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