A case report on the function(s) of the ‘mercury jar’: Fort Canning, Singapore, in the 14th century

ARA-00025; No of Pages 8 Archaeological Research in Asia xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Archaeological Research in Asia journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ara

Case Report

A case report on the function(s) of the ‘mercury jar’: Fort Canning, Singapore, in the 14th century Sharon Wai-yee Wong Department of Anthropology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, N.T. Hong Kong

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 22 June 2015 Received in revised form 30 January 2016 Accepted 8 February 2016 Available online xxxx Keywords: Mercury jar Singapore Cizao kiln, Fujian Social status Consumption

a b s t r a c t The ‘mercury jar’ is a distinctive type of Chinese ceramics unearthed from the Fort Canning site in Singapore, dating to the 14th century. This case report will discuss the type, quantity, and distribution of the ‘mercury jar’ found at this site; providing a preliminary comparison with its production sites at Cizao Kilns, Jinjiang, Fujian Province, China and other Southeast Asian sites. This report also serves to advance topics for further discussion on the possible original function(s) of the jar as a grain wine or mercury container, and on the major consumers of the ‘mercury jar’, from members of the upper classes to state officials during this period. © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction The Fort Canning site in Singapore has been occupied for a short period of time, it may have been established as a royal centre of the 14th century (Miksic, 2000:61). Several periods of excavations have been organized by different archaeological groups beginning in 1984, and archaeological reports have been published (Miksic, 1985, 1989; Choo, 1986, 1990). Rich ceramics finds, good archaeological contextual information and clear dating evidence of the site provide some clues for us to understand people living in Southeast Asia during the 14th century. In Fort Canning, a wide range of artefacts has been unearthed from archaeological excavation, including ceramics, glass, metal, and coins. Ceramics including stoneware, porcelain, and earthenware comprise the largest proportion of all of the artefacts. A form of vessel called for convenience the ‘mercury jar’ is a type of stoneware which forms a large proportion of the ceramics. It is also easily identified by archaeologists (Miksic, 1985:68). As the ‘mercury jar’ is a distinctive type of Chinese ceramics, it would be a good source to study cultural representation in the fourteenth century Southeast Asia. How did Southeast Asians use Chinese ceramics to distinguish their social status and maintain their ethnic identities? We should first study the use of Chinese ceramics in various archaeological sites in Southeast Asia. These can be observed from the type, quantity, distribution, and grouping of Chinese ceramics by comparing their production,

E-mail address: [email protected].

distribution, and consumption sites. We can also use historical records and related archaeological materials in contrast to the ceramics found at Southeast Asian archaeological sites to acquire some insights as to how people use ceramics to distinguish their social status.

2. Methods In this case report, we will discuss the type; quantity; distribution of ‘mercury jars’ in their production sites at the Cizao Kiln complex, Jinjiang, Fujian Province; and their distribution at consumption sites such as Penghu County, Taiwan, and Fort Canning, Singapore, and other related Southeast Asian sites, with reference to analytical methods on typology, ceramic uses and ceramic production and distribution used to investigate archaeological ceramics (Rice, 1987:168–243; Sinopoli, 1991:83–117). Then, we will discuss the function(s) of the ‘mercury jar’ because there is an ongoing debate regarding what they contained for export. This case report will provide some indications on answering that question. From late August to October 2005, I was able to examine the stoneware and other ceramics unearthed from Fort Canning in the Singapore Archaeological Laboratory during my study in Singapore. These artefacts were excavated in 1984 and 1988. The discoveries of these two excavations were reported in two separate archaeological reports (Miksic, 1985, 1989). According to the background information and data provided by Prof. John Miksic, I have enough archaeological research materials to analyse this specific type of artefact in its 14th century Fort Canning context.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ara.2016.02.006 2352-2267/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Wong, S.W., A case report on the function(s) of the ‘mercury jar’: Fort Canning, Singapore, in the 14th century, Archaeological Research in Asia (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ara.2016.02.006

2

S.W. Wong / Archaeological Research in Asia xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

3. Results 3.1. Type, quantity and distribution of ‘mercury jars’ I will introduce the type, quantity, and distribution of ‘mercury jars’ in Fort Canning. Then, I will perform a preliminary comparison of their production sites at the Cizao Kiln complex, Jinjiang, Fujian Province; their distribution sites at Penghu County, Taiwan; their consumption sites; related Southeast Asian sites for further discussion related to the function(s) of the ‘mercury jar’ (Fig. 1). 3.1.1. Fort Canning, Singapore In Fort Canning reports, the ‘mercury jar’ was classified as part of the brittle ware category that the vessels were classified on the basis of inclusions of material other than clay added to the paste as filler (Miksic, 1985: 67). The author had gone through totally 610 pieces of ‘mercury

jar’ unearthed from 1984 to 1988 excavations. These ‘mercury jars’ can be divided into five different types according to their glazes: those with brown glaze on the rim (six pieces), greenish brown glaze on the rim (seven pieces), greyish-white slip surrounding the rim and neck (one piece), translucent glaze splashed on the neck (two pieces), and unglazed (595 pieces). Of the 147 ‘mercury jar’ rim artefacts excavated from Fort Canning, 131 are without glaze and 16 are with glaze as the above mentioned. The diameters of the mouth rims of these ‘mercury jars’ are usually within 1.5–2.5 cm. All ‘mercury jar’ artefacts in Fort Canning are in fragmentary condition. The same as the ‘mercury jars’ found in the other countries, shards found in Fort Canning usually have small rims; wide, thin shoulders and narrow, flat, heavy bases. In their cross-sections and bottom parts, the walls are marked by deep diagonal grooves and finger marks created by potters during the wheel-throwing mass production process (Fig. 2).

