Part Four: Statistics

John Miksic

April 2003

This section presents statistics on the number of objects recovered from the excavation.

Statistics: TEMASEK PERIOD

Total Temasek period artifacts recovered: 38,386. Weight: 154.848 kg

Of these objects, some 2000 were given artifact numbers and registered in a database. The choice of which objects

Non-ceramic (Metal, Glass, Stone):

Number: 1,326 = 3.5% of all artifacts Weight: 5,671 = 3.7% of all artifacts recovered

Metal:

1305 pieces, and 5671 gms

  • Iron slag & artifacts. 1,167 pieces, 5.358 kg. (3% of all artifacts by number; 3.5% of all artifacts by weight)
  • Copper alloys: 106 pieces, 273 grams
  • Coins: 25 intact ancient Chinese coins
    • 10 Fragmentary Chinese coins
  • Lead/tin: 2 pieces, 20 grams.

Glass:

15 pieces:

  • Beads: two multiple wound beads; one large blue bead; one black and white barrel-shaped bead; one white bead;
  • Four fragments of Chinese bangles;
  • Two fragments of Indian bangles;
  • Four fragments of Chinese glass bottles.

Stone:

6 pieces:

  • Four carnelian beads;
  • One piece of carved stone shaped like a pin;
  • One carved sluice/trough.
CategoryMaterialNumber of ObjectsWeight
Non-ceramictotal13265.671kg - 3.7% of all artifacts
Metaltotal1305
""Iron Slag1167
""Copper Alloys 106
""Whole Chinese coins  25
""Fragments of coins  10
""Lead or tin   2
GlassBeads, bangles, bottles 15
StoneBeads, pin, others  6

Ceramics

TOTAL NUMBER OF CERAMICS RECOVERED: 37,060 TOTAL WEIGHT OF CERAMICS RECOVERED: 149.177 kg

  • Earthenware 28.216 kg
  • Chinese: 120.961 kg
Typenumber recoveredtotal weight
Earthenware14,604  28.216 kg
Chinese (Stoneware & Porcelain)22,456120.961 kg
Total37,060149.177 kg

EARTHENWARE (mainly locally made):

  • 14,604 fragments; 28.216 kg.
  • 18.9% of all artifacts by weight; 39.4% of all artifacts by number

Distribution by Square

SquareNumber of sherdsweight
TP111,528 sherds20,101 g
TP22,065 sherds4,501 g
TP32,011 sherds3,614 g

Non-local Earthenware:

Fine Paste Ware, untempered, mainly in the form of kendis (goblets, finely-made vessels with spouts for pouring water). Previous research has shown that these artifacts were probably made in the Pa-O area of southern Thailand.1

At least 1,072 sherds of this material weighing 1,311 grams were found at SCC. This is less than 1% of the earthenware from the site. No precise figures are available for other Singapore sites, so it is impossible at this stage to determine whether this figure is typical of the Temasek period as a whole. [For further statistics, see below.]

CHINESE CERAMICS:

  • 120.961 kg; 81.1% of all artifacts by weight;
  • 22,456 pieces or 60.6% of all artifacts by number

Distribution of Chinese Ceramics by Type:

  • Stoneware:
    • Number of Sherds:
      • Brittle, buff: 10,159
      • Mercury 6,391
      • TOTAL 16,550 pcs
    • Weight by Type
      • Brittle, buff: 56,617 gms
      • Mercury: 30,662 gms
      • TOTAL 87,279 gms or 87.279 kg
    • Stoneware = 58.5% of all artifacts by weight; 49.9% by number
      • Brittle, Buff: 38% of all artifacts by weight; 27.4% by number.
      • 45.2% of all Chinese ceramics by number; 64.9% of all Chinese ceramics by weight; 64.9% of Chinese stoneware by weight; 61% of Chinese stoneware by number
      • Mercury bottles: 35% of stoneware by weight; 38.4% by number; 28.5% of all Chinese ware by number; 17.2% of all ceramics by number; 20.6% of all ceramics by weight

Brittle, buff stoneware distribution by square:

SquareNumber of sherdsweight
TP16,596 sherds (64.9%)35,013 g (61.8%)
TP22,066 sherds (20.3%)12,315 g (21.8%)
TP31,467 sherds (14.4%) 9,289 g (16.4%)

Mercury ware distribution by square and spit:

SquareNumber of sherdsweight
TP13,978 sherds (62.2%)20,747 g (67.7%)
TP21,540 sherds5,756 g
TP3  873 sherds4,159 g

Porcelain: 5,906 pcs; weight 33.682

  • 33.6 % of all ceramics by number; 22.7% of all ceramics by weight.
  • 26.3% of all Chinese ceramics by number; 27.8% of all Chinese ceramics by weight

