Abstract

This chapter examines three shipwrecks in Southeast Asian waters. The degree of documentation for each wreck differs, as does the evidence for dating and for ship construction technique. However, when the artefacts from each wreck are compared, stark parallels allow for inferred deductions. From this comparative analysis, it may be reasonably concluded that the Pulau Buaya, Lingga and Flying Fish Wrecks are all Southeast Asian lashed-lug ships that sank during the first quarter of the 12th century, at the end of the Northern Song dynasty (960 to 1127 CE). They were all transporting Chinese ceramics and ironware to Southeast Asian markets. They are sister ships. Two of them may have sailed past Singapore or through the Riau Strait.

Introduction

In 1998, the Ceramic Society of Indonesia published a book entitled The Pulau Buaya Wreck: Finds from the Song Period(Abu Ridho and Edwards McKinnon 1998). Finally, an important maritime archaeological discovery, one of the first in Indonesia, was made known to the public. The wreck was initially found by fishermen off Pulau Buaya in the Riau Archipelago. It was salvaged in 1989 by a private company holding a government-issued licence. While the book illustrates the cargo and a variety of artefacts, there was no archaeological documentation, so all context has been lost. More unfortunate still, we have no knowledge of the vessel type, and therefore no knowledge of who was transporting this cargo. It consisted primarily of Chinese ceramics from Guangdong and Fujian provinces, with a smattering of finer wares from other regions. Cast and wrought iron, metal ingots, and glassware were also traded.

Nearly three decades after the salvage of the Pulau Buaya Wreck, two new shipwreck discoveries have come to light (Figure 1 – Map). Remarkably, the Lingga Wreck also sank within sight of Pulau Buaya. The Flying Fish Wreck sank far away, near Kota Kinabalu in the East Malaysian state of Sabah. Both new finds are Southeast Asian ships of the lashed-lug tradition. Both were transporting Chinese ceramics and iron to Southeast Asian ports.

The Flying Fish Wreck was archaeologically excavated. The Lingga Wreck was not, however. Photographs provide some context, the hull remains have been identified, and an accurate date has been determined. While there are a few comparable artefacts linking these two wrecks, the Pulau Buaya Wreck bridges the gap with many parallels. From a detailed comparison of the cargoes, it is evident that all three ships are closely related. They are indeed sisterships.

Pulau Buaya Wreck

The exact position of the Pulau Buaya Wreck remains a mystery, although she is thought to lie a few nautical miles to the north or northeast of Buaya Island. The ceramics cargo is quite diverse, with green, brown and qingbai ware from kilns in Guangdong province, and to a lesser extent, Fujian province. Finer quality qingbai ware is from the famed Jingdezhen kilns in nearby Jiangxi province. Fine paste ware from southern Thai kilns suggests that the ship stopped to trade on her voyage south. Southeast Asian earthenware cooking pots and stoves were probably for shipboard use. A fascinating array of intact glassware would seem to be of Chinese origin. Cast-iron cauldrons and wrought-iron blades are a common find on ships voyaging from China. Other non-ceramic finds include large copper ingots, copper-alloy gongs and anklets (or armbands), lead and tin ingots, grindstones and rollers, and a few Chinese coins.

With only the stylistic analysis of ceramics at their disposal (Chinese coins were used for centuries, many kiln sites had yet to be excavated, and contemporaneous wreck sites had yet to be discovered), the authors of the book broadly assigned the 12th or early 13th century as the date of the wreck. From its location and cargo, the authors concluded that the ship was heading for the Batanghari River, or perhaps the Indragiri. The former leads to the ancient Melayu capital of Muara Jambi.

Lingga Wreck

The Lingga Wreck rests in 35 m of water in Lingga Strait, approximately 8 nautical miles southwest of Pulau Buaya. Lying in open water, the ship probably capsized and sank when struck by a localised squall. It was found by fishermen and looted before a licensed salvage company took over. While the company gridded the site and photographed the recovery, there was no archaeological supervision. The author was invited to investigate the site post-excavation in order to identify the vessel type.

