Cultural Dynamics in the Early Multi-ethnic Ports of the Upper Thai-Malay Peninsula based on Ceramic Analysis
Introduction
Common tasks for archaeologists and historians working on maritime exchange consist of mapping networks, determining the goods and communities engaged and, for the latter, their potential involvement in the local socio-economic landscape. The intensity of these exchanges varied: some regions and people built close ties with others, some interacted and developed more than others. Whilst ethnographic studies show that groups’ socio-economic organisation influences their interactions, archaeology often works to explain the mode of transmission enabling cultural evolution. However, if archaeologists observe that certain social structures are more favourable than others to evolutionary processes, it is necessary to refer to actual data to explain why (Roux 2019, 164–65; Stark et al. 2008). Trading ports are notoriously favourable places for interactions and cultural change (Casson 1989; Miksic 2000; Wang 1958; Wisseman Christie 1995). However, examining which groups are more prompt to interact with others and adapt their behaviour is less often considered. Incomplete archaeological data often limits this level of interpretation.
These issues are especially crucial when dealing with regions that acted as crossroads where multiple social groups were interacting. This is typically the case for the Thai-Malay Peninsula and its port settlements which received and redistributed material and cultural goods both from the east and the west. The Thai-Malay Peninsula is a thin strip of land stretching from southern Thailand and Myanmar through mainland Malaysia to Singapore. Surrounded by water, the Peninsula has long played a significant role in maritime contacts. Recent archaeological research has demonstrated that by the middle of the 1st millennium BCE, populations in the area were actively taking part in long-distance trans-Asiatic networks facilitating connections between communities from the South China Sea and from the Indian Ocean (Bellina et al. 2018; Bellina and Silapanth 2006; Bellina 2017; Bellina and Glover 2004; Gupta 2005; Silapanth 2018). The area remained crucial for maritime contacts, cultural exchanges and trade until the early modern period (Allen 1991; Jacq-Hergoualc’h 1997; Miksic 2006; Miksic and Goh 2017; Mills 1997; Noonsuk 2014; Srisuchat 2003).
This chapter focuses on late prehistoric ceramics found in different types of sites located in the narrowest part of the Peninsula, the Isthmus of Kra[1]. Those sites, occupied during the second half of the 1st millennium BCE until the early centuries CE, consist of caves/rock shelters, many of which were used for mortuary purposes, and port settlements/open-air sites (Bellina et al. 2019; Chalosantisakun, Chelao and Sitthirit 2015). The port settlements discussed are Khao Sam Kaeo and Khao Sek investigated by the Thai-French Archaeological Mission in the Upper Thai-Malay peninsula,[2] and Tha Chana on the eastern side of the Peninsula facing the Gulf of Thailand (Chumphon and Surat Thani Provinces), Phu Khao Thong and Bang Kluay Nok on the western side of the Isthmus of Kra (Ranong Province) facing the Andaman Sea (fig. 1). The sites were connected to the seas via fluvial systems and had advantageous geographical locations near trans-peninsular routes potentially linking communities of the South China Sea and the Indian Ocean as early as the 5/4th century BCE (Bellina 2017; Bellina et al. 2019).
One of the best sources of information with which to map regional and long-distance networks among these port sites is pottery. Implementing a technological approach theoretically enables scholars to distinguish between local,[3] hybrid (groups which use foreign-influenced technologies and/or foreign-influenced styles) and imported groups. By this means, we hope to begin to unravel the different social groups’ interactions and adaptations and to trace their sequences during a period spanning the late centuries BCE to the early centuries CE, corresponding to the inception of this series of intertwined networks often called the Maritime Silk Road and that came to connect the Mediterranean World to China. Other terms such as the maritime spice routes as well as other conceptual frameworks have been proposed to study exchanges such as the World System theory (Wallerstein 1974), Global Studies (applied to archaeology see: Jennings 2011, Hodos 2017) or, more recently in the particular case of Asia, Miksic’s (this volume) “Southeast Asian Maritime Interaction Sphere” (SAMIS). The SAMIS concept has the advantage of integrating networks of different specialities (economic, religious, administrative) and levels. It grasps well the complexity and dynamics of these inter-related or networked ports of the Indian Ocean. This study of pottery explores the cultural dynamics in the early multi-ethnic harbours of the upper Thai-Malay peninsula, forming part of the early SAMIS. Here we advance a hypothesis concerning different social destinations: while some ceramics may have been used to transport goods and do not demonstrate local impact, others may have been imported or produced locally by foreign artisans for the specific needs of a handful of individuals, some of them locals, others foreigners.
Late prehistoric ports of the Isthmus of Kra during the second half of the 1st millennium BCE to the early centuries CE
Khao Sam Kaeo (KSK)
The site of Khao Sam Kaeo (Chumphon Province) was surveyed in the 1980s by the Fine Arts Department of Thailand and excavated from 2005 to 2009 by the Thai-French archaeological mission. Located near the current town of Chumphon, the main period of activity at Khao Sam Kaeo can be dated between the 4th century BCE to the 1st century CE (Bellina and Silapanth 2006; Bellina 2017). Surface finds suggest that the site was still visited in the 1st century CE, but that activity there was less intense.
Khao Sam Kaeo is connected to the Gulf of Thailand via the Tha Tapao River and stretches over four main hills. One hundred and thirty-six test pits were open in an area covering 55 hectares, which made it possible to estimate that the site occupied at least 35 hectares. The site displayed monumental structures (walls, ramparts, and water control structures) and concentrated distinct socio-professional quarters (craftsmen, merchants, etc.) surrounded by earthen walls.
The rich and varied cultural materials recovered from the site highlight its involvement in local, regional and trans-Asiatic exchange networks. Technological analysis reveals that to some extent, each industry implemented complex techniques derived from India; this is particularly the case for stone, glass, and copper-based industries and to a lesser extent for some ceramic groups. Some used raw materials imported from South Asia (stones, glass), while others used local (tin, clay) or regionally available (copper, glass) raw materials to produce goods of what has been defined as the South China Sea regional style. As for stone, glass, and copper-based industries, it was suggested that Indian artisans present on the site produced those goods (Bellina 2007, 2017; Dussubieux and Bellina 2017; Pryce et al. 2017). Finally, the presence of Indian wares, local vessels displaying Indian-inspired morphologies, Sa Huynh- and/or Kalanay-related pottery,[4] and Han-related ceramics attest to contacts with various populations from the east and west (Bouvet 2017; Favereau et al. 2017; Péronnet and Srikanlaya 2017).
Khao Sek (KK)
Khao Sek (Chumphon Province) is located about 80km south of Khao Sam Kaeo. It is an open-air site occupying two hills and bordered by the Langsuan River, which is connected to the Gulf of Thailand eight km away. Three absolute dates indicate an occupation around the 3rd–2nd century BCE (Bellina 2018). These dates are supported by compositional analyses of glass samples, for which the presence of potash glass and type m-Na-Al 3 confirms that the Khao Sek site was likely occupied during the 4th–2nd century BCE (Dussubieux and Bellina 2018). The site was explored in 2012. Forty-one test pits excavated in 2013 and 2014 by the Thai-French archaeological mission revealed that the site may cover as much as ten hectares (Bellina 2018). The site yielded large quantities of carnelian, agate, garnet and glass ornaments (in the form of beads and bracelets) as well as fragments of metal (iron, bronze and gold) and pottery. Analysis conducted on the hard stone and glass ornaments shows a similar craft system to that of Khao Sam Kaeo (Dussubieux and Bellina 2018; Bellina 2018). On the other hand, the compositional and isotopic analysis of fragments of a Dong Son bronze drum[5] demonstrated that copper used to make it may have come from a source in central Laos (Xepon) and that the drum may therefore represent local or regional production (Pryce and Bellina 2018). Decorated bronze bowls were also analysed. Their composition, characteristic of other “Indian” bronze bowls, shows that they belong to the same networks as those found in Khao Sam Kaeo and Ban Don Ta Phet, west-central Thailand (Pryce and Bellina 2018).
Tha Chana (TCN)
Tha Chana (Surat Thani Province) is located about 45km south of Khao Sek. To date, no formal excavation has ever been conducted there. However, a significant amount of cultural materials highly similar to those from Khao Sam Kaeo and Khao Sek has been collected by villagers. These consist of ceramics (Bouvet 2017; Favereau 2015; Péronnet and Srikanlaya 2017), hard stone ornaments (Bellina 2008), including nephrite ornaments (double-headed ornaments and lingling-o,[6] and glass beads (Lankton et al. 2008). Although no absolute dating is available, some ceramics attributed to 1st century BCE China were discovered (Péronnet and Srikanlaya 2017). In addition, Indian vessels comparable to those found at Khao Sam Kaeo in contexts dated to the 4th–2nd century BCE were also uncovered (Bouvet 2017). Based on the material culture, the chronological sequence of the site probably extends from the last centuries BCE to the first half of the 1st millennium CE (Bellina et al. 2014).
Phu Khao Thong (PKT)
Phu Khao Thong (Ranong Province) is located on the western coast of the Peninsula. The Fine Arts Department, under the supervision of archaeologist Captain Boonyarit, conducted small-scale excavations there in 2011. The site was also surveyed by the Thai-French archaeological mission in 2006 and 2007, and mapping and archaeobotanical sampling were conducted in 2009 (Bellina et al. 2014). The archaeobotanical remains indicate an agricultural regime similar to that of Khao Sam Kaeo, that is, one based on dry rice and millet with the consumption of Indian beans (Castillo 2017). Among the artefacts discovered, hard stone ornaments comparable to Khao Sam Kaeo, glass ornaments, ceramic vessels from India, and fragments of Chinese bronze mirrors dating from the eastern Han period (25–220 CE) have been identified (Bellina et al. 2014; Lankton et al. 2008). No absolute dating has been obtained, but material culture suggests an occupation from the end of the 1st millennium BCE to the 3rd–4th century CE (Bellina 2007). In addition, a Tamil-Brahmi inscription on a pottery sherd was estimated to date from about the 2nd century CE (The Hindu 2006).
Bang Kluay Nok (BKN)
The site of Bang Kluay Nok (Ranong Province) is located on a small hill on the western coast of the Peninsula bordered by the Andaman Sea. Close to Phu Khao Thong, to which it could be related, the site has not been the subject of controlled excavations (Bellina et al. 2014). The material uncovered includes hard stone and glass ornaments, as well as Indian ceramics (Bellina 2009; Bouvet 2017).
