MAJAPAHIT AFTER HAYAM WURUK: DECLINE OR TRANSFORMATION?

SANDHYAKALANING MAJAPAHIT: LEARNING THE DYNAMICS OF MAJAPAHIT AS

NUSANTARA’S GREAT STRENGTH

Universitas Airlangga, 16 November 2019

John N. Miksic, National University of Singapore

Potsherds are very useful tools for tracing economic relations in the past. Indonesian

scholars have long sought to go beyond such basic topics as production techniques and

typology to probe more complex matters such as the patterns of use and symbolic significance

of imported ceramics (Sumarah Adhyatman 1981, Satyawati Suleiman 1980). Chinese

ceramics are the most common imported ceramics found, but Vietnamese and Thai pottery also

forms interesting subjects for comparison.

In traditional Indonesian historiography, Hindu Majapahit is described as having been

overthrown by Muslim Demak in 1480 (1400 Śaka). Historians have long noted that this

description of events does not correspond with epigraphy and other sources (see for instance

the chapters by Buchari, Berg, and de Graaf in Soedjatmoko, Mohammad Ali, Resink, and

Kahin 1965). Archaeology’s potential to clarify this debate has not been fully exploited. This

paper will explore data from ceramics which sheds light on Majapahit after the kingdom’s

supposed golden age of King Hayam Wuruk. In political terms, Majapahit was riven by civil

war, but Majapahit still retained influence beyond Java, and economically the population of

Majapahit continued to enjoy prosperity sufficient to enable them to import ceramics from

mainland Southeast Asia after China prohibited trade with the outside world.

In 1365 Mpu Prapanca wrote his famous poem Deśawarṇana which described

Majapahit’s international relations. Foreign residents at Majapahit’s capital came from China,

India (Jambudvipa), Cambodia, Champa, and Syangkayodhyapura (Siam “with Ayutthaya”)

(Deśawarṇana pupuh 83.4). Prapanca (pupuh 44.4) called the Yuan rulers of China “Tatar

men”, implying that the Chinese were subject people, and that the Javanese considered the

Mongols to be uncivilized. It is well known that Kublai Khan sent a fleet to invade Java in

1292, but the Javanese manipulated the invaders into aiding Prince Wijaya to found Majapahit,

who then drove them off the island. Despite these unfriendly diplomatic relations, Chinese

ceramics, including rare or unique types made especially for the Javanese market in the 14th

century, are common finds in Java (Miksic and Kamei 2010; Dupoizat 2003; Dupoizat and

Naniek Harkantiningsih 2007; Adhyatman 1981; Abu Ridho 1977, 1983).

Two years after the Deśawarṇana was written, the Yuan rulers of China were

overthrown. The first Ming emperor, Hongwu (reigned 1368-1398), viewed commerce as a

despicable profession. His disdain for merchants and other cultures had major effects on

Chinese economic relations with Majapahit and other Southeast Asian kingdoms (Wolters

1970: 49-76). In 1370 Hongwu sent ambassadors to Java and north Vietnam to announce his

new dynasty and its policy. Majapahit frequently sent missions to his court. Majapahit’s

relations with China were complicated by Majapahit’s claim to be the overlord of Malayu in

Sumatra. Javanese waylaid and killed a Chinese envoy sent to Sumatra to grant diplomatic

recognition to Malayu around 1379. In 1406 170 Chinese soldiers escorting a Chinese envoy

were killed, apparently by accident, during a civil war in east Java (Miksic 2014). There were

however several communities of overseas Chinese in Java in the early 15th century, according

to Chinese records (Mills 1970). Thus economics and politics seem to have been kept separate

by the two kingdoms.

Majapahit considered Siam/Ayudhya as a dependency, a place “protected” by King

Hayam Wuruk. Vietnam (Yawana) on the other hand was highly respected as a very close ally

(deśāntara mitreka satatā; pupuh 15.1), almost an equal.

Ðai Việt often fought the Cham, during the Singasari and Majapahit eras. At least two

Cham nobles fled to Java where they were granted asylum. Ðai Việt destroyed a Cham capital

in 1446. This enmity did not however affect Dai Viet’s relations with other kingdoms. Prince

Tran Nhat Duat for example could speak the language of Temasek (Singapore) (Wolters 1982:

48 note 45; Li 2006: 91; Miksic 2013:181-182). Javanese traders visited a port established for

foreign traders on the island of Vân-dôn in 1348, 1349, 1360, 1394, and 1434 (Taylor 1983).

There is little archaeological evidence for trade between Majapahit and the kingdoms

of Vietnam and Thailand before the 15th century. Trade may well have existed, but in perishable

materials. In the 15th century, the Ming ban on foreign trade stimulated the ceramic producers

in Thailand and Vietnam to expand their production to fill the vacuum in Indonesia, Malaysia,

and the Philippines. This trade declined again in the 16th century when China began to allow

foreign trade again. There was another period in the late 17th century when political unrest

connected with the fall of the Ming and the rise of the Qing dynasties in China temporarily

interrupted ceramic product. Once again Vietnamese ceramic producers took advantage of this

opportunity.