Fig. 1. Map showing ‘mercury jar’ sites location in the East and Southeast Asia mentioned in this report.

Please cite this article as: Wong, S.W., A case report on the function(s) of the ‘mercury jar’: Fort Canning, Singapore, in the 14th century, Archaeological Research in Asia (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ara.2016.02.006

S.W. Wong / Archaeological Research in Asia xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

3

Fig. 2. ‘Mercury jars’ found at the Fort Canning site, cat. stands for category. (Photo by S.W.Y. Wong)

The ‘mercury jar’ was made from a ball of clay blended with sand and carbon, and fired between 1160 and 1350 °C. These artefacts are hard objects with high densities (Ch'ên, 1979:80). ‘Mercury jar’ shards were distributed in all of the grids in 1984, and in 1988, ‘mercury jar’ was associated with other ceramics and artefacts, such as Longquan ware, blue and white porcelain, Dehua white ware, bluish-white (qingbai) ‘Shufu’ ware, stoneware jars with monster mask handles, earthenware, glass beads and so on. Miksic illustrates how Fort Canning may have been a craftsmen's quarter within a palace and temple precinct abandoned before 1400 A.D. (Miksic, 2004:52). It is not surprising that such large quantities of fragmentary ‘mercury jar’ were found, as they may have been daily utensils within a palace area.

3.1.2. Penghu, Taiwan In Penghu (Pescadores Islands), a total number of 2015 pieces of mercury jars were found. As Ch'ên mentions in his report, these mercury jars can be found at all Penghu sites associated with around 10,000 pieces of Song and Yuan period ceramics; namely, Longquan double fish design dishes, lotus petal design and stamped flower design bowls, Fujian Tong'an incised and combed bowls and dishes, Dehua white covered boxes, Fujian bluish-white (qingbai), Temmoku bowls, black stoneware jars, Chinese earthenware vessels such as utilitarian wares, net-sinkers, and building materials (Ch'ên, 1985:70). ‘Mercury jar’ artefacts in Penghu are in fragmentary condition as in Fort Canning. Most of the ‘mercury jars’ in Penghu are brown-glazed on their rims and

Please cite this article as: Wong, S.W., A case report on the function(s) of the ‘mercury jar’: Fort Canning, Singapore, in the 14th century, Archaeological Research in Asia (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ara.2016.02.006

4

S.W. Wong / Archaeological Research in Asia xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

shoulders or unglazed. Their shapes are usually characterized by small rims; wide, thin shoulders and narrow, flat bases. Similar to those artefacts originating at the Fort Canning site, ‘mercury jar’ cross-sections and bottom parts of the walls are often marked by deep diagonal grooves and finger marks (Fig. 3). They may have been the daily utensils for inhabitants or merchants living and working in this region. Ch'ên proposed the concept of “Pescadores Route,” claiming that Penghu was one of the main entrepôts between China and Southeast Asia. The route originated in Quanzhou and passed through the Pescadores into Southeast Asia; one of the most significant export routes for ceramics in Song and Yuan Periods (Ch'ên, 1986:81–98). 3.1.3. Cizao kilns complex, Jinjiang, Fujian Province, PRC The Cizao kiln complex is located in Jinjiang County in the southwest part of Quanzhou, Fujian Province, PRC. Kilns were built next to the Jinjiang River which is connected to Quanzhou Bay. A number of ancient kiln sites from the 3rd to the 18th centuries were discovered and investigated by archaeologists in 1956, 1963–64, 1973, 1976, 1978–80, 1995 and 2002–03. Around 11 kilns were excavated, including 2 kilns from Zhizhushan and Tongzishan (1973); 4 kilns in Xikoushan, Zhizhushan, Tuwei'an and Tongzishan (1978); 1 kiln from Tuwei'an (1995); 4 kilns and 1 workshop from Jinjiaoyishan (2002–03) (Quanzhou Maritime History Museum, Fujian Province Investigation Group, 1980:29–34; Chen et al., 1982:489–498; Jinjiang Xian Wenguanhui, Museum, 1987; Ye et al., 1987:61–65; He and Li, 2002:4–7; Meng, 2009:15–17,24–25; Fujian Provincial Museum, Jiangle County Museum, 2011). There are no less than 12 Song-Yuan kiln sites in Cizao; most of them distribute in Zhizhushan, Tuwei'an, Tongzishan, Zhenzhushan, Jinjiaoyishan, Gongqianshan, and Douwenshan. Ceramic products include bowls, cups, basins, boxes, urns, jars, bottles, censers, ewers, oil lamps, jarlets, kendis, and figurines. Most ceramics were manufactured for export. Integrated the data presented from a number of published reports, at least Zhenzhushan, Jinjiaoyi and Gongqianshan kilns produced ‘mercury jars’ (Fig. 4). Other kilns in Cizao may also have manufactured ‘mercury jars’ for export. Types of Cizao ware include celadon, black ware, brownglazed ware, greenware with underglaze iron oxide decoration, yellow-glazed pottery, green lead glazed ware, and unglazed pottery. According to the stratigraphy and typological studies of Jinjiaoyishan kiln findings, the chronology of “mercury jars” was classified into three stages (Meng, 2009:41–42; Fujian Provincial Museum, Jiangle County Museum, 2011:367–381). The shape of the ‘mercury jar’ in its earliest

