外國人眼中的“中國白”|考古眼光中的“中國白” (一)——何翠媚
-
小陶陶
2021-08-12 15:45:59 1599
11770
編者按：
由柯玫瑰(Rose Kerr)、約翰?蓋爾(John Ayers)所著《——德化白瓷》(Blanc de Chine—porcelain from Dehua)于2002年經新加坡亞洲文明博物館出版，是繼唐納利《——福建德化瓷》之后的一本專門研究德化白瓷的專著，影響甚為深遠。
該書收錄的都為國外研究德化白瓷的知名學者所撰寫德化白瓷研究資料。包括柯玫瑰的“德化器物款識介紹”，海蒂(Heidi Tan)的“鑒賞家探訪”，約翰?蓋爾的“的影響”，何翠媚(Chuimei Ho)的“考古眼光中的”，郭勒遜(Kenson Kwok)的“德化雕塑結構的一點看法”， 埃娃?施特勒伯(Eva Strober)的“德累斯頓的斯特朗大帝收藏的德化瓷”，以及附錄介紹等七個部分，從不同角度介紹了德化白瓷。與此同時，該書收錄的160件德化窯精品，為Hickley家藏，后捐贈給新加坡亞洲文明博物館，是了解、品鑒、研究德化白瓷不可多得的藝術精品。
本欄目將定期精選出相關代表性文章進行翻譯，以饗讀者。然而，由于作者水平的局限，翻譯過程中難免有所錯漏，不足之處敬請各位讀者提出寶貴意見。
Blanc de Chine in archaeological perspective: a tribute to Donnelly by Chuimei Ho
（翻譯：德化陶瓷文化研究院 孫延燕）
Studying blanc de Chine ware is at once gratifying as well as frustrating. Gratifying because not only is the highly artistic porcelain attractive to view and touch; but also because the ware is one of the earliest ceramic traditions to be associated with artists in China. A blessing to researchers, blanc de Chine is free from the usual entanglements of identification and provenance. The ware is very recognisable, and Dehua county in Fujian has always been its home. Besides, researchers interested in trade and cross-cultural impacts are fortunate in that many good examples and records of blanc de Chine survive in the West. Yet, at the same time, researchers are frustrated because for centuries blanc de Chine potters tended to repeat a small range of successful designs, causing great difficulty in dating as well as in studying its industry's growth. The most disappointing factor is the lack of good records regarding blanc de Chine potter-artists, technology, and the workshops of this world famous ware.
對“”的研究既令人滿意又令人沮喪。令人欣慰的是，這些具有高度藝術性的瓷器不僅吸人眼球而且有良好的觸感，還因為這些瓷器是中國最早能與藝術家聯系在一起的陶瓷傳統之一。幸運的是，對于研究人員來說，這是一種福氣，對的研究不會受到辨識和出處的糾纏。這些器皿非常容易辨認，福建的德化縣一直是它的來源。此外，對貿易和跨文化影響感興趣的研究人員很幸運，因為許多瓷器的典范和記載在西方幸存了下來。然而，與此同時，研究人員感到沮喪，幾個世紀以來，陶器制造商傾向于重復一小部分成功的設計，對研究瓷器的斷代和其工業的發展造成了很大的困難。最令人失望的因素是關于這一世界聞名的器物的藝術家、工業技術和工坊缺乏好的記錄。
Given its limitations, P J. Donnelly’s Blanc-de-chine, The Porcelain of Tehua in Fukien, although published thirty years ago, is unquestionably the most definitive volume on the subject. It is also amongst the best scholarly works covering any type of Chinese ceramics published in any language prior to 1970. Subsequent studies add more details but do not surpass Donnelly's research parameters. It is with this admiration for Donnelly's work that I find the Hickley collection of special interest and importance; several Hickley pieces have passed through Donnelly's hands one way or the other.
