關於灰被茶碗
謝明良
《君台觀• 土之物》所載茶碗
《君台觀》既是理解當時日本對於「唐物」的使用方式和價值觀的重要文獻，其作爲日本茶湯文化道具賞鑑的原點，當然也爲歷來人們所重視。《君台觀》的中國陶瓷記事，主要見於〈茶垸物之事〉和〈土之物〉。前者提及青瓷、白瓷、饒州、官窯、定窯等單色釉瓷，而本文擬討論的灰被茶碗則見於〈土之物〉「天目」條。（圖2）
〈土之物〉所列舉的茶碗計七種，並且是依照茶碗的珍貴程度和價格順序羅列，如實地反映了將軍家擅長文物鑑賞和藝能的同朋眾對於中國茶碗的分類和評價。以下順序節譯《君台觀》〈土之物〉所見七種茶碗的品評和價格，其價格是鎌倉至江戶時期計算錢貨的「疋」。一、「曜變」，建盞中的無上至寶，價錢萬疋。二、「油滴」，第二重寶，價錢五千疋。三、「建盞」，不比油滴差，價錢三千疋。四、「鳥盞」 呈「 」造型價廉。五、「盞」，與天目胎同，價錢千疋。六、「能盞」，與天目胎同，價廉。七、「天目」，以灰被（ はいかつき）為上，非將軍家御用物，價格不備載。
從《君台觀》對於上述七種茶碗的說明文字看來，將軍家能、相阿彌已經指出「曜變」、「油滴」和「建盞」，是來自中國福建省建陽窯的產品，而高橋義雄（帚庵，1860-1937）所編纂的《大正名器鑑》則是仔細揣摩《君台觀》的茶碗品評，並結合茶碗的胎釉特徵、茶會記事、流傳史實、典故傳聞以及貯存茶碗木箱上的題識等，將他本人實見的幾種中國茶碗納入《君台觀》的分類體系，將傳世實物與古典文獻進行了結合，是影響及至今日之茶道具史上的經典名著。現存日本的幾件被指定為國寶的曜變和油滴茶碗，應該就是與《君台觀》分類體系中「曜變」、「油滴」同類的建窯黑釉盞。
另一方面，將現存實物與《君台觀》等古文獻進行比附時，往往也會面臨難以確認品類的難題。比如說，相較「油滴」並不遜色，但價格略低的「建盞」，到底是什麼樣的建窯茶碗？就可以有許多想像的空間，因人而異，時至今日應該無人可予證實或證偽。其次，價格低廉，胎釉與建盞相近的「鳥（鳥）盞」雖然也有同樣曖昧的情況，但《君台觀》相對具體的說它「たうさんのなりにて」即有「たうさん」之形，那慶什麼是「たうさん」呢？這就渉及學者對於「たうさん」的解釋・除了谷信一在註東北大學相阿彌本《君台觀》（《茶道古典全集》收）時認「たうさん」即「とうさん」也就是「兔盞」（兔毫盞）之外，（《君台觀左右帳記》，1956） 當今學界最常見的説法是「たうさん」即「湯盞」，（奧田，1979）赤沼多佳亦持此說，並以新安沉船打撈出的黑釉碗為例指出其形如做口小底的斗笠式碗。（圖3）（赤沼，2010）筆者想提示的是，日本學界對於像是《君台觀》般古典文獻所載名物的考論，經常可見忽視前人研究的陋習，有的甚至有意無意地營造出一種由作者直接面對原文揣摩想像的奇妙氛圍。就此而言，早在十九世紀末期今泉雄作已明示「たうさん」即湯盞，形如敝口淺身的所謂平茶碗，（今泉，1893）1930年代中尾萬三在其論文甚至線繪了此類碗式（圖4），（中尾，1936）可惜均被當今學者所忽略。
其實，《君台觀》所見「鼈盞」和「能（皮）盞」的可能外觀特徵，於今泉雄作的考證中也已做了基本的確認。今泉氏指出「盞」即小堀遠州箱書的玳皮盞。進而認爲「能（皮）盞」的能字是態之誤，而態同玳，能皮即玳皮，也就是玳瑁殼，即籠甲。今泉氏的上述考論至今已為學界常識，只是當今持此論者為文書寫時卻也都未註記與岡倉天心共同創立東京美術學校的大前輩今泉雄作對於《君台觀》茶碗比定所做的貢獻。就今日的認識而言，宋代窯址燒造這類「盞」和「能（皮）盞」模做玳瑁外觀的窯址不止一處，除了著名的江西省吉州窯之外，陝西省耀州窯（深圳市文物考古鑑定所，2016）或四川省涂山窯（重慶市文物考古所，2006）等瓷窯亦有生產，但若考慮到中國外銷日本的瓷窯種類、日本遺址出土標本以及《君台觀》所形容帶花鳥紋的「盞」，或享保十三年（1728）三谷宗鎮《和漢茶誌》所載「玳比」，一名甲盞，或有杜若梅花等紋（岩田，2016）等記事看來，江西省吉州窯所燒造的玳釉和各式花鳥梅花紋剪紙漏釉茶碗，應該就是《君台觀》「盞」和「能（皮）盞」一類的製品。這也就是說，今泉氏的說法還需中國窯址的發掘資料來予驗證，而兩者的結合才使得學界得以知曉《君台觀》所載「盞」和「能（皮）盞」是來自吉州窯所燒造。不過，相對於中國最早公布吉州窯窯址調查資料是在1950年代，1930年代英人 Brankston 則已赴窯址探集標本並予報導，是有關吉州窯的第一篇田野考古報告。（Brankston，1938-1939）
只是筆者實在好奇，早在 Brankston吉州窯報導的前兩年，中尾萬三已經指出《君台觀》所載鼈盞和玳皮盞的窯址或在吉安附近。（中尾，1936）從今日的窯址調查可知，以江西省吉安縣永和鎮為中心的贛江兩岸正是吉州窯遺址範圍，所以中尾氏的提示完全正確，可惜在他的文章中並未明記其情報來源。
灰被茶碗及其價格變動
排列在《君台觀》〈土之物〉「曜變」、「油滴」、「建盞」等茶碗末席的是灰被茶碗 所屬的「天目」。儘管「天目」類下方的說明 文字提到灰被茶碗非將軍用器，所以不必刻意去記載它的價錢，不過卻也說「以灰被為上」， 明示了「天目」類茶碗當中是以灰被最佳。從高橋義雄《大正名器鑑》關於灰被茶碗的文獻集成，可以輕易得知室町以迄江戶時期茶人對於灰被茶碗鑑賞之一斑:如認為其似建盞(《能阿相傳集》)，或認為其釉色帶灰不似建盞(《茶 湯正傳集》)。一般的品評是其胎色青黑，釉羼銀者為上(《萬寶全書》)，而以《茶器目利傳說》的記載最為詳細，即:其胎青黑，釉 帶銀，以多銀者為上，有如羼和灰的釉斑，故名「灰被」。
可以一提的是，小山富士夫在談及這類由日本命名的灰被茶碗時，還體貼地提示灰被茶碗亦如建窯般是裝入匣缽入窯燒造， 故其灰色調並非落灰，而是窯中火侯參差，碗體受火不勻且多生燒所造成。(小山，1965;山崎， 1955)總之，《大正名器鑑》收入了歷來為日本所珍重的十件灰被茶碗，此包括:酒井家「夕陽」 (圖 5)、益田家的「虹」(圖 6)，以及岩崎家的「埋火」等名碗。
當今的茶道史論述經常強調，灰被茶碗其實未必如《君台觀》所載般非將軍用器，因為將軍家傳世所謂東山御物中，可能就包括了前引「虹」和「夕陽」兩碗，兩碗均曾為奈良東大寺四聖坊物，其中「夕陽」也是天文五年 (1536)松屋久政赴四聖坊茶會所拜見的名碗 (《松屋會記》)。(赤沼，2014、2010)當然我們也可直接藉由《大正名器鑑》所集錄的相關 文獻記述得以掌握此一訊息，甚至可以復原包 括這兩件茶碗在內諸多名碗的流傳史。就此而言，帚庵的這套承繼大名茶人松平不昧(1751-1818）《古今名物類聚》並加以發揮的集大成圖鑑眞的是理解日本名物茶具移動史的寶典。
安土桃山時代，千利休（1522-1591）的弟子山上宗二撰成於天正十四年（1586）的茶道傳書《山上宗二記》，所記載的曜變和灰被茶碗的價格變動，可說是日本茶道史論述中談及從「唐物數奇」過渡到「佗數奇」，或者說從書院茶到草庵茶風時必定徵引的文獻。
也就是說，相對於《君台觀》所見對於唐物的絕對崇拜，曜變茶碗既被評為天下至寶，索價一萬疋（一疋相當於十文），到了《山上宗二記》，曜變和油滴茶碗則成了「代カロキモノ」價值平平的凡物。《山上宗二記》〈天目之事〉，天目條更羅列了天下三件灰被名碗，其一是千利休師輩武野紹鷗（1502-1555）所藏，餘兩件分別是由豐臣秀吉（1537-1598）和堺地方豪商油屋所有，反映了十六世紀後半日本茶人捨去來自中國的精緻茶碗，選擇了最能體現冷、枯、瘦、佗茶風的朝鮮半島井戶茶碗、日本國產樂燒、瀨戶燒以及釉表往往濛著灰色調但被做爲景色來賞鑑的灰被茶碗。（矢部，1990；林屋，1980；滿岡，1936）
但應說明的是，灰被茶碗雖被視爲草庵茶佗風的適用茶具，但山上宗二不忘提到其有高低不同檔次（「上中下在り」），數量似乎不少，以致不知其數（「其力カス不知」）難予估算。另外，一度被山上宗二貶為俗貨的曜變茶碗，不久又被平反，如萬治三年（1660）《玩貨名物記》就重新賦予其高度的評價，迄1920年代帚庵《大正名器鑑》仍是將之做爲漢作茶碗的最高品類，回復到《君台觀》的茶碗排序。
灰被茶碗的產地
不同於前述「盞」和「能（皮）盞」是因窯址調查資料的公布而直接證實其產地，灰被茶碗是在窯址調查報告刊出多年後才被予以證實。造成這一現象的主要原因是「灰被」本是日本的命名和分類，其做為茶碗被予記錄和評價也是僅見於日本區域的獨特現象，中國的考古工作者若未掌握日方相關訊息就無從將窯址標本與所謂灰被茶碗進行連結。
從灰被茶碗的認識史看來，除了今泉雄作（1893）或1930年代三宅長策（1935）、中尾萬三（1936）等常見到的將之視為是建窯「窯變」之外，（三宅，1935；中尾，1936）藤岡了一（1961）曾提到浙江省餘姚附近似曾出土不少類似標本，故推測灰被茶碗窯址或許就在此一範圍，而往赴天目山途中的瓶窯鎭或屬後補之一。（藤岡，1961）小山富士夫（1965）先是說灰被茶碗窯址是在是在浙江或福建某地，（小山，1965）但數年後（1974）則改口稱是建窯以外福建某地所生產，（小山，1974）後者福建產區說是日本1970年代以迄千禧年多數學者的共通說法，如矢部良明（1983）（矢部，1983）或做為平凡社中國陶瓷系列之一的《天目》（1999）就持這樣的看法。（西田、佐藤，1999）當然也有少數的例外，如折尾學等就推測九州大宰府史跡第四十五次調查 SX1200出土灰被茶碗類型（⑦之1類）（圖7）的產地可能是在江西省的吉州窯。（折尾、森本，1987)
在二十一世紀的今天，就連業餘的茶具愛好者恐怕也有不少人曾經聽聞，灰被茶碗是燒造於今福建省中部南平市的茶洋窯，這當然也是學界的常識。不過，早先日本學界對於位在建窯南約百里，臨近南福鐵路和閩江的茶洋窯窯址出土標本的掌握其實遲遲未進入狀況。換言之，儘管茶洋窯出土資料早在1980年代已公諸於世，（福建省博物館等〔林忠幹〕，1983）卻為日本學界所忽略甚至還出現了一段有些無奈的插曲，此即1990年代福建省博物館和日本茶道資料館合辦名爲「唐物天目一福建省建窯出土天目と日本伝世の天目一」特展中，（茶道資料館，1994）福建省博物館也提供了幾件茶洋窯址出土的黑釉盤盞殘片於特展中公開展出（圖8），儘管展出標本底足做工和日本傳世灰被茶碗相近，但陰錯陽差偏偏就是漏掉了灰被碗式標本。總之，中日雙方參與策展的學者並未意識到近在眼前的標本背後所隱含的灰被茶碗窯址訊息。筆者在特展之後曾為文援引窯址調查報告指出，茶洋窯址會出土和灰被茶碗類似的黑釉盞（圖9），（謝，1996）但並未得到當時日本同行的回應。時至今日，恐怕已難正確指明到底是那位日本學者率先確認灰被茶碗乃是茶洋窯所燒製，但就二十一世紀的相關論述而言，灰被茶碗來自茶洋窯的說法已是日本學界的常識，而2002年爲紀念東洋陶磁學會創立三十週年所邀請具代表性學者的回顧論文當然也不例外地宜稱灰被茶碗屬茶洋窯製品，然而其依據竟只是作者本人過去於福建省博物館的親眼見聞。（赤沼，2002）眼見爲憑固靥必要，但若因此而完全無視考古報告的存在就不足為取。