Fig. 4. ‘Mercury jar’ collections in Jinjiang County Museum, Fujian. (Photo by S.W.Y. Wong)

stage (c.1086–1163 A.D.) is characterized by a small mouth, a very short and narrow neck with a sloping shoulder and a tall body with a small base. It was usually made in a standard shape with fine glaze from the interiors to the body surfaces, or left unglazed. Y1:23 is an example, glazed from interior to body, with a rim diameter of 2.4, base diameter of 7.4, and height of 32.4 cm (Type 1). In the second stage (c.1163–1279 A.D.), rim and base diameters are comparatively larger, and the general height is comparatively shorter than in the earliest stage. It was still glazed from the interiors, shoulder to the body or left unglazed, like Y4:51, with a rim diameter of 2.8, base diameter of 8.4, and height of 30 cm (Type 2). ‘Mercury jar’ from the earliest stage (Type 1) and the second stage (Type 2) can be found in various distribution and consumption sites in South China and Southeast Asia. Examples includes the backyard of the government house of Quanzhou, Fuhoushan and Kaiyuan Temple in Quanzhou (Xu, 1983:114); Quanzhou Bay Shipwreck (Fujian Provincial Quanzhou Maritime History Museum, 1987:40); Dinghai Bay Shipwreck in Fujian (Zhao and Wu, 2011:329); Sacred Hill (North) site in Hong Kong (Wu et al., 2014:32); Penghu (Ch'ên, 1985:121–122); Huaguang Reef I Shipwreck and Beijiao Reef I artefact point in Xisha Waters (UARCNMC, 2011:132–133); Southeast Asian archaeological sites such as the Philippines (Ch'ên, 1985:118); Riau Island (Adhyatman, 1990:71);

Fig. 3. ‘Mercury jar’ from Penghu, Taiwan (Photos courtesy of Ch'ên, 1985:71–72).

Please cite this article as: Wong, S.W., A case report on the function(s) of the ‘mercury jar’: Fort Canning, Singapore, in the 14th century, Archaeological Research in Asia (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ara.2016.02.006

S.W. Wong / Archaeological Research in Asia xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

Sarawak River, Bujang (Zainie, 1967:82); Kedah in Malaysia (Lamb, 1961:25); Mae Klong River in Thailand (Gumperayarnnont, 1985:79); and Kota Cina in Sumatra, Indonesia (Edwards McKinnon, 1976:98). We should note that it has not yet been found any ‘mercury jar’ dated from the 11th century in Southeast Asian archaeological sites, even though ‘mercury jar’ was dated from the 11th century in Cizao kiln sites. With reference to the major site for Chinese imported ceramics in Japan — Hakata, Fukuoka, ‘mercury jars’ were imported to Hakata since the early 12th to 13th centuries (Tanaka, 2011:421, Cort, 2013). The archaeologists may consider refining a more precise chronology of “mercury jars” from the ceramic production site. In the final stage (c.1279–1368 A.D.), the proportion between the ‘mercury jar’ shoulder and base was obviously larger than in previous stages in which the height was comparatively shorter than during earlier stages. ‘Mercury jars’ were usually made in a comparatively hasty manner. They seem to have been made quickly, and most jars are unglazed or glazed from the rim to the shoulder. For example, these

5

characteristics can be seen in Y1:24, unglazed, rim diameter 2, base diameter 5.2, and height 22 cm (Type 3) (Fig. 5). ‘Mercury jar’ at this final stage (Type 3) can be found in several distribution and consumption sites, such as Tongzheng Lane well in Quanzhou (Xu, 1983:114); Fort Canning (Miksic, 1985:69); St. Andrew's Cathedral (Miksic and Lim, 2004); Empress Place and Old Parliament House of Singapore (Heng, 2012:223); Muzium Sultan Abu Baka, Pahang, Malaysia (Kwan and Martin, 1985:113); Tuban (Ridho and Wayono, 1983:77–87); Trowulan, East Java (Miksic, 2013:314) and Srah Andong of Prasat Suor Prat, Angkor, Cambodia (Heng, 2004:115). In comparison to Type 3, temporal variations between Types 1 and 2 in ‘mercury jars’ are not very distinctive (Fig. 5). ‘Mercury jar’ is mass-produced coarse ware, which was produced by the wheel throwing method; a hallmark of which are concentric ridges that can be easily identified in the interior of ‘mercury jar’. Based on my impression, serval mercury jars from the same stage are compared. Most of them seem to be in similar size. Such jars were often fired

Fig. 5. Examples of ‘mercury jar’ in different stages.

