Trade Ceramics Recovered from the MMG-LXML Sepon Mining

『東南アジア考古学』36 号 (2016) Journal of Southeast Asian Archaeology 36(2016)

Trade Ceramics Recovered from the MMG-LXML Sepon Mining Tenement, Trade Ceramics Recovered from the MMG-LXML Sepon Mining Tenement, Savannakhet Province, the Lao PDR Savannakhet Province, the Lao PDR –Preliminary Review: Trading and Distribution based on Composition, Origin and Age– –Preliminary Review: Trading and Distribution based on Composition, Origin and Age–

ラオス・サヴァナケット県内セポン鉱山遺跡出土の貿易陶磁ラオス・サヴァナケット県内セポン鉱山遺跡出土の貿易陶磁ーその組成・生産地・製作年代から予察する交易と流通の背景ーーその組成・生産地・製作年代から予察する交易と流通の背景ー

Naho Shimizu, Independent Researcher, Lao National Museum Naho Shimizu, Lao National Museum Viengkeo Souksavatdy, Department of Heritage, Ministry of Information, Culture and Tourism, Lao PDR Nigel Chang, James Cook University, Australia Thonglith Luangkhot, Department of Heritage, Ministry of Information, Culture and Tourism, Lao PDR

要約：東南アジア大陸部中央に位置する現在のラオスは、タイ・カンボジア・ヴェトナム・ミャンマー・中国の 5 ヶ国に囲まれ、先史古代から現在にいたるまで、陸路および河川を介して隣国との活発な交易活動を展開してきた。ラオス中南部の Savannakhet 県内東方、ヴェトナム国境に近い山間部の鉱山 MMG-LXML Sepon Mining Tenement では多年にわたり金及び銅の鉱床開削および採掘事業が継続しているが、2008 年、採掘現場内より大型の銅鼓が発見され、続いて古代の銅採掘や精錬に関わる遺構および各種遺物の出土が確認されたことから、当鉱山区域内の埋蔵文化財保護を目的として、ラオス政府情報文化観光省国家遺産局・鉱山会社・James Cook University による調査プロジェクトが組織され、以降 2016 年現在にいたるまで発掘調査および UXO 除去にともなう遺物の表面採集作業を継続している。当遺跡地に関しては、出土銅鼓の編年型式および検出された縦坑木枠炭化材の C14 測定結果等から、紀元前後より活動を開始した大規模な銅採掘・精錬に関わる生産址との解釈がなされているが、遺跡の存続期間について現時点では詳らかでない。一方、上述した先史古代の銅生産関連資料以外に、遺跡地内では堆積土上層に検出される歴史時代の集団墓址周辺域から、これまでに相当量の陶磁器類が採集されている。筆者（Shimizu）は 2011 年および 2014 年、現地調査に参加し、出土陶磁器類を実見する機会を得た。資料の主体は、後代（15-18 世紀）に他地域より搬入された、いわゆる貿易陶磁であり、中国陶磁（16～17 世紀の景徳鎮および漳州窯製品・18 世紀代の福建広東製品等）のほか、ヴェトナム陶磁（青花・五彩）・タイ鉄絵製品に加えて、日本の肥前染付磁器も確認することができた。本稿では、この出土貿易陶磁器を検討対象とし、生産地別に資料の器種構成および製作年代を検証し、東南アジア大陸部の諸遺跡における調査事例、とくにラオスの首都ヴィエンチャン旧市街地内で実施された発掘調査における出土貿易陶磁との比較をふまえて当地における出土傾向を明らかにする。また生産地と製作年代から、当地域への貿易陶磁搬入と流通の歴史的背景について考察を試みる。

Keywords: Sepon. Vilabouly, Savannakhet, Copper mining, Lao PDR, Lane Xang Kingdom, East-west Corridor of Mainland Southeast Asia, Vientiane, Trade Ceramics, Blue and white porcelain, Hizen, Jingdezhen, Zhangzhou, Maritime Trade, Age of Commerce

Introduction The Lao Peoples Democratic Republic sometimes known as Laos or Lao is a small, land-locked country, which is located in the center of a region renowned for its ceramic production over the last millennium. Lao shares common borders with China, Myanmar, Vietnam, Thailand and Cambodia, all of which have been fairy well researched. The history of ceramic production and trading in these countries is already quite well understood yet, little is known about production and trade of ceramics in Lao, especially during Lao’s historical period. In comparison to its neighboring countries, years of conflict and political unrest in the Lao PDR severely restricted field research. Over the last few decades the country began to open up and is now subject to quite rapid development. As Lao began to open its doors it gradually became possible to undertake archaeological excavation and survey. Over the last decade several archaeological surveys have been implemented. Today, as a result of recent archaeological field projects, Laos’ vital link to other countries is becoming progressively clearer. In the attempt to reconstruct past human activity the analyses of ceramic trade, distribution, and production is most revealing. The MMG-LXML Sepon Mining Tenement Site is situated in Vilabouly District, Savannakhet Province in the southeast of the Lao P.D.R. The mining tenement is located in the mountains of Truong Son Cordillera, which runs north-south along the border between Lao and Vietnam. In 2007, a Memorandum of Understanding was signed between the Department of Heritage (Ministry of Information, Culture and Tourism, Lao PDR), MMG-LXML (an internationally-based mining operation) and James Cook University (Australia) in order to cooperate to manage and investigate archaeological heritage within the current MMG-LXML mining tenement. Subsequently more than ten extensive excavation projects have been undertaken, beginning in 2008 and ongoing, with the

