The term celadon has been applied to a wide range of ceramic wares produced in East Asia and elsewhere. The Oxford English Dictionary cites the etymology of the term as stemming from the French word céladon and suggests that the color was named after the character of a romantic shepherd with the name of Céladon who appears in the novel L’Astrée, written by Honore d’Urfé (1568–1625).²⁴ Apparently, the character was known to wear gray-green clothing,²⁵ hence the application of the term to various lighter greenish hues, including the “sea-green” color. Various other theories also have been proposed over the years, including one that involves the Ayyubid ruler Salah al-Din (r. 1174–1193). This version suggests that the term celadon is a variation or corruption of Salah al-Din, who is reported to have sent a caravan of treasured items to Nur al-Din (r. 1146–1174) in 1171 that included some forty pieces of Chinese ceramics.²⁶ Whatever the ultimate origin of the term, it has been used to refer to a variety of ceramic types.

Although sometimes grouped together under this generic and somewhat problematic term, so-called celadon wares were produced over a number of centuries, at a number of different kiln sites, and in a number of different countries.²⁷ In China, the term qingci has been used to refer to the wide range of “celadon” wares, but often such pieces are referred to utilizing more precise terms, typically the name of the kiln sites where they originate, with even more specific terms being applied to different products from the same kiln. Some scholars have advocated for the use of the term greenware for these ceramics. However, while the term celadon typically brings to mind a minty, sea-green color, a wide range of hues are possible, ranging from a dark greenish-brown color through a range of greenish-grays to a delicate light blue. Even wares produced at the same kiln site, using the same clay body and constituent glazes, can exhibit a range of hues. This is a result of (usually controlled) variations in the length and temperature of the firing: “Celadon glazes can be almost blue when they are underfired. . . . But, when such a glaze is fired progressively higher, it becomes greener in hue, grows more transparent, gets thinner, reacts with the body and generally shifts in color toward warmer tones.”²⁸ These varying tones are the result of the glaze composition reacting with the clay body, which typically contains a certain amount of iron oxide, combined with variables in the firing process. In addition to the iron present in the clay body, the glazes utilized in the production of celadon ceramics also typically contain some level of iron-based colorant.²⁹ As Chinese potters understood these components and their possible interactions, they could produce a range of colors, glaze thicknesses, and other variations. For this reason, and for the sake of simplicity, the more generic term celadon (instead of greenware) will be used throughout this essay, with an acknowledgment of its problematic aspects. It also should be noted that in some publications and online resources, celadons are sometimes referred to as porcelains. Many of the pieces that will be discussed here would be best categorized as stoneware, however, which is fired at a slightly lower temperature than porcelain and utilizes different materials for the clay body.

Among the earliest wares referred to as “celadons” in the scholarly literature are Yue ceramics, produced in the Tang and early Song (960–1279) period in Zhejiang province in China, some created around the Shanglin Lake area.³⁰ These Yue wares were exported from an early date, with fragments found in excavations at the Abbasid city of Samarra in present-day Iraq and other regions of the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean world,³¹ including excavations at Fustat, Egypt.³² While Yue wares were produced only into the early Song period, celadon wares continued to be produced in the province of Zhejiang in the subsequent centuries. The focus below will be on those ceramics produced primarily during the later Song, Yuan (1279–1368), and Ming (1368–1644) periods at the Longquan kilns in the Zhejiang province in China. While these ceramics are typically referred to as “Longquan celadon,” multiple kiln sites were dispersed across Zhejiang, and Longquan was just one of the many locations where these wares were produced. Today, these so-called Longquan kilns, many centered around the town of Dayao, have been listed as a tentative UNESCO cultural heritage site.³³ They were the sites of production of wares for domestic consumption as well as for export. Evidence of the massive export production in this area may be seen in the veritable hillsides of celadon sherds still extant in the region. Exported ceramics (and fragmentary pieces) produced at these sites have been found in Japan, the Philippines, and South and Southeast Asia, across West Asia, and in East and Northeast Africa.³⁴ Prior to the meteoric rise in popularity of blue-and-white wares, celadons enjoyed active trade in the regions of the Red Sea, the Persian Gulf, and the Indian Ocean—including much of West Asia—for at least six centuries.³⁵ The high point of production and exportation of Longquan wares ranged from the thirteenth into the fifteenth century, but export finds began to taper off just as blue-and-white wares began their rise in popularity, both as products of domestic consumption and as articles of international trade.

