Heidrun Schenk

Porcelain from the East and earthenware from the neighbourhood

– Remarks on the pottery from Dutch Fort Katuwana

Zeitschrift für Archäologie Außereuropäischer Kulturen 5 (2013): 241–260

Keywords: Sri Lanka, Excavation, Chinese ceramics, Hizen, VOC, Indian Ocean

Abstract: In 2006, investigations at Katuwana Fort provided an assemblage of foreign porcelain and local earthenware. The porcelain might have reached the fort around 1735, matching at best to ceramics from the shipwreck cargo of Ca Mau. It was disposed in a period between 1761 and 1766 together with the local earthenware. At that time major repairs were reportedly undertaken after 1761. Nevertheless, the fort was abandoned in 1766 and the Dutch Period ended. 1797, the fort was re-used for a short period by British forces, but fi nally given up already in 1805. This provides a limited range of time for the dating of the pottery assemblage with a glimpse into the variety of ceramics available in a fort related to the Indian Ocean trade of that time.Besides fi ne Chinese export porcelain also favoured in Europe, they used durable crockery made in Southern Chinese kilns and in Japan. This coarse and thick-walled porcelain was mainly distributed in Asia but also bought by the VOC as offi ce equipment. In opposite thereto, it is suggested that local earthenware consists of more recent forms and being representatives for the period around 1761 to 1766. Most of them are of domestic day-to-day function with easy availability in the neighbourhood and therefore more up-to-date.A few sherds among the porcelain fi nds are of uncertain context but according to comparisons, they could have reached the Fort only during the short British period.

Introduction

In 2006, investigations prior to necessary conservation works retrieved a small but in-teresting assortment of ceramics1. It consists of Chinese porcelain but also of indigenous earthenware. The following analysis adds to an earlier published compilation from an excava-tion conducted in 2000 that delivered similar pottery (Dhammarathana/Jayasena 2000).

The island’s regional pottery production of medieval and early modern times is still not much known2. The fi nds from Katuwana Fort, in connection with datable porcelain and sup-ported by an archaeologically defi ned context,

allow an idea of local pottery production of a limited time range.

Historical background of the Fort concern-ing the pottery

How and when Chinese cups and saucers could have reached Katuwana fort, a small outpost in the Hinterland? And how long have they been in use?

1 For the excavation report see the article by Garusinha/Boekel/Weisshaar in this volume.

2 Prickett-Fernando/Tampoe 1993: 77–80 with a dating range of 14th to 19th century.

242 Heidrun Schenk

The following considerations are based on the historical written records of Katuwana (see Garusinha/Boekel/Weisshaar in this volume and fi g. 1).

The porcelain could well have arrived in the early days of its main period, about 16803, together with fi rst equipments. In 1717 the gar-rison was still equipped with only 18 soldiers. After complaints, the detachment was enforced and in 1734 an eye-witness could report of 40 soldiers, which certainly had required new crockery sets. At least the offi cers which in-cluded a sergeant as commandant, a corporal and a physician might have used porcelain. Time of such purchase might therefore be be-tween 1717 and 1734. Twenty-seven years later, the fort came under attack and was damaged. Certainly many pots of porcelain and local potteries were destroyed at such an occasion. After that attack, the fort was repaired again, and new personnel and potteries arrived. In 1766 however, the fort was given up, again leaving pottery to be discharged.

The next chance for a new stock of pot-tery is the year 1796, when British occupation restarts the fort’s existence which lasts until 1805. After that, only sporadic use of the ruins might have left some scattered traces of pottery.

It has to be differentiated between time of supply and time of discharge, compiled by

an overview of phases according to the fort’s written record (fi g. 1):

A from 1680 a masonry-built fort with a crew of 18 soldiers

B1 in-between 1717–1734 the garrison was enforced from 18 to 40 soldiers

B2 1734–1761 the fort continues with a gar-rison of 40 soldiers

C1 1761 when the fort was destroyed during the Kandyan attack

C2 after 1761 the fort was repaired, which could include the drainage-system

C3 Re-use of the fort until 1766D HiatusE 1797 until 1805, when Katuwana was again

functioning under British order

The following will show that the most probable time of disposal of both the porcelain and the earthenware will be between Phase C1 and C2.

As part of a tolerated improvement of VOC employees’ salaries, a contingent of private cargo could be taken on board of which the amount depended on their rank (Jörg/Flecker 2001: 32–33). The porcelain was then either sold on return from the voyage or already

Fig. 1. Katuwana Fort – Phases of the fort according to written records and probable time range of ceramics.

3 Jayasena/Somadeva 2000: 21 refer to an earlier stockade before a new masonry fort built around 1680. Unfor-tunately no further reference is given.

243The pottery from Dutch Fort Katuwana

on route at ports of call, where one of the Katuwana occupants might have purchased it. It might also well be possible that the dishes have been brought along as souvenirs from a previous posting near appropriate markets as Batavia. Therefore, it needs not necessarily contain the same spectrum of export porcelains intended to be brought to the West.

The according local Sri Lankan earthenware retrieved at the site was used in addition to the porcelain, also by indigenous soldiers or lascarins (Dhammarathana/Jayasena 2000: 46) and servants.

The porcelain, however, does not necessar-ily refl ect the state of the art of ceramics at that time. It might also have been chosen for reasons of durability. For example, the VOC stocked their offi ces – that certainly includes the forts – with porcelain bought centralised in Batavia or directly in Canton (Jörg 1986: 95).

Pottery from Katuwana – dating of porce-lain and earthenware

Not much is known about the development of local earthenware of that time, whereas lots of research has been done on Chinese porcelain. Analysis of shipwreck cargoes, paintings and archaeological excavations provides chronologi-cal clues. This allows a reconstruction of the probable time when the porcelain reached the site, regardless of the stratigraphical information provided by the site itself.

Of course, ship wreck cargoes are not nec-essarily reliable representatives of the complete spectrum of available porcelain of the time4. The shipload might be of a different composition depending on to where the ship was bound to5. The cargo from the Sadana shipwreck found in the Red Sea appears to have been composed in particular for Muslim customers (Ward 2004: 168). It is dated not earlier than 1764. Additionally, trade and preference of porcelain in the Asian region differed from that kind that was preferred on the European market (Macintosh 1987: 135; Jörg 1999: 77–79). Conclusively, support from independently dated

archaeological sites was demanded (Madsen/White 2011: 12). Surveys from coastal areas of South India revealed strong evidences of Chinese ceramics from 10th to 19th century (Karashima/Kanazawa 2004b: 431–433; Karashima 2004).

