For Chinese high-fired glazed ceramics, a slip can improve the quality of products in many ways; however, when and how the artisans started applying a slip before glazing is still relatively unknown. Some Han dynasty Jiangdong-type calcium glazed wares were unearthed from two tomb groups in Zhejiang. The results show that under the calcium glaze layer, there is another slip coating, which contains high levels of iron and potassium. The underglaze coating can beautify the wares and it could be regarded as the earliest engobe technology on high-fired ceramic. Further, the raw materials used in the slip coating can be traced back to the so-called mud glaze black pottery, which began to appear in the late Neolithic period. We believe that the high-temperature calcium glaze was made of plant ash, which suggests similarities to proto-porcelain that dates back to the pre-Qin period. These glazed wares might be a typical kind of proto-porcelain from the end of the Warring States period and Han dynasty, representing a combination of mud glaze and plant ash glaze.
The Origins of Slip for High-Fired Chinese Ceramics: Evidence from Jiangdong-Type Calcium-Glaze Wares Unearthed from Two Han Dynasty Cemeteries in Zhejiang, East China
Review badges
Web of Science (Free Access)
Abstract
- Contribute
- pre-publication peer review (FINAL ROUND)
Decision Letter
2020/10/1515-Oct-2020
Dear Dr. Cui:
I am writing to inform you that we are happy to accept your manuscript entitled "The origins of slip for high-fired Chinese ceramics: Evidence from Jiangdong-type calcium-glaze wares unearthed from two Han dynasty cemeteries in Zhejiang, east China" in its current form for publication in Archaeometry.
Thank you for your contribution. On behalf of the Editors of Archaeometry, we look forward to your continued contributions to the Journal.
Yours sincerely,
Prof. Mark Pollard
Managing Editor, Archaeometry
mark.pollard@rlaha.ox.ac.ukDecision letter by
Cite this decision letter
Author Response
2020/09/27First of all, thank you so much for your very precious suggestion!
Now we will make our response to the suggestion.Q: Include a table with clear description of all the shards analysed.
A: For most of the samples are alike and description of all the samples might be a little bit redundant, so we made a paragraph of general description before the XRF data table, and included a table with description of the shards that were analysed by SEM.Q: In Fig. 1, certain number refers to one shard with photographs of two sides, while other number seems to have two shards with one single number. Pls clarify.
Fig 2. Captions could be clearer in various parts, and also in article text.
• E.g., Fig 2. B (b): what A, B, C refers to (this is explained in article text, though better
in caption as well).
• Related to this, “B. Yjiangbu-4: D52M4:14 …meaning that the glaze is well-combined with the body without any slip coating (Fig. 2, Ba)”, but the following paragraph mentions slip. Pls try to express more clearly to avoid confusion.
• Fig 2. E: Explanation for Fig. 2 E b seems missing in the caption, on page 12.
• On page 12. “Through the micro-structure and composition (Fig. 2 F), it is clear that there is
a layer of slip coating (area B) under the green glaze (area A).” ---could areas A & B be
mistaken with each other? Also, could Fig. 2 F be wrongly put upside down?, as the top section
seems like body material –better to position in the natural order of glaze, slip, body instead of
the other way round.
A: We corrected these problems in our article.Q: Table 2. B. Yangjiabu-4: D52M4:14. This sample could have better explanations on the left column
like for others, e.g., is it for body material or glaze, what 1-10 stand for?
A: 1-10 are also area numbers. These areas are arranged one by one within the vitrified slip coating region under SEM, and from the outermost area to the innermost area, the content of Fe2O3 decreased.Q: Page. 8, end
“Type Ⅰ is a high calcium green glaze. Type Ⅱ is a high-iron, high-potassium black glaze with
relatively low calcium content …many of the
proto-porcelain relics are covered by the first type of glazes, which contain a high level of CaO
as flux.”
