Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2015 
 
 https://archive.org/details/beginningsofporcOOIauf 
 

 
 
 r. ■ 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 if . ’'-■. 
 
 n 
 
 I 
 
 ft 
 
 ; 
 
Field Museum of Natural History 
 
 Publication 192 
 Anthropological Series 
 
 VoL. XV, No. 
 
 THE BEGINNINGS OF PORCELAIN 
 IN CHINA 
 
 BY 
 
 Berthold Laufer 
 
 Curator of Anthropology 
 
 With a Technical Report by H. W. Nichols 
 Assistant Curator of Geology 
 
 Twelve Plates and Two Text-Figures 
 
 The Mrs. T. B. Blackstone Expedition 
 
 JOHN 
 
 POPE 
 
 Chicago 
 
 1917 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Introductory 
 
 Report on a Technical Investigation of Ancient Chinese 
 Pottery, by H. W. Nichols 
 
 I. PORCELANOUS HaN PoTTERY 
 
 II. Analysis of a Green Glaze from a Bowl of Han 
 
 Pottery 
 
 Historical Observations and Conclusions 
 
 Historical Notes on Kaolin 
 
 The Introduction of Ceramic Glazes into China, with 
 Special Reference to the Murrine Vases . 
 
 The Potter’s Wheel 
 
 Index 
 
 79 
 
 86 
 
 92 
 
 95 
 
 no 
 
 120 
 
 148 
 
 178 
 
The Beginnings of Porcelain in China 
 
 INTRODUCTORY 
 
 In February of 1910, while in Si-ngan fu, the capital of Shen-si 
 Province, the writer received from Mr. Yen, a Chinese scholar and 
 antiquarian of note with whom he was on very friendly terms, a curious 
 bit of ancient pottery, which at first sight bore all the characteristic 
 marks associated with what is known as Han pottery, but which, on 
 the other hand, exhibited a body and a glaze radically different from 
 that ware (Plate I). Mr. Yen accompanied the object with a written 
 message, explaining the circumstances under which it had been found, 
 and commenting to some extent on its historical value. Following 
 is a literal rendering of his letter: “I once heard dealers say that they 
 had seen ‘Han porcelain’ {Han ts'e but I had no faith in this 
 
 statement. In the winter of the year ting wei T (1907) I secured 
 a large vase, and suspected that it might be an object of the Han 
 period, but did not dare to be positive about this point. In the spring 
 of last year some one brought to light, from a Han grave which he had 
 excavated, ancient jade pieces and such-like things, together with 
 an enormous iron cooking-stove. On the latter are found, cast in 
 high relief, six characters reading, ‘Great felicity! May it be service- 
 able to the lords! ’ {ta ki ch'ang i hou wang 'a ^ i ). On the 
 top of this stove was placed a small ‘porcelain jar.’ I lost no time in 
 sending out an agent to effect a purchase, but the stove had already 
 passed into the hands of a merchant. So I obtained only the ‘porce- 
 lain jar’ in question, the material and style of which proved identical 
 with those of the large vase purchased by me years ago. For this 
 reason I now felt positive that the question is here of ‘Han porcelain.’ 
 Subsequently I acquired also a jar of the type styled lei and big 
 and small vases; in all, four. From that time the designation ‘Han 
 porcelain’ began to be established in the world. 
 
 “Written in Ch'ang-ngan by Yen Kan-ytian ^ @ on the day 
 
 when the flowers sprout forth (W tE ^ 0), of the second month of 
 the second year of the period Siian-t'ung (February 27, 1910).” 
 
 While I had a deep respect for Mr. Yen’s learning and extensive 
 knowledge of archaeological subjects, I remained sceptic as to the 
 identification of his jar with what he styled Han ts'e, and, though recog- 
 nizing its intrinsic merit as a piece of evidence filling a lacune in oirr 
 
 79 
 
8o 
 
 Beginnings oe Porcelain 
 
 knowledge of ancient pottery, I did not allow myself to be carried away 
 by the usual wave of enthusiasm over a first discovery (since then 
 six years and a half have elapsed), but decided to hold the matter in 
 abeyance till a thorough analysis, to be made at home, would permit 
 us to base an opinion on facts. Meanwhile opportunities were seized 
 at Si-ngan fu to collect as much as possible of this novel pottery. My 
 first concern, naturally, was to secure the large iron stove mentioned 
 in Mr. Yen’s missive. A desire thus expressed spreads in that quaint 
 old town like a prairie-fire; and when the sun had risen and set again, 
 I was the lucky owner of that precious relic. Indeed, Yen’s descrip- 
 tion was by no means an exaggeration. In type and style, this cast- 
 iron stove (Plate II), partly in decay and the iron core having entirely 
 rotted away, exactly corresponds to the well-known Han burial cooking- 
 stoves, and it is the finest specimen of ancient cast-iron that I was 
 able to find. Being posed on four feet in the form of elephant-heads, 
 it is built in the shape of a horse-shoe, and provided with a chimney 
 at the rounded end, five cooking-holes, and a projecting platform in 
 front of the fire-chamber. On the latter is cast an inscription in six 
 raised characters, which read exactly as indicated by Mr. Yen, — a 
 formula typical of the Han and earlier ages, and encountered on many 
 bronze vessels. The style of these characters is in thorough agreement 
 with that of Han writing. The object was discovered in a grave near 
 the village Ma-kia-chai ^ ^ M, 5 li north of the town Hien-yang, 
 in Shen-si Province. As previously remarked,^ without laying down 
 any hard and fast rules, there is a great deal of probability in assigning 
 such cast-iron objects to the period of the Later Han (a.d. 25-220), 
 while it is equally justifiable to extend the time of their manufac- 
 ture over the entire third century of our era. The iron stove thus 
 furnishes a clew to the date of the jug which was found in the same 
 grave with it. Needless to say, I left no stone unturned, and kept 
 on inquiring and hunting for this so-called Han ts'e ware in and 
 around Si-ngan. I succeeded in bringing together only eight more 
 pieces (Plates HI-X), among these the vessel lei referred to in Yen’s 
 memorable epistle,^ and a number of larger fragments and small 
 shards, which are always precious and encouraging acquisitions to 
 the archaeologist, as they are not under suspicion, and offer welcome 
 study material. 
 
 * Chinese Clay Figures, p. 216. 
 
 * The pottery vase of this designation is mentioned in the Chou li as holding 
 the sacrificial spirits called ch'ang, which were offered to the deity Earth (Biot, 
 Tcheou-li, Vol. I, p. 468). It is the reproduction in clay of an original bronze- 
 type, frequent among the bronze vessels of the Chou. 
 
Introductory 
 
 8i 
 
 It will be noticed that these nine bits, in their forms and decorations, 
 decidedly agree with the mortuary Han pottery,^ and that, taken 
 merely as ceramic types, they represent archaic types of Han art. 
 On the other hand, however, apart from their technical composition, 
 they have in common some characteristic features which are not 
 found in Han pottery. To these belong the curious loop handles, 
 obviously imitative of a knotted rope or a basketry handle, and the 
 geometric wave patterns. The latter, it will be remembered, occur 
 also in the relief bands on many vases of Han pottery, but are of a 
 different style, in the manner of realistic waves. There is in our col- 
 lection only one unglazed, gray Han pottery vase with a geometric 
 wave design approaching that in the above group; but it is a much 
 bolder and freer composition, and not so neat and refined as in the 
 porcelanous vases. Even in some shapes, the traditional rules of the 
 Han may not be quite strictly observed; they may be less stern 
 rigorous, and, while dignified and partially imposing, treated with 
 somewhat greater individual freedom. This, however, is rather a 
 point of sentiment or impression than a ponderable argument. The 
 deviations from the standard Han pottery are insignificant when con- 
 trasted v/ith what the two groups have in common. The best tradition 
 and spirit of Han art are preserved in these nine productions. 
 
 The comparative scarcity of this ware is notable, and gives food 
 for serious reflection. As the writer was able to secure on his last 
 expedition for the Field Museum many hundreds of pieces of Han pot- 
 tery of all types and descriptions, while several thousand specimens 
 have passed through his hands during the last fifteen years, and as he 
 could hunt up only nine representatives of this novel (porcelanous) 
 ware, these numbers may be regarded as the relative (certainly not 
 absolute; proportions in which the two classes of pottery are to be found, 
 and, we may add, were made in the past. Two inferences may be 
 drawn from this phenomenon, — this peculiar ware was the product 
 of only a single kiln or of very few kilns; and these kilns did not flourish 
 during the Han period, but either at its very close, or even, and more 
 probably, toward the middle or end of the third century. This point 
 will be more fully discussed hereafter. 
 
 ^ In speaking of Han pottery, it should be understood that in this case the term 
 “Han” does not refer to the chronologically exact boundaries of a dynastic period, 
 but to an archceological epoch, a certain phase of ancient Chinese art, which is 
 not necessarily gauged by the dates 206 B.c. and a.d. 220. There is naturally 
 an overlapping at both ends, and we have, at least for the present, no means of 
 determining exactly either the beginning or the end of Han art. This much seems 
 certain, that the middle and the latter part of the third century a.d. have thor- 
 oughly remained under the influence of Han tradition. 
 
82 
 
 Beginnings of Porcelain 
 
 On my return to America, two objects remained to be pursued in 
 connection with this new material, — first, to secure the co-operation 
 of a competent investigator for a chemical analysis of the body and 
 glaze of this pottery; and, second, to search in other museums for 
 corresponding specimens. My colleague Mr. Nichols, assistant curator 
 of geology in the Field Museum, volunteered to undertake the technical 
 task, and he has carried it out with rare devotion and perseverance. 
 His experiments were conducted, and his results were obtained, in 
 1912. From the date of our publication it will be seen that we were 
 not in a hurry to bring it to the notice of the world. We allowed it to 
 rest and to mature, and discussed the new problems with each other 
 and with ceramic experts at frequent intervals. Their friendly interest 
 and advice at last encouraged us to make known the results of our 
 research, which we trust will be of some utility to students interested 
 A.^ithe history of Chinese pottery. 
 
 In regard to kindred objects in other collections, I have been able 
 to obtain the following information. Mr. Francis Stewart Kershaw 
 of the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, Mass., who saw the pieces of 
 pottery in question in the Field Museum, mentioned to me that similar 
 specimens were in the Boston Museum. On sending him some frag- 
 ments from our material for comparison with that under his care, he 
 wrote as follows:^ 
 
 “The bits of potsherd are quite large enough to tell me their story, 
 and I am very much obliged for them. Except in hardness, they are 
 similar to the clay of three of our pieces, being of the same color, texture, 
 and apparent constituents. Two of our pieces were bought in China 
 by Mr. Okakura, and both were labelled ‘Sung’ by some Chinese 
 (probably a dealer). Okakura called one (12875) which is covered 
 with a blackish shaded gray-green glaze, opaque and dull, ‘Sung.’ 
 The second (12865), which is precisely similar in potting, clay, and 
 glaze, to your Han porcelanous jars, Okakura called ‘T'ang.’ Mr. 
 Freer, by the way, has a vase like 12865, which he calls ‘T'ang.’^ The 
 third of our pieces (12118) was bought from Mr. C. F. Gammon (for- 
 merly a lieutenant in the United States Army), who obtained it in 
 Nanking from a cooly, who had unearthed it while digging in a railway 
 cutting in Nanking. The jar was partly full of coins, all alike, of the 
 denomination ^pan Hang' M, issued in 175 b.c. in the reign of the 
 
 1 The letter is published here with Mr. Kershaw’s consent. 
 
 ^ This object was exhibited in the National Museum of Washington in 1912, 
 when a selection from the Freer Collection was temporarily shown. I then had 
 occasion to see it. It is not a T'ang production, but of exactly the same type as 
 our early porcelanous ware. 
 
Introductory 
 
 83 
 
 Emperor Wen. Mr. Gammon told me that he had bought the jar 
 on the spot where it was found. The jar itself, like the others belong- 
 ing to us, was welded or coiled up by hand before a summary smooth- 
 ing-off on the wheel. It had four loop handles, finger-modelled, at 
 the shoulder (two only of these remain), and was glazed in a thin 
 running blackish-green, of which the little that still adheres is for the 
 most part oxidized to dull brownish-ochre. The clay is softer than 
 your shards, and softer, too, than that of 12865 or 12875; but it seems 
 to be quite the same in all other respects. It has the same admixture 
 of black and occasional white particles in the mass of gray, the same 
 unevenly ferruginous surface, and the same occasional thickening of 
 that surface. The jar is much less well potted than your pieces and 
 ours. Perhaps it is more primitive; that is, it may be an early example 
 of the method used so expertly in making your jars and ours. Perhaps, 
 on the other hand, it is simply cruder; that is, the potter may have 
 used a well-known and well-developed method carelessly in making 
 an unimportant vessel. Who knows? I incline toward the latter 
 possibility. 
 
 “I dated the jar ‘Han’ because of the evidence of the coins found 
 in it. Now, emboldened by your ascription of the date to the porce- 
 lanous jars, I shall classify No. 12865 the Han period or shortly 
 after. As regards 12875, because of its different glaze and an obscure 
 device impressed on its shoiolder, I am not yet sure.” 
 
 At my request Mr. Kershaw was good enough to send me for ex- 
 amination the pan-liang copper coins, twenty-one all together, found in 
 Mr. Gammon’s jar. They all proved to be authentic, as particularly 
 determined by close comparison with numerous corresponding issues 
 in the Chalfant coin collection, and to have been issued under the Han.^ 
 The presence of this batch of coins in that vessel is, of comse, no abso- 
 lute proof warranting us in assigning the vessel to the early Han period, 
 as these coins may still have been in circulation long after Plan times. 
 In 1901 I found in actual circulation at Si-ngan fu Han copper coins 
 with the legend wu chu. A collection of twenty-one Han pan-liang 
 coins in a single jar would rather hint at a high appreciation of this 
 money, and such is rather more probable in post-Han than in Han 
 times. At any rate, the exclusive presence of a single Han issue, 
 together with the absence of any later coin, would seem to favor a 
 period approaching very closely the age of the Han. 
 
 1 Money with this legend, weighing exactly half an ounce {pan-liang), was 
 first issued under the Ts'in (see Chavannes, Memoires historiques de Se-ma Ts'ien, 
 Vol. Ill, pp. 539, 542). 
 
84 
 
 Beginnings oe Porcelain 
 
 Several similar pieces have been collected by Mr. Orvar Karlbeck, 
 an official of the Tientsin-Pukow Railway, residing at Chu-chou, 
 Ngan-hui Province. This gentleman, in the course of several years’ 
 residence in China, has formed a very interesting collection of ancient 
 pottery, that consists of 144 pieces. I did not have occasion to see 
 it, but, judging from photographs and descriptions which he has been 
 good enough to send me, he seems to own several bits such as are here 
 under consideration. 
 
 Mr. R. L. Hobson, the prominent expert in pottery of the British 
 Museum, while visiting Chicago in January, 1913, and doing me the 
 honor of studying the collections under my care, called my attention 
 to two early jars of similar glazes which were found at Black Rock Hill 
 in Fu-chou, and are now preserved in the British Museum. They 
 are sketched and described by H. F. Holt.^ They are oval-shaped 
 jars, with short necks and straight rims, a pair of loop handles (in 
 one piece double handles) being stuck on to the shoulders. They are 
 described as being made “of a grayish clay resembling almost stone- 
 ware, over which a coat of greenish-brown glaze has been coarsely laid; 
 a curved line at the bottom sharply defines where the glazing ended.” 
 The further remark, however, that the glaze is quite decomposed and 
 can easily be detached, would rather hint at this glaze being of a char- 
 acter different from that on our specimens, which, owing to its chemical 
 composition, is not capable of decomposition. The great antiquity 
 of these two jars is not doubtful: in shape and style they are true 
 descendants of Han pottery. Holt adduces an interesting piece of 
 evidence as to their age, — the fact that the grave in which they were 
 found was situated within the city- walls; and, as no burial within the 
 latter is permitted, they would seem to have been deposited there at a 
 time prior to the erection of the wall. He refers to the “Geography 
 of the Manchu Dynasty” {Ta Ts'ing i t'ung chi) as containing the 
 information that in a.d. 625 Fu-chou was a city of the first class. 
 
 Mr. Hobson was also good enough to read in manuscript Mr. 
 Nichols’s report, that follows, and to anticipate some of these results 
 in his admirable work “Chinese Pottery and Porcelain,”^ which denotes 
 decided progress in our knowledge of the entire subject, and is now 
 the best general handbook on porcelain. Referring to Mr. Nichols’s 
 analyses of the body and glaze of this pottery, Mr. Hobson states, 
 “The results show that the body is composed of a kaolin-like material 
 
 ^ On Chinese Cinerary Urns {Journal British Archaological Association, 
 Vol. XXVII, 1871, pp. 343-349, Plate XVII). 
 
 ^ Vol. I, p. 15 (New York and London, 1915). 
 
Introductory 
 
 85 
 
 (probably a kind of decomposed pegmatite), and is, in fact, an incipient 
 porcelain, lacking a sufficient grinding of the material. The glaze is 
 composed of the same material softened with powdered limestone and 
 colored with iron oxide. . . . The nature of the pottery, in spite 
 
 of its coarse grain and dark color, which is probably due in part to the 
 presence of iron in the clay, seems to show that the manufacture of 
 porcelain was not far distant.” 
 
 The report of Mr. Nichols is of sufficient importance and interest 
 to warrant its publication in full. It is divided into two parts. Part I 
 is devoted to a detailed investigation of the ancient porcelanous ware; 
 and, in order to render possible a comparison with the earlier Han 
 pottery, analysis of a green glaze from a bowl of Han pottery follows 
 in Part II. 
 
REPORT ON A TECHNICAL INVESTIGATION OF ANCIENT 
 CHINESE POTTERY 
 
 By H. W. Nichols 
 
 I. PORCELANOUS HaN PoTTERY 
 
 For the purpose of analysis, one fragment about two inches long and 
 two inches wide, and a number of smaller pieces, were examined. The 
 body of the ware, which is from three-sixteenths to one-quarter of an 
 inch thick, consists of a gray vitrified porous substance which contains 
 a few scattered black specks of minute size and glassy lustre. The body 
 is coated on the outside with a very thin opaque red slip, and on the 
 inside with a white engobe and a thick transparent greenish-yellow glaze. 
 
 Chemical Characters of the Body. — An analysis of the body from 
 which both the inner and outer glaze and engobe coats had been removed, 
 but with the black specks included, was made in the Museum laboratory. 
 
 Analysis of Body 
 
 Silica, SiOa 71.61 
 
 Alumina, AljOs 18.67 
 
 Iron oxide, FeO 3-57 
 
 Lime, CaO 0.59 
 
 Magnesia, MgO 0.33 
 
 Soda, Na20 4-43 
 
 Potash, KjO 1.37 
 
 100.57 
 
 When this is compared with other analyses, it must be remembered 
 that there are small ferruginous specks scattered through this body, 
 so that the iron content shown by the analysis is higher than that of 
 the true body substance. 
 
 Table Showing Analysis of Ancient Chinese Pottery 
 
 In comparison with that of modern Chinese and Japanese porcelains 
 
 Silica, SiOi . 
 
 A 
 
 71.61 
 
 . : 
 
 74-53 
 
 3 
 
 71-31 
 
 69 
 
 70 
 
 C 
 
 73-30 69 
 
 70.50 
 
 Alumina, AI 2 O 3 
 
 . 18.67 
 
 16.09 
 
 19-74 
 
 23.60 
 
 22.20 
 
 19.30 21.30 
 
 0 
 
 d 
 
 Iron oxide, FeO 
 
 • • 3-57 
 
 1.03 
 
 0.73 
 
 1.20 
 
 2 
 
 3.40 0.80 
 
 0.80 
 
 Lime, CaO . 
 
 • • 0.59 
 
 0,06 
 
 0. 17 
 
 0.30 
 
 0.80 
 
 0.60 I. 10 
 
 0.50 
 
 Magnesia, MgO 
 
 ■ • 0.33 
 
 0.25 
 
 2.04 
 
 0.20 
 
 trace 
 
 trace trace 
 
 trace 
 
 ■ Soda, Na20 
 
 • • 4-43 
 
 1. 19 
 
 0. 10 
 
 3-30 
 
 3.60 
 
 2.50 3.40 
 
 j 6.00 
 
 1 Potash, K 2 O 
 
 1-37 
 
 4-37 
 
 4.04 
 
 2,90 
 
 2.70 
 
 2.30 1.80 
 
 Explanation of Table 
 
 A. — Ancient porcelanous Chinese pottery in question, analysis by H. W. Nichols. 
 
 B. — Modern Japanese porcelains, analyses by H. A. Seger (see his Collected Writings, Vol. II, 
 
 p. 686). 
 
 C. — Modern Chinese porcelains, analyses by A. Salv£tat, contained in the work of S. Julien, 
 Histoire et fabrication de la porcelaine chinoise, p. Lxxxvi (Paris, 1856). . 
 
 TlublsUe ihouip iKi? uri/ucs I o/QfK. 
 
 b i) dCl ! e f;</ 
 
 ( 
 
 
Technical Investigation of Chinese Pottery 87 
 
 The analysis proves that this body has all the chemical characters 
 of a true porcelain. Its resemblance to the analyses of Japanese porce- 
 lains made by Seger^ is remarkable. 
 
 The silica and alumina both fall within the rather narrow limits 
 set by Seger for this ware. The important deviations from the com- 
 position of Japanese porcelain are precisely those which characterize 
 modern Chinese porcelains. These are; the high content of iron, in 
 this instance of little significance; the high alkali content; and the 
 excess of potash over soda. An important feature in the composition 
 of porcelain and pottery bodies is the silica-alumina ratio. The ware 
 presents, in this feature, a decidedly Japanese aspect. The Chinese 
 porcelains analyzed by Salvetat generally are higher in alumina, and 
 lower in silica, than this specimen and the Japanese bodies. The 
 analyses of Chinese porcelain indicate a decidedly variable composition, 
 as might be expected from Julien’s description of the rather haphazard 
 way in which the mixtures are made. In respect to this silica-alumina 
 ratio, which sharply distinguishes Oriental from Occidental porcelains, 
 the ancient bit of pottery under consideration comes distinctly into the 
 Oriental class. 
 
 The quantity of alkali is essentially the same as in Salv^tat’s analyses 
 of modern Chinese porcelains. Salvetat’s average is 5.59%, while 
 this ware contains 5.80%. The quantity of iron in some of Salv^tat’s 
 specimens is essentially as great as that of this specimen. The varia- 
 tion among themselves of the analyses of modern Chinese porcelain 
 is fully as great as the difference between these and the pottery under 
 discussion. As the chemical composition of the ware is that of a good 
 porcelain, the reason it failed to make a fine ware must be sought in 
 those physical features which are consequent on the handling of the 
 materials during manufacture, and not in any qualities inherent in 
 the nature of the materials themselves. 
 
 Physical Characters of the Body. — The body is composed of a 
 gray vitrified material, with the slightly greasy lustre characteristic of 
 some varieties of vitrified ware. Under an ordinary hand magnifying- 
 glass, it appears as a kind of solidified froth composed of pores enclosed 
 by thin walls of a translucent porcelain-like substance. These pores 
 are elongated, so that there is a well-defined laminated structure. 
 There are numerous inclusions of a black and glassy iron slag. Each of 
 these glassy inclusions surrounds a minute spherical bubble. Through- 
 out the body there are angular patches of lighter and darker gray which 
 are vestiges of coarse particles in the mixture from which the body 
 
 * Collected Writings, V'ol. II, pp. 687 and 716. 
 
88 
 
 Beginnings of Porcelain 
 
 was burned. In thin fragments the material is somewhat translucent. 
 A somewhat thick micro-section transmits light as freely as do man y 
 rock-sections, although confusion from the overlapping of much fine 
 detail does not permit a very profitable study of the section. 
 
 It is not possible to teU from the examination of any well-burned 
 vitrified ware whether the mixture from which it is burned is of natural 
 or artificial origin. It would not be at all impossible, although per- 
 haps a task of some difficulty, to find along the outcrop of some peg- 
 matite dike kaolin-like material from which a body identical with this 
 might be burned. The Japanese, formerly at any rate, burned their 
 wares from a single clay, while the Chinese use a mixture. This ware 
 might have been prepared either way. 
 
 The raw material contained iron-bearing minerals in coarse grains 
 only. Each grain has left its individual splash of glassy black slag. 
 The absence of any marked tone of buff, green, or yellow in the color of 
 the mass indicates that there was no important quantity of finely-divided 
 ferruginous mineral present. A simple and crude washing would have 
 eliminated the iron-bearing minerals. Although the pottery does not 
 look at all like porcelain, the only real point of difference, as far as 
 the body is concerned, is the porosity of the ware. This porosity seems 
 to be due to the use of too coarsely ground material, with not enough 
 fine to fill the interspaces. It is a porcelain froth. 
 
 The Outside Red Glaze. — The red glaze on the outside is very 
 thin. Its surface is rough and interrupted by numerous minute black 
 blotches, where ferruginous minerals from the body have penetrated. 
 The glaze is very uniformly distributed. It has not run during firing, 
 nor has it crazed since. It is in as good condition to-day, as on the 
 day it was made. It has, as well as may be determined under a power- 
 ful magnifying-glass, the structure, or rather lack of structure, of a 
 uniform, translucent, vitrified mass. It seems to be a simple slip 
 of some good red-burning clay. It is so thin that a sample for analysis 
 could not be obtained. Between the red coating and the body is a 
 white engobe coat. This nowhere exceeds one-tenth of a millimetre 
 in thickness. It differs from the similar coating under the transparent 
 glaze of the inside of the vessel only in its greater thinness and in the 
 possession of a slight pinkish color, apparently absorbed from the 
 overlying glaze. In places this coat becomes very thin and even 
 occasionally disappears. 
 
 The Inside Glaze. — That surface of the fragment examined, 
 which corresponds to the inside of the vessel of which it formed a part, 
 is covered with a transparent glaze upon a porcelain-like engobe. 
 This engobe coat is thicker than that upon the outside of the vessel. 
 
Technical Investigation of Chinese Pottery 89 
 
 Its average thickness is one-quarter millimetre, but this thickness is 
 very variable. Although it is not pure white in color, it is of a dis- 
 tinctly lighter gray than the body; also it differs from the body, in 
 that it is compact and free from pores. When examined under a 
 hand magnifying-glass, it seems to be very sharply and distinctly sep- 
 arated from the body. When examined as a thin section under the 
 microscope, the sharp line of demarcation disappears, as well as 
 the difference in color. It then seems to be of the same material as the 
 body freed from ferruginous particles and from coarse grains, so that 
 it has vitrified into a dense non-porous body. The object of such a 
 coating as this is twofold: it provides a light-colored background for 
 the transparent glaze, whereby its brilliancy is enhanced; and it provides 
 an impervious support for the glaze, which otherwise might be absorbed 
 into the pores of the body during the firing. The appearance of the 
 material, when viewed in the form of a micro-section, suggests that 
 this coat is merely the result of floating the finer particles of the mix 
 to the surface during the process of forming the vessel. This would 
 ordinarily be accomplished by the friction of the hand or of some tool. 
 But the coating under the more fusible glaze, where its presence is 
 imperative, is much thicker than that under the less fusible glaze, 
 where the necessity for it is much less. The way the coarse particles 
 of the body project through the red glaze is difficult to understand on 
 the theory of a floated surface; and there are no signs of dragging along 
 the surface of those coarse particles which lie immediately under the 
 surface; also it would be difficult to float so much fine material when the 
 deficiency of this matter is such as to leave so many voids in the interior. 
 The preponderance of evidence indicates that this material is an engobe 
 coat put on possibly by dipping, but more probably by spraying. In 
 both its physical and chemical aspect, this coat is a true porcelain. 
 
 The glaze is a greenish-yellow glass, brown in the thicker places. 
 It is of variable thickness, as it ran badly during firing. Aside from 
 this serious deficiency, it is a remarkably good glaze. It still adheres 
 firmly to the body, and there has been no chipping or scaling. The 
 crazing takes the form of a fine and uniform network of cracks. 
 The brilliancy is very great, and there is no sign of devitrification. The 
 attainment of these qualities, especially the continued perfect adhesion, 
 which necessitates a very nice adjustment of the coefficients of expan- 
 sion of body and glaze, indicates that the potters had already attained 
 a high degree of skill. Running of a glaze of this type during firing is 
 a condition unusually difficult to contend with. The color almost 
 certainly identifies this glaze as a lime-alumina-iron silicate, and this 
 is verified by an analysis made in the Museum laboratories. 
 
90 
 
 Beginnings of Porcelain 
 
 Analysis of the Glaze 
 
 Silica. Si02 54-17 
 
 Alumina, AI2O3 14.16 
 
 Iron oxide, FeO 4.36 
 
 Lime, CaO 19 05 
 
 Magnesia, MgO 2.04 
 
 Soda, Na20 5.49 
 
 Potash, K2O 0.00 
 
 99.27 
 
 This is obviously an alkali-lime-iron-alumina silicate glaze. This 
 is so purely a Chinese type, that it is useless to compare it with any but 
 Chinese glazes. Even the Japanese glazes differ materially from those 
 of the Chinese, being intermediate in character between these and the 
 European. Those Chinese porcelain glazes the analyses of which have 
 been examined are all white, and hence free or nearly so from iron. 
 The influence of iron on a glaze is very great, and extends to nearly all 
 its properties. Hence, in modifying a yellow glaze to a white one, 
 there is much to do in the way of readjusting the proportions of all the 
 elements, besides removing the iron. Therefore the close correspond- 
 ence which appeared among the several body analyses will not be found 
 to hold between the yellow and the colorless glazes, even if one has been 
 derived from the other. 
 
 Comparative Table of Chinese Glazes 
 
 
 A 
 
 B 
 
 C 
 
 Silica, Si02 ' 
 
 • - ■ • 5417 
 
 68 
 
 64. 1 
 
 Alumina, AI2O3 . . . . 
 
 
 12 
 
 10.2 
 
 Iron oxide, FeO ... 
 
 . . . . 4.38 
 
 traces 
 
 traces 
 
 Lime, CaO 
 
 . . . . 19.05 
 
 14 
 
 21 
 
 Magnesia, MgO . . . . 
 
 . 2.04 
 
 not determined 
 
 Alkali, NajO, K2O . . . 
 
 . . . . 5.49 
 
 6 
 
 5 
 
 Explanation of Table 
 
 A. — Ancient Chinese pottery glaze, analysis by H. W. Nichols. 
 
 B and C. — Modem Chinese porcelain glazes, analyses by A. SALviiTAT (1. c., p. 132). 
 
 The glaze on porcelain is thin, and Salvetat evidently had difficulty 
 in securing enough material for a thorough analysis. The examples 
 given in the table are sufficient to show that all these glazes are of the 
 same character. 
 
 A comparison of the compositions of glaze and body suggests that 
 the glaze has been prepared by mixing the material of the body with 
 pulverized limestone. A brief calculation of the quantitative relations 
 between the several elements of body and glaze confirms this impression 
 in such a manner that there can remain no doubt as to the mode of 
 
Technical Investigation of Chinese Pottery 91 
 
 preparation of the glaze. It must have been made by the addition of 
 approximately one part of limestone, or the lime burned from it, to 
 two parts of the clay from which the body was prepared. It is also 
 possible, but not certain, that small quantities of soda and oxide of 
 iron were added to rectify minor defects. 
 
 The calculation follows: It is assumed that the limestone is a pure, 
 more or less magnesian, limestone, such as would naturally be employed. 
 The limestone is taken to be somewhat magnesian, partly from inspec- 
 tion of the analyses, and partly because a non-magnesian limestone is 
 rather an unusual rock. As such a limestone is practically free from 
 silica, the silica of the glaze must come from the clay, and the ratio 
 of the silicas in body and glaze will give a measure of the quantity of 
 clay used in the mixture. As the body contains 71.61% silica, and the 
 glaze 54.17%, it is evident that, ignoring for the present losses in 
 burning, 75.66 parts of clay were used per 100 parts of glaze. The 
 following table may then be readily calculated: 
 
 Table showing Relations between the Composition of the Glaze and of 
 A Mixture of 75.66% of the Pottery Body with 24.34% of Lime 
 
 
 BODY 
 
 75 - 66 % 
 OF BODY 
 
 GLAZE 
 
 DIFFER- 
 
 ENCE 
 
 LIME- 
 
 STONE 
 
 EXCESS 
 
 Silica, Si02 
 
 . 71.61 
 
 54-17 
 
 54-17 
 
 0.00 
 
 
 0.00 
 
 Alumina, AI 2 O 3 
 
 . 18.67 
 
 14. 12 
 
 14.16 
 
 —0.04 
 
 
 — 0.04 
 
 Iron oxide, FeO . 
 
 • 3-57 
 
 2.70 
 
 4-36 
 
 1.66 
 
 
 1 .66 
 
 Lime, CaO 
 
 • 0.59 
 
 0.45 
 
 19-05 
 
 18.60 
 
 18.60 
 
 0.00 
 
 Magnesia, MgO . 
 
 • 0.33 
 
 0.25 
 
 2.04 
 
 1-79 
 
 1-79 
 
 0.00 
 
 Soda, Na20 
 
 • 4-43 
 
 3-35 
 
 5-49 
 
 2 . 14 
 
 
 2.14 
 
 Potash, K 2 O . 
 
 • 1-37 
 
 1 .04 
 
 0.00 
 
 — 1 .04 
 
 
 — 1 .04 
 
 Carbonic Acid, CO 2 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 16-54 
 
 
 
 100.57 
 
 76.08 
 
 99.27 
 
 
 36-93 
 
 
 In the column marked “excess” are recorded the differences between 
 the actual and computed compositions of the glaze. These differences 
 are trifling. The absence of potash from the glaze is in line with the 
 known volatilization of potash from the surface of wares subject to 
 the kiln fires. 
 
 The slight excess of iron oxide and soda in the mixture is not sur- 
 prising, as crude, untreated earths of the kind used are by no means 
 uniform in composition, and greater discrepancies than this are to be 
 expected in analyses of consecutive batches of such material. Especially 
 common is such an interchange of potash and soda as appears in this 
 instance. The correspondences between figures and theory are, in 
 fact, so close, that it is probable that the material employed was care- 
 fully selected by such physical characters as color, texture, etc. 
 
92 
 
 Beginnings of Porcelain 
 
 It is of course possible that the potters had learned to adjust the 
 qualities of the glaze by small additions of alkali and iron oxide. Slight 
 variations in the quantity of either of these substances greatly influence 
 the physical properties of the glaze. 
 
 This table cannot give more than a rough approximation of the 
 quantities of the two ingredients of the mixture, as the losses of volatile 
 matter in both limestone and clay during burning cannot be computed 
 with accuracy. The table suggests that not far from one part of lime- 
 stone to two parts of clay were employed. We may safely conclude 
 that this glaze was made by adding pulverized limestone, lime, or 
 milk of lime to the material from which the body of the pottery 
 was made. The modern Chinese glaze for porcelain is made by mixing 
 lime with one of the two ingredients of which they make the body. 
 This process seems to be peculiar to China. 
 
 Conclusions. — At the time this ware was made, the potters had 
 already acquired a high degree of dexterity. Many of the things that 
 they accomplished in the fabrication of this pottery required technical 
 skill of no mean order. The engobe coat, without which no satisfactory 
 glaze could be made upon so porous a ware, was used. The expansion 
 of the glaze has been very accurately adjusted to that of the body. 
 The glaze is remarkably brilliant for one free from lead. The glaze 
 has no large bubbles, nor are small bubbles numerous enough to cloud 
 the ware. On the other hand, they made the glaze too thick, and they 
 could not prevent it from running during the firing. 
 
 With potters as skilful as these, the discovery of methods of over- 
 coming the porosity of the ware, and thus making it a true porcelain, 
 should be only a matter of time. As the engobe coat is porcelain, it 
 is quite possible that the knowledge was not lacking even at that time. 
 They may not have realized that a dense ware would be worth the 
 great expense involved in grinding the materials to the necessary 
 fineness by the crude methods then available, and in the control of the 
 drying and firing methods to prevent distortion of the ware. 
 
 II. Analysis of a Green Glaze from a Bowl of Han Pottery 
 
 This is a brilliant glassy glaze of a bottle-green color from a Han 
 pottery bowl (Cat. No. 118578). It is thickly applied over a red 
 porous body. 
 
 It is believed that the material selected for analysis correctly 
 represents the original unaltered glaze. The glaze with its red backing 
 was crushed to fragments of about a millimetre average size, and clear 
 unaltered fragments were selected after scrutiny under a powerful 
 
Technical Investigation or Chinese Pottery 
 
 93 
 
 glass. These fragments were freed from the adhering films of red 
 earthy matter by use of forceps and a fine file. As finally prepared, 
 the glass showed no altered material, nor any but a few unweighable 
 traces of earthy matter. 
 
 The analysis gives: 
 
 Silica, Si02 29.91 
 
 Lead oxide, PbO 65.45 
 
 Iron oxide, FeO 0.81 
 
 Copper oxide, CuO 2.60 
 
 Lime, CaO 0.94 
 
 Alkalies, Na20, K2O 0.00 
 
 99-51 
 
 This gives the molecular formula: 
 
 I RO : 1.4 Si02 or nearly 5 RO. 7 SiOj. 
 
 The traces of iron and lime are obviously impurities. 
 
 This is a simple lead silicate colored by copper, and is utterly tmlike 
 any glaze of which I have any analysis, the nearest approach to it being 
 the alkali-lead silicate which seems to have been an ordinary glaze in 
 all countries. The omission of alkali places this glaze in a very differ- 
 ent class. It could be easily and simply compounded, as there are but 
 three ingredients, — some lead salt (perhaps red lead or white lead), a 
 pure white sand, and a small quantity of some copper compound for 
 coloring. 
 