Sherds from Trowulan and other Majapahit sites have not been systematically collected.

This would be a monumental task; there are undoubtedly millions of sherds still in the ground

at Trowulan alone, without considering other Majapahit-period sites in Java. Some research

projects did however collect ceramics from excavations, and some of the results have been

published. While this is not a completely satisfactory state of affairs, it is possible to draw some

provisional conclusions on the history of Majapahit’s economy from these data. Majapahit’s

political affairs may have been in disarray, but archaeological data indicates that the economy

of east Java was still strong.

Archaeological studies in the archipelago are hindered by major obstacles including the

strong demand for saleable artifacts which even include broken sherds, and a shortage of

Indonesian archaeologists with expertise on glazed pottery. Most data on this subject have been

collected by art historians and connoisseurs who study intact ceramics found in burials and

shipwrecks. Normal sources of archaeological material, broken pieces discarded among masses

of other materials in garbage dumps of ports, palaces, markets, and dwelling areas where these

ceramics were used in daily life, have attracted little attention compared with the great statues

and monuments of Java. Systematic research nevertheless has shed some light on the roles of

Vietnamese and Thai ceramics in foreign trade and everyday life in Java. The study of scattered

sherds can also clarify such complex relationships as that between the pre-Islamic and Islamic

culture of Java. This transition, which was in progress in the late Majapahit period, also had

significant effects on the use of imported ceramics.

Java became a major market for ceramics from China by the ninth century. Huge

quantities of Chinese porcelains and stonewares have been found on the wrecks of ships bound

for Java. In the tenth century fine earthenware from the Malay-speaking areas of southern

Thailand were also being exported to Indonesia. Exports of ceramics from China to Southeast

Asia increased steadily until the 14th century. The Chinese were major consumers of Southeast

Asian commodities, and China’s government encouraged ceramic producers to export their

wares to Southeast Asia in place of precious gold, silver, and copper. Earthenware from the

Satingphra area of south Thailand is also often found on shipwrecks of this era, extending into

the 15th century.

In the mid-14th century this long-established trading pattern was disrupted by

Hongwu’s new policy. The amount of Chinese ceramics in archaeological sites declined

precipitously between the end of the Yuan dynasty in 1367 to the early 1500s creating what

archaeologists term the “Ming Gap”. Thais, Malays, and Vietnamese took advantage of the

situation by producing ceramics for export to the Philippines as well as Indonesia.

Roxanna Brown believed that Vietnamese exported ceramics on a large scale during

two periods: 1368-1424 and 1470-1510 (Brown 2004: 7). In 1407 China invaded Vietnam and

occupied it for 21 years, but at least one shipwreck (the Bakau or Maranei) which may date

from this period had a large quantity of Vietnamese ceramics on board. After 1428 ceramic

complexes in Vietnam resumed their competition with the Thais in the business of producing

ceramics for export to the archipelago. By 1500 Chinese ceramics began to find their way into

Southeast Asia again, and the market for Vietnamese and Thai ceramics gradually dried up.

The Scholarly Study of Vietnamese Ceramics.

There are several private collections of blue and white ceramics which almost certainly

originated from Trowulan. One of these, the Menke Collection, was donated to Cornell

University’s Herbert F. Johnson Museum of Art in 2015. This collection contains types of

Vietnamese wares which are found in Southeast Asian sites of the 15th century. Prof. Stanley

J. O’Connor suggests that some of them may have been found in Indonesia (Miksic, in press).

One example is a celadon ewer dated to the Tran dynasty, 13th-14th centuries, but the vast

majority of wares discovered in Java and other islands south of the equator are decorated with

blue designs on white backgrounds. One popular shape was the yu hu chun ping vase with

motifs of a dragon chasing a flaming pearl (an example of this type of ware from the Menke

Collection was published in Stevenson and Guy 1997: plate 287). The technique of applying

green overglaze enamel such as seen in a large blue and white jar with green detailing of fish

swimming among lotuses in this collection (illustrated in Stevenson and Guy 1997: plate 533)

is also known from east Java. Covered boxes like those in the Menke Collection are also well-

represented in the archaeological collections made in Trowulan. A blue and white stem cup

and cobalt blue kendi with mammiform spout in the same donation are also found in

archaeological assemblages. The Menke Collection forms a useful resource for students and

scholars who wish to examine types of Vietnamese ceramics of the 15th century which were

exported to Sulawesi, Riau, Java, and the Philippines.

Sherds from another collection were donated to the Asian Civilisations Museum of

Singapore. As in the case of the Menke Collection, no provenance data is known, but

circumstantial evidence including Majapahit terracotta figurines in the same collection strongly

suggest that these were obtained from east Java. Other such collections of blue and white sherds

consisting of Yuan and Ming Chinese examples and 15th-century Vietnamese wares are also

known. It appears that there is a market for sherds of pre-Qing dynasty blue and white porcelain

from China and Vietnam.

Most Vietnamese and Thai ceramics found in Indonesia and the Philippines date from

the fifteenth century. Roxanna Brown (1977: 14), suggested that early Vietnamese export

wares were monochromes or pieces decorated with underglaze black motifs. She dated a

second group of Vietnamese cobalt blue wares to the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries

(Brown 1977: 15).