一旦提及灰被茶碗考古窯址，我們首先應該意識到的或許是所謂灰被茶碗其實是《君台觀》的撰述者，也就是室町將軍家同朋能阿彌、相阿彌為了區別曜變、油滴、建盞或烏盞等類型茶碗的另一分類。若以天正十四年（1586）《山上宗二記》作者的觀察爲例，則爲數極夥的灰被茶碗還可區分為上中下等三個級別，品相不一。其次，從日本考古遺址出土或傳世所謂灰被茶碗之胎釉和器式未必完全一致等跡象看來，灰被類型茶碗確實也有再細分類的必要，而其間的微妙差異可能正意謂著年代的差距以及分別來自不同產區複數窯場製品。另可以一提的是，吟味茶碗胎質手感，釉調景色、重量和造型美的茶湯專家，也從鑑賞的角度提示了日本傳世灰被名碗胎質和呈色的多樣性，認為作品當中有的確屬茶洋窯所燒製，其餘可能來自福建省境內複數窯場。（赤沼，2010）灰被類型茶碗的代表性碗式和典型建盞碗式的不同之處在於其近口沿處的鼈口不甚清晰，器壁較薄，外壁近足部位切削出水平折角，特別是底足璇修不規整，內足牆和內底的界線不清，底足呈內弧形。黑褐釉色施釉不到底，並且少見建窯般垂下凝固的滴珠。
灰被茶碗的年代
灰被茶碗年代的比定，可以從窯址發掘標本（圖10），以及消費地日本區域出土例著手檢視。茶洋窯窯址調查始於1980年代，確認標本主要分布於大嶺干、馬坪、生洋、碗廠和安後山等五個地點，其中大嶺干以黑釉堆積為主，安後以青白釉堆積為主，其餘三處黑釉、青釉和青白釉共存。
至於年代判斷，報告書僅簡單提及因窯址遺物與同省其他宋元窯址標本相近，故推定其相對年代亦約在宋元之際。（福建省博物館等〔林忠幹〕，1983）1990年代福建省博物館針對茶洋窯大嶺干和安後山等兩處窯址進行發掘，揭露窯爐十一座，出土標本種類包括青瓷、白瓷和黑釉，當中大嶺干（Y3-Y5）和安後山（Y5、Y6） 青釉、青白釉標本年代在北宋時期，而安後山一號窯（Y1）出土的灰被類型黑釉深腹碗的年代，則是依據伴出的青白瓷碗與同省閩清青窯村窯隔窯的I、I式碗相同，而黑釉淺腹碗又和韓國新安沉船打撈品相近，主張一號窯年代在元代。（福建省博物館（栗建安等〕，2000）另外，由於一號窯窯底所出皆爲元代青白瓷，而依據「地層關係」灰被類型黑釉碗要早於青白瓷，因此這類做建盞的茶洋窯灰被類型碗的年代應該在南宋至元代。（栗，1997）另外，也有僅止依據茶洋窯黑釉碗式（I式）與建盞外觀有部分相近之處就率直地推定灰被類型碗年代是在南宋至元代。（梅，1996）近年，南平市博物館再次對轄區馬坪、安後山、碗廠三處窯址做了表採。採集標本主要爲青釉、青白釉和黑釉，碗廠窯址甚至可見花瓷。灰被類型黑釉碗於三處窯址都有發現（圖11），但其年代則是承襲前引栗建安南宋至元代的看法，（南平市博物館等〔余鵬〕，2018）未有附加論述。
其實，作為茶洋窯安後山一號窯主要定年依據之報告書所稱的元代青白瓷碗，其內壁陰刻大型蓮瓣，碗心模印荷花或多瓣花（圖12），類似作品既見於同省閩清縣義窯、青窯等瓷窯，（閩清縣文化局〔葉文程等〕，1993）也見於今日本沖繩等地考古遺址，後者即1980年代因石垣島ビロースク遺跡所出一式斂口白瓷碗而被做為 一種類型且為日方學界沿襲使用至今日的所謂 ビロースクタイプ(Birosuku Type)，(金武， 1998)此一器式也是之前森田勉所歸類之「白磁 C 群」，當時據勝連城址年代推測其或屬十五 世紀前後時期標本。(森田，1982)田中克子曾對 琉球出土標本與包括茶洋窯在內的福建窯址出 土同類型白瓷進行細緻的比對，觀察到茶洋窯 窯址出土的口沿微內斂以及口沿略外敞的青白 瓷碗式，分別相當於 Birosuku Type 的II類和III類，她結合沖繩考古遺址所出同類標本，並參酌博多遺址出土案例，推定茶洋窯此類白瓷碗的相對年代在十四世紀前半至十五世紀。（田中，2009a、2009b）
另外，田中氏還提示了茶洋窯此類白瓷碗碗足璇修成內弧狀的造型特徵也和該窯黑釉盞有共通之處，換言之，茶洋窯灰被茶碗的年代也應在十四至十五世紀。（田中，2009a）另一方面，日本九州博多地區遺址除了可見少量Birosuku Type 標本，也出土了不少灰被茶碗殘器，此即森本朝子針對博多遺址群出土黑釉碗所做分類中的VI類。（圖13）
該類黑釉碗年代最早的標本見於太宰府市SX1200是與十四世紀初期至中期遺物共伴出土。（同圖7）不過福岡縣砥上上林遺址標本則是和十四世紀後半中國陶瓷共出，另有一件（編號119）出土於十五至十六世紀遺址的同類型黑釉碗，其口沿因傷而磨邊後再鑲寬邊的金屬釦。由於森本氏考慮到至治三年（1323）新安沉船未見此式黑釉碗，因此論文寫作當時保守估計V類碗的年代是初現於新安沉船之後，但十四世紀後半以後博多遺址群所見黑釉碗幾乎全屬V類，迄十五世紀至十六世紀遺址仍可見到，同氏並指出V類碗的器形和底足特徵酷似日本瀨戶美濃燒，以致於幾乎無法從實測線繪圖區分出兩造作品的不同。（森本，1994）赤沼多佳贊同森本的類型區分和相應的年代判斷，同時強調灰被茶碗燒造於十五世紀末期，（赤沼，1994、2010）近年森達也則主張灰被茶碗的年代在十四世紀後半至十五世紀前期，（森，2018）但未出示所據來源。
如前所述，茶洋窯窯爐分布多處，燒瓷種類不只一種，黑釉標本年代可溯及宋代。不過，若將焦點限定在灰被類型黑釉碗式，則中國方面所主張元代（1271-1368）或南宋（1127-1279）晚期至元代的說法，因未出示具體的年代判斷依據，故難予檢證而缺乏說服力。另一方面，日本區域除了千禧年之前各式圖錄常見南宋至元代的定年之外，近年則多基於該國諸多遺址發掘層位及伴出遺物等田野考古資料，傾向認爲灰被類型黑釉碗的年代存在於十四至十六世紀遺址。就筆者所掌握的有限資料看來，至治三年新安沉船其實也打撈出了茶洋窯黑釉碗（圖14），（國立中央博物館，2017）因此過去森本氏雞已注意到新安沉船茶洋窯的斂口平碗（森本分類VI類），可惜當時還未能見到類碗因而保守地將VI類即灰被類型碗的初現年代定於沉船之後，就可因近年韓國公布的新資料而予修正。
看來灰被茶碗大概出現於十四世紀前期，迄十五世紀遺址仍經常可見，至於戰國大名朝倉孝景（1428-1481）於文明初年（1469）在越前建立的首都，後毀於天正元年（1573）織田信長（1534-1586）戰火的一乘谷遺址也出土的灰被茶碗（第四十次調查），其是否可做為十六世紀標本案例？抑或屬傳世使用後的遺留？還有待確認。總之，無論是從茶洋窯址與黑釉碗伴出的白瓷之年代的釐定，或博多遺跡群出土茶洋窯類型黑釉碗的分類排序以及新安沉船例，均顯示了被日本茶人命名爲灰被天目的中國福建省茶洋窯類型黑釉碗的相對年代應在十四世紀前期至十五世紀，亦即元代後期至明代早期。
古瀨戶茶碗和灰被茶碗
早期的日本陶瓷史，一旦談及做為日本六大古窯之一的以愛知縣為中心的古瀨戶燒，大多會附帶提起初代陶工加藤四郎左衛門入宋研習建窯燒製黑釉茶碗並將此一技藝傳入日本的傳說。（北島，1903；瀨戶市史編纂委員會，1978）儘管傳說內容極難實證，但由於古瀨戶茶碗的造型特徵和宋代建盞確有相近之處（圖15），也因此建盞就常被視爲古瀨戶茶碗所模做的對象。
在此一前提之下，學者甚至認為古瀨戶茶碗在鐵釉上再施罩灰釉的二重掛釉是爲獲得建窯兔毫斑效果的工法，而其在底足露胎部位塗施鐵汁也是爲模微建盞黝黑胎色的權宜方式。（奧田，1989）不過，關於古瀨戶茶碗和中國黑釉盞影響關係的論述，其實涉及到不同研究者對於古瀨戶茶碗初現年代的推估，也和近年灰被茶碗年代和產地漸次明朗一事息息相關。如由國立歷史民俗博物館編集發行的《陶磁器の文化史》主張古瀨戶是在十四世紀第2四半期之後便以建盞爲祖型進行微製，他們認為此一時段和流行於十二世紀北宋後期至南宋的建盞年代頗有落差，所以當時應該是以傳世的骨董建盞爲模微的對象，而原本預定航向日本卻不幸在韓國木浦海域罹難的元代至治三年新安船舶載的多達數十件的宋代建盞，也反映了此時日本國內對於建盞的需求。（國立歷史民俗資料館，1998）
相對而言，伊藤嘉章在藤澤良佑的研究基礎之上對瀨戶窯茶碗所做的分類和年代比定則是認爲瀨戶窯是在古瀨戶中期樣式第皿期，即十四世紀中葉開始倣燒建盞，足呈圈足並在露胎處施塗鐵汁，經十五世紀前半的B類和十五世紀後半的C類，到了十六世紀前中期出現了無論是在底足還是口沿等造型特徵，或二重掛釉的施釉工法都與灰被茶碗相近的D類茶碗。（圖16）（伊藤，1994）伊藤氏的分期、分類及各類碗式的年代比定極富啓發性，因其展現了瀨戶茶碗因時代的不同而有相異的模微對象，修正了以往大多只是單線式地考慮瀨戶茶碗和建盞模倣關係的論調，提示了瀨戶窯A、B、C三類碗是以建盞爲模傲的對象，但十六世紀前中期的D類碗則是意識到灰被茶碗的做製品。不過，筆者認為我們也需留意瀨戶後期樣式口期後半，相對年代約在十四世紀後期至十五世紀中期的B類碗當中，已出現碗壁近足處水平切創，底足內足牆和內底分際不明呈內弧狀之不見於建盞，但卻彷彿茶洋窯灰被類型的碗式。（見圖16）
就如新安沉船文物所示，大約在十四世紀前期已有少量茶洋窯灰被類型碗和宋代建盞古物輸入日本，九州博多十四世紀後半遺址所見黑釉碗也是以灰被類型碗居多，迄十五至十六世紀仍間可見到。書成於永正八年（1511）相阿彌本《君台觀》提到，灰被茶碗雖非將軍御用物，卻也是「天目」類中的佼者，而撰成於天正十四年的《山上宗二記》也高度評價了灰被茶碗。
如前所述，茶洋窯灰被類型碗的相對年代在十四至十五世紀，而十六世紀前期瀨戶窯陶工已製作出與灰被類型碗（D類）造型無二致的碗式，惟在此之前的十四世紀後期至十五世紀中期的瀨戶窯，業已可見具有灰被茶碗某些造型特徵的碗式了（B類）。這樣看來，古瀨戶窯是在十四世紀中期以建窯爲對象進行倣製，（藤澤，1978-1982） 但約在十四世紀後期至十五世紀萌生了與做灰被茶碗局部器形相近的碗式，至十六世紀更出現了灰被茶碗的忠實做品。山上宗二貶曜變和油滴建盞而褒美灰被茶碗也正是在此一時期。
餘談
日本區域出土或傳世的灰被類型碗可能不是出自同一時段單一窯場所燒製一事已如前述，而在傳承過程中由擁有者或其身邊有識人士所做的鑑定也難免失誤，如現藏德川美術館的一件帶金屬釦邊的建盞（圖17），自鳥居引拙、德川家康（1543-1616）傳世至今，也是《山上宗二記》所載天目類中僅存的一件流傳有緒的珍貴文物，目前學界咸認爲或許是因其茶褐色的釉面帶著金屬光澤，所以不僅萬治三年《玩貨名物記》記它爲灰被，其內外木箱箱蓋也墨書「灰蒙御天目」，帳冊方面如慶安四年（1651）帳或元祿二年（1689）《上御數寄御道具》也記爲「御天目 灰蒙」，（德川美術館，2019）灰蒙即灰被，是將建盞視爲灰被茶碗的著名實例。
相對而言，灰被茶碗與同樣是由日本命名的所謂「黃天目」之間的關係就顯得曖昧。《山上宗二記》在灰被茶碗所屬的「天目」類之後，另立了「黃天目」類，並註記說它要比灰被碗遜色一些。（吉良，2016）相傳由村田珠光（1423-1502）輾轉傳到細川三齋（1563-1646），現藏永青文庫的一件與灰被類型幾無區別的茶碗（圖18），其內箱箱蓋有著名茶人小堀遠州（1579-1647）「珠光天目 黃」題識，意即曾由村田珠光擁有的黃天目。《大正名器鑑》以珠光所持而稱它是「珠光天目」，但又在下方註記「灰被」，似乎並不在意小堀遠州黃天目的鑑定結果。從器物樣式的角度看來，永青文庫的「珠光天目」，或稱為「沼田」的黃天目名碗（圖19），應該都屬灰被類型，這也是筆者所知目前陶瓷史圈的共識。
