This essay provides an overview of the economic interactions between China and Southeast Asia during the late first and early second millennia C.E.. It positions the development of this relationship within the context of the Old World, and looks at how the interactions manifested in the ports that grew as a result of the economic exchanges that took place, the transportation networks that were developed to facilitate the exchanges, the growth in the demand and production of products from both regions, the migration of traders, and the development of economic codependency between both economies. The essay also provided sub-topics and online sources with which this topic could be approached in a classroom, including art materials, archaeological information, and textual documentation.

As a generalization, students in U.S. Colleges, and U.S. persons, have difficulty associating with the history of the Pacific Rim. Specifically with regards to Southeast Asia and China, our association with these regions of the Pacific Rim has been based almost entirely on the United States’ experiences, such as the U.S. colonial era in the Philippines; the geo-political conflicts that have a direct and continued impact on U.S. military veterans and the socio-cultural movement of the U.S. in the latter half of the twentieth century, including the Pacific Campaign against Japan in WWII (1941–1945), and the Korean and Vietnam Wars that were fought as part of the Cold War conflict in Asia; and the present rise and contestation of China in the global economic realm.

The result is that there has been a partial perspective on both the large states and the smaller states of the Pacific Rim. In terms of large states such as Japan and China (which have either large population bases or large economies), this perspective has been understood through the lenses of adversity and the containment of belligerence. Smaller states, in this case including the societies of Southeast Asia, have been viewed as weak states that require external intervention and support against negative global and regional forces and trends.

What we see today in terms of the dynamics of interaction between Southeast Asian societies and the prime state of Pacific-Asia—China—is that the latter is increasingly dominant over Southeast Asia. Economically, China has begun to dominate the internal and external economies of Southeast Asian states. Together, both China and Southeast Asia’s economies form the second-largest economic zone in the world. At the same time, cities in Southeast Asia, such as Singapore, Jakarta, and Bangkok, have become thriving metropolises, connecting the rural hinterlands and secondary cities of Southeast Asia with the major cities of China economically, socially, culturally, and politically.

While these are late twentieth and early twenty-first century manifestations, what is often not seen is that the states of Southeast Asia and the large states of the Indo-Pacific realm have been in interaction for at least the last 3,000 years. In this longue durée, their relationship has developed its own dynamics in terms of the nature of interaction, rules of engagement, and the structures that have enabled and facilitated synergy.

This teaching essay will focus on one aspect of this complex relationship: the economic interactions between China and Southeast Asia in the late first to mid-second millennia C.E., corresponding to the late medieval period of China and Southeast Asia’s history through to the time just prior to European incursion in this region. Given the general unavailability of concise narratives on this topic to students of world history, this essay will begin by providing an overview of the history of this economic relationship. This will then be followed by the recommendation of several sources that could be used to bring this topic to life in a class. Finally, the essay will outline several learning outcomes that may be useful in framing this topic as part of a larger class syllabus on trans-regional history.

While economic interaction between the two regions has existed as early as the first millennium B.C.E., it is only in the late first millennium C.E. that this economic relationship began to flourish. Following the decline and collapse of the empires of the axial age, including Rome, Mauryan India, and Han China, in the early first millennium C.E., the consolidation of territorial polities across Asia was eventually achieved some time in the seventh century. In the East, in 618 C.E., the Chinese landmass was brought under the rule of the Tang Dynasty, which lasted until 907 C.E. This was followed by another period of consolidation under the Song Dynasty, from 960 to 1278 C.E. Under the Tang, the political capital of the Chinese state was established at Chang’an in the northwest, while Yangzhou and Guangzhou, located along the South Chinese coast, became the first-rank commercial cities of the Chinese economy. The former facilitated the flow of goods between north and south China, and the latter facilitated trade between China and the economies of Southeast Asia, the Indian sub-continent, and the Middle East. Under the Song, Hangzhou, located at the mouth of the Yangzi River, became a major commercial center for seaborne trade with the Korean Peninsula and the Japanese Archipelago, while Guangzhou, along with Quanzhou in South Fujian, became the nexus of China’s trade with Southeast Asia and the Indian Ocean littoral.