Only a few sections of the surviving hull were uncovered, generally beneath iron concretions. The hull planks incorporated carved lugs at regular intervals. The bevelled rectangular lugs were pierced with two to four sets of holes for frame lashings. Their width was approximately half of the plank width, with some well offset from the centre. The planks themselves were relatively narrow, varying from 14–19 cm, and only 3 cm thick. They were edge-joined with wooden dowels, with a typical centre-to-centre spacing of 11 cm. There is only one Asian shipbuilding tradition that utilises planks with carved lugs. The Lingga Wreck is a Southeast Asian lashed-lug ship. All documented pre-14th-century Southeast Asia ships belong to this technical tradition, the oldest discovery dating to the 3rd century CE.

Planks are carved, rather than sawn, and incorporate protruding lugs, locally termed tambuku. On first impression, a lashed-lug boat appears to be flimsy, suitable perhaps for fishing or coastal transport. However, from archaeological evidence, ships of up to 35 m were constructed using this technique(Manguin 1996, 118). These early Southeast Asian craft were steered by two-quarter rudders, a system that survives to this day on many sailing vessels still plying the waters of Indonesia, the pinisi being a fine example. They were rigged with up to four tripod masts and a bowsprit supporting canted square or lug sails.

While Guangdong ceramics formed the bulk of the surviving cargo, cast-iron cauldrons and bundles of wrought-iron blades were also major components. Other non-ceramic items include copper ingots, Chinese coins, gongs, and copper-alloy anklets and coils. The only Southeast Asian artefacts were resin, grindstones and candlenuts.

Stylistically, the ceramics from the Lingga Wreck appear to be products of the Northern Song dynasty (960 to 1127 CE). Hundreds of Chinese copper coins recovered from the wreck represent several periods:

The coins provide a terminus post quem, or earliest possible date for the wreck, of 1111 CE. But as Chinese coins are known to have been kept in circulation for centuries, that is all the dating information they can provide.

Iron-brown painted bowls found on the wreck were made at or near the Xicun kilns in Guangdong province. Most have a simple floral decoration; however, several are painted with four Chinese characters. The characters can be interpreted as “Zhi He yuan nian”, the “first year of the Zhi He reign”, equivalent to 1054 CE. This is, of course, not consistent with the coin dates. Perhaps the bowls were ‘antiques’, being at least 57 years old when shipped. It is more likely that this particular decoration was popular for some reason and was therefore applied well beyond the date itself.

Most of the ceramics recovered from the Lingga Wreck were made at kilns in Guangdong province. Guangzhou was one of the few sanctioned gateways for Song dynasty maritime trade, so there is little doubt that this was the port of embarkation. Both the Lingga and the Pulau Buaya ships would have followed the western route down the South China Sea towards the Riau Archipelago. The likely destination was the Batanghari River, en route to Muara Jambi. However, as there is a less hazardous route to the Batanghari, via the South China Sea to the east of the Riau Archipelago, there remains the possibility that the Lingga ship was bound for an as-yet unknown port in the vicinity of the Indragiri River further to the west.

In the late 16th century, the Indragiri kingdom supported Johor in a battle against the Portuguese (Borschberg 2010, 227). During the early 17th century, the Portuguese plotted to disrupt the loading of pepper onto Southeast Asian ships off the Indragiri River (Borschberg 2010, 227). The earlier existence of an Indragiri port city is indeed suggested by its Sanskrit name. The river would seem to have been of some significance before the widespread adoption of Islam in the 15th century. Perhaps there was an important 12th-century trade centre on the Indragiri River, as yet undiscovered, justifying the hazardous navigation through the Riau Archipelago.

Due to narrow straits, an abundance of reefs, strong and shifting currents, and Sumatra squalls, it is difficult to navigate through the Riau Archipelago, even today. From the modern Admiralty chart and personal experience, rather than any historically researched route, there are only a few options. The least perilous is perhaps to sail east of Bintan before heading west through Dempo Strait, just south of Pulau Galang. Alternatively, a local pilot may have been able to con a ship through the narrow Riau Strait, between Bintan and Batam, before passing west through Dempo Strait. A route westward through Singapore Strait and then south through Durian Strait would also have been feasible, although considerably longer.

Flying Fish Wreck

The Flying Fish Wreck lies 13 nautical miles from the nearest mainland, and 22 miles west-southwest of Kota Kinabalu, the capital of Sabah. The ship struck a reef, wallowed on, and sank in 25 m of water. As with the Lingga Wreck, it was looted before official intervention, in this case by a private company working in close cooperation with the Sabah Museum. The author directed the excavation in 2017.

