July, 191 2. Chinese Pottery. 27 



of the raised rim on which the dish stands. Nothing like this dish is 

 known to me from China, and I should rather suspect a Japanese origin 

 for it. However, he who will take the trouble to peruse the Japanese 

 account on Luzon pottery, translated below, will receive the impression 

 that it may belong to that still mysterious class styled "Luzon ware" 

 by the Japanese author. 



The tiny cup in Fig. 2 is covered with a grayish glaze with an impure 

 yellowish tinge and has a floral design in black-blue overglaze painting ; 

 three ornaments along the outward rim resemble fishes. Fig. 3 repre- 

 sents a blue and white porcelain dish, as said before, the only porcelain 

 in this collection; scenery of mountains and water, a rock and a building 

 in the foreground, are painted under the glaze in a darkened blue of 

 poor quality. ' This piece is of crude and coarse workmanship, . and I 

 do not remember having seen anything similar in China. I believe I 

 do not go far amiss in assigning it to the early attempts of the Japanese 

 to imitate the Chinese cobalt-blue, which was first studied by Shonzui 

 on his visit to King-t£-ch£n in 15 10. Also the mark on the bottom 

 (Fig. 3b) betrays a decidedly Japanese trait, and the dish is probably 

 connected with the great export era of Japanese porcelain in the seven- 

 teenth century. Brinkley (Japan, Vol. VIII: Keramic Art, p. 87) 

 remarks: "With regard to the possibility of Japan's porcelain having 

 found its way to Eastern countries in the early years of its manufacture, 

 it appears from the evidence of a terrestrial globe in 1670 and preserved 

 in the Tokyo Museum, that Japan had commercial relations with the 

 Philippines, Cambodja, Tonkin, Annam, Siam, and various parts of 

 China, in the beginning of the seventeenth century." 



The exaggerated valuation affixed to these pieces of pottery by the 

 Malayan tribes is not by any means justified by their merits, but seems 

 to be largely the consequence of the wondrous stories associated with 

 them. It is accordingly a mere ideal estimation resulting from social 

 and religious customs. Hardly any of these pieces can lay claim to 

 unusual ceramic or artistic qualities, and from a Chinese ceramic view- 

 point they are average common household productions, which would 

 not be very costly affairs when made in China at the present time. 

 While the natives have apparently linked their own ideas and beliefs 

 with this pottery, the question is justified as to whether the impetus for 

 the formation of this ceramic lore was possibly received from Chinese 

 traders. It would be plausible to assume that these were clever enough 

 to trade off on the innocents not only the jar, but also a bit of a marvel- 

 ous story about its supernatural qualities, which was capable of in- 

 creasing the price by not a few per cent. It was not even necessary for 

 them to strain their imagination to an extraordinary degree, while on 



