July, 191 2. Chinese Pottery. 47 



in the Trocadero Museum in Paris." This can only mean to say that 

 the piece in question is derived from a Chinese type, which was also 

 the parent of the Borneo jar. 



But whatever our criticism of this Japanese record may be, it re- 

 veals a good many interesting facts hitherto unknown to us. It unrolls 

 a picture of a former intimate contact between the two cultures, and 

 undeniably shows that at a time the Philippines must have been a rich 

 storehouse of fine pottery of various descriptions coveted and imitated 

 1 >y the Japanese. We are thus confronted with the fact that historical 

 problems worthy of investigation are connected with the Philippines, 

 and that the question of foreign potter)' in existence on the Islands is 

 much more complicated than it appears on the surface. Inquiries 

 should be made in Japan as to any surviving examples of this so-called 

 Luzon pottery and its possible influences on indigenous manufactures. 

 Further research conducted in the Philippines may bring to light addi- 

 tional material toward the solution of this problem. 



