Determination of Oriental Tradeware Ceramics:

A proposed system for identifying and documenting poflery in

Philippine archaeological
sites
Rhayan G. Melendres 1

Abstract
There is a need to improve on the practice of analysing oriental tradeware ceramics found in Philippine
archaeological sites. The current practices mostly depend on authority and the process of
identification is not presented. Oriental tradeware ceramics, in this study, are defined as the porcelain
and stoneware that originated from Asia specifically from the current nation states of China, Thailand,
Vietnam and Burma. The first part of the paper is a review of oriental tradeware studies done in
the Philippines as well as their documentation. Then, this research proposes a determination
system for excavated oriental tradeware ceramics composed of two parts: identification and
documentation. Reporting the cross referencing of available ceramic data and stating the level of
confidence of the identification are some of the new steps added in this oriental tradeware ceramics
determination system. Then, the database shall be encoded into a digital form for documentation.

Introduction
The study of ceramics is almost as old as the study of archaeology. Prior to the late 19 century, th

ceramics and other artefacts were collected by early antiquarians as curios and exotic objects
(Daniel 1981; Fagan and

1 Assistant Professor 2, University of the Philippines Diliman, Extension Program in Pampanga; Ph.D. Student, Archaeological Stu
DeCorse 2005; Renfrew and Bahn 2000; Thomas and Kelly 2006). This
ceramic collection culture has been present in the Philippines since the early 20 century
th

(Beyer 1947; Evangelista 1960; Locsin and Locsin 1967; Mijares 1998). With the increasing
interest in archaeological techniques and the development of methodological or
scientific approaches to archaeology, studies on artefact analysis such as ceramics
have progressed and advanced beyond antiquarianism (Gibson and Wood 1990; Rice 1987;
Sinopoli 1991).
One of the types of ceramics that particularly interest archaeologists in Southeast
Asia is what is known as “oriental tradeware ceramics”. Oriental tradeware ceramics have long
been valued objects in the interactions of cultures between China and Southeast Asia and
also between China and polities farther west (Wang Gungwu 1998). In these areas, ceramics
were in great demand. As an artefact of foreign origin to Nanhai polities (Andaya and Andaya
1982) such as Philippines and Indonesian cultures, Legeza (1978) noticed that tradeware
ceramics of high-fired, resonant and glazed stonewares and porcelains originally embodied
an alien and intrusive facet in the multi-layered indigenous cultures. But these polities were
remarkably receptive and acquiescent to this intrusion and adopted the utilisation of these new
materials.
Some of the trading partners of the makers of oriental tradeware ceramics were located in the
Philippines. Because of this, the Philippine archipelago is well known for archeological
sites with cornucopia of oriental tradeware ceramics both on land and shipwrecks (Beyer
1947; Locsin and Locsin 1967; Orillaneda 2008). Due to the dearth of written documents or
accounts, the emergence of oriental tradeware ceramics together with indigenous cultural
material found in early Filipino burial sites and habitation sites, as well as shipwrecks, serve as
guideposts in the reconstruction of the movement, intensification, and development of early
Philippine polities.
The analysis of oriental tradeware ceramics in the Philippines is not standardised. Most of
the time, the identification is done and accepted without question because of the stature and
name of the analyst or the person who identified the ceramics. This paper proposes a
system of determination which allows non-specialists to learn how to analyse oriental
tradeware ceramics and at the same time shows the basis of the identification of these wares. It
will also review how oriental tradeware ceramics are studied and analysed in the Philippines
before this proposal
was developed.
Oriental Tradeware Ceramics Studies in the Philippines
Collection of oriental tradeware ceramics started even before the birth of Philippine
archaeology since the pioneer antiquarians in the Philippines were foreigners who
collected artefacts during their explorations and travels around the country (Beyer 1947;
Evangelista 1971; Mijares 1998). As Renfrew and Bahn (2000) have explained, most of the
earliest archaeologists came from industrialised Western societies whose economic and
political dominance were believed to convey an automatic right to investigate wherever
they wished. In the Philippines, investigations were initially artefact-collecting expeditions. As
outlined in series of reviews, cultural materials were mostly retrieved from surface
collections and salvage archaeology work in this early period in Philippine
archaeology (Evangelista 1971; Mijares 1998; Ronquillo 1985;
Santiago 2001).
In 1881, Alfred Marche (1887) traveled and explored various parts of Luzon, Catanduanes and
Marinduque. Some of the ceramics he found were earthenware and stoneware burial jars
from Boac, burial jars and urns from Islet Tres Reyes, a yellowish glazed stoneware burial jar
from an undisclosed place in Marinduque, small jars and dishes from the Bathala Cave,
porcelain and stoneware ceramics and burial urns from Pamintaan Cave, and dragon jars
from Gasan (Beyer 1947). Marche brought back to France the artefacts he recovered from all
these places he visited. They are now housed at the Musée de l’Homme in Paris, France.
Carl E. Guthe (1927) was a trained archaeologist, based at the University of Michigan,
who carried out explorations in the Visayan Islands. The project started in 1921 when Dean
C. Worcester returned to the United States with his private collections, mainly of porcelain
pieces. The range of artefacts he collected included trade ceramics (dating from the 10th to the
early 20 centuries), Philippine earthenware, various iron implements, shell, bracelets, glass,
th

