Shards: Contemporay and Historical Ceramics at Ban Ko Noi, Thailand

Abstract

This thesis, cross disciplinary in Fine Art and Anthropology, was inspired by my first visit in 1994 to the historic kiln site at Ban Ko Noi in central northern Thailand, where I met the Australian Don Hein, the chief archaeologist. The old kiln mounds that were littered with uncountable shards affected me profoundly as an artist and as a potter. At Ko Noi too there were contemporary potters, for Hein had re-introduced stoneware to this farming hamlet in 1985. The thesis explores both of these productions, and documents Hein’s importance.

The evidence for a tenure, methods of production, and influences for the historical ceramics is investigated. While there is a consensus that glazed stoneware began by the 13th, and was finished around the end of the 16th century, I propose that technology already existed as there was unglazed stoneware made from very early times. Then glazed stoneware was gradually introduced during the 10th century as social rather than technological change.

There is also an assumption that Chinese and/or northern Thai technology pervaded kiln, clay and glaze technology as Ban Ko Noi may be thought to be at the extremity of a geographical diffusion, but I present an argument that development was largely indigenous to Ko Noi. A specialised production model is developed to describe both the old and new potters, and to indicate that as part time small scale potter farmers they had much in common. I avoid the use of the term industry, and propose that historic production remained family oriented and craft based, so did not ever evolve to full time.

Material culture, the relationship between people and objects, forms the link between artistic practice and social science. Works of art were produced over six exhibitions and a semester as artist in residence at the University of Chiang Mai. The shard inspires this art: the point where the relationship breaks down and possession becomes artefact, the present becomes past, and the human presence signalled by its absence.

Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION

The study of South East Asian ceramics is a compelling adventure because of the dearth of records left by the potters themselves or by merchants or others who dealt directly with the manufacturing centres themselves prior to the sixteenth century (Richards 1995: 4).

The sight of thousands of shining wet five hundred-year-old celadon shards gleaming in the sunset was a significant emotional event for me as a potter and as an artist. The hairs on my arms stood up, I was hooked; my life changed (Hearn 2002: 4).

1.1 Introduction

The focus of this thesis is a little village at the north of the central plains in Thailand. Ban Ko Noi, situated between old and new Si Satchanali (Figure 1.1), is both the main production centre of the historical stoneware ceramics production of several centuries ago, and of a contemporary reintroduction.

Figure 1.1. Location map of kiln sites in Thailand (Asian Art Museum 1993:ii)

It was at Ban Ko Noi that the compelling adventure of the study of South East Asian ceramics was to begin for me when I first met Don Hein and his wife Toni there in July of 1994.

We had booked to visit Thailand for the first time on a short holiday as tourists, and one morning before we left, my wife called my attention to an item on the morning television program showing an Australian archaeologist at work on a kiln site in Thailand. I rang the TV station and spoke to the cameraman who luckily had kept Hein's address. I wrote to Hein asking to visit and received a warm invitation to do so. On our arrival in northern Thailand, I rented a car at Chiang Mai and drove to Ban Ko Noi, several hours away. I spoke almost no Thai in those days, and had not driven in Thailand before, but luckily managed to arrive, late in the day right at the Hein's house in the little village.

At first sight Ban Ko Noi seemed like any other farming hamlet, but Don walked me out to see the kiln grounds just a short distance along the dirt track right beside at the River Yom (Fig1.2).

Figure 1.2: Kiln mound in museum grounds at Ban Ko Noi.

All was quiet; there were no other people around. The sun was low, and it had been raining. There were kiln mounds (Figure 1.3) up to several metres in height of brick and other rubble, the surfaces littered with broken ceramics or wasters. The sight of thousands of shining wet five hundred-year-old celadon shards gleaming in the sunset (Figure 1.4) was a significant emotional event for me as a potter and as an artist. The hairs on my arms stood up, I was hooked; my life changed.

I spent a restless night in the noisy village - dogs, frogs, roosters, drunks partying, leaking, dripping roof and monks with begging bowls at dawn. In the morning a further profound experience awaited, for the villagers I stayed with were also potters.

	Figure 1.3 (left) Detail of kiln mound. Figure1.4 (above): Thousands of celadon shards litter the Ko Noi site.

