Discoveries and Research

2

Discoveries and Research on Ancient Trade Ceramics in Peninsular Malaysia

by Dr Othman bin Mohd Yatim

Plate from Longquan Kilus, Zhejiang (14th century),found at Lembah Bujang, Kedah.

Plate from Sawankhalok, Thailand (14th-15th

centuries), found in Melaka.

3

Most historians ofMalaysian history believe that thehistory of Malaya only began withthe founding of Melaka, in 1400 A.D.They argue that no concretehistorical evidences dated prior tothe formation of Melaka has everbeen found. They seem to overlookthe contribution of ceramics indating.

A number of ceramics, datedback to the seventh century, havebeen found on the PeninsularMalaysian archaeological sites.Despite these finds, literary sourceshave only made vague references tothis region. Not only that, theiraccuracy has also been challenged.

Ceramics is a category ofartifact which is least perishable intropical climate and corrosive soil.The typological study of ceramicfinds can provide vital evidence forthe dating of archaeological sites, forthe study of the nature of habita-tion and trading patterns in the earlycenturies as well as for the crosscultural influences that existedbetween the countries involved.

This article presents evidencefor early trade and cultural relationsbetween maritime countries inEast-West trade routes which includesPeninsular Malaysia. Full explorationof the potentials of typologicalstudies on oriental ceramicsdiscovered in Peninsular Malaysiacannot however be implemented asyet. The archaeology of PeninsularMalaysia is still not sufficientlydocumented for such an endeavour.

Available data from previousexcavations suggest, even after verycareful consideration, that PeninsularMalaysia only played an intermediaryrole in the entrepot trade of East-West

maritime activities. It utilizedavailable inland river routes on a limited scale.

Although not comparable tothe importance of the Mekong, theMenam and other major rivers ofPeninsular Southeast Asia, thePeninsular Malaysian river routes didcarry most of the wares mentionedin this article. They reached this partof Southeast Asia in transit, destinedtowards other places and countries.

This role played by theMalaysian river routes can be seenvery clearly on the evidence shownby the Pengkalan Bujang. This port,in the Sung and Yuan times, wasengaged in the handling of waresfrom both the Middle East and theFar East. An increasing number ofwares came from the Far East duringthe T'ang, Sung and Yuan times.

The pioneer antiquarian workin Peninsular Malaysia was carriedout by Col. James Low in ProvinceWellesley and Kedah1 during thesecond half of the last century. Thiswas followed by the researches ofI.H.N. Evans in 1925 (1932:79-134) and H.G.Q. Wales2 in 1940. Afterthe second world war, archaeologicalwork and research remaineddormant, except for some archaeo-logical investigations of sites initiatedby P.D.R. Williams-Hunt between1949 and 1951.

In 1954, the excavation of GuaCha in Ulu Kelantan, by G.De.G.Sieveking, brought this country tothe limelight in the archaeologicalsphere. This site is considered to bethe most significant and importantfor the interpretation of thepre-historic background of Malaysia.It is also the same to other archaeo-logical researches and the recon-struction of the pre-history in the

region. As such it is one of the mostimportant sites excavated so far.

Following Gua Cha, sporadicarchaeological excavations andinvestigations were undertaken bySullivan and student members of theArchaeological Society of theUniversity of Malaya, and the fieldof interest shifted to the ancientHindu-Buddhist remains of shrinesand temples situated in the BujangValley in Kedah. Thereafter, A.Lamb's research in 1954 (1960) ledto the reconstruction of the Shivaitetomb or temple at Chandi Bukit BatuPahat,

In 1960, the then MuseumsDepartment of the Federation ofMalaya sponsored two archaeologicalexcavations at Melaka and JohoreLama3 in the southern part ofPeninsular Malaysia. Both these sitesproduced huge quantities ofceramics, earthenware, stoneware andporcelain fragments.

The wares found in Melaka, asone would expect, are somewhatdated earlier than those found atJohore Lama. They include manyChinese blue and white pieces of themiddle 15th century, the period whenthe Melaka Sultanate was at theheight of its power and prosperity.The wares found in Johore Lamaare mainly from the 16th and 17thcenturies. Among them are manypieces of Chinese export porcelainof the blue and white type. In all, Melaka and Johore Lama haveyielded at least 8,000 fragments ofChinese export ceramics, along withwares from Annam and otherSoutheast Asian countries.