In the Indian sub-continent, over the course of the mid-first to early second millennia C.E. the kingdoms of Pallava (275–897), the Pandyans (6th–14th centuries), and later the Cholas (848–1279) were able to consolidate control over agricultural and industrial production in the lands they administered, while at the same time developing maritime trade networks across the Arabian Sea and Bay of Bengal. These economies were run by mercantile and temple guilds that were sanctioned by the states in which they were located, resulting in the development of vibrant market-based and state-endorsed economies.

Under the Umayyad Dynasty (661–750), the Middle East and Mediterranean Basin experienced an unprecedented history of territorial expansion resulting in the consolidation of the Arabian Peninsula, Levant, Mesopotamia, Sassanid Persia, and North Africa under the Islamic Caliphate. This super-state was succeeded by the Abbasid Dynasty in 750, which went on to rule for another four centuries until 1258. With its political capital at Baghdad, this Islamic state not only had access to the Mediterranean Sea economy of North Africa and Europe but also to the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf, both of which opened to the east coast of Africa, the Indian sub-continent, and Southeast Asia.

Without exception, these large, or civilizational, states of Asia lasted for at least five centuries, with their territorial holdings transferred from the rule of one dynasty or kingdom to the next in a relatively seamless fashion. This longevity in political rule coincided with a prolonged period of global warming that was accompanied by extended growing seasons and increased rainfall. This climate resulted in several centuries of increased agricultural output, the peak of which occurred in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. This in turn provided the basis upon which an extended upswing in the global economic cycle occurred.

Consequently, the combination of all of the above developments resulted in these large states interacting with each other diplomatically, culturally, and, most importantly, economically. As these interactions occurred, they provided enormous economic opportunities for regions that lay in between them to capitalize on their interaction and to benefit economically and politically from it. Southeast Asia, located between China on the one side and the Indian sub-continent and the Middle East on the other, was a prime beneficiary of these political and economic trends across Asia. In particular, given the proximity between Southeast Asia and China, the economic interactions between these two regions became particularly intense. What was the nature of this interaction?

Nodes Between the Two Regions

Because of the formidable hilly terrain that characterizes the shared border between South China and the northern extremity of mainland Southeast Asia, most of the economic interactions between the two regions occurred in the maritime realm. By the seventh century, maritime links between China and Southeast Asia had been established through shipping networks operating between the major port-cities of the two regions. These port-cities were the gateways through which the resources, market demand for foreign products, and economic output of their respectively hinterlands were filtered and distributed into the Maritime Asian economy.

For China during the Tang period, the port-city of Guangzhou was the premier port-of-call for vessels arriving from Southeast Asia, while Yangzhou played a secondary role. By the Song period, Quanzhou began to rise as an alternative gateway on the South Chinese coast, even as Yangzhou receded in importance. These port-cities not only served as the gateway through which products from Southeast Asia, the Indian sub-continent, and the Middle East were distributed throughout China, but also as the export points through which the products from the Chinese hinterland were collated and then distributed into the rest of Maritime Asia. It is therefore no coincidence that the economic products of the Chinese coastal provinces of Guangdong, Fujian, Zhejiang, and Jiangsu, and to a lesser extent the inland provinces of Hunan, Guangxi, and Jiangxi, which were connected by riverine systems to the coast, are profuse in the archaeological sites of Southeast Asia, the Indian sub-continent, the Middle East, and the east coast of Africa.

For Southeast Asia, the key port-cities that formed the nodes in the maritime network included ports along the Vietnam coast, in the Gulf of Siam, the east coast of Sumatra, and the north coast of Java. This network of port-cities was much more diffuse compared to that of China. This was due to the geo-political nature of Southeast Asia, which witnessed the existence of a high number of states and polities at any one time, as well as the broad geography of Southeast Asia. These port-cities served their respective hinterlands, many of which were ecologically unique, and were therefore able to offer unique products that could only be obtained there. Such ports included Langkasuka and Tambralingga in the Gulf of Siam, Hoi An on the Vietnam coast, Palembang in Southeast Sumatra, South Kedah on the Malay Peninsula, and Cirebon along the north Javanese coast.

