Page 151 - Chinese and Asian Ceramics from an Indonesian Collection

Ceramics from the Musi River 5

Of the non-storage vessels, fewer than 280 unglazed upstream against the current to the Boom Baru site. These
(including slipped, painted or extremely thin fly-ash findings reinforce the view of Manguin (1993: 321) that
glazed) ceramics collected from the Musi had known site Palembang was ‘a densely populated and commercially
information. However, the proportion of these from the active harbour-city at least as early as the 10th century and
various sites differed markedly from the glazed ceramics. going on, seemingly uninterrupted, until modern times’.
Their relative proportions at sites, listed in descending The relatively few ceramics collected from the River
order, was Sungai Rebo (39%), Pusri (27%), Boom Baru in front of ancient central and west Palembang may
(23%) Batu Ampar (8%) and Sungai Guci, Sungai Buntut be an artefact of sampling or perhaps the narrowing
Borang, PT Sharp and Sungai Sekanak (all less than 2%). of the River upstream would have been more difficult
This trend for most unglazed ceramics to come from for large seafaring boats to navigate than was the case
the Sungai Rebo site was the case for those groups which in front of ‘East’ Palembang. Large deposits of ceramic
had more than 30 items, such as local Sumatran (43%) shards accumulated beneath settlements excavated
Javanese Majapahit (43%) and Thai (35%). The Pusri and by archaeologists from the general area of the Sultan
Boom Baru sites had the next most abundant collections Mahmud Badaruddin II Museum in ancient central
of Local Sumatran pottery 24% & 25%, Javanese Majapahit Palembang and at Karanganyar in ancient west Palembang
29% & 10% and Thai 24% & 22%, respectively. were dated from the Tang Dynasty. Probably ceramics and
It is important that not too much is made of these other goods were transported using inland waterways to
figures, given our approach to specimen acquisition, central and west Palembang from the nearest warehouses
which was to obtain a representative collection of the at Boom Baru in east Palembang. There was a considerable
various ceramic forms in the Musi. As a consequence, if market for earthenware pottery at ancient Palembang
a good representation of, say, a particular Thai ceramic as indicated by archaeological excavations there during
form, was obtained from one site, then it would not be the 1990s. For example, some 80% of the pottery shards
collected again from a newer site. Also, much more effort found at those sites which had a stratigraphic sequence
was spent by the collectors at sites which rewarded them starting from the late-8th to early-9th century, were ‘local’
with more abundant and varied ceramics. Further, some wares (Manguin 2017). Adhyatman (1987) described and
sites, such as Batu Ampar, were only opened up to boat illustrated a two-spouted kendi (very similar to K2190
operators and their divers more recently than other collected from the Musi) which were common in the upper
nearby sites. Consequently, numbers of ceramics collected surface of archaeological excavations at Karanganyar, west
by us from Batu Ampar would be lower than sites which Palembang, dated from the 8th to 10th century.
had been searched earlier. In fact, ceramics sighted in Comparison between unglazed and glazed ceramics at
2017 and 2018 from Batu Ampar suggested that it had a sites in the Musi revealed a strikingly different distribution
variety of ceramics similar to the Boom Baru and Pusri pattern. For example, at the Pusri site at east Palembang,
sites. There was also the unknown extent to which the glazed ceramics were 51% and unglazed wares 28% of
upstream currents of the Musi may force ceramics that fall those collected at all sites. However, at Sungai Rebo on
into the River to be displaced downstream. It appeared the Komering River, comparable numbers for glazed
that these currents were substantial and that according wares fell to a meagre 9% while unglazed wares rose
to divers, ceramics of different eras sometimes appeared to 39%. This difference is likely to be real and not an
juxtaposed in the riverbed mud. artefact of collection because glazed and unglazed
Despite these many reservations, glazed ceramics were ceramics were likely similarly affected by sampling effort
abundant in stretches of the Musi in front of the entire and vagaries of river flow. It suggested that the complex
ancient East Palembang city. And that this part of the of Sungai Rebo sites, which run from the mouth of the
River, especially Pusri and Boom Baru sites, had been confluence of the large Komering River with the Musi
significant anchorages and unloading point for ships upstream approximately 11 kilometres, was the major
carrying Chinese ceramics from at least the 8th to 19th region for trade and/or local manufacture of unglazed
century (Tang, Five Dynasties, Song, Yuan, Ming and ware. If the Sungai Rebo region was a centre of local
Qing). And also for Vietnamese (13th to 16th century), pottery production we would have expected the locally
Cham (14th and 15th century) and Thai ceramics (14th produced earthenwares (including ‘Lampung ware’) to
to 17th century). Slightly more ceramics may have been have been collected in higher numbers there than other
unloaded near Pusri, which perhaps serviced the ancient unglazed wares. While 43% of such local wares were from
habitation area of Sabokingking, near the modern Sungai Rebo, this figure was about the same as the other
fertiliser factory of PT PUSRI. (This would confirm the unglazed groups, such as Javanese Majapahit, Thai and
opinion of Indonesian archaeologists that this factory sits mixed groups.
above an important archaeological site.) We also speculate The abundance of ‘Lampung ware’ found at the
that it is likely that there were a series of warehouses mouth of the Komering confirms this River played a more
along the shores of ancient ‘East’ Palembang which were active role in regional trade than might be expected from
capable of receiving the complete array of traded glazed the archaeological sites found along this River. These
ceramics from China and mainland South East Asia. For sites included several poorly documented ones along
it seems reasonable to assume that ceramics unloaded the mid and upper reaches of the Komering River that
at the Pusri site would not be rowed several kilometres had artefacts dated from the 9th or 10th century. These

134