Conclusions

The implications of this study are clear: it is possible to make distinctions within and between KTC and STA stoneware, and to compare these with contemporary Chinese kiln technologies, on an objective, statistically sound, level based on the chemistry of their vessels, little-studied on a rigorous scientific basis till now.

The next challenge is equally clear: to what extent are these statistical distinctions archaeologically useful? I have hoped to demonstrate that the clustering and shifts in means of key oxide components of body chemistry have suggested changes in ceramic production and diversification in market-demand from KTC to STA with the notable exception of the coalescence of the mercury-jar industry, and that although the ceramic body technologies at both bear superficial similarities to Chinese recipes that their glaze formulations belie a more nuanced picture, even suggesting at the emergence of kilns outside the Chinese main complexes.

Beyond this picture painted by this body and glaze stoichiometry, what further impact can this study have concerning the archaeology of Southeast Asia's antiquity? To this end we must return to the axioms upon which this study is based, namely the study of economic and social networks in the region in accordance with the state of scientific investigation of its material history.

Trade and Exchange of Stoneware (and More) in Southeast Asia, 12th-15th Centuries

In summing up the patterns of human behaviour which can be inferred from the stoichiometry of these sherds and the implications on the historic antiquity of Southeast Asia, it is worthwhile to take a step back and look at these patterns in the larger context of trade and exchange within the region.

Trade channels and connexions existed as more than just means of conveying stoneware (or goods contained therein) from one point to another. Similarly, it would be fallacious to assume every site was a scale-model microcosm of overall trends, even when attempting to differentiate Kota Cina and Singapore by both geographical and temporal distance. Stoneware hence only tell us part — albeit a hitherto overlooked part — of the dynamics which governed people's lives in these times.

Firstly, even within ceramics it is clear that earthenware, stoneware, and porcelain fulfilled very different roles in society, which also undoubtedly differed by the various strata between and within elites and non-elites. Although I have assumed that both Kota Cina and St. Andrew's Cathedral are non-elite settlements, I have invoked STA's proximity to elites resident on "Forbidden Hill" to account for its greater variability. Having demonstrated that we may have to look beyond surveyed Chinese kilns for the source of the glazed sherds (not to mention the compositional outliers), further questions are raised concerning the means (i.e. upon which ships) from and through which they were brought from kilns to ports, and onwards dispersed to settlements. Although shipwrecks can tell us much about the ratios of ceramic vessels upon them, it is necessary to assume their representativeness of trade in the region as a whole.

This brings us to a more contentious issue: namely, the un-representativeness of pottery with regards to trade and exchange as a whole. Inasmuch as ceramics are highly versatile in use and highly taphonomically resistant, permitting study of their essentially unaltered body and glaze fabrics centuries from their final discard or archival, pots cannot be eaten, shaped into (dedicated) tools or learnt from (except perhaps by imitation.) As Fahy (2014) surmises concerning contemporary maritime shipwrecks, ceramics benefit from the wealth of existing literature, whilst metal artefacts and ingots, and especially organic remains, are generally sidelined.

Unsurprisingly, a comprehensive picture only can only truly emerge through the analysis of these multiple dimensions, perhaps first through simple comparison of terrestrial and maritime deposits and seeing if settlements, or combinations of settlements, can account for the volumes of trade seen on the seas; following this, real efforts will have to made concerning the bio-archaeology and materials science of the more perishable goods to gain understandings as to their norms and variability concerning both producers and recipients.

Perhaps through harmonising all of these, it may one day be possible to gain a fleeting glance of the most ephemeral exchanged commodities — the ideologies and philosophies which were espoused, shared, and debated by the inhabitants of these polities, through using these more tangible lines of evidence as proxies.