北宋代 貢瓷에 대한 인식과定窯와 汝窯의 성격

Abstract

This text takes a unique approach in investigating the connection between the Northern Song imperial court and Ruyao and Guanyao by focusing on a point prior to the time—as written in Ye Zhi’s Tan Zhai Bi Heng—when “the Song Dynasty commissioned the Ruzhou(汝州) area to produce celadons” that requires an understanding of those preexisting concepts of supply and demand as well as the systems previously in place for managing Northern Song royal ceramics. Thus by piecing together surviving records and inscribed ceramics, the characteristics of Dingyao and Ruyao are explored through changes in the location and system of royal ceramic production. This text begins with records indicating that the royal court began to use Ru celadon instead of Ding ceramics because the account of Tan Zhai Bi Heng establishes that white ceramics of Dingyao had ‘mang(芒)’. In the interest of understanding Ruyao, which is at the core of current research on N. Song Dynasty ceramics, this text intends to examine and connect all of the circumstances surrounding royal ceramic production prior to the use of Ruyao. First, the types, classification standards, processes, methods of managing rejected ceramics, etc. of N. Song tributary ceramics are explored primarily through records on ‘ceramics storage’ found in the “Treatise on Food and Money” from Song Huiyao Jigao. The foremost point is that the selection criteria of tributary ceramics accepted in several regions were not based on qualities such as shape, form, color, pattern, etc. but on the number of flaws and cracks. This suggests that ultimately N. Song Dynasty could not be concerned with the formative aspects of tributary ceramics in the production process. In other words, it can be inferred from Ye Zhi’s documents that the royal court of N. song could not solve the problem of ‘mang(芒)’ in Ding white ceramics. Though it can be confirmed that the wares of Dingyao were inscribed as Sangyangguk(尙藥局) and Sangsikguk(尙食局) and thus obviously purposed for the royal use in food and medicine, it is certain that neither the royal court nor the central government offices had control or influence over ceramic styles. It follows that although Dingyao were tributary ceramics this was not a period of ‘supply and demand’ where only commissioned styles were produced. The second point focuses on the practice of assigning monetary values to tributary ceramics rejected by the government or putting them up for barter. It is concluded that Ruyao did not fulfill its function as a royal kiln to satisfaction as evidenced by the selling after attaching fiscal worth to rejected Ruyao exactly as recorded in Zhou Hui’s Qing Bo Za Zhi. However contrary to Dingyao, the process of producing the wares of Ruyao was under the exclusive oversight of a single government official or organization and so it can be presumed that it was possible to produce ceramics prescribing to the form and standards preferred by the royal court.