Please cite this article as: Wong, S.W., A case report on the function(s) of the ‘mercury jar’: Fort Canning, Singapore, in the 14th century, Archaeological Research in Asia (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ara.2016.02.006

6

S.W. Wong / Archaeological Research in Asia xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

without saggar and firing furniture. ‘Mercury jars’ were arranged upright in the firing chamber of dragon kilns. In Fig. 2, category 5 jar's shoulders were found to have strip vestiges of stacking. Potters stacked the other jars and related objects with the ‘mercury jars’ to fully utilize the interior space of kilns. Some bowls, jars, and ewers were also found in the same kiln. Meng suggested that much lighter, smaller vessels may have been placed above ‘mercury jars’ during firing (Meng, 2009:64). This stacking method obviously aimed to increase the quantity of production. Although excavations in the Cizao kiln complex are still in progress, and we cannot yet calculate an accurate rate of Cizao ceramic production, it still can be estimated through historical records that at least 13,000 households or 65,000 people may have joined in the large-scale ceramic production business of export ceramics in Quanzhou during Song–Yuan Period (So, 2000:194–195). According to archaeological finds and the above estimation, the ‘mercury jar’ was one of the most popular types of Cizao kiln products to be exported to Southeast Asia. Fig. 5 shows that Southeast Asia is one of the distribution and consumption areas of Cizao ‘mercury jars’ in Song–Yuan Period. In different communities, people seem to have had a special preference in terms of what types of ceramics they used. For example, double fish design Longquan ware can be found in Penghu and Kota Cina, but in Fort Canning is absent. While in Penghu Type 3 ‘mercury jars’ cannot be discovered, conversely we can only see Type 3 ‘mercury jars’ in Fort Canning. Although in Daoyi zhiluo has records that ‘the artisans and the traders actively engage in trade and are happy with the profits earned’ and ‘Penghu is subordinated to Quanzhou Jinjiang County, they have to pay tax and license fee to the officials’, however, Penghu may no longer be the ‘entrepôt’ of ‘mercury jar’ in the Yuan Period (c.1279–1368 A.D.) (Wang, 2000). Other new routes may have developed so that merchants could choose other trading partners. These may explain why Penghu only has Type 1 and 2 ‘mercury jar’ produced at the Cizao kiln complex. Such differential distribution of various ceramics types could be indicative of changing trade patterns, political relationships and cultural preferences over time. 3.2. Preliminary study on the function(s) of the ‘mercury jar’ The functions of the ‘mercury jar’ are an interesting topic; however, researchers still have different opinions as to what these jars contained for export purposes. I am going to discuss the broadest and most fundamental function of ‘mercury jars’ unearthed from Fort Canning. In other words, I aim to examine the original object that ‘mercury jar’ carried from its production area, Cizao kilns to the consumption place so as to study how ‘mercury jar’ can be used for distinguishing between groups of different status and maintaining ethnic identities. Previous studies have suggested that the potential functions of ‘mercury jars’ include: serving as a container for gun power for Zheng Chenggong (1624– 1662 A.D.), the Chinese military leader and Ming loyalist of resisting Manchu people's conquest of China (Xu, 1983:113); serving as a bottle for rosewater (Liu, 1978:48); serving as a container of holy water at ceremonies (Adhyatman, 1990:71); acting as a mercury jar (Treloar, 1972:378–383; Miksic, 1985:69, 1989:44, 2013:321) and wine bottle (Zainie, 1967:82; Xu, 1983:114; Ch'ên, 1985:121–122; Heng, 2012:188). Containers for holy water at ceremonies were probably a form of reusing ‘mercury jars’ in the consumption sites; as such, we will subsequently ignore it in this report. As Ch'ên and Xu have already illustrated that the ‘mercury jar’ was a container in the Song–Yuan Period, it was just a legend that Zheng Chenggong's military used it as a gun powder container in the Ming dynasty (1368–1644 A.D.). Though it is a legend, it can enlighten us to discuss whether the ‘mercury jar’ was used for carrying liquids or storing dry substances. From the ‘special’ shape of the ‘mercury jar’; with its small, round mouth without a neck and wide shoulders with a small, flat base; it is not difficult to infer that such designs were used for containing liquid. Had it been used to contain dry substances, it would have been very difficult to pour them in and out.

