kendi

KendiAuthor(s): Michael SullivanSource: Archives of the Chinese Art Society of America, Vol. 11 (1957), pp. 40-58Published by: University of Hawai'i Press for the Asia SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20066991 .

Accessed: 13/06/2014 13:59

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

University of Hawai'i Press and Asia Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to Archives of the Chinese Art Society of America.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.58 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 13:59:17 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=uhp

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=asiasoc

http://www.jstor.org/stable/20066991?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Kendi

Michael Sullivan

Art Museum, University of Malaya, Singapore

The story of the kendi in Southeast Asia and the archipelago provides a fascinating illustration of the huge pottery export trade from China, Annam and Siam into this

region. Although it has many variants, the kendi is a drinking vessel whose essen

tial components are a globular body, a neck by which the vessel is both filled and grasped, and a spout at the side for drinking. The Malay word kendi or kundi is believed to be

derived from the Sanskrit kundikay a water-pot. The kundika appears in Hindu iconog

raphy as one of the attributes of Brahma and of his sakti Brahmani, and of Sarasvati, the

Goddess of Learning, and in Buddhism as an attribute of Avalokitesvara. The kundika was also carried by Buddhist pilgrims. However, there is a clear difference between the

kundika and the kendi described in this paper.1 The kundika has an ovid body, long, thin

neck tipped with a tubular mouthpiece, and a cup-shaped spout at the side for filling.

Examples in bronze and earthenware are shown in Figures 1 and 2 ; the former is an eighth century vessel excavated near Chandi Kalasan in Central Java, the latter an earthenware

version of the ninth century from Chandi Prambanan, near by. The kundika is repre sented in several variants on the reliefs of the second gallery at Borobudur (eighth cen

tury) , and is clearly of Indian origin.

The kendi has little relation to the kundika

except in having two openings. It seems probable

that the word kundika came to Southeast Asia

during its indianisation in the first centuries of

the Christian era. When Malaya and Indonesia

were islamicised in the fourteenth and fifteenth

centuries, the kundika as a Hindu and Buddhist

ritual vessel must have disappeared. By that time,

however, the word had been absorbed into the

Malay language (kendi or kundi in Malaya,

gendi in Java), and was henceforth applied to a

form of drinking vessel, the chief characteristic

of which was its large breast-shaped spout, and

which appears to be of native Southeast Asian

origin, although an earlier origin in India cannot

be ruled out. This paper, however, will not deal

with these local forms, which are being exhaus

tively studied by Dr. Carl Gibson Hill of Raffles

Museum, Singapore. They have been produced in

coarse earthenware in Malaya for several cen

turies, but the archaeological evidence for their

earliest appearance on the Malay peninsula is not

conclusive. However, Java provides more clues.

In the Museum in Jakarta are a number of

earthenware vessels with short necks, flanged rims

and large well-formed mammiform spouts (Fig.

3 ). Those whose provenance is known come

from East Java and have been dated on archaeo

logical grounds to the Madjapahit period, late

fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries. A

bronze kendi in the Jakarta collection has the

same attribution. On the available information,

we cannot go any further back than this. In view

of this late date, the question may be raised as to

whether this is possibly a Southeast Asian shape,

or whether it might not have originated in China,

to be exported to the Nan-hai, and there imitated

by the native potters. But if this were indeed a

40



Chinese shape, we would expect to find it in the

domestic pottery of the Tang or at least the

Sung period. To my knowledge, no example has

yet been found, even among the Yiieh-ware

ewers.

I. Some Problem Forms

Several kendi have been published with Tang attributions. One vessel with ribbed body and

spout, and three-clawed dragons in relief round

the shoulder under a green-glaze, may be dis

missed at once. In the possession of Dr. Leonard

B. Cox of Melbourne, it is cited in John A. Pope's Catalogue of the porcelains in the Ardebil Col

lection as "Tang or later."2 The author has since

informed me that though he has not seen the

vessel he is very doubtful about the attribution.

Three other vessels of this type, found in Khmer

sites in Cambodia, deserve more serious consid

eration.3 They are all of miniature size (2 l/z in. to

3 in. high), two have ribbed body and spout, two

are decorated with flowers in relief, all have a

green glaze. Silice and Groslier report that pot

tery of this type (though they do not specify these particular pieces) was found in association

with a well-preserved Tang Dynasty coin of the

Krai-yiian period (713-742). However, the pres ence of a single Tang coin is hardly sufficient

evidence on which to establish dating, and green

glazed wares of the Ming period have often been mistaken for Tang products. As will be seen,

there is plenty of similar material?in the Mu

seum in Jakarta, for example?to show that

these vessels are almost certainly Ming, and the

product of South China kilns. There is as yet no

evidence that China was exporting kendi during the Sung Dynasty; no examples have been found

in the great quantities of Sung export chHng-paiy

tzru-chou, celadon and other wares sent to

Southeast Asia and the Philippines.4 It is there

fore highly unlikely that the manufacture of

kendi started in China in the Tang Dynasty, then lapsed at the same time that the Chinese

export trade was steadily increasing, and was

only resumed again after an interval of four hun

dred years.

When the Siamese occupied Angkor Thorn in

1431, they set fire to the Royal Palace. Recent

excavations on the site have revealed a quantity

of shards below the layer of ash that is all that remains of the palace. These include cbring-pai,

tz'u-choUy celadon, and fragments of a fine gray

ish stoneware with scalloped or ribbed decoration

under a green glaze. These shards could hardly

be later in date than 1431/2. They are evidently the product of provincial kilns in Kwang-tung or Fukien. The indications are, therefore, that

a green-glazed ware of the type of which the

majority of kendi in this class were made was

already being manufactured in some as yet un

identified kilns in South China by the first quar ter of the fifteenth century.

The miniature kendi have yet to be explained. If they are, as Groslier and Silice suggest, water

droppers, this would indicate that the Khmer

people ground ink on an ink-stone after the

Chinese fashion. Such evidence as we have on

this point is conflicting. Chou Ta-kuan, who

visited Angkor with an official Chinese mission in 1296 and has left us in his Ch{en-la fung-fu chi the only description of the Khmer capital in

its heyday, tells us that the Cambodians wrote on

palm-leaves with a small stick which they kept behind the ear?for which obviously no ink or

water-dropper would have been required.5 On

the other hand, two Dominican friars who visited

Angkor in 1570, after it had been under Siamese

occupation for a hundred and forty years, re

ported that, "They have a peculiar writing which

they put down on Chinese paper with a brush,

from left to right, and not like the other peoples of these kingdoms who write backwards like the

Hebrews."6 This of course suggests the use of

Chinese ink, ink-stone and water-dropper, but

this way of writing may well have been intro

duced after the fall of the Khmer empire. Alter

natively, however, these miniature kendi may

have had nothing whatever to do with writing.

They may have been made for some ritual pur

pose, or, more likely, for taking medicine or feed

ing babies. Several of the fifteenth and sixteenth

century Chinese and Annamese kendi in the

41



Jakarta Museum are very small indeed. Dr. van

Orsoy de Flines, who built up that remarkable

collection and is still its curator, has told me

that he is convinced that the prime purpose of

kendi, irrespective of size, was for taking medi

cine.7 They are still made today in Indonesia. In

Java they are used primarily as drinking-vessels, miniature ones being made for children to play with. In Bali, they are used for ritual purposes also. I found earthenware kendi standing on

ledges or in little shrines near the principal Hindu monuments at Gunung Kawi, Guah Gadj ah and

Yeh Pulu, and noticed that they are used for

pouring lustrations in certain traditional cere

monies such as birthdays. These Balinese vessels

are very similar in shape to the vessel illustrated

in an engraving illustrating Lindschoten's Itin

erario, and to the Annamese specimens discussed

below, from which they may be descended.

For the time being the precise dating of this

group of green-glazed kendi must remain an

open question. Their manufacture most probably

began before the end of the fourteenth century, and seems to have continued through the Ming

Dynasty and into the Ch'ing, although the shape underwent considerable modification during the

course of time. The flattened globular body of these vesels, with their disproportionately large

spout, links them with other vessels from Siam

and Annam, about to be discussed, which can

hardly be later than 1500. Moreover, the fact

that these kendi are so very similar both in form

and decoration to those made in Malaya and

Indonesia suggests that they are probably some

of the earliest, and may have provided the pro

totype from which the form was subsequently modified into more characteristically Chinese

shapes at Ching-t?-ch?n and elsewhere.

