New Thoughts on Old Hormuz: Chinese Ceramics in the Hormuz Region in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth...

British Institute of Persian Studies

New Thoughts on Old Hormuz: Chinese Ceramics in the Hormuz Region in the Thirteenth andFourteenth CenturiesAuthor(s): Peter MorganSource: Iran, Vol. 29 (1991), pp. 67-83Published by: British Institute of Persian StudiesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4299849 .

Accessed: 12/06/2014 12:42

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

British Institute of Persian Studies is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Iran.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.118 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 12:42:57 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bips

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4299849?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


NEW THOUGHTS ON OLD HORMUZ: CHINESE CERAMICS IN THE HORMUZ REGION IN THE THIRTEENTH AND

FOURTEENTH CENTURIES

By Peter Morgan Oxford

A feature of Persian ceramics in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries is the change from the traditional metal-based forms of open vessels. Noted by Arthur Lane and later given emphasis by J. Soustiel, who included comparative drawings to illustrate the point, the widespread adoption of new forms of Il Khanid lustre, lajvardina and Sultanabad wares can be traced to the influence of imported Chinese celadons.' Found in excavations from Prague to Qaraqorum, celadons are less well documented in Iran, particularly in comparison with Egypt where research at Fustat has shown how profoundly they affected local taste and production.2 The current evidence from Iran suggests that celadons were widely distributed on coastal sites and were also traded inland, although information on the role played by local imitations is lacking.3 The complete celadons from the Ardabil Shrine collection, assembled in the 1620s, remain the best known pieces in Iran, but these are all late fourteenth and fifteenth century in date.4 The Topkapi collection of celadons of 1,354 pieces is also unrepresentative and contains relatively few late thirteenth and early fourteenth century pieces.5 Sifted by both the taste of the court and the exigencies of survival, the collection matches the published evidence from Fustdt only imperfectly. Examples of thirteenth and fourteenth century celadon imports into Iran, although reported on infrequently, have been found in excavations (Takht-i Sulaiman, SirSif, Tepe Dasht-i Deh, Ghubayra) and archaeological surveys (Kish, Kirmin, etc.).6

It has been suggested that one consequence of the rise in trading activity between China and the Middle East during the Il Khanid period was the stimulus this trade gave to technical development in the Lung- ch'iian kilns, resulting in the production of larger pieces for the Islamic market after c. 1300.' However, the established markets of Japan and South-East Asia, which were the principal destinations of export production until the opening up of wider international trade in the second half of the thirteenth century, probably had greater influence on form than the Middle Eastern market. The traditional view of Islamic influence may be compared with the fact that the most popular form in Persian Il Khanid ceramics remained the lotus bowl (Fig. 7, Nos. 24, 26 and P1. IVc.A) rather than the large, flat rimmed dish (Fig. 8,

Nos. 45-50 and P1. Vb.B). The situation in regard to celadons may have changed after the conquest of Southern China and the increased access to commerce and manufacture given to foreign merchants by the

Yiian bureaucracy, but smaller vessels remained the most popular form for Persian products and for

imported celadons and white wares even after 1300 (for Late Sung dishes see Fig. 6, Nos. 8-13 and the celadon brush washers and foliate bowls, Fig. 7, Nos. 28-35).

An important Gulf port in international marine commerce was Old Hormuz, which in common with other maritime cities was not only an importer but a consumer of Chinese ceramics. A collection of Chinese ceramics from the Hormuz region, formed by the late Andrew Williamson, and now housed in the Ash- molean Museum, provides important information about the thirteenth and early fourteenth century ceramic trade between China and Iran.8

During the course of an extensive archaeological survey of the MinSb region of south-east Iran in April 1969 and December 1970, Andrew Williamson, then a Fellow of the British Institute of Persian Studies, recorded one hundred and forty-five sites with Islamic surface pottery.' The survey area, which extended from the Shirin RUid in the north to the Mazavi Rfid in the south and as far east as the town of Minab, had as one of its aims the location of the site or sites of mainland mediaeval Hormuz (Fig. 1). In Williamson's

opinion, the most likely candidate amongst his sites was a large coastal settlement (K103) to which he gave the name of Tepe Chahah.'o An earlier survey of the same

region by Sir Aurel Stein in 1932-3 had concluded that the most likely site of Old Hormuz was Kalatun, also west of the village of Kumbil." It is possible that these two sites correspond, although Williamson was rather

equivocal, calling site K103 Chahah in his reports and Kalitun in his notes."1 Whilst Stein's base maps are

imprecise, Williamson's location maps were never

completed and there remain some problems about the

precise location of these sites.'" This confusion has been further compounded by a recent attempt to place Kalatun on the Iranian Cartographic Institute's

1:50,000 map (1958), on the basis of a misreading of Stein.14

In 1871 Sir Henry Yule, editor of the Hakluyt Society's edition of The Book of Ser Marco Polo (London

67



68 JOURNAL OF PERSIAN STUDIES

suru as Mi. abii -.Bandar'Abb TabMiab

Tia

m z sand sOarun)

?i ;..?.;

. . : : .. ii : .. :- i. n. i .:.? ..i:..b..

. i, m • ;. ..?. ? " .' " ":. ?:: "'?::'; . """ .? • "; ?

Qishm(Jarun) . Island arK

~:Kuhistak

Fig. 1. Map of the MTndb region.

1871), published a letter from Colonel Lewis Pelly, British Resident at Bushihr, who placed the ruins of Old Hormuz "several miles up a creek.., .about six or seven miles from the fort of Minao, and the Minao river, or its stony bed, winds down towards them", a location which Carls has shown to have been uncriti-

cally followed by later commentators.15 W. Kleiss, who visited the area in 1977, concluded that Old Hormuz

lay on a mound between the modern village of Band- zak Kohna and the bed of the Minab Ruid, in roughly the same position as Pelly's site.'16 Williamson located several separate sites on gravel terraces in the vicinity of "Bonza", some between 750 m. and 1000 m. long (K95-100), and taken collectively the ceramics from this group of sites suggest occupation from the late ninth century until the seventeenth century, the earliest

pieces being Abbasid tin glazed wares and Dusun wares. 17

The tenth century geographers describe Hormuz as being accessible by sea. According to Istakhri, Hormuz

lay two post-stages or half a day's journey from the coast, at the head of a creek called al-Jir "... by which after one league ships come up thereto from the sea".'" The town contained a mosque and great warehouses, many of these being in outlying villages, two leagues from the town. Ibn Hauqal repeats these remarks and includes an itinerary from Kirman southwards, "From

Manlijan to Hormuz, one marhaleh (day's journey), from Hormuz to the city and the sea-side one marhaleh", adding that in the parts of Kirman bordered

by the sea... "there are harbours and ports which are

subject to excessive heat such as Hormuz and Jarfin".19 According to al-Muqaddasi's itinerary from Narmasir to Hormuz, the harbour al-'Arsa ("the camp") was two post-stages beyond Hormuz itself.20 The port of Hormuz in the tenth century would seem to have been

on a creek which could be approached from the sea and was one of several settlements which lay in a region also called Hormuz. Whether this creek was the Minab

Ruid or simply a tidal inlet, we do not know, but there was apparently more than one port in the area. The information is repeated by Idrisi as late as the mid- twelfth century: "Hormuz is built on the banks of a creek called Heiz, derived from the Persian Gulf. Vessels reached the town by this channel".21

Given the possibility that ports, especially those on creeks rather than on the sea, may have been bypassed by the changing course of the Minab Rfid, any large site between the gorge near modern Minib, through which the Minab Rild enters the alluvial plain, and the coast may have been Old Hormuz. We may narrow the location down further since what Carls has called the Bandsak anticline would act as a barrier to the

navigation of vessels beyond Alt Hormuz Tepe, if it were possible to use the river for navigation at all. Old Hormuz should then be west of this point, at least, in the area south of the present bed of the Minab Riid.22 Two further tidal creeks near the mouth of the Minab

Rfid, running in to Tiab to the north and "the lagoon of Old Hormuz" in the south, are associated with

archaeological sites which are candidates for con-

K30-36 Tappa-i-surkh

Tiab [ 3K143-147

BAlt Hormoz e

K95-100

Qalat Sarawan [ K 130- 131

0Kumbil

K 103

SK107 ?