 Professor R. T. Stull, Acting Director of the Ceramic Department 
 of the University of Illinois, has been good enough to supply the fol- 
 lowing additional information on the preceding analysis: 
 
 “I am very much interested in the data you present on the early 
 Chinese glaze. I have calculated an approximate empirical formula 
 from the analysis, which gives: 
 
 .827 PbO 
 
 .093 CuO 1.408 SiOj 
 .049 CaO 
 .031 FeO 
 
 “This approximates closely the theoretical formula: 
 
 'iCuoj i-SSi02 = 2R0. 3Si02 
 
 A glaze can be made by mixing the following materials, which would 
 be very similar to the Chinese glaze when first made: 
 
 Red lead 
 
 205 
 
 Copper oxide 
 
 8 
 
 Potter’s flint 
 
 90 
 
94 
 
 Beginnings of Porcelain 
 
 It is quite probable that the Chinese glaze was originally made by 
 mixing together three ingredients, — a lead compound, a copper com- 
 pound, and a form of silica. The iron and lime present were probably 
 impurities existing in the raw materials used in making the glaze. 
 A glaze of this type (which is in reality a glass, since glazes generally 
 contain alumina) fuses at a very low temperature, is very brilliant, 
 has a high specific gravity, high index of refraction, and high coefficient 
 of expansion; and is easily dissolved by chemical agents (comparatively 
 so). Owing to the high coefficient of expansion, the glaze is very 
 susceptible to crazing. The glaze could be improved by the addition 
 of alumina in the form of clay, which would lower the coefiicient of 
 expansion, thus reducing crazing, and would make the glaze more 
 resistant to the weathering action or to chemical agents. In good 
 glaze practice, it is customary to introduce an alkali in some form, 
 although good glazes can be produced without the use of alkali. One 
 glaze being used for glazing roofing tile has the formula: 
 
 .9 PbO 
 
 .15 AI2O3 1.6 Si02, 
 
 .1 CuO 
 
 which is very similar to the Chinese glaze plus AI2O3. A mixture which 
 will produce this glaze is: 
 
 Red lead 205 
 
 Copper oxide 8 
 Ball clay 39 
 
 Potter’s flint 78 
 
 If the Chinese glaze has been disintegrated by long exposure, the 
 alkalis would naturally be leached out partially, if not entirely.”^ 
 
 1 The material for analysis was carefully-picked, unaltered fragments [h.w.n.]. 
 
HISTORICAL OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS 
 
 The preceding report of Mr. Nichols leaves no doubt that the 
 pottery in question, as confirmed by Mr. Hobson, is a porcelanous or 
 porcelain-like ware, as regards the composition of both body and glaze. 
 It is a forerunner of true porcelain; it represents one of the initial or 
 primitive stages of development through which porcelain must have 
 passed before it could reach that state of perfection for which the 
 Chinese product gained fame throughout the world. The history of 
 porcelain has been singularly exposed to misrepresentations and mis- 
 understandings, chiefly for the reason that Chinese accounts of the 
 subject are obscure, enigmatic, and, moreover, disappointingly meagre 
 and unsatisfactory. In his eminently critical and excellent work, 
 Hobson has done a great deal to eradicate many of the old supersti- 
 tions. It was obvious that the problem of the origin of porcelain could 
 be solved only by archaeological, not by philological, methods; and it 
 is due to the investigations of Mr. Nichols that we may now for the 
 first time formulate certain opinions regarding the beginnings of porce- 
 lain, which are grounded on matter-of-fact observation, and not on 
 a more or less arbitrary interpretation of texts. Therefore the question 
 may first be discussed from an archeological viewpoint; and then it 
 remains to be seen whether, with the result thus obtained, Chinese 
 traditions may not be better and more profitably understood. 
 
 Before attempting to determine the date of the “Han” porcelanous 
 ware, it will be useful to raise the question whether there is now a 
 possibility of dating the first manufacture of true porcelain. I shall 
 not insist on the evidence deduced by Bushell and Hobson from Chinese 
 sources, to the effect that porcelain was made under the T'ang dynasty 
 (618-906) as early as the beginning of the seventh century. Refer- 
 ence will be made to only one source which has not yet been enlisted 
 for the study of the question, and then we may proceed to archaeological 
 evidence. 
 
 An incontrovertible proof for the existence of porcelain in the 
 seventh century is contained in the memorable account of the Buddhist 
 pilgrim I-tsing (635-713), who visited India from 671 to 695. In dis- 
 cussing the utensils to be utilized by the monks of India, I-tsing speaks 
 also of Indian earthenware vessels, and remarks, “In India, there was 
 originally neither porcelain {ts'e ^) nor lacquer. Porcelain, if glazed, 
 is no doubt clean. Lacquered articles are sometimes brought to India 
 
 95 
 
96 
 
 Beginnings of Porcelain 
 
 by traders.”^ It is evident beyond cavil that I-tsing understands 
 the word ts'e in this passage in the sense of porcelain with which he 
 was famihar in his native country. He could most assuredly not mean 
 to say that pottery was originally unknown in India, for in more than 
 one case he himself refers to Indian pottery or earthenware {wa S), 
 which could not escape the attention of a keen observer like him. 
 He expressly avails himself of the word ts'e in this passage, advisedly 
 in contradistinction to the word wa used previously, and connects it 
 with another characteristic product through which China then became 
 widely known, — lacquer. He does not state explicitly that porcelain, 
 in the same manner as lacquer- ware, was then imported from China 
 into India; but this fact may be inferred from the statement made in 
 the beginning of Chapter VI, that “earthenware and porcelain {wa ts'e 
 are used for the clean jar” (that is, the jar containing the water 
 for drinking-pxuposes).^ This passage is sufficient evidence for the 
 fact that porcelain was then found in India; and also his statement 
 that porcelain did not originally exist in India seems to imply that it 
 occurred there at the time of the author’s visit. He does not speak 
 of porcelain as a new, but as a familiar, production; and he must 
 certainly have seen it in China before the year 671, the date of his 
 departure for India. Judging from I-tsing’s memoirs, porcelain, accord- 
 ingly, must have existed in China during the latter half of the seventh 
 century. At the same time, it was exported into India; and this 
 harmonizes with the observation made in the T'ao shuo, that porcelain 
 bowls were widely distributed abroad from the time of the T'ang 
 dynasty (618-906).® 
 
 The testimony of the Arabic merchant Soleyman, who in 851 wrote 
 his “Chain of Chronicles,” must be regarded as one of the most 
 weighty to prove the existence in China of true porcelain in the 
 age of the T'ang, during the ninth century. In the translation of 
 
 1 J. Takakusu, a Record of the Buddhist Religion as practised in India by 
 I-tsing, p. 36 (Oxford, 1896); Japanese edition of the text, Vol. I, p. 17 a. 
 
 ^ L.C., p. 27: text, Vol. I, p. 12 a. 
 
 * T'ao shuo, Ch. 5, p. 2 b (edition with movable types, published 1913): S. W. 
 Bushell, Description of Chinese Pottery and Porcelain, p. 104. — According to 
 W. Crooke (Natives of Northern India, p. 136, London, 1907), common clay pots, 
 owing to their perishable character, are little valued in India, “and caste prejudices 
 prevent the use of the finer kinds of pottery. Hence no artistic industry like that 
 of china has flourished in India, although kaolin and other suitable kinds of clay are 
 in some places abundant.” We have a formal judgment on Indian pottery from 
 the Buddhist monk Yuan Ying, who in his Yi ts'ie king yin i (Ch. 18, p. 7; see p. 115), 
 written about a.d. 649, remarks that the state of culture is so low in the Western 
 Regions that finer pottery cannot be made there, and that only unbumt bricks 
 and vessels fired without glaze are turned out. 
 
Historical Observations and Conclusions 97 
 
 M. Reinaud/ he reports that “there is in China a very fine clay 
 from which are made vases having the transparency of glass bottles; 
 water in these vases is visible through them, and yet they are made 
 of clay. 
 
 The presence of china in the India of the seventh century, and the 
 acquaintance of the Arabs with transparent porcelain in the ninth 
 century, based on literary sources, naturally raise the question whether 
 this documentary evidence is corroborated by any archagological facts. 
 Such have heretofore been lacking; but an important discovery due to 
 the excavations of F. Sarre and E. Herzfeld in the ruins of Samarra, 
 the former residence of the Caliphs, is fortunately apt to settle satis- 
 factorily this much-disputed question. The report of these remarkable 
 finds has recently been published.* According to F. Sarre, who care- 
 fully figures and describes these objects, they belong to a period which 
 is well determined by the years a.d. 838 and 883. The ceramic speci- 
 mens exhumed in Samarra fall into two classes, — those imported from 
 eastern Asia, and those potted locally for home-consumption. Among 
 the former we are confronted with a material which in general must be 
 designated as stoneware, but which, to use the words of Sarre, partially 
 approaches porcelain to such a high degree that it may straightway be 
 styled “porcelain.” In the latter case, the body of the vessels cannot 
 be scratched by steel, is almost white, transparent in thin places, the 
 shards being dense, and hard like shell. The smooth and brilliant 
 glaze is evenly applied, and so closely linked with the body that both 
 can but have been fired simultaneously, — characteristic qualities of 
 genuine East-Asiatic porcelain. Besides fragments of more or less 
 coarse and shallow bowls, whose low rim around the bottom is ground 
 off, those of finer ware have also come to light; thus, for instance, a 
 fragmentary oval cup decorated with a fish in relief, surrounded by 
 wave designs and birds on the wing. Judging from the author’s 
 description and the very excellent illustrations, there is no room for 
 
 ^ Relation des voyages faits par les Arabes et les Persans dans I’lnde et ^ la 
 Chine, Vol. I, p. 34. 
 
 ’ The report of Soleyman is in full accord with the Chinese notices of T'ang 
 pottery. In the beginning of the T'ang dynasty (618), vases of a white clay, with 
 thin body of white and brilliant color, were made by a potter of the name T'ao, 
 in the village Chung-siu, belonging to King-te-chen; they were styled “imitation 
 jade utensils,” and sent as tribute to the Court. Similar vessels were turned out 
 simultaneously by Ho Chung-ch'u from the village Tung-shan {King te chen t'ao 
 lu, Ch. 5, p. I b; JULiEN, Histoire, pp. 81, 82). It is notable that both potters 
 were rural residents, and that their work possessed sufficient quality to earn imperial 
 approbation. 
 
 ® F. Sarre, Die Kleinfunde von Samarra und ihre Ergebnisse fur das islamische 
 Kunstgewerbe des 9. Jahrhunderts {Der Islam, Vol. V, 1914, pp. 180-195, 4 plates). 
 
98 
 
 Beginnings of Porcelain 
 
 doubt that the piece in question is of real, white porcelain, and that it 
 affords an example of the hitherto lost porcelain of the T'ang period. 
 T'ang porcelain is thus raised into the rank of plain fact. Soleyman’s 
 testimony proves true. 
 
 The date of this specimen is indubitable, and meets a welcome 
 confirmation from two green and white glazed dishes of pottery^ secured 
 in the same locality. Without having any clew to their provenience, 
 the writer, who through his researches in China is somewhat familiar 
 with this and similar ware, would not hesitate for a moment to diagnose 
 them as Chinese productions of the epoch of the T’ang. Mr. Sarre is 
 perfectly correct in calling attention to the fact that pieces of identical 
 technique are preserved in the Imperial Treasury of Nara in Japan, 
 and that T'ang clay statuettes are formed of the same material. An- 
 other discovery of no less importance, for which we are indebted to 
 Mr. Sarre’s energy, is a group of celadon-like stoneware, one of which, 
 bearing the design of a fish scratched in under the glaze, is reproduced 
 in his report. The facts brought out by Mr. Sarre’s researches are of 
 such far-reaching consequence, that he is entitled to a just claim to oxrr 
 lasting gratitude. Above all, he has succeeded in safely establishing 
 the fundamental fact that porcelain was made in China under the 
 T'ang; and that Chinese porcelain, as well as non-porcelanous pottery, 
 was exported in the ninth century into the Empire of the Caliphs. 
 These conclusions embolden us and justify us in regarding the word 
 ts'e, whenever it appears in T'ang documents, as conveying the notion 
 of true porcelain, and in giving full credence to the account of I-tsing, 
 that India possessed Chinese porcelain during the seventh century.^ 
 Consequently it is at some earlier date that the beginnings of porce- 
 lain — those initiatory and preparatory steps finally leading up to the 
 perfection of the ware — must be sought for. Porcelain has been 
 discovered in Turkistan by Sir Aurel Stein.® 
 
 Our previous knowledge of references to T'ang porcelain was chiefly 
 based on the two modern works, the King te chen t'ao lu (first edition, 
 1815) and the T'ao shuo (1774). It remains to be ascertained, however, 
 from the contemporaneous records of the T'ang, whether these extracts 
 
 1 On Plate II in the article referred to. 
 
 ^ As shown by I-tsing, a clear distinction between common pottery and porce- 
 lain is made in T'ang literature. This is further evidenced by the frequent occur- 
 rence of the compound ts'e wa (“porcelain and stoneware”), for instance, in 
 
 the Yu yang tsa tsu (Ch. ii, p. 7 b; ed. of Pai hai) and in the Ta T'ang sin yii 
 WfWl (Ch. 13, p. 9; ed. of T'ang Sung ts'ung shu). 
 
 ^Ancient Khotan, Vol. I, pp. 461, 464 (see also Hobson, Chinese Pottery and 
 Porcelain, Vol. I, p. 149). It would be desirable that analyses be made and pub- 
 lished of Sarre’s and Stein’s porcelains. 
 
Historical Observations and Conclusions 
 
 99 
 
 are reliable and correctly reproduced. In the geographical chapters 
 of the T'ang Annals we find under each locality an enumeration of the 
 taxes in kind annually sent to the Court, and the T'ai p'ing huan yii ki 
 of Yo Shi gives a still more extensive list of the products of the empire 
 during that period. The following localities are known as having 
 produced porcelain under the T'ang; — 
 
 1. Hing chou ^'I'l (modem Shun-te fu in Chi-li) turned out white 
 
 porcelain vessels {T'ang shu, Ch. 39, p. 6; and T'ai p'ing huan 
 
 yii ki, Ch. 59, p. 5), which were accepted as taxes. 
 
 2. Ting chou S il'H in Chi-li {T'ai p'ing huan yii ki, Ch. 62, p. 4 b); 
 the T'ang Annals do not mention porcelain among its products. 
 
 3. Yu chou ® ilii (modem Yung-p'ing fu in Chi-li), according to 
 T'ai p'ing huan yii ki, Ch. 69, p. 6. 
 
 4. Jao chou jl'H in Kiang-si {T'ai p'ing huan yii ki, Ch. 107, 
 P- 3 )- 
 
 5. Yiie chou ^ il'M (modem Shao-hing fu in Che-kiang), according 
 to T'ang shu (Ch. 41, p. 4 b) and T'ai p'ing huan yii ki (Ch. 96, p. 5). 
 
 6. Ho-nan fu (according to T'ang leu tien, Ch. 3, p. 4 b, ed. of Kuang 
 ya shu kii, 1895; and T'ai p'ing huan yii ki, Ch. 3, p. 8b). 
 
 As may readily be seen from Julien’s translation (pp. 28 and 6), 
 only two of these localities (Nos. i and 5) are mentioned in the King 
 te chen t'ao lu as having produced porcelain under the T'ang (not, how- 
 ever, Nos. 2-4) ; while several others are so designated, which cannot be 
 verified from coeval documents.^ 
 
 As established by archaeological evidence, porcelain was an accom- 
 plished fact rmder the T'ang (618-906) ; and there is further good reason 
 to assume that it existed in the latter part of the sixth century.^ It is 
 futile, of course, to look for an inventor of porcelain, as has been done 
 by E. ZiMMERMANN.® This invention of an inventor of porcelain is a 
 romance, not history. Chinese records know absolutely nothing about 
 such an inventor, simply for the reason that he never existed. Porce- 
 lain is not an “invention,” that can be attributed to the efforts of an 
 
 1 In the writer’s forthcoming second part of Chinese Clay Figures will be found 
 a chapter on T'ang pottery. 
 
 ^ Bushell, Description of Chinese Pottery, p. xii; Hobson, Chinese Pottery 
 and Porcelain, Vol. I, p. 147. In 1844, during the negotiations preceding the 
 Franco-Chinese Treaty, one of the Chinese envoys, Chao Chang-li, well acquainted 
 with the antiquities of his country, assured N. Rondot that the manufacture of 
 porcelain could be traced back only as far as the middle of the sixth century (see 
 Journal China Branch Roy. Soc., Vol. XXXII, 1897-98, p. 73). 
 
 ® Orientalisches Archiv, Vol. II, 1911, pp. 30-34: and Chinesisches Porzellan, 
 p. 24. I strictly concur with Hobson (/. c., Vol. I, p. 145) in his criticism of Zim- 
 mermann’s hypothesis. 
 
lOO 
 
 Beginnings of Porcelain 
 
 individual; but it was a slow and gradual process of finding, groping, 
 and experimenting, the outcome of the united exertions of several cen- 
 turies and generations. We clearly observe a rising development of 
 porcelain from the T'ang to the Sung, Yuan, and Ming periods, till the 
 high perfection of the ware culminates in the K'ang-hi era. It is there- 
 fore logical to assume that preceding the age of the Sui (590-617) there 
 was a primitive stage of development which ultimately resulted in the 
 T'ang porcelain. This primeval porcelanous product was hitherto 
 unknown, but, as demonstrated by the researches of Mr. Nichols, its 
 existence is now proved in the nine vessels figured on Plates I and III-X, 
 with analogous specimens in the Boston Fine Arts Museum, the Freer 
 collection, and the British Museum. The tentative attributions 
 “T'ang” and “Sung” (p. 82) were based only on isolated cases, and 
 ventured as personal impressions; they were not grounded on the fact 
 of analytic study. The Han tradition of ceramic forms had completely 
 died out under the T'ang and Sung, to give way to more graceful and 
 pleasing shapes partially conceived under Iranian and Indian influences. 
 As has been shown, the objects in question decidedly breathe the spirit 
 of Han art in forms and decorative motives. There is good circumstan- 
 tial evidence in the case of the jug on Plate I, discovered in the same 
 grave with a Han cast-iron stove, and in that of the pan-liang coins of 
 the Boston jar. Nevertheless I am not convinced that we are entitled 
 to assign these vessels to the Later Han dynasty within its strict chrono- 
 logical boundaries (a.d. 25-220), as the predominant bulk of the kiln- 
 products turned out under the Han was common glazed and unglazed 
 pottery {wa Moreover, the new term ts'e applied to porce- 
 
 lanous ware, does not yet occur in the contemporaneous records of the 
 Han, at least such an occurrence has not yet been proved (see p. 102); 
 and this is the main reason which prompts me to the opinion that the 
 pottery in question was manufactured in post-Han times, say, roughly, 
 under the earlier Wei (22C5-264), or toward the middle or in the latter 
 part of the third century a.d.* * From a purely philological point of view, 
 
 1 This is the term employed for the burial pottery of the period in the Han 
 Annals {Hou Han shu, Ch. 16, p. 3). It is therefore out of the question that the 
 new term ts'e, as stated by Hobson ( 1 . c., Vol. I, p. 141, note), should refer to the 
 glazed pottery of the Han. Credit must be given also to the Chinese for their 
 correct feeling for their own language and their own antiquities: the present-day 
 Chinese style the glazed Han pottery liu-li wa (accordingly, with the same term 
 as employed in the Han Annals), while the term Han ts'e is applied to the porce- 
 lanous ware here described. In this case, Chinese feeling signifies a hundred times 
 more than all the hair-splitting and pedantic subtleties of European sinologues. 
 
 * It is curious that this result agrees with the opinion of Palladius (Chinese- 
 Russian Dictionary, Vol. II, p. 343), who held that the output of porcelain took 
 its beginning from the Tsin dynasty (263-420). 
 
Historical Observations and Conclusions 
 
 lOI 
 
 the term Han ts'e, applied to this pottery by Mr. Yen, is not justified. 
 From the standpoint of the archaeologist, however, it is perfectly correct; 
 for this pottery, as recognized by Mr. Yen with just instinct or intuition, 
 combines in itself two characteristic features, — the style of Han art, 
 and the technical character of porcelanous ware. It is justifiable to 
 regard it as a very early production, or even as one of the earliest, of 
 the ware styled ts'e. We might therefore say that porcelain ran through 
 its experimental stages for at least three centuries; and it seems to me a 
 reasonable conclusion that a development of such a length of time was 
 required until mature and highly finished products should ultimately 
 result. 
 
 It is possible also to make a plausible guess at the kiln, where the 
 nine vessels were produced. As has been pointed out, the jug in Plate I 
 was fotmd in a grave near the village Ma-kia-chai, 5 li north of the 
 town of Hien-yang ^ G&, the ancient capital of the Ts'in, belonging to 
 the prefecture of Si-ngan. The “Records of the Potteries of King-te-chen” 
 inform us that “under the earlier Wei dynasty (220-264) vases were 
 turned out at Kuan-chung BS corresponding to Hien-yang and 
 other places of the prefecture of Si-ngan, and that the output of this 
 kiln was intended for the use of the Court, and offered to the Emperor.” ^ 
 Thus it is not impossible that our ware was actually made in the district 
 of Hien-yang, or, taking the wider area, in the prefecture of Si-ngan. 
 If the passage quoted should really be derived from an ancient text, 
 which I am not in a position to prove, it would have another significance, 
 in that it would represent the earliest allusion to pottery deemed worthy 
 of being sent to the palace. Neither in times of antiquity nor under 
 the Han do we hear of any tribute pottery. In the famous Tribute 
 
 ' King te chen t'ao lu (edition of 1891), Ch. 7, p. i b. Julien (Histoire et fabri- 
 cation de la porcelaine chinoise, p. 4), in his translation of these passages, speaks in 
 both cases of “porcelain;” but this is not warranted by the Chinese text, which 
 avails itself of the general term t'ao (“pottery”); but ts'e belonged to the class of 
 t'ao. Hobson (Chinese Pottery and Porcelain, Vol. I, p. 143) complains of Julien 
 and Bushell having been indiscriminate in the use of the term “porcelain” in their 
 translations from the Chinese. But how about Legge, who speaks of porcelain 
 in the era of the Shi king? In his translation of this work, we read in two passages 
 (pp. 346 and 502) of a “porcelain whistle,” which is entered even in the index. 
 Fortunately this musical instrument of porcelain has escaped the students and 
 collectors of Chinese ceramics; otherwise we should probably meet it in one or 
 another collection, since the collector usually gets what he wants or solicits. What 
 is meant in the passage of the Shi king is the instrument htian a pipe made of 
 baked clay, of the size of a fowl’s egg, and perforated by six apertures. Again, we 
 read of “porcelain drums” in a translation of De Groot (Religious System of China, 
 Vol. VI, p. 977) from a text of the Tu tuan by Ts'ai Yung (133-192), relative to 
 conditions of the Chou period. The text has t'u hu ^ which means “earthen 
 drums.” 
 
102 
 
 Beginnings oe Porcelain 
 
 of Yu {Yu kung), forming a section of the Shu king, pottery is conspicu- 
 ously absent. In pre-Han and Han times it had not yet reached such 
 a state of perfection that it would have been brought to the immediate 
 attention of the sovereign, or was eligible to take a place in the im- 
 perial chambers. It is conceivable that pottery of the class of our 
 porcelanous ware was entitled to admission to Court, and answers to 
 the tribute ware produced at Kuan-chung. 
 
 The origin of this mysterious and much-discussed term ts'e has been 
 referred to the Han period by several European authors, but nobody 
 has yet furnished any actual proof that the word really occurs in con- 
 temporaneous records of that age. Even Bushelli merely states, 
 “We know that the word ts'e, which means porcelain in the present 
 day, first came into use during the Han dynasty, and Mr. Hippisley 
 takes this coining of a new word to designate the productions of that 
 age to be a strong argument in favor of the early date. Others, more 
 sceptical, before reaching any decision, ask to be shown actual speci- 
 mens of translucent body that can be certainly referred to the period.” 
 Seven years later, Bushell became more confident and positive in his 
 assertion of the origin of porcelain under the Han. In his work “Chi- 
 nese Art,”^ an assurance to this effect is given in three passages. The 
 word and character ts'e, according to him, is first found in books of 
 the Han dynasty. Again he asserts that the Chinese attribute the 
 invention to the Han dynasty, when a new character ts'e was coined to 
 designate, presumably, a new substance;* and that “still we may 
 reasonably accept the conclusion of the best native scholarship that 
 porcelain was first made in the Han dynasty, without trying, as Stanislas 
 Julien has tried on very insufficient grounds, to fix the precise date of 
 its invention.” 
 
 The only piece of evidence that has ever been produced to prove 
 the existence of the term ts'e under the Han is the citation of this word 
 in the glossary Shuo wen. Sceptics will naturally raise the question 
 
 * Oriental Ceramic Art, p. 20 (New York, 1899). 
 
 2 Vol. II, pp. 4, 17, 20. 
 
 ® The fact cited by Bushell on this occasion — that “the official memoir on 
 ‘Porcelain Administration’ in the topography of Fou-liang says that, according 
 to local tradition, the ceramic works at Sin-p'ing (an old name of Fou-liang) were 
 founded in the time of the Han dynasty, and had been in constant operation ever 
 since’’ — is not conclusive for a plea on behalf of porcelain at the time of the Han. 
 That tradition, if correct, merely goes to show that kilns for the manufacture of 
 pottery were established in that locality under the Han, while it implies nothing 
 definite as to the specific character of this pottery. The fact that Fou-liang turned 
 out porcelain at a later period does not allow of the inference that what was pro- 
 duced there in the era of the Han likewise was porcelain. 
 
Historical Observations and Conclusions 103 
 
 whether the passage was actually contained in the original edition of 
 the work (a.d. ioo), or whether it has been interpolated in the numerous 
 subsequent re-editionsd The decision of this question may be left to 
 a competent sinologue. It means little for my purposes, as long as no 
 instances of the word are pointed out in authentic books, which may 
 be regarded as contemporaneous documents of the Han period. This 
 much may be said, that the definition given in the Shuo wen has not 
 been adequately explained. It has been asserted the definition should 
 mean that ts'e is “pottery and nothing more.”^ It means, however, 
 “Ts'e belongs to the category of pottery,” or “is a kind of pottery.” 
 In the definitions of the Shuo wen, the word to be explained is defined 
 by a more general word denoting the wider category. It cannot there- 
 fore be deduced from that gloss that ts'e in ancient times did not refer 
 to porcelain, for porcelain certainly is a variety of pottery. In regard 
 to the specific character of ts'e, the definition of the Shuo wen is utterly 
 inconclusive. Holding in abeyance the question as to the time when 
 the term ts'e sprang into existence, and leaving aside all subtleties, it 
 remains for plain common sense to say that a new term refers to a new 
 matter, and that ts'e as a new ceramic term must have denoted a novel 
 production achieved in the ceramic field. Such was the porcelanous 
 ware as here described; and if, from the Sui and T'ang periods onward, 
 the word ts'e was applied to true porcelain, it is self-evident that prior 
 to that time it was attached to porcelanous ware, the forerunner of 
 porcelain. The word ts'e did not plainly describe any pottery, but 
 porcelanous pottery specifically. 
 
 It is known that the character ts'e M is now employed also in place 
 of ts'e From this change of characters F. Hirth^ believed he was 
 justified in concluding that the new form, linked with the classifier 
 ‘stone’ Tf, indicates a substitute of material; while in the older form, 
 combined with the classifier ‘ clay ’ S, the nature of earthenware should 
 be accentuated. This argumentation is unwarranted, and, as will be 
 seen, does not answer the facts. Likewise the information given on 
 this point in the “Catalogue of Potteries published by the Japan 
 Society” (p. 56, New York, 1914) is misleading. Here it is asserted 
 that from the fact that the city Ts'e-chou produced porcelain, and that 
 the word ts'e in the name of the city is phonetically identical with that 
 of the word meaning “stoneware” or “porcelain,” a certain confusion in 
 
 1 Neither the Erh ya nor the Kuang ya contains the word; but also this proves 
 nothing, as none of the ancient dictionaries is complete, and they surely lack numer- 
 ous words which are found in literature. 
 
 ^ F. Hirth, Ancient Chinese Porcelain, p. 130. 
 
 ^ Ancient Chinese Porcelain, p. 130, note 3. 
 
104 
 
 Beginnings oe Porcelain 
 
 the use of the word has arisen; “but there is no such confusion in the 
 mind of the Chinese scholar; the purist never uses it; and all arguments 
 as to the date of the origin of porcelain which have been based on the 
 use of this word are valueless.” All these statements are erroneous. 
 No one has ever based any arguments on the use of this word as to the 
 date of porcelain. In fact, the word has no concern whatever with the 
 origin of porcelain. The chief facts in the case could already be gleaned 
 from Julien’s “Histoire” (p. 29). There is, first of all, a city by the 
 name Ts’e-chou mm, which anciently depended on the prefectture of 
 Chang-te in the province of Ho-nan, but which is now assigned to the 
 prefecture of Kuang-p'ing in the province of Chi-li. The city had 
 formerly various other names. The present name Ts’e m was con- 
 ferred on it in the year 590, at the time of the Sui dynasty. Near the 
 boimdary of the district rose the Loadstone Mountain (Ts'e shan ^8 Uj) 
 producing loadstone (is'e shi m ^), whence the district and town 
 received their name.^ At the time of the T'ang dynasty (618-906), 
 the district produced nothing but loadstone and magnets made from 
 it; it did not produce pottery of any kind.* * Only from under the Sung 
 (960-1278) did the locality in question embark on the manufacture of 
 a kind of white porcelain, the choice specimens of which resembled the 
 Ting ware. This particular kind of porcelain, because it originated 
 from the locality of Ts'e, was styled “vessels of Ts'e” {Ts'e k'i m ^). 
 The word ts'e in this case, accordingly, denotes nothing but the place 
 of provenience. “At present,” the author of the “Records of the 
 Potteries of King-te-chen ” adds, “owing to a very common error, 
 porcelain vases are generally designated by the term ts'e k'i ^ 
 people employing this term are doubtless ignorant of the fact that it 
 applies in particular only to the porcelain of the city of Ts'e.” The 
 fact remains that under the Manchu dynasty, and at present, porcelain 
 is invariably termed ^ and m, the latter character being more fre- 
 quently employed.* True it is, that K'ang-hi’s Dictionary does not 
 
 * T'ai p'ing kuan yu ki, Ch. 56, p. 10 b. The Pen ts'ao kang mu extols the 
 loadstone of this locality as excellent (F. de M^ly, Lapidaires chinois, p. 106), 
 and loadstone was supplied from there as tribute to the Court {Ta Ts'ing i t'ung 
 chi, Ch. 31, p. 12). 
 
 ’ The silence of the T'ai p'ing kuan yu ki and the T'ang Annals in this respect is 
 conclusive, as the localities producing porcelanous ware at that time are expressly 
 named (see above, p. 99). Hobson (Chinese Pottery and Porcelain, Vol. I, p. loi) 
 also arrives at the result that there is no information on the subject of Ts'e-chou 
 factories earlier than the Sung dynasty, when they enjoyed a high reputation. 
 
 * Even in the T'ang Annals the term ts'e k'i appears, although we are not 
 
 in a position to state that it was thus written in the original edition: the district 
 Ku-lu ^ ^ in Hing-chou (now prefecture of Shun-te in Chi-li Province) sent porce- 
 lain vessels as tribute in the year 742 (T'ang shu, Ch. 39, p. 6); and the fact that 
 
Historical Observations and Conclusions 105 
 
 credit it with the meaning of “porcelain,” but attributes to it only the 
 proper significance, “loadstone.” This, however, means nothing. 
 Chinese standard works, like the great cyclopaedia T'u shu tsi ch'eng 
 and others, also the Japanese, employ this character throughout in the 
 sense of “porcelain,” so that there is no longer the question of confusion. 
 On the contrary, it is a perfectly legitimate usage, even sanctioned by 
 the English and Chinese Standard Dictionary issued by the Shanghai 
 Commercial Press; and for this reason our own dictionaries, like those 
 of Palladius, Giles, and Couvreur, are justified in assigning the meaning 
 “porcelain” also to the character ts'e fiSl. This was the outcome of a 
 natural development of the language, which no alleged purism can sweep. 
 The original term “porcelain of Ts'e” was simply amplified into the 
 wider notion of porcelain in general, because the word ts'e employed 
 in the name of the city bearing that name, and the word ts'e for 
 “porcelain,” though physically different words, phonetically are ho- 
 mophonous.^ This history of the subject clearly shows that Hirth’s 
 theory is untenable and should be discarded. The new word ts'e 
 in the sense of “porcelain,” has no organic and historical connection 
 whatever with the older word for “ porcelain ” ts'e but is an independ- 
 ent side-issue of purely incidental character. The alleged evolution 
 from earthenware to stony material cannot be read from the formation 
 of these characters, as they have nothing in common, and move along 
 separate fines. This conclusion settles also the general speculation* 
 to the effect that the word ts'e in its origin should have meant nothing 
 but common earthenware, and that gradual improvement of the ware 
 resulted in changes of meaning and writing. We now recognize that 
 the genuine character for ts'e ^ has not been subject to any alterations, 
 and that it was in the beginning exactly the same as it is at present. It 
 is therefore infinitely more probable that this speculation regarding 
 substitutes of material resulting in altered significations of the word is 
 imaginary in its entire range; that is to say, the newly coined word ts'e, 
 from the days of its childhood, denoted not simply “earthenware,” 
 
 the question is here of porcelain is confirmed by the King te chen t'ao lu (Julien, 
 Histoire, p. 28).'-^ In other passages of the T'ang Annals we meet the regular mode 
 of writing for instance, in Ch. 41, p. 4 b, where the porcelain of Hui-ki in 
 
 Yue-chou (the present province of Che-kiang) is mentioned. In the T'ai p'ing 
 huan yu ki only the form ^ is employed. “Porcelain” is expressed by in the 
 Liao shi (Ch. 104, p. 2) and Yiian ski (Ch. 88, p. 10 b). 
 
 ‘ The mental process underlying this transformation may be compared with 
 the extension of our word “china” to porcelains made in any countries outside 
 of China. 
 
 ’ Hirth, Ancient Chinese Porcelain, p. 130 (repeated in his Chinesische Studien, 
 p. 48). 
 
io6 
 
 Beginnings of Porcelain 
 
 but a higher grade of pottery which shared characteristic features with 
 true porcelain. 
 
 Another problem is whether the kind of porcelain manufactiured at 
 Ts'e-chou bore any relation to the mineral ts'e. The term ts'e 
 as is well known, is the designation of the magnet or loadstone; but, as 
 admitted by the Chinese, it denotes also another mineral which is suit- 
 able for the making of pottery. This fact is brought out by several 
 ancient stone sculptures in the Museum’s collection, in the votive 
 inscriptions of which it is stated that the material of the sculpture is 
 ts'e shi M ^ {“ts'e stone”), which, however, as shown by a very super- 
 ficial examination, is not loadstone. The “Records of the Potteries 
 of King-te-chen” Mnform us that “the ts'e stone is made into a 
 
 paste serviceable for pottery vessels, but that this stone is not identical 
 with the magnet attracting iron and used for magnetic needles; further, 
 it is a peculiar and distinct kind of stone of white color and of bright 
 and smooth appearance; the vessels made from it are beautiful, but not 
 delicate, and differ from porcelain earth; aside from Ts'e-chou, they 
 are made in Hii-chou #1 in Ho-nan Province. It is accordingly not 
 magnetic ore which entered into the manufacture of Ts'e porcelain, but 
 a mineral of a different nature, as yet undetermined, apparently not 
 discovered prior to the age of the Sung, and likewise styled ts'e? This 
 point is especially mentioned in this connection, because a supposition 
 that magnetic ore might have been mixed with porcelain glaze would 
 not be entirely without foundation.^ 
 
 In fact, however, we have no account of loadstone ever haiung been 
 used by the Chinese in the making of pottery; and it is therefore 
 impossible to assume any connection between the two words ts'e , — 
 the one denoting “loadstone,” the other “porcelain.” As the written 
 
 * King te chen t'ao lu, Ch. lo, p. 12 b (new edition, 1891). 
 
 ^Palladius (Chinese-Russian Dictionary, Vol. II, p. 343) states under this word, 
 “Magnet; suitable for the eyes; employed in the making of bowls and pillows; 
 porcelain.” 
 
 ® According to Pliny {Nat. hist., xxxvi, 66, § 192), magnet-stone was added to 
 glass during the process of making the latter, because it was eredited with the 
 property of attracting liquefied glass as well as iron (Mox, ut est ingeniosa sollertia, 
 non fuit contenta nitrum miscuisse; coeptus addi et magnes lapis, quoniam in se 
 liquorem vitri quoque ut ferrum trahere creditur). The correctness of this report 
 has been called into doubt. The Arabic mineralogy ascribed to Aristotle has 
 replaced the magnet-stone by the stone magnesia as being added to glass (J. Ruska, 
 Steinbuch des Aristoteles, p. 171). In another passage {ihid., p. 129) it is said that 
 glass cannot be finished without the stone magnesia; the latter denotes manganese, 
 which serves for the refinement of glass fluxes. Whether Pliny is guilty of a con- 
 fusion in the case, or whether he really reproduces a tradition current in his time, 
 can hardly be decided. 
 
Historical Observations and Conclusions 107 
 
 symbols are formed by means of different phonetic elements, the greater 
 likelihood is that also the two words, although now phonetically identi- 
 cal, are traceable to different origins. The history of the word ts'e W. 
 can be established without great difficulty. The earliest form in 
 which it was written is ts'e shi ^ ^ (that is, “attractive stone”); in 
 this manner we find it, for instance, in the Annals of the Former Han 
 Dynasty.^ The character consequently, is a secondary formation 
 based on a contraction of the words ts'e and shi, the latter assuming 
 the position of classifier, the former that of phonetic element, the 
 original significance of which was bound gradually to disappear. The 
 word for “porcelain,” however, is written with the phonetic element 
 ts'e which, as an independent word, has the meaning “second, next 
 in order, inferior,” etc. It is clear that in composition with the classifier 
 ‘clay’ {wa H) it has no word-meaning whatever, but has merely the 
 function of a phonetic element. Thus far we are entirely ignorant of 
 how this new word may have arisen in the first centuries of our era. In 
 the Sung period the phonetic part seems to have been altered, for the 
 dictionary Tsi yiin ft H, published by Ting Tu T in the middle of 
 the eleventh century, records the two forms ^ and ^ as popular or 
 common at that time. This manner of writing may have come about 
 under the immediate influence of the porcelain of Ts'e-chou, which then 
 sprang into existence. 
 
 The preceding remarks on the term ts'e are not intended to encroach 
 on the domain of the sinologue. No one feels more keenly than myself 
 that a critical and detailed study of this term (not based on the modern 
 cyclopaedias, but on the actual source-works) is required, and should 
 be taken up some day by a competent sinologue who has a taste for 
 researches of this kind. 
 