47 archaeological sites grouped together as the “Vilabouly Complex” (Tucci et al. 2014). The complex has gained considerable notoriety upon the discovery of hundreds, if not thousands, of artifacts from various periods of history. One of the most dramatic finds recovered was a large bronze drum estimated to be 2,000 years old. Excavations at several sites have also revealed hundreds of extremely well preserved bamboo and hardwood structures integral to mining shafts dated to between 1000 BC and AD 700 (Chang et al. 2014: 191). Other significant finds associated with these remains such as burials containing grave goods, crucibles, wooden mining tools, copper alloy axes, ingots and woven bamboo baskets are fine examples of Lao’s “pre-historic period”, the Iron Age and older. There is now good evidence of Bronze Age mining at sites as well as significant numbers of older Neolithic stone tools. During excavations at the Sepon mining tenement another significant layer of history began to emerge as ceramic products in large quantities from a more recent period began to be revealed. Most of these historical period artifacts were recovered by chance in accordance with stringent UXO (unexploded ordnance) bomb clearance operations. What is particularly interesting to note is that these ceramic collections included an unexpected amount of trade ceramic. That is to say, these ceramics were imported items that were produced abroad. It now appears that these ceramics were imported to the Sepon region over several centuries during Lao’s historical period known as the Lane Xang Kingdom that existed from the 14th century until 19th century. Most of this collection of trade ceramics is currently stored on-site at the mining tenement’s Cultural Heritage Unit Workshop awaiting further conservation and analyses. The lead author’s first opportunity to visit the tenement and examine recovered ceramics was in September 2011. During this visit, a collection of some 15 significant finds was observed. A second opportunity to visit was made available in October to November 2014 and during this visit, a further 67 pieces of ceramic were documented and observed. This brief paper focuses on the preliminary observations of some 82 specimens of “trade ceramic”. It details the examination of their context, composition, characteristics and chronology through comparative analysis with previous research in the Lao PDR, such as the Vientiane Road No.1 survey which was undertaken in the central district in the nation’s capital, Vientiane, by Japan’s Grant Aid Assistance during 2006 and 2007(1).

1. Overview of the Recovered Trade Ceramics Observed The trade ceramic collection considered here totals 82 pieces which were observed to be from various origins. Each specimen can be classified into four categories based on their place of manufacture. For instance, the collection included 68 pieces of Chinese ceramic, ten pieces of Vietnamese, two pieces of Siamese and two pieces of Japanese porcelain. Before this study, it was almost unthinkable to expect that Japanese ceramic products would be recovered in this very remote region, high in the mountains of Laos. It is this finding that is considered to be of exceptional significance. It is also of special interest that the Japanese ceramics were found in combination with Chinese, Vietnamese and Siamese wares. It provides new archaeological insights into the historical Lane Xang era in the Sepon area, in terms of foreign trade. In the following sections, the attributes and characteristics of the specimens will be explained contextually based on place of manufacture.

2. Chinese Ceramics The majority of the collection, approximately 83% are porcelain and stoneware of Chinese origin. The production kiln(s) of each specimen can be identified as one of three kiln sites or regions, namely: 13 pieces are products of Jingdezhen kiln complex in Jiangxi province (i.e. Figs.3-8), 20 pieces are products of Zhangzhou kiln in Fujian province (i.e. Figs. 9-16) and the remaining 35 pieces are products of other anonymous kilns in Fujian or Guangdong provinces (i.e. Figs. 17-23). Jingdezhen and Zhangzhou, are both well known, large-scale kiln complexes that produced huge amounts of Chinese ceramic for export. Jingdezhen porcelain was exported to the whole of Asia, Europe and Africa over the last millennia, while Zhangzhou kiln ware was exported exclusively to Asia. Products from both these major kiln complexes have been recovered from many sites across Mainland Southeast Asia. In addition, it is especially interesting to note that hundreds or thousands of Jingdezhen and Zhangzhou kiln products were also recovered in Vientiane during the Road No.1 survey of 2006 and 2007(2). Aside from the Jingdezhen and Zhangzhou kiln products there remains the 35 pieces that cannot be positively identified to their exact production kiln at this time. These 35 specimens can only be classified as products of minor kilns in Fujian and/or Guangdong provinces. Historically, over the last millennium, numerous kiln sites were spread across both provinces, some of which had exported

48 ceramics to the whole of Asia and beyond since ancient times. For instance, the Dehua kiln in Fujian and Xicun kiln in Guangdong are well researched and documented. Most of the finds from the Sepon mining operation sites however, were produced in other miscellaneous kilns, which produced and exported ceramics around the time of the Qing dynasty.

Categories The Chinese wares can be classified into the following five categories: a. Blue and White Porcelain (porcelain with under-glaze cobalt blue, hereafter B&W P) b. White Porcelain (porcelain with no painting décor, hereafter WP) c. Porcelain with Over-glaze Enamel paintings (hereafter OGEP) d. Glazed Stoneware (hereafter G. SW) Through detailed observation of each specimen, it was possible to confirm that some specimens categorized as B&W P contain little or no kaolinite, which is the defining mineral ingredient of porcelain. Strictly speaking, the characteristics of these specimens’ paste appear to be a “stoneware” fabric rather than genuine “porcelain”. For this reason, they are classified here as “stoneware” rather than as “porcelain”. In fact, the majority of Zhangzhou kiln ware products and those from Fujian and Guangdong provinces are “stoneware” with under-glaze cobalt blue (i.e. Figs. 15-18). Therefore, one more category is added as follows: a’. Blue and White Stoneware (hereafter B&W SW)

The following table shows the numbers of Chinese ceramic pieces in each category of type and production kiln(s):

Production Kilns Categories B&W P B&W SW WP OGEP G. SW TOTAL Jingdezhen 10 - 1 2 - 13 Zhangzhou 8 11 - 1 - 20 Fujian/Guangdong 13 17 2 1 2 35 TOTALS 31 28 3 4 2 68

It is obvious that B&W (porcelain and stoneware) are dominant. It is generally understood that the majority of Chinese export ceramics were mostly limited to Blue and White through the Ming and Qing Dynasties, or after the 15th century up to the 19th century. The similar tendency toward B&W wares was observed during the Road No. 1 survey in Vientiane (Shimizu 2012: 36-37).