Products Traded

China and Southeast Asia each made available to the other a unique range of products that their respective hinterlands produced. To begin with, both regions occupied significantly different climatic and ecological zones. While South China’s latitude meant that it was part of the sub-tropical belt, its hilly terrain, particularly in the provinces of Guangxi, Fujian, Zhejiang, and Jiangsu, meant that the availability of specific mineral resources, including clay such as kaolin and feldspar, and iron, allowed it to develop such high -volume manufacturing industries as ceramic production and iron casting. The result was that these products could be made available to foreign markets at low prices and, in Southeast Asia, this in turn spurred a high level of demand for them.

One of the consequences of the drive to develop these Chinese industries as early as the late first millennium B.C.E. was the ever-increasing demand for wood as fuel, as heat was one of the key factors in the production process. This resulted in the severe deforestation that occurred in South China by the mid-first millennium C.E. Consequently, the forest products that were once obtainable in South China, including spices and aromatic woods, were no longer available by the second-half of the first millennium C.E.

For Southeast Asia, located in the tropical zone, this represented an opportunity to provide products that were in demand in China. Products that were made available included aromatics, spices, construction timbers, dye stuff, and other such natural products as bee’s wax, rattan, and plant fiber mats. At the same time, because of its location between China and the Indian Ocean littoral, Southeast Asia was also able to transship Indian and Middle Eastern goods to China. These included cotton textiles and pepper from India, glass, and aromatic resins from the Middle East and East Africa, and such animal products from both regions as ivory and rhinoceros horns. What is important is that, with the exception of Middle Eastern and East African products such as frankincense, benzoin, ivory, and rhinoceros horns, almost all of the products that were sourced in Southeast Asia were low-priced products.

Shipping Networks

The success of trade in low-priced products between the two regions was premised on the availability of large volume shipping that was cost-competitive. Low-priced products, with correspondingly low profit margins, would have to have been purveyed in large quantities in order for their trade to be profitable.

Trade between China and Southeast Asia was facilitated by such large-volume shipping, primarily because of the close geographical proximity between the two regions, and also by the maritime cultures that developed in Southeast Asia and the Indian Ocean littoral.

The primary backbone of the shipping network between China and Southeast Asia has historically been Southeast Asian shipping. Evidence of sea-going vessels with large displacement or cargo-carrying capacities have been found in Southeast Asia, notably in the Indonesian Archipelago, that date to at least the first century C.E. Coupled with the possession of navigational knowledge of the waters in Southeast Asia and the South China Sea, the vessels and their mariners plied the waters between China and Southeast Asia, arriving annually at China’s port-cities with goods from Southeast Asia and further west, and in turn carrying Chinese products back to Southeast Asia’s port-cities. Southeast Asian shipwrecks that have been dated to the tenth through fourteenth centuries typically had displacements of around 300 to 400 tons, indicating that they were able to carry large quantities of cargo.

This network was complemented, from the late eleventh century onwards, by Chinese shipping. This second network expanded very quickly and came to dominate shipping across the South China Sea, Southeast Asia, and the Bay of Bengal by the early fourteenth century. Chinese shipwrecks from the thirteenth century show displacements of around 300 tons. Along with the number of Chinese shipwrecks that have been identified both in South China and Southeast Asia, it would appear that Chinese shipping came to be an equally important network that bound the economies of the two regions together through much of the first-half of the second millennium C.E.

These two primary shipping networks were supplemented, at various points in time, by other networks. Up to the eleventh century, Middle Eastern shipping plied the routes between Southeast Asia and China. Middle Easterners were known to have resided in the port-cities of China and Southeast Asia, and it is possible that this network comprised both shipping that originated from the Middle East as well as from Maritime East Asia itself. Such Middle-Eastern vessels, or dhows, typically had displacements of under 200 tons. The volume this network represented was likely to have been much smaller than the Southeast Asian and Chinese networks.

Finally, through the course of the eleventh and twelfth centuries, South Indian shipping began to arrive in South China, plying the routes across the Bay of Bengal and maritime Southeast Asia in the process.

