CURRENT PROJECTS
Japan’s Maritime Trade in Ceramics – Archaeological Sources on
International Exchange in the 14th to 17th Centuries
(Supported by the German Research Foundation, DFG, 2008-2011)
International relations proved difficult for Japan during the Muromachi 室町
period (1333-1568), and at the same time, as can be discovered from the
archaeological record, maritime trade seem to have never been as active and
vivid in the East Asian seas as in those days. High fired ceramics were
particularly in great demand in Japan that, unlike Korea, had neither suitable
kilns nor sufficient technical knowledge to produce wares of a quality
comparable to those highly appreciated bowls and dishes from the Longquan 龍泉
celadon kilns in Zhejiang 浙江, or the famous Jingdezhen 景徳鎮 porcelain production
centre in Jiangxi 江西. In spite of the official maritime trade ban proclaimed by
early Ming 明 China, ceramics reached the Japanese archipelago in large amounts
during the Muromachi period.
This segment of maritime trade is illustrated mainly by archaeological sources.
Ceramic shards stemming from kilns outside the Japanese islands – from China,
Korea, and South East Asia – constitute one of the major finds among medieval
and early modern archaeological complexes. Typical ceramic wares of this period
comprise glazed and unglazed stoneware, celadon ware, white porcelain,
blue-and-white ware, as well as earthenware from different origins.
The project on ‘Japan’s Maritime Trade in Ceramics’ searches to contribute to
the perception of the structures and developments of maritime trade of Japan in
the 14th to 17th centuries by analyzing imported ceramics (Jap. bōeki tōji 貿易陶磁)
from various archaeological contexts, with a focus on coastal and maritime sites
in the western Japan area, namely Kyūshū, Tsushima and Iki Islands, the Gotō
Archipelago, and the Nansei (Ryūkyū) Island chain.
Island Archaeology
This project examines the archaeologies of smaller islands round the East Asian
coasts from a comparative perspective. The dichotomy of islands as places of
interaction and isolation serves as a framework for a discussion of the
distinctiveness of island cultures. Thus it is attempted to question the notion
of the sea as a barrier or as a means of exchange and communication.
Major questions raised in this context are as follows:
Did the sea really constitute a barrier, or can we regularly neglect it in
prehistoric and historic contexts? Are specific cultural elaborations typical
for an island framework, and if, what kind of such elements can we perceive? Can
islands in the East China Sea and the Korea Straits in consequence serve as key
areas for archaeological modelling? Is it possible to apply concepts addressing
a certain function of a geographical region, such as a “passage area” to one or
even all of our investigated islands or coastal areas? Is a model of a specific
“island archaeology” possible at all? Does it make sense in an East Asian
context? Or do we better focus on each cultural region separately regardless of
it being an island, a coastal, or an inland area?
The situation in East Asia is of course in many regards different from the
concept of isolation and remoteness, and land centred views, which underlies the
general perception of island archaeology (in the west). Rather than
concentrating on the island itself, we may include coastal areas from
neighbouring regions, thus placing islands in a larger framework, so as to reach
to a better understanding of maritime societies as such.