Statistical Analysis of the Artifacts in the FTCSG Assemblage

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

21 June 2021

Statistical Analysis of the Artifacts in the FTCSG Assemblage

Figure 38. Proportion by Type of Material (number of sherds)
Figure 38. Proportion by Type of Material (number of sherds)
Ceramics by Type of Material (Number of sherds)
Green Porcelain707Porcelain1064
White Porcelain350
Blue & White Porcelain7
Mercury Jar502Stoneware1756
Buff Stoneware608
Brittle Stoneware646
Tempered Earthenware1340Earthenware2075
Fine Paste Earthenware735
Total number of sherds4,895

Table 3. Types of ceramics (number of sherds)

Ceramics by Type of Material (Weight)
Green Porcelain7249Porcelain10635.5
White Porcelain3351.5
Blue & White Porcelain35
Mercury Jar6358Stoneware28979
Buff Stoneware10808
Brittle Stoneware11813
Tempered Earthenware1143.2Earthenware6840.3
Fine Paste Earthenware5697.1
Total weight (in grams)46,454.8

Table 4. Types of ceramics (weight)

Figure 39. Proportion by Type of Material (by weight in grams)
Figure 39. Proportion by Type of Material (by weight in grams)

*Points to note:

  1. The greatest proportion of artifacts by number of sherds is earthenware, which is not surprising due to two reasons: 1) earthenware, being fired at a lower temperature, is more fragile and breaks easily into numerous small pieces, and 2) when the comparison is made by weight, earthenware forms the smallest percentage, as the clay body is thinner and less dense, so that earthenware vessels are more porous and lighter in weight than stoneware or porcelain of equal volume. Stoneware vessels, being larger storage jars and basins than earthenware, which are normally cooking pots and water jars, also weighed more per vessel.

  2. Stoneware represents the second largest in percentage in terms of number of sherds, but the most in terms of weight largely because the stoneware vessels usually comprise large jars which weighed much more than earthenware jars and pots, and porcelain bowls, vases and jarlets (etc)..

  3. Porcelain, being more highly prized, constituted the smallest proportion in both number of pieces and weight due to their more limited availability. In fact, it is rather interesting that high quality items among the porcelain sub-assemblage have been found at this location; these include rare types such as an iron-spotted Qingbai jarlet and a small number of blue and white sherds.

FTCSG Porcelain

Percentage of green porcelain, white porcelain, and blue and white porcelain in the FTCSG porcelain sub-assemblage:

Figure 40. Percentage of different sub-types of porcelain (number of sherds)
Figure 40. Percentage of different sub-types of porcelain (number of sherds)

Number of sherds by type of porcelain:

  • Green Porcelain: 707
  • White Porcelain: 350
  • Blue and White Porcelain: 7 = Total number of sherds: 1064
Figure 41. Percentage of different sub-types of porcelain (by weight in grams)
Figure 41. Percentage of different sub-types of porcelain (by weight in grams)

Weight by type of porcelain:

  • Green Porcelain: 7,249 g
  • White Porcelain: 3,351.5 g
  • Blue and White Porcelain: 35 g
  • Total weight: 10,635.5 g

Points to note:

The percentage of the proportion of gree, white, and blue and white porcelain is consistent with that of the Fort Canning assemblage of porcelain from the previous excavations conducted from 1984 to 1998 about 25 meters to the west. At that site, green porcelain appears to be the most numerous followed by white porcelain, with blue and white porcelain being rarest. These proportions are likely determined by the price and availability of the items; blue and white was probably more expensive and available in more limited supplies compared to the other two types of porcelain.

FTCSG Stoneware

Percentage of mercury jar, brittle stoneware and buff stoneware in the FTCSG stoneware sub-assemblage:

Figure 42. Percentage of different sub-types of stoneware (number of sherds)
Figure 42. Percentage of different sub-types of stoneware (number of sherds)

Number of sherds by type of stoneware:

  • Mercury Jar: 502
  • Buff Stoneware: 608
  • Brittle Stoneware: 646
  • Total number: 1,756
Figure 43. Percentage of different sub-types of stoneware (by weight in grams)
Figure 43. Percentage of different sub-types of stoneware (by weight in grams)

Weight by type of Stoneware:

  • Mercury Jar: 6,358 g
  • Buff Stoneware: 10,808 g
  • Brittle Stoneware: 11,813 g
  • Total weight: 28,979 g

Points to note:

Statistical analysis of the quantities (number of sherds) and weight of the stoneware sub-assemblage at the FTCSG site shows that mercury jars constitute the smallest category in terms of percentage of quantities in number of sherds and in weight. The proportion of brittle stoneware to buff stoneware in the FTCSG stoneware sub-assemblage shows a remarkable difference from the proportion between the two sub-types in the Fort Canning (FTC) and other Singapore sites, where buff stoneware constitutes the largest proportion in terms of number of sherds and in weight, followed by brittle stoneware, and mercury jar. This difference in relative quantities may be indicative of sampling error as these differences are only 1 percent by number of sherds and 1.1 percent in terms of weight. The largest number of brittle stoneware by sherds was found in Square IV in the dense heap of artifacts which is interpreted as a possible dumping spot for rubbish along the footpath.

FTCSG Earthenware

Percentage of fine paste earthenware and tempered earthenware in the FTCSG earthenware sub-assemblage:

Figure 44. Percentage of different sub-types of earthenware (number of sherds)
Figure 44. Percentage of different sub-types of earthenware (number of sherds)

Number of sherds by type of earthenware:

  • Fine Paste Earthenware: 735
  • Tempered Earthenware: 1,340
  • Total number of sherds: 2,075
Figure 45. Percentage of different sub-types of earthenware (by weight in grams)
Figure 45. Percentage of different sub-types of earthenware (by weight in grams)

Weight by type of earthenware:

  • Fine Paste Earthenware: 1,143.2 g
  • Tempered Earthenware: 5,697.1 g
  • Total weight: 6,6840.3 g

The proportions of fine paste and tempered earthenware are consistent with the distribution of the two types of earthenware at the Fort Canning site (FTC) and other Singapore sites. Fine paste ware is an imported type, probably from southern Thailand. It is more fragile than tempered earthenware, and was probably used in more ritual contexts than tempered ware, which was mainly used for cooking and food storage.

FTCSG 19th to 20th-Century Artifacts

Figure 45. Percentage of types of artifact in the FTCSG 19th–20th-century sub-assemblage (number of sherds)
Figure 45. Percentage of types of artifact in the FTCSG 19th–20th-century sub-assemblage (number of sherds)
Ceramics by Type of Material (Number of pieces)
European Porcelain28Ceramics43
Chinese Porcelain6
European Stoneware4
Chinese Stoneware5
Glass26Non-ceramics832
Organic351
Metal170
Stone219
Construction Materials66
Total number of pieces875

Table 5. Types of 19th to 20th century artifacts (number of sherds)

Figure 47. Percentage of types of artifacts in the FTCSG 19th–20th-century sub-assemblage (by weight in grams)
Figure 47. Percentage of types of artifacts in the FTCSG 19th–20th-century sub-assemblage (by weight in grams)
Ceramics by Type of Material (weight in grams)
European Porcelain824Ceramics1249
Chinese Porcelain69
European Stoneware55
Chinese Stoneware301
Glass674Non-ceramics8957
Organic425
Metal1717
Stone5432
Construction Materials709
Total weight in grams10,206

Table 6. Types of 19th to 20th century artifacts (by weight in grams)