不過，茶湯領域似乎另有高見，如認為黃天目「沼田」的胎質較白，但卻也同意傳世的灰被和黃天目多是福建省茶洋窯製品。（赤沼，2010）本文在此暫予擱置這種有著許多不確定因素，並且大多出自茶人鑑定的「黃天目」，在尊重茶人自我建構的茶碗鑑賞史及其分類的同時，覺得還是應回歸到陶瓷史對作品本身樣式及其和窯址標本的比定，側重目前考古所見茶洋窯灰被碗類型。但可一提的是，吉良文男曾經提示江戶時代慶安四年近衛台嗣《茶湯聞塵》，圖繪有做爲灰被茶碗造型特徵之一的碗壁近足處水平切削。（吉良，2016）在此一提示之下，筆者翻檢了現藏京都陽明文庫寫本的翻刻本，（名和，1994）終於理解近衛台嗣是將所謂灰被、黃天目和只天目歸入其所圖繪的近足處切創水平的一類，而曜變建盞則是屬碗壁和底足呈弧形的另一類（圖20），此一鑑別方式也是今日鑑藏界或學界區別建盞和灰被茶碗的主要依據之一。
另一方面，京都相國寺蔭涼軒主公用日記《蔭涼軒日錄》有一則提及建盞的記事可能涉及了灰被茶碗或瀨戶茶碗，此即延德二年（1490）二月二十日條：「又云：『御建盞者何如？』愚云：『不可有新建盞，可為古建盞。若古建盞無之者，當院建盞可進之』」。「古建盞」指的當然是宋代建窯盞，但最早檢索出這條文獻的佐藤豐三則進一步推論此處的「新建盞」應即瀨戶窯倣燒的瀨戶茶碗，算是聊備一說。（佐藤，1979）然而，隨著灰被茶碗年代的釐清，很自然又出現了「新建盞」可能是指十五世紀被攜入日本的灰被茶碗這樣的說法。（赤沼，2010）比起瀨戶茶碗說，灰被的說法亦言之有理，但兩說均難實證。姑且不論「新建盞」的具體所指，筆者想提請留意的是十五世紀末期的日本似乎有相當數量的古建盞在市肆和藏家之間流通，只需透過管道即可輕易購得。比如說，就在《蔭涼軒日錄》提及「新建盞」之後兩年，即延德四年（1492）四月，京都北野天滿宮的社家松梅院爲了接待即將來訪的幕府管領細川政元（1466-1507） 茶會所需茶碗，就經由茶屋松隱以八貫文的價錢臨時添購了建盞和盞托（《北野社家日記》），（小野，2008）不難想見其時日本茶會用茶碗的多樣性，其中當然包括了建盞和所謂「新建盞」。一貫相當於一百疋，一疋相當於十文，而延德四年當時一石米約七百六十九文，（百瀨，1957）值八貫文（八千文）的建盞算是高價的茶器。如前所述，《君台觀》有能阿彌和相阿彌兩系列版本，相對於相阿彌本（1511）認為灰被茶碗非將軍御物，未書價錢，《群書類叢》所收能阿彌本（1476）則載灰被茶碗值錢五百疋（五千文），若屬實，則灰被茶碗當中似也包括了價值不菲之作。
如前所述，博多十四世紀後半以後遺址出土的黑釉碗標本幾乎全屬灰被類型，但若以出土個體的數量而言，則要以沖繩首里城數量最多，據說達五百件個體以上，這實在是令人費解的現象。到底是當時琉球國中介轉手貿易的反映？還是當時日本透過琉球國向福建茶洋窯定製的做建盞？（森，2018）筆者對此亦乏良策，也無從評估福州船是否曾經扮演的角色。但可一提的是，新安元代沉船所見達數十件的宋代建盞一事卻也表明日本和中國的業者，在船運商貨內容種類的選擇及其在消費地的可能銷售情況等應該頗有掌握，似乎擁有評估當下商品的情報管道。
最後，應該一提灰被類型茶碗外觀所見二層釉問題。從日本傳世灰被類型碗和所謂黃天目，或茶洋窯址出土標本，大多可明顯看出該類型碗黑釉是覆罩在底層灰釉之上，而這也是欣賞灰釉碗釉面景色時的趣味所在之一。前引十七世紀中期《茶湯聞塵》也說灰被碗胎色黑或帶青，底層釉黃，表層釉有銀色調。隨著茶洋窯址標本漸廣爲人知，灰被茶碗是否爲二次上釉議題因此再度浮上檯面，然而不同學者目驗結果似無共識。本文不擬在此陳述不同觀看者的目驗細節，但想援引陶瓷科技專業和陶藝家實作復原灰被茶碗所得結論，提供讀者參考。
首先是中國當地南平某陶瓷單位的試燒做製結果，他們認為茶洋窯灰被碗探用生坯浸釉所形成的二層釉是同一種原料，上厚下薄是爲了克服高溫流釉粘底腳現象。（孫，2005）其次，近年致力於重現曜變茶碗的日本陶藝家長江惣吉，也從實驗結果提示灰被類型茶碗的施釉是施掛兩次同一種類釉藥，第一層釉較薄，其上再施罩第二層釉。（長江，2015）筆者同意灰被類型碗是採用相同釉料的雙層施釉，而不是不同色釉的二次掛釉。、
作者為國立臺灣大學藝術史研究所特聘教授
常見問答：灰被天目 (haikatsuki tenmoku) 茶碗
1. 什麼是灰被天目 (haikatsuki tenmoku) 茶碗？它在其他中國茶碗的分類中處於何種位置？
灰被天目（haikatsuki tenmoku），亦可譯作「灰覆天目」「灰被茶碗」等，是一種黑釉茶碗。在15世紀日本文獻《君台觀左右帳記》（Kundaikan Sōchōki／君台観）中，灰被天目被歸入「天目」類別；「天目」本身是一個泛稱，通常指福建建窯（建陽窯）出產的黑釉茶碗。在《君台觀》中，由於灰被天目被視為「非將軍御用」，而未記其價格，但書中明言「以灰被為上」，意即「灰色覆蓋者為最上品」，顯示其在天目類中地位甚高。值得注意的是，在《君台觀》裡，曜變（曜変，yohen）與油滴（油滴，yuteki）被列為價值更高的一類，不過這並不意味灰被天目的美學價值較低；只是當時評價體系中，曜變與油滴被視為頂級稀珍之物。
2. 灰被天目茶碗在日本的欣賞地位如何演變？在茶文化發展過程中扮演了什麼角色？
早期（如《君台觀》成書的室町時期），日本對華麗的「唐物」（如曜變、油滴）高度追捧。但至16世紀——《山上宗二記》（Yamanoue Sōji-ki／山上宗二記）所見——興起一股「侘（わび）茶」美學，講求簡樸與素雅。灰被天目因釉面呈現灰色或灰銀色雲霧感，恰好契合了「侘風」的審美需求，因而身價逆勢而起。一些重量級茶人（如武野紹鷗〔Takeno Jōō，1502–1555〕、豐臣秀吉〔Toyotomi Hideyoshi，1537–1598〕）等都曾藏有灰被茶碗。原本灰被天目在《君台觀》裡不及曜變、油滴的重視程度，但隨著茶風的轉變，逐漸被奉為兼具內斂與雅趣的代表性茶碗，並在茶席上佔有一席之地。
3. 灰被天目茶碗與其他黑釉茶碗（尤其同屬福建建窯系）在形制上有何差異？
灰被天目與典型的建盞（如曜變、油滴）同屬黑釉系，但具有下列較明顯特徵：
碗壁較薄、唇口較為不明顯：相較於建盞常見的「鱉口」(bie-kou) 形狀，灰被天目的口沿不似建盞那樣明顯。
足部外側有水平切削或斜面：碗身外壁在接近足部處常能看到水平切角，與典型建盞的足部形態不同。
足圈不甚規整、內足牆與底部過渡模糊：足圈常呈現內彎弧形，修足不如建盞講究，顯示另一燒造系統的特徵。
釉色以黑或褐黑為底，往往帶灰銀調：釉面時有二層釉（採用相同釉藥二次施釉），缺少建盞那種流動性的「垂珠」釉滴，而是更均勻或帶霧狀的銀灰色斑。
4. 灰被天目茶碗的產地在哪裡？關於其來源的研究歷程有哪些轉折？
關於灰被天目的產地，早期眾說紛紜；有學者認為它是建盞的變體，也有人推測浙江餘姚附近。近代考古成果顯示，福建省南平市的茶洋窯（Chayang Kiln）才是灰被天目最主要的燒造窯場。事實上，茶洋窯的發掘資料在1980年代就已公布，但因中日之間資訊銜接不充分，日本學界直到21世紀初才逐漸接受「灰被天目即出自茶洋窯」的說法。如今經由兩地考古比對、以及對黑釉殘片的形制和底足特徵觀察，已確定茶洋窯為最關鍵的來源。
5. 考古和文獻如何確定灰被天目的年代？
中國方面：原先多推定為南宋或元代，但缺乏明確分期依據。
日本方面：透過博多地區、沖繩遺址（如首里城）出土的黑釉碗，並參照同層位出土的「Birosuku Type」白瓷、其他同時期外來陶瓷，將灰被天目的使用高峰期定在14至15世紀（即元末明初前後）。
新安沉船（1323年）：主要載運宋代建盞，但亦發現若干與茶洋窯燒造特徵相近的黑釉碗，顯示茶洋窯式灰被天目在14世紀初即已輸往海外。
6. 灰被天目與日本古瀨戶燒的關聯是什麼？
日本瀨戶陶工最初模仿的是宋代建盞，不過隨著茶人對灰被天目的喜好增加，瀨戶窯後期（特別是十六世紀前中期的D類）開始出現與灰被天目形制十分相似的碗，足部水平切削、二重掛釉等都與灰被天目共通。換言之，瀨戶窯模仿對象從早期單純的「建盞」擴展至「灰被天目」，在碗形上更趨近於後者的特色。
7. 學術詮釋與文獻紀錄如何影響對灰被天目的理解？主要挑戰是什麼？
文獻記載和學者研究大幅左右了灰被天目的定位。例如：
忽視前人研究：如中尾萬三（Nakao Manzō）在1930年代就已做出精準推斷，但往往被後世研究者遺漏。
名物與通俗稱呼：日本茶人常依外觀或流傳故事進行再命名，如「珠光天目」「黃天目」，也有將灰被歸入其它分類的情形，導致概念重疊。
傳世文物與考古發現：如《大正名器鑑》（Takahashi Yoshio, 1920年代）收錄的多件名碗，使後世能追蹤其真跡與底足題記。但同時，茶湯界以茶人審美分類與考古依據兩套系統並行，容易在名稱與定義上產生混淆。
8. 近年對灰被天目茶碗有何新發現與研究趨勢？
窯址確定：茶洋窯被公認為主產地，多座分窯均有燒製類似黑釉碗，細節變化顯示出複數來源與不同年代。
釉藥特徵：技術檢測及陶藝家試驗證實「雙層釉」（但同一種釉藥二次施掛）的工藝做法，解釋了灰被天目特殊的灰銀色調。
商貿路線：從新安、沖繩等船難沉船與日本遺址的出土品，看出14～15世紀該類碗在東亞海上貿易的重要地位。
國際影響：灰被天目並非只在日本受好評；隨著考古研究深入，對其在中日之間貿易流通與陶藝技術互動過程，有了更全面的理解。
大事年表（Timeline）
以下年表簡要概括從鎌倉至江戶時期的貨幣單位使用、茶洋窯的燒造年代、灰被天目在日本的傳播，以及主要茶人與史事：
鎌倉至江戶時期
日本以「疋（hiku）」作為貨幣單位。
14世紀（前期）
福建茶洋窯開始出現灰被天目（haikatsuki tenmoku）風格的黑釉碗，並出口至日本。
新安沉船（1323年）運載宋代建盞與部分茶洋窯黑釉碗。
日本古瀨戶燒出現早期黑釉茶碗。
14世紀（中期）
瀨戶開始效仿宋代建盞製作黑釉茶碗。
14世紀（後期）
博多（九州）出土黑釉碗多數已可歸為灰被天目類型。
瀨戶茶碗造型中，開始出現與灰被天目相仿的水平切削足部特徵。
1423-1502：村田珠光（Murata Jukō）
開創侘茶先聲。
1428-1481：朝倉孝景（Asakura Takakage）
在越前一乘谷建立政權。
1469（文明元年）
朝倉孝景在一乘谷建都；遺址後出土灰被天目碗殘片。
1476
能阿彌本《君台觀》可見對灰被天目估價：五百疋。
1490（延德二年）
《蔭涼軒日錄》（Inryōken Nichiroku）提及建盞與「新建盞」。
1492（延德四年）
京都北野天滿宮祭祀家松梅院臨時購置建盞迎接細川政元。
1502-1555：武野紹鷗（Takeno Jōō）
茶人，亦藏有灰被天目。
1511
相阿彌本《君台觀》完成，記載「灰被天目，非將軍家御用」。
1534-1586：織田信長（Oda Nobunaga）
焚毀一乘谷。
1536（天文五年）
松屋久政（Matsuya Hisamasa）於四聖坊茶會拜見名碗「夕陽」。
1537-1598：豐臣秀吉（Toyotomi Hideyoshi）
大名，曾收藏灰被天目。