Maps of the distribution of Vietnamese and Thai ceramics in Southeast Asian have been

published in several sources (e.g. Locsin and Locsin 1967, Aoyagi 1991: 72, Guy 1997: 48).

The number of sites with Vietnamese and Thai ceramics continues to grow as more sites are

identified. Unfortunately statistics on the number of Vietnamese and Thai objects found in

particular sites are almost non-existent, making it difficult to compare the importance of

production for the domestic market relative to the overseas market for this commodity. Most

scholars agree that foreign demand for Vietnamese and Thai ceramics in the 15th century

(mainly from insular Southeast Asia) was a significant factor in the Thai and Vietnamese

economies.

Pottery from Champa and Myanmar also found its way into the archipelago. Like

Thailand and Vietnam Champ and Myanmar produced storage jars and bowls. No Thai

ceramics have been found in Vietnam, but Vietnamese wares have been found in several sites

in Thailand, including the kiln complexes at Si Satchanalai and Sukhothai (Brown 1977: 57).

Archaeological data indicate that more Thai ceramics were exported in the 15th century

than Vietnamese ware. Vietnamese wares were probably more expensive and intended for the

upper echelons of society. One popular export, Thai celadon may have been preferred in some

areas because of its supposed ability to detect or even neutralize poison. In other areas where

hard-bodied wares were preferred because when struck they ring like bells, Vietnamese

ceramics would have been more popular (Griffing 1976: 48). The decorations and forms of

Vietnamese wares were more similar to Chinese styles than were Thai wares. Vietnamese 15th-

century artifacts are more commonly found in urban sites such as Trowulan, whereas Thai

ceramics may have been more less expensive or more aesthetically appealing in less

sophisticated provincial markets.

Both Thai and Vietnamese potters produced designs to suit the taste of consumers in

Indonesia and the Philippines, but they did not compete directly with each other. Thais made

kendis resembling types made in Java, but Majapahit sent orders to Vietnam to make such

shapes as wall tiles, and they incorporated decorative motifs found in such Javanese art forms

as textiles (Lammers and Abu Ridho 1974: X).

Maritime Archaeology

Roxanna Brown (2004) quantified the effects of the “Ming gap” by studying

shipwrecks. Between 1368, when the Ming Dynasty was founded, and 1430, the proportion of

Chinese ceramics in ship cargoes fell from 100 % to 30-40%. During the next 60 years, the

proportion of Chinese ceramics dropped even further to almost zero before beginning to

increase again during the Hongzhi reign (1488-1505).

About 30 shipwrecks dating from the 14th through 16th centuries have been found in

Southeast Asia. In most of them, Thai ceramics outnumbered Vietnamese ware. One ship with

perhaps 250,000 Vietnamese ceramics has been discovered off the Vietnamese coast. Its

ultimate destination is however unknown (Guy 2005).

Vietnamese export ware possibly dating from the late 14th century has been recovered

from two sites off the east coast of peninsular Thailand: Rang Kwien and Song Doc. These

possible early exports are distinguished from later examples by their shapes and motifs and the

use of underglaze black. Only underglaze black bowls have been recovered from the Turiang

shipwreck east of Singapore Strait (Brown and Sjostrand 2000). A sample of the timber used

to build the ship, and holes for iron fastenings suggest that it was Chinese. Vietnamese

ceramics recovered from the site consisted of 19 bowls decorated with an underglaze black

stylised chrysanthemum and five unpainted bowls which may once have had a green glaze.

Chinese wares in the cargo included celadons, brown glazed ware, storage jars, and saucers,

which are consistent with a date in the early Ming (late 14th century). Thai wares included both

Si Satchanalai and Sukhothai wares, some decorated with black painted fish.

Shipwrecks from the 15th century found off the east coast of peninsular Malaysia

(Flecker 2009) include the Royal Nanhai. This ship was made of tropical wood constructed

with a combination of Southeast Asian and Chinese methods. Its cargo included iron, tin, and

over 21,000 pieces of Sawankhalok celadon, with some Chinese brown-glazed ware. Three

pieces of Vietnamese blue and white and seven Chinese ceramics (six blue and white, one

celadon) were found in a hidden compartment (Brown 2009: 85), suggesting that Vietnamese

porcelain was considered as valuable as Chinese ware. Roxanna Brown argued that the Royal

Nanhai dates from the Chenghua reign (1465-1487; Brown and Sjostrand 2000: 52).

Kampong Juara, on Tioman Island off peninsular Malaysia’s southeast coast, is located

in the same general area as the shipwrecks noted above. Tioman was a watering place for ships.

Local inhabitants seem to have followed the same customs as the people of the Philippines,

Sulawesi, and Riau, by burying Chinese wares in graves. In addition to many Chinese wares

of the Song-Yuan period, looters excavated 15 types of Vietnamese ceramics on the island,

including white, blue, blue and white, brown, and red designs (Aoyagi 1991; Kwan and Martin

1985).