The popularity of these porcelains and specifically celadon wares may have been due not only to their aesthetic appeal but also to their supposed ability to detect poison. According to tradition, these ceramics would break or change color upon contact with poisonous substances. A Persian ceramic treatise written in the late twelfth century mentions that if poisoned food was placed in porcelain, the vessel would “sweat.”³⁶ Writing in the Ilkhanid period (1256–1335), the well-known Persian polymath and scientist Nasir al-Din Tusi (1201–1274) also relates a similar story.³⁷ These wares were also popular outside of Persian realms. In an article devoted to Ayyubid and Mamluk sources on pottery, Marcus Milwright relates that “the reputed alexipharmic qualities of [Chinese] celadon would have made them attractive to those involved in the treacherous world of Mamluk politics and it seems likely that the high cost of porcelain and celadon reflected the desirability of some of the[se] attributes.”³⁸ Whether their desirability was based on their reputed protective qualities or their visual appeal, Chinese celadon wares were appreciated in various parts of the Islamic world from an early period.

Contemporary texts provide some of the earliest evidence for the arrival, reception, and appreciation of these green-glazed Chinese wares. The first step in expanding our discussion of the reception, and the imitation, of celadon wares in the Islamic world is to deepen our understanding of the myriad terms used to refer to them, and to further refine our interpretation of those terms. Putting aside discussions of more generic Arabic, Persian, and Turkish terms for Chinese porcelains, the first half of this essay will focus on terms that likely refer specifically to green-glazed Chinese “celadon” wares.³⁹ While the focus here is on terms used in texts from the Persian sphere, I also bring in other relevant references, in an effort to cut across earlier siloed studies.

One of the earliest references to what may be Chinese celadon wares is found in the writings of the eleventh-century historian al-Ṯaʿalebi (961–1038). Al-Ṯaʿalebi was born in the town of Nishapur, in present-day Iran, and lived there for most of his life, although it is said that he traveled extensively. In one of his writings, Laṭāʾef al-maʿāref (The Book of Curious and Entertaining Information), he mentions Chinese ceramics, and appears to refer specifically to green-glazed wares:

His description of these wares as “ringing strongly” points to a type of imported porcelaneous or stoneware ceramic, as simple earthenware vessels will not produce a ringing sound when struck. Interestingly, he singles out the “apricot-colored” wares as being the “best” of the Chinese ceramics. In discussing this passage, Paul Kahle concluded that al-Ṯaʿalebi was likely referring to ceramics that have a color similar to that of unripe (green) apricots, perhaps describing a kind of celadon ware.⁴¹ While this interpretation may be in need of further analysis, it is possible that al-Ṯaʿalebi was referring to Yue celadon wares then arriving in West Asia.⁴² As some fragments of Yue wares were uncovered from excavations at the city of Nishapur, it is possible that al-Ṯaʿalebi had firsthand knowledge of such items.⁴³ A near contemporary of al-Ṯaʿalebi, but living for the most part in Ghazni in modern-day Afghanistan, the eleventh-century author al-Biruni (973–after 1050) left a similar description of Chinese ceramics.

He also compared these Chinese wares to the local ceramics being produced in the eleventh century, describing the latter as “barbaric, base and common.”⁴⁵

Another term applied to celadons is zaytūnī. The word is used in a Persian ceramic treatise written by Muhammad al-Jawhar al-Nishapuri in the late twelfth century. He describes the making of porcelain in China, and goes on to explain the best examples of the imported wares:

Here we have a clear reference to “green” Chinese ceramics—celadons that were arriving in West Asia and being appreciated as among the “best” examples, already in the twelfth century, and the term used to describe them at that time was zaytūnī.

Even in this relatively early period, distinctions were made between different types of wares arriving from China. We find the same word used in some Ottoman sources dated to before 1587 in connection with the large collection of Chinese ceramics held at the Topkapi Palace in Istanbul.⁴⁷ These sixteenth-century references to zaytūnī have been interpreted by Julian Raby as indicating celadon wares. He notes that the term zaytūnī was appropriate for green-glazed wares for two reasons. First, “because Zeytun (Arabic Zaitūn) was the Muslim name for [the Chinese port city of] Quanzhou … a major outlet for the export of celadons, since they could be ferried from the Longquan kilns to this port, largely by water. In the second place, zaitūn is the Arabic, thence Ottoman Turkish word for ‘olive,’ and zaytūnī for ‘olive-green.’”⁴⁸

Indeed, the port of Quanzhou on the eastern coast of China was a major entrepot for ships sailing toward West Asia and other parts of the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean littoral.⁴⁹ It also was one of the closest ports to the Longquan kilns. The celadon ceramics created there would have been shipped down nearby rivers and overland to Quanzhou/Zaitūn and other ports along the coast to connect with visiting merchant ships.⁵⁰ As cities of export sometimes lent their names to products acquired there, these olive-green celadon ceramics may have been connected to the port city of “Zaitūn” in the mind of these merchants, and thus came to be called by this name.