 The previous discussions on the origin of porcelain were chiefly 
 based on haggling about terms, which at times assumed an almost 
 Talmudic character. Students entered into the arena with a dogmatic 
 definition fixed in their minds, of what porcelain is or should be, and, 
 according to their personal standpoint, rejected or accepted this or 
 that period at which porcelain should have come into existence. Thus 
 we face the amazing spectacle that from 1856, the date of the appear- 
 ance of Julien’s celebrated book on Chinese porcelain, down to the pres- 
 ent time, almost any period of Chinese civilization has been claimed as 
 the one responsible for its “invention.” From its exalted position in 
 
 1 Ts'ien Han shu, Ch. 30, p. 32 b. By the way, it may be remarked that in 
 A.D. 906 the name of the city Ts'e-chou was changed in writing into , while 
 
 in 916 the old character;^ was restored {T'ai p'ing huan yii ki, Ch. 56, p. 10 b). 
 
io8 
 
 Beginnings of Porcelain 
 
 the Han dynasties proclaimed by Julien, it was relegated to the begin- 
 ning of the Sung dynasty (a.d. 960) by E. Grandidier;1 and all this 
 glory ended in its final degradation into as late a period as that of the 
 Ming. Mr. E. A. Barber, Director of the Pennsylvania Museum in 
 Philadelphia, one of the most serious students of pottery in this coun- 
 try, gives vent to this growing pessimism in the following observation : 
 “The consensus of opinion among conservative students at the present 
 day, after divesting the subject of all sentimental considerations, is that 
 true porcelain first appeared during the Ming dynasty, which would 
 not carry it back of the fourteenth century. No examples of actual 
 porcelain, that can with certainty be referred to an earlier date, are 
 known to collectors; and it is reasonable to suppose that had such ware 
 been produced before that period, some few pieces at least would have 
 survived. Indeed, it is extremely doubtful whether any actual examples 
 antedating the fifteenth century can be found.” ^ Mr. Barber, however, 
 frankly admits that the Chinese themselves have classed all wares which 
 possess great hardness and resonancy (which latter is an indication of 
 vitrification) with porcelain, and that it is true that a porcelanous glaze 
 was used to some extent before the general introduction of semi-trans- 
 parent bodies. This concession points out that the subject may be 
 viewed from different angles. There is, indeed, a twofold point of view 
 possible and permissible, a European-American and a Chinese one. 
 Hobson,® who possesses a large share of critical ability combined with 
 true common sense and sane judgment, has clearly noticed this diver- 
 sity. “The quality of translucency which in Europe is regarded as 
 distinctive of porcelain is never emphasized in Chinese descriptions,” 
 he observes, and goes on to determine the difference between the 
 Chinese and European definitions of the substance. Now, if this be 
 true, every student capable of objective thinking must admit that it 
 is a logically perverse procedure to read “our” definitions of porcelain 
 into what is called by the Chinese ts'e, but that for the correct appre- 
 ciation of this term the Chinese viewpoint exclusively must be made 
 the basis of our investigation. In other words, the point simply is, 
 that we must endeavor to understand what notion in the minds or in 
 the fancy of the Chinese is conveyed by their term ts'e. If a bit of 
 pottery is styled by the Chinese ts'e, yet is not true porcelain in our 
 conception of the matter, we are obliged to give the Chinese credit for 
 their appellation, and to get at their mode of reasoning. By rejecting 
 
 1 La ceramique chinoise, p. 16 (Paris, 1894). 
 
 2 Hard Paste Porcelain, Part first (Oriental), p. 7 (Philadelphia, 1910). 
 ^ Chinese Pottery and Porcelain, Vol. I, p. 148. 
 
Historical Observations and Conclusions 109 
 
 this procedure we deprive ourselves of the opportunity of studying and 
 grasping the development of this peculiar ware. By arguing that in 
 the beginning the term ts'e connoted nothing but ordinary pottery, we 
 close our eyes to the real issue, and act like the ostrich; in this manner 
 we utterly fail to comprehend the process of evolution of porcelain. 
 The early ts'e has now arisen, and is that ware which is the object of 
 this article. I further make bold to say that in any ancient text down 
 to the T'ang period, where the term ts'e may be encountered, it will 
 invariably refer to a porcelain-like pottery which has some relationship 
 to genuine porcelain, and that we shall not err in translating it by 
 “porcelanous ware,” or a similar expression. 
 
HISTORICAL NOTES ON KAOLIN 
 
 A disquisition on the beginnings of porcelain should take regard 
 also of the question as to when and how those elementary materials 
 that compose porcelain made their first appearance. Porcelain is a 
 variety of pottery the body of which consists essentially of two in- 
 gredients of earthen origin, that are fired together. These two sub- 
 stances widely occur in nature, and are designated by us with their 
 Chinese names, “kaolin” and “petuntse.” The former is a white 
 clay, infusible, lending plasticity to the paste, and forming the body 
 of the vessel. Geologically it originated through a gradual process 
 of decomposition of granite and analogous crystalline rocks.^ The 
 latter is a hard feldspathic stone, fusible at a high temperatme, con- 
 stituting the glaze and responsible for its transparency. 
 
 The fact that kaolin is used in the composition of Chinese porcelain 
 has been unduly emphasized, or even exaggerated, by European his- 
 torians of porcelain. Kaolin was heralded as a sort of important 
 discovery, that led to the revolutionizing of the potter’s art; and an 
 inquiry into the time when Chinese authors begin to speak of the 
 substance was even taken as a test for the beginnings of porcelain 
 itself. This is not a correct conception of the matter. Kaolin is 
 nothing but a natural clay, not of very unusual occurrence, and, in 
 fact, has been utilized by potters outside of China without resulting in 
 any porcelain-like product.^ Kaolin itself cannot make porcelain, 
 and the presence of kaolin in the composition of a certain vessel does 
 not constitute proof of its being porcelain. Kaolin should not be 
 confused with the kaolinite of which it is composed. The mineral 
 
 ^ See Prestwick, Geology, Chemical, Physical, and Stratigraphical, Vol. I, p. 48. 
 
 ^ Thus in India a white earthenware is made from a decaying white granite, 
 which is carefully washed, and kneaded into a clay that produces a porous white 
 ware. . . . This clay is in composition the same as the kaolin of China, and is very 
 abundant in India (H. H. Cole, Indian Art in the South Kensington Museum, 
 p. 201). The Singalese potter (in the same manner as his Chinese colleague during 
 the T'ang period) uses kaolin as a white paint for decorating pottery (A. K. Cooma- 
 RASWAMY, Medireval Sinhalese Art, p. 225; see also Watt, Dictionary of the Eco- 
 nomic Products of India, Vol. II, p. 364). It is well known that kaolinic deposits 
 are found in England, France, Germany, and North America, and are well known 
 from many other parts of the world. As to America, compare, for instance, the 
 interesting study of A. S. Watts, Mining and Treatment of Feldspar and Kaolin 
 in the Southern Appalachian Regions (Bulletin No. 53 of the Department of the 
 Interior, Bureau of Mines, Washington, 1913). 
 
 no 
 
Historical Notes on Kaolin 
 
 III 
 
 kaolinite is the basis of kaolin, and theoretically pure kaolin would 
 contain nothing but kaolinite ; but kaolinite is also the basis of nearly 
 all common clays. In these it is mingled with larger or smaller quan- 
 tities of various minerals by which its properties are more or less ob- 
 scured. Hence the chemical examination of almost any burned pot- 
 tery, even of common bricks and the crudest and cheapest of earthen- 
 ware, will disclose the presence of derivatives of kaolinite which might 
 be, and as a matter of convenience frequently is, interpreted as due 
 to the presence of small quantities of kaolin, instead of larger quantities 
 of ordinary clay containing kaolinite. It is quite certain that the 
 bodies of many early Han pottery bits contain more or less kaolin or 
 kaolinite, yet they are not porcelains. The utilization of kaolin for 
 potter’s work on a large scale is not a “discovery,” but rests on experi- 
 ence. It was incidentally found, and its employment was gradually 
 extended through a selective progress in the enrolment of materials. 
 
 The distinctive structural character of porcelain is based on the 
 combination of three elements, — a porous, opaque skeleton; a trans- 
 parent, dense bond penneating the skeleton; and a thin, glassy glaze on 
 the outside, which merges imperceptibly with the body. In typical 
 porcelains the opaque, porous body is kaolin or aluminous derivatives 
 therefrom, which, through their resistance to the effects of heat, sup- 
 ply a rigidity that prevents the ware from deforming in the kiln. 
 Also its opacity clouds the transparency of the other elements to 
 translucency. The kaolin skeleton is permeated and bound together 
 by a more fusible glass or enamel-like substance (petuntse), which 
 makes the ware strong, impervious, and translucent. The glaze serves 
 for the perfection and increased lustre of the surface. Kaolin alone 
 makes a ware which is porous, fragile, and opaque. Petuntse alone 
 softens in the kiln, and runs together into a lump. 
 
 For the lover of art the salient and distinctive points in porcelain 
 are the glaze and its organic combination with the body. The body, 
 as a rule, is invisible: it is the glaze that is intended to appeal to the 
 spectator and to convey an esthetic impression. 
 
 F. Hirth^ was the first to call attention to a statement of the 
 Taoist adept T'ao Hung-king (452-536), to the effect that in his time 
 “white clay” {pai ngo & M), or kaolin, was much utilized in painting,^ 
 
 1 Ancient Chinese Porcelain, p. 131. 
 
 ^ What this means has not been explained by Hirth, who translated, “much 
 used for painting pictures.” It cannot be understood, of course, that kaolin was a 
 pigment applied in pictorial art to paper or silk. Technically there are but two 
 possibilities: kaolin may have been utilized in architectural painting for the decora- 
 tion of walls, being applied to a colored background, or it may have been employed 
 
II2 
 
 Beginnings of Porcelain 
 
 and was low in price. This passage is found in the Cheng lei pen ts'ao, 
 a learned pharmacopoeia written by the physician T'ang Shen-wei, 
 and first published in iio8. This text allows of the inference that 
 porcelain clay was known in the latter part of the fifth or beginning 
 of the sixth century; but I should not go so far as to conclude with 
 Hirth that T'ao Hung-king “would have surely mentioned the use of 
 porcelain earth in the manufacture of chinaware if in his time it had 
 been so used on an extensive scale,” and that “in the sixth centmy, 
 when he wrote, the use of porcelain earth for pottery purposes was 
 unknown.” This argument, drawn from the mere silence of a writer, 
 is not conclusive: it seems preferable to think, that, judging from the 
 trend of his mind and the direction of his studies, the author was not 
 at all interested in the subject of pottery. What attracted him were 
 not the artifacts of men, but the substances and wonders of nature, 
 that might reveal healing-properties for the benefit of his suffering 
 fellow-men. Even in speaking of the application of kaolin to pictorial 
 subjects or decorative designs, he does not mean to offer a contribution 
 to technology, but he incidentally drops this remark by way of defini- 
 tion, in order to render himself intelligible to his contemporaries as to 
 the matter under discussion; for he says literally, “This [that is, the 
 white clay here in question] is identical with that now largely utilized 
 in painting, and low in price. Customarily it is but seldom admin- 
 istered in prescriptions.” ^ The subsequent works dealing with pharma- 
 cology, while they give some notice to porcelain clay on account of its 
 
 for the ornamentation of a surface in pottery vessels. The latter process is now well 
 known to us through numerous specimens of the T'ang period. The Pen ts'ao kang 
 mu of Li Shi-chen (section on clays, Ch. 7, p. i) has the reading hua kia yung 
 (instead of hua yung of the Cheng lei pen ts'ao), which means “used by painters.” 
 
 * Hirth pointed out another text in the Cheng lei pen ts'ao, which, he stated, is 
 quoted from the T'ang pen ts'ao, the pharmacopoeia of the T'ang period, compiled 
 about the year 650. In the edition of the Cheng lei pen ts'ao before me, issued in 
 1523 (Ch. 5, fol. 25), the passage in question, however, is cited from a work styled 
 T'ang pen yu (that is, “Remains of the T'ang Herbal ”), and introduced by the words, 
 “ The commentary says.” I venture to doubt that this work T'ang pen yii is strictly 
 identical with the T'ang pen ts'ao described by Bretschneider (Bot. Sin., pt. i, 
 p. 44), especially for the reason that a quite different extract from the T'ang pen is 
 quoted in the Cheng lei pen ts'ao shortly before this passage, and that in this work 
 quotations from the former are constantly referred to the T'ang pen or T'ang pen chu 
 (apparently the annotations of the drawings mentioned by Bretschneider). Be 
 this as it may, there is no doubt that the text brought to light by Hirth comes down 
 from the T'ang period. This is also the opinion of Li Shi-chen, who, in his Pen ts'ao 
 kang mu (Ch. 7, p. 6 b), attributes the term “white porcelain vessels” {pai ts'e k'i) 
 to the Pen ts'ao of the T'ang. In the text translated by Hirth occurs a clause which 
 he rendered, “During recent generations it has been used to make white porcelain.” 
 Hobson (Chinese Pottery and Porcelain, Vol. I, p. 146) has proposed a new transla- 
 tion of this passage, which reads, “During recent generations it has been prepared 
 
Historical Notes on Kaolin 
 
 113 
 
 alleged medicinal properties, yet maintain strict reticence in regard 
 to porcelain vessels, though these were positively known at the time 
 of their publication, for the simple reason that this topic was beyond 
 their scope. Neither the Cheng lei pen ts'ao nor the Pen ts'ao kang mu 
 discusses porcelain, but both books are content to recommend prescrip- 
 tions of kaolin for certain complaints. While Su Kung upholds that 
 of Ting-chou, and Li Shi-chen that of Jao-chou (in Kiang-si), as par- 
 ticularly efficient, this is merely the outcome of a more specialized 
 medical subtlety. 
 
 It would likewise be preposterous to assume that T'ao Hung-king 
 is the first author to mention kaolin. On the contrary, he is forestalled 
 by at least one predecessor. The work Pie lu,^ which existed prior to 
 his time, as quoted in the Pen ts'ao (/. c.), states that “white clay {pai 
 ngo) originates in the mountains and valleys of the district of Han-tan 
 n and that it may be gathered at any season.” This restriction 
 to a single locality certainly does not betoken the scarcity of the mate- 
 rial, which is indeed common in many localities: it reflects solely the 
 limitations of local experience. Under the Sung we hear from the lips 
 of Su Sung that this variety of clay was then ubiquitous, and was 
 throughout used by the people for the washing of their clothes.^ This 
 view is confirmed by Li Shi-chen, who observes that white clay occurs 
 everywhere, and is employed for the baking of white pottery vessels. 
 However common the occurrence of kaolin in China may be, the fact 
 
 from white ware.” From a grammatical point of view this translation is perfectly 
 correct. It is, however, somewhat difficult to understand why the pharmacists of 
 the T'ang period should have extracted kaolin from finished ceramic products, even 
 though it was only from fragments of such, if kaolin could so easily be obtained in 
 nature; or it is conceivable also that kaolin inherent in pottery was vested with more 
 efficient magical and increased healing-power, as it had undergone a transmutation 
 in the furnace. We have to know more about the development of alchemy in China 
 before we may hope to settle many interesting questions and beliefs connected with 
 pottery. 
 
 1 See Chinese Clay Figures, p. 135, note 4. 
 
 ^ It comprised what now forms the two prefectures of Kuang-p'ing and Cheng-te, 
 in the southern part of Chi-li Province, and in particular referred to Ts'e-chou. In 
 ancient times it was the capital of the state of Chao (Chavannes, Mdmoires his- 
 toriques de Se-ma Ts'ien, Vol. II, p. 92). It is an attractive suggestion of Hobson 
 (/. c., p. 147), that the kaolinic deposits of Han-tan should have supplied material 
 for the Ting-chou potters. 
 
 ® K'ou Tsung-shi, in his Pen ts'ao yen f of 1 1 16 (Ch. 6, p. ib; ed. of Lu Sin-yuan), 
 makes the same observation, adding that the substance was made into square blocks 
 sold in the capital under the name “white earth powder” ( pai t'ufen ^±B)- 
 According to the Ling piao lu i (Ch. A, p. 4; ed. of Wu ying tien) by Liu Sun of the 
 T'ang period, a white and greasy earth was gathered north of the city of Fu chou 
 ‘sm (in the prefecture of Wu-ch'ang, Hu-pei) and traded over southern China, 
 where the women used it as a face-powder. This probably was a kind of pipe-clay. 
 
1 14 Beginnings of Porcelain 
 
 remains that this observation is only the result of later periods, and 
 that in times of antiquity the knowledge of it was much restricted, and 
 attached to but few places. The wondrous book of geographical fables, 
 the Shan hai king, mentions it in two passages. One is embodied in 
 the chapter on the “Mountains of the West” {Si shan king Ul ^), 
 saying that on the south side of the mountains of Ta-ts'e there is plenty 
 of clay.^ The other contains the notice, in the chapter on the “Moim- 
 tains of the Centre” {Chung shan king tU M), that “in the midst 
 of the mountains of Ts'ung-lung there are many great valleys in which 
 there is plenty of white clay; apart from the latter, there are also 
 black, dark blue, and yellow clays.” ^ Kuo P'o adds that also varie- 
 gated clay is said to occur. Whether the two texts are of ancient 
 date, I do not venture to decide: they are quoted as early as the Sung 
 period by Su Sung (a distinguished scholar, and editor of the materia 
 medica T'u king pen ts'ao), in his discussion of kaolin, which he winds 
 up by remarking that solely the white clay is medicinally employed. 
 Personally I am under the impression that the Shan hai king, in the 
 version which is now before us, is not older than the Han period, and 
 doubtless contains also many post-Han interpolations. I would cer- 
 tainly not base on this work any chronological conclusions as to the 
 term pai ngo. 
 
 The Chinese explanation of the term ngo is interesting, because it 
 has led to the formation of a new word. The character M is com- 
 posed of the classifier zh (‘earth’) and the phonetic element 55. The 
 latter enters also into the formation of the character which like- 
 wise has the sound ngo or ngu (‘evil’). Li Shi-chen® is therefore led 
 to the following speculation: “Since the normal color of earth is yellow, 
 white must be considered as an evil color in earth; hence it was called 
 ngo [that is, ‘evil earth’]. Subsequent generations tabooed this word, 
 and changed it into pai shan S W [that is, ‘the white good one’].” 
 The notion of “wicked earth” is elicited by punning, the two words 
 M and M being homophonous. This jocular interpretation must 
 have existed as a popular tradition since ancient times, since the result 
 of it, the opposite term pai shan, is said to have occurred in the Pie lu. 
 K'ou Tsung-shi, whose Pen ts'ao yen i was published in iii6, styles 
 kaolin “white good earth.” This was under the Sung, when the 
 porcelain industry received a powerful stimulus. The term pai shan 
 
 (Ch. I, p. 27 b; of the edition printed in 1855 at 
 Shun-k'ing, Sze-ch'uan). The character^, according to the commentary of Kuo P'o 
 (276-324), is to be read ngu (or ngo), explained as “earth of very white color.” 
 
 (Ch. 2, p. 15 b). 
 
 ® Pen ts'ao kang mu, Ch. 7, p. i. 
 
Historical Notes on Kaolin 
 
 115 
 
 S # is met with as early as the T'ang period (618-906), in the min- 
 eralogical glossary Shi yao erh ya ^ M W 3 ®, compiled by Mei Piao 
 the period Ytian-ho (807-82 1) d Here it is given as a synonyme 
 of kan t'u "H* * i. (“sweet earth”), on a par with other synonymes for 
 this term, which are pai tan 6 tan tao iJi!, and t'u tsing i. M 
 (“essence of earth”). At an earlier date we find the term shan in the 
 Buddhist dictionary Yi ts'ie king yin z — ' M compiled by the 
 
 monk Yuan Ying X M about a.d. 649, who explains it as shan t'u ^ i. 
 (“good earth”), and identifies it with “white clay” (pai t'u 0 zh) 
 and ngo. The most interesting point is, that this author cites the 
 Wu p'u pen ts'ao ^ ^ to the effect that the term pai ngo has a 
 
 synonyme in the form pai shan 6 According to Bretschneider,® 
 
 the Wu p'u pen ts'ao was written by Wu P'u under the Wei dynasty in 
 the first half of the third century a.d. If the definition, as handed 
 down by Yuan Ying, was really contained in this work, we should 
 have a formal testimony for the knowledge of kaolin in the third 
 century. The case was presumably such, that in the T'ang era, when 
 the excellent qualities of kaolin were first recognized, the transforma- 
 tion of the word took effect, and ultimately resulted in a new charac- 
 ter formed with the word shan ^ as phonetic element, and the classifiers 
 ‘earth’ i or ‘stone’ Ti. The taboo announced by Li Shi-chen cannot 
 have taken serious dimensions, for the ceramic authors of the Manchu 
 dynasty perpetuated the word ngo, and abstained from the word shan. 
 
 In a poem of Se-ma Siang-ju, entitled Tse su fu M ,■* ochre 
 
 and white clay (che ngo M) are spoken of as natural products of 
 Sze-ch'uan.® The attribute “white” is not in the text, which merely 
 offers the word ngo; but Chang Yi ^ W;, the author of the dictionary 
 Kuang ya M, who lived in the first part of the third century a.d.. 
 
 1 Reprinted in the collection Fie Jiia chai (Ch. A, p. 4). 
 
 ® Ch. 17, p. 2 (edition of Nanking). Regarding this work see Julien, Histoire 
 de la vie de Hiouen Tsang, p. xxiii; Wylie, Notes on Chinese Literature, p. 21 1; 
 Watters, Essays on the Chinese Language, p. 52; Bunyiu Nanjio, Catalogue of the 
 Tripitaka, No. 1605. 
 
 ’ Bot. Sin., pt. 1, p. 40. 
 
 * Shi ki, Ch. 1 17, p. 2 b. The poet died in 117 b.c. 
 
 ^ They are likewise mentioned as products of that region (Shu) in the Hua yang 
 kuo chi (Ch. 3, p. I b, ed. of Han Wei ts'ung shu). Under the year 991 there is 
 mentioned in the Sung Annals the pictorial decoration of a palace by means of the 
 same two substances. The same term appears in Lie-tse (Wieger, Les pSres du 
 syst^me taoiste, p. 104), when King Mu built a palace for a juggler, who had come 
 from the farthest west. This chapter of Lie-tse (and probably many others), in 
 my opinion, comes down from the Han period; and this conclusion is confirmed 
 by the term che ngo which does not occur earlier than that time. The work of 
 Lie-tse is first mentioned in the Ts'ien Han shu (Ch. 30, p. 12 b). 
 
ii6 
 
 Beginnings of Porcelain 
 
 comments on this passage, that ngo has there the meaning of “white 
 clay” {pai ngo), which, he adds, is identical with the term pai shan 
 used in the Herbals {pen ts'ao), so that what he means is doubtless 
 kaolin. Also Yen Shi-ku (579-645), annotating the same word in the 
 Han Annals, states that “it is identical with what is now called ‘white 
 earth’ {pai t'u)” It is interesting that these Confucian scholars of 
 the third and sixth centuries respectively were acquainted with kaolin, 
 thus following suit with their Taoist colleagues; but it appears rather 
 doubtful whether the term, as used in the Annals of Se-ma Ts'ien, can 
 really be credited with the significance “kaolin.” There is no other 
 testimony to this effect (leaving aside the dubious Shan hat king) in 
 the Han period; and, be this as it may, the passage in question is not 
 conclusive, the substance ngo being mentioned solely as a product of 
 nature, without any allusion to human exploitation. In the Glossary 
 of the T'ang Annals the term ngo is interpreted as “white earth” 
 {pai i'u 6 ih).^ 
 
 In the T'ang period, kaolin formed also a desirable article for tribute 
 or taxes to the Court, which certainly means that it was employed in 
 the manufacture of pottery. The Wu ti ki (“Records of the 
 
 Land of Wu”), by Lu Kuang-wei ^ ^ written at the end of the 
 ninth century, mentions the mountains of Hang iL as hoarding 
 white earth that resembles jade and is very resplendent, and that the 
 people of Wu, who gathered it, sent as tribute under the name pai 
 ngoJ 
 
 Passing beyond the Han period, we find the word ngo employed in 
 times of antiquity, but in a peculiar sense, quite distinct from the later 
 significance “potter’s clay.” In the early period it was strictly an 
 architectural term, and implied a function falling within the province 
 of a mason. This ancient significance is acknowledged by the dic- 
 tionary Erh ya, which, in its section concerned with the nomenclature 
 of buildings, states that ngo is the designation for a whitewashed wall; 
 and the dictionary Shi ming ^ ^ , by Liu Hi §* *J ^ of the Posterior 
 Han, is still more explicit on this point, as evidenced by the annotation 
 that the waU is first raised from mud, and then invested with a coating 
 of lime.® The Shuo wen explains the term as “white plaster” {pai t'u 
 6 f^). The principal oflice of the word was that of a verb, with the 
 
 * T'ang shu shi yin, Ch. 5, p. 20. 
 
 * According to the Gazetteer of the Prefecture of Su-chou {Su chou fu chi, 
 Ch. 20, p. 15b), kaolin is still dug on the Yang-shan near Su-chou to a depth of a 
 hundred feet. 
 
 ‘ (6'^* W**'*^- section 5, p. 8; ed. of King sun t'ang 
 ts'ung shu or Han uvei ts'ung shu). 
 
Historical Notes on Kaolin 117 
 
 meaning “to plaster or whitewash the floor or the walls of a house.” 
 This is particularly evidenced by the verb yu WJ (“to blacken”), 
 its opposite, to which it is closely linked in order to express the per- 
 formance of a religious ceremony during the period of mourning. 
 The mourner was obliged to dwell in an unplastered earth hut for two 
 years. After the sacrifice in the commencement of the third year, the 
 ground of his cot was blackened, and the walls were whitened, — a 
 rite simply expressed by the compound yu ngo WJ M-.* In the same 
 chapter of the “Book of Rites” in which this practice is mentioned, 
 the same word ngo occurs in a somewhat different usage. The dwell- 
 ing specially erected for the mourner is styled ngo shi M a term ex- 
 plained as “a hut made of unbumt bricks or earth pise and not plas- 
 tered,” and used in the Li ki four times. The mourner was compelled 
 to divest himself of all comfort, and to relapse into the most primitive 
 habitation of early times. The term ngo shi, accordingly, means liter- 
 ally “earth house;” and during the archaic period, ngo designated 
 “loam, mud, or clay fit for building-purposes.” Simultaneously, 
 however, it was applied also to chalk or limestone, denoting the process 
 of coating a coarse wall with a layer of white. In this sense it is utilized 
 also by Chuang-tse in regard to the whitening of one’s nose.^ Since 
 the word ngo, which is still defined by the Shuo wen as “white plaster,” 
 originally referred to clay and chalk at the same time, the early Chinese 
 do not seem to have clearly discriminated between the two substances. 
 The term pai ngo, which adopted the meaning “kaolin” in the post- 
 Christian era, is still used to convey the notion of “chalk,” while a 
 stricter terminology formulates for the latter such compounds as shi 
 ngo ^ M (“stone clay”), ngo hui M: M (“clay lime”), or pai i'u fen 
 0 i. !&■ (“white earth powder”).® 
 
 One point stands cut clearly, — that in the archaic period the word 
 ngo signified “loam and chalk used in building,” and was appropriate 
 to the activity of the mason, but that it neither denoted potter’s clay 
 nor had any relation whatever to the work of the potter. The main 
 point to be borne in mind is, that there is no reference to “white clay” 
 {pai ngo) in any authentic document of the Han period, — a fact thor- 
 oughly corroborated by archaeological evidence. The “white clay,” 
 
 1 Li ki, ed. Couvreur, Vol. II, p. 240; translation of Legge, Vol. II, p. 192. 
 
 ^ Ch. 24, § 5; see the edition of L. Wieger, Taoisme, Vol. II, p. 420. It is 
 notable that the stage-fool still appears in China with his nose whitened; and the 
 figure of an actor represented by a T'ang clay statuette in the Museum collection 
 is thus characterized. 
 
 ® See F. DE MfLY, Lapidaires chinois, p. 99; F. Porter Smith, Contributions 
 towards the Materia Medica of China, p. 58. 
 
ii8 
 
 Beginnings of Porcelain 
 
 or “kaolin,” makes its first appearance in the Pie lu, an early Taoist 
 work of uncertain date, and preserved only by way of quotations in 
 subsequent pharmaceutical literatiure. This lacune in our knowledge, 
 however, is no matter of great concern for the history of porcelain, 
 for that work contains no allusion to pottery. Chang Yi and Kuo P'o 
 of the third century appear to have been familiar with kaolin; likewise 
 Wu P'u, the author of a materia medica under the Wei (p. 115). The 
 medical literature of the T'ang period is, and thus far remains, the 
 earliest source to convey an allusion to white porcelain produced from 
 kaolin. Prior to that time, this substance seems to have found applica- 
 tion chiefly in medicine, and as engobe on pottery. It probably played 
 a role also in alchemical experiments. There is every reason to believe 
 that it was the nature-loving and drug-hunting professors of Taoism 
 who first experimented with this clay, and this accounts for the fact 
 that the subject has found its way into the pages of the Shan hai king. 
 What the share of the Taoists was in the initial stages of porcelanous 
 ware, or whether a share in it is due to them at all, we have as yet no 
 means of ascertaining. That they had a share in it, however, is more 
 than probable, since the preparation of clays and glazes is a matter of 
 chemistry; that is, in ancient times, of alchemy (see also p. 142). 
 
 It is obvious that no forcible conclusion as to the date of porcelain 
 can be deduced from a consideration of the history of kaolin. It is 
 notable, however, that it was known at least in the third century a.d. ; 
 and this chimes in with my dating of the early kaolinic ware in the 
 same period. Once more we see that for the history of porcelain we 
 have to depend on archeological evidence. 
 
 It is unfortunately impossible to outline a similar sketch of the 
 history of petuntse, or porcelain stone; but it is not surprising that 
 the Chinese have preserved no historical notes regarding this substance. 
 It is simply a feldspathic rock, for which no other than the general 
 designation “stone” {shi exists. It is a general error to believe 
 that the mass itself is styled by the Chinese “petuntse” (properly, 
 pai tun-tse S ^ an error chiefly propounded by A. J. C. Geerts.^ 
 JuLiEN^ was somewhat astonished at the expression, saying that the 
 Chinese authors who wrote on porcelain fail to explain the sense of the 
 word tun 7 fC. K'ang-hi’s Dictionary does not ascribe to the latter any 
 mineralogical significance; in fact, it has none whatever, and is never 
 used by Chinese writers on mineralogy. The character in question is 
 
 ^ Les produits de la nature japonaise et chinoise, Vol. II, p. 376 (Yokohama, 
 1883). 
 
 ^ Histoire et fabrication de la porcelaine chinoise, p. 122. 
 
Historical Notes on Kaolin 
 
 119 
 
 merely substituted as an easy and convenient abbreviation for tun 
 Wi, which means, as Giles rightly says, “a square block of stone. 
 The term pat tun-tse, therefore, simply signifies “white briquette,” and 
 certainly is one of a purely commercial, not mineralogical character: 
 it relates to the color and shape of these blocks, as they are traded from 
 the places of production to the centres of porcelain manufacture. Our 
 mode of applying the term “petuntse” to the material, therefore, 
 is wrong. The fact that this rock, which enters into the manufacture 
 of porcelain, was roughly known to the Chinese long before the time 
 of this specific employment, cannot reasonably be doubted. 
 
 1 In the second edition of his Dictionary, Giles has justly placed the term 
 “petuntse” under this character (No. 12205). 
 
THE INTRODUCTION OF CERAMIC GLAZES INTO CHINA, 
 WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE MURRINE VASES 
 
 We know at present as a fact that glazed pottery first appeared in 
 China during the Han period, and that the process of glazing earthen- 
 ware was unknown in pre-Han times. The Han potter’s art was 
 revolutionized, as we have seen, by the adoption of this new technique, 
 which finally resulted, toward the middle or the close of the third cen- 
 tury, in the production of a peculiar porcelanous glaze, the forerunner 
 of true porcelain. Porcelain being universally considered as a truly 
 Chinese invention, the broader question may now be raised. Is the 
 invention of glazing, the technical foundation of porcelain, wholly 
 due to the genius of the Chinese, or was the impetus received from an 
 outside quarter? R. L. Hobson^ has made the following general 
 reply to this query: “Though supported by negative evidence only, 
 the theory that the Chinese first made use of glaze in the Han period 
 is exceedingly plausible. In the scanty references to earlier wares 
 in ancient texts no mention of glaze appears, and, indeed, the severe 
 simplicity of the older pottery is so emphatically urged that such an 
 embellishment as glaze woiild seem to have been almost undesirable. 
 The idea of glazing earthenware, if not evolved before, would now be 
 naturally suggested to the Chinese by the pottery of the Western 
 peoples with whom they first made contact about the beginning of the 
 Han dynasty. Glazes had been used from high antiqmty in Egypt; 
 they are found in the Persian bricks at Susa and on the Parthian 
 coffins, and they must have been commonplace on the pottery of west- 
 ern Asia two hundred years before our era.” I am of the same opinion, 
 that Chinese knowledge of glazing is derived from the West, and 
 propose to discuss this problem on the following pages. I hope to 
 enlist all the available facts in the case, so as to place our theory on a 
 solid historical foundation. 
 
 The course of my investigation is as follows. The home of glass, 
 glazed pottery, and faience, was Egypt and the anterior Orient; and 
 the reputation of this ware spread to Rome under the name “murrine 
 vessels.” The latter stibject, being still of a controversial nature, is 
 of especial importance in this connection, as it shows us the high appre- 
 ciation and expansion of glazed ware over the Mediterranean area at 
 
 Chinese Pottery and Porcelain, Vol. I, p. 8. 
 
 120 
 
Introduction of Glazes into China 
 
 I2I 
 
 a period synchronous with the coming into existence of this pottery 
 in China. This synchronism is not accidental, but is due to the wide 
 fame and diffusion of this novel process in the Far East. It will then 
 be set forth from Chinese records how the Chinese became acquainted 
 with it in consequence of their contact with the Roman-Hellenistic 
 Orient; how the materials required for the technique were propagated 
 to India, Cambodja, and China, and in what manner they were turned 
 to practical use by the ancient Chinese. 
 
 If I venture to dwell here at some length on the much-disputed 
 murrine vases of the ancients, the main reason for this invasion of 
 foreign territory is that this subject seems to me to embody an essential 
 chapter in the history of the art of glazing, which allows us to grasp 
 clearly the significance of its eastward migration. My further line of 
 defence rests on various attempts made by older and more recent 
 authors to interpret the murrine vases as having been Chinese porce- 
 lain; and in further vindication I may point to two sinologues who in 
 the first part of the nineteenth century participated in the discussion 
 of this problem, — Joseph Hager and Abel-Remusat. The former^ 
 endeavored to prove in a hardly convincing manner that the substance 
 of which the murrines were made was identical with the jade of the 
 Chinese; wliile the latter^ combated this opinion, and conclusively 
 demonstrated that Chinese nephrite does not at all correspond to 
 the description given by Pliny of the murrine vases. The chief argu- 
 ment which runs counter to this theory, and which has not been stated 
 by Abel-Remusat, is that ancient Chinese jade objects have as yet 
 not been traced in any country of classical civilization, and that nothing 
 is on record in regard to such a trade, either in Chinese or classical 
 documents. Moreover, the provenience of the murrines, as indicated 
 by Pliny and the Periplus Maris Erythraei, must not be disregarded: 
 they came from Egypt, Persia, and India, and were chiefly productions 
 of Persia. In none of these countries have we any evidence as to the 
 occurrence of Chinese jade pieces in ancient times.* 
 
 In a study devoted to the beginnings of porcelain in China, in which 
 an attempt has been made to determine more exactly the first appear- 
 ance of porcelanous ware on Chinese soil, a word may be permitted 
 
 1 Description des medailles chinoises du Cabinet Imperial de France, pp. 150-168 
 (Paris, 1805). 
 
 ^ Histoire de la ville de Khotan, tirde des annales de la Chine et traduite du 
 chinois; sidvie de recherches sur la substance mindrale appelde par les Chinois 
 pierre de lu, et sur le jaspe des anciens, pp. 195-208 (Paris, 1820). 
 
 ® More recently the nephrite hypothesis with reference to the murrines has been 
 reiterated by A. von Nordenskiold (Umsegelung Asiens und Europas, Vol. II, p. 230). 
 
122 
 
 Beginnings of Porcelain 
 
 with reference to the theory that the murrines might have been porce- 
 lain of Chinese origin. This view predominated in Europe for three 
 centuries, till it yielded to still more fantastic ideas in modem times. 
 Jerome Cardan (Hieronymus Cardanus), the Italian mathematician 
 (1501-76), is to be regarded as the father of the porcelain theory. 
 In his work “De subtilitate remm” (Niimberg, 1550, p. 119), he 
 made the assertion, “Sunt autem myrrhina ea, quae hodie vocantur 
 Porcellanea,” and supported it by the explanation that they had 
 come to western Asia from China, the country of the Seres, and that 
 whatever does not fit in with them in the description of Pliny became 
 subsequently altered in the manufacture of these vessels. Julius 
 Caesar Scaliger (1484-1558) concurred with him in this opinion, and 
 only reproached his predecessor for having advanced his statement in 
 too timid a fashion. His son, the great scholar Joseph Justus Scaliger 
 (1540-1609), inherited and accepted his father’s verdict. Whatever 
 we may think of the view of the two Scaliger, it remains interesting, 
 as it was at their time that porcelain gradually became known in 
 Europe; and this fact may certainly have reacted on the shaping of 
 their opinion. 
 
 In the eighteenth and the beginning of the nineteenth century, the 
 old opinion that by “ the murrines ” should be understood porcelain, was 
 revived by P. J. Maeiette^ and by E. H. Roloff,^ the latter a physi- 
 cian, whose work is accompanied by notes and additions at the hands 
 of Ph. Buttmann. The theory of Cardanus and Scaliger was here 
 defended afresh and with circumstantial detail, and seemingly with 
 such success that it maintained its place for some twenty-five years, 
 until F. Thiersch® brought about the victory of the mineralogical 
 theory, and replaced the murrines of porcelain by murrines of fluor-spar. 
 Roloff and Buttmann based their argumentation pre-eminently on 
 the famous passage of Propertius in which are mentioned “murrine 
 cups baked in the kilns of the Parthians” (murreaque in Parthis pocula 
 cocta focis), that without any doubt refer to ceramic productions. 
 They utterly failed, however, to furnish any exact and logical evidence 
 for their proposed identification of murrines with porcelain, which 
 was merely a preconceived idea, or nothing more than their personal 
 impression in the matter. They argued that this porcelain must 
 have come from the land of the Seres, China, where it is exceedingly 
 
 1 Traite des pierres gravees, Vol. I, p. 219 (Paris, 1750). 
 
 ^ Wolf’s and Buttmann’s Museum der Alterthumswissenschaft, Vol. II, pp. 519-572, 
 1810. 
 