Deep sand protected a large part of the cargo from the looters, and sections of the hull from teredo worm. Hull planks incorporated rectangular lugs, joined longitudinally by means of a narrow-raised strip every second plank. Planks varied in width from 30–36cm, the lugs from 19–24 cm, and the raised joining strip was typically 6 cm across. Plank thickness varied from 3–5 cm, with dowel holes at typical 13 cm spacings. Frames were composed of several parts, roughly circular in section, with diameters varying from 8–12 cm. They were lashed with both a rattan-like material and ijuk (sugar palm fibre). Longitudinal poles, or stringers, of 5 cm diameter lay on the frames, with additional light thwart-ships poles above that. The hull planks are Shorea genus, the dowels are belian (Borneo ironwood), and the frames are teak.

The Flying Fish Wreck is a relatively small example of a long-distance trader. While she dates to the early 12th century, the Flying Fish Wreck is astonishingly similar in size and construction to the 7th to 8th-century Punjulharjo ship found buried onshore in northern-central Java (Manguin, 2019). The original length of the Punjulharjo hull has been determined to be approximately 17 m overall. The keel plank was carved out of a single timber, with six strakes on each side. A dozen frames remained in place out of the original fifteen. There were also complex stern and stem winged pieces, a quarter rudder mounting, dowel edge joints, stringers, thwarts, stanchions, and many intact ijuk stitches and lashings. The main purpose of the stringers seems to have been to support bamboo lath flooring, which may have served to keep the cargo clear of the vulnerable hull and frame lashings. Plank-to-plank stitching was phased out over time, none being evident on the Flying Fish Wreck.

The ceramic cargo is mostly from Fujian province. A freely painted flying fish on basins from the Cizao kilns provides the name for the wreck. Some higher-quality qingbai ware is from Jingdezhen. Finer still are some rare examples of northern greenware from the Yaozhou kilns of Shaanxi province. Several fine greenware bowls may be from the Longquan kilns in Zhejiang province. The non-ceramic cargo consists of cast and wrought iron, lead ingots, lead rings, copper alloy anklets, and gongs. Southeast Asian resin, shell ornaments, and earthenware or stoneware stoves were also recovered.

The dating evidence for the Flying Fish Wreck is not quite as solid as for the Lingga Wreck. Two wood samples were radiocarbon-dated, yielding adjusted calibrated 2-sigma (95.4 per cent probability) date ranges of 1065 to 1155 CE for a frame and 1081 to 1152 CE for a branch, which could have been dunnage or firewood. This statistically indicates a higher likelihood of Northern Song (62 years from 1065 to 1127) than Southern Song (28 years from 1127 to 1155).

Fine qingbai bowls on the wreck, with an incised cross-hatched design and an unglazed rim (known as ‘Haji cap’ bowls), have also been found in a Chinese tomb dated to 1127 CE (Peng 1998, 57). The tomb, belonging to Madam Zhang, was located in Wuyuan county in Jiangxi province, adjacent to the Jingdezhen production centre. Ceramicist Dr Tai Yew Seng is of the opinion that another type of qingbai bowl from the Flying Fish Wreck, with a delicately lobed rim and a high foot ring, was produced at a specific Jingdezhen kiln that only made this type of ware during the reign of Emperor Huizong (1100 to 1125 CE). It may therefore be concluded from the combined evidence that the Flying Fish Wreck is dated to the very late Northern Song period, say the first quarter of the 12th century. Links to the other two ships strongly support this dating, as shall be discussed below.

With a surviving cargo made up mostly of iron and Fujian ceramics, there is no doubt that the Flying Fish ship’s last voyage originated in China. The port of embarkation was almost certainly Quanzhou. She was heading southwards along the eastern route of the South China Sea, paralleling the western coastlines of Taiwan and the Philippines before crossing to Sabah. From terrestrial archaeological evidence, she was bound for ancient habitation centres such as Sungai Limau Manis in the vicinity of Brunei or Santubong in Sarawak.