semi-precious stone beads and gold ornaments. Guthe’s recoveries were from graves and
burial sites; some were surface finds and others were purchases. These artefacts as well as his
meticulously kept journals now form part of the Asian Collection at the Museum of
Anthropology at the University of Michigan at Ann
Arbor.

Perhaps, the most prominent name among these pioneers in

Philippine archaeology is that of Henry Otley Beyer. Beyer (1947)
conducted archaeological surveys, investigations and collecting tours in
Luzon, Palawan, Mindanao and the Visayan Islands and these were
reported in his seminal work “Outline Review of Philippine Archaeology by Islands and
Provinces”. Beyer’s collection was divided in several portions; some are in the National
Museum of the Philippines and at the Anthropology Museum of the University of the
Philippines. A large amount of the collection including his books, pictures, ethnographic
materials and others were bought by the National Library of Australia in 1972. A portion of
the collection became part of the Roberto Villanueva collections which are presently
exhibited at the Ayala Museum (Diem
2002).

Early collectors of tradeware ceramics in the Philippines were

Americans, one of whom was Evett D. Hester (Evangelista 1971). Between 1930 and 1940,
Hester acquired a large collection of trade ceramics recovered mostly from the Visayas,
Palawan, and Sulu. The collection comprised mostly Song, Yuan, early Ming, and Thai
ceramics. Roughly half of the Hester collection was donated to the Chicago (now Field)
Museum of Natural History and the remainder was in part donated and in part sold to the
University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology. A few pieces of exceptional artistic merit
were placed on loan at the Speed Museum of Art at Louisville, Kentucky.
A considerable amount of oriental tradeware ceramics came from the burial sites in the
Calatagan Peninsula, Batangas Province. These excavations were conducted by in 1930 by
Janse (1941, 1944-1945, 1947) and Robert B. Fox (1959) in 1958 and 1960 to 1961. The material
obtained by Fox is partly in the collections of the Zobel de Ayala Family, partly with the
Lopez Memorial Museum and Library (Barretto-Tesoro 2007) and partly in the National
Museum of the Philippines. A percentage of the ceramics of the Janse expedition were in
the Peabody Museum in Harvard University (Aga-Oglu 1961).
Up to the 1950s, only two persons have worked systematically with the oriental tradeware
ceramics in the Philippines. These were Dr. Beyer and Kamer Aga-Oglu (Fox 1959). In 1941,
Kamer Aga-Oglu became the curator of the division of Orient of the University of
Michigan Museum of Anthropology. She was a specialist in Far Eastern art history. She
described for the first time a whole new range of East Asian ceramics that until then were
unknown even among specialists. She documented the pre-European movement of these
ceramics throughout the Pacific,
West Asia and East Africa. She had a lot of publications regarding the
collection at the University of Michigan (Aga-Oglu 1946, 1948, 1949, 1950,
1955, 1961). In 1974, she was succeeded as curator by Dr. Karl Hutterer.
The period from the 1960s to 1970s was the heyday of ceramic collecting in the
Philippines, as numerous sites were illicitly dug up. Imelda Marcos was among Manila’s
most prominent collector of this period (Diem 2002). Based on the publication of Tantoco
and Tantoco (1976), we know that Marcos’ collection consisted largely of beautiful
examples of Filipino made earthenware and considerable tradeware ceramics from
China, Thailand and Vietnam. The collection also included some superb examples of other
oriental pottery antedating the wares traded into the Philippines such as Tang tomb
figurines, Han period pottery and Ban Chiang painted pottery. Some of these ceramics were not
really found in the Philippines and acquired by Mrs. Marcos abroad.
From 1961 to 1962, Leandro and Cecilia Locsin (1967) carried out controlled excavations at
Santa Ana in Manila but not under the supervision of a trained archaeologist. The
excavations and the artefacts specifically the trade ceramics were published in their book
entitled “Oriental Ceramics Discovered in the Philippines”. In this book, they published
what they recovered from Santa Ana as well as the other ceramics in their collections from
other sites such those that were found in Puerto Galera, Mindoro, Verde Island, Batangas as well
as some heirloom pieces that they purchased.
In 1968, Rosa Tenazas published a report on the excavations they conducted in Pila, Laguna
from 1967 to 1968. The report discussed the excavation activities as well as the burials and
related grave goods such as tradeware ceramics. All this activity in the field of oriental
tradeware ceramics prompted Dr. John Pope to organise what became known as the Manila
Trade Pottery Seminar which was held in March 1968 (Addis 1969). It was the first time that
experts in so many connected studies had met together at a conference. They came from Taiwan,
Japan, Indonesia, United States, Sweden, Germany and Philippines. In 1982, a book on the
Arturo de Santos collections was published (Peralta 1982). The catalogue contained impressive
Philippine earthenware pottery, Chinese, Vietnamese and Thai ceramics.
In the Philippines, ceramic exhibitions sometimes with a corresponding book or
catalogue of that exhibition have focused on cataloguing particular products for example
celadon or blue and white ceramics. Sometimes they highlight wares from specific kiln
complexes
such as Zhangzhou wares and also on describing the forms, decorative
features, stylistic influences and the technological processes by which the pieces were produced
(Diem 2002). Examples of such ceramic books and catalogues are the following: “Zhangzhou
Ware Found in the Philippines: Swatow Export Ceramics from Fujian 16 – 17 century” (Tan
th th