Morphological Traits The 68 specimens subjected to analyses can be classified by their shape (form) and production kiln as follows: Shape Classes Production Kilns Jingdezhen Zhangzhou Fujiang/G. TOTAL Bowl (mouth-rim sizes from 110~170mm in diameter) 10 12 33 55 Large Bowl or Basin (mouth-rim sizes greater than 200mm) - 4 1 5 Small Bowl or Cup (mouth-rim sizes less than 70mm) 1 - - 1 Plate 1 2 - 3 Small Dish or Saucer - 2 1 3 Covered Box 1 - - 1 TOTALS 13 20 35 68

There does not appear to be a wide variation as regards form. There are only two shapes; bowls and plates, with the exception of just one piece of what appears to be a Covered Box (Fig. 5). It is obvious that bowls are dominant. Furthermore, no jars or bottle shards were identified. It is well known today that each production kiln in China exported many varieties of ceramic (in terms of shape) including jars of all shapes and sizes throughout the Southeast Asian historical cities, such as Vientiane, the capital of the Lane Xang Kingdom(3). The very limited variation of shape within the Vilabouly Complex collection may relate to some specific characteristics of the area as a consumption site. This is further discussed in the final section below.

Production Dates and Kilns The archaeological study of Chinese ceramics is well advanced. Their typological classification, chronology, and dating have already been established very precisely. Comparative studies in China and systematic investigations of numerous overseas consumer sites in Japan as well as in Southeast Asia have already been undertaken. The author’s opinion based upon these former studies

49 consultation with, and suggestions made by, several renowned Japanese researchers(4). Production dates of the 68 Chinese ceramic specimens are presented below in relation to their production kiln sites:

Production Dates Jingdezhen Zhangzhou Fujiang/G. TOTAL Mid to Latter half of the 16th century 3 1 5 End of 16th century to the beginning of 17th century 8 16 - 24 Early half of the 17th century - 3 1 4 Latter half of the 17th century - - 3 3 End of 17th century to early half of 18th century 1 - 3 4 Circa 18th century 1 - 26 27 Early half of the 19th century - - 1 1 TOTALS 13 20 35 68

The production periods of the Vilabouly Complex ceramic specimens seem to extend across a wide chronological range spanning more than two centuries: from the middle of the 16th century to the early half of the 19th century. There is no major concentration within any one time period, however, two relatively clear peaks of activity can be suggested by the data. The first is at the end of 16th to the beginning of the 17th century and the second is in the 18th century. It can therefore be hypothesized that trade and distribution (or inflow) of Chinese ceramics to the Sepon region was particularly active during these peak periods. This will be discussed in more detail in the final section below.

3. Vietnamese Ceramics The export of Vietnamese ceramics has a long history over six centuries since the 13th Century. The overseas destinations or distributions of Vietnamese ceramic products, via maritime trade networks, were generally limited to within Southeast Asia with the notable exception of Japan (Cort 1997: 63-83). Recent research has revealed that Vietnamese ceramics were also exported over-land to neighboring Laos. During the Road No. 1 excavation survey in the Vientiane, from the 9365 pieces of trade ceramic shards in the total collection, the author identified 524 pieces as Vietnamese (Shimizu 2014: 110-112). At the Sepon mining tenement, ten pieces of Vietnamese ware (i.e. Figs. 24-29) were identified at the time of the lead author’s last visit. Their characteristics are described as follows.

Categories The types of Vietnamese wares exported overseas displayed quite a wide variation. Variations include, Celadon, White ware, Brown glazed ware, Blue and white ware, Over-glaze enamel painted ware, Iron-black painted ware and so forth. Three types of Vietnamese ceramic were identified at the Sepon mining tenement sites: two pieces of White ware (Ivory glazed stoneware with no painting décor; Figs. 25 and 29), five pieces of Blue and white ware (glazed stoneware with under-glaze blue décor; i.e. Figs. 26 and 27) and three pieces of Over-glaze enamel painted ware (glazed stoneware with over-glaze enameling décor; i.e. Figs. 24 and 28).

Morphological Traits Only two form classes were identified; nine Bowls and one Lid(5). In terms of shape, bowls are obviously dominant, as was noted for the Chinese wares discussed above. A similar tendency was also observed during the Road No. 1 survey in Vientiane. For example, among the 524 pieces of Vietnamese ceramics, 329 were bowl-shaped constituting 61% of the total (Shimizu 2014).

Production Dates and Kilns The work of archaeologists in Vietnam over the past three decades is gradually filling in a map of ceramic production sites along the length of the country. Survey results through various excavations at kiln sites, shipwrecks and consumer sites have been well integrated with historical studies of old collections and documents. This research has begun to clarify the historical development and diversity of ceramic production as well as to establish the chronology of Vietnamese ceramics (Cort 1997: 63-64). At this moment, however, our understanding is not yet very precise. Thus, it is difficult to identify production kiln and date exactly for ceramic shards found outside Vietnam.

50 While there remain some uncertainties in dating, the approximate production dates for each type of ware are summarized in the following table:

Production Dates Categories Ivory glaze Blue & white OG. Enamels TOTAL End of 14th to the 15th centuries or circa 15th century 2 1 - 3 End of 15th to the 16th centuries or circa 16th century - 1 3 4 Early half of the 17th century - 3 - 3 TOTALS 2 5 3 10

The observed production period extends over a wide range, from the end of 14th Century to the early half of 17th Century. The later half of this chronological extent, the middle of 16th to the middle of 17th centuries, overlaps with the first chronological peak of Chinese ceramics’ chronological distribution mentioned above.

