

從該器物的風格判斷,無論是其與美國弗里爾美術館所藏錯金青銅豆相近的龍紋制式,還是作為侯馬地區主要母題之一的繩紋裝飾,都顯示出它是春秋時期山西侯馬工坊的風格。
然而,此器若並非真正的春秋青銅器,也不排除它是在明清宮廷環境下,特別是乾隆皇帝在位期間,依據侯馬青銅器的風格加以仿製而成,將侯馬特有的裝飾元素融入宮廷器物的可能性。
Based on its stylistic elements—particularly the dragon motif, which closely parallels that of an inlaid bronze dou housed in the Freer Gallery of Art, as well as the rope pattern that constitutes one of the principal design themes from the Houma region—this piece may indeed date to the Spring and Autumn period and have been produced in workshops in Houma, Shanxi.
However, if it is not an authentic Spring and Autumn bronze, it is also possible that it was created under imperial patronage during the Ming or Qing dynasties, most notably during the Qianlong Emperor’s reign, in which the distinctive decorative features of Houma bronzes were replicated and adapted for palace-made vessels.


明/清初 十四至十八世纪早期 銅錯金銀龍紋壺 「周孔尊」銘文:「大尊彝」「孔作父己」
MING-EARLY QING DYNASTY, 14TH-EARLY 18TH CENTURY
成交價
美元 250,000
估價
美元 200,000 – 美元 300,000
拍品終止拍賣:
2021年3月18日
明/清初 十四至十八世纪早期 銅錯金銀龍紋壺 「周孔尊」
銘文:「大尊彝」「孔作父己」
15 1/8 in. (38.5 cm.) high
來源
乾隆皇帝(1711-1799)收藏,入藏於1749年以前。
Nagatani, Inc., 芝加哥, 1959年1月2日。
史蒂芬•瓊肯三世(1978年逝)珍藏。
出版
梁詩正、蔣溥、汪由敦等奉敕撰,《西清古鑑》,清乾隆二十年(1755)武英殿刊本,卷8,頁36。
瓊肯三世(Junkunc III)收藏的這件嵌銀銅壺擁有極為顯赫的傳承。早在1749年,它就已經成為清代宮廷收藏的一部分,為乾隆皇帝(1736-1795 在位)所珍藏。乾隆皇帝與其前代諸帝一樣,對古董有著極大的熱忱與鑑賞力;事實上,他為宮廷收藏所添置的藏品數量,遠超過任何一位前任皇帝。追隨北宋徽宗(1101-1125 在位)的遺風,乾隆皇帝下令編纂多部針對不同類別收藏的圖錄,其中包括《石渠寶笈》、《秘殿珠林》、《天祿琳琅》,以及這部總計四十卷、專門記錄他所藏中國古代青銅器的《西清古鑑》(全名「西清[南書房]所製的古代器物之鑑照」)。《西清古鑑》編纂於1749至1755年間,由武英殿的皇家印書處刊印成書。瓊肯三世的這件嵌銀銅壺即收錄於該圖錄第八卷第36頁(見圖1)。
瓊肯三世的這件銅壺在形制上可追溯至春秋時期(公元前770-476年)的青銅器,類似於2019年9月13日在佳士得紐約上拍(拍品編號809),斷代為春秋晚期(約公元前6世紀末至5世紀初)的青銅壺(見圖2)。和這件春秋晚期青銅壺一樣,瓊肯三世的銅壺上帶有模仿編織繩索般的凸起帶狀裝飾,並在肩部飾以一對饕餮獸面。瓊肯三世銅壺上所嵌銀與嵌金的圖案,則是對古代龍紋卷草以及其他早期青銅器裝飾圖案的一種自由詮釋,展現了對先秦青銅器傳統元素的巧妙運用。

侯馬風格 FAQ
1. 什麼樣的關鍵風格特徵暗示某件青銅器可能出自春秋時期的侯馬作坊?
春秋時期(公元前770-476年)侯馬作坊風格的青銅器,通常呈現若干頗具辨識度的母題與紋飾特色。其中,龍紋是較常見的裝飾元素,其形式往往與美國弗里爾美術館所藏的一件錯金青銅豆上所見的龍紋頗為相似。此外,模仿編織繩索的「繩紋」或凸起帶狀裝飾,也被認為是侯馬地區的主要裝飾母題之一。若器身肩部帶有饕餮獸面(taotie)等傳統神獸紋飾,則與春秋時期的風格更具呼應性。
2. 如果某件青銅器顯示出侯馬的風格特徵,是否就能保證它確屬春秋時期製作?