O 5k

Fig. 2. Major Islamic archaeological sites in the Mrndb Delta (after Carls (1982), Map 13).



NEW THOUGHTS ON OLD HORMUZ 69

sideration as Old Hormuz, provided that al-Jir were a tidal inlet or else these inlets were the former mouths of the Minab Rfid (Fig. 2).23 A third location, Stein's

Tappa-i Surkh (K143-147), is relatively low-lying, and .it too may be considered a possible candidate

(Fig. 2). On the basis of the ceramic assemblage, Tappa-i

Surkh was occupied from the late eighth century, as were the sites near the head of the creek at Tiib, K30-K36.24 Occupation at both continued through the ninth to eleventh centuries and continuously until the sixteenth century.25 Saljuq frit-bodied Persian wares and locally produced sgraffito wares typify the

assemblage of QalSt-Sarawan (K130-131), another

large settlement south of the Minab Riid, which too

may have served as a port, lying as it does near a breach in the Bandsak anticline. Not all large sites are

necessarily ports, however, and local water resources seems to have been at least as important in determining settlement, as was access to the sea, and intermittent

occupation of older sites is a feature of settlement down to the present day.

There is one notable exception to this pattern, however, sc. site K103, which lies on the coast, suscep- tible as we have seen, to flooding, and removed from both oases and cultivable land (Figs. 2, 3). The

presence of a wall to protect the site from erosion by tidal creeks and the remains of a jetty suggest that it

SITE K 103

"

TI DAL

0

0.L.

3 4

0 1 2 3 4K

TI....

FLA7

?Po .

. .

?

Fig. 3. The location of szte K103 (Old Hormuz).

N

0

Q ,:?::.'?.MOUNDED AREA-'

C0 eek JETTY

0

400 m

Fig. 4. Sketch map of site K103.

may have been a commercial port rather than a

customary off-loading place (Fig. 4). It may be that the older sites were overtaken by alluviation of either

geomorphological or climatic origin, necessitating the construction of a site whose approaches were reliably and permanently navigable. Alternatively, as Hormuz entered into competition with Kish for the domination of oceanic trade in the early thirteenth century, so a more reliable and perhaps more easily navigable shelter for deeper draught ships became essential.

Site K103 lies at the southern end of a low narrow

peninsula running north-east/south-west and is sur- rounded on three sides by a tidal creek. The three sides

exposed to the tide are protected by a wall c. 2.5 m. thick which partly encloses an area of mounding rising some 2.5 m. above the flood plain. At the south-east corner, the wall is extended to form a jetty which runs into the creek. The individual mounds, which represent buildings, were not defined although construction materials are known to consist of baked brick, beach rock, sandstone from the mountains east of Minab and volcanics from Muscat. This agrees in its essentials with Stein's description of Kalitun.26 A notable departure




O 10 m

Fig. 5. Ground plan of the mosque at site K103.

from Stein's description however is the presence of a

mosque at K103, whereas Stein has a mosque at the more southerly coastal side of Burchik.27 The plan is

reproduced in Fig. 5.28 Williamson's two visits to the site resulted in the

recording of c. 2,152 sherds of which 1,998 were of Far Eastern origin. The remainder were locally produced sgraffito wares, moulded wares and monochrome

glazed wares. Only two sherds of wares imported from inland Iran were found, a fragment of blue glazed frit ware, probably from a lustre bowl, and a fragment of

coloured-ground Sultanabad ware.29 The occurrence of imported Chinese wares in such numbers is not

particularly remarkable for coastal sites of the period; indeed, Arthur Lane described the effect as evidence of a Chinese "export drive"."3 Their numerical dominance is then related to the role played by Hormuz in the expansion of international maritime trade in the Gulf.31 Lane's contention that the export drive was Southern Sung (1128-1279) rather than Yiian (1260-1368), begs the questions of how and when this expansion of trade took place.32 The fall of the Fatimids in 1170 and the re-emergence of the trading interests of Baghdad and Southern

Mesopotamia underlie the change in orientation of far eastern trade in the Middle East, whereas the change in the volume of trade, which the ceramic evidence seems to indicate, is to be related rather to changes taking place in China itself, and in particular to the rise of

export manufacture. In an attempt to substitute for the loss of revenue-earning industries in Northern China, export industries had been developed in Southern China by the Sung emperors. Initially trading with near neighbours, Chinese commodities eventually spread further afield.33 Control of this trade from the

Gulf to southern India and beyond was the prize fought over in the dynastic struggle between the rulers of Kish and Hormuz which was to see Hormuz emerge as the victor in the 1330s.

Four main types of Far Eastern wares were found on the site: white wares, Lung-ch'iian celadons, common celadons and "Martaban" storage jars. Only one piece of Chinese blue and white, of Ming date, was recorded and can be discounted, as an outlier, from any con- sideration of the evidence for the date of the termination of occupation. As for the beginning of occupation, changsha painted stonewares, northern Chinese "Samarra" wares, cream stonewares and Yiieh celadons, all dating to before c. 1100, and found at

Siraf, Kish and on several neighbouring sites in the Minab Delta, are absent from K103. The absence of incised ying ch'ing wares, which are encountered at

Fustit and in Iran at Kish and site K36, albeit rarely, further suggests that the site was not occupied in the twelfth century.34 Little evidence for the date of

occupation is offered by the Persian ceramics. Kashan lustre and other frit wares, relatively common at Kish and Qalat Sariwan, are rare at K 103; the one recorded

piece probably belongs to a lustre bowl in the monumental style.35

A date of about 1220 for the foundation of the site seems acceptable on ceramic grounds but this cannot as yet be improved, since the majority of the Far Eastern

wares, Lung-ch'iian celadons, are characterised by their slow stylistic development, at least until 1300. Early Southern Sung celadons, typified by the use of

broad, often overlapping registers of carved lotus

petals, are poorly represented (Fig. 7, Nos. 22, 23, P1. IVb.C and E). The unique bowl with incised and combed decoration beneath an amber glaze (Fig. 7, No. 20, P1 IVb.A) is possibly from the Lung-ch'iian area, and mid-late twelfth century in date.36 All the

remaining ceramics, including the white wares, fall into the period from the early thirteenth century to the early fourteenth century.37

A date for the termination of occupation must fall before the introduction of Chinese blue and white into the Islamic world. The dating of this event was discussed by Basil Gray in a number of articles dealing, amongst other things, with the occurrence of depic- tions of blue and white wares in Persian miniatures.38

According to Gray, the first such depiction is in the Diwdn of Khwajui Kirmini (British Museum Add. 18, 113). Although he concluded that "... blue and white was not fashionable in Persia before 1395", Yiian blue and white dating to the second quarter of the fourteenth century has been found on Hormuz Island.39 Finds of similar pieces from a Tughluq palace in Delhi-dated to the 1390s--suggest that Chinese blue and white was highly valued, a point confirmed by the absence of such wares from the MinSb Delta which was

largely deprived of its royal household after 1300.4




Despite the problems of dating Lung-ch'uan celadons on stylistic grounds, certain criteria have been established. Thus while the use of applique fish (Fig. 8, Nos. 36-50, P1. IVd.A-E)-a Southern Sung tradi- tion-continues in the Yiuan period, applique dragons do not appear until the Yiian period (Fig. 8, No. 54, P1. Va.C and P1. Vb.D), and the technique of "float-

ing" biscuit-fired, unglazed designs above the glaze emerges only in about 1300 (Fig. 8, No. 53, P1. Va.D). Celadons from the shipwreck near Sinan on the Korean coast, dated to 1323 by wooden tags attached to strings of cash used as ballast, include, along with Sung style celadons, Yiuan celadons with a thin yellowish-green glaze applied over the foot-ring but with an unglazed foot well. Inside, these bowls are decorated with small, floral designs impressed beneath the glaze (Pl. VIIb.C). Examples of this type have been found on ten sites within the MinSb Delta and they are

particularly common on Hormuz Island and at Kish.

