88 



NATURE 



[October 4, 19 17 



We are not surprised to note that the Scottish 

 face is somewhat longer and narrower, but we 

 were not quite prepared to find that the Londoner 

 had the larger head. Nor need we really be sur- 

 prised to find so close a similarity between 

 samples of the population culled from the Clyde 

 and from the Thames estuaries when we remem- 

 ber that since the close of the Bronze period 

 British invaders and immigrants have invariably 

 been members of the Nordic stock. We do not 

 know when that stock first settled in Britain, 

 but it is difficult to account for all the facts now 

 at our disposal unless we accept Huxley's 

 hypothesis that it reached Britain very early— 

 probably, as Prof. Bryce supposes, at an early 

 Neolithic or even more ancient date. 



A. Keith. 



THE BEGINNINGS OF PORCELAIN IN 

 CHINA. 



IN a charming series of essays on " Fallen 

 Idols," the late Mr. M. L. Solon, of Stoke-on- 

 Trent — one of our most learned students of the 

 history of ceramics — discussed some types 

 of antique pottery which he ranked among the 

 " transient glories of the world," because at 

 one period these vessels, made from common 

 clay, were the idols of the hour, and exceeded in 

 value vessels made from the most precious 

 materials. The idols were but fleeting fashions 

 which have now lapsed into obscure tradition. It 

 is the work of the archaeological ceramist to 

 inquire into the nature and character of the pot- 

 tery of ancient days. In many cases the greater 

 the obscurity and the fewer the number of avail- 

 able facts, the more persistent have been the 

 attempts to illumine dark and hazy tradition by 

 extravagant conjectures. By a curious aberra- 

 tion of the human mind, the absence of positive 

 evidence is very prone to engender assurance and 

 confidence ; this condition has ever been an ignis 

 fatuus, luring the unwary into quagmires of 

 fancy. What whimsical and grotesque views 

 have grown about the murrhine vases, the ollae 

 fossiles, and the buccaro vases ! What curious 

 myths have been current with respect to the 

 origin of Chinese porcelain ! 



It is a pleasure to read Laufer and Nichols's 

 brochure ^ on the beginnings of porcelain in 

 China because here positive evidence occupies an 

 all-important place. The essay should be read 

 in conjunction with Laufer's "Chinese Pottery 

 of the Han Dynasty." The materials for the 

 latter work were collected by Laufer while on 

 a mission in China about 1903 under the auspices 

 of the American Museum of Natural History, 

 and this work was supplemented by a later 

 investigation in China about 1910. 



The composition of the Han pottery, as repre- 

 sented by chemical analyses, is a close approxi- 

 mation to that of the better-class Chinese pottery, 

 and the inferior quality of the body of the former 



' " The Beginnines of Porcelain in China." Publication 192 of the Field 

 Museum of Natural History, Anthropological Series, Chicago, vol. xvi., 

 No. 2, 1917. 



NO. 2501, VOL. 100] 



appears to be due to the primitive methods of 

 manufacture prevalent in China during that 

 epoch. The porosity, for example, is much 

 greater than that of ware which is usually styled 

 porcelain ; indeed, the authors go so far as toy 

 call the body a "porcelain froth." This term, 

 of course, is merely a metaphor and is no 

 doubt intended to emphasise the low porosity 

 of the ware. According to Nichols, the out- 

 side of one vessel he examined was coated 

 with a white slip, and on this was superposed a 

 red glaze. The inside of the vessel was coated 

 with a glaze which appears to have been made by 

 mixing the body material with limestone — in the 

 approximate proportion of one of limestone to two 

 of body. Analyses of the green glaze of another 

 specimen correspond with a glaze of the Rock- 

 ingham type, but without "alumina," and the 

 colour Is due to the presence of about 3 per cent, 

 of copper oxide. The crude character of the body 

 is taken to mean that the Han pottery Is the 

 "forerunner of true porcelain," and that 



it represents one of the initial or primitive stages 

 of development through which porcelain must have 

 passed before it could reach that stage of perfection 

 for which the Chinese product gained fame throughout 

 the world. 



Although many students of pottery consider that 

 true Chinese porcelain first appeared in the Ming 

 dynasty about the fourteenth century, and others 

 carry It back to the Sung dynasty about the tenth 

 century, there are several references to porcelain 

 at an earlier period still — e.g. the seventh century 

 - — but the controversy on the origin of Chinese 

 porcelain now turns on the meaning which the 

 Chinese assigned to the term ts'e, and on the 

 definition of porcelain. If the Han pottery is a 

 porcelain, we can accept Laufer and Nichols's 

 conclusion, and the beginning of porcelain would 

 be carried to near the beginning of the Christian 

 era; but did the term ts'e refer to ordinary pot- 

 tery or to porcelain? There Is no mistaking 

 Laufer's view : — 



By arguing that in the beginning the term ts'e 

 denoted 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. 



He claims that the term ts'e refers to a porce- 

 I Iain-like pottery and should be translated by 

 I "porcelanous ware" or some equivalent term, 

 i and that the early ts'e is represented by the Han 

 pottery. This is scarcely the place to argue this 

 matter, because so much depends on the meanings 

 of the terms employed. The present writer, who 

 knows nothing of the Chinese language, has always 

 taken the early ts'e to have been a general term 

 which covered both ordinary pottery and porce- 

 lain. Laufer's general conclusion that the Han 

 pottery was the Immediate precursor of porcelain 

 will no doubt be generally accepted, because the 

 experience gained with this pottery would natu- 

 rally point the way to the manufacture of higher 

 types of ware. I have shown several experienced 

 men some fragments of the Han pottery which 



