@article{oai:rekihaku.repo.nii.ac.jp:00001037,
 author = {藤澤, 良祐 and Fujisawa, Ryohsuke},
 journal = {国立歴史民俗博物館研究報告, Bulletin of the National Museum of Japanese History},
 month = {Mar},
 note = {application/pdf, 宋・元代の中国産を主体とする輸入陶磁と，中世唯一の国産施釉陶器である古瀬戸が，モデルとコピーの関係にあったことは良く知られているところで，古瀬戸は輸入陶磁の補完的役割を担ったにすぎないとされるが，実態は果たしてそうだったのであろうか。中世前半期の最大の消費遺跡である鎌倉遺跡群において，古瀬戸と輸入陶磁の補完関係を検討したのが本稿である。
これまで鎌倉では数多くの発掘調査が行われているが，比較的良好な遺構面が検出され陶磁器の種類・量が多い四つの遺跡を取り上げ，古瀬戸と輸入陶磁の出土量（廃棄量）を分析したところ，輸入陶磁は13世紀末から14世紀初にかけて廃棄量がピークとなるのに対し，古瀬戸の廃棄量のピークは一時期遅れ鎌倉幕府の崩壊する14世紀前葉にあり，その背景として当該期における輸入陶磁の流通量の減少が予想された。また，モデルとコピーの関係にある各器種においても，輸入陶磁の方が廃棄（出現）時期が早いという傾向が認められ，さらに四耳壺・瓶子・水注などのいわゆる威信財では，古瀬戸製品であっても生産年代と廃棄年代との間に半世紀近い伝世期間が想定された。
一方，鎌倉で大量に出土する青磁や白磁の碗・皿類は，当該期の古瀬戸はほとんどコピーしないのに対し，入子・卸皿・柄付片口などの古瀬戸製品は，鎌倉での出土比率が高いにも拘らず輸入陶磁に本歌が確認できないことから，古瀬戸と輸入陶磁との間には一種の“住み分け”が行われていたことも明らかである。すなわち中世前半期の古瀬戸は，輸入陶磁に存在しないもの，あるいは輸入陶磁の流通量の少ないものを重点的に生産しており，両者は戦国期の白磁や染付の皿と瀬戸・美濃大窯製品の小皿類にみられるような競合関係にはなく，コピーである古瀬戸製品自体が，モデルである輸入陶磁に匹敵する価値観を有していたと考えられる。, It is widely known that Koseto ware, the only glazed ceramics produced in Medieval Japan, was a copy of the ceramics imported mainly from China of the Yuan and the Sung periods, and therefore it is considered that Koseto ware only played the complementary role to the imported ceramics. It is doubtful, however, whether this understanding is correct. The paper discusses such complementary relationship between Koseto ware and imported ceramics regarding a group of archaeological sites in Kamakura, which used to be the greatest site of consumption of the first half of the Middle Age.
Up to today, a number of excavations have been carried out in Kamakura. We have selected four sites out of them whose structural remains are in comparatively good condition and abundant in kind and volume, and made an analysis on the excavated amount (or the amount of disposal) of Koseto ware and that of imported ceramics. The result was that the disposal amount of imported ceramics reached its peak from the end of the thirteenth century to the early fourteenth century, while that of Koseto ware reached its peak a little behind in the first half of the fourteenth century, the time at the fall of the Kamakura Shogunate. In this context, it is presumable that the amount of distribution of imported ceramics declined in this specific period. On the other hand, with every kind of ware that bears such model-and-copy relations, it is identifiable that the disposal (appearance) of imported ceramics took place earlier as compared to the other. Further, with what are called status-symbols such as four handled-jar (shijiko), vase (heisi), and ewer (suichu), it is assumable that even Koseto ware had an heirloom period of nearly half a century between the date of production and that of disposal.
On the other hand, a large amount of bowls and plates of celadon and white porcelain excavated in Kamakura were hardly copied by Koseto of the Kamakura period, while for Koseto products, such as nest of bowls (ireko), grater (oroshizara), and spouted bowl (katakuchi), no original model can be identified with imported ceramics in spite of the high percentage they account for among the excavations. The fact shows that there was a kind of segregation between Koseto ware and imported ceramics.
In other words, for Koseto ware in the first half of the Medieval Age, the production was heavily inclined to those which did not exist among imported ceramics or whose amount of distribution was not large. Therefore it is possible to consider that there was no competition between them as was seen in the case of white or dyed porcelain and the small Seto-Mino plates in the Warring States period, and that Koseto ware, or the copy, had a unique value that could rival its model or imported ceramics.},
 pages = {313--327},
 title = {中世都市鎌倉における古瀬戸と輸入陶磁 : 中世前期の補完関係について（Ⅲ. 貿易陶磁と在来陶磁）},
 volume = {94},
 year = {2002},
 yomi = {フジサワ, リョウスケ}
}