4. Thai Ceramics Siamese or Thai wares in Southeast Asian maritime trade have been recovered during numerous archaeological surveys of shipwreck cargos and overseas consumption sites. The Siamese began exporting ceramic products during the 15th century and continued to export for many decades after Vietnamese ceramics unexpectedly disappeared from the regional trade routes at the beginning of the 16th century. In that period, the largest portion of most Southeast Asian cargoes were Thai wares. While Thai ceramics were eventually eclipsed by late 16th century Chinese exports, Siamese shipping trade continued until the beginning of the 18th century (Brown 2009: 17-21). On the other hand, the extent and nature of inland (over-land) trade of Thai ceramics has not yet been clarified in detail, mainly due to a lack of archaeological survey data as well as limited historical documents. However, quite recent research has revealed that Thai ceramics were exported by land to neighboring regions, such as Vientiane, Lao PDR(6). So far, just two pieces of Thai ware (Figs. 30 and 31) have been identified at the Sepon mining tenement sites.

Categories The two Sepon mining tenement specimens are both Iron-black painted ware (glazed stoneware with under-glaze black painting décor), which were popular Thai export items. Hundreds of the same type of ware were also found in the Vientiane Road No.1 survey.

Morphological Traits Both pieces are Bowls. However, both shards are so fragmentary that their original sizes are not clear. Their mouth-rim diameters are estimated at around or smaller than 150 mm. Their pedestal diameters measure 56-59 mm. Both bowls have very similar proportions and decorations including under-glaze iron black painting of horizontal lines on the interior wall and a circular motif inside of an unglazed sticking ring on the well of the bowl.

Production Dates and Kilns Research and study on Thai ceramic production sites has been gradually advanced. It was already understood that the Siamese exported ceramics from at least five different potting centers or major kiln complexes: Sawankhalok, San Kamphaeng, Sukhothai, Supanburi and Singburi, each of which had been historically producing huge quantities of a variety of ceramics for export on the Southeast Asian maritime trade network (Brown 2009: 18-20). However, a precise chronology for different Thai ceramics remains to be developed. Therefore, the two specimens of Thai ceramics recovered at Sepon can only be dated relatively imprecisely to the 15th and 16th centuries. Also, their production kiln site(s) cannot yet be identified. It is the opinion of one of us (Shimizu) that these two Thai wares may have been produced in the San Kamphaeng kiln or the Kalong kiln, both of which were located in Northern Thailand.

5. Japanese Ceramics It is well established that Japanese ceramics (mainly blue and white porcelain or so-called Imari ware) were first exported in large amounts to Southeast Asia, and then to West Asia, Africa, Europe and finally South America, during a period from the middle of 17th century through the 18th century. The types, volumes and periods of exported Japanese wares varied according to each destination. In Mainland Southeast Asia, Japanese ceramic fragments have been recovered amongst other trade ceramics from many archaeological

51 sites in Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia and the Lao PDR(7). At present, two pieces of Japanese ceramics have been discovered at the Sepon mining tenement sites (Figs. 32 and 33). These are described as follows.

Categories The two Vilabouly Complex specimens were both Blue and White porcelain (white porcelain with under-glaze cobalt blue painting), which was the predominant type of exported Japanese ware during the 17th to 18th centuries(8). Both specimens have similar blue painted decorative patterns or motifs on their interior wells and exterior walls. The painted motif on the interior well is a specific design of “a carp jumping out of waves” or, as known in Japanese, 荒磯文．The painted motif on the exterior wall is a simplified design of “a flying dragon between clouds” or 雲龍文．Both motifs were developed from the original Chinese porcelain models and became very specific to, and popular in, Japanese mass-produced ceramics for export exclusively to Southeast Asian countries. Many specimens with the same decorative motifs have been found at many sites across Mainland Southeast Asia; namely at Thanh Long, Trang Tien, Lang Gom and other sites in northern Vietnam, Thanh Ha, Hoi An and other sites in central Vietnam (Kikuchi 2010: 123-132), Ponhea Lueu in Cambodia (Sato 2010: 204-211), Lop Buri and Ayutthaya in Thailand, Kota Tinggi in Malaysia and so forth (Oohashi 2010: 2-29). In addition, more than ten pieces of Japanese Hizen bowls with the same decoration, during the Road No.1 survey in Vientiane, Lao PDR (Shimizu 2010: 133-176). Interestingly, the “original model” - Chinese products with the same motif - were also recovered from the Sepon mining tenement sites. There are two pieces (Figs. 17 and 18) identified, which were possibly produced at Zhangzhou kiln or some other kiln(s) in Fujian province.

Morphological Traits Both items are Bowls. One specimen (Fig. 33) measures around 122 mm in diameter at the rim (mouth) and is 62-65 mm in height. Another specimen (Fig. 32) consists of just three shards. Due to the amount of loss its exact size is unclear, however, it appears broadly similar in size and shape to the first bowl(9).

Production Dates and Kilns The archaeological study of Japanese Hizen ware is well advanced. Its typological classification and chronology have been established to a very precise level. The two pieces of porcelain can be dated to 1655-1670s, or in the third quarter of the 17th century. Both were produced in the Hizen kiln complex located in the present Saga prefecture, Kyushu Island, southern Japan.

6. Interpretation Based upon the above details of Chinese, Vietnamese, Thai and Japanese ceramics recovered from the Sepon mining tenement sites, several trends regarding the types present as well as production dates and also issues concerning trading routes are discussed in the following section. Particular attention is paid to comparative analysis of the Sepon mining tenement specimens relative to the finds from Vientiane and/or other archaeological sites in Mainland Southeast Asia.

Forms (Shapes) As mentioned in the previous sections, bowl shapes clearly dominate - making up 77 of the total of 82 pieces of trade ceramics observed. There remain only five specimens classed as other shapes: three pieces of plate or dish, one piece of box and one piece of lid. This simple or limited variation may relate to the specific characteristics of the Vilabouly region as a consumption site. Following at least two millennia of prehistoric copper mining, a number of historical cemeteries were in use on the Sepon mining tenement. Trade ceramics from the historical period within the collection described here were likely limited to, and selected for, burial purposes. Many were found to be whole pots rather than scattered shards. These imported ceramic bowls may be not have been used simply as trade items bought for everyday culinary use but, rather as ritual items for burial with human remains at funeral ceremonies. What we lack are historic ceramic pieces from house or habitation contexts for comparison. If there was a cemetery (or many cemeteries), there should also exist habitation sites nearby, unfortunately these remain to be located and studied. Further, the historical

52 period and the “modern” history of the Vilabouly area have been turbulent and many uncertainties remain around defining the social, cultural and historical context of the area. Therefore, it is still premature to develop detailed theories on the usage of imported ceramics or why it is that bowls so clearly dominate the sample in terms of shape.

