17 17

17

Key Word: Rattan, Chair Seat, Ming Dynasty

1. Background

From the mid-1660s, London saw the beginnings of

what was to be a boom in construction and trade of beech and

walnut chairs and armchairs made with weaved rattan seats and

back sections. Rattan is a family of vine-like plants, categorised

as species of palm, and harvested from tropical forests in East

and South-East Asia [1]. This natural product was imported from

these areas in increasing quantities from the mid-17th Century

onwards by the English East India Company. The fashion for

wooden chairs with weaved rattan seats and back sections

continued into the 18th Century, and drifted out of fashion as

chair manufacturers developed and embraced new designs and

forms. Today, many remaining examples of English 17th Century

rattan seated chairs survive in museums and private collections

throughout the UK.

2. Research Objectives

This study will address the initial introduction of rattan

in English chair construction. Previous scholarship has

predominantly studied the links between trading posts in India

and their influence on the stylistic design of early English rattan

chairs; particularly in relation to ethnic motifs represented on

chair back panels and front stretchers. However, while passing

reference has been made to possible structural links with chairs

of, or in the style of, Ming Dynasty China (such as the curved

splat for instance) little systematic research has been made in this

area. This article sets out to elucidate any links between Ming

Dynasty Chinese furniture and the rattan seats of early English

chairs, in respect of their design and structure.

3. Research Methods

For the analysis of the structural development of

early English rattan chair seats, a general field survey of 17th

Century English rattan chairs and armchairs was made from four

collections in the UK: The Victoria and Albert Museum, The

Lady Lever Gallery, The Geffrye Museum and Temple Newsam

House. In order to provide data for comparison, a control survey

of non-rattan seated chairs was also conducted. This included

chairs of probable English origin constructed during the same

period, 1650-1700.

4. Discussion and Analysis

4.1 Chinese Ming Dynasty Rattan Seating

Two predominant weaving styles that were in evidence

during the Ming Dynasty, and are still employed today, were

examined [2]. The most common type of rattan weaving, often

seen on Ming and early Qing Dynasty armchairs and stools, was

of closely woven cane or bamboo. The alternative weaving style

that is often seen on larger pieces of furniture, and thus spread

over larger areas such as Chinese couches, was the sole type

integrated into the European chairs during the 17th Century. This

style, called hujiaoyan (), incorporates widely-spaced,

clearly defined octagonal apertures, a technique apparently

derived from bamboo weaving of a much earlier date [3], shown

in figure 1.

Fig. 1 Ming Dynasty couch with hujiaoyan weaving

4.2 Seat Height

For the analysis of seat height development, a survey of

Chinese armchairs constructed during the Ming Dynasty was

made from collections in the Victoria and Albert Museum and

the Shanghai Museum. In terms of seat height, the mean average

of both round and square back armchairs came to around 51.3cm.

The standard deviation (SD) of the seat heights was calculated at

1.31cm. Given the conservative, refined nature of these types of

chairs, with strict guidelines that governed the dimensions of

their construction, it can be said with some degree of confidence

that a stylistic conformity ranging slightly above 50cm was in

place for Ming Dynasty non-folding armchairs of these types

(central curved splat and fixed square seat with arm rails) [4].

Fig. 2 Examples of chair types, 2-4

In regards to rattan seated chairs, type 2 armless chairs had

an average 45.8cm seat height, dropping to 40.64cm for the

armchair version. Type 3 early tall back chairs had an average

46.4cm height and later tall back chairs and armchairs averaged

at 46.2cm and 40.3cm respectively. The height of the armless

chairs over all types remained steady, with barely a centimetre

differential between the mean averages for all three armless types.

The same was true for both armchair types, with both averaging

around 40cm. It is here proposed that this higher-than-average

seat height of armless rattan chairs (averaging around 46cm)

might be attributed to the influence of Ming Dynasty style

Chinese chair seats, and their respective higher height of nearer

50cm.

4.3 Seat Construction

Fig. 3 (Left) Type 2 armless chair, 1670-90

(Right) Type 4 armless tall back chair, 1690-1710

According to the survey results, within individual chair

groups, seats seem to have been dealt with fairly uniformly.

While type 2 armless chairs have, predominantly, an even and

equal number of holes at the front and back (reflecting the square

nature of their seats), type 2 armchairs and type 3 early tall back

chairs show inconsistency in the ratio of front and rear holes.

Later tall back chairs display more conformity, with a reduction

of 2 holes at the back in all cases where a difference between

front and rear occurs. This is particularly the case with chairs

whose front legs do not protrude above the top of the seat frame,

but stand flush with the bottom of the frame.

Type 2 armless chairs had a mean average of 23 holes per

frame, against an average 50.5cm seat width (2.19cm/hole). Type

2 armchairs saw an average of 30.8 holes across a wider frame of

59.74cm (1.94cm/hole). A fairly steady increase in the ratio of

holes per frame is apparent towards to the end of the 17th century,

with type 3 tall back chairs showing a ratio of 1.78 holes/cm and

type 4 later tall back chairs and armchairs showing 1.28cm/hole

and 1.24cm/hole respectively. Gradually therefore, rattan seats

grew more angular over the course of the surveyed period,

moving away from the more square-like structure that resembled

Ming Dynasty armchairs (figure 3).

4.4 Seat Depth

In slight contrast to the width of surveyed chair seats, the

depth of seat (particularly in respect to the earliest types)

remained surprisingly uniform within its respective chair type.

Within the surveyed type 2 armless chairs, depths ranged from

38.9cm-41.5cm, from shallowest to deepest. Type 2 armchairs

have an average (mean) depth of 43 cm, and an even smaller SD

of 0.57cm. Early tall back models show the greatest uniformity

however, with an average depth of 37.1cm and a deviation of

0.28cm. Later tall back chairs and armchairs had an SD of

1.45cm and 3.01cm respectively. The SD across the entire

collection of 17th rattan remains small; but for one extraordinary

example in the form of an unusual type 4 armless chair, it would

be calculated at 2.42cm.

5. Conclusions

(1) The structural survey demonstrated that whilst hujiaoyan

weaving was a technique imported in its entirety from China, this

technique of rattan weaving was integrated and developed into

English cane chairs at a relatively quick pace. This is

demonstrated by the steady increase in frame holes over the

entire 40 year period given.

(2) The level of variation that corresponds to the average seat

height for armless rattan seated English chairs is small enough to

argue that these chairs were regularly conformed higher than the

average level (around 43cm) of English non-rattan armless seats

of the same period. It is proposed that this is a probable influence

of Chinese Ming Dynasty-style chairs.

(3) In regard to the development of early English rattan seats,

there is more standardisation than previously assumed when

looking at individual categories of chairs. Given that the

surveyed chairs were constructed in different workshops over

different periods, the small variance in terms of seat height and,

in particular, seat depth (an overall average standard deviation of

1.27cm) should be considered significant.

Notes and References

1) Dransfield J. and Manokaran N (Eds.). Plant Resources of

South-East Asia, No.6 Rattans. Pudoc Scientific Publishers:

Wageningen, 1993.

2) Wang, Z. Authentication of Ming and Qing Furniture.

Shanghai shu dian chu ban she, 2007; 131, 137.

3) Wang. S. Connoisseurship of Chinese Furniture, Ming and

Early Qing Dynasties [Vol.1]. Art Media Resources: Hong

Kong, 1990; 146

4) Ishimura, S. A Research on the Relation between Living

Culture and Chairs in the Chinese Countryside. Housing

Research Foundation Annual Report 2000; 27:88