There was no particular studio other than under and around the house. The garden had a cleared vegetable patch, but what had been cleared were not stones but celadon shards now stacked against the bases of coconut palms (Figure 1.5), for there were old kilns, estimated at over one thousand, around and through the village Hein (1990). Hein was at home here, for he has been researching at Ban Ko Noi since the late 1970s (Figure 1.6). Five hundred years later potters were again at work because in 1986 Hein had reintroduced ceramics to the Ko Noi villagers who up till then had been subsistence farmers.

Figure 1.5 (above): Celadon shards in villager's garden. Figure 1.6 (right): Don Hein at Wat Pra Prang gate.

Although Don had begun to explain the kiln site and his personal involvement in all of the major work there to me, I realised that this was not enough and at the same time too much to be absorbed in a couple of hours. The full impact of the history, origins, influences and developments could not be grasped: besides I had questions already. Two things were clear however, the history of Thai ceramics, to use a cliché, had come alive for me, and I had become aware of the fascinating part Hein himself played in the story of ceramics at Ko Noi.

This thesis can be seen as the direct outcome of that first 1994 visit: the work of Don Hein himself, the story behind the old shards and the new potters at the kilns of Ban Ko Noi, and all of this as inspiration for works of art.

1.1 How could such a little Thai village of Ban Ko Noi be so significant to South East Asian ceramics?

Ban Ko Noi, which literally means village (Ban) and island (Ko Noi) is situated between the ancient walled city and the modern town of Si Satchanali that are now fifteen kilometres apart. Si Satchanali is located about fifty kilometres north of the old capital city of Sukothai. It is just a little farming village beside a river on the upper edge of the central plains of Thailand, yet centuries ago this was the site of the biggest ceramics centre in Thailand with a very large stoneware production that became geared for the export market (Hein 1999). Dating to medieval times, it is not just one of the largest but also one of the best preserved ceramic sites in South East Asia.

Ban Ko Noi was not then, and is not now, a thriving metropolis or a centre of power, yet it sustained an industry that lasted for hundreds of years. How could this be so? The exploration of this question through an investigation of the historical ceramics production of central Thailand during the medieval era becomes the central focus of this thesis.

What was the tenure of the pottery? How and when did stoneware production begin in Thailand, and what were the developments and influences? Why did the export industry fade away and stoneware ceramics production in general disappear after so many centuries of production? If the industry had lasted for hundreds of years, and the wares exported throughout the region, what circumstances were so significant to cause the end?

1.2 What was known about Ko Noi ceramics?

When I began to investigate what was written about the history and methods of production of these kilns, there were as many questions as answers. Some things were self-evident, some information surprising, and some that just didn’t ring true. To me, the most fascinating aspect of the study of Thai, and Ban Ko Noi ceramics is that a great deal is still unknown. In part this is due to the almost complete lack of information recorded at the time of the ancient ceramics production (Richards 1995, Krairiskh 1997). While the later kilns and ware typology were now well researched and documented (Hein 1985 a etc, Brown 1988, Richards 1995, Rooney 1997), I found that ideas about the beginning and end of the industry were still not well resolved.

For example, the huge kiln mounds, some several metres tall, littered with thousands of shards were evocative. I recognised these shards, on Hein's prompting, to be wasters or rejects from hundreds of firings, but it was easy to understand how one of the first western visitors, Fournereau (in Brown 1988:77) based on his 1892 observations, described the scene as a catastrophe. He thought the kilns had been thrown down by invading barbarians even as they were firing, and war remains one of the most common explanations for the demise of the ceramics industry.

1.3 What were the suggested origins of stoneware in Thailand?

As the name suggests, stoneware is a hard dense ceramic because it is fired so high that the clay vitrifies and becomes impervious. This is an important property because stoneware can be used to store liquids. Ceramics may be classified according to purpose as utilitarian or architectural/sculptural, and utilitarian wares as domestic or prestige, and by firing temperature as earthenware or stoneware, and both may be decorated but can be glazed or unglazed. Low-fired earthenware occurs widely throughout the world, and can be made by firing without any kiln at all. There was no glazed ware at all in Thailand until stoneware. Because it is high-fired, the specialised production of stoneware requires an advanced level of ceramic expertise, both in kiln building and firing, and in knowledge of clays and glazes. Only that of porcelain, which curiously the Thais did not produce, surpasses stoneware technology. We take stoneware ceramics for granted today, from toilet bowl to tableware, but few countries in the world at that time produced glazed stoneware, none of them in Europe and all of them at or near the border of China. The proximity to China is held to be significant (Brown 1988: 2, Richards 1995: 11, Hein 2001: 29).