A similar phenomenon may be observed with regard to another term sometimes applied to celadon wares—martabān or martabānī. In later (post-1578) Ottoman sources, the term merteban is used in reference to ceramics connected to the Topkapi Palace collection. Presumably this term originated with the port of Martaban on the Gulf of Pegu in Myanmar (Burma), where the ceramics may have been acquired. Martaban served at the time as an entrepot for ceramic wares exported from Myanmar (Burma), Thailand, and China.⁵¹ The term merteban (or martabān) is often applied to very large, brownish or black-glazed pots used to transport export items or to contain drinking water on ships.⁵² In some Ottoman documents of this period, however, it appears that the term may have also been applied to finer celadon wares.⁵³ We have another, slightly later reference to martabān from South Asia. The Persian traveler Asad Beg Qazvini (d. 1620/21 or 1631/32) traveled to Bijapur around 1600 and describes a palace there with a room having three walls with ten niches (tāq) in each. Within each of these niches was placed martabān jars. Given the palatial setting for this display, it is unlikely that the martabān in question were roughly potted storage jars—although it is possible. More likely these were celadon wares.⁵⁴

About a decade later, and about four thousand miles northwest of Bijapur, the Safavid ruler Shah ʿAbbas I (r. 1588–1629) donated his collection of Chinese porcelain to the Safavid dynastic shrine at Ardabil. The pieces were subsequently displayed there (by 1610) within an elaborate framework of niches installed in one of the spaces of the shrine, creating a chīnīkhāna or “porcelain house.”⁵⁵ Among the items described in the list of approximately twelve hundred porcelains donated to the shrine are thirty-two “martabān.”⁵⁶ Given the context and quality of the other fine Chinese ceramics donated to the shrine at this time, these martabān were likely fine celadon wares—and not roughly potted storage jars. Finally, one further mention is found in the writings of Antoine Galland, who, while visiting the Ottoman court in 1673, observed:

Thus, from a range of sources across the late sixteenth to seventeenth centuries, it appears that the term martabān was used in parts of the Islamic world to refer not only to large storage jars, but also to refined and highly prized “green” celadon wares.

Celadons continued to be appreciated in Iran in the years after Shah ʿAbbas I’s donation of Chinese ceramics to the Ardabil Shrine. One anonymous Persian source dated to 1674–75 describes several different types of Chinese porcelains available in Iran during the Safavid period (1501–1722).⁵⁹ A portion of the passage has been translated as follows:

The edited original Persian text as published by Iraj Afshar states:

Another possible translation of this passage might be:

The term ghūrī here may be interpreted as referring to celadon wares,⁶³ and it is possible that the description refers to some of the color variations seen in Longquan and other Chinese celadons. The term ābdār, for example, may refer to those having a “watery” or shimmering appearance, but by extension could also possibly refer to Longquan celadons exhibiting a more bluish appearance. This description would be especially appropriate for some earlier celadons that exhibit a delicate, light blue glaze (see fig. 2). The term zaytūnī is used elsewhere for olive-green-glazed celadons as noted above. It should be noted that in the original publication by Afshar, the full phrase appears as zaytūnī zakhīm. While this spelling of زخيم (zakhīm) was not found in the Persian dictionaries that I consulted, it is possible that the intended word was ضخيم żakhīm, which means “thick, large, or voluminous” and perhaps, “heavy.”⁶⁴ Together, the combined phrase zaytūnī-ye żakhīm may refer to large or heavy celadon dishes, an appropriate description of some Longquan wares, as the dishes are well known for their large size and substantial weight. The “new” wares are described, in contrast, as being less expensive and as having a green (sabz) color. The Persian term sabz is typically applied to things having a brighter, fresher green color, like new shoots of grass. This distinction may point to a difference between the earlier olive-green wares produced at the Longquan kilns and the brighter green hues of late seventeenth-century ceramic imports, like those being produced at that time at Jingdezhen.⁶⁵

The seventeenth-century Persian source above makes a careful distinction between older wares and more recent ghūrī pieces, and notes that the value of the former is great. Already at the turn of the seventeenth century, a Portuguese visitor observed the collecting and display of “antique” porcelains in niches by the local elites, including the ruler, on the Persian island of Hormuz.