The Bakau shipwreck fin Karimata Strait between Belitung and Borneo had been

almost completely looted when archaeologists first explored it (Flecker 2001). Approximately

1,700 items were recovered by scholars. Coins found on board suggest that the ship sank

between 1403 and 1424. This ship was built in China using Chinese techniques. Its voyage

would have been highly illegal, since Chinese were forbidden to leave China during this period.

It was most likely on its way to Java, where there were Chinese residents in the ports and in

Majapahit’s capital itself. Although it was a Chinese ship, only about 27% of the ceramics in

the cargo are Chinese. Most of its ceramic cargo was made in Thailand. Vietnamese ceramics

only comprised 2% of the cargo. It is impossible to determine whether the finds accurately

reflect the original cargo; it is possible that the looters concentrated on Vietnamese pieces since

they command higher prices in the antique market.

The Cu Lao Cham wreck (Guy 2005) on the other hand carried 250,000 Vietnamese

ceramics. The ship was a hybrid made with Chinese and Southeast Asian techniques (Guy

2005: 108). The ship may have been destined for Ayutthaya (Guy 2005: 109), but Flecker notes

that Vietnamese ceramics of this type and period are rare in Thailand. He favors the hypothesis

that its destination was in Indonesia (Flecker 2009). The date of the wreck is uncertain. One

scholar suggests the period 1435-1470 on the basis of radiocarbon dating, bronze mirror

handles, and a Yongle coin (Bound 2001: 101). Lam (cited in Bound 2001: footnote 3, p. 103)

favours a date no later than 1457, while Guy suggests the late fifteenth or early sixteenth

century.

The oldest known shipwrecks with large quantities of Chinese blue and white porcelain

date from the Hongzhi period (1488-1505). The Brunei Junk, the Santa Cruz, and the Lena

Shoal all sank in this reign. All three contained Chinese and Vietnamese blue and white

ceramics, and many storage jars from Thailand (Brown 2004; Crick 2001).

Land Sites

Underwater sites are the most impressive, because they often yield large quantities of

intact ceramics. Some sites on dry land also contain intact items, but these are almost always

cemeteries. The practice of digging graves during this era was limited to peripheral areas of

major urban civilizations. The people in the royal capitals of Indonesia seem to have practiced

cremation. Those who lived outside of the major cities buried the dead with offerings, including

ceramics.

Trowulan

Trowulan has been extensively looted, but some systematic archaeological projects

there still provide the best guide to the economic relationship between Vietnam, Thailand, and

Java during the 15th century, when Indonesian consumers fuelled a major period of technical

and artistic development by potters on mainland Southeast Asia. This data provides a valuable

perspective on the importance of Majapahit in the period 1400-1450.

Traditional Javanese historiography portrays the 14th century as the golden age, and the

15th century is seen as a period of gradual decay leading to a fall of the kingdom in 1480.

Portuguese sources however prove that Majapahit still existed in the early 1500s. The quantity

and quality of 15th-century Vietnamese and Thai ceramics found at Trowulan shows that

despite the weaker political structure of the kingdom and the lack of major sculpture or

architecture, Java was still quite prosperous and powerful. Both phenomena may be correlated

with increasing emphasis on maritime trade and Islam in Javanese culture during this time

rather than political decline.

Glazed Tiles

One of the most intriguing categories of ceramic artifacts found in Trowulan consists

of tiles or plaques. Six main types are known. Two of these were made in Cizhou, China. One

type may have been used to decorate floors since it lacks the protrusions on the rear associated

with wall tiles. Both are decorated with brown to black motifs drawn on a white background,

or completely black glaze.

Three types of tiles are decorated with cobalt blue decorations. Two of these were made

in Vietnam. Some have protrusions and thus were intended for wall decorations, while others

with no protrusions and plain white glaze may have been meant to cover floors. Nine pieces

are said to have been excavated from the “Majapahit Centre”, but no further data on the

excavation is available (Lammers and Abu Ridho 1974: 26). Some were collected in an

archaeological survey conducted by the Indonesian Field School of Archaeology in 1991-93

(Miksic 1994a). A third source consists of a substantial collection of sherds now in Singapore

(Miksic and Kamei 2010). Approximately 10% of the sherds in this collection are Vietnamese,

mainly blue and white ware (illustrations of Vietnamese tiles from this assemblage are found

in Miksic 2009: 87; Chinese tiles from Cizhou are on page 88; see also page 137 for examples

of other forms now in the Asian Civilisations Museum). Other sherds in the collection include

Chinese blue and white porcelain and East Javanese earthenware.

The fifth type consists of wall tiles with high protrusions and white glaze with dark blue

décor believed to have been made in Persia (Lammers and Abu Ridho 1974: 37, 26). A sherd

of glazed stoneware from Khorsabad found in Trowulan indicates that at least two types of

Persian ceramics reached east Java in the 14th or 15th century.

Almost all known Vietnamese tiles have been found in Trowulan. The only exceptions

are three Islamic sites in ancient ports on Java’s north coast: the Great Mosque of Demak, the

tomb complex of Sunan Kudus, and the tomb complex of Sunan Bonang in Tuban, Majapahit’s

main port (Dupoizat and Naniek Harkantingsih 2007: 101). No such tiles have been found

anywhere else; it is thus logical to conclude that the court of Majapahit commissioned the

Vietnamese to make these tiles in the 15th century.

Some scholars (e.g. Lammers and Abu Ridho 1974: 26, p. 37) have speculated that

Islamic influence was responsible for this development. Persian tiles have been found in Cini

Mahal, Daulatabad, northwest India, where they include similar shapes (hexagons, redented

squares, and quatrefoils). However, the shapes and the motifs on the Vietnamese wall tiles are

quite different from Persian and Cizhou tiles. Thus neither China nor Persia can be considered

as a source of inspiration for the Trowulan tiles’ decorations. The Persian tiles in Trowulan

may have been obtained from Gujarat. Majapahit officials however probably decided to request

tiles from Vietnam with different designs.

Muslims in Trowulan may have had some influence on the tiles requested from to

Vietnam ((Abu Ridho 1982: 37; Sakai 2014-2015).i On the other hand, the Vietnamese tiles

were used as individual decorations, unlike western Asia where tiles were used to form a

pattern. Some tile fragments were found during the IFSA project in 1991-93; 300 tile fragments

were found in previous research in Trowulan (Abu Ridho 1982: 27; Abu Ridho 1977: color

picture 88). The Vietnamese tiles were probably made in Chu Dau, Hai Duong province. Some

tile fragments discovered in Trowulan are decorated with red and green enamel, a technique

which first appeared in China during the Chenghua period (1465-1487); probably it was later

in Vietnam (Dupoizat 2003: 54).

Javanese chronicles state that tiles were first used for non-Islamic sites, then

appropriated for the early Islamic complexes. The Babad Tanah Jawi states that the Muslim

rulers took the workers of Trowulan to build their new monuments (Soekmono 1973: 53; Abu

Ridho 1982: 36). The Serat Arok (Robson 1980) says that Vietnamese plates, piring koci,

decorated the palace of Surabaya, around the beginning of the 16th century. “Koci” is Jiao Zhi

in Mandarin (Kawči in Cantonese), and Cochin in English (Manguin 1972: 42-43, note 2).

The decorative plaques on the walls of the serambi or veranda of the Mantingan mosque

near Jepara, also in the Demak-Kudus region, supports this story. These plaques are made of

local white tuff; designs on the reverse sides, now concealed within the walls of the mosque,

indicate that they once belonged to a Hindu shrine, and were reused for the Islamic house of

worship. Glazed ceramics were used to decorate walls of Buddhist monuments in Bagan,

Myanmar, approximately 200 years before the Cizhou examples were made. The inspiration

for the Javanese tiles may well have been carved wood (Guy 1982: 30); wooden panels

decorated the verandahs of Buddhist asramas in Myanmar.

The sixth type of tiles consists of lead-glazed earthenware. Out of three lead-glazed

objects from the archaeological collection now on display in the National University of

Singapore Museum which once formed parts of wall decorations, two depict animals and

people in a whimsical imaginary landscape including rocks and caverns typical of Javanese

aesthetic and cultural preferences. The third is a realistic depiction of a Chinese-style building.

The glaze is more uniform, and the clay is harder, darker in color, and higher-fired. The material

and sculpting are similar to those found in lead-glazed earthenware examples found in the

National Museum in Hanoi, and in the archaeological excavation at Thanglong. It is therefore

probable that this piece was imported from Vietnam.

Vietnamese Ceramics in Trowulan

Huge quantities of Chinese ceramics made in the 14th century have been found at

Trowulan. Most glazed pottery from the 15th century found in Trowulan comes from mainland

Southeast Asia. About 80% was imported from Vietnam; ceramics from Thailand comprised

about 20% of the Southeast Asian imports (Soejatmi Satari 1980; Dupoizat and Naniek

Harkantiningsih 2007). This is the inverse of the ration of Thai and Vietnamese ware on

shipwrecks. There are probably two reasons for the high concentration of Vietnamese ware in

Trowulan: preference for blue and white decoration among the cosmopolitan elite, and the

close relationship between Vietnam and Majapahit.

In the reports of excavations conducted by the National Research Centre for

Archaeology of Indonesia, Chinese ceramics comprise 81% of the total porcelain; 17% comes

from Southeast Asia, and the remaining 2% are mainly European 19th-century wares.

Vietnamese wares outnumbered Thai by a proportion of 4 to 1 (Dupoizat and Harkantiningsih

2007: 17). Prof. Sakai Takashi (personal communication) in 2015 analyzed 7,234 sherds from

the Pendopo Agung site in Trowulan. His preliminary results indicate that Chinese sherds,

mainly from the 12th through 15th century comprised 60% of the total; Vietnamese 28%, and

Thai the remaining 12%.ii

Other Indonesian Sites:

The main port of Majapahit was Tuban. One set of ceramics looted from the nearby

seabed and confiscated by police is kept in the local museum. The collection includes porcelain

and stoneware of the Yuan period, Sawankhalok dishes, and 15th-century Vietnamese bowls

with chocolate bases.

The site now known as Banten Lama in west Java was famous in early 17th-century

Europe as Bantam. The British and Dutch established their first Southeast Asian trading posts

at this port. Banten Lama was preceded by a site called Banten Girang (“upstream Banten”).

Both sites have yielded sherds of Chinese, Thai, and Vietnamese ceramics from the 14th

through 16th centuries (Mundardjito et al 1978: 44-45; Guillot, Lukman Nurhakim, and Sonny

Wibisono 1994: 139; Miksic 1986: 222-223; Hasan M. Ambary, Halwany Michrob, and Miksic

1988).

Van Orsoy de Flines, curator during the period when 80% of the Vietnamese wares in

the National Museum of Indonesia were added to the collection, acquired most of them in east

Java, south Sulawesi, and eastern Indonesia (de Flines 1975: 59; cf Guy 1982: 29), a

distribution which corresponds more closely to that of Chinese than Thai ware (de Flines 1975:

57). The difference in distribution of Vietnamese vs. Thai ware is probably indicative of

different tastes and economic status between the societies of the archipelago. For more

information on the sites where Thai and Vietnamese wares have been reported by Indonesian

archaeologists see Miksic (1986).

In Sumatra, excavations in Palembang yielded only 23 sherds of Thai ware (around 1%

of all finds) whereas Vietnamese ware formed as much as 21% of the finds at one site (Bronson

and Wisseman 1976: 227). The Batu Sangkar site in the Minangkabau highlands of West

Sumatra, excavated in 2012, is believed to have been the site of a royal palace. Glazed ceramics

of the 15th century included both Chinese and Vietnamese blue and white (Tjoa-Bonatz 2013a,

2013b). The discovery of these wares (bowls and plates) in a highland site several hundred

kilometers from the coast presents a picture of a different pattern of usage of imported status

symbols from that found in mainland Southeast Asia (the Zomia discussed by Louise Cort in

this volume).

The important port of Barus in northeast Sumatra consists of a complex of several

different archaeological sites. At the Bukit Hasang site, Vietnamese ware (chocolate based

bowls, green bowls, blue and white box covers) comprised nearly 6% of the assemblage of

sherds. Thai sherds formed around 1% (Dupoizat 2009).

Glazed ceramics were found on Singapore and many islands in the Riau archipelago

(Miksic 1994, 2000). Ceramics in Riau were acquired from looted burials similar to those

reported from the Philippines and south Sulawesi. This shows that the same artifacts, imported

ceramics, had very different functions in neighboring areas; in the port of Singapore they were

used in daily activities and discarded when broken, whereas in Riau they were treated as

ceremonial items to be offered to the spirits of the ancestors. Singapore is one of the few sites

where Chinese ceramics of the 15th century are more common than Thai or Vietnamese

ceramics (Miksic 2013).

Malaysia:

In addition to Pulau Tioman, the west coast of the state of Kedah, northwest Malaysia,

has been an important link in maritime routes for 2,000 years. Excavations at the site of Kota

Aur (Kampung Sireh or Site 42) in the 1950s uncovered deep, well-stratified deposits of foreign

ceramics exposed over a distance of at least 80 meters in a stream bank. These include Song,

Yuan and Ming; Thai; and Vietnamese wares, and West Asian glass (Lamb 1961). No statistics

or other information on these finds was ever published.

Brunei:

In 1970, 6,230 sherds from the site of Kota Batu were analyzed. Due to the limited

information available at that time, Barbara Harrisson, an expert ceramicist, could not

distinguish Chinese blue and white from “Annamese”, “the loose term generally applied in the

ceramic literature and identifying certain ‘provincial’ wares from the general area of South

China and Annam without specific understanding of kilns or ranges of wares” (Harrisson 1970:

164, footnote 3). “Annam” (“Pacified South”) was the name used by China for northern

Vietnam in the Tang period. When north Vietnam became independent in the tenth century,

the Vietnamese discarded that name, but the French revived the name “Annam” for central

Vietnam during the colonial period, which has occasioned some confusion. It was used by early

ceramic scholars, but the Vietnamese would of course prefer that it be dispensed with as

anachronistic. Barbara Harrisson used a separate term, “Tongkinese” blue and white ware, for

those with chocolate wash on the base.

Philippines:

Vietnamese ceramics comprise 1.5%-5% of ceramics found in the Philippines (Diem

1997: 189), much less than Thai ware which comprises 20%-40% (Brown 1977: 27; Aoyagi

1991b: 43). Some very high quality Vietnamese pieces are found in Philippine collections, such

as a tazza with bowl, jar, and openwork stand (Young et al eds, 1982: 112-113, illustration

111), similar to a sherd from Trowulan. Another is depicted in Stevenson and Guy (1997: 32,

figure 262). A similar item was found on the Hoi An shipwreck Guy 2005: 124, fig. 22).

Mainland Southeast Asia”

Ceramics from Thailand and Vietnam have been found at Angkor. At Ayutthaya, much

Vietnamese ware has been found in the Chao Phraya River, and Vietnamese sherds were found

at the Sukhothai kiln site (Shaw 1984: 27).

Japan:

Fewer than 100 pieces of Southeast Asian ceramics are known from Japan (Guy 1997:

50). Thai covered boxes with brown decoration are the most numerous type (Morimoto 2000;

Kamei 1983: 190-193).

Arabian Peninsula:

Julfar yielded a range of Asian sherds, the majority of which were Chinese wares of the

late Ming Dynasty, but also Thai celadon and a small quantity of Vietnamese sherds (Hansman

1985: 43). A famous Vietnamese blue and white vase found in the Topkapi Saray, Istanbul

which bears an inscription and the date 1450 however indicates that among the West Asian

elite Vietnamese ware was highly esteemed.

Phase Two: the Late 17th Century

In 1663, a junk from Tonkin arrived to Batavia from Tonkin with 10,000 porcelain

bowls (Volker 1971: 206). In 1672, a vessel took Tonkin porcelain from Batavia to Arakan

(Myanmar). In 1682 an English captain bought 100,000 pieces of Tonkin porcelain to take to

Bencoolen, the English base in southwest Sumatra, Arakan and Madras (Dampier 1906: II,

610).

Archaeologists and ceramic experts have had difficulty in identifying the ware

mentioned in these Dutch sources (Nguyen-Long 1999: 1). This mystery was solved by the

discovery of the Vietnamese ware at the site of York Fort, Bengkulu, southwest Sumatra, built

in 1685, and abandoned in 1715 (Miksic 1990). Vietnamese bowls of the same type are found

in Japan (Morimoto 2006: 91, Fig. IV, no. 9; Hatakeyama 1990: 105, illustrations 543-544).

Out of 4,007 sherds excavated at York Fort, 3% were Vietnamese. At the Pasar

Bengkulu site nearby, the probable site of the contemporary Malay village, out of 895 artifacts,

1.5% were Vietnamese (Naniek Harkantiningsih 1988).

These ceramics are shallow bowls with simple underglaze black design (Bui Minh Tri

2008: 79, plate 4, and 82). A Vietnamese bowl dated to the 11th-12th centuries bears the same

painted motif as the Bengkulu bowls (Frasche 1976: 106 Fig. 65; description, page 138). The

meaning of the motif has been discussed by Brown (1988: 68), Joseph (1973: 194-195) and

Nguyen-Long (1999: 9) whose suggestion that the stamp represents a chrysanthemum seems

the most likely conclusion.

Part Two. Historical Sources

The story of Majapahit’s history after Hayam Wuruk’s death in 1389 is confusing. The

data from Javanese sources have been discussed by numerous scholars, but very few primary

sources survive. Foreign sources provide a different perspective with which to judge

Majapahit’s influence and integrity during the 15th century. Majapahit’s foreign relations have

already been described in detail (Miksic 2014); that information will be briefly summarized

here. Most of it comes from Chinese diplomatic records.

Travel between Java and China was fraught with danger. In 1393, for example, a ship

carrying a Javanese ambassador to China was blown off course and the passengers were

arrested by the Chinese coast guard. They eventually were freed and helped to get back to to

Java.

Majapahit sent an envoy to China in April 1389. As was customary, the mission

probably was intended to report the king’s death and the name of his successor. More missions

from Majapahit arrived in 1393 and 1394. In 1397 Emperor Hongwu was informed that several

countries had not sent missions in a long time, one of which was Sanfoqi. Hayam Wuruk had

subjugated southeast Sumatra around 1379, and was therefore not an independent country.

Hongwu therefore sent instructions to Majapahit through Ayutthaya. The order stated that

“You, king of Siam, still fulfill your obligations as a subject. Thus the Emperor would be

grateful if you would convey this instruction to Java, so that they can teach Sanfoqi the True

Great Principles of Behaviour.” Thus the Chinese thought that Siam was in regular contact with

Majapahit, probably through trade. It is not clear however why Hongwu thought that Majapahit

would be willing to help the Malays send a mission to China. In fact Majapahit probably

attacked Palembang, which was then ruled by Parameswara, around 1392; as a result he fled to

Singapore.

During the reign of Emperor Yongle (1402 to 1424), Yongle sponsored a number of

missions which sailed to Indonesia and all the way to Africa. During Yongle’s reign, Siam

(Ayutthaya) was the most active sender of missions to China (21). Champa was second most

active (18), followed by Java (17) (Chang 1989: 32).Between 1403 and 1406 Yongle received

envoys from two Javanese kings: the Western King and the Eastern King. They seem to have

been competing to control the trade route to China. In Javanese historiography, this period is

known as the Wikramawarddhana (reigned 1389-1429) and Wirabhumi were struggling for

control of Majapahit, including its foreign trade. In 1406 when Wirabhumi was killed, a

Chinese envoy was “passing through” east Java; the precise reason for this is vague. Some of

his soldiers were supposedly taking advantage of the situation to trade, and 170 of them were

killed by Wikramawarddhana. In 1407, Wikramawarddhana sent a mission to China to

apologize, and Yongle agreed to forgive him in return for payment of a fine. In 1408,

Wikramawarddhana paid one-sixth of the fine, and Yongle told him he did not have to pay the

rest of the fine.