2007), “Chinese and Vietnamese Blue and White Wares Found in the Philippines”
(Gotuaco et al. 1997); “Guandong Ceramics from Butuan and Other Philippine Sites” (Brown
1989); “Chinese and Southeast Asian Greenware Found in the Philippines” (OCSP
1991); ‘Chinese and Southeast Asian Whiteware Found in the Philippines” (OCSP 1993); and
“Chinese and Annamese Ceramics Found in the Philippines and Indonesia” (Joseph
1973).
The problem with these exhibitions, books and catalogues is that the social context in which
these ceramics were used by the ancient Filipinos is mostly hard to determine. This is
because most of the specimens were from private collectors who normally buy from
antique shops and illicit diggers or pot hunters. Also, we cannot be sure if some of these
ceramics really came from the Philippines. According to Kenson Kwok (1993), over the
past decades some Manila antique dealers have acquired part of their stocks from
Hong Kong and the collectors themselves sometimes purchase them when they
travel abroad. Moreover, they normally feature complete ceramics and sometimes
ignore the broken pieces and small sherds which archaeologists normally encounter in
Philippine sites.
In addition, Diem (2002) has argued that certain considerations tend to influence the
selection of exhibits and specimen such as cost of publishing the illustrated catalogues,
the perceived interests of the potential viewing public and catalogue purchasers, and the
available space in exhibition galleries. Therefore, the more visually appealing and unusual
ceramics tend to be selected rather than the modest or commonly found pieces.
Sometimes, ceramics and other artefacts from a particular site (normally in the case of
shipwrecks) are also exhibited (and sometimes with a corresponding book or catalogue). It is
good to know that most if not all of these trade ceramics were obtained from formal
archaeological excavations. And when these pieces are published, the excavation
method, analysis and other archaeological processes and artefacts are discussed. But Diem
(2002) thinks that this approach of exhibiting
ceramics from a particular site (i.e. from shipwrecks) tends to give a
skewed picture of the range of artefacts found in the site. This means that,
once again, sometimes only the beautiful, unique and appealing are featured in the
exhibition as well as in the book or catalogue. Examples of such books and catalogues are
the following: “Discovery and Archaeological Excavation of a 16 Century Trading
th