The author is a senior curator (Archaeology)of the Muzium Negara, Malaysia.

4

It is interesting to note that,among the sherds discovered at KotaTinggi, Johore, one bears thesix-character mark of the Ch'eng-huareign period (1465-1487), reportsColin Jack-Hinton.

Jack-Hinton asserts thataccording to John Pope(Jack-Hinton, 1963:33 and Pope, 1956:107-108) there are only somethirty known existing odd pieces ofblue and white made in theCh'eng-hua reign. And they aremarked with nien-hao. Otherexamples of fragments bearing theCh'eng-hua nien-hao have been foundin Ceylon. Furthermore, Jack-Hintonstates that John Pope himself hasnoticed two examples from KotaBatu, Brunei (Pope 1958:267-269).

The fragment from Kota Tinggiis perhaps not one of the finestexamples in the period when Chinesepottery reached a level of particularperfection. But Jack-Hinton (1963:33) believes that the nature of its clay,the pale shade of underglazed blue,and the calligraphic style of thenien-hao all point to the fragment'sauthenticity.

As a result of his investigationin 1959, A. Lamb carried out anotherexcavation in April 1961, in PengkalanBujang (1961:2112 & 37-17), Kedah.This excavation unearthed severalthousand fragments of Chineseporcelains. They were mainly green-glazed celadons of Sung and Yuandates. These wares were mixed withthe ceramic produce of Thailand andIndo-China.

Also found were fragments ofIslamic glass which were parts ofsmall bottles. This glass, at one time,was widely exported by Egypt andSyria to Southeast Asia. Othersignificant finds of beads were also

encountered. A. Lamb believes thatin Pengkalan Bujang there was oncea very cosmopolitan trading centre.

In March and April 1962, theDepartment of Zoology, Universityof Malaya, staged a six-week ex-pedition, headed by Load Medway,4

One of the Sawankhalok jarlets foundat Kampung Seberang Tayur,Terengganu.

to Pulau Tioman. The aims of theexpedition were purely zoological.But in the course of their investigationof the area's fauna they came acrossarchaeological remains and fragmentsof ceramics, Chinese and non-Chinese origins. The finds includegritty micaceous and non-micaceousearthenware, gritfree earthenware,brown-buff and green-glazed stone-wares and celadons.

Due to their fragmentarynature these sherds regrettably do notyield enough information forreconstruction of the vessels. However,it appears that the majority of thesherds represent small roundedbowls. Among them, Tom Harrison

identified the Yueh type green-warewith folded rim, the white Ch'ingpai porcelain (export types) and a fine Lung-Ch'uan type celadonfragment. He was also able toidentify a sherd among the finds asSawankhalok; he dated it as late asthe 15th century.

Was Kedah in the PengkalanBujang era only concerned withentrepot trade, or was it also a centrefor the interior? Excavation sites inCalatagan, Philippines, and inSarawak indicate that their in-habitants sought Chinese and otherrefined ceramics for use as gravefurniture. Probably then, some of thePengkalan Bujang ceramics mighthave been destined for the samepurpose.

It appears that even today someOrang Asli tribes (aborigines), likethe Senoi, are still using importedceramics for their burial ceremonies.5

The origins of this burial practiceseem to go back to ancient times.And it certainly deserves furtherdetailed investigation and study.

In comparison with thecoastal plains, it is true that ourarchaeological knowledge of theculturally conservative part ofinterior Peninsular Malaysia, is stillvery slight. Future archaeologicalwork will have to explore these areasand it should also be emphasizedthat virtually all earlier excavationswere far too restricted but conclusiveenough. A number of ceramicsbrought ashore by coastal fishing oraccidentally unearthed by thevillagers provide additional proof ofthis.

In the late 1930's, two celadondishes were found by two Malayfishermen in a river a few milesupstream from Serokam in the Sidam

5

District of Kedah.6 The dishesindisputably proved to be of Chineseorigin. They were well-fired andheavily potted. The colour of thedishes is attractive and characteristicceladon grey-green. The glaze of bothvessels is of the hard felspathicvariety and is remarkably thick andglossy. There were no traces ofcracks.

The decoration is incised. Thesmaller of the two dishes has a freely-drawn floral pattern incised onthe centre with vertical grooves onthe sides producing a ribbed effect.The larger one has a central dragondesign with a carved band of leavesaround the sides.

