The Ko-Kutani kilns have long been shrouded in mystery, and there has been much debate among experts and pottery enthusiasts about their relationship to Arita porcelain. Amidst this situation, Ishikawa Prefecture, which had long been considering the clarification of the Ko-Kutani, conducted four excavation surveys between 1970 and 1977 by the Ishikawa Prefecture Ancient Kiln Site Excavation Survey Committee. As a result, the existence of the old Kutani kilns that had been set up as the official kilns of the Kaga-Oshiroji domain was clearly established, and more than 20,000 shards were collected from the site, allowing us to gain a comprehensive understanding of the products of the old Kutani kilns of the time.
Needless to say, there was a great deal of interest in how this excavation would answer the various questions that had been raised about the old Kutani ware with overglaze enamels that had been handed down through the generations, but it is no exaggeration to say that everyone with an interest in Japanese overglaze porcelain was also keen to see the results. After that, I was able to see the excavated fragments that had been temporarily stored at Nagoya University, and the experience was truly a great one. The majority of the large number of shards were white porcelain, and when I found some of the large flat bowls, which were 30 or 50 cm or more in size, I was very moved to hold them in my hands. I don’t think I need to explain, but I judged that such large flat bowls were not made to meet demand as white porcelain vessels, but were instead made with the aim of being used for overglaze decoration.
Furthermore, I was surprised to see a shard with the inscription “Meireki 2, Kutani, August 6” written in three lines in underglaze blue. It was known from historical records from the middle of the Edo period onwards, such as the “Shushu Kaeino Oji Suikei” and “Mugikyo Kibun”, that the Kutani kilns of the Oji domain had been opened in the Meireki era (1655-57), but this fragment proves that this is the case. There were also some notable pieces, such as a small fragment of a so-called “edge-reddish-brown dish” with a twisted flower-shaped rim and iron glaze around the rim, which is a special example of the old Kutani ware that has survived, and a fragment of a stand bowl with a phoenix design in underglaze blue or a fragment of a blue-and-white dish with a peony design. All of these were excavated from the first kiln since the founding of the kiln, but it was also unexpected to find shards of white porcelain and tea bowls in the style of the Gohongi-te style, with a rim bordered in a five-color pattern, excavated from the second kiln, which is thought to have been the second kiln, and this also greatly excited me.
However, as I observed the excavated fragments while comparing them with the shapes and styles of the old Kutani ware that have survived, I was made keenly aware that the white and blue-and-white unglazed wares fired at the old Kutani kilns did not cover the full range of styles of the old Kutani ware that have survived.
Even if we limit ourselves to flat bowls with a diameter of 30cm or more, it is estimated that the number of works that have been handed down that used the same clay as that excavated from the old Kutani kiln sites is surprisingly small. Of course, I don’t think that the shards excavated from the Motsuhara site are representative of all Kutani ware from that time, but it seems that many of the surviving works have footmarks on the white body of the flat bowls that were fired in Kutani, while footmarks are not found on the inside of the foot ring. Also, among the main groups of old Kutani ware that have survived, there are pieces with unique peony arabesque patterns and other designs in underglaze blue on the underside of the flat bowls, and pieces with Shourui-style patterns in underglaze blue, but it seems that none of these types of shards have been found. Furthermore, there are quite a few flat bowls over 30 cm in diameter that have been handed down over the generations, including those that have been called Aote Koutani, which have so-called rim-coloring on the rim, but it seems that the corresponding white unglazed base was also not found in the excavated shards. And when I looked more closely, it seems that none of the shards of flat bowls with a diameter of 35 cm or more had any blue-and-white painted lines around the foot or inside or outside the mouth. However, although I did not check, it seems that there are some pieces of flat bowls up to about 33 cm in diameter that have been decorated with these lines, so it may not be permissible to make generalizations based on the fact that we cannot see any of these lines on the excavated large flat bowl shards. However, if we make an objective estimate based on the excavated pottery fragments, we have to consider that it is highly likely that they were not fired, and that the majority of the so-called old Kutani ware that has been handed down is made in Arita.