Chronological Frequency The tentative results of identification and dating of the 82 specimens observed are summarized in the following chart, which shows ceramic numbers by production date and origin.

The overall production periods extend over quite a wide chronological range; over four centuries between the end of the 14th Century to the early half of the 19th Century. Two peaks in apparent activity are observed: at the end of the 16th century to the beginning of the 17th century and through the 18th century, mainly due to an increase in Chinese wares. These trends may relate to the historical or commercial circumstances in the Vilabouly region as a consumption site. It may also be due to the local production, export and trading situations at each origin point. The period of the first peak, the mid 16th century to the beginning of the 17th century is considered to be the end of the Ming dynasty in Chinese history. In spite of political confusion and repeated civil wars in Mainland China, its ceramic production and export industry grew during this period. What were the historical circumstances in the Vilabouly region or in Laos more generally, during the same period? The date coincides with the rise of the Lane Xang Kingdom, Lao’s Golden Age and the development of Laos (Lane Xang) as a nation. The Kingdom, for what is viewed as strategic reasons, established Vientiane as its new and centralized capital in 1560. Because of its prosperous natural resources, the Kingdom was involved in active maritime trade with countries abroad, despite having no coasts of its own. Laos followed an Asia-wide new trend of dynamic change and integration into a global trade system, namely the “Age of Commerce” which occurred between the 15th and mid 17th centuries (Reid 1993: 10-61). The Lane Xang Kingdom exported its natural resources, which consisted of metals (gold, silver, iron, etc.) and forest products (sticklac, benzoin, musk, etc.). As exchange for these exports, the Kingdom could now import items or materials such as Indian cottons, cloth, guns and other rare objects possibly including high-quality foreign ceramics (Shimizu 2010: 161-162). On the other hand, during the second peak (circa 18th century), the Lane Xang Kingdom had already started to decline although the Kingdom seemed to retain some economic power. The lead author can confirm that a great amount (more than 3,000 pieces) of Chinese ceramics dating to the same period as the second peak were recovered during the Road No.1 survey in Vientiane (Shimizu 2012: 37). The administrative capital of the Kingdom, Vientiane, was still importing foreign ceramics during the 18th century, as was the Vilabouly region(10). However, it remains unclear whether the Vilabouly area fell completely under the political and/or economic (commercial) influence of the Lane Xang Kingdom during these peak ceramic periods. The district may have been in isolation or possibly even independent during either or both of these periods. Regardless of the political situation, it should be understood that local people in the Vilabouly area must have engaged in overland trade, which ultimately connected them to overseas maritime trading ports. At the

53 very least, we now know that people in this area obtained abundant foreign ceramics from the end of 16th to the beginning of the 17th centuries and during the 18th century.

Trading Routes of Foreign Ceramics How were Chinese, Vietnamese, Siamese and Japanese ceramics transported and brought into Vilabouly? Which routes were used for access from each origin? From which coastal port(s) and via which country did they arrive? These are the most crucial questions for consideration as regards the trade and distribution of foreign ceramics in Lao. Concerning Vietnamese and Thai ware, both products of countries bordering Laos, it may be possible to simply assume over-land transport possibly including river routes where possible. However, what can we assume about the trade routes used to transport Chinese and Japanese products? Based on the historical background and geographical conditions, four routes can be suggested, namely:

(1) via China -access by land and Mekong river via Yunnan Province, mainland China (2) via Vietnam -access mainly by land from some costal ports of central Vietnam (3) via Thailand -access by land and river(s) from Ayutthaya or other commercial centers (4) via Cambodia -access by land and Mekong river from costal ports, southern Cambodia/Vietnam

As regards Japanese Hizen ceramics recovered in Vientiane, one of us has previously presented two hypotheses concerning trading routes and traders (Shimizu 2010: 162-167). The first hypothesis (listed above as the rd3 option) is that several foreign traders imported Hizen ware via Ayutthaya, from which Lao merchants were excluded at the time. The second hypothesis (listed above as the 4th option) is that Lao traders and/or those who had contact with the Chinese (the Zheng family) in Cambodia brought Hizen ware to Vientiane. However, trading route(s) for the Sepon mining tenement sites should be reconsidered or examined anew, as a separate case study, as the area is located more than 400 km from Vientiane. From a simple geographic point of view and given the location of the Sepon site, the hypothesis (listed above as the 2nd option) via Vietnam appears to be the most probable means of access. However, one cannot completely discount the possibility of the other three routes. Savannakhet Province (Vilabouly District) borders on Quang Tri Province of central Vietnam. The distance between the Sepon mining tenement and Vietnam’s coastal city of Hue is around 140 km in a straight line. Also, the distance from Hoi An (an important historical trading port known for its old Japanese quarter) measures 220 km. Additionally, the direct line distance between the Sepon mining tenement and Vietnam’s coastline measures less than 100 km, while the distance to the Mekong river measures around 180 km in a straight line (see Fig. 2). Therefore, it is clear that Vilabouly is far more accessible from Vietnam’s coastal ports for maritime trade, in comparison to routes via the Mekong River. Ceramic products are so heavy and fragile that it is hard to imagine that traders would transport them across vast overland distances if other options were available. Chinese and Japanese ceramics were possibly downloaded at some coastal port or other in central Vietnam, transported by land, Truong Son Cordillera close to the line of the modern Route 2 highway and brought to Vilabouly. Some historical documents do exist as regards trade or trading routes from Vietnam during this period. The earliest recorded European exploration of the central Mekong region took place in 1596, when two adventurers – a Portuguese (Diogo Veloso) and a Spanish (Blas Ruiz de Hernan Gonzales) –reached Vientiane by taking a route via Vietnam. They traveled from the coastal port of central Vietnam (Sinua or Sinoa; the main port near Hue) across the cordillera, entered Lao and proceeded up the Mekong to briefly visit Vientiane (Ngaosrivathana 2002: 95-149). A visit in the 17th century was recorded by a Dutch merchant -van Wusthoff. In his journal dated in the 1640’s he reported that the trade between Vietnam and Lao was as follows; “the route by oxcart from Vietnam to Thakhaek which must have been via the Mu Gia pass took twenty-two days, a trek Vietnamese merchants made three times a year to buy silks and rhinoceros horns” (Stuart-Fox 1998: 86-98). His description indicates that regular bilateral trade relations were well in place with the Vietnamese. The dates of both records may coincide with the first peak in the chronological frequency of trade ceramics recovered from the Sepon mining tenement sites.

