General Results of the Archaeological Project at IKG

Goh Geok Yian, Nanyang Technological University Singapore, and John N. Miksic, National University of Singapore & Nanyang Technological University Singapore

18 February 2022

A large quantity of artefacts was recovered from all squares, including pottery, glass and coins. The excavations yielded a surprisingly wide range of expensive European pottery from England, Scotland, France, Germany and the Netherlands. Other ceramics include a considerable amount of Chinese porcelain and stoneware. Many fragments of local earthenware constitute a valuable resource for the study of this material, little of which has been found at other 19th- and 20th-century site components in Singapore. The most interesting comparison for the IKG material will be the assemblage from Pulau Saigon, but the artefacts from the upper layers of sites along the Singapore River (PHC, OPH, EMP) may also provide enough samples to perform statistical analyses to determine whether the differences in the proportions of various types of European, Chinese and local ceramics between the Singapore River and Kampong Gelam are significant enough to detect a distinctive pattern for the IKG site, which might correlate with the cultural preferences of the Malays who formed the majority of the site’s occupants.

Fig 9. Chinese porcelain sherds recovered from Square IIB4
Fig 9. Chinese porcelain sherds recovered from Square IIB4

Coins found at the site belong to a wide range of types. Three Dutch VOC coins found are particularly intriguing. They were all minted before the VOC went bankrupt in 1799. They remained in circulation in Singapore during the early years of British occupation (Liew and Wilson 2021: 33–59); more were found at EMP and CCT. Some early Chinese coins were also found, one from Kangxi (1662–1722); another form of currency, a merchant token of the so-called Island of Sultana series (1 keping), is dated AH 1219 or 1804 CE.

Supported by National Heritage Board Heritage Research Grant, Singapore. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Heritage Board, Singapore.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.56159/sitereport10