There are several options to be explored that might explain the origin of the stoneware production, but Chinese intervention is the most widely held and indigenous development is considered the least likely (Brown 1988:74). After the Mon, the Khmer held power over central Thailand before the Sukothai era and can be considered as possible sources of some of the knowledge (Grave 1995). Thailand has a long history of earthenware ceramics and metallurgy, which could have provided some transfer of techniques, though smelting bronze, forging iron and firing earthenware each use industry specific technology (Hein 1987 b). But the first Thai kilns, in ground kilns, were so simple to construct that there was probably no need for a major technology transfer. Rather, there could have been a spread of some basic knowledge through trade and cultural contacts to meet developing endogenous cultural factors promoting new or increased demand for glazed stoneware (Renfrew 1986). Alternatively, stoneware production may have been introduced from a yet unidentified source (Hein 1999). In this thesis I propose that the appearance of glazed stoneware at Ban Ko Noi was a simple development from unglazed stoneware.

From excavations at Ko Noi, Hein (1990) has established that the first stoneware kilns were simply dug out holes somewhat like a rabbit burrow, excavated into a slope, usually a riverbank and so were called bank kilns (Hein1990). Grave (1995) suggests that bank kilns could fire to stoneware only with difficulty. These kilns were already known in the north of Thailand at Kalong (Prah Ram 1936). Nimmanahaeminda had discovered the kilns at Samkamphaeng, Phan and Phayao in the 1950s and published on these in 1960 (Shaw 1993), but in ground kilns were not known at Ko Noi until Hein (1980) fortuitously found and subsequently excavated kiln KN36.

Bank kilns (Figures 1.7 and 1.8) seem to have occurred widely in the Asian region (e.g. Rhodes 1981: 22, Ho 1995: 131), and in early times in China (Medley 1989). Chumei Ho (1995: 129) has given the title Lanna kiln to these Thai kilns. In this thesis the term Lanna kiln is also adopted.

Figure 1.7: Sketch of a bank kiln being stoked (Hein 1990: 224)

Figure 1.8: Japanese Cave Kiln (Rhodes 1981: 22).

1.4 What circumstances lead to the end of production?

Though there is more information available about the later era, mystery still surrounds the circumstances of the end of production. There is a general consensus amongst writers that production did decline by around the late 16^th century (Hein 1999). Many theories, largely hypothetical, exist to account for what may have caused the end (eg Shaw 1989, Bronson1990, Bishop et al.1994, Grave 1995, Rooney 1997). These scenarios vary from wars to environmental impacts to globalisation. One of the most common is the Burmese invasion of the late 16^th century when the Burmese held Ayuthaya for about twenty years (Brown 1988, Shaw 1989).

Bishop (Bishop et al. 1994) undertook geomorphologic survey work at the Si Satchanali site to investigate a possible impact of river floodings and in particular sedimentation. Grave (1995) suggests that large amounts of Spanish silver, Chinese merchant control of trade and rapid commodification in a newly emerging global economy caused the sudden demise of the Sawankhalok export ceramics industry, which had quickly become uncompetitive by the first quarter of the 17^th century. It is certain that production has ceased at the kiln sites, and there is no evidence of Sawankhalok wares in export contexts either, by the early 17^th century, or even after the end of the 16^th century (Hein 1999).

It seems more probable that the industry faded away rather than fell to some single sudden or catastrophic event. Hein (1990) points out that the last kilns are worn kilns fired out to the end of their working life. Ceramics in Thailand decline both at Sawankhalok and in Lanna (Shaw 1989), so theories for the demise must be broad enough to encompass both productions. In the thesis I document and compare proposed scenarios that might support the terminal dates for the tenure of stoneware ceramics both at Ko Noi and in the north of Thailand, but can reach no conclusion. The mystery remains.