Materials Under Study
We will now look at pottery from these five port settlements (Table 1). The material partially comes from excavations conducted by the Thai-French archaeological mission. Since all the sites experienced heavy looting, we will also take surface material into account. The latter pottery has been studied in Chumphon National Museum, in the Fine Art Department offices (Phuket and Nakhon Si Thammarat), and within private collections (villagers’ collections and Suthi Rattana foundation). Whenever possible, we interviewed villagers about the context of their discoveries (soil, depth, material associated) and also tried to cross-reference this information with materials from our excavations.
A complete study of pottery assemblages conducted at Khao Sam Kaeo and Khao Sek allowed us to generate both qualitative and quantitative data. Tha Chana, Phu Khao Thong and Bang Kluay Nok surface collections were limited in quantity and diversity, the vessels mainly consisting of imports. Consequently, the proportion of imports compared to local ware cannot be estimated, as opposed to sites excavated by the mission. Only qualitative data can thus be considered for these latter sites.
Sites | Number of pottery fragments analysed from archaeological contexts | Number of pottery fragments analysed without archaeological context | Sources |
---|---|---|---|
Khao Sam Kaeo | 17275 | 562 | Bouvet 2017; Péronnet and Srikanlaya 2017; Favereau 2015; Favereau et al. 2017; Favereau and Bellina 2022; this chapter |
Khao Sek | 5342 | 6293 | Favereau 2018, this chapter |
Tha Chana | – | 66 (numerous fragments belonging to local productions and paddle and impressed pottery were examined but not counted, therefore are not included in this table) | Bouvet 2017; Favereau 2015; this chapter |
Phu Khao Thong | 116 | – | Bouvet 2017 |
Bang Kluay Nok | – | 10 | Bouvet 2017; Favereau 2015; this chapter |
Table 1: Pottery corpi from the Thai-Malay Peninsula under study.
Technological Analysis of Pottery
The analysis of these ceramics focused on the identification of techniques, gestures and tools used to make them. The methodological framework adopted was developed by V. Roux in collaboration with M.A. Courty (Roux 2011, 2019). It is based on the concept of chaîne opératoire (“production sequence” or “operational sequence”), and the idea that techniques and “ways of doing” are transmitted between individuals from the same social group (Roux 2011, 2019; Stark 1999; Stark et al. 2008). All the steps of the chaîne opératoire (from the selection and preparation of the raw materials to firing and post-firing treatments, through shaping, finishing, surface treatments and decorations) were investigated through the careful examination of fabrics, traces, and features on surfaces and sections of all pottery fragments.[7] Pottery was then classified into groups of vessels made using comparable paste ‘‘recipe’’, shaping and finishing techniques, surface treatments, and firing atmosphere. Slight variations may occur within groups, but since shaping is attested through ethnoarchaeology to be the most stable step during the transmission process (Gosselain 1998, 2000; Manem 2020; Mayor 2010; Stark, Bishop and Miksa 2000), particular attention was paid to the process of shaping which is always homogeneous within a group. Such an approach made it possible to examine pottery raw materials, technologies and styles in a dissociated manner, and to question their provenance separately.
To characterise more precisely the raw materials used to prepare pottery pastes, to evaluate their variability within chaîne opératoire groups and to compare them with others, 19 thin sections were examined (Bouvet 2017). However, no provenance studies were conducted. The latter is planned, but in the current state of data, the abundance criterion (Bishop et al. 1982), according to which a large number of vessels suggests the use of resources available locally, was used to evaluate the origin of raw materials. However, the concept of “local” may have different meanings in terms of distance, time, and accessibility (Arnold 1985, 2005; Druc 2013; Gosselain 2008) and to our knowledge, there is no specific quantity of vessels from which a local origin could most likely be inferred. We therefore decided, in this chapter: (1) to use the word “local” to refer to the broad area encompassing Chumphon and Ranong Provinces (that is, the Isthmus of Kra), as well as the northernmost part of Surat Thani Province; and (2) to consider that groups comprising more than 1,000 vessels (in terms of Minimum Number of Individuals)[8] and weighing more than 100kg, would more likely indicate that they were made using local resources.
Abundance, combined with other data, was also used to assess the origin of technologies: when a group encompassed a significant number of vessels (MNI>1000), coming from various archaeological contexts, identified in at least two sites, and reflecting a wide range of restricted and unrestricted morphologies, we infer a local origin of technologies. Conversely, “foreign technologies” refer to technologies which are rare in the area and are expected to occur in low quantities, say fewer than 100 vessels. As for groups comprising between 100 and 1,000 vessels the weight of which does not exceed 100kg, inferences are proposed on a case-by-case basis, taking into account archaeological context, spatial distribution, and morphological range.
Finally, pottery shapes and decorative patterns were examined within each group. When a morphology and/or a decor was recognised as scarce in the Isthmus of Kra and strongly similar to another one found within the same chronological range in site(s) known to be involved in the South China Sea networks, it was hypothesised to be the result of foreign influence.
The analysis was first performed on each site independently, identifying the pottery groups from different sites and comparing them. This allowed us to define various groups distributed throughout the area (Table 2):
(1) Pottery produced using local paste and technologies (potters are local artisans using local raw materials. They may produce vessels displaying local or foreign-influenced forms and decorations);
(2) Pottery made using foreign technologies and style (the paste is local or of uncertain provenance. Potters are foreigners or locals trained by foreigners and mastering foreign technologies);
(3) Imported pottery (vessels are made using exogenous paste, technologies and style. Potters do not belong to local communities).
Pottery groups identified on the ports
In total, 13 pottery groups were identified. Most of them are found at two or more sites (Tables 2 and 3). All the groups can be found at Khao Sam Kaeo. Most of them are also present at Tha Chana, but less than half are identified at Khao Sek. Fewer groups were identified at Phu Khao Thong and Bang Kluay Nok, most likely because data for these sites are incomplete and only selected sherds were investigated. Detailed technological descriptions of the pottery groups have already been written for some of the sites (Table 1) (Bouvet 2017; Favereau 2015, 2018; Favereau et al. 2017; Favereau and Bellina 2022; Péronnet and Srikanlaya 2017). As mentioned above, among all these groups, some were interpreted as locally produced by local communities (fig. 2 and 3), others as possibly produced locally using foreign technologies and styles (fig. 4), and others as imported (fig. 5) (Table 2).
Khao Sam Kaeo | Khao Sek | Tha Chana | Phu Khao Thong | Bang Kluay Nok | Known distribution of highly similar vessels outside the Isthmus of Kra and Surat Thani Province | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Local pottery | Thai-Local-1 pottery | x | x | x | N/A | N/A | – |
Thai-Local-2 pottery | x | x | x | N/A | N/A | – | |
Pottery made using foreign technologies and styles (the origin of raw materials is questioned) | Vegetal-tempered and moulded pottery | x | – | N/A | N/A | N/A | – |
Paddle-impressed pottery | x | x | x | N/A | N/A | – | |
Black/Black-and-Red pottery | x | – | N/A | N/A | N/A | South Asia | |
Wheel-made pottery | x | – | N/A | N/A | N/A | – | |
Black-and-Red Jars | x | x | x | N/A | N/A | Central and southern Vietnam, Palawan, central Philippines | |
Wheel-coiled pottery | x | x | x | N/A | N/A | South Asia | |
Imported pottery | Fine Grey pottery | x | – | x | x | x | South Asia, Indonesia, Vietnam |
Han-related pottery | x | – | x | N/A | x | Southern China, northern Vietnam, central Vietnam, Indonesia | |
Fine Orange pottery | x | – | N/A | N/A | x | Central and southern Vietnam, Cambodia | |
Exogenous Kalanay-related pottery | x | – | x | N/A | N/A | Philippines, central Vietnam | |
Vegetal-tempered pedestal cups | x | – | x | N/A | N/A | Southern Vietnam, Cambodia |
Table 2: Pottery groups identified at the five port-settlements under study in the Thai-Malay Peninsula. “Non Applicable” (N/A) is used to highlight groups that have not been reported in the current state of knowledge due to the lack of excavations but the presence of which cannot be excluded.
Local Pottery
Thai-Local-1 pottery
Thai-Local-1 is the main group found at Khao Sam Kaeo and Khao Sek. It was also identified at Tha Chana. Given the quantity (N. of sherds > 18,375; NMI > 2,107; weight > 167 kg) and ubiquity of fragments in all test pits of both sites excavated, as well as the wide range of restricted and unrestricted vessel forms, the group has been interpreted as produced locally by local potters (Bouvet 2017; Favereau 2015, 2018). Most sherds contain 15% to 30% of medium-sized grains (ø 0.5 to 2.5 mm), chiefly quartz. Vessels are manufactured using small coils (about 1–1.5cm high). The body walls are smoothed through discontinuous gestures, and the rims are smoothed using continuous rotation pressures. The inner surface is often scraped, while the outer one may be burnished. Most of the vessels are plain. However, some additional surface treatments have been observed:
-
The outer surface of unrestricted cups with high pedestal (N. of sherds > 564; NMI > 57) is likely covered with a red slip.
-
Few shallow bowls (N. of sherds: 122; NMI: 48) are impressed with a comb tool or using a cord.
-
Some fragments display decorations showing similarities with Sa Huynh- and/or Kalanay designs identified in Vietnam and/or in the Philippines (N. of sherds: 273; NMI: 105). Many of them belong to pedestals or carinated vessels. Made using local paste and ways of doing, these ceramics attest to the existence of foreign stylistic influences (Bellina et al. 2012; Favereau Bellina 2016; Favereau et al. 2017).
-
Other incised, impressed or appliqué decorations are also noticed infrequently (Bouvet 2017: 240, 250).
-
Finally, the vessels were fired in an oxidising atmosphere.
Figure 3.2. Local pottery, Thai-Local-Type 2
Thai-Local-2 pottery
Thai-Local-2 potteries are identified at Khao Sam Kaeo, Khao Sek, and Tha Chana. In terms of quantities, the group is the second largest in the Isthmus of Kra (N. of sherds > 4,946; NMI > 359; weight > 41.2 kg). Given the ubiquity and the significant number of potteries identified at two excavated settlement sites, their discovery in both habitation and mortuary contexts, and the various morphologies attributed to the group, the vessels were likely made locally by local potters (Bouvet 2017; Favereau 2015, 2018). They are tempered with organic materials (representing a volume of about 15–25% in the paste) chiefly consisting of elongated burnt plant remains. They are manufactured using coils and slabs, then smoothed. Most of the sherds are plain. However, pink- and red-slipped surfaces are noted (N. of sherds: 245; NMI: 48) (Bouvet 2017, 258). In addition, very few vessels are decorated with Sa Huynh- and/or Kalanay-related decorations (N. of sherds: 8; NMI: 8) (Favereau &s; Bellina 2016, 2022). The vessels’ surfaces are usually dark to dark grey, showing that the pots were fired in a reducing atmosphere.