 ® Uber die Vasa murrina der Alten {Abhandlungen der bayerischen Akademie, 
 1835, pp. 443-509). 
 
Introduction of Glazes into China 
 
 123 
 
 ancient, and must accordingly have been exported as early as in 
 times of antiquity, and certainly to Persia, whence the murrines were 
 imported to Rome. For a brief period it would have seemed as 
 though the alleged discovery of Chinese porcelain bottles in Egyp- 
 tian tombs might lend support to such an opinion; but for a long 
 time we have known that the whole story amounts to a not very 
 clever fraud.^ 
 
 When the murrine vases were identified with porcelain, European 
 knowledge of the history of porcelain in China was still in its infancy 
 and of the vaguest character; and if a subject is obscure or little known, 
 speculation is usually rife, and the almost incredible is readily accepted. 
 In 1857 Bostock and Riley^ still commented on the murrines, that 
 modem writers differ as to the material of which these vessels were 
 composed; that some think that they were of variegated glass, and 
 others of onyx, but that the more general opinion is that they were 
 Chinese porcelain. The last view has never entirely lost its ground, 
 and still counts adherents in this country. In the “New Standard 
 Dictionary,” published by Funk and Wagnalls of New York in 1913, 
 we read, under the article “murrine vases,” “porcelain vases brought 
 from the East to Rome.” 
 
 The present investigation allows us to settle tliis problem definitely. 
 It is out of the question that the murrine vessels were Chinese porce- 
 lain, since at the time when the former were traded from the Orient 
 to Rome nothing like porcelain existed on this globe. We have seen 
 that ceramic products with porcelanous glaze do not come up in China 
 earlier than the latter part of the third century a.d., and that anything 
 of the character of tme porcelain cannot be pointed out before the 
 sixth century. The vasa murrhina, however, are mentioned consider- 
 ably earlier than these two dates. They were first brought to Rome 
 in 61 B.c. by Pompey, who, after his triumph, dedicated cups of this 
 description to Jupiter Capitolinus. Pompey himself had obtained them 
 from Mithridates. Augustus appropriated a single murrine vessel 
 from the treasure of Queen Cleopatra, which is cited as an instance 
 of his moderation.^ In the time posterior to Pompey, the murrines 
 became more frequent in Rome, and aroused a passion for them among 
 the upper four hundred. Classical Roman literature does not make 
 
 * Compare S. Julien, Histoire et fabrication de la porcelaine chinoise, 
 pp. xi-xxii; F. Hirth, Chinesische Studien, pp. 45-48; N. Rondot, On the Chinese 
 Coins and Small Porcelain Bottles found in Egypt {Journal China Branch R. As. 
 Soc., Vol. XXXII, 1897-98, pp. 66-78). 
 
 ^ The Natural History of Pliny, Vol. VI, p. 392. 
 
 ® Suetonius, Augustus, 71. 
 
124 
 
 Beginnings of Porcelain 
 
 any mention of them; they are foreign to the works of Cicero and Varro, 
 as well as to the poems of Horace, Ovid, and Vergil. Propertius (bom 
 about 49 B.c.) is the first to make a distinct allusion to them. They 
 are further mentioned by other poets, like Statius, Juvenalis, and 
 Martialis. Pliny is the only one to give a somewhat more detailed, 
 though insufficient, description. The first centuries preceding and 
 following our era, accordingly, were the period when the murrines 
 formed the fashion of the day in Rome; and porcelain was not then 
 made in China. The Chinese records relative to the Roman Orient 
 and Persia are reticent as to trade in pottery; and the fact remains 
 that in Persia, India, Egypt, Greece, or Rome, has never been dis- 
 covered a specimen of Chinese porcelain of such age that could lay 
 claim to being regarded as murrine.^ 
 
 In the light of our present knowledge, the porcelain hypothesis 
 must be characterized as a failure, and as being doomed to oblivion. 
 The efforts of the men, however, who formtdated their thoughts along 
 this line, have not been entirely futile; for, as it so frequently happens, 
 error will ultimately lead us to the knowledge of tmth. The champions 
 of porcelain murrines were quite correct in the pursuit of one point of 
 view, — that the murrines were of pottery, not, as has been asserted, 
 of a mineral substance. Their fundamental error lay mainly in the 
 rash manner in which they jumped at the conclusion that Chinese 
 pottery was involved; while we plainly have to adhere to the fact, 
 transmitted to us by the ancients, that the murrine vessels were wrought 
 in the Empire of the Parthians, and that, as stated by Propertius, they 
 were baked or fired in Parthian furnaces. They were consequently 
 products of Iranian pottery; and the peculiar coloration described by 
 Pliny obviously hints at a beautiful and elaborate glazing which was 
 brought out on those vessels. My thesis, accordingly, is that the 
 famed murrines of the ancients were highly-glazed pieces of Oriental, 
 
 '■ Even under the Han, the potter's craft, which in that period had without any 
 doubt developed into an art, possessed no more than purely local significance, and 
 merely catered to the home consumption of the small community for whose benefit 
 the produce was turned out. It seems certain that no inland trade in pottery was 
 then developed, still less was there an exportation of the article. It is notable 
 that Se-ma Ts'ien, in his famous dissertation on the “Balance of Trade” (Shi ki, 
 Ch. 30, translated by Chavannes, Memoires historiques de Se-ma Ts'ien, Vol. Ill, 
 pp. 538-604), describing the remarkable efforts of the Han in the second century 
 B.c. toward a regulation of the factors of wealth and commerce, does not make 
 any allusion to potters or pottery as an article of trade. Neither do we meet, in 
 the historical documents of the Han bearing on foreign relations, any mention of 
 such export-ware. The incidental mention by Se-ma Ts'ien of “a thousand jars 
 (hang) filled with pickles and sauces,” adverted to also in the T'ao shuo (Bushell, 
 Description of Chinese Pottery, p. 93), is without significance. 
 
Introduction of Glazes into China 
 
 125 
 
 that is, Iranian or Persian and Egyptian, pottery. This conclusion 
 directly results from the documentary evidence which the ancient 
 authors have left us. It will be demonstrated at the same time that 
 the substance murra, of which the murrine vases were made, cannot 
 have been a mineral of any sort. 
 
 The Latin word murra (less correctly murrha, myrrha), from which 
 the adjectives murreus {murrheus, myrrheus) and murrinus are derived, 
 was adopted from the Greek morrion (in Pausanias) and the adjectival 
 form murrinos, used in the Periplus.^ The real significance of this 
 word is as yet unexplained. Certain it is that it is neither Latin nor 
 Greek, but was handed down from the Orient with the objects which 
 it served to designate. Roloff was the only one to attempt an ex- 
 planation of the peculiar term by inviting attention to a Russian word, 
 murava, which denotes “glazed pottery.” The defenders of the 
 mineralogical hypothesis have naturally rejected this point of view 
 without giving reasons why it should not be acceptable.^ Yet this 
 opinion is worthy of serious consideration. If it can be proved that 
 the murrines were glazed pottery vessels, there is a great deal of prob- 
 ability in the conviction that the word murra applies to their most 
 striking feature, the glaze. The Russian word pointed out by Roloff 
 indeed exists. It is recorded in all good Russian dictionaries. Vladi- 
 mir Dal,® the eminent Russian lexicographer, notes it in the forms 
 murdva, muravd, and nittr, with a dialectic variant murom (or murom')* * 
 used in the Governments of Pskov and Tver, and interprets it as the 
 glaze applied to the surface of a pottery vessel. Besides this word, the 
 Russian language avails itself of the loan-word glazur (derived from 
 German Glasur) and the indigenous word-formation poUva for the 
 connotation of the same idea. The words mur and murava, not to 
 be found in any other Slavic or European language, are not derived 
 from any Slavic stem, but, like other Russian culture- words, are bor- 
 rowings from an Iranian language. The onomasticon of Ancient 
 Iranian is but imperfectly preserved; and the word mrira or murra, 
 which has doubtless existed in that language, has not been handed 
 down to us in an Iranian literary monument; although a survival of 
 it, in all probability, is preserved in Persian mdrt, murl, or murii. 
 
 ' The readings morrinos, myrrinus, also occur (see the edition of B. Fabricius, 
 pp. 42 and 90); but murrinos merits preference. 
 
 ^ F. Thiersch, 1 . c., p. 457. 
 
 ’ Dictionary of the Living Great-Russian Language, Vol. II, col. 939 (in Russian 
 only) . 
 
 * The accent after m is intended to express the palatalization of the labial nasal 
 m (soft or mouille m.) 
 
126 
 
 Beginnings or Porcelain 
 
 meaning “small shells” or “glass beads.’’^ The conjecture is therefore 
 admissible, that Greek morrion (aside from its Greek ending) is an 
 Iranian loan-word, and that the Iranian prototype had the significance 
 “glass paste, glaze.” ^ 
 
 The earliest author to speak of murrine vessels is the poet Propertius 
 (born about 49 b.c.), in one of his elegies (IV, 5, 26), in which a pro- 
 curess tries to allure an inexperienced lass by promising her all the 
 wealth of the Orient, like purple robes, dresses from Cos, urns from 
 Thebse in upper Egypt, and murrine goblets baked in Parthian fur- 
 naces, — 
 
 Seu quae palmiferae mittunt venalia Thebae 
 murreaque in Parthis pocula cocta focis. 
 
 The most biased adherents of the mineralogical hypothesis were obliged 
 to concede that mineral vessels could not be understood in this pas- 
 sage : no one would be likely to say regarding a mineral that it is cooked 
 or baked. Nor is it necessary to press the verb coquere into a forced 
 
 1 The Persian word mind signifies "enamel” and “glass, glass bead, goblet.” 
 It is very probably connected with Young- Avestan minav, “necklace, ornament” 
 (Bartholomae, Altiranisches Worterbuch, col. 1186). The Persian morl (“glass 
 bead”) is found also in the language of the Abdal or Tabarji in northern Syria 
 (A. VON Le Coq, Baessler-Archiv, Vol. II, 1912, p. 234). 
 
 “ Also the Russian designation for Chinese porcelain, farfor, is derived from 
 Iranian. In the allied Slavic languages we have Ruthenian faifurka, Bulgarian 
 farfor and farforiya, Polish farfura (in dialects faifura; farfurka, farforka, and faforka 
 with the meaning “vessel, plate of stoneware”). The same word is found in Neo- 
 Greek as farfuri {<t>dp<i)ovpi) and in the same form in Osmanli (in other Turkish 
 dialects, farfuru: W. Radloff, Worterbuch der Ttirk-Dialecte, Vol. IV, col. 1914). 
 The Russian lexicographer Dal is unable to account for the Russian word, and 
 doubtfully refers it to a Turkish source of origin. E. Berneker (Slavisches etymo- 
 logisches Worterbuch, p. 279) proposes to derive the Slavic words from Osmanli 
 fag fur, which means “title of the Chinese sovereign; name of a region in China 
 which was celebrated for its porcelain; Chinese porcelain; porcelain in general, 
 vases made from it.” It must be understood, however, that this word is not Turkish 
 in origin, but Persian, and was borrowed by the Osmans from the latter language. 
 For a long time we have known that fagfur is the Persian term designating the 
 Emperor of China (d’Herbelot, Bibliotheque orientale, Vol. Ill, p. 320), and it 
 was d’Herbelot who first pointed out that the Turkish name for porcelain, fagfuri, 
 was adopted from the Persian title fagfur (see also Yule’s Marco Polo, Vol. II, 
 p. 148). The older form is pakpur or pakur (in the form Pakurios preserved by 
 Procopius, the Byzantine historian of the sixth century, in his De bello persico, i, 5). 
 Masudi (translation of A. Sprenger, Vol. I, p. 326) was familiar with the correct 
 significance of the term, explaining it as “Son of Heaven.” It is accordingly a 
 literal rendering of the Chinese title T'ien-tse (“Son of Heaven”), claimed by the 
 sovereigns of China since times of old, the ruler receiving his mandate from the 
 supreme deity Heaven and governing the world in his name. Persian fag is evolved 
 from bagh (corresponding to Sanskrit bhaga), and signifies “God” (“Bagdad” 
 signifies “gift of God”); Persian /wr, bur (Sanskrit putra) means “son.” Also in 
 Persian, fagfuri chlnl and fagfuri relate to Chinese porcelain. 
 
Introduction of Glazes into China 
 
 127 
 
 meaning, so as to conform it with a process to which a mineral could 
 be subjected; for, as has been shown by H. Blumner,i it is the verb 
 utilized in regard to the burning or baking of bricks and all fictile ware 
 in general. 
 
 The fundamental passage in Pliny relative to the murrine vessels 
 runs as follows; — 
 
 “The Orient sends the murrine vessels. They are found there in 
 several localities which otherwise have no special reputation,^ for 
 the most part in places of the Parthian Empire; excellent ones, how- 
 ever, in Carmania. The opinion prevails that the humidity^ con- 
 tained in these vessels is solidified by subterranean heat. In size 
 they never exceed the small sideboards {abaci)] in thickness, rarely 
 the drinking-vessels, which are as large as previously mentioned. 
 Their brightness is not very powerful, and it is a lustre rather than 
 brilliancy. Higlily esteemed, however, is the variety of colors, with 
 their spots changing into shades of purple and white; these two tinges, 
 again, result in a third hue resplendent, through a sort of color-transi- 
 tion, as it were, in a purple or milky red. Some laud profusely in 
 them the edges and a certain iridescence of the colors, such as are 
 visible in the rainbow. Others are pleased by oily spots: translucency 
 or pallor is a defect, and likewise are salt grains and warts, which are 
 not projecting, but which, as in the human body, are depressed. Also 
 their odor is commendable.”^ 
 
 The account of Pliny is vague. One point is conspicuous and quite 
 certain, that he had no opinion of his owti to offer on the subject. As 
 illustrated by the application of such phrases as “putant, sunt qui, 
 aliis placent,” he simply reiterates second-hand information which he 
 had picked up from unnamed sources, most probably from oral accounts 
 circulated by traders in the article. Most likely, these stories were 
 
 1 Technologie und Terminologie, Vol. II, pp. 19, 44. 
 
 ^ Or, in little-known localities. 
 
 ’ There is no reason to take the word umor, as has been done, in the sense of 
 “moist substance.” 
 
 ■* Oriens myrrhina mittit. Inveniuntur ibi pluribus locis nec insignibus, maxime 
 Parthici regni, praecipua tamen in Carmania. Umorem sub terra putant calore 
 densari. Amplitudine numquam parvos excedunt abacos, crassitudine raro quanta 
 sunt potoria. Splendor est iis sine viribus nitorque verius quam splendor. Sed in 
 pretio varietas colorum subinde circumagentibus se maculis in purpuram can- 
 doremque et tertium ex utroque, ignescente veluti per transitum coloris purpura 
 aut rubescente lacteo. Sunt qui maxime in iis laudent extremitates et quosdam 
 colorum repercussus, quales in caelesti arcu spectantur. lam aliis maculae pingues 
 placent — tralucere quicquam aut pallere vitium est — itemque sales verrucaeque 
 non eminentes, sed, ut in corpore etiam, plerumque sessiles. Aliqua et in odore 
 commendatio est (xxxvn, 8, §§ 21, 22). 
 
128 
 
 Beginnings of Porcelain 
 
 directly imported from the Orient, together with the ware. This 
 assumption is a necessary postulate in the case; and it is evident also 
 that Pliny was ignorant of the real nature of the murrines, for he neg- 
 lects to state what their actual character was. He fails to give a plain 
 and matter-of-fact definition of the material, or to classify it in any 
 known category of objects. True it is, he placed his article in his book 
 on stones; but this only justifies us in concluding that Pliny regarded 
 the murrine vases as possibly of stone, but not that they really were 
 of stone. The opponents of the pottery theory forget that pottery 
 is composed also of mineral substances, that we ourselves speak of 
 stoneware, and that many a piece of stoneware is so hard that it is 
 difficult enough to distinguish it from stone. Pliny must have been 
 in the same quandary, and therefore did not commit himself to a frank 
 utterance. This attitude of restraint is conclusive, and at the outset 
 is conducive to two inferences. The substance murra was neither a 
 mineral nor pure glass, for both were perfectly familiar to Pliny and 
 his contemporaries. Why, if the murra plainly was of a mineral nature, 
 should the learned and experienced naturalist not have unequivocally 
 avowed this fact? The murra can have been but a most striking and 
 novel material, which heretofore had been foreign to the Romans, and 
 which, owing to the very novelty of its character, greatly puzzled them. 
 
 Pliny discusses in this chapter the murrine vessels, as they were 
 sent to Rome from the Orient, in the shape of manufactured articles. 
 In the preceding chapter he dilates on their first introduction and 
 their excessive valuation, and tells of renowned individual cups. Natu- 
 rally he is now bound to say what these sensational and luxurious 
 objects looked like. He certainly does not intend to describe here the 
 substance murra, alleged by some interpreters to have been a species 
 of stone. The same interpreters, however, are agreed that in Chapter 7 
 the word myrrhina (eadem victoria primum in urbem myrrhina invexit) 
 refers to murrine vessels, and not to the mineral of which they are 
 alleged to have been made; and it is therefore obvious, also, that in 
 the beginning of Chapter 8 the same word, myrrhina, must refer to 
 exactly the same murrine vessels. Pliny means to convey the mean- 
 ing that the murrine vessels came to Rome from the East. According 
 to Thiersch, it was not the vessels, but the mineral, which was im- 
 ported; but unfortunately he fails to inform us where and how the 
 mineral was wrought. Pliny does not say that the vessels were carved 
 in Rome from an imported substance, but he does plainly state that 
 they were first brought to the metropolis by Pompey. Thiersch^ 
 
 ’ L. c., p. 471. 
 
Introduction of Glazes into China 
 
 129 
 
 sets forth the opinion that Pliny opens the description of the “mineral” 
 by speaking of its size and thickness, then passes on to the description 
 of the surface, its brightness, its colors and their play, and winds up 
 with remarks on the properties of the mass. It would be impossible 
 to unite more absurdities in a single sentence. The dimensions, accord- 
 ing to Thiersch, are exactly stated by the terms amplitudo and cras- 
 siitido; and the murra was a mineral, and, as Thiersch insists, fluor- 
 spar. This mineral, consequently, was quarried in regular blocks of 
 constantly equal dimensions, — a really astounding feat! Fluor-spar 
 or fluorite crystallizes in the isometric system, commonly in simple 
 cubes; this fact could not have escaped Pliny, had he ever had an 
 opportunity of examining this mineral, which is not at all mentioned 
 by him nor by any other ancient writer.^ There is, moreover, no 
 evidence that fluor-spar occurs in Persia, where the murrine vessels 
 were made. There is no evidence that fluor-spar vessels were ever 
 turned out in Persia, and, above all, no such vessels have ever come 
 to light among classical antiquities. They did not survive, because 
 they never existed, save in the imagination of nineteenth century 
 writers.^ But does our Pliny, indeed, speak of any mineral? There 
 
 1 See this volume, p. 62. 
 
 ^ Thiersch himself is not the originator of this fancy. He attributes (p. 495) 
 the germ of the idea to an English scholar signing himself “A. M.” in the Classical 
 Journal of 1810 (p. 472), who, after having seen vases carved from fluor-spar of 
 Derbyshire in his time, persuaded himself that the murrine cups should have been 
 composed of the same material, — an opinion presented without an iota of evidence. 
 According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica (Vol. X, p. 578), F. Corsi, the eminent 
 Itahan antiquary, held that fluor-spar was the material of the famous murrine 
 vases; Corsi, however, followed Thiersch. H. Blumner (Technologic, Vol. Ill, 
 p. 276), reviewing the various opinions, observes that this theory has recently been 
 strongly contested; he himself believes in the mineral character of the vessels, for 
 which weak arguments are given. It is astounding with what high degree of tenacity 
 the unfounded opinion of fluor-spar vessels could hold its position in the face of the 
 bare fact that no such vessels ever existed in ancient Persia, Egypt, or in classical 
 antiquity, and have never come to light. Guhl and Koner (Leben der Griechen 
 und Romer, p. 699, 6th ed., 1893) adhere to this explanation, and, while admitting 
 that we do not possess vessels which can positively be identified with murrines, 
 point to a semi-transparent bowl found in Tyrol in 1837, which should probably be 
 one. This supposition, however, conflicts with the fact that the murrines were 
 not at all transparent, as shown by a distich of Martial (iv, 86): Nos bibimus vitro; 
 tu murra, Pontice: quare! prodat perspicuus ne duo vina calix. In the Century 
 Dictionary it is justly remarked under “murra,” “The principal objection to this 
 theory is that no fragments of fluor-spar vases have been found in Rome or its 
 vicinity.” M. Bauer (Edelsteinkunde, 2d ed., p. 653) sensibly states that there 
 is no positive and sufficient evidence for the allegation that the murrines were of 
 fluor-spar; but neither is there any more evidence for his own opinion, that they 
 may have been of chalcedony quarried in Ujjain in India. E. Babelon (in Darem- 
 berg and Saglio, Dictionnaire des antiquites grecques et romaines, Vol. II, p. 1466) 
 says, “Nous ne savons pas sfirement ce qu’etait cette mati&re precieuse qui servait 
 
130 
 
 Beginnings of Porcelain 
 
 is no sense in speaking of dimensions with reference to a raw mineral. 
 Certainly nobody would compare the size of a mineral with a piece of 
 furniture, and its thickness with a drinking-cup. The use of the 
 word potoria demonstrates that our author, alluding to the costly 
 vessels mentioned in the previous chapter, understands drinking- 
 vessels likewise in this passage. 
 
 Any one who has had any experience in reading Chinese texts 
 relative to pottery or porcelain will be deeply struck by a certain 
 kinship or affinity of terminology that prevails in the latter and in the 
 Plinian tradition of murrines. No, statement or attribute used in 
 this text contradicts the opinion that ceramic stoneware is here in 
 question. On the contrary, some words, indeed, are as well chosen 
 as though they were directly derived from a ceramist’s vocabulary, 
 and are well apt to uphold my theory. The effect of the changing 
 colors produced by the heavy glaze could not be better described than 
 by Pliny’s style. Every lover of Chinese pottery who reads this pas- 
 sage intelligently will confess that he has many times had this delightful 
 experience of observing color changes and transitions, as well as the 
 rainbow iridescence which we so greatly admire in the ceramic pro- 
 ductions of the Han. Translucency as a defect is intelligible only in 
 pottery: it refers to a thin glaze that allows of the transparency of 
 the clay body. “Oily spots” {maculae pingues) is a felicitous ceramic 
 expression; likewise is “salt grains and warts.” ^ 
 
 h fabriquer les celebres vases murrhins. La description quelque peu obscure que 
 Pline donne des vases murrhins . . . est entremfelee de fables et elle ne s'adapte 
 parfaitement bien ni h des coupes d’agate ou de sardonyx, ni a des coupes d’ambre 
 ou de p&tes vitreuses, ni enfin a des coupes de jade, comme le pensent quelques 
 critiques.” Leaving aside the vitreous pastes, this statement is perfectly fair. — 
 L. DE Launay (Min^ralogie des Anciens, Vol. I, p. 85) quotes a writer on onyx as 
 saying, that, despite the similarity of descriptions, the murrines were not of onyx 
 or sardonyx; "Si I’une ou I’autre de ces pierres avait 6t6 le murrhinum, les Anciens 
 auraient certainement donnd aux vases murrhiens, le nom de vases d’onyx ou de 
 sardonyx, au lieu qu’ils ont distingud express6ment les vases murrhiens d’avec 
 ceux faits de I'une, ou de I’autre des pierres susdites.” “The onyx has been proposed, 
 but our authorities plainly imply that the onyx was a material akin to but yet dis- 
 tinct from that here in question” (W. Smith, Dictionary of Greek and Roman 
 Antiquities, Vol. II, p. 182). Other speculations in regard to the murrines were 
 advanced, to the effect that they were made of a gum, or formed from shells. Others 
 referred to obsidian. Veltheim proposed Chinese soapstone. “No mineral has been 
 suggested which answers exactly to Pliny’s description, and at present the problem 
 is unsolved” (Smith, 1 . c .), — sufficient reason for assuming that Pliny’s description 
 does not answer to any mineral. 
 
 1 The sales (this is the only passage in Pliny where sal is used in the plural) 
 were presumably identical with what the Chinese ceramists praise in the Ting porce- 
 lain of the Sung period, which exhibited vestiges of tears (Julien, Histoire, p. 61); 
 those with tear-marks were even considered as genuine (Eitel, China Review, 
 Vol. X, p. 311, and Vol. XI, p. 177; Hirth, Ancient Chinese Porcelain, p. 141). 
 
Introduction of Glazes into China 13 i 
 
 As regards the pleasant odor which Pliny accredits to the murrines, 
 this is intelligible only if the question is of pottery; scented minerals 
 or glass are not conceivable. We are informed by Atheneeus (XI, 
 p. 464 b) that the clay in the ceramic export-ware of Koptos in Egypt 
 was blended with aromatics before the process of baking; and Aristotle 
 follows him in this account. In the Greek papyri of the second cen- 
 tury A.D. are mentioned fragrant vessels {evudrj Kepa/xta) which were 
 possibly turned out in this manner.^ 
 
 In the two chapters following the one in question, Pliny deals with 
 crystal: the introductory sentence contains a reference to the mur- 
 rines. He adopts the popular notion that crystal is a sort of petrified ice, 
 and occurs only in cold regions where the winter snow freezes intensely.^ 
 A cause opposite to the one producing the murrines, accordingly, makes 
 crystal which assumes form through a process of somewhat vehement 
 congelation.^ This observation hints at the previous sentence, “Umor- 
 em sub terra putant calore densari.” The murrines are a product of 
 heat, crystal is that of cold. This remark shows that murrines and 
 crystals are not allied, but adverse substances; and this contrast be- 
 lieved to prevail between the two may be one of the reasons why they 
 formed a favorite compound of speech. 
 
 Passing on to a discussion of amber, our author informs us that 
 this natural product takes rank next among articles of luxury, though 
 the demand for it is restricted to women, and is held in the same regard 
 as precious stones; but whereas no evident reason can be conceived for 
 this appreciation of amber, the reason is manifest for the two former 
 substances, the crystal vases lending themselves to cold beverages, 
 the murrine vases to hot and cold ones alike.'* * The former notion 
 
 * T. Reil, Beitrage zur Kenntnis des Gewerbes im hellenistischen Agypten, 
 p. 41 (Leipzig, 1913). A reddish, odoriferous clay (Portuguese and Spanish bucaro, 
 Italian bucchero) was much in use for pottery during the eighteenth century. 
 
 * This does not restrain him from stating immediately that the Orient sends 
 crystal, and that none is preferred to that of India. The Buddhist monk Yuan 
 Ying (Yi ts'ie king yin i, Ch. 22, p. 2; see above, p. 115) was more discriminative on 
 this point. Speaking of rock-crystal, and mentioning the theory that it should 
 originate from ice a thousand years old, he points out that there is no ice in the 
 scorching heat of India, and that accordingly Indian rock-crystal is not a transforma- 
 tion of ice, but merely a kind of stone. See also T'oung Pao, 1915, p. 190. 
 
 * Contraria huic causa crystallum facit, gelu vehementiore concreto (xxxvii, 9, 
 
 § 23). 
 
 * Proximum locum in deliciis, feminarum tamen adhuc tantum, sucina optinent, 
 eandemque omnia haec quam gemmae auctoritatem ; sane priora ilia aliquis de 
 causis, crystallina frigido potu, myrrhina utroque; in sucinis causam ne deliciae 
 quidem adhuc excogitare potuemnt (xxxvii, ii, § 30). Compare J. H. Krause, 
 Pyrgoteles, p. 90. The passage is somewhat equivocal, owing to the uncertainty 
 as to what omnia haec is intended to refer. It may point to the various kinds of 
 
132 
 
 Beginnings or Porcelain 
 
 directly resiilts from the supposed cold nature of crystal; and murra, 
 being the outcome of heat, must be well adapted for holding hot drinks, 
 or, as the case may be, for cool liquids. The distinction here made 
 by PHny seems to me to add another weight of proof adverse to the 
 opinion that the murrines were of stone; it is not probable, at least, 
 that any stone cups served for hot beverages, while pottery, and heavily 
 glazed pottery in particular, is a material well suited to such a purpose. 
 
 Aside from the main chapter, Pliny devotes a brief sentence to the 
 subject (XXXIII, 2, § 5), in his notice on gold, by saying that “from 
 the same earth [where gold and silver are mined] we dug up murrine 
 and crystal vessels, the very fragility of which is deemed to enhance 
 their price” (murrina ex eadem tellure et crystallina effodimus, quibus 
 pretium faceret ipsa fraghitas) . The passage has materially contributed 
 to the notion that murra, in the same manner as crystal, should 
 be a natural substance extracted from under the ground. “Here,” 
 F. Thiersch (p. 460) remarks, “crystallina evidently does not mean 
 crj'stal bowls and cups, since the latter are not dug out of the soil, 
 but crystal masses from which they are made; and for this reason the 
 parallelism of the words murrina et crystallina, as well as the application 
 of ejffodere and invenire, compel us to assume that murrina is likewise 
 used in Pliny with regard to the substance of the vessels, the murra; 
 and Pliny means to say that the murra, in the same manner as crystal, 
 is found beneath the earth and dug up.” This conclusion is artificial, 
 and by no means cogent. We all know that not only minerals, but 
 also objects manufactured by human hand, are dug up from the soil; 
 and there seems no valid objection why Pliny’s words could not be 
 construed to mean that murrine and crystal vases have been turned 
 up from the soil as the result of excavations. This was not neces- 
 sarily Pliny’s own opinion, but it may have been the outcome of a 
 story transplanted directly from the Orient; and in part this report 
 may well have had a foundation in fact. The passage may signify 
 also that the mineral substances employed in the manufacture of the 
 murra were dug up from the soil. It must be directly connected with 
 the sentence, “Umorem sub terra putant calore densari,” discussed 
 above. The pottery vessels were baked in an underground kiln, 
 
 amber, as has been translated above; or to the previously mentioned murrines 
 and crystals, with the inclusion of amber. The following priora ilia would seem 
 strongly to favor the latter point of view. In that case, Pliny would say that mur- 
 rines, crystal, and amber enjoy the same consideration or esteem as precious stones. 
 It cannot be read, of course, into this context, that the three materials were classified 
 among gemmae, and that for this reason murra was a precious stone; on the con- 
 trary, the passage means that this in fact was not the case, and only that the three 
 were regarded as of the same value as precious stones. 
 
Introduction of Glazes into China 
 
 133 
 
 where the humidity of the clayish substance was solidified by artificial 
 heat, and thus they were extracted from the soil (e tellure effodimus); 
 or the vessels, after being perfectly finished, were intentionally buried 
 under ground to produce an oxidation of the glaze, which resulted in 
 that well-known iridescence and the rainbow colors accentuated by 
 Pliny. Much ado has been made by the adherents of the mineralogical 
 hypothesis about the juxtaposition of murrine and crystal vases in the 
 relevant passage and in another to be cited presently: this fact has 
 been regarded as one of the strongest bulwarks of the mineralogical 
 defence, which, however, is purely illusory. The union of the two 
 products, previously alluded to, was mainly dictated by commercial 
 considerations, since both were received from the Orient: this is the 
 opinion of Pliny, and no other motive guided him in the choice of this 
 expression. On concluding his chapter devoted to the murrine vases, 
 he passes on to the topic of crystal, and notes that “the Orient likewise 
 sends us crystal, that of India being preferred, and it originates like- 
 wise in Asia.”^ The clause “oriens et hanc mittit,” owing to the addi- 
 tion of the particle “et,” forcibly points to the beginning of the pre- 
 ceding chapter, “Oriens myrrhina mittit.” For the reason that the 
 Orient despatched murrine as well as crystal vessels, they were enumer- 
 ated and discoursed in close succession and combined in speech into a 
 compound of pleasing rhythm. There is no valid reason why we 
 should conclude, that, because the names of the two products are 
 allied, the murrine vases must have been of mineral character.^ Similar 
 compounds are found in all languages without giving rise to such 
 forced conclusions. We are wont to speak of the tea and porcelain 
 of China as the most characteristic products reaching us from that 
 country; but no one means to imply that tea must be a substance 
 related to porcelain, or that porcelain must be a kind of tea. The 
 Chinese couple jade with porcelain to denote objets de vertu worthy of 
 the collector, and the substances with which both are concerned are 
 as congenial as murrines and crystal. And who will guarantee that 
 the cr}^stal vases shipped from the Orient, according to Pliny, were all 
 of real rock-crystal? They may have been partially of glass as well.* 
 The price of the murrines was enhanced by their frailty, — again 
 an attribute that thoroughly fits pottery, and most assuredly is not 
 
 1 Oriens et hanc mittit, quoniam Indicae nulla praefertur; nascitur et in Asia 
 (xxxvii, 9, § 23). 
 
 ^ We shall meet the same alliance in the Chinese texts relative to the Hellenistic 
 Orient, where crystal (including also cut glass) and faience were closely joined in 
 architecture. 
 
 ® H. Blumner, Technologie, Vol. Ill, p. 250, note 6. 
 
134 
 
 Beginnings oe Porcelain 
 
 applicable to agate, fluor-spar, or any other stone with which these 
 vessels have thoughtlessly been identified. The murrines were fragile 
 and delicate: Pliny adduces several examples testifying to this fact. 
 A man of consular rank used to drink from a murrine cup, and, from 
 sheer love of it, wore out its edge, resulting in an upward tendency of 
 its value. This good man surely did not possess iron teeth to break 
 through an agate or onyx cup. Pliny himself beheld the broken frag- 
 ments of a single cup, and tells the story of T. Petronius, who, on the 
 verge of death from his hatred of Nero, broke a murrine basin^ of 
 great value. In another passage Pliny observes, “With all our wealth, 
 we even at present pour out libations at sacrifices, not from murrine 
 or crystalline vessels, but from plain earthenware ladles.”^ This 
 sentence occurs in the introductory part of a chapter dealing with 
 works in pottery; and the contrast intended by the author between 
 the rustic, unglazed, indigenous Italic earthenware and the pretentious, 
 glazed, imported Oriental pottery is self-evident. The same discrimi- 
 nation is insisted on in the further discussion of the subject when Pliny, 
 expanding on the exorbitant prices paid for fictiles, laments that luxury 
 has arrived at such a height of excess as to make earthenware sell at 
 higher rates than murrine vessels.® This comparison cannot be con- 
 strued, as has been done by Thiersch,^ as favoring the opinion that 
 the murrhina were fundamentally different from fictilia, but it is intel- 
 ligible only when both were productions of a cognate nature. 
 
 Finally, Pliny enumerates murrines among the most valuable 
 products derived from the interior of the earth, on a par with adamas 
 (the diamond), smaragdus, and precious stones.® H. Blumner® re- 
 gards this text as furnishing strong evidence in favor of the murrines 
 being stones. In my opinion it is of no consequence. Also the passage 
 relating to white glass in imitation of murrines^ is unimportant for 
 our purpose; but it proves at least that the real murrines cannot have 
 been piuely of glass, as has been supposed by some authors. 
 
 ‘ Trulla myrrhina, explained also as a ladle or scoop. 
 
 * In sacris quidem etiam inter has opes hodie non murrinis crystallinisve, sed 
 fictilibus prolibatur simpulis (xxxv, 46, § 158). 
 
 ’ Eo pervenit luxuria, ut etiam fictilia pluris constant quam murrina (ibid., 
 
 § 163). 
 
 * L. c., p. 470. 
 
 '■ Rerum autem ipsarum maximum est pretium in mari nascentium margaritis; 
 extra tellurem crystallis, intra adamanti, smaragdis, gemmis, myrrinis (xxxvii, 78, 
 § 204). 
 
 ® Technologic, Vol. Ill, p. 276. 
 
 ’’ Pliny, xxxvi, 67, § 198. 
 
Introduction of Glazes into China 
 
 135 
 
 Hitherto the attempt has been made to extract the realities from 
 the ancient traditions, and to interpret them without prejudice. It 
 is more difficult to correctly judge the legendary ingredients by which 
 they are incrusted, as we are unaware of the lore of the Orient which 
 prompted such notions as are echoed in Pliny, An analogous field, 
 however, might contribute a little to aid us in understanding some of 
 this folk-lore. Nothing could better enlighten Pliny’s account of 
 murrines than a remembrance of the first experience which Europe had 
 in regard to the newly-introduced Chinese porcelain. If the ancients 
 were deeply impressed and perplexed by the thickly glazed faience of 
 the anterior Orient, and may have mistaken it for stone, an interesting 
 parallel is offered by the fact that in the inventory of the Duke of 
 Anjou (1360-68) is found “une escuelle d’une pierre appel6e pour- 
 cellaine,” and, in that of Queen Jeanne d’Evreux (1372), “un pot a 
 eau de pierre de pourcelaine.”^ In these two cases, Chinese porcelain 
 (corresponding to that of the Yuan period, 1260-1367) is styled “a 
 stone called porcelain.” 
 