-- does this mean some proto-porcelain (called ‘primitive porcelain’ in China) is not covered by the first type of glaze? (which is surprising), nor black ‘mud glaze’ –then explain the glaze type.A: Indeed, we have found proto-porcelain with artificial and vitrified potassium green glaze in Jiangxi, and high calcium high iron glaze proto-porcelain in Guangdong, However, these kinds of products are not the focus of this article, so we did not discuss these sorts of glazes in our paper.
Q: Related to these, it seems the authors regard the Jiangdong-type calcium glazed wares is not part of the proto-porcelain also with calcium glaze (a very inclusive and broad category), differences include the former has underglaze slip. Express these more clearly in the beginning of the article, and perhaps also in the abstract, in view that they both existed till Han dynasty, and sometimes in similar regions.
A: Jiangdong-type calcium glazed wares should be a kind of proto-porcelain, we added some statement about this.Q: “Other archaeological discoveries indicate that the production of proto-porcelain declined in the late Warring States period and that almost all the kilns, even the proto-porcelain production centres in Deqing and Xiaoshan, stopped producing porcelain as a result”
Think of: “Other archaeological discoveries… stopped producing such wares (or proto-porcelain) as a result” ---Also, be very mindful with the word Porcelain, since many objects are actually stoneware as called in English.
Be very mindful, consistent and clear about terminology of body, slip, glaze, coating etc.
E.g., if engobe and coating all means slip in the article, perhaps just stick to slip, or slip coating, but avoid the ambiguous wording of coating like in “Fig. 4: a &b.; Comparison between mud glazed pottery with Jiangdong-type calcium glazed wares whose coating layer is black”.
Would also benefit readers to explain Fig 4b in these aspects: colour of glaze (only the upper half?), the black colour/slip –wholly applied (under the glaze on the upper half, and exposed on the lower half?), or only applied to lower half.
“Two categories of ceramic coating (glazes) in early China”. -- Since the second type is called “mud glaze” (ni you) black pottery, and is regarded as glaze in this article (even though often not so vitrified), perhaps just put it as “Two categories of ceramic glazes (coating –or remove coating) in early China”.
‘Despite the white engobe, some high-iron types were also applied to protect the body, or make the coarse body smoother, which were also called body-protecting glaze’
------Think of changing the sentence to “Apart from the white slip that is more common, some high-iron darker types were also applied to r make the coarse body surface smoother, which were called ‘body-protecting glaze’ (hu tai you) in China”.
A shard of mud glaze black pottery from Jianshan, Yingtan City--should be Jiaoshan under-glaze
slip --- under-glaze should be underglaze, otherwise confusing
the Donghai sea --- East China Sea
In captions below each figure, clearly include the figure numbers in any manuscript.
Carefully check and improve the manuscript in various ways, background knowledge, English, logic,
figures, tables, samples, details, etc, to make it more clear to read and understand, as the topics
and various ceramic types/groups themselves are complex.
Title
The origins of the Chinese high-fired ceramic engobe: Evidence from Jiangdong-type calcium glaze
wares unearthed in Zhejiang, Han dynasty
Think of:
The origins of engobe (or slip) for high-fired Chinese ceramics: Evidence from Jiangdong-type
calcium-glaze wares unearthed from two
Han dynasty cemeteries in Zhejiang, east China.
A: We corrected these problems in our article.Thank you again for your kind advice!
Cite this author response
- pre-publication peer review (ROUND 2)
Decision Letter
2020/09/1818-Sep-2020
Dear Dr. Cui:
Manuscript ID ARCH-03-0233 entitled "The origins of the Chinese high-fired ceramic engobe: Evidence from Jiangdong-type calcium glaze wares unearthed in Zhejiang, Han dynasty" which you submitted to Archaeometry, has been reviewed. The comments of the referee(s) are included at the bottom of this letter.
The referee(s) have recommended some minor revisions to your manuscript. Therefore, I invite you to respond to the referee(s)' comments and revise your manuscript.
