Chinese furniture
Walter Cheah’s 1994 article, based on a lecture delivered to the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society on 7 December 1993, is a practical collector’s guide to Chinese furniture spanning the Ming and Qing dynasties. Grounded in the author’s personal collecting experience across the Straits Settlements and Hong Kong, the piece serves as both a taxonomic reference for furniture forms and a practical guide to wood identification for collectors operating in the Malaysian and regional market.
Summary
Cheah situates the article within the specific context of the Straits Chinese furniture trade, noting that Melaka, Singapore, and Penang were the primary sources of 19th- and early 20th-century pieces, largely of Fujian provenance, characterised by ornate carving, mother-of-pearl inlay, and red-and-gilt lacquer work. Melaka itself hosted a thriving furniture industry in which Chinese craftsmen worked primarily with teak imported from Burma and Thailand, producing pieces that furnished Straits Chinese homes throughout Peninsular Malaysia (p. 69). The author contrasts this Straits tradition with the Hong Kong market, which catered to Western collectors preferring simpler, plainer forms, and which in the second half of the 1980s saw large quantities of Ming and early Qing dynasty furniture arrive alongside reproductions and pieces fabricated from cut-up older furniture (p. 69).
The bulk of the article is a systematic taxonomy of Chinese furniture divided into five categories—stools and chairs, tables, couches and beds, cabinets and bookcases, and miscellaneous items—each illustrated with figures from the author’s collection. Cheah distinguishes between waistless and waisted forms, identifies specific sub-types (horseshoe back armchairs, kang tables, canopy beds, hat-chest cabinets), and notes construction details such as the preference for three-segment crestrails over five-segment ones as a marker of finer design (pp. 70–80). A preliminary section identifies the six major hardwoods (Zitan, Huanghuali, Jichimu, Tielimu, Wumu, Hongmu) and two major softwoods (Nanmu, Jumu), describing their visual characteristics and historical usage patterns (pp. 69–70).
The article also addresses the practical problem of authentication and restoration. Cheah notes that unrestored pieces allow collectors to assess original content, whereas well-restored furniture obscures whether new members have been added, and that furniture several centuries old will inevitably have missing or broken components (p. 69). The Hong Kong market’s practice of cutting up larger old pieces to craft smaller ones in the old tradition compounds the difficulty of distinguishing genuine antiquities from skilled reproductions (p. 69).
Key Findings
- The six major hardwoods used in fine Chinese furniture are Zitan, Huanghuali, Jichimu, Tielimu, Wumu, and Hongmu; the two major softwoods are Nanmu and Jumu (p. 70).
- Huanghuali was the principal cabinet wood of the Ming and early Qing dynasties but became scarce by the middle of the Qing dynasty, prompting the increased use of Hongmu to fill the supply gap (p. 70).
- Zitan, mentioned as early as the third century, is the hardest and heaviest of the six hardwoods, ranging in colour from jet black to purplish red (p. 70).
- Melaka was the centre of a thriving furniture industry in which Chinese craftsmen used teak imported from Burma and Thailand to produce high-quality pieces for Straits Chinese homes throughout Peninsular Malaysia (p. 69).
- In the second half of the 1980s, large quantities of Ming and early Qing dynasty furniture arrived in Hong Kong alongside reproductions, and shopowners were cutting up larger old pieces to craft smaller ones in the old tradition (p. 69).
- The three-segment horseshoe crestrail is considered a finer design than the five-segment variant because it requires two fewer joints but demands larger members to accommodate the wider curve (p. 72).
Conclusion
Cheah’s definitive takeaway is that the Malaysian collector must navigate a market in which genuine Ming and Qing dynasty pieces, Straits-era provincial furniture, and skilled reproductions all circulate simultaneously, often without clear labelling. The article implicitly argues that knowledge of wood species, construction techniques, and form typology is the collector’s primary tool for authentication in the absence of provenance documentation.
Context
- The primary evidential basis is the author’s personal collection, supplemented by observations of the Melaka, Singapore, Penang, and Hong Kong furniture markets during the late 1980s and early 1990s.
- The article’s historiographical contribution is modest: it functions as a practical reference for collectors in the Straits region rather than advancing a scholarly argument about Chinese furniture history. It fills a gap in the MBRAS journal by documenting the local collecting scene and the specific challenges of the regional market.