The following considerations presume that a stock of local pottery represents a more up-to-date relevance than ceramics from afar. Diffi cult or expensive to replace, foreign pots were certainly taken better care of than kitchen ware from nearby used in day-to-day routine.

According to the excavators, the pottery was found when removing the soil above the pavement of the inner courtyard (N/W quad-rant, N/E quadrant and S/E quadrant) and in the backfi ll of a drainage construction in the area of the main entrance (context 19). Some fragments from the S/E quadrant could be mended to fragments from context 19 which proves a connection.

The pottery discussed here comprises of 31 pieces of porcelain and 60 fragments of local earthenware. The local pottery production is represented by two major qualities. Pots of domestic function such as water jars are mainly of a well-tempered fabric. Of fi ne quality is table ware, among it lidded teapots which show adoptions of form and decoration taken from Chinese porcelain by domestic potters.

The foreign porcelain – clues from compari-sons

The 31 fragments of porcelain and stoneware represent about twelve individual vessels. They cover two main groups. At least four can be certainly attributed to Chinese export porcelain of fi ne quality mainly produced for European markets (fi g. 2, 1–3; 4, 4–5). A production in the Jingdezhen kilns is highly probably (Ho

4 On the problems of “pollution” of wreck sites: Carswell 2000: 184; Bonke/Parthesius/van der Pijl-Ketel 2007: 5; Madsen/White 2011: 12.

5 Klose 1999–2000: 78 refers to a necessary differentia-tion of cargo and ship’s inventory in the case of ship wrecks.

Fig. 2. Katuwana Fort: Chinese export porcelain. 1 S/E quadrant; 2.4 N/W quadrant; 3 cont. 19. Scale 1 : 3; en-larged detail of 2.4 below without scale.

245The pottery from Dutch Fort Katuwana

1988: 111). The others belong to a group that remained more or less within the Asian region (fi g. 2, 4; 3, 1–4; 4, 1–3). They were mainly produced in the Southern Chinese provincial kilns and in Japan. It was durable crockery, comparatively thick-walled, produced for do-mestic Chinese use and for export to Southeast Asia (Klose 1992–93: 73–76; Jörg/Flecker 2001: 75–76). It was “defi nitely unsuitable for sale in Europe” and the VOC also bought it for the equipment of Dutch colonial staffs and garrisons (Jörg 1986: 95). It is also known as Kitchen Ch’ing (Klose 1992–93: 74), which was preferred by “families of Chinese descent” in South East Asia (Harrisson 1995: 85). As such it found its way also to America by Chinese immigrants6. Similar pottery was made in Japan (Impey 1979/80).

This difference in porcelain distribution is well represented by the cargoes of the shipwrecks Götheborg (1745)7, Ca Mau (c. 1723–17358, and Geldermalsen (1752) also known as Nanking Cargo (Jörg 1986; Sheaf/Kilburn 1988). The Götheborg wrecked in September 12th, 1745 when being almost back at home in Sweden after a two years voyage. Its cargo represents the European taste of the time. The Ca Mau and the Geldermalsen sank in the South China Sea near the Vietnamese Coast. The Geldermalsen was on the way to the Netherlands with a cargo bought directly in Canton according to a VOC order list. The ceramics were destined for the Dutch home port and a special order meant the thick-walled provincial porcelain for their offi ces at the Cape of Good Hope9. Dif-ferently to Götheborg and Geldermalsen, the Ca Mau was only part of the Inner-Asiatic shipping traffi c to either Batavia or other ports important as ports of call for European ships (Kleinen 2003).

Finds from Cape Town in South Africa assembled at VOC premises provide good ex-amples for an equivalent composition of high quality porcelain of European taste together with common bowls of coarser quality (Klose 1992–1993). Fragments of similar potteries were found in the course of the investigations by the Avondster Project in the Harbour of

Galle, Sri Lanka (Bonke/Parthesius/van der Pijl-Ketel 2007).

It was possible to fi nd analogies for all here presented fragments of foreign ceramics from Katuwana. They provide clues for their fi rst possible arrival at Katuwana. In the following, the discussion continues in accordance to the two main periods of the fort.

Attributable to the Dutch period of Katu-wana Fort (c. 1680–1766)

Fig. 2,1: A base fragment of a Batavian ware cup from the S/E corner of the inner courtyard.Known under many denominations such as Capuchin ware or brown glazed ware, Bata-vian ware has been popular throughout the 18th century from a period of c. 1685 to 1793 and was highly favoured by the Dutch in par-ticular10. It comprised tea, coffee or chocolate services classifi able by diameter and height (Jörg 1986: 66–67).

The inside on the base depicts a pavilion landscape pattern that Madsen/White (2011: 97) classifi ed as First Period (c. 1710–1750). A saucer from the Topkapi Museum, dated to 1725–1745, shows such a landscape motif (Krahl/Ayers 1986: 1092 no. 2499), also a covered bowl dated to c. 1720–1750 (Krahl/Ayers 1986: 1069 no. 2393), and a Bavarian cup (Krahl/Ayers 1986, 1130 no. 2683) dated mid to late 17th century. An almost exact parallel was found in the Ca Mau cargo (c. 1723–1735)11 and on a saucer in the Götheborg shipwreck (1745)12.

6 Rinaldi 1989: 230; Yoh/Li/Sargent 2010: 581.7 Wästfelt/Gyllensvärd/Weibull 1991 colour plate 68–69;

see also the human fi gure on p. 101.8 Nguyen Dinh Chien 2002; 2008.9 Jörg 1986: 94–97; Sheaf/Kilburn 1988: 76. Klose

1993–1994; 1999–2000 has published such pottery from the Cape.

10 Madsen/White 2011: 123–128. Martin 1992–1993: 83–94 and 91 fi g. 8 a reproduction of a painting showing Batavian cups on a breakfast table.

11 Nguyen Dinh Chien 2002: 175 no. 217; see also this pattern on saucers: 171–172 nos. 202–208.

12 Wästfelt/Gyllensvärd/Weibull 1991 colour plate 68–69; see also the human fi gure on p. 101.

246 Heidrun Schenk

Fig. 2,2: Fragments with motives of “Grape and bamboo” on the rim and “Seasonal Flow-ers on Terrace” on the centre found in the N/W corner.