Vessel in the Philippines” (Goddio 1988); “The Pearl Road: Tales of Treasure Ships in the
Philippines” (Loviny 1996); “Treasures of San Diego” (Desroche et al. 1997); “Weisses Gold”
(Goddio 1997); and “Lost at Sea: The Strange Route of the Lena Shoal Junk” (Goddio et al. 2002).
With the development of archaeology in the Philippines, more sites associated with oriental
tradeware ceramics have been found in the country. Thus, the understanding of oriental
tradeware ceramics has broadened specially in terms of describing, inferring and
explaining the ancient lifeways and culture of the Filipinos. Studies included the use of oriental
trade ceramics in inferring political economy (Junker 2000), social status and stratification
(Junker 2000), trade and social complexity (Nishimura 1992), trading network and
patterns (Orillaneda 2008; Tatel 2002) and many more.
In documenting the oriental tradeware ceramics found in the Philippines, there are already
some systems. For example, to compile the archaeological collection of H. Otley Beyer,
mainly oriental tradeware ceramics, Natividad Noriega and Israel Cabanilla (n.d.)
developed a recording system in which the information regarding particular ceramics was
noted. Some of the information included: the locality where the ceramics were collected
and the name of the collector, the price of the ceramic if it was purchased and many
more. Also, it is applicable generally for complete pieces as it included metric dimensions
of the ceramic and sometimes a sketch of the ceramic. This system is a good example of
identification of ceramics by an expert or specialist because the provenance and dating of
the ceramics were all made by H. Otley Beyer without explanation for the basis of his
identification.
Another system of identification and documentation of oriental tradeware ceramics was
that developed by the National Museum. The system included a form which seems like
an extended version of the Beyer’s collection form. Again, the system relies on expert and
specialist knowledge and is more applicable for whole pieces of ceramics.
In his masters thesis “Patterns of Eternal Exchange in Porta Vaga: Morphometric analysis of
Excavated Tradeware Ceramics at Porta Vaga
Site, Cavite City”, Carlos Tatel Jr. (2002) focused on elucidating patterns of external exchange
in Cavite Puerto by performing morphometric analysis of tradeware excavated at Porta
Vaga in Cavite City. He is part of the team that excavated the site. He also identified the oriental
tradeware ceramics found in the site with the aid of Professor Etsuko Miyata- Rodriguez.
He cross referenced some of his ceramics but not all. Only few of the artefacts were
photographed. He developed a ceramics database of the site using the data management module
of the Statistica software. The ceramic attributes as represented by numeric codes are encoded in
tabular form. The information is in numeric codes which makes it a bit hard to decipher
them because legends are not clearly provided.
Another former student of the University of the Philippines- Archaeological Studies
Program who developed a system of identification and documentation of tradeware ceramics
was Bobby Orillaneda (2008). In his masters thesis “The Santa Cruz, Zambales Shipwreck
Ceramics: Understanding Southeast Asian Ceramics Trade during the Late 15 Century CE”,
th

he analysed the ceramic cargo of the Santa Cruz Shipwreck to address questions on long distance
ceramic trade during the end of the 15 century. Results of his analyses prove that the
th

Chinese resumed exporting ceramics during the Hongzhi years (1488 – 1505 C.E.) despite
the ongoing trade ban and the final destination was the Philippines. He is part of the team that
excavated the site. But it was Monique Crick, a ceramic specialist, who identified and
classified the oriental tradeware ceramics. It was Orillaneda who cross referenced and
matched some of the ceramics from the shipwreck to those found in Calatagan, Batangas. A lot
of photographs were taken but he only showed the complete pieces. He developed a
ceramics database of the site using Filemaker Pro software. The data are in words
that is why it is easy to read the information. But the database is not included in the thesis.
He could have provided a CD copy of the database so that other people can check out the
ceramic assemblages of Santa Cruz shipwreck.

Determination of Oriental Tradeware Ceramics: The Proposed System

For a system to be useful for non-specialist archaeologists, its components must be clearly
explained, which in its sum will be the basis for the level of confidence of any identification.
The following is the required information for the system:
Artefact number/s is/are the specimen number/s of the ceramics
that are written on the artefact/s and are recorded in the Archaeological
Specimen Inventory Record known as Archaeology Form No. 5 of the National Museum.
This is very important because if someone wants to validate your analysis, they can easily
do so by simply locating the ceramic piece through its artefact number/s.
Condition of the ceramic refers to whether the artefact is a complete piece or just a
sherd or sherds.
Ceramic type is subdivided into two: porcelain and stoneware. Porcelain is divided into
blue and white and monochromes such as whiteware while stoneware is divided into
celadon, brown ware, black ware, lead glaze ware and other coloured glazed
stoneware. This typology was adopted from Orillaneda (2008).
The artefact form refers to the shape of the ceramics. For this research, the classification
was based on Wang Qingzheng’s (2002) categorisation and Orillaneda’s typology (2008).
The artefact form was classified into dish, tray, bowl, cup, incense burner and lamp, jar or
jarlet, urn, vase, bottle, ewer, teapot and box.
Part of the ceramic is only applicable if the ceramic is broken into pieces. This is where the
part of the vessel the sherd/s belong/s to is identified. It can be the rim, body, base, handle,
spout, cover, or leg.
In the description, the unique characteristics of the ceramic or of the sherd/s such as the
motif, marks, inscriptions, type of glaze, colour of the glaze, lines, and other designs that can
be found in the ceramic or sherd/s are noted. If the ceramic is complete, some of its
measurements like diameter, height, and others are noted.
Archaeological Context refers to the context in the archaeological site where the oriental ceramic
was unearthed. It can be burial, midden, or just found in the general area or habitation area of
the site. Also, it must be noted where in the site the artefact was found.
Provenance refers to the origin or source of the tradeware ceramic, meaning where it was
manufactured. It can be China, Thailand, Vietnam or Burma. Sometimes, even the kiln sites or
province where the ceramic was manufactured will also be determined and identified.
Dating refers to the associated time or date when the ceramic was manufactured. It will be
expressed in –century CE (current era) form such as 13 to 14 century CE.
th th
Reference/s refers to books, catalogues, and other bibliographic sources where information
on these tradeware ceramics were published. This is where the name of the author, year of
publication, and page number (or plate number) of the book where the oriental tradeware
ceramics in question were also featured were noted. Moreover, if a ceramicist or ceramic
researcher was the source of the dating and provenance of the ceramic, his or her name
is included as well as the year when he or she identified the ceramic, sherd or sherds in question.
Level of confidence of the trade ceramics identification is where the researcher notes how
much cross referencing was done on a particular sample. It ranges from very low to very
high. The confidence level can then guide any reader as to how far an interpretation can be
made based on the ceramics analysed.
In Remarks, the explanation for the level of confidence of identification is given.
Sometimes additional information regarding the ceramic is discussed such as most recent
works available for dating Chinese and Southeast Asian ceramics. Other similar ceramics
but in different contexts and location are also enumerated here with the
corresponding artefact number to show that a particular piece can be found elsewhere in
the site.

Level of Confidence of the Trade Ceramics Identification

An important part of the system of identification is stating the level of confidence in the
researcher’s identification of a piece of pottery. It indicates how sure is the author in the
correctness of his identification for each ceramic or sherd/s. While common practice in ceramic
determination or identification relies on the skill and reputation of the specialist, this
research puts forward a system that can be applied by both specialist and non-specialist. For this
system, premium is placed with cross- referencing of bibliographic sources such as kiln sites
reports, catalogue of exhibitions and other books pertaining to the ceramic type. Also, ceramic
specialists were consulted specially when analysing some “problematic” ceramic types. The
level of confidence is operationalised as follows:
Very High – if the kiln site was identified and there are four or more publications
regarding that ceramic. It will be specified by stating the specific kiln (sometimes just the
country) and ceramic type and form and then VH in enclosed in brackets e.g. Longquan
celadon dish with twin fish design [VH] or Chinese celadon dish with twin fish design
[VH]
because the researcher found at least four sources as recorded in the database.
High - if there are up to three publications regarding a specific ceramic type but the
specific kiln site is not yet identified. It will be specified by stating the possible country of origin
and ceramic type and form and then H enclosed in brackets e.g. Chinese celadon dish with
twin fish design [H].
Moderate – if the ceramic material and style was identified by a ceramic specialist but his/her
analysis is not yet widely accepted in the field and there is still no publication about that
particular ceramic. In short, if the researcher relied on a ceramic specialist. It will be specified by
stating the possible kiln site (or country) and ceramic type and form and then the name of
the ceramic specialist and the year and the words “pers. com.”, which means “personal
communication” in brackets e.g. Guandong celadon dish [Diem, pers. com., 2002].
Low – if only the ceramic material and style was identified e.g. celadon dish
Very Low – if only the ceramic type or material was identified e.g. celadon
This author believes that an acceptable identification should have moderate to very high level of
confidence. This is because it means that there is a basis for the identification such as
bibliographic source and consultation with a ceramic specialist and not just simply relying on
the personal knowledge of the researcher.