1563-1646：細川三齋（Hosokawa Sansai）
大名、茶人，藏有「黃天目」茶碗。
1573（天正元年）
織田信長焚毀一乘谷。
1579-1647：小堀遠州（Kobori Enshū）
茶人、筑庭家，題識「黃天目」。
1586（天正十四年）
山上宗二（Yamanoue Sōji）撰《山上宗二記》，記載灰被天目之盛行；同書指出曜變建盞行情下滑。
1660（萬治三年）
《玩貨名物記》重新推崇曜變、油滴與灰被天目。
1651（慶安四年）
近衛台嗣（Konoe Taishi）所著《茶湯聞塵》（Chadō Bunjin）繪出灰被天目近足處水平切削特徵。
1728
三谷宗鎮（Mitani Munetsura）《和漢茶誌》（Wakan Chashi）出版，記載「甲盞」等。
1751-1818：松平不昧（Matsudaira Fumifusa）
大名茶人，著《古今名物類聚》。
1860-1937：高橋義雄（Takahashi Yoshio, Hoan）
編纂《大正名器鑑》，對灰被天目傳承與名物做重要紀錄。
1893
今泉雄作（Imaizumi Yūsaku）首次指出「たうさん (to-san)」應為湯盞。
1920年代
高橋義雄出版《大正名器鑑》，重振曜變在茶碗等級中的地位，也對灰被天目之流傳做重要整理。
1930年代
中尾萬三（Nakao Manzō）繪出「湯盞」形制草圖；推定「鼈盞」「玳皮盞」窯址或在江西吉州窯。
三宅長策（Miyake Chōsaku）論及灰被天目與建盞關係。
英人Brankston發表關於江西吉州窯的考古報告。
1950年代
中國首次公布吉州窯大規模考古調查報告。
1960-1970年代
學界爭論灰被天目產地，浙江或福建皆有說法。
1980年代
福建茶洋窯陸續發掘，公布初步成果。
石垣島ビロースク（Birosuku）遺跡出土白瓷，成為年代參照依據。
1990年代
福建省博物館與日本茶道資料館合辦「唐物天目」特展，雖展示茶洋窯出土黑釉，但錯失關鍵的灰被天目標本。
博多考古發現逐步公開，分類黑釉碗。
2000年代
通過對元代青白瓷的釐定，進一步修正灰被天目的年代判斷。
2002年，東洋陶磁學會（Tōyō Tōji Gakkai）三十週年紀念活動，中日學者更加認同灰被天目產自茶洋窯。
21世紀
茶洋窯作為灰被天目（haikatsuki tenmoku）主要來源得到普遍共識；釉藥雙層施掛的特色亦被科技分析證實。
人物名錄（Cast of Characters）
以下列出文中提及的主要人物與關鍵研究者，並附上中日文或中英文對照，以確保精確：
能阿彌（Nō AmI）、相阿彌（Sō AmI）
室町將軍家的近侍、藝術鑑定家，撰寫或參與《君台觀左右帳記》茶碗分類。
高橋義雄（Takahashi Yoshio, Hoan, 1860–1937）
日本茶人，編纂《大正名器鑑》，將《君台觀》記載與傳世實物對照，重塑曜變、油滴和灰被天目的重要性。
今泉雄作（Imaizumi Yūsaku, 1893）
19世紀末至20世紀初日本學者，首次明確解釋「たうさん（to-san）」即「湯盞」。
谷信一（Tani Shin’ichi）
日本學者，主張「たうさん」即「兔盞」（兔毫盞）之說。
奧田（Okuda）
現代日本學者，認為「たうさん」即湯盞，參照沈船考古。
赤沼多佳（Akanuma Taka）
現代日本學者，也支持「たうさん」為湯盞的觀點，並深入研究灰被天目與瀨戶燒、韓國沉船之關係。
Brankston
1930年代英國研究者，最早發表江西吉州窯的田野考古報告。
中尾萬三（Nakao Manzō）
1930年代日本學者，繪製湯盞示意圖，推定玳皮盞之窯址；對灰被天目也有先驅性的見解。
小山富士夫（Koyama Fujio） / 山崎（Yamazaki）
20世紀中葉日本陶瓷研究者，提及灰被天目釉層非落灰，而是燒成不均所致。
松屋久政（Matsuya Hisamasa）
天文五年（1536）於四聖坊茶會中見到名碗「夕陽」。
松平不昧（Matsudaira Fumifusa, 1751–1818）
大名茶人，著《古今名物類聚》，為後世《大正名器鑑》奠基。
山上宗二（Yamanoue Sōji, 1522–1591）
千利休弟子，所撰《山上宗二記》描述16世紀茶碗風格及唐物數奇向侘數奇的轉變。
千利休（Sen no Rikyū, 1522–1591）
日本茶道史上最具影響力的大師，奠定侘茶美學。
武野紹鷗（Takeno Jōō, 1502–1555）
侘茶先驅茶人，藏有灰被天目名碗。
豐臣秀吉（Toyotomi Hideyoshi, 1537–1598）
戰國權臣，亦為茶道嗜好者，收藏灰被天目。
油屋（Aburaya）
堺地區商人，亦藏有灰被天目。
三宅長策（Miyake Chōsaku）
1930年代論及灰被天目與建盞的關係。
藤岡了一（Fujioka Ryōichi）
日本學者，推測浙江餘姚附近可能出土類似灰被天目。
矢部良明（Yabe Yoshiaki）
1980年代主張灰被天目應產自福建。
西田、佐藤（Nishida & Satō）
曾於平凡社《中國陶瓷系列：天目》中支持灰被天目屬福建產。
折尾學、森本朝子（Ore’o Manabu, Morimoto Asako）
研究九州大宰府、日本考古遺址的學者，亦曾提及吉州窯或其他窯址的可能性。
林忠幹、栗建安（Lin Zhonggan, Li Jian’an）
福建省博物館研究人員，參與茶洋窯發掘報告撰寫。
謝明良（Hsieh Ming-liang）
本文作者，臺灣大學藝術史研究所教授。
金武（Kanmu）
日本學者，提出石垣島ビロースク（Birosuku）白瓷分類。
森田勉（Morita Tsutomu）
將沖繩白瓷歸類為「白磁C群」。
田中克子（Tanaka Katsuko）
研究琉球與福建窯址白瓷對比，進一步校正灰被天目的年代。
森本朝子（Morimoto Asako）
將博多出土黑釉碗做類型化整理，包含灰被天目（VI類）。
森達也（Mori Tatsuya）
主張灰被天目約在14世紀後半至15世紀前期燒造。
織田信長（Oda Nobunaga, 1534–1586）
在1573年毀滅一乘谷。
朝倉孝景（Asakura Takakage, 1428–1481）
在一乘谷建都，該地出土灰被天目碗。
加藤四郎左衛門（Kato Shirōzaemon）
傳說為日本瀨戶窯創始者，曾於中國習得建盞技法。
奧田（Okuda）
日本學者，探討瀨戶與建窯的關係。
伊藤嘉章（Ito Yoshifumi）
分析並斷代瀨戶茶碗型制，提出瀨戶D類受灰被天目影響。
藤澤良佑（Fujisawa Ryōsuke）
伊藤嘉章研究瀨戶分類的基礎。
鳥居引拙（Torii Hiketsu）
早期建盞藏家，其盞傳至德川家康。
德川家康（Tokugawa Ieyasu, 1543–1616）
大名、幕府將軍，收藏名建盞。
細川三齋（Hosokawa Sansai, 1563–1646）
大名兼茶人，擁有「黃天目」。
小堀遠州（Kobori Enshū, 1579–1647）
茶人，曾在木箱題識「珠光天目 黃」。
吉良文男（Kira Fumio）
指出近衛台嗣《茶湯聞塵》圖繪灰被天目特徵。
近衛台嗣（Konoe Taishi）
17世紀日本公卿，著《茶湯聞塵》記載灰被天目之形態。
佐藤豐三（Satō Toyozō）
首次檢索《蔭涼軒日錄》記錄「新建盞」者。
細川政元（Hosokawa Masamoto, 1466–1507）
幕府管領，1492年於北野天滿宮茶會用建盞。
百瀨（Momose）
研究當時米價與貨幣價值，推算文獻中茶碗價格。
孫（Sun）
福建陶瓷專家，研究茶洋窯雙層釉現象。
長江惣吉（Nagae Sōkichi）
日本陶藝家，致力復原曜變茶碗，也研究灰被天目雙層施釉。
三谷宗鎮（Mitani Munetsura）
1728年《和漢茶誌》（Wakan Chashi）作者，記載「甲盞」等茶碗。
葉文程（Ye Wencheng）
閩清縣文化局工作者，參與閩清瓷窯考古資料整理。
余鵬（Yu Peng）
南平市博物館成員，參與茶洋窯考古調查報告。
Haikatsuki Tenmoku (Hui Bei)
Hsieh Ming-liang
Tea Bowls Recorded in 君台觀 • 土之物
君台觀 is a critical text for understanding how “Chinese objects” (唐物) were used and valued in Japan during that period. As an origin of the aesthetic appreciation of tea utensils in the Japanese tea tradition, 君台觀 has long drawn the attention of scholars and enthusiasts. Information on Chinese ceramics in 君台觀 primarily appears in two sections: “茶垸物之事” and “土之物.” While the former deals with monochrome wares such as celadon, white porcelain, Raozhou ware, official kilns, and Ding ware, the focus of this article—the haikatsuki tenmoku (hui bei)—is found under “天目” in 土之物 (Figure 2).
The “土之物” section lists seven types of tea bowls in descending order of rarity and cost, reflecting how the shogunal close associates (noted for their expertise in connoisseurship and performing arts) categorized and evaluated Chinese tea bowls. The text also cites the prices in “疋,” a currency unit used from the Kamakura through the Edo periods. Below is an abridged translation of 君台觀 (“土之物”) concerning these seven types of tea bowls:
曜變 (Yohen)
The supreme treasure among Jian ware, valued at 10,000 hiku.
油滴 (Oil-Spot)
Second in value, priced at 5,000 hiku.
