The book was a presented alongside an exhibition of 120 pieces of Khmer ceramics at Singapore National Museum in 1980, in collaboration with the Southeast Asian Ceramic Society. Curator and editor Diana Stock noted that the event followed “the “Chinese Blue and White Ceramics” in 1978 and the “Chinese Celadons and Other Related Wares in Southeast Asia” in 1979, the fifth in a series of major projects undertaken by the Southeast Asian Ceramic Society. The earlier two were “Ceramic Art of Southeast Asia” and “Chinese White Wares”.”
The Angkorian area has surrendered numerous vessels similar in all points to those of the temple of Sambor Prei Kuk. Most come from west of Angkor, especially from the region of Banteay Chhoeu, the first large Angkorian hydraulic city, and the pre Angkorian-sites of Roluos of the 7th-8th centuries. There were also fragments excavated from a habitation site on the Siem Reap River near Thommanom, dated from the 8th century. It seems, therefore, for the time being, that from the last years of the 6th to the end of the 8th centuries, these ceramics of Indian origin, via Fu-nan, constituted the most significant production of the Khmer potters [p 15].
The excavations of the Royal palace of Angkor Thom have provided a long and abundant sequence of many glazed Khmer stonewares and imported Chinese wares. This succession is, however, sometimes interrupted. At the beginning of the 12th century the Royal palace seems to have been elsewhere. Chinese ceramics were of a very high quality, and even fragments worthy of imperial collections have surfaced, which we can recognize without too much imagination as “ambassadorial” gifts. Related glazed Khmer ceramics are equally of very high quality. The whole clearly constitutes the royal crockery and the contrast is obvious. In the domestic courts of this very palace, we found common kitchen earthenware, in all respects identical to that from commoners’ habitation sites [p 16].
It is under the reign of Indravarnman (877−889) that glazed stoneware appears in conjunction with glazed tiles. This is at Roluos, the ancient Hariharalaya, capital of Indravarnman and the first large Hydraulic city. This concerns essentially bowls without a foot, spherical, or in the form of an inverted, truncated cone, and some miniature bottles (height: 8 cm — 10 cm) with straight neck, some without lip, others edged with a vertical band. From the sizes, they suggest vials for perfumes or precious oils. Most important and typical are miniature covered boxes (diameter: 8 cm — 12 cm) of a very flattened shape. The base is flat, the body hemispherical or deeply bevelled, and the cover with a vertical border, symmetrical in shape with the bottom part. The bottom part shows a sharp interior lip which is enclosed by the rim of the cover. These are obviously cosmetic boxes, or to some extent could have been used for delicacies. Next we find covered pots (15 cm) quite close to those used in Europe for pipe tobacco. The bottom is flat, the body cylindrical or sometimes very slightly rounded, the cover encasing it with a vertical edge and a bevelled or rounded crown. It bears in the centre a pear-shaped button or knob set into the top of the cover (see no. 1). Its use is unknown. This type of pot could have contained betel leaves. One Bayon bas-relief (but four centuries later) could suggest they were used at meals to contain soups and meats. But these are only hypotheses. The success of the shape is obvious and will endure, while, up to the Yuan period, identical Chinese pots, probably the model, will be imported. On the whole the Chinese origin of all of these shapes is evident. [p 18]
Clay, firing, glazing, shapes —all are Chinese, the fruit of a will to produce locally Yue wares, Ting wares and, soon, celadons which began to appear in Angkor, were imported from China. It is the same for tiles, henceforth, with two new types: gutter tile and welted tile, both glazed outside. The Khmer architects break completely with the former model; the flat tile with tenon, unglazed, of Indian origin. M. J. Dumarcay studied this last problem thoroughly and one must refer to his solid work. Like him, I think the Chinese influence is manifested here even if it was parallel to a certain local evolution, particularly for the wooden framework. This occurs also in Champa probably from the Chinese homes of Tonkin. I do not believe that so new and so complex a technology could have been ‘re-invented’ by simply studying imported vessels. It could only have been instituted by a few Chinese or sinicized potters who then formed workshops. It is not an accident if it is exactly at this date that the name China (Cina) appears for the first time in 10th century Khmer inscriptions. Therein it is said that Kings Indravarnman, then Yasovarnman extended their kingdoms northwards” to the CINA border”. This must be taken allegorically and means, more modestly, that the first big organised political power which was “to the North” of Cambodia was China. This does not mean to say “in contact”. In fact, the Khmer temples of this style very precisely drew the Khmer frontiers of this period; they did not yet reach north of the Se Mun, or on the Mekong, north of Vat Phu.16 We must not forget that in about 906 China still enforced its protection over North Vietnam, roughly to the latitude of Hue. It is not impossible that Chinese ceramics reached Angkor by way of land, at least through Champa with which Angkor had constant contacts (towards 950, the King Rajendravarnman himself guided an expedition as far as Nha Trang). [p 20]
