拍賣筆記 vol.175 蘇富比香港：五代至北宋初定窰瀝粉堆花「官」字款方盤一對 - An Exceptional And Very Rare Pair Of 'Guan'-Inscribed Dingyao Square Dishes, Five Dynasties - Early Northern Song Dynasty
- SACA
- 5 days ago
- 11 min read
2018年946萬港元，7年後，2025年表現將會如何？蘇富比香港呈現的定窯瀝粉堆花「官」字款方盤屬於定窯的罕見品種。卡爾·坎普博士（Dr. Carl Kempe）曾收藏有一件類似的方盤，扣有清宮造辦處製作的銅扣，曾為清宮舊藏。可見此類器物從宋代到明清都是宮廷青睞的審美。
n 2018, the piece achieved HKD 9.46 million. Seven years later, in 2025, its performance remains a point of interest.
The Ding ware square dish with slip-trailing decoration and an incised character guan (“official”), presented by Sotheby’s Hong Kong, belongs to a rare category within the Ding kilns. A closely related example was once in the celebrated collection of Dr. Carl Kempe, fitted with a custom-made gilt-bronze mount from the Qing imperial workshops—evidence of its former presence in the Qing court collection. Such square dishes were evidently prized by the imperial household from the Song dynasty through the Ming and Qing periods, embodying a continuous aesthetic appreciation within the palace milieu.
五代至北宋初 定窰瀝粉堆花「官」字款方盤一對
An exceptional and very rare pair of 'guan'-inscribed Dingyao square dishes, Five dynasties - early Northern Song dynasty
Session begins in
May 7, 02:00 PM CST
Estimate
4,000,000 - 8,000,000 HKD
Japanese wood box
9.6 cm
來源
柴田伉儷收藏（柴田明彦（1950-2004年）及柴田祐子（1994-））
美術俱樂部，東京，1980年代
雲中居，台北，1992年11月12日
香港佳士得2018年5月30日，編號2925
展覽
《Collectors, Curators, Connoisseurs: A Century of the Oriental Ceramic Society 1921-2021》，倫敦，2021年，編號52]
罕見「官」字款定窯方盤常見問題解答
此對定窯方盤為何被視為極為罕見與卓絕之作？此對定窯方盤之所以珍稀卓絕，原因有多重：其一，方形器型本即不常見於定窯器中，或受金屬器與漆器形制影響；其二，盤心刻有「官」字款，顯示與官方機構具直接關聯；其三，其胎質與釉面展現出定窯工藝於十世紀時期之巔峰水準；其四，內壁及盤心以瀝粉堆花工藝飾以花卉圖案；其五，成對保存，尤為罕見。目前尚無已出版文獻記錄具「官」字款且為此特定方形樣式之定窯器，益顯其孤品地位。
「官」字款之意涵為何，其歷史意義何在？「官」字即「官方」之意，據學界通說，應與宮廷或朝廷所屬機構相關。尤其在晚唐、五代至北宋初期政局多變背景下，「官」款器物極可能由政府部門委託燒製。據《宋會要輯稿》等史料，當時負責皇室膳食供應的「太官署」（屬於光祿寺系統）極可能為定窯器訂製單位之一。「官」字款之出現，顯示該器屬官方採用或御賜之物，地位崇高。
此對方盤大約燒造於何時？綜合器型、釉質、工藝與「官」字款出現時期等因素，學界普遍認為其製作年代應為十世紀，即五代（907–960）至北宋初期（960–1127）之交，此為定窯發展最為精妙之黃金時代。
定窯與宮廷之關係於此時期有何背景？自晚唐起，宮廷日益偏好高品質白瓷，定窯遂取代邢窯，成為首屈一指之白瓷供應窯口。定窯器長期獲宮廷青睞，延續三百餘年之久。北宋初期，出土於佛塔之官款定器（如應縣木塔出土供器）正是由皇室供奉，可見其已具高度官方地位，並於宗教、禮儀、膳饌等層面廣泛使用。