Only one example was recorded from K103 and we

may suggest that the site was largely abandoned by the time this type began to be imported into the region, probably in the first quarter of the fourteenth cen-

tury.41 A similar pattern is found in the occurrence of

Lung-ch'iian celadons of mid-late Yuan date, with an

unglazed ring in the foot well. These are common on the Sinan wreck, and examples were found at New Hormuz, Kish and K107 (Pls. VII a.A,B, VIIb.B).42

It would be wrong however to suggest that all of the celadons, especially the common celadons with

unglazed bases and an unglazed stacking ring inside

(Fig. 10.72-9, P1. VIb.B-D), can be dated by reference to other collections, at least at the moment.43 Although the Sinan wreck contained a large quantity of coarse celadon wares, none of them corresponds precisely to the types found in the Hormuz region. Produced with the typical pale-grey of Chekiang celadons, the Minab pieces, 9.6% of the total far eastern sample at K103, are distributed extensively throughout the Hormuz

region and elsewhere in the Gulf. They occur on 21 sites within the survey area alone, at Kish and to a lesser extent at New Hormuz.44 The commodity storage jars (P1. VIc.A-G), which form 23% of the Far Eastern wares, are also poorly dated.

Neither of the two main types of white ware (Fig. 6, Nos. 1-6, 8-13, P1. IVa.A-D) recovered are similar to those from the Sinan wreck. The small moulded bowls, the so-called Marco Polo wares, were produced in the kilns at Putian or possibly De Hua, and similarities in potting suggest that the open bowls with shallow sinuous walls are part of the output of the same kilns, probably during the late Sung period.45 The absence of Ding ware, a sherd of which is recorded from Kish, may be related to the date of the founding of K103 or the preference shown to the Putian and De Hua kiln sites by Arab and Persian merchants trading from nearby ports such as Quanzhou.46 Ceramics from

Jingdezhen, the probable origin of the Sinan white

wares, were traded down the Yangtze to the more

northerly port of Hangzhou.47 Be that as it may, two carinated bowls with a pale blue glaze over impressed or moulded decoration can be compared with the

qingbai wares from the wreck (Fig. 6, Nos. 14, 15, P1. IVa.E) and with a Sung piece from the kilns at Anxi.48

A relative dating of the two dominant white wares from K103 cannot be deduced from survey evidence since neither type occurs at New Hormuz. They occur at both Tappa-i Surkh and K36 and at Kish, but form a larger part of the overall assemblage at K103, some

3.3%o.49 Although they are found on many small sites within the survey area, and whilst the incidence of their occurrence is high compared with FustSt, they are not as popular as they are on the Sinan wreck.5" Other, more uncommon wares include the two small cups (Fig. 6, Nos. 17, 18, P1. IVa.F,G.) which are Yuian in date.

The continued importation of white wares into the Gulf in the fourteenth century is best demonstrated

by the base of a porcelain vase with slip trailed

petal arcades beneath a qingbai glaze found in Kish

(P1. VId.D). In general, vases, which represent the

luxury element in trade ceramics found in Iran, are unknown at Old Hormuz, although more utilitarian

pieces are quite common (Fig. 10, Nos. 80-89, P1. VIa.

A-K). Fragments of large vases in the collection include a fragment from a large celadon baluster jar (not illustrated) and a unique fragment from a Tz'u- chou wine jar (Pl. VId.C).5 Kish was occupied by the

royal house until 1330 when it succumbed to Qutb al- Din Tahamtan II of Hormuz, the princes being either murdered or deported and the treasury, containing items collected over many years, confiscated.52 Its decline after that time may suggest an earlier date for these important pieces.

From the ceramic evidence, it can be suggested that site K103 was abandoned before the 1350s and most

probably around 1300, since most of the ceramics are either Sung, of Sung style, or are early Yiuan in date. The reason for the abandonment of Old Hormuz, a

process which began in the late thirteenth century, appears to have been the activities of the Nigfidris.53 Marco Polo, who first visited mainland Hormuz in 1272 and again in 1294-5, depicts it as a regional capital with several dependant settlements (castella, cittadi), but makes no mention of fortifications in con- nection with Old Hormuz, which according to him lay on the sea shore.54 Perhaps its low-lying position made it an easy target for the

Nigfidtris (Marco Polo's

Caraunas), who had already destroyed Camadi (Shahr- i Daqianils) to the north, since Natanzi suggests that their attack on Hormuz had led to a retreat by Ayiz to

Jarfin Island in 696/1296-7.55 Old Hormuz, however, continued to function and in 699/1300-1, AySz suc-




Fig. 6. White wares from site K103.




Fig. 7. Lung-ch'iian celadons from site K103




Fig. 8. Lung-ch'iian celadons from site K103. Applique and moulded decoration.




Fig. 9. Lung-ch'iian celadons from site K103. Incised decoration.




Fig. 10. Lung-ch'iian celadons from site K103. uiian dishes and closed vessels.




Fig. 11. Lung-ch'iian celadons from site K103. Dark glazes and common celadons.




ceeded in repelling another siege by the Nigfidiris.56 Further attacks in 1313 by the son of the ruler of Kish, (Malik al-Islim and client of the Il Khans) 'Izz al-Din 'Abd al-'Aziz, were also warded off, and it must be assumed that the region continued to be inhabited.57 By the 1330s, Hormuz-i kohneh was still in use as a hunting residence for Qutb al-Din Tahamtan II and according to Wassaf, the transfer to Jarfin took place gradually.58 Ibn Battuta who visited there in 1329 and 1347, refers to two places called Hormuz, one on the mainland (MilghistSn) and another on the island where the court and the principal offices of state were located, whilst Abu 'l-Fida reports (c. 1321) that only the lower classes had stayed in Old Hormuz, presum- ably engaged in agricultural production.59 With the primary consuming and trading elite no longer resident on the mainland, and yet with the continued occupation of Old Hormuz, high quality imports would not in general be expected to appear in the assemblage. This suggests that the common celadons, discussed above, belong to this later period of occupation and that the

clientele that removed from K103 in 1300 were the principal traders and the court. In other words, K103 was the chief city of the Hormuz region and the site of the royal palace. If the dating is correct, it was probably founded under the expansionist policies of

Mahmfid Qalhati who ruled from 1243 to 1278. It appears from the archaeological evidence that

Old Hormuz was superseded by K107 (Burchik?) the main coastal port of the MinSb Delta after K103 fell into disuse (Fig. 2). The end of the ceramic assemblage at Old Hormuz coincides with the date for the founding of Burchik, albeit with some overlap. Ceramics typical of this later site are mid-late fourteenth century wares, including Lung-ch'iian celadon bowls with an unglazed circle in the foot ring (such as those on P1. VIIa), thick walled bowls with everted rims (P1. VIIb.B) and dishes with incised thunder scroll borders

(P1. VIIb.D). There are a few examples of De Hua or Putian white wares, late fourteenth-early fifteenth century Chinese blue and white, and examples of South- East Asian (Swankhalok) celadons (Pl. VId.A and B, examples from New Hormuz).6o The origins of such a site can be explained in a number of ways. One which

fits the ceramic evidence would be that it replaced Old Hormuz as the mainland port of the Minab region after Old Hormuz had collapsed, destroyed by the

Nigudadris or by the army of Kish in 1325 or merely be-

passed by New Hormuz.61 With trading activity now centred on Jaruin Island, by the 1340s the closest port for shipping goods to and from mainland Iran

developed further west along the coast at Suiruf (Tfisar), linked to Shiraz via Khunj and Ldr (Fig. 1).62

To return to our opening theme, site K103, the site of Old Hormuz, provides us with our most detailed

knowledge of imported Chinese ceramics in thirteenth and fourteenth century Iran. Some patterns emerge in relation to the influence of these ceramics on the

products of Iranian workshops. Firstly, the most favoured import was the Lung-ch'iian celadon lotus bowl, forming nearly 59% of the assemblage, and this

preference is demonstrated in Persian frit wares includ-

ing celadons. The vertical rimmed bowls (Fig. 9, Nos.