 The beliefs of the ancients in an underground substance from 
 which the murrine vessels were made, receive a curious parallel from 
 the fantastic notions entertained by early European writers as to 
 the composition of Chinese porcelain. Barbosa* wrote about 1516, 
 “They make in this country a great quantity of porcelains of different 
 sorts, very fine and good, which form for them a great article of trade 
 for all parts, and they make them in this way. They take the shells 
 of sea-snails, and egg-shells, and pound them, and with other ingre- 
 dients make a paste, which they put underground to refine for the 
 space of eighty or a hundred years, and this mass of paste they leave 
 as a fortune to their children.” In 1615, Bacon said, “If we had in 
 England beds of porcelain such as they have in China, which porcelain 
 is a kind of plaster buried in the earth and by length of time con- 
 gealed and glazed into that substance; this were an artificial mine, 
 and part of that substance” . . . Sir Thomas Browne, in his 
 
 “Vulgar Errors” (1650), asserted, “We are not thoroughly resolved 
 concerning Porcellane or China dishes, that according to common 
 belief they are made of earth, which lieth in preparation about an 
 hundred years underground; for the relations thereof are not only 
 divers but contrary; and Authors agree not herein” . . . These 
 
 fables were refuted at the end of the sixteenth and seventeenth cen- 
 turies by travellers who had occasion to make observations on the 
 
 1 F. Brinkley, Japan and China, Vol. IX, Keramic Art, p. 371 (London, 1904). 
 
 2 Yule and Burnell, Hobson-Jobson, p. 726. 
 
136 
 
 Beginnings of Porcelain 
 
 spot. Juan Gonzalez de Mendoza/ who wrote in 1585, reiterated 
 Barbosa’s story, and (in the early English translation) called its valid- 
 ity into doubt; for, if it were true, the Chinese, in his opinion, could 
 not turn out so great a number of porcelains as is made in that kingdom 
 and exported to Portugal, Peru, New Spain, and other parts of the 
 world.* * J. Neuhof,* who accompanied the embassy of the East India 
 Company of the Netherlands to China from 1655 to 1657, scorns the 
 “foolish fabulists of whom there are not a few still nowadays who 
 made people believe that porcelain is baked from egg-shells poimded 
 and kneaded into a paste with the white of an egg, or from shells and 
 snail-shells, after such a paste has been prepared by nature itself in 
 the ground for some hundred years.” The Jesuit, L. Le Compte,* 
 rectified this error by saying that “it is a mistake to think that there 
 is requisite one or two hvmdred years to the preparing of the matter for 
 the porcelain, and that its composition is so very difficult; if that were 
 so, it would be neither so common, nor so cheap.” These two authors 
 were seconded by E. Ysbrants Ides.® The analogy of the beliefs in the 
 origin of murrines and porcelain is striking; and this fancy has doubtless 
 taken its root in the Orient, whence crafty dealers propagated it in the 
 interest of their business.® 
 
 It would be presumptuous on my part to state positively what class 
 of Oriental pottery should be understood by the murrines. The decision 
 of this question must be reserved for the specialists in this field. Stu- 
 dents of ancient ceramics seem to have already had a premonition of 
 the identity of murrines with pottery.'^ It may be permissible to point, 
 
 1 History of the Great and Mighty Kingdom of China, Vol. I, p. 34 (Hakluyt 
 Society, 1853). 
 
 * This refutation of Mendoza, however, is not contained in the Spanish original, 
 where it is said only, “Y esto fe a visto, y es mas verosimil que lo que dize cierto 
 Duardo Barbosa, que anda en Italiano, que se haze de caracoles de mar, los quales 
 se muelen, y los meten debaxo de tierra a afinarse 100 anos, y otras cosas que agerca 
 desto dize. La muy fina, nunca sale del Reyno, por que se gasta en seruicio del 
 Rey, y Gouernadores, y es tan linda que parece de finissimo cristal. La mas fina, es 
 la que se haze en la Prouincia de Saxij” (I. Gonzalez de Mendoca, Historia de 
 las cosas mas notables, ritos y costumbres, del gran Reyno dela China, p. 25, Roma, 
 1585). Saxij refers to Kuang-tung. 
 
 ® Gesantschaft der Ost-Indischen Gesellschaft, p. 96 (Amsterdam, 1669). 
 
 * Memoirs and Observations made in a Late Journey through the Empire of 
 China, English translation, p. 158 (London, 1697). 
 
 ^ Driejaarige Reize naar China, p. 165 (Amsterdam, 1710). 
 
 ® E. Kaempfer (History of Japan, Vol. II, p. 369) alludes to another superstition 
 prevalent in his time (end of the seventeenth century), that human bones should 
 form an ingredient of China ware. 
 
 ’’ E. Fourdrignier, Les Stapes de la c^ramique dans l’antiquit6 {Bull, et Mem. 
 de la Soc. d’Anthr., 1905, p. 239); he gives his opinion with great reserve, however. 
 
Introduction of Glazes into China 
 
 137 
 
 en passant, to a remarkable find of pottery which offers a fair guaranty 
 of being identical with the murrine vases. 
 
 F. Petrie’s discovery in 1909-10, at the south end of Memphis, of 
 kilns for baking glazed pottery, with a large number of fragments of 
 vessels, felicitously fills a gap in the early history of glazed ware, and 
 speaks in favor of the presence on Egyptian soil of murrine vessels, 
 and particularly even of Parthian murrine vessels. The date of Petrie’s 
 finds is calculated at a period between a.d. i and 50, a fragment of a 
 lamp of known type permitting this conclusion.^ The principal tints 
 of the glazed shards, which are remarkable for their coloring and their 
 design, are a deep indigo blue, lighter blues, manganese purple, and 
 apple green. The designs are almost entirely Persian, showing little, 
 if any, direct Greek influence. Winged bulls, rampant beasts, 
 “sacred tree,” etc., all occur; and the problem arises whether this 
 Persian character points to some Oriental revival of the art of making 
 glazed pottery. In Diospolis, according to the Periplus,^ murrines 
 were imitated in glass; and this imitative manufacture presupposes 
 the existence there of true pottery mturines which were taken as 
 models. The Memphis pottery of Persian style due to Petrie per- 
 fectly answers this purpose, as to both its technical properties and 
 its chronology. 
 
 Among Greek authors, the murrines are mentioned only by Pau- 
 sanias and the Periplus. Pausanias (second century a.d.) recalls 
 them merely in a passing manner. In the Arcadica (XVIII, § 5) 
 he speaks of “glass, crystal, murrine vessels, and others made by men 
 from stone.”® The idea that Pausanias speaks of vessels carv'ed from 
 stone is thorougWy excluded; he hints, on the contrary, at vessels 
 turned out from products and devices of human labor. “Crystal” 
 is probably nothing but cut glass; the union of the terms “crystal” 
 and “murra” has already been discussed. “Glass” indeed belongs 
 to the same category as “murra;” and the passage of Pausanias is 
 sanely interpreted by the rendering, “glass, cut glass, and glazed 
 pottery, and other products made by men from stone.” 
 
 In the Periplus Maris Erythraei, written approximately about 
 A.D. 85,^ the murrines are mentioned in three passages. In Chapter VI 
 
 ^ Compare O. M. Dalton, Byzantine Art and Archasology, p. 608. 
 
 ^ See below, and p. 138. 
 
 ®‘'TaXos fikv ye Kal KpvaraWos Kal poppia Kai ocra earlv avOpuirois dXXa Xidou 
 Toioiipeva. 
 
 ■' Compare the writer's Notes on Turquois in the East, p. 2, note. J. Kennhdy 
 (Journ. Royal As. Soc., 1916, p. 835) is now inclined to date the Periplus at about 
 A.D. 70. 
 
138 
 
 Beginnings oe Porcelain 
 
 we meet “several kinds of glass and other murrine vases, which are 
 made in Diospolis.”^ The latter city is regarded as identical with 
 Thebae in upper Egypt. Here the substance murra is designated as a 
 kind of glass, but it is “another” kind of glass, different from ordinary 
 glass. There is no doubt in my mind that it denotes here the vitreous 
 paste employed for the glazing of pottery, and this conclusion per- 
 fectly agrees with all that we know about the thriving industries of 
 ceramics and glass in Egypt of that period.^ 
 
 Chapter XLVIII of the Periplus mentions the trade of Ozene, — 
 that is, Ujjayini (Ujjain), — the chief city of Malva, in India, whence 
 onyx-like and murrine stones® are brought to the port Barygaza on 
 the west coast. In the following chapter it is stated that these articles, 
 among others, are exported from Barygaza. Again, in this case, we 
 have not to understand by the murrine material a pm-e mineral of 
 uniform character, but an artificial composition of partially mineral 
 origin, turned to glazing-purposes, and introduced into commerce in the 
 shape of cakes, which, on the surface, appeared to the uninitiated as a 
 mineral substance resembling onyx. The Periplus thus opens our eyes 
 to the fact that substances for glazing were traded as far as India, and 
 this is confirmed both by Indian traditions and by the Chinese annals. 
 
 The Chinese, indeed, were acquainted with the murra of the ancients; 
 and Chinese records point in the same manner to the home of the sub- 
 stance, — the anterior Orient, styled by them Ta Ts'in (“Great Ts'in”). 
 The glassy paste for the production of ceramic glazes was called liu-li 
 yi ^ (in the Han Annals life M) or p'i-liu-U, derived from Prakrit 
 veluriya, Maharashtrl verulia (Sanskrit vaidurya).* * The Wei lio, 
 
 ^AiOias vdXrjs Tr\eLova yhrj mi aXXrjs /xovppivrjs rrjs yivop.kvt]$ kv Atoff7r6Xet 
 (ed. of B. Fabricius, p. 42). 
 
 ^ Compare T. Reil, Beitrage zur Kenntnis des Gewerbes im hellenistischen 
 Agypten, pp. 37-50. The mass is well described by W. M. Flinders Petrie 
 (Arts and Crafts of Ancient Egypt, p. 117): “Quartz rock pebbles were pounded 
 into fine chips after many heatings which cracked them. These were mixed with 
 lime and potash and some carbonate of copper. The mixture was roasted in pans, 
 and the exact shade depended on the degree of roasting. This mass was half fused 
 and became pasty; it was then kneaded and toasted gradually, sampling the color 
 until the exact tint was reached. A porous mass of frit of uniform color results. 
 This was then ground up in water, and made into a blue or green paint, which was 
 either used with a flux to glaze objects in a furnace, or was used with gum or white 
 of egg as a wet paint for frescoes.” 
 
 ® ’Opvxii'il Xt0ta mi povppivr]. 
 
 * Palladius (Chinese-Russian Dictionary, Vol. I, p. 367), our foremost authori- 
 ty on Chinese lexicography, has given as the principal meaning of liu-li “glaze” 
 (Russian glazur). Several writers accept the term liu-li in the too narrow sense of 
 “glass” only, and construe a theory that quantities of glass vessels were imported 
 at the Han time from the workshops of Syria and Egypt (for instance, S. W. Bushell, 
 
Introduction of Glazes into China 
 
 139 
 
 written in the third century a.d., attributes to Ta Ts'in ten varieties 
 of liu-li ,- — carnation, white, black, green, yellow, blue, purple, azure, 
 red, and red-brownd This extensive color-scale shows us that not a 
 precious stone is involved (and with reference to India p'i-liu-li or 
 Im-li may well denote a variety of quartz or rock-crystal^), but an 
 artificial, man-made product. This is clearly evidenced by other texts, 
 in which the peculiar utilization of liu-li in Ta Ts'in is specified. Thus 
 we are informed by the Tsin Annals that the people of Ta Ts'in use 
 liu-li in the making of walls, and rock-crystal in making the bases of 
 pillars. The Kiu T'ang shu reports that eaves, piUars, and window- 
 bars of the palaces there are frequently made of rock-crystal and liu-li? 
 Glazed faience for architectural piurposes is doubtless alluded to in 
 these two cases; and we face here the same combination of murra and 
 crystal as we noticed in Pliny It was almost at the same time, or only 
 a little later, that the knowledge of glazed ware spread to the West 
 and the Far East alike from the same focus. It thus was the knowl- 
 edge of the higlily-developed ceramic processes of the anterior Orient, 
 at their climax in the second century b.c. or earlier, which was trans- 
 mitted to China, and gave there the impetus to the production of glazes. 
 
 The conception of liu-li as a precious stone is chiefly upheld in 
 Buddhist texts; but in reading these with critical understanding it is 
 obvious that something else is hidden behind this alleged stone. The 
 Yi ts'ie king yin i^ written by Yuan Ying about a.d. 649, states that 
 
 Chinese Art, Vol. II, p. 17). Nothing of the kind, however, is to be found in the 
 ancient Chinese texts, which, with reference to the Roman Orient, never mention 
 any vessels of liu-li, but merely speak of a substance of that name, without any 
 reference to objects made from it. This clearly indicates that no vessels of any 
 sort were imported, but only pasty masses of various tinges which could be applied 
 to pottery bodies. That liu-li has nothing to do with the production of glass, 
 simply results from the fact that only as late as the fifth century a.d. did the Chinese 
 learn from foreigners how to make glass. If glazed ware makes its appearance 
 under the Han, it is obvious that it bears some relation to the liu-li originating from 
 the Roman-Hellenistic Orient. 
 
 1 Hirth, China and the Roman Orient, p. 73. 
 
 2 See T'oung Pao, 1915, p. 198. In the dictionary Kuang ya of the third century 
 (Ch. 9, p. 5 b; ed. of Han Wei ts'ung shu) liu-li is classed with quartz {shui tsing 
 
 ^ Hirth, 1 . c., pp. 44, 51. Hirth translates liu-li by “opaque glass;” but such 
 walls and pillars of glass have not yet been discovered. 
 
 * In Egypt, as early as 5500 b.c., glazing was applied on a large scale for the 
 lining of rooms. Tdes have been found about a foot long, stoutly made, with 
 dovetails on the back, and holes through them edgeways in order to tie them back 
 to the wall with copper wire. They are glazed all over with hard blue-green glaze 
 (W. M. Flinders Petrie, Arts and Crafts of Ancient Egypt, p. 108). 
 
 * Ch. 23, p. 12 b (see above, p. 115). This text has been adopted by the Fan 
 yi ming i tsi (Ch. 8, p. 12 b: edition of Nanking). 
 
140 
 
 Beginnings of Porcelain 
 
 “the name liu-li or p'i-liu-li is derived from that of a mountain, and is 
 said to be the precious stone of a distant mountain, which is the Sumeru 
 of Buddhist cosmology. This jewel is of green (#) color. Altogether, 
 all jewels cannot be injured, nor can they be melted and cast by means 
 of blaze and smoke. Only the demons and spirits have sufficient 
 strength to break them to pieces. There is further a saying that Hu-U 
 is the shell of the egg of the bird with golden wings.^ The demons and 
 spirits obtain it and sell it to mankind.” This Chinese text is the 
 reproduction of a theme of Indian lore; and the tradition hints at the 
 importation into India of a substance from abroad, which could be 
 wrought only by demons (that is, foreigners) The allusion to melting 
 shows that it really could be melted; and the comparison with the shell 
 of a bird’s egg, which hints at a coating, is the best possible poetical 
 metaphor for a ceramic glaze. It thus seems to me that the Sanskrit 
 term vaidurya and its congeners originally denoted some semi-precious 
 quartz-like stone, and were then transferred to the enamel glaze of the 
 anterior Orient.® 
 
 Chinese tradition refers the earliest employment of liu-li to the 
 reign of the Emperor Wu (140-86 b.c.) of the Former Han dynasty. 
 It is said in the Annals of the Han that this sovereign despatched 
 special agents over the sea for the purchase of the substance p'i-liu-li^ 
 It was likewise known at that period that this article figured among the 
 products of the country Ki-pin (Kashmir), which opened intercourse 
 with China under the same emperor.® 
 
 It is notable that in the Han period objects were found under ground, 
 said to have been made of liu-li, and that we have accounts of objects 
 wrought from liu-li by Chinese craftsmen. Since glass was manu- 
 factured in China only several centuries later, it cannot come here into 
 question; and from the nature of these objects it follows that they 
 cannot either have been of rock-crystal or lapis lazuli. In the biog- 
 raphy of Hu Tsung ^ ® it is narrated that Hu, during the life 
 
 1 The saliva of this bird was believed to produce the gem mu-nan (see this 
 volume, p. 70, note 3). It is the fabulous bird Garuda. 
 
 ^ It is a well-known fact that foreign tribes were characterized by the Aryan 
 Indians as demons under such names as Nagas, Rakshasas, or Pigacas. 
 
 ® It is possible also that the Indian words are derived from a West-Asiatic 
 language. 
 
 ^ In the geographical chapter of the Ts'ien Han shu (Ch. 28 B, p. 17 b). 
 
 ® Ts'ien Han shu, Ch. 96 a, p. 5. S. W. Bushell (Chinese Art, Vol. I, p. 61) 
 dates the appearance of glaze in China only from the Later Han dynasty 
 (a.d. 25-220). 
 
 ® San kuo chi, Wu shu, Ch. 62. See also Yu yang tsa tsu, Ch. ii, p. 4 (ed. of 
 Pai hai). 
 
Introduction of Glazes into China 141 
 
 time of Sun K'iian ^ (a.d. 181-252), while digging the ground, 
 
 found a copper or bronze chest two feet and seven inches long, the 
 cover of it being made of Im-li 
 
 ^ ^). This bronze vessel evidently was of Chinese make; and the 
 only reasonable supposition is that the cover was of glazed ware, the 
 whole affair coming down from the Former Han dynasty. Sun Liang 
 ^ who died in a.d. 260, a son of the aforementioned Sun K'uan, 
 made a screen of Uu-li} 
 
 In the Han wu ku shi ^ ^ (that is, “Old Affairs relating to 
 
 Wu of the Han Dynasty”) it is on record that Wu was fond of the 
 gods and genii, and erected in their honor sanctuaries the doors of 
 which were coated with a white glaze {pai liu-li S ^) that reflected 
 its light afar. The Emperor Ch'eng (32-7 b.c.) built the palace Fu- 
 t'ang M for Chao Fei-yen, and had the doors glazed green.^ 
 
 In the same manner, liu-li is combined with the names for pottery ves- 
 sels: thus we read about “glazed wine-cups” {liu-li chung ^^M)^ 
 and glazed bowls {liu-li wan ^).^ The Chinese hardly ever made use 
 of glass for practical household purposes. Pottery was always the 
 article they preferred. Wine being taken hot, glass was prohibitive 
 for wine-cups. The same holds good for tea. Glass beads were the 
 only article of practical utility to the Chinese. Those who have 
 written on glass in ancient China, merely by consulting Chinese sources, 
 seem to have never seen antique glass or collections of Chinese glass. 
 When the making of glass became known to the Chinese, they began to 
 cut and polish it in its hard state; that is, they treated it in the same 
 manner as hard stone, and applied to it the principles of their glyptic 
 art. Glass became the domain of the carver, of a rather limited art- 
 industrial importance, but it never had any practical bearing upon the 
 
 1 Ku kin chu (Ch. c, p. 5 b; ed. of Han Wei ts'ung shu). A fantastic 
 
 description of this screen is given in the Ski i ki (Ch. 8, p. 6; ed. of Han 
 
 Wei ts'ung shu). There are several other allusions to such screens of liu-li, which 
 in my opinion were made of a thin wall of clay coated with a glaze. 
 
 T'ai p'ing yii Ian, Ch. 808, p. 4. Several writers have conceived the windows 
 and doors of this palace as being made of glass (for instance, A. Forke, Mitt. Sem. 
 or. Spr., Vol. I, p. 113); but we do not know that window-glass existed at the same 
 time in the Western world. Scanty remains of window-glass have been found only 
 in Pompeii and Herculaneum, but no extensive use was ever made of it in the time 
 of the Roman empire. In western Asia no window-glass was made, and accordingly 
 no export to China could take place. Aside from this point, I would be disinclined 
 to believe in the possibility of transporting window-glass from the Orient to China 
 at that time. 
 
 ^ Tsin shu, Ch. 45, p. 8. 
 
 * Yiian Men lei han, Ch. 364, p. 31 b; glazed dishes for eating in Tsin shu {T'ai 
 p'ing yii Ian, Ch. 808, p. 4 b). 
 
142 
 
 Beginnings of Porcelain 
 
 life of the people. Certainly, the term liu-li refers also to opaque 
 glass, especially from the fifth century onward. If in 519, under the 
 Emperor Wu of the Liang dynasty (502-520), Khotan sent to China 
 a tribute gift of liu-li pitchers {liu-li ying these may be con- 
 
 ceived of as glass as well as of glazed pottery. In other passages the 
 exact significance of the term remains doubtful, as in the case of a 
 saddle of brilliant white liu-li, which in the dark emitted light at the 
 distance of a hundred feet, and which is mentioned in the Si king tsa ki 
 ® H Bfi ^ among presents sent to the Emperor Wu from India. Here 
 we have a fabulous echo of traditions that were exaggerated by later 
 generations. 
 
 It is a significant fact that the reign of the same Emperor Wu is 
 characterized by the sudden rise of alchemy and chemical notions and 
 experiments;* * and this novel line of thought is certainly connected with 
 the western expansion and the newly-opened trade-routes across 
 Central Asia inaugurated by the same sovereign. In the Greek alchemi- 
 cal papyri we meet the oldest technical recipes for the fabrication of 
 glass and enamels, and technical treatises on glass.^ Aeneas of Gaza, 
 a Neo-Platonic philosopher of the fifth century, represents glass directly 
 as an alchemical transmutation from a baser to a nobler material by 
 observing, “There is nothing incredible about the metamorphosis of 
 matter into a superior state. In this manner those versed in the art 
 of matter take silver and tin, change their appearance, and transmute 
 them into excellent gold. Glass is manufactured from divisible sand 
 and dissoluble natron, and thus becomes a novel and brilliant thing.”* 
 We have a few intimations to the effect that liu-li was appreciated also 
 by the Chinese alchemists. Ttmg-fang So obtained multi-colored 
 dew and placed it in glazed vessels, which he offered as a gift to the 
 Emperor Wu.® The famous alchemist Li Shao-kun ^ whose 
 
 life and deeds have been narrated by Se-ma Ts'ien, is said to have 
 repaired the brilliant-white liu-li saddle of Wu mentioned afore, when 
 this saddle was once broken during an imperial hunting-expedition; 
 he availed himself of pieces of bone, which were joined by means of a 
 thin, sticky substance, with such good effects, that no damage could be 
 
 * Liang shu, Ch. 54, p. 14 b. 
 
 ^ Ch. 2, p. 2 b (ed. of Han Wei ts'ung shu). 
 
 ^ See particularly Chavannes, Memoires historiques de Se-ma Ts'ien, Vol. Ill 
 p. 465. 
 
 * M. Berthelot, Introduction a I’dtude de la chimie des anciens et du moyen 
 a,ge, pp. 200, 202; Les Origines de I’alchimie, pp. 123, 125. 
 
 ® M. Berthelot, Origines, p. 75. 
 
 ® T'ai p'ing yii Ian, Ch. 808, p. 4 b. 
 
Introduction of Glazes into China 
 
 143 
 
 perceived even in broad daylightd When the ancient Chinese litera- 
 ture on alchemy shall have become as accessible as the Greek, Arabic, 
 and European records of this ancient science, the subject in question 
 will doubtless receive further elucidations. 
 
 While liu-li was imported into China from the Hellenistic Orient 
 over the established trade-routes across Central Asia, and from Kash- 
 mir, another source of supply was represented by Cambodja, which, 
 as we know, was in intimate commercial relations with India, and 
 received from there the products and merchandise of western Asia. 
 In the Calendar or Chronological Tables of the Country of Wu {Wu li 
 
 M), by Hu Ch'ung it is on record that in the fomth year of 
 
 the period Huang-wu "M ^ (a.d. 225), Fu-nan ^ 1 ^ (Cambodja) and 
 other foreign countries sent envoys to China with gifts of liu-li? Ac- 
 cording to another version of the same text, this event would have 
 taken place in the period Huang-lung ^ H (229-231).^ This text 
 contains the mention of the first embassy from Fu-nan (Cambodja) 
 to China, and allows us to infer that liu-li was found there in the begin- 
 ning of the third century and transmitted to China. Another allusion 
 to the presence of liu-li in the countries south of China is encountered 
 in the Kuang chi written by Kuo I-kung IP ^ # under the 
 
 Liang dynasty (502-556), where it is said that liu-li is a product of 
 Huang-chi "M Se-tiao M Ta Ts'in, and Ji-nan 0 ^ (Annam). 
 Finally liu-li was sent also to China from Central India under the 
 Liang dynasty (502-5 56) 
 
 Our most important witnesses certainly are the numerous specimens 
 of Han mortuary pottery glazed in the most varied shades of green 
 
 * T'u shu tsi ch'eng, under liu-li. 
 
 ^ Pelliot, Bull, de I’Ecole frangaise, Vol. IV, p. 391. 
 
 ’ Yiian kien lei han, Ch. 364, p. 31. 
 
 ^ T'ai p'hig yii Ian, Ch. 808, p. 4 b. Compare also Pelliot, Le Fou-nan {Bull, 
 de I'Ecole frangaise, Vol. Ill, p. 283). The Wu dynasty, one of the Three Kingdoms 
 {san kuo), reigned from 222 to 280. 
 
 ^ Presumably on the Malay Peninsula (see Chinese Clay Figures, p. 80, note 2). 
 Liu-li is also enumerated among the tribute-gifts sent from Huang-chi to the Chinese 
 Court {T'ai p'ing huan yii ki, Ch. 176, p. 2 b). Pi-liu-li is mentioned as an article 
 of Huang-chi as early as the Han period {Ts'ien Han shu, Ch. 28 B, p. 17). 
 
 'Probably Java {T'oung Pao, 1915, pp. 351, 373). In the latter passage I 
 mentioned a plant mo-ch'u as growing in Se-tiao. M. G. Ferrand, Consul General 
 of France in New Orleans, has been good enough to write me that this Chinese tran- 
 scription corresponds to Javanese mojo, the designation of the tree Aegle ntarmelos, 
 and that the emendation of Se-tiao into Ye-tiao is thus assured, and the identification 
 of Ye-tiao with Java becomes a definite result. M. Ferrand himself will soon report 
 about this ingenious discovery. 
 
 ’ Liang shu, Ch. 54, p. 8. 
 
144 
 
 Beginnings of Porcelain 
 
 and brown, and still called by the Chinese Uu4i wa The 
 
 fact that the process of glazing itself is not described in the ancient 
 texts, as pointed out by Hobson, is not of great concern. In fact, we 
 have no ancient description of pottery whatsoever; and no technical 
 treatise, if there ever was any, has survived from the Han period. The 
 subject of pottery began to interest Chinese scholars only as late as 
 the age of the Sung and Yuan; and in the same manner as the old 
 writers fail to record the evolution of porcelanous ware, they are reticent 
 as to glazing and other ceramic processes. It cannot be strongly 
 enough emphasized that our knowledge of the subject should be re- 
 constructed on the basis of actual material before our eyes, and not 
 on literary sources which are still very incompletely exploited, or on 
 philological considerations. It is unreasonable to expect also that 
 literary traditions and antiquities of China should blend into a uniform 
 and harmonious picture: neither is such the case in the archaeology of 
 Greece or Italy. We have hundreds and hundreds of Chinese antiqui- 
 ties which cannot be traced to any records, but it would be an absurd 
 procedure to disregard them simply for this reason. Monuments 
 speak their own language, and are entitled to a fair and impartial hearing 
 on their own merits. Both monuments and literature have come 
 down to us only in fragments; and while it is not necessary that one 
 department confirms the other, we must regard ourselves fortunate 
 in seeing one supplemented by the other.^ 
 
 Owing to their lack of interest in technical matters, the notions of 
 Chinese scholars regarding liu-li are the vaguest possible. Mong 
 
 ^ A disk labelled pi-liu-li is represented on the Han bas-reliefs among the objects 
 of happy augury. No conclusions can be drawn from this design as to objects 
 made from liu-li, as the artist took the first element pi in the sense of “disk” or 
 “ring,” and based his conception on this interpretation. His work represents 
 merely an art-motive, not a reality. This subject has been well expounded by 
 E. Chavannes (Mission archeologique, Vol. I, La sculpture a I’epoque des Han, 
 p. 170). 
 
 ^ There are several allusions to green-glazed Han pottery in Chinese writings. 
 One is extracted by Hobson (Chinese Pottery and Porcelain, Vol. I, p. 199) from 
 the Gazetteer of Shen-si Province, and refers to the village Lei-siang in the pre- 
 fecture of T'ung-chou, where the inhabitants sometimes dig up castaway wares, 
 archaic in shape and style, of green, deep and dark, but brilliant color, some with 
 ornaments in raised clay. The Gazetteer of the District of Hua-yang (forming 
 with the district of Ch'eng-tu the prefectural city of Ch'eng-tu, the capital of Sze- 
 ch'uan) reports (Ch. 41, p. 64), “An ancient pottery censer is in 
 
 the Kuang-fa temple ^)> outside of the city, twenty li in easterly direction. 
 
 It is rectangular in shape, posed on four feet, two feet five inches in length, and 
 one foot two inches in width. It is provided with lion's ears [relief designs of animal- 
 heads), and is green and glossy. According to a tradition it is an object of the Shu 
 Han period (221-264).” 
 
Introduction of Glazes into China 
 
 145 
 
 K'ang of the third century, commenting on the Han Annals,^ remarks 
 that p'i-liu-li is green in color, like jade. Yen Shi-ku (579-645), 
 however, rejects this generalization, observing that Mong K'ang’s 
 definition is too narrow; that the substance is a natural object, varie- 
 gated, glossy, and brilliant; that it exceeds any hard stones (^); and 
 that its color is unchangeable. “It is the present practice,” he con- 
 tinues, “to prepare it by the use of molten stones, with the addition 
 of certain chemicals to the flux. This mass, however, is hollow, brittle, 
 and not evenly compact; it is not the genuine article.”^ This is appar- 
 ently an allusion to glass. The notion that p'i-liu-li was regarded as a 
 product of natural origin was suggested by the meaning “quartz,” which 
 originally adhered to the Sanskrit term vaidurya, the prototype of the 
 word p'i-liu-li; but this does not mean that vitreous bodies were taken 
 by the ancient Chinese for precious stones, as has been intimated by 
 some authors. The confusion is one of terminology rather than of reali- 
 ties. The parallel with the conception of murra as a stone is obvious. 
 
 In the Nan chou i wu chi M ^ iS, by Wan Chen H ® of 
 
 the third century, we read as follows;^ “The principal material under- 
 lying liu-li is stone. In order to make vessels from it, it must be 
 worked by means of carbonate of soda.'* * The latter has the appear- 
 ance of yellow ashes, which are found on the shores of the southern 
 sea, and are suitable also for the washing of clothes. When applied, 
 it does not require straining; but it is thrown into water, and becomes 
 slippery like moss-covered stones. Without these ashes, the material 
 cannot be dissolved.” This is probably a recipe for making a glaze. 
 Compare the Chinese notions on using ashes for porcelain glazes and 
 obtaining such ashes. ^ 
 
 At the Court of the Mongol iynasty, four kilns were established in 
 1276 at Ta-tu for the manufacture of plain, white-glazed bricks and 
 tiles {M I^I 5 ^ ^ II), with an army of three hundred workmen. The 
 so-called Southern Kiln {nan yao was erected in 1263, the West- 
 
 ern Kiln {si yao ffi in 1267, and that of Liu-li kii 5 K ^ M (north- 
 west of Peldng) in 1263.® The latter was still operated under the 
 
 * Ts'ien Han shu, Ch. 96 A, p. 5. 
 
 ^ Hobson (Chinese Pottery and Porcelain, p. 144) gives only an abridged quo- 
 tation of Yen Shi-ku’s text, as quoted in the T'ao shuo, which does not bring out 
 the author’s true meaning. The main point is that Yen Shi-ku regarded p'i-liu-li 
 as a natural substance, and looked upon the artifacts of his time as poor substitutes. 
 
 * T'ai p'ing yii Ian, Ch. 808, p. 5. 
 
 * Tse jan hui literally “natural ashes;’’ used also with reference 
 
 to a kind of earth and feldspath (Geerts, Produits, pp. 404, 416). 
 
 ® JuLiEN, Histoire et fabrication de la porcelaine chinoise, p. 131. 
 
 * Yiian shi, Ch. 90, p. 5. 
 
146 
 
 Beginnings of Porcelain 
 
 Manchu dynasty, furnishing the well-known glazed tiles and bricks 
 for the palace, official buildings, and state temples of the metropolis. 
 Glazed tiles and bricks, however, were known in China long before the 
 time of the Yiian. They certainly existed under the Sung. Chou 
 Shan, who in a.d. 1177 accompanied an embassy sent by the Sung 
 Emperor from Hang-chou to the Court of the Krn dynasty at Peking, 
 reports that the palace of the Kin was covered with tiles, all coated 
 with enamels, their colors resplendent in the sunlight.^ Ngou-yang 
 Siu (1007-72) speaks of glazed tiles.^ Sir Aurel Stein® discovered in 
 the ruins of Ch'iao-tse bricks and tiles bearing in beautiful green glaze 
 scroll ornaments in low reliefs, and employed in a Stupa constructed 
 during Sung times.* * Glazed tiles were likewise known under the T'ang. 
 A certain Ts'ui Yrmg who lived in the T'ang era, erected on 
 
 Mount Sung in Ho-nan, in honor of his mother, a memorial temple 
 covered with glazed tiles {liu-li chi wa). The famous poet Po Ku-i 
 (a.d. 772-846) speaks of a pair of white-glazed {pai liu-li) vases.® 
 Remains from buildings of this period show also the application of 
 glazing for architectural purposes. The bricks and tiles of the Han 
 and Wei periods, as far as we know them, are all unglazed, but it would 
 be premature to assert that glazing was then not applied to them.® 
 The continuity of Chinese tradition is vividly illustrated by the 
 fact that the term liu-li, in the same manner as in the Han period, 
 denotes glazed pottery also at the present time. From the T'ang 
 period onward, when porcelain came into vogue as a special class of 
 ceramic ware, a division of nomenclattne took place, — liu-li remain- 
 ing reserved for common pottery, tiles, bricks, and other building- 
 material, while a new term was adopted for a porcelain glaze. The 
 porcelain enamel was styled yu (“oil”), written also 5 ft and 
 As far as I know, this term is first applied by Liu Sun of the T'ang 
 
 1 Chavannes, Pei Yuan Lou {T'oung Pao, 1904, p. 189). Green-glazed tiles 
 were employed in the palace of the Sung Emperors, according to the Yii t'ang kia 
 huo written by Wang Hui in 1360 (Ch. 4, p. 4 b; ed. of Shou Shan ko ts'ung shu). 
 
 2 P'ei wen yun fu, Ch. 51, p. 79 b. 
 
 ’ Ruins of Desert Cathay, Vol. II, p. 252. 
 
 * Many remains of fine glazed pottery were found by Stein on his third expedi- 
 tion in the ruins of Karakhoto (A Third Journey of Exploration in Central Asia, 
 p. 39, reprint from Geographical Journal for August and September, 1916). See 
 also the same author’s Ancient Khotan, Vol. I, pp. 442, 482. 
 
 ® T'u shu tsi ch'eng, xxvii, Ch. 334. 
 
 ® For further notes on this subject see FIobson, Chinese Pottery and Porcelain, 
 Vol. I, pp. 201 et seq. 
 
 According to K'ang-hi's Dictionary, this character is first listed in the Tsi 
 yiin (middle of the eleventh century). 
 
Introduction of Glazes into China 
 
 147 
 
 period, in his Ling piao lu where the making of earthen cooking- 
 kettles in the potteries of Kuang-tmig is mentioned: “They were 
 fired from clay and then glazed” {'^ ^ lil i. 1 ^). A gloss explains 
 yif as ^ 4 . What is meant here is the application of porcelain glazes to 
 earthenware. In ceramic literature the term yu refers exclusively to 
 porcelain enamels.^ It is quite certain also that in the present col- 
 loquial language glass is exclusively styled p'o-li, never liu-li, which 
 strictly refers to glazed ware. 
 
 While we recognize that the Chinese received the stimulus for 
 the production of ceramic glazes from western Asia, it must be empha- 
 sized at once that it was no more than a stimulus, and that the Chinese 
 were not slavish imitators, but soon applied their own genius to the 
 novel idea. The green glaze of the Han pottery, as analyzed by Mr. 
 Nichols (p. 93), may have its analogies in the West, and a thorough 
 search for corresponding materials would in all probability bring to 
 light a Western recipe of the same composition. The first step to 
 independence, however, is taken by the production of the porcelanous 
 glaze of post-Han times (p. 90), which hardly offers any contempo- 
 raneous parallel in the West. From this time onward the Chinese 
 have exercised their own acumen in perfecting the process of glazing 
 and multiplying the scale of beautiful colors. Flinders Petrie^ has 
 offered the ingenious suggestion that glaze in prehistoric Egypt, where 
 it is found on quartz bases, was probably invented from finding quartz 
 pebbles fluxed by wood ashes in a hot fire; hence glazing on quartz was 
 the starting-point, and glazing on artificial wares was a later stage. 
 Such observ'ations of natural glazes ma}'' have also impressed and 
 stimulated the Chinese. The Field Museum owns two earthenware 
 crucibles, obtained by the writer in Si-ngan fu (Cat. Nos. 119076 
 and 119077), which by purely natural causes, owing to the infusion of 
 molten metals, are colored a sky-blue with red flecks; likewise a melting- 
 pot (Cat. No. 1 19347), artificially glazed in the interior and in the upper 
 portion of the exterior, while the lower unglazed part has assumed 
 natural colors of fiery-red and dark green from the effect of liquid 
 metals. It is not impossible that this natural process of glazing in- 
 spired the imagination of the potters and gave the incentive for certain 
 mottled ceramic glazes. 
 
 1 Ch. A, p. 6 (ed. of Wu ymg lien). 
 
 ^ JuLiEN, Histoire et fabrication de la porcelaine chinoise, pp. 245, 247. 
 ^ Arts and Crafts of Ancient Egypt, p. 107. 
 
THE POTTER’S WHEEL 
 
 When the clay is on the wheel the potter 
 may shape it as he will, though the clay 
 rejoins, ‘ Now you trample on me, one day 
 I shall trample on you.’ 
 
 Sir Herbert Risley, The People of India. 
 
 Most of the phenomena of Chinese culture have hitherto been 
 studied in splendid isolation. Sinologues have usually been content to 
 gather their information from Chinese sources and to arrange it in 
 chronological order, giving a more or less critical digest of the subject 
 from the Chinese viewpoint; but the question as to what the phe- 
 nomena actually mean is, as a rule, shunned, their interpretation hardly 
 attempted. It is certainly impossible to grasp any phenomenon with- 
 in a given culture-zone without understanding the parallel phenomena 
 in other areas, and without setting them in correlation with their 
 concomitant factors. The historical position and development of any 
 cultural idea can be determined only by an attempt to unravel its 
 causal connection with the natural group of related or associated ideas; 
 for no phenomenon is isolated or absolute, but conditional upon others, 
 relative, and cohesive. Whether this method be styled that of com- 
 parative ethnology or archaeology, or that of culture-science, or some- 
 thing else, does not matter. It is there, and must be applied if we 
 are eager to reach results. How it can be applied I wish to demonstrate 
 by discussing on the following pages the nature of a simple instrument, 
 — the potter’s wheel. Its concatenation with other technical elements 
 and with social and religious factors will be pointed out, and may help 
 to show the history of pottery in a new light, and in particular to 
 determine the relation of ancient Chinese ceramic art to that of the 
 West. In a case like this one, the foundation of which reaches back 
 into a prehistoric past, a purely historical method is of no avail, and 
 will lead us nowhere. Thus Hobson^ observes, “Unfortunately, none 
 of the [Chinese] writers can throw any light on the first use of the 
 potter’s wheel in China. It is true, that, like several other nations, 
 the Chinese claim for themselves the invention of that essential im- 
 plement, but there is no real evidence to illuminate the question, and 
 even if the wheel was independently discovered in China, the priority 
 
 Chinese Pottery and Porcelain, Vol. I, p. 2. 
 148 
 
The Potter’s Wheel 
 
 149 
 
 of invention undoubtedly rests with the Near Eastern nations.” This 
 indeed is all that from an historical point of view could be stated. 
 