To revise your manuscript, log into https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/arch and enter your Author Centre, where you will find your manuscript title listed under "Manuscripts with Decisions." Under "Actions," click on "Create a Revision." Your manuscript number has been appended to denote a revision.
You will be unable to make your revisions on the originally submitted version of the manuscript. Instead, revise your manuscript using a word processing programmeme and save it on your computer. Please also highlight the changes to your manuscript within the document by using the track changes mode in MS Word or by using bold or coloured text.
Once the revised manuscript is prepared, you can upload it and submit it through your Author Centre.
When submitting your revised manuscript, you will be able to respond to the comments made by the referee(s) in the space provided. You can use this space to document any changes you make to the original manuscript. In order to expedite the processing of the revised manuscript, please be as specific as possible in your response to the referee(s).
IMPORTANT: Your original files are available to you when you upload your revised manuscript. Please delete any redundant files before completing the submission.
Because we are trying to facilitate timely publication of manuscripts submitted to Archaeometry, your revised manuscript should be uploaded as soon as possible. If it is not possible for you to submit your revision in a reasonable amount of time, we may have to consider your paper as a new submission.
Once again, thank you for submitting your manuscript to Archaeometry and I look forward to receiving your revision.
Yours sincerely,
Prof. Mark Pollard
Managing Editor, Archaeometry
mark.pollard@rlaha.ox.ac.ukReferee(s)' Comments to Author:
Comments to the Author
Pls see attached fileDecision letter by
Cite this decision letter
Reviewer report
2020/05/13Pls see attached file
Reviewed by
Cite this review
Author Response
2020/03/18Response to the first referee:
Thanks a lot for the comments and questions.
Response to the comments in the first paragraph wrote by the referee:
Firstly, we would like to emphasize the importance of our samples and our discovery. This kind of underglaze coated ceramics was called Jiangdong (江东)-Type glazed ceramics archaeologically. It was the most important type of ceramic wares used during the Western and Eastern Han Dynasties. It was produced in the Zhejiang area and was exported to the many main areas of the Han Empire, such as Changan City, Luoyang City. Generally speaking, this type of ceramic can represent the high fired glazed ceramic technology in the Han Dynasty.
One of the main purposes of our study is to report the earliest slip technology used in Chinese ceramic history. According to our knowledge, before our study, the earliest engobe technology used to change the ceramic appearance in China was believed to be invented in Western Jin(晋) Dynasties (Qin, 2018). After that time, ceramics covered with underglaze slips became very common. However, the ochre layers of Jiangdong-type ceramics were usually considered to be induced by the furnace atmosphere. Our results indicate that this ochre layer was coated artificially, and these slips also existed beneath the calcium glaze in most cases. Therefore, Jiangdong-type calcium glazed ceramics are likely to be the earliest example of using engobe technique in high-fired glazed ceramics in China.
The samples we analysed are 11, not only 4. The 11 samples were destructively analysed using XRF to see the compositions of glazes, bodies and the ochre layers. And the results can clearly differentiate these 3 parts of the shards. The 4 samples were selected to be analysed further using SEM-EDS. The first aim is to see whether the slip layers are artificial, or induced by oxidization. The second aim is to prove a coating with a certain composition exists under the glaze, suggesting that the coating is a kind of engobe. Besides samples from Yangjiabu, we have also analysed 13 analogous wares from Shangmashan tomb group in Jiangdong region from the Han dynasty. The samples from Shangmashan can support our conclusion as well. We include the analysis of shards from Shangmashan in our manuscript in the resubmission.
Moreover, we believe that there exists a compositional similarity of mud glaze and the underglaze slip coating, and similarity in the composition can partly reveal the similarity in raw materials or technique. We reveal the similarity in figure 4c. Pre-Qin mud glaze contents a higher flux of potash and ferric, and so does the underglaze coating in the Han dynasty. Other major elements, for example, alumina and silica, tend to fluctuate with the composition of its body. Therefore, the content of flux becomes an important indicator in determining the degree of similarity. Further, the mud glaze layer and underglaze coating are both very thin and even, which is very different from the green glaze. In addition, the region that produces underglaze coated ware is the same area where the mud glaze has been made.