不一定。雖然具有侯馬風格特徵的青銅器,有可能真正追溯至春秋時期,但也不排除其為後世仿製之作,尤其是在明清時期(14-18世紀)皇室贊助之下的宮廷製品。乾隆皇帝(1736-1795 在位)在位期間,特別流行參照或臨摹早期青銅器,重現包括侯馬特有的裝飾元素。因此,僅憑外觀與紋飾並不足以確鑿區分真品與後世仿製品。
3. 《西清古鑑》在判斷一件青銅器的真偽與來源方面有何重要性?
《西清古鑑》是乾隆皇帝於1749年至1755年間下令編纂的一部四十卷古代青銅器圖錄,收錄了清宮時期收藏的大量中國古代青銅器。若有青銅器(如所討論的嵌銀銅壺)在此書中以具體頁面(如第八卷第36頁)記載,即可證明它至少在乾隆時期已被收入清宮,從而確立了其在皇室收藏體系中的重要地位和相當程度的傳承可信度。同時,入選《西清古鑑》也說明該器物在當時被視為代表性或具有重要價值,能夠被皇室檢閱、鑑藏並記錄。
4. 何謂中國青銅時代的「陶范法」鑄造技術?其工序如何運作?
「陶范法」(piece-mold casting technique)是中國青銅時代(約公元前18世紀-公元前5世紀)最主要的青銅鑄造方法。具體程序如下:1)先以黏土製作出目標器物的原型,包括其表面裝飾;2)再用濕黏土或泥片在原型上壓製外範,以獲取裝飾與形制的陰模;3)將原型削薄或刮除,以形成中空的泥芯(用於確定青銅器壁厚);4)將數塊外範組裝在泥芯外,並留有澆口與排氣孔,並以墊條(spacers)確保青銅器壁厚;5)最後預先加熱並澆入熔化的銅液,待冷卻後打破陶范,即可取出成品,並進行修整與打磨。此法可大量生產造型複雜、飾紋精細的青銅器。
5. 為何鑄造青銅器時,需要在陶范表面塗層?
在古代青銅鑄造過程中,陶范表面的塗層扮演著極為重要的角色。首先,它能協助脫模,使青銅器在冷卻後能順利與陶范分離,確保其表面平整。其次,塗層也能保護陶范表面,防止其在高溫澆鑄時受損。常見的塗層材料包括骨灰(bone ash)、石膏(gypsum)、方解石(calcite)、石灰漿(lime plaster),或它們混合而成的塗層。有些情況下,蠟或動物脂肪亦會與骨灰結合使用,以形成適用於陶芯表面的黑色塗層。
6. 在侯馬作坊出土的陶范中,最常使用的塗層材料有哪些?
對侯馬作坊出土陶范進行分析後發現,石膏(一般透過鈣和硫的含量來判定)是相當普遍的塗層材料;骨灰(富含鈣與磷)則常用於武器或工具等類型陶范上;植物灰(其中含高量錳)也是一種可見的添加物。此外,昆蟲蠟或動物脂肪偶爾也會與骨灰混合使用,以製作塗於陶芯表面的黑色塗層。塗層的配方會因陶范用途的不同而有所調整,有些模具需承受更高溫或更複雜的鑄造要求,故所需塗層亦不同。
7. 這些塗層究竟是如何塗佈於陶范上?其塗佈方式對功能有何啟示?
塗層的施用方式與材質及預期功能密切相關。例如,在外范上常使用細質陶泥漿(clay slip),其中可能混合石膏或骨灰,以「粉塗」或調和成漿狀塗抹,使鑄成的青銅外壁更易脫落且表面平順。至於陶芯部分,經常會以薄且均勻的昆蟲蠟或動物脂肪處理(有時可見刷塗痕跡),此舉可在鑄造完成後使陶芯與青銅內壁更易分離。這些差異也反映了不同部件各自不同的功能需求。
8. 不同遺址與時期的青銅器陶范技術是否存在明顯差異?
是的,各鑄造遺址及不同时期在陶范製作與塗層應用方面均有顯著差異。例如,在殷墟(安陽)出土的陶范中,可見以赤鐵礦(red ochre)製成的紅色塗層,以及黑、白塗層中更常見的石膏成分;在周原遺址還可見到純石灰塗層,但這類做法在侯馬地區並不常見。這些差異與不同地區的製作傳統與材料取得方式息息相關。值得一提的是,侯馬遺址是目前所知「全中國範圍內出土規模最大的青銅時代鑄造作坊」,其保存的大量可重複使用之陶范,也顯示該地鑄造技術的發展與實踐在同一地區或不同时段之間持續演進。
AN ARCHAISTIC SILVER AND GOLD-INLAID BRONZE JAR, HU
MING-EARLY QING DYNASTY, 14TH-EARLY 18TH CENTURY
Price realised
USD 250,000
Estimate
USD 200,000 – USD 300,000
Closed:
18 Mar 2021
The sides are decorated with two bands of dragon scroll within raised ropetwist borders, all above a row of pendent blades and a band of confronted bird's heads on the tall foot, which are repeated on the neck above a band of conjointed 'T' motifs and a pair of mask handles on the shoulder, all on a mottled ground imitating malachite encrustation.
15 1/8 in. (38.5 cm.) high
PROVENANCE
Collection of the Qianlong Emperor (1711-1799), by 1749.
Nagatani, Inc., Chicago, 2 January 1959.
Stephen Junkunc, III (d. 1978) Collection.
LITERATURE
Liang Shizheng, Jiang Pu, Wang Youdun et al., Xiqing Gujian (Mirror of Antiquities) [prepared in the] Xiqing [Southern Study Hall], Imperial Printing Office in the Wuyingdian (Hall of Martial Valor), Forbidden City, Beijing, 1755, vol. 8, p. 36.

Lot Essay
The Junkunc inlaid bronze hu claims amongst the most impressive of pedigrees. By 1749 it was in the Qing Imperial collection, having been collected by the Qianlong Emperor (r. 1736-1795). Like his predecessors, Qianlong was a great admirer and passionate collector of antiques; indeed, he personally added more works to the imperial collections than any of his forebears. Following in the footsteps of the Northern Song Emperor Huizong (r. 1101-1125), Qianlong commissioned illustrated catalogues of specific categories of his collection. These included the Shiqu baoji (Shiqu Catalogue of the Imperial Collections); Midian zhulin (Court Collection of Treasures), and the Tianlu lin lang (Tianlu Collection of Masterpieces), and the 40-volume catalogue of his ancient Chinese bronzes, the Xiqing gujian (Mirror of Antiquities [prepared in the] Xiqing [Southern Study Hall]). Compiled from 1749-1755, this catalogue was produced by the Imperial Printing Office in the Wuyingdian (Hall of Martial Valor). The Junkunc inlaid bronze hu is documented in this catalogue in vol. 8, p. 36 (Fig. 1).
The Junkunc bronze hu finds its inspiration in ancient bronze vessels of the Spring and Autumn period (770-476 BC), such as the late Spring and Autumn, late 6th-early 5th century BC, bronze hu sold at Christie’s New York, 13 September 2019, lot 809. (Fig. 2) Like the late Spring and Autumn hu, the Junkunc vessel features raised bands imitating braided rope and is flanked on the shoulders by a pair of taotie masks. The silver and gold-inlaid designs on the Junkunc vessel represent free interpretations of ancient dragon scroll designs and other decorative motifs that embellished the surfaces of early bronzes.


侯馬柲帽,春秋時期,瓊肯三世舊藏 / Houma Foundry Bird, Spring and Autumn Period, Ex-Junkunc III
Frequently Asked Questions: Ancient Chinese Bronzes and Casting Techniques
What are the key stylistic features that suggest a bronze vessel might be from the Houma workshops during the Spring and Autumn period?
Bronzes potentially from the Houma workshops of the Spring and Autumn period (770-476 BCE) are characterized by specific motifs and patterns. These include dragon motifs, which often closely resemble those found on inlaid bronze vessels, such as the bronze dou housed in the Freer Gallery of Art. Another prominent feature is the use of rope patterns or raised bands imitating braided rope, which are also known to be a primary decorative theme from the Houma region. The presence of taotie masks on the shoulders is also consistent with the styles of this period.
If a bronze vessel exhibits Houma style characteristics, does that guarantee it was made during the Spring and Autumn period?