Discussion

The tabulation of parallel artefacts from the Pulau Buaya, Lingga and Flying Fish Wrecks highlights some remarkable relationships (Figures 6.1 through 6.6, see below). Six artefact types were recovered from all three wrecks. Two of them are ubiquitous: cast-iron cauldrons and wrought-iron blades or bars are found on most ships carrying ceramics from China, from the 9th century to at least the 17th century. Copper-alloy anklets or armbands are of identical form on all three wrecks, although only the Flying Fish example has been chemically analysed (80 per cent copper and 20 per cent lead). They are known from terrestrial sites in Borneo but not from other wrecks. Occurring in small numbers, flat gongs may have been for shipboard use. During the later Southern Song dynasty, gongs were the only permitted copper alloy export item, apparently because they were needed for signalling and warning aboard ships. Small-mouth jars are nearly identical in form. However, the greenish glaze on some of the Lingga jars suggests that they were made in Guangdong, while the Pulau Buaya and Flying Fish jars were probably from the Cizao kilns in Fujian. As jars of this nature may have been containers for wine or other traded liquids, they could be widely distributed. Most telling are vases with a series of lightly incised rings around a long tapering neck, a flared cup-like mouth, and a flared foot-ring. Remnants of qingbai glaze on the Flying Fish example suggest that it was made in Jingdezhen. The Buaya and Flying Fish examples are probably from the Xicun kilns (Hong Kong Chinese University 1987, 93) or perhaps from the Chaozhou Bijiashan kilns (Lau et al 1985, 111) in Guangdong province. Regardless of kiln (designs were frequently copied), production of this uniquely shaped vessel seems to have been short-lived. It is the most powerful direct link between all three ships.

The Pulau Buaya Wreck provides many more strong links. There are five artefact types linking it to the Flying Fish Wreck. Three of these are rare and fine products of Jingdezhen: the ‘Haji cap’ bowl, a lobed ewer, and a lobed, covered box. Indeed, the box bases from both wrecks exhibit a moulded workshop mark. In the case of the Flying Fish Wreck, it reads “Ye Jia He Zi Ji”, meaning “covered box of the Ye family workshop”. The other two links come in the form of fine lobed dishes from an unknown kiln, and greenware bowls with an external ‘cat’s paw’ decoration from the Tongan or Nanan kilns of Fujian province.

There are no fewer than 13 links between the Pulau Buaya Wreck and the Lingga Wreck, although some are not so strong. For example, storage jars with incised wavy lines, and others with impressed stamps on the shoulder share decorative techniques but differ in shape, and therefore in production centre. Both wrecks carried small open-mouth jars, which were produced in large quantities in several places, and Chinese coins, which are frequently found on wrecks voyaging from China. Southeast Asian grindstones and rollers are also a common find.

However, the other seven parallels are solid. Large numbers of folded-rim bowls are products of the Xicun (Hong Kong Chinese University 1987, 91), Chaozhou Bijiashan (Lau et al 1985, 117) and Huizhou kilns in Guangdong. Significantly, these have been found in quantity at Bangko in the middle reaches of the Batanghari River near the ancient capital, Muara Jambi (Abu Ridho and Edwards McKinnon 1998, V). Squat ewers with a wide, straight neck are typical of the Xicun kilns (Hong Kong Chinese University 1987, 121) in Guangdong, as are distinctive stoneware basins glazed a dark greenish-brown, with a series of impressed floral or zoomorphic decorations in the interior centre. Finely potted bowls with an everted rim, high foot-ring, and carved spiral or ‘S’-shaped striations on the outside wall are also similar to some Xicun wares but perhaps more indicative of Chaozhou Bijiashan production (Koh 2017). High-quality storage jars, with a pale green to qingbai creamy glaze and decorated with incised diagonal spirals or petals between horizontal rings, are thought to be the first of their kind found in an archaeological context in Indonesia (Abu Ridho and Edwards McKinnon 1998, 57). Large copper ingots are of the same shape and size, although the Lingga examples have Chinese characters moulded on the upper surface. Finally, both wrecks contained rectangular metal ingots inscribed with a variety of Chinese characters. While these look very similar, the composition seems to vary markedly. The Buaya ingots are lead. Preliminary analysis suggests that the Lingga ingot is silver. Both lead and silver were exported from China.

Only one ceramic type was found on the Lingga and Flying Fish Wrecks, but not on the Buaya Wreck: small black or brown-glazed bowls referred to as temmoku, the Japanese term for tea bowl. While these bowls are attractive in their own right, they are a far cry from the famous temmoku made at the Jian kilns in Fujian province. In line with the bulk of their ceramic cargoes, the Lingga temmoku were probably made at Chaozhou (Lam 1985, 16) or Xicun (Hong Kong Chinese University 1987, 113) in Guangdong province, while the higher quality Flying Fish temmoku are more likely to have been made in Fujian province.