是否有其他可與此對「官」款方盤比擬之例證？目前文獻與考古紀錄中，尚未發現與此對具「官」款且為相同方形樣式之完整定窯盤。僅有定窯窯址曾出土一件蝶紋方盤殘片（未見款識），另湖南亦出土一件完整之蝶紋方盤（無「官」款），可證此一器型曾見於定窯系統，但無款之例證較多。「官」款版本則獨樹一幟，尤為稀有。
此器所施之瀝粉堆花技法具何藝術與歷史意義？瀝粉堆花為定窯特有裝飾手法，於器物釉下以白色泥漿繪出浮雕效果之花卉圖案。此對盤之內壁飾有十二瓣花形堆紋，盤心則為化繁為簡之花蕊圖案。此技法可能仿效當時金銀器上之錘揲（repoussé）花飾，顯示定窯工匠將貴金屬工藝成功轉譯至陶瓷表面，反映宋初審美與跨媒材之高度轉化能力。
此對器物具何收藏來源與傳承歷程？此對定窯方盤來源清晰，曾為日本柴田家族舊藏，1980年代購自東京美術俱樂部，1992年轉由台北張葳華古美術公司遞藏，2018年於香港佳士得拍賣中以946萬港元成交。2021年並參展英國東方陶瓷學會百周年紀念展，具備優異展歷與學術紀錄。
此類器型對同時期或後代瓷器是否產生影響？此定窯方盤的獨特器型對遼代三彩器（如遼宋交界之龍泉務窯）具明顯影響。考古資料顯示，該窯於遼興宗年間（1032–1056）曾製作仿定窯風格之方形三彩盤，說明定窯設計之權威性跨越政權與地域。即便遼代模仿作品質略遜，定窯原作之工藝與審美水準仍為當時北方窯業所仰望。
「官」定
康蕊君
直至大唐後半期，朝廷方始重視發展瓷藝，青瓷與白瓷最得茶家推崇，亦用以敬佛，可見於此時期佛教地宮出土珍例。其中少數名窰出品之器，銘有「官」字款，乃燒造前已書之，說明此或為官用，與朝廷相關。銘記陶瓷之習，自晚唐延續至五代，北宋初期方休，「官」字款多見於河北曲陽出土十世紀定窰白瓷。
學者對於「官」款的確切意義，與此批器物之用途，有諸多討論，惟因此時期政局複雜，各方勢力割據，唐宋之外，中原尚有不同政權之五代，南方有十國，東北還有契丹遼（907 – 1125年）。「官」字款瓷器，並非集中生產於上述某一政權，也非僅見於某一政權之領土，而是通國可見，數量上以中原為多，東南、西南、北方皆有，也見於佛塔地宮，還有皇室權貴陵寢。如此推論，非某一朝代專用或督製。「官」字款，雖亦偶見於邢窰、耀州窰等瓷器，應或原為一朝君主特許銘文，後逐漸廣為瓷人標註珍瓷所用，再不囿限於宮廷範疇。
此對方盤製於十世紀，正是定窰之巔，所造之瓷精美絕倫，享譽國境，特選之器常用以供佛。九世紀，唐代朝廷以珍寶供養陝西扶風縣法門寺佛塔，除了金銀器與琉璃，更不畏路遙，遠從浙江瓷窰精選越瓷來奉。宋初，朝廷施予定州靜志寺與淨眾院塔供養品，瓷器以定瓷為主，包含數例銘「官」款，參考《地下宮殿の遺寶：中國河北省定州北宋塔基出土文物展》，出光美術館，東京，1997年，編號58、60、69、71-74、91，「官」字款定瓷。宋遼邊界，天津武清區大良鎮佛塔遺址，出土一對同樣造形白釉盤，錄於張柏編《中國出土瓷器全集》，北京，2008年，卷2，圖版11。
現知著錄未見其他器形相似，且帶「官」款之定瓷。本品方盤造形極罕，應取材於木製或金屬器，於定窰逐漸發展而來。曲陽定窰遺址出土一殘片，器形相近，盤心瀝粉堆花作蝴蝶紋飾，屬晚唐至五代，刊載於《定瓷雅集：故宮博物院珍藏及出土定窰瓷器薈萃》，故宮博物院，北京，2012年，圖版20，此處重建線圖有誤。另一例完整方盤，同前例綴蝴蝶紋，出土於湖南長沙顏家嶺，斷為五代，出版於張柏，前述出處，卷13，圖版196上。
本品方盤造形，較多見於後朝三彩瓷，常以定窰器形為本。北京龍泉務窰曾出土類同造形三彩盤，時屬遼領地，亦有仿白釉定瓷，品質較低。定窰位於遼宋邊界，唐末以來，動盪不安，922年遼軍佔領曲陽，俘虜敵軍，促使部分定窰匠人遷徙至龍泉務窰。風格上，自然多被鄰近且負盛名的定窰影響。遼代中期，龍泉務窰始燒三彩瓷，三彩方盤出土於窰址第二期土層，約1032至1056年，可謂定窰方盤面世後百載。此處出土三彩方盤殘片、模，與再造一例，見《北京龍泉務窰發掘報告》，北京，2002年，彩圖版3: 2-4，頁139，圖43: 1；頁182-4，圖59，圖版57: 1，及圖60: 1與封面。
比較吉林雙遼市桑樹遼墓出土一對白釉盤，模印造形更繁複，錄於張柏，前述出處，卷2，圖版168。與上述大良佛塔對盤相似，紋飾富麗，不及本品素雅，更進類於三彩作例，非定窰燒製，或為遼代製器。本對白釉方盤，質精淨麗，通世罕得。
上次成交 ：2018年946萬港元
2018年5月30日 | 現場拍賣 16759
浮生閑趣
五代／北宋初 定窯瀝粉堆花「官」字款方盤一對
FIVE DYNASTIES-EARLY NORTHERN SONG DYNASTY, 10TH CENTURY
成交價
港元 9,460,000
估價
港元 8,000,000 – 港元 12,000,000
估價不包括買家酬金。成交總額為下鎚價加以買家酬金及扣除可適用之費用。
拍品終止拍賣:
2018年5月30日
盤花口，斜直腹，平底，內壁瀝粉作十二瓣花形，內底中心淺浮雕飾柿蒂紋接四角之花葉紋。裏外施白釉，足底無釉，刻「官」字款。
此對定窯花口方盤造型別致，紋飾秀麗，是五代至北宋初年間定窯極精之作，兩盤俱署「官」字款，成對保存更是鳳毛麟角，似為孤例。晚唐五代時期，定窯取代邢窯成為首屈一指的白瓷窯口，相應而來的是宮廷對定窯長達三百餘年的青睞。據陶瓷史學者權奎山研究，定窯瓷器上的「官」字刻款指代官府機構光祿寺下屬的太官署，「官」字款瓷器為太官署的定燒瓷，見權奎山〈唐五代時期定窯初探〉，《故宮博物院院刊》，第四期，2008年，頁50。另據上海博物館陸明華介紹，《曲陽縣志》中記載後周顯德四年的一通碑記上有「使押衙銀青光祿大夫檢校太子賓客殿中使御史充龍泉鎮使鈐轄瓷窯商稅務使馮翱」之內容。由這位從三品高階官員充任的瓷窯商稅務使一職當兼有為官方督陶之使命，見陸明華，〈邢窯「盈」字及定窯「易定」考〉，《上海博物館集刊》，第四期，1987年，頁261。因而本對定窯「官」字款花口方盤是由官方定燒並督造的貢瓷。
花口方盤的器形源於金銀器，其採用的瀝粉裝飾亦忠實地模仿了金銀器上錘碟浮雕紋飾效果。河北曲陽縣定窯遺址出土有一件定窯花口方盤的殘片，內底飾對蝶紋，無款，載於故宮博物院編，《定瓷雅集-故宮博物院珍藏及出土定窯瓷器薈萃》，北京，2012，頁68-9，編號20（圖一）。河北文物研究所藏有一對同類的花口方盤，內底飾牡丹紋，無款，載於《中國出土瓷器全集：天津、遼寧、吉林、黑龍江》，第二冊，北京，2008年，編號11。帶「官」字款的定窯器物多為圓形盌、盤，例如國立故宮博物院藏一件「官」款雙脊瓣花式盌，載於蔡玫芬，《定州花瓷-院藏定窯系白瓷特展》，台北，2014年，頁37，編號I-18（圖二），浙江省博物館藏一件「官」款雙脊瓣花口盤，載於《中國出土瓷器全集：浙江》，第9冊，北京，2008年，編號106，以及遼寧省博物館藏一件「官」款盌，載於《中國陶瓷全集：定窯》，第9冊，京都，1981年，編號17。
Provenance
The Shibata family collection (Mr Shibata Akihiko (1940-2004) and Mrs Yuko Shibata (1944-)).
Tokyo Bijutsu Club, Tokyo, 1980s.
Chang Wei-Hwa & Co., Taipei, 12th November 1992.
Christie's Hong Kong, 30th May 2018, lot 2925.
Exhibited
Collectors, Curators, Connoisseurs: A Century of the Oriental Ceramic Society 1921-2021, London, 2021, cat. no. 52.
Catalogue Note
Ding Guan Ware, for Secular and Underground Palaces
Regina Krahl
Court interest in fine ceramics developed only in the second half of the Tang dynasty (618 – 907), when white and green stonewares began to be cherished among tea connoisseurs and were discovered as treasures worthy of the underground palaces devoted to the Buddha. On some exceptional wares from a few outstanding kilns this royal attention found lasting tangible expression in inscriptions, incised on the vessels before firing, in particular in form of the character guan (‘official’). The custom of marking ceramics in this way started in the late Tang dynasty, continued over the Five Dynasties period (907 – 960), and ended around the early Northern Song dynasty (960 – 1127), with the guan character being found overwhelmingly on white Ding wares of the tenth century from Quyang county, Hebei province.
The exact meaning of this inscription and the destination of the wares thus distinguished has been much discussed. The study is made complicated because of the many different courts ruling parts of China during that time, which besides Tang and Song included five consecutive dynasties in the Central Plain, ten kingdoms mainly in the south, as well as the Qidan Liao (907 – 1125) in the northeast. The production of guan-marked ceramics does not seem to have been concentrated on one particular reign period and their usage does not seem to have been limited to the territory of any one of these dynasties. Vessels thus inscribed – although rare altogether – have been found all over China, with a concentration in the central regions, but equally in the southeast, the southwest, and the far north, and they have appeared in pagoda foundations as well as in royal and other high-ranking tombs. It therefore seems futile to search for one particular court that may have ordered or received such wares. Although the guan mark, which is also, more rarely, found on Xing, Yaozhou and other wares, may originally have been applied at the instigation of one particular ruler, it seems to have become a prized marker of excellence in general, coveted in palaces far and wide.
In the tenth century, when these dishes were made, the Ding kilns produced the finest wares in the Chinese realm, and many appear to have been chosen specially as donations for Buddhist temples. In the ninth century, when the Tang court donated treasures to the underground palaces of the Famensi pagoda in Fufeng county, Shaanxi province, it still picked mainly Yue wares from a far-away southern kiln in Zhejiang to add to its presents of gold, silver and rare glass vessels; in the early Song period, when the pagodas of the Jingzhisi and Jingzhongyuansi in Dingzhou received their valuable donations, it was predominantly Ding wares that were chosen, several bearing the guan inscription; see Chika kyūden no ihō/Treasures from the Underground Palaces: Excavated Treasures from Northern Song Pagodas, Dingzhou, Hebei Province, China, Idemitsu Museum of Arts, Tokyo, 1997, passim, with guan-marked pieces cat. nos 58, 60, 69, 71-4, 91. A pair of white dishes of the present shape has also been excavated from a pagoda base located at the border between Song and Liao territory, at Daliang in Wuqing, Tianjin, illustrated in Zhang Bai, ed., Zhongguo chutu ciqi quanji/Complete Collection of Ceramic Art Unearthed in China, Beijing, 2008, vol. 2, pl. 11.
No other example of a Ding dish of this form inscribed with the guan character appears to have been published. The square shape of the present dishes is extremely rare among Ding wares but appears to have been developed by the Ding kilns, perhaps following wooden or metal models. A fragment of a very similar dish but with a butterfly design in slip relief in the centre, has been excavated at the Ding kiln site in Quyang county in a late Tang/Five Dynasties context, and is illustrated – the outline wrongly reconstructed – in Ding ci ya ji. Gugong Bowuyuan zhencang ji chutu Dingyao ciqi huicui/Selection of Ding Ware. The Palace Museum’s Collection and Archaeological Excavation, Palace Museum, Beijing, 2012, pl. 20; and one complete square Ding dish, again with butterfly design, excavated at Yanjialing, Changsha, Hunan, and attributed to the Five Dynasties period, is published in Zhang Bai, op.cit., vol. 13, pl. 196 top.
This angular dish shape is better known from later sancai versions, for which these Ding dishes seem to have provided the model. Sancai dishes of similar form have been discovered at the Longquanwu kiln site in Beijing, at the time in Liao territory, which also copied white Ding wares, but at lesser quality. As the Ding kilns were located close to the border with Liao territory, they experienced turbulent times after the fall of the Tang. Although not permanently falling under Liao control, the Liao army occupied Quyang county briefly in 922 and captured enemy soldiers. This may have led also to the emigration of some Ding potters to the Longquanwu kilns, but with the fabled Ding kilns being located so close by, they would have exerted stylistic influence in any case. Sancai wares were made at Longquanwu from the mid-Liao period onwards, and square dishes with sancai glazes have been discovered in the second phase of the kilns’ operation, considered to fall into the period between 1032 and 1056, that is, about a century after the appearance of this shape at the Ding kilns; for a fragment of a sancai square dish discovered at the kiln site, moulds for such dishes and a dish reproduced after these finds, see Beijing Longquanwu yao fajue baogao/Excavations of the Longquanwu Kiln-site in Beijing, Beijing, 2002, col. pl. 3: 2-4, p. 139, fig. 43: 1; and pp. 182-4., fig. 59, pl. 57: 1, and fig. 60: 1, and cover.
Compare also a pair of white dishes with more complex moulded design discovered in a Liao tomb at Sangshu, Shuangliao county, Jilin, in Zhang Bai, op.cit., vol. 2, pl. 168. Like the pair from the Daliang pagoda mentioned above, these densely decorated dishes seem much less elegant than the present pair, closer in style to the sancai versions, and may not have been made by the Ding kilns, but may represent Liao copies. Square white dishes of the fine quality of the present pair are exceedingly rare.
Comments