Documentation of the Oriental Tradeware Ceramics Identification

After the identification, images must be captured of all the ceramic, sherd, or
sherds that were identified with their respective artefact number/s and scale of
measurement. Then, they must be placed in a clear plastic bag with a sheet of paper
containing all the information stated above.
The database of the oriental tradeware ceramics analysis shall be encoded using Microsoft
Excel and Word 2003. The pictures of the ceramic, sherd or sherds should be hyperlinked for
each entry and can be viewed by clicking the accession number/s. Afterwards, the database
should be stored in a CD so that people can access the database to aid them in their
determination of oriental tradeware ceramics from other sites.
Discussion, Summary and Prospects
Central to the process of doing archaeology is the necessity of understanding the
chronological sequencing of archaeological entities and past events. For this reason, dating in the
past has been one of the most crucial methodological problems facing archaeologists
(Michaels 1989; Renfrew and Bahn 2000; Sinopoli 1991; Thomas and Kelly 2006). Oriental
tradeware ceramics can be invaluable as a reference tool for dating the site, often
providing a useful starting point for defining the historical parameters of a place (Guy 1994).
The discovery of a recognised type of plate or jar indicates a maximum age.
Glazed ceramics, being highly valued in Southeast Asian societies for their exotic character
and sometimes presumed supernatural attributes, may be expected to have a lengthy life
before being discarded through wastage or being committed to a grave site. This may
be characterised as the heirloom problem (Guy 1986). The database proposed in this paper is
helpful in identifying the sequence and contemporaneity of the dating of the ceramics.
This means the database gives a clear picture of the entire oriental ceramic assemblage. It can
show which ceramics are contemporaneous with those others found in the same cultural
layer and which ones are heirlooms. It also addresses the common practice in ceramic
identification of associating pieces to certain Chinese dynasty which is too broad for useful
dating or analysis (see Beyer 1947). For example, instead of saying a particular piece was
created during the Ming Dynasty, the proposed system fine tunes the dating to early, mid, or
late Ming since it reflects the latest data and discovery in ceramic archaeology and art
history. The system will also bring to light in which context the oriental tradeware
ceramics were used in the past by the people who occupied the site. It will show what trade
ceramics were used as grave goods and which ones were found in other contexts such as in
middens, hearths and in the habitation areas of the site.
Traditionally, oriental tradeware ceramic studies are the domain of art historians and
antiquarians. There is nothing wrong with this but the demand of archaeology goes beyond
the concerns of these researchers. Therefore, the approach proposed in this study can be seen as
useful for it nurtures the confluence of art history and archaeology.
However, Diem (2002) noted that indigenous and trade ceramics are too often interpreted
and represented through the lens of present-day
ideas about artistic value, quality, and function. Thus, some art historians
and archaeologists make inappropriate comparisons between the types of pottery found in pre-
colonial sites in the Philippines and fine Chinese ceramics that were manufactured for
imperial use in official-sponsored kilns, or else with celebrated wares made at famous
ceramic centres in China. From this, perspective, low fired earthenware and the products of
Thai, Vietnamese, or “provincial” Chinese kilns are largely viewed as low- quality and as inferior
wares. This kind of prejudice affects this research as well.
This present study relies on cross referencing of available published ceramic data. There
is a bit of difficulty in looking for sources for stoneware jarlets and broken pieces of ceramics.
This is because most of the books that are available normally use whole pieces of ceramics as
illustrations. Also, published materials particularly in the Philippines tend to focus on the
“beautiful,” unique items that are accumulated by antique ceramic collectors which tend to be
whole pieces (Brown 1989; Gotuaco et al. 1997; OCSP 1993, 1991; Tan 2007). There is a publication
on stoneware jars in the Philippines (Valdes et al. 1992) but it focuses on the big storage jars and
heirloom pieces. Among those books that deal with private collection of individuals most if
not all the featured ceramics are complete and are from the celebrated kiln sites (Peralta
1982; Locsin and Locsin 1967; Tantoco and Tantoco 1976).
Few studies have been made and published on Vietnamese and Burmese ceramics that is
why the researcher only has a few sources for them. Most of the books that were published
that can be found in the UP- ASP and the Oriental Ceramics Society of the Philippines (OCSP)
library deal with Chinese and Thai ceramics. But it is also possible that the people who
amassed these books and catalogues prefer Chinese and Thai ceramics, that is why they did
not collect Vietnamese and Burmese ceramics books.
As a summary, the system of determination is composed of two parts namely: identification
and documentation of oriental tradeware ceramics. The identification is written in tabular
form wherein in each column information regarding the ceramic is noted. The information
needed is the following: artefact number/s, condition of the ceramic, ceramic type, artefact
form, part of the ceramic, description of the ceramic or sherd/s, archaeological context of the
ceramic, provenance, dating, reference/s, remarks, and the level of confidence of the
analysis. The
system relies on the cross referencing of available ceramic data. Also, the
level of confidence of the identification for each ceramic or sherd/s will be specified. The data
will then be encoded in a database in digital form.
The system of documentation requires an image of all the ceramics and sherds that will be
analysed with corresponding identification (accession number) and scale. Then, the image
must be hyperlinked with the database. Afterwards, the database should be stored in a CD so
that it will be accessible to people who want to access the database to aid them in their
determination of oriental tradeware ceramics from other sites.
A recommendation for future researchers of oriental tradeware ceramics is to apply the
proposed system in identifying and documenting ceramics from as many sites as possible. In the
process it can be improved on and be made more user-friendly for non-specialists. It is the
hope of this researcher that it will help them understand better the site that they are studying.
It is recommended that the system of documentation may be applied to other artefacts such
as shells, stone tools, biological remains, and other archaeological objects.
To test the system, this researcher has a forthcoming article which will apply this proposed
method of identifying and documenting oriental tradeware ceramics to a particular
assemblage from a specific archaeological site. The tentative title is “Significance of
Oriental Tradeware Ceramics from Babo Balukbuk, Porac, Pampanga,
Philippines.”

Acknowledgements
This article is part of my master’s thesis submitted to the Archaeological Studies Program of the University
of the Philippines. I am most grateful to Dr. Victor Paz (thesis adviser) for the guidance. I am also
thankful to Dr. Mandy Mijares, Dr. Grace Barretto-Tesoro, Dr. Eusebio Dizon, Dr. William Longacre, Ms.
Allison Diem, and Ms. Joy Belmonte for insightful comments and discussions. I would also like to thank
the faculty and staff of UP Diliman Extension Program in Pampanga for their help, support and
generosity. I am also grateful to my two anonymous reviewers and Dr. Grace Baretto-Tesoro for comments
on an earlier draft of this paper. I take full responsibility, however, for its final form.

References
Addis, J. 1969. Chinese Porcelain Found in the Philippines. Transactions of the Oriental Ceramic
Society 37: 17-36.
Aga-Oglu, K. 1946. Ying Ching Porcelain Found in the Philippines. Art
Quarterly 9: 315-326.
Aga-Oglu, K. 1948. Ming Export Blue and White Jars in the University of Michigan Collection.
Art Quarterly 9:201-207.
Aga-Oglu, K. 1949. The Relationships between the Ying Ching, Shu Fu, and Early Blue and
White. Far Eastern Ceramic Bulletin 1:27-33.
Aga-Oglu, K. 1950. Blue and White Wine Pot Excavated in the Philippines. Far
Eastern Ceramic Bulletin 2:66-71.
Aga-Oglu, K. 1955. The So-called Swatow Wares: Types and Problems of Provenance. Far Eastern
Ceramic Bulletin 7:1-34.
Aga-Oglu, K. 1961. Ming Porcelains from Sites in the Philippines. Asian Perspective 5(2):243-
257.
Andaya, B. and L. Andaya. 1982. A History of Malaysia. London: Macmillan.
Barretto-Tesoro, M. G. L. 2007. Social Identities and Earthenware Functions in the 15 Century AD
th

Philippines. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Cambridge.

Beyer, H. O. 1947. Outline Review of Philippine Archeology by Islands and Province.
Philippine Journal of Science 77: 205- 390.
Brown, R. (ed.). 1989. Guandong Ceramics from Butuan and other Philippine Sites. Makati: Oriental
Ceramic Society of the Philippines.
Daniel, G. 1981. A History of Archaeology. New York: Thames and Hudson.
Desroches, J. P., G. Casal, and F. Goddio. 1997. Treasures of San Diego. Paris: Association
Francaise d’Action Artistique, Foundation Elf and National Museum of the Philippines.
Diem, A. 2002. The Heritage Politics of Indigenous and Trade Ceramics Found at Pre-colonial Sites
in the Philippines. Honours Thesis. Murdoch University.
Evangelista, A. 1960. Philippines. Asian Perspectives 4: 1-2.
Evangelista, A. 1971. The Philippines: Archaeology in the Philippines to 1950. Asian
Perspectives 12: 97-104.
Fagan, B. and C. DeCorse. 2005. In the Beginning: An Introduction to Archaeology, 11 ed. th

New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Fox, R. 1959. The Calatagan Excavations: Two Fifteenth Century Burial Sites in Batangas,
Philippines. Philippine Studies 7 (3): 325-390.
Gibson, A. and A. Woods. 1990. Prehistoric Pottery for the Archaeologists.
Leicester: Leicester University Press.
Goddio, F. 1997. Weisss Gold (White Gold). Gottingen: Steidl.
Goddio, F. 1998. Discovery and Archaeological Excavations of a 16 Century Trading Vessel in the
th

Philippines. Swiderland: World Wide First.

Goddio, F., R. Scott, P. Lam, M. Crick, and S. Pierson. 2002. Lost at Sea: The Strange Route of the
Lena Shoal Junk. London: Periplus Publishing.
Gotuaco, L., R. Tan and A. I. Diem. 1997. Chinese and Vietnamese Blue and White Wares found in
the Philippines. Makati: Bookmark.
Guthe, C. 1927. The University of Michigan Philippine Expedition.
American Anthropologist 29: 69-76.
Guy, J. 1986. Oriental Tradeware Ceramics in Southeast Asia, 9 to 16 Centuries. Singapore:
th th

Oxford University Press.

Guy, J. 1994. Ceramic Excavation Sites in Southeast Asia: A Preliminary Gazetteer. Adelaide:
University of Adelaide.
Janse, O. 1941. An Archaeological Expedition to Indo-China and the Philippines:
Preliminary Report. Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 6: 247-267.
Janse, O. 1944-1945. Notes on Chinese Influence in the Philippines in Pre- Spanish Times.
Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 8: 34-62.
Janse, O. 1947. Archaeology of the Philippine Islands. Smithsonian Report for 1946 3883: 345-360.
Joseph, A. 1973. Chinese and Annamese Ceramics found in the Philippines and Indonesia. London:
Hugh Moss Publishing.
Junker, L. L. 2000. Raiding, Trading and Feasting: The Political Economy of Philippine Chiefdoms.
Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press.
Kwok, K. 1993. Report from Asia and Southeast Asia. Oriental Art 39(2):62.
Legeza, I. L. 1978. Trade Ceramics in the Local Cultures of the South Sea (Nanhai) Islands. Paper
presented at the Symposium on Trade Pottery in East and Southeast Asia. Chinese University of Hong
Kong.
Locsin, L. and C. Locsin. 1967. Oriental Ceramics Discovered in the Philippines. Tokyo:
C. Turtle Company.
Loviny, C. 1996. The Pearl Road: Tales of Treasure Ships. Makati: By the Author.
Marche, A. 1887. Luçon et Palaouan: six années de voyages aux Philippines.
Paris: Hachette.
Michaels, G. 1989. “Dating the Past,” in An Introduction to Archaeology.
Edited by L. Adkins and R. Adkins, pp. 168–169. London: Apple Press.
Mijares, A. 1998. Philippine Archaeology in Retrospect. Hukay 1 (2): 5-16. Nishimura, M. 1992.
Long Distance Trade and the Development of Complex
Societies in the Prehistory of the Central Philippines: The Cebu Central
Settlement Case. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Michigan.
Noriega, N. and I. Cabanilla. n.d. H. Otley Bayer’s Collection Accession Card. Unpublished
Manuscript. Quezon City: University of the Philippine- Archaeological Studies Program Library.
Oriental Ceramics Society of the Philippines (OCSP). 1991. Chinese and Southeast Asian
Greenware Found in the Philippines. Makati: Oriental Ceramic Society of the Philippines.
Oriental Ceramics Society of the Philippines (OCSP). 1993. Chinese and Southeast Asian
Whiteware Found in the Philippines. Makati: Oriental Ceramic Society of the Philippines.
Orillaneda, B. 2008. The Santa Cruz Shipwreck Ceramics: Understanding Southeast Asian
Ceramic Trade during the Late 15 Century CE. Masters Thesis. Archaeological Studies Program,
th

University of the Philippines at Diliman.

Peralta, J. 1982. Kayamanan: Pottery and Ceramics from the Arturo de Santos Collection. Manila:
Central Bank of the Philippines.
Renfrew, C. and P. Bahn. 2000. Archaeology: Theories, Methods and Practice.
London: Thames and Hudson.
Rice, P. 1987. Pottery Analysis: A Sourcebook. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Ronquillo, W. 1985. Archaeological Research in the Philippines 1951-1983.
Bulletin of the Indo Pacific Prehistory Association 6: 74-88.
Santiago, A. 2001. Theoretical Development in Philippine Archaeology.
Hukay 3 (2): 1-25.
Sinopoli, C. 1991. Approaches to Archaeological Ceramics. New York: Plenum Press.
Tan, R. 2007. Zhangzhou Ware Found in the Philippines: “Swatow” Export Ceramics from Fujian
16 – 17 Century. Makati: Art Post Asia, Ltd.
th th

Tantoco, R. and D. Tantoco. 1976. Oriental Pottery and Porcelain from the Collection of Imelda
Romualdez-Marcos. Manila: Marcos Foundation
Museum.
Tatel, C. J. 2002. Patterns of External Exchange in Porta Vaga: Morphometric Analysis of Excavated
Tradeware Ceramics at Porta Vaga Site, Cavite City. Masters Thesis. Archaeological Studies
Program, University of the Philippines at Diliman.
Tenazas, R.C.P. 1968. A Report on the Archaeology of the Locsin - University of San Carlos Excvations
in Pila, Laguna. Manila: By the Author.
Thomas, D. and R. Kelly. 2006. Archaeology, 4 ed. California: Thomson Wadsworth.
th

Valdes, C., K.N. Long, and A. Barbosa. 1992. A Thousand Years of Stoneware Jars in the Philippines.
Makati: Jar Collectors Philippines.
Wang Gungwu. 1998. The Nanhai Trade: The Early History of Chinese Trade in the South China Sea.
Singapore: Times Academic Press.
Wang Qingzheng. 2002. A Dictionary of Chinese Ceramics. Singapore: Sun Tree Publishing
Limited.