1.5 What was the
tenure of the historical ceramics production?

Archaeological evidence, including dating of kilns by means of radiocarbon, thermoluminescence and palaeomagnetic correlation (Barbetti and Hein 1989), if taken at face value, would indicate that the stoneware production period at Ban Ko Noi may have been longer than seven centuries, from before perhaps the 10^th to the early 17^th century. KN 110, the oldest dated kiln at Ko Noi is dated to around 1070, but there were earlier versions of the kiln, and the youngest kiln, KN 111 dates to 1650 +/- 60 (Barbetti and Hein 1989).

There are a few dates for other kiln sites throughout Thailand, but these are mostly single dates for individual kilns. The series of dates for Ko Noi kilns represents the only available sequence for Thailand. Given the margin of error, the dates, particularly for pre 13^th century beginnings are not widely accepted. Most writers tend to see the major production beginning contemporary with the establishment of Sukothai (Brown 1988, Shaw 1989, Richards 1995, Rooney 1997). In the thesis I critically evaluate the available evidence to propose a chronology for Sawankhalok stoneware.

1.6 How did Don Hein come to be the central figure in the recent explorations and significant new discoveries at Ko Noi?

In these first few pages of the thesis, Hein has been mentioned or actually referred to nineteen times. Any survey of South East Asian ceramics and of Thai in particular will refer to his work. Although I rely heavily on his research findings and have come to consider him as a mentor, I have also come to consider him a friend. Hein treated me as an equal, for he knew of my background as a potter, and often turned questions back with a comment to consider an answer based on what I would deduce from my own experience.

My first impressions of Hein were that he was a modest, quietly spoken man at home at the kiln sites, and who spoke with great personal insight, for he had spent more than twenty years researching the ceramics there. Hein was unassuming, tall, thin and balding, and his answers to my questions were factual and authoritative, but with an underlying sense of adventure. It was quickly apparent that also important to his work has been his wife Toni who speaks with a sharp mind both about the historical production and the ins and outs of village life and the contemporary potters.

I realised that the Heins' own role was inextricably bound up in the story of both the historical production and the contemporary Ko Noi potters. I felt a sense of drama and romance about his work totally lacking in published articles on the subject. This might be expected, for scientific journals have a particular format. Apart from these articles, very little has been published on Hein's work, so I wanted to fill this gap in knowledge, and to capture a more human feel in a biographical survey of his life and work at Ko Noi. I felt that the best way to do this was to conduct a formal interview with him, and this interview (Hearn 2001) is included as part of the thesis in Chapter Four.

TCAP, the Thai Ceramics Archaeological Project
Hein's work at Ko Noi had been made possible by a large joint Thai-Australian research program, (TCAP) over seven years during the 1980s, which had its focus at Ban Ko Noi. Hein was the on site director and principal researcher and the project was formed as a direct result of his important independent 1980 discovery of an in ground kiln, KN 36, a type previously not known at Ko Noi.

It was clear that Hein and TCAP had made significant finds – “ remarkable discoveries ” (Burns et al. 1984: 66)). The excavation of the KN 42 mound (Figures 1.9 and 1.10) disclosed a sequence of twelve kilns built one over the other. But I was surprised to observe that on the subject of TCAP Hein's body language was withdrawn and he spoke defensively and only in general terms. It appears that TCAP had not been brought to a successful conclusion and Burns, the project leader, had published little.

Figure 1.9: Sketch from my field notes of KN 42 sequence of kilns.	Figure 1.10: Kiln KN 42 excavation, showing sequence of kilns.

Although Hein would speak only in a veiled manner, it was apparent that the team had met with difficulties, some of these apparently personal differences, for rather than to praise, Burns now sought to discredit Hein by inaccurately claiming: “He was kicked out of the country” (Burns pers. comm. 1997).

This seemed to me unfair, knowing Hein’s meticulous fieldwork and responsible reporting and long-term commitment. I resolved to document the circumstances of TCAP as far as possible given that up to twenty years had now elapsed, and in particular to acknowledge Hein's work. Apart from a couple of chatty news magazine type articles, one of which compares his research to Harrison Ford and The Raiders of the Lost Ark, nothing academic has been written at all on Hein and his discoveries.