Usually the two glazes are found on large pieces: baluster vases and jars, bottles, but sometimes also on mini-vessels. Green Kulen glaze dominates in the smaller objects; a brown glaze tends to cover the bigger ones. It is during this period that we find the most beautiful glazes and it seems that Khmer potters nearly equalled their Chinese masters (see nos. 8, 10 and 17).29 It is curious, however, that they knew no other glazes besides light ones, yellow and green, and brown, and this short phase of two tone glazes. We do not know the colour realm of the Khmers, with the exception of ceramics and gilded bronzes; no traces of frescoes or coloured objects have come down to us. It is possible that this very limited palette was simply due to the inadequacies of technique. However, I pointed out that light glazes predominate for the miniature vessels, in which we clearly see the relationship to the work of the silversmith, and I will call these “the ‘silverware’ of the poor”. We can, therefore, believe that the Khmers tried to reproduce silver tones. Just as we know, on the other hand, that the large vessels reproduced forms in metal, silver, indeed gold (which, in reality, meant to the Khmers a bronze gilded with mercury and copper). Khmer bronze is almost pure copper, as in India, and becomes brilliant when used. From this, we are tempted to suppose that the potters tried to reproduce the general hues of gilded bronze with this range of more or less golden browns. [p 27]
How did the intense stream of exchange function, which implied such bulk imports and with what did the Khmers pay? It happens that we have a rather remarkable illustration. On the reliefs of the exterior galleries of Bayon (around 1200) we know of the famous “Chinese junk” and also “the house of the Chinese man”, which occupies an entire panel. The presence of these “foreign” themes alone, in a composition that relates the life of the King, is strange enough. We must presume that the Chinese had already by that time, “put out their signboard”, so that the role had been accorded them. Let’s look at this “house of the Chinese man” (photo D). The two top registers —in the conventional Khmer perspective, the back yard of the building — show the mistress of the house with her servants, all Khmer. We can see the preparation of the women’s meal by women, on stoves and in Khmer cooking pots. The lower register, the front yard, shows male servants who are Chinese, as is proved by their hairknots and jackets, preparing the meal, also with Khmer pottery. Others drink through bamboo reeds from a small jar, and the alcohol must have been strong because one of them, taken by drink, begins to fool around to surprise of his companions. In the same gallery, a relief shows Chinese abandoning themselves to pleasure in a sampan, where they drink energetically from reeds. And a similar drunken scene, of the same date, is found in Banteay Chmar. To the Khmer artist, always prompt to seize the human characteristic, it is clear that intemperance, right or wrong, of the Chinese in Cambodia, was well known… The second register from the bottom shows two Chinese, masters of the house. One of them in the centre is talking with his servants — all Chinese who are carrying poultry, as if they were coming back from the market. The other is seated on a very low armchair— Chinese style furniture. Only the King, in Cambodia, could claim a chair, or more exactly a low reclining bed, to sit on. In front of him, on a small low table —here again Chinese style —is a ceramic … a small covered box, obviously precious. In front of him, a man carrying a mei-ping, two others, some cups. On the beams of the house, hang Chinese umbrellas (no doubt in oiled paper) and gourds. They are obviously the principal merchandise that the Chinese offered the Khmers. And it is not by chance that Khmer sculptors, always exact, based their expressive art on the characteristic detail, gave such a place to ceramics. Without exageration, one can say that we have here the house of a Chinese “importer” in Angkor of the year 1200 and whose principal trade was … ceramics. [p 35 – 6]
R.M. Brown:
The Ban Kruat kiln site is by no means the only source of modern-day finds of Khmer ceramics from Northeast Thailand. The region was famous for finds of Khmer artefacts long before the kilns themselves were discovered. The great number of ceramics there caused comment in the Journal of the Siam Society even as early as the 1920s. Many of the ceramics have been isolated finds, dug up here and there in the course of agricultural activities or construction projects. But occasionally sites are located that continue to be a steady source of perfect or near perfect ceramics, in addition to various other artefacts, over several months or years. The latest major surge of good pieces on the Bangkok market, about two to three years ago, was said by dealers to have been provided by villagers coming from Na-doon in Maha Sarakham province, some 150 kilometres north of Ban Kruat. Other sites over the years have been reported especially in Surin, Sisakhet, Ubon and Roi Et provinces. A site that produced a great number of wares in early 1973 was Ban Sawai, a small village near Surin city. At the time some observers guessed that another old kiln centre had been found. But sherds there were not nearly as abundant as at Ban Kruat, nor did any of them show definite firing faults. Moreover, the finds, many of which were in excellent condition, soon petered out. It seems more probable that sites such as this were either burial grounds, like that excavated at Angkor by Bernard Groslier, or perhaps habitation sites. [p 47]
[1] 11. Lime pot. Spherical, with eyes, beak and tail of an owl. Conical cover with lotus bud. Finely crackled pale green glaze falls short of button foot. Pale buff-grey body. Carved rings on the cover and below mouthrim. Stylised wings with jabbed decoration. Potter’s cutting mark on flat base.| Height: 10 cm (with cover) | Late 11th century. [2] Jarlet. Compressed globular shape. Covered with caramel-brown glaze, degraded in parts, with sand adhering to mouth and shoulder. Unglazed flat base. Grey body. Two incised bands of vertical lines within concentric circles on shoulder. | Height: 6.5 cm | First half 11th century.