Pottery made using Foreign Technologies and/or Styles
Organic tempered and Moulded pottery
Vegetal-tempered and Moulded vessels are identified at Khao Sam Kaeo (N. of sherds: 2,060; NMI > 324; weight: 14.2 kg). They are tempered with vegetal matter comparable to those used for the local Thai-Local-2 potteries, which suggests that Vegetal-tempered and Moulded pots may also have been produced using local raw materials. The vessels are manufactured from different assembled elements and some parts are likely to be moulded (Bouvet 2017), as suggested by the regular curvature of the walls. Whether smoothed or burnished, these vessels are always carefully finished. Surfaces may be plain, orange-slipped or with grooves (Bouvet 2017, 263–66). A single sample, which could correspond to a lid, displays incised, impressed, and excised decorations covered by an orange slip (Favereau 2015, 241–44). Such decorations possibly relate to Sa Huynh- and/or Kalanay designs but no decorative element diagnostic of Sa Huynh and/or Kalanay vessels can be identified, and the vessels’ morphology is different from Sa Huynh and/or Kalanay recurring shapes. Finally, the group encompasses various kinds of restricted and unrestricted vessels (Bouvet 2017, 267–70) and vessels were fired in an oxidation atmosphere. Although the raw materials may come from local sources, the number of vessels remains limited and the group only occurs at Khao Sam Kaeo. There, the vessels are not ubiquitous: most of them were uncovered on Hills 3 and 4 (Bouvet 2017, 263), which corresponds to an area that was likely occupied by foreign communities (Bellina 2017, 650). Therefore we believe that these potteries may be produced (locally or not) by foreign potters. The presence of foreign craftsmen has been formulated for the production of other artefacts at Khao Sam Kaeo (Bellina 2011; Bellina 2017; Pryce et al. 2017). The possible origin of these potters remains unknown, since apart from one vessel displaying possible Sa Huynh and/or Kalanay influences, no similar potteries have been spotted outside the Isthmus of Kra so far.
Paddled Impressed pottery
Paddled and Impressed vessels are found at Khao Sam Kaeo and Khao Sek (N. of sherds: 1,489; NMI: 181; weight: ~15.5 kg). They are also identified at Tha Chana. The variety of pottery pastes within the group suggests raw materials of multiple origins. Some vessels may have been produced locally, others elsewhere. At Khao Sek, sherds are mineral-tempered (mainly quartz and feldspar) (Favereau 2018, 43). Some pastes contain grog (that is, recycled broken sherds). At Khao Sam Kaeo, many fragments are tempered with crushed shell fragments (Bouvet 2017, 272), but mineral and vegetal tempers are also observed (Bouvet 2017, 275). Pots are formed using coils and then shaped with a paddle and an anvil. The rim is smoothed with a rotation gesture. The outer body walls are covered with overlapping patterns impressed with carved paddles or paddles around which a cord was wrapped. Impressed decorations create net patterns, straight lines, and corded lines. The latter are more frequent and usually overlap. The surfaces, usually reddish, indicate that the vessels were fired in an oxidising atmosphere. Morphologies identified are restricted, carinated or not, with rounded bases. Whether some were locally-produced and others imported, or whether all were imported, cannot be determined at this stage. In any case, the paddle-and-anvil technique was not popular among local potters, and no anvil was recovered from any of the sites under study.[9] Additionally, the decorations displayed on the vessels’ surfaces are not shared with local groups, and vessels all consist of restricted spherical pots. Despite the significant number of Paddle-Impressed vessels at Khao Sam Kaeo (MNI: 175), they were likely distributed on Hills 3 and 4 which hosted foreign communities (Bouvet 2017). Finally, their occurrence at Khao Sek is low (MNI: 6) and their distribution remains limited to two test pits (Favereau 2018, 43). We therefore suggest that these vessels may be attributed to foreign potters and served a specific function. Similar pots bearing cord-marked impressions on their body and base are documented across Southeast Asia and beyond for the time period ranging from the late 1st millennium BCE to the early centuries CE (Solheim 2003; Rao 2001; Stark 2003; Yamagata 2013). Further analyses are clearly needed to investigate the possible connections between similar vessels from different sites and to better understand who produced and used them.
Black/Black-and-Red pottery
Black pottery and Black-and-Red pottery are only identified at Khao Sam Kaeo (N. of sherds: 531; NMI: 66; weight: 4.4 kg) (Bouvet 2017, 313–20). The fabric is tempered with vegetal materials (Bouvet 2017, 314). Vessels are carefully shaped using coils and slabs. The surfaces are slipped and vitrified, which is atypical at Khao Sam Kaeo and considered as a foreign input (Bouvet 2012, 327–29). Most vessels are also incised with horizontal lines. They are fired in reduction (resulting in Black pottery) or oxygen-reduction atmosphere (corresponding to Black-and-Red pottery) (Bouvet 2011, 61, fig. 3.9; 2017, 313). This pottery, with surfaces which have some areas in black and others in red, may have been fired using a firing technique similar to the Black-and-Red firing technique used in Sri Lanka to fire pottery associated with archaeological contexts dated to the 3rd/2nd centuries BCE (Schenk 2014, 107). This technique is also documented in India (Pavan and Schenk 2012; Purshottam 1969). In addition, some forms (small bowls with rounded bases, shallow bowls with flattened bases, and unrestricted vessels) and decorations (horizontal incised bands) are comparable to South Asian types, specifically the so-called Northern Black Polished Wares and Black and Red Wares (Bouvet 2017, 328–33). This suggests that the foreign technologies and styles used to produce Black/Black-and-Red pottery might come from South Asia.
Wheel-made pottery
The group Wheel-made pottery is anecdotal (N. of sherds: 275; NMI: 47; weight: 1.6 kg) and was only identified at Khao Sam Kaeo (Bouvet 2017, 364–68). The origin of raw materials is unknown. Vessel profiles are regular and surfaces bear traces suggesting the use of a wheel. Due to the low number of examples and since the use of a wheel is not attested among local groups in the Isthmus of Kra, the chaîne opératoire is interpreted as exogenous. No stylistic similarity has been noticed with vessels from neighbouring areas. Although it is still unclear whether these pots were produced locally or imported, they were likely manufactured by foreign artisans.
Black-and-Red Jars
Black-and-Red Jars are found at Khao Sam Kaeo, Khao Sek and Tha Chana. The group encompasses a few large spherical pots (N. of sherds: 335; NMI: 38; weight: ~8.2 kg), which may have been used for burial purposes: indeed, artefacts that may be interpreted as offerings were found inside one of the jars at Khao Sek (Bellina 2018, 7), and the same jars are also found in some of the nearby coastal caves used for mortuary practices. However, no human remains were recovered. The fabric is tempered with plant materials similar to those used for Thai-Local-2 potteries and Vegetal-tempered and Moulded pottery. A convex mould was used to manufacture the lower part of the jars, while the upper part was shaped using large coils or slabs. The base and body were then padded. The presence of a vitrified slip is reported on several outer surfaces (Bouvet 2017, 324).
Decorations always occur and are impressed, sometimes incised with a comb. The jars were fired in reduction or slightly oxidised, hence the ‘‘Black-and-Red’’ (or rather ‘‘black and reddish-to-white’’) colour of most surfaces. The raw materials may have been collected locally, but the jars were manufactured using techniques rarely or never seen for that period on other pottery groups in the Isthmus of Kra. Based on the current state of research, these vessels are interpreted as produced (locally or not) by foreign potters using foreign technologies and style. Highly similar jars associated with mortuary contexts are reported from the end of the first t millennium BCE in Vietnam (Go Ma Voi, Giong Ca Vo, Giong Phet, and Hoa Diem sites) (Bouvet 2017; Yamagata 2013, 125, fig. 52) and later in the Philippines (Masbate—including the site of Kalanay, Samar and Palawan islands) (Favereau 2015, after Bay-Petersen 1982).
Wheel-coiled pottery
Wheel-coiled vessels are found at Khao Sam Kaeo, Khao Sek and Tha Chana (N. of sherds: 138; NMI > 76; weight: ~4.6 kg). The comparative analysis of ceramic thin sections revealed that the clay source used for these vessels at Khao Sam Kaeo is the same as the one used for the main local group Thai-Local-1 pottery (Bouvet 2017, 349), suggesting these vessels were locally produced. However, these pots are rare and were finished using a wheel (Bouvet 2017, 352–53; Favereau 2018, 44),[10] a technique which is not attested in the late centuries BCE among local pottery producers in the Isthmus of Kra and is thus interpreted as a foreign technique. The group encompasses two types of sherds: rim fragments on one hand, and base fragments on the other hand. Rim shapes show similarities with some reported in India (Bouvet 2017, 352–53; Favereau 2018, 44). Indeed, lips with two rounded bulges toward the exterior are known in India on vessels with flat bases like those identified among Wheel-coiled pottery. This not only suggests that the shape may have been introduced from India, but also that the technology might have come from there since the use of a wheel is reported in India within the same chronological range (Begley 1983, 469 and 1988, 429; Jahan 2010, 6).[11]
Imported Pottery
Fine Grey pottery
Fine Grey pottery (including Rouletted Ware) is found at Khao Sam Kaeo, Tha Chana, Phu Khao Thong and Bang Kluay Nok (N. of sherds: 777; MNI: 179). They are also reported on a few other settlements inland and along the western coast of the Thai-Malay Peninsula, including Maliwan and Aw Gyi (Bellina et al. 2018). Interestingly, only Khao Sek did not yield any evidence of their presence despite their presence at Ban Na Hyan, a relay station along the River Langsuan that leads to Khao Sek (Bellina et al. 2019). The fabric is always fine. Bouvet, who extensively described and analysed the Fine Grey pottery in the Isthmus of Kra (Bouvet 2011; 2017, 281–307), distinguished between vessels providing evidence of the use of a wheel and covered with a vitrified shiny slip, and other ceramics (plain or impressed) without slip (Bouvet 2017, 286). Ceramics were fired in reduction, oxidation and oxy-reduction conditions, resulting in different surface colours (Bouvet 2017). Such vessels were produced in South Asia (Das et al. 2017; Ford et al. 2005; Gogte 1997; Magee 2010). Some, and specifically Rouletted Ware, circulated across the Indian Ocean and the South China Sea between the 4th/3rd century BCE and the 4th century CE (Ardika and Bellwood 1991; Begley 1988, 1996; Bouvet 2017; Chaisuwan 2011; Eka Asih Putrina Taim 2006; Glover et al. 2014; Manguin and Agustijanto 2006; Ray 2006; Reddy 2015; Schenk 2014; Jahan 2010; Tomber 2010; Walker and Santoso 1976). They have been interpreted as prestigious goods/gifts by some (Magee 2010; Schenk 2001, 128) and items used by Indian merchants or sailors by others (Tomber 2008, 74).