Around the same time as the description above was written, in the 1670s, the French traveler and jeweler Jean Chardin (1643–1713) reportedly observed the use of—presumably antique— porcelaine verte at the Safavid court. He comments on the

The term ghūrī and its variations are said to appear frequently in sources connected to South Asian and European trading factories in the seventeenth century. For example, John Cunaeus, a Dutch envoy of the East India Company in 1652, is said to have brought six antique “gory” dishes as a gift for Shah ʿAbbas II (r. 1642–1666).⁶⁹ Like the word celadon, various etymological origins have been attached to the term bābāghūrī and by extension ghūrī, which are discussed at some length by Raby, who argues that—at least in some Ottoman sources—the term may actually refer to a type of white-glazed ceramic.⁷⁰ Thus, while some scholars have interpreted the term bābāghūrī and its variations as a reference to celadon wares, the meaning and significance of these terms may have varied over time and from place to place. Finally, we should note that the use of the term apparently persisted well into the nineteenth century. Daniel Fouquet, in a 1901 publication, mentions that celadons were known as el-Ghourieh in Cairo’s bazaars.⁷¹

Clearly, it is difficult to draw definitive conclusions concerning the meanings of the above terms; further study may permit a more precise interpretation of these and other surviving textual references. Only references relating to and specifically mentioning color, however, are reliable indicators. While any and all of the words discussed above may have been utilized to refer to celadon wares, the terms should be approached with some caution as they may have held different meanings for different people, at different times and places.

The NMAA’s Freer study collection holds a fragment of a Song-period brownish-green-glazed celadon dish with molded fish decor on its interior (fig. 1).⁷³ Examples of celadon ceramics displaying similar motifs are held in collections around the world, with a majority of examples dating from the Song and Yuan periods. Similar dishes decorated with paired or multiple fish were produced in a variety of celadon glazes, ranging from a light delicate blue (fig. 2) and the more typical gray-green (fig. 3) to the darker, somewhat mottled brownish color seen in figure 1. Numerous variations on this decorative theme exist, from a simple pair of centered fish covered with the same glaze as the body of the dish to multiple fish placed as if swimming around the interior of the dish or bowl (fig. 4). Sometimes molded fish were applied, unglazed, to the bottom of the dish. During the firing, these unglazed fish adhered to the glazed dish below, and the iron in the unglazed clay body oxidized in the kiln, turning the fish bright red and forming a nice contrast with the celadon color of the dish (fig. 5). The placement of fish within a dish with a fluted cavetto, a foliated rim, and/or interior floral decor gives the suggestion of fish swimming within an upturned lotus leaf (fig. 6), or among blossoming flowers in a lotus pond.

In the Chinese context, the motif of paired fish holds special significance. The Chinese word for fish (yu) is a homophone with another Chinese word for abundance and affluence. According to popular tradition, the appearance of paired fish also may be interpreted as a symbol of marital bliss, fertility, and conjugal happiness. Another rebus that may be represented through the swimming fish is yu shui he xie (may you be as harmonious as fish and water). Finally, the popular verse jin yu man tang (may gold and jade fill your house) can also be expressed using the homophonic and punning imagery of “gold fish, full pond.” The unglazed red fish in the bottom of some of these green glazed bowls suggest a pond full of “gold” fish. While the green color of the dish has associations with spring, vitality, and growth, the red/gold color of the unglazed applied fish has connotations of happiness and good fortune, wealth and success. Thus, these dishes, especially those depicting unglazed gold fish swimming within a celadon pond, may contain many layers of meaning in the East Asian context.⁷⁴

Numerous examples of this type of dish with fish decor have been unearthed in excavations across the lands bordering the Red Sea, Persian Gulf, and Indian Ocean, including interior regions of East Africa. One such piece held in the British Museum is said to have been found in Khartoum, in present-day Sudan (fig. 4).⁷⁵ Others have been uncovered in excavations of the Northeast African city of Fustat (now part of modern-day Cairo).⁷⁶ In addition to these imports, a number of local emulative wares of this type have been identified. Some follow the Chinese celadon “originals” very closely, while others are more interpretive, exhibiting a number of variations. Many of these local emulative wares also present pairs of molded fish motifs in the center of the dish or bowl. Whether the significance of the paired fish as understood in Chinese tradition was recognized in these regions is unclear. It is likely that the placement of these fish motifs simply evoked an association with water, or other liquids, that may have been contained within them. The presence of fish designs in the bottom of vessels created in the Islamic world was not a new concept. Indeed, fish decor is among the oldest motifs to be utilized on ceramics, appearing in many cultures.⁷⁷ But a side-by-side comparison of some of the examples discussed here strongly suggests inspiration taken from imported Chinese celadons, specifically those made in the Song and Yuan periods at the kilns in and around Longquan.⁷⁸

A well-preserved example, attributed to Ilkhanid Iran, is held today in the Harvard Art Museums (fig. 7) and presents two “swimming” fish with dotted scales, within a green-glazed dish with a fluted cavetto.⁷⁹ In these local emulative examples, the molded scales of the fish sometimes appear more as dots than as scales. Also, the fish on the local wares are often elongated with extended tail fins and display a more elegant and playful movement. These bowls often have groupings of dots along the rim that may be intended to replicate the small, molded flowers sometimes applied to the rim of Longquan pieces. An example of a Chinese celadon dish with fish designs on the base and applied floral decor along the rim is held in the British Museum.⁸⁰ Other types of Longquan dishes, such as an example in the NMAA’s Freer collection, display an even more stylized motif, composed of five “dots” representing flower petals along the rim (fig. 8). Such motifs may have been the inspiration for the simplified dots that appear along the rims of some Persian and Egyptian emulative celadon wares. The range of sizes of these local pieces (most around 22 centimeters in diameter) also compares well with those of Chinese origin.

The Harvard piece is attributed to ceramic artists working in fourteenth-century Iran, while similar works may have been made by potters working in Egypt around the same time.⁸¹ As noted above, excavations at Fustat and other areas of Egypt have revealed large numbers of imported Chinese celadon wares that likely arrived during the Mamluk period. It seems that Mamluk rulers and other elites in the region collected Chinese celadon wares and porcelains, which sometimes were used when entertaining foreign dignitaries and as a regular form of cultural diplomacy.⁸² Documentation exists, for example, of a gift of porcelain wares from the Mamluk sultan Qaitbay (r. 1468–1496) to the Florentine leader Lorenzo de’ Medici (1449–1492). At least one large celadon basin today in the Museo degli Argenti in Florence has been identified as likely having been part of that gift.⁸³ In fact, even the Mamluks themselves reportedly received porcelains as political gifts from regional powers, such as the Rasulid rulers of Yemen (r. 1229–1454).⁸⁴

Mamluk potters made a range of emulative celadon wares, among them perhaps a piece in the British Museum with similar fish decor, a fluted cavetto, and groupings of dots around the rim.⁸⁵ This and another piece in that collection, however, are covered with a more vibrant turquoise glaze, which appears to shift with changing lighting conditions.⁸⁶ One such piece, displaying a variant with three fish, was published recently in the Beijing celadon exhibition catalogue, where the glaze appears as a vibrant turquoise blue (fig. 9).⁸⁷ Rather than swimming around the edge of the interior—as is observed on some Chinese originals—the fish on this dish turn inward, toward the center. This orientation of the fish motifs calls to mind similar configurations on the interiors of some Persian and Mamluk metalwork vessels,⁸⁸ as well as the painted fish decor on other types of Ilkhanid ceramic wares,⁸⁹ and thus appears to be a local interpretation. A fine, green-glazed piece in the David Collection in Copenhagen, attributed to fourteenth-century Iran also incorporates the motif of three swimming fish, but here the elegant, elongated fish swim as if chasing each other’s tails (fig. 10). A slightly later and slightly larger but similar green-glazed Iranian dish with fluted cavetto in the Victoria & Albert (V&A) collection displays four fish swimming around a central lotus-like motif, with small dotted decor along the rim (fig. 11),⁹⁰ recalling the Chinese celadon in figure 5.

Other ceramic forms incorporating fish motifs were also produced in Ilkhanid territories. A number of “lotus-form” bowls survive. They typically present a motif of overlapping “petals” on their exterior, along with a relatively tall, swelling profile on a small footring, and perhaps were intended to resemble a lotus flower—or a lotus leaf—just about to open. One such bowl with overlapping petal decor on its exterior is held in the collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art (fig. 12). On its interior, we again encounter the fish motif, with their “dotted” scales. Here they swim around a central depression in the bowl, all turning toward the center, much like the fish on the British Museum dish in figure 9. The piece is relatively large, nearly 30 centimeters in diameter, and attributed to fourteenth-century Iran. A related piece, but of a smaller diameter (16.5 centimeters), is in the Sarikhani collection.⁹¹ While some of these examples are clearly derived from Chinese models, others present a range of variations—both in color and decoration. Thus, while Chinese celadons may have been the inspiration, local potters reinterpreted these designs, introducing new elements, and reimagined them in more vibrant hues.

Another Longquan celadon form, exemplified by a diminutive Chinese celadon stoneware covered jar in the NMAA’s Freer collection, was created during the Yuan period (fig. 13). The form, often referred to as a guan or kuan jar, is a shape frequently encountered among Longquan celadon wares. The body of the NMAA piece, with its vertical ribbing, was made by molding the jar in two sections that were then joined. This example is small, measuring only 8 centimeters in height. Similarly small, fourteenth- and fifteenth-century Longquan guan jars also are held by the British Museum and in other museum collections.⁹² Depictions of this type of jar, in varying glazes and sizes, also appear in contemporary Chinese painting. One image in a late fifteenth-century Chinese handscroll shows analogous lidded jars of various sizes and colors— some of them small, green, and likely celadon glazed.⁹³ The Freer piece may be compared with a small Longquan jar of comparable dimensions in the V&A collection also attributed to the fourteenth century (fig. 14). This piece, which is missing its lid, is said to have been discovered in excavations in the Philippines, which speaks to the movement of these objects to Southeast Asian ports as well as all along the Indian Ocean littoral.

In fact, evidence of the export of Longquan jars of this type as far as East Africa appears in finds from the Swahili Coast. For example, some ninety celadon sherds held today in the British Museum are said to have been gathered at the site of Kilwa Kisiwani, in present-day Tanzania (fig. 15).⁹⁴ At least one of these fragments appears to be from a similar ribbed guan jar. Other pieces of Longquan wares, including what may be fragments of guan jars, have been found in documented excavations along the coast of present-day Kenya.⁹⁵ These pieces likely arrived on the Swahili Coast during the period of the Kilwa Sultanate (957–1513).⁹⁶ This was a sultanate of Muslim rulers who controlled much of the lucrative trade along the Swahili Coast from as early as the twelfth century until the beginning of the sixteenth century. The Kilwa Sultanate only declined after the Portuguese invasions of several East African ports in the early sixteenth century. Kilwa Kisiwani was the prosperous capital of the sultanate for several centuries, serving as an active exchange center for the exporting of materials from the interior regions of Africa and the importing of items originating from as far east as China.

Kilwa and other sites along the East African coast were part of a broader network of port cities in the western Indian Ocean with connections not only to the Red Sea region, but also to the Persian Gulf, and numerous finds of eleventh-to-sixteenth-century Chinese green-glazed porcelain, much of it likely produced at the Longquan kilns, have been identified at sites all along the coasts of those regions.⁹⁷ Numerous fragments of Longquan ceramics have been found, for example, on the Persian island of Hormuz in Iran. Around 1301 the port city of Hormuz moved from the land-based site of “Old Hormuz” to the island of Jarun,⁹⁸ and the new island of Hormuz became the center of the Kingdom of Hormuz. By the mid-fifteenth century, this kingdom controlled not only the island, but also coastal regions on the Arabian Peninsula, including Julfar (present-day Ras al-Khaimah), as well as the nearby northern shores of the Persian Gulf. Hormuz was also a stop for the fleet of the Chinese admiral Zheng He (d. 1433 or 1435) during his voyages.⁹⁹ The early fifteenth century saw the arrival of at least four official Chinese maritime expeditions in the region, which began their journey westward in the years 1414, 1417, 1421, and 1430.¹⁰⁰ During some of these missions, the island of Hormuz at the mouth of the Persian Gulf became a principal harbor for the Chinese fleet.¹⁰¹ On one of the voyages that reached Hormuz, a large number of junks in the Chinese fleet were said to have spent two months there at port. It is reported that while at Hormuz in 1417, the leader of the expedition, Zheng He, was presented with lions, leopards, and horses by Persian embassies;¹⁰² it is likely that many of these ships carried considerable quantities of Chinese trade goods, including porcelains, to exchange for such tribute.¹⁰³ Indeed, excavations at the island of Hormuz have revealed numerous shards of Chinese porcelains.¹⁰⁴ While the presence of these junks put the Chinese visitors within easy reach of some principal Timurid cities, Hormuz was just one possible entry point for Longquan wares and other Chinese ceramics to find their way from the Persian Gulf north into inland cities of Iran. Over the course of the fifteenth century, there were also numerous overland embassies between Timurid Iran and East Asia that may have provided opportunities for the acquisition of early celadon wares.¹⁰⁵

We know from eyewitness accounts that Timur (founder of the eponymous Timurid dynasty; r. 1370–1405) utilized Chinese porcelains when serving his guests. Ruy González de Clavijo, a Castilian ambassador to the court of Timur in 1403–5,¹⁰⁶ describes a feast that Timur hosted in Samarqand for his guests, which included another ambassador who had traveled there from China:

Not only does Clavijo take note of the presence of porcelains at Timur’s court, but he also comments on the high monetary value that such ceramics held at that time. The presence of ambassadors from Spain and China at the feast suggests the cosmopolitan nature of Timur’s court, as is confirmed not only by his international guest list, but also by the material goods described by Clavijo at this gathering, which included porcelains and fine silks, pearls, and precious stones.

