Historical Observations and Conclusions ioi 



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 found in a grave near the village Ma-kia-chai, 5 H north of the 

 town of Hien-yang ^ Bl, 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 IB "t*, 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." J 

 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 



1 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 huan JEj||, 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 ku + jjjfc, which means "earthen 

 drums." 