56-8) are apparently much less common, and are

copied directly mostly in imitation celadons. The

shape of dishes with applique decoration, sometimes

copied in imitation celadon vessels, influenced Persian wares, although usually only the smaller examples are

reproduced. The imitation at this stage seems to be

largely one-way; indeed the claim that larger celadons imitate the form of Islamic metal prototypes would mean that Persian potters were not impressed by indigenous metal forms until they were presented in the

guise of Chinese ceramics.63 Whilst production in northern Iran was influenced

largely by form and to a lesser extent by colour and decoration, the wholesale importation of ceramics into the Gulf had two different effects on the ceramic

production in Hormuz. The first was that the local

sgraffito production, centred on QalSt-Sarawan, declined by the early thirteenth century, driven out of

production by cheap imported celadons. The second effect was that the production of moulded, porous drinking vessels with their ability to cool water, a fact often mentioned by later Portuguese commentators, was transferred to New Hormuz from Qalat-Sarawan and these became an important item of marine trade

together with Far Eastern wares.64

'Lane, Later Islamic Pottery (London, 1957), pp. 9-10; Soustiel, La ciramique islamique (Fribourg, 1985), p. 194.

2 See in particular, George T. Scanlon, "Egypt and China: Trade and Imitation", in Islam and the Trade of Asia, ed. D. S. Richards (Oxford, 1970), pp. 81-95. A sherd count for a twelve-day excavation period demonstrated that of 16,358 sherds, only 109 were Chinese celadons (Lung-ch'uian) but that c. 230% of the locally produced wares were imitations of celadons. See Scanlon, "The Fustat Mounds. A Shard Count 1968", in Archaeology XXIV (1971), pp. 220-33.

3 See Giza Fehervairi, Islamic Pottery. A Comprehensive Study Based on the Barlow Collection (London, 1973), p. 125, for the suggestion that these were produced in Kirmin, and Lane, op. cit., p. 9, for production at Sultaniyya. They are rarely found on coastal sites.

4 See J. A. Pope, Chinese Porcelainsfrom the Ardebil Shrine (Washington, 1956).

SFor the Topkapi Collection, see R. Krahl, Chinese Ceramics in the Topkapi Saray Museum in Istanbul, a Complete Catalogue, ed. J. Ayers, 3 vols. (London, 1986), especially vol. I for celadons and p. 17 for statistics. For Fustat, see B. Gyllensvird, "Recent finds of Chinese Ceramics at Fostat. I-II", in Bull. of the Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities, Stockholm XLV, XLVII (1973-5).

6 For Takht-i Sulaiman, see R. Naumann, D. Huff, R. Schnyder, "Takht-i Suleiman. Bericht fiber die Ausgrabungen 1965-1973", Arch Anz I, (1975), Fig. 102. For Sirif, see M. Tampoe, Maritime Trade Between China and the West. An Archaeological Study of the Ceramics from Siraf (Persian Gulf), 8th to 15th Centuries A.D. (Oxford, 1989), pp. 340-1. For material from Tepe Dasht-i Deh and surveys




of the Gulf coast, see the Williamson Collection in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford; for Ghubayrf, personal communication from Prof. A. D. H. Bivar; from Kish, D. Whitehouse "Kish", Iran XIV (1976), pp. 146-7; for Kirmin, J. R. Caldwell and G. Fehervairi, "The Islamic Sites Outside the Bard Sir Valley", inJ. R. Caldwell, Investigations at Tal-i Iblis (Springfield, Ill, 1967), pp. 41-64.

7 M. Medley, Tiian Porcelain and Stoneware (London, 1974), p. 74, and, most recently, Krahl, op. cit., p. 235.

8 I would like to thank the Department of Eastern Art, especially Dr. J. W. Allan, for making this material available to me; Miss M. Tregear and Dr. J. Raby for their advice, and the Institute of Archaeology in Oxford for providing me with laboratory space. The research was funded by Fellowships from The British Institute of Persian Studies 1988-90.

9 Also located were 11 pre-Sasanian and 8 Sasanian sites. 10 He states, "The mound of Chahah is of particular interest. It is

situated on mud flats 20 km. south-east of Minab and 3.5 km. west of the village of Kumbil, closely approached by tidal water" (Archaeological Survey of Islamic Sites in Southern Iran 1969-1972, unpublished report, Williamson Archive, Department of Eastern Art, Ashmolean Museum, pp. 4-5.

"Stein, Archaeological Reconnaissances in Southern Persia (London, 1937), p. 184.

2 I have not been able to find a reference to this site other than Williamson's. It may however correspond to the Chih Khwih of Stein's map, although this is nearer the coast then Kalatun.

13See Survey of India (London, 1912), "India and Adjacent Countries", 1:253,440, sheets 25 A, B, E and F which are reproduced in part by Stein, op. cit., with additions by himself and Surveyor Muhammad Ayub Khan.

'4 Stein actually says, "From the little hamlet of Kumbil 2 miles farther south [of Qalit-Sariwan], where our camp was pitched, I was able to visit.., .two ruined sites undoubtedly marking locali- ties which once had seen the shipping activities of Old Hormuz. The first of them, known as Kalatun, was reached after crossing of some 2.5 miles to the west a bare alluvial plain which is liable to be flooded from the sea at exceptionally high tides" (op. cit., p. 184). See H.-G. Carls, Alt Hormuz, ein historischer Hafen an der Strasse von Hormoz (Iran) (Munich, 1982), for a wide-ranging discussion of the location of Kalatun and the problem of Old Hormuz in general, with some excellent maps.

'5 Ibid., pp. 96-100. 16 "Die Portugesische Seefestung aufder Insel Hormoz am Persischen

Golf', Architectura. Zeitschriftfiir Geschichte und Baukunst VIII (1978), 166-83, especially fig. 1.

7 In Pelly's day, the river was silted up. "The creek is quite traceable, but is silted up, to embark goods you have to go a farsakh towards the sea." Pelly, in Yule, op. cit., p. 110. Earlier in the nineteenth century, Whitelock suggested that the Minib Rfid entered the sea at Shah Bandar near modern TiySb where boats were able to unload; see his "Descriptive Sketch of the Islands and Coast Situated at the Entrance of the Persian Gulf', Journal of the Royal Geographical Society VIII (1838), p. 172. In Spring 1839, Grant reported that the water of the Minib Ruid did not reach the sea, since it " . . . was consumed in fertilizing the lands. . . ", see his

"Journal of a Route Through the Western Part of Makran", JRAS (1839). This issue is discussed further in Carls, op. cit.

8 Ed. M. J. de Goeje (Leiden, 1889) p. 164. 19 The Oriental Geography ofibn Hauqal, tr. Sir Gore Ouseley (London,

1800), p. 145. 20 A. Sprenger, Die Post und Reiserouten des Orients (Leipzig, 1864),

p. 79. 1 Sir Arnold T. Wilson, The Persian Gulf (Oxford, 1928), pp. 103-4.

22 Carls, op. cit., Plan 3. 23 Ibid. 24Especially Chinese changsha painted stonewares. Williamson's

suggestion that their use in Iran was short-lived is now challenged by Tampoe's findings from Siraf where excavation indicates survivals until the eleventh century. See Williamson, "Sasanian Maritime Trade", Iran XI (1973), pp. 48-9, and Tampoe,

Maritime Trade Between China and the West (Oxford, 1989), p. 411.