We should take note here of a painting made for Timur’s grandson Baysunghur (1397–1433) about twenty years later, at the Timurid center of Herat in 1427. Held today in the Chester Beatty Library in Dublin, it is one of the illustrations made for a copy of the Gūlistān by the Persian poet Saʿdi (d. 1291 CE) (fig. 16). This painting depicts the author receiving refreshments from a beautiful woman who holds in her hands what appears to be a small, lidless, ribbed celadon guan jar and offers it to the poet. The vessel may be an imported Longquan guan jar, perhaps one belonging to Baysunghur, the patron of the manuscript. This jar likely represents only one of the many porcelains then in circulation at the Timurid courts. A few years after this painting was made, the Timurid vizier Mir ʿAli Shir Navaʾi (d. 1501) had gathered a number of these Chinese porcelains, enough that he ordered construction of a chīnīkhāna pavilion within his gardens at Gazargah, located just outside the city of Herat, to house his collection.¹⁰⁸ We know that Chinese porcelain vessels were collected here thanks to an account by the contemporary Persian poet Vasifi (1485–c. 1551), who describes the space as installed with a number of niches intended for the storage and possibly the display of Mir ʿAli Shir Navaʾi’s precious imported ceramics.¹⁰⁹ In a metaphor-filled passage, Vasifi tells of a curious cat entering the pavilion and knocking some of these porcelain objects from their niches:¹¹⁰

The term tāqcha used within this extract may be translated as “niche.” In addition, the passage is very specific in describing the Chinese objects as being within these niches. It is notable that the metaphorical Chinese wares in question are referred to as chīnī faghfūrī. Faghfūr is a Persian form of the title “son of God,” the name typically given to the emperor of China.¹¹² The phrase chīnī faghfūrī likely refers to “imperial” or very high-quality Chinese porcelains.¹¹³ From Vasifi’s description, one can imagine a veritable heavenly “constellation” of shining porcelains filling niches across the walls of his fifteenth-century chīnīkhāna.

A number of contemporaneous Persian manuscript paintings include images of ceramics and other vessels placed into niched display walls. At least three fifteenth-century paintings show such niched displays, including one held today in the collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art.¹¹⁴ An illustration for a late fifteenth-century copy of the Mantiq al-Tayr (Language of the Birds) by the poet ʿAttar (d. 1220 CE), the painting depicts a court scene titled “The Beggar Who Professed His Love for a Prince.” Above the prince’s head, we catch a glimpse into the second floor of the palace. There, contained within niched shelving, appears a grouping of vessels, some of them perhaps meant to represent Chinese ceramics. Within two of the niches are light green, ribbed, covered jars that bear some resemblance to Longquan guan jars (fig. 17). By the end of the fifteenth century, trade in Chinese celadons had begun to wane, replaced by the rising popularity of blue-and-white wares, and thus these may represent wares produced many years earlier.