As we have seen, the fragments excavated from the old Kutani kiln sites have raised various new issues when compared with the so-called old Kutani ware that has survived down to the present day, but as the historical records tell us, the old Kutani kilns were opened around the first year of the Meireki era (1655) with the aim of producing porcelain, with Goto Saijiro and Tamura Gonzaemon introduced Arita’s ceramic techniques under the leadership of people such as Goto Saijiro and Tamura Gonzaemon, and that the kilns were opened around the first year of the Meireki era with the aim of producing mainly porcelain, and that there were also quite a few products that were intended for overglaze enameling. Furthermore, the fact that fragments of so-called Aote Koutani, which used Kutani clay and were painted in underglaze blue, were found at the site of the old kiln, leads us to speculate that the overglaze enameling was also done at the Kutani kilns, but the actual situation regarding overglaze enameling at the Kutani kilns is still unclear.
From the kiln structure and excavated fragments discovered through excavation surveys, it is clear that the Kutani kilns were opened by introducing the pottery techniques of Arita, which had already been Japan’s largest porcelain production center since the Genwa and Kan’ei periods (1615-43), and which was producing both blue and overglaze enamelled porcelain.
It is said that when the kiln was first built, Goto Saijiro, a retainer of the Daishoji clan, stayed in Hizen and had a wife and child there for a time, but after learning the pottery techniques, he abandoned his wife and child and fled back to his home province, where he built the kiln. and has been widely publicized in later generations, but regardless of the truth of the matter, it is certain that a samurai named Goto Saijiro, together with a man named Tamura Gonzaemon, played a leading role in the founding of the Kutani Old Kilns.
However, there was a considerable difference in scale between the pottery industry in the Arita area and the kilns set up in Kutani. While the Kutani kilns were full-scale, they were set up one after the other, whereas the number of kilns in Arita at the time, including Uchiyama and Sotoyama, probably reached several dozen. This is similar to the situation in the Kuroda clan’s domain, where the Takatori kilns, which were the clan’s official kilns, were on a par with the Eimanji and Uchigaiso kilns, which were each on a par with each other in scale.
Therefore, it is not an exaggeration to say that the Kutani kilns were only of a nature that responded to the demand within the domain, while the porcelain industry in Arita, within the Nabeshima domain of Saga, was managed on an industrial basis that was separate from the rest. In the early Edo period, the only pottery industry in the Saga domain that existed as an industry with a Japanese and even global reach was probably due to the achievements that naturally formed from its vitality, but perhaps it was because there was a special understanding between the Saga domain and the shogunate there was probably a special agreement between the Saga clan and the shogunate, and the reason that the pottery industry in other clans was not as large as it could have been was probably because of some kind of restraint in their relationship with the shogunate.
Judging from the above, it is certain that there was a huge gap in production between Arita and Kutani. However, in comparison to the large number of works that have been handed down since the Meiji and Taisho periods, especially the excellent works of polychrome porcelain, the number of Japanese works of the so-called Ko-Imari polychrome porcelain produced in Arita in the same period, namely the second half of the 17th century, , including those in the Kakiemon style, seem to be fewer than those of the Ko-Kutani, and this is one of the phenomena that seems extremely strange when considering early Japanese polychrome porcelain.
As is described in the Kakiemon (Kizaemon) Iro-e Zogan (Porcelain with Overglaze Enamels) by the first generation Kakiemon (Kizaemon) Sakaida, Arita’s Iro-e porcelain was sold to the Dutch East India Company after 1647, and it is known from Dutch trading post records that it rapidly developed as an export industry, being exported in large quantities as a notable purchase for the East India Company. Therefore, it is possible to speculate that production was mainly for export rather than for domestic demand, but it is hard to believe that all of Arita’s products, which were such a large industry, were used for export. In fact, one part of the evidence that they were also meeting domestic demand is the diary “Kakki” written by the abbot of Rokuonji Temple in Kyoto, Horin Shoushou, which is a major cultural document from the early Edo period. 68), there are 135 entries in the diary for Imari ware, including blue and overglaze enamelled porcelain (in the diary, this is referred to as ‘kinte’ and ‘some-kinte’, which were the common names for this type of ware at the time).