Three of the fragments (fi g. 2a) certainly belong together to a shallow dish with fl at rim bordered by a “Grape and Bamboo” motif and its design corresponds to the variation dated to 1740–1755 by Madsen and White13. Accordingly, best analogies were found among the porcelain from the Götheborg (Wästfelt/Gyllensvärd/Weibull 1991: 252 fi g. 89). Such rim fragments were excavated in Williamsburg, Virginia in a dated context of c. 1745 (Curtis 1988–89: 59 fi g. 13). The motif of “Seasonal Flowers on Terrace”, which is most probably depicted on the centre of the plate also be-longs to that period. This includes a “pierced garden rock” which might be identifi able on a tiny fragment (fi g. 2, 2b)14. By the time of the British Period of the fort, this motif had already disappeared (Madsen/White 2011: 91).

Fig. 2,3: Fragment with motif of “blue spearhead” from context 19.

The piece also belongs to a shallow dish with fl at rim. A small boat is all that remains of the centre motif, and it could belong to an early Pavilion Landscape similar to Fig. 2.1. The framing border of this centre might be attributable to a “blue spearhead” motif and to be observed on even the smallest pieces (Madsen/White 2011: 75–77). The pattern is dated to c. 1722 to 1797, but in connection to the pavilion landscape motif, can be limited to before 1750. A similarly executed example of a spearhead on a soup plate from the Gel-dermalsen (1752) supports this (Sheaf/Kilburn: 122 pl. 164; Jörg 1986: 76 fi g. 65).

The previous vessel shapes had refl ected the European taste. Especially the shallow dishes – as soup plates – were necessary for European dinner routine only (Sheaf/Kilburn 1988: 122).

In opposite thereto, the following bowls with foot-ring are traditional Chinese forms. Some of them could, however, also fi nd their way to Europe, especially the Chinese Imari porcelain like the specimen on Fig. 2,4. Imari-style pottery was fi rst introduced in Japan,

where porcelain production started in the 17th century, replacing the ceasing supply from China during the political turmoil that ended the Ming Period (Martin 2004–2005; Madsen/White 2011: 65). The Japanese preferred a certain fl oral pattern which came that much into fashion, that Chinese kiln owners were forced to imitate the style, known as Chinese Imari. Its main production lasted until c. 1750 (Krahl/Ayers 1986: 1197–1198; Madsen/White 2011: 111). Volker (1959) reports of these VOC orders and describes the porcelain trade with Japan by the VOC and Chinese merchants in the time after 1683.

Fig. 2,4: Bowl with foot ring – underglaze blue with enamels – from N/W corner.

The base fragment with a foot ring of 12 cm is one of the larger bowls and decorated on the inside with underglaze blue with now lost painted overglaze enamel that is still traced by incised outlines. It depicts once more the motif of “Seasonal Flowers” of which the pierced garden rock, larger-sized branches and a simplifi ed design of an insect are still rec-ognizable by the blue underglaze. The fl owers were enamelled. Varied shades of surface of the petals indicate different colours which are lost. Gold and sepia colours are also possible and this can be seen on a Batavian Ware saucer plate from the Götheborg. The plate resembles best to the exemplar from Katuwana with fl ow-ers having fi laments which resemble peach or cherry blossoms (Wästfelt/Gyllensvärd/Weibull 1991: 45). Similar designs of blossom and leaf also belong to the late 17th and especially to the fi rst half of the 18th century15.

Further examples of Imari style in the Topkapi Museum collection depict the garden fl ower motif in underglaze blue, with red and green enamels and gilt (Krahl/Ayers 1986: 1252–1253 nos. 3201–3203. 3205–3209) and the motif “Seasonal Flowers with Garden Rock”

13 Madsen/White 2011: 92 fi g. 4.53C. See also the overview on this motif: Madsen/White 2011: 91–94.

14 Madsen/White 2011: 87–91, esp. 89.15 Krahl/Ayers 1986: 922 no. 2739; 1053 no. 2317; 1065

no. 2380; 1070 nos. 2397–2398.

247The pottery from Dutch Fort Katuwana

(Krahl/Ayers 1986: 1242–1243). They all are dated c. 1725–1745. Some examples are also known from the Geldermalsen (Jörg 1986; 89 fi g. 82; Sheaf/Kilburn 145 pl. 189) and from the Ca Mau cargo where they were made of underglaze blue, of Batavia ware or of blue and white with overglaze enamels16. The form of the rock itself is also among the cargo in-side a Bavaria brown cup17. A blue and white saucer from the Vung Tau (Vietn. Hon Cau) ship wreck – dated 1690 – displays a scene with a peach tree surrounded by butterfl y and small insects which also reminds of the exemplar from Katuwana (Nguyen Dinh Chien/Pham Quoc Quan 2008: fi g. 342). Enamelled porcelain is completely lacking in the cargo of the Vung Tau and the Imari-style bowl from Katuwana fi ts well to the already above established time range of c. 1730 to 1750. This implies the early Qianlong period, to which the Götheborg cargo was assigned (Wästfelt/Gyllensvärd/Weibull 1991: 63).

Comparing the porcelain of the cargoes from the Ca Mau, Götheborg, and Geldermalsen, it is the material from Ca Mau and the Götheborg that proved to be the most familiar. The cargo from the Sadana Shipwreck (1764), contain-ing Chinese Imari and Batavian Cups similar to the Geldermalsen, differs (Ward 2004: 167 fi g. 71–72).

Fragments will be discussed in the following featuring the description of coarser porcelain attributed to Southern provincial wares. Such porcelain often shows rings of stacking (fi g. 3, 1–3)18. Most of them are made of porcelain (fi g. 3, 1–4; 4, 3), two seem to be glazed stoneware vessels (fi g. 4, 1–2). Commonly they are rather small bowls with rim diameters of about 14 cm, but two of them are fl at dishes with conical walls and a rim diameter of c. 23 cm (fi g. 4, 1–2).