建盞 (Jian Bowl)
Not inferior to oil-spot but slightly cheaper, at 3,000 hiku.
鳥盞 (Bird Bowl)
Having a “…” shape; low in price.
盞 (Zhan)
Body (clay) same as Tianmu; valued at 1,000 hiku.
能盞 (Nō Bowl)
Body (clay) same as Tianmu; inexpensive.
天目 (Tianmu)
With haikatsuki tenmoku (hui bei) as the highest grade. Not an item for shogunal use; no price listed.
From the above descriptions, one sees that the shogunate’s Nō AmI and Sō AmI had already identified 曜變 (Yohen), 油滴 (Oil-Spot), and 建盞 (Jian Bowl) as products of the Jianyang kilns in Fujian Province, China. In compiling his Taishō Meiki Kan (大正名器鑑), Takahashi Yoshio (帚庵, 1860–1937) meticulously examined 君台觀’s appraisals of tea bowls, correlating them with features of body and glaze, records of tea gatherings, transmission histories, anecdotal references, and inscriptions on the wooden storage boxes. By incorporating the Chinese tea bowls that he had personally inspected into 君台觀’s classificatory framework, he synthesized extant specimens with classical texts—making his work an iconic reference in the history of tea utensils to the present day. Several existing tea bowls designated National Treasures in Japan—including 曜變 and 油滴—are indeed Jian black-glazed bowls conforming to the “曜變” and “油滴” categories in 君台觀.
Issues Matching Existing Specimens to the “君台觀” Categories
When comparing extant pieces with 君台觀 or other classical texts, scholars frequently encounter difficulties in identifying certain categories with certainty. For instance, 建盞—described as slightly lower in price than oil-spot yet “not inferior” in quality—leaves ample room for speculation about what specific Jian-yang kiln ware might be referred to. Opinions vary, and even today nobody can definitively prove or refute the exact identification.
Likewise, the 鳥盞 (Bird Bowl), cheaper in price and having a body and glaze similar to Jian ware, remains ambiguous. 君台觀 provides a little more detail, saying it has the form “たうさんのなりにて,” implying a “たうさん” shape. What, then, is “たうさん”? Academic interpretation has varied: besides Tani Shin’ichi’s gloss that “たうさん” may be read as “とうさん,” i.e., “兔盞” (rabbit-hair bowl), the most common view today is that “たうさん” means “湯盞” (“soup-bowl” style). Okuda (1979) and Akanuma Taka (2010) endorse this interpretation, citing as evidence a black-glazed bowl salvaged from the Sinan shipwreck—shaped like a small-rim conical bowl (Figure 3).
Here one must note a recurrent phenomenon in Japanese research on classical texts like 君台觀: often, earlier scholarship is overlooked, or a sort of “fresh conjecture directly from the text” mystique is cultivated. In fact, as early as the late nineteenth century, Imaizumi Yūsaku (1893) unequivocally stated that “たうさん” = “湯盞,” i.e., a shallow, flat bowl. In the 1930s, Nakao Manzō produced line drawings of such bowls (Figure 4, Nakao 1936), yet this earlier work has gone largely unnoticed by today’s scholars.
Similarly, regarding the “鼈盞 (Bié-Zhan)” and “能（皮）盞 (Nō-[Pi]-Zhan)” noted in 君台觀, Imaizumi’s research had already clarified their likely forms. He contended that the term “盞” in 君台觀 is the same as the Kobori Enshū-box-labeled “玳皮盞” (“tortoise-shell bowl”). He further suggested that “能 (nō)” is a scribal error for “態 (tai),” homophonous with 玳 (dai), leading to “能皮 (nō-pi)” = “玳皮 (dai-pi),” i.e., shell-like markings comparable to hawksbill turtle shell (玳瑁). These arguments have by now become standard knowledge, although many contemporary writers who adopt them do not credit Imaizumi’s role. Today, it is recognized that multiple kilns in Song-dynasty China produced wares imitating the tortoiseshell pattern, not just the famous Jizhou kiln in Jiangxi Province but also kilns such as Yaozhou in Shaanxi or Tushan in Sichuan. However, factoring in what types of Chinese wares were exported to Japan, the specimens unearthed at Japanese sites, as well as references in 君台觀 (where the bowl is described with bird/floral patterns) or in the 1728 Wakan Chashi by Mitani Munetsura (noting “玳比,” also known as “甲盞,” featuring designs of iris or plum blossoms), it appears that the tortoiseshell glazes and cut-paper resist floral/bird patterns from Jizhou in Jiangxi correspond to the “盞” and “能（皮）盞” described in 君台觀. Therefore, further archaeological excavations in China have indeed corroborated what Imaizumi suspected—that these two categories in 君台觀 were Jizhou products.
Although the earliest large-scale survey of Jizhou kiln sites in China was published in the 1950s, as far back as the 1930s the English researcher Brankston had already visited and reported on the kiln sites, providing the first field-archaeology report on Jizhou (Brankston 1938–1939). Interestingly, however, two years before Brankston’s study, Nakao Manzō had already speculated in 1936 that the Jizhou kiln near Ji’an might be where 君台觀’s “鼈盞” and “玳皮盞” were produced. Indeed, present data confirm that the Jizhou kiln sites stretch across both banks of the Gan River near Yonghe Town in Ji’an County. Nakao’s assertion was correct, yet his paper did not reveal his sources.
Haikatsuki Tenmoku (Hui Bei) and Fluctuations in Their Price
At the end of 君台觀 (“土之物”), after listing 曜變, 油滴, and 建盞, the haikatsuki tenmoku (hui bei) appears under the category “天目 (Tianmu).” Although the commentary notes that haikatsuki tenmoku (hui bei) were not for shogunal use (hence no price is listed), it also states “以灰被為上” (the haikatsuki tenmoku [hui bei] type being the highest grade), clearly designating it as the best within the Tianmu group.
From Takahashi Yoshio’s Taishō Meiki Kan (大正名器鑑) and its compilation of sources on haikatsuki tenmoku (hui bei), it is evident that tea connoisseurs from the Muromachi through the Edo periods evaluated them in various ways: some deemed them similar to Jian ware (Nō Asōden-shū), while others found their somewhat greyish glaze less like Jian ware (Chadō Shōden-shū). A general assessment held that a bowl with a green-black body and silvery glaze was “top grade” (Manpō Zensho). The fullest description appears in Chaki Meariden Setsu, noting a blue-black body with silver patches in the glaze, the more silver the better, creating grey-silver speckling—hence the name “灰被” (literally “grey-covered”). Koyama Fujio, in discussing haikatsuki tenmoku (hui bei) (a term coined in Japan), insightfully remarked that these bowls were placed in saggers during firing, just like Jian ware, so the grey tone was not from “falling ash” but rather from uneven kiln temperatures and partial under-firing (Koyama 1965; Yamazaki 1955).
In total, Taishō Meiki Kan records ten haikatsuki tenmoku (hui bei) bowls cherished in Japan over the centuries, including the Sakai family’s Yūyō (“Sunset,” Figure 5), the Masuda family’s Niji (“Rainbow,” Figure 6), and the Iwasaki family’s Umebie (“Buried Fire”), among other famous pieces. Contemporary scholarship on the history of the tea ceremony often stresses that, contrary to 君台觀’s note, haikatsuki tenmoku (hui bei) were not necessarily excluded from shogunal use. For example, among the so-called “Higashiyama Gomotsu” (東山御物) passed down in the shogunal collection may well have been “Rainbow” and “Sunset.” Both had belonged to the Four Shiseibō at Tōdai-ji Temple in Nara; “Sunset” is also documented in the fifth year of Tenmon (1536) in the Matsuya Kaiki when Matsuya Hisamasa attended a tea gathering at Shiseibō (Akanuma 2014, 2010). Naturally, Taishō Meiki Kan provides the relevant documentation; one can thus trace the transmission histories of numerous renowned bowls, including these two.
In this regard, the great compendium by Takahashi—who built on Matsudaira Fumifusa’s (1751–1818) Kokin Meibutsu Ruiju—is a veritable treasure for studying how famous tea utensils have moved and changed hands in Japan.
During the Azuchi–Momoyama period, Yamanoue Sōji (1522–1591), a disciple of Sen no Rikyū (1522–1591), compiled the tea treatise Yamanoue Sōji-ki in 1586 (the 14th year of Tenshō). It recorded shifts in the valuation of yōhen (曜變) and haikatsuki tenmoku (hui bei)—data often cited in studies on how “Tang object” aesthetics (唐物数奇) yielded to “rustic wabi aesthetics” (佗数奇), or how “shoin-style tea” gave way to “sōan tea.” In contrast to the absolute adoration of Chinese wares seen in 君台觀, where a yōhen bowl was priced at a lofty 10,000 hiku (with one hiku equivalent to ten mon), by the time of Yamanoue Sōji-ki, yōhen and oil-spot bowls were devalued as relatively commonplace wares (“daikarokimono”). In the “Tianmu” section of Yamanoue Sōji-ki, three outstanding haikatsuki tenmoku (hui bei) bowls are listed: one in the collection of Rikyū’s senior, Takeno Jōō (1502–1555), another owned by Toyotomi Hideyoshi (1537–1598), and the third by the wealthy merchant Aburaya in Sakai. These records reflect how late-sixteenth-century Japanese tea connoisseurs eschewed fine Chinese bowls in favor of wares conveying a colder, austere wabi aesthetic: Korean Ido bowls, domestically produced Raku or Seto ware, and those haikatsuki tenmoku (hui bei) with an often misty grey surface regarded as part of their “scenic” charm (Yabe 1990; Hayashiya 1980; Mitsuoka 1936). That said, while haikatsuki tenmoku (hui bei) were recognized as suitable for the wabi tearoom (sōan tea), Yamanoue Sōji pointed out that there were upper, middle, and lower grades (上中下在り), with presumably no small number of them, making it impossible to count them all (其カカス不知).
Interestingly, yōhen bowls, which Yamanoue once dismissed as vulgar, were soon “rehabilitated.” As early as the third year of Manji (1660), the Ganka Meibutsu-ki again accorded them high acclaim; likewise, Takahashi Yoshio’s Taishō Meiki Kan of the 1920s restored them to the top tier of Chinese-made tea bowls, mirroring the 君台觀 hierarchy.
Kiln Sites for Haikatsuki Tenmoku (Hui Bei)
Unlike the abovementioned “盞” and “能（皮）盞,” whose origins were confirmed soon after publication of excavation data, haikatsuki tenmoku (hui bei) were established much later. This delay arose largely because “灰被” is a Japanese term and classification, and documentation or appreciation of such bowls is unique to Japan. Without relevant Japanese-source information, Chinese archaeologists could not match their kiln-site finds to what Japan calls haikatsuki tenmoku (hui bei).
Looking at the historiography: aside from Imaizumi Yūsaku (1893), Miyake Chōsaku (1935), and Nakao Manzō (1936)—who tended to consider such bowls as kiln-variations of Jian ware—Fujioka Ryōichi (1961) noted that quite a few similar fragments had been found near Yuyao in Zhejiang Province, leading him to suspect the kiln site might be in that vicinity, with the Pingyao area near Tianmu Mountain as another possibility (Fujioka 1961). In 1965, Koyama Fujio thought the kiln site was in either Zhejiang or Fujian (Koyama 1965), but a few years later (1974) revised his stance to “somewhere in Fujian, not Jian,” a view that many Japanese scholars embraced from the 1970s to the early 2000s (e.g., Yabe Yoshiaki 1983; Nishida & Satō 1999 in Heibonsha’s Chinese Ceramics Series: Tianmu). There were, of course, exceptions: for instance, Ore’o Manabu and colleagues speculated that a haikatsuki tenmoku (hui bei)-type bowl (classified as ⑦-1) unearthed during the 45th investigation at the Dazaifu site (SX1200) in Kyushu might be from the Jizhou kilns of Jiangxi (Ore’o & Morimoto 1987).
