Page 145 - Vol_2_Archaeology of Manila Galleon Seaport Trade

116 N. T. Cuevas

non-elite) may have had little attention, if at all, in archaeological reports. Although
preliminary in nature, this study is an attempt to locate the distribution of Fujian and
Hizen wares in the archipelago and to better understand the correlation between the
archaeological locations of Fujian and Hizen wares along with their stylistic and
morphological characteristics that present useful clues in determining elite and
non-elite occupation. The scanty record about the existence of Hizen wares in the
Philippines did not leave any historical footprints but archaeologically become part
of the major item of the Manila Galleon trade.
This chapter will present Fujian and Hizen porcelain recovered from land-based
sites within Intramuros and outside the walls or “extramuros” in Mehan and
Arroceros in Manila, Porta Vaga in Cavite City, and Boljoon in Cebu.

6.1 The Signi!cance of Fujian and Hizen Ceramics
in the Manila Galleon Maritime Exchange

The turn of the 17th century marked the establishment of the Manila galleon
maritime exchange and the start of the world trade. Glazed ceramics from Fujian
Province in southern China was among the trade items loaded in the galleons. These
ceramics were notably in demand in Asian and Southeast Asian regions which have
been also made available for transshipment to Hispanic American market.
The restrictive trade policies of China in the 14th century had enormous impact
on the production of the blue-and-white wares in Jingdezhen. This province
claimed to be the main ceramic-producing center in China from the 12th to the 14th
century. The Ming Dynasty (1368–1644) witnessed China’s attempt to regulate
external trade and bring all foreign commerce under direct government adminis-
tration (Junker 2000: 194). The imperial ban prohibited Chinese merchants from
directly engaging in trade with Southeast Asia and allowed only tribute-paying
polities to enter Chinese ports (Junker 2000), a practice that eventually led to the
monopoly of trade by the government (Tan 2007: 13). In addition, the ban brought
notable changes to porcelain production and became suggestive of the unstable
economic management strategies of the Chinese government. Zhiyan Lin and
Cheng Wen describe kiln production as follows:
Government kilns operated when ordered and lying idle when no imperial order was on
hand. None of their wares were allowed to be sold, nor would anyone dare to own them.
Furthermore, in shape and decorative motif they were not suitable for the common people’s
use even the potters were permitted to make them. The penalty for infringing on these
prohibitions was beheading of the offender and his entire extended family. Most wares
produced in the government kilns catered to imperial taste. The court appointed special
of!cials to supervise the work so that many potters catered to the taste of a single person.
The government also requisitioned or con!scated desired wares from private ceramic
workshops, seizing the interest of private business (Lin and Wen 1984: 92).