ovoid jars. Almost without exception their dates exclude the reign mark, however there is one object; a pure-water bowl, with decoration that combines all the characteristic ‘high transitional’ features and with an inscription that includes an ‘absolute date’ (Fig. 8) which partly reads Chongzhen shi er nian (12th year of Chongzhen) equivalent to 1639. Its publication by Regina Krahl in 1986 [11] laid the debate over the dating of ‘high transitional’ porcelain to rest, because it no longer could be argued that this style first appeared during the Kangxi reign. Our research found another object inscribed Chongzhen shi er nian (12th year of Chongzhen) but its decoration is not so emphatically ‘high transitional’ (Fig. 9).

Reign marks can be misleading as, from the 16th century, they were often used apocryphally. Reasons for this could be various; as a mark of respect, a way not to contravene prohibitions on using the name of an extant emperor or possibly as a straightforward intention to deceive. In the first quarter of the 17th century, porcelain began to be marked with the nianhao of the emperor Chenghua (1465–87) and by mid-century, this mark was frequently applied as well that of Jiajing and, less so, that of Xuande (1426–35). In 1677, the Fuliang Xianzhi (Gazetteer of Fuliang County) records that a magistrate from Yangcheng (in Shanxi province) who was then Superintendent of Jingdezhen, ‘forbade the writing of ….[Kangxi] reign marks … on the porcelain, lest vessels bearing the marks should be smashed’,⁸ but the edict must have been rescinded by the time imperial production was restored in 1681 because Kangxi marks can be found on many non-imperial objects including porcelain made for export [12]. As the Kangxi reign lasted over six decades, its reign mark does not provide a very precise indication of date, however porcelain marked with the nianhao of emperors with short reigns such as Tianqi (1621–27), Chongzhen, and Shunzhi (1644–1661) do, and our database has collected these too.

Only very few ceramics with clearly authentic marks survive from the 17-year Shunzhi reign; we found 25 pieces with the reign mark and 37 with dates from this period. One very rare group inscribed with a six-character Shunzhi reign mark are monochrome dishes in either iron-oxide brown or cobalt blue glazes and would appear to relate to the edict of 1651 ordering ‘dragon bowls’ for the imperial Court. The five known brown dishes have white-glazed interiors and bases (Fig. 10),⁹ and the ten blue dishes¹⁰ also have white-glazed bases but their interior and exterior are glazed in cobalt blue on the biscuit (Fig. 11). Both have dragons incised on the interior beneath the white or blue glaze and six-character Shunzhi marks painted in underglaze blue inside a double circle on their bases, however, as Prof. Lu Minghua pointed out, the style of writing is quite different.¹¹ The blue dishes show neat, rigid and standardized script, while that on the brown dishes is looser and less elegant. Prof. Lu concluded that the brown dishes were from a non-imperial kiln imitating those of the imperial. Recent archaeological finds may bear this out. Two shards excavated from the Zhushan imperial kiln site, on display at the Jingdezhen Imperial Kiln museum, are inscribed with a six-character Shunzhi mark painted in underglaze cobalt blue on one side and on the other side are incised with a dragon design on the unglazed biscuit (Fig. 12). The frontal facing, five clawed dragon is very similar to that incised on the blue glazed dishes and the fact the front side is unglazed, shows that the shards were discarded before the second firing when the cobalt blue glaze would have been applied. The handwriting shows a similar precision and balance to those on the blue dishes. They provide important evidence that the Zhushan kilns were working for the imperial court more than two decades before 1681 when they were officially re-opened by the Kangxi Emperor.

Our research has collected a large group of dishes and bowls decorated with a composition of animals and mythical beasts and bearing four-character Shunzhi marks (Fig. 13). The painting style is loose and scruffy as is the handwriting on the mark, which, unusually for this period, is not enclosed in a double circle. The dishes are often found in pairs and our research has so far found 15.¹² They are certainly not imperial and it is doubtful that they were even made in the 17th century [13].¹³

Stand-alone Chongzhen marks are extremely rare; in the 11 cases our research found, almost all seem to be apocryphal. For example; five small cups, (D. 7 cm, H. 4 cm), with conical sides and high narrow feet (Fig. 14),¹⁴ their shape is improbable for the 1630 s and is much more commonly seen in Yongzheng (1723–35) porcelain. There is a round shaped covered box decorated with a dense floral design in reserve, illustrated by Prof. Stephen Little,¹⁵ with a well written six-character Chongzhen mark, but, from the admittedly poor photographs, seems much later in both construction and decorative style. However, there are two cups (Fig. 15),¹⁶ with incised decoration under a thick white monochrome glaze which have four-character Chongzhen marks written in underglaze blue on their bases which may be of the period. Their shape is related to that of chocolate cups of the 1630 s,¹⁷ usually in underglaze blue and unmarked, and the incised decoration is similar to that on Chongzhen objects. It is very possible that these cups are mark and period, but they are so rare that it is impossible to be certain.