Conclusions

This wide range of overlapping cargo elements cements the demise of these three ships to within a decade or so of each other. The Lingga Wreck has been firmly dated to 1111 CE or shortly thereafter. Rather than a vague 12th to early 13th-century range, the Pulau Buaya Wreck may now be far more accurately dated to the end of the Northern Song, say 1100 to 1127 CE. Furthermore, it is now possible to speculate on the Pulau Buaya vessel type. Both the Lingga and Flying Fish ships are Southeast Asian lashed-lug craft. The Pulau Buaya Wreck contained Southeast Asian paddle-decorated earthenware cooking pots, earthenware stoves, and grindstones and rollers. Chinese junks tended to have an exclusively Chinese inventory, so the Pulau Buaya Wreck was almost certainly another Southeast Asian lashed-lug ship.

The fact that the cargoes of these Southeast Asian ships are entirely Chinese in origin is not at all unusual. The Chinese did not freight their own products into Southeast Asian waters in significant quantities until well into the 12th century. Instead, Southeast Asian, Indian and Arab ships made their way to China to exchange their home products, and others they picked up along the way, for Chinese ceramics, ironware and silk.

While this chapter focuses on three specific lashed-lug shipwrecks, a wealth of additional archaeological evidence confirms that Southeast Asian ships dominated trade throughout the South China Sea and the surrounding archipelagos during the first millennium CE and well into the second. John Miksic’s assertion in the Introduction of this book that Southeast Asians were the creators of the Southeast Asian Maritime Interaction Sphere (SAMIS) certainly holds true. Miksic also points out that the first Indian and Chinese visitors to SAMIS travelled on Southeast Asian ships. It was therefore the Southeast Asians who extended the sphere to incorporate Indian and Chinese ports into their commercial network. They held sway until as late as the 14th century when Chinese junks challenged them in number and size. And yet, when the Portuguese arrived in the early 16th century, they were surprised to find that Southeast Asian ships towered over their carracks. To this day, large wooden trading ships navigate the Indonesian Archipelago, with many still under sail.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the Sabah Museum and Mr Dickson Lee for inviting me to direct the excavation of the Flying Fish Wreck. I thank Mr Kiyoshi Nakatsuka and Mr Harry Satrio for the invitation to investigate the Lingga Wreck. And I thank Dr Edmund Edwards McKinnon for background information and for allowing me to use the images from his ground-breaking book on the Pulau Buaya Wreck.

References

Abu Ridho and Edwards McKinnon, E. 1998. The Pulau Buaya wreck: Finds from the Song Period, The Ceramic Society of Indonesia Monograph Series No. 18, Jakarta.

Borschberg, P. 2010. The Singapore and Melaka Straits: Violence, Security and Diplomacy in the 17th Century. Singapore: NUS Press.

Hong Kong Chinese University. 1987. Guangzhou Xicun Kilns, Hong Kong: Hong Kong Chinese University Museum.

Koh, N. K. 2017. Tang/Song Guangdong Trade Ceramics. Koh Antique. See http://www.koh-antique.com/guangdong/guangdongmain.html (Last accessed May 2018).

Lam, P., ed. 1985. A Ceramic Legacy of Asia’s Maritime Trade: Song Dynasty Guangdong Wares and Other 11th-19th century Trade Ceramics Found on Tioman Island, Malaysia, Southeast Asian Ceramics Society (West Malaysian Chapter). Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press.

Lau, M., et al. 1985. Ceramic Finds from Tang and Song Kilns in Guangdong. Hong Kong: Fung Ping Shan Museum, University of Hong Kong.

Manguin, P-Y. 2012. “Southeast Asian Shipping in the Indian Ocean during the First Millennium A.D.” In Ray, H.P., Salles, J-F., eds. Tradition and Archaeology: Early Maritime Contacts in the Indian Ocean, Singapore: ISEAS and New Delhi: Manohar Publishers, pp. 181–98.

Manguin, P-Y. 2019. ”Sewn boats of Southeast Asia: the stitched‐plank and lashed‐lug tradition,” International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 48: 400–15.

Peng Shifan. 1998. Dated Qingbai wares of the Song and Yuan Dynasty. Hong Kong: Ching Leng Foundation.