Sojourning in Foreign Port-Cities

Over the course of six centuries of intense interaction, both the Chinese and Southeast Asians began sojourning in each other’s port-cities. In China, during the Tang period, both Guangzhou and Yangzhou had large numbers of foreign residents in these cities. Yangzhou was known for its Persian population, while Guangzhou had a large Southeast Asian and Middle Eastern population. To get a sense of the size of the foreign community in China’s port-cities, a rebellion that ended up in the sacking of Guangzhou at the end of the ninth century was reported in Middle Eastern sources to have resulted in the death of around 120,000 Muslims and Jews. The population of Southeast Asians at Guangzhou was likely similarly large. In 907, a person from Sumatra was appointed the foreign chief of Guangzhou’s foreign enclave, presumably because of the size and importance of the community he represented. This practice continued through the Song period, during which time foreign enclaves were established at Guangzhou and Quanzhou where Southeast Asians, along with other foreigners, were permitted by the Song Court to administer their affairs on their own.

In Southeast Asia the Chinese began, by the early twelfth century, to live in the coastal settlements where trade was being conducted. Chinese documents note that, during this time, Chinese traders were staying abroad for as long as ten years at a time as they conducted peddling trade from port-city to port-city in Southeast Asia. An early thirteenth-century Chinese document noted that Chinese males were marrying local women at South Vietnamese port-cities, while a mid-fourteenth century Chinese document records that Chinese were living amongst the locals in Singapore.

Economic Codependency

Given the intensity and nature of interactions, China and Southeast Asia developed mutual economic dependencies over time. Southeast Asian societies began to depend on China for both finished and partially finished goods that could be imported cheaply, rather than to produce these goods themselves. These included flat iron bars for the making of weapons such as swords, woks for cooking, ceramic pestles for use in food preparation, and silk textiles for everyday use.

For China, Southeast Asian natural products began to feature as integral ingredients or materials used in everyday life. This included ingredients for the formulating of medical remedies, aromatic woods for the manufacture of joss sticks, and woods and rattan for the construction of furniture. These ingredients and materials from Southeast Asia began to influence the practices and approaches in such important areas as medicine, furniture construction, and folk religious practices.

This economic codependency was so integrated that when the Chinese government, under the Ming Dynasty (1368–1644), instituted a maritime ban in the mid-fifteenth century, both China and Southeast Asia had to seek completely new avenues to meet their respective demand for the products that they had come to depend on. Southeast Asian societies had to develop technological production techniques to produce high fired ceramics and iron ware, while China had to seek out new sources of materials and ingredients that could be used to substitute for those that used to be obtained from Southeast Asia.

The Peak of Southeast Asia-China Economic Relations

In the early thirteenth century, at the peak of Southeast Asia-China economic relations, the South China Sea littoral and Maritime Southeast Asia were connected into a single economic zone by extensive communication networks operated by the people of both regions as well as those originating from the Bay of Bengal and Arabian Sea. The two regions’ economies were linked through a series of port-cities which served as the gateway to their respective hinterlands, connecting the economic output into this extended economic zone. Economic integration also facilitated the flow of people between the two regions, resulting in social and cultural dispersion, assimilation and adaptation, initially at the port-cities, and with time, in the societies of these two regions.

This economic integration, which began in the seventh century and reached a peak in the early thirteenth century, would continue to characterize the two regions’ economic relations for centuries to come.

Ways of Bringing Southeast Asia-China Relations Alive in the Classroom

Given that there is presently an absence of concise narratives of the history of the economic relations between Southeast Asia and China in the medieval period available to undergraduate students, it has been necessary to paint the broad-stroke picture, and the important components of that picture, as articulated above. Nonetheless, that is still very much a second-hand narrative, and one that is didactic than exploratory. Because of how broad this topic is, both in terms of chronology and scope, it is often challenging to conduct discursive and exploratory exercises that address the macro-level aspects of this relationship. Instead, the richness of this economic relationship can be brought to life through targeted class projects or group work that focus on one of the aspects of this economic relationship as articulated above.

Sources for Projects on Port-Cities

Textual documents are perhaps the best primary source for helping students to have a sense of the vibrancy of the key port-cities that anchored this economic relationship. For port-cities in Southeast Asia, three key texts are useful in providing vivid descriptions of these urban centers. The first is the Chinese Buddhist pilgrim Yi Xing’s account of Palembang in southeast Sumatra, dated to the second-half of the seventh century. This text, entitled A Record of the Buddhist Religion as Practised in India and the Malay Archipelