Longquan celadon: a quantitative archaeological analysis of a pan-Indian Ocean industry of the 12 th to 15 th centuries

Full text

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rwar20
World Archaeology
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rwar20
Longquan celadon: a quantitative archaeological
analysis of a pan-Indian Ocean industry of the 12th
to 15th centuries
Ran Zhang, Derek Kennet, Peter J. Brown, Xiaohang Song, Wang Guangyao,
Yi Zhai & Mingjun Wu
To cite this article: Ran Zhang, Derek Kennet, Peter J. Brown, Xiaohang Song, Wang Guangyao,
Yi Zhai & Mingjun Wu (2023): Longquan celadon: a quantitative archaeological analysis
of a pan-Indian Ocean industry of the 12th to 15th centuries, World Archaeology, DOI:
10.1080/00438243.2023.2216183
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.2023.2216183
© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa
UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group.
Published online: 12 Jun 2023.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 723
View related articles
View Crossmark data

Longquan celadon: a quantitative archaeological analysis of a
pan-Indian Ocean industry of the 12
th
to 15
th
centuries
Ran Zhang
a
, Derek Kennet
a
, Peter J. Brown
b
, Xiaohang Song
a
, Wang Guangyao
c
, Yi Zhai
c
and Mingjun Wu
d
a
Department of Archaeology, Durham University, Durham, UK;
b
Department of History, Art History and Classics, Radboud
University , Nijmegen, the Netherlands;
c
Collection Department, The Palace Museum, Beijing, China;
d
Director Office,
Longquan Celadon Museum, Zhejiang, China
ABSTRACT
This paper examines the Longquan celadon industry, located in Zhejiang
province in China, which ourished mainly between the Southern Song and
early Ming dynasties. The products of this industry are found on archaeological
sites across China and the Indian Ocean. This paper attempts a quantied
analysis of the development of the industry based on archaeological data,
focussing on four aspects: production, domestic consumption, overseas con-
sumption and, to a lesser degree, workshop organisation. Although much of
the data is still problematic, and many of the conclusions drawn are necessarily,
therefore, tentative, these are the only data available. They allow us at least to
demonstrate the value and timeliness of the approach by charting the devel-
opment of this industry and by arguing that the close integration of the four
aspects examined indicates that the Longquan celadon industry was an indus-
try of considerable economic signicance across much of the Indian Ocean.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 18 December 2022
Accepted 16 May 2023
KEYWORDS
Chinese trade ceramics;
Indian Ocean trade; medieval
economy; economic history
Introduction
From the 8
th
/9
th
centuries onwards the maritime trade routes of the Indian Ocean superseded the
overland routes (the ‘Silk Road’) to become the main forum for economic and cultural interaction
between China, Southeast Asia, South Asia, the Islamic world, East Africa, and, to a more limited
degree, the Mediterranean and Europe (e.g. Von Glahn 2016, 216–7, 270–73). The advantages of cost
and scale that maritime trade had over land trade allowed increased interaction and led to the
Indian Ocean becoming the key catalyst in an increasingly integrated Eurasian-African economy.
The eects of this on the economic, cultural, and social development of the regions surrounding the
ocean were profound and far-reaching (e.g. Von Glahn 2016, chapter 6; Abu-Lughod 1989; Park
2012; Chaudhuri 1985, 1990; Clark 1991; Reid 1993; Christie 1998).
The degree to which the economies and societies of these regions engaged, the eect
the engagement had, and the precise mechanisms through which it occurred, are in most
cases still poorly understood. Before about 1600 AD relatively little historical evidence is
CONTACT Ran Zhang ran.zhang@dur.ac.uk Department of Archaeology, Durham University, A1: South Road, Durham DH7
8LE, England, UK
WORLD ARCHAEOLOGY
https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.2023.2216183
© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creative
commons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is
properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way. The terms on which this article has been published allow the posting of the
Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent.

recorded of the activities of merchants, especially medium- and small-scale merchants, the
function of coastal emporia and seasonal fairs, or of the activities of manufacturers and
consumers of traded products. Certainly, too little information is available to allow
a coherent reconstruction of the interaction. This is partly because most mercantile activities
occurred far outside the narrow street light of written history, and partly because, where
historical records are available – specically for China, which is the focus of this paper – they
come from a historical tradition that is culturally, politically, and institutionally highly
centralised, and does not necessarily reect the full range of relevant activities (e.g.
Wilkinson 2017, 15–20). It is certainly true that China’s relationship with the sea and with
maritime commerce – in all periods – has been substantially revised in recent years and is
increasingly understood to have been a signicant aspect of the Chinese economy (Po 2018;
Lo 2012; Zheng 2012).
The lack of detailed historical documentation is to some degree compensated for by the
extraordinary ceramic archaeological record, in particular of Chinese ‘trade’ or ‘export’ ceramics.
These ceramics were one of the primary trade commodities from the later Tang to the Qing periods,
and were widely traded for their own intrinsic value rather than simply as containers or ‘piggy-back’
commodities (e.g. Chaudhuri 1985, 39, 185–186; Chaudhuri 1990, 333–336). The broken sherds of
these ceramic vessels are found, sometimes in huge quantities, around most of the Indian Ocean
coasts. They occur on large and small sites, urban and rural sites, coastal and inland sites, and high-
and low-status sites (e.g. Zhang 2016; Heng 2005; Krahl 1986; Rougeulle 1996). They survive well in
the archaeological record. In many cases, they can be precisely dated and provenanced (Zhang
2016; Kennet 2004, 59–70; Priestman 2021, 164–196). As a ‘dataset’, these sherd assemblages
contain a wealth of largely untapped information on the extent and the ebbs and ows of trading
networks through time. Archaeologists are only now beginning to exploit this dataset eectively in
order to reconstruct patterns of trade. In an area of study that has traditionally been dominated by
an art-historical, object-focussed approach developed for museum objects, new methods of archae-
ological classication, including quantied assemblage-focussed approaches are needed if the value
of this Chinese ceramic dataset is to be fully exploited (Miksic 2022, 179; Zhang 2016; Priestman
2021; Rougeulle 1996; Horton 1996; Kennet 2004).
The aim of this paper is therefore to examine some of this material using such a methodology
with two aims: 1) to attempt to map the development of trade volume through time, and 2) to
investigate the relationship between Chinese domestic production/consumption and Indian Ocean
trade in order to understand what the eects of this interaction were. The chronological focus will
be from the later Northern Song to the earlier Ming period (12
th
to 15
th
century).
The framework of China’s developing relationship with maritime trade from the later Tang period
onwards has been established from historical sources and seems to tally broadly with the archae-
ological evidence that presently exists. The received wisdom envisages a signicant development in
maritime trade, marked by the export of ceramics, during the later Tang era (9
th
/10
th
century AD),
which increased again during the Song ‘commercial revolution’, in particular after the Southern
Song move to the south in the early 12
th
century, and then rapidly again during the Yuan period
(1279–1368 AD), which is viewed as a period of markedly increased maritime trade, before under-
going a period of decline during the early Ming period (1368–1560 AD) (e.g. Harrisson 1958, 270–
273, 278–284; Brown 2009, 67; Miksic 2022, 184–204; Yoshinobu 1983; Beaujard 2019, 155, 159; Lin
2006; Rossabi 2014, 274–283; Von Glahn 2016). However, this framework has never been tested in
detail against measurable archaeological data. It remains possible that very signicant geographical
and diachronic uctuations occurred that are not visible through historical sources alone.
2R. ZHANG ET AL.

Despite the large numbers of export-ceramic kilns that have been excavated across China, little
research has been undertaken using methodologies capable of investigating the organisation and
development of this production and its signicance to the Chinese economy. The most important
exception to this was based in South Fujian Province and focussed on 11
th
to 14
th
century ceramics
manufactured for export (Ho 2000). This work mapped out the development of production over 200
years, suggesting a dynamic, highly-organised industry with high levels of skill and investment,
which catered largely to overseas markets but which had a profound eect on the regional economy
(Ho 2000, 255–274). Billy K.L. So expanded this analysis further to the south, and reinforced the idea
of a strong integration into the regional economy of overseas ceramics trade, in which he suggests
a high proportion of the population was engaged (So 2000, 186–201). Despite the indications of the
important eect that export production had on parts of the Chinese economy, this has not been
followed up by research that examines this topic in detail.
The present paper will attempt to take this topic further, focussing on the Longquan greenware
or ‘celadon’ industry – located about 400 km to the north and 150 km inland – from the Song to the
Ming periods. When ‘Longquan celadons’ are referred to here, the implication is that these were
manufactured at the Longquan kilns (which are described below), and some eort has been made
to check this, although it is inevitable that some misidentications and imitation wares from other
locations may have been included.
The predominance of Longquan celadons amongst Chinese export ceramics in the Indian Ocean
during this period has already been noted by a number of scholars (e.g. Carswell [1976] 1977; Carter
et al. 2020; Brown 2009; Morgan 1991; Qin 2017; Zhao 2012) but a synthetic, quantied analysis has
never been attempted. The present analysis will take a rst step towards rectifying this. It will be
carried out at a less precise chronological scale, but at a broader geographic scale than Ho Chuimei’s
South Fujian work mentioned above and will attempt to build on the studies listed above to make
concrete comparisons between production, export consumption, and domestic consumption.
Some of the data on which this analysis is based is quite basic, the chronology is still imprecise in
places, and the analysis is still in its early stages, but enough can be said to describe the existence of
a massive production industry closely linked to domestic consumption across China, but also to the
Indian Ocean as far as East Africa and the Middle East, on a scale that is unparalleled anywhere in the
world at this time.
Development of Longquan celadon production
The Longquan kilns represent one of the key sources of the ceramic products which supplied the
maritime trade routes during the Song, Yuan and early Ming periods. These kilns, located in the
mountainous Longquan region of Zhejiang province, produced a type of green-glazed stoneware
that is referred to here as ‘Longquan celadon’. About 400 such kilns are known (Qin and Liu 2012,
445), dispersed along 120 km of the Longquan River (龙泉溪), a tributary of the Ou River which
discharges into the sea at Wenzhou (Figure 1). These kilns can be subdivided into two main groups,
one located to the south-west and the other to the east (Figure 1). Within the Southwestern Group,
archaeological investigations have been published from a relatively small number of kilns – most
notably Dayao Fendongyan (ZPICRA, SAMBU, and LCM 2015) and a group of 30 between the villages
of Jincun and Shangyang (Zhang 1989). More complete data is available for the Eastern Group. In
preparation for the construction of the Jinshuitan Reservoir between 1981–1988, a survey and some
small-scale excavation were carried out at 218 kilns. The data were published in 2005 (ZJSWWKGYJS
2005, 47–57) and provide information relating to the location and period during which production
WORLD ARCHAEOLOGY 3

occurred. The dating is based on a fairly crude, three-phase periodisation by dynasty (Song, Yuan
and Ming) and is derived entirely from ceramics found in association with each kiln (no distinction
was made by the survey between Northern and Southern Song). More precise celadon chronologies
do exist, but they were not employed in this case (Ho 1994b, x-xvii; Kamei 1994; Ren 1994).
Unfortunately, not enough detail is given in the 2005 publication to allow a more detailed evalua-
tion and it is therefore impossible to assess fully the reliability of the chronology. It was followed up
at the excavated sites, from which nds were compared to objects from dated tombs and was
shown to be reliable in these cases (ZJSWWKGYJS 2005, 393–407). Despite these problems, this data
is a very signicant advance over what was available before (Ho 1994a, 199) and presents us with the
rst real opportunity to chart the development of this industry.
For the Song Dynasty (AD 960–1279), only 34 kilns were identied, which, with only a few outliers,
were dispersed along the Longquan River in three main clusters around the villages of Anfu,
Shantouyao and Xiaobai’an (Figure 2 top; Figure 3). By the Yuan Dynasty (AD 1279–1368), this picture
had altered dramatically with a marked intensication of both kiln numbers and their spread across
the landscape (Figure 2 middle). Without exception, during the Yuan period, production continued
within the Song-period clusters although in some cases individual kilns fell out of use to be replaced
by new kilns nearby. Some areas experienced very signicant growth – as occurred in the vicinity of
Anfu village where a 221% rise in the number of kilns occurred. On the other hand, Xiaobai’an does
not appear to have experienced an increase in the number of kilns at all, while just to the south and
across the river a new cluster of 18 kilns was established around Shangyan’er. Overall, the number of
active kilns saw a 423% increase from the Song to the Yuan period, by which time almost all areas of
the attest agricultural land in the valley bottoms had a kiln reasonably close by. Under the Ming
Figure 1. The geographical setting of the Longquan celadon industry in Zhejiang Province, China.
4R. ZHANG ET AL.

dynasty (AD 1368–1644) this pattern changed markedly once again (Figure 2 bottom). Throughout the
area a 60% decrease in the number of kilns occurred, with many of the more isolated kilns that had
been established during the Yuan period being abandoned. The area around Anfu and the closest
villages on the Longquan River became the densest concentration of kilns with half of the Ming-period
foundations being located in this area. While overall production almost certainly contracted during
the Ming period, it is possible that the decline in kiln numbers may partly reect increasingly
centralised production in fewer areas.
The 30 kilns in the Southwestern Group between Jincun and Shangyang (Figure 1) (OSM-Part 1)
challenge the interpretation suggested by the Eastern Group. Among these kilns, the Song dynasty
Figure 2. Kiln distribution by period within the Eastern Group of Longquan kilns (based on: ZJSWWKGYJS 2005,
47–57).
WORLD ARCHAEOLOGY 5

was the period during which most kilns were in operation – with all 30 being active at this time.
Under the Yuan, all of those around Shangyang fell out of use while only eight of the Jincun kilns
remained in operation. Ming rule saw a further drop in the number of active kilns around Jincun to
three. In this relatively small cluster, therefore, production appears to have declined over time, with
no expansion under the Yuan comparable to that seen amongst the Eastern Group.
This interpretation of the broader pattern of development is not without problems: data for the
kilns in the Southwestern Group comes only from one small cluster while, for the more numerous
kilns from the Eastern Group, the reliability of the dating evidence given by the Zhejiang Provincial
Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology (ZJSWWKGYJS 2005, 47–57) cannot be fully evaluated.
More fundamentally, the changing kiln numbers illustrated in Figures 2 and 3 cannot necessarily be
taken as reliable proxies for the overall output of this area. Fewer, more intensively used and/or
larger-scale kilns could, theoretically, achieve higher productivity than a larger number of smaller,
less intensively operated kilns. The decline between the Song and Ming periods in the Jincun-
Shangyang cluster in the Southwestern Group raises the possibility that production developed
along dierent lines between the Southwestern and Eastern Groups. But the low number and
limited geographic spread of the Southwestern Group make it dicult to gauge whether this was
a minor local anomaly or part of a wider trend. The pattern of growth and decline given by the more
comprehensive data from the Eastern Group closely parallels other strands of evidence for the long-
term trajectory of the Longquan industry explored elsewhere in this paper, and this might be taken
as some degree of conrmation of reliability. As more precise information becomes available, it may
be possible to enhance or revise the picture of production set out here.
Workshop and labour organisation
An important question is whether the organisation of production and labour in the Longquan
industry was aected by the massive increase in output indicated by the analysis of kiln
numbers. In theory, smaller kilns may have been operated by a single household or hamlet
Figure 3. Kiln numbers by period within the Eastern Group of Longquan kilns (based on: ZJSWWKGYJS 2005, 47–57).
6R. ZHANG ET AL.

but it seems likely that most of the Longquan kilns were too large to have been operated in this
way. For larger kilns more generally, two ‘modes of operation’ have been proposed (though
there may have been more); one based on a single owner employing a large number of workers;
and a second which envisages kilns being joint ventures by a number of smaller workshops (So
2000, 193). Each of these modes is likely to have involved a labour force with greater or lesser
degrees of task specialisation. Workshops have been identied at Longquan. Their identication
is based on the fact that they are situated in close proximity to kilns and/or kiln debris and they
contain evidence for ceramic production such as facilities for clay washing and pugging, clay
storage, wheel turning, drying, and glazing. The size and arrangement of the Longquan work-
shops, and the facilities that they contain, can be expected to reect their organisation (on this
topic see: Peacock 1982, 12–52; Arnold 1991; Van der Leeuw 1977).
Seven structures identied as kiln workshop sites have been excavated in Longquan, dating from
the Song to the Ming dynasty. Of these ve (Dabaian, Yuankou, Shantou, Anfu and Shangyaner) are
located in the Eastern Group amongst whom the layouts of the Dabaian and Yuankou workshops are
the most clearly published and present a good insight into the organisation of ceramic production.
Figure 4(a) shows that the Yuankou workshops were located around a multi-phase dragon kiln (K1- K8)
that was in use from the late Southern Song to the late Yuan dynasty. The workshop facilities used for
specic activities tend to be grouped together in dened areas (Workshops 1 to 7), suggesting
a degree of task-specialisation amongst the labour force. In the Southwestern Group, ve workshops
have been excavated. Excavations of the Shantou, Anfu and Shangyaner workshops have shown
similarly structured layouts, although the workshop structures themselves are not well-preserved
(Jiang 1981; Li, Li, and Yu 1986; ZJSWWKGYJS 2005, 79). The Dayao ‘kiln 37’ and Dayao
Fengdongyan kiln sites in the Southwestern Group also have workshops that were distributed around
the kilns and were divided into dierent functional areas or buildings. In these cases the quality of the
structures themselves appears to be higher than in the Eastern Group (ZPICRA, SAMBU, and LCM 2015,
27–38; ZJSQGYT 1989, 38). Interestingly, by the early Ming dynasty, the quality of the ceramics and the
type of kiln furniture found in these three kilns suggest that they incorporated the most advanced level
of ceramic making in Longquan, producing ceramics for the royal family and nobles (ZPICRA, SAMBU,
and LCM 2015, iii). Indeed, some scholars have suggested that imperial-quality production may have
begun in the Southwestern Group from as early as the late Northern Song period (Wang 2009).
Each of the seven excavated Longquan workshop sites looks to be reasonably large and carefully
structured with dened areas for specic tasks, suggesting an organised labour force who were
mainly focussed on specialised tasks.
By comparison, imitation Longquan celadons, which were of lower quality and less widely traded,
were manufactured in Fujian, Guangdong, Jiangxi and Hunan in South China, over 400 kilometres to
the south of Longquan (Zeng 1962, 1964; Yu et al. 1995; FJBWY and JJBWG 2011). In these areas the
layout of excavated workshops is dierent from Longquan. For example, the workshop at Linjiang
kiln at Ji’an in Jiangxi (Figure 4(b)) is on a much smaller scale and the dierent functional facilities are
grouped together in a single enclosure (Yu et al. 1995). This is in marked contrast to the system in
Longquan, suggesting that this workshop involved less carefully structured production and a labour
force who carried out a wider range of tasks.
These dierences may reect a development in the organisation of production with the growth
of the Longquan industry. Further work is needed, but it seems possible that the layout of the
Longquan workshops became more organised and structured and that the expansion of Longquan
production may have brought with it changes to the way in which production and labour was
organised. This question is the focus of an on-going study by Xiaohang Song.
WORLD ARCHAEOLOGY 7

Domestic Chinese consumption of Longquan celadons
As Miksic has noted, very little coherent evidence related to the consumption of ceramics in
domestic Chinese contexts through the Tang to Ming periods and later has been published
(Miksic 2022, 206). What is published is not quantied, which makes it extremely problematic to
make a comparative assessment of the level of domestic consumption of Longquan celadons. To
solve this problem an alternative methodology was developed, which uses the comparative extent
of distribution and the comparative number of sites on which such wares occur as a rough proxy for
Figure 4. Plans of the Yuankou kiln and workshop from the Longquan Eastern Group and the Linjiang kiln and
workshop from Ji’an (to scale).
8R. ZHANG ET AL.

comparative levels of consumption. Although this provides very useful insights, more precise
methods need to be developed once data becomes available through publication.
A total of 201 published assemblages (in some cases individual objects) of Longquan celadons
dated between the 11
th
and 16
th
centuries were collected from across China to support the analysis
(Table 1 and OSM-Part 2). This dataset is not comprehensive, but it is large enough to provide
a robust insight into outline trends. The 201 assemblages come from 28 Chinese provinces (Figure 5)
and can be divided into A) tomb assemblages (n = 74); and B) domestic assemblages (n = 127),
which include hoards as well as assemblages from occupation contexts. Of the 74 tomb assem-
blages, 47 are associated with absolute dating evidence such as tombstones or inscriptions on the
ceramics, giving dates ranging from 1091 to 1594 AD. Other assemblages are dated by the
excavators based, in most cases, on associated material or parallels with dated material from
elsewhere. For the purposes of the present analysis, the published dates have been accepted
without evaluation.
The results of the analysis are shown in Figure 5. The pattern of development is very clear and is
indicative of rapidly expanding domestic consumption accompanied by a distribution system that
was capable of moving ceramics over large distances overland or by river.
In the late Northern Song period (up to 1127 AD), distribution appears to have been limited in
quantity and extent (Figure 5-1). However, it should be noted that it is very dicult to distinguish
Longquan products from those of the Yue kilns at this time. Based on the identication given in the
publications, half of the Longquan discoveries are from Zhejiang province itself and were focused
close to the kilns. A few discoveries come from the provinces of Jiangsu, Sichuan and from the
Northern Song capital Kaifeng in Henan province.
In the Southern Song period (1127 to 1279 AD), the number and distribution of Longquan nds
increased in the south (Figure 5-2). In Zhejiang province itself the distribution can be divided into
two groups: one near the Longquan kilns, which must be related to local consumption; and the
other scattered around present-day Hangzhou and Ningbo, the capital and the major port of the
Southern Song. This seems to suggest that the products of the Longquan kilns during this period
were not yet widely consumed but were considered a valuable commodity and when traded far
from the kilns were mainly for elite consumption. In 1127 AD the territory north of the Huai River
(north of the borderline in Figure 5-2), was lost to the Jurchen Jin and trade across the border after
this time is thought to have been limited due to military tensions (Qi 1987, 1014–1030; Qin 2000, 33).
This is reected in the fact that the tombs in the north dating from the 12
th
to 13
th
centuries mainly
contain northern Chinese stonewares, for example from the Ding and Cizhou kilns, whilst there was
a general absence of southern Chinese ceramics (Qin 2000, 33). Figure 5-2 indicates that only two
assemblages north of the border in Shangdong and Henan provinces yielded a small number of
Longquan celadons.
Table 1. A summary of Longquan celadon objects
and assemblages from across China by period,
based on 201 published objects and assemblages,
74 from tombs and 127 from domestic contexts (see
OSM-Part 2).
Dynasties Assemblages Provinces
Northern Song 8 4
Southern Song 46 14
Yuan 111 28
Ming 36 13
WORLD ARCHAEOLOGY 9

Figure 5. Distribution of Longquan celadon finds across China by period (based on OSM-Part 2).
10 R. ZHANG ET AL.

In 1279 AD the Yuan dynasty reunied China. Against this backdrop, it can be seen in Figure 5-3
that the consumption of Longquan celadons grew markedly across the whole of China to reach its
maximum in both the number (111 assemblages) and distribution (28 provinces) of nds. The
distribution of both domestic and tomb contexts, whilst being focussed mainly on the east, covered
most areas of China, including – in small numbers – the west, for example, Xinjiang, and the north,
for example, Jilin. Many nds were concentrated around the capital Dadu (modern Beijing) as well as
in Hebei and Inner Mongolia. These modern provinces were the core of Yuan China and may
indicate that the consumption of Longquan celadons was focussed on Yuan elites.
During the Ming period, Longquan celadon nds are fewer (36 assemblages), but were still quite
widely distributed across China (Figure 5-4), although the distribution declined from 28 provinces
under the Yuan to 13 provinces. Most of these nds can be dated to the early and middle Ming
period and it is interesting that they are concentrated in Jiangsu province, where the Ming capital
was located from 1368 to 1420.
These data demonstrate that Chinese domestic consumption of Longquan celadons may have
started during the Northern Song, from quite limited beginnings, after which it began to increase
through the Southern Song period, to reach a remarkable peak in both the quantity of nds and
their geographical extent during the Yuan period, before tailing o during the Ming period. This
outline of developments is obviously only a very poor reection of the actual numbers of nds and
their geographical range, but, with the available published information as limited as it presently is,
this is the clearest objective insight that is possible.
Export of Longquan celadons: evidence from the western Indian Ocean and Iran
The western Indian Ocean
One aspect of the development of the export trade in Longquan celadons to the western Indian
Ocean from the 12th to the 15th century AD can be investigated through the analysis of 8,989
sherds published or reported from 131 archaeological sites in South Asia, Iran, Eastern Arabia,
Yemen, Egypt, East Africa and South Africa, which have been inspected, or information on which
has been collected, by the present authors (Table 2, and see OSM-Part 3 where references are
provided). Most of the sites yielded only a few sherds, but there are some with large assemblages
such as Kish and Minab in Iran, Julfar in the UAE, Fustat in Egypt, and Shanga and Gedi in Kenya.
Many of the sherds from the western Indian Ocean region are published, but many are not. In such
cases, either unpublished reports are available or the sherds have been inspected.
Where it has been possible to inspect the sherds the dating is based on their intrinsic qualities,
following the classication established by Zhang (Zhang 2022, 2016, 2018). Where this has not been
possible, it has been necessary to rely on the dating given by the excavators, which obviously
introduces the possibility of varying interpretations and denitions in the analysis. In addition,
quantication depends in most cases on gures provided in the published or unpublished reports,
Table 2. Occurrence of Longquan celadons in the western Indian Ocean as number of sherds and
number of sites where they have been found (see OSM-Part 3).
Northern Song Southern Song Yuan Ming Total
LQC 30 747 4643 3569 8989
% 0.30% 8.30% 51.70% 39.70% 100%
Sites 14 56 94 92 131
% 10.60% 42.40% 72.00% 69.70% 100%
WORLD ARCHAEOLOGY 11

which it has not always been possible to verify. These limitations need to be born in mind.
Nonetheless, it is believed that the data is reliable enough to form the basis of a working outline
of trade development at the dynasty-level of chronological precision used. The proviso remains that
adjustments might be necessary if and when better data becomes available.
The earliest possible circulation of Longquan celadons in the western Indian Ocean dates to the
Northern Song period, as evidenced on 14 sites from southern India, Sri Lanka, the entrance to the
Gulf, the Red Sea, and East Africa (Figure 8-1). Quantities are very low, on average each site yielded
only around 2 sherds (30 sherds total). There is some doubt about all of these sherds, none of which
has been seen by the present authors. Many of the reports state the presence of Longquan celadons
in contexts dated to this time, but do not provide a detailed description of the sherds (e.g.
Karashima 2004; Hou & Mikami’s reports, see in Qin 1995, 87: note 1; Horton 1996, 273). The problem
is that there are some sherds which have a thin (0.2 mm), yellowish-green glaze, which is dierent
from the thicker, greener, jade-like glazes produced in Longquan from the late Southern Song
(Figure 6(a,b)). In such cases, it is often very dicult to be certain whether the vessels were produced
by the Longquan kilns or at kilns in the south Chinese provinces of Fujian and Guangdong (Lin 1990,
391; Zeng 2001, 163; Huo and Lin 2004, 11; ZJSWWKGYJS 2005). The already low numbers for this
period are, therefore, likely to be somewhat exaggerated and it is possible that there was very little
or no circulation of Longquan celadon in the western Indian Ocean at this time.
Longquan celadons with high-quality, thicker, green, jade-like glaze began to be produced
around the middle of the Southern Song period (cf. Zhu 1998; ZJSWWKGYJS 2005; ZJSWWKGYJS,
BEDXKGWBXY, and LQQCBWG 2009). Such wares were immediately popular in both the domestic
and export markets (Ho 1994b, xiv-Table 2; Heng 2005, 82) and are commonly found on coastal sites
in the western Indian Ocean, in particular in south India and Sri Lanka, the Red Sea and East Africa.
A total of 747 sherds from 56 sites are recorded from this period, marking a very signicant increase.
It is also notable that some inland sites quite distant from the coast in Iran, India and Africa have
yielded examples. Figures 7 and 8 and Table 2 show how the number of sherds and sites then
increased more than six times to 4,643 sherds which come from nearly double the number of sites
(94) in the Yuan period, at which time the distribution reached its greatest numerical and geogra-
phical extent. Indeed, sherds of Longquan celadon have been reported from as far as Spain
(Guttierrez et al. 2021).
There are 92 known archaeological sites from the western Indian Ocean with Longquan
celadon sherds dating to the Ming period. The site count is only slightly lower than for the
Yuan period, but the number of sherds is almost 25% lower, which seems to indicate that the
trade in Longquan celadon continued, but that it had passed its peak and started to decline
(Figures 7 and 8-4). The decline is partly explained by the fact that Jingdezhen blue-and-white
porcelains gradually became the preferred Chinese import in many parts of the region (see
below) although it seems that a wider decline in the Chinese export trade also occurred during
the Ming period due to government restrictions – the so-called ‘Ming gap’ (Harrisson 1958;
Brown 2009, 67; Miksic 2022, 184–204).
It has been possible to establish a working outline of the development of the trade in Longquan
celadon to the western Indian Ocean based on quantied evidence. This is very much a provisional
model and may need to be revised if the data that supports it is updated or as new evidence
emerges. However, the overall pattern seems to be clear and fairly robust and can be compared to
the growth and decline of the Longquan kilns discussed above.
12 R. ZHANG ET AL.

Southern Iran and the Williamson collection
The Williamson Collection from southern Iran, presently housed in the Department of Archaeology
at Durham University, provides an opportunity to build on the above conclusions by setting out
a more nuanced analysis, which takes into consideration the relative proportion of Longquan
celadons compared to other Chinese imported wares.
The Williamson Collection consists of around 17,000 sherds of local coarse wares, Islamic glazed
wares and Chinese imported wares, from surface collections from 479 mainly small, rural
Figure 6. Longquan celadon sherds from southern Iran, the Williamson Collection (a, c-f) and Kush in Ras al-
Khaimah, UAE (b).
WORLD ARCHAEOLOGY 13

archaeological sites across southern Iran (Figure 9). The material was collected by Andrew
Williamson in the course of a regional survey in the late 1960s and early 1970s (Priestman and
Kennet 2002; Priestman 2005).
Of the 17,000 sherds 2,598 are Chinese imports dated from 900 to 1660 AD. Among them 2,458
are dated between the Northern Song and the Ming periods, of which 1,028 are Longquan celadons.
These sherds have been inspected and classied by the present authors and the data is presented in
OSM-Part 4. Identication as Longquan products was based on visual inspection and comparison
with sherds and wasters from the Longquan kilns themselves. Figure 9 shows the number of Chinese
imports and the proportion of Longquan celadons by period, whilst Figure 10 shows the distribution
of the 87 sites with Chinese ceramics and Longquan celadons across the survey area by period.
No Longquan celadons dating to the Northern Song period were identied amongst the
Williamson material, although 160 sherds of other Chinese imports of this period are found
distributed between Minab and Bushehr along the coast and inland as far as Sirjan, in each case
in very low numbers (Figure 10-1).
During the Southern Song period, in particular from the early 13th century, low quantities of
Longquan celadons began to circulate, making up around 15% of Chinese imports (Table 3-a)
(Figure 6(a)). These sherds are found mainly at sites along the Iranian coast between Minab and
Bushehr, in particular around Minab and Kish, although they also occur on two inland sites. At this
time the distribution of Longquan celadon is no more widespread than other Chinese ceramics from
the same period.
The proportion of Longquan celadons stayed at roughly the same level until the late 13
th
century,
around the beginning of the Yuan period, at which point it rose very rapidly and continued to
increase, apparently in stages, until the second half of the 14
th
century, by which time made up
Figure 7. Weighted averages of Longquan celadon finds (columns) and sites with Longquan celadon finds (line)
from the western Indian Ocean, 900 to 1700 AD (based on OMS-Part 3).
14 R. ZHANG ET AL.

almost 79% of Chinese imports (Table 3-a, Figure 9). Figure 9 shows that there was an increase in the
number of Chinese imports more generally from the late 13
th
century onwards. Longquan celadons,
although not the only component of this, were clearly the most signicant component. Figure 10–3
shows that although the distribution of Longquan celadons (Figure 6(c,d)) remained concentrated
around Minab and Kish, there were notably more sherds inland at this time, possibly indicating that
local land-based distribution networks carried these ceramics to a wider range of consumers, many
of whom were located in small rural villages.
From around the beginning of the 15
th
century, the proportion of Longquan celadon began to
decline and dropped steadily to about 34% of Chinese imports (Table 3-a), thereafter disappearing
from southern Iran completely by about the 1460s. Although a very small number of sherds of
imperial-quality Longquan celadon dated between 1400 and 1430 AD have been discovered at
Hormuz (Lin and Zhang 2015) (Figure 6(e,f)), this period also saw what is thought to be a decline in
the general quality of imported Longquan celadon found in the survey area. This is manifested by
rougher surface nishing; thinner, less translucent glazes; and less precise decoration, and may
Figure 8. Distribution of Longquan celadon in the western Indian Ocean, Northern Song to Ming Dynasties (based
on Table 2).
WORLD ARCHAEOLOGY 15

reect changes in the manufacture, supply, or demand for Longquan celadon. This is a subject that
is being investigated by further study.
The distribution of Longquan celadon sherds continued to be concentrated around the coast at
the entrance to the Gulf at this time, as well as continuing to nd its way inland in small amounts.
However, it is clear that, along the coasts in particular, other Chinese imports are found more
commonly than in the Yuan period.
Table 3. A summary of Longquan celadon (LQC) and other Chinese ceramic (Others) sherds (a) and the sites where
they were found (b) from the Williamson Collection survey area in southern Iran (see OSM-Part 4).
Northern
Song
Southern
Song Yuan Ming
Finds without
unearthed location
Finds dated before
Northern
Song (960 AD)
Finds dated
after Ming (After
1644 AD) Total
a: Chinese ceramic finds
LQC 0 40 458 492 38 0 0 1028
Others 160 218 123 967 38 18 46 1570
LQC % 0.0% 15.5% 78.8% 33.7% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 39.6%
Others % 100.0% 84.5% 21 .2% 66.3% 50.0% 100.0% 100.0% 60.4%
Total 160 258 581 1459 76 18 46 2598
Northern
Song
Southern
Song
Yuan Ming Total
b: Sites with Chinese ceramic finds
LQC 0 19 36 37 38
Others 35 34 22 58 67
LQC % 0.0% 52.8% 87.8% 56.9% 43.7%
Others % 100.0% 94.4% 53.7% 89.2% 77.0%
Total 35 36 41 65 87
Figure 9. Weighted averages of Longquan celadon imports (LQC) against other Chinese ceramic imports (Others),
and the overall quantities of Chinese ceramic finds (Overall) from the Williamson Collection survey area in
southern Iran, 900 to 1660 (based on OMS-Part 4).
16 R. ZHANG ET AL.

Figure 10. Distribution of Longquan celadon (grey dots) and other Chinese ceramic imports (black circles) in southern Iran, Northern Song to Ming Dynasties (based
on Table 3. Note that 18 sherds of Chinese ceramic imports dated before the Northern Song, 46 dated after Ming Dynasty, and 76 without locations are not included
in these maps).
WORLD ARCHAEOLOGY 17

As is shown in Figure 9, the nal, 15
th
-century decline in Longquan celadon occurred at the
same time as a marked decline in all types of imported Chinese wares, which itself continued
until the late 15
th
century, before recovering slightly and stabilising. As touched on above, this
decline, which may reect Ming prohibitions on maritime trade, is one of two possible reasons
for the decline in Longquan celadon. The other is that products of the Jingdezhen kilns in China
became more popular than Longquan celadons, perhaps pushing them out of the market.
Kennet has suggested that by the mid-14
th
century, Longquan celadon had begun to occupy
what he believes was a 10%-20% ‘quality-table-ware niche’ in the glazed ware assemblage of the
Hormuz/Gulf region, that had previously been occupied until the late 13
th
century by Iranian-
manufactured green-glazed sgraatos, and which later went on gradually to be occupied by
Jingdezhen blue-and-white porcelain from around the 15
th
century (Kennet 2004, 102–3,
Figure 53).
One view is that in many cases Longquan celadon vessels, once they had been shipped across the
Indian Ocean with all the additional costs of transportation that had been added to them, were
expensive, elite artefacts that found their way mainly to palaces, places of high ritual status, major
cities, upper-class households, and key trading ports. The most obvious example would be the
Topkapı Palace collection in Istanbul, although the nature of elite contexts varied across the ocean
(Krahl 1986; Ho 1994b, xxi; Prickett-Fernando 1994; Srisuchat 1994, 225–226; Miksic 2022, 189).
Whilst this is true for many of the sites in the western Indian Ocean, for example, Hormuz, Julfar, and
Fustat, the evidence from the Williamson Collection suggests that it was not always the case. In the
Williamson survey area Longquan celadons, of the Yuan period in particular, occur on small, rural
sites on the coast and inland. How much these vessels cost once they had reached these locations
and how they were paid for, exactly who used them and in what context, and what meaning they
carried, are all important questions that require further investigation.
Conclusion
Although this analysis is exploratory, and although the chronology still imprecise in some places and
the data is still patchy, enough has been set out here to demonstrate the phenomenal scale of
production at Longquan through the 12
th
to 14
th
/15
th
century, and the signicance of this production
to trade and consumption, not only across China but extending into the smallest rural communities
across the whole of the Indian Ocean. It has also been possible to demonstrate synchronism in the
patterns of expansion and contraction in production, trade, and domestic and overseas consumption,
suggesting a degree of economic integration that certainly merits further investigation. It is clear that
Longquan was a truly global industry – to the extent of the Old World at least, which operated on
a scale of production and distribution that must have been as large as anything that existed at that
time; certainly anything that is so well documented in the archaeological record.
It is not only the scale that is signicant, but the fact that it is possible to demonstrate a level of
integration between the Chinese domestic economy and overseas trade and consumption.
Understanding which of the domestic or overseas ‘markets’ was the larger consumer, and which
of the two may have played the more signicant role in stimulating Longquan production is
unfortunately not possible in the present analysis. Investigating such questions would require
greater precision in chronology and provenance but would potentially lead to a much clearer
understanding of the relationship between overseas trade and the Chinese domestic economy.
A further question is to what degree increased demand for these ceramics – in China and
overseas – led to the restructuring of workshop and labour organisation in China to increase
18 R. ZHANG ET AL.

production. This is a question that it was only possible to address very tentatively here and is the
subject of on-going research. It seems likely that the organisation of ceramic production did
undergo a general shift across China through this period, but further work is needed before
a denitive conclusion can be reached.
The Williamson Collection material was inspected personally by the authors and therefore represents
the most reliable and carefully analysed of the material in this analysis. It presents a picture of long-
distance trade and consumption of Chinese trade ceramics more detailed and nuanced than anything
else available at the present time. It suggests, amongst other things, that the decline in Longquan
celadon consumption may have been slightly later overseas than it was in China – a conclusion
supported by the western Indian Ocean material. It also opens up the possibility of uctuating (probably
declining), quality of manufacture. How to measure this objectively and how it might be used to examine
more precisely the relationship between production and consumption at opposite ends of the Indian
Ocean still needs to be established.
The data presented in this paper convincingly demonstrate that the Longquan industry was the most
signicant producer of Indian Ocean export ceramics during the later 13
th
and 14
th
centuries. This is,
however, far from certain in relation to Chinese domestic consumption, for which, ironically, evidence is
more dicult to come by. If we are to understand better the economic relationship between China and
the Indian Ocean, more detailed quantied evidence of this sort will be needed from excavations in
China and the Indian Ocean, alongside analysis of other Chinese ceramic industries that came before,
after, and were contemporary with Longquan production.
It is hoped that the analysis presented here has demonstrated the value of large-scale data
collection alongside comparative, quantied analysis at a broad geographical scale as a means to
understand better the development of the Indian Ocean mercantile economy and, in particular,
China’s role in that development.
Acknowledgments
This paper results from the ongoing partnership between Durham University and the Palace Museum, Beijing,
which was signed in 2016 and has received ministerial-level support through P2P-Dialogue 2016 in Shanghai.
The authors would like to express their thanks to Seth Priestman and John Miksic for reading and commenting
on an earlier version of this paper, as well as to the two anonymous reviewers who read and made useful
comments on the submitted text.
Disclosure statement
No potential conict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes on contributors
Ran Zhang is Assistant Professor at the Department of Archaeology, Durham University. His research is
concerned with how ancient Chinese trade aected the maritime economy in the Indian Ocean and Europe
from the eighth to the nineteenth centuries. He also has expertise in the identication and dating of Chinese
ceramics.
Derek Kennet is Associate Professor at the Department of Archaeology, Durham University. He is interested
in Sasanian archaeology, early Islamic archaeology, Indian Ocean archaeology and the ancient economy of
Asia.
WORLD ARCHAEOLOGY 19