We did cite the chemical composition data of proto-porcelain and mud glaze pottery from other literature, but we believe the analysis of Jiangdong-type glazed wares from Yangjiabu is original.
Lastly, we revised our discussion section to make it clearer and more logical.
Response to other specific questions:
1. Page 3, line 25: EDS results are mainly used to indicate the existence of the underglaze coating, and the comparison is limited to the same method and the same sample, so we believe the analysis is meaningful.
XRF results are tested with standard and reliable.
2. We have clarified the term ‘coating’ by adding the word ‘slip’ ahead.
3. Page 4, line 11: This shard is not covered by green glaze, it only has a slip layer, and as the SEM image suggests, the iron-containing crystals are thought the slip layer. In other shards, the layers between body and calcium glaze contain higher K2O. Therefore, these are slip layers instead of body-glaze interaction layers.
4. Page 4, line 52: glaze water?
It is better to call it as glaze slurry.
5. Page 4, lines 52-55: This debate happened in a symposium and did not related to our discussion basically, so we may delete these sentences.Res
Cite this author response
- pre-publication peer review (ROUND 1)
Decision Letter
2020/02/0707-Feb-2020
Dear Dr. Cui:
Manuscript ID ARCH-10-0139 entitled "The origins of the Chinese high-fired glazed ceramic slip: Evidence from underglaze-coated wares unearthed in Zhejiang, Han dynasty" which you submitted to Archaeometry, has been reviewed. The comments from referee(s) are included at the bottom of this letter.
In view of the criticisms of the referee(s), I must decline the manuscript for publication in Archaeometry in its current form. However, a new manuscript may be submitted which takes into consideration these comments.
Please note that resubmitting your manuscript does not guarantee eventual acceptance, and that your resubmission will be subject to re-review by the referee(s) before a decision is rendered.
You will be unable to make your revisions on the originally submitted version of your manuscript. Instead, revise your manuscript using a word processing programmeme and save it on your computer.
Once you have revised your manuscript, go to https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/arch and login to your Author Centre. Click on "Manuscripts with Decisions," and then click on "Create a Resubmission" located next to the manuscript number. Then, follow the steps for resubmitting your manuscript.
I look forward to a resubmission.
Yours sincerely,
Prof. Mark Pollard
Managing Editor, Archaeometry
mark.pollard@rlaha.ox.ac.ukReferee(s)' Comments to Author:
Referee: 1
Comments to the Author
The paper presents results of XRF and SEM-EDS examination of four samples of slipped and glazed wares (referred to as ‘underglaze coated wares’ in the manuscript) from the the Yangjiabu archaeological tombs group site, Han Dynasty. The sherds were covered by a clayey slip and then coated by a green calcium glaze. Based on the similarities in the flux compositions of the underglaze coated wares, mud glazed wares and proto-porcelain, the authors suggest that these wares may have similar or related origins. However, it seems that these similarities are more generic than specific; the chemical and microstructural observations put forward by the authors do not contribute much to this hypothesis. The number of samples are limited; the results of the analyses of the slips and glazes were already known from the literature; and the Discussion is somewhat sloppy. I suggest that the authors revise the manuscript including more samples from different types of wares and providing more rigorous arguments.Page 3, line 25: “The chemical analysis was standardless”.
This can severely affect results of your analysis. Please redo your analysis using appropriate primary and secondary standards and revise data tables accordingly.- When using the term ‘coating’ to describe different layers as seen on SEM photomicrographs, please indicate whether you are referring to the slip or glaze layers; it is otherwise confusing to the reader which of the layers you are being describing.
Page 4, line 11: Or a well-developed body-glaze interaction layer?
Page 4, line 52: glaze water?