One fragment bears a “Single Character Mark” which is placed on the inside (fi g. 3, 1). Such a feature is known for coarse porcelain from Southern China (Ho 1988: 61; 207 pl. 30). The mark is a decorative pattern of Sanskrit19. The bowl itself shows a comb-pattern on the outside, which is also evidenced at kilns pro-

ducing provincial wares (Ho 1988: 219 plate 41). Fragments from the N/W corner (fi g. 3,1) and from context 19 (fi g. 3, 1a) prove the existence of at least two individual vessels of this kind. Parallels have been found among the pottery retrieved from the ship Witte Leeuw that had sunk in 1613. They belong, however, not to the actual cargo but to a so-called “rest group” and are presented among the coarse variety of “Swatow” ware20. Bowls with such comb decoration have been excavated from a context dated to 1685–1710 in Williamsburg, Virginia (Curtis 1988–89: 55 fi g. 9).

Fragments with heavily cracked glaze and circular painted pattern below the rim (fi g. 3, 3. 4) might belong to “cheap export blue and white from provincial potteries in easy reaches of Canton and Macao” (Mathew 1956: 55 and 53 fi g. 5). Similar bowls were found at the Tanganijka coast, at the Kenyan Coast (Sas-soon 1978: 129 fi g. 33), at Cape Town (Klose 1992–93: 75 fi g. 7), but also at Julfar at the Gulf (Hansman 1985: 108 and colour plate IIIf) and among porcelain from provincial kilns in Southern China (Ho 1988: 187 pl. 12; 195 pl. 19: pattern F17). They all are, however, of much better quality. A fragment from the Avondster Project also shows similar cracks on the glaze

16 Nguyen Dinh Chien 2002: 115 fi g. 51–53; 127 fi g. 88; 174 fi g. 213–214; 197 fi g. 280.

17 Nguyen Dinh Chien 2002: 176 fi g. 222; similar: Madsen/White 2011: 124 fi g. 4.94 B.

18 Ho 1988: 217 pl. 39; Jörg 1986: 95; Macintosh 1987: 115–127. Madsen/White 2011: 146.

19 “It is the decorative pattern of scratchy Sanskrit. The blue-and-white porcelains from the imperial kilns in Jingdezhen were regularly decorated with Sanskrit in the Ming dynasty. This kind of decoration became very popular in the late Ming during Jiajing 1522–1566 and Wanli 1573–1620 periods. It continued through to the Qing dynasty 1644–1911. The provincial kilns made copies of such decoration. The decorators fi nally painted very fast because the porcelains were demanded in a large quantity for the export. The pattern on the outside is quite typical of this late period”. I am indebted to Jiena Huo for this kind information.

20 Van der Pijl-Ketel 1982: 184–185 Inv. nos. 11500, 11502 (“rest group”); 212–213 Inv. nos. 11895, 11896 (coarse “Swatow”).

248 Heidrun Schenk

of a bowl with such a pattern21. Such bowls, taken along by Chinese Immigrants – were found in context dated to the 19th century at the Pacifi c Coast of North America (Quellmalz 1972: 150 fi g. 4e).

The samples shown in Fig. 4, 1–2 represent plates of Hizen porcelain or stoneware pro-duced in Japan. Hizen ceramics have a wide distribution in Southeast Asia, reached South Asia, the African Coast as far as to Cape of Good Hope; the Red Sea and was also found in Mexico (Nogami 2006; 2008). It is

a rather durable pottery alike the production of Chinese provincial kilns – in tradition to Swatow ware – which covers the very same distribution area22. This is also demonstrated by the excavations at Hoi An in Vietnam, where the stratigraphy shows that Hizen porcelain clearly is a substitute for Chinese porcelain at that time (Kikuchi 1997: 274).

21 Bonke/Parthesius/van der Pijl-Ketel 2007: 72 CE315.22 Like “Kitchen Ch’ing”: Harrisson 1982: 47.

Fig. 3. Katuwana Fort: Porcelain from southern Chinese Provincial kilns. 1 N/W quadrant;.1a. 2–4 cont. 19. Scale 1 : 3; enlarged details without scale.

249The pottery from Dutch Fort Katuwana

Hizen porcelain is also recorded in the context of the ship wreck Avondster, which sank in the Galle harbor in Sri Lanka in 1659 (Parthesius/Bonke/van der Pijl-Ketel 2007: 24–25).

Especially the dish of Fig. 4, 1 fi nds good analogies among the Japanese Kihara kilns (Impey 1979/80: 473 fi g. 4). The kiln produces glazed stoneware, on the inside of the wall

Fig. 4. Katuwana Fort. 1–2 Hizen stoneware from cont. 19; 3–5 porcelain of unknown location. Scale 1 : 3; en-larged details without scale.

250 Heidrun Schenk

the heavily cracked glaze shows a underglaze blue design, the centre is left unglazed, but bordered with two rings painted in brown colour. On the outside, the glazed bottom is marked by blue underglaze rings. The kiln products are dated to the 18th century and later (Impey 1979/80: 471). The base fragment from Fig. 4, 2 shows the same characteristics. To Katuwana, they might have arrived at about 1730 to 1750.

Attributable to the British period of Katu-wana Fort (1797–1805)

The fragments discussed below are of unclear fi nd context at Katuwana.

Pieces from a bowl with probable block-print belong thereto (fi g. 4, 3). According to Harrisson, block-printed decoration belongs to so-called “Kitchen Ch’ing”, a durable pottery especially used in Southeast Asia of which exemplars might still be in use today. Its earli-est production is supposed to have started in the late 18th century (Harrisson 1995: 85 and fi g. 99a, b). Such bowls are also among pro-vincial wares from Cape Town (Klose 1992–93: 75 fi g. 7). Similar block-print pattern are among the provincial “Minnan wares” (Ho 1988, 213 pl. 35–36) and among fi nds from sites at Ras al-Khaimah (Hansman 1985: 114–115 pl. 1m) dated to the 19th century. The cargo of the Ca Mau shipwreck, however, shows that there is an earlier tradition as well (Nguyen Dinh Chien 2002: 144 fi g. 137 and 148 fi g. 149).

Also of uncertain context at Katuwana are two tiny fragments made of Blue and White porcelain of export quality (fi g. 4, 4. 5). The rim shows a “Canton-style” border pattern (Madsen/White 2011: 100–101 and fi g. 4 .68). Such a motif belong to plates with landscape motives of the fourth period dated to c. 1785 to 1853 (Madsen/White 2011: 86; 142 fi g. 5. 5). In Europe, this later landscape version became known as “willow” pattern, named “Canton-style” as well (Macintosh 1987: 147; Harrisson 1995: 77 fi g. 91). Similar rim borders are among the fi nds from a trash pit of a priest’s house

at Old Plaza Church in Los Angeles dated to c. 1819–1821 (Mudge 1986: 183 fi g. 285).