1.7 What were the influences on Thai ceramics?

TCAP aside, on the subject of the kilns, Hein spoke passionately in the interview about the clear evidence he felt that he had discovered for indigenous development on site. Once the small inground excavated kiln appears at Ko Noi, it progresses to large surface built brick form through a series of logical steps over perhaps a couple of centuries. These were based on often fortuitous events occurring at the site that the potters could recognise as useful, such as the noting of accumulated detritus subsequently leading to built firewalls (Hein 1990).

The southern Chinese pottery making provinces had developed the climbing or dragon kiln, so called because it is long and sinuous and stretches up hill, and the earliest climbing kiln so far excavated is dated to 843 (Ho 1996). The second common Chinese kiln was the smaller coal fired mantou or steamed bun kiln (Vainker 1995: 221), used in northern provinces of China by the Song Dynasty. Thai stoneware ceramics production overlaps the Song, Yuan and Ming dynasties.

In China, the climbing kiln was already widely in use by the late 10^th century (Tan 1989), but the Ko Noi potters were still using inground Lanna kilns until the 13^th century. The same kiln format was then developed into a built surface version and these same kilns were used throughout and until the decline of the industry at the end of the 16^th century (Hein 1990). While the origin of the Lanna kiln is moot (Ho 1990, 1995), it is clear that there was no sudden Chinese intervention (Shaw 1989).

I was surprised to find that until Hein's discovery of kiln KN 36, the traditional and still widely held view was that a legendary king believed to be Ramkamhaeng (RKH) imported a group of actual Chinese potters in the 13^th century to start the stoneware industry from scratch (Krairiskh 1997). Since the RKH introduction has been seriously questioned on archaeological, historical and linguistic grounds (Hein 1985 b, Vickery 1987, Krairiskh 1988), the general consensus remains that Chinese intervention was important, and writers have subsequently suggested indirect transfer. The dissemination of ceramics knowledge, “the widespread influence of Chinese ceramics technology over the region” (Tyn and Rooney 2001:58), came directly from China, or via Vietnam (Richards 1995), as small groups of itinerant potters or migrating populations (Brown 1988). These authors argue that the least likely explanation for the beginnings of the Thai potting industry is that it was a local invention as the making of stoneware is such a complex process of many variables, and the proximity to China cannot be a coincidence (Brown 1988, Richards 1995).

But coincidences abound. The coincident dates of the Jia Jing shard and the Burmese invasion in the late 16^th century, and the establishment of the city of Ayuthaya in 1351, and the earliest dated blue and white porcelain wares are just two of many more. Did these events just happen to occur simultaneously, and were there common causal links, or completely different circumstances? I determined to challenge these suggestions of influence due to the proximity to China and the unlikelihood of independent developments. Ko Noi ceramics had had such a strong impact on me that I was not prepared to accept that the potters might have been just derivative. As a fellow potter, I identified strongly with the potters old and new and wanted to acknowledge their uniqueness and to show that their ceramics was no Chinese based coincidence.

The question is, gut reactions aside, what evidence could be found to support the potential for invention by potters of Ban Ko Noi? Rather than accept Chinese dominance, and then seek evidence to support this, as other writers had done (Spinks 1965, Willets 1971, Brown 1988, Shaw 1989, Richards 1995), I resolved to explore the possibilities for the strength of the Ko Noi potters themselves to invent, control and respond to change over centuries based on their own experiences and skills rather than relying on introduced knowledge to solve problems.

Based on my experiences as a potter, and of having built and fired many kilns, the kiln is the single most important part of the production of pottery. If the development of the kiln was not Chinese inspired, how much of the other methods of production such as clay and glaze might also be largely indigenous and localised initiative?

1.8 Who were the potters, both old and new?

With my background as a potter using wood fired kilns; empathy and a five hundred-year time warp affected me profoundly. When I returned to Ko Noi the next year, I recognised smoke from a wood fired kiln rising above the village (Figures 1.11 and 1.12). It was both a homecoming and a step back in time. In reality, the reasons were pragmatic, as the potters knew that I was coming and had prepared a firing on the expectation of more photos and sales when the kiln was unloaded. However I felt such a powerful sense of intuition … déjà vu?

I understood the methods of production of the contemporary potters, and much was also revealed of the potters of old by the remains of kilns and the shards. It seemed to me that the potters of today could have been those of yesterday. After all, they were in the same place, using the very same clay, making the same sort of pots fired in similar kilns fired in the same way with the same fuel.

The modern Ko Noi potters have no central management. The pottery making is usually a family affair, and studios in the main are an ad hoc use of available space in, under and around the house. They are nearly all farmers as well as potters. As the area is in a rain shadow, making farming marginal, a second occupation provides much needed income.

Figure 1.11: Kamlomg's earthenware kiln, based on the historical model.	Figure 1.12: Oot Kukong firing to stoneware in a contemporary Don Hein designed kiln.

How was the ancient production organised, and how similar might the potters and their methods of production been? The two ceramics productions are very different, but can they be shown to have some commonality? After all, they have their beginnings perhaps a millennium apart, from the 10^th to 20^th centuries. While the historical production lasted several centuries to around the 16^th century, the contemporary production has so far only been in existence for just sixteen years, since 1985. These circumstances might well make any attempt at comparison difficult.

1.9 A specialised craft production model

In the thesis, a model is developed to be able to discuss and compare the historical and contemporary origins, influences, and tenure. Most specialised craft production models are American or European and suggest an evolution as society becomes more complex (Rice 1981), and deal with the (Marxist) economic manipulation of surplus (Arnold 1985). The study of the methods of bronze metallurgy in prehistoric Thailand (White and Pigott 1996) gives a South East Asian context, which may be applicable to ceramics too (Grave 1995).

The comparative model is based on the parameters of scale, concentration, intensity, and context of Costin (1991) and modifications to these (Grave 1995). The contemporary potters, in Costin's terms, are part time in intensity largely due to the wet and dry seasonal climate of a monsoonal regime. They are wet season farmers and dry season potters. The pottery is small scale mostly at household level, and dispersed in concentration as studios are in the main ad hoc use of available space in and around the house. Without external control or management, the production operates at village or family level context, with demand largely economic and tourist oriented.

Could the historic production have operated in a similar fashion? The thesis aims to document and compare the two ceramics methods of production using the parameters of Costin, but in the South East Asian context suggested by White and Pigott for metal smelting and casting. With regard to the contemporary production, only two short articles have been published, both on the beginnings (Fordham-Edwards 1987, Randolph 1994/5), but until this thesis there has been no documentation at all of the methods of production or the potters themselves.

1.10 How could I use Ban Ko Noi and the shards to inspire my works of art?

As well as my interest in the history and production of ceramics as a potter, the events at Ban Ko Noi had also impacted on me as an artist. On my return to Australia I started a series of drawings based on the shards, and began to read everything I could find on Thai ceramics. I soon realised that I needed research to support my inspiration as an artist, and that the study of Thai ceramics would need my own focused fieldwork program.

I began this in September 1996 with a semester as artist in residence at Chiang Mai University. This position allowed field trips to kiln sites throughout Thailand. At the conclusion of this residency an exhibition titled Shards was held, the first of a series of six exhibitions that culminate with the thesis presentation in two gallery venues in Darwin.

The thesis is cross disciplinary, and the broken ceramic or shard links art and anthropology through material culture, the study of the relationships between people and objects. Material culture is not a discipline in itself, but is the foundation for, and the point of articulation of the study of objects in context, and “the dialectic of the meaningfulness of objects” (Miller and Tilley 1966: 6).

Until this time, my work had been largely figurative, but the Ban Ko Noi shards led me to develop the theory of post-object ceramics. The important point in the relationship between people and objects is when the object is broken or otherwise discarded and the object moves from possession to artefact, and the human presence signalled now by its absence.

1.11 Thesis structure

The thesis explores the historical production, but the shard remains a powerful inspiration for works of art. The survey examines evidence for the tenure, origins, and possible reasons for the decline of the historical production. As well as the influences, developments in methods of production provide information for a study of the specialised ceramic production of both the historical and contemporary potters. One major outcome of the thesis is the documentation of the work of the principal archaeologist at Ban Ko Noi, Don Hein.

All of these act as a catalyst for making art.

1.12 Summary of Chapters

In the Second Chapter, a discussion on background information provides a context for ceramics production. The riverside location of the Ko Noi site itself, close to the northern mountains but in a rain shadow at the top of the central plains has important implications for the development of stoneware ceramics. There is lack of source material. Huge amounts of ceramics were recovered and sold illegally and undocumented from the Tak and Omkoi hill tribe burial sites in the 1980s. Given the dearth of accurate Thai historical information in general, export locations such as habitation sites and shipwrecks provide much needed evidence about Sawankhalok ceramics. The impact of regional trade on demand for, and style of ceramics is discussed, where the influence of China is seen from a cross-cultural rather than a culturally imperialist stance.

In Chapter Three the background to Thai ceramics is explored to support and document the possible origins for Sawankhalok ceramics. The traditional view, RKH and the import of Chinese potters is discussed at length, as well as other suggestions such as the influences of small groups of immigrating potters, and the possible Mon or Khmer cultures' role in the introduction of stoneware before the Sukothai era.

Chapter Four includes an interview with Don Hein, the ceramics archaeologist who has now spent more than twenty years in the field at Ban Ko Noi and other South East Asian ceramic sites. The Chapter has now been published in the SPAFA Digest (Hearn 2001). The TCAP outcomes and other evidence discussed in Chapter Five provide a basis for the establishment of a possible timeline for the tenure of Sawankhalok and Lanna ceramics.

Chapter Six looks at possible origins for the Lanna kiln and stoneware ceramics for Thailand. In Chapter Seven, the initial production of unglazed but vitrified domestic stoneware, particularly jars, is suggested to be important to the understanding of the developments as the demand for wares is based on social needs, and the type of kiln is based on the type of wares fired in it. Most ware typologies begin about the 13^th century with Mon or early Si Satchanali classifications for the first glazed ceramics. Typologies usually emphasise only glazed Sawankhalok export production, but the production of unglazed vitrified jars is one of the key but overlooked factors underlying Thai ceramics.

In Chapter Eight, the export era and surface kilns are explored, as well as the historical potters and specialised craft production. The Lanna kiln's demonstrated indigenous progression from in ground excavated kiln to constructed surface built brick is investigated. The wares of this period are briefly discussed, with a deeper investigation of the Sukothai fish plates.

Chapter Nine discusses possible Chinese influences. The chapter argues that kiln technology is largely indigenous and not Chinese, and other methods of production, clay and glaze, also show limited external transfer of technology. There are significant similarities in form design and decoration imitated or copied, sometimes incorrectly. These similarities are suggested to be due to a common export demand rather than deep-seated cultural influence.

First prestige glazed ware, well before the export period, is mostly glazed jars together with bowls and a few other forms. The first internal Thailand demand for glazed wares such as the paan or stemmed bowl might be due to religious requirements both for ceremony and as vessels for burying cremated ashes. The export phase is only associated with constructed surface kilns, and in the 14^th and 15^th centuries a wide range of forms develop. As several excellent ware typologies exist, it is not the intent to reclassify or add to typology.

In Chapter Ten, the scenarios for the demise of Thai stoneware are documented. These range from environmental factors, trade and regional economics, and warfare to demand from European fashion. All the proposals are hypothetical, but there does seem to be a consensus that the Sawankhalok and Lanna ceramics production faded away around the late 16^th or early 17^th century.

Chapter Eleven and Chapter Twelve document the contemporary production and the re-introduction of stoneware ceramics to Ban Ko Noi by Don Hein in 1985. The villagers were then poor subsistence farmers, and had no previous pottery making experience. Hein's project has been based on low cost, low maintenance production with hands off management. Without a centralised or attached production control, a small-scale part time production by independent workers has evolved. The model of specialised production is used to discuss and compare the contemporary ceramics manufacture.

In the final section, Chapters Thirteen and Fourteen, photos and catalogue statements document the fine art exhibitions. A theoretical base for the works of art is discussed. Material culture, the relationship between people and objects leads to my theory of post object ceramics so the link between ceramics and anthropology is demonstrated, confirming the import of the significant emotional event of my first visit to the Ban Ko Noi kiln site to the thesis.

There is a lengthy anthropology component of ten chapters. It was at first envisaged that the written component should be much shorter, but it has not been possible to deal with the historical production in an abridged version. While the Fine Art component of this cross-disciplinary thesis is only two written chapters, these document a series of six one-person exhibitions.