A Junyao purple and blue-glazed tripod narcissus bowl, Ming dynasty | 明 鈞窰紫釉鼓釘三足水仙盆 底刻「五」及「八」字、一足內刻「八」字

The Canton Collection, Hong Kong, and thence by family descent.

小聽颿樓收藏，香港，此後家族傳承

This form of this narcissus bowl, also known as ‘drum nail’ basins, belongs to a distinct group of Jun flower receptacles with robust forms and thick luminous glaze. Enveloped in varied purplish-blue glazes that gently drape along the sides, these vessels have been prized by the imperial families and connoisseurs alike since their production.

The dating of these wares has been long debated, but recent research and archaeological evidence suggest they were most likely made in the early Ming dynasty. Scholars had previously relied on a mould for coins inscribed with the reign of Xuanhe (1100-1126) unearthed at the kiln site. This inscription is, however, stylistically different from that found on genuine Xuanhe yuanbao coins. Thermoluminescence (TL) tests carried out by the Shanghai Museum have further challenged the conventional Northern Song attribution, suggesting that they were made at the height of the early Ming dynasty (Chen Kelun, ‘Juntaiyao “Bei Song Junyao” chanpin shidai de zai tantao [Re-dating the ‘Northern Song dynasty Jun ware’ from Juntai kiln], 2005 Zhongguo Yuzhou Junyao xueshu yantaohui lunwenji [Compilation of presentations at the 2005 Yuzhou Junyao academic conference], Zhengzhou, 2007, pp. 66-70).

This type of Jun narcissus bowl is often inscribed with numerals from one to ten that seem to correspond to the size of the vessels. The present example, however, is incised with two different numerals at three locations: one foot is incised with the numeral ba (eight) on the inside, and the same character is again later engraved on the exterior base, where a further character wu (five) is wheel-cut at the centre. Although uncommon, there are other instances of vessels inscribed with more than one numeral. Compare two hexafoil purple-glazed tripod narcissus bowls in the Palace Museum collections in Taipei and Beijing. The Taipei example is inscribed with the numerals one and four, and the Beijing one with seven and nine; see The Enchanting Splendor of Vases and Planters: A Special Exhibition of Flower Vessels from the Ming and Qing Dynasties, Taipei, 2014, cat. no. I-09 and Selection of Jun Ware. The Palace Museum’s Collection and Archaeological Excavation, Beijing, 2013, pl. 111. The author of the latter suggests that the numeral seven was later incised in the palace to match its companion piece.

In terms of the glaze quality and the arrangement of the spur marks, the present vessel is closely related to the examples unearthed in 2004 from the Yuzhou Pharmaceutical Company premises in Henan. See an excavated purple-glazed ‘drum nail’ tripod narcissus bowl, illustrated ibid., pl. 114. There is yet a consensus on the exact dating and manufacturing background of this group of receptacles. Some scholars, such as Liu Tao, believe that the production of these vessels shortly precedes those with fewer and finer spur marks (Liu Tao, ‘The Review of Jun Porcelain Archaeology Research over the Past Decade’, Palace Museum Journal, vol. 191, 2017, no. 3, p. 54). Wang Guangyao, on the other hand, suggests these two groups of receptacles were made concurrently, and the discrepancies should be considered as normal variations of the kiln production (Mingdai gongting taoci shi [History of Ming imperial ceramics], Beijing, 2010, p. 176).

鈞窰水仙盆，又稱鼓釘洗，胎骨厚實，器形穩健，厚施釉色呈藍紫，沿邊釉薄而透徹，自燒造伊始，備受宮廷與鑑藏家推崇。

此類陳設鈞瓷燒造年代素具爭議，眾說紛紜，但近年研究與考古資料均指向明初。鈞窰遺址曾出土「宣和元寶」錢範殘器，但銘文與北宋元寶實物不符，應乃偽託。上海博物館也就鈞瓷碎片進行熱釋光測試，結果推翻北宋之論；詳見陳克倫，〈鈞台窰「北宋鈞窰」產品時代的再探討〉，《2005中國禹州鈞窰學術研討會論文集》，鄭州，2007年，頁66-70。

鈞窰模製陳設花器，多刻數字，一至十，彷似與器物尺寸相關。然而有別於常見的一器一字，此盆一足內刻「八」字，器底刻「五」字，旁另後鑴「八」字。雖然罕見，卻有他例可資對比。如兩岸故宮六瓣花式三足水仙盆，台北之例鑴有「一」和「四」，北京之例則有「七」和「九」字，分別收入《瓶盆風華：明清花器特展》，台北，2014年，編號I-09，以及《鈞窰雅集：故宮博物院珍藏及出土鈞窰瓷器薈萃》，北京，2013年，圖版111，書中指「七」字或乃清宮後刻，以便與其他花器配對使用。

觀其紫藍釉與支釘痕，與2004年河南禹州藥廠工地出土器例甚似。參考一出土紫釉鼓釘三足水仙盆，同上註，圖版114。現時學術界對其具體斷代及燒造背景尚未有定論，劉濤等主張此批陳設器，比常見帶有較少、較細支釘痕者年代略早（劉濤，〈近十年來鈞窰考古與研究述評〉，《故宮博物院院刊》，總191期，2017年3期，頁54）。王光堯卻認為它們與附近其他鈞窰遺址所出燒造時間相同，雖有參差，純屬正常（《明代宮廷陶瓷史》，北京，2010年，頁176）。