Peter J. Brown is a Post-Doctoral Research Fellow at the Department of History, Art History and Classics, and
Radboud Institute for Culture and History, Radboud University, the Netherlands. He is a landscape archaeologist
interested in the medieval period across the Old World.
Xiaohang Song is a PhD candidate at the Department of Archaeology, Durham University. Her study is about
the labour organisations of ancient Chinese ceramic industries from the 7
th
to the 18
th
centuries AD.
Wang Guangyao is a Curator of the Palace Museum in Beijing China. He is famed for his studies of Chinese
archaeology, Chinese ceramic studies, and Ming and Qing imperial ceramic history.
Yi Zhai is the Associate Curator of the Palace Museum in Beijing, China, and she is interested in the areas of
Islamic arts and Chinese arts in textiles and ceramics in the 14
th
century.
Wu Mingjun is Director of Longquan Celadon Museum in Zhejiang of China. He is interested in Longquan
celadon identication and kiln surveys in Longquan City.
ORCID
Ran Zhang http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4232-7349
Peter J. Brown http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3916-1197
Author contributions
RZ and DK conceived and directed the research; RZ collected and analysed the main data and developed
methodology with input from DK and WG; PB collected and analysed kiln data; XS collected and interpreted
workshop evidence; WG, YZ, MW assisted with identication and classication of sherds. RZ and DK wrote the
paper with contributions from PB, XS, and WG. All authors contributed ideas. RZ made Figures 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,
10; XS Figure 4; PB Figures 1, 2.
References
Abu-Lughod, Janet L. 1989. Before European Hegemony: The World System AD 1250-1350. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Arnold, Philip. 1991. Domestic Ceramic Production and Spatial Organization: A Mexican Case Study in
Ethnoarchaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Beaujard, Philippe. 2019. The Worlds of the Indian Ocean: Volume 2, from the Seventh Century to the Fifteenth
Century CE: A Global History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, Roxanna. 2009. The Ming Gap and Shipwreck Ceramics in Southeast Asia: Towards a Chronology of Thai
Trade Ware. Bangkok: Siam Society.
Carswell, John. [1976] 1977. “China and Islam in the Maldive Islands.” Transactions of the Oriental Ceramic Society
41: 121–198.
Carter, Robert, Bing Zhao, Kevin Lane, and Christian Velde. 2020. “The Rise and Ruin of a Medieval Port Town:
A Reconsideration of the Development of Julfar.” Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 31 (2): 501–523. doi:10.
1111/aae.12162.
Chaudhuri, Kirti. 1985. Trade and Civilization in the Indian Ocean: An Economic History from the Rise of Islam to
1750. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781107049918.
Chaudhuri, Kirti. 1990. Asia Before Europe: Economy and Civilisation of the Indian Ocean from the Rise of Islam to
1750. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Christie, Jan Wisseman. 1998. “Javanese Markets and the Asian Sea Trade Boom of the Tenth to Thirteenth
Centuries AD.” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 41 (3): 344–381. doi:10.1163/
1568520981436264.
Clark, Hugh. 1991. Community, Trade, and Networks: Southern Fujian Province from the Third to the Thirteenth
Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511572654.
FJBWY, and JJBWG. 2011. Cizao Yaozhi. Beijing: Kexue Chubanshe.
20 R. ZHANG ET AL.

Guttierrez, Alejandra, Chris Gerarrd, Ran Zhang, and Guangyao Wang. 2021. “The Earliest Chinese Pottery in
Europe?” Antiquity 95 (383): 1213–1230. doi:10.15184/aqy.2021.95.
Harrisson, Tom. 1958. “The Ming Gap and Kota Batu, Brunei.” Sarawak Museum Journal 8 (11): 273–277.
Heng, Derek Tiam Soon. 2005. Economic Interaction Between China and the Malacca Straits Region, Tenth to
Fourteenth Centuries AD. Doctoral Dissertation: University of Hull.
Ho, Chuimei. 1994a. “Problems in the Study of Zhejiang Green Glazed Wares with Special Reference to Ko Kho
Khao and Laem Pho Payang, Southern Tailand.” In New Light on Chinese Yue and Longquan Wares:
Archaeological Ceramics Found in Eastern and Southern Asia, A.D. 800-1400, edited by Chuimei Ho,
187–212. Hongkong: Hongkong University.
Ho, Chuimei. 1994b. “The Production and Distribution of Zhejiang Green Glazed Wares: Preface to the
Conference Proceedings.” In New Light on Chinese Yue and Longquan Wares: Archaeological Ceramics
Found in Eastern and Southern Asia, A.D. 800-1400, edited by Chuimei Ho, ix–xxvi. Hongkong: Hongkong
University.
Ho, Chuimei. 2000. “The Ceramic Boom in Minnan During Song and Yuan Times.” In The Emporium of the World:
Maritime Quanzhou, 1000-1400, edited by Angela Schottenhammer, 237–281. Leiden, Boston, Koln: Brill.
Horton, Mark. 1996. Shanga: The Archaeology of a Muslim Trading Community on the Coast of East Africa. Vol. 14.
London: British Institute in Eastern Africa.
Huo, Jiena, and Li Lin. 2004. “Fujian Dongshan Dao Songyuan Yaozhi Diaocha Baogao.” Nanfang Wenwu 1:
11–15.
Jiang, Zhongyi. 1981. “Zhejiang Longquanxian Anfu Longquan Yaozhi Fajue Jianbao.” Kaogu 6: 504–510.
Kamei, Meitoku. 1994. “Chronology of Longquan Wares of the Song and Yuan Periods.” In New Light on Chinese
Yue and Longquan Wares: Archaeological Ceramics Found in Eastern and Southern Asia, A.D. 800-1400, edited
by Chuimei Ho, 46–84. Hongkong: Hongkong University.
Karashima, Noburu. 2004. In Search of Chinese Ceramic-Sherds in South India and Sri Lanka. Tokyo: Taisho
University Press.
Kennet, Derek. 2004. Sasanian and Islamic Pottery from Ras Al-Khaimah: Classication, Chronology and Analysis of
Trade in the Western Indian Ocean. Oxford: Archaeopress.
Krahl, Regina. 1986. Chinese Ceramics in the Topkapi Saray Museum Istanbul: A Complete Catalogue: Yuan and
Ming Dynasty Celadon Wares. Vol. I. edited by John Ayers. London: Sotheby’s Publications.
Li, Zuozhi, Zhiyan Li, and Wenrong Yu. 1986. “Zhejiang Longquan Qingci Shangyanercun Yaozhi Fajue Baogao.”
Zhongguoguojiabowuguan Guankan 1: 43–72.
Lin, Meicun. 2006. Sichou Zhilu Kaogu Shiwu Jiang. Beijing: Peking University Press.
Lin, Zhonggan. 1990. “Tongan Yaoxi Qingci De Chubu Yanjiu.” Dongnan Wenhua 5: 392–397.
Lin, Meicun, and Ran Zhang. 2015. “Zheng He’s Voyages to Hormuz Island: The Archaeological Evidence.”
Antiquity 89 (344): 417–432. doi:10.15184/aqy.2014.28.
Lo, Jung-Pang. 2012. China as a Sea Power 1127-1368. Edited by B. A. Elleman. Hong Kong: Hong Kong
University. doi:10.2307/j.ctv1qv39k.
Miksic, John. 2022. “Chinese Ceramics on the Maritime Silk Road: The Importance of Context.” In The Maritime
Silk Road, 177–214. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. doi:10.1515/9789048552429-009.
Morgan, Peter. 1991. “New Thoughts on Old Hormuz: Chinese Ceramics in the Hormuz Region in the Thirteenth
and Fourteenth Centuries.” Iran 29: 67–83. doi:10.2307/4299849.
Park, Hyunhee. 2012. Mapping the Chinese and Islamic Worlds: Cross-Cultural Exchange in Pre-Modern Asia.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139088329.
Peacock, D. P. 1982. Pottery in the Roman World: An Ethnoarchaeological Approach. London: Longmans.
Po, Ronald. 2018. The Blue Frontier: Maritime Vision and Power in the Qing Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. doi:10.1017/9781108341134.
Prickett-Fernando, Martha. 1994. “Middlemen and End Users: The Finds of Yue and Longquan Celadons in Sri
Lanka.” In New Light on Chinese Yue and Longquan Wares: Archaeological Ceramics Found in Eastern and
Southern Asia, A.D. 800-1400, edited by Chuimei Ho, 299–321. Hongkong: Hongkong University.
Priestman, Seth. 2005. “Settlement & Ceramics in Southern Iran: An Analysis of the Sasanian & Islamic Periods in
the Williamson Collection.” Master’s Dissertation, Durham University.
Priestman, Seth. 2021. Ceramic Exchange and the Indian Ocean Economy (Ad 400–1275) Vol. I: Analysis. London:
British Museum.
WORLD ARCHAEOLOGY 21