Porcelain (colour uncertain) 117 sherds, 440 g

  • 0.03% of all ceramics by number; 0.03% of all ceramics by weight
  • 0.05% of all Chinese ceramics by number; 0.03% of all Chinese ceramics by weight
  • 2% of all porcelain by number; 0.03% of all porcelain by weight

Distribution of porcelain of indeterminate colour by square:

SquareNumber of sherdsweight
TP 195 SHERDS (81.2%)361 g (82%)
TP 214 SHERDS (12%)34 g (7.7%)
TP 38 SHERDS (7.8%)45 g (10.3%)

Green Porcelain: 4,930 pieces; weight 30.527 kg.

  • 13.3% of all ceramics by number; 20.5% of all ceramics by weight
  • 22% of all Chinese ceramics by number; 25.2% of all Chinese ceramics by weight
  • 83.5% of all porcelain by number; 90.6% of all porcelain by weight

Distribution of green porcelain by square:

SquareNumber of sherdsweight
TP13,011 sherds (61.1%)17,336 g (56.8%)
TP21,394 sherds (28.3%)9,627 g (31.5%)
TP3525 sherds (10.6%)3,564 g (11.7%)

Whiteware: 859 pieces; Weight: 2,715

  • 2.3% of all ceramics by number; 1.8% of all ceramics by weight
  • 3.8% of all Chinese ceramics by number; 2.2% of all Chinese ceramics by weight
  • 14.5% of all porcelain by number; 8% of all porcelain by weight

Distribution of white porcelain by square:

SquareNumber of sherdsweight
TP1488 sherds (56.8%)1,340 g (49.4%)
TP2238 sherds (27.7%)788 g (29%)
TP3133 sherds (15.5%)587 g (21.6%)

These figures do not include natural materials such as stone, bone, shell, etc., some of which have been worked by humans.

Organic Materials

Small amounts, no more than a few grams, of bone fragments and charcoal were found in almost all spits of the three pits. No large concentrations were noted in any of them, however. The largest concentration consisted of 8 conch shells weighing 267 grams in TP3 level 7. One or two fragments which may be turtle carapace were also recovered.

Statistics: 19th-20th CENTURIES

Modern/colonial period coins: 19

Notes on the distribution of artifacts

The number of artifacts recovered is surprisingly large, but the proportions of the different types are within expectations based on research at other Temasek-period sites in Singapore, as is the total weight of the items. The proportion of Chinese to locally made ceramics (60%:40%) is within the estimated range of other sites in Singapore. Preliminary tabulation of data from other sites in Singapore indicates that wares made in China outweigh those made locally by a larger proportion (80%-20%).

The proportion of stoneware to other forms of ceramics at SCC is quite high. This may indicate that the Singapore Cricket Club site was mainly devoted to industrial activities, particularly metal-working. The Chinese porcelains found are of good quality, though one category,that of Jingdezhen white wares decorated with blue designs, is almost absent. This is a significant feature of the SCC site, the meaning of which is however unclear.

Given this high total and the small size of the majority of artifacts recovered, it would have been very expensive and time-consuming to register each artifact from the site. It was necessary to select items for registration based on each item’s potential to illuminate socio-cultural and economic matters. Thus small pieces of Chinese porcelain have been registered, whereas small pieces of stoneware and earthenware, beads of glass and stone and metal items, have not been registered. A total of 4,898 items have been numbered for eventual registration (2000 objects are registered as of March 1, 2018).

Footnotes

John Miksic, “Jing liwen Chenchuan de Jingzhi Taoci-Shifadi mudidi he yiyi” [Fine paste ware of the Cirebon shipwreck]. Palace Museum Journal Volume 134 Number 6, 2007: 107-114; Kaoru Ueda, John N. Miksic, Sonny C. Wibisono, Naniek Harkantiningsih, Geok Yian Goh, Edmund Edwards McKinnon, Alam Mohd Zaini Shah, "Trade and consumption of fine paste ware in Southeast Asia: petrographic and portable X-ray fluorescence analyses of ninth- to fourteenth-century earthenware", Archaeological Research in Asia 11: 58-68; JN Miksic and C.T. Yap "Fine-bodied white earthenwares of South East Asia: some X-ray fluorescence tests." Asian Perspectives Volume 28 Number 1 1990 Pp. 45-60; John N Miksic, Yap Choon Teck, Sam Fong Yau Li, and Kebao Wan “EDXRF Analyses of Some Yuan Dynasty Artifacts Excavated in Singapore.” Keji Kaogu luncong [Studies in Archaeometry] Volume 2 2000 Pp. 228-236).