Physical Properties    (always with some exceptions)

During the reign of Hongwu, about 30  personal kilns were included with the Imperial kilns at Jingdezhen, bringing the total number of kilns to just over 50 by the end of the reign. About 20 of those producing porcelain for the Imperial court. Competition between the individual kilns was evident, and this contributed towards improved quality which of course pleased the court. However, this blend of both personal and Imperial kilns resulted in a wide range of quality for Hongwu porcelain. Many of these personal kilns were later to become Imperial kilns during the reign of Xuande.

Porcelain  produced from personal kilns is usually heavier, as compared to the delicate, more refined pieces of the Imperial kilns and those of later reigns as well. Working with less refined materials, personal kilns would often fall below par on the scale of whiteness. Firing flaws and visible impurities were also present.

The body is dense and white with a thick glaze. An average whiteness of 8 on a scale of 1-10. The succeeding reign of Yongle could be 9. Min-yao (provincial) falls in the 3 to 6 range for comparison.

There is little or no sign of the trace element manganese to the blue cobalt areas since only imported (overland route) cobalt was available. Imported cobalt was void of the element which, if present during firing, would result in a grayish tint versus the bright, deep (Mohammedan) blue.

The decoration tends to be simple, not refined. The subject scenes are very similar to the preceding Yuan dynasty, since many of the artists were the same. Floral scenes, use of the mythical dragon and phoenix, various other animals such as deer, fish and aquatic scenes, etc, all done in a bold manner.  With the exception of some Imperial pieces known to exist, borders were kept simple with the use of waves, classic scroll, key-fret and diaper band, etc. Panels were usually large and not crowded.

The footing usually thick and deep. And though not yet common, the glazed underbase introduced in contrast to the unglazed style to that of Yuan. This property is significant in helping separate the Yuan from early Ming. Keep in mind though, there are always exceptions to the rule.

.

Origin    (provenance)

Of the  very few pieces that do exist, mostly in museums and mostly unmarked, they are pronounced genuine primarily from their origin, since there is little to differentiate between late Yuan and early Ming (Hongwu) blue and white.

They are usually excavated or unearthed from a tomb known to be from the Hongwu period, examined by archeologists, curators, scholars, and other experts. Compared to others from the same origin that arrived in much the same manner. Each piece supports the next piece to be found. The list grows, giving strength to itself.

I am not very comfortable with the steps taken above and have my own theory. A tomb is a time capsule. Dating pieces found in a tomb to the time period of the tomb is rather presumptuous. What's to say that a vase unearthed in a tomb from the period of Hongwu was not a favorite gift passed down from a previous generation. We all want to take our favorite things with us when we go. Placing a favorite piece makes more sense than putting something new (in this case genuine Hongwu) as an offering.

To put this into proper perspective, what if today a very special relative passed on. Would you go to the nearest discount store and pick up a modern item to be buried with them, or would you place something special, perhaps an heirloom, for an offering. During the time of Hongwu, that heirloom would most probably have been a Yuan or earlier piece.

This explains the very noticeable similarity when viewing pieces pronounced genuine Hongwu with those pronounced genuine Yuan. Most are in fact Yuan. The separation would be a piece displaying all the characteristics of Yuan, yet bearing the Ming  character mark. This will also explain the noticeable similarity of porcelains with the Hongwu mark to the later reigns of Yongle and Xuande. They are most probably from those reigns.

To the best of my knowledge, there are no authenticated porcelain pieces baring the Hongwu reign mark. Even thermoluminescent testing would not help, since it's accuracy range gives too wide a birth to distinguish between late Yuan and early Ming. Of the thousands of shards unearthed from the Hongwu strata during the many excavations conducted at Zhushan over the years, not one piece contains a Hongwu reign mark.  Even Hobson questioned two rare pieces housed at the British Museum, stating that one was "almost certainly a Japanese imitation". The first mark in fact suggesting Ming Imperial quality was from the Yongle strata, and that mark was a dragon, not a character. The earliest dated Yuan piece  known to exist is a blue and white temple vase, dated 1351, in the Percival David Foundation collection housed in London. The decoration, a dragon and phoenix.

The explosion of Chinese porcelain now available on the Internet has created even more confusion. Not just for the novice, but for the seasoned collector as well. Private collectors, foundations, and even museums are making claims of genuine Hongwu, Yongle, Jianwen, and even Yuan marked porcelain. However, the old saying 'Use fire to fight fire' applies. The same Internet also offers unlimited resources for research. I luckily have a Chinese library which has been growing for over 30 years. Still I am impressed by the information available on the Internet.

Of the few rare pieces that do bare the Hongwu mark, it's safe to say that they are probably from a later Ming period, marked in reverence to both the reign and the emperor who founded the great Ming dynasty.

_____________________

I've been looking for a genuine piece of Hongwu for over 30 years now. I've passed up several pieces that actually had the mark but of course weren't genuine Hongwu.

The oil lamp in my collection is marked Da Ming Nian Zao.

It translates 'great Ming year made', top to bottom, right to left. There was no need to call out the emperor Hongwu by name as he was the only emperor at the time. You could say he was the Ming dynasty. Later reigns had to distinguish themselves from Hongwu, hence the birth of standardized reign marks on Chinese porcelain. The use of the character Tsao versus Chih for the word manufactured or made is the older more primitive version.

Hongwu was from humble beginnings having spent several years of his earlier life as a beggar. As Emperor he was fair,  yet he ruled with an iron hand. Coming from a peasant background, he also displayed the quality of being thrifty, not wasteful in any way. These qualities lead me to believe that he would not have encouraged his name being used to identify himself on porcelain. After his death in 1398, the next strong ruler to take the throne was his 4th son Zhu Di, who took the reign title of Yongle and ruled from 1402 to 1424. Still reign marks on porcelain pieces were almost non-existent.

Though a few rare pieces with the mark of Yongle are known to exist, it wasn't until the reign of Xuande that reign marks began to appear and became standard.

If there were no mark at all on the oil lamp, it could be easily pronounced Yuan, but the glazed under base would suggest early Ming. The style of both the dragon and the phoenix are most definitely Yuan, each having a long slender twining body, void of fine detail.

If it had the mark of Hongwu, it would most likely be from a later reign, perhaps Yongle, or Xuande, and made in honor (and style) of the great emperor Hongwu.

But having both the mark and the physical properties it has, date it undoubtedly to the first reign of the Ming Dynasty, Hongwu.

Far from being delicate, this lamp is a large heavy piece weighing almost 2 pounds and standing 22.2 centimeters tall. The cobalt is Mohammedan. Using a 30 power microscope, I could not find any trace of manganese. This was a key find since native Chinese cobalt was not in use at this time. It wasn't until after the reign of Xuande, the Interregnum Period, that it was used and even then not widely used until the supplies of imported cobalt had been exhausted.

The potting of the lamp is quite thick. The thickness of the footrim is 1.3 cm. (½ inch). Being so thick and sturdy is probably what insured it's survival on the journey to me. The surface areas of both the upper and lower rims show extreme wear, almost completely exposing the biscuit on the rim of the top level, but not quite as much on that of the lower level. The neck itself has extensive wear with many scratches and blemishes. This was not made for decoration, it was functional and had heavy use.

Were it to have an identical twin standing next to it, but displaying the Hongwu mark, I would still choose this piece over the marked piece. There would be no reason to identify a Hongwu piece during the reign.