Also with strong claim to an early date is a

group of kendi, most of which are now to be

found in the Museum in Jakarta, though a few are in private collections in Holland, made in a

light paste and decorated with a variety of floral and scroll motifs in relief on the upper half of the body under a glaze that varies from a creamy

white resembling a rough ting ware to the blu

ish-green tint of cbring-pai. This ware, which

the Dutch collector J. W. van Lier considers may

be a forerunner of te-hua, includes not only kendi but bowls, ewers, jars and boxes with

covers, generally decorated in relief. Of his own

specimens, Mr. van Lier writes in a private letter,

"They were excavated in Southwest Celebes

quite near . . . Macassar, before the war. They are of a type of ceramics which, in Indonesia,

mainly used to be found in South Celebes; a few

pieces were found in East Java, near Singosari

(a former native kingdom which flourished in the twelfth and thirteenth century and was

later conquered by the realm of Modjopahit) ;

during my long stay in Indonesia I have never

heard of any other finding places of this type of ware . . . The whole range . . . has not been

identified. Of late Dr. Volker of the Leiden Museum and I have tried to prepare a paper on

the boxes which seem to us to have been made

from possibly Sung through Yuan to early Ming times . . .

they might have been made somewhere

between Fukien and Annam, both inclusive."

Mr. John Ayers of the Victoria and Albert Mu

seum is of the opinion that this ware is similar

to fragments excavated by Groslier at Angkor Thorn. The specimens in the Museum in Jakarta are dated "eleventh to fourteenth century."8

Three kendi of this type are illustrated in Fig ures 4, 5 and 6. The technique, the scroll motif

and general appearance of the first vessel, in the

collection of Mr. van Lier, has an almost exact

counterpart in a covered box published by Okuda Seiichi in his study of Annamese ceramics,

Annam Toji Zukan, although this should not be taken as the last word on the subject. The other

kendi in Mr. van Lier's collection (Fig. 5) is

decorated with a curious palmate motif, the clos

est parallels to which are to be found in the

underglaze blue-black painted wares made at

Sawankolok. However, I found no fragments of

this ware at the kilnsites of Sukothai or Sawan

kolok. The third, in the Museum in Jakarta, is decorated with lotus leaves (Fig. 6). As can be

clearly seen, the body is made in two parts, prob

42



ably in a mould. On the whole, in view of the

character of the decoration, which seems to in

clude not only Annamese and Siamese but also

Chinese elements, we may very tentatively sug

gest Annam-Tonkin as the place of origin,

though in deference to the views of Mr. van Lier,

who has given considerable thought to the prob

lem, they are assigned to China in our chart of

representative types.

II. Late Fourteenth and Early Fifteenth

Century.

Leaving aside the possibly Annamese vessels

discussed above, it appears that the manufacture

of kendi for export to Southeast Asia started

more or less simultaneously in China, Annam

Tonkin and Siam during the fourteenth century.

It is now possible to date Chinese underglaze red

and underglazed blue porcelain to within a few

decades. The same cannot be said, however, for

the products of the Annamese and Siamese kilns.

The former have not all been positively located,

and while the kilns at Sukothai and Sawankolok have been frequently visited, systematic excava

tions have not been carried out and evidence for

their dating based on historical sources is not con

clusive. However, it is generally agreed that the

Annamese kilns producing blue and white were

active through the fifteenth century and most

probably for some little time before and after it; the kilns at Sukothai were already in production in the middle of the fourteenth century, and

were superceded before 1400 by those at Sawan

kolok, which seems to have remained in produc tion well into the second half of the fifteenth

century, if not later.9 The Siamese kendi known

to me all come from Sawankolok.

1. China. In quite a different class from the

probable fourteenth century kendi discussed

above is the beautiful vessel in the Victoria and

Albert Museum formerly in the Winkworth Col lection.10 It has a globular body with short neck

and flange, and the spout is cone-shaped with

only a very slight convex curve to it?hardly

mammiform at all. The main body is decorated

with a free all-over design of lotus plants; above

a border of formalized lotus petals, a cloud-collar

pattern encircles the base of the neck, which is

decorated with a zigzag design. The same motifs

appear also on the spout. The decoration is car

ried out in underglaze copper-red of a misty,

silvery hue that is most attractive. It is labelled

"second half of the fourteenth century." An

other very similar vessel in the same collection,

also decorated in underglaze red (C. 132-1928),

is labelled "fourteenth-fifteenth century" (Fig. 7). There can be little doubt as to the date of these vessels, which belong to that short period in the early Ming Dynasty when potters were

experimenting with underglaze copper red,

which for this kind of decoration was largely abandoned in favor of the more easily controlled

cobalt blue in the fifteenth century.11 Not many

blue and white kendi of this period have sur

vived, though there is in the Museum in Jakarta a very fine vessel having a long mammiform

spout and short flanged neck, with elaborate

scroll decoration in underglaze blue (Diagram, No. 13, Fig. 14). It is typical of the finest ware

of the Hsiian-te period.

2. Annam. Three kendi attributed to Anna

mese kilns on the grounds of materials and deco

ration appear to belong to the early or middle

years of the fifteenth century. Many of the finest

specimens are in the Museum in Jakarta. Pos

sibly the earliest is a little vessel, only 5 inches

high (Fig. 8). It was found in South Celebes, and is decorated with lotus scrolls under the

glaze with a band of formalized lotus petals round the base. The spout is large and mammi

form, the lip wide, the neck short and undeco

rated. Another similar vessel in a Japanese col

lection has a design of chrysanthemum plants and tendrils.12 Both are stoneware; the blue is

almost black, the glaze a dull grayish colour. A

third Annamese kendi belonging to Mr. Soame

Jenyns is in a different class.18 It has a white

porcellanous body, clear glaze and elaborate

underglaze blue decoration consisting of chfi-lin

43



which chase each other round the body amid

flames, with cloud-scrolls decorating the spout.

The shoulder has a band of elaborate lotus petals,

while a further narrow band of decoration circles

the thick neck. In general proportion and style

of decoration this vessel bears some resemblance

to a large Annamese bottle in the Topkapu

Sarayi Muzesi, Istanbul, dated 145 0.14 In the

Museum in Jakarta also are several very beautiful

Annamese vessels of small size, with wide flange

on the neck and large mammiform spout, deco

rated in a combination of underglaze blue and

red and green enamels (Fig. 9). Jakarta also has

what is perhaps the smallest of all kendi, a tiny

blue and white vessel barely two inches high. Just within our category of kendi is a very curious

Annamese vesel, also in Jakarta, evidently made

in two parts meeting at point, with small neck

and elongated cap. The lower half of the body is decorated with lotus petals in blue under a

light grayish-brown glaze, the upper half, from

which the mammiform spout projects, being

adorned with Chinese dragons.

The Annamese kilns also produced a number

of kendi converted into animals or fishes by re

placing the spout by a head (with a hole through the mouth), and adding a tail to the other side;

wings and feathers, scales and fins, were modelled

on the surface of the body. A splendid example in Jakarta is illustrated in Figure 10. The spout

projects from an elaborate animal head resem

bling a makara, the body, neck and high foot are

octagonal, the body decorated with splendid

fiery dragons in a strong deep blue. In these ani

mal and fish kendi the neck is often, though not

always, half to a third its normal height. A fine

specimen in the shape of a phoenix in Jakarta

is labelled, though on what authority is not

stated, "Fabricaat van Nan Tse Tsjow, Tong

king." Another vessel, in the shape of a dolphin,

covered with a caramel-brown glaze, is in a col

lection in Japan, while a third, elaborately mod

elled in the form of an elephant, is decorated in

underglaze blue with overglaze red and green

(Fig. 11). This delightful beast is barely within

our definition, however; the tail is looped to

form a handle, and it would be difficult to drink

from it.