 The making of pottery may well be called a universal phenomenon, 
 despite the fact that there are many areas inhabited by peoples not 
 acquainted with the art. It is unknown to the natives of Australia, 
 New Zealand, and all other island groups of the South Sea populated 
 by Polynesians^ (while it thrives among the Melanesians), to the 
 Negrito of the Philippines, to numerous primitive tribes of the Indo- 
 Chinese,^ to the inhabitants of the Himalaya (with the exception of 
 the Nepalese), and to many nomadic and hunting tribes of Siberia.^ 
 It is further absent in the extreme southern parts of South Africa and 
 South America, also in the whole north-western portion of North. 
 America. Among the polar peoples, pottery has hardly any impor- 
 tance. Of the Eskimo, only the western group in Alaska makes (or 
 
 ‘ With the exception of Easter Island, where pottery is used for the cooking of 
 certain foods (A. Lesson, Les Polynesiens, Vol. I, p. 457; Vol. II, p. 282). It is 
 difficult to accept the oft-repeated statement that the Polynesians do not make 
 pottery for want of proper clays in their habitats. There surely is workable clay 
 in New Zealand and Hawaii; but whether there is or not, I believe with E. B. Tylor 
 (Primitive Culture, Vol. I, p. 57), that, “as the isolated possession of an art goes 
 to prove its invention where it is found, so the absence of an art goes to prove that 
 it was never present: the otius probandi is on the other side.” 
 
 2 Thus the Lo-lo have never produced pottery (A. F. Legendre,' Far West 
 chinois, T'oung Pao, 1909, p. 61 1). 
 
 ’ It is particularly lacking among the present-day tribes of the Amur, also 
 among the Gilyak and Ainu. Hii K'ang-tsung, who as Chinese ambassador in 
 1125 visited the Kin or Djurchi, observed that the latter made no vessels of clay, 
 but only wooden cups and plates coated with a varnish (Chavannes, Voyageurs 
 chinois. Journal asiatiqiie, 1898, mai-juin, p. 395). The same observation still 
 holds good for all Amur tribes, which during historical times appear never to have 
 manufactured pottery. The Japanese traveller Mamiya Rinso, who visited the 
 island of Saghalin in 1808, reports that the forms of the clay vessels and porcelains 
 of the Gilyak (Smerenkur) resemble Chinese and Japanese ware (P. F. v. Siebold, 
 Nippon, 2d ed., Vol. II, p. 233). The question is here of imported Chinese articles, 
 and the observation is of no great consequence. Nevertheless L. v. Schrenck 
 (Reisen und Forschungen im Amur-Lande, Vol. Ill, p. 448) has based an elaborate 
 speculation on this passage, ascribing the manufacture of crockery and porcelain (!) 
 to the Olcha and Gold on the Amur in the first part of the nineteenth century, and 
 making the Manchu-Chinese Government responsible for the forcible destruction 
 of this industry. This is a fantasy of the worst kind, for which no foundation exists 
 in the history of the Amur tribes. What the Chinese colonists manufactured in 
 Manchuria was only crude pottery; contrary to what is asserted by L. v. Schrenck, 
 porcelain was never made there. The term “porcelain” used in Siebold’s transla- 
 tion of Mamiya RinsO’s account with reference to a kiln in the village Kitsi, on the 
 right bank of the Amur, as usual in such cases, rests on a mistranslation. It is of 
 greater importance that the Japanese traveller tells us of earthen pots six to seven 
 inches in diameter, with loop handles on both sides, made at his time by the Ainu 
 of Saghalin. There is indeed reason to believe that the Ainu formerly made a rude 
 and primitive kind of pottery. From the lips of an Ainu seventy years old, on the 
 
Beginnings of Porcelain 
 
 150 
 
 rather made) lamps of clay, which ordinarily are turned out of soap- 
 stone, and cooking-pots d 
 
 A. Byhan^ is disposed to assume that pottery is of foreign origin 
 among the Eskimo. The Chukchi, according to Bogoras,® have now 
 forgotten this industry, but it never was more than a sporadic phe- 
 nomenon among them. The Itelmen of Kamtchatka formerly manu- 
 factured clay vessels, chiefly lamps, as shown by finds in ancient pit- 
 dwellings.'* * F. Boas^ is inclined to attribute the presence or absence 
 of pottery to geographical location rather than to general cultural 
 causes. Economic conditions have a certain bearing on the question. 
 The production of clay vessels is dependent upon a sedentary mode 
 of life. Pastoral tribes, as a rule, evince no inclination toward the 
 industry, and deem utensils of bark, wood, or metal preferable. In 
 Tibet, with its twofold population of agricultural and nomadic elements, 
 we find the use of pottery only among the stationary settlers, never 
 among the roaming shepherds. Even among the former it is an art 
 introduced from China, as is evidenced by the few kilns in eastern Tibet 
 which are operated by Chinese potters.® 
 
 The utilization of the potter’s wheel is restricted to a well-defined 
 geographical area. It occurs only in the Old World, and belongs to 
 ancient Egypt, the Mediterranean and West-Asiatic civilizations, Iran, 
 India, and China with her dependencies. It is germane to the higher 
 stages of culture only, and is conspicuously lacking among all primitive 
 tribes. In aboriginal American pottery the wheel was never employed. 
 
 northern Kuriles, Torii has recorded the story of how pots were previously made 
 there, chiefly by women {Mitteil. d. Ges. Ostasiens, Vol. IX, 1903, p. 327). As is 
 well known, the Ainu of Yezo have preserved no recollection of pottery-manufacture 
 (J. Batchelor, The Ainu of Japan, p. 310), and also on Saghalin and the Kuriles 
 the industry is now wiped out of existence. The prehistoric pottery found in the 
 shell-heaps of Japan likewise must be attributed to the Ainu, who are thus to be 
 classed among pottery -making peoples. See also p. 166, note 2. 
 
 ^ J. Murdoch, Ethnological Results of the Point Barrow Expedition {Ninth 
 Report Bureau of Ethnology, 1892, pp. 91-93). 
 
 2 Polarvolker, p. 69. 
 
 ® Mem. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., Vol. XI, p. 186. 
 
 * K. VON Ditmar, Reisen uild Aufenthalt in Kamtschatk,a, pp. 246-247. As 
 early as 1695, the first visitor to Kamtchatka, the Cossack W. Atlasov, reported 
 that the inhabitants made wooden and earthen vessels (P. J. voN Strahlenberg, 
 Nord- und Ostliche Theil von Europa und Asia, p. 435). 
 
 ® The Mind of Primitive Man, p. 183. 
 
 ® W. W. Rockhill, in a note to his edition of Sarat Chandra Das’ Journey to 
 Lhasa (p. 88), states that, though he never saw the making of pottery in Tibet, he 
 knows that no wheel is used; which is perfectly correct, inasmuch as it is never 
 handled by Tibetans. F. Grenard (Le Tibet, p. 286) observes, “Pottery is of 
 indigenous manufacture, but the Chinese wheel is utilized.” 
 
The Potter’s Wheel 
 
 151 
 
 Our foremost authority on this subject, W. H. Holmes, ^ makes this 
 observation; “It is now well established that the wheel or lathe was 
 unknown in America, and no substitute for it capable of assisting 
 materially in throwing the form or giving symmetry to the outline by 
 purely mechanical means had been devised. The hand is the true 
 prototype of the wheel as well as of other shaping tools, but the earliest 
 artificial revolving device probably consisted of a shallow basket or 
 bit of gourd in which the clay vessel was commenced and by means 
 of which it was turned back and forth with one hand as the building 
 went on with the other.” Of course, if further on (p. 69) Holmes 
 styles the basket used as a support in modelling a clay vessel “an in- 
 cipient form of the wheel,” this is only a figure of speech, for this device 
 bears no relation whatever to the wheel. This remark holds good 
 also for “that simple approximation to a potter’s wheel, consisting of 
 a stick grasped in the hand by the middle and turned round inside a 
 wall of clay formed by the other hand,” evolved for North America 
 by Squier and Davis,^ and the “natural primitive potter’s wheel,” 
 consisting of a roundish pebble, ascribed to the New-Caledonians by 
 O. T. Mason ^ after J. J. Atkinson. Wherever wheel-turned pottery 
 has been foimd in America on aboriginal sites, it has conclusively been 
 proved either that it is of European manufacture, or that the wheel 
 was introduced there by the white man. Thus it has been disclosed 
 that the wheel-made jars, showing also traces of a brownish glaze, 
 which were reported from Florida and other Southern States, and 
 occasionally were even recovered from Indian mounds, are of Spanish 
 manufacture, having been used in early Colonial times for the shipping 
 of olives to America.'* * The Quichua employ for the making of pottery 
 a very simple lathe, which is justly traced to European influence by 
 E. Nordenskiold.^ It is worthy of note also that the distribution 
 of the wheel over the area mentioned has remained almost stationary 
 for millennimns, and that primitive tribes are not susceptible to adopt- 
 ing it, even if siirromided by civilized peoples who make use of it. 
 The Vedda of Ceylon, for instance, fashion pots by hand,® while the 
 surrounding Singalese avail themselves of the wheel. Nothing of the 
 
 * Aboriginal Pottery of the Eastern United States, p. 50 {Twentieth Ann. Rep. 
 Bureau Am. Ethnology, Washington, 1903). 
 
 ^ See J. Lubbock, Prehistoric Times (5th ed.), p. 260. 
 
 ® Origins of Invention, p. 161. 
 
 * Holmes, 1 . c., pp. 129-130. 
 
 ® Einige Beitrage zur Kenntnis der sudamerikanischen Tongefasse und ihrer 
 HersteUung (Stockholm, 1906). 
 
 ® C. G. Seligmann, The Veddas, p. 324. 
 
152 
 
 Beginnings of Porcelain 
 
 character of a potter’s wheel is known among the inhabitants of the 
 Andaman group d Or, to cite another example, the Negroes of Africa 
 have always remained unacquainted with the wheel, though they might 
 have learned its use from the ancient Egyptians, or at a later time from 
 the Arabs. The sporadic occurrence of the wheel in the Malayan 
 Archipelago indicates its introduction from outside. It is found only 
 in Padang Lawas on Sumatra and on Java;^ while in all other Malayan 
 regions, including the Philippines, pottery has remained in the stage of 
 handwork, and is the lot of woman. The Yakut, the most intelligent 
 and progressive people of Siberia, never avail themselves of the potter’s 
 wheel, nor do they know of any process of glazing vessels. Despite 
 the fact that they intermarry with the Russians, and that on the 
 market of Yakutsk wheel-made Russian crockery is offered for sale, 
 they still adhere to their primitive mode of fashioning vessels solely 
 by hand, the only implement that is used being a half-round or round 
 smooth stone, with which the interior of the pot is shaped and smoothed. 
 Instead of securing Russian ware, they prefer to purchase the raw clay 
 material (at from five to ten kopeck a pound), and entrust it to a 
 skilful woman potter, together with fragments of old broken pots, which 
 are pounded and mixed with the fresh clay. According to Saroshevski,® 
 to whom we owe a detailed description of the process, also the illus- 
 tration of a Yakut potter at work, these products come very near to 
 those of the stone age. In their crude technique, they form a curious 
 contrast to the excellent iron-forged work and wood-carving for which 
 the same people are reputed. 
 
 While ethnologists have clearly recognized that the pottery-making 
 of primitive peoples is essentially a woman’s avocation, it has not yet 
 been sufficiently emphasized that the wheel is a man-made invention, 
 and that, aside from the mere technical difference of the hand and 
 wheel processes, there is a fundamental sociological contrast between 
 the two. Among the Indian tribes of America, the fictile art was 
 woman’s occupation, and such it is at present. In discussing the 
 methods of primitive pottery, O. T. Mason ^ observes, “It will be noted 
 that the feminine gender is used throughout in speaking of aboriginal 
 potters. This is because every piece of such ware is the work of woman’s 
 hands. She quarried the clay, and, like a patient beast of burden, 
 bore it home on her back. She washed it and kneaded it, and rolled 
 
 I E. H. Man, On the Aboriginal Inhabitants of the Andaman Islands, p. 154. 
 
 ^ Encyclopaedie van Nederlandsch-Indie, Vol. Ill, pp. 321, 322. 
 
 ’ The Yakut (in Russian), Vol. I, p. 378. 
 
 * Origins of Invention, p. 166; see also his Woman’s Share in Primitive Culture, 
 p. 91. 
 
The Potter’s Wheel 
 
 153 
 
 it into fillets. These she wound carefully and symmetrically until 
 the vessel was built up. She further decorated and burned it, and 
 wore it out in household drudgery. The art at first was woman’s.” 
 As regards Africa, we owe a very able investigation to H. Schurtz,i 
 whose studies of African conditions prompted him to the conclusion 
 that pottery ever}rwhere appears to be an invention of woman, who 
 was more imgently in need of boiling water in the preparation of vege- 
 table food than man in dressing his hunting-spoils. A map constructed 
 by Schurtz, and illustrating the distribution of pottery over Africa, 
 shows at a glance that the largest territory is occupied by female 
 potters; that male potters occur only in Abyssinia, among the Galla 
 and Somali in eastern Africa, and this owing to Arabic influence. In 
 a few other areas men are engaged in the making of the bowls for their 
 cherished tobacco-pipes, while the women produce from clay all domes- 
 tic and kitchen utensils; and in a few localities only, men and women 
 co-operate in the ceramic industry. In regard to the Khasi in Assam, 
 Major Gordon^ observes, “The women fashion the pots by hand, they 
 do not use the potter’s wheel.” On the Nicobars the men take no 
 part in the construction of pots.® All over Melanesia, pottery is made 
 exclusively by women. The making of clay vessels is no longer prac- 
 tised by the Chukchi, but their old women (not the men) have a vivid 
 recolleetion of the elay kettles which were used in former times.^ 
 
 The potter’s wheel, however, is the creation of man, and therefore 
 is an independent act of invention which was not evolved from any 
 eontrivance utilized during the period of hand-made ceramic ware. 
 The two processes have grown out of two radically distinct spheres of 
 hvunan activity. The wheel, so to speak, came from another world. 
 It had no point of contact with any tool that existed in the old indus- 
 try, but was brought in from an outside quarter as a novel affair, when 
 
 1 Das afrikanische Gewerbe, pp. 13-19. 
 
 2 The Khasis, p. 61. 
 
 ® C. B. Kloss, In the Andamans and Nicobars, p. 107. According to E. H. 
 Man (On the Aboriginal Inhabitants of the Andaman Islands, p. 154), the manu- 
 facture of pots on the Andamans is not confined to any particular class, or to either 
 sex, but the better specimens are generally produced by men. Compare the same 
 author’s Nicobar Pottery (/. Anthr. Institute, Vol. XXIII, 1894, PP- 21-27). Also 
 among the Vedda pots are turned out by both men and women (C. G. Seligmann, 
 The Veddas, p. 324). 
 
 W. Bogoras, in Mem. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., Vol. XI, p. 186. The industry 
 of primitive pottery is fast dying out everywhere under the influence of “civiliza- 
 tion” (compare, for instance, M. R. Harrington, Catawba Potters and Their 
 Work, in Am. Anthr., Vol. X, 1908, pp. 399-407: and The Last of the Iroquois Pot- 
 ters, in N. Y. State Mus. Bull., 1909, pp. 222-227; as to Africa, see O. Baumann, 
 Globus, Vol. LXXX, 1901, p. 127). 
 
154 
 
 Beginnings of Porcelain 
 
 man appropriated to himself the work hitherto cultivated by woman. 
 The development was one from outside, not from within. All efforts, 
 accordingly, which view the subject solely from the technological 
 angle, and try to derive the wheel from previous devices of the female 
 potter, are futile and misleading.^ It is as erroneous as tracing the 
 plough back to the hoe or digging-stick, whereas in fact the two 
 are in no historical interrelation, and belong to fundamentally differ- 
 ent culture strata and periods, — the hoe to the gardening activity of 
 woman, the plough to the agricultural activity of man. Both in India 
 and China, the division of ceramic labor sets apart the thrower or 
 wheel-potter, and distinctly separates him from the moulder. The 
 potters of India, who work on the wheel, do not intermarry with those 
 who use a mould or make images.^ They form a caste by them- 
 selves.® In ancient China, a net discrimination was made between 
 wheel-potters {t'ao jen A) and moulders {fang jen M A).^ This 
 clear distinction is accentuated also by Chu Yen in his Treatise 
 
 1 E. J. Banks (Terra-Cotta Vases from Bismya, Am. Journ. Sem. Langs., 
 Vol. XXII, 1905-06, p. 140) has this observation on the making of Babylonian 
 pottery: “ From the study of Bismya pottery it is evident that a wheel was employed 
 at every period, yet all of the vases were not turned. No. 43, a form reconstructed 
 from several fragments from the lowest strata of the temple hiU, and which therefore 
 dates several millenniums before 4500 B.C., has the appearance of having been formed 
 by placing the clay upon a flat surface, and while the potter shaped it with one hand, 
 he turned the board or flat stone, whatever it was upon which it rested, with the 
 other. This was probably the origin of the potter’s wheel; it was but a matter 
 of time when an arrangement was attached to the board that it might be turned 
 with the feet.” All this is purely speculative and fantastic, and has no value for 
 the real history of the wheel. 
 
 ^ A. Baines, Ethnography (Castes and Tribes) of India, p. 65. 
 
 ® The social position of the Indian potter is differently described by various 
 authors. H. Compton (Indian Life in Town and Country, p. 65) observes that 
 the potter in India is an artist; that he is an hereditary village officer, and receives 
 certain very comfortable fees; that his position is respected; that he enjoys the 
 privilege of beating the drum at merry-makings, that he shares with the barber 
 a useful and lucrative place in the community; and that there is probably no member 
 of it who is happier in his lot, and less liable to the vicissitudes of fortune. H. 
 Risley (People of India, p. 130) gives us a bit of Indian popular thought regarding 
 the potter: “He lives penuriously, and his own domestic crockery consists of broken 
 pots. He is a stupid fellow — in a deserted village even a potter is a scribe — 
 and his wife is a meddlesome fool, who is depicted as burning herself, like a Hindu 
 wife, on the carcase of the Dhobi’s donkey.” According to G. C. M. Birdwood 
 (Industrial Arts of India, Vol. II, p. 146), the potter is one of the most useful and 
 respected members of the community, and in the happy religious organization of 
 Hindu village life there is no man happier than the hereditary potter. The truth 
 probably lies in the midway between these two extreme appreciations. As to an- 
 cient times, compare the Buddhist story of the sage potter, translated by E. Lang 
 {Journal asiatique, 1912, mai-juin, p. 530). 
 
 ^ E. Biot, Tcheou-li, Vol. II, pp. 537-539- 
 
The Potter’s Wheel 
 
 155 
 
 on Pottery.^ He justly observes also that the articles made by the 
 wheel-potters were all intended for cooking, with the exception of the 
 vessel yii }M., which was designed for measuring; while the output of 
 the moulders, who made the ceremonial vessels kmi and tou SL 
 by availing themselves of the plumb-line, was intended for sacrificial 
 use. Also here, in like manner as in ancient Rome, India, and Japan, 
 the idea may have prevailed that a wheel-made jar is of a less sacred 
 character than one made by hand. 
 
 Wherever the potter’s wheel is in use, it is manipulated by man, 
 never by woman.* It is man’s invention, it is man’s sphere of work. 
 As implied by its very name, it is directly derived from a chariot-wheel, 
 which is likewise due to man’s efforts. Such a real cart-wheel with 
 four spokes is still operated by the Tamil potters. It is well illustrated 
 by E. Thurston,® and thus described after E. Holder (Fig. i): “The 
 potter’s implements are few, and his mode of working is very simple. 
 The wheel, a clumsily constructed and defective apparatus, is com- 
 posed of several thin pliable pieces of wood or bamboo, bent and tied 
 together in the form of a wheel about three feet and a half in diameter. 
 This is covered over thickly with clay mixed with goat’s hair or any 
 fibrous substance. The four spokes and the centre on which the vessel 
 rests are of wood. The pivot is of hard wood or steel. The support 
 for the wheel consists of a rounded mass of clay and goat’s hair in 
 which is embedded a piece of hard wood or stone, with one or two slight 
 depressions for the axle or pivot to move in. The wheel is set into 
 motion first by the hand, and then spun rapidly by the aid of a long 
 piece of bamboo, one end of which fits into a slight depression in the 
 wheel. The defects in the apparatus are, firstly, its size, which re- 
 quires the potter to stoop over it in an uneasy attitude; secondly, the 
 irregularity of its speed, with a tendency to come to a standstill, and 
 to wave or wobble in its motion; and, thirdly, the time and labor ex- 
 pended in spinning the wheel afresh every time its speed begins to 
 
 ^ T'ao skuo Ch. 2, p. 2 (new edition, 1912). Compare S. W. Bushell, 
 
 Description of Chinese Pottery, p. 33. 
 
 ^ Woman working on the potter’s wheel is a strictly modern artificial reform 
 of our “civilization,” which tends to check the “man-made world,” with the result 
 that it insures woman’s industrial enslavement to perfection. Mary White (How 
 to make Pottery, p. 28) observes, “Until lately, few women potters have worked on 
 the wheel, because the ordinary form of potter’s wheel, which was turned with 
 one foot, the potter standing on the other, made the work too difficult and laborious 
 for a woman to attempt. Now, however, a wheel copied from an old French model 
 is in use, which enables the potter to sit while at work.” 
 
 ^ Castes and Tribes of Southern India, Vol. IV, p. 190. Holder’s article is 
 in Journal of Indian Art, No. 58, being accompanied by excellent illustrations of 
 potter’s wheels and of potters working at the wheel. 
 
Beginnings of Porcelain 
 
 156 
 
 slacken. Notwithstanding, however, the rudeness of this machine, 
 the potters are expert at throwing, and some of their small wares are 
 thin and delicate.” It should be added, that, as may be seen in the 
 illustration (Fig. i), the wheel is but slightly above the ground, and that 
 the potter stands bent over the vessel. The apparatus, described by 
 E. A. Gait^ for the kilns of Assam, has likewise featmes in common 
 with the cart-wheel. While the centre consists of a solid disk of tama- 
 rind or some other hard wood, about thirteen inches in diameter, 
 there is an outer rim joined to it by means of four wooden spokes, each 
 of these being about six inches in length. The outer rim, about six 
 inches wide, is made of split bamboo, bound with cane, and covered 
 with a thick plaster of clay mixed with fibres of the sago palm. The 
 object of this rim is to increase the weight of the wheel, and thereby 
 add to its momentum.^ In Assamese as well as in Bengali, the potter’s 
 wheel is simply called cak (“wheel,” from Sanskrit cakra). 
 
 In the fatapatha Brahmana (XI, 8) the potter’s wheel {kauld- 
 lacakra; kuldla, “potter;” cakra, “wheel”) is thus alluded to in close 
 connection with the cart-wheel; “Verily, even as this cart-wheel, or 
 a potter’s wheel, would creak if not steadied, so, indeed, were these 
 worlds unfirm and unsteadied.”® A similar association of ideas occurs 
 in the Chinese philosopher Huai-nan-tse, who died in 122 b.c. He 
 compares the activity of Heaven as the creative power with the revolu- 
 tions of a wheel by saying, “The wheel of the potter revolves, the 
 wheel of the chariot turns; when their circle is completed, they repeat 
 their revolution.”* In the porcelain-factories of King-te-chen, the 
 potter’s wheel is styled Vao ch'e ^ (that is, “potter’s chariot”) or 
 lun ch'e H ^ (that is, “wheeled chariot”). Ordinarily the potter 
 speaks simply of his “wheel” {lun-tse H J‘). An engraving of about 
 1540 shows an Italian potter’s table in the shape of a regular six- 
 spoked wheel.® Technically speaking, the potter’s wheel is nothing 
 
 * The Manufacture of Pottery in Assam {Journalof Indian Art,V ol.Yll, 1897, p. 6). 
 
 ® The Assam potters do not finish their pieces on the wheel, but when taken 
 
 down and sun-dried, they are placed in a hollow mould of wood or earthenware, 
 in which they assume their final shape by being beaten with a flat wooden or earthen- 
 ware mallet, held in the right hand, against a smooth, oval-shaped stone held by 
 the left hand against the inner surface. When the required shape has been given 
 the vessel, it is again sun-dried, the surface being then polished with an earthen- 
 ware pestle or a rag. 
 
 5 J. Eggeling’s translation in Sacred Books of the East, Vol. XLIV, p. 126. The 
 exact date of this work is not known, but it is believed that it goes back to the 
 sixth century b.c. 
 
 * Chavannes, M^moires historiques de Se-ma Ts'ien, Vol. V, p. 27. 
 
 ‘ Encyclopaedia Britannica, Vol. V, p. 706. 
 
The Potter’s Wheel 
 
 157 
 
 Fig. I 
 
 INDIAN Potter’s Wheel in the Shape of A Cart-Wheel 
 (Sketch after Holder, Journal of Indian Art) 
 
158 
 
 Beginnings of Porcelain 
 
 but a primitive cart-wheel turning on its axle. The invention pre- 
 supposes the existence of the wheel adapted to transportation, and 
 in all the great civilizations in which, as stated above, the potter’s 
 wheel is found, we indeed meet also the wheeled cart. We further 
 observe, that, wherever the potter’s wheel occurs and the wheeled 
 cart does not occur, the former was introduced from a higher culture- 
 zone: for instance, in Japan, to which the conception of the cart is 
 foreign, and which received the potter’s wheel from Korea; or among 
 the Tibetans, who have no wheeled vehicles, and in the midst of whom 
 the potter’s wheel is only handled by Chinese.^ Again, the wheeled 
 cart is conspicuously absent in all those culture-areas in which, as has 
 been stated, the potter’s wheel is unknown. Wherever original con- 
 ditions have remained intact and undisturbed by outside currents, 
 the two implements either co-exist, or do not exist at all. Of course, 
 it must not be understood that the idea of the potter’s wheel was con- 
 ceived in a haphazard manner, as though a wheel, intentionally or 
 incidentally, had been detached from a cart, its novel utilization being 
 reasoned out on speculative and technical grounds. Primitive man, 
 and man of the prehistoric past, is not a rationalistic or utilitarian 
 being, but one endowed with thoughts of highly emotional character, 
 and prompted to peculiar associations of ideas that are inspired by 
 religious sentiments. Of the theories which have been expounded in 
 regard to the primeval origin of the wheel, none as yet is wholly satis- 
 factory; but this much is assured, that it was connected with a certain 
 form of religious worship, that in its origin the chariot was utilized in 
 the cult before it was turned to practical purposes of transportation.® 
 The symbolism and worship of the wheel in western Asia, prehistoric 
 Europe and India, is so well known that this matter does not require 
 recapitulation. A similar spirit pervades the early references to the 
 potter, his work and his wheel. In the Old Testament the potter’s 
 control over the clay illustrates the sovereignty of God, who made 
 man of clay, and formed him according to his will. “ O house of Israel, 
 cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the Lord. Behold, as the 
 clay is in the potter’s hand, so are ye in my hand, saith the Lord” 
 (Jeremiah XVIII. i-6). “Shall the thing formed say to him that 
 formed it. Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power 
 
 1 The wheeled cart is designated in Tibetan siting rta (“wooden horse”), — a 
 word-formation which testifies to the fact that the cart is foreign to Tibetan culture. 
 In fact, carts are not employed by Tibetans. We only read in ancient records of 
 vehicles for the use of kings, presumably introduced from India. 
 
 2 E. Hahn, Alter der wirtschaftlichen Kultur, p. 123; and Entstehung der 
 Pflugkultur, p. 40. 
 
The Potter’s Wheel 
 
 159 
 
 over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour and 
 another unto dishonour?” (Romans IX. 20, 21.) In ancient Egypt, 
 the god Phtah fashions the egg of the world on a potter’s wheel, setting 
 it in motion with his feet.^ According to W. Crooke,^ the potter of 
 India regards the making of his vessels as a semi-religious art. The 
 wheel he worships as a type of the creator of all things; and when he 
 fires his kiln, he makes an offering and a prayer. He also makes the 
 funeral jar, in which the soul of the dead man for a time takes refuge. 
 Hence he is a sort of funeral priest, and in some parts of the country 
 receives regular fees. It was a current notion in ancient China that 
 the evolution of Heaven creates the beings in the same manner as the 
 potter turns his objects of clay on the wheel. The potter’s wheel was a 
 symbol of the creative power of nature. In the ancient writers in whose 
 works this conception looms up it appears as a purely philosophical 
 abstraction; but it is obvious that the latter goes back to a genuine 
 mythological idea, which, like everything mythical in China, is lost, — 
 the naive conception of the creator as a potter and thrower (as in the 
 Old Testament). The potter’s wheel was used also as a simile with 
 reference to the activity of the sovereign. Yen Shi-ku, in his commen- 
 tary on the Han Annals, quotes a saying that “the holy rulers by virtue 
 of their regulations managed the empire in the same manner as a potter 
 turns the wheel.” It is therefore not impossible that religious specula- 
 tions, centring around the cart-wheel and the fashioning of clay vessels 
 and figures, might have had a prominent share in associating the wheel 
 with the potter’s activity, and given the first impetus to “throwing.” 
 If it can be maintained that the ancient Egyptians were the first to employ 
 the potter’s wheel, it may well be that the invention is due to the circle 
 of the priests. Be this germ idea as it may, the cultiu* *e-historical posi- 
 tion of the potter’s wheel is well ascertained. In view of the vast periods 
 of human prehistory, it is a comparatively late invention, following in 
 time the construction of the wheeled cart, being based on the cart-wheel, 
 and made by man (presumably first by priests in illustration of a myth 
 for religious worship) during the stage of fully-developed agriculture. 
 
 In the stage of hoe-culture or gardening, the occupation of woman, 
 the potter’s wheel is absent. Wherever it appears, it is correlated with 
 man’s activity in agriculture, based on the employment of the ox and 
 plough. This featme is illustrated by both ancient China and India. 
 The Emperor, or more correctly culture-hero. Shun (alleged 2258-2206 
 B.C.), in his youth, before he assumed charge of the administration of 
 
 1 E. A. W. Budge, Gods of the Egyptians, Vol. I, p. 500, with colored plate. 
 
 * Things Indian, p. 389. 
 
i6o 
 
 Beginnings of Porcelain 
 
 the empire, is said to have practised husbandry, fishing, and making 
 pottery jars: he fashioned clay vessels on the bank of the River, and 
 all these were without flawd The philosopher Mong-tse explained this 
 act by saying that Shun continually tried to learn from others and to 
 take example from his fellowmen in the practice of virtued Another 
 tradition crops out in the Ki chung Chou shu:^ here the incipient work 
 in clay is attributed to the culture-hero Shen-nung, who, as implied 
 by his name (“Divine Husbandman”), was regarded as the father of 
 agriculture and discoverer of the healing-properties of plants. In 
 this ancient lore we meet a close association of agriculture with pottery, 
 and an illustration of the fact that husbandman and potter were one 
 and the same person during the primeval period. 
 
 Likewise in ancient India the potter’s trade was localized in special 
 villages, either suburban or ancillary to large cities, or themselves 
 forming centres of traffic with surrounding villages.^ Thus it is the 
 case at the present day. When the writer, in 1908, passed through 
 Calcutta and desired to see a Hindu potter at work, he was obliged 
 to drive several miles out of the city into a neighboring village. In 
 fact, the potter is a peasant, and attends to his field during the rainy 
 season, when he is unable to pursue his craft; he must have dry weather 
 to harden his pots before they are fired.® According to Sir A. Baines,® 
 the potter is one of the recognized village staff, and, in return for his 
 customary share in the harvest, is bound to furnish the earthenware 
 vessels required for domestic use. His caste is associated with the 
 donkey, the saddle-animal of the Goddess of Small-Pox; and his donkey, 
 when the kiln is not in operation, is employed in carrying grain and 
 other produce. In most parts of the country the potters sometimes 
 hold land, and in others take service in large households. 
 
 Likewise in ancient China the potter lived in close contact with the 
 farmer, and received from liim cereals in exchange for his products.'^ 
 
 I Chavannes, Memoires historiques de Se-ma Ts'ien, Vol. I, pp. 72, 74; compare 
 Biot, Tcheou-li, Vol. II, p. 462. See also Shi ki, Ch. 128, p. 5, where the com- 
 mentary cites the Shi pen to the effect that Kun-wu (this volume, p. 39) made 
 pottery. 
 
 ^ Legge, Chinese Classics, Vol. II, p. 206. 
 
 ® Chavannes, 1. c., Vol. V, p. 457. 
 
 ^ R. Fick, Die sociale Gliederung im nordSstlichen Indien, pp. 179, 181. Mrs. 
 Rhys Davids, Notes on Early Economic Conditions in Northern India {Journ. 
 Roy. .4s. Soc., 1901, p. 864). 
 
 ^ W. Crooke, Natives of Northern India, p. 135. 
 
 ® Ethnography (Castes and Tribes), p. 65 (Strassburg, 1912; Encyclopcedia of 
 Indo-Aryan Research). 
 
 ’’ According to Mong-tse, hi, i, § 4 (Legge, Chinese Classics, Vol. II, p. 248). 
 
The Potter’s Wheel 
 
 i6i 
 
 The farmer was in urgent need of these articles, which were in large 
 demand; for “a single potter wo^dd not do in a country of ten thousand 
 families, and could not supply their wants,” and “with but few potters 
 a kingdom cannot subsist.” ^ 
 
 The potter’s particular residence is naturally determined by the 
 sites of suitable clay, and his dependence on clay-digging excludes 
 him from towns and cities. Thus A. K. Coomaraswamy'^ observes, 
 “The Singalese potters are found all over the country in every village 
 affording the necessary clay, but often aggregated in greater numbers 
 in places where an especially good supply of suitable clay is available. 
 Thence the potter carries his pots for sale to more remote districts in 
 huge pingo loads.” The same holds good for China; all kilns are lo- 
 cated in the country, and the potters supplying the wants of the villages 
 and towns are farmers themselves. 
 
 The modifications brought about in the industry by the application 
 of the wheel were fundamental and far-reaching. Technically they led to 
 a greater rapidity and hence intensity of the process, but, above all, 
 to many new features of form, consigning many others to oblivion. 
 Likewise they residted in a regularity, symmetry, harmony, and grace 
 of shape, in a refinement and perfection unattained heretofore. The 
 potter’s art came in close touch and was set in correlation with other 
 man-made industries, particularly with that of the bronze-founder, 
 who furnished the potter with new ideas of forms and designs.^ The 
 birth of artistic pottery was thus inaugurated. In passing from the 
 hands of woman into those of man, the whole industry was imbued 
 with a more active and vigorous spirit, and elevated to a higher plane 
 by man’s creative genius. It overstepped the narrow boundary of 
 purely domestic necessity and developed into an organized system of 
 carefully-planned and skilfully-directed manufacture on a large scale 
 and with a wide scope. The ceramic work turned out by woman 
 depended on local conditions, and catered to the narrow circle of the 
 
 1 Mong-tse, VI, 2, §§ 3 and 6 {ibid., p. 442). 
 
 ^ Mediaeval Sinhalese Art, p. 218. 
 
 ^ W. Hough (Man and Metals, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 
 Vol. II, 1916, p. 125) justly insists on the intimate connection of clay and metal 
 working. The activity of the ancient sovereigns of China is likened not only to 
 that of the potter, but also to that of the founder. Potter and founder | 5 ^ ^ are 
 frequently mentioned together (for instance, by Mong-tse: Legge, Chinese Classics, 
 Vol. II, p. 248). The correlation of the mortuary pottery of the Han with corre- 
 sponding types in bronze has been shown by me in detail. The same phenomenon 
 occurs in the prehistoric ceramic art of central Europe, where imported Roman 
 bronze vessels were imitated and reproduced in clay (see particularly A. Voss, 
 Nachahmungen von Metallgefassen in der prahistorischen Keramik, Verh. Berl. 
 Anthr. Ges., Vol. XXXIII, 1901, pp. 277-284). 
 
i 62 
 
 Beginnings of Porcelain 
 
 home community. The widened horizon of man led him to search for 
 clays and other materials in distant localities, and to trade his finished 
 product over the established routes of commerce in exchange for other 
 goods. It was due to the introduction of the wheel that ceramic 
 labor was afforded the opportunity of growing out of a mere communal, 
 clannish, or tribal industry into a national and international factor of 
 economic value.^ 
 
 In the suburbs and villages around Peking, where pottery is manu- 
 facttrred, two kinds of wheel are in use. The two specimens illustrated 
 on Plates XI and XII were secured near Peking by the writer in 1903, 
 and are in the American Museum of Natm-al History, New York. The 
 one is made of a hat-shaped mass of clay, which is hardened by the 
 addition of pig’s hair and straw. This wheel is employed for tiurning 
 out circular vessels of small and medium sizes, and may be regarded 
 as the common, typical wheel used throughout northern China. The 
 other wheel consists of a weighty stone disk made in the great indus- 
 trial centre, the town Huai-lu in Shan-si Province. It serves for the 
 making of round and heavy vessels of large dimensions.^ A round 
 wooden board is placed on the stone disk as support or table on which 
 the mass of clay is shaped. The difference between the clay and stone 
 wheels, accordingly, is one of degree only, not of type; indeed, they 
 represent the same type, and are identical in their mechanical con- 
 struction. Both wheels revolve on a wooden vertical axis, the lower 
 extremity of which is fixed into a pit, so that the upper surface of the 
 disk lies on the same level as the floor of the shed in which the potter 
 works. The latter squats on the ground in front of the wheel, and sets 
 it in motion by means of a wooden stick, which is inserted in a shallow 
 cavity near the periphery of the stone disk. While the disk continues 
 to twirl, a lump of clay is thrown upon it and worked by the potter 
 with both of his hands: he vigorously presses his thumbs downward, 
 shaping the bottom of the jar, then draws them upward, and it seems 
 as though by magic the walls of the vessel come running out of his 
 
 1 With reference to the La-T^ne period, these changes are well characterized 
 by H. Schmidt in his excellent article Keramik, in the Reallexikon der germanischen 
 Altertumskunde, edited by J. Hoops (Vol. Ill, p. 36). 
 