Page 4, lines 52-55: “Some argue that the green glaze is formed by plant ash purposely added into the kiln during firing; others hold that the green glaze was applied by other means before firing”
Please give references here for each argument. Please discuss how your results support or refute these arguments.Referee: 2
Comments to the Author
This is a very important original research of international significance, in a period and field that is understudied. I support its publication. I suggest the authors address the below issues, as they could, before formal publishing.
The terms and types of stamped stoneware, proto-porcelain, the mud glazed black pottery, the underglaze coated ware, and mature celadon could be confusing for many readers to understand and differentiate, and the article proposes variable degrees of correlation or replacing between these wares. The authors have made effort to explain these terms. A bit more explanation would be worthwhile, such as their rough date ranges, geography areas of their kilns (or even rough areas of distribution/consumption). It would also be good to stick to these terms through the manuscript. The caption of Fig 4 and legends in Fig. 4c could be clearer in this regard.
Also, “Previous studies have assumed that the sudden disappearance of stamped stoneware and proto-porcelain in the Jiangdong region might be connected with the Chu state’s destruction of the Yue state….”, it may be worthy to mention a little bit what happened to stamped stoneware and proto-porcelain in other regions, when the “underglaze coated ware” discussed in this article prevailed in Jiaodong.
Please be cautious when using the term porcelain in view of the different classification of ceramics in English (earthenware, stoneware, porcelain) and Chinese (tao and ci).
The red coating and black coating could be better clarified. One may also think of using ochre, red-brown or reddish coating instead of red coating as it does not really look so red.
Please try to make it clearer whether the issues discussed are body material, glaze, or the coating between them, both in text, and also captions/legends of the figures and tables, including for expressions such as “area A, area B” etc. The word “surface” could be confusing, pls also try to clarify in this regard. The captions of Fig. 2 and Table 2 could be explained clearer.Table 1. If a shard looks red brown because of its coating, make it clear. Also make it clear whether the shard (and vessel) looks coated wholly or partly as visual observation reveals (taking flaking into consideration), as this matters for understanding the nature and significance of the coating. A shard may look without glaze either because the vessel and/or specific parts had not been glazed at all, or as the glaze there has flaked. Where feasible and possible, tell the observer’s view based on visual examination of the specific shard combined with general knowledge of similar vessels from these regions and periods.
Not sure “exfoliated” is a good word here. “Red layer” might be replaced by red/ochre coating.
“Fig. 4: Comparison between mud glazed pottery with underglaze coated wares whose coating layer is black”.
The glaze of pre-Qing proto-porcelain also seems to be part of the comparison. May be worthy to mention the difference of black vs. red coating.Wang Guangyao, 2004. The System of Ancient Chinese Official Kiln. Beijing, Forbidden City Press
Pls provide chapter title and page numbers.There are some mistakes or problems in expressions or grammar of English, below are just a few examples, pls improve throughout.
The glaze is well-glassed
They circulated extensively in other provinces and feature regionally styled and ornamented characters
Yangjiabu archaeological tomb group site
These resemblances might indicate that some internal relationship
the glaze water was applied from top to bottom
A like flux composition can be found
which laid the foundation in later generations of porcelain(pottery)-
making for the slip which used on Chinese glazed ceramic
this glaze layer often blends with some of the materials of the coating ----is “fuses” better here than blends?Decision letter by
Cite this decision letter
Reviewer report
2020/01/29This is a very important original research of international significance, in a period and field that is understudied. I support its publication. I suggest the authors address the below issues, as they could, before formal publishing.
The terms and types of stamped stoneware, proto-porcelain, the mud glazed black pottery, the underglaze coated ware, and mature celadon could be confusing for many readers to understand and differentiate, and the article proposes variable degrees of correlation or replacing between these wares. The authors have made effort to explain these terms. A bit more explanation would be worthwhile, such as their rough date ranges, geography areas of their kilns (or even rough areas of distribution/consumption). It would also be good to stick to these terms through the manuscript. The caption of Fig 4 and legends in Fig. 4c could be clearer in this regard.