Han-related pottery
Han (China)-related pottery is found at Khao Sam Kaeo, Tha Chana and Bang Kluay Nok (N. of sherds: 195). The fabric is fine, with the exception of a few coarser sherds at Khao Sam Kaeo (Péronnet and Srikanlaya 2017, 397). The vessels were shaped using large coils (about 1.5 to 2.5 cm high), then paddled and smoothed. The most common decorative techniques are impression and incision. The impressions cover the upper two-thirds of the outer surface. A seal may be impressed over them. Incisions are less frequent and form one or several horizontal lines. Some surfaces may be slipped and/or glazed. Inner surfaces, in particular, are frequently covered with a slip. The latter may have been applied to reduce permeability of the pottery walls (Cotkin et al. 1999; Schiffer et al. 1994; Shepard 1985). The firing atmosphere is oxidised or reduced. A single morphology has been identified: barrel-shaped restricted potteries with flat bases. Although dimensions vary, most of the pots are rather small (less than 20 cm tall). Such a shape, associated with the recurring presence of an inner slip and the lack of traces indicative of cooking activities, suggest that these vessels may have been used for storage. The fabric, techniques and styles used to produce these ceramics are all totally different from what is identified for other vessels in the area. In addition, fragments are rare and a single morphological type is identified. Finally, at Khao Sam Kaeo, many of them were recovered from areas visited by foreign communities (Péronnet and Srikanlaya 2017, 412). Therefore, these vessels are interpreted as imports. Based on stylistic comparisons, most are likely to come from southern China and northern Vietnam, and a few others from eastern China (Péronnet and Srikanlaya 2017, 393). Elsewhere in Southeast Asia, Han ceramics were also uncovered in central Vietnam (Crick 2006; Glover et al. 1996; Janse 1941; Pham 2000; Prior and Glover 2003; Southworth 2004) and some are reported in Indonesia (Bellwood 2007; Nasruddin 1996/97, after Anggraeni and Sunarningsih 2008).
Fine Orange pottery
A limited number of examples of Fine Orange pottery has been found (N. of sherds: 128; MNI: 20) at Khao Sam Kaeo in contexts dated to the 4th–1st centuries BCE (Bouvet 2017, 372, table II). One vessel was also identified at Bang Kluay Nok. The paste is always fine, and vessels are made possibly using coils and a wheel (Bouvet 2017, 357–58). Some fragments are impressed with a paddle, others are slipped, and some are both impressed and slipped. Vessels were fired in oxidation conditions, and typically exhibit a light reddish, orange or buff surface. Shapes available include possible lamps or lids[12] and spherical vessels, including one spouted specimen with a ring foot (kendi), impressed on its lower part, incised on the shoulder, and slipped (fig. 5: 6). Their fine fabric, the techniques used and the shapes are closely comparable to some of the vessels from Oc Eo (Bouvet 2017, 359–61, after Manguin 2000; Guillaume Epinal, pers. comm., July 2015). During the era between the late 1st millennium BCE to early 1st millennium CE, similar spherical pots without spouts have been identified in Hoa Diem (Yamagata 2013, 120, fig. 47) and Prohear (Reinecke et al. 2009, 75, fig. 61), and others with spout are seen at Angkor Borei/Vat Komnou (Fehrenbach 2009; Stark and Fehrenbach 2019, 122, fig. 9 and 123, fig. 10). Similar lamps/lids are reported at Arikamedu (India) as early as the 1st century CE (Begley 1996, 2002), and also in Gujarat and Maharashtra states (Reedy 2015, 258). Spouted vessel forms, which are considered to be of South Asian origin, are found across the Indian subcontinent in contexts dated from the late 1st millennium BCE (Bellina and Glover 2004; Bouvet 2017, 362; Manguin 2002, 63–64; Stark 2003). Finally, similar lamps/lids are also documented as far west as the Arabian Peninsula and along the coasts of the Red Sea in contexts of the early 1st millennium CE (Reddy 2015, 258; Tomber 2000, 628).
Exogenous Kalanay-related pottery
The group Exogenous Kalanay-related pottery is found at Khao Sam Kaeo, Khao Sek and Tha Chana (N. of sherds: 395[13]; MNI: 35). The fabric includes minerals mixed with possible grog, rock fragments, or shell fragments depending on vessels. The use of coils is attested for the upper part of the pots. Under the carination, the containers were shaped using percussion. The distinctive decorative technique is incision, which was performed with a two-pointed tool (Favereau and Bellina 2016; Favereau and Bellina 2022). In addition, scallop decorations may be found on carinations. Most decorative patterns are strictly identical to those found on vessels from Kalanay and Kalanay-related sites (Solheim 1964) in the Philippines. Vessels are chiefly restricted spherical shapes with unevenly oxidised surfaces. The paste ‘‘recipes’’ share no similarities with others in the area; the scarcity of ways of doing (such as beating and decorating with a comb), the Kalanay-related decorations displayed on surfaces, and the limited range of shapes and number of pots, suggest that this group is exogenous. Techno-stylistic comparisons with vessels uncovered in the Visayas allowed us to highlight perfect matches, which indicate that these pots are likely to come from the Philippines (Favereau 2015; Favereau and Bellina 2022). Highly similar vessels are also documented in Hoa Diem (Yamagata 2013).
Vegetal-tempered pedestal cups
Vegetal-tempered pedestal cups are tempered with plants, made using a rotary device, and fired in a reducing atmosphere. Very rare (N. of sherds: 15; MNI: 11), these pots, which systematically consist of cups with high pedestal, were recovered at Khao Sam Kaeo (Bouvet 2017, 332) and Tha Chana. Strong techno-stylistic similarities with vessels of the late 1st millennium BCE at Giong Ca Vo have been highlighted by Bouvet (2017, 334–35), who suggested they may have been imported from the Mekong River Delta area. In addition, similar shapes are observed in southern Vietnam and Cambodia at sites such as Go O Chua (Bouvet 2017, 332) and Prohear (Reinecke et al. 2009, 44, fig. 45-1; Reinecke et al. 2012, 274, fig. 21.6, n°49), and from surface contexts at Angkor Borei (Miriam Stark, pers. comm., May 2020). The latter are part of the “Burnished earthenware” ceramic group, dated around the 4th to 1st centuries BCE (Stark 200, 73; Stark 2003, 216–17).
Connections and sites’ relationship within the Isthmus of Kra and Surat Thani Province
Two dominant pottery groups are interpreted as local (Thai-local-1 and Thai-local-2) and found at the port-settlements located on the eastern coast (Khao Sam Kaeo, Khao Sek and Tha Chana). This shows that local potters from the same community were settled along the coast and supplied different ports, which further suggests close links between the local populations occupying these sites. Local pottery at Phu Khao Thong and Bang Kluay Nok was not investigated, and therefore the connections between groups from the western and eastern coasts of the Peninsula cannot be evaluated on similar grounds. However, we suspect strong links, since the two main local pottery groups under study (Thai-local-1 and Thai-local-2) share notable techno-stylistic similarities with those identified at sites further north in Myanmar (Tanintharyi Region) (Bellina et al. 2018).
Evidence of pottery groups made using foreign technologies and styles are found at Khao Sam Kaeo, Khao Sek and Tha Chana. The lack of study of the complete assemblages at Phu Khao Thong and Bang Kluay Nok does not allow us to identify any of these groups yet. However, some are reported at sites in Myanmar’s Tanintharyi Region (Bellina et al. 2018). These groups always occur in limited quantities. Whether pots were produced locally or not and, in the cases when they were produced locally, whether they originated from a single or few centres welcoming foreign potters, are questions we intend to investigate in the future.
The same imported pottery groups are found on all ports under study, except Khao Sek. This suggests that, apart from Khao Sek, the sites were involved in networks within which ceramics circulated over long distances. Sites from the eastern and western coasts were likely connected through trans-peninsular routes, since some pottery groups such as Fine Grey pottery can be found inland in a settlement site, Ban Na Hyan, which acted as a relay station (Bellina 2018). Perhaps Khao Sek was seldom or never frequented by foreigners. The hypothesis of a hierarchical confederation including specialised and complementary sites such as Khao Sam Kaeo and Khao Sek was formulated to explain the relationships between both sites (Bellina 2018). Further work is needed to examine whether Tha Chana, Phu Khao Thong and Bang Kluay Nok were also part of this alliance, as well as other centres on the west coast such as Maliwan and Aw Gyi (Bellina et al. 2018).
Long distance connections and cultural dynamics in the Isthmus of Kra and Surat Thani Province
All the pottery groups identified in the Isthmus of Kra and its environs bear evidence of direct or indirect contacts with distant areas. Indeed, local groups both adopted a foreign Sa Huynh and/or Kalanay-related style to decorate a limited number of vessels. The other pottery groups all attest to the use of foreign technology. If in-depth large scale comparative studies are clearly needed before drawing any conclusion, hypotheses concerning the social groups involved may be proposed.
Connections with South Asia
Wheel-coiled pottery, Black/Black-and-Red pottery and Fine Grey pottery suggest connections with South Asia. Wheel-coiled pottery is the only group attested which was made with local raw materials, using foreign techniques and style. A single morphological type has been identified, suggesting it had a specific use. Technology and morphology point to South Asia, signifying that potters likely came from there or Southeast Asians went to South Asia to be trained. The hypothesis of the presence of South Asian potters in the Isthmus of Kra was first formulated by Bouvet (2011, 2017) based on her analysis of ceramics from Khao Sam Kaeo. The dataset from five port-settlements in the Isthmus of Kra and Surat Thani Province provides further support for her interpretation. Thus, we can clearly imagine the circulation of potters as well as other artisans between South and Southeast Asia. They may have travelled from one centre to another, a hypothesis formulated in the case of the hard stone ornament production to explain the utterly similar craft system of the two ports of Khao Sam Kaeo and Khao Sek, which are interpreted as forming part of the same confederation (Bellina 2018). Additionally, the analysis of hard stone and other complex industries also led experts to propose the presence of Indian artisans at Khao Sam Kaeo and Khao Sek (Bellina 2017; Pryce et al. 2017; Dussubieux and Bellina 2017). The limited number of Wheel-coiled vessels suggests that only a few potters were involved in the production. They may have been settled in one or a few centres distributing in the whole area or were travelling in the area and producing upon request for a few exclusive persons. Compositional analyses are planned to clarify this question. The spatial distribution of the vessels at Khao Sam Kaeo (mostly Hills 1 and 2) suggests that customers were likely to be locals. Conversely, other South Asian-related pottery groups (Black/Black-and-Red pottery and Fine Grey pottery) chiefly occur in areas visited by foreigners. These pottery groups further attest the connections with South Asian groups present in the Peninsula. Different morphological types are identified among each of the latter groups, but unrestricted shapes are more numerous, which may be due to the function these ceramics played. Overall, none of the South Asia-related groups seems to have influenced local production: local pottery on the eastern coast of the Peninsula did not adopt Indian technology nor morphology during the period under study. To conclude, these vessels may all have been produced by foreigners to serve an exclusive purpose that remains to be determined.