 ^ Aside from China, stone wheels seem to occur in India, but only occasionally 
 (H. H. Cole, Catalogue of the Objects of Indian Art in the South Kensington 
 Museum, p. 201). H. R. C. Dobbs {Journal of Indian Art, No. 57, p. 3) remarks 
 that in the north-west provinces of India wheels are made either of clay, or stone, or 
 wood, but most commonly of clay. The difference is merely one of durability: 
 a clay wheel lasts about five years and can be made in four days without cost to the 
 potter; a wooden wheel lasts for about ten years, being made by a local carpenter 
 for Rs. 1-8; a stone wheel wiU last a lifetime, and is usually brought from Mirzapur 
 or Indore at an average cost of Rs. 4. 
 
The Potter’s Wheel 
 
 163 
 
 fingers. The procedure is exactly identical with the practice of the 
 ancients, as described by H. Blumner.^ I never saw a Chinese potter 
 spinning the wheel with his left hand and simultaneously forming a 
 pot only with his right. He will always swing his wheel first, and then 
 use both hands for fashioning the vessel. This point is particularly 
 mentioned, because several authors tell us that the potter at the same 
 time works the wheel with liis left hand and fashions the clay with his 
 right. Thus A. Erman^ says, with reference to ancient Egypt, that 
 the wheel was turned by the left hand, whilst the right hand shaped 
 the vessel. The same is asserted with regard to the potter on Sirmatra.® 
 If these observations should be correct, which may justly be doubted, 
 the potters who behave in this manner can hardly be credited with 
 common sense. If the wheel is once set spinning, a constant revolution 
 of sufficient velocity may very well be maintained for from five to seven 
 minutes, which woffid afford ample time for a skilful workman to turn 
 out one or even several vessels by the use of both hands. There 
 is no necessity whatever for his left hand to operate the wheel, and 
 how the right hand alone could satisfactorily model a pot is difficult to 
 see. In China, Japan, and India, at all events, the potter will always 
 use both hands in this process; or he has a helpmate to attend to the 
 wheel. 
 
 In his description of the porcelain-manufacture at King-te-chen, 
 P^re d’Entrecolles has alluded to the employment of the wheel, 
 without, however, going deeper into the subject.^ In the King te chen 
 t'ao lu,^ the wheel is described as a round wooden board, with a mech- 
 anism below, that effects a speedy revolution. The potter is seated 
 over the wheel (literally, “he sits on the chariot” ^ ^ iK’ $ _L), 
 pushing it with a small bamboo stick, and moulding the clay with both 
 of his hands. The illustrations reproduced by Julien after the first 
 edition of 1815 (Plates V and VP) show the potter squatting at the end 
 of two low benches, steadying his feet on the latter; but the mode of 
 turning the wheel is represented in a different manner from the descrip- 
 tion in the text. In one illustration the potter avails himself of an 
 assistant, who bends over a bench, and sets the wheel in motion with 
 his left hand. In the other, the helpmate turns the wheel with his 
 
 1 Technologie, Vol. II, p. 39. 
 
 ^ Life in Ancient Egypt, p. 457. 
 
 ’ Encyclopasdie van Nederlandsch- Indie, Vol. Ill, p. 321. 
 
 ‘ DuHalde, Description of the Empire of China, Vol. I, p. 342; or S. W. 
 Bushell, Description of Chinese Pottery, pp. 190-191. 
 
 ® Ch. I, p. 18 b (new edition of 1891); compare Julien, Histoire, p. 146. 
 
 ' Those of the new edition are different, and much coarser in execution. 
 
164 
 
 Beginnings or Porcelain 
 
 right unshod foot, while supporting himself by means of a rope sus- 
 pended from the branch of a tree. The wheel itself is a cog-wheel, the 
 projecting teeth being of a rectangular shape.^ The foot of the turner 
 fits exactly into the space left by two teeth. This arrangement is 
 identical with that of the small lead cylinders fixed around a Roman 
 wheel of baked clay found near Arezzo in 1840, and the pegs attached 
 to the circumference of other wheels discovered in the vicinity of 
 Nancy. ^ 
 
 The devices depicted in this Chinese book are obviously those of 
 central and southern China. This is confirmed by an observation of 
 E. S. Morse, who had occasion to see and to sketch a potter at work 
 near Canton, and who points out the same rope contrivance. “The 
 wheel rests on the ground, and the potter squats beside the wheel. A 
 helper stands near by, steadying himself with a rope that hangs down 
 from a frame above; holding on to this and resting on one foot, he kicks 
 the wheel around with the other foot. The potter first puts sand on 
 the wheel, so that the clay adheres slightly. He does not separate the 
 pot from the wheel by means of a string, as is usual with most potters 
 the world over, but lifts it from the wheel, the separation being easy 
 on account of the sand previously applied. The pot is somewhat de- 
 formed by this act, but is straightened afterwards with a spatula 
 and the hand, as was the practice of a Hindu potter whom I saw at 
 Singapore.”® 
 
 Besides the plain wheel, as considered heretofore, another type oc- 
 curs in China, — a wheel with double disks. In this case, there are two 
 horizontal, parallel disks or wheels connected by a vertical spindle. 
 The lower one, being of considerably smaller diameter, is operated by 
 the feet of the workman, and accordingly turns the upper one, which 
 is reserved as the potter’s table. A similar device is described by 
 Jesus Sirach in the third centiury b.c.^ The same principle is brought 
 out in a potter’s wheel found by Fabroni in 1779 at Cincelli or Centmn 
 Celias, in the neighborhood of Arezzo, in Italy. It is composed of two 
 disks or tables, both placed horizontally, of unequal diameter, having 
 a certain distance between them, and their centre traversed by a 
 vertical pin, which revolves. The wheel discovered was part of one 
 
 * It is doubtless on this illustration that E. Zimmermann’s (Chinesisches Porzel- 
 lan, Vol. I, p. 179) description of the potter’s wheel is based; but I do not believe 
 that this type is common, at least I never saw it in any of the kilns which I had 
 occasion to visit. 
 
 2 H. Blumner, Technologic, Vol. II, p. 39. 
 
 ^ E. S. Morse, Glimpses of China and Chinese Homes, p. 199. 
 
 * Blumner, 1 . c ., p. 38, note 3. 
 
The Potter’s Wheel 165 
 
 of the disks, made of terra cotta, about three inches thick and eleven 
 feet in diameter, with a groove all round the borderd 
 
 A double wooden wheel is occasionally employed by the potters in the 
 north-west provinces of India and Oudh, but, curiously enough, the upper 
 disk is the smaller one. It is about ten inches in diameter, and on it 
 the clay is worked. The lower disk, two feet apart from the upper one, 
 measures two feet across. The whole apparatus is placed in a pit about 
 three feet deep, the smaller disk being on a level with the siirface of the 
 ground. The axle turns on a stone slab at the bottom of the pit, and is 
 kept upright by a crossbeam with a perforation in the middle, through 
 which it runs. The potter is seated on the edge of the pit, and turns 
 the wheel by pressing the lower disk with his right foot. The motion of 
 this wheel is more even and continuous than that of the single wheel, 
 and is employed for the finer kinds of pottery at Rampur and Mlrut.^ 
 The double wheel is used also in Java, where it is called prehot. It 
 is composed of two wooden disks, one placed above the other, the upper 
 one, of somewhat larger size, being revolved on the lower one. The 
 upper one is styled “female board” {uncher wedok), the lower one “male 
 board” {uncher lanang). The upper wheel, on which is placed a flat 
 board for the clay to be moulded, is set in motion by means of the foot.® 
 F. Brinkley^ describes the contrivance of a double wheel in the 
 hands of the potters at Arita in Hizen. It consists of a driving and 
 a working wheel, fixed about twelve to fifteen inches apart on a hollow 
 wooden prism. On the lower side of the driving-wheel is a porcelain 
 cup that rests on a vertical wooden pivot projecting from a round block 
 of wood over which the system is placed. The pivot is planted in a 
 hole of such depth that the rim of the driving-wheel is slightly raised 
 above the surface of the ground. Beside this hole the modeller sits, 
 and, while turning the system with his foot, moulds a mass of material 
 placed on the working- wheel. His only tools are a piece of wet cloth 
 to smooth and moisten the vessel, a small knife to shape sharp edges, 
 a few pieces of stick to take measurements, and a fine cord to sever the 
 finished vase from its base of superfluous matter. 
 
 Sir Ernest Satow,® describing the work of the potters of Tsuboya, 
 observes that these use wheels of three different sizes. The smallest 
 
 S. Birch, History of Ancient Pottery, p. 556. 
 
 - H. R. C. Dobbs, Pottery and Glass Industries of the North-West Provinces 
 and Oudh {Journal of Indian Art, No. 57, p. 4). 
 
 ^ Encyclopaedie van Nederlandsch-Indie, Vol. Ill, p. 322. 
 
 « Japan, Vol. VIII, p. 68. 
 
 ® Korean Potters in Satsuma {Transactions As. Soc. of Japan, Vol. VI, 1878, 
 p. 196). 
 
i66 
 
 Beginnings oe Porcelain 
 
 is formed by two wooden disks about three inches thick, the upper one 
 being fifteen inches, the lower eighteen inches, in diameter, connected 
 by four perpendicular bars somewhat over seven inches long. It is 
 poised on the top of a spindle planted in a hole of sufficient depth, which 
 passes through a hole in the lower disk, and enters a socket in the under 
 side of the upper disk; and the potter, sitting on the edge of the hole, 
 turns the wheel round with his left foot. The largest wheel is about 
 twice the size of the smallest in every way. This description fits very 
 well the illustration of a potter’s wheel in the T'u shu tsi ch'eng (see 
 Fig. 2), except that the two wheels are here connected by two vertical 
 bars, and that the whole apparatus is above ground, so that the potter 
 is obliged to stand. 
 
 Although the real study of Korean pottery remains to be made,‘ 
 the general development of the art in its main features can be clearly 
 traced. We may distinguish four principal periods, — first, a prehis- 
 toric or neolithic period prior to the cultural contact of Korea with 
 China, during which primitive vessels without the application of the 
 wheel were turned out, that represent a uniform group with the pre- 
 historic pottery found in the Amur region, Manchuria, Saghalin, and 
 Japan;^ second, the period of the SiUa kingdom (57-924) heralded by 
 the introduction of Chinese culture, in the wake of which the forms of 
 the ancient Chinese sacrificial vessels as well as dishes for every-day 
 use and the potter’s wheel made their appearance; third, the Korai 
 period (925-1392), centring around Song-do, where glazed pottery, also 
 porcelain, was produced according to models and traditions of Chinese 
 Sung ware; and, fourth, the modem period after 1392. Here we are 
 concerned only with the second or the first historic period, which is 
 characterized by the novel feature of the wheel and by new and elegant 
 shapes based on Chinese prototypes. We have authentic records in 
 
 ^ Compare in particular A. Billequin, Notes sur la porcelaine de Cor^e {T'oung 
 Pao, Vol. VII, 1896, pp. 39-46); E. S. Morse, Catalogue of the Morse Collection 
 of Japanese Pottery, pp. 25-31, and the study of P. L. Jouy, quoted below; J. 
 Platt, Ancient Korean Tomb Wares {Burlington Mag., Vol. XX, No. 106, 1912, 
 pp. 222-230, 2 plates); Petrucci, Korean Pottery {ibid., 1912, p. 82, 2 plates), 
 and letter of J. Platt {ibid., 1913, p. 298); A. Fischer, Oriental. Archiv, Vol. 1 , 1911, 
 pp. 154-157, plate XXXIV). 
 
 ^ As to the Amur region, a great quantity of pottery fragments was dug up by 
 G. Fowke in 1898 (compare his report Exploration of the Lower Amur Valley, 
 Am. Anthr., Vol. VIII, 1906, pp. 276-297); this collection is in the American Museum 
 of Natural History, New York. The Japanese archaeologist Torii found similar 
 material in eastern Mongolia and Manchuria {Journ. of the College of Science, 
 Tokyo, Vol. XXXVI, No. 4, pp. 49 et seq., and No. 8 of the same volume, 
 PP- 9. 30-41. 62-64, 71. 3-od plates XIV-XVIII, XXIII). Neolithic Korean pot- 
 tery is described by Shozaburi Yagi {Journ. Anthr. Soc. of Tokyo, Vol. XXX, 1915, 
 p. 178). 
 
The Potter’s Wheel 
 
 167 
 
 Chinese Double-Wheel Potter’s Lathe 
 (Sketch after T'u shu tsi ch'eng) 
 
i68 
 
 Beginnings of Porcelain 
 
 regard to the adoption of the latter on the part of the Koreans d and 
 as the greater part of the pottery of this period is turned on the wheel, ^ 
 while that of the preceding ages was fashioned only by hand, it is safe 
 to assume that the introduction of the wheel is due to Chinese 
 influence. 
 
 P. L. JouY writes on the Korean potter’s wheel as follows; “The 
 Korean potter’s wheel consists of a circular table from two to three 
 feet in diameter and four to six inches thick, made of heavy wood so 
 as to aid in giving impetus to it when revolving. In general appearance 
 it is not very unlike a modeller’s table. This arrangement is sunken 
 into a depression in the ground, and revolves easily by means of small 
 wheels working on a track underneath, the ta^le being pivoted in the 
 centre. The wheel is operated directly by the foot, without the aid 
 of a treadle of any kind. The potter sits squatting in front of the 
 wheel, his bench or seat on a level with it, and space being left between 
 his seat and the wheel to facilitate his movements. With his left 
 foot underneath him, he extends his right foot, and strikes the side of 
 the wheel with the bare sole of the foot, causing it to revolve.”® 
 
 A Japanese tradition credits the celebrated Korean monk GyOgi 
 fr ^ (a.d. 670-749) ^ with the invention of the potter’s wheel. W. G. 
 Aston,® W. Gowland,® and F. Brinkley^ have rejected this legend 
 as unfounded by pointing out that the wheel was known in Japan 
 
 ^ Hou Han shu, Ch. 115, and the writer’s Chinese Pottery, p. 127. The Wo-tsii 
 in Korea interred in the graves pottery vessels filled with rice. In this respect 
 the Chinese account is of interest, that all the Eastern barbarous tribes, Tung I 
 availed themselves of dishes and platters {tsu ton ^ _g_) for eating and 
 drinking, with the sole exception of the Yi-lou or Su-shen {T'ai p'ing huan yu ki, 
 Ch. 175, p. 4 b). See also Kiu T'ang shu, Ch. 199 A, p. i. 
 
 * P. L. JouY, The Collection of Korean Mortuary Pottery {Report of the U. S. 
 National Museum, 1887-88, pp. 589-596, particrdarly p. 591). 
 
 * Science, Vol. XII, 1888, p. 144. Mrs. Bishop (Korea and Her Neighbours, 
 Vol. I, p. 93) says, “The potters pursue their trade in open sheds, digging up the 
 clay close by. The stock-in-trade is a pit in which an uncouth potter’s wheel 
 revolves, the base of which is turned by the feet of a man who sits on the edge of 
 the hole. A wooden spatula, a mason’s wooden trowel, a curved stick, and a piece 
 of rough rag, are the tools, efficient for the purpose.’’ A Korean drawing showing 
 a potter at work is reproduced in Int. Archiv. f. Ethnogr., Vol. IV, 1891, plate III, 
 fig. 6. 
 
 *■ His life is briefly summed up by E. Papinot, Dictionnaire de geographie et 
 d’histoire du Japon, p. 152. J. J. Rein (Industries of Japan, p. 457) states only 
 that Gyogi was the first to introduce the wheel into Japan, which may well be the 
 original tradition, and that this event took place in a.d. 724. 
 
 ® Nihongi, Vol. I, p. 12 1. 
 
 ® The Dolmen and Burial Mounds in Japan, p. 494. 
 
 ’’ Japan, Vol. VIII: Keramic Art, p. 9. 
 
The Potter’s Wheel 
 
 169 
 
 long before his time.^ Of course, Gyogi is not the “inventor” of 
 the wheel, any more than Anacharsis the Scythian, or Hyperbius of 
 Corinth, or Talus, the nephew of Daedalus. Nevertheless it may be 
 that Gyogi, who, being a craftsman, was doubtless instrumental in 
 the advancement of the ceramic industry in Japan, brought the speci- 
 men of a wheel along on his mission; and, if nothing else, this tradition 
 would at least point to an introduction of the wheel from Korea. This 
 is the natural course of events that we should expect, for the prehistoric 
 pottery of Japan was solely made by hand.^ The early historic pottery 
 found in the dolmens is wheel-shaped; but whether, with Gowland, it 
 is to be dated in the beginning of our era, is a debatable point. E. S. 
 Morse* * has offered another kind of convincing testimony for the 
 fact that the early Japanese potter modelled by hand: the ancient 
 practice is still continued in its prehistoric form in various parts of the 
 empire, where many potters use only the hand in making bowls, dishes, 
 or teapots. The vessels employed as offerings at Shinto shrines are 
 usually made without the wheel, and are unglazed, — a phenomenon 
 that we likewise meet in ancient Rome and in ancient India. 
 
 According to Morse, the typical form of the potter’s wheel in Japan 
 consists of a wooden disk fifteen to eighteen inches in diameter, and 
 three inches thick. This is fastened to a hollow axis fourteen or more 
 inches in length. A spindle with pointed end is planted firmly in the 
 ground; and on this the wheel is placed, the spindle passing up through 
 the hollow axis, and a porcelain saucer or cup being inserted in the 
 wheel to lessen friction as it rests on the spindle. The wheel itself 
 is on a level with the floor; and the potter, sitting in the usual Japanese 
 position, bends over the wheel, which he revolves by inserting a slender 
 stick in a shallow hole or depression near the periphery of the wheel. 
 With a few vigorous motions of his arm the wheel is set in rapid motion ; 
 then, with his elbows braced against his knees, the whole body at rest, 
 he has the steadiest command of the clay he is to turn. As the wheel 
 slackens in motion, he again sets it twirling.* 
 
 ‘ I am unable, however, to admit Aston’s statement that the text of the Nihongi 
 to which he refers contains evidence of this fact. This evidence is negative or inconclu- 
 sive, as the text in question speaks only of hand-made (ta-kujiri) small jars, which, ac- 
 cording to Aston, should lead to the conclusion that “this was exceptional,” and 
 that fashioning on the wheel was the common practice of the time. In a.d. 588 the 
 first potters came to Japan from the Korean state Pektsi (Aston, 1 . c., p. 117). 
 
 * E. S. Morse, Shell Mounds of Omori, p. 9; Iijima and Sasaki, Okadaira 
 Shell Mound at Hitachi, pp. 2-5; N. G. Munro, Prehistoric Japan, p. 167. 
 
 ’ Catalogue of the Morse Collection of Japanese Pottery, p. 6. 
 
 * Illustrations of the implements used by the Japanese brick-layer and potter 
 may be seen in Siebold, Nippon, Vol. VI, plate IV. 
 
170 
 
 Beginnings of Porcelain 
 
 The wheel is termed rokuro (Chinese lu-lu), which properly 
 
 means a pulley, windlass, capstan, then further a turning-lathe. The 
 Japanese double wheel has been pointed out (above on p. 165). 
 
 If it is correct that the potter’s art came to Burma from China rather 
 than from India, and that glazing was acquired there from the Chinese 
 either directly or through the medium of the Shan,^ it is probable also 
 that the wheel reached Burma from the same centre. In the town of 
 Bassein the double wheel is in use.* In like manner it is probable that 
 also the Annamese, who learned the entire process of porcelain-manu- 
 facture from their conquerors, the Chinese, adopted the wheel from 
 the latter.® The invasion of the outskirts of Tibet through Chinese 
 potters working on the wheel has already been mentioned. They 
 use a plain wooden wheel sunk into the ground, and work it with 
 the foot. China, consequently, was the centre from which the art of 
 wheel-made pottery radiated to all other countries of the East, in 
 accordance with the diffusion of Chinese culture among the same 
 peoples. 
 
 The great antiquity of the wheel in China cannot reasonably be 
 doubted. As has been stated, it is alluded to in early writers of the 
 pre-Christian era, and appears to have played a part in mythological 
 conceptions. It is designated by a plain root-word, kun % or 
 which means also “even, level, harmonious.” It was the instrument 
 by means of which clay vessels were evenly balanced; it was a sort of 
 “harmonizer.” A description of the ancient wheel has apparently 
 not come down to us. A commentator of Se-ma Ts'ien’s Annals notes 
 that it was seven feet high and provided with a plumb-line for adjusting 
 the vessels.^ From Biot’s translation of the Chou Z^®it would seem as 
 if the wheel were mentioned in that work, for we read, “Tout vase 
 d’usage ordinaire doit 6tre conforme au tour. . . Le tour est haut 
 
 de quatre pieds. En carrd, il a quatre dixiemes de pied.” A potter’s 
 wheel of course is round, and everybody will be struck by the anomaly 
 that the wheel should be foirr-tenths of a foot square. In fact, the text 
 does not speak of a wheel, but of an instrument manipulated by the 
 moulders. The passage runs thus: H ij*. 
 
 > Gazetteer of Upper Burma and the Shan States, Part I, Vol. II, pp. 399, 403. 
 In support of this deduction, the fact is cited, that, in proportion to the population, 
 there are more potters’ villages in the Shan states than in Burma, and that in many 
 places, notably in Papun, the potters are emigrant Shan. 
 
 ^ L. c., p. 400. 
 
 ® A. DE PouvouRViLLE, L’Art indo-chinois, p. 238. 
 
 ^ P'ei wen yiin fu, Ch. 51, p. 77. 
 
 6 Vol. II, p. 539. 
 
The Potter’s Wheel 
 
 171 
 
 The word po, as far as I know, occurs only in this text as a potter’s 
 term. The commentator Ch'en Yung-chi Pll explains it as “sliced 
 meat” ^), saying that the potter’s products should be like the 
 latter, that is, as thin and smooth; and that the object of rendering a 
 vessel equally thick and smooth is attained by the application of the 
 instrument po, which accordingly may have been a lathe. Cheng Ngo 
 §5 ^^1, another commentator of the Chou li, remarks that it was of wood 
 and placed on the side of the potter’s wheel {kiin ^), but his further 
 description is not very lucid. At all events, the instrument in question 
 was not, as conceived by Biot, a potter’s wheel, wliich in fact is not 
 mentioned in the text of the Chou li. 
 
 Almost all the round jars and vases of the Han period have been 
 shaped on the wheel; and these ancient potters exercised considerable 
 skill in its use.^ The profession of the throwers is emphasized in the 
 ritual of the Chou dynasty {Chou li), and distinguished from that of the 
 moulders. Moreover, we now have well-authenticated specimens of 
 pottery of that period, which likewise exliibit the marks of the wheel. 
 A truly neolithic, primitive, hand-made pottery, such as we have from 
 Japan and Korea, has now also been traced in Chinese soil, particularly 
 in southern Manchuria, Liao-tung, and Shen-si. I am inclined to 
 date the use of the wheel in China back to a very remote age. The 
 chief reason which prompts me to this conclusion is, that ancient Chinese 
 records contain no traditions to the effect that pottery was ever the 
 office of woman; on the contrary, they associate the industry exclu- 
 sively with the activity of man, and these potters were agriculturists. 
 The only ancient industry characterized as a female occupation is that 
 of the rearing of silkworms and weaving. The “invention” of pottery, 
 however, is ascribed to the mythical emperors Huang-ti, Shen-nung, 
 and Shun; and throughout Chinese history we hear only of male potters. 
 In fact, as we observe also at the present time, woman has no share 
 whatever in this business. The potter’s wheel, therefore, cannot be 
 simply regarded as borrowed by the Chinese from the West in historical 
 times, but it belongs to those primary elements of culture which the 
 Chinese have in common with certain ancient forms of Western civiliza- 
 tion. In our present state of knowledge, it is futile to endeavor to 
 explain the how and why of this interrelation. There can be no doubt, 
 however, that the ancient Chinese wheel has sprung from the same 
 
 '■This is also the opinion of so prominent an expert in pottery as J. Brinck- 
 MANN, the late director of the Hamburg Museum fiir Kunst und Gewerbe, who has 
 written an excellent, though brief, article on Han pottery, especially with reference 
 to its technique {Jahrbuch der Ilamhurgischen Wissensch. Anstalten, Vol. XXVIT, 
 1909, pp. 96-102). 
 
172 
 
 Beginnings of Porcelain 
 
 source as that found in the West. Both are identical as to mechanical 
 construction, even in minor points, and as to effect. 
 
 A comparatively great antiquity of the potter’s wheel may be 
 assumed also for India. Allusion has been made to the early mention 
 of it in the fatapatha Brahmana (p. 157). The jar employed for the 
 ritual, as described by Katyayana,^ was solely formed by hand after 
 the fashion of coiled pottery. This does not prove that the wheel 
 was not in use at that time, for jars serving religious purposes were 
 made by hand likewise in Rome and Japan, even after the intro- 
 duction of the wheel. The case merely goes to show that hand- 
 made ware preceded the wheel-made fabric also in ancient India, 
 and that the concept of a fundamental difference between the two 
 was maintained, the hand-made product being reserved for religious 
 worship. 
 
 The potter’s wheel is twice mentioned in the Jataka.^ In one story 
 it is told how a Bodhisatva went to the king’s potter and became his 
 apprentice. One day, after he had filled the house with potter’s clay, 
 he asked if he should make some vessels; and when the potter answered, 
 “Yes, do so,” he placed a lump of clay on the wheel and turned it. 
 When once it was turned, it went on swiftly till mid-day. After mould- 
 ing all manners of vessels, great and small, he began making one espe- 
 cially for Pabhavatl with various figures on it. The potter’s work is 
 a favorite simile in Buddhist scriptures.* * 
 
 In this respect the following story is of particular interest: “In 
 the town of Revata, in the north-west of India, there lived a master- 
 potter, who prided himself on his dexterity. He was waiting for the 
 objects which he manufactured to dry on the wheel, and only at this 
 moment he withdrew them. Knowing that the time of his conversion 
 had arrived, Bhagavat (Buddha) transformed himself into a master- 
 potter, and, chatting with the other potter, asked him why he did not 
 withdraw from the wheel the plates and utensils. The potter replied 
 that he would do so, when they were perfectly dry. The Buddha 
 transformed into a man said, ‘Also I withdraw them, when they are 
 perfectly dry. You and I follow the same procedmre. I, however, 
 have a special method. I withdraw the objects only after they are 
 completely baked on the wheel.’ The master-potter retorted, ‘You 
 
 ‘A. Hillebrandt, Ritual-Lit., Vedische Opfer, p. 8; L. D. Barnett, An- 
 tiquities of India, p. 1 76. 
 
 * Nos. 531 and 546 (Cowell and Rouse, The Jataka, Vol. V, p. 151; Vol. VI, 
 p. 188). 
 
 ® For instance, Dighanikaya, II, 86 (R. O. Franke’s translation, p. 79); T. 
 Suzuki, Agvaghosha’s Discourse on the Awakening of Faith, pp. 74, 75. 
 
The Potter’s Wheel 
 
 173 
 
 are more skilM than I am.’ The Buddha transformed into a man 
 said, ‘Not only do I produce on the wheel objects completely baked, 
 but also I can produce objects formed with the seven precious sub- 
 stances.’ The master-potter’s eyes were opened: he immediately 
 received faith, and was converted. Thereupon Bhagavat, who had 
 transformed himself temporarily into a potter, reassumed his proper 
 body. He expounded the supernatural and subtle law, so that the 
 potter’s family was initiated into the four cardinal truths.” ^ 
 
 In southern India, wheel-made pottery came into general use 
 during the iron age.^ 
 
 The cart-wheel in the hands of the Indian potter has been referred 
 to. This, however, is an exceptional local type, while commonly the 
 wheel is a plain wooden disk. G. C. M. Birdwood® describes it as a 
 horizontal fly-wheel, two or three feet in diameter, loaded heavily with 
 clay around the rim, and put in motion by the hand; and, once set spin- 
 ning, it revolves for five or seven minutes with a perfectly steady and 
 true motion. The clay to be moulded is heaped on the centre of the 
 wheel, and the potter squats down on the ground before it. The Tamil 
 potters (Kusavans) are divided into two classes, northern and southern; 
 the former using a wheel of earthenware, the latter one made of wood.'* 
 Their badge, recorded at Conjiveram, is a potter’s wheel.® The Singalese 
 wheel (pdruva) is a circtflar board, about two feet and a half in diameter, 
 mounted on a stone pivot, which fits into a larger stone socket em- 
 bedded in the ground; the horizontal surface of the wheel itself standing 
 not more than six inches above the ground. The wheel is turned by a 
 boy, who squats on the ground opposite the potter, and keeps it going 
 with his hands.® 
 
 Ceramic art is very ancient in Iran, being alluded to in two pass- 
 ages of the Avesta.'^ In the latter, mention is made of brick-layer’s 
 
 * J. Przyluski, Le Nord-ouest de I'lnde dans le Vinaya des Mala-Sarvastivadin 
 et les textes apparentes {Journal asiatique, 1914, nov.-dec., pp. 513, 514). 
 
 ^ R. B. Foote, Gov. Museum, Madras, Cat. of the Prehistoric Antiquities, 
 p. III. In regard to South-Indian pottery compare also R. B. Foote, The Foote 
 Collection of Indian Prehistoric and Protohistoric Antiquities (Madras, 1914; 
 new ed., 1916); and A. Rea, Cat. of the Prehistoric Antiquities from Adichanallur 
 and Perumbair (Madras, 1915). F. W. v. Bissing {Sitzber. Bayer. Akad., 1911, 
 p. 16) seems to overvalue the antiquity of the potter’s wheel in southern India; it 
 is certainly out of the question that it should be older there than in Egypt. 
 
 ^ The Industrial Arts of India, Vol. II, p. 144. 
 
 ‘ E. Thurston, Castes and Tribes of Southern India, Vol. IV, p. 113. 
 
 * Ibid., p. 197. 
 
 ® A. K. CooMARASWAMY, Mediaeval Sinhalese Art, p. 219. 
 
 ^ Videvdat, ii, 32; viii, 84. 
 
174 
 
 Beginnings of Porcelain 
 
 or potter’s kilns.^ As a rule, the kiln is the natural consequence 
 of the wheel; but it would be premature to conclude from this 
 general observation that for this reason the wheel was known to 
 the Avestans. It is not specifically mentioned in their sacred books; 
 but that it was unknown cannot be deduced, either, from this 
 silence. 
 
 The question of the antiquity of the potter’s wheel in Babylonia 
 seems not to be settled. Perrot and Chipiez^ remark that the inven- 
 tion of the potter’s wheel and firing-oven must have taken place 
 at a very remote period both in Egypt and Chaldaea; that the oldest 
 vases foimd in the country, those taken from tombs at Warka and 
 Mugheir, have been burnt in the oven; that some, however, do 
 not seem to have been thrown on the wheel. All that Handcock* * 
 states regarding the wheel is a reference to the article of Banks, 
 whose theory of the origin of the wheel has already been charac- 
 terized as unfounded (p. 154). In Palestine the wheel became general 
 from the sixteenth century b.c. Likewise the Israelites were familiar 
 with it, and turned almost all their vessels on the wheel.'* As has been 
 mentioned, it is alluded to in several passages of the Old and New 
 Testaments.^ 
 
 In the graves of the Siberian bronze age has been found pottery of 
 inferior workmanship, made by hand, of a coarse and badly baked 
 clay. That from the graves of the iron age appears to be wheel-shaped, 
 and abounds in artistic shapes.® Its historical position is not yet ex- 
 actly ascertained, but it appears to bear some relation to Sc3rthian and 
 Iranian cultures. 
 
 In ancient Egypt the wheel was kno'wn at the earliest epoch of his- 
 tory the sculptures of which have been preserved.'^ It is depicted on 
 the monuments, being of simple construction and turned ■with the hand. 
 
 ^ See also W. Geiger, Ostiranische Kultur, p. 390; and A. V. W. Jackson, 
 From Constantinople to the Home of Omar Khayyam, p. 234. The Avestan 
 word for the kiln, tanura (Middle and New Persian tanur) is regarded as a loan 
 from Semitic tanur. 
 
 ^ History of Art in Chaldaea and Assyria, Vol. II, p. 298. 
 
 ’ Mesopotamian Archseology, p. 334. 
 
 * F. ViGOUROux, Dictionnaire de la Bible, Vol. V, pp. 573-574: S. Birch, 
 Ancient Pottery, p. 107. A photograph from Damascus of a potter at the wheel 
 is reproduced in the National Geogr. Mag., 1911, p. 67. 
 
 ^ Regarding the use of the wheel in Asia Minor, see W. Belck, Z. f. Ethnologic, 
 Vol. XXXIII, 1901, p. 493. 
 
 * W. Radloff, Aus Sibirien, Vol. II, pp. 89, 90, 129. 
 
 ’’ J. G. Wilkinson, Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians, Vol. II, 
 pp. 190-192 (new ed., by S. Birch), or 2d ed., Vol. Ill, p. 163. 
 
The Potter’s Wheel 
 
 I7S 
 
 It is plausible that the invention spread from Egypt or Crete to Greece, 
 and from there to Italyd 
 
 The gradual dissemination of the wheel over Europe is vividly 
 illustrated by the fact that in every culture-area there we encounter 
 a primitive epoch of pottery-making, which shows no trace of the 
 wheel, but a rude hand-made process. Such is found in the earliest 
 stages of Hissarlik, the Homeric Troy, in Italy, central and north- 
 ern Europe, and in the British Isles. During the second settlement 
 of pre-Mycenccan Hissarlik (presumably before 2000 b.c.) we observe 
 the beginning of the use of the wheel and the covered furnace. Through- 
 out the Mycenasan period, pottery was turned on the wheel. The 
 Swiss lake-dwellers, though capable potters, were unacquainted with 
 the wheel. Likewise it was unknown in the British Isles during the 
 bronze period.^ In the north of Europe, the potter’s wheel appears at 
 a late date in the La-T^ne period. Thus the assumption gains ground 
 that Egypt was the centre from which the wheel gradually spread to 
 southern, and ultimately to central and northern, Europe. 
 
 In two areas of the Old World, accordingly, we can clearly observe 
 a diffusion of the wheel from one point, — from China to her depen- 
 dencies Korea, Japan, Annam, and Burma; and from Egypt to Europe. 
 India was perhaps another focus, as far as Sumatra and Java are con- 
 cerned. A direct transmission of the device from Egypt to India is 
 conceivable, though it is of course impossible to furnish the exact proof. 
 It is inconceivable, however, that the wheels of India and China should 
 be independent from those of the West. Not only is there a perfect 
 coincidence between their constructions and manipulations, but also 
 the culture-associations by which the wheel is surrounded here and 
 there are strikingly identical. The social setting of the wheel and the 
 concomitant culture-elements have been characterized above. The 
 wheeled cart, the highly-developed system of agriculture, bronze cast- 
 ing, and the affiliation of pottery with the latter, are features pectiliar 
 to the same area, and absent in other culture-zones. Consequently 
 the presence of the wheel in the East and West alike cannot be attributed 
 to an accident, but it appears as an organic constituent and ancient 
 
 'Regarding details, see H. Blumner, Technologie, Vol. II, pp. 36-40; O. 
 Schrader, Reallexikon, p. 868; etc. H. B. Walters (Cat. of the Greek and Etrus- 
 can Vases in the British Museum, Vol. II, p. 228) describes the medallion of a 
 kylix on which a potter, nude and beardless, is seated before a wheel; on it is a 
 kylix of archaic shape, the handle of which he is moulding. The question as to 
 whether the wheel was employed in Crete at an earlier date than in Egypt, or vice 
 versa, must be left to the decision of specialists in this field. 
 
 ^ J. Evans, Ancient Bronze Implements of Great Britain, p. 487; British Mu- 
 seum Guide to the Antiquities of the Bronze Age, p. 43. 
 
176 
 
 Beginnings of Porcelain 
 
 heritage in the life of the Mediterranean and great Asiatic civilizations. 
 This well-defined geographical distribution, and the absence of the 
 wheel in all other parts of the globe, speak well in favor of a monistic 
 origin of the device. 
 
 The chief results of the present investigation may be summarized 
 as follows. The industry of ancient Chinese pottery, in its principal 
 technical and social features, has exactly the same foundation as the 
 corresponding industry of western Asia, Egypt, and India. This 
 phenomenon is only one of a complex of others with which it is in 
 organic cohesion; that is, the entire economic foundation of ancient 
 Chinese civilization has a common basis with that of the West.^ It is 
 a reasonable conclusion that identity of apparatus and technical 
 processes must have yielded similar results. Comparative study of 
 forms, however, is futile for the present, as long as we do not have the 
 very earliest prehistoric ceramic productions of China, Central Asia, 
 Iran, and India. This much is evident, that only by co-ordination can 
 the real problem to be pursued be solved, and that isolation or detach- 
 ment of each particular field will yield no result that is worth while. 
 The incentive for the process of glazing pottery was received by the 
 Chinese directly from the West, owing to their contact with the Hel- 
 lenistic world in comparatively late historical times. The knowledge 
 of gljazing rendered the manufacture of a porcelanous ware possible; 
 yet in this achievement the creative genius of the Chinese was not 
 guided by outside influence, but relied on its own powerful resources. 
 Nothing of the character of porcelain was known under the Han 
 (206 B.c.-A.D. 220). The murrine vases of the ancients were not 
 porcelain, and in fact bear no relation to China. They may have been 
 instrumental, however, in bringing to the notice of the Chinese the 
 beauty and effect of ceramic glazes; hence the manufacture of glazed 
 ware springs up in the age of the Han, more particularly under the 
 reign of the Emperor Wu (140-87 b.c.). It is admissible to place the 
 first subconscious gropings with ware of more or less porcelanous char- 
 acter in the closing days of the Later Han dynasty; and under the Wei, 
 in the middle or latter part of the third century, we see these tentative 
 experiments ultimately crowned with success. Continued till the end 
 of the sixth century and the beginning of the seventh through a long 
 line of experiences and improvements, they gradually resulted in the 
 
 1 The details are somewhat more developed in the writer’s popular article 
 Some Fundamental Ideas of Chinese Culture {Journal of Race Development, Vol. V, 
 1914, pp. 160-174). 
 
The Potter’s Wheel 
 
 177 
 
 production of a true white porcelain. Porcelain is not an invention, 
 and there is no inventor of it. It is not in a category by itself, but is 
 only a variety of pottery; its diversity from common pottery is one of 
 degree, not of principle. 
 