In the twenty-first century, even amateur tea-ceremony enthusiasts may have heard that haikatsuki tenmoku (hui bei) are products of the Chayang kilns in present-day Nanping, in central Fujian Province—by now an accepted academic position. Yet earlier Japanese scholars did not quickly grasp the significance of the finds from the Chayang kiln, located about a hundred li south of Jian, near the Nanfu railway and the Min River. Although data from the Chayang kiln site had been made public in the 1980s (Fujian Provincial Museum et al. [Lin Zhonggan], 1983), it was largely overlooked in Japan, leading to an awkward situation in the 1990s. During a special exhibition titled Tangwu Tianmu: Fujian Jian Kiln Excavated Tianmu and Tianmu Passed Down in Japan, jointly organized by the Fujian Provincial Museum and the Japanese Tea Ceremony Museum (1994), the Fujian side exhibited a few black-glazed plates and bowl fragments from Chayang (Figure 8). While these pieces’ footwork resembled that of Japan’s haikatsuki tenmoku (hui bei), the key shape was unfortunately omitted from the display. Consequently, participants from both sides failed to realize the exhibited pieces contained clues about the kiln site. After the exhibition, I wrote an article referencing the excavation reports that indicated Chayang had yielded black-glazed bowls similar to haikatsuki tenmoku (hui bei) (Figure 9; Hsieh 1996), but my Japanese colleagues did not respond at the time. By now, it is unclear which Japanese scholar first confirmed that haikatsuki tenmoku (hui bei) were fired at Chayang; however, in twenty-first-century scholarship, attributing them to the Chayang kiln has become common knowledge. For instance, a 2002 retrospective essay celebrating the 30th anniversary of the Tōyō Tōji Gakkai (Oriental Ceramic Society) similarly labels haikatsuki tenmoku (hui bei) as Chayang products, relying solely on one scholar’s personal observations in the Fujian Provincial Museum (Akanuma 2002). Though direct observation is indispensable, ignoring published excavation reports is hardly commendable.
Once we mention the archaeological kiln site for haikatsuki tenmoku (hui bei), it is crucial to note that this so-called “灰被” category was established by the authors of 君台觀—the Muromachi shogunate’s close associates Nō AmI and Sō AmI—to distinguish them from “曜變,” “油滴,” “建盞,” and “烏盞.” According to Yamanoue Sōji-ki (1586), large numbers of haikatsuki tenmoku (hui bei) existed, subdivided into upper, middle, and lower ranks, and, given that the bodies and glazes of these “haikatsuki tenmoku (hui bei)” bowls (either excavated or extant in Japan) differ in subtle ways, further sub-classification may be needed. Such differences might reflect chronological gaps or different kilns in Fujian. Some leading connoisseurs (noting body feel, glaze coloration, weight, shape, etc.) have similarly emphasized the variety among “masterpieces” in Japan—some definitely from Chayang, others perhaps from other kilns in Fujian (Akanuma 2010).
In terms of shape, the representative haikatsuki tenmoku (hui bei) bowl differs from typical Jian bowls in that the lip’s “turtle-lip” (bie-kou) is less pronounced, the walls are thinner, and near the foot on the exterior there is a horizontally cut, angled groove. The foot ring itself is somewhat irregular; the line between the inner footwall and the interior base is indistinct, forming an inward curve. The black-brown glaze does not completely cover the foot, and one rarely sees the droplet-like glaze drips (垂珠) typical of Jian ware.
Dating Haikatsuki Tenmoku (Hui Bei)
The dating of haikatsuki tenmoku (hui bei) may be approached by examining excavated specimens from kiln sites (Figure 10) and from consumption sites (archaeological contexts) in Japan. Investigations of the Chayang kiln began in the 1980s, identifying shards scattered across five locations: Dalinggan, Maping, Shengyang, Wanchang, and Anhou Mountain. Dalinggan predominantly featured black-glazed accumulations, Anhou had primarily qingbai (blue-white) shards, and the remaining three sites had black, green, and qingbai wares coexisting. The initial report noted only that the finds were similar to other Song-Yuan material in Fujian, so the date was provisionally set around the Song-Yuan transition (Fujian Provincial Museum et al. [Lin Zhonggan], 1983).
In the 1990s, the Fujian Provincial Museum excavated the Dalinggan and Anhou Mountain sites further, uncovering eleven kilns. Finds included celadon, white ware, and black-glazed specimens. At Dalinggan (kilns Y3–Y5) and Anhou (Y5, Y6), the celadon and qingbai pieces dated to the Northern Song, whereas the haikatsuki tenmoku (hui bei) deep-bellied black-glazed bowls from Anhou Kiln No. 1 (Y1) were dated to the Yuan based on their coexistence with qingbai bowls matching Type I from Minqing’s Qingyao and Gelin kilns, plus shallow-bellied black-glazed bowls resembling pieces recovered from the Korean Sinan shipwreck (Fujian Provincial Museum [Li Jian’an et al.], 2000). Also, because the base stratum of Kiln No. 1 yielded exclusively Yuan qingbai ware, and by stratigraphy these haikatsuki tenmoku (hui bei) black bowls must predate the qingbai, it follows that these “Jian-style” black-glazed bowls from Chayang likely date to the late Southern Song–Yuan period (Li 1997). Some scholars have simply noted partial visual similarity between the Chayang black bowl shape (Type I) and Jian ware, proposing a Southern Song–Yuan date (Mei 1996). More recently, the Nanping Museum reexamined Maping, Anhou Mountain, and Wanchang, again finding black, green, and qingbai shards, plus some with painted floral designs. Haikatsuki tenmoku (hui bei) black bowls were found at all three sites (Figure 11), but the excavators simply repeated Li Jian’an’s late Southern Song–Yuan date (Nanping Museum [Yu Peng] 2018), without further explanation.
However, the main basis for dating Kiln No. 1 at Anhou—a type of Yuan qingbai bowl with large incised lotus petals on the inner wall and molded lotus or multiple-petal blossoms at the center (Figure 12)—appears in other Fujian kilns, such as Yiyao or Qingyao in Minqing County (Minqing Cultural Bureau [Ye Wencheng et al.], 1993). Similar items have also been excavated in Okinawa, Japan, specifically at the Biroosuku site on Ishigaki Island in the 1980s. There, a set of white porcelain bowls with gently folded rims came to be designated by Japanese scholars as the “Birosuku type” (Kanmu 1998). It also correlates to Morita Tsutomu’s “White Porcelain C Group,” which he tentatively dated to the fifteenth century based on Katsuren Castle contexts (Morita 1982). Tanaka Katsuko closely compared white porcelain from Ryukyu sites with Chinese kiln finds (including Chayang), noting that Chayang’s “slightly incurving” and “slightly flaring” qingbai bowl rims match Types II and III of the Birosuku typology. Based on Okinawan parallels and some Hakata finds, she dated these Chayang white bowls to roughly the early fourteenth through fifteenth centuries (Tanaka 2009a, 2009b). Tanaka further noted that the foot of these Chayang bowls, with an inward curve, is also reminiscent of the black-glazed bowls from the same kiln, implying that
haikatsuki tenmoku (hui bei) from Chayang likely date to the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries (Tanaka 2009a).
Meanwhile, at Hakata in Kyushu (Japan), along with a few Birosuku-type shards, many fragments of haikatsuki tenmoku (hui bei) have been unearthed. Morimoto Asako categorized black bowls from the Hakata sites into “Type VI” (Figure 13). The earliest example of that type was found at Dazaifu City SX1200 in a context associated with early to mid-fourteenth-century relics (see also Figure 7). Another piece from the Togami Kamibayashi site in Fukuoka Prefecture co-occurred with Chinese ceramics of the late fourteenth century, while yet another (No. 119) was found at a fifteenth-to-sixteenth-century site; its rim, having been damaged, was ground down and fitted with a wide metal strip. Because Morimoto noted that the Sinan shipwreck of 1323 (Zhizhi 3) did not include that black-bowl shape, she cautiously dated it to a time postdating the shipwreck. Yet from the latter half of the fourteenth century onward, nearly all black bowls from the Hakata sites are of Type V, and they continue into fifteenth-to-sixteenth-century layers. Morimoto concluded that Type V’s shape and foot are so similar to Japanese Seto–Mino bowls that it is nearly impossible to distinguish the two from line drawings alone (Morimoto 1994). Akanuma Taka concurred with Morimoto’s typological scheme and dating, emphasizing that haikatsuki tenmoku (hui bei) were produced in the late fifteenth century (Akanuma 1994, 2010). More recently, Mori Tatsuya proposed the second half of the fourteenth century to the early fifteenth for haikatsuki tenmoku (hui bei) (Mori 2018), though without citing specific evidence.
As discussed, the Chayang kiln comprises multiple sub-sites, producing several ceramic types, with some black-glazed shards going back as far as the Song. However, focusing specifically on the haikatsuki tenmoku (hui bei) type of black-glazed bowls, the Chinese side’s references to a Yuan (1271–1368) or late-Southern-Song-to-Yuan date often lack concrete evidence. By contrast, while older Japanese catalogues (pre-2000) often used a Southern Song–Yuan date, recent fieldwork in Japan tends to place haikatsuki tenmoku (hui bei) in fourteenth-to-sixteenth-century contexts based on stratigraphy and co-occurring finds. Furthermore, newly published data from Korea reveal that the Zhizhi 3 Sinan shipwreck had indeed salvaged some black-glazed bowls from Chayang (Figure 14, National Museum of Korea 2017). Morimoto had earlier presumed they did not appear in that wreck and thus assigned their earliest appearance to after 1323. With the new evidence, her timeline can be updated.
From all this, it appears haikatsuki tenmoku (hui bei) emerged around the early fourteenth century and remained common through the fifteenth, with sporadic finds in the sixteenth. For instance, a haikatsuki tenmoku (hui bei) found at the Ichijōdani site—originally the capital built by the Sengoku daimyō Asakura Takakage (1428–1481) in Echizen in 1469 (Bunmei 1), later destroyed in 1573 (Tenshō 1) by Oda Nobunaga—might date to the sixteenth century, though whether it reflects usage at the time or a later leftover is unconfirmed. Overall, whether one considers the dating of associated white porcelain from the Chayang kiln, the classification of black-glazed bowls of the Chayang type from Hakata, or the Sinan shipwreck data, one sees that the Chinese Fujian Chayang black bowls—later named haikatsuki tenmoku (hui bei) by Japanese tea connoisseurs—likely date from the early fourteenth to the fifteenth century, i.e., the late Yuan to early Ming period.
Early Seto Tea Bowls and Haikatsuki Tenmoku (Hui Bei)
Early Japanese ceramic history often mentions a legend that Kato Shirōzaemon, the first Seto potter, traveled to Song China to learn how to make Jian black-glazed bowls and introduced that craft to Japan (Kitajima 1903; Seto City History Compilation Committee 1978). While the legend is difficult to verify, the shape of ancient Seto tea bowls indeed closely resembles Song Jian ware (Figure 15), so researchers have often seen Jian ware as the model for early Seto bowls.
Some scholars even assert that the double-glazing method—an iron glaze topped with an ash glaze—in early Seto was intended to emulate Jian’s “rabbit-hair” patterns, with the application of iron slip to the exposed foot an expedient way to mimic Jian’s dark body (Okuda 1989). Yet the discussion of influences between ancient Seto tea bowls and Chinese black-glazed bowls also depends on how different researchers date the earliest Seto bowls, as well as on the gradually clarified dating and origin of haikatsuki tenmoku (hui bei).
For instance, A Cultural History of Ceramics (published by the National Museum of Japanese History) contends that early Seto, after the second quarter of the fourteenth century, was modeled on Jian ware. Seeing that Jian ware flourished during the late Northern Song to Southern Song (twelfth century), they believe there is a chronological gap, implying that antique Jian bowls then circulating in Japan served as the prototypes. They also point out that the Sinan shipwreck, which sank off Mokpo in 1323 en route to Japan, carried dozens of twelfth- to thirteenth-century Jian bowls, reflecting Japanese demand for Jian at that time (National Museum of Japanese History 1998).
By contrast, Ito Yoshifumi, building on Fujisawa Ryōsuke’s work, classified and dated Seto bowls differently. He proposed that Seto kilns, in the mid-phase of early Seto style (the “plate” period) in the mid-fourteenth century, began imitating Jian ware, forming ring-shaped feet and applying iron slip at the foot. Through the first half of the fifteenth century (Type B) and the latter half (Type C), by the early to mid-sixteenth century they developed a Type D whose foot, rim, and double-glaze technique strongly resemble haikatsuki tenmoku (hui bei) (Figure 16, Ito 1994). Ito’s chronology and classification insightfully show that Seto potters changed their reference models over time, supplanting a simple linear notion of “Seto copying Jian.” Specifically, Types A, B, and C at Seto were based on Jian, but by the mid-sixteenth century, Type D was consciously referencing haikatsuki tenmoku (hui bei).
Nevertheless, we should note that even in Seto’s later “kō phase” (late fourteenth to mid-fifteenth century), in Type B bowls one already sees horizontal cutting near the foot on the exterior and an unclear boundary between the inner footwall and base, forming an inward curve—features absent in Jian yet reminiscent of Chayang haikatsuki tenmoku (hui bei) (see Figure 16).