On stylistic grounds B.A.V.Peacock (1959:35) is inclined to dateboth pieces to the beginning of theMing Dynasty. In 1982 one celadondish was discovered when it stuckto the net of a fisherman in TanjungDawai, Kedah.

A further important chancediscovery of a buried hoard ofceramics, both stoneware andporcelain, was made in October 1960.A party of Malay workmen foundthe ceramics while digging a drainageditch at the edge of a wet rice fieldnear Kerubong,7 seven miles to thenorth of Melaka town. The porcelaintypologically consists of three maingroups: monochromes, blue andwhite, and polychromes. There werealso glazed and unglazed stonewaresamong the finds.

Among the many export waresfound in Southeast Asia there is onelarge group to which many of theseKerubong pieces belong. This groupis now recognized as Annamese orVietnamese blue and white porcelain.Vietnamese blue and white wareswere made and exported for a long

period of time, right through theMing Dynasty and probably until theend of the 17th century.

In 1974 a farmer in Kemaman,Trengganu, while digging a post holefor his cattle shed, came across fivepieces of ceramics at a depth ofabout 1.5 meters. Three of thesepieces are small Chinese celadonjarlets while the other two are

Above: Ring-handled vase fromLongquan Kilus, Zhejiang (14th century), found in Pahang.

Below: Fragments of a bowl foundat Pulau Tioman, Pahang.

Sawankhalok brown bottles. Thisdiscovery was first reported, in early1976, to the Muzium Negara. OswaldA. Theseira, the museum's Curatorof Pre-history at that time, investi-gated the site. The result of his investi-gations has been published in theFederation Museums Journal (1976).

How did these ceramics, fromdistant countries, such as India,8

China and other Southeast Asiancountries, manage to find their wayto the sites mentioned above?Undoubtedly, their presence can beattributed to trade contacts andconsequent cultural and politicalinfluences in the past.

Delicate Sung wares achievingunrivalled quality were for centuriesvery much in demand throughoutSoutheast Asia, and as far west asthe east coast of Africa and theMiddle East. Like their early Persianand Arab counterparts sailing fromthe Persian Gulf, Indian and Chinesetraders were also drawn by the richand unique produce of SoutheastAsia. They stimulated trade inPeninsular Malaysia both in termsof maritime and overland traderoutes. Ceramic finds of PeninsularMalaysia cannot be understoodwithout reference to these develop-ments.

With the exception of theexcavations at Pengkalan Bujang,none of the earlier PeninsularMalaysian excavations was specificallyplanned in search of ceramics.Ceramic finds represent a by-productof these excavations. Even atPengkalan Bujang, ceramics remainedof secondary importance.

Although H.G.Q. Wales hadvisited the site in 1936, and A. Lambin 1953, the excavation took place

6

only in 1961. This was after A. Lambhad completed excavations, startedin 1959, and reconstructed theChandi Bukit Batu Pahat.

The 1970's saw the increasedparticipation of local scholars in theresearch of ceramics discovered fromLembah Bujang. Leong Sau Heng ofthe History Department, Universityof Malaya, has analyzed, for herM.A. thesis, the types of ceramicsfound at Lembah Bujang. She

Top: Blue and white plate (late Ming,late 16th or early 17th century), foundat Johore Lama, Johore. A similarpiece (fragments) has been found atParit Yaani, also in Johore.

Left: Bowl from Longquan Kilus,Zhejiang (14th century), found atLembah Bujang, Kedah.

excavated with B.A.V. Peacock. In thelate 1970's and early 1980's NikHassan Shuhaimi of the UniversitiKebangsaan Malaysia, together withhis students, also carried outexcavations at a number of sites inLembah Bujang. Among the otherartifacts they discovered wereceramics. The M.A. thesis submittedby the author to the University ofDurham in 1978 also analyzedceramics from Lembah Bujang and

other sites in Peninsular Malaysia.In the 1980's ASEAN museums

closely cooperated in archaeologicalresearches and excavations. Theirproject was carried out at SungaiMas in Kedah. The team, comprisingmuseum personnels from NegaraBrunei Darussalam, Indonesia,Malaysia, the Philippines, Singaporeand Thailand, discovered Chinese aswell as Middle Eastern ceramics. NikHassan Shuhaimi (1986:288) reportsthat Chinese ceramic fragmentsfound in Sungai Mas dates back tothe T'ang and Sung period.