54 These early European records do not mention the details of their routes, however, they must have passed nearby the Vilabouly area. This route was fairly well known and was referred to as the “Ancient East-West Corridor of Mainland Southeast Asia”. It had functioned as a major trading route since the pre-historic era, running from Burma, through Thailand and Laos to Vietnam via the Vilabouly and Sepon Districts (Sepon District, as distinct from the MMG-LXML Sepon mining tenement). It is certainly understood that the route was already well developed and even became well-known among Europeans by the end of the 16th century. As regards the regional history of ceramic trade between Lao (Vilabouly) and Vietnam, it could be summarized as follows. At the end of the 14th century or circa 15th century, the export of Vietnamese ware had begun and “foreign ceramics” were transported into Vilabouly for the first time, via this already established over-land route. The inflow (import) of Vietnamese ceramics continued for over two centuries. Since the latter half of the 16th century, Chinese ceramics joined as a new trading item, by following the same route. In the 17th and 18th centuries, quite a large amount of Chinese ceramics were transported (imported) from Vietnamese coastal port(s) to the Vilabouly region, probably following the same route. During the third quarter of the 17th century, Japanese porcelain was included, though perhaps only for a short time, while Vietnamese ceramics had all but disappeared as trade items.

Concluding Remarks This paper focuses on trade ceramics recovered from the MMG-LXML Sepon mining tenement sites. The initial details of type, attributes and numbers from each production kiln were reported first. Secondly, the forms, chronology and other characteristics of the ceramics were discussed in comparison to specimens recovered from Vientiane and other archaeological sites in Mainland Southeast Asia. The final interpretation regarding trade routes was examined briefly. More detailed investigation into historic documents pertaining to local and foreign traders’ activities would certainly increase our understanding. Also, needless to say, it is essential to undertake more analyses (identification and classification) on all the ceramic specimens recovered in Vilabouly District and surrounding areas(11). Only a sample of the complete collection has been examined in detail to date. Some hypotheses outlined may be premature. There still remain some basic questions or possibilities to consider. For instance, was there no foreign ceramics transported to this area before the end of 14th century? In the assemblage examined here, the oldest trade ceramics recovered are Vietnamese products dating to the period from the end of the 14th to the 15th centuries. However, it is understood that mining operations and habitation at Vilabouly was continuous from the Bronze Age, through the Iron Age from approximately 1000 BC to AD 700, at least (Tucci et al. 2014). Various kinds of foreign products such as bronze drums, other numerous copper alloy objects, glass and stone beads seem to have been exchanged into the region over this period. The nature of ceramics associated with prehistoric contexts, whether local or imported, remains to be established. But, what of early historic ceramics from before the terminal 14th century? These have not been identified as yet. In contrast, the Vientiane Road No.1 survey recovered considerable amounts of foreign ceramics dating before the 15th century(12). It seems unlikely that similarly dated ceramics will not eventually be found in the Vilabouly area. Further, in order to improve the interpretation of the historical, political, commercial and cultural background of trade and distribution of foreign ceramics, a much more precise analyses of potential trading routes is required. Especially, what practical route(s) existed for Siamese ceramic transport into the Vilabouly area? The two specimens of Thai ware noted above are identified as products of Northern Thailand. How could these be transported to Vilabouly? Did they come overland across the vast Khorat plateau or were they floated down the Mekong River? We argue that whatever inland routes were followed, they not only used for inland-trade, but also connected to overseas (maritime) trade networks beyond Mainland Southeast Asia. It is also believed that trade ceramics were transported via some routes as part of a broader suite of valuable foreign products. What can be said clearly at the moment is that the people (Lao or other ethnic group(s)?) living in Vilabouly had significant economic and possibly real political power during the 15th and 18th centuries. The people of the region could import, purchase and use foreign ceramics which must have been considered more precious and costly compared to locally made Lao ceramics (stoneware and earthenware). At present, in terms of final remarks, it is only possible to note the following; the Vilabouly region was definitely prosperous. The inhabitants held political or economic power especially during the 16th and 18th centuries, which is very much a, “modern period”, especially compared to the age of the “Heger I, Bronze Drum” and the other ancient Iron Age material found on the Sepon mining tenement. It is remarkable that the people in this region constantly traded for, imported and used precious foreign products, from the

55 pre-historic era up until the quite modern era and this must say something about the ongoing strategic nature of the area geographically and/or in terms of the available resources. The Lao PDR holds a major keystone position in the geography of mainland Southeast Asia (White et al. 2008: 37-52). Archaeological evidence from excavation and survey suggests that the Vilabouly region, in particular, had functioned as one of the most influential commercial centers from the pre-historic era and possibly beyond. Of particular interest is the development of Laos’ modern era over the last millennium. The positive identification of trade ceramic types and their original kiln sites is now becoming important in determining Laos’ invaluable link to the vigorous economies and trade that existed in Southeast Asia before European expansionism in the 17th Century. Following a recent comment “The result is that current archaeology in Laos is starting to answer a great variety of questions important to the history and prehistory of Southeast Asia as a whole” (Chang et al. 2014: 191), we believe that further historic ceramic research at the Sepon mining tenement sites would provide crucial information to begin to fill some of the historical blanks - and provide some of the missing links - concerning the history and prehistory of mainland Southeast Asia throughout the millennia.