However, when we look at the surviving pieces, we find that the number of pieces of Ko-Kutani ware, which were supposedly produced in a single kiln, is greater than that of Imari ware, which had a larger industrial base, and this has led to doubts about the Ko-Kutani ware, and it was Daisuke Kitahara (formerly the head of the ceramics department at the Imperial Household Museum) who first proposed the idea that Ko-Kutani ware was in fact the early Kakiemon ware. Today, Kitahara’s theory is quite contradictory, and in particular, the idea that all of Arita’s polychrome porcelain was produced by the first generation and subsequent generations of Kakiemon is no longer considered to be true in light of the progress made in the study of Imari ware, but it was the first opinion to cast doubt on what is known as Ko-Kutani and to relate it to Arita.
This Kitahara theory was later passed on to Yutaka Takanosu, who became the head of the ceramics department at the Imperial Household Museum and then the Tokyo National Museum, and then to Sakutaro Tanaka, who became the head of the ceramics department, and in particular, Mr. Tanaka said that “since there are things in the ‘old Kutani’ that are not Kutani Since there are items in the Koyaki that are not Koyaki, “it will take great courage to sort through and select them,” he thoughtfully suggested, without using the word “Ko-Imari,” that Ko-Imari was included in the Koyaki, considering the influence of his position.
Furthermore, it was Mr. Somjenings, who was the head of the Oriental Department at the British Museum and a leading expert on Japanese porcelain in Europe, who empirically demonstrated through actual works that some of the Ko-Kutani pieces were clearly Arita ware. The gist of his theory was that there was a group of works known as Ko-Kutani that he was convinced were clearly Arita ware, and that he believed these Imari wares were made before the exquisite Kakiemon ware, and that his theory was similar to the Kitahara theory. However, while Kitahara’s theory was based on a superficial investigation of the old kiln sites of Kutani and Arita, and he advocated the Imari theory by comparing the Kakiemon and Ko-Imari that have been handed down in Japan with Ko-Kutani , Mr. Genins showed actual examples of polychrome porcelain exported from Arita to Europe in the 17th century, and stated that the Ko-Imari included in the Ko-Kutani that the Japanese call Ko-Kutani was more convincing than the Kitahara theory. As a result of this theory, in Japan, works that had previously been considered Ko-Kutani ware gradually came to be treated as Imari ware, such as sake bottles and jars that used a lot of red in the overglaze enamels.
As Mr. Genins pointed out, there were indeed quite a few pieces that were once considered to be Ko-Kutani in Japan that were similar to the Imari polychrome porcelain exported to Europe before the Kanbun era (1661-72). It has become clear that the Kutani Old Kiln introduced Arita’s techniques and was in production from the first year of the Meireki era, so it is also thought that similar works in the same style were produced in Arita and Kutani from the Meireki to the Kanbun era. However, many of the works that have been handed down and referred to as Ko-Kutani are judged to be Imari in terms of the clay, shape, overglaze designs, and many other aspects, and there are no traces of this in the shards of the clay excavated from the old Kutani kilns. If this is the case, how did the overglaze designs of these Imari pieces come to be referred to as Ko-Kutani in later generations? It is not clear when they started being called Ko-Kutani, but it seems that they gradually came to be regarded as Ko-Kutani after the late Edo period, when the Wakasugi and Yoshidaya kilns were established, and that the theory was established in the 1930s by Dr. Masatoshi Okochi and Mr. Sataro Matsumoto, etc. However, I think that the following is what happened.
Namely, the Kaga clan had been sending a retainer to Nagasaki to buy goods since the Kan’ei era, and in the text of the “Kakun”, which is known as an important historical document of the first Kakiemon, it is written that when Kakiemon first sold his Akae ware in Nagasaki in the fourth year of the Shoho era, he also sold it to Hanawa Ichirobei, the retainer of the Kaga clan. The fact that the first Kakiemon specifically recorded the name of the Kaga clan’s purchasing agent is very significant, and it is clear that this purchase was not a small event for Kakiemon. Furthermore, in the same document, Kakiemon also mentions that he sold some of his wares to the Dutch trading post, and it is likely that the wares sold to the Kaga clan and those purchased by the Dutch trading post were of a similar style, as the polychrome Kakiemon ware of the time was born as an early style of polychrome ware for export, which was later ordered by the Dutch. After that, it is not clear how long the Kaga clan continued to purchase these items, but judging from the “Kaku” mark, it is not difficult to imagine that a considerable amount of Kakiemon ware and other Arita overglaze enamels were transported to Kaga at the time, and that such Kaga clan-purchased overglaze enamelled porcelain porcelain was passed down in the Kaga region for a long time afterwards, and when this is combined with the historical fact that porcelain and overglaze enameling were produced at the old Kutani kilns, it is likely that later imports from Arita were also considered to be old Kutani.
I have speculated about how Imari-style overglaze enamels, such as the early Kakiemon ware purchased by the Kaga clan, came to be known as Ko-Kutani, but it is clear that the establishment of the clan kiln in the Daishoji clan, which aimed to utilize Kutani porcelain, It is clear that the purchase of Imari ware in Nagasaki was a forerunner to the establishment of the kilns, and that the introduction of Arita techniques was planned when the kilns were set up, and that the kilns were established around the first year of the Meireki era. Did the Kutani porcelain industry, which was oriented towards overglaze enameling, produce the large quantities of fruit that had been generally recognized in the past? The fragments excavated from the old kiln sites certainly show that white porcelain bodies and various blue and white works were fired, and that overglaze enameling was also carried out. However, as already mentioned, it has become clear that many of the Ko-Kutani wares that have survived were not fired in the old Kutani kilns, and while it is not possible to go beyond speculation in the case of Ko-Kutani wares that are thought to have been painted in Kutani on Kutani-ware bodies, it seems that even in the case of large flat bowls, they do not account for even 10% of the wares that have survived. This means that while the production of polychrome porcelain within the domain was a success, it was not a particularly large-scale success.
The period of operation of the first old kiln in Kutani is thought to have been from the first year of the Meireki era to the Kanbun and Enpo eras (1661-80), but how many times was the kiln fired during that period? I can’t offer any archaeological insight, but from the fragments that have been excavated, it seems that the pottery industry was not very successful over the thirty years it was in operation, and it was certainly not a large-scale industry. The narrow range of styles represented by the fragments excavated from the site suggests that the quality of the porcelain was not as good as that of Arita ware, and it is clear that the porcelain produced there was not as good as that produced in Arita. , from the Genwa and Kan’ei periods, Arita produced works influenced by the late Ming dynasty’s Kosometsuke and Shousui Gousu-te, and in the Meireki and Kanbun periods, copies of Fuyou-te were added, and quite diverse and highly refined works were fired. In comparison, the Kutani Ko-gama ware is very weak and not as diverse as Arita’s. In particular, the patterns of bamboo, maple leaves, grapes, wild chrysanthemums, bellflowers, plums, vines, and aquatic plants, which are drawn in underglaze blue on many small bowls, are all drawn with a weak brushstroke, and are by no means as free and flowing as the Arita underglaze blue of the time. Some people say that these designs are “classical, Kyoto-style, painterly patterns”, but although this may be a matter of personal opinion, to me they seem more like general patterns seen in textiles, pottery and other items from the Keicho period onwards they seem to be more like craft designs than paintings, and if we are talking about the painterly quality, then the Arita blue and white porcelain is probably superior.
However, what is interesting is that the underglaze blue-and-white bowl excavated from the old kiln site has a similar expression to the phoenix and peacock design on the “Iroe Kiku Kujaku Mon Hirabachi” bowl, and there is a sense of connection between the chrysanthemum flowers painted beside the peacock and the wild chrysanthemum flowers painted in underglaze blue on the excavated small bowl. Therefore, judging from the fact that there are no marks on the foot ring and the way the overglaze design is expressed, it is thought that the “overglaze design of chrysanthemum and peacock on white porcelain” was made using the same type of white porcelain as that used in the Ko-Kutani ware, which was produced at the Kutani kilns. Therefore, it is clear that old Kutani ware with overglaze enamels painted on Kutani clay is naturally included among the surviving pieces, and while the distinction between Kutani and Arita clay and overglaze enamels is an important research topic, it is actually an extremely difficult task.
However, I once selected pieces that could be considered Kutani ware from among the flat bowls of old Kutani ware that I had seen, based on the guidance of Mr. Shoichi Narazaki, who was the leader of an excavation team investigating old kiln sites, and I found a number of pieces of Aote-Kutani ware among them. However, it is not necessarily the case that these Aote Kukutani ware, which are thought to have been made in Kutani, were a special product of the old kilns in Kutani. Excavation surveys of the old kiln sites in Arita have revealed that similar shapes and workmanship (plain bowl bodies with no marks on the foot ring) were also produced in Arita, and works with a very similar body to Kutani ware It is thought that works with a clay body that is extremely similar to that of Kutani ware were exported from Arita at the time, and judging from the fact that many of the works found have the same square-shaped Fukuji mark written on the foot ring, it is thought that since the founding of the kilns, Kutani ware was being fired in a similar way to Arita ware.
This was a natural phenomenon, considering that the founding of the Kutani kilns was carried out under the influence of Arita, but over time the uniqueness of Ko-Kutani was emphasized against the backdrop of the Kaga Hyakumangoku culture and came to be generally recognized.
For those who love Ko-Kutani deeply, the presumption that most of the Ko-Kutani ware that has survived is thought to have been made in Arita is difficult to accept immediately, and some people may have doubts that the fragments excavated from old kiln sites may not be all of the Ko-Kutani ware. It is true that the shards were discarded in a rubbish dump, and so it is difficult to say that the shards collected show the full picture of the period, but it is safe to say that the majority of the actual situation can be judged from the excavated shards. Therefore, we must address the extremely important issue of how we should consider the so-called “transmitted old Kutani ware” other than Kutani ware from the old kilns, and although various theories have been put forward in recent years, in the end, we have no choice but to acknowledge the existence of “old Kutani ware from Arita ware nowadays, it seems that there are only two interpretations: (1) the hypothesis that the base material was imported from Arita and the overglaze enamels were fired in Kaga, and (2) the theory that both the base material and overglaze enamels were made in Arita, and that the Ko-Imari ware is considered to be Ko-Kutani.
So, first of all, let’s look at the first theory. The basis of this theory is the assumption that all of the Ko-Kutani ware is the product of Kaga’s unique culture, and that it was developed by making full use of the Kaga overglaze techniques that had already been established over the previous decade or so since the beginning of the Meireki era, and that the designs of the overglaze enamels are generally is very different from the overglaze enamelled porcelain that is generally referred to as Ko-Imari (including Kakiemon-style), it is a theory that suggests that the Kaga region, which had a close relationship with Kyoto culture, absorbed the artistic and craft traditions of Kyoto and created its own unique style, and it is a theory that vividly expresses the splendor of the Kaga domain, and I used to think the same way. However, when we examine the following two points that form the basis of this theory, it seems that it unfortunately remains a hypothesis.
(1) Regarding the transfer of the clay from Arita. Was there a transfer of the Arita clay? Of course, a large amount of Arita-produced clay is used in the old Kutani ware that has survived to the present day, so unless this hypothesis is rejected, it would follow that much of the old Kutani ware that has survived to the present day is not actually old Kutani ware, and so you could say that the main point of this theory is based on this. In response to this hypothesis, Mr. Sakuro Yamashita, who estimates that the majority of the Ko-Kutani ware that has survived is from Arita, speculates that since the underglaze blue on the white porcelain body is only completed when the overglaze painting is added, it was not exported elsewhere. However, there is a record that of the 5,748 pieces of Arita porcelain purchased by the Dutch East India Company in 1659, approximately 1,800 were plain white porcelain, so it is difficult to say that they were not exported overseas and then transferred to Japan, and in the case of underglaze blue porcelain , it is more reasonable to accept the Yamashita theory, which states that the design is completed by adding overglaze enamels to the underglaze blue, as in the case of the Ko-Kutani Shonzui-te style. However, the arabesque pattern in underglaze blue on the reverse of the flat bowl means that the surface can be freely decorated, so it is not impossible that it could have been exported. Therefore, if we are talking about the base material itself, it is possible that it could have been exported.
Shimazaki Tsukasa of the Ishikawa Prefectural Museum of Art, who actively developed the theory of the importation of the clay body, speculated that the importation of Arita clay body was attempted after the closure of the first Kutani kiln, based on the archaeological residual magnetic measurement results, which indicated that the first Kutani kiln was closed around 1670 (Kanbun 10). , but it cannot be said that the production of the base material for the old Kutani kilns necessarily ended in 1670, and judging from the excavated items, it is estimated that there was a temporary interruption between the first and second kilns , but it is estimated that production continued almost continuously, so although we don’t know the production figures since the founding of the Kutani kilns, it is highly doubtful that they would have sought to supply other kilns when they were firing the clay themselves. The theory that the transfer of the clay was the reason for the establishment of the overglaze enameling art in Kaga is a very attractive hypothesis, but unfortunately we have to think of it negatively.
(2) Since I have expressed my negative opinion of the theory of the transfer of the underglaze design to the overglaze enamels in Kaga, it may not be necessary to mention the overglaze enamels, but since there is also debate about the location of the overglaze enamel kilns, I would like to express my personal opinion on the matter.
It is certain that polychrome overglaze enameling was possible in Kutani, but it is unclear whether all of the overglaze enameling was done in Kutani kilns or elsewhere. If we are talking about the transfer of large quantities of unglazed ware to be painted, then the transfer of unglazed ware to be painted in the Yamanaka Fukutani area would have been accompanied by many difficulties, and the idea of setting up a polychrome kiln in the castle town of Oji, as expressed by Matsumoto Sataro in his book “Teihon Kutani”, would have been necessary. However, while no reliable materials have been left behind to support such a hypothesis, fragments of overglaze enamels have been excavated from kiln sites, so we should consider that the overglaze enamels on old Kutani ware made from Kutani clay were fired in Kutani kilns, and the hypothesis that they were fired in the castle town of Ooshoji must be set aside along with the theory of clay transfer.
After the excavation of the old Kutani kilns, as we re-examined the hypothesis that the ware was made by importing the clay from Arita and then overglaze-decorating it in Kaga, as had been thought by Mr. Shimazaki and myself, we came to the conclusion that the Arita porcelain, which is thought to be the original Ko-Kutani ware that has been handed down, may have been decorated in Arita as well, but people must have serious doubts about such a supposition in the following points. Namely, if most of the Ko-Kutani ware was made in Arita, then why are there such differences in the designs and overglaze color schemes between the Ko-Imari ware that has been handed down and the Ko-Kutani ware that has been considered Ko-Kutani?
Many of the Ko-Kutani pieces use very little red in their overglaze designs, and instead make extensive use of purple, blue, green and yellow, especially purple, while many of the pieces that have been handed down as Ko-Imari are said to be mainly red in color, and there are also considerable differences in the patterns, so it is difficult to believe that they were all made in Arita, based on the traditional view of Ko-Imari. The hypothesis that the Ko-Kutani ware that has survived and been handed down uses Arita clay, but that it was painted in Kaga on imported clay, was also put forward because the color schemes and design styles themselves were quite different, and it was thought that this was due to the differences in the climates of Hizen and Kaga.
The differences between Ko-Imari and Ko-Kutani are so great, but if we assume that they were both made in Arita, then of course we must clarify the problems inherent in this, and I will now explain my thoughts on this.
As I have already mentioned, there was a great difference in the foundations of the pottery industry between Arita and Kutani in the late 17th century, the early Edo period when overglaze porcelain was being produced in large quantities. 15-23), and the latter was a clan kiln that was operated for around 60 years after the first year of the Meireki era (1655-1658), with one kiln being operated at a time.
However, the perception of Ko-Kutani was based on the image of the Kaga clan, which had the largest rice production in Japan, and it was thought that naturally many excellent works were produced there. This presumption was amplified, and it came to be regarded as Ko-Kutani, even including the colored porcelain imported from Arita , and in particular after the Meiji period, when the feudal system collapsed, it seems that the image of the Hyakumangoku grew larger and larger in people’s minds as time went on. It is true that the Kaga domain, from the second and third generations of the Maeda family, was a domain that cultivated a high culture centered on art and craft, backed by its economic power, but the domain kilns run by the Oojo domain of Oojoji were not a major industrial presence, and by regarding the old Kutani kilns as a product of the culture of the domain of a million koku, Kutani ware was overvalued. On the other hand, Arita is located within the domain of the Hizen Saga clan, but even before the Kan’ei era, when the domain-shogunate system was consolidated, it had already established a firm foundation as the largest pottery production center for porcelain, and afterwards, through the domain kilns and other means they also undertook production on commission from the shogunate and various daimyo, and they handled the management of the pottery business with a clever policy that was different from the management of the Kutani kilns of the Daishoji domain.
As we have seen, we should recognize the differences in scale and structure of the pottery industry, and proceed with our inferences about Ko-Imari and Kutani overglaze porcelain. Before doing so, however, I would like to go over the issues we have been aware of regarding Ko-Imari.
Generally speaking, the porcelain that is considered to be Ko-Imari can be divided into the following categories. Namely, there are first of all underglaze blue and overglaze enamels, and within the overglaze enamels there are so-called brocaded and brocaded underglaze enamels. Until the year 1647, when the first generation of Kakiemon Sakaida sold his overglaze enamels (although there may have been a trial production stage before this), blue and iron-glazed underglaze enamels known as Suisakate, as well as other types of porcelain, had been produced since the Genwa period, but underglaze blue was the main type of porcelain produced. After that, overglaze enameling began to be produced, and when this new product came to be in the spotlight, in addition to blue and white products, brocaded overglaze enameling and brocaded and overglaze enameling began to be produced, and it is thought that after the Genroku period (1688-1703), they were almost entirely unified into brocaded and overglaze enameling. In Arita, it was underglaze blue that was produced consistently from the time of the founding of the kilns, and if we are to consider the chronology of Arita porcelain, we cannot be certain of it unless we look for underglaze blue for overglaze enamels that match the underglaze blue. Although the main old kilns in Arita have been excavated to a considerable extent in recent years, it is still difficult to grasp the full picture of the excavated materials that correspond to the blue and white, brocaded, and brocaded overglaze enamelled porcelain that have survived, and only a part of the kilns that are thought to have produced the base material used in the old Kutani ware that has survived has been shown. In this situation, we are currently forced to attempt to date the ware based mainly on extant works and historical records, while also taking into account the results of archaeological excavations at the old kiln sites, but this is not clear because the number of works with high chronological and documentary value is extremely small. Therefore, even when examining the Ko-Kutani ware that has survived from the Arita ware, it is still not possible to go beyond the realm of tentative theories.
On the other hand, it is also a question of whether our previous understanding of the polychrome Ko-Imari ware produced in Arita was accurate. When I first started working in the field of old ceramics research in the early 1950s, the oldest works generally regarded as old Imari polychrome ware were those of the Kinrande style, such as the various dyed Kinrande-style bowls. And it was thought that all the Arita-ware colored enamels older than these were from the Kakiemon kiln, based on the assumption that they were all made by the first Kakiemon. This view was also held by Kitahara Daisuke, who first proposed the theory that Ko-Kutani and Ko-Imari were the same, and in his book “A Brief History of Japanese Art” (published by the Imperial Household Museum in 1937), he states that he believes that Ko-Kutani includes “the forerunners of the so-called Kakiemon style” and “early Kakiemon ware”. This idea was not just held by Kitahara, but also by other researchers and enthusiasts of old ceramics, and it has become generally accepted.
However, the production of Arita’s overglaze enamelled porcelain in the second half of the 17th century was not the exclusive domain of the Kakiemon kilns, but included various works produced by other kilns in and outside Arita, where the red-painted porcelain was fired on the unglazed porcelain produced in the area.
Therefore, Arita’s overglaze enamels should be seen as a general category of Ko-Imari overglaze enamels, and within this category there was a group known as the Kakiemon style (not all of which were produced at the Kakiemon kiln).
Some of these Ko-Imari overglaze enamels were purchased by the Dutch East India Company from 1647 onwards, and from 1659 in particular, they began to be produced in large quantities in response to Dutch orders and exported overseas. However, Arita porcelain, which was a major industry, was not only for export, and as we have already estimated by referring to the “Kakōki”, it is clear that works for the domestic market were also produced and handed down. However, for some reason, many of the late 17th century Imari ware for domestic consumption did not survive as Ko-Imari, and although it is not clear when this started, from the late Edo period onwards they gradually came to be treated as Ko-Kutani, and from the 1930s onwards, many works other than those in the Kakiemon style came to be called Ko-Kutani. However, among the various works in Japan that were considered to be Ko-Kutani, there are some that are clearly Imari ware, as pointed out by Mr. Some Janins, who says, “(omission) There is a group of works that we now believe to be Arita ware, even though they were classified as Kutani ware based on the condition of the painting and the coloring. We believe that these Imari wares were made in the period before the exquisite Kakiemon ware was produced (omission) (from “Japanese Porcelain” “Tosei” No. 40, 1956). In response to this theory, some of the works that had been considered Ko-Kutani ware were recognized as Ko-Imari ware , and from the 1950s onwards, many of the polychrome designs of the various types of Ko-Imari (including Kakiemon-style) that had been exported to Europe were bought back to Japan, and many people were able to see and hear about European collections, so that the style of the Ko-Imari export porcelain could be seen in its entirety.
However, despite the fact that we now know almost the entire story of the export Arita overglaze porcelain, or Ko-Imari, which we had previously thought of as typical Ko-Kutani, we have been unable to find many examples of it, and so the presumption that Ko-Kutani was made in Kutani has grown stronger. However, as we have already mentioned, the conclusive inference after the excavation of the old Kutani kilns is that there are a large number of works using Arita clay in the old Kutani ware that has been handed down, and moreover, the hypothesis that the clay was imported and the pieces were painted in Kaga is also difficult to support. It is said that the Ko-Kutani ware made with Arita clay that has been handed down to the present day was actually colored porcelain for domestic use that was painted in Arita, and we are forced to consider the possibility of this hypothesis, and it can be said that the concept of Ko-Imari up until now has been one that is biased towards export porcelain.
However, the various works that are generally known as Ko-Kutani ware were already recognized as products of the old Kutani kilns and were in the spotlight , and because the theory of Ko-Kutani ware has been developed in academic circles based on this concept, the theory that the majority of Ko-Kutani ware is actually Ko-Imari ware is not generally accepted.
However, at this point, based on the excavation of old kiln sites, it is an important academic issue to re-examine all the old Kutani and old Imari that have been handed down, and to add a chronological consideration to the study of polychrome porcelain from the early Edo period.
In light of past views of Ko-Kutani ware, and also because of the difficulty in distinguishing between Kutani-produced Ko-Kutani ware and Arita-produced ware, I recognize what has been considered Ko-Kutani ware up to now as Ko-Kutani ware style, although this is somewhat of a convenience.