It is generally believed that the Chinese pot ters quitted Annam-Tongking about the year

1450, and that as a result the quality of porcelain

deteriorated. In the Jakarta Museum are two

Tonkinese vessels of the sixteenth century; they

are made in a dark reddish-brown stoneware; the

body is globular, the neck trumpet-shaped, the

spout straight and conical. They are decorated

with a very crudely modelled dragon in relief

under a gray-green or brown glaze which stops

short of the base. According to the Daghregisters

of the Dutch East India Company, Annamese

pottery was again imported into Batavia during

the mid-seventeenth century, when Chinese

wares were temporarily unobtainable. Possibly

these kendi were imported at that time.

3. Siam. The Siamese kendi are not very dif

ferent in appearance from the Annamese ones.

They have the same rather flattened body and

disproportionately large mammiform spout, and

decoration in grayish-black under a dull grayish

glaze. The kendi from the University of Malaya Art Museum collection is typical (Fig. 12). An

other example, with flowers in ogee-shaped

panels round the body and a tall thin neck?this

last a rather unusual feature?is illustrated by

Okuda.15 In the Museum in Jakarta is a bottle

shaped kendi with a long spout ending in a

phoenix-head, which appears to be decorated

with a moulded design under a celadon glaze.16

It was found in Atjeh, Central Sumatra. Also in

that Museum is a large vessel of exceptionally

fine quality, with fine bluish celadon glaze and

no decoration (Fig. 13). With the exception of

Japanese specimens of the seventeenth century

and later, these are the only kendi known to me

with a celadon glaze. No Chinese celadon kendi

have appeared, which is surprising as, among all

export wares, celadon was at this time most in

demand in Southeast Asia and the Near East.

The paste of Sawankolok is rather granular

and light gray or buff in colour, while that of

Sukothai is dark gray and extremely coarse.

44



While exploring the kilnsites at Sawankolok I

picked up the broken-off mouth of a kendi, in

fine gray stoneware, fired but not yet glazed, and

of a type quite different from the rest of the

shards collected at the site. The upper part, where

the base of the spout joins the shoulder, is deco

rated with three parallel incised lines. Both the

paste and the decoration suggest a Cambodian

origin. If indeed it is Cambodian, then why is a

fragment, fired but unglazed, found at Sawan

kolok? Could it be that after the conquest of

Cambodia by the Siamese in the middle of the

fifteenth century, Cambodian pottery was sent

to Sawankolok to be glazed and fired again? Other explanations are of course possible, but the

presence of this fragment at Sawankolok sug

gests that this might have been the case. Although

Cambodia exported pottery to Southeast Asia,

and especially to the Philippines, no Khmer kendi

have turned up in these regions.

III. The Later Fifteenth Century.

In his book The Art of the Chinese Potter

(1923, plate 109) A. L. Hetherington illus trates a vessel with bulbous body and large mam

miform spout bearing a six-character reign mark

of the Hs?an-te period (1426-35). It is deco

rated with medallions in brilliant turquoise blue

enamel outlined with red, with clouds and other

motifs, and details picked out in gilt. The Hs?an

te reign-mark should not be relied upon, how

ever. Kendi made for export did not carry reign

marks of their period (I know of no other ex

ample) , and in any case the Hsiian-t? mark was

put on pottery throughout the latter part of the

Ming Dynasty. On grounds of style, this vessel

was probably made in the Ch'?ng-hua or Ch?ng t? era, and is of typical export quality.

One of the most beautiful kendi of this period is a vessel which was included in the great col

lection of Chinese porcelain which Shah Abbas of Persia deposited in the shrine of the Sheikh

Safi in 1611.17 It is decorated with an all-over

design of lotus scrolls, and has an elaborate cloud

collar motif round the shoulder. The spout is

more pronouncedly mammiform than before,

but still less so than in sixteenth century ex

amples, and may represent an intermediary stage

of development. Another beautiful blue and

white specimen is in the Museum in Jakarta

(Fig. 14). More roughly made is the kendi in the

Museum in Jakarta decorated with floral scrolls in panels round the body, lotus scrolls on shoul

der and spout and palmate leaves high on the

neck.18 It probably belongs to the Ch'?ng-hua or

Ch?ng-t? period, as does the kendi in the col

lection of Mr. Han Wai-toon of Singapore, illus

trated here (Fig. 15).

IV. The Sixteenth Century.

For our purposes this period may be taken as

embracing the Ch?ng-t? (1506-1522), Chia

ching (1522-1566), Lung-ching (1566-1572) and Wan-li (1573-1621) periods. Now the Chi nese export of porcelain, both from Ching-t?

chen and from the factories in Fukien and

Kwang-tung, had reached its height. Enormous

quantities, from the finest Ching-t?-ch?n to the

coarsest "Swatow," have been found in conti

nental Southeast Asia and the Islands. In general,

the wares of the Wan-li period continued styles

and techniques developed earlier in the century, so the period can be considered as a whole, except

for the emergence during the Wan-li era of a

new style which became fully developed in the

"transitional wares" of the middle seventeenth

century.19 In fact export wares of this period are not easy to date precisely because, unlike the

domestic wares, they did not adhere to a conven

tional repertory of decoration, but borrowed in

a haphazard manner motifs from several earlier

reigns, and adapted them with a freedom that

gives this sixteenth century export porcelain a

peculiar vitality and charm. This charm is partly due to the motifs themselves. The Chia-ching

Emperor was an ardent Taoist, and under his

patronage there appeared first in Palace wares

and later on other more common wares a num

ber of popular Taoist motifs such as the Eight Immortals, and symbols of longevity such as the

pine-tree, deer and crane. It became the fashion

45



also to decorate porcelain with little landscape

vignettes, river scenes, birds, flowers and butter

flies, painted in a style that varies from the deli

cate precision of the finer kraak porcelain to the

rude vigour of the products of some of the pro

vincial kilns.

Typical of these kendi, the great majority of

which are decorated in blue and white, is the pot

bellied vessel in the University of Malaya Art

Museum collection. Its main decoration consists

of an intimate landscape of rocks, flowers and

insects. Two similar kendi in the shrine at

Ardebil are decorated respectively with a river

scene with a sailing boat, and water fowl (pos

sibly teal) among rocks and reeds by a river

bank.20 Another fine example, decorated with

motifs common to the kraak porcelain of the

Wan-li period and fitted with silver stoppers, is

in the Museum at Taiping, Perak. It may how

ever be a transitional piece of the mid-seven

teenth century; I have not had the opportunity to examine it. A beautiful example illustrated by

Hobson (Wares of the Ming Dynasty, plate 44) has an almost identical design on the body, while

a splendid example in the Museum in Kuching, found in a Murut-Kelabit long-house in the up

lands of Northwestern Indonesian Borneo, has a

design of phoenixes flying among clouds.21 Of

the several sixteenth century kendi in the Vic

toria and Albert Museum, one very small one

(No. 1592-1876), acquired in Persia, has a de

sign of babies in panels round the body; another

(No. C. 570-1910) has a ribbed spout, each panel filled with geometric decoration. Round the

shoulder of most of the kendi in this group is a

band of floral scrolls, while a few have lotus

petals (the motif which in older books on ceram

ics is called "false gadroons"). The spout is gen

erally decorated with simpler floral or cloud motifs echoing the design on the body, while the

neck often bears upright palmate leaves, lotus

plants, or delicate plum blossoms, sometimes with

a bird or two perched among them. A beautiful

specimen in the collection of Mrs. Helen Ling of

Singapore has an all-over design of cloud-scrolls

in white reserved on a blue ground (Fig. 16).

None of these kendi bear a proper four or six

character reign-mark on the base, though one of

the vessels in the Victoria and Albert Museum

(C. 45 5-1918) has a Wan-li seal character mark

and several (e.g., V. and A. 1574-1876 and the

vessel in Kuching) have the hare mark, which becomes increasingly common from the sixteenth

century onwards.

