Recently controversy has been caused across Europe regarding the new scientific evidence that dates three porcelain vases as possibly the oldest to be made in Europe, pre-dating Meissen production by 25 years. The following questions have been answered by the British Mueseum in response to the recent interest in the research.

What are the recently published articles about?

The articles are concerned with a small category of seventeenth century porcelain vases, of which three survive at Burghley House, Stamford, Lincolnshire (the so-called “Buckingham vases”). A fourth vase, formerly in the collection of the Earls of Stamford, is now in a private collection and a fifth was last recorded in the Royal Collection at Windsor and cannot now be traced.

If these vases were made in England (see below) then they may represent the earliest known European attempts to replicate the so-called “hard-paste” porcelain of China.  

Why is the name “Buckingham” used for this category of porcelain?

In 1763 Horace Walpole understood that the Burghley House vases had been made by the second Duke of Buckingham (1628-87). However, it is possible that the “Buckingham vases” at Burghley were merely made under Buckingham’s patronage but even this is not certain.

Does the porcelain of the “Buckingham” vases qualify as hard paste porcelain? Was European hard paste invented by Böttger for Meissen, or did the maker of the “Buckingham” vases do so?

The problem in answering this question is to define what porcelain and hard paste actually mean. “Porcelain” and “hard paste” are historical, not chemical terms. The Chinese do not even have a word exactly corresponding to the European word, “porcelain.”

The authors of the recent articles suggest that porcelain might be defined as ‘a comparatively hard, white, translucent, vitrified ceramic’, whatever its ingredients and methods of manufacture’. With this definition, both Böttger’s white ware and the “Buckingham” ware are various types of porcelain.

The paste of the so-called “Buckingham vases” is more closely related to what are usually understood as “hard-pastes” than to the European soft-paste frit-porcelains. It is the definitions of the words “porcelain” and “hard-paste” that are problematic.

The Burghley pieces were listed at Chatsworth in the Devonshire Schedule as early as 1683 and therefore may represent the earliest English porcelain but that they were manufactured in England, while probably, is not certain. They do however seem to represent the earliest porcelain with European on-glaze polychrome enamelling and gilding.

Do you know where exactly the vases have been manufactured and by whom?

The seventeenth century inventory does not record where the three vases now at Burghley House were made, nor by whom. They were listed in the Devonshire Schedule of Deed, drafted in 1683 and proved in 1690 after the death of Lady Elizabeth Cavendish, the mother-in-law of the fifth Earl of Exeter.

It is by no means certain that the second Duke of Buckingham was the maker of the ‘Buckingham vases’ at Burghley and other pieces of their category, nor, if he was, that the vases were made at his glassworks at Vauxhall.

However, the scientific analysis doesn’t help to shed light on their provenance because there are insufficient analytical data available on porcelain that we can use for comparison, which would allow us to suggest a manufacturing centre. It is therefore difficult to be certain whether Fulham, Dehua or indeed some other manufactory produced the Burghley House jars, based on our results and on previous work carried out on early porcelain.

The argument for their production in England is partly because all five known pieces have provenances in old English collections, partly because they have lead-glazes of a kind unknown on porcelain from China or so far unknown in continental Europe. However, although perhaps unlikely, the possibility still remains that they were made elsewhere and decorated in Europe.

Of what ingredients were the “Buckingham vases” composed?

The two jars from Burghley that have been examined scientifically – the so-called Virtues Jar and one of the smaller pair – were produced using a body with a high clay content, rich in alumina, silica and potash. The porcelain bodies are highly vitrified from high temperature firing. The glaze of the Burghley House jars is lead glaze which is different from Chinese, Japanese or Meissen porcelains for example.

The scientific analysis doesn’t help to shed light on their provenance because there are insufficient analytical data available on porcelain that we can use for comparison, which would allow us to suggest a manufacturing centre.

What analysis has been undertaken?

A small sample from one of the lids of the small Burghley vases was analysed at the British Museum Research Laboratory in 1991. Further work was undertaken by Rafael Sa (Imperial College) and Morgan Wesley in 2007 on a polished section from the Virtues Jar and, more recently (2008), by Michela Spataro, Mavis Bimson and Nigel Meeks in the British Museum’s Department of Conservation and Scientific Research, who analysed the Virtues Jar, a small jar and a lid from of the two small jars.

This most recent analysis was undertaken using entirely non-invasive methods: variable pressure scanning electron microscopy with energy dispersive X-ray analysis (VP SEM-EDX) and Raman spectroscopy with measurements made directly onto the unprepared surface.

What do these results mean from a historical perspective?

In England John Dwight and perhaps also the second Duke of Buckingham were undertaking experiments in an attempt to replicate Chinese hard-paste porcelain and experimenting with high temperature firing.

Their approach was very different from the soft-paste developments in Italy, France and 18th century England. Late 17th century French “soft-paste” porcelain, for instance, was made from glass frit pastes and fired at lower temperatures.

John Dwight’s first patent for porcelain was taken out in 1672, and the “Buckingham” vases, whoever made them, are likely to date from around the same decade. This is long before von Tschirnhausen and Böttger made their commercially far more significant discoveries but the question of priority of invention depends, to a large extent on definition of such terms as “hard-paste” and, indeed “porcelain”.

Conclusions

Historical evidence shows vases of “Buckingham” type were in existence by 1683 at latest and the three vases at Burghley were already recorded in Chatsworth, England, at that date.

It is unclear who made this category of porcelain; while the second Duke of Buckingham or even John Dwight may have been involved these attributions remain uncertain.

Analysis shows the vases to have a high-fired, clay-rich body, rich in alumina, silica and potash. It is difficult however to draw any definite conclusions based on the analytical data because

• There was only a limited opportunity in which to conduct the study and it was carried out using non-ideal samples;
• John Dwight and others in England were experimenting with new recipes for making porcelain and therefore left objects with a range of chemical compositions;
• The lack of available comparative data.

The glaze is shown by analysis to be a lead glaze unlike that of oriental or any other 17th century high-fired porcelains so far known.

The decoration on the vases in overglaze enamels is apparently the earliest instance of this technique executed in Europe on any porcelain.

Sources of information:

There are two recent publications on the “Buckingham Porcelain” that are generating the press interest:

1. Group of 6 articles by John Mallet, Aileen Dawson, Morgan Wesley, Michela Spataro, Mavis Bimson and Nigel Meeks entitled “The Earliest English Porcelains?” in the Transactions of the English Ceramic Circle (Transactions of the English Ceramic Circle, Vol. 20, Part 1, 2008). The articles focus on porcelain vases at Burghley House and another vase from the same group.

Copies of the Transactions of the English Ceramic Circle can normally be obtained from Peter Constable (email pc30@internet.com) but there may be short term delays in the next week until Vol. 20, Part 1, 2008 is delivered by the printers, so in case of urgency please contact John Mallet (email john.mallet@virgin.net). For further information consult the English Ceramic Circle’s web-site, englishceramiccircle.co.uk , on which this publication should appear shortly on the Publications pages, with information on how to order it on the Shopping page.

2. Michela Spataro, Nigel Meeks, Mavis Bimson, Aileen Dawson and Janet Ambers, ‘Early porcelain in seventeenth-century England: non-destructive examination of two jars from Burghley House’, British Museum Technical Research Bulletin, Volume 3, 2009, pp. 37-46. Copies can be supplied as pdf files from the BM press office. This article includes all of the scientific data, including comparison with Dehua material.