The other small fragment (fi g. 4, 5) is also part of a pavilion landscape. The form of the pavilion with pinnacle and pillars reminds of those painted at Third Period (Madsen/White 2011: 85 fi g. 4. 41 right) and Fourth Period Landscapes (Madsen/White 2011: 86 fi g. 4. 43–44; 101 fi g. 4, 69). The Third Period Land-scape, also called “Nanking-style” is dated to c. 1780–1820 (Madsen/White 2011: 83).

Therefore, these both fragments – which might as well belong to one individual dish only – could have arrived Katuwana not earlier than the British Period. “Canton” and “Nan-king” style fragments are also published from Velur Fort and Sadras Fort in India (Karashima/Kanazawa 2004a: pl. 30; 32).

Local Earthenware from Katuwana Fort

The local pottery consists mainly of storing and cooking vessels and the assortment adds to the already earlier published examples from Katuwana (Dhammarathana/Jayasena 2000: 37–41). Similar forms are also presented by the Avondster Project (Bonke/Parthesius/van der Pijl-Ketel 2007: 14–41) from where two major qualities were reported. Three fabrics were distinguished at Katuwana. Fabric 1 and 2 are of a very fi ne quality. The clay of fabric 3 seems to be similar to fabric 1 but contains much sandy temper. Fabric 1 is further divided with regarding hardness and a visible core (fi g. 5).

Fabric 1: very fi ne, and dense micaceous paste, yellow (Munsell 10YR 7/6); in section thin grey core (2.5Y N6) visible.Var. a very softVar. b hard fi red

Fabric 2: fi ne; paste reddish yellow (Munsell 7.5YR 7/6) containing some temper protruding on the surface, soft fi red.

Fabric 3: high content of rough-grounded temper, grainy surface; paste yellow (10YR 7/6), soft fi red.

251The pottery from Dutch Fort Katuwana

The earthenware vessels from Katuwana stand in Sri Lankan pottery tradition and consist of fi ne table ware and common domestic forms23. They all have been found in the same con-texts as the Chinese porcelain. A compilation with reconstructed shapes might facilitate the understanding of the vessel forms (fi g. 6).

The lidded tea pots (fi g. 6, 1–2; 7, 1–6. 9. 10) are extraordinary in their shape and decoration owing to their straight and pointed necks, handles and foot rings. Spouted jars and also foot rings have long been known to Sri Lankan potters24. Lidded vessels with similarly

pointed neck were not unknown to Sri Lanka before, used as relic caskets25. Nevertheless, together with a panel-like incised decoration, the spouted pots with lid from Katuwana

Fig. 5. Katuwana Fort. Fabrics of local earthenware. 1–2. 4. 6 fabric 1. 3 fabric 3; 5 fabric 2. No scale.

23 A good idea of this tradition provide Coomaraswamy 1907; Gunasekera/Prematilleke/Silva 1971; Nimal de Silva/Dissanayake 2008 who compiled complete pots as a corpus of forms.

24 Coomaraswamy 1907; Gunasekera/Prematilleke/Silva 1971: 191 XIXa–c.

25 De Silva/Dissanayake 2008: 67 AM7; 73 AM18; 81 AM35–36; 106–107.

252 Heidrun Schenk

strongly remind of Chinese tea pots known for example from the shipwrecks of Vung Tau26

and also among the cargo of Ca Mau (Nguyen Dinh Chien 2002: 151 fi g. 154–155). Made of fabric 1a, they are of a very fi ne quality and covered with a matte red slip (Munsell 10R 8/8; fi g. 7, 9–11) and/or decorated by grooves

and bands of incised decoration, accentuated by bands of red (Munsell 10R 8/8) and sil-

Fig. 6. Katuwana Fort. Compilation of local earthenware with reconstructed shapes.

26 Jörg/Flecker 2001: 62 fi g. 42–43; 64 fi g. 47–49; Mueller 2006–2007: 92 fi g. 5. See also Yixing teapots from the Oosterland (1697) sunk at the Cape of Good Hope (Klose 1992–1993: 77 fi g. 9; Klose 1999–2000: 69 fi g. 5 Group F).

Fig. 7. Katuwana Fort. Local earthenware. 1–12 S/E quadrant 13 S/E quadrant and cont. 19. Scale 1 : 6; enlarged details without scale.

254 Heidrun Schenk

very (graphited) colour (fi g. 7, 2. 5. 13). The slip is softly fi red and easily removable, often remaining only inside the incised furrows of the decoration. Such a red slip is known to Sri Lanka since more than 2000 years and the use of graphite to provide a silvery shine of the surface started at about 700 A. D.27. A peculiar construction detail was observed on the fragment with preserved spout (fi g. 7, 9b). An opening has been left between handle and onset of the spout apparently to allow airing. On the other hand, the opening for the liquid is considerably reduced probably in intention to prevent tea leaves to be poured. The rim fragment made of fabric 1a and covered with the usual red slip is another evidence for the adaption of Chinese porcelain forms into local tradition (fi g. 6, 7; 7, 8). It certainly imitates saucer plates of typical Chinese porcelain (fi g. 2, 2–3). The fragment of a small, tiny spouted pot (fi g. 6, 6; 7, 11) is well-known to Sri Lankan tradition (Gunasekera/Prematilleke/Silva 1971: 191 fi g. 10 XIX. a–c).

Another specimen among this fi ne table ware is standing out due to its unusual incised decoration which is accentuated by alternating stripes of red and graphited slip (fi g. 6, 13; 7, 13). It is made of fabric 2. The vessel’s form fi ts well to the usual spectrum of water jars with long neck named in Sinhalese as kalaya or kalagediya28. They are typically used for carrying or containing water and the long neck facilitates the handling. Their necks have either conical (fi g. 6, 13–14; 8, 9–17) or fl aring shape (fi g. 6, 15; 8, 1–3). They are made of the hard fi red variety – fabric 1b – or of the well-tempered fabric 3 which also applies to further domestic vessel types familiar to Sri Lankan traditions. Different sizes of bowls for storage or cooking belong thereto and all are of traditionally known functions (Gunasekera/Prematilleke/Silva 1971). The wide-mouthed bowls (fi g. 6, 9–10; 9, 6–11. 13–14) are known as haliya or appalla (Coomaraswamy 1907). Lids like Fig. 9, 12 might have covered these vessels. Such lids do not have knobs to lift them, they are shaped like shallow bowls or dishes (Schenk 2001: 101; 102 fi g. 84–85). The

bowl for washing the rice (fi g. 6, 12; 9, 1–2), in Sinhalese known as nambiliya, is very distinct (Coomaraswamy 1907: 6). It is a long-lasting functional shape, but not before the 7th century A. D. according to the Tissamaharama pottery sequence29. The rim fragment of Fig. 6, 16 belongs to a pot known as muttiya used for cooking and storing and the shallow bowls of Fig. 6, 17 are named as attiliya.

