Abstract
This essay challenges the view that the Mongols had scant influence on Yuan dynasty arts. Although the Mongols were not the craftsmen who produced the artistic works, they were one of the major consumers of such objects. In addition, their support for trade translated into recognition that West and Southeast Asia and Korea provided a substantial market for Chinese porcelains. They appointed a high-level Commissioner to supervise porcelain production at Jingdezhen and other centers. Then, they assisted Chinese potters and transported porcelains to other regions in Asia. The Mongols also brought information about the specific artistic and culinary tastes of the markets for Chinese porcelains. Thus, Chinese potters produced massive plates, jars, and dishes for West Asians who characteristically placed their food on large plates. They also recognized that West Asians preferred decorations on their porcelains and produced works that had decorative motifs. In short, this essay seeks to alter the convention wisdom that the Mongols merely had a passive role in the efflorescence of Yuan porcelains.
This essay is an expansion of ideas presented in my essay “Mongol Empire and Its Impact on the Arts of China” in R. Amitai and M. Biran, eds. (2014) Nomads as Agents of Cultural Change (Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press), 214–227.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Sherman Lee and Wai-kam Ho (1968) Chinese Art under the Mongols: The Yuan Dynasty (1279–1368) (Cleveland: Cleveland Museum of Art). In 1955, the British Museum had organized an exhibition entitled “The Arts of the Mongol Period”, which started the process of re-evaluation. See John Ayers (1957) “Some Chinese Wares of the Yüan Period”, Transactions of the Oriental Ceramic Society 29, 69.
- 2.
Anne Wardwell and James Watt, with an essay by Morris Rossabi (1997) When Silk Was Gold (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art).
- 3.
Linda Komaroff and Stefano Carboni (2002) The Legacy of Genghis Khan: Courtly Art and Culture in Western Asia, 1256–1353 (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art).
- 4.
Margaret Medley (1974) Yuan Porcelain and Stoneware (New York: Pitman Publishing), 1.
- 5.
John Ayres (1957) “Some Chinese Wares”, 70.
- 6.
John A. Pope (1956) Chinese Porcelains from the Ardebil Shrine (Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution, Freer Gallery of Art), 20.
- 7.
Useful sources in such visual inspections include Ye Peilan 葉佩蘭 (1998) Yuandi ciqi 元代瓷器 (Beijing: Jiuzhou tushu chubanshe); Nakazawa Fujio 中沢富土雄 (1995) Chūgoku no tōji: Gen Min no seika 中國の陶瓷元明の青花, vol. 8 (Tōkyō: Heibonsha); Hok Wa Yau (2002) Yuan and Ming Blue and White Wares from Jiangxi (Hong Kong: Jiangxi Provincial Museum and The Art Museum, The Chinese University of Hong Kong); and Oriental Ceramic Society of Hong Kong (1984) Jingdezhen Wares: The Yuan Evolution (Hong Kong: Oriental Ceramic Society of Hong Kong and the Fund Ping Shan Museum, University of Hong Kong).
- 8.
Yuka Kadoi (2009) Islamic Chinoiserie (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press).
- 9.
A preliminary study of the Topkapı collection may be found in John A. Pope (1952) Fourteenth-Century Blue-and-White: A Group of Chinese Porcelains in the Topkapı Sarayi Müzesi, Istanbul (Washington: Freer Gallery of Art Occasional Papers Number One), 59, which counted thirty-one blue-and-white porcelains A more comprehensive study is Regina Krahl et al. (1986) Chinese Ceramics in the Topkapı Saray Museum: Istanbul, vol. 1 (London: Sotheby’s Publications), 3. She found forty blue-and-white porcelains.
- 10.
George T. Scanlon, “Egypt and China: Trade and Imitation”, in D. S. Richards, ed. (1970) Islam and the Trade of Asia (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press), 88; the Topkapı collection has 406 Longquan celadons. All are photographed in the Krahl book.
- 11.
David M. Farquhar (1990) The Government of China Under Mongol Rule (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag), 84. It is surprising that only one government office was established to take charge of the porcelain industry while dozens were created for textile production. Possible explanations may be that more textiles were produced in a wider variety of materials and the textile industry was more widely dispersed.
- 12.
John Pope (1952) Fourteenth-Century, 44.
- 13.
For Chinese efforts to cater to Islamic tastes in the Ming, see Kamer Aga-Oglu (1951) “Blue-and-White Porcelain Plates Made for Moslem Patrons”, Far Eastern Ceramic Bulletin 3.3, 12–16.
- 14.
John Pope (1952) Fourteenth-Century, 86–88 offers precise descriptions of these shapes.
- 15.
Margaret Medley (1974) Yuan Porcelain and Stoneware, 5–6.
- 16.
For a listing of these designs, see John Pope (1952) Fourteenth-Century, 33–48; Regina Krahl offers photographs of each of the Yuan dynasty porcelains; see Regina Krahl et al. (1986) Chinese Ceramics.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Rossabi, M. (2019). Mongol Empire and Its Impact on Chinese Porcelains. In: Schottenhammer, A. (eds) Early Global Interconnectivity across the Indian Ocean World, Volume II. Palgrave Series in Indian Ocean World Studies. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97801-7_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97801-7_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-97800-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-97801-7
eBook Packages: HistoryHistory (R0)