A sign of Majapahit’s extent appears in a Chinese source of 1408. Brunei complained

to China that they had to send tribute in the form of camphor to Java every year. Brunei asked

to transfer his allegiance to China so that they would not have to pay tribute to Java any longer.

Brunei then sent an ambassador to tell Majapahit about this. Unfortunately we don’t know what

Majapahit’s response to this was.

Another sign of Majapahit’s influence occurred in 1413, when Melaka requested

Chinese recognition of their subjugation of Palembang. A Chinese record states that China did

not give any such recognition to Melaka (Wade 2014).

The next emperor, Xuande, sent only one fleet to Southeast Asia in 1435. Java,

however, continued to send frequent missions during his reign: two in 1427, one in 1428, and

two more in 1429. Wirkramawarddhana died in this year and was succeeded by his daughter

Suhita (who reigned from 1429-1447). During her reign, she sent nine missions to China (1430,

1436, two in 1437, 1438, 1440, 1443, 1446, and 1447). She died in 1447 and was succeeded

by Krtawijaya (reigned 1447 to 1451). A mission from Java reached China in September 1447,

but we do not know whether it was sent by Suhita or Krtawijaya.

The capital of Majapahit may have moved to Kahuripan under Rajasawarddhana (1451-

1453). Two Javanese missions arrived in China during this period. Another mission which

arrived in September 1454 reported that they had been sent by Rajasawarddhana.

Under Hyang Purwawiśesa (1456-1466), Java sent missions to China in 1460 and 1465.

No Javanese diplomatic missions arrived for the next thirty-one years until 1496 when a

mission from Girīndrawarddhana (reigned, 1488-1527) arrive in China. Their ship was struck

by a typhoon and over 100 people drowned. The only object which was saved was a letter

written on gold foil. The same disaster befell with another mission in 1499. This was the last

mission from Majapahit. It is clear that China viewed Majapahit as a diplomatic and economic

power.

In the middle of the 15th century, Ryukyu (Okinawa) took on the role of buffer between

China and foreigners. In the 1430s and 1440s, ship transported porcelain, textiles, swords, and

porcelains to Java to trade for pepper and sandalwood (Kobata and Matsuda 1969: 156-161;

see also Wade 2007). In 1392, a group of Korean merchants moved to Ryukyu in order to trade

with Siam and Java (Gunn 2011: 217-218). We do not know whether any traders from Korea

or Java travelled to each other’s countries, other whether they met in Ryukyu.

During the 15th century Java’s diplomatic relations with Melaka were tense due to a

contest for control over Palembang, but trade and cultural relations remained strong. In Melaka

during the 15th century a Javanese merchant community in Melaka were under a shahbandar

who looked after people from Maluku, Banda, Palembang, Borneo, and Luzon. Portuguese

records state the majority of Melaka’s soldiers were Javanese mercenaries (Earle and Villiers

1990: 67) who were armed with Javanese lances (Birch 1875-1884:127).

When the Portuguese conquered Melaka in 1511, they were particularly impressed by

two products of Javanese workmanship which hint at the sophistication of late Majapahit

culture. One of them was a map, which was described in detail by the Portuguese commander

Afonso d’Albuquerque (1453-1515) in a letter to the king of Portugal (Earle and Villiers 1990:

149). It is not known what became of the Javanese map after it was sent to Portugal. The second

object was a gift from the ‘king of Java’ to d’Albuquerque:

‘a very long piece of cloth, whereon was painted a representation of the manner in

which the King goes to battle, with his carriages, horses, and elephants armed with their

wooden castles, and a figure of the King therein painted, riding in certain wooden

erections placed above the carriages and all this very beautifully depicted; and he sent

him also twenty little bells, of which their music consists, and players who could play

upon them with carved sticks, and they harmonised very well and gave a very pleasant

sound; and he sent him two very large bells, which they strike in battle, for they can be

heard a long way off.’(Birch1875-1884, Vol III: 160-161)

This painting sounds like a wayang beber, but it could also have been a temple decoration

similar to those used in Bali.

Conclusion:

Vietnamese ceramics enjoyed two periods of popularity in overseas markets: one lasted

for at least 60 years (1428-1480), the other about 20 years (1663-1682). During these periods

when Chinese wares were unavailable, Vietnamese ceramics became popular. They seem to

have been especially preferred by members of the upper class in Southeast Asia. Diplomatic

records also demonstrate that Majapahit/Java maintained regular relations with a number of

countries. We do not know what impact the spread of Islam and the expansion of trade in the

16th century had on Majapahit, but it is possible that Majapahit’s decline and disappearance

were due to cultural factors and the rise of a more cosmopolitan society including foreign

immigrants and a greater role of wealth from trade in forming Java’s social status system.

i For illustrations of black tiles from Cizhou, like those in the collection donated to the National University of Singapore, see Sakai, p. 65, fig. 1. For the quatrefoil tile which once adorned the Tower of Kudus, see Sakai, p. 70 fig. 13 ii The author wishes to thank Prof. Sakai for permission to include this data.