2'See Williamson, "Regional Distribution of Medieval Persian Pottery in the Light of Recent Investigations", in Syria and Iran, Three Studies in Medieval Ceramics, Oxford Studies in Islamic Art IV (Oxford, 1987), pp. 11-12, for the occurrence of Yiieh wares in the Minab region. Celadons and Ming blue and white wares were found on both sites.

26 For instance, on the size of the site he states, "For a distance of more than 800 yards from north-west to south-east, I was able to trace rectangular lines of rough stonework, marking the founda- tions of houses." (op. cit., p. 184). Williamson describes the sea-wall as being 800 m. long.

27 Possibly K107, although Williamson's notes are noncommittal. There may of course have been a mosque at both sites.

28 Unfortunately it has not been possible to locate this building within the site nor to comment on its structure, since even in 1970, like many other building remains on the site, it was being mined for building materials for a new village.

29 The sgraffito and moulded wares were probably produced at the kilns at Qalat-Sardawin.

30 A. Lane and R. B. Serjeant, "Pottery and Glass from the Aden Littoral with Historical Notes", JRAS (1948), p. 117. See also Whitehouse, who hints that the volume of Far Eastern imports had increased since the ninth century; ".. . it was my impression that the eleventh to fourteenth century glazed pottery from Kish contains a higher proportion of imported material than does the ninth to eleventh century pottery from Sirif' ("Kish", p. 147).

3' Large volumes of sherds on coastal sites can be the result of beach wrecks or the discarding of vessels broken in transit. Although Williamson gives little detail, he mentions that some sherds were found near the jetty. The high incidence of repair holes and the widespread use of Far Eastern wares on virtually every Islamic site within the Minib delta suggests that they were widely used locally, almost to the exclusion of North Persian wares. For other examples of deposits of trade ceramics, see M. Horton, "Asiatic Colonisation of the East African Coast: the Manda Evidence", JRAS (1985), pp. 200-13; J. Carswell, "China and Islam: a Survey of the Coast of India and Ceylon", TOCS (1977-8), pp. 43-69, for buried beach deposits, and G. St. G. M. Gompertz, Chinese Celadon Wares (London, 1980), pp. 170-1, for the 50,000 celadon sherds from the beach at Kamamkura in Japan.

32 At least in comparison with the stagnation of the preceeding century. See B. Lewis, "The Fatimids and the Route to India", Revue de la Faculti des Sciences iconomiques de l'Universitl d'Istanbul XI (1953), pp. 50-4, for Ismi'ili attempts to undermine trade in the Persian Gulf; N. Lowick, "Trade Patterns in the Persian Gulf in the Light of Recent Coin Evidence", Studies in Honor of George C. Miles, ed. D. Kouymyjian (Beirut, 1974), pp. 319-34, for the numismatic evidence of that decline; and S. M. Stern "Ramisht of Sirdf', JRAS (1967), pp. 10-14, for evidence of the relocation of some mercan- tile activity to the Red Sea.

3 The date of the Imperial intervention in trade which sought to substitute silks, brocades, porcelain and lacquered wares for pay- ment in copper and silver coinage is given by Jitsuzo Kuwabara as 1219: "On P'ou Shou Keng, superintendent of the Trading Ships Office in Chuan Chou", Memoirs of the Research Department of Toyo Bunko (1928), 1-79.

" See B. Gyllensvaird, "Recent Finds of Chinese Ceramics at Fostat. I", Bull. of The Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities, Stockholm, XLV (1973), Pls. 20-3.

* Dated to "... . roughly the last quarter of the twelfth century" by O. Watson, Persian Lustre Ware (London, 1985), p. 67. None of the

pieces found in Williamson's survey is of II Khinid form.

36 But see Chinese Celadon and Related Wares in South-East Asia, South- East Asia Ceramics Society (London, 1985), no. 34, for a similar

piece dated erroneously to the tenth-eleventh centuries. A salutary reminder of the shortcomings of survey material is the presence of a number of "antiques" amongst the largely contemporary cargo of ceramics on the Sinan wreck.




37 have generally followed the dating established by Krahl in Chinese Ceramics in the Topkapi Saray Museum in Istanbul, especially vol. I, and the evidence from the shipwreck off the coast near Sinan in Korea, Illustrations of Ceramics Recovered from the Sinan Shipwreck Site, 3 vols. (Seoul, 1981, 1984 and 1985); Special Exhibition of Cultural Relics Found of Sinan Coast, National Museum of Korea (Seoul, 1977).

38 "Blue and White Vessels in Persian Miniatures of the 14th-15th C. Re-examined" TOCS (1948-9), pp. 22-30, and again in "The Export of Chinese Porcelain to the Islamic World. Some Reflec- tions on its Significance for Islamic Art Before 1400", TOCS (1975-7), p. 233.

9 For fourteenth century blue and white wares from New Hormuz, see U. Wiesner, "Chinesische Keramik auf Hormuz-Spuren einer Handelsmetropole im Persischen Golf', Museum fur Ostasiatische Kunst, Kleine Monographien 1 (Cologne, 1979), Figs. 4 and 5. Williamson suggested that Chinese blue and white was introduced between 1350 and 1400 and he used its absence from Kish to support the view put forward by Aubin that the island was virtually deserted after the removal of Kish's riches and the dispersal or execution of its ruling family in the early 1330s. See his "Hormuz and the Trade of the Gulf in the 14th and 15th Centuries A.D.", Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies VI (1973), p. 7, and J. Aubin, "Les Princes d'Ormuz du XIII au XVe siicle", JA (1953), p. 105.

40 E. Smart, "Fourteenth-Century Chinese Porcelain from a Tughlaq Palace in Delhi", TOCS XLI (1975-7), pp. 199-230. The earliest pieces of Chinese blue and white from mainland sites are early fifteenth century and occur with Ming celadons at site K107 (Burchik?).

' See Krahl, op. cit., p. 235, for the belief that vessels fired on the foot ring are Sung and rarely Yiian. All of the Lung-ch'iian bases from K103 are fired on the foot with the exception of the piece mentioned above.

42 These are generally dated to the second quarter of the fourteenth century by Krahl. See also the celadons from the Ardabil shrine, which are nearly all of this type and generally dated to the fifteenth century (Pope, op. cit., pls. 121-3; he suggests that the Ardabil celadons were donated later than Shah 'Abbis's gift of Chinese blue and white wares in 1611). Unlike the blue and white pieces, the Ardabil celadons have no ownership marks, and it is conceiv- able that the celadons may have come originally from New Hormuz, captured by Shah 'Abbds in 1622. According to Thomas Herbert, the entire treasury was seized by the Persians after an English sailor had entered and desecrated a church, sealed by mutual agreement, prior to a division of the spoils; see his A Relation of Some Yeares Travaile, 4th imp. (London, 1677), pp. 46-7.

43 See Hideo Ueda, "Classification of Celadon Bowls from the 14th to 16th Century" Trade Ceramics Studies II (Tokyo, 1982), for the changing form and decoration of lotus bowls. The form of common celadons seems to belong to the early fourteenth century.

44 Examples have been found in the Maldive Islands, see Carswell, "China and Islam in the Maldive Islands", TOCS XLI (1975-7), pl. 61 nos. 2, 9, 12, 14-15, 33. None are dated.

45 Penelope Hughes-Stanton and Rose Kerr, Kiln Sites of Ancient China (London, 1980), catalogue entries 179 and 180 for open bowls, and 185 and 186 for moulded dishes, see pp. 35 and 133.

46 Whitehouse, op. cit., p. 147. 47See Kuwabara, op. cit., for references in the riian Shih to the

appointment of Persians and Arabs (Po-ssu) to the post of trade inspector at Ch'iian-chou, Shanghai, Hangzhou and other ports in

the 1290s. 48 See Illustrations of Ceramics Recoveredfrom the Sinan Shipwreck Site, vol.