They all appear among the published mate-rial from the Galle Harbour Project (Prickett-Fernando/Tampoe 1993: 78 fi g. 30 B–C; 79, 31, G) and roughly dated to 14th to 19th century A. D. Vessels with foot ring (fi g. 6, 11; 9, 5) also have a long tradition.

Comparable forms are also among the fi nds from the Avondster Project in the Galle Harbour attributed to local origin (Bonke/Parthesius/van der Pijl-Ketel 2007). Connected to the shipwreck’s investigation, they are dated after 1659.

Neck and shoulder of some vessels are decorated by bands of simple geometrical pat-tern using either a roller stamp or a knife-like tool (fi g. 8, 6–7. 11. 13–14. 15–18)30. For this kind of adornments good comparison exist in Sri Lanka unfortunately not well-dated. In Kandy, examples were found together with foreign ceramics from the 18th to 20th century (Prematilleke 1989: 46 and 41 fi g. 23, h–i). One undated pot from the ethnographic section of the Colombo National Museum shows two zigzag-like bands like Fig. 8, 7. 11, in con-nection with red-slipped horizontal stripes31.

27 Schenk 2001: 71. Examples with red slip: De Silva/Dissanayake 2008: 253; 298; 313; 325.

28 Coomaraswamy 1907: 6; pl. B fi g. 1–4; Prematilleke 1987: 39.

29 Such a characteristic fragment is also among the unglazed sherds of assumed Southeast asian origin collected at Indian Coasts: Sasaki 2004: 18 and pl. 6, 3.

30 Coomaraswamy 1908: 226 fi g. 138–139; De Silva/Dissanayake 2008: 15 describing the use of a “fl exible blade”. For this kind of technique see also Begley 1986 in more detail.

31 De Silva/Dissanayake 2008: 325 NM68; Gunasekera/Prematilleke/Silva 1971: 185 fi g. 4 XIIa.

255The pottery from Dutch Fort Katuwana

Fig. 8. Katuwana Fort. Local Earthenware. Scale 1 : 3.

256 Heidrun Schenk

Fig. 9. Katuwana Fort. Local Earthenware. Scale 1 : 6.

257The pottery from Dutch Fort Katuwana

Similar decorations are among the fi nds from the Avondster shipwreck (Bonke/Parthesius/van der Pijl-Ketel 2007: 37 CE099; CE101).

All in all, the associated Chinese porcelain and the archaeological situation indicate that this assemblage of local earthenware is repre-sentative for mid 18th century A. D.

Conclusion

The study of the Katuwana pottery benefi ted from a joint assemblage of local earthenware with datable porcelain found in a context which itself provides a time frame.

At the beginning, a short summary was listed at what probable times – based on historically known facts – the porcelain could have been stocked up at Katuwana Fort. This allowed, supported by the archaeological fi nd situation, the most probable reconstruction of when the porcelain from the East and the local pots were discarded.

Most of the pottery had been found on top of the courtyard’s pavement and in the backfi ll of a later drainage construction that had narrowed the entrance. Changing the stately appearance of the original main gate – a major rebuilding – certainly happened in diffi cult times when necessity of drainage had more importance.

Such considerable changes might have hap-pened after 1761, when the Kandyan kingdom attacked the fort and caused destruction. Never-theless, the fort was abandoned in 1766 and its Dutch Period ended. Some repair was certainly also needed in 1797, when the outpost was re-used for a short period by British forces, yet fi nally given up in 1805.

The excavators, however, attribute this alteration of the main entrance to the Dutch Period according to the consistence of the mortar used. Consequently, the building of the drainage is considered to have happened after 1761 and before 1766.

This is supported by evaluation of the pot-tery. The porcelain fi nds its best comparisons during a time in the latter part of the fi rst

half of the 18th century, in the cargoes of Ca Mau and Götheborg. This provides a dating range from 1725 to 1745, fi tting well to the time of 1735 when Katuwana was reportedly on its heyday. It is about that time that the fort’s garrison had reached 40 men. And this was the time the porcelain had arrived, not the time of disposal. This time frame matches the dating of the VOC-coins from Katuwana after 1735 by Boekel32.

Besides Fine Chinese export porcelain, they used durable crockery that was made in South-ern Chinese kilns and in Japan. Such coarser porcelain was mainly distributed in Asia and bought by the VOC for their offi ces. Similar assortment is published for VOC branches at the Cape of Good Hope (Klose 1992–1993).

The pottery, the porcelain and the local earthenware, was then disposed in-between 1761 to 1766 in the fi nal days of Dutch Katuwana. Both, porcelain and the fort’s context provide chronological clues for the dating of the lo-cal earthenware. It is considered that local pottery is more up-to-date than pottery from afar, because of an easy availability in the neighbourhood. Consequently, the Katuwana assemblage of local pottery is representative for a period around 1761 to 1766.

A few porcelain fragments, of unclear con-textual provenience, have reached the Fort later, during the short British period (fi g. 4, 3–5).

Summary

The fort was only a small outpost in the hinterland, but according to the description of Heydt after his visit in 1734, the garrison consisted of 40 men including higher ranks. It might have been one of them who at least brought the fi ne porcelain, or it was part of the offi cial offi ce supply, together with the common bowls, provided by the VOC. This fi ts well to the time range of the porcelain,

32 See the article by Garusinha/Boekel/Weisshaar in this volume.

258 Heidrun Schenk

which must have existed around 1725 to 1745 as evidenced by comparisons. Accordingly, it reached Katuwana Fort at the end of Phase B1 and during the early Phase B2 of the Katuwana Fort (fi g. 1). The pots went to pieces after 1761 at the latest, when the fort was attacked (Phase C1). Together with local earthenware, some of this porcelain was disposed in the backfi ll of a repair carried out between 1761 and certainly earlier than 1766 (Phase C2). Pottery of the time of re-use after the repair – some times after 1761 and before 1766 (Phase C3) – was not identifi able. The associated local earthenware is dated in accordance to these fi ndings and represents the current production of this time. This dating is supported by the hiatus in the history of the fort’s occupation between 1766 and 1796 which excludes a continuous use of the porcelain (Phase D). New supply of porcelain after 1797, in the then British period (Phase E), would certainly not comprise such outdated stock, especially with regard to the fi ne porcelain. Nevertheless, the tiny fragments like those of “Canton” style are witnesses of this latest occupation.

