Page 47 - Chinese and Asian Ceramics from an Indonesian Collection

CHAPTER 4. GLAZED CERAMICS IN THE MUSI RIVER

IDENTIFICATION 2003, Bouvet 2012 and Solheim’s large body of work cited
Our identification of ceramics from the Musi was from in the References Chapter). However, there remains few
visual inspection only. Further, we have access to few significant published studies on Indonesian earthenwares
physical collections for comparison and in large part apart from the doctoral theses of John Miksic (1979),
relied on available photographs and descriptions in books, Edwards McKinnon (1984) and Wayan Ardika (2002); and
archaeological research papers and the internet. Clearly, books on Indonesian kendis (Adhyatman 1987), general
greater clarity on the identification and production ancient earthenware (Soegondho 2003) and Majapahit
techniques of objects in this collection would be possible earthenware (Soemardji and Damais 2012).
if some of the more modern techniques could be applied
to the more vexatious items. These would include analysis CHINESE
of their chemical, mineralogical and microstructural Introduction
composition, using X-ray diffraction, spectroscopy, Glazed wares from the Chinese Six Dynasties, Tang Dynasty,
scanning electron microscopy and optical microscopy. Five Dynasties, Song, Yuan, Ming and Qing Dynasties, and
Dating of items depended on the sometimes unreliable Republican–modern period (Table 1) were found in the
comparisons with ceramic forms, glazes and decorative Musi. Several vessels may also have been from the Han
patterns of known age. Professor Miksic kindly had one Dynasty. This section comments on these finds under the
pot tested for C14 in an attempt to date it. Unfortunately broad dynastic headings of the Tang to Five Dynasties
it, and probably most of the unglazed pottery assemblage (including several pieces which were possibly Han and Six
in the mud beneath the Musi River, was too contaminated Dynasties), Song to Yuan and Ming to Qing. Republican
to provide an accurate C14 date. period and modern ceramics were not collected. Within
Numerous books, research papers and articles, some these four broad groups, ceramics were more similar in
in the ‘grey’ literature, including on-line: reviews, blogs, form and style and production technique than was the
auction catalogues, have appeared in the last thirty years case between them.
which document South East Asian and Chinese ceramics. Many kilns and their wares continued production
A number of books which inform country accounts of through a number of these dynasties. For example, Yue
the various national ceramic products were consulted. ware was produced from before the 3rd century until the
The most important of these were for China: Gompertz Northern Song; Qingbai ware from Five Dynasties to Yuan;
(1980), Harrisson (1986), He Li (1996), Hobson (1923), Jun ware from Northern Song to early-Ming; Lonquan
Kraal et al. Eds (2010), Medley (1980), Ridho & Edwards celadon ware from Northern Song to Ming; and Jizhou
McKinnon (1998), Southeast Asian Ceramic Society ware from the late-Tang to the Yuan etc. Further, Qing
(1979, 1985), Vainker (1991) and Yeo and Martin (1978). Dynasty potters were famous for imitating earlier classical
For Thailand: Cort Ed (1993), Richards (1995). For Chinese styles. Accurate dating of Chinese wares based
Vietnam: Stevenson and Guy Eds (1997). For Indonesia on form and style is consequently difficult and prior to
and Malaysia: Adhyatman 1981 and Khoo (1991). And modern analytical techniques, relied greatly on ready
Khmer: Rooney (2010) and Khoo Ed (2003). The only access to significant dated reference collections (also
glaring deficiency was a detailed account of Cham pottery. unavailable to us). Consequently, many ceramicists have
A number of general books were consulted including: made understandable errors in dating Chinese ceramics
Brown (1989), Chin (1988), Guy (1980), Tantoco and and their production sites.
Tantoco (1976) and Miksic (2009). Major references used in development of this section
Unfortunately, for many of the older earthenware were: Du Boulay 1963, Medley 1980, Vainker 1991, He Li
and stoneware it is difficult to identify their source or 1996, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_ceramics
production period. This is in spite of the burgeoning 2017, factsanddetails.com › China › History–Tang, Song
literature describing such wares from mainland South and Yuan Dynasties 2017, http://gotheborg.com/glossary
East Asia and the Malay Peninsula generated in the 2017 and Koh (2008 to 2017)
last quarter of the 19th century to now. For example,
Bronson and Dales wrote in 1973:43 that there are not
more than ten pictures of unglazed post-prehistoric
earthenware, sections and photographs, included in the
entire literature on the archaeology of Thailand, Lao and
Cambodia. Malaysian material is much better illustrated
but undated. Vietnam would be just as bad apart from
Oc Eo, which is “lonely on its eminence as the single
adequately published site in mainland Southeast Asia”.
Fortunately, the situation more than 40 years later is
somewhat improved (Miksic 2003, Bong 2003, Guilloy et al.