[127] This work is analysed by Dr. Hirth in his essay on _Ancient Chinese Porcelain_ already referred to. [128] Dr. Meyer, who brought this collection together, has always supported the theory that in early days no true porcelain was ever made except in China. In support of this he points to the specimens, including ‘wasters,’ from Sawankalok in Siam, in this collection, as being all of stoneware. We have seen (p. 173) that more recent excavations in the same neighbourhood have brought to light fragments of true porcelain of undoubted local manufacture. It is true, however, that most of the examples of celadon in the Dresden collection are of what we should call a kaolinic stoneware. [129] I suppose that Franks, who refers to this notice, was satisfied that the present really consisted of Chinese ware. Many slips have been made in quoting this passage, but I will only point out that Nureddin, who died in 1173, has no claim to the title of caliph. [130] This belief, however, long lingered not only in the East, but even in Europe. According to some, if poison was present, the bowl lost its transparency; others state that the liquid would boil up in the centre, remaining clear round the edge. In a French comic poem, written as late as 1716, among other merits possessed by vessels of Chinese porcelain, it is claimed for them that-- ‘Ils font connaître les mystères Des bouillons à la Brinvillière.’ [131] By far the greater number of the fragments are of local or at least of Saracenic origin, and many of them may be as old as the date mentioned in the text. But at Fostât, at all events, some of the pot-sherds are of a much later date. There are important collections of fragments from these rubbish-heaps both in the British Museum and at South Kensington. [132] Professor Karabacek of Vienna quotes from the encyclopædist Hâdji Khalifa, who died in 1658: ‘The precious magnificent celadon dishes seen in his time were manufactured and exported at Martabani, in Pegu.’ [133] The little bowl of apple-green porcelain in the British Museum, ‘garnished’ with a mounting of the time of Henry VIII., has perhaps as long a European history. The two ‘Trenchard’ bowls (in spite of the later date of the mounting) probably came to England in 1506. [134] I think that it is not unlikely that during the time that King-te-chen lay waste, kilns may have been erected somewhere in the neighbourhood of the Canton river, and that from these kilns originated much of the rough ware, hastily decorated in blue, that reached India and Persia in such quantities at this time (_cf._ the statement of Raynal quoted on p. 166). We have spoken in the last chapter of the influence of these events upon the Japanese trade. [135] I am referring, of course, to Stuart times. In the eighteenth century the so-called Gombroon ware was of Persian origin, and recognised as such in England.