As the Sinan shipwreck relics indicate, by the early fourteenth century small quantities of both old Song Jian bowls and Chayang-type haikatsuki tenmoku (hui bei) were reaching Japan. In the latter fourteenth century, black bowls at Hakata sites were dominated by haikatsuki tenmoku (hui bei), continuing intermittently up to the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. The Sō AmI version of 君台觀, dated to Eishō 8 (1511), states that although haikatsuki tenmoku (hui bei) were not for the shogunate, they were the best among the Tianmu group; likewise, Yamanoue Sōji-ki, compiled in Tenshō 14 (1586), also praised them highly. As noted, the relative date of Chayang haikatsuki tenmoku (hui bei) is fourteenth to fifteenth century, yet by the early sixteenth century Seto potters were producing Type D bowls indistinguishable from that style. Even in the late fourteenth to mid-fifteenth century, Seto (Type B) already had partial haikatsuki tenmoku (hui bei) features. Hence, ancient Seto kilns initially copied Jian ware in the mid-fourteenth century (Fujisawa 1978–1982) but then gradually developed forms close to the haikatsuki tenmoku (hui bei) style from the late fourteenth to fifteenth century, culminating in faithful reproductions by the sixteenth. Likewise, Yamanoue’s devaluation of yōhen and oil-spot Jian in favor of praising haikatsuki tenmoku (hui bei) occurred in this period.
Concluding Remarks
As mentioned, not all haikatsuki tenmoku (hui bei) unearthed or passed down in Japan derive from the same era or the same single kiln. When transmitted, owners or their knowledgeable acquaintances sometimes misidentified them. For example, one piece in the Tokugawa Art Museum—a Jian bowl with a metal-rim fitting (Figure 17)—passed down from Torii Hiketsu and Tokugawa Ieyasu (1543–1616) is the only extant specimen with documented provenance among the Tianmu wares mentioned in Yamanoue Sōji-ki. Most scholars believe that because its tea-brown glaze has a metallic luster, it was not only described as haikatsuki tenmoku (hui bei) in the Manji 3 (1660) Ganka Meibutsu-ki, but was labeled “灰蒙御天目” (haimō gotenmoku) on both the inner and outer lids of its wooden box. Account records, such as those from Keian 4 (1651) and Genroku 2 (1689) (Jōgo suki godōgu), also label it as “御天目 灰蒙.” “灰蒙” is another term for “灰被,” thus exemplifying how a Jian bowl came to be identified as haikatsuki tenmoku (hui bei) (Tokugawa Art Museum 2019).
By contrast, the relationship between haikatsuki tenmoku (hui bei) and the similarly Japanese-named “yellow Tianmu” (黄天目) is murkier. In Yamanoue Sōji-ki, after the “Tianmu” (haikatsuki tenmoku [hui bei]) entry, there is a separate “yellow Tianmu” category noted as somewhat inferior (Kira 2016). A piece said to have passed from Murata Jukō (1423–1502) to Hosokawa Sansai (1563–1646)—kept today in the Eisei Bunko—resembles haikatsuki tenmoku (hui bei) almost exactly (Figure 18), yet on its inner box lid is Kobori Enshū’s (1579–1647) inscription “珠光天目 黄” (“Jukō’s Tianmu, Yellow”), implying that Jukō once owned a “yellow Tianmu.” Taishō Meiki Kan refers to this piece as “Jukō’s Tianmu,” but adds the note “灰被,” seemingly disregarding Kobori’s designation. Stylistically, the Eisei Bunko’s “Jukō Tianmu,” as well as the famous “Numata” (沼田) yellow Tianmu (Figure 19), are indeed of the haikatsuki tenmoku (hui bei) type, which is also the consensus in ceramic-history circles today. Some tea authorities hold a different view, claiming the “Numata” piece’s clay is whiter, though still acknowledging that many extant haikatsuki tenmoku (hui bei) and yellow Tianmu bowls are from the Chayang kilns of Fujian (Akanuma 2010). In this article, I leave aside the “yellow Tianmu” classification—fraught as it is with uncertainties and reliant on tea practitioners’ judgments. Respecting the tea world’s own framework, one might still rely on standard ceramic-historical methods to compare shapes and kiln-site examples, focusing on the Chayang haikatsuki tenmoku (hui bei) style. It is worth mentioning that Kira Fumio pointed out a mid-seventeenth-century text by Konoe Taishi, Chadō Bunjin (慶安四年, 1651), which includes an illustration of the horizontally cut lower wall typical of haikatsuki tenmoku (hui bei) (Kira 2016). After reviewing the manuscript reprinted from the Kyoto Yōmei Bunko (Nawa 1994), I realized Konoe grouped the so-called haikatsuki tenmoku (hui bei), yellow Tianmu, and “plain Tianmu” into one category with horizontal cuts near the foot, whereas yōhen Jian ware belongs to another category with a smooth curve from wall to foot (Figure 20). This same observation is used today by collectors and scholars to distinguish between Jian ware and haikatsuki tenmoku (hui bei).
Another entry in the official diary of the abbot’s quarters at Shōkoku-ji in Kyoto, Inryōken Nichiroku, mentions a Jian bowl in a context that may relate to haikatsuki tenmoku (hui bei) or Seto ware. The note from the twentieth day of the second month of Ende (1490) reads:
“Someone asked: ‘How are Your Excellency’s Jian bowls?’ I replied: ‘New Jian bowls should not be used. Only antique Jian bowls are acceptable. If no antique Jian bowl is available, perhaps we can use the temple’s Jian bowl instead.’”
“Antique Jian bowls” clearly refer to Song Jian ware. Satō Toyozō, who first located this text, further inferred that “new Jian bowls” might mean Seto wares imitating Jian—just a hypothesis (Satō 1979). But with the dating of haikatsuki tenmoku (hui bei) now clarified, some propose that “new Jian bowl” could refer to bowls imported during the fifteenth century (Akanuma 2010). Either theory is hard to prove. Regardless, it is worth noting that by the late fifteenth century, numerous older Jian bowls seem to have circulated among shops and collectors in Japan, easily purchased if one had the right connections. For example, just two years after the above entry, in the fourth year of Ende (1492), the Kitano Tenmangū shrine official Shōbai-in purchased a Jian bowl and bowl stand for eight kan-mon from a local tea merchant, Matsukage, to host a tea gathering for the shogunal regent Hosokawa Masamoto (1466–1507) (Kitano Shake Nikki, Ono 2008). One kan was equivalent to one hundred hiku, with one hiku equaling ten mon; at that time, one koku of rice cost about 769 mon (Momose 1957), so eight kan (8,000 mon) was a high price indeed.
As noted, there are two extant lines of 君台觀: one by Nō AmI and one by Sō AmI. The Sō AmI version (1511) states that haikatsuki tenmoku (hui bei) were not for the shogunate and no price was recorded; but the version included in Qunshu Leizong (1476) ascribed 500 hiku (5,000 mon) to them. If true, that suggests some haikatsuki tenmoku (hui bei) fetched quite substantial sums.
Finally, from the latter half of the fourteenth century onward, black bowls from the Hakata region were mostly haikatsuki tenmoku (hui bei). Numerically, even more perplexing is that over five hundred fragments have reportedly been discovered at Shuri Castle in Okinawa—why so many there? Perhaps it reflects the Ryukyu Kingdom’s role as an intermediary in maritime trade, or perhaps Japan was commissioning a “Jian ware” style from Fujian’s Chayang (Mori 2018). I have no certain solution, nor can I evaluate whether Fuzhou-based shipping was involved. Yet we do know from the Sinan shipwreck’s cargo—dozens of Song Jian bowls likely bound for Japan—that Chinese and Japanese merchants had a solid grasp of which products were salable, as well as intelligence on local demand.
Lastly, one might highlight the matter of two-layer glaze on haikatsuki tenmoku (hui bei). Many extant haikatsuki tenmoku (hui bei) or “yellow Tianmu” bowls in Japan, plus Chayang kiln finds, show that the black glaze coats a base layer of a lighter-colored glaze—a feature that connoisseurs find aesthetically appealing. A mid-seventeenth-century source, Chadō Bunjin, remarks that haikatsuki tenmoku (hui bei) have a black or blue-black body, a yellowish base glaze, and a silverish top layer. As awareness of Chayang finds has grown, the question of whether they employed “two separate glazes” has reemerged, yet observers differ in their judgments. Rather than recount each viewer’s impressions, I would note conclusions from ceramic technology and potters’ attempts to recreate haikatsuki tenmoku (hui bei).
A ceramic studio in Nanping, Fujian, carried out trial firings and concluded that the two-layer glaze on Chayang haikatsuki tenmoku (hui bei) bowls is actually the same glaze applied twice to a raw body by dipping; the top layer is thicker, the bottom layer thinner, to avoid dripping and adhesion at the foot under high firing (Sun 2005). Separately, the Japanese potter Nagae Sōkichi—renowned for trying to recreate yōhen bowls—found in experiments that haikatsuki tenmoku (hui bei) are glazed twice with the same glaze: a thinner first coat, then a second thicker coat on top (Nagae 2015). I concur that they involved double-application of the same glaze rather than two different glazes.
(Author: Professor at the Graduate Institute of Art History, National Taiwan University)
Frequently Asked Questions on Haikatsuki Tenmoku Tea Bowls
What is a haikatsuki tenmoku (灰被天目) tea bowl, and how is it classified within the context of other Chinese tea bowls?
Haikatsuki tenmoku, often translated as "grey-covered tenmoku," are a type of black-glazed tea bowl. In the 15th-century Japanese text Kundaikan Sochoki (君台観), they are classified under the "Tenmoku" category, which is a broader term for black-glazed bowls, specifically from the Jian kilns, and are considered the highest grade within that group. While the Kundaikan does not list a price for haikatsuki tenmoku because they were considered not for shogunal use, it notes "以灰被為上," or "with grey covering being the highest," denoting their high standing. They are distinguished from other types of Tenmoku bowls like yohen (曜變) and yuteki (油滴) which are considered higher in value and importance in Kundaikan.
How did the appreciation for haikatsuki tenmoku tea bowls evolve over time in Japan, and what role did they play in the development of tea culture?
Initially, as seen in the Kundaikan, there was a strong preference for elaborate, high-value Chinese tea bowls, particularly yohen and yuteki. However, by the 16th century, as documented in Yamanoue Sōji-ki (山上宗二記), there was a shift towards a more "wabi" aesthetic, emphasizing simplicity and rusticity. Haikatsuki tenmoku bowls, with their greyish, sometimes mottled glaze, became highly valued for their understated beauty and alignment with this new aesthetic. While once considered less valuable than other Tenmoku wares, haikatsuki came to be appreciated as a standard of the tea ceremony, and some were owned by important figures like Takeno Joo and even Toyotomi Hideyoshi.
What are the key physical characteristics that distinguish haikatsuki tenmoku bowls from other types of black-glazed tea bowls, particularly those from the Jian kilns?
Haikatsuki tenmoku bowls, while similar to Jian bowls, have distinct features. They typically have a thinner wall and a less defined "turtle lip" (bie-kou) at the rim. A key feature is a horizontal cut or slight angle near the foot on the exterior. The foot ring itself tends to be less regular and the transition between the inner foot wall and the base is blurred creating an inward curve. The glaze, while black or brownish, often exhibits a greyish or silvery hue due to a double layering of the same glaze material, and rarely has the prominent "tear-drop" drips of glaze seen in Jian ware.
Where were haikatsuki tenmoku tea bowls produced, and how has the understanding of their origin evolved over time?
For many years, scholars debated the origin of haikatsuki tenmoku. Some believed they were variations of Jian ware, others suggested kilns near Yuyao in Zhejiang Province. However, it is now widely accepted that they were produced at the Chayang kilns in Nanping, Fujian Province, China. Although archaeological data from Chayang had been available since the 1980s, Japanese scholars were initially slow to connect them to the haikatsuki tenmoku bowls. By the 21st century, the identification was cemented, with the Chayang kiln recognized as the primary source.
How have archaeological findings and other historical sources helped to determine the dating of haikatsuki tenmoku tea bowls?
Initially, haikatsuki tenmoku were dated to the Southern Song or Yuan Dynasties by Chinese scholars. However, Japanese archaeological finds, notably from the Hakata region and Okinawa, along with analysis of the associated artifacts, including the “Birosuku Type” of white porcelain have led scholars to place the production of haikatsuki tenmoku primarily in the 14th to 15th centuries (late Yuan to early Ming). The Sinan shipwreck, although primarily featuring Jian ware from the Song, also included pieces from the Chayang kiln, proving production of haikatsuki began before that shipwreck of 1323.
What is the relationship between haikatsuki tenmoku tea bowls and the early Seto ware produced in Japan?
