Quality over quantity?

But what does this quality of calligraphy say about the Topkapi bowl? It would seem that the Topkapi bowl, out of the three, is of the highest quality. Yet, it contains many mistakes, such as the use of wrong numbers and even the incorrect citing of the Throne Verse. Was this bowl still of real ritualistic importance if these errors are present? According to Cheng and Curtis, these Chinese Islamic ceramics were mostly made for Chinese Muslims and the Islamic market. Only a few were intended as gifts for rulers of Islamic countries and another few were commissioned. Curtis, Emily B. Chinese-Islamic Works of Art, 1644-1912: A Study of Some Qing Dynasty Examples. London: Routledge, 2022.

These bowls were also probably not intended for the imperial court or Chinese elites. Gillette explains that during the 18th century, the imperial court had an explicit interest in imitation antiquities. Jingdezhen’s production for these two groups of people was mainly focused on replicas of historic porcelain, such as Song-dynasty (960-1279) incense burners. Gillette, Maris B. China's Porcelain Capital: The Rise, Fall and Reinvention of Ceramics in Jingdezhen. London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2016.

Thus, these bowls were probably intended for Chinese Muslims and Muslims outside of China. It would seem that the buyers of these wares did not care that the inscriptions of the Qur’an were incorrect, as the production of the bowls and plates continued until the end of the 18th century. The reason for this could be that the buyers were illiterate or did not have a high level of Arabic literacy. The buyers were, as we have just stated, mostly Chinese Muslims. These Muslims were descendants of foreign Muslims, meaning that there had been many translations of Chinese and Arabic mixed together. Al-Mannai, Maryam Mohammed. "Islamic Chinese Art: Islamic anthology of Chinese calligraphy." QScience Connect 2021, no. 1 (2021), 1-6. The fact that the Topkapi bowl is of such high quality in terms of the decorations and that it has not faded, could mean that it was in fact commissioned. But as we have seen with Queen Mary’s porcelain, the same layout was used, making it less likely that it was uniquely commissioned.

Yet, despite the use of the same layout, it is clear that the maker of the Topkapi bowl was different from the one that made Queen Mary’s. A clear distinction in handwriting is visible. Either our maker was better skilled in Arabic script, or he was one of the first to use this layout before mistakes were being copied in the newer designs. Curtis, who also did a brief study on the Chinese Islamic square porcelain, argues that the calligraphy on the ceramics might represent an alternate form of writing, such as the Sini script. The Sini script is a form of calligraphy, which is often defined as the Chinese-Islamic form, and recognizable of its cursive writing, which came to be as more Muslims started settling in China and tried to mix the two writing styles.Curtis, Emily B. Chinese-Islamic Works of Art, 1644-1912: A Study of Some Qing Dynasty Examples. London: Routledge, 2022. I disagree with Curtis here, as this Sini script does not look similar to the calligraphy on the Topkapi bowl. It could, however, be the case that the producer of the Topkapi bowl mixed the Sini script with the original Arabic script, resulting in the confusing letters which can sometimes be seen in the outer rings. But, as we discussed before, it could also be that the maker mixed up the Arabic script with the Urdu script. Another possible reason for the lack of correct and coherent language on the Topkapi bowl could be because calligraphy was mainly for aesthetic purposes in Chinese culture. In Islamic culture, it also had aesthetic properties, but on top of that also used as a great ritualistic and healing force. Considering that the makers are Chinese, they probably did not care themselves so much that the grammar and spelling was incorrect, as long as it looked aesthetically pleasing to the eye. Taking into account that the buyers were mostly Chinese Muslims, the mixture of the Chinese and Islamic cultures could also have been a reason why they did not mind that the writing was mostly flawed and imprecise. In addition to this, the fact that the magic squares are never correct can also act as proof that the buyers did not care about the preciseness of the porcelain bowls, as well as that the makers had no clue what they were writing or did not care about what they were writing.

So, did the quality of the calligraphy matter at all to the Topkapi bowl? It probably did not and, presumably, the calligraphy acted more as an aesthetic than as a real ritualistic object with healing properties. As we have seen as well, the pigment on the Topkapi bowl has barely faded and little evidence of wear is found on it, which could mean that it was hardly ever used and enjoyed a simple life of standing on someone’s cupboard. Identical layouts were used for a quick remake, so in the end, we find an object that screams MADE IN CHINA dating back to the 18th century