In respect to mechanics, potters should produce vessels for which their mechanical performances are adapted to their intended functions so that the potential functional fitness is increased and product failure is reduced (Gosselain, 1998:80). Especially for the ‘mercury jar’ as a massproduced good in Quanzhou, the suitability of its shape for storing and transporting for export purposes would be taken into serious consideration by the producer. Though the ‘mercury jar’ was a product, it was also a utility vessel to contain other goods during transport from Quanzhou to a distant marketplace. Therefore, ‘mercury jars’ were not merely empty vessels for trading, but probably carried another major Chinese commodity produced at a location that may have been quite close to the ‘mercury jar’ production centre in the Quanzhou district. As a result, both pottery merchandisers and vintners could minimize their production costs for transportation and product failure. It is important to understand jar function as these ceramic objects served as a medium of economic exchange and preference among exported products in Southeast Asia. Moreover, the ‘mercury jars’ and the liquid provide important clues for distinguishing between groups of different status and maintaining ethnic identities. Then, the next question is: if the ‘mercury jar’ was used to transport liquid for export, what liquid did it store? Integrating the data in Section 3.1., we assume that such liquid would have been utilitarian in nature containing in the massproduced coarse ware, as seemingly large quantities were consumed in daily usage. We will then use the historical records and archaeological findings to discuss the above questions. Let us talk about wine first. In Chinese context, wine (jiu) commonly referred to grain wine. Its popularity can be attributed largely to the prevalence of raw materials such as rice and millet that were used to produce it; ingredients which were easily acquired and from surplus grain. Surplus grain in Southern China and the innovative skills of wine manufacturing provide good conditions for wine as one of the major commodities for export. In Yuanshi, wine taxation rates in the southern districts including Jiangsu–Zhejiang (200,000 ding) and Jiangxi–Huguang (58,000 ding) were higher than rates in the northern continental districts (56,000 ding) in the mid-Yuan period. Moreover, in 1291, Jiangxi and Fujian employed specialized wine officials to monitor wine taxation and licensure events rather than allowing subordinate tea and salt officials to do the task (Song, 1976:2395). That means no small amount of wine was produced in these districts, arousing the Yuan Court's interest. In the local chronicles of Jinjiang County published in mid-Qing Period (1765 A.D.), it is stated that wine was one of the major products of Jinjiang: ‘Jinjiang people always drink wine, especially the mellow wine of Song Dynasty and today's old wine. They were made by grain or white candidus’ (Fang, 1967:43). What about the wine preference of people in Southeast Asia? Kwee's observation on Daoyi zhilue in the mid-fourteenth century descriptions of local Southeast Asian customs gives us a very clear picture of their wine preference. She noted a mechanical repetition of certain phrases including: “(the locals) boil sea (water) to make salt, (raw material) to make (spirits) wine” (Kwee, 1997:43). These raw materials were used to produce fruit wine (sweet cane juice, coconut juice and nipah), grain wine (glutinous rice, millet, rice) and other local specialty wines (sugar water, jue powder, ko root, honey water). This observation shows that fruit wine and grain wine were the most common wine categories; it was very popular in general for people in Southeast Asia to make their own wine. However, it seems that local wine could not satisfy the large demands of Southeast Asians, so they had to acquire Chinese wine through economic exchange. Zhancheng, Minduolang, and Dingjialu have explicit imported wine records from China in Daoyi zhilue (Wang, 2000:56,60,102). However, how can we prove the relationship between Chinese wine and the ‘mercury jar’? Paradoxically, Wang Dayuan only mentioned highly volatile goods, such as wine, mercury, and rosewater in his record; whereas we can only find their utility vessels – the ‘mercury jar’ – in their marketplaces. If we study this ‘mercury jar’ in the producer's local cultural context, it may give us some clues as to the relationship between Chinese wine

Please cite this article as: Wong, S.W., A case report on the function(s) of the ‘mercury jar’: Fort Canning, Singapore, in the 14th century, Archaeological Research in Asia (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ara.2016.02.006

S.W. Wong / Archaeological Research in Asia xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

Fig. 6. Wine bottles in Chinese local cultural context.