Connections with the Philippines and south-central to southern Vietnam
Several groups show connections with the Philippines (Bicol Region, Visayas and Palawan) and Vietnam (south-central and southern Vietnam): Thai-Local-1 and Thai-Local-2 vessels displaying Sa Huynh- and/or Kalanay-related decorations, Black-and-Red Jars, and Exogenous Kalanay-related pottery. The two main and local groups identified on the eastern coast of the Peninsula (Thai-Local-1 and Thai-Local-2) produced a small quantity of ceramics bearing incised patterns filled with other incisions, impressions, and/or painting comparable to those found on vessels from Sa Huynh- and/or Kalanay-related sites across Southeast Asia. In the Peninsula, the Sa Huynh- and/or Kalanay-related style was not broadly adopted by locals as shown by the limited number of vessels decorated. At Khao Sam Kaeo, most of the fragments were found associated with valuable goods (Favereau et al. 2017), suggesting vessels may have belonged to “elites” who remain to be characterised. The latter might have controlled production and access to Sa Huynh and/or Kalanay-related ceramics, hence the low quantities of vessels with such decorations. Black-and-Red Jars may have been produced locally, but the technology and style are exogenous. They are rare and always in the form of large jars. At Khao Sam Kaeo, these pots are mostly found in areas occupied by foreign communities. Jars belonging to the same pottery tradition were uncovered in some of the nearby coastal caves which were likely used for mortuary purposes (Favereau 2015). Additionally, highly similar burial jars are found on sites along the South China Sea. In total, these jars may have been produced by and for foreigners to serve as burial containers. These foreigners likely originated from the Philippines or Vietnam. Finally, Exogenous Kalanay-related pottery was imported, likely from the Philippines, since perfect techno-morpho-stylistic parallels have been established (Favereau 2015; Favereau and Bellina 2022).
Connections with southern Vietnam and Cambodia
Fine Orange pottery and Vegetal-tempered pedestal cups are both imported groups. Strong techno-stylistic parallels highlighted by Bouvet (2017) provide evidence that they are likely to have come from the Mekong Delta area. Unlike many groups using foreign techniques, their spatial distribution (especially for the Fine Orange pottery) at Khao Sam Kaeo is not limited to hills occupied by foreign populations but also extends to areas occupied by local communities (Bouvet 2017, 354, map 2). They do not seem to have impacted local productions, since local pottery does not share any technology, nor decorative pattern attributed to them. However, one vessel shape (shallow cups with a high pedestal) produced by local potters of group Thai-Local-1 resembles the Vegetal-tempered pedestal cups (fig. 2: bottom, left to right). The archaeological context, their rarity, and the fact that each group includes only one or two distinctive morphological types (kendi vessels and lamps/lids on one hand, cups with pedestals on the other hand), suggest that these imports were used by few people, both from local and foreign communities, and had specific functions.
Connections with China and northern Vietnam
A single group, Han-related pottery, demonstrates connections with China and northern Vietnam. Vessels were imported and no technological nor stylistic transfers have been linked to local production. Since a limited number of vessels was recovered, and since many fragments are covered with an inner slip and display a single recurring morphology, they might have been dedicated to a special use, such as the transport of a particular commodity. Some vessels are likely to come from southern China, others from northern Vietnam (Péronnet and Srikanlaya 2017), suggesting the involvement of people from these areas in the networks. Perhaps intermediaries from northern Vietnam were making the liaison between areas, and given the presence of two seals with Chinese inscriptions at Khao Sam Kaeo (Borell 2017), we can also imagine that a few Han merchants were involved in the exchanges.
Conclusion
To summarise, based on the current state of research, the pottery data from late prehistoric port settlements in the Isthmus of Kra and the immediate neighbouring region (Surat Thani Province) suggest the three following categories:
1) Local Pottery
Local potteries attributed to local communities settled on the eastern coast of the Peninsula: (Thai-Local-1) and (Thai-Local-2). Their presence in the west remains to be investigated. Potters from these communities produced a range of vessels, including a few displaying Sa Huynh- and/or Kalanay-related decorations that perhaps were used by local elites sharing cultural references with communities settled in the Philippines and Vietnam.
2) Undetermined Groups
Currently undetermined groups. The Vegetal-tempered and Moulded pottery and Paddled and Impressed pottery groups encompass a significant number of vessels but are still poorly understood. No clear comparison has been established so far with vessels from other areas.
3) Imported groups
Imported groups or groups most likely locally made, implementing foreign techniques. If the exact origin of raw materials is not formally known for most groups, at least thin section analysis (Bouvet 2017) of wheel-coiled vessels demonstrates that the fabric is comparable to that of the Thai-Local-1 group, showing that wheel-coiled pottery was produced locally. This group is seen as indicative of the presence of a few Indian potters in the area.
Other groups provide evidence of connections with South Asia (Wheel-made pottery, Black/Black-and-Red pottery, Fine Grey pottery), but also the Philippines and south-central to southern Vietnam (Black-and-Red Jars and Exogenous Kalanay-related vessels), the Mekong River Delta area (Vegetal-tempered pedestal cups and Fine Orange pottery) and Han-China (Han-related pottery). Overall, all groups encompass a limited range of pottery forms, which suggests the vessels met specific needs or were produced upon order, perhaps for foreigners settled in port settlements and, in some cases, for local customers.
Based on their spatial distribution at Khao Sam Kaeo, Wheel-made pottery, Wheel-coiled pottery, Vegetal-tempered pedestal cups and Fine Orange pottery were likely used by both locals and foreigners. Fine Grey pottery, Black/Black-and-Red pottery and Han-related pottery are concentrated in areas occupied by foreign communities. Black-and-Red Jars are associated with foreign communities but also occur in nearby caves, which is rarely the case with other productions.
Ultimately, the data suggest different levels of interactions with various foreign communities in the Thai-Malay Peninsula and provide evidence of various “spheres of ceramic exchanges” (Miksic and Goh 2017) overlapping through space:
Some vessels (such as Fine Grey pottery and Han-related pottery) may have been imported by and for networked merchants.
Others (such as local vessels with Sa Huynh- and/or Kalanay-inspired decorations and Wheel-coiled pottery) were produced locally for local and foreign communities such as networked merchants and/or some sort of native-born person of mixed local and foreign ancestry or Peranakan.
Additionally, others (such as the Black-and-Red Jars) were likely produced locally specifically for an exogenous community. The Black-and-Red Jars highlighting connections with the Philippines and south-central to southern Vietnam may reflect specific usages and ways of interacting: those of very mobile groups perhaps acting as intermediaries interpreted as precursors of historical sea nomads (Bellina et al. 2019) but who nonetheless maintained their funerary practices. They may have found it best to make their burial jars themselves or travel with them.
Overall, further analyses are needed to clearly estimate the function of most vessels.
Most groups were probably going back and forth. That groups travel with pots is no surprise. More intriguing are pots that may have been locally made (and in the case of Wheeled-coiled vessels, are demonstrably locally made) and for which Indian techniques were likely used. Very few South Asian potters might have settled down more permanently. The South Asian presence in Southeast Asian early ports has recently been supported by ancient DNA studies: in Wat Komnou near Angkor Borei (Changmai et al. 2022) and in Bali (Lansing et al. 2004). The hypothesis that South Asian artisans were present in the Isthmus of Kra has been suggested for other industries: hard stone and glass ornaments, as well as high-tin bronze (Bellina 2007; 2014; Dussubieux and Bellina 2017; Pryce et al. 2017). These latter industries are interpreted as “prestigious goods” made for city-ports elites as a currency within its polities and its hinterland or between peer polities (Bellina 2014; 2018).
With ceramics, the implication may be of a different order. Despite the fact that they too are restricted in number and shaped like beads and high-tin bronzes cited above, we argue that the coming of potter(s) producing vessels associated with specific functions and shapes may signal the desire for these migrating groups to maintain specific socio-religious practices and the material needed for those. More research is needed to test which of the pottery types involving foreign techniques are actually locally made in order to clarify for each group whether potters or pots were circulating. This point is especially important, since these products signal social and economic practices and help us to understand how the various groups lived, what roles they played in trade (as mobile intermediaries or settled groups), how they interacted, and to what extent they adapted their behaviour in the early maritime Silk Road ports.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to express their sincere gratitude to the Fine Arts Department of Thailand, the National Research Council of Thailand, the National Museum of Chumphon and the University of Silpakorn for giving permission to study pottery assemblages from Thailand. We are deeply thankful to Dr. Rasmi Shoocongdej, Dr. Chawalit Khaokhiew, Dr. Praon Silapanth (Silpakorn University) and Mr. Cholawit Thongcharoenchaikit (National Science Museum, Thailand) in particular, for allowing this research. We also wish to thank Dr. Bunchar Pongpanich, the Suthi Rattana Foundation and Mr. Sanae Peawkrasin in Chumphon for providing opportunities to examine ceramics from Thailand. We are deeply grateful to Dr. Valentine Roux who read an earlier version of this work and provided crucial advice. We are also very grateful to Dr. Miriam Stark for valuable discussion and comments, and to Dr. Emily Miyama for making it possible to examine pottery from Hoa Diem at the Museum of Archaeology in Nha Trang, Vietnam, thanks to a Resona Foundation Grant for research on Asian and Oceanic countries and regions by young researchers at home and abroad (Research study grants). We extend our thanks to the Thai-French archaeological mission team members and collaborators for continuous support. Many thanks also to our colleagues from the Laboratory of Prehistory and Technology (CNRS-UMR7055) and the Institute of Archaeology of the National Cheng Kung University (NCKU) for their encouragement. The Thai-French Archaeological Mission was founded by the “Sous-Commission des Fouilles’’ of the French Ministry of Europe and Foreign Affairs and the National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS), France. This research was also supported in part by the Ministry of Science and Technology (research project number 109WFA0910048), Taiwan, ROC, as well as the Headquarters of University Advancement at the National Cheng Kung University, which is sponsored by the Ministry of Education, Taiwan, ROC. Part of the results in this paper were presented at the international conference “Singapura before Raffles: Archaeology of the Seas, 400 BCE–1600 CE’’, organised by Dr. John Miksic, Department of Southeast Asian Studies, National University of Singapore, and we are deeply grateful to Dr. Miksic for inviting us to participate and for giving us the opportunity to write this chapter.