Also, “Previous studies have assumed that the sudden disappearance of stamped stoneware and proto-porcelain in the Jiangdong region might be connected with the Chu state’s destruction of the Yue state….”, it may be worthy to mention a little bit what happened to stamped stoneware and proto-porcelain in other regions, when the “underglaze coated ware” discussed in this article prevailed in Jiaodong.
Please be cautious when using the term porcelain in view of the different classification of ceramics in English (earthenware, stoneware, porcelain) and Chinese (tao and ci).
The red coating and black coating could be better clarified. One may also think of using ochre, red-brown or reddish coating instead of red coating as it does not really look so red.
Please try to make it clearer whether the issues discussed are body material, glaze, or the coating between them, both in text, and also captions/legends of the figures and tables, including for expressions such as “area A, area B” etc. The word “surface” could be confusing, pls also try to clarify in this regard. The captions of Fig. 2 and Table 2 could be explained clearer.Table 1. If a shard looks red brown because of its coating, make it clear. Also make it clear whether the shard (and vessel) looks coated wholly or partly as visual observation reveals (taking flaking into consideration), as this matters for understanding the nature and significance of the coating. A shard may look without glaze either because the vessel and/or specific parts had not been glazed at all, or as the glaze there has flaked. Where feasible and possible, tell the observer’s view based on visual examination of the specific shard combined with general knowledge of similar vessels from these regions and periods.
Not sure “exfoliated” is a good word here. “Red layer” might be replaced by red/ochre coating.
“Fig. 4: Comparison between mud glazed pottery with underglaze coated wares whose coating layer is black”.
The glaze of pre-Qing proto-porcelain also seems to be part of the comparison. May be worthy to mention the difference of black vs. red coating.Wang Guangyao, 2004. The System of Ancient Chinese Official Kiln. Beijing, Forbidden City Press
Pls provide chapter title and page numbers.There are some mistakes or problems in expressions or grammar of English, below are just a few examples, pls improve throughout.
The glaze is well-glassed
They circulated extensively in other provinces and feature regionally styled and ornamented characters
Yangjiabu archaeological tomb group site
These resemblances might indicate that some internal relationship
the glaze water was applied from top to bottom
A like flux composition can be found
which laid the foundation in later generations of porcelain(pottery)-
making for the slip which used on Chinese glazed ceramic
this glaze layer often blends with some of the materials of the coating ----is “fuses” better here than blends?Reviewed by
Cite this review
Reviewer report
2019/12/31The paper presents results of XRF and SEM-EDS examination of four samples of slipped and glazed wares (referred to as ‘underglaze coated wares’ in the manuscript) from the the Yangjiabu archaeological tombs group site, Han Dynasty. The sherds were covered by a clayey slip and then coated by a green calcium glaze. Based on the similarities in the flux compositions of the underglaze coated wares, mud glazed wares and proto-porcelain, the authors suggest that these wares may have similar or related origins. However, it seems that these similarities are more generic than specific; the chemical and microstructural observations put forward by the authors do not contribute much to this hypothesis. The number of samples are limited; the results of the analyses of the slips and glazes were already known from the literature; and the Discussion is somewhat sloppy. I suggest that the authors revise the manuscript including more samples from different types of wares and providing more rigorous arguments.
Page 3, line 25: “The chemical analysis was standardless”.
This can severely affect results of your analysis. Please redo your analysis using appropriate primary and secondary standards and revise data tables accordingly.- When using the term ‘coating’ to describe different layers as seen on SEM photomicrographs, please indicate whether you are referring to the slip or glaze layers; it is otherwise confusing to the reader which of the layers you are being describing.
Page 4, line 11: Or a well-developed body-glaze interaction layer?
Page 4, line 52: glaze water?
Page 4, lines 52-55: “Some argue that the green glaze is formed by plant ash purposely added into the kiln during firing; others hold that the green glaze was applied by other means before firing”
Please give references here for each argument. Please discuss how your results support or refute these arguments.Reviewed by
Cite this review