and its container. In fact, containers with such small, round mouths with short necks and wide shoulders with small, flat bases had been widely produced and used by northern nomadic tribes to store their fermented livestock milk wine in earlier centuries. This container was usually designed with wide shoulders and a small base with a tall body that did not easily run off in their journey (Shi, 1996:140–142). This design was also widely rearticulated by Chinese potters in the Song–Yuan period. One source of evidence is ‘the vintage’ (qinggumeijiu) Cizhou kiln bottle in use during the Song dynasty; another example is a ‘fine wine’ (xijiu) bottle unearthed in a Yuan burial area. The Baisha Song tomb (1099 A.D.)'s painted murals – and in particular, the west wall of the first tomb's corridor – depict a man carrying a tall bottle outside the door. His scarf clearly states that: ‘in the daytime serve Cuidalang wine’ (zhoushang Cuidalang jiu) in black ink. Then, on the front room's west wall, the painted mural shows the deceased individuals enjoying their feast in the room (Du et al., 1995:321; Gansu Provincial Museum, Zhang County Cultural Bureau, 1982:15–16; Su, 2002:27-I). Both illustrate that such small mouthed, tall bottles became a local tradition for containing wine (Fig. 6). The ‘mercury jar’ produced in Jinjiang in Song–Yuan period was similar in shape and form to these wine bottles. Archaeological sources from Fuhoushan, Tongzhen Lang in Quanzhou, Penghu, Fort Canning, and Kota Cina indicate that ‘mercury jars’ were usually associated with eating and drinking utensils such as ewers, dishes, bowls, and cups found in these archaeological sites. We can therefore imagine that similar wine drinking practices were common in these areas. The other proposed function of mercury jars is that of transportation for liquid mercury. According to Zhou Qufei's record Lingwai daida in the late twelfth century, mercury was mined in Hubei, Guangxi and North Vietnam. It was produced in both pure liquid of mercury (shuiyin) and solid sulphide form of cinnabar (dansha shuiyin and yinzhu). However, Zhou did not record that mercury was extracted near where ‘mercury jar’ was produced (Zhou, 1999:271–276). Historical records mainly show that mercury was a common commodity in Asian maritime trade. In Daoyi zhiluo, Wang Dayuan mentioned that in Xian (Thailand), “person who died, people would pour mercury on his body to preserve it” (Wang, 2000:155). Using mercury to preserve things can be one of the ‘local customs’ in Thailand. There may or may not be great variation in how artefacts such as mercury jars are used by different communities in Southeast Asia. Mercury was obtained from cinnabar as mercuric oxide for gold working and medicine (Miksic, 1985:69, 2013:318; Treloar, 1972:382–383, Wolters, 1976:192–193). Perhaps people also used mercury jars to contain mercury in Southeast Asia for diverse purposes. We should also take note that mercury is more than 13.6 times as dense as water, and it is a poisonous substance, the neckless, wide shouldered ‘mercury jar’ with a narrow, flat base may therefore have been easily overflowed due to the high gravity of mercury (Treloar, 1972:278, Zhao, 1985:131). 4. Conclusion From the above analysis, in addition to the possible function of containing mercury, we believe that ‘mercury jars’ unearthed from

7

Fort Canning in the 14th century may also have been used to contain wine. The main evidence supporting this claim is that in the Fort Canning palace area, these fragmentary ‘mercury jars’ were found mixed with other ceramic utensils such as bowls, dishes, and jars. Moreover, archaeologists also found animal bones, ashes, and stove shards in Fuhoushan; evidence that ‘mercury jars’ may have been related to food and drink activities during the Song–Yuan Period. This evidence, however, could point to a secondary re-use function rather than a primary function. Wine in Fort Canning may not have been consumed by individuals from the palace workshop. Instead, lower class individuals may have used these jars to serve those of higher social status in the region, as these ceramics are associated with rare Yuan blue and white porcelain bowls, dishes, and meiping (wine jar) cover fragments. ‘Mercury jars’ were also found in Srah Andong, the Royal Palace area of Angkor, Cambodia in proximity to other imported Chinese ceramics (Heng, 2004:115). The main consumers of this commodity may have been the members from the palace, middle-class residents or officials. Additional supporting evidence has been found at the Fuhoushan site in Quanzhou. The ‘mercury jar’ shards (401 pieces) distributed in five different cultural layers of the Song Period (thickness 4.25 m) in the backyard of the government house of Quanzhou are associated with bowls, plates and stove shards (Xu, 1983:112). It is believed that the local population during this period was not only engaged in re-exporting or shipping ‘mercury jars’ to external areas of Penghu, Sumatra, and other Southeast Asia places but also in selling them to ruling classes living in Fort Canning, and maintaining a number of jars for daily use by local officials in Quanzhou. Such ‘mercury jars’ may have been used to contain imported Chinese fruit wine or grain wine locally produced within the Quanzhou district. The information we have so far suggests this is the case, but we need more studies in the future to provide more information about how people of different social statuses and ethnic groups used them to distinguish between groups of different status and maintain ethnic identities in Song–Yuan period. I hope this case report will arouse researchers' interest in continued discussion and result in scientific residue analysis of the ‘mercury jar’ in various archaeological sites. Acknowledgements I would like to express my gratitude to Prof. John Miksic for his many substantial comments and provision of archaeological sources on this case report; Mr. Shah Alam Zaini, Mr. Roeland Stulemeijer, Dr. Geok Yian Goh, Ms. Foo Su Ling, Dr. Jun Cayron, and Mr. Andrew Cowan, who helped me to acquire sources related to the Fort Canning artefacts that inspired this report; and Prof. Li, Jian'an and Dr. Meng Yuanzhao, who provided research information on the Cizao kilns, Fujian Province, China. I also wish to thank the editors and two anonymous reviewers for their critical reading and substantial comments on my report. References Adhyatman, Sumarah, 1990. Antique ceramics found in Indonesia, various uses and origins. The Ceramic Society of Indonesia, Jakata. Ch'ên, Hsin-hsiung, 1979. Ceramics bottles from Song Dynasty in Penghu. Artist Mag. (Taipei) 9 (4), 78–84. Ch'ên, Hsin-hsiung, 1985. Shards of the Sung and Yüan Period Found in the Pescadores Islands. Penghu County Cultural Center, Penghu. Ch'ên, Hsin-hsiung, 1986. Shards of the Sung and Yüan Period found in the Pescadores Islands. Trade Ceram. Stud. 6, 81–98. Chen, P., Huang, T.Z., Huang, B.L., 1982. Cizao Ancient Kiln sites, Jinjiang, Fujian. Archaeology (Kaogu) 5, 489–498. Choo, A.A., 1986. Report on the excavation at Fort Canning Hill Singapore. National Museum of Singapore, Singapore. Choo, A.A., 1990. Expressions of trade: objects from North China in 14th century Singapore. Sarawak Mus. J. 41 (62), 245–253. Cort, L., 2013. Bottle (S2005.36). Ceramics in Mainland Southeast Asia: Collections in the Freer Gallery of Art and Arthur M. Sackler Gallery. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. (https://seasianceramics.asia.si.edu/search/object.asp?id=S2005.36). Du, J.P., Jiao, T.L., Yang, Z.F., 1995. Ancient Chinese Wine Vessels. Shanghai Culture Press, Shanghai, pp. 321–322.