Bibliography
Allen, J. 1991. “Trade and site distribution in early historic-period Kedah: geoarchaeological, historic, and locational evidence,” Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association 10, 307–319.
Anggraeni, and Sunarningsih. 2008. “The Prehistoric Settlement at Jambu Hilir, South Kalimantan Province, Indonesia,” Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association 28: 120–26.
Ardika, I.W., and Peter Bellwood. 1991. “Sembiran: The Beginnings of Indian Contact with Bali,” Antiquity 65: 221–23.
Arnold, Dean E. 1985. Ceramic theory and cultural process. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
———. 2005. “Linking society with the compositional analyses of pottery: a model from comparative ethnography.” In Livingstone Smith, Alexandre, Bosquet, D., Martineau, R., eds. Pottery Manufacturing Processes: Reconstitution and Interpretation. BAR International Series, pp. 15–21.
Bay-Petersen, J. 1982. “Textile impressions on Iron Age pottery in Masbate, Philippines,” Philippine Quarterly of Culture and Society 10: 261–68.
Begley, V. 1983. “Arikamedu reconsidered,” American Journal of Archaeology 87: 461–81.
———. 1988. “Rouletted ware at Arikamedu: a new approach,” American Journal of Archaeology 92: 427–40.
Begley, V. and G. Jouveau-Dubreuil. 1996. The ancient port of Arikamedu : new excavations and researches, 1989–1992 (Mémoires archéologiques 22). Pondichéry and Paris: Ecole française d’Extrême Orient.
Bellina, B. 2007. Cultural exchange between India and Southeast Asia: production and distribution of hard stone ornaments, Vic. BC–Vic. AD. Paris, France: Editions de la Maison des sciences de l ’Homme: Épistèmes.
———. 2008. Mission archéologique franco-thaïe en Thaïlande péninsulaire. Rapport des campagnes 2005 à 2008 à Khao Sam Kaeo [The Thai-French archaeological mission in Peninsular Thailand. Report on the 2005 to 2008 excavation at Khao Sam Kaeo]. Paris, France: Ministère des Affaires Etrangères.
———. 2009. La campagne 2009 de la mission franco-thaïe en péninsule thaïe-malaise [The 2009 excavation of the Thai-French mission in Thai-Malay Peninsula]. Paris, France: CNRS.
———. 2011. “Echanges préhistoriques et métissages culturels entre l’Est de l’Océan Indien et la Mer de Chine." In 4ème Congrès du Réseau Asie et Pacifique, 14–16 sept. 2011. Paris, France.
———., ed. 2017. Khao Sam Kaeo : An Early Port-City between the Indian Ocean and the South China Sea (Mémoires Archéologiques 28). Paris, France: Ecole française d’Extrême-orient.
———. 2018. “Development of maritime trade polities and diffusion of the ‘South China Sea Sphere of Interaction pan-regional culture’: the Khao Sek excavations and industries’ studies contribution,” Archaeological Research in Asia 13: 1–12.
Bellina, B. and I.C. Glover. 2004. “The archaeology of early contact with India and the Mediterranean World, from the fourth century BC to the fourth century AD.” In I.C. Glover and P. Bellwood, eds. Southeast Asia: from prehistory to history: 68–88. London and New York: Routledge Curzon.
Bellina, B. and P. Silapanth. 2006. “Weaving cultural identities on trans-Asiatic networks: upper Thai-Mala Peninsula – an early socio-political landscape,” Bulletin de l’École française d’Extrême-Orient 93: 257–93.
Bellina, B., G. Epinal and A. Favereau. 2012. « Caractérisation préliminaire des poteries marqueurs d’échanges en mer de Chine méridionale à la fin de la préhistoire, » Archipel: 7–33.
Bellina, B. et al. 2014. “The development of coastal polities in the Upper Thai-Malay Peninsula.” In N. Revire and S.A. Murphy, eds. Before Siam was born: new insights on the art and archaeology of Pre-Modern Thailand and its neighbouring regions: 68–89. Bangkok, Thailand: River Books.
———. 2018. “Myanmar’s earliest Maritime Silk Road port-settlements revealed,” Antiquity 92: 1–5.
Bellina, B., A. Favereau and Dussubieux, Laure. 2019. “Southeast Asian early Maritime Silk Road trading polities’ hinterland and the sea-nomads of the Isthmus of Kra,” Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 54: 102–20.
Bellwood, Peter. 2007. Prehistory of the Indo-Malaysian Archipelago. Canberra, Australia: ANU E-Press.
Bishop, R.L., Rands, R.L., Holley, G.R. 1982. “Ceramic compositional analysis in archaeological perspective,” Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 5: 275–330.
Borell, B. 2017. “Stone Seals and Intaglios from Khao Sam Kaeo.” In B. Bellina, ed. Khao Sam Kaeo, an early industrial port city between the Indian Ocean and the South China Sea (Mémoires Archéologiques 28). Paris, France: Ecole française d’Extrême Orient, pp. 587–619.
Bouvet, Ph. 2012. Interactions culturelles entre l’Asie du Sud-Est et l’Inde aux 4e–2e s. av. J.-C.: étude technologique des céramiques de Khao Sam Kaeo (Thaïlande péninsulaire, province de Chumphon). Thèse de doctorat, Nanterre, France: Ecole doctorale Connaissance, langage et modélisation.
Bouvet, Ph. 2017. “Rotative Kinetic Energy-produced Pottery.” In B. Bellina, ed. Khao Sam Kaeo, an early industrial port city between the Indian Ocean and the South China Sea (Mémoires Archéologiques 28). Paris, France: Ecole française d’Extrême Orient, pp. 345–72.
Bouvet, Ph.and G. Wade 2011. Preliminary study of Indian and Indian style Wares from Khao Sam Kaeo (Chumphon, Peninsular Thailand), fourth-second centuries BCE.” In P.-Y. Manguin, A. Mani and G. Wade, eds. Early interactions between South and Southeast Asia: reflections on cross-cultural exchange. Singapore: ISEAS and India: Manohar, pp. 47–81.
Castillo, C. 2017. “Archaeobotany, evidence of exchange networks and agricultural practices.” In Bellina, B., ed. Khao Sam Kaeo. An Early Port-City between the India Ocean and the South China Sea, Mémoires Archéologiques. Paris, France: Ecole française d’Extrême Orient, pp. 71–124.
Casson, L. 1989. The Periplus Maris Erythraei: Text with introduction, translation, and commentary. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Chaisuwan, B. 2011. “Early contacts between India and the Andaman coast in Thailand from the second century BCE to eleventh century CE.” In P.-Y. Manguin, A. Mani and G. Wade, eds. Early Interactions Between South and Southeast Asia: Reflections on cross-Cultural Exchange. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, p. 515.
Chalosantisakun, S., Aphirat Chelao, Sitthirit, C., Bamrungwong, A. 2015. Raingan kansamruat laeng borannakhadi kon prawattisat Chumphon [Chumphon prehistoric archeological survey report]. Samnak Sinpakthi 14 Nakhon Si Thammarat, Nakhon Si Thammarat.
Cotkin, S.J., C. Carr, M.L. Cotkin, A.E. Dittert and D.T. Kremser. 1999. “Analysis of slips and other inorganic surface materials on Woodland and early Fort ancient ceramics, South-Central Ohio,” American Antiquity 64: 316–42.
Crick, M. ,ed. 2006. Viêt Nam: collection vietnamienne du musée Cernuschi. Paris, France: Editions Findakly-Paris-Musées.
Das, S.K., S. Ghosh, K. Gangopadhyay, S. Ghosh and M. Hazra. 2017. “Provenance study of ancient potteries from West Bengal and Tamil Nadu: application of major element oxides and trace element geochemistry,” Man and Environment XLII: 11–20.
Dussubieux, L. and B. Bellina. 2017. “Glass from an Early Southeast Asian Producing and Trading Centre.” In B. Bellina, ed. Khao Sam Kaeo, an early industrial port city between the Indian Ocean and the South China Sea (Mémoires Archéologiques 28). Paris, France: Ecole française d’Extrême Orient, pp. 423–61.
———. 2018. “Glass ornament production and trade polities in the Upper-Thai Peninsula during the Early Iron Age,” Archaeological Research in Asia 13: 25–36.
Druc, I., 2013. “What is local? Looking at Ceramic Production in the Peruvian Highlands and beyond,” Journal of Anthropological Research 69: 485–513.
Eka Asih Putrina Taim. 2006. “The Batujaya pottery: early Hindu-Buddhist pottery in West Java.” In T. Simanjuntak, ed. Archaeology: Indonesian perspective: R. P. Soejono’s festschrift. Menteng, Jakarta, Indonesia: Indonesian Institute of Sciences: International Center for Prehistoric and Austronesian Studies, pp. 334–44.
Favereau, A. 2015. Interactions et modalités des échanges en Mer de Chine méridionale (500 avant notre ère – 200 de notre ère) : approche technologique des assemblages céramiques. PhD dissertation. Paris, France: Muséum national d’Histoire Naturelle.
———. 2018. “The analysis of Khao Sek pottery: insight into the circulations and the politico-economic context of the Thai-Malay Peninsula during the second half of the 1st millennium BC,” Archaeological Research in Asia 13: 37–49.
Favereau, A., Bellina, B. 2022. “Reviewing the connections between the Upper Thai-Malay Peninsula and the Philippines during the Late Prehistoric period (500 BC–AD 500).” In Calanca, P., Liu Y.-C. and F. Muyard, eds. Taiwan Maritime Landscapes. Ecole française d’Extrême Orient, Paris, France, pp. 151–169.
Favereau, A., Bellina, B., Epinal, G., Bouvet, Ph., 2017. “Sa Huynh-Kalanay-related ceramics. ” In Bellina, B., ed. Khao Sam Kaeo, an Early Industrial Port City between the Indian Ocean and the South China Sea. Paris, France: Ecole française d’Extrême Orient, pp. 373–390.