The ceramics found duringcontrolled excavations or by chancediscoveries are still being reportedin various journals.9 But no attempthas, so far, been made to study themcomprehensively, i.e., in relation toceramic finds in other parts ofSoutheast Asia and the Far East.

Although Michael Sullivan(1962:61-75) produced a summarysurvey of the ceramic finds inPeninsular Malaysia, it only tookthe form of a brief report. Thetypological approach was sadlyneglected, if not overlooked.

A survey of currently availablepublications relating to ceramics inPeninsular Malaysia leaves one withthe superficial impression that thenatives of Peninsular Malaysia didnot know how to appreciate the useof porcelain in their daily lives. Thisalso explains why, in terms of theexport ceramic finds which are bothChinese and Southeast Asian origins,Peninsular Malaysia is not mentionedin the same league as those of thePhilippine and Indonesian islands.The only explanation for this, is thatno major excavations have thus farbeen conducted in PeninsularMalaysia. Excavations made are not

7

comparable in importance to thoseat some celebrated sites, for example,the Calatagan in the Philippines andKota China in North Sumatra.

No thorough archaeologicalinvestigations have yet been under-taken in the interior parts ofPeninsular Malaysia. It is highlydesirable that more investigations inthis area should be undertaken inthe near future to ascertain therightful place of Peninsular Malaysiain terms of trade ceramics.

In this connection the im-portance of underwater archaeologycannot be ignored. The step takenby the Fine Arts Department ofThailand to salvage a few sunkenships in the Gulf of Siam is a decisive one in the right direction.Incidentally, a similar project hasbeen initiated in Peninsular Malaysia,but it is still in an early stage.

In the future, a general surveyof the Straits of Melaka must becarried out. The recent offer, fromthe Fine Arts Department ofThailand through SPAFA, to trainpersonnel from Museums ofSoutheast Asian countries in thisfield must be welcomed.

The same Department hasestimated that there are about 40sunken ships still lying on the seabedin the Gulf of Siam.10 Expectationsfor the Straits of Melaka and SouthChina Sea can be just as high.

As far as Peninsular Malaysianceramic studies are concerned, bothin terms of archaeology and makingrelevant materials available forstudy from both public and privatecollections, one thing is certain: a great deal more research work isrequired for the whole period ofexport ceramics.

F O O T N O T E S1. For an account of several stone

inscriptions found in Province Wellesley

on the Peninsular of Melaka, see Low,

1.(1848), pp. 62-66; and (1849), pp.

247-249.

2. Wales, H.G.O.(1940), pp. 1-85; and(1947),

pp. 1-11, Alastair Lamb notes that

although Wales had done pioneering

research in this field "he often failed to

publish his material in anything like an

adequate way, so that much of what he

discovered we must still see through his

eyes only, not having been supplied with

plans, sections, sketches or photographs".

Lamb A.(1961), p. 70.

3. Cf. Matthews, John,(1961), pp. 237-242;

Jack-Hinton, Colin(1963:24-30), Solheim

W.G.1I and Green, E.,(1965), pp. 1-75.

4. Cf. Medway, Lord, (1962), pp. 56-63. For

a recent study, see Southeast Asian

Ceramics Society, West Malaysia Chapter

(1985).

5. General information obtained from the

Director-General of the Department of

Orang Asli Affairs.

6. Cf. Peacock, B.A.V., (1959), pp. 33-35.

The dishes were initially purchased by

the First Prime Minister of Malaysia, who

was then the District Officer of Kuala

Muda District. They are now displayed

in the Kedah State Museum, Alor Star.

The writer wishes to thank Y.A.M. Tunku

Abdul Rahman, the First Prime Minister

of Malaysia, for graciously agreeing to

be interviewed and for the hospitality

extended to him during his visit to

Penang.

7. Cf. National Museum,(1961), pp. 37-39;

Matthews, John, (1961), pp.239-241. The

finds were sold to an antique dealer the

day before the Director of Museums

visited the site, but it was fortunately

possible to trace the dealer and to recover

the articles, some of which are now

preserved in the Muzium Negara. It is

interesting to note that a hoard of

ceramics of similar nature had been

accidentally unearthed earlier by a Malay

farmer in Johore Lama, see Beamish, A.,

(1955), pp. 2-8. Another hoard was

discovered at Parit Yaani (also in Johore)

in 1979.

8. Since it merits separate and detailed

treatment, it will not be mentioned in

this paper. However, the writer realizes

that both Chinese and Indian cultural

influences are equally important to the

Malaysian society.