Acknowledgement We would like to express our sincere gratitude to the following organizations and individuals; Department of Heritage (Ministry of Information, Culture and Tourism), Lao National Museum, Culture and Tourism Department in Savannakhet Province, MMG-LXML (Sepon Mining Tenement), James Cook University, Thongsa Sayavongkhamdy, Somchanh Chuangbaikham, Samlane Luangphay, all the staff participating in the archaeological projects in Vilabouly from the Department of Heritage, Katherine Cameron, Robin Hamilton Coates, Louise Allison Cort, John Edgar, Peter Grave, Lisa Kealhofer, Michel Lorrillard, Dougald O’Reilly, Miriam Stark, Joyce White, Keisuke Endo, Hideyoshi Kawashima, Seiichi Kikuchi, Yoshiyuki Masuhara, Asako Morimoto, Ko Mukai, Tsuyoshi Narita, Koji Oohashi, Yuni Sato, Hiroshi Sugiyama, Yuko Suzuki, Yukitsugu Tabata, Shinichirou Tsuzuki, Junko Watanabe, Ritsuko Yajima and Marion Ravenscroft.

Notes 1. The initial results of the survey were reported in 2007, as “Preliminary Report on the Buried Cultural Properties Salvage Works for the Project for Improvement of Vientiane Road No. 1”, by the Consultant Team for Archaeological Works for the Project for Improvement of Vientiane Road No. 1 (Katahira Engineering International Co. Ltd. / Kokusai Kogyo Co. Ltd.). The final report has been submitted to the Department of Heritage, Ministry of Information, Culture and Tourism, but is not available publically (as of August 2016). For further details of the survey and trade ceramics recovered, please refer to Shimizu (2010). 2. More precisely, a total of 6896 pieces of Chinese ceramic were recovered in Vientiane. Of this total, 1951 were found to be porcelain shards produced at the Jingdezhen kiln and 582 pieces were found to be porcelain and stoneware shards produced in the Zhangzhou kiln (Shimizu 2014). 3. The lead author has confirmed by direct observation the great variety of shapes and sizes in jar classes that make up the Chinese ceramic collection recovered during the Road No.1 survey in the capital Vientiane. In comparison, there is a much smaller variety of Chinese bowls and plates recovered from the Sepon mining tenement sites. 4. As regards identification and dating of Chinese and other trade ceramics in this paper, the author sought advice from the following Japanese experts (based on photograph images of recovered specimens): Yuko Suzuki, Keisuke Endo, Koji Oohashi and Shinichirou Tsuzuki. 5. More precisely, the Vietnamese collection consisted of seven pieces of Bowl (mouth-rim diameters of around 150 mm or smaller) and two pieces of Large Bowl (mouth-rim sizes greater than 200 mm) and one piece of a Lid, which was attached to a small bowl or jar with a wide mouth. As an additional note, the discovery of two pieces of Large Bowl (Figs. 24 and 28) is quite remarkable, because it is quite rare to find this shape class from any archaeological sites outside Vietnam. These two Large Bowls found on the Sepon tenement exhibited a very thin body wall for their sizes. Their paste clay did not contain Kaolinite and its fabric was comparatively coarse and crumbly: not as solid as porcelain fabric. Therefore, these Large Bowls could be regarded as unpopular objects for export or, unsuitable for long distance transport or overseas shipping. Thus, their recovery at Vilabouly raises further questions; how and why were these wares transported to the site? 6. During the Road No. 1 excavation and survey project in the capital Vientiane, the author identified 1344 pieces of Thai ceramics amongst the 9365 pieces of trade ceramic shards in the total collection (Shimizu 2014). 7. From the 9365 pieces of trade ceramic recovered during the Road No. 1 excavation and survey project in Vientiane, 272 ceramic shards were confirmed to be Japanese Hizen ware dating to the 17th century (Shimizu 2014). 8. Amongst 272 pieces of Japanese Hizen ware recovered during the Vientiane Road No.1 project, the majority were also Blue and White porcelain, with only a few exceptions of different types; namely around 25 pieces of Blue and White porcelain with over-glaze enamel decor and just two pieces of glazed stoneware with under-glaze iron painting décor or so-called Karatsu ware (Shimizu 2010). 9. Additionally, it should be noted that this specimen (Fig. 33) was poorly formed, its mouth-rim is not a true circle and its rim line (looking horizontally across the top of the bowl) was not horizontal or even. Therefore, this bowl would have been considered a defective article, and generally speaking, unlikely to be selected for shipping to overseas markets. 10. It is generally understood that the distribution amounts of recovered Chinese ceramics were increased abruptly in many archaeological sites of Southeast Asia during the 18th century. This pattern is also observed in Vientiane and on the Sepon mining tenement sites supporting the general

56 conclusion of an increased dynamism in Chinese ceramic exportation and distribution across Southeast Asia during the 18th century. 11. The lead author (Shimizu) has not yet had an opportunity to observe the ceramic specimens recovered from the Sepon Tenement sites and exhibited at the Vilabouly Cultural Hall. More than thirty pieces of trade ceramic (most as whole pots) are now exhibited in showcases at the Hall. In addition, new ceramic finds are recovered regularly as a result of ongoing mining operations. An opportunity to visit the site again for further investigation would certainly result in a greater understanding of historical commercial activity in the region and beyond. 12. The lead author can confirm that Khmer ceramics dating to the th9 century and 10th century, Chinese white porcelain dating to the 11th century, Chinese celadon ware dating the 14th century and also Vietnamese ceramics (including ivory glazed ware and celadon glazed ware) dating to the 13th to 14th centuries, were recovered from Vientiane projects (Shimizu 2012).