 Finally, the question may be raised as to why Chinese records on all 
 these points are so sparse and unsatisfactory. The same observation 
 holds good for bronze, iron, wood-carving, basketry, and other ancient 
 industries and crafts. The occupation with such themes on the part 
 of Chinese scholars begins as late as the age of the Svtng. The ancient 
 professional annalists and chroniclers were not interested in the doings 
 and thoughts of the broad masses of the people. If they recorded with 
 some degree of exactness the invention of rag-paper in a.d. 105, it was 
 for the reason that paper had a direct bearing on the life and work of 
 the scholar. The plain farmer-potter of old led a secluded existence, 
 far removed from the seats of scholarship. The average type of Con- 
 fucian scholar never took an interest in technical questions, or else 
 looked down upon these without a gleam of understanding. Our hopes 
 for further elucidations of the problems connected with the history of 
 pottery in China must be placed in archaeology, not in sinology, which 
 certainly reflects not on the sinologue, but on the character of the 
 scanty source-material that has fallen to our lot. 
 
INDEX 
 
 Abel-R(^musat, 12 1. 
 
 Aeneas of Gaza, 142. 
 
 Africa, pottery of, 152, 153. 
 
 Ainu, pottery of, 149, 150. 
 
 Alaska, potteiy of, 149. 
 
 Alchemy, 113 note i, 118, 142-143. 
 Amber, 131. 
 
 America, potter's wheel absent, in, 15 1; 
 
 pottery, occupation of woman, in, 152. 
 Amur tribes, pottery of, 149, 166. 
 Analyses, of body of porcelanous Han 
 pottery, 86; of Chinese and Japanese 
 glazes, 90; of Chinese and Japanese 
 porcelains, 86; of glaze of porcelanous 
 Han potterj', 90; of green glaze of Han 
 pottery, 93. 
 
 Andaman, unacquainted with potter’s 
 wheel, 152, 153. 
 
 Aristotle, 13 1. 
 
 Assam, kilns of, 156. 
 
 Aston, W. G., 168, 169. 
 
 Athenaeus, 13 1. 
 
 Atkinson, J. J., 151. 
 
 Atlasov, W., 150. 
 
 Augustus, 123. 
 
 Australia, pottery unknown in, 149. 
 Avesta, pottery mentioned in, 173. 
 
 Babelon, E., 129. 
 
 Bacon, 135. 
 
 Baines, A., 154, 160. 
 
 Banks, E. J., 154. 
 
 Barber, E. A., 108. 
 
 Barbosa, 135. 
 
 Bartholomae, 126. 
 
 Batchelor, J., 150. 
 
 Bauer, M., 129. 
 
 Baumann, O., 153. 
 
 Belck, W., 174. 
 
 Bemeker, E., 126. 
 
 Berthelot, M., 142. 
 
 Billequin, A., 166. 
 
 Biot, E., 80, 154, 160, 170, 171. 
 
 Birch, S., 165. 
 
 Birdwood, G. C. M., 154. 
 
 Bishop, Mrs., 168. 
 
 Bissing, F. W. v., 173. 
 
 Blumner, H., 127, 129, 133, 134, 164, 
 175 - 
 
 Boas, F., 150. 
 
 Bogoras, V., 150, 153. 
 
 Bostock and Riley, 123. 
 
 Boston Fine Arts Museum, porcelanous 
 ware in, 82, 100. 
 
 Bretschneider, E., 112, 115. 
 
 Brinckmann, J., 171. 
 
 Brinkley, F., 165, 168. 
 
 Bronze, connection of with pottery, 
 161. 
 
 Bronze-founder, influence of on potter, 
 161. 
 
 Browne, Th., 135. 
 
 Bucaro, 131 note i. 
 
 Budge, E. A. W., 159. 
 
 Burma, pottery of, 170. 
 
 Bushell, S. W., 95, 96, loi, 102, 124, 138, 
 140, 155, 163. 
 
 Buttmann, Ph., 122. 
 
 Byhan, A., 150. 
 
 Cambodja, liu-li of, 143. 
 
 Cardan, J., 122. 
 
 Cntapatha Brahmana, 156. 
 
 Chang Yi, 115, 118. 
 
 Chao Chang-li, 99. 
 
 Chavannes, E., 83, 113, 124, 142, 144, 
 146, 149, 156, 160. 
 
 Che ngo, 1 15. 
 
 Cheng lei pen ts'ao, 112, 113. 
 
 Cheng Ngo, 171. 
 
 Ch'en Yung-chi, 171. 
 
 Chou li, 80, 154, 170, 17 1. 
 
 Chou Shan, 146. 
 
 Chu Yen, 154. 
 
 Chuang-tse, 117. 
 
 Chukchi, pottery of, 150, 153. 
 
 Cole, H. H., 1 10, 162. 
 
 Compton, H., 154. 
 
 Cooking-stove, of iron, 79, 80. 
 Coomaraswamy, A. K., no, 161, 173. 
 Corsi, F., 129. 
 
 Court, pottery destined for the, loi. 
 Couvreur, S., 105, 117. 
 
 Crooke, W., 96, 159, 160. 
 
 Crucibles with natural glaze, 146. 
 
 Dal, V., 125, 126. 
 
 Dalton, O. M., 137. 
 
 Ditmar, K. v., 150. 
 
 Dobbs, H. R. C., 162, 165. 
 
 Double wheel, used by potters of China, 
 164; in Java, 165; in Japan, 165; in 
 Burma, 170. 
 
 Easter Island, pottery of, 149. 
 
 Eggeling, J., 156. 
 d’Entrecolles, 163. 
 
 Erman, A., 163. 
 
 Eskimo, pottery of, 1 49-1 50. 
 
 Evans, J., 175. 
 
 179 
 
i8o 
 
 Index 
 
 Fabricius, B., 125, 138. 
 
 Fagfur, 126. 
 
 Fan yi ming i tsi, 139. 
 
 Farfor, Russian designation for porce- 
 lain, 126. 
 
 Ferrand, G., 143. 
 
 Fick, R., 160. 
 
 Fischer, A., 166. 
 
 Fluor-spar, 122. 
 
 Foote, R. B., 173. 
 
 Forke, A., 141. 
 
 Fourdrignier, E., 136. 
 
 Fowke, G., 166. 
 
 Franke, R. O., 172. 
 
 Freer, C., 82, 100. 
 
 Fu-chou, cinerary urns from, 84. 
 
 Fu-nan, 143. 
 
 Gait, E. A., 156. 
 
 Gammon, C. F., 82, 83. 
 
 Geerts, A. J. C., 118, 145. 
 
 Geiger, W., 174. 
 
 Gilyak, pottery of, 149. 
 
 Glass, 138 note 4, 142, 147. 
 
 Glazes, introduction of into China, 
 120-147. 
 
 Glazing, ancient Chinese recipe for, 135. 
 Gowland, W., 168. 
 
 Grandidier, E., 108. 
 
 Grenard, F., 150. 
 
 Gurdon, Major, 153. 
 de Groot, 10 1. 
 
 Hager, J., 12 1. 
 
 Hahn, E., 158. 
 du Halde, 163. 
 
 Han art, definition of, 81. 
 
 Han pottery, 79-8 1,92,1 43-144, 1 7 1 ; men- 
 tioned in Chinese records, 144 note 2. 
 Han-tan, kaolin of, 113. 
 
 Han ts'e, porcelanous ware of the Han 
 period or of Han style, 79, loi. 
 
 Han wu ku shi, 141. 
 
 Handcock, 174. 
 
 Hang mountains, 1 16. 
 
 Harrington, M. R., 153. 
 d’Herbelot, 126. 
 
 Herzfeld, E., 97. 
 
 Hillebrandt, A., 172. 
 
 Hing chou, porcelain of, 99. 
 
 Hippisley, 102. 
 
 Hirth, F., 103, 105, in, 113, 123, 130, 139 
 Ho-nan, porcelain of, 99. 
 
 Hobson, R. L., 84, 95, 98, 99, loi, 104, 
 108, 1 12, 120, 144, 145, 146, 148. 
 Holder, E., 155. 
 
 Holmes, W. H., 151. 
 
 Holt, H. F., 84. 
 
 Hou Han shu, 100, 168. 
 
 Hough, W., 161. 
 
 Hu Ch'ung, 143. 
 
 Hu Tsung, 140. 
 
 Hii-chou, pottery of, 106. 
 
 Hu K'ang-tsung, 149. 
 
 Hua yang hien chi, 144. 
 
 Hua yang kuo chi, 115. 
 
 Huai-lu, manufacture of stone disks in, 
 162. 
 
 Huai-nan-tse, 156. 
 
 Huang-chi, 143. 
 
 I-tsing, 95, 96. 
 
 Ides, E. Y., 136. 
 
 India, liu-li of, 140, 143; porcelain in, 
 95~96; potter’s wheel of, 156-157; 
 social position of potters in, 154. 
 
 Iran, pottery in, 1 73-1 74. 
 
 Jackson, A. V. W., 174. 
 
 Jade, not to be understood by murrines, 
 121. 
 
 Jao chou, kaolin of, 113; porcelain of, 99. 
 Japan, double wheel of, 165; potter’s 
 wheel of, 158, 169-170; prehistoric 
 pottery of, 150. 
 
 Japan Society, Catalogue of Potteries 
 published by, 103. 
 
 Jataka, potter’s wheel in the, 172. 
 
 Java, double wheel of, 165; potter’s 
 wheel of, 152. 
 
 Jeremiah, 158. 
 
 Jouy, P. L., 168. 
 
 Julien, S., 86, 87, 97, 99, loi, 102, 104, 
 107, 108, 1 15, 1 18, 123, 145, 147, 163. 
 Juvenalis, 124. 
 
 Kaempfer, E., 136. 
 
 Kamtchatka, pottery of, 150. 
 
 Kaolin, notes on, 110-119. 
 
 Karakhoto, pottery of, 146 note 4. 
 Karlbeck, O., 84. 
 
 Katyayana, 172. 
 
 Kennedy, J., 137. 
 
 Kershaw, F. S., 82, 83. 
 
 Khasi, pottery of, 153. 
 
 Ki chung Chou shu, 160. 
 
 Kin, palace of, 146. 
 
 King te chen t'ao lu, 97, 98, loi, 105, 
 106, 163. 
 
 Kitsi, kiln of, 149. 
 
 Kiu T'ang shu, 168. 
 
 Kloss, C. B., 153. 
 
 Koptos, scented pottery of, 13 1. 
 
 Korea, pottery of, 166-167. 
 
 K'ou Tsung-shi, 113, 114. 
 
 Krause, J. H., 131. 
 
 Ku kin chu, 141. 
 
 Kuan-chung, kilns of, loi, 102. 
 
 Kuang chi, 143. 
 
 Kuang ya, 115. 
 
 Kuo I-kung, 143. 
 
 Kuo P'o, 1 14, 1 18. 
 
 Kuriles, pottery of, 150. 
 
 Lang, E., 154. 
 
 Le Compte, L., 136. 
 
Index 
 
 i8i 
 
 Le Coq, A. v., 126. 
 
 Lei, type of jar, 79, 80. 
 
 Legendre, A. F., 149. 
 
 Legge, J., loi, 117, 160, 161. 
 
 Lesson, A., 149. 
 
 Li ki, 1 17. 
 
 Li Shao-kiin, 142. 
 
 Li Shi-chen, 112, 113, 114, 115. 
 
 Liang shu, 142, 143. 
 
 Liao shi, 105. 
 
 Lie-tse, 115 note 5. 
 
 Ling piao lu i, 1 13, 147. 
 
 Liu Hi, 1 16. 
 
 Liu-li, 138-147. 
 
 Liu-li ku, kiln of, 145. 
 
 Liu Siin, 1 13, 146. 
 
 Lui-li wa, 100. 
 
 Lo-lo, unacquainted with pottery, 149. 
 Loadstone, 104, 106. 
 
 Lu Kuang-wei, Ii6. 
 
 Lubbock, J., 151. 
 
 Malayans, potter’s wheel of, 152. 
 
 Man, E. H., 152, 153. 
 
 Mariette, P. J., 122. 
 
 Martialis, 124, 129. 
 
 Mason, O. T., 151. 
 
 Masudi, 126. 
 
 Mei Piao, 115. 
 
 Melanesia, pottery of, 149, 153. 
 
 Mdly, F. de, 104, 117. 
 de Mendoza, 136. 
 
 Mineralogy, Chinese work on, 115. 
 Mo-ch'u, = Javanese mojo, 143 note 6. 
 Mong K'ang, 144, 145. 
 
 Mong-tse, 160, 161. 
 
 Mongol dynasty, glazed potteiy of, 145. 
 Morse, E. S., 164, 166, 169. 
 
 Mu-nan, 140. 
 
 Munro, N. G., 169. 
 
 Murdoch, J., 150. 
 
 Murra, 125, 128, 138, 145. 
 
 Murrine vases, 120-138. 
 
 Nan chou i wu chi, 145. 
 
 Nanjio, Bunyiu, 115. 
 
 Negrito, unacquainted with pottery, 149. 
 Negroes, unacquainted with potter’s 
 wheel, 152. 
 
 Neuhof, J., 136. 
 
 New Zealand, pottery unknown in, 149. 
 Nichols, H. W., technical report of, 86-94. 
 Nicobar, pottery of, 153. 
 
 Nihongi, 168. 
 
 Nordenskiold, A. v., 12 1. 
 
 Nordenskibld, E., 151. 
 
 Okakura, 82. 
 
 Pai ngo, 111-114, 1 16. 
 
 Pai shan, 114-115. 
 
 Pai tun-tse, 118. 
 
 Palladius, 100, 105, 106, 138. 
 
 Pan-liang coins, 82, 83, 100. 
 
 Papinot, E., 168. 
 
 Parthians, kilns of, 122, 12^, 126. 
 Pausanias, 125, 137. 
 
 Pelliot, P., 143. 
 
 Pen ts'ao kang mu, 104, 112, 113, 114. 
 Pen ts'ao yen i, 113, 114. 
 
 Periplus 121, 137. 138. 
 
 Perrot and Chipiez, 174. 
 
 Petrie, W. M. F., 137, 138, 139, 147. 
 Petrucci, 166. 
 
 Petuntse, no, in, 118-119. 
 
 Pie lu, 113, 114, 118. 
 
 Platt, J., 166. 
 
 Pliny, 106, 121, 124, 127, 131, 132, 134. 
 Po Kit-i, 146. 
 
 Polar peoples, pottery of, 149-150. 
 Polynesians, unacquainted with pottery, 
 149. 
 
 Pompey, 123. 
 
 Porcelain, in India, 95-96; no inventor 
 of, 99; of Ts'e-chou, 104, 106. 
 Porcelanous Han pottery, analysis of 
 body of, 86; analysis of glaze of, 90; 
 chemical character of body of, 86; 
 mode of preparation of glaze of, 91; 
 physical character of body of, 87. 
 Potter’s wheel, see wheel. 
 
 Pouvourville, A. de, 170. 
 
 Prestwich, no. 
 
 Propertius, 122, 124, 126. 
 
 Przyluski, J., 173. 
 
 Quichua, pottery-making of, 151. 
 
 Radloff, W., 126, 174. 
 
 Rea, A., 173. 
 
 Reil, T., 13 1. 
 
 Rein, J. J., 168. 
 
 Reinaud, M., 97. 
 
 Rhys Davids, 160. 
 
 RinsO, Mamiya, 149. 
 
 Risley, Sir Herbert, 148, 154. 
 Rock-crystal, theories on the origin of, 
 131; vessels of, 132, 133, 137. 
 
 Rockhill, W. W., 150. 
 
 Roloff, E. H., 122, 125. 
 
 Romans, 159. 
 
 Rondot, N., 99, 123. 
 
 Saddle, of liu-li, 142. 
 
 Saghalin, pottery of, 149. 
 
 Salvetat, A., 86, 87, 90. 
 
 Samarra, excavations in, 97-98. 
 
 San kuo chi, 140. 
 
 Saroshevski, 152. 
 
 Sarre, F., 97, 98. 
 
 Satow, Sir Ernest, 165. 
 
 Scaliger, J. C., 122. 
 
 Scaliger, J. J., 122. 
 
 Scented pottery, 13 1. 
 
 Schmidt, H., 162. 
 
 Schrenck, L. v., 149. 
 
Index 
 
 182 
 
 Schurtz, H., 153. 
 
 Seger, H. A., 86, 87. 
 
 Seligmann, C. G., 151, 153. 
 
 Se-ma Siang-ju, 115. 
 
 Se-ma Ts'ien, 116, 124, 142. 
 
 Se-tiao, 143. 
 
 Shan hai king, 114, 116, 118. 
 
 Shen-nung, 160. 
 
 Shi i ki, 141. 
 
 Shi ki, 1 15, 124. 
 
 Shi king, alleged poreelain whistle in, loi . 
 Shi ming, 1 16. 
 
 Shi yao erh ya, 1 1 5. 
 
 Shu king, pottery not mentioned in, 102. 
 Shun, mythical originator of pottery, 
 159-160. 
 
 Shuo wen, definition of the term ts'e in, 
 102-103; definition of the term ngo in, 
 1 16. 
 
 Si king tsa ki, 142. 
 
 Siberia, pottery of tribes of, 149, 174. 
 Siebold, P. F. v., 149, 169. 
 
 Singalese, potter’s wheel of, 151; potters 
 of, 161. 
 
 Smith, F. P., 1 17. 
 
 Smith, W., 130. 
 
 Soleyman, 96, 97. 
 
 Sprenger, A., 126. 
 
 Squier and Davis, 161. 
 
 Stage-fool, 1 17 note 2. 
 
 Statius, 124. 
 
 Stein, Sir Aurel, 98, 146. 
 
 Strahlenberg, P. J. v., 150. 
 
 Stull, R. T., 93. 
 
 Su chou fu chi, 116. 
 
 Su Kung, 1 13. 
 
 Su-shen, 168 note i. 
 
 Su Sunjg, 1 13, 1 14. 
 
 Suetonius, 123. 
 
 Sumatra, potter’s wheel of, 152. 
 
 Suzuki, T., 172. 
 
 Ta T'ang sin yu, 98. 
 
 Ta-ts'e, mountains of, 114. 
 
 Ta Ts'in, 138, 139, 143. 
 
 Ta Ts'ing i t'ung chi, 84, 104. 
 
 T'ai p'ing huan yu ki, 99, 104, 107, 143, 
 168. 
 
 T'ai p'ing yu Ian, 141, 142, 143, 145. 
 Takakusu, J., 96. 
 
 T'ang leu tien, 99. 
 
 T'ang pen ts'ao, 112. 
 
 T'ang pen yii, 112. 
 
 T'ang period, porcelain of, 99. 
 
 T'ang Shen-wei, 112. 
 
 T'ang shu, 99, 104, 105. 
 
 T'ang shu shi yin, 116. 
 
 T'ao Hung-king, 111-113. 
 
 T'ao shuo, 96, 98, 124, 145, 155. 
 
 Taoists, share of in the initial produc- 
 tion of porcelain, 118. 
 
 Thiersch, F., 122, 125, 128, 129, 132, 
 134- 
 
 Thurston, E., 155, 173. 
 
 Tibet, pottery of, 150. 
 
 Ting chou, porcelain of, 99; kaolin of, 
 .113- 
 
 Ting Tu, 107. 
 
 Torii, 150, 166. 
 
 Ts'ai Yung, 101. 
 
 Tse jan hui, 145. 
 
 Ts'e, does not refer to common glazed 
 Han pottery, 100; discussion of the 
 term, 102-109. 
 
 Ts'e-chou, city of, 104, 107 note. 
 
 Tse su fu, 115. 
 
 Tsi yun, 107, 146. 
 
 Tsin shu, 141. 
 
 Ts'ien Han shu, 107, 115, 140, 143, 
 145- 
 
 Ts'ui Yung, 146. 
 
 Ts'ung-lung, mountains of, 114. 
 
 T'u king pen ts'ao, 114. 
 
 T'u shu tsi ch'eng, 105. 
 
 Tung-fang So, 142. 
 
 Turkistan, porcelain in, 98. 
 
 Tu tuan, 101. 
 
 Tylor, E. B., 149. 
 
 Vedda, pottery of, 151, 153. 
 
 Vigouroux, F., 174. 
 
 Voss, A., 161. 
 
 Walters, H. B., 175. 
 
 Wan Chen, 145. 
 
 Wang Hui, 146. 
 
 Watt, G., 110. 
 
 Watts, A. S., 110. 
 
 Watters, T., 115. 
 
 Wave patterns, 81. 
 
 Wei lio, 138. 
 
 Wheel, potter’s, 148-176; absent in 
 America, 150-151; associated with 
 the stage of agriculture, 159-161; 
 geographical distribution of, 150; in 
 *59> 163, 174; in Old Testa- 
 ment, 158; in Palestine, 174; influence 
 of on progress of ceramics, 161-162; 
 invention of man, 152-155; of ancient 
 Europe, 175; of Babylonia, 154, 174; 
 of China, 162-164, 171, 175; of India, 
 155-157, 172; static in its distribution, 
 151; technical connection with cart- 
 wheel, 156-158. 
 
 Wheel-potters and moulders, distinct 
 professions in ancient China and 
 India, 154. 
 
 White, M., 155. 
 
 Wieger, L., 115, 117. 
 
 Wil£nson, J. G., 174. 
 
 Window-glass, 141. 
 
 Wo-tsii, burial customs of, 168 note i. 
 
 Wu, Emperor, 140, 142. 
 
 Wu li, 143. 
 
 Wu P'u, 115, 118. 
 
 Wu p'u pen ts'ao, 115. 
 
Index 
 
 Wu ti ki, 1 1 6. 
 
 Wylie, A., 115. 
 
 Yakut, pottery of, 152. 
 Yang-shan, ti6. 
 
 Yellow, color of earth, 114. 
 Yen Kan-yiian, 79, 80, loi. 
 Yen Shi-ku, 116, 145, 159. 
 Yi ts'ie king yin i, 96, 115, 
 Yu ngo, 1 17. 
 
 183 
 
 Yu yang tsa tsu, 98, 140. 
 Yuan kien lei han, 143. 
 
 Yuan Ying, 96, 115, 131, 139. 
 Yu chou, porcelain of, 99. 
 
 Yii fang kia huo, 146. 
 
 Yuan shi, 105, 145. 
 
 Yue chou, porcelain, of, 99. 
 Yule, H., 126, 135. 
 
 131. 139- 
 
 Zimmermann, E., 99, 164. 
 

PLATE I. 
 
 Han Porcelanous Pottery (see p. 79). 
 
 Small jug. The yellowish-green, vitrified porcelanous glaze covers only the 
 medial portion of the body, inclusive of the two ears or loop handles. The exterior 
 of the neck and the base are unglazed. In the base, nail-marks are left. The 
 bottom is flat and without a rim. The clay appears to contain iron ore. Found 
 on top of a cast-iron stove (Plate II), in a grave near the village Ma-kia-chai, 5 li 
 north of the town Hien-yang, Shen-si Province. 
 
 Middle or end of the third century a.d 
 Height, 16.7 cm. Cat. No. 118718. 
 
FIELD MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY 
 
 ANTHROPOLOGY, VOL. XV, PLATE I 
 
 Han Porcelanous Jug. 
 

 . ' oi, y.'.\ P-A'^e 1 
 
 
 
 gniioaioiq £ 1>M .fetlOri-gnbioito svii .^rin-r.trb £ liav/ L.bivoTq hfi£ oi' £ io 
 
 gnifersnoD Koidqfa^jni n£ Ja£0 fe; *;al’G! ydl aO .usdncusib s'iri scrj 5o j.'.;.;.>'! nl o/ioh!;-!'] 
 S«£'jy JVOil i ^5«a’^v3 ii r)\ wfilbcDi' .gtii^rr,? lo xt;jH ni ST^JorriG iv I'i'-:^i'i ::js >'., 
 sio3 now 3£lT -q 093 :("lEbtoi eriJ oJ oIdsoon/-K3 od jj y^;M htJrajlof Jj o:?)"; 
 bsoeid.^td oi fW5Ci dOD'tdo driJ HOEoqqtiq noiJidirka 'loi i£c!l oa ,byooqmoo3h \;o'ii.tn3 ii 
 
 ?>>S ' 
 
Plate II. 
 
 Cast-Iron Stove (see p. 8o). 
 
 Side and front views. 
 
 In type and style it exactly corresponds to the Han pottery burial cooking- 
 stoves. Posed on four feet in the form of elephant-heads, it is built in the shape 
 of a horse-shoe, and provided with a chimney, five cooking-holes, and a projecting 
 platform in front of the fire-chamber. On the latter is cast an inscription consisting 
 of six raised characters in Han style of writing, reading ta ki ch'ang i hou wang 
 (“Great felicity! May it be serviceable to the lords!”); see p. 79. The iron core 
 is entirely decomposed, so that for exhibition purposes the object had to be braced 
 on wooden supports. Found in a grave near the village Ma-kia-chai, 5 li north 
 of the town Plien-yang, Shen-si Province. Inserted here as collateral evidence in 
 determining the provenience and date of the pottery jug illustrated in Plate I. 
 
 End of Han period (a.d. 220), or, generally, third century a.d. 
 
 Height, 35 cm; length, 71.5 cm; width, 40.5 cm. Cat. No. 120985. 
 
FIELD MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY. 
 
 ANTHROPOLOGY, VOL. XV, PLATE II. 
 
 Cast-Iron Stove. 
 

 ”‘! ^'. <: "*. "■ '•' 
 
 ,’V.' ■ •"■'■I- -,.‘ 
 
 
 X 
 
 I'-F ■* . 
 
 ,,i 
 
 '■> 
 

 
 f’li \ v M'.iS4.; ‘>^ C>f 't-N* 
 
 '® ^ ^.S:S ' ' . ' ■•” ’'i 
 
 ■-' . . ,X'-y ^ '' ' ^ ’ '' 
 
 . *^'\’ •. sJ'A*’** ' •. ixf ,' '■J *• I'-Vf •’■• 
 
 
 
 
 
Plate III. 
 
 Han Porcelanous Pottery. 
 
 Small jug. The interior of the neck is glazed in its upper part. Only the 
 upper portion of the body is coated with a thick, lustrous, porcelanous glaze of 
 greenish-yellow tinge, interspersed with small white dots, the glaze running down 
 in streaks over the lower unglazed part. This is the best-glazed piece in the lot. 
 Two rounded ears or loop handles are attached to the shoulders. 
 
 Middle or latter part of third century a.d. 
 
 Height, 20.1 cm. Cat. No. 118723. 
 
FIELD MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY 
 
 ANTHROPOLOGY, VOL. XV, PLATE lit 
 
 HAN PORCELANOUS JUG 
 
■;.v' • 
 
 • vv.«, *p ^ 
 
 
 , -^T'^ , ‘ , ■ 
 
 i/. ' ■ v,-, ;■ 
 
 J ' i ; ij- • V ■'’cyjv? ■■;-■- 
 
 t.>i' yf.vv.v 'oU/'i'i'.'- ■■> •vof/.T 
 
 ■•iC'ol • 'j. /qqo 
 
 ■ -Vw '(NT , f ^;v -r.'yyjvii' ■■.■..■ ' i..-, > ,,■ •::'vy>"y'-;!j 
 
 ■ r— ■ ■ j ‘.•••. 7 *! >■:.•. ■•• ■■■':•' ■■ : ■ 
 
 ■ • , ■ ; . : ; ; 
 
 V' Vj;'' . :,i . ‘..'' .ji ■ ' ■' , v;, ;;■ 
 
 'I' ui i : ^ •■ ■ . ! '<)[[« 
 
 h'.th •.y.'-yif f<-,2 ■'•' .-.i.-vi-;' . 
 
 'ivrfljytH y; ui' -jv.vj.H '»><?’. .-ifiiv?- 
 
 ’:>-o i.l'-. .. ' •; I-;;-, 
 
 r;,;o ,i-iL. y.-vi.' Ofy; y ,y''y; ■■■■■'.'tjiCf'.- 
 
 % ■<^r-ys i-y' ;--j '■yu-: :• ■'■■yr:.'. j' 
 
Plate IV. 
 
 Han Porcelanous Pottery. 
 
 Large globular vase of harmonious proportions, decorated with two opposite 
 animal (tiger)-heads in flat relief, holding dead rings, of the same style as in com- 
 mon Han pottery. In the middle between these heads, but somewhat higher, and 
 opposite each other, are two semi-circular loop handles stuck on to the body of 
 the vessel, obviously for the passage of a cord, by means of which the vase was 
 held and carried. Each handle is bordered by two knotted bands moulded sep- 
 arately in high relief. This feature, — that is, the combination of loop handles with 
 tiger-heads, — to my knowledge, does not occur in ordinary Han pottery. The 
 slip appears to have been lost in part of the neck. The glaze exhibits various 
 tinges of light green, mingled with the deep brown of the slip, and interspersed 
 with black spots, the brown approaching that of maple-leaves in the autumn. 
 The red-brown slip covers one side of the neck and almost the entire base; in the 
 middle portion the porcelanous glaze appears to be laid over this slip. Three 
 bands, each consisting of three concentric grooves, in the same manner as in Han 
 pottery, are laid around the body. The bottom is flat, and has along the rim 
 a broad grayish ring of irregular form and depth. The walls of the vessel are un- 
 usually thick, and its weight is almost six pounds. 
 
 Third century a.d. 
 
 Height, 35.4 cm. Cat. No. 118720. 
 
FIELD MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY. 
 
 ANTHROPOLOGY, VOL. XV, PLATE IV 
 
 Han Porcelanous Vase 
 
) 
 
 % 
 
 
 
 ■‘K- 
 
 
 " « ■•■ . 
 
 
 ^m . 
 
 '■"-r '• '^3 
 
 J n 
 
 -'■Mm 
 
 'K'-'-'}:M 
 
 
 . ■ >?! 
 
 >C 
 
}fj* 
 
 I- 
 
 i 
 
 I- 
 
Plate V. 
 
 Han Porcelanous Pottery. 
 
 Small jar, now unglazed, but originally glazed in its middle portion; when 
 found, covered all over with masses of earth, the glaze having been destroyed by 
 chemical influences under ground, and a white engobe being left in its place. A 
 wave-band, each consisting of five lines, presumably done by means of a roller, 
 runs around the upper rim and the neck. A double knot in low relief is stamped 
 above the loop handles, which terminate in a flat ring fiUed with incised, radiating 
 lines, apparently the reproduction in clay of a metal ring. The bottom is raised 
 on a rim, about i cm high. 
 
 Third century a.d. 
 
 Height, 21.2 cm. Cat. No. 118717. 
 
FIELD MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY 
 
 ANTHROPOLOGY, VOL. XV. PLATE V 
 
 Han Porcelanous Jar. 
 
f.'f '.C siWiEUM Dr riATO«.»‘> HtSTOHV. 
 
 •::v JV, VririvSCTiPi • 
 
Plate VI. 
 
 Han Porcelanous Pottery. 
 
 Globular vase, slightly asymmetrical, a narrow medial zone reaching from the 
 neck down to the shoulders being well coated with a uniform, lustrous, yellowish- 
 green porcelanous glaze; the neck and base showing a glossy brown slip. Its inte- 
 rior is glazed over a space of 6 cm. Decorated with three incised wave-bands, 
 bordered by deep grooves, the lower one under the glaze. The almost semi-circular 
 loop handles exhibit a leaf or fish-bone design. 
 
 Third century a.d. 
 
 Height, 25.2 cm. Cat. No. 118721. 
 
FIELD MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY. 
 
 ANTHROPOLOGY, VOL. XV. PLATE VI. 
 
 Han Porcelanous Vase. 
 
» «ar' " 
 
 ,1«'r - -: ;• 
 
 
 
 . vM! , XV, jn-ATP ,')x, _,- 
 
 
Plate VII. 
 
 Han Porcelanous Pottery. 
 
 Large globular vase, in its medial portion and inside of the neck coated with a 
 thin, but evenly distributed porcelanous glaze. Wave-band along upper rim, and 
 a broader wave-band of bolder design around the neck. The loop handles show 
 a fish-bone design incised under the glaze. Flat bottom without rim. Of almost 
 perfect workmanship. 
 
 Third century a.d. 
 
 Height, 34.8 cm. Cat. No. 118722. 
 
FIELD MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY. 
 
 ANTHROPOLOGY, VOL. XV, PLATE VII. 
 
 Han Porcelanous Vase. 
 
ii*- rKff'n 
 
 5lr-' 
 
 M'Wf-- :r' ;'y ; .■ ' ?;"■ '■■ ■/;r ■ 
 
 V ■ •. -W" •:■ ■■ ■ 
 
 •’i.^^'i'r O’!! _ '!';'’■ •:^/'-;;/;' '’'''vi^^ ■■'■i'r/ ■ " '' 
 
 vif- '(nvi ‘ '^ . 'io- h -tdoff?' ;&■' .V.> pj&C[ 
 
 '^l'y-> :.■'■'?/ «rtf S; W ;?; ; fSy>oxii ■ obia 
 
 ;• . ■ x.'i •'. Hx' 4^>‘bs-t-v; Si‘ y';i»''.lh'y'.! 
 
 :;.v«;.i^-;;’, Tjc-V» J; fc>v. bsiifeV ‘'•’^( ■;, >'>'•, iy'o'g 
 
 ' ' y’ ■ .' ■ '■ ■ , '■! •;.' , ' i icbx'J.'i'i: 
 
 ,JtS^55.iI m'A .ii '"i- 
 
 :h;h 
 
 .a^-'l- 
 
 U'y^)'<oH 
 
 ■ Y.y.-y,':-Y 
 ) -/r . ' 
 
 
 .'•;'X‘1,':';-'J v 
 
 i , **•''» ^ * 
 
PLATE VIII. 
 
 Han Porcelanous Pottery. 
 
 Large vase with asymmetrical neck, apparently turned out by an unskilled 
 potter. A large piece is broken out of the neck (found in this condition) on the 
 side of the vase not shown in the illustration. The glaze, covering only the middle 
 portion, is thick and unevenly applied, in some instances forming small warts or 
 globules. Decorated with two wave-bands. Loop handles with fish-bone design. 
 The bottom is raised on a rim i cm high. 
 
 Third century a.d. 
 
 Height, 27.2 cm. Cat. No. 118724. 
 
FIELD MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY. 
 
 ANTHROPOL03Y, VOL. XV, PLATE VIII. 
 
 Han Porcelanojs vase. 
 
.■^’ • • . •■ ' .'V ■■': • ' .■■■■■'■ 
 
 • ■,,■■' \ : ' « A’ VP. » -‘ 
 
 ' 7 - 
 
i' W'/ r: 
 
 ’■ ■■ . V-*', " ■ 
 
 '* v>T k *) 
 
 ' • V *?i '■,' .' > '■■''■•' ' '■■■ ^-*^’'’ ' ' '■■ ] v ' .'’■ '■■ V ' .‘''' ■'■■-' ."I'l'o'vi." ' , .:■,' - '>,r< ■;/■ ■' '■i'i 
 
PLATE IX. 
 
 Han Porcelanous Pottery. 
 
 Large ovoid vase of good proportions, of light-reddish clay, glazed in the medial 
 portion and in the interior of the neck, exterior of neck and base being coated with 
 a brown slip. Two wave-bands. Loop-handles with leaf design of raised' lines. 
 
 Third century A.D. 
 
 Height, 35.6 cm. Cat. No. 118719. 
 
FIELD MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY. 
 
 ANTHROPOLOGY, VOL. XV, PLATE IX. 
 
 Han Porcelanous Vase, 
 
' 7 ^ 
 
 
 
 A • .-X 
 
 
 
 
 7 
 
 .} '>V’ ■ ^ 
 
 ... 
 
 'iti i."" a.*j«2 
 
 
 
 
•V ,. . . AiP/lif. ■;!■•■ ’ ■ ' ’ • .' 
 
 I 
 
 ' 
 
 I 
 
PLATE X. 
 
 Han Porcelanous Pottery. 
 
 Jar of the type lei The bottom inside is glazed. The exterior is glazed 
 as far down as the middle of the body; the base is coated with a brown-red slip. 
 The handles are glazed only in their upper portions. A wave-band is run over 
 the shoulders under the glaze, passing below the loop handles. The latter are 
 wrought into the appearance of an elaborate animal-head of similar style, that 
 i s moulded in relief on the body of the vessel. 
 
 Third century a.d. 
 
 Height, 25.9 cm. Cat. No. 118864. 
 
FIELD MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY. 
 
 ANTHROFOLCGY. VOL. XV, PLATE X. 
 
 Han Forcelanous Jar. 
 
I" 
 
 
PLATE XI. 
 
 Chinese Potter’s Wheel (see p. 162). 
 
 From kiln near Peking. Table of clay, 52 cm in diameter on the top, 60 cm 
 across the opening below. 
 
 In the collections of the American Museum of Natural History, New York. 
 Secured by the writer in 1903. 
 
 Height, 1.24 m. Cat. No. — 
 
 12797 
 
FIELD MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY. 
 
 ANTHROPOLOGY, VOL. XV, PLATE XI. 
 
 Chinese Potter’s Wheel of Clay. 
 

 ,i;;: :t TAJ'S ■ , ^ 
 
 .vC-i -y V; ,!v;!' :?j3 
 
 C'- ^>ir j ■/;' ' : - j JiTl " -;s'^:L’;.T ■ .i-' 
 
 ./, t; s ri v'A --c'/t I' •'■-■y ;: ^.•:■''qV: ■’ J r. ,; , ■;!.:; • :■ ■/: ■ ■ ., • ; 
 
 -i:': ■ ro v’ A .s.J^ ... 
 
 . . ' ' T'i . V , . J 
 
 'H^'A .YToi~:K Uy~y<-'. '. '.i t-tooskH rrK’->'iS:r»7. '^J. >j jJ.c’ ' 5 ,7 
 
 ■ ..r'T. -ijjr;— 1.-; -'jn?: 
 
 . Jj 1_. .oK - 
 
PLATE XII. 
 
 Chinese Potter’s Wheel (see p. 162). 
 
 From kiln near Peking, The table is formed by a heavy stone disk 60 cm 
 in diameter and 9 cm thick. On top of it is placed a small wooden table, 35 cm in 
 diameter. The main shaft is of wood and 87 cm high; the two wooden side-supports 
 are 37 cm in length. 
 
 In the collections of the American Museum of Natural History, New York. 
 Secured by the writer in 1903. 
 
 Cat. No. — 72 _. 
 
 12798 
 
FIELD MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY. 
 
 ANTHROPOLOGY, VOL. XV, PLATE XII. 
 
 Chinese Potter’s Wheel of Stone. 
 
I 
 
 \ 
 
i 
 
 ■'I 
 
 f 
 
 
 I 
 
 i: 
 
 GETTY CENTER LIBRARY 
 
 3 3125 00015 5339