鑒于這種局限性，唐納利出版于30年前的《——福建德化陶瓷》，無疑是這個方面最權威的著作。它也是勝過1970年以前以任何語言出版的涵蓋所有類型中國瓷器與陶器的最佳學術著作之一。隨后的研究增加了更多具體信息，但沒有超過唐納利的研究。正是出于對唐納利作品的贊賞，我發現希克利的收藏具有特殊的興趣和重要性; 一些希克利的藏品以這樣或那樣的方式經過唐納利的手。
This paper attempts to examine blanc de Chine ware based on archaeological data of the last thirty years; the kind of data Donnelly did not have in his time Has recent field work revealed more about the source of inspiration for blanc de Chine ware? What evidence of production has been found at the two excavations in Dehua? What else do we know about ancient blanc de Chine users and admirers other than that concerning the famous eighteenth century royal collector augustus the Strong? These questions were raised and dealt with in Donnelly’s work in which, in addition to inventory and dating, he dis-cussed the origin, production location, and market for this ware. In this short paper I will try to reassess the first three issues in the light of recent archaeological data.
本文試圖根據過去三十年的考古資料來研究瓷器，用唐納利那個時代沒有的資料。最近的田野調查是否揭示了更多關于瓷器的靈感來源？在德化的兩次挖掘中發現了什么生產證據？除了關于18世紀著名的皇家收藏家奧古斯都，我們還知道什么關于古代的使用者和崇拜者的事？這些問題在唐納利的著作中被提出和處理，除了發明和年代測定外，他還討論了這件器皿的來源，生產地點和市場。在這篇短文中，我將基于最新的考古調查試圖對上述前面的3個問題進行重新闡述。
Origin: Was Blanc de Chine Developed out of a Local Dehua Tradition?
When Donnelly related sixteenth-to seventeenth-century blanc de Chine to thirteenth-to fourteenth-century qingbai(bluish-white)or yingqing (shadow blue)ware made in Dehua-sometimes also nicknamed Marco Polo ware-he speculated that blanc de Chine owed its inspiration to the latter(1969: 42). In other words, Donnelly saw blanc de Chine as a local Dehua product. His claim, unsupported in 1969, has now been proven to be correct.
當唐納利將16-17世紀的與13至14世紀在德化制造的青白或是影清(有時也被稱為馬可波羅瓷)器皿相聯系時，他推測的靈感源于后者。換句話說，唐納利把視為當地的德化產品。他的主張在1969年沒有得到支持，現在證明是正確的。
Kilns in Dehua that made the Marco Polo qingbai ware have been extensively surveyed since the late 1960s. Researchers are now certain that several localities in Dehua -sites which include Jiachunling, Dalongkou, Neiban, and Weilin in Sanban district; Qudougong,Houyao, Shipaige, and Taipinggong in Xunzhong district; and Wanyangkeng in Gaide made ceramics of this type(Map 2). In addition, Marco Polo qingbai was also made outside Dehua in the nearby counties-anyuan in Anxi, and Penglai in Yongchun Coastal sites such as the Xushan kiln in Putian and Dongtian kiln in Nanan reveal relevant ancient Dehua-type wares(FPM 1990: 150). They were found along the Jinjiang River which feeds into the entrepot Quanzhou, a thirteenth-to fourteenth-century city equivalent in status to today's Shanghai.
