July, 1912. Chinese Pottery. 43 



with ears. Kaya-tsubo. 1 Wine-cups 2 with ears, on stands. KCroku 

 water-pitcher. Koroku deep bowls (domburi). The same, hexagonal 

 incense-box. The same, incense-box in straight lines. 



Of Oribe shapes, the following are known: Three incense-boxes. 

 Water-pitcher (mizutsugi). Flower-vase. Bowl. Basin. 



Of Shino shapes, a bowl, incense-box, water-pitcher, wine-cup, 

 saucer, basin, jug (katakuchi) , and others, are known. 



Of black-glazed ware, flower-vases with ears, various water-pitchers, 

 and tachimizu with ears are known. 



Of Iga shapes, water-pitchers with ears, one made by Koson, 3 and 

 various pieces similar to Iga and Shigaraki are known. 



Various pieces resembling Seto, Tamba, Takatori, Yasshiro, Karatsu, 

 etc. 



Of plainly burnt ware: 4 bottle with vermilion cord (hi-tasuki 

 tokuri); fire-holder; gourd-shaped water-pitcher; large and small 

 kayatsubo. 



Of gourd-shaped pieces there are: jugs {katakuchi); hexagonal ones; 

 tachimizu; flower-vases with horizontal rope and ears; rippled bowls 

 with sea-slug glaze ; 5 basin in the shape of a fish ; water-pitcher with 

 dark-brown (shibu) glaze and potato-head (imo-gashira) . 



Of Shibu ware there are water-pitchers with indented rim; green- 

 glazed katakuchi, and the same of black glaze and gold glaze. 



This account is exceedingly interesting, but must certainly not be 

 accepted on its face value. The author apparently suffers from a 

 certain degree of Luzonitis by seeing Luzon ware in every possible case, 

 and without rendering himself a clear account of what this Luzon 

 pottery is. Judging from the extensive trade carried on between China 

 and the Philippines, the large bulk of foreign pottery brought to the 

 Islands must have been of Chinese origin, and the descriptions given 

 by our Japanese author, however succinct they may be, hardly allow 

 of any other inference than that the pieces referred to are Chinese. 

 If we adopt this point of view, an embarrassing difficulty arises at once. 

 If it is here the question of plainly Chinese pottery, why does the 

 Japanese scholar not make any statement to this effect? Is it believable 

 that a Japanese expert in ceramics who is bound to know Chinese 

 pottery thoroughly, and who writes about it with authority in the same 



1 Lit. mosquito-net jars. 



2 Choku, lit. pig's mouth. 



J Apparently provided with this mark. 



4 Suyaki-mono, i. e. unglazed pottery. 



• Namako-gusuri, so called from the likeness which the flambi glaze bears to the 

 greenish-blue mottled tints of the sea-slug (namako), a Chinese glaze imitated in 

 Satsuma ware (Brinkley, p. 137). 