Conclusively, the fi ndings from Katuwana Fort allow a glimpse into the variety of ce-ramics available in a fort related to the Indian Ocean trade of that time. They add a small piece to the puzzle of porcelain circulation in Asia and to the dating of local earthenware in Sri Lanka.

Acknowledgements

Many thanks for entrusting me with the study of the pottery from Katuwana fort to Dr Nimal Perera, Acting Deputy Director General of the Archaeological Department of Sri Lanka and Sampath Garusinghe from the Southern Regional Offi ce in Galle, who conducted the investigation. I am grateful to Jiena Huo (MOK, Köln) for kindly sharing her knowledge and to Sabine Werner, Andreas Reinecke and Hans-Joachim Weisshaar (Bonn) for support and discussion.

Address:

Dr. Heidrun SchenkKommission für Archäologie Außereuropäischer Kulturen (KAAK)des Deutschen Archäologischen InstitutsDürenstrasse 35–37D-53173 Bonn / Germany

schenkweis@gmx.de

Figure credits:1 H. Schenk, 2–9 S. S. Garusinha & H.-J. Weisshaar and drawings H. Schenk.

Bibliography

Begley, Vimala1986 Rouletting and Chattering. Decoration on

Ancient and Present-Day Pottery in India. In: Expedition 28(1): 47–54.

Bonke, H. / Parthesius, R. / Pijl-Ketel, Ch. van der (eds.)2007 Artefacts Catalogue Avondster site 1998–2004.

Amsterdam: Centre for International Heritage Activities.

Carswell, John2000 Blue and White. Chinese Porcelain around

the World. London: British Museum Press.

Coomaraswamy, Ananda Kentish1907 Sinhalese Earthenware. In: Spolia Zeylanica

4: 1–18; 135–141.1908 Medieval Sinhalese Art. Being a Monograph

on Medieval Sinhalese Arts and Crafts, Mainly as Surviving in the Eighteenth Century, with an Account of the Structure of Society and the Status of the Craftsmen, 3rd ed. New York 1979, repr. Colombo 1992.

Curtis, Julia B.1988– 17th and 18th-Century Chinese Export Ware 1989 in Southeastern Virginia. In: Transactions of

the Oriental Ceramic Society 53: 47–64.

Dhammarathana, Rev. H. / Jayasena, R.2001 Artefacts. In: Lakdusinghe, S./Adikari, G. / van

Dijk, M. / Jayasena, R. M. / Somadeva, R. (eds.), The Katuwana Archaeological Heritage Project Excavation Report – 2000, pp. 37–56. Colombo: Postgraduate Institute of Archaeol-ogy, University of Kelaniya.

Gunasekera, U. A. / Prematilleke, P. L. / Silva, R.1971 A Corpus of Pottery forms found in Ceylon.

In: Ancient Ceylon 1: 166–192.

259The pottery from Dutch Fort Katuwana

Hansman, John1985 Julfar, an Arabian Port. Its Settlement and

Far Eastern Ceramic Trade from the 14th to the 18th centuries. London: The Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland.

Harrisson, Barbara1982 Correlations and Types of Vietnamese

Trade Wares: 13th–19th Centuries. In: Young, C. M. / Dupoizat, M.-F. / Lane, E. W. (eds.), Vietnamese Ceramics. With an illustrated catalogue of the exhibition organized by the Southeast Asian Ceramic Society and held at the National Museum, Singapore in June 1982, pp. 38–48. Southeast Asian Ceramic Society/Oxford University Press:

1995 Later Ceramics in South-East Asia. Sixteenth to Twentieth Centuries. Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press.

Ho, Chuimei1988 Minnan Blue-and-white Wares. An archaeo-

logical survey of kiln sites of the 16th–19th centuries in southern Fujian, China. BAR international series 428. Oxford.

Impey, O. R.1979/80 The Ceramic Wares of Kihara. In: Oriental,

Art new series XXV(4): 471–481.

Jayasena, R. / Somadeva R.2001 Katuwana Fort and Surrounding Stockades:

Historical Background. In: Lakdusinghe, S. / Adikari, G. / van Dijk, M. / Jayasena, R. M. / Somadeva, R. (eds.), The Katuwana Archaeological Heritage Project Excavation Report – 2000, pp. 21–24. Colombo: Post-graduate Institute of Archaeology, University of Kelaniya.

Jörg, Christiaan J. A.1986 The Geldermalsen: history and porcelain.

Groningen: Kemper Publishers.1999 The Inter-Asiatic Dutch Porcelain Trade. In:

Oriental Art XLV(1): 71–79.

Jörg, C. J. A. / Flecker, M.2001 Porcelain from the Vung Tau wreck: the

Hallstrom excavation. Singapore: Sun Tree Publishing.

Karashima, Noboru (ed.)2004 In search of Chinese Ceramic Sherds in South

India and Sri Lanka. Tokio: Taisho University Press.

Karashima, N. / Kanazawa, Y.2004a Chinese Ceramic-sherds in Pondicherry (Ari-

kamedu), Darasuram, Velur, Golkonda, Sadras, and Gangaikondacholapuram. In: Karashima, N. (ed.), In search of Chinese Ceramic Sherds

in South India and Sri Lanka, pp. 34–37, Pl. 30–33. Tokio: Taisho University Press.

2004b Chinese Ceramics from the 1991–92 Excava-tions, in: Begley, V., The Ancient Port of Arikamedu. New Excavations and Researches 1989–1992, Volume 2, pp. 426–445. Paris: Ecole Française D’Extrême Orient.

Kikuchi, Seiichi1997 Vietnam Hoi An Archaeological Survey Re-

port. Showa Women’s University. Institute of International Culture Bulletin Vol. 4.