9. Some of the finds are not illustrated and

this makes typological studies of the finds

more difficult. For example, I.H.N. Evans,

(1932), pp. 205-206, reports that six or

seven Chinese celadon dishes were

discovered by the Malays at Sungai Serai,

Pahang. The last owner of the finds was

Mrs. C.J. Windsor, but her present

whereabouts is unknown.

10. For more details about the ceramics found

on board the sunken ship near the Gulf

of Siam, see Roxanna M. Brown (1975),

pp. 356-370.

R E F E R E N C E SBeamish, A.

1955 "Preliminary Report on Johore Lama Hoard", Malayan HistoricalJournal, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 2-8.

Brown, R.M.

1975 "Preliminary Report on the Koh Khram Sunken Ship", Oriental Art,Vol. XXXI, No. 4, pp. 356-370.

Evans, I.H.N.

1932 "Excavations at Tanjong Rawa, Kuala Selinsing, Perak", Journal ofthe Federated Malay States Museum, Vol. XV, pp. 79-134.

Jack-Hinton, Colin

1963a "Further Investigations at Johore Lama: Preliminary Notes",Federation Museums Journal, Vol. i, pp. 24-30.

1963b "A Note on a Ch'eng-hua nien-hao from Kampong Makam, KotaTinggi, and Some Remarks on the Johore Lama Trade in the FifteenthCentury", Federation Museums Journal, Vol. 8, pp. 32-35. •

8

R E F E R E N C E SContinued from previous page.

Lamb, A.

1960 "Chandi Bukit Batu Pahat", Federation Museums Journal, Vol. V,

(New Series).

1961 "Miscellaneous Papers on Early Hindu and Buddhist Settlement in

Northern Malaya and Southern Thailand", Federation MuseumsJournal, Vol. VI, (New Series).

Leong Sau Heng

"A Study of Ceramic Deposit from Pengkalan Bujang, Kedah",

unpublished M.A. Thesis of University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur.

Low, J.

1848 "Stone Inscriptions Found in Province Wellesley on the Peninsular

of Malacca", Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, Vol. XVII,pp. 62-66.

1849 , Vol. XVIII part I, pp. 247-249.

Matthews, J.

1961 "Results of Excavations in Malaya", Asian Perspective, No. 5, pp.

237-242.

Medway, Lord

1962 "Archaeological Notes from Tioman, Pahang", Federation MuseumsJournal, Vol. VII, pp. 55-63.

Nik Hassan Shuhaimi

1986 "Arkeologi dan Kesenian Purba di Lembah Sungai Muda: Satu Kajian

Tentang Pelabuhan Negeri di abad ke 6 sehingga ke 10 Masehi",

Pertemuan Ilmiah Arkeologi IV, Vol. 11a, Jakarta, pp. 277-304.

Othman Mohd. Yatim

1978 "Oriental Trade Ceramics Found in Peninsular Malaysia", unpublished

M.A. Thesis.

Peacock, B.A.V.

1959 "Two Celadon Plates from the Sungai Muda, Kedah", Malaya inHistory, Vol. V, No. 1, pp. 33-35.

Pope, John Alexander

1956 Chinese Porcelain from Ardebil Shrine, Washington, DC : Smithsonian

Institution.

1958 Chinese Characters on Brunei and Sarawak Ceramics, Sarawak MuseumJournal, Vol. 8, no. 2, 1958, pp. 267-272.

Solheim, W.G.II and Green, E.

1965 "The Johore Lama Excavations 1960", Federation Museums Journal,Vol. X, (New Series).

Southeast Asian Ceramics Society, West Malaysia Chapter

1985 A Ceramic Legacy of Asia's Maritime Trade, Kuala Lumpur: OUR

Theseira, O.A.

1976 "A Report on the Finds of Five Ceramics in Kampung Tayur, Kemaman,

Trengganu", Federation Museums Journal, Vol. XXI (New Series),

pp. 25-33.

Wales, H.G.Q.

1940 "Archaeological Researches on Ancient Indian Colonization in Malaya",

Journal of the Malayan Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, Vol. XVIII,

Part I, 1940, pp. 1-85.

Wales, H.G.Q., and Wales, D.C.

1947 "Further Work on Indian Sites in Malaya", Journal of the MalayanBranch of the Royal Asiatic Society, Vol. XX, Part 1, pp. 1-11.