Favereau, A. and B. Bellina. 2016. “Thai-Malay Peninsula and South China Sea networks (500 BC–AD 200), based on a reappraisal of ‘Sa Huynh-Kalanay’-related ceramics,” Quaternary International 416: 219–27. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.09.100.
Favereau, A., B. Bellina, G. Epinal and Ph. Bouvet. 2017. “The South China Sea-related ceramics.” In Bellina, B., ed. Khao Sam Kaeo, an early industrial port city between the Indian Ocean and the South China Sea (Mémoires Archéologiques 28). Paris, France: Ecole française d’Extrême Orient, pp. 373–90.
Fehrenbach, S.S. 2009. Traditions of ceramic technology: an analysis of the assemblages from Angkor Borei, Cambodia. University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa. MA thesis.
Ford, L.A., A.M. Pollard, R.A.E. Coningham and B. Stern. 2005. “A geochemical investigation of the origin of Rouletted and other related South Asian fine wares,” Antiquity 79: 909–20.
Glover, I., Yamagata, M., Southworth, W.A., 1996. “The Cham, Sa Huynh and Han in early Vietnam: excavations at Buu Chau Hill, Tra Kieu, 1993,” Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association 14: 166–176.
Glover, I.C., W.A. Southworth, K.D. Nguyen, M. Yamagata, R. Prior and S. Kubo. 2014. “The site of Tra Kieu and the research history.” In M. Yamagata, ed. The ancient citadel of Tra Kieu in central Vietnam: the site and the pottery. Kakuma-machi, Kanazawa, Ishikawa, Japan: Center for Cultural Resource Studies, Kanazawa University, p. 155.
Gogte, V.D., 1997. “The Chandraketugahr-Tamluk region of Bengal: source of the Early Historic Rouletted ware from India and Southeast Asia,” Man and Environment 22: 69–85.
Gosselain, Olivier. 1998. ‘Social and Technical Identity in a Clay Crystal Ball’. In Miriam T. Stark, ed. The Archaeology of Social Boundaries. Smithsonian series in archaeological inquiry. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press, pp. 78–106.
———. 2008. “Thoughts and adjustments in the potter’s backyard.” In I. Berg, ed. Breaking the mould: challenging the past through pottery. BAR International Series 1861. Oxford: Archaeopress, pp. 67–79.
———. 2000. “Materializing identities: an African perspective,” Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 7: 187–217. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026558503986.
Gupta, S., 2005. “The Bay of Bengal interaction sphere (1000 BC–AD 500),” Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association 25: 21–30.
Jacq-Hergoualc’h, M. 1997. “Archaeological research in the Malay peninsula,” Journal of The Siam Society 85: 121–32.
Jennings, J. 2011. Globalizations and the Ancient World. Cambridge, New York, Cambridge University Press.
Hodos, Tamar. 2017. “Globalization. Some Introduction to The Routledge Handbook of Archaeology and Globalization.” In Tamar Hodos and Alexander Geurds, eds. The Routledge Handbook of Archaeology and Globalization. London New York, Routledge, pp. 3–11.
Jahan, S.H. 2010. “Rouletted Ware link South and Southeast Asia through maritime trade,” SPAFA Journal 20: 5–16.
Lankton, J.W., L. Dussubieux and T. Rehren. 2008. “A Study of mid-first millennium CE Southeast Sian specialized glass beadmaking traditions.” In E.A. Bacus, I.C. Glover and Sharrock, Peter D., eds. Selected Papers from the 10th International Conference of the European Association of Southeast Asian Archaeologists. Interpreting Southeast Asia’s Past, Volume 2: Monument, Image and Text. Singapore: National University of Singapore Press.
Lansing, J.S., Redd, A.J., Karafet, T.M., Watkins, J., Ardika, I.W., Surata, S.P.K., Schoenfelder, J.S., Campbell, M., Merriwether, A.M. and M.F. Hammer. 2004. “An Indian trader in ancient Bali?” Antiquity 78, 300: 287–293. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00112955
Magee, P. 2010. “Revisiting Indian Rouletted Ware and the impact of Indian Ocean trade in early historic South Asia,” Antiquity 84: 1043–54.
Mahadevan, I. 2006, after Mahadevan, I. 2010. “Tamil-Brahmi inscription on pottery found in Thailand,” The Hindu. https://www.thehindu.com/features/friday-review/history-and-culture/Indus-like-inscription-on-South-Indian-pottery-from-Thailand/article16364751.ece
Manem, S., 2020. “Modeling the evolution of ceramic traditions through a phylogenetic analysis of the chaînes opératoires: the European Bronze Age as a case study,” Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 27: 992–1039.
Manguin, P.-Y., 2000.“Les cites-États de l’Asie du Sud-Est côtière. De l’ancienneté et de la permanence des formes urbaines,” Bulletin de l’Ecole Française d’Extrême-Orient 87: 151–182.
Manguin, P.-Y. 2002. “From Funan to Sriwijaya: cultural continuities and discontinuities in the early historical maritime states of Southeast Asia.” In Ecole française d’Extrême-Orient dan Pusat Penelitian Arkeologi bekerjasama dengan Kedutaan Besar Prancis di Indonesia, eds. 25 tahun kerjasama Pusat Penelitian Arkeologi dan Ecole française d’Extrême-Orient: makalah seminar Dimensi budaya dalam membangun persatuan bangsa-bangsa di Asia Tenggara, Palembang. Jakarta: Kedutaan Besar Prancis di Indonesia and Ecole française d’Extrême-Orient, pp. 59–82.
Manguin, P.-Y. and I. Agustinjanto. 2006. “The archaeology of Batujaya (West Java, Indonesia): an interim report.” In E.A. Bacus, I.C. Glover and V.C. Pigott, eds. Uncovering Southeast Asia’s Past: selected papers from the 10th International Conference of the European association of southeast Asian archaeologists. Singapore: National University of Singapore Press, pp. 245–57.
Mayor, A., 2010. “Potters’ tools in Mali: production chains and technical traditions,” Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française 107: 643–666.
Miksic, J.N. 2000. “Heterogenetic cities in premodern Southeast Asia,” World Archaeology 32: 106–20.
———. 2006. “Chinese ceramics and the economics of early Southeast Asian urbanization, 14th to 16th centuries,” Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association 26: 147–153.
Miksic, J.N., Goh, G.Y., 2017. “Spheres of ceramic exchange in Southeast Asia, ninth to sixteenth centuries CE.” In Hodos, T., Geurds, A., Lane, P., Lilley, I., Pitts, M., Shelach, G., Stark, M., Versluys, M.J., eds. The Routledge Handbook of Archaeology and Globalization. London: Routledge , pp. 808–831.
Mills, J.A. 1997. “The swinging pendulum: from centrality to marginality – A study of southern Tenasserim in the history of Southeast Asia,” Journal of The Siam Society 85: 35–58.
Noonsuk, W. 2014. “Kingdom on the beach ridges: a landscape archaeology of Tambralinga in Peninsular Siam,” Asian Perspectives 52: 268–299.
Pavan, A., and Schenk, H., 2012. “Crossing the Indian Ocean before the Periplus: a comparison of pottery assemblages at the sites of Sumhuram (Oman) and Tissamaharama (Sri Lanka),” Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 23: 191–202.
Péronnet, S. and S. Srikanlaya. 2017. “Khao Sam Kaeo, the Han-related ceramics.” In B. Bellina, ed. Khao Sam Kaeo, an early industrial port city between the Indian Ocean and the South China Sea. Paris, France: Ecole française d’Extrême Orient, pp. 391–422.
Pham, T.N. 2000. “Recent discovery and excavation of a Sa Huynh culture site on Ly Son Island,” Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association 19: 61–64.
Changmai, Piya, Ron Pinhasi, Michael Pietrusewsky, Miriam T. Stark, Rona Michi Ikehara-Quebral, David Reich and Pavel Flegontov. 2022. “Ancient DNA from Protohistoric Period Cambodia Indicates That South Asians Admixed with Local Populations as Early as 1st–3rd Centuries CE,” Scientific Reports 12 (1): 22507. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-26799-3.
Prior, R. and I.C. Glover. 2003. “The late Prehistoric to early Historic earthenware of Central Vietnam.” In J.N. Miksic, ed. Earthenware in Southeast Asia: proceedings of the Singapore symposium on premodern Southeast Asian earthenwares. Singapore: National University of Singapore, pp. 261–84.
Pryce, T.O., Bellina, B. 2018. “High-tin bronze bowls and copper drums: non-ferrous archaeometallurgical evidence for Khao Sek’s involvement and role in regional exchange systems,” Archaeological Research in Asia 13: 50–58.
Pryce, T.O., Murillo-Barroso, M., Biggs, L., Martinón-Torres, M., Bellina, B. 2017. “The metallurgical industries.” In Bellina, B., ed. Khao Sam Kaeo. An Early Port-City between the India Ocean and the South China Sea. Mémoires Archéologiques. Paris, France: Ecole française d’Extrême Orient, pp. 499–546.
Pryce, T.O. et al. 2018. “Metallurgical traditions and metal exchange networks in late prehistoric central Myanmar, c. 1000 BC to c. AD 500, ” Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences 10: 1087–1109. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-016-0436-7.
Purshottam, S. 1969. “The problem of Black-and-Red Wares in Indian archaeology.” In B.P. Sinha, ed. Potteries in ancient India. Patna University: Department of Ancient Indian History & Archaeology, pp. 67–74.
Rao, K.P., 2001. “Early trade and contacts between South India and Southeast Asia (300 B.C.–A.D. 200),” East and West 51: 385–394.
Ray, H.P. 2006. “The archaeology of Bengal: trading networks, cultural identities,” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 49: 68–95.
Reddy, A. 2015. "Sourcing Indian ceramics in Arabia: actual imports and local imitations.” In Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies. Oxford, UK: Archaeopress, pp. 253–72.
Reinecke, A., L. Vin S. Seng. 2009. The first golden age of Cambodia: excavation at Prohear. Bonn, Germany: Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts.
Reinecke, Andreas, V. Laychour and S. Sonetra. 2012. “Prohear–An Iron Age burial site in southeastern Cambodia: preliminary report after three excavations.” In M.L. Tjoa-Bonatz, A. Reinecke and D. Bonatz, eds. Crossing Borders: Selected Papers from the 13th International Conference of the European Association of Southeast Asian Archaeologists. Singapore: NUS Press.
Roux, V. 2011. “Anthropological interpretation of ceramic assemblages: foundations and implementations of technological analysis.” In S. Scarcella, ed. Archaeological ceramics: a review of current research (BAR International Series 2193). Oxford, England: Archaeopress, pp. 80–88.