[1] 11. Lime pot. Spherical, with eyes, beak and tail of an owl. Conical cover with lotus bud. Finely crackled pale green glaze falls short of button foot. Pale buff-grey body. Carved rings on the cover and below mouthrim. Stylised wings with jabbed decoration. Potter’s cutting mark on flat base.| Height: 10 cm (with cover) | Late 11th century. [2] Jarlet. Compressed globular shape. Covered with caramel-brown glaze, degraded in parts, with sand adhering to mouth and shoulder. Unglazed flat base. Grey body. Two incised bands of vertical lines within concentric circles on shoulder. | Height: 6.5 cm | First half 11th century.
[1] 11. Lime pot. Spherical, with eyes, beak and tail of an owl. Conical cover with lotus bud. Finely crackled pale green glaze falls short of button foot. Pale buff-grey body. Carved rings on the cover and below mouthrim. Stylised wings with jabbed decoration. Potter’s cutting mark on flat base.| Height: 10 cm (with cover) | Late 11th century. [2] Jarlet. Compressed globular shape. Covered with caramel-brown glaze, degraded in parts, with sand adhering to mouth and shoulder. Unglazed flat base. Grey body. Two incised bands of vertical lines within concentric circles on shoulder. | Height: 6.5 cm | First half 11th century.
D. Rooney:
One of the first practical uses of Khmer wares was the production of roof tiles and architectural ornaments to supply the large scale building programmes of the Angkor period. The ceramic kilns may have been established to fulfill these domestic needs. One of the earliest pieces in the exhibition is a green glazed, rectangular shaped roof tile (no. 4). It was most likely used to cover the roof of a wooden residence for royalty rather than a stone temple. Chou Ta-kuan, a Chinese diplomat who visited Angkor in 1296 – 97, noted that tiles were never used on brick or stone buildings and were reserved for use by the king and his court. There must be similarities between rural life in Kampuchea today and ancient Angkor in terms of environment, types of food, and methods of storing and preserving foods. The containers used most likely share a similar function even though ceramic vessels have been replaced today by aluminium, plastic, and tin. Bowls are needed for serving and eating food in households and for offering rice to monks. The Khmers made two distinctly different types of bowls and both are shown in the exhibition. The most common shape is green glazed with conical walls, giving it an angular appearance (no. 14). The carved ring around the lower section may have been cut to collect the thin watery glaze which tended to run. A similar technique was used by the Chinese in the Tang dynasty. Often, a fabrication mark consisting of a series of lines was incised on the base. It may have served to identify the wares of an individual potter in a shared kiln. [p 53]
The exhibition presents a wide range of lime pots. The animal-like forms with symbolic meaning and utilitarian function demonstrate the ability of the Khmer to amalgamate Indian, Buddhist and animistic influences. The pieces represent what must have been preferred forms and show the Khmer’s affinity with nature and fondness for animals. The most common lime pot is globular shaped with zoomorphic features that look like an owl. It is characterised by an applied beak, eyes, and tail, incising on the body (sometimes in the form of wings), and an unglazed base with a button shaped foot (nos. 11, 53a,b). A less common but noteworthy lime pot has an owl-like face applied in one piece, giving it a three dimensional look (no. 80a,b). Although the symbolic meaning of the owl in unknown in Khmer art, it is the guardian of Lakshmi, goddess of fortune, in Indian mythology. Some of the finest Khmer lime pots are those in the shape of a caparisoned elephant (nos. 87, 89). A spherical body is supported by four short unglazed legs; the applied head and tail are decorated with jabbed and incised decoration; heavy lug handles are applied horizontally on each side of the mouth. Hand modelled elephant figures were also used as lime pots (no. 93). The heavy features, crude potting, and limited decoration of this elephant are characteristic of later Khmer ceramics which were generally inferior to earlier wares. The elephant played an important part in Khmer life. It was used for domestic and military transport as well as elephant fights for entertainment. The rabbit and cat are less common lime pot forms and seem to have been restricted to a shorter period of production. The rabbit is depicted in a lively, individualistic style with attention to decorative detail (nos. 43, 96). One appealing example rests contentedly on clearly defined unglazed feet (no. 44). [p 54]