Please cite this article as: Wong, S.W., A case report on the function(s) of the ‘mercury jar’: Fort Canning, Singapore, in the 14th century, Archaeological Research in Asia (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ara.2016.02.006

8

S.W. Wong / Archaeological Research in Asia xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

Edwards McKinnon, E.P., 1976. Oriental ceramics excavated in North Sumatra. Trans. Orient. Ceram. Soc. 41, 59–118. Fang, D., 1967. Local Chronicles of Jinjiang County (Jinjiang Xianzhi). Chenwen Chubanshe, Taipei. Fujian Provincial Quanzhou Maritime History Museum (Ed.), 1987. Excavation and Study in Quanzhou Bay Song Dynasty Shipwreck. Haiyang Chubanshe, Beijing. Fujian Provincial Museum, Jiangle County Museum, 2011. Cizao Kiln: Fujian Cizao Kiln Archaeological Excavation Report. Science Publisher, Beijing. Gansu Provincial Museum, Zhang County Cultural Bureau, 1982. Gansu Zhang County Wang Shixian clan tombs in Yuan Period. Cultural Relics (Wenwu) 2, 1–21. Gosselain, O.P., 1998. Social and technical identity in a clay crystal ball. In: Stark, M.T. (Ed.), The Archaeology of Social Boundaries. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington and London, pp. 78–105. Gumperayarnnont, M., 1985. Chinese Ceramics from Mae Klong River. Country Report of Thailand for SPAFA Technical Workshop on Ceramics (T-W4), SEAMEO Project in Archaeology and Fine Arts Technical Workshop. Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organization, Bangkok and Chiang Mai, pp. 65–84. He, Z.L., Li, D.M., 2002. Cizao Kiln Ware. Fujian Meishu Chubanshe, Fuzhou. Heng, D.T.S., 2012. Sino-Malay Trade and Diplomacy from the Tenth through the Fourteenth Century. Ohio University Press, Athens. Heng, P., 2004. Archaeological excavation in the North Pond (Srah Andong) of Prasat Suor Prat. Japanese Government Team for Safeguarding Angkor (JSA) Annual Report on the Technical Survey of Angkor Monument 2004. Japan International Cooperation Centre, Tokyo, pp. 215–233. Jinjiang Xian Wenguanhui, Museum, 1987. Cizao Kiln Site. Jinjiang Xian Wengguanhui, Jinjiang. Kwan, K.K., Martin, J., 1985. Introduction to the finds from pulau tioman. In: Southeast Asian Ceramic Society (Ed.), A Ceramic Legacy of Asia's Maritime Trade: Song Dynasty Guangdong Wares and Other 11th to 19th Century Trade Ceramics Found on Tioman Island, Malaysia. Oxford University Press, Kuala Lumpur, pp. 69–82. Kwee, H.K., 1997. Daoyi Zhilue 島夷志略 as a Maritime Traders' Guidebook—A Contribution to the Study of Private Enterprise in Maritime Trade During the Yuan Period (1279– 1368), Unpublished B.A. thesis, National University of Singapore. Lamb, A., 1961. Research at pengkalan bujang; A preliminary report. Fed. Mus. J. 6, 21–37. Liu, H.S., 1978. Further Studies of Quanzhou Bay Song Ship Sea Route and Direction. Marit. Hist. Stud. (Haijiaoshi yanjiu) 1, 44–49. Meng, Y.Z., 2009, The Research on the Archaeological Remains of the Ceramic Industry in Minnan Area from the Song to the Qing Period. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Peking University, Beijing. Miksic, J.N., 1985. Archaeological Research on the “Forbidden Hill” of Singapore: Excavations at Fort Canning, 1984. National Museum of Singapore, Singapore, pp. 67–68. Miksic, J.N., 1989. Beyond the grave: excavations North of the Keramat Iskandar Shah, 1988. Heritage 10, 38–39. Miksic, J.N., 2000. Recent archaeological excavations in Singapore: a comparison of three fourteenth-century sites. Bull. Indo-Pac. Prehist. Assoc. 20, 56–61. Miksic, J.N., 2004. 14th-century Singapore: a port of trade. In: Cheryl-Ann Low, M.G., Miksic, J.N. (Eds.), Early Singapore 1300s-1819 Evidence in Maps, Text and Artefacts. Singapore History Museum, Singapore, pp. 41–54. Miksic, J.N., Lim, C.S., 2004. Archaeological research on the Padang and in the St. Andrew's Cathedral Churchyard: St. Andrew's Cathedral Archaeological Research Project