References Brown, R. 2009 Emerging Evidence of Submerged Treasures. In The Ming Gap and Shipwreck Ceramics in Southeast Asia: Towards a Chronology of Thai Trade Ware: 17-21. Bangkok: The Siam Society. Cort, L. A. 1997 Vietnamese Ceramics in Japanese Contexts. In Vietnamese Ceramics: A Separate Tradition: 63-83. Chicago: Art Media Resources Chang, N. and J. C. White 2014 Filling the Gap: current archaeology in the Lao PDR. In The 20th Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association Congress Cambodia 2014 Conference Program and Abstracts: 191-196. Siem Reap: The Royal Academy of Cambodia and Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association Kikuchi, S. 2010 Hizen Porcelain Recovered in Vietnam. In Hizen Ceramic Exported All over the World: 123-132. Society of Kyushu Early Modern Ceramic Study. In Japanese. Ngaosrivathana, M. and P. Ngaosrivathana 2003 Early European Impression of the Lao. In BREAKING NEW GROUND IN LAO HISTORY Essays on the Seventh to Twentieth Centuries: 95-149. Cheng Mai: Silkworm Books Oohashi, K. 2010 An Overview of Export Hizen Porcelain. In Hizen Ceramic Exported All over the World: 2-29. Society of Kyushu Early Modern Ceramic Study. Reid, A. 1993 The Age of Commerce, In Southeast Asia in the Age of Commerce 1450-1680 Volume Two: Expansion and Crisis: 10-61. Chiang Mai: Silkworm Books Sato, Y. 2010 Preliminary Study about Distribution of Ceramics in Post-Angkor Period –Composition analysis of Ceramics Unearthed From Ponhea Lueu Site-. In Hizen Ceramic Exported All over the World: 204-211. Society of Kyushu Early Modern Ceramic Study. In Japanese. Shimizu, N. 2010 Japanese Hizen Ceramics Recovered from The Old City of Vientiane –Trading and Distribution of Imari and Karatsu wares under the LaneXang Kingdom in Lao P.D.R. In Hizen Ceramic Exported All over the World: 133-176. Society of Kyushu Early Modern Ceramic Study. Shimizu, N. 2012 Glazed Stoneware produced in Lao under the Lane Xang Kingdom (the First Volume): Their Composition, Characteristics, Dating and Background of the Production of Ceramics Recovered from The Old City of Vientiane. In Journal of Southeast Asian Archaeology 32: 29-41. Tokyo: Japan Society for Southeast Asian Archaeology. In Japanese. Shimizu, N. 2014 Vietnamese Ceramics Recovered from Archaeological Research in the Lao P. D. R. In The transmission of Vietnamese ceramics to coastal regions of Asia in the 14th and 15th centuries: Showa Women’s University Institute of International Culture Bulletin Vol.21: 109- 124. Tokyo: Showa Women’s University Institute of International Culture. In Japanese. Stuart-Fox, M. 1998 The Reign of Suriyavingsa, In The Lao Kingdom of Lan Xang: Rise and Decline: 86-98. Bangkok: White Lotus Press Tucci, A., T. Sayavongkhamdy, N. Chang and V. Souksavatdy 2014 Ancient Copper Mining in Laos: Heterarchies, Incipient States or Post-State Anarchists? In Journal of Anthropology and Archaeology Vol.2, No.2: 01-15. American Research Institute for Policy Development. White, J. C. and B. Bouasisengpaseuth 2008 Archaeology of the Middle Mekong: Introduction to the Luang Prabang Province Exploratory Survey. In Y. Goudineau & M. Lorrillard (ed.) Recherches nouvelles sur le Laos • New Research on Laos Études thématiques no 18: 37-52. Vientiane – Paris: École Française D’Extrême-Orient

57 Fig.1 Map of Mainland Southeast Asia Fig.2 Map of Savannakhet Province. Southeastern Region of the Lao PDR.

Fig.5a Chinese B&W P Fig.6a Chinese B&W P

Fig.3a Chinese B&W Porcelain Fig.4a Chinese B&W Porcelain

Fig.5b Fig.6b

Fig.3b Fig.4b Fig.5c Fig.6c

Fig.7a Chinese B&W P Fig.7b

Fig.10a Chinese OGEP Fig.10b Fig.10c

Fig.8a Chinese B&W P Fig.8b

Fig.9a Chinese OGEP Fig.9b Fig.11a Chinese B&W Stoneware Fig.11b

58 Fig.12a Chinese B&W P Fig.13a Chinese B&W P Fig.14a Chinese B&W P Fig.15a Chinese B&W SW

Fig.12b Fig.13b Fig.14b Fig.15b

Fig.16a Chinese B&W SW Fig.17a Chinese B&W SW Fig.18a Chinese B&W SW Fig.19a Chinese Glazed SW

Fig.16b Fig.17b Fig.18b Fig.19b

Fig.20a Chinese B&W P Fig.21a Chinese B&W P Fig.22a Chinese B&W P

Fig.23a Chinese Glazed Stoneware Fig.20b Fig.21b Fig.22b

Fig.23b Fig.20c Fig.21c Fig.22c

59 Fig.24a Vietnamese OGEP Stoneware Fig.25a Vietnamese Glazed Stoneware Fig.26a Vietnamese B&W Stoneware

Fig.24b Fig.25b Fig.26b

Fig.27a Vietnamese B&W Fig.28a Vietnamese OGEP Fig.29a Vietnamese G. SW

Fig.33a Japanese B&W Porcelain

Fig.27b Fig.28b Fig.29b

Fig.33b

Fig.30a Siamese G. SW Fig.31a Siamese G. SW Fig.32a Japanese B&W P

Fig.30b Fig.31b Fig.32b Fig.33c