Asiatic Quarterly Review (Full Title: The Imperial and Asiatic Quarterly Review, and Oriental and Colonial Record): Volume XIII, No. 26 [‎514r] (152/238)

Siam's Intercourse with China.
3 6 5
may have been really manufactured in China, and it is possible that in
the course of time—when coarse imitations were made of them in Siam
and shipped to Muslimic countries by way of Martaban, becoming thus
known by the name of Martabani —this same term was applied on account
of many points of resemblance to the genuine old Chinese celadons, to
the specimens of these articles that had long before that found their way
from China to the Muslimic world. It may be also possible, on the other
hand, that this superior class of porcelain was, in the early days of the
initial establishment of the Chinese ceramic industry at Swankhalok,
manufactured at the latter place as well, its production being afterwards
discontinued through decline of the art amongst the Sino-Siamese de
scendants of the original starters of that industry. Hence the early thin
and transparent Martabani, so appreciated for their excellence of material
and workmanship, would be superseded by gradually coarser products, as
the art went on declining in inexperienced hands, and the secret of the
production of the original superior articles became perhaps lost for ever.
This latter hypothesis cannot be maintained, however, until some specimen
of ancient Swankhalok wares is found, resembling to some extent in excel
lency the superior class of the Martabani. We accordingly adhere for the
present to the view put forward at the outset, ascribing the paternity of
the first-rate Martabani to China, and the merit of the creation of their
inferior imitations to Siam, with Martaban as the port of shipment. This
manner of viewing the question agrees, it will be seen, in a literal sense
with the opinion expressed by the sinologist side, who claim the product
as being of Chinese manufacture, but with the essential difference that,
although turned out by Chinese artisans, it is believed by us to have been
made in Siam, and not in the Flowery Land. At the same time it tends to
strengthen the position taken by Professor Karabacek, who qualifies as a
prejudice the idea that during the Middle Ages China was the only country
where porcelain was manufactured. But where does Dr. A. B. Meyer,
of the Dresden Ethnological Museum—the most acharne of Professor
Karabacek’s opponents—come in with his exclusive theory of the absolute
origin on Chinese soil of indistinctly all the classes of Martabani vessels,
based on the mere negative as well as startling premise that no evidence
can be brought forward to show that real porcelain was made at Maulmein
(Martaban), Rangoon, or Bangkok [!!] ? He might have included Cholon
(Saigon) as well in his indictment, thus completing the list of the places
most noted to residents in Indo-China for the confection of bricks, and
cooking-pots, and water-jars of red earthenware, where no one would
certainly dream—in view of the low alluvial character of the soil—of
looking for the production of articles in any respect approaching to
porcelain. But the most curious of it all is that the worthy doctor—as
a friend of mine afterwards informed me—being apprised of my discovery,
in the course of my archaeological explorations of the country in and about
Swankhalok, of a number of kilns whence glazed wares closely resembling,
especially in the style of manufacture and enamelling, the old classical
Chinese porcelains were turned out, still persisted in his opinion that posi
tively nothing of the kind was ever produced in Indo-China. My object