———. 2019. Ceramics and Society. A Technological Approach to Archaeological Assemblages. Springer International Publishing.
Schenk, H. 2001. “The development of pottery at Tissamaharama.” In H.J. Weisshaar, H. Roth and W. Wijeyapala, eds. Ancient Ruhuna: Sri Lankan German Archaeological Project in the Southern Province. Mainz: von Zabern, pp. 59–195.
Wallerstein, I. 1974. The Modern World System I: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century. New York: Academic Press.
Wijeyapala, eds. Ancient Ruhuna: Sri Lankan–German archaeological project in the southern province, 1. Mainz: Verlag Philipp von Zabern, pp. 59–195.
Schenk, H. 2014. “Tissamaharama pottery sequence and the early Historic maritime Silk Route across the Indian Ocean.” In Kommission für Archäologie Außereuropäischer Kulturen, des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, eds. Zeitschrift Für Archäologie Außereuropäischer Kulturen. Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag, pp. 95–117.
Schenk, H. 2001. “The development of pottery at Tissamaharama.” In Weisshaar, H.-J., Roth, H., Wijeyapala, W., eds. Ancient Ruhuna: Sri Lankan German Archaeological Project in the Southern Province. Mainz: von Zabern, pp. 59–195.
Schiffer, M.B., J.M. Skibo, T.C. Boelke, M.A. Neupert and M. Aronson. 1994. “New perspectives on experimental archaeology: surface treatments and thermal response of the clay cooking pot,” American Antiquity 59: 197–217.
Shepard, Anna Osler. 1985. Ceramics for the archaeologist. Carnegie Institution of Washington. Ann Arbor: Braun-Brumfield, Inc.
Silapanth, P. 2018. “Knobbed Ware from archaeological sites in Thailand: an evidence of early exchange between South Asia and Southeast Asia,” Thammasat Review 21: 131–151.
Solheim, W.G. 1964. The archaeology of central Philippines: a study chiefly on the Iron Age and its relationships (Monographs of the National Institute of Science and Technology 10). Manila, Philippines: Bureau of Printing.
Solheim, W.G. 2003. “Southeast Asian earthenware pottery and its spread.” In J.N. Miksic, ed. Earthenware in Southeast Asia. NUS Press, Singapore, pp. 1–21.
Southworth, W.A. 2004. “The coastal states of Champa.” In I.C. Glover P. Bellwood, eds. Southeast Asia: from prehistory to history. London and New York: RoutledgeCurzon, pp. 209–33.
Srisuchat, A. 2003. “Earthenware from archaeological sites in Southern Thailand: the first century BC to the twelfth century AD.” In J.N. Miksic, ed. Earthenware in Southeast Asia. Singapore: NUS Press.
Stark, M.T. 1999. “Social dimensions of technical choice in Kalinga ceramic traditions.” In E.S. Chilton, ed. Material Meanings: Critical Approaches to the Interpretation of Material Culture. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.
———. 2000. “Pre-Angkor Earthenware Ceramics from Cambodia’s Mekong Delta,” Udaya: Journal of Khmer Studies 1: 69–90.
———. 2003. “The chronology, technology and contexts of earthenware ceramics in Cambodia.” In J.N. Miksic, ed. Earthenware in Southeast Asia. NUS Press, Singapore, pp. 208–229.
Stark, M.T. and S.S. Fehrenbach. 2019. “Earthenware ceramic technologies of Angkor Borei, Cambodia,” UDAYA, Journal of Khmer Studies: 109–35.
Stark, M.T., R.L. Bishop and E. Miksa. 2000. “Ceramic technology and social boundaries: cultural practices in Kalinga clay selection and use,” Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 7: 295–331.
Stark, M.T., B.J. Bowser and L. Horne. 2008. “Why breaking down boundaries matters for archaeological research on learning and cultural transmission. An introduction,” In M.T. Stark, B.J. Bowser, L. Horne and C. Kramer, eds. Cultural transmission and material culture: breaking down boundaries. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Tomber, Roberta. 2000. “Indo-Roman Trade: The Ceramic Evidence from Egypt,” Antiquity 74: 624–31.
———. 2008. Indo-Roman trade: from pots to pepper. London: Duckworth.
Walker, M.J. and Santoso S… 1977. “Romano-Indian rouletted pottery in Indonesia,” Asian Perspectives 20: 228–35.
Wang, G. 1958. “The Nanhai trade. A study of the early History of Chinese trade in the South China Sea,” Journal of the Malayan Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 31: 1–135.
Wisseman Christie, J. 1995. “State formation in early maritime Southeast Asia: a consideration of the theories and the data,” Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 151: 235–88.
Yamagata, M. 2013. The excavation of Hoa Diem in central Vietnam. Vol. 17. Showa Women’s University Institute of International Culture Bulletin. Showa Women’s University Institute.
Groups’ name | KSK | KK | TCN | PKT | BKN | Groups’ name in other publications | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
N. of sherds | Weight (kg) | NMI | N. of sherds | Weight (kg) | NMI | N. of sherds | NMI | N. of sherds | N. of sherds | ||
Thai-Local-1 | 8782 | ~83 | 1078 | 9593 | 84.2 | 1029 | x | x | – | – | KSK–T.I KK-MineralTempered Coiled Decorated sub-group: Thai-SHK-Local-1 |
Thai-Local-2 | 3848 | ~31.3 | 324 | 1098 | 10.1 | 35 | x | x | – | – | KSK-T.II KK-PlantTempered Coiled Decorated sub-group: Thai-SHK-Local-2 |
Vegetal-tempered Moulded pottery | 2060 | ~14.2 | 326 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | KSK-T.III |
Paddled Impressed pottery | 1206 | 13.9 | 175 | 283 | 1.6 | 6 | x | x | – | – | KSK-T.IV KK-Paddled Impressed |
Black Wares and Black-and-Red Wares | 335 | 4.4 | 66 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | KSK-BW KSK-BRW |
Wheel-made pottery | 275 | 1.6 | 47 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | KSK-RKE3 |
Black-and-Red jars | 242 | 6.9 | 31 | 285 | 1.3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | – | – | KSK-BRJ KK-PlantTempered,Slab BRJStyle |
Wheel-coiled pottery | 122 | 3.7 | 60 | 6 | 0.9 | 6 | 9 | 9 | – | – | KSK-RKE1 KK-WheelThrown Indian-Style |
Fine Grey pottery | 654 | 29.7 | 179 | – | – | – | 6 | – | 116 | 6 | KSK-FW1, 1, 1/2 and 3 KSK-BW KSK-BRW PKT-FW1, 2, 1/2 and 3 BKN-FW1, 2 |
Han-related pottery | 148 | – | – | – | – | – | 44 | – | – | 3 | KSK-Han-related |
Fine Orange pottery | 128 | 0.8 | 20 | – | – | – | – | – | – | 1 | KSK-RKE2 |
Exogenous Kalanay-related pottery | 23 | – | 23 | 370 | 1.7 | 10 | 2 | 2 | – | – | KSK-SHK-Exogenous KK-Paddled SHK-Style |
Vegetal-tempered pedestal cups | 14 | 0.5 | 10 | – | – | – | 1 | 1 | – | – | KSK-RKE-BW KSK-RKE-BRW |
TOTAL | 17837 | 190 | 2339 | 11635 | 99.8 | 1089 | >66 | >16 | 116 | 10 | TOTAL N. of sherds > 29664 |
Table 3: details on the pottery corpuses analysed on five port-settlements of the Thai-Malay Peninsula.
Footnotes
The Isthmus of Kra encompasses the Chumphon and Ranong Provinces of Thailand. However, one of the sites included in this chapter is located a little further south, in Surat Thani Province. ↩︎
The Thai-French archaeological mission is headed by Dr Bérénice Bellina (National Centre for Scientific Research, France) in collaboration with the Faculty of Archaeology of Silpakorn University in Thailand (specifically Dr Praon Silapanth, Dr Rasmi Shoocongdej, and Dr Chawalit Khaokhiew) and the National Science Museum of Thailand (in particular Mr. Cholawit Thongcharoenchaikit). It was co-directed by Dr Praon Silapanth, Mr. Cholawit Thongcharoenchaikit and Dr Rasmi Shoocongdej successively. ↩︎
“Local” in this chapter is used in the broad sense of the word to refer to the area encompassing Chumphon and Ranong Provinces (that is, the Isthmus of Kra), and the northernmost part of Surat Thani Province. ↩︎
Wilhelm G. Solheim coined the expression “Sa Huynh-Kalanay pottery” to highlight similarities in shapes and decorations between ceramics from Sa Huynh site in Vietnam and Kalanay cave in the Philippines. The expression has been later used by some scholars to emphasise similarities between those ceramics and others from more sites around the South China Sea even when chrono-stratigraphic context was lacking. The expression used in this chapter, modified as “Sa Huynh- and/or Kalanay-related pottery”, aims at pointing similarities in decorations between ceramics recovered in the Thai-Malay Peninsula and ceramics from Sa Huynh cultural area in central Vietnam and/or ceramics from the “Kalanay pottery complex” defined by Solheim in the central Philippines (Solheim 1964), independently of their fabric or technology. ↩︎
Dong Son is the name of a site in northern Vietnam where bronze drums characterised by their shape and decorated with key motifs were first identified. Similar drums from China to Southeast Asia, classified into several types (including Heger type 1, the Dong Son type), were then recovered. Heger type 1 drums are believed to be dated of the second half of the first millennium BC. ↩︎
Lingling-o refers to a specific type of artefact believed to be worn as earring. It roughly has an unclosed donut shape with three protrusions pointing outward, and can be made of different materials including nephrite, shell, or clay for instance. ↩︎
Pottery sherds were studied using the naked eye, a magnifying glass (10x) and a Dino-Lite digital microscope (20 to 220x). ↩︎
The Minimum Number of Individuals, or MNI, refers to the minimum number of vessels and is calculated based on the number of pottery rims and bases identified after refitting. ↩︎
One possible fragment of anvil is mentioned at Khao Sam Kaeo (Bouvet 2012: 205), but the re-examination of this artefact leads us to believe that it would more likely correspond to a lid fragment. ↩︎
Vessels were first coiled and then finished with the help of a wheel. ↩︎
The use of a wheel is reported for the manufacture of the “Rouletted Ware” in India (Begley 1983, 469 and 1988: 429; Jahan 2010, 6). ↩︎
. See Reedy 2015, 258–62 for a discussion of the possible function of these vessels. ↩︎
The number of sherds appears relatively high due to the high rate of fragmentation of these vessels at Khao Sek. ↩︎