Priestman, Seth, and Derek. Kennet. 2002. “The Williamson Collection Project: Sasanian and Islamic Pottery from
Southern Iran.” Iran 1: 265–267. doi:10.2307/4300629.
Qi, Xia. 1987. Songdai Jingji Shi. Shanghai: Shanghai Renmin Chubanshe.
Qin, Dashu. 1995. “Aiji Fustate Yizhi Zhong Faxian De Zhongguo Ciqi.” Haijiaoshi Yanjiu 1: 79–91.
Qin, Dashu. 2000. “The Success of Cizhou Wares During the Jin Dynasty (Ad 1115–1234).” TOCS 65: 25–40.
Qin, Dashu. 2017. “Ming Ceramics Discovered in Kenya and Some Related Issues.” In Ming China: Courts and
Contacts, edited by Craig Clunas, Jessica Harrison-Hall, and Yu-ping Luk, 245–252. London: The British
Museum.
Qin, Dashu, and Jingxian Liu. 2012. “Meiqing Shuibi Meiyan Qingci [梅清水碧 美艳青瓷].” In Wenwen Yuse Zhao
Ciou [
温温玉色照瓷瓯
], edited by Beijing Capital Museum, 1–29. Beijing: Shoudu Bowuguan Chubanshe.
Reid, Anthony. 1993. Southeast Asia in the Age of Commerce 1450–1680: Volume 2: Expansion and Crisis. New
Haven: Yale University Press.
Ren, Shilong. 1994. “The Dual Nature of Longquan Wares: Further Discussion.” In New Light on Chinese Yue and
Longquan Wares: Archaeological Ceramics Found in Eastern and Southern Asia, A.D. 800–1400, edited by
Chuimei Ho, 30–45. Hongkong: Hongkong University.
Rossabi, Morris. 2014. “The Muslims in the Early Yuan Dynasty.” In China Under Mongol Rule, edited by
John Langlois, 257–295. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Rougeulle, Axelle. 1996. “Medieval Trade Networks in the Western Indian Ocean (8th–14th Cent.): Some
Reections from the Distribution Pattern of Chinese Imports in the Islamic World.” In Tradition and
Archaeology, early Maritime Contacts in the Indian Ocean. Proceedings of the International Seminar
Techno-Archaeological Perspectives of Seafaring in the Indian Ocean 4th cent. B.C. - 15th cent. A.D. New
Delhi, Feb. March 4, edited by H.P. Ray and J.-F. Salles, 159–180, New Delhi and Lyon: Manohar.
So, Billy Kee Long. 2000. Prosperity, Region, and Institutions in Maritime China: The South Fukien Pattern, 946-
1368. Vol. 195. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Asia Center. doi:10.1163/9781684173488.
Srisuchat, Amara. 1994. “Discovering Chinese Yue and Longquan Green Glazed Wares and Reconsidering Their
Socio-Economic Roles in the Development of Ancient Communities in Thailand.” In New Light on Chinese Yue
and Longquan Wares: Archaeological Ceramics Found in Eastern and Southern Asia, A.D. 800–1400, edited by
Chuimei Ho, 213–228. Hongkong: Hongkong University.
Van der Leeuw, Sander. 1977. “Towards a Study of the Economics of Pottery Making.” Ex Horreo 4: 68–76.
Von Glahn, Richard. 2016. An Economic History of China: From Antiquity to the Nineteenth Century. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139343848.
Wang, Guangyao. 2009. “Guanyu Qinggong Jiucang Longquanyao Ciqi De Sikao: Guanfu Shiye Xiade Longquan
Yao.” Dayao Fengdongyan Yaozhi Chutu Ciqi, edited by ZJSKGYJS, 19–27. Beijing: Wenwu Chubanshe.
Wilkinson, Endymion. 2017. “How Do We Know What We Know About Chinese History?” In A Companion to
Chinese History, edited by Michael Szonyi, 11–27. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons. doi:10.1002/
9781118624593.ch2.
Yoshinobu, Shiba. 1983. “Sung Foreign Trade: Its Scope and Organization.” In China Among Equals: The Middle
Kingdom and Its Neighbors, 10th-14th Centuries, edited by Morris Rossabi, 89–115. Berkeley and Los Angeles,
CA: University of California Press. doi:10.1525/9780520341722-009.
Yu, Jiadong, Shanghai Wang, Wenjiang Zhang, Jun Yang, Fabiao Xiao, and Yu Jiangan. 1995. “Jiangxi Ji’an
Linjiangyao Yizhi.” Kaoguxuebao 2: 243–274.
Zeng, Fan. 2001. Fujian Taoci Kaogu Gailun. Fujian: Fujian Ditu Chubanshe.
Zeng, Guangyi. 1962. “Guangdong Huiyang Baimashan Gu Ciyao Diaocha Ji.” Kaogu 2: 414–415.
Zeng, Guangyi. 1964. “Guangdong Huiyang Xin’an Sancun Guciyao Fajue Jianbao.” Kaogu 4: 196–199.
Zhang, Ran. 2016. “An Exploratory Quantitative Archaeological Analysis and a Classication System of Chinese
Ceramics Trade in the Western Indian Ocean, AD C. 800-1500.” PhD Thesis, Archaeology Department,
University of Durham.
Zhang, Ran. 2018. “Chinese Ceramic Trade Withdrawal from the Indian Ocean: Archaeological Evidence from
South Iran.” Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 6: 73–92.
Zhang, Ran. 2022. “Longquan Celadon Findings from the Western Indian Ocean.” In Globalisation of Longquan,
edited by Shen Qionghua, 443–456. Beijing: Wenwu Chubanshe.
Zhang, Xiang. 1989. “Longquan Jincun Gu Taoci Zhi Diaocha Fajue Baogao.” Longquan Qingci Yanjiu, edited by
ZJSQGYT, 68–91. Beijing: Wenwu Chubanshe.
22 R. ZHANG ET AL.

Zhao, Bing. 2012. “Global Trade and Swahili Cosmopolitan Material Culture: Chinese-Style Ceramic Shards from
Sanje Ya Kati and Songo Mnara (Kilwa, Tanzania).” Journal of World History 23 (1): 41–85. doi:10.1353/jwh.
2012.0018.
Zheng, Yangwen. 2012. China on the Sea: How the Maritime World Shaped Modern China. Leiden, Boston: Brill.
doi:10.1163/9789004194786.
Zhu, Boqian. 1998. Longquanyao Qingci. Taipei: Yishujia Chubanshe.
ZJSQGYT. 1989. Longquan Qingci Yanjiu. Beijing: Wenwu Chubanshe.
ZJSWWKGYJS. 2005. Longquan Dongqu Yaozhi Fajue Baogao. Beijing: Wenwu Chubanshe.
ZJSWWKGYJS, BEDXKGWBXY, and LQQCBWG. 2009. Longquan Dayao Fengdongyan Yaozhi Chutu Ciqi. Beijing:
Wenwu Chubanshe.
ZPICRA, SAMBU, and LCM. 2015. Longquan Dayao Fengdongyan Yaozhi. Beijing: Wenwu Chubanshe.
WORLD ARCHAEOLOGY 23