JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.. Artibus Asiae Publishers is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Artibus Asiae. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 185.44.79.85 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 11:20:32 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions K'ai-feng, which in the Posterior Liang dynasty (907-922) was in fact known by the name Tungchin,.l Sir Percival David and Miss Hardy appear justified in their assumption that Tung yao being green in color was later mistakenly referred to as Tung-ch'ing or "eastern green" and that it was the fore-runner of what is commonly known as "Northern Celadon". A number of specimens of what Miss Hardy and Sir Percival David would designate as Tung ware are in the Foundation and are illustrated in the catalogue. Miss Hardy's discussion of Ju and Kuan ware is especially enlightening and clarifies many of the problems related to these wares. Of special interest is the section devoted to Hsiu-nei-ssui Kuan and Chiao-t'an Kuan ware. The remains of the latter factory, the Suburban Altar site, were discovered and first reported in 1913, and specimens from the site, distinguished by thin, usually dark gray, yet sometimes whitish body and crackled gray to grayish green glaze which is apt to be highly translucent, are easily recognized and well known to collectors and students alike (see Nos. 15 and A 62 in the Foundation).The earlier Hsiu-nei-ssu or Phoenix Hill site, which produced a much more refined ware, probably reserved for the Palace and ancestral temples of the Imperial family, has never been discovered, but Miss Hardy would assign to this site three very choice specimens in the Foundation, Nos. 5, 6 and 7. Sir Percival David has suggested, and rightly so, that the distinction between Hsiu-nei-ssu and and Chiao-t'an Kuan is essentially one of quality, not of kind (see footnote I). The reader is also re-