Progress Report Summary September 2003–June 2004. http://www.seaarchaeology. com/v1/html/sg/pdfs/ARI_Project_Report_version_1.5.pdf. Miksic, J.N., 2013. Singapore & the Silk Road of the Sea 1300–1800. National University of Singapore Press, National Museum of Singapore, Singapore. Rice, P.M., 1987. Pottery Analysis—A Source Book. University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London. Ridho, A., Wayono, M., 1983. The ceramics found in Tuban, East Java. Trade Ceram. Stud. 3, 77–87. Quanzhou Maritime History Museum, Fujian Province Investigation Group, 1980a. Notes on Jinjiang County Cizao ceramics history investigation. Marit. Hist. Stud. (Haijiaoshi Yanjiu) 2, 29–34. Shi, W.M., 1996. Social Life History in Yuan Period. Zhongguo Shihui Kexue Chubanshe, Beijing. Sinopoli, C.M., 1991. Approaches to Archaeological Ceramics. Plenum Press, New York and London. So, B.K.L., 2000. Prosperity, Region, and Institutions in Maritime China the South Fukien Pattern, 946–1368. Harvard University Asia Center, Cambridge and London, pp. 197–201. Song, L., 1976. History of Yuan Dynasty (Yuanshi). Zhonghua shuju, Beijing. Su, B., 2002. Baisha Song Tomb. Wenwu Chubanshe, Beijing. Tanaka, K., 2011. The trade ceramics found in the Hakata and surrounding sites, Japan. Fujian Provincial Museum, Jiangle County Museum, Cizao Kiln: Fujian Cizao Kiln Archaeological Excavation Report. Science Publisher, Beijing, pp. 409–424. Treloar, F.E., 1972. Stoneware bottles in the Sarawak Museum: vessels for mercury trade? Sarawak Mus. J. 20 (40–41), 377–384. The Underwater Archaeology Research Center of the National Museum of China (UARCNMC), the Cultural Heritage Administrative Office of Hainan Province, 2011l. Xisha Underwater Archaeology (1998 ~ 1999). Science Publisher, Beijing. Wang, D.Y., annotated by Su J.Q., 2000. Daoyi Zhilue Jiao Shi. 2nd Edition. Zhonghua Shuju, Beijing. Wolters, O.W., 1976. Early Indonesian Commerce: A Study of the Origins of Srivijaya. Cornell University Press, Ithaca. Wu, Z.L., Liu, W.S., Wang, P.Q., 2014. Archaeological discoveries of the Song, Yuan Dynasties and later period from the Sacred Hill (North) site of Kowloon City in Hong Kong. Bull. Chin. Ceram. Art Archaeol. 1, 30–33. Xu, Q.Q., 1983. The dating and purposes of small mouth pottery bottles unearthed from Song shipwreck. Marit. Hist. Stud. (Haijiaoshi Yanjiu) 5, 112–114. Ye, W.C., Su, C.C., Huang, S.C., 1987. The development and export of Cizao Kiln, Jinjiang. In: Chinese Ancient Ceramic Society (Ed.), The Export of Chinese Ancient Ceramics: Proceedings of Annual Meeting in Jinjiang, Fujian. Zijingcheng Chubanshe, Beijing, pp. 61–69. Zainie, C. (with Tom Harrisson), 1967. Early Chinese stonewares excavated in Sarawak 1947–67: a suggested first basic classification. Sarawak Mus. J., 30-31, 30–90. Zhao, K.H., 1985. Study in the History of Ancient Chinese Chemistry. Peking University Press, Beijing. Zhao, J.B., Wu, C.M., 2011. Shipwreck Archaeology in Dinghai Bay, Lianjiang, Fujian. Science Publisher, Beijing. Zhou, C.F., annotated by Yang, W.Q., 1999. Lingwai Daida 嶺外代答Jiaozhu. Zhonghua shuju, Beijing.

Please cite this article as: Wong, S.W., A case report on the function(s) of the ‘mercury jar’: Fort Canning, Singapore, in the 14th century, Archaeological Research in Asia (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ara.2016.02.006