德化窯作為制造馬可波羅青白瓷器的品種，自20世紀60年代末以來，人們對其進行了廣泛的調查。研究人員現在確定，德化遺址包括家春嶺、大壟口、內坂、三班鎮的尾林等地；潯中鎮屈斗宮、后窯、石排格、太平宮；而蓋德碗洋坑制作這種陶瓷（圖2）。此外，德化附近的安溪安源、永春蓬萊也制作馬可波羅青白瓷，莆田許山窯、南安東田窯等沿海遺址也揭露了相關古德化型器物。它們是注入泉州的晉江流域被發現的，這是一個13至14世紀的城市，與今天的上海相當。
In 1975 Qudougong in Dehua was excavated(FPM 1990). A 130-metre long climbing kiln located right in the middle of Dehua township in Qudougong, apparently made both Marco Polo qingbai ware, and some unusual white ware which I will call White Ware I.Qingbai ware of course was not a Dehua or Southern Fujian invention, and the Marco Polo type is a local variation of a wider Central and Coastal China qingbai tradition. White Ware I, however, was rather unique; it was made in no other place in China. The ware is thick porcelain with a translucent paste, rather plain in shape and design, and the whiteness of the glaze has a soft and creamy lustre. Even though White Ware I is not as refined as the typical blanc de Chine pieces of later date, it is easy to see the connection between them (FPM 1990: 81). The finding of White Ware I is groundbreaking in two ways. First, the ware Is contemporary with, not a later development of, Marco Polo qingbai. Second, Qudougong was active during the mid-to late fourteenth century, thus placing White Ware I 150 years prior to the beginning of blanc de Chine. Based on the Qudougong findings, we can safely conclude that blanc de Chine was derived from White Ware I, not Marco Polo qingbai ware in Dehua. It took Dehua potters almost a century and a half, between White Ware I and blanc de Chine, to perfect the formula.
1975年屈斗宮窯被發掘。它是一條位于德化中部的長130米的龍窯，很明顯，它制作馬可波羅青白器，又有一些不尋常的白色器皿，我稱之為白瓷1號。青白器皿當然不是一項德化或閩南的發明，馬可波羅瓷是中國中部和沿海地區較廣泛的青白傳統的地方性變異。然而，白瓷1號卻相當獨特；在中國其他地方沒有做的。該瓷器胎體厚實自帶半透明釉料，形狀和設計相當質樸，釉面有松軟、柔和的光澤。盡管我的白色器皿不如后來的典型瓷器那么精致，但很容易看出它們之間的聯系。白瓷1號在兩方面的發現是開創性的。首先，該器物是與馬可波羅青白瓷同時代出現，而不是后來發展的。其次，在十四世紀中后期活躍，因此將白瓷1號定為比150年前誕生前更早。根據屈斗宮的發現，我們可以很確切地得出是從德化白瓷1號中衍生出來的，而不是德化的馬可波羅青白瓷器。德化陶藝師花了將近一個半世紀時間，才完成了白瓷1號和之間完美配方的轉化。
Researchers are now in a position to raise questions leading to a better understanding of the rise of blanc de Chine ware. For instance, why, out of the many contemporary kilns in the Jinjiang River area, were potters at Qudougong alone interested in experimenting with the new product White Ware I, which was not to pay off for about two centuries? One possible reason could be the nature of the data -other kilns might also have deve-loped White Ware I, but no such sherd has yet surfaced. The other possibility is that Qudougong potters alone had the required skills which potters carefully kept to them- selves. This may explain the rather slow progress leading to the making of blanc de Chine. What is surprising is that even during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries when blanc de Chine was no longer a top secret technique, it was still the Dehua potters who made the ware. Few other neighbouring potters tried or succeeded.
研究人員現在可以提出問題，從而更好地理解瓷器熱的興起。例如，在晉江地區的許多當代窯中，為什么只有屈斗宮的陶工對新產品的實驗感興趣，而這種新產品的研發將在兩個世紀內不會得到回報？一個可能的原因可能是資料的原因——其他窯也可能開發出白瓷1號，但這樣的瓷器標本還未見天日。另一種可能是，屈斗宮陶工將精心掌握的技能留給了自己，這可能解釋了生產的緩慢進程。令人驚訝的是，即使在十八、十九世紀，已不再是絕密技術的時候，仍然是德化的陶工制造了這種瓷器。幾乎沒有其他鄰近的陶工嘗試或成功。
責任編輯：陳美珠
評論（0）