Early Seto ware was influenced by Jian bowls, with early Seto potters attempting to replicate their forms and glazes. However, as research and archaeological discoveries of haikatsuki tenmoku became better understood, the later Seto potters began imitating the form and design of these wares, creating a Type D ware with the same characteristic horizontal cut near the foot of the exterior, the foot shape and double layering of glaze seen in haikatsuki wares, moving beyond the original inspiration of Jian wares. Thus, Seto styles shifted from imitating Jian ware, to the imitating the newly appreciated haikatsuki ware.
How do scholarly interpretations and documentation affect the understanding of these bowls, and what are the challenges associated with that understanding?
Scholarly documentation has played an important role in shaping and changing opinions about the bowls. For instance, there is a consistent habit of focusing on previously held opinion and overlooking earlier discoveries, like Nakao Manzo’s work on the “tōsan” and the Jizhou kilns. Another example is how the Taisho Meikikan documented the transmission histories of many famous haikatsuki pieces, including “Sunset” and “Rainbow.” Another major issue is how tea practitioners have created their own classification systems for the bowls, with such an example being the creation of the "yellow tianmu" category of bowls, further complicating the interpretation of the historical record, where often the terms are used interchangeably.
What recent findings and new understandings have arisen about haikatsuki tenmoku tea bowls?
Recent research has reinforced the identification of the Chayang kiln as the primary source of these bowls and refined their dating to the 14th-15th century. There is now a stronger consensus that the distinctive glaze effect results from a double application of the same glaze material, rather than a deliberate use of two different glazes. Furthermore, research has shown that multiple kilns, even within the Chayang area, could have been making haikatsuki bowls, and some of the variation in the bowls may reflect different production sites or time periods, demonstrating the complexity and diversity of these ceramic works. Finally, new information on the trading routes and distribution of the bowls through shipwrecks like the Sinan and other archaeological finds in Japan and Okinawa are demonstrating the international impact and appeal of these wares.
Timeline of Main Events
Kamakura to Edo Period: Use of "疋" (hiku) as a currency unit in Japan.
14th Century (early):Emergence of haikatsuki tenmoku (hui bei) style black-glazed bowls from the Chayang kilns in Fujian, China, and their export to Japan.
Small quantities of Chayang haikatsuki type bowls and Song Jian bowls reach Japan, as evidenced by the Sinan shipwreck cargo.
Early examples of Seto ware in Japan start to appear.
14th Century (mid):Seto ware begins to imitate Jian ware.
14th Century (late):Hakata (Kyushu) archaeological sites show a dominance of the haikatsuki type bowl in black-glazed ceramics.
Seto ware begins to exhibit bowl shapes that resemble haikatsuki type, with horizontal cuts near the foot.
1423-1502: Murata Juko lives, influences the development of the tea ceremony.
1428-1481: Asakura Takakage builds his capital at Ichijōdani, Japan.
1466-1507: Hosokawa Masamoto becomes the Shogunal regent.
1469 (Bunmei 1): Asakura Takakage establishes his capital at Ichijōdani.
1476: The Nōami version of the Kundaikan Sōchōki is compiled, giving the price of a haikatsuki bowl as 500 hiku.
1490 (Ende 2): Inryōken Nichiroku records a conversation about Jian bowls, including the possible use of a "new Jian bowl".
1492 (Ende 4): Kitano Tenmangu shrine purchases Jian bowls for a tea gathering.
1502-1555: Takeno Jōō, a tea master, lives and collects haikatsuki bowls.
1511: The Sōami version of the Kundaikan Sōchōki is compiled, noting that haikatsuki bowls were not used by the Shogunate.
1522-1591: Sen no Rikyū, influential tea master, lives.
1534-1586: Oda Nobunaga burns Ichijōdani down.
1536 (Tenmon 5): Matsuya Hisamasa attends a tea gathering at Shiseibō and sees the "Sunset" bowl.
1537-1598: Toyotomi Hideyoshi, Japanese warlord and daimyo lives.
1563-1646: Hosokawa Sansai lives and collects "Yellow Tianmu" bowls.
1573 (Tensho 1): Ichijōdani destroyed by Oda Nobunaga
1579-1647: Kobori Enshū, prominent tea master, lives and labels tea bowls.
1586 (Tenshō 14): Yamanoue Sōji compiles his tea treatise, Yamanoue Sōji-ki, where haikatsuki bowls are highly praised, and the price of yōhen bowls has plummeted.
1660 (Manji 3): Ganka Meibutsu-ki again highly evaluates yōhen bowls.
1651 (Keian 4): Konoe Taishi's Chado Bunjin is published, depicting a characteristic horizontal cut in the lower walls of haikatsuki type bowls.
1728: Mitani Munetsura's Wakan Chashi is published, containing descriptions of "甲盏 (Ko-Zan)" which are likely to be the same as daipi-zan.
1751-1818: Matsudaira Fumifusa, Japanese daimyo, lives.
1860-1937: Takahashi Yoshio (Hoan) lives, compiles Taisho Meiki Kan.
1893: Imaizumi Yūsaku first identifies to-san as a soup bowl.
1920s: Takahashi Yoshio publishes the Taishō Meiki Kan, restoring yōhen to the highest position in the hierarchy of Chinese tea bowls, also documenting the history of haikatsuki bowls.
1930s:Nakao Manzo makes line drawings of to-san bowls, and also suggests that Jizhou might be the kiln site of the "turtle-shell bowls".
Miyake Chosaku writes about the connection of haikatsuki bowls and Jian ware.
Brankston publishes the first field-archeological report on the Jizhou kiln.
1950s The earliest large-scale survey of the Jizhou kiln sites in China is published.
1960s-1970s: Scholarly debate regarding the kiln site of haikatsuki bowls, with some suggesting the Zhejiang area or various locations within Fujian.
1980s:Excavations begin at Chayang kiln sites in Fujian, with findings released.
Initial identification of the Biroosuku Type of white porcelain bowl unearthed at the Biroosuku site on Ishigaki Island.
1990s:Fujian Provincial Museum and Japanese Tea Ceremony Museum co-host an exhibition which displays Chayang ware, missing the important haikatsuki form.
1994: The Hakata archaeological finds are published, categorizing excavated black ware.
2000s:
The date of Yuan qingbai bowls is refined, leading to an adjustment in dating of haikatsuki type bowls.
2002: The 30th anniversary of the Tōyō Tōji Gakkai (Oriental Ceramic Society) is celebrated, with a focus on the Chayang kiln.
21st Century: The Chayang kiln site in Fujian is widely accepted as the origin of haikatsuki tenmoku (hui bei) bowls and their typical stylistic features are defined.
Cast of Characters
Nō AmI and Sō AmI: Art connoisseurs and close associates of the Muromachi shogunate. They are the authors of the Kundaikan Sōchōki and its classification of tea bowls.
Takahashi Yoshio (Hoan, 1860-1937): Japanese tea master and compiler of Taishō Meiki Kan, a significant resource for the history of tea utensils. He meticulously studied Kundaikan Sōchōki and sought to connect textual descriptions with extant artifacts.
Imaizumi Yūsaku: Late 19th century Japanese scholar who clarified the meanings of several terms in Kundaikan Sōchōki, including to-san.
Tani Shin’ichi: Japanese scholar who interpreted to-san as tō-san or rabbit-hair bowl.
Okuda: Contemporary scholar who interprets to-san as yu-san or soup bowl.
Akanuma Taka: Contemporary scholar who interprets to-san as yu-san.
Brankston: English researcher who produced the first field archaeology report on the Jizhou kiln in the 1930s.
Nakao Manzō: Japanese scholar who, in the 1930s, made drawings of to-san and suggested the kiln site of turtle-shell bowls might be at Jizhou.
Koyama Fujio: Japanese scholar who wrote about haikatsuki bowls and their production, clarifying that their grey color was due to the firing process, not falling ash.
Yamazaki: Scholar mentioned alongside Koyama, also discussing the firing process of haikatsuki.
Matsuya Hisamasa: A person who saw the "Sunset" bowl in 1536 at a tea gathering at Shiseibō.
Matsudaira Fumifusa: (1751-1818) A daimyo who wrote Kokin Meibutsu Ruiju, which formed the basis of Taisho Meiki Kan.
Yamanoue Sōji (1522-1591): A disciple of Sen no Rikyū and author of Yamanoue Sōji-ki, which documented the shifting valuations of tea bowls in the 16th century and the shift from Chinese to wabi tea aesthetics.
Sen no Rikyū (1522-1591): Highly influential Japanese tea master, instrumental in the development of wabi tea aesthetics.
Takeno Jōō (1502-1555): A tea master and collector of haikatsuki bowls who was senior to Sen no Rikyū.
Toyotomi Hideyoshi (1537-1598): A powerful Japanese warlord and daimyo who collected haikatsuki bowls.
Aburaya: A wealthy merchant in Sakai who owned a haikatsuki bowl.
Miyake Chōsaku: Japanese scholar who wrote about the connection of haikatsuki bowls and Jian ware in the 1930s.
Fujiwara Ryōichi: Japanese scholar who wrote about the discovery of similar bowl shards near Yuyao in Zhejiang.
Yabe Yoshiaki: Japanese scholar who asserted a Fujian origin for haikatsuki bowls in the 1980s.
Nishida & Satō: Authors in the Heibonsha’s Chinese Ceramics Series: Tianmu who supported the Fujian origin.
Ore'o Manabu and Morimoto: Scholars who proposed that Jizhou might be the source of some haikatsuki type bowls in Japan.
Lin Zhonggan: A member of the Fujian Provincial Museum, who was involved in the 1983 release of data from the Chayang kiln.
Li Jian’an: A member of the Fujian Provincial Museum who wrote about the dating of the Anhou kiln sites, particularly kilns Y1, Y3, Y5 and Y6.
Hsieh Ming-liang: The author of the provided text, a professor of art history at the National Taiwan University.
Kanmu: Japanese scholar who identified the Biroosuku Type of white porcelain bowls.
Morita Tsutomu: Japanese scholar who classified the "White Porcelain C Group" of white wares.
Tanaka Katsuko: Japanese scholar who analyzed and compared white porcelain from Ryukyu sites with Chinese kilns and who linked the dating of those vessels to that of haikatsuki bowls.
Morimoto Asako: Japanese scholar who classified black-glazed bowls from Hakata archaeological sites.
Mori Tatsuya: Japanese scholar who proposed a timeline of production for haikatsuki type bowls spanning from the late 14th to the early 15th centuries.
Oda Nobunaga (1534-1586): A powerful Japanese daimyo who destroyed the city of Ichijōdani.
Asakura Takakage (1428-1481): A daimyo who built the city of Ichijōdani, where a haikatsuki bowl was discovered.
Kato Shirozaemon: The legendary first Seto potter who is said to have learned to make Jian-style black ware in China.
Okuda: Japanese scholar who wrote about Seto wares and their connection to Jian ware.
Ito Yoshifumi: Japanese scholar who classified and dated Seto bowls, showing the evolution from Jian to Haikatsuki influence.
Fujisawa Ryōsuke: Japanese scholar on whose work Ito's study of Seto ware builds.
Torii Hiketsu: An early owner of a famous Jian bowl, passed down to Tokugawa Ieyasu.
Tokugawa Ieyasu (1543-1616): A major daimyo and shogun who owned the famous Jian bowl.
Hosokawa Sansai (1563-1646): Japanese daimyo and tea practitioner who owned a famous "Yellow Tianmu".
Kobori Enshū (1579-1647): Japanese daimyo and influential tea master who labeled the famous "Yellow Tianmu".
Kira Fumio: Japanese scholar who noted the significance of Konoe Taishi's illustrations in Chado Bunjin.
Konoe Taishi: A 17th-century Japanese noble who wrote Chadō Bunjin, providing key images of haikatsuki bowls.
Satō Toyozō: Japanese scholar who first identified the record of "new Jian bowls" in Inryōken Nichiroku.
Hosokawa Masamoto (1466-1507): A powerful Shogunal Regent who visited the Kitano Tenmangu shrine and for whom Jian bowls were purchased.
Momose: Japanese scholar who determined the price of rice in Japan at the time of the Inryōken Nichiroku entry.
Sun: Chinese ceramic specialist from Nanping, Fujian, who analyzed the glaze construction of Chayang ware.
Nagae Sōkichi: Japanese potter who experimented with reproducing Yōhen bowls and researched the double glazing of haikatsuki bowls.
Mitani Munetsura: Author of Wakan Chashi, a 1728 text that recorded information about types of tea bowls, including possible references to daipi-zan.
Ye Wencheng: A member of the Minqing County Cultural Bureau who worked on publications of archeological finds in the area.
Yu Peng: Member of the Nanping City Museum, whose report included more archeological discoveries at Chayang.
Commentaires