Earliest Chinese Ceramics in Europe

Antiquity 2021 Vol.
95 (383): 1213–1230
https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2021.95
Research Article
The earliest Chinese ceramics in Europe?

Alejandra Gutiérrez1,*, Christopher Gerrard1, Ran Zhang1 & Wang Guangyao2
1
Department of Archaeology, Durham University, UK
2
Wang Guangyao, Institute of Archaeology, The Palace Museum, Beijing, P.R. China
* Author for correspondence ✉ [email protected]
The importation of Chinese porcelain and celadon

into Europe has long been thought to have first
begun around the thirteenth century AD. A unique
group of Chinese ceramic sherds from archaeological
contexts in Spain dated to between the ninth and
eleventh centuries, however, now represents the
earliest Chinese wares identified in Europe. Such an
unexpectedly early presence on high-status sites in
Western Europe probably reflects changing patterns
of commerce in the Indian Ocean and the giving of
prestigious gifts at the very highest levels of social
and political power across the Islamic Mediterranean
world.
Keywords: Spain, medieval, material culture, porcelain, celadon, Islamic Empire
Introduction
This article introduces the earliest Chinese porcelain and celadon so far found in Europe, dat-
ing to the ninth to eleventh centuries AD. Both of these types of ceramic are extremely hard
and are made from semi-vitrified porcelain stone and/or kaolin, which is fired up to 1100–
1300°C (Guo 1987). In Western Europe they are traditionally differentiated on the basis of
their colour and transparency: celadon is greenish and opaque, while porcelain is white and
translucent. In the Chinese language no distinction is made and a single term (ci 瓷) is used
to refer to both.
Celadon and porcelain were first produced in China probably in the first century AD and
the sixth to seventh centuries AD, respectively (Li 1998: 167; Kerr & Wood 2004: 151–53;
Quan & Meng 2008: 101–102; Feng 2009: 238–39). Small numbers of vessels trickled into
Europe during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, but only began to arrive in larger
Received: 30 June 2020; Revised: 30 October 2020; Accepted: 13 November 2020

© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Antiquity Publications Ltd. This is an
Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike
licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided the same Creative Commons licence is included and the original work is
properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use.
1213
https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2021.95 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Alejandra Gutiérrez et al.
quantities once direct maritime trade routes between the Indian Ocean and the Mediterranean
were established at the beginning of the sixteenth century. After the East India and Dutch India
Companies began to conduct regular and direct trade with China in the seventeenth century,
these ceramics became increasingly popular. By the eighteenth century, Chinese porcelain
could be found in most households across Europe, while potters in the West still struggled
to discover the secrets of its manufacture (Finlay 1998; Carswell 1993; Canepa 2016).
The archaeologist Juan Zozaya was the first to highlight the presence on archaeological sites
in Spain of Chinese ceramics dating between the ninth and eleventh centuries AD (Zozaya
1969). These rare and unique finds are the earliest Chinese ceramics ever to have been identified
in Europe, and refute earlier claims that no porcelain entered Europe before the thirteenth
century (Whitehouse 1972; Wetzel 2012: 181). In this article, we examine how and why
these particular vessels were transported so far west at such an early date. This reassessment
is only now possible due to the recent discovery of further examples from Spain.
The early Chinese wares and their findspots

Thirteen fragments of Chinese ceramics, plus two of a slightly later date, have been recovered
from six different archaeological sites in Spain (Figure 1), mainly at the residences of local elite
rulers established at high-status secular sites, such as castles and palaces. The sherds are
described individually in the online supplementary material (OSM), where all previous iden-
tifications and dating are revised to take account of recent research (Figures 2–6).
Almería in southern Spain provides the earliest and largest assemblage of white porcelain
from northern China (Figure 2; catalogue nos 1–4 in the OSM). Between the end of the
ninth century and AD 1147, when the city was almost completely destroyed by a Christian
offensive, Almería was both the principal port of Islamic Spain and one of the most important
trading hubs in the Mediterranean. Twelfth-century Arab geographers describe the city as the
‘key’ to Andalusi commerce (referring to al-Andalus, the part of the Iberian Peninsula under
Islamic control; Constable 1994: 18–19; Lirola 2007), and they record maritime trade not
only directly with North Africa and Egypt, but also with Syria. According to the geographer
al-Idrisi, writing in the twelfth century, there were many local ‘marvellous’ industries in
Almería, including 800 silk-weavers (Lirola 2005: 61). Ships laden with luxury cloths, oil
and slaves sailed from the city to Alexandria, returning with silver ingots, dyes and brocades.
Almería was also the main boarding port for pilgrimage from Muslim Spain to Mecca and, in
the eleventh century, it became the base for the navy of the caliphate in al-Andalus (Lirola
2007: 108). In short, Almería was a rich, cosmopolitan cultural centre with extensive com-
mercial networks.
The Chinese porcelain sherds, which all come from bowls, were found in the alcazaba or
the city’s Islamic castle—a vast complex, some 400m long and 90m wide, divided into three
precincts, each accommodating several buildings. The main structures in the second precinct
were erected in AD 955 by ‘Abd al-Rahmān III (the Emir and later Caliph of Cordoba from
AD 912–961) and comprised a palace with courtyards and baths. The alcazaba overlooked
the port and from here it was possible to observe the arrival and departure of ships (Lirola
2005: 29). Although there have been more recent excavations at the site, this particular
part of the castle was investigated in the 1940s by the architect in charge of its restoration.
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Antiquity Publications Ltd
1214
Figure 1. Main places mentioned in the text (drawn by A. Gutiérrez).
1215
Figure 2. Porcelain from Almería (1–4) and Valencia (5–6) (drawn by A. Gutiérrez, after Heidenreich (2007: pl. 8)).
1216
Figure 3. Porcelain from Cullera Castle (7–8) and celadon from Zaragoza (10a–b) (drawn by A. Gutiérrez, after
Heidenreich (2007: pl. 65); no. 10 photograph by J. Garrido © Museo de Zaragoza).
1217
Figure 4. The reconstructed pattern on the interior of the exquisite celadon from Zaragoza (10). The exterior is similarly
carved (drawn by A. Gutiérrez, after Heidenreich (2007: pl. 8); photograph by José Garrido © Museo de Zaragoza).
1218
Figure 5. Celadon from Albarracín (11) and Valencia (12–13) (drawn by A. Gutiérrez, after Ortega (2006: 301) and
Heidenreich (2007: pl. 60); no. 11 photograph by Jorge Escudero © Museo de Teruel; no. 12 photograph
© Heidenreich (2007: Va 47)).
1219
Figure 6. Porcelain from Almería (1–2), Albarracín (9) and Valencia (14–15) (nos 1–2 © Alcazaba de Almería; no 9
photograph by C. Bazán © Acrótera; nos 14–15 © Sección de Investigación Arqueológica Municipal Valencia).
1220
Unfortunately, this latter work lacked any strict archaeological methodology (Suárez 2007)
and the Chinese wares were retrieved without any stratigraphic information. Consequently,
we know only that they were found in the second precinct.
Our study also includes six sherds from the city of Valencia: two of northern Chinese por-
celain (Figure 2; catalogue nos 5–6) and four of Yue and Longquan celadon (Figures 5–6;
catalogue nos 12–15). The sherds date to the eleventh to twelfth centuries (Figures 2 &
5–6; nos 5, 6, 12 and 13) and to the late thirteenth to fourteenth centuries (Figure 6; nos
14–15). While this group of material from Valencia is the largest, many of the sherds derive
from unpublished excavations, making it difficult to evaluate their contexts and associations.
At least one porcelain sherd (no. 5) and one Yue celadon sherd (no. 13) are from mixed
deposits of different dates, representing material disturbed from their original contexts.
The other Yue celadon sherd (no. 12) was recovered from an eleventh-century house within
the Islamic city. The porcelain sherd (no. 6) came from the excavation of a large plot of land
(approximately 5600m2) in the Valencian quarter of Velluters, just outside the Islamic walled
city. This area seems to have been only partly urbanised in the eleventh century, and its hous-
ing was interspersed with allotments and cultivated fields (Martí 2002: 65). Little is known
about this period of occupation, and Velluters has been heavily disturbed by later construc-
tion. The quarter is better known for its craft activities after the Christians regained control of
Valencia in AD 1238. The Chinese sherd cannot be linked to a specific dwelling, although it
was found in an eleventh-century deposit and dated by association with other ceramic finds
(García 2009).
Two of the Longquan celadon sherds (Figure 6; nos 14–15) date to the post-Islamic occu-
pation of Valencia. One (no. 14) was found in the fill of a ditch next to the Islamic city wall,
near the Exerea gate (Rosselló & Lerma 1997: 306). The second (no. 15) was also recovered
from post-Islamic occupation layers, at the Royal Palace site (Ribera et al. 2016).
Some 40km south of Valencia lies the site of Cullera. The fortress here was built in the
tenth century to control and defend the coast where the River Júcar flows into the Mediter-
ranean. It remained an Islamic fortress until the Christian offensive of AD 1238 (Climent
et al. 2015: 73). Excavation of the castle’s main tower has yielded two plain porcelain sherds
(Figure 3; catalogue nos 7–8). All the material recovered is of mixed date within the Islamic
period, between the tenth and early thirteenth centuries (Rosselló 2006).
Finds from the alcazaba (Islamic castle) of Albarracín in the province of Teruel include a
fragment of a decorated Qingbai porcelain bowl (Figure 6; catalogue no. 9) made in Jingdez-
hen, southern China, found in a deposit dating to the first half of the twelfth century (Her-
nández 2018). A second, unstratified Yue celadon sherd (Figure 5; catalogue no. 11) was
found during older, unpublished excavations (Ortega 2006: 301). The alcazaba at Albarracín
was built on an impressive rocky outcrop overlooking the settlement. Encircled by a defensive
wall, the castle precinct enclosed approximately 3600m2, and has its origins in the early elev-
enth century (Almagro 2010). By that date, civil war among the ruling Muslims in Spain had
led to political and territorial divisions and the emergence of smaller, independent taifas
(principalities). Albarracín, the capital of one of these powerful new kingdoms, was estab-
lished by the Berber family of Banu Razin in AD 1013/1014. It remained under Islamic con-
trol until AD 1168, although it was not until AD 1284 that it was finally taken by Christian
troops from Aragón (Hernández 2015).
1221
Excavations within the walled fortress—on the highest point of the outcrop—identified a
large palatial residence with its hammam (hot bath) laid out around a central courtyard,
together with a complex of buildings farther downslope, to the south. The lower part of
the site occupied an area of 700m2 and consisted of three dwellings, each organised around
its own paved courtyard (Motis 2008; Hernández & Franco 2010). It is assumed that these
buildings were the residences of high officials associated with the court of the Albarracín taifa,
but there would also have been other facilities, such as a public audience hall. The porcelain
sherd (Figure 6; no. 9) was found near the most architecturally elaborate structure (house II
with an arched portico), together with cooking pots and imported lustreware dating to c.
1100–1130; the deposit has been interpreted as soil and rubbish that had accumulated
over time (Hernández 2018).
The Aljafería in Zaragoza is an Islamic fortified palace built in the eleventh century by
Ahmad al-Muqtadir, ruler of the taifa kingdom of Zaragoza (AD 1049–1082), in an archi-
tectural style that was clearly influenced by Umayyad Syria (Cabañero 2007). Excavations in
the courtyard area in 1993 produced a beautifully decorated Yaozhou celadon sherd (Figures
3–4; catalogue no. 10), which was redeposited in a mixed layer containing eighteenth- and
nineteenth-century ceramics (J. Paz, Museo de Zaragoza pers. comm.). Ahmad al-Muqtadir
was a powerful ruler who controlled not only Zaragoza, but also a region that extended to
the Mediterranean, including Tortosa (Tarragona), Denia (Alicante) and Valencia—the
latter providing direct access to maritime trade routes. Zaragoza’s location in the Islamic Iber-
ian Peninsula, and at the frontier of Islamic and Christian territories, ensured its importance
as a trading centre. The taifa court here was famed for its patronage of the arts, such as
philosophy and literature, as well as the sciences, such as astronomy and mathematics
(Bosch 1960).
Given the paucity of Chinese ceramic sherds from well-published archaeological contexts,
it is impossible to be specific about how the ceramics were used. None of the vessels could
have been used to transport food or liquids as all are bowls. Given their exceptional quality
and rarity for the time, it is conceivable that they were display objects. Their decorative
details, tactile smooth surfaces and crystal-like properties would appeal to the eye, touch
and even the ear; porcelains emit a clear ‘ring’ when tapped. The repeated inscription on
the bowl fragment (Figures 2 & 6; catalogue no. 2) would have echoed decorative repertoires
executed in filigree stucco in the architectural spaces in which the vessel was displayed. The
full phrase—al-mulk li-llah̄ i (‘to God alone belongs sovereignty’)—is frequently found in
architectural decoration, and its abbreviation ‘al-mulk’ appeared on ceramics and metalware
from the ninth century across the Islamic territories. In the Qur’an the term al-mulk refers to
God’s sovereignty and authority, as well as to the earthly authority bestowed by God on not-
able individuals. During the caliphate of the Syrian Umayyads (AD 650–750), al-mulk came
to signify the institution of the caliphate itself. In the context of the Cordoban emirate on the
Iberian Peninsula (AD 756–929), the inscription evoked an association with the Syrian
Umayyads—ancestors of the Cordoban rulers—and thus stood for Córdoba’s legitimate
claim to the caliphal authority that followed (AD 929–1031) (Anderson 2015).
Finds of ceramics at the residences of ruling families and the high aristocracy, such as
Albarracín, Almería, Zaragoza and (later) Valencia, with their audience halls, pavilions and
gardens, evoke the aesthetic opulence and colour palette of their surroundings rendered in
1222
carved stone, polished marble, bronze plating and stained glass. In these places of bureau-
cratic, personal and ideological power, Chinese ceramics were an unfamiliar art form,
more akin to glass in texture and translucence, but also finer and harder than any known pot-
tery. The addition of a gold inscription on a bowl (Figures 2 & 6; catalogue no. 2) would have
been familiar from painted glass (Suleman 2006: 144) and other decorative arts, especially
calligraphy. Gold was the colour of light, including the sun, and a symbol of knowledge,
while white represented purity, brightness, loyalty and cleanliness (Cornell 2007; Al-Zadjali
2015). Porcelain and celadon vessels like these were exotic objects that were unavailable
to even the ruler’s wealthiest subjects. Their presence in urban deposits in Valencia
(Figures 2 & 5–6; catalogue nos 5–6 & 12–14) is therefore intriguing, but at present cannot
be investigated further.
Discussion
How did these porcelain and celadon vessels reach Islamic Spain? While goods from China
did arrive indirectly in Europe via the overland caravan routes of the Silk Road, a more likely
route for these ceramics would have been by sea across the Indian Ocean, linking the South
China Sea and Persian Gulf with the Red Sea, the east coast of Africa and Egypt. These mari-
time routes were already active in the ninth and tenth centuries. The paucity of Chinese cer-
amics found in Central Asia, as opposed to the large quantities recorded in contemporaneous
written accounts, as well as those recovered from shipwrecks, seems to confirm that these
heavy but fragile objects were probably transported along a maritime route rather than over-
land (Qin & Xiang 2011; Miksic 2017).
Figure 7 shows the wider distribution of wares similar to those identified in Spain. For the
eighth to ninth centuries this includes Xing white porcelain and, for the tenth to twelfth
centuries, Ding white porcelain, Jingdezhen Qingbai (bluish-white) porcelain, and Yue
and Yaozhou celadon. The rarity of these vessels suggests that, rather than large-scale trade
commodities, they were special or luxury items (Zhang 2013). Tang Chinese ceramics
(c. mid-eighth to mid-tenth centuries) have been recovered from Islamic archaeological
sites in southern India, the Arabian Gulf, East Africa and at Fustat, the first capital of
Egypt under Muslim rule (Zhang 2013). The northern and central Persian Gulf has the
largest concentration of such sites, which have yielded a wide range of wares, including
Yue celadon, Xing white porcelain, Changsha polychrome stoneware, Dusun coarse trans-
port jars made in Guangdong and south Jiangxi, and a few Sancai/green-splashed poly-
chrome, highly fired vessels (Zhang 2016; Wen 2018). This suggests that, at this time
(mid-eighth to mid-tenth centuries), the Abbasid caliphate was a target for trade originating
from the port of Guangzhou (Canton) in southern China, with the Persian Gulf acting as
both the main consumer of ceramics and as a redistribution centre.
This distribution pattern shifted from the tenth century—the key period of interest for
most of the Spanish ceramic finds. While some sites in southern India and Sri Lanka
remained significant in the trade of Chinese ceramics, changes were taking place in the Per-
sian Gulf: the centre of trade moved from Siraf (Iran) south to Kish and to the Minab area
following the decline of the Abbasid caliphate in Iran and the rise of the Fatimid caliphate in
Egypt (Chaudhuri 1985: 58). Fatimid Egypt flourished as a connecting and meeting point
1223
Figure 7. Distribution of known Chinese wares of the ninth to twelfth centuries AD (drawn by R. Zhang, after Zhang
2016).
1224
between the East (China, India, Arabia) and the West (North Africa, the Eastern Mediter-
ranean, Southern Europe), developing and expanding trade (Lev 2012). Among the com-
modities brought or being sought were Chinese wares, and it is this improved access to
ceramic imports in the Eastern Mediterranean that probably explains why Chinese ceramics
reached Spain after the tenth century. Lustre-decorated pottery (painted with gold colours)
made in Egypt in the tenth and eleventh centuries is present at major settlements and ports in
Islamic Spain, including Almería, Valencia, Medinaceli and Tiermes (Heidenreich 2001,
2013; Muñoz & Flores 2007). In return, textiles, mercury and cinnabar were probably
exported from Islamic Spain, while figs from Malaga are reported to have travelled all the
way to China (Constable 1994: 173–87 & 220).
The inscription on the bowl from Almería (catalogue no. 2) provides perhaps the most
convincing evidence for the involvement of intermediaries in the distribution of Chinese cer-
amics. The lettering must have been added by a Muslim craftsman after the bowl was pro-
duced. It seems likely that this could have taken place while the ware was in transit,
perhaps in Syria or Egypt, where lustre (gold colour) decoration was regularly painted
onto glass as early as the fifth century (Suleman 2006: 144). It is less probable that the golden
inscription may have been added in Almería itself, because the use of gold decoration on pot-
tery and glass seems only to have started there in the second half of the eleventh century.
While pottery originating in North Africa in the tenth and eleven centuries has a clear coastal
concentration that reflects trans-Mediterranean commerce, the distribution of Chinese
ceramics in Spain is quite different. This group is found at high-status sites, that is, mainly
important castles, citadels and fortresses, several of them political centres. Although some
of these places, such as Almería and Valencia, were important ports along the Mediterranean
coast, the sherds are also found far inland, at Albarracín and Zaragoza, for example.
Altogether, this evidence not only suggests the involvement of Arab merchants and craftsmen
in the distribution system, but also that the acquisition of these wares was not determined
simply by easy access to goods arriving at international ports. By contrast, in Italy, for
example, where hundreds of eleventh- to twelfth-century ceramic bowls from Islamic sources
(e.g. Tunisia, Morocco, Egypt, Sicily and Spain) were used to decorate church façades, no
Chinese wares have been found. Indeed, all the 146 bowls still preserved at Pisa come exclu-
sively from the Islamic world (Mathews 2014). This supports the suggestion that availability
and access to Chinese wares was rare and difficult, and likely to be outside the normal trade
channels.
The contemporaneous political context is also important. During the seventh and eighth
centuries—the first two centuries of the Islamic empire—a single caliph maintained author-
ity over the worldwide Muslim community. The ninth and tenth centuries, however, saw
religious and political competition among rival imperial powers. By AD 930, the caliphate
was divided among three rival dynasties: the Abbasids of Baghdad (AD 750–1258), the
Umayyads of Córdoba (AD 756–1031) and the Fatimids of Cairo (AD 909–1171). Each
dynasty laid claim to universal authority over the lands of Islam, each establishing capital cit-
ies beyond their caliphal courts and controlling vast regional territories in Central Asia, the
Iberian Peninsula and North Africa (Anderson & Pruitt 2017). The eleventh century
brought further political fragmentation and the creation of smaller independent states.
Trade in the Iberian Peninsula was no longer run as a monopoly as it had been under the
1225
caliphate. International trade was strengthened, especially with Oriental Islam (in Asia), and
coastal ports acted as redistributors, growing in importance as economic hubs within their
respective taifa kingdoms (Lirola 1993). Although textual sources pay little attention to
the architectural environment of palatial culture, it is evident that the visual arts played
their part; in this respect, archaeology can contribute to our wider understanding of material
culture in a courtly context.
In Zaragoza, Albarracín and Valencia, the tenth and eleventh centuries were also a time of
cultural and economic prosperity. The Islamic palaces were places where transactions of
power and allegiance occurred, often facilitated through the offering of reciprocal gifts; per-
haps some individuals sought favour through the giving of exotic pottery. It is notable that
even though Chinese ceramics have been found across Asia and East Africa, the number so far
catalogued by archaeologists in the Western Mediterranean is remarkably low. This implies
exclusivity. Were these gifts carefully selected for kings and rulers? The choice of bowls seems
well adapted to suit local taste, as these forms were familiar on the Islamic tables of the time.
Yet there are also rare, and sometimes unique, pieces, such as the beautifully carved celadon
bowl from Zaragoza (catalogue no. 10), for which there are no known parallels outside China.
Others, such the Almería sherd with its inscription (catalogue no. 2), were apparently specif-
ically modified to increase their appeal. Gift giving was an essential part of Islamic culture,
and written sources record that Chinese wares were transferred in exactly this manner. An
early reference in a Persian text, for example, describes a group of 20 pieces of imperial
China ware, along with 2000 other Chinese ceramics, being given to the Caliph of Baghdad
by the governor of Khurasan in the eighth century—vessels never previously “seen at the
court of any king” (Hallett 2011: 75).
The mechanisms for the arrival of this very early group of ninth- to eleventh-century Chin-
ese wares seem to be unrelated to direct commercial transactions. It was only in the thirteenth
century, when the dynamics of trade in the Mediterranean changed and Christian traders from
Spain, Italy and southern France began to play an active role, that there was a second trickle of
Chinese wares. These are found in thirteenth- and fourteenth-century contexts associated with
wealthy merchants and diplomatic circles (e.g. Whitehouse 1966, with finds requiring reassess-
ment; Amouric & Vallauri 2000; Roascio 2015; Lin & Zhang 2018). By then, Chinese wares
were more common across Asia and Egypt, where archaeological finds amount to thousands of
sherds, contrasting sharply with their rarity in earlier centuries (Yuba 2014). The post-Islamic
finds from Valencia (catalogue nos 14–15) correspond to this phase and confirm the role of the
city as one of the main ports of international trade in the Mediterranean.
Conclusions
In the ninth and tenth centuries there were no white ceramics being made in Spain, other
than earthenwares painted with a white slip. By comparison, the porcelains described in
this article would have had qualities previously unseen: not only were they bright white,
hard and very thin, they were also translucent, and sometimes the Chinese wares were not
just painted but also decorated in relief. These qualities would have been extraordinary in
ninth- to tenth-century Western Europe. Even Muslim potters, who were famed for their
skills, were unable to reproduce them.
1226
We can only speculate as to how these particular vessels reached their destinations in
Spain. Clearly, they must pre-date the fashion for Chinese porcelain that would drive Eur-
opeans to the other side of the world in the sixteenth century, and they certainly arrived
in Spain through very different mechanisms. Islamic societies were fascinated by Far Eastern
products (especially, for example, silk, gold decorated brocades, aromatics and a wide range of
spices; Constable 1994; George 2015), including ceramics, and it was the Islamic empire’s
trade contacts with China that facilitated access to these goods. The distribution of Chinese
ceramics at the western end of the Mediterranean, however, does not seem to have coincided
with the international trade networks developing there in the tenth century, and must have
been motivated by other factors. The rarity of the finds suggests that they were not goods pur-
chased or exchanged through routine commercial transactions or channels. Instead, their dis-
covery at high-status sites and places of political influence implies that they were carefully
chosen objects, probably offered as gifts to kings and rulers, perhaps with the intention of
easing diplomatic relations or otherwise gaining favour.
Whatever the precise mechanisms by which they travelled, this small group of ninth- to
eleventh-century Chinese wares is unparalleled in Europe. Through the publication of this
article, we hope to raise awareness of these early imports of Chinese wares into Europe
and to encourage the search for similar finds from elsewhere in Spain and beyond.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank all of our colleagues who gave access to the sherds, shared drawings or
photographs and discussed the finds, especially María Luisa García Ortega, the Museum Alca-
zaba de Almería; Anja Heidenreich, Bamberg University; José Antonio Hernández, Acrótera;
Diana García, Gobierno de Aragón; Isidro Aguilera, Museo de Zaragoza; J. Vicent Lerma,
Sección de Investigación Arqueológica Municipal Valencia; and Jaime Vicente, Museo de
Teruel. Hugo Blake, Fabrizio Benente, Marcella Giorgio, Lucy Vallauri and Valentina Vezzoli
were kind enough to reply to queries and provide bibliographic references during the
COVID-19 lockdown. Thanks also to Richard Lunt for his comments on the Arabic writing.
Funding statement
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency or from commercial and
not-for-profit sectors.
Supplementary material
To view supplementary material for this article, please visit https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.
2021.95
References
Almagro, A. 2010. Arqueología de la arquitectura Al-Zadjali, Z.A. 2015. The influence of Islamic
en el Albarracín medieval, in J. Ortega & arts on Omani weaving motifs. International
C. Escriche (ed.) I Jornadas de arqueología Journal of Social, Behavioral, Educational,
medieval en Aragón: balance y novedades: 333–56. Economic, Business and Industrial Engineering 9:
Teruel: Museo de Teruel. 3446–49.
1227
Amouric, H. & L. Vallauri. 2000. From García, I. 2009. La cerámica de importación en la

al-Andalus to Cannakale: the paths of Islamic ciudad de Valencia: el barrio de Velluters. Actas
ceramics in the French South, in M. Sciallano del VIII Congreso Internacional de cerámica
(ed.) Céramiques du fond des mers: les nouvelles medieval en el Mediterráneo 1: 141–58.
découvertes, actes du colloque de la Société d’Étude George, A. 2015. Direct sea trade between early
de la Céramique: 123–27. Paris: SCAM. Islamic Iraq and Tang China: from the exchange
Anderson, G.D. 2015. Sovereignty and the materiality of goods to the transmission of ideas. Journal of
of Caliphal encounters. Publications of the Modern the Royal Asiatic Society 25: 579–624.
Languages Association of America 130: 393–401. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1356186315000231
https://doi.org/10.1632/pmla.2015.130.2.393 Guo, Y. 1987. Raw materials for making porcelain
Anderson, G.D. & J. Pruitt. 2017. The three and the characteristics of porcelain wares in north
caliphates, a comparative approach, in F.B. Flood and south China in ancient times. Archaeometry
& G. Necipoğlu (ed.) A companion to Islamic art 29: 3–19.
and architecture, volume 1: 223–49. Hoboken https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4754.1987.
(NJ): Wiley Blackwell. tb00393.x
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119069218.ch9 Hallett, J. 2011. Pearl cups like the moon: the
Bosch, J. 1960. El reino de Taifas de Zaragoza: Abbasid reception of Chinese ceramics, in
algunos aspectos de la cultura árabe en el valle R. Krahl, J. Guy, J. Keith Wilson & J. Rabi
del Ebro. Cuadernos de Historia Jerónimo Zurita (ed.) Shipwrecked: Tang treasures and monsoon
10–11: 7–67. winds: 75–81. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian
Cabañero, B. 2007. La Aljafería de Zaragoza. Books.
Artigrama 22: 102–29. https://doi.org/10.5040/9780755694099.ch-020
Canepa, T. 2016. Silk, porcelain and lacquer: China Heidenreich, A. 2001. Cerámica islámica de
and Japan and their trade with Western Europe and importación en la península Ibérica. Anales de
the New World, 1500–1644. London: Paul Arqueología Cordobesa 12: 323–52.
Holberton. – 2007. Islamische Importkeramik des hohen
Carswell, J. 1993. The feast of the gods: the Mittelalters auf der Iberischen Halbinsel: unter
porcelain trade between China, Istanbul and besonderer Berücksichtigung der frühen lokalen
Venice. Asian Affairs June 1993: 180–85. Goldlüsterproduktion im Untersuchungsraum.
Chaudhuri, K.N. 1985. Trade and civilization in Mainz am Rhein: Von Zabern.
the Indian Ocean: an economic history from the rise – 2013. La loza dorada temprana en el ámbito
of Islam to 1750. Cambridge: Cambridge Mediterráneo y la implementación de la nueva
University Press. técnica en la Peninsula Ibérica: una aproximación,
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107049918 in First international conference of the European
Climent, J.M., M.I. Giner & Á. Rodrigo. 2015. Network of Museums of Islamic Art, Granada:
El castillo de Cullera: adecuaciones del castillo 271–97. Granada: Patronato de la Alhambra y
islámico, in P. Rodríguez-Navarro (ed.) Defensive Generalife.
architecture of the Mediterranean 15th to 18th centuries, Hernández, A. 2015. La intervención arqueológica
volume 2: 71–77. Valencia: Universitat Politècnica. en el Castillo de Albarracín, la campaña de 2004.
Constable, O.R. 1994. Trade and traders in Muslim Salduie, Revista de Prehistoria y Arqueología 15:
Spain: the commercial realignment of the Iberian 233–62.
Peninsula, 900–1500. Cambridge: Cambridge – 2018. La cotidianidad en la alcazaba andalusí de
University Press. Albarracín (Teruel): el testimonio de la cerámica,
Cornell, V.J. 2007. Voices of Islam, volume 5: voices in J.M. Ortega (ed.) II Jornadas de Arqueología
of art, beauty and science. London: Praeger. Medieval en Aragón: 225–59. Teruel: Museo de
Feng, X. 2009. Zhongguo taoci [Chinese ceramics]. Teruel.
Shanghai: Shanghai Guji Chubanshe. Hernández, A. & J.G. Franco. 2010. Albarracín
Finlay, R. 1998. The pilgrim art: the culture of medieval: arqueología urbana en los últimos años,
porcelain in world history. Journal of World in J.M. Ortega (ed.) I Jornadas de Arqueología
History 9: 141–87. Medieval en Aragón: 357–402. Teruel: Museo de
https://doi.org/10.1353/jwh.2005.0099 Teruel.
1228
Kerr, R. & N. Wood. 2004. Science and civilisation mediterráneos, in Á. Suárez (ed.) Almería, puerta
in China, volume 5: chemistry and chemical del Mediterráneo (Monografía del Conjunto
technology. Part 12: ceramic technology. Monumental de la Alcazaba 1): 53–98. Almería:
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Junta de Andalucía.
Lev, Y. 2012. A Mediterranean encounter: the Ortega, J. 2006. Anatomía del esplendor: fondos de la
Fatimids and Europe, tenth to twelfth centuries, sala de Historia Medieval, Museo de Albarracín.
in R. Gertwagen & E. Jeffreys (ed.) Shipping, Albarracín: Fundación Santa María.
trade and crusade in the medieval Mediterranean: Qin, D. & K. Xiang. 2011. Sri Vijaya as the entrepôt
studies in honour of John Pryor: 132–56. Farnham: for circum-Indian Ocean trade. Études Océan
Ashgate. Indien 46–47: 1–22.
Li, J. 1998. Zhongguo kexue jishu shi (taoci juan) [The https://doi.org/10.4000/oceanindien.1379
history of Chinese science and technology (volume of Quan, K. & Y. Meng. 2008. Gudai taoci [Ancient
ceramics)]. Beijing: Kexue Chubanshe. ceramics]. Beijing: Wenwu Chubanshe.
Lin, M.C. & R. Zhang. 2018. A Chinese porcelain Ribera, A., J.V. Lerma, J. Pascual,
jar associated with Marco Polo: a discussion from E. Coig-O’Donnell & J. Morín. 2016. El
an archaeological perspective. European Journal of ‘Palau Reial’ de Valencia: arqueología y memoria.
Archaeology 21: 39–56. Valencia: Ayuntamiento de Valencia.
https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2017.21 Roascio, S. 2015. Un céladon in
Lirola, J. 1993. El poder naval de al-Andalus en la Valfontanabuona (GE): appunti per la presenza
época del califato Omeya. Granada: Universidad de di ceramiche cinesi nel medioevo ligure. Atti
Granada. dei Convegni Internazionali della Ceramica,
– 2005. Almería andalusí y su territorio: textos Albisola 47: 7–22.
geográficos. Almería: Junta de Andalucía. Rosselló, M. 2006. Cerámicas emirales y califales de
– 2007. El tráfico marítimo de la Almería andalusí la Torre Celoquia y los orígenes del castillo de
(siglos X–XII), in Á. Suárez (ed.) Almería, puerta Cullera. Qulayra 2: 7–34.
del Mediterráneo (Monografía del Conjunto Rosselló, M. & J.V. Lerma. 1997. El ‘Vall Vell’ de
Monumental de la Alcazaba 1): 99–116. Almería: Valencia: un registro cerámico excepcional de los
Junta de Andalucía. siglos XIII–XIV, in M. Acién & V. Salvatierra
Martí, J. 2002. A la luna de Valencia: una (ed.) Arqueología y Territorio: Actas del coloquio La
aproximación arqueológica al espacio preurbano cerámica andalusí. 20 años de investigación:
de la ciudad islámica’, in S. Dauksis & 303–19. Jaén: Universidad de Jaén.
F. Taberner (ed.) Historia de la ciudad II: https://doi.org/10.17561/aytm.v6i0.1537
Territorio, sociedad y patrimonio: 55–73. Valencia: Suárez, Á. 2007. Crónica del conjunto [2000–
Colegio Oficial de Arquitectos de la Comunidad 2005], in Á. Suárez (ed.) Almería, puerta del
Valenciana. Mediterráneo (Monografía del Conjunto
Mathews, K.R. 2014. Other peoples’ dishes: Islamic Monumental de la Alcazaba 1): 231–49. Almería:
bacini on eleventh-century churches in Pisa. Gesta Junta de Andalucía.
53: 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1086/675415 Suleman, F. 2006. Ceramics, in J.W. Meri (ed.)
Miksic, J.N. 2017. Chinese ceramic production and Medieval Islamic civilization: an encyclopedia,
trade, in D. Ludden (ed.) Oxford research volume 1: 143–44. London: Routledge.
encyclopedia of Asian history. Oxford: Oxford Wen, W. 2018. Chinese ceramics in the Islamic
University Press. world from the 8th to 10th centuries CE.
https://doi-org.ezphost.dur.ac.uk/10.1093/ Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of
acrefore/9780190277727.013.218 Oxford.
Motis, M.A. 2008. Santamariyyat As-Sarq: la taifa Wetzel, A. 2012. Da Oriente a Occidente e ritorno:
musulmana de Albarracín (1012–1104), in la porcellana cinese nel mondo medievale, in
J. Martínez González (ed.) Comarca de la Sierra de M.A. Norrell, D.P. Leidy, L. Ross, L. Molà,
Albarracín: 79–84. Zaragoza: Gobierno de L. Rosati, A. Wetzel, P. Piacentini & G. Di
Aragón. Flumeri Vatielli (ed.) Sulla Via della Seta. Antichi
Muñoz, M. & I. Flores. 2007. La cerámica sentieri tra Oriente e Occidente: 168–97. Torino:
medieval en los intercambios comerciales Codice.
1229
Whitehouse D. 1966. Ceramiche e vetri medioevali functions of Xing and Yue ceramics in the trade,
provenienti dal Castello di Lucera. Bollettino in Zhongguo gutaoci yanjiuhi (ed.) Research on
d’Arte 51: 171–78. Chinese ancient ceramics: 409–22. Beijing: The
– 1972. Chinese porcelain in medieval Europe. Palace Museum Press.
Medieval Archaeology 16: 63–78. – 2016. An exploratory quantitative archaeological
https://doi.org/10.1080/00766097.1972. analysis and the classification of Chinese ceramics
11735347 trade in the Western Indian Ocean, c. AD 800–
Yuba, T. 2014. Chinese porcelain from Fustat based 1500. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Durham
on research from 1988–2001. Transactions of the University.
Oriental Ceramic Society 76: 1–17. Zozaya, J. 1969. El comercio de al-Andalus con el
Zhang, R. 2013. A sudden rise of Chinese ceramic Oriente: nuevos datos. Boletín de la Asociación
trade in the Late Tang period: a discussion on the Española de Orientalistas 5: 190–200.
1230

Earliest Chinese Ceramics in Europe

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Earliest Chinese Ceramics in Europe

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Earliest Chinese Ceramics in Europe

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Antiquity 2021 Vol.

The earliest Chinese ceramics in Europe?

The importation of Chinese porcelain and celadon

Keywords: Spain, medieval, material culture, porcelain, celadon, Islamic Empire

Received: 30 June 2020; Revised: 30 October 2020; Accepted: 13 November 2020

The early Chinese wares and their ﬁndspots

Amouric, H. & L. Vallauri. 2000. From García, I. 2009. La cerámica de importación en la

You might also like