This tendency to display precious ceramics and other vessels in niches continued into the Safavid period. The Safavid ruler Shah ʿAbbas I, for example, is well known for his donation of a large number of Chinese ceramics to the Safavid dynastic shrine at Ardabil, where they were displayed in richly ornamented niches. Of the approximately twelve hundred pieces listed in the ruler’s donation, at least thirty-two are described as martabān—presumably referring to fine celadon pieces.¹¹⁵ Among the surviving celadon pieces are two examples of guan jars. One of these is a relatively large (34 centimeters in diameter) ribbed celadon jar, dated by John Alexander Pope to the fourteenth century.¹¹⁶ The other, of a similar shape and size, displays floral decor.¹¹⁷ Both were likely made in the Longquan kilns. Some scholars have surmised that celadon wares were “less popular” in the Safavid period, citing the smaller number of celadons in the Ardabil collection as compared to the Chinese blue-and-white wares.¹¹⁸ The small number, however, probably has less to do with popularity and more to do with the timing of the formation of Shah ʿAbbas I’s collection. Judging from excavated finds, the height of Longquan exports was between the thirteenth and the fifteenth centuries. By the early seventeenth century, the output of the Longquan kilns had fallen off, and the rise of blue-and-white was already well underway. The availability of high-quality, early Longquan celadons in Persia at that time would have been limited. The fourteenth-century ribbed celadon Longquan jar in Shah ʿAbbas’s collection, for example, would have been approximately two hundred years old by the time it was donated to the shrine. Other celadon wares in the Ardabil collection are also dated to the fourteenth or fifteenth century. Thus, the pieces in the Ardabil collection were likely already over one hundred years old by the time they were collected by Shah ʿAbbas I, suggesting an appreciation for rare, “antique” porcelains. Probably inspired by these imported green-glazed wares, local Safavid potters created emulative celadons in Iran during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries The Freer collection holds a local imitation of a ribbed guan jar created in Safavid Iran in this period (fig. 18).¹¹⁹ This example is formed from earthenware but covered in a soft gray-green glaze, and has a diameter only slightly smaller than the guan jars in the Ardabil collection. Although created from different materials, the form and the glaze color replicate the earlier fourteenth-century Longquan wares very closely, and very effectively. This later Safavid emulative ware speaks to admiration for earlier Chinese celadons that lasted well into the seventeenth century.

The reference by Chardin to the precious and very expensive “green porcelains” used at the Safavid court suggests that these were considered rare and highly treasured pieces. A large (48.5 centimeters in diameter) Chinese celadon bowl in the David Collection, a fifteenth-century product of the Longquan kilns, speaks to this appreciation. It may have been among the treasured celadons at the Safavid court, as it was inscribed—possibly sometime in the seventeenth century or later—with a Persian poem, executed in flowing nastaʾliq and naskh script around the cavetto (fig. 19).¹²⁰ The poem, probably authored by the tenth- to eleventh-century Persian Sufi poet Abu Saʿid, reads:

It may be translated:

Given the content of the quatrain, the lines may have been added prior to gifting or donating the dish to a person, or to a religious institution, perhaps one populated by Sufi adherents.¹²²

Similarly large Longquan dishes are found in collections formed in Iran and other parts of the Islamic world, and appear to have been one of the most popular forms of imported Chinese celadons.¹²³ These dishes often exhibit a fluted cavetto and/or a delicate foliate rim, sometimes combined with floral or other decor on the interior. An exceptional example of this type is the Ming-dynasty Longquan celadon stoneware dish held today in the NMAA’s Freer collection (fig. 20). This piece, dated to the early fifteenth century, is of an exceptionally large size—measuring 57.7 centimeters in diameter. While dishes of this size are remarkable, the rarest and largest examples can sometimes exceed 60 centimeters in diameter. This Freer dish has a fluted cavetto, but the cavetto of similar dishes sometimes displays carved or impressed designs, as seen on a Longquan dish in the V&A collection (fig. 21). That collection also holds a somewhat similar Safavid “copy”: a relatively large (38.7 centimeters in diameter) green-glazed dish with foliate rim and a cavetto displaying a carved meandering floral scroll. There is also the suggestion of fluting around the interior (fig. 22). The piece is described as a sixteenth-century piece produced in imitation of Longquan wares, and it is likely that earlier celadons served as models for such Safavid ceramics. The NMAA collections contains another Safavid example that emulates the appearance of a Chinese celadon original but is of smaller dimensions (40.2 centimeters in diameter) and is dated to the later seventeenth century (fig. 23). While the cavetto exhibits a typical fluted design, the interior displays an indistinct motif— vaguely resembling a dragon—in the center of the dish.

Numerous emulative “copies” of large Longquan dishes were produced in Safavid Iran, although the precise dating of these pieces remains unresolved.¹²⁴ One example—a simply designed piece but with a lovely soft-green glaze—is held today in the V&A collection.¹²⁵ Two other emulative wares—with fluted cavettos, foliate rims, and plain interiors—are to be found in the al-Sabah collection.¹²⁶ One observes among some of these later Safavid wares, however, a striking variation in the color of the glazes. A number are covered in surprisingly brightly colored glazes, in some cases a bright green and in others brilliant blue hues (figs. 24, 25).¹²⁷

It should be noted that around this time, contemporary monochrome green and blue wares were also being produced at the famous Jingdezhen kilns. These wares tend to display brighter green and blue colorations than the more subtle coloring of the monochrome ceramics produced earlier at the Longquan kilns.¹²⁸ It is possible that the colors of the Jingdezhen wares served as inspiration for some of these brightly colored later-Safavid “copies.”