Kleinen, J.2003 Review on Dinh Chien, Nguyen, Tau Co

Ca Mau, The Ca Mau Shipwreck, Hanoi: Museum of Vietnamese History and Ca Mau Provincial Museum (2003).

http://www.iias.nl/iiasn/32/Publications_the_ca_mau_shipwreck.pdf (access: December 2012)

Klose, Jane1992–93 Excavated Oriental Ceramics from the Cape of Good Hope: 1630–1830. In: Transactions

of the Oriental Ceramic Society 57: 69–81.1999– Oriental ceramics retrieved from three Dutch 2000 East India Company ships wrecked off the

coast of southern Africa: the Oosterland (1697), Bennebroek (1713) and Brederode (1785). In: Transactions of the Oriental Ceramic Society 64: 63–81.

Krahl, R. / Ayers, J. in collaboration with Nurdan Erbahar1986 Chinese Ceramics in the Topkapi Saray Mu-

seum Istanbul. A complete catalogue. Volume III. Qing Dynasty Porcelains. Published in association with the Directorate of the Top-kapi Saray Museum by Sotheby’s Publications, London.

Macintosh, Duncan1977 Chinese Blue & White Porcelain. 2nd edition

1987. Hongkong.

Madsen, Andrew D. / White, Carolyn L.2011 Chinese Export Porcelains. Guides to Histori-

cal Artifacts, Volume 1. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press.

Martin, Jean1992–93 Colonel William Thomlinsons’s Collection of Chinese 18th century Export Porcelain ‘Batavian’

Style and Other Brown Glazed Wares. In: Transactions of the Oriental Ceramic Society 57: 83–94.

2004– Chinese 16th and 17th Century Porcelain – 2005 Kraak, ‘Swatow’ and ‘Transitional’ Styles. In:

Transactions of the Oriental Ceramic Society 69: 49–61.

260 Heidrun Schenk

Mathew, Gervase1956 Chinese Porcelain in East Africa and on the

Coast of South Arabia. In: Oriental Art New Series II, 2: 50–55.

Mudge, Jean Mc Clure1986 Chinese Export Porcelain in North America.

New York: Potter.

Mueller, Shirley2006– Lifting the Lid: Early Chinese Export Teapots. 2007 In: Transactions of the Oriental Ceramic

Society 71: 89–93.

Nguyen Dinh Chien2002 Tau Co Ca Mau. The Ca Mau Shipwreck

1723–1735. The National Museum of Viet-namese History, Ha Noi.

Nguyen Dinh Chien / Pham Quoc Quan2008 Gom su trong nam con tau co o vung bien

Viet Nam. Ceramics on fi ve Shipwrecks off the coast of Viet Nam. National Museum of Vietnamese History. Ha Noi.

Nogami, Takenori2006 On Hizen Porcelain and the Manila-Acapulco

Galleon Trade. In: Bulletin of the Indo-Pacifi c Prehistory Association 26: 124–130.

2008 Hizen Porcelain exported to Asia, Africa and America. In: Schottenhammer, A. (ed.), The East Asian Mediterranean: Maritime Crossroads of Culture, Commerce and Human Migration, pp. 203–218. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Pijl-Ketel, Ch. L. van der1982 The ceramic load of the Witte Leeuw 1613.

Rijksmuseum Amsterdam.

Prematilleke, P. L.1987 Kandy Project. The Third Archaeological

Excavation Report (January – June 1983). Colombo: Central Cultural Fund.

1989 Kandy Project. The Forth Archaeological Excavation Report (July – December 1983). Colombo: Central Cultural Fund.

Prickett-Fernando, M. / Tampoe, M.1993 Artefact analysis. In: Green, J. / Devendra, S.

(eds.), Maritime Archaeology in Sri Lanka. The Galle Harbour Project – 1992, pp. 57–107. Kelaniya: Postgraduate Institute of Archaeol-ogy, University of Kelaniya.

Quellmalz, Carl Robert1972 Chinese Porcelain excavated from North

American Pacifi c Coast Sites. In: Oriental Art new series, vol. 18(2): 148–154.

Rinaldi, Maura1989 Kraak Porcelain. A Moment in the History

of Trade. London: Bamboo Publishing.

Sasaki, Hanae2004 Chinese and Thai Ceramics in Kottapatnam.

In: Karashima, N. (ed.), In search of Chinese Ceramic Sherds in South India and Sri Lanka, pp. 16–20. Tokio 2004: Taisho University Press.

Sassoon, Caroline1978 Chinese Porcelain Marks from Coastal Sites in

Kenya: aspects of trade in the Indian Ocean, XIV-XIX centuries. BAR intern. Series (sup-plementary) 43. Oxford.

Schenk, Heidrun2001 The Development of Pottery at Tissamaharama,

In: Weisshaar, H.-J. / Roth, H. / Wijeyapala, W. (eds.), Ancient Ruhuna. Sri Lankan – Ger-man Archaeological Project in the Southern Province. Volume 1. (= Materialien zur Allge-meinen und Vergleichenden Archäologie 58), pp. 59–195. Mainz: von Zabern.

Sheaf, Colin / Kilburn, Richard1988 The Hatcher porcelain cargoes: the complete

record. Oxford: Phaidon-Christie’s.

Silva, Nimal de / Dissanayake, Ranjith Bandara2008 A Catalogue of Ancient Pottery from Sri

Lanka. Colombo: Postgraduate Institute of Archaeology, University of Kalaniya.

Volker, T.1959 The Japanese Porcelain Trade of the Dutch

East India Company after 1683. Mededelingen van het Rijksmuseum voor Volkenkunde, Leiden, No. 13. Leiden: Brill.

Wästfelt, Berit / Gyllensvärd, Bo / Weibull Jörgen1991 Porcelain from the East Indiaman Götheborg.

Wiken.

Ward, Cheryl2004 Luxury wares in the Red Sea: The Sadana

Island shipwreck. In: Lunde, P. / Porter, A. (eds.), Trade and Travel in the Red Sea Region. Proceedings in the Red Sea Project I. Held in the British Museum, October 2002. Bar International Series 1269 (= Society for Ara-bian Studies Monographs No. 2), pp. 165–171. London.

Yoh, K. / Li, H. / Sargent, W. R.2010 The Export and Trade of Chinese Ceramics.

An Overview of the History and Scholarship to Date. In: Zhiyan, L. / Bower, V. L. / Li, H, (eds.), Chinese ceramics from the Paleolithic period through the Qing Dynasty, pp. 535–615. New Haven: