Viewing page 4 of 24

in most of such catalogues. Among the bronze varieties, the loop,handles may be two or three; so here we have almost their exact prototypes. (Cf. Hsi Ch'ing Ku Chien, Vol. XII, pp 1-17). 
     I have named Figure 9 as Fu ([[symbol]]chinese character[[/symbol]], because it resembles so much to the bronze FU ([[symbol]]chinese character[[/symbol]]). Twelve of such bronze forms are to be found in the Ch'ien Lung Catalogue, and five more in its B series. The shapes vary somewhat, but never depart seriously from the pottery type as illustrated here.(See: Hsi Ch'ing Ku Chien: Vol. XXXI, pp 18-29; Hsi [[strikethrough]]Ch8[[/strikethrough]] Ch'ing Hsü Chien, Vol. XIV, pp 18-22). It is interesting to find out that the distribution of this particular type of earthenware is not at all limited to China. It was found as early as the second prehistorical period of Egypt as well as in the Late Minoan period. In the Catalogue of Vases of British Museum, it is described as a "squat cylindrical bowl"; the shape underwent some change in its transference from stone to pottery, and from the Valley of Nile to Knossos. [[strikethrough]]N[[/strikethrough]]But in certain phase, it is strikingly similar to the vase here and its bronze variety. 
As for the relation between [[strikethrough]]a typical[[/strikethrough]] certain types of bronze 'P'ou [[symbol]]' and Figs. 3,4, it is equally definite. (Cf. Hsi Ch'ing Hsü Chien, Vol. XVI, p.14, p. 19). The others are less so, but it only serves to illustrate that in transferring the same form to a new material, certain modification may have to be necessary. In fact, with only two  exceptions, all the pottery forms illustrated above have either an exact duplicate in bronze or a slight modified variety. The two exceptions are the round-bottomed vessel as illustrated in Fig. 1, and the beaker-shaped vase in Fig. 2. 
If we shift the comparison from the bronze vessels to the aeneolithic pottery group, the result is quite different. Certain differences are immediately noticeable, which can not be explained away by mere chance association. Even the familiar Li-tripod shows marked variation from the Yang-shao type. The wares in this collection are composed of a greater variety of [[strikethrough]]type[[/strikethrough]]shapes. The foot-ring is very wide-used, althou there was less use for big handle and high neck than the aeneolithic period..
In comparing wares of these two periods, the most marked [[strikethrough]]chang[[/strikethrough]]change is of course the disappearance of the painted ware; and in its place 

Transcription Notes:
Need help with Chinese symbols

Please note that the language and terminology used in this collection reflects the context and culture of the time of its creation, and may include culturally sensitive information. As an historical document, its contents may be at odds with contemporary views and terminology. The information within this collection does not reflect the views of the Smithsonian Institution, but is available in its original form to facilitate research. For questions or comments regarding sensitive content, access, and use related to this collection, please contact