There is one rather puzzling kendi in the Uni

versity of Malaya Art Museum (Fig. 17). Of coarse porcelain, the pitted body and spout are

fluted, the neck and shoulder decorated with lotus plants painted in a rough spotty pigment that recalls the technique of the early fifteenth

century. However, the fluting is characteristic

of many late Ming vessels (most common on the

green- and brown-glazed vessels discussed below) and the tapering spout set high on the shoulder

is also not an early feature. We would be safe in

assigning it to the sixteenth century.22

One of the largest groups of later Ming kendi

includes those vessels some of which have hith

erto, on no evidence whatever, been labelled

Tang. They are rather roughly made, the body

and spout are often fluted, and there is fre

quently a design of dragons, flowers or some

other decorative motif in relief round the shoul

der. Some of these kendi have a brown glaze, but

the majority are glazed in green, and occasion

ally, as on a vessel in the Victoria and Albert

Museum (C. 370-1921), the dragons are picked out in yellow (Fig. 18). In body, colour of glaze

and relief decoration this group of vessels bears

a close family resemblance to the "dragon jars"

made in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries

in kilns in South China for export to Southeast

Asia.23 Some stoneware kendi with incised or

moulded decoration under a brown or green

glaze may be considerably earlier than these. Fig ure 19 illustrates a small, roughly potted vessel

with concave fluting on the lower half of the

body and dragons in relief round the upper part.

It was found in South Celebes and is now in

Jakarta. The widely flaring mouth and tapered

46



spout suggest an affinity with the possibly Anna

mese vessels discussed at the beginning of this

article. The Jakarta Museum dates it as early

as the thirteenth or fourteenth century and sug

gests Southwest China or North Tonkin as its

place of origin, yet the resemblance to the pre

vious vessel (Fig. 18), labelled "fifteenth-six

teenth century," will not be missed. The second

vessel in Jakarta is more unusual. It is decorated

with rough floral motifs incised on the paste under a green glaze with patches of yellow. It

was found in East Java and is ascribed by the

Museum to South or Southwest China, four

teenth century. Here too a later date is not

impossible.

A very rough specimen in the University of

Malaya Art Museum (Fig. 20) is made in two

halves, the join being clearly visible down the

sides and across the bottom under the dark green

glaze. It was found in Celebes, and may possibly

have been made by Chinese potters working

somewhere in Southeast Asia. Like many speci mens found in this region, it has elaborate

wrought silver stoppers joined by fine silver

chains. In this case the workmanship is Chinese;

as often it is Malay or Javanese. The fact that so

many kendi are fitted out with silver stoppers

tends to support the view that they originally

had porcelain ones. Also illustrated here is an

other green-glazed kendi in the Taiping Museum

in Perak, Malaya (Fig. 21). Its everted lip, small

faceted spout decorated with fussy little floral

panels suggests a late date. Indeed, the manufac

ture of these green-glazed kendi seems to have

continued well into the Ch'ing Dynasty.

It is curious that, while coarse export ware of

the type popularly known as "Swatow," deco

rated in red and green enamels, was being ex

ported already before the end of the fifteenth

century, very few "Swatow" type kendi have, to

my knowledge, been found.24 This has not been

explained. It is possible that these kilns were only

able to manufacture such relatively simple forms

as bowls, dishes and jars, and had not the tech

nical skill required to fashion the rather complex forms of the kendi, and particularly to master

the problem of getting the tall spout to sit up

right on the flattened bulbous body. It is notice

able that several blue and white kendi which

from their quality seem to have been produced in South China kilns are quite lopsided. One of

the very few "Swatow" type kendi, decorated in

red and green enamels, is illustrated in Figure 22.

It was found in Indragiri, Eastern Sumatra, and

is now in Jakarta. Another vessel in the same col

lection (no. 2331) has ogee-shaped panels set in

a lattice-work design, above which are smaller

panels with birds and flowers; the shoulder has a winding lotus scroll design, the short neck

palmate leaves above a series of panels following

the design on the body. The spout is large, and

tapers towards the base. The decoration is exe

cuted in red, green and turquoise enamels and

the general effect is rather garish.

By this time Chinese potters had invented sev

eral interesting and often highly amusing varia

tions on the kendi form, turning them into birds

and animals. A vessel in the Percival David Foun

dation (no. A 756) may be taken as typical

(Fig. 23). The spout rears up in the form of a

dragon's head, the body is moulded into the coils

of its long tail, while round the base surge the

waves over which the dragon is moving, all exe

cuted in underglaze blue and overglaze red and

green. Only the neck is unchanged; it sticks up

uncompromisingly from the middle of the

dragon's back. Another very similar dragon

kendi, from the island of Halmaheira in the East

Indies, is in the Museum in Jakarta.25 The

phoenix kendi was another happy invention, in

which the bird's head rears up to form the spout; a fine example in blue and white, presumably

acquired in the sixteenth century by Portuguese

traders in Malaysia, is in the Museu Naccional

de Arte Antiga,26 in Lisbon, while an even more

splendid specimen, inlaid with enamel and jewels, is preserved in the Seraglio Museum in Istanbul.27

There is a remarkable vessel in Jakarta in which

the kendi shape disappears entirely in the form of a body of a dragon rampant on a sea of waves,

his wings a-flap, his twisting body ending not in his head, which seems to have slipped half way

47



down his neck, but in an opening for filling the vessel.28 From this opening a handle curves down

to join the lower part of the dragon's back. The decoration is in overglaze red, turquoise and

black, the combination found also on "Swatow"

porcelain; another, even uglier, vessel in the same

collection is shaped like a leaping fish, a motif

very popular in the sixteenth century. It was

found in Sumbawa, Eastern Indonesia.

In the collection formed by the late Nanne Ottema at Leeuwarden in Holland is a kendi in the form of two mandarin ducks side by side,

whose bodies are fused into one.29 One duck looks

up hopefully, his beak slightly parted to reveal the tube of the spout, while his mate curls her

head back and tucks it on his shoulder. The wings and twin tails are moulded on the body, feathers

are painted in underglaze blue, while plants, pre

sumably water-weeds, grow round the lower part

of the body. The neck rises tall and straight out

of their common back and ends, surprisingly, in

a bulbous lotus bud. If we pursue these creatures

further, we soon find ourselves among a group

of vessels that seem to have no connection with

kendi at all. A very curious intermediate piece is the vessel in the Percival David Foundation

(A 761) decorated in underglaze blue, seal red and turquoise enamels (Fig. 24). Here we have

the two birds as before, but the spout emerges as

a short ugly tube between their heads. The neck

is short, barely half an inch high, and covered with a loose-fitting cap or stopper in green with

black spots. It is but a step from this to a group

of vessels in the form of twin mandarin ducks

or twin dragons (sometimes head to tail) with a

spout in one of the animal's heads but no neck,

merely a hole in the middle of the back for fill

ing. Vessels of this type can be traced back

through the pottery of Annam and Siam to the

Sung Dynasty.30 It seems that in the dragon and

phoenix kendi discussed above we have a fusion

of this form, which is quite small and may have been used as a water-dropper, with the conven

tional kendi.

We may conclude this discussion of sixteenth

century kendi with a mention of those in the

form of frogs and elephants. They are not un

common. Examples are to be found in the col

lection of Shah Abbas at Ardebil,31 in the Per cival David Foundation (Fig. 25), Princessehof

Museum, Leeuwarden, University of Malaya Art Museum, Victoria and Albert Museum, and

many other public and private collections. There

is little variation in the basic type, though the

neck may have a design of birds on branches and

the trappings of the elephant may be adorned

with a hare in a roundel (Ardebil collection, no.

29.465) or with little landscape vignettes (Per cival David Foundation, no. A 665); there is

generally a cloud-collar or cloud-scroll round

the neck, and the class as a whole seems to be

from the same kilns as those that produced the

Chia-ching to Wan-li blue and white kendi dis cussed above.

V. The Seventeenth Century.

1. Chinese transitional wares. We have already seen that towards the end of the Wan-li period a new style was emerging, which was to remain

in fashion during the last decades of the Ming Dynasty and the first years of the Ch'ing. No

doubt kendi were made in this style of decora

tion, which made much use of large plant forms

painted in a strong violet-blue, but it is not easy to find kendi of this type; however, it is highly probable that kendi in this "transitional" style

were included in the cargoes of Chinese porce

lain sent to Holland during the last years of the

Ming Dynasty. These are referred to again below.

2. Japanese and other competitors. The three

decades following the fall of the Ming Dynasty were disastrous for the Chinese export trade. Not

only were many of the factories destroyed in the

fighting, but Koxinga, who held out against the

Manchus until 1662, occupied Amoy and later

Formosa and imposed a virtual blockade on the

South China coast. Some Chinese porcelain did

get through to Southeast Asia, chiefly by way of Formosa, but so irregular and uncertain were

deliveries that customers naturally turned to such

other sources of supply as were available.32 Japan, which had hitherto been importing heavily from

48



China, now seized the opportunity presented to

her and stepped up production. In 1650, accord

ing to the Daghregister of the Dutch factory at

Deshima, Japan for the first time imported not

Chinese porcelain, but "porcelain paint"?a

clear indication that she was entering the market

on her own account. Soon Dutch ships were

carrying Japanese porcelain, including imitation

Ming blue and white kendi, to Tongking, Siam,

Malaya and Indonesia, India, Ceylon and Persia.

The Daghregister records, for example, that in

1669 Bengal ordered from Deshima twenty large and small kendi, and a few more in 1674. South

east Asia was naturally the biggest market: in

1671, Chinese junks carried a consignment of 700

Japanese-made kendi from Deshima to Batavia,

and another 600 in the following year. Many were sent on in Dutch ships to Macassar and

Amboina.

A typical specimen in the Taiping Museum is

illustrated in Figure 26. A group of similar ves

sels is in the Jakarta Museum. A kendi fitted out

with Javanese silver mountings is in the collec

tion of Mrs. J. D. Wiersma of Leiden.33 The

body is decorated with sketchy landscapes; the

glaze stops short of the footrim in a straight line.

The ribbed spout tapers fairly sharply towards

its root. This latter is a new feature. It does not

appear before the middle of the seventeenth cen

tury and may possibly be a Japanese innovation.

Other Japanese kendi attempted to imitate, with

varying degrees of success, typical Wan-li blue

and white, as for example the delightful little

vessel in the Museum in Groningen, decorated

with water-birds flying over reeds and adorned

with Dutch seventeenth century mountings.34

The Dutch East India Company also tried to

fill the gap left by the decline in Chinese exports

by bringing pottery to Southeast Asia from

Tongking and even from Persia. The Persian

ceramic industry had received a great impetus

when Shah Abbas (1587-1642) imported three

hundred Chinese potters, presumably from

Kiangsi.35 They and their Persian assistants had

been turning out passable faience imitations of

late Ming blue and white for some years. It is

highly probable therefore that Persia was ship

ping kendi to the Southeast Asian market. In the

Victoria and Albert Museum (no. 998-1876)

is a Persian faience imitation of a Wan-li kendi

(Fig. 27). This particular vessel is unlikely to

have been made for export as it bears the date

1641, at least a decade before Persia could have

hoped to compete successfully in Southeast Asia.

However, the Dutch records show that on a

number of occasions between 1652 and 1682,

company ships carried cargoes of faience from

Gamron on the Persian Gulf to Batavia, and we

may assume that kendi were included among

them.36 So far, no examples of Persian seven

teenth century faience vessels have yet been

identified in Southeast Asia or Indonesia, al

though there are in the Museum in Jakarta sev

eral fragments of faience tiles of almost certain

Persian origin. Perhaps, as Volker remarks, "now

that it is known to have been there, it will also

be found."

VI. K'ang-hsi and Later.

When China settled down once more after the

upheaval of the Manchu conquest and its after

math, she quickly regained control of the mari

time trade, and eliminated all other competitors. Persian pottery was fragile and had to be trans

ported enormous distances to reach its market in

Southeast Asia and Indonesia; Japanese porcelain,

produced in small village kilns and subject to

tiresome export controls, was expensive. Al

though the official re-establishment of Ching t?-ch?n dates from the appointment of a new

director from Peking in 1682, most of the kilns were in full production by the time he arrived on the scene, and the export trade from the

South China factories was on its feet again.

It is hard to identify with any certainty most

of the wares produced under the first Manchu

emperor Shun-chih ( 1644-1661), and in the

first years of K'ang-hsi. They seem to have con

sisted largely of variations on the late Wan-li and

transitional types, and some of the vessels we

have been discussing may well have been made

as late as the early years of the K'ang-hsi era.

49



Those which are unmistakably K'ang-hsi or later

are characterized by hard fine paste, elegant

form, and decoration in a wide variety of styles

which included blue and white, enamels, mono

chrome with overglaze gold, monochrome with

reserved decoration in white slip, and so on. The

vessel tends to be taller, the body no longer flat

tened but globular, the rim generally though not

always everted, and the spout in one of three

forms: either a restrained mammiform shape, or

sharply tapered towards the base, or onion or

bottle-shaped. The spout is now often smaller

than formerly, and set higher on the shoulder of

the vessel, which sometimes takes on a pro

nounced bulge. Numbers of these late kendi have

survived, and we can only take a few examples to illustrate the range of types, which for the

most part appear to have continued in produc tion through the Ch'ien-lung era and well into

the nineteenth century.

Other Examples of the Ch'ing Dynasty Are

Briefly, As Follows:

Blue and white: A tall vessel; on the body rough scroll decoration reserved in white; bulg

ing shoulder with tendrils; tall neck with vertical

leaves; very small bottle-shaped spout; K'ang-hsi. A similar vessel is in the Museum in Jakarta. A typical K'ang-hsi specimen with prunus blos

soms reserved on a blue ice-crackle ground is in

the collection of Mr. John Laycock of Singapore, is illustrated in Figure 28.

Enamel: Famille noire vessel; rather ungainly

shape with prunus design reserved on black on

the body, with sprays of flowers in colour against

white ground, with slight gilding; neck cut

down. Victoria and Albert Museum (no. C. 1107

& A 1910). Kcang-hsi (Fig. 29). This vessel shows clearly how the Chinese potters finally

abandoned all attempt to imitate native Malay sian forms. But for the spout, it is a typical

K'ang-hsi vase.

Kendi with decoration of phoenix and clouds in red, blue, pink, white and yellow enamels.

University of Malaya Art Museum. Early nine

teenth century. Another vessel in a private col

lection in Singapore (Fig. 30) has an elaborate

and much more successful design of scrolls and

peonies executed in pink, yellow, red and green

enamels on a white ground.

"Biberon or hookah-base" decorated with red,

green, yellow, blue and violet enamels. "Acquired in Persia." Victoria and Albert Museum (no.

1679-1876).

Monochrome: Kendi with fluted body and

large mammiform spout; yellowish-green glaze. Princessehof Museum, Leeuwarden. Labelled

"eighteenth century," but possibly earlier. May be a late survival of a Ming type.

Kendi decorated with flowers painted in gold over deep blue glaze. Javanese silver mounts.

Two vessels in Princessehof Museum, Leeuwar

den. A similar vessel with painting in gold over a violet ground is in the collection of Mr. Tan

Yock-seong of Singapore. K'ang-hsi.

Kendi with flowers painted in gold over an

apple-green glaze. Mr. Tan Yock-seong. Ch'ien

lung (Fig. 31).

Kendi with globular body, tall neck and deep blue monochrome glaze (Jakarta) : K ang-hsi.

Kendi with fluted body, tall neck with wide

flanged mouth, greenish-yellow monochrome

glaze (Jakarta) : eighteenth century. Both this

and the preceding vessel are labelled as having been made in Fukien.

Slip decoration: Kendi with designs of cranes

and clouds reserved in white slip on a coffee

brown ground. Victoria and Albert Museum

(no. C. 963-1910): Keang-hsi.

It is not clear when China ceased making kendi

for export. There are specimens as late as the

nineteenth century, but it does not appear that

their manufacture and export continued into the

twentieth. This is not easy to explain, for al

though their use, and local manufacture, died

out in Malaya early in this century they are still

in use in Java and Bali. This problem is referred to again below.

50



VIL Kendi in Europe.

A small number of kendi were imported into

Europe from the sixteenth century onwards. The

Portuguese, deeply as they were engaged in the

local trade, did not carry large quantities of por

celain to Europe itself, though we have men

tioned a phoenix kendi of the sixteenth century

now in the National Museum in Lisbon, and no

doubt there are others in private collections in

that country.

The large-scale introduction of Chinese por

celain into Europe began only with the estab

lishment of the Dutch East India Company's

factory at Batavia, and with the first public sales

in Holland, in 1602 and 1604, of porcelain from

captured Portuguese carracks (whence the term

kraak ? or carrack

? porcelain). We do not

know whether there were any kendi in these con

signments, the latter of which comprised no less

than thirty tons of this precious cargo. The

kendi was in any case already known to Euro

peans from Linschoten's description of it in his

Itinerario of 1596 (where it is called a gorgo

letta) .37 There is no mention of it in the records

of the Dutch factory at Batavia until 1626, when

a consignment of porcelain destined for Holland

included 258 "gorgelets." In 1639 Batavia or

dered, via Formosa, a large consignment, to in

clude "200 gorgelets without ribs, smooth and even like no. 5 sample," which were to be in

"the fine, rare porcelain painted in clear blue."

It became the custom for the Dutch to send out,

or have made in Batavia or Formosa, wooden

models as patterns for the shapes they required. It is not clear here whether in this case such a

model was provided or not; however, as this is

not a European shape, it is probable that the

sample was another porcelain kendi of a type

which had already proved popular in Holland.

A big order for Holland in 1645 included a

further two hundred kendi. How were they

used? Volker says that in the seventeenth cen

tury they were to be found as drinking vessels in

every Dutch household in Batavia. The Dutch at

home, however, seem to have had another use for

them. A number are depicted in seventeenth cen

tury interior and still-life paintings. Perhaps one

of the earliest examples is a large painting in the

Mauritshuis, the Hague, entitled "The Atelier of

Apelles" by W. van Haecht, who died in 1637. It shows a typical Wan-li or transitional type

blue and white kendi standing in a large kraak

porcelain dish. The kendi is fitted out with a

silver stopper and a gracefully-curving silver

handle attached by a band top and bottom to the tall neck, converting it thereby into a pitcher.

Thus, during the wave of enthusiasm for Chinese

porcelain which swept Holland in the first half

of the seventeenth century, kendi, for which the

Dutch had no practical use as drinking vessels,

seem to have been treasured as curiosities and

sometimes, as in this case, adapted to the needs of

the Dutch housewife. It was this fashion in

chinoiseries rather than practical demands, no

doubt, which led to kendi being copied in the

European factories. I can find no record that any

were exported to Southeast Asia after the fall of

the Ming Dynasty, so they must have been made

purely for European collectors. A delightful ex

ample is a blue and white kendi in the form of a

frog made in Frankfurt in the latter half of the seventeenth century, and now in the Museum f?r

Kunsthandwerk in that city.

Some General Observations.

There is no conclusive evidence as to the time

and place when the kendi first made its appear ance. The reliefs on Borobudur show related or

ancestral forms, but no existing vessels, whether

of Chinese, Javanese, Annamese or Siamese origin, seem to be earlier than the twelfth or thirteenth

century. They are still being made today with

the "teapot" spout in Java and Bali, and were

also produced in Malaya until about fifty years ago. China seems to have ceased exporting them

early in the nineteenth century, Japan somewhat

earlier. It is not clear why China stopped sending them to Southeast Asia. European pottery was

imported in increasing quantities from the mid

eighteenth century onwards, but seems not to

have included kendi. This would suggest that

there was no longer a demand for them, yet we

51



know that this was not the case as locally-made kendi are still in use in Java and Bali. Possibly in course of time their use became more and more

restricted to that section of the population which

could not afford to buy imported wares.

While the mammiform-spouted kendi is gen

eral throughout Malaysia, the trumpet-mouthed,

teapot-spouted version appears to be confined to

Java. The fact that the earliest Chinese export

kendi have the latter spout suggests that by the

end of the Sung Dynasty China may have devel

oped closer commercial ties with Central and East

Java than with other areas.

The evolution of the shape as shown on our

diagram makes it clear that as Chinese (and for

a short time Japanese) exports to Southeast Asia

increased less and less attempt was made to imi

tate local Southeast Asian forms. While the four

teenth and fifteenth century vessels are very sim

ilar to native Malay and Javanese forms, Chinese

eighteenth century kendi are in purely Chinese

shapes, the only concession being the mammi

form spout, which now shrinks to little more

than an excrescence on the shoulder of a typical

Ch'ing vase or bottle. The great prestige which

Chinese ceramics came to acquire in Southeast

Asia and the Archipelago made it unnecessary

for Chinese exporters to continue any longer to

take consumers' demands into account.

In many European collections kendi are still

labelled as hookah or narghile-bases. Tobacco

smoking was not introduced into Europe until

the sixteenth century, and did not reach Persia

until the seventeenth, so it is quite clear that this

was not the vessel's original function. However,

it seems that smokers in the Near East often

found that their kendi made a good narghile base, and adapted it to that purpose. The

narghile requires a rather small outlet high on the

body. The mammiform spout of the traditional

kendi was generally too large and was set too low

on the flattened body to be efficient, and conse

quently we find that the Persian potters began to modify the shape, reducing the size of the

spout and placing it high on the body which itself

became more globular. Typical seventeenth cen

tury Persian examples of this form, decorated

respectively in blue and white in a combination

of underglaze blue and enamels, are in the Vic

toria and Albert Museum (no. 427.1828) and

British Museum. The requirements of the nar

ghile seem to have had some influence on the de

sign of Chinese and Japanese vessels, for these

features are frequently found in kendi from the

K'ang-hsi period onwards. A typical Persian sev

enteenth century example is shown in Figure 32

(Victoria and Albert Museum, no. 611-1889).

It is decorated in blue, red and greenish-brown

enamels, and the spout has shrunk almost to noth

ing. Other Persian examples, decorated in under

glaze blue and in a combination of underglaze

blue and enamels are respectively in the Victoria

and Albert Museum (no. 427-1828) and the

British Museum.

NOTES

1. See Han Wai-toon (Han Wei-ch?n), "A Research on Kendi," Journal of the South Seas Society 7, 1 (1951), and Coo

maraswamy and Kershaw, "A Chinese Buddhist Water Vessel

and Its Prototype," Artibus Asiae 3, 2/3 (1928-9), 122. The

problem of the origin of the kendi is further reviewed by John Alexander Pope in his valuable work, Chinese Porce

lains from the Ardebil Shrine (1956), 116-8. See also T.

Volker, Porcelain and the Dutch East India Company ( 1954) ,

p. 19, note 5, on the subject of "gorgelets."

2. Plate 137 B.

3. A. Silice and G. Groslier, "La C?ramique dans l'Ancien

Cambodge," Arts et Arch?ologie Khmers 2 (1924-6), plate 9

4. Cf. Michael Sullivan, "Archaeology in the Philippines," An

tiquity 118 (June, 1956).

5. Paul Pelliot (Oeuvres Posthumes III), M?moires sur les Coutumes du Cambodge de Tcheou Ta-kuan, Version nou

velle, suivie d'un commentaire inachev? (1951).

6. A. Cabaton (tr. & ed.), Br?ve et V?ridique Relation des Ev? nements du Cambodge par Gabriel Quiroga de San Antonio

(1604), (1914), 98.

7. De Flines believes that this theory is born out of the fact that

the native Javanese earthenware kendi are all equipped with a stopper with a long pin projecting down into the neck, to

prevent the stopper falling off and the liquid from spilling when being consumed by someone lying in bed. If kendi were

used for taking medicine, the stopper would also have helped to keep the potion hot. An interesting local specimen in the

Museum in Modjokerto, East Java, of the fifteenth century, has a magical demonic figure engraved on the lower part of

the large mammiform spout. See W. F. Stutterheim, "Een interessante kendi van Trowoelan," with a postscript by E. W.

van Orsoy de Flines, Tijdschrift voor Indische Taal-, Land- en

Volkenkunde 81, 4 (1941). Rough modern earthenware

kendi made in Java and North Borneo also have a stopper. For the latter, see I. H. N. Evans, "Bajau Pottery," Sarawak

Museum Journal N.S. 5 (July, 1955), p. 298 and plate X.

The author believes that Chinese porcelain kendi in the Ming

period also had stoppers. Of the large number I have traced,

only one, a vessel in the Percival David Foundation with a

cut-down neck, still has its stopper.

52



8. These wares appear to be related to a white ware with deco ration in trailed slip, numbers of fragments of which were found on the site of the Royal Palace at Angkor Thorn, and to other slip-decorated wares from East and South China of similar type. Specimens are illustrated in Basil Gray's article "Art Under the Mongol Dynasties of China and Persia,"

Oriental Art N.S. 1, 4 (1955), Figs. 2, 3 and 4. The positive identification of all these rough ch'ing-pai export types, made at kilns within a huge arc from Kiangsi to Indo-China, is ex

tremely difficult.

9- Praya Nakon Prah Ram, in his article, "T'ai Pottery," Journal of the Siam Society 29.1 (August, 1936), puts the begining of the Sukothai kilns at 1359, the removal to Sawankolok he dates 1374, while he assumes that production came to an end in 1446 when the population was possibly removed to

Chiengmai. Charles Nelson Spinks ("Siam and the Pottery Trade of Asia," J.S.S. 44, 2 August, 1956), considers that the kilns ceased work during the latter half of the fifteenth

century. However, as D. G. E. Hall has shown (History of Southeast Asia, 1955), there is no precise historical evidence as to when and under what circumstances the Sawankolok factories were abandoned, for abandoned they definitely

were, some of them with fired pots still stacked in the kiln. It has been suggested that the absence of Sawankolok wares from any Southeast Asian site of the sixteenth century offers a clue. In fact all that can be legitimately inferred from this is that pottery was no longer being exported, not that it was not being produced. It is likely that the mass-production and

mass-export of Chinese pottery drove all other competitors, including the Siamese, off the market, in just the same way that the Chinese recovery after the establishment of the Ch'ing

Dynasty put an end to the export trade built up by Japan during the middle decades of the seventeenth century.

10. No. C.54.1937. Illustrated in Soame Jenyns, Ming Pottery and Porcelain (1953), plate 20A.

11. Fourteenth-fifteenth century underglaze red has been found

very widely distributed in South and Southeast Asia and along the East coast of Africa. Professor H. Otley Beyer, in a letter to Sir Harry Garner and the writer, states that it has turned

up in a dozen different sites in the Philippines, while Gervase Mathew reports numerous finds in East Africa, from Cape Guardafui to as far south as Kiliva. See his "Chinese Por celain in East Africa and on the Coast of South Arabia," Oriental Art N.S. 2, 2 (Summer, 1956).

12. Annam T?ji Zukan, Fig. 38.

13. Jenyns, Ming Pottery and Porcelain, Fig. 68A.

14. Ibid., Fig. 38B.

15. Okuda Seiichi, S?koroku Zukan (1944), plate 49.

16. E. W. van Orsoy de Flines, Gids voor de Keramische Ver

zameling (1949), Fig. 82. Also in Jakarta is a Sawankolok kendi in the shape of a chicken, similar to the Annamese

specimens discussed above but much more roughly executed.

17. Pope, Ardebil, plate 69.

18. De Flines, Gids, Fig. 44.

19. Invaluable for the study of the export ware of this period is T. Volker's Porcelain and the Dutch East India Company. See also the following: Nanne Ottema, Chineesche Ceramiek,

Handboek . . . Verzamelingen in Het Museum Het Princesse

hof te Leeuwarden (1946); John A. Pope, "The Princessehof Museum in Leeuwarden," Archives of the Chinese Art Society

of America, V (1951); for Indonesia, de Flines, Gids (op. cit. ) ; for the Philippines, my article in Antiquity referred to in note 4 and the sources there quoted; for Malaya, see below,

note 24, and the following: Tony Beamish, "First Report on 'The Johore Lama Hoard'," Malayan Historical Journal 2, 1

(July, 1955), and G. de G. Sieveking, "Recent Archaeo

logical Discoveries in Malaya" (1954), Journal of the

Malayan Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 28, 1 (March, 1955). For Borneo: Tom Harrison, "Ceramics Penetrating

Central Borneo," Sarawak Museum Journal N.S. 6 (Decem ber, 1955); for the Philippines: See my article in Antiquity

No. 118 (August, 1956) and the sources there quoted.


21. Sarawak Museum Journal N.S. 6 (December, 1955), plate XL This vessel has the hare mark on the base.

22. "Chinese Export Porcelain in Singapore," op. cit.

23. Another very similar vessel, with the same convex fluting on the body and concave on the spout, is in the Museum in

Jakarta. It was found on Salajar Island, South Celebes, and is dated around 1600 A.D.

24. Much ink has recently flowed on the subject of "Swatow" ware, a term to which strong objection has been taken. "Swatow" ware means quite specifically a type of coarse por celain made in South China, decorated with bold, often almost

carelessly executed designs, either in underglaze blue or enamels or a combination of both, or with incised or slip decoration under a brown, powder-blue or pale-blue glaze. The base is roughly finished and there is generally kiln-sand

adhering to the footrim. It is now generally recognized that this ware was not made at Swatow at all, but at kilns either

up river at Ch'ao-chou or Fung-k'ai, at Shih-ma, Pa-kwoh or

Tong-an in Fukien, or?though this is less likely?in Kwang tung. The evidence for Ch'ao-chou is suggestive rather than conclusive. Contributors to the "Symposium on Ch'ao-chou

Wares" (Ear Eastern Ceramic Bulletin 5, 2 June, 1953) show that Ch'ao-chou was the center where pottery exported via Swatow was manufactured, but they do not describe the

ware itself nor prove that "Swatow" ware, as here defined, was made there. One writer (Irving S. Brown) refers to a basketful of shards collected at the kiln-site and sent to some

person (the Editor?), but as they are neither illustrated nor described it must be assumed that they throw no light on the

problem. The term "South China export ware" has also been

suggested, but this is not very helpful either as it would in clude everything from Kwangtung stoneware to Te-hua por celain. Some authorities have suggested an English equivalent for the old Dutch term grove (coarse) porselein; but this could equally well refer to the rougher domestic wares. Until the place of manufacture of this ware, with its unmistakable

characteristics, is known, it seems sensible to continue to call it "Swatow" ware (in inverted commas), which has the virtue of being readily understood. For further discussion of this

problem, see Kamer Aga-Oglu, "The So-called 'Swatow' Wares: Types and Problems of Provenance," Ear Eastern Ceramic Bulletin 7, 2 (June, 1955), and Michael Sullivan, "Chinese Export Porcelain in Singapore," Oriental Art N.S.


26. R. L. Hobson and Sir Percival David, "Chinese Porcelain at

Constantinople," Transactions of the Oriental Ceramic Society (1933-4), plate 8B.

27. Ibid., plate 8A.


29- John A. Pope, "The Princessehof Museum in Leeuwarden," Archives of the Chinese Art Society of America, V (1951), plate 8A.

30. For Siamese specimens, see Okuda Seiichi, S?koroku Zukan, plates 30, 50 (kneeling figure), 51; for Annam, see Annam

T?ji Zukan, Figs. 22, 43, 44.


32. For details, see Volker, op. cit., 117 ff.

33. Volker, Fig. 28.

34. Volker, Fig. 29.

35. Arthur Upham Pope, A Survey of Persian Art (1939) 2, 1650.

36. Volker, op. cit., 113 ff.

37. Ibid., p. 19, n. 5.

53



List Of Illustrations

Fig. 1. Kundika, bronze. Height about 10 inches. Central Java, 8th Century. In repository of Archaeological Service, Pram banan.

Fig. 2. Kundika, earthenware. Height 11 inches. Central Java, 9th Century. Jakarta Museum.

Fig. 3. Kendi, earthenware. Heights, 7 and 6 inches. East Java, Mahjapahit period, l4th-15th Century. Jakarta Museum.

Fig. 4. Kendi, stoneware, moulded relief decoration under

creamy glaze. Height 7 inches. Found in Southwest Celebes. South China or Annam, 13th-l4th Century. Collection J. van

Lier, Amsterdam.

Fig. 5. Kendi, stoneware, moulded relief decoration under

creamy glaze. Height 5V? inches. Found in Southwest Celebes. South China or Annam, 13th-14th Century? Collection J. van

Lier, Amsterdam.

Fig. 6. Kendi. Stoneware, moulded relief decoration under

creamy glaze. Height 6 inches. Found in Gombong, South Central Java. South China or Annam, 13th-14th Century? Jakarta Museum.

Fig. 7. Kendi. Porcelain, painted in underglaze copper-red. Height 5*4 inches. China, I4th-15th Century. Victoria and Albert Museum.

Fig. 8. Kendi. Porcelain, underglaze blue decoration. Height 4}4 inches. Found in South Celebes. Annam-Tonkin, 15th Cen

tury. Jakarta Museum.

Fig. 9- Kendi. Porcelain, underglaze blue and overglaze red and

green decoration. Height 4^4 inches. Found in South Celebes.

Annam-Tonkin, 15th Century. Jakarta Museum.

Fig. 10. Kendi. Porcelain, underglaze blue decoration. Height 61/2 inches. Found in South Celebes. South China or Annam, 15th Century. Jakarta Museum.

Fig. 11. Kendi? Stoneware, overglaze red, green and yellow deco ration. Height 6M inches. Found in South Celebes. Annam

Tonkin, about 1500 A.D. Jakarta Museum.

Fig. 12. Kendi. Stoneware, underglaze bluish-black decoration.

Height 5M inches. Sawankolok, 15th Century. University of

Malaya Art Museum.

Fig. 13. Kendi. Stoneware, light blue celadon glaze. Height 6 inches. Found in Atjeh, North Sumatra. Sawankolok, 15th

Century. Jakarta Museum.

Fig. 14. Kendi. Porcelain, underglaze blue decoration. Height 6V4 inches. Found at Bangli, Middle Bali. China, 15th Cen

tury. Jakarta Museum.

Fig. 15. Kendi. Porcelain, underglaze blue decoration, silver

stoppers and chain. Height 6^/2 inches. China, late 15th Cen

tury. Collection of Mr. Han Wai-toon, Singapore.

Fig. 16. Kendi. Porcelain, underglaze blue decoration. Height 6

inches. China, late 16th Century?early 17th Century. Col lection of Mrs. Helen Ling, Singapore.

Fig. 17. Kendi. Porcelain, underglaze blue decoration. Height 614 inches. China, 16th Century. University of Malaya Art

Museum.

Fig. 18. Kendi. Stoneware, moulded decoration under deep green and yellow glaze. Height 6J/2 inches. China, 16th Century.

Victoria and Albert Museum.

Fig. 19. Kendi. Stoneware, moulded decoration under brown

glaze. Height 4^4 inches. Found in South Celebes. South China or Tonkin, 14th-15th Century? Jakarta Museum.

Fig. 20. Kendi. Stoneware, moulded decoration under green

glaze, silver stoppers and chains. Height 7 inches. Found in Celebes. South China? 16th Century. University of Malaya Art Museum.

Fig. 21. Kendi. Stoneware, moulded decoration under green

glaze. Height 7 lA inches. South China, 17th-18th Century. Perak Museum, Taiping.

Fig. 22. Kendi. Porcelain, red and green overglaze decoration.

Height 8 inches. Found in Indragiri, East Sumatra. South

China, 16th Century. Jakarta Museum.

Fig. 23. Kendi, in form of a dragon. Porcelain, decorated in

underglaze blue and overglaze red and green. Height 9 inches.

China, 16th Century. Percival David Foundation of Chinese Art.

Fig. 24. Kendi, in form of twin ducks. Porcelain, decorated in

underglaze blue and overglaze red and green; stopper green with black spots. Height 4 inches. China, 16th Century. Percival David Foundation of Chinese Art.

Fig. 25. Kendi, in form of an elephant. Porcelain, decorated in

underglaze blue. Height 7 inches. China, late 16th Century. Percival David Foundation of Chinese Art.

Fig. 26. Kendi. Porcelain, decorated in underglaze blue. Height 7 Ya inches. Japan, 17th Century. Perak Museum, Taiping.

Fig. 27. Kendi. Faience, underglaze blue decoration. Height 7 inches. Persia, dated 1051 A.H. (1641 A.D.). Victoria and

Albert Museum.

Fig. 28. Kendi. Porcelain, underglaze blue decoration. Height 7 inches. China, K'ang-hsi, 1662-1722. Collection of Mr. John

Laycock, Singapore.

Fig. 29. Kendi. Porcelain, underglaze blue and overglaze decora tion with slight gilding. Height 514 inches. China, K'ang-hsi, 1662-1722. Victoria and Albert Museum.

Fig. 30. Kendi. Procelain, with overglaze decoration in yellow, pink, red and green. Height 8V2 inches. China, 18th Cen

tury. Collection of Mr. Ch'en Wen-hsi, Singapore.

Fig. 31. Kendi. Porcelain, with enamel decoration over apple green glaze. Height 9 inches. China, Yung-cheng, 1723-1735. Collection of Mr. Tan Yock-seong, Singapore.

Fig. 32. Narghile or hookah-base. Faience, decorated in under

glaze blue, overglaze red, and greenish-brown. Height 12 inches. Persia, 17th Century. Victoria and Albert Museum.

54



Fig. 3

Fig. 1

Fig. 2

Fig. 8

Fig. 4

Fig. 6

Fig. 3

Fig. 7

Fig. 10



Fig. 11 Fig. 12

Fig. 13 Fig. 14

Fig. 15

Fio. 16 Fig. 17 Fig. 18

Fig. 19 Fig. 21



Fig. 22

Fig. 24

Fig. 27

Fig. 30

Fig. 25

Fig. 28

Fig. 31

57

Fig. 23

'!^'?*^^i:

Fig. 26

/' t?ftw^i

Fig. 29

Fig. 32



J600 T ~~

11900

MS.1957

KENDI J AVA

SOME REPRESENTATIVE TYPES NOT TO SCALE

C HINA ,^V^ "?

ANNAM SIAM

PEBSIA l60?

JAPAN

1700!

MALAYA JAVA BALI

1800

KEY TO DIAGRAM. Note: The position of a kendi on the chart indicates an approximate date only.

JAVA 1. Kundika, detail of relief; Borobudur, second gallery, east side.

2. Earthenware; Jakarta Museum (Fig. 2). 3. Earthenware; East Java (Fig. 3). 4. Earthenware; East Java. 5. Bronze; East Java.

ANNAM 6. Underglaze blue; Collection of Soame Jenyns. 7. Enamel; Jakarta Museum (Fig. 9). 8. Underglaze blue; Jakarta Museum (Fig. 10).

SIAM 9. Celadon; Jakarta Museum (Fig. 13).

10. Underglaze blue-black; University of Malaya Art Museum

(Fig. 12). CHINA 11. Cream glaze; J. W. van Lier ( Fig. 5 ). 12. Underglaze red; Victoria and Albert Museum (Fig. 7). 13. Underglaze blue; Jakarta Museum (Fig. 14). 14. Underglaze blue; Ardebil (Pope, Catalogue, Plate 69). 15. Underglaze blue; Han Wai-toon (Fig. 15). 16. Underglaze blue; Mrs. Helen Ling (Fig. 16). 17. Underglaze blue; University of Malaya Art Museum (Fig. 17). 18. Brown glaze; Jakarta Museum (Fig. 19). 19. Green and yellow glaze; Victoria and Albert Museum

(Fig. 18). 20. Underglaze blue and enamels; Percival David Foundation

(Fig. 23). 21. Underglaze blue; Percival David Foundation (Fig. 25).

22. Green glaze; Ardebil (Pope, Catalogue, Plate 120). 23. Underglaze blue; Ardebil (Pope, Catalogue, Plate 97). 24. Underglaze blue and enamels; Percival David Foundation

(Fig. 24). 25. Green glaze; Perak Museum, Taiping (Fig. 21). 26. Underglaze blue; University of Malaya Art Museum. 27. Enamels; Ch'en Wen-hsi (Fig. 30). 28. Underglaze blue; University of Malaya Art Museum. 29. Enamels; Victoria and Albert Museum (Fig. 29). 30. Enamels; Tan Yock-seong (Fig. 31). 31. Enamels; University of Malaya Art Museum.

JAPAN 32. Underglaze blue; Jakarta Museum.

33. Underglaze blue; Jakarta Museum. PERSIA 34. Underglaze blue; Victoria and Albert Museum.

35. Underglaze blue and enamels; Victoria and Albert Museum

(Fig. 32). MALAYA

36. Earthenware; Perak Museum, Taiping. 37. Earthenware; Perak Museum, Taiping. JAVA 38. Earthenware; University of Malaya Art Museum (Current

type). 39. Earthenware; University of Malaya Art Museum (Current

type). BALI 40. Current type.

58



kendi

Documents