I, pl. 73, and Hughes-Stanton, and Kerr, op. cit., Cat. No. 120. 49 The sinuous sided bowl occurs in the Maldives, Carswell (1976),

pl. 161, no. 22. None have been forthcoming from East African sites (personal communication from Mark Horton). The moulded

petal bowls, also found in the Maldives, ibid., pl. 61, no. 24, occur on the Red Sea coast at Quseir al-Qadim; see Carswell, in D. S. Whitcomb and J. H. Johnson, Quseir al-Qadim 1980, Preliminary Report (Malibu, 1982), pl. 52 A. Similar types occur frequently in South-East Asia, often in the form of boxes with lids. Only a single lid fragment was recovered from K103, although no examples of the related jars exported to South-East Asia, some for use as grave goods, have been found in the Middle East; see L. and C. Locsin, Manila Trade Pottery Seminar, Introductory Notes (Manila, 1976), p. 10 and fig. 11. The Marco Polo vase in the San Marco treasury in Venice, said to have been brought back from China by Marco Polo himself, is of this type.

50 The ratio of Lung-ch'iian celadons to white wares on the Sinan wreck is c. 2:1, at K103 50:1. Of 4,000 Far Eastern sherds from Fustat examined by Gyllensvard, only ten are said to be white ware, see Carswell (1979), p. 193., although this impression is

qualified by the more recent discoveries of T. Sasaki, "Chinese Ceramics Excavated at Fustat", Trade Ceramic Studies VI (1986), 99-104.

5 For the qingbai vase, compare a ewer in the Art Institute of

Chicago, in Medley, Yiian Porcelain and Stoneware, pl. 10 , and for the

Tz'zi-chou fragment see eadem, The Chinese Potter (Oxford, 1986), fig. 93. Such Chinese vases were evidently used as diplomatic presents. See Aubin (1953), p. 92, for the gift of Chinese and Indian vases made by Jaml al-Din Ibrahim, Malik al-Islim and ruler of Kish, to Ghazan Khin in 1296.

52 Aubin, op. cit., p. 105.

j3See Valeria Fiorani Piacentini, "L'Emporio ed il Regno de Hormoz", Memorie Dell'Istituto Lombardo-Accademia di Scienze e Lettere XXXV, Fasc. 1 (Milan, 1975), especially ch. 12, for a full discussion of the sources and the transfer to Jarfin Island.

54 Ibid., p. 109. 55 Ibid, p. 112, where it also suggested that Jarfin Island may already

have been given defences against an attack by Kish. 56 Loc. cit. 57 Ibid, p. 118. "o See ibid., p. 116, for the dates of the foundation of New Hormuz. " See The Travels of Ibn Ba.ttita, ed. H. A. R. Gibb, vol. II

(Cambridge, 1961), pp. 400-1, and Giographie d'Aboulflda, ed. and tr. M. Reinaud and S. Guyard (Paris, 1883), p. 104.

60 Swankhalok celadons are also found at Kish, New Hormuz, and other sites in the survey area. They do not occur at Old Hormuz and should perhaps be dated to the late fourteenth, or early fifteenth centuries.

6' Aubin, op. cit., p. 104, n. 4. 62 Idem, "La Survie de Shilau et la route du Khunj-6-Fal", Iran VII

(1969), p. 36. 631 am aware that the argument for Chinese imitation of Islamic

metalware suggests that these hypothetical vessels belonged to Muslim merchants living in China.

64 H. Bakhtiari, "Hormoz Island" Iran XVII (1979), pp. 150-2. For a sixteenth century Portuguese reference, see P. Texeira, Travels of P. Texeira with his Kings ofHormuz and Extractsfrom "Kings ofPersia", tr. and ann. W. F. Sinclair and D. Ferguson, Hakluyt Society, 2nd series, 9 (London, 1902), p. 166.

CATALOGUE

Fig. 6. White wares.

Nos. 1-5. White, porcellaneous fabric with a transparent grey or bluish qingbai glaze. Unglazed, moulded bases, rims bevelled and cut free of glaze. Probably from the Dehua or Putian kilns of Fujian

province, Southern China. Southern Sung/Yuian. See Hughes- Stanton, Nos. 179-80.

1. Bowl. Diameter: 19.5 cm. (P1. IVa.A). 2. Bowl with impressed decoration of a child, a ribboned ball and

a rosette. Diameter: 20 cm. (Pl. IV a.B).




3. Bowl. Diameter: 18 cm. 4. Bowl with impressed thunder-scroll border and floral decora-

tion inside. Diameter: 14.2 cm. 5. Bowl. Diameter: 13.5 cm. 6. Bowl base with impressed lotus blossoms and foliage. Sung/

Yiian. Diameter of base: 6.2 cm. 7. White porcellaneous fabric with impressed foliage beneath a

greyish glaze. Unglazed, turned foot ring. Sung/Yiian. Diameter of base: 6.9 cm. (Pl. IVa.H). Nos. 8-13. White porcellaneous fabric covered with a qingbai glaze. Unglazed bases, bevelled unglazed rims and moulded lotus petal decoration outside. See Hughes-Stanton, Nos. 185-6, for similar Yiian wares from the Putian kilns.

8. Small dish. Diameter: 10 cm. (P1. IVa.C). 9. Small dish. Diameter: 9 cm.

10. Small dish. Diameter: 9 cm. (Pl. IVa.D). 11. Small bowl. Diameter: 11 cm. 12. Small bowl. Diameter: 10 cm. 13. Small dish with crackled glaze. Diameter: 9.8 cm. 14. Carinated bowl with impressed chrysanthemum blossom

decoration beneath a qingbai glaze. Unglazed lip. Compare Jingdezhen Ware from the Sinan Wreck, Korea (Seoul, 1981), vol. I, No. 58. Yuian. Diameter: 16 cm. (P1. IVa.E).

15. Carinated bowl with relief decoration, including cloud scrolls, beneath a thick qingbai glaze. Diameter: 10.4 cm.

16. Bowl base with moulded floral decoration beneath an overall qingbai glaze. Base diameter: 8.4 cms. (Pl. IVa.I).

17. Wine cup with moulded floral decoration beneath a qingbai glaze. Unglazed lip. Diameter: 8 cm. See Hughes-Stanton, Nos. 125-9 for similar decoration on boxes from the Anxi kilns. Yiian. De Hua or Anxi. Diameter: 8 cm. (Pl. IVa.F).

18. Wine cup with foliate rim, and two rows of fluting inside. Yuiian. Diameter: 10 cm. (Pl. IVa.G).

19. Mortar. Broad band of blueish glaze outside and a narrow band inside below the bare lip. Incised striations inside. Yiian. Diameter: 18 cm. (Pl. IVa.K).

Fig. 7. Lung-ch'iian celadons.

Fine, pale-grey fabric (except no. 20). Fired in an upright position, foot-rings are unglazed and discoloured orange. Glaze colours range from glassy grey-green to an opaque blue-green (kinuta).

20. Bowl. Possibly early Lung-ch'iian celadon. Grey-buff fabric with carved floral and bird decoration beneath an amber glaze. Southern Sung. Diameter: 28 cm. (Pl. IVb.A).

21. Bowl, coarse grey-buff fabric with an opaque, pale-green, crackled graze. Foliate rim. Southern Sung. Diameter: 18 cm. (Pl. IVb.D).

22. Bowl with broad, carved lotus petal decoration outside. Blue- green glaze. Southern Sung. Diameter: 22 cm. (Pl. IVb.C).

23. Bowl with overlapping lotus petal decoration. Grey-green glaze. Repair hole. Southern Sung. Diameter: 23 cm. (Pl. IVb.E).

24. Lotus bowl. Yuan. Diameter: 26 cm. 25. Lotus bowl. Southern Sung. Diameter: 14 cm. 26. Lotus bowl. Southern Sung. Diameter: 18 cm. (P1. IVc.A). 27. Jar with unglazed lip; lid missing. Sung/Yiian. Diameter:

13 cm. (P1. IVb.B). 28. Brush washer, carved decoration. Southern Sung. Diameter:

11.8 cm. (P1. IVc.C). 29. Brush washer, dark green glaze. Sung/Yiian. Diameter: c.