Not necessarily. While a bronze vessel showing Houma style characteristics may indeed date back to the Spring and Autumn period, it is also possible that it was a later imitation. These imitations, particularly during the Ming and Qing dynasties (14th-18th centuries) under imperial patronage, such as during the reign of the Qianlong Emperor (1736-1795), often replicated and adapted decorative features of earlier Houma bronzes. This makes it challenging to distinguish between authentic pieces and later recreations.
What is the significance of the "Xiqing Gujian" in determining the authenticity and provenance of a bronze vessel?
The "Xiqing Gujian," or "Mirror of Antiquities," is a 40-volume catalogue of ancient Chinese bronzes compiled between 1749 and 1755 under the order of the Qianlong Emperor. It is a crucial resource for tracing the provenance and authenticity of bronzes that were part of the Qing imperial collection. If a bronze vessel, such as the discussed inlaid bronze hu, is documented in the "Xiqing Gujian," particularly with a specific entry like that on page 36 of Volume 8, it establishes that the object was part of the imperial collection by that time and thus carries a significant pedigree. It also proves that the piece was seen as significant and representative enough to be recorded by the imperial court at the time.
What was the piece-mold casting technique used in the Chinese Bronze Age and how did it work?
The piece-mold casting technique was the primary method for producing bronze objects during the Chinese Bronze Age (c. 18th-5th century BCE). The process involves several steps: 1) creating a clay model of the desired object with surface designs; 2) pressing clay slabs against the model to create the mold, capturing the details and designs, 3) scraping down the model's surface to form a core, defining the wall thickness of the bronze object; 4) assembling the mold sections around the core, ensuring proper spacing with spacers, and adding air vents and a pouring gate; 5) preheating the assembled mold and pouring molten bronze. After cooling, the mold is broken to reveal the bronze artifact, which is then burnished. This process allowed for the mass production of intricate bronze objects.
What is the purpose of surface coatings on the ceramic molds used in bronze casting?
Surface coatings on ceramic molds played a crucial role in the bronze casting process. They functioned primarily as parting powder, helping the cast object to cleanly separate from the mold, thereby producing a smooth surface. The coatings also protected the mold's surface from damage and could serve as a replaceable or repairable sacrificial layer. Common coating materials included bone ash, gypsum, calcite, lime plaster, or mixtures of these. Insect wax or animal fat mixed with bone ash were likely applied to cores.
What materials were commonly used as coatings on the molds from the Houma foundry?
Analysis of molds from the Houma foundry has revealed the use of several materials for surface coatings. Gypsum, often evidenced by higher concentrations of calcium and sulphur, was used extensively. Bone ash, containing calcium and phosphorus was also used, particularly on moulds intended for weapons and tools. Plant ash, suggested by high manganese concentrations was another additive. Additionally, insect wax or animal fat, sometimes combined with bone ash, was used to create black coatings on cores. The specific use often depended on the mold type, with some having different requirements than others.
How were the coatings applied to the ceramic molds and what can the application technique tell us about their function?
The application methods of coatings on ceramic molds varied depending on the material and function. Fine, silty clay slips were used, sometimes containing gypsum or bone ash. These were applied to molds by dusting or with a paste to help separate the bronze from the molds. Cores, however, were often treated with a thin and uniform layer of insect wax or animal fat that was sometimes applied by brushing, which likely enhanced surface contrast or reduced core adherence to the bronze. The way in which coating was applied is important because a mold's different components had to have different functionality. For instance, the core, used to form the interior of the bronze, needed a coating that would separate from the bronze in a different manner than would a mold used to make the exterior.
Did bronze casting mold technology vary significantly across different sites and time periods?
Yes, significant variations existed in bronze casting mold technology across different sites and periods. For example, unlike the Houma site, molds from the Yinxu site in Anyang showed the use of red ochre in red coatings and more frequently found gypsum in black and white coatings. Additionally, a layer of pure lime was found in molds from the Zhouyuan area, but not at Houma, indicating that each foundry region had its own recipes and preferences. These differences reflect localized traditions and specific material availabilities in different regions of ancient China. Also, the Houma site has been called "the largest Bronze Age foundry found to date in China," reflecting its unusual status and significance in the region. The discovery of some re-used molds also demonstrates the degree to which local practices might change over time.
Comments