One of the successful outcomes of our project was to find many more pieces belonging to previously known groups. The Zhonghe Tang group (Fig. 16), is one example. It includes high quality dishes and bowls painted in underglaze cobalt blue and copper red and inscribed with an eight-character mark that incorporates a cyclical date of 1671, 1672 or 1673, a Kangxi nianhao (reign title) and the name, ‘Hall of Central Harmony’. We have identified eight large, 27 cm diameter dishes; six round bowls of 16–40 cm diameters; two 17 cm diameter iron-oxide brown bowls; three deep basins of circa 35 cm; and seven 22 cm diameter lotus-shaped dishes. We have also located 36 of the small, 11 cm diameter dishes painted with landscapes and a poem. This almost doubles the number most recently identified [14]. This group has been recognised as particularly important because it demonstrates and dates the successful revival of painting in underglaze copper red, a technique that had been forgotten for almost a century and a half.¹⁸

Less has been remarked about the use of the celadon glaze on the two Zhonghe Tang bowls in the Butler Collection, a technique that suddenly emerged on Jingdezhen porcelain at this time. It is probably unsurprising that, after the demise in the 1550 s of the production in Longquan which, for six centuries had been producing the finest celadons, there was still a demand for this coloured glaze. Indeed, in the last two decades of the 17th century and into the 18th, celadon glazes became very popular. They were used in combination with underglaze red and blue or as a monochrome and often covered carved or incised decoration, creating very effective contrasts where the glaze pools and deepens in the recesses. One very rare group of dated porcelain from Jingdezhen, which perhaps presages the Kangxi celadons and the ‘clair-de-lune' glazes, is composed of six identical bowls in a pale bluish green glaze, dated 1591 (Fig. 17).¹⁹ Their eight-character inscription on the base written in underglaze blue reads Wanli xinmao Rucheng jia cang (Wanli, xinmao year, the Rucheng family collection). Rucheng could be the personal or style name of the owner of the bowls and it has been suggested that the unusual coloured glaze was intentionally evoking the famous Ru wares of the Northern Song (960–1127) [15].

Our research also collected groups of objects not previously linked and in the case of some small cups found that they had an interesting quirk in the way their dates was written. There are 14 similar small cups (circa 9 cm diameters), inscribed on the base with dates that relate to 1666 to 1670, they are not high quality and are scruffily painted with plants or figures.²⁰ However their inscriptions are very unusual. The mark on a cup (Fig. 18), reads Da Qing bingwu nian zhi (made in the bingwu year of the Great Qing) or 1666. A similar cup, recently published by Prof. Christiaan Jörg [16], has a mark that reads Da Qing nian qi nian zhi (made in the 27th year of the Great Qing) or 1670. This is very rare, because ‘absolute’ dates normally included the reign name of an emperor rather than a dynasty. The same unusual formulation was used on three identical dishes decorated with a Wutong or Chinese parasol tree leaf (Fig. 19).²¹ They all bear a two-column poem and on the base a six-character mark Da Qing dingwei nian zhi (made in the dingwei year of the great Qing) corresponding to 1667. Professor Jörg pondered whether the fact that such insignificant cups were dated might suggest that they had a religious function, on the other hand, the leaf dishes are unlikely to be temple objects. For whatever reason, the avoidance of the Kangxi nianhao is a fascinating idiosyncrasy.

The project to find all dated pieces of Chinese porcelain will never be completed. There are many pieces described in old publications or auctions whose present whereabouts are unknown, many pieces have been referred to in lists but without photographs or further provenance and of course many more that are yet to be discovered. The database is an ongoing and collaborative project which will eventually be accessible online and together with other databases being worked on in Jingdezhen and around the world, will be an important tool to help authenticate and provide a chronology for the porcelain production of China.

August 16, 2018

If You'd Like What We Do

Please consider joining the BIDAMOUNT Community by becoming a PATREON or Global Member Subscriber and help support this site and our YouTube Channel.

Thank you very much. Peter

$5 Per Month

$ 4 Per Month

CLICK TO JOIN

For the extra dollar a Month I think the Patreon Membership gives more bang for the buck.. Both support the YouTube Channel and maintain this site. ..

Weekly handpicked auction lost in the USA and Abroad as well as access to the AUCTIONEER Report Card, over 450 Auction Houses Graded A to F with comments. $4 a month.

This Week's Videos

A few items we think are nice.