10 cm. (P1. IVc.B). 30. Brush washer, unglazed recessed base. Yiian. Diameter of base:

c. 7.2 cm. 31. Straight walled dish with crackled glaze. Southern Sung.

Diameter: 13.8 cm. (P1. IVc.D). 32. Foliate cup with bracket-lobed rim. Pale green, crackled glaze.

Southern Sung. Diameter: 13.2 cm. (P1. IVc.E).

33. Foliate cup with kinuta glaze. Southern Sung. Diameter: 12 cm. (Pl. IVc.F).

34. Foliate cup with pale green glaze. Sung/Yiian. Diameter: 10 cm. (P1. IVc.G).

35 Foliate cup with grey-green glaze. Sung/Yiian. Diameter: 9.2 cm.

Fig. 8. Lung-ch'iian celadons with appliqui decoration and carved lotus petal decoration outside.

36. Small dish with applique fish beneath a crackled pale green glaze. Sung/Yiian. Diameter: 13 cm. (Pl. IVd.A).

37. Small dish base with two applique' fish. Southern Sung. Base diameter: 7 cm. (Pl. IVd.D).

38. Small dish base with two applique fish beneath a kinuta glaze. Southern Sung. Base diameter: 6.1 cm. (Pl. IVd.C).

39. Small dish base with two applique fish beneath a crackled

glaze. Southern Sung. Base diameter: 6.5 cm. (Pl. IVd.E). 40. Medium dish with applique fish beneath a pale green, crackled

glaze. Sung/Yiian. Diameter: 22 cm. (P1. IVd.B). 41. Medium dish with applique fish. Sung/Yiian. Diameter:

20.5 cm. 42. Base of medium dish with applique fish. Sung/Yiian. Diameter

of base: 9.6 cm. 43. Base of medium dish with applique' fish. Sung/Yiian. Diameter

of base: 9.8 cm. (Pl. IVd.H). 44. Large dish with applique fish beneath a pale crackled glaze.

Sung/Yiian. Diameter: 28 cm. (P1. Va.B). See Krahl, vol. I, Cat. Nos. 57-61 for large fish bowls dated to the late thirteenth-early fourteenth century.

45. Base of dish with applique fish. Sung/Yiian. Diameter of base: 12 cm. (P1. Va.G).

46. Rim of a large dish with incised decoration. Repair holes. Sung/Yiian Diameter: 36 cm. (P1. Vb.B).

47. Two fragments from the base of large dish with applique fish beneath a crackled glaze. Yiian. Diameter of base: 18 cm. (Pl. Va.A and E).

48. Rim of large dish with incised decoration. Yiian. Diameter: 40 cm. (Pl. Vb.C).

49. Base of large dish with applique fish beneath a crackled, dark green glaze. Sung/Yiian. Diameter of base: 20 cm.

50. Body sherd from a large dish with incised decoration inside and carved lotus petal dec6ration inside. Probably part of No. 48. Not drawn (P1. Vb.A).

51. Base of a small bowl with a six-petalled applique rosette at the centre. Carved fluting inside and outside. Yiian. Diameter of base: 3.9 cm. (Pl. IVd.F). See Krahl, vol. I, Cat. No. 22 for a similar piece dated to the late thirteenth-early fourteenth century.

52. Bowl base with an appliquie rosette closing a hole at the centre. Yiian. Diameter of base: 5.8 cm. (Pl. IVd.G).

53. Base of medium sized bowl with a biscuit fired fish "floating" above the glaze. Yiian. Diameter of base: 20 cm. (Pl. Va.D).

54. Base of a large dish with an applique dragon? Yiian. Diameter of base: c. 20 cm. (Pl. Vb.D). See also Pl. Va.C, a fragment from a large dish with kinuta glaze also with a dragon?

55. Base of a large dish with moulded floral decoration and carved

fluting inside. Plain outside. Yiian. Diameter of base: c. 13 cm. (P1. Va.F).

Fig. 9. Lung-ch'iian celadons with incised floral decoration, usually lotus blossoms.

56. Conical bowl with an inverted rim. Incised design beneath a dark, grey-green glaze. Sung/Yiian. Diameter: 20 cm. (P1. Vc.B). See Krahl, vol. I, Cat. Nos. 4-7 for similar pieces dated to the late thirteenth-early fourteenth century.

57. Conical bowl with an inverted rim. Incised designs inside. Sung/Yiian. Diameter: 24 cm. (P1. Vc.A).

58. Small conical bowl. Sung/Yiian. Diameter: 12 cm.




59. Bowl base with incised floral decoration. Sung/Yuan. Diameter of base: 12.6 cm. (Pl. Vc.C).

60. Bowl base with incised decoration inside. Sung/Yuan. Diameter of base: 6cm.

61. Lotus bowl with incised lotus blossom decoration inside. Sung/ Yiian. Diameter: 23 cm. (Pl. Vc.D).

62. Lotus bowl with incised decoration inside. Sung/Yiian. Diameter: 21 cm.

63. Large shallow bowl with incised decoration inside. Sung/ Yuiian. Diameter: 28 cm. (P1. Vc.E).

64. Bowl with incised floral decoration inside. Sung/Yiian. Diameter: 24 cm. (Pl. Vc.G).

65. Bowl with incised decoration inside. Yiian. Diameter: 19 cm. 66. Bowl with incised decoration inside. Sung/Yiian. Diameter:

18 cm. (Pl. Vc.F). 67. Shallow bowl with incised decoration inside. Sung/Yuian.

Diameter: 18 cm. 68. Small dish with incised decoration inside. Sung/Yiian.

Diameter: 16 cm. (P1. Vc.H). 69. Small dish with incised decoration inside. Sung/Yuian.

Diameter: 18 cm. 70. Small bowl with incised decoration inside. Sung/Yiian.

Diameter. 13 cm. 71. Small bowl with incised decoration inside. Sung/Yilan.

Diameter: 12 cm.

Fig. 10. Lung-ch'iian celadons, uiian dishes and closed vessels.

Yiian dishes. Compare Nos. 72-5 with Krahl, vol. I, Nos. 67-79, dated to the late thirteenth-early fourteenth century.

72. Large dish with repair hole. Bracketed rim and carved fluting inside. Yiian. Diameter: 40 cm. (Pl. Vd.A).

73. Large dish with a vertical lip. Carved fluting inside. Yuian. Diameter; 36 cm. (P1. Vd.B).

74. Medium dish with inverted lip. Carved fluting inside. Repair holes. Yiian. Diameter: 22 cm. (Pl. Vd.C).

75. Large dish. Yiian. Diameter: 33 cm. (Pl. Vd.D). 76. Large bowl with carved fluting inside. Yiian. Diameter: 35 cm.

(Pl. Vd.E). 77. Large bowl with foliate rim and carved radiating panels

outside. Two registers of fluting inside. Yuian. Diameter: 28 cm. (Pl. Vd.F). See Krahl, vol. I, Cat. No. 11, dated to the early to mid-fourteenth century.

78. Bowl with repair hole. Foliate rim, incised floral decoration inside, incised lines outside. Thin green glaze. Yiian. Diameter: 22.5 cm.

79. Bowl with incised lotus petal decoration and a horizontal border with debased thunder scrolls below the rim. Yuian. Diameter: 18 cm.

Closed vessels. 80. Small ribbed oil jar. Constructed in two pieces. Yiian.

Unglazed at the rim. Height: 6.5 cm. (Pl. VIa.A). 81. Small ribbed oil jar. Grey green glaze. Yuian. Base diameter:

3.4 cm. (Pl. VI a.B). 82. Small plain jar. Constructed in two pieces. Yiian. Diameter:

5.8 cm. (P1. VIa.C). 83. Small plain jar. Yuian. Diameter of base: 3.0 cm. (P1. VIa.D). 84. Small jar with pedestal foot, constructed in two parts.

Moulded floral decoration. Diameter of base: 4.8 cm. (P1. VIa.E).

85. Body sherd from a large, ribbed wine jar (guan). Kinuta glaze. Sung/Yuian. Approximate reconstructed dimensions: Height; 25 cm., diameter; 40 cm. (P1. VIa.F).

86. Body sherd from a large, ribbed wine jar (guan). Sung/Yuian. Approximate reconstructed dimensions; Height: 20 cm., diameter: 30 cm. (P1. VIa.G).

87. Guan lid with foliated lip. Kinuta glaze. Diameter: indeter- minable. (PI. VIa.K).

88. Body sherd from a small jar, (mei-p'ing), with applique floral scrolls. (Pl. VIa.H).

89. Body sherd from a small jar with a ribbed strap handle. (Pl. VIa.J).

90. Body sherd from an enigmatic object. Applique decoration on both sides, beneath a dark green glaze. Not drawn. (P1. VIa.I).

Fig. 11. Celadons with dark glazes and common celadons.

Celadons with dark green or brown glazes. 91. Small dish. Sung/Yuian. Diameter: 12 cm. 92. Small dish with incised lotus petals outside. Sung/Yiian.

Diameter: 12 cm. 93. Base of a small bowl with incised petals outside. Sung/Yiian.

Diameter of base: 2.8 cm. 94. Base of bowl with applique fish beneath the glaze. Carved

lotus petal decoration outside. Yiian. Diameter of base: 6.2 cm. (P1. Vb.E).

95. Medium dish with lotus petal decoration outside. Sung/Yiian. Diameter: 20 cm.

96. Bowl base with carved fluting outside. Yiian. Diameter of base: 4.6 cm.

97. Medium dish. Yiian. Diameter: 18.8 cm. 98. Bowl base. Yuian. Diameter: 9.2 cm.

Common celadons. 99. Bowl base. Pink-buff fabric, transparent glaze inside and short

of the broad foot outside. Spacing marks (possibly 12) inside. Sung. Diameter of base: 14.7 cm. (Pl. VIb.A). Cf. Tampoe, Fig. 78, No. 1519.

100. Dish with transparent glaze. Sung/Yiian. Diameter: 26 cm. 101. Dish with carved fluting inside beneath a transparent glaze.

Sung/Yiian. Diameter: 20 cm. 102. Base (associated with 100 and 101). Thin blue/grey glaze

stopping short of the foot outside and with an unglazed stacking ring inside. Diameter of base: 10 cm.

103. Bowl rim with combed lotus petal decoration outside beneath a thin, transparent glaze. Diameter: 22 cm.

104. Bowl base with combed lotus petal decoration outside. Thin, blue-grey, transparent glaze stopping short of the foot outside and with an unglazed stacking ring inside. Diameter of base: 7 cm. (P1. VI b.B).

105. Bowl base with crudely carved lotus petals beneath a thin, dark green glaze over a dark grey fabric (overfired). Unglazed stacking ring inside and a foot with impressed radial spur marks, perhaps from a metal spacer. Diameter of base: 12 cm. (Pl. VIb.C).

106. Bowl base with crudely carved lotus petals outside. Thin, pale green glaze. Unglazed base and stacking ring inside. Diameter of base: 6.4 cm. (Pl. VIb.D).

107. Bowl base with crudely carved lotus petals outside beneath a thin green glaze. Base unglazed. Diameter: 4 cm.

108. Bowl base with crudely carved lotus petal decoration outside. Thin greenish glaze over an impressed Chinese character inside. Base unglazed. Diameter: 5.4 cm. (Pl. VIb.E).

Plate VIc.

Martaban jars and other storage vessels. Coarse to medium-coarse grey fabric with dark inclusions. Poorly adhering glazes ranging from dark brown to dark olive green applied from the neck to the shoulder outside and partially inside. Not drawn. 109. Base of small jar. Dark brown glaze. Diameter of base: 9 cm.

(Pl. VIc.A). 110. Sherd from the shoulder of a storage jar with impressed

decoration beneath a mottled green glaze. (Pl. IIIc.B). 111. Sherd from the shoulder of storage jar with impressed Chinese

characters beneath a dark green/brown glaze (P1. VIc.C). 112. Sherd from a storage jar with impressed Chinese characters

beneath a dark green/brown glaze (P1. VIc.D).




113. Shoulder fragment from a storage jar with impressed decoration beneath a dark brown glaze (P1. VIc.E).

114. Body sherd from a storage jar with applique decoration beneath a dark brown glaze (Pl. VIc.F).

115. Applique handle from a storage jar. Dark green glaze (Pl. VIc.G).

116. Neck from a large storage jar with horizontal applique han- dles. Dark brown glaze. Rim diameter: 12.5 cm. (PI. VIc.H).

117. Sherd from a tall, narrow storage vessel (chicken leg jar?). Unglazed, pale grey fabric of Chekiang celadon type. Diameter: c. 6 cm. (Pl. VIc.I).

Plate VId.

Far eastern wares from Kish, New Hormuz and sites in the Minab Delta not represented in collections from Old Hormuz. 118. Swankhalok celadon. Base from a large dish. Coarse, dark grey

fabric with a thin, transparent, dark green glaze. Base unglazed. Carved fluting inside and outside. From New Hormuz. (Pl. VI.A).

119. Swankhalok celadon. Bracketed foliate rim from a large dish. Coarse grey fabric. Carved fluting inside beneath a thin, transparent dark green glaze. Diameter: c. 40 cm. From New Hormuz (P1. VId.B).

120. Body sherd from a Tz'u-chou jar. Buff stoneware body with black slip inside. Outside: white slip with black painted designs with incised details. Honan district, fourteenth century. See Medley (1974), P-1. 95b, for a comparable piece in the Peking Palace Museum. Diameter: c. 30 cm. From Kish Island (Pl. VId.C).

121. Base from a vase or ewer with slip painted petal panels. Qjngbai

glaze applied outside only. Compare Medley (1974), P1l. 10, a ewer in The Art Institute, Chicago. Early-mid-fourteenth century. From Kish Island (Pl. VId.D).

122. Small bowl with a foliate rim. Pink-buff stoneware beneath a thin greenish glaze. Moulded decoration inside including blackberry lily leaves. Three incised horizontal lines below the rim outside. Probably mid-fourteenth century. Northern celadon? Diameter: c. 20 cm. From the MinSb Delta (P1. VId.E).

123. Moulded celadon bowl with a pale green, crackled graze. Two

registers of fluting inside with an interlaced medallion with a Buddhist motif at the centre. Lotus petals outside. Glazed over foot ring with an unglazed circle inside. From Kish Island.

Yiian/Ming (P1. VIIa.A). 124. Celadon bowl with repair holes. Heavily constructed with an

impressed floral medallion inside. Glazed-over foot-ring with an unglazed circle inside. Yiian/Ming (Pl. VIIa.B).

125. Fragment from a celadon lotus bowl with moulded lotus and

peony blossoms inside. Carved lotus petals outside. From Kish Island. Mid-late Yiian. (P1. VIIb.A).

126. Celadon bowl with a heavy base and gently everted rim. Glazed over foot-ring with an unglazed circle inside. From K107 (Burchik). Late Yuian (Pl. VIIb.B).

127. Base from a celadon bowl. Fine pale grey fabric beneath a thin, transparent green glaze. The foot-ring is glazed over, the foot- well unglazed. Impressed floral decoration inside. From Kish Island. Mid-late Yiian (Pl. VIIb.C).

128. Rim from a large Lung-ch'iian celadon dish with a deeply curved rim. Thin yellow-green glaze with incised thunder scrolls below the rim. Diameter: c. 50 cm. From New Hormuz

(Pl. VIIb.D).



Date post:	16-Jan-2017
Category:	Documents
Upload:	peter-morgan
View:	214 times
Download:	1 times

New Thoughts on Old Hormuz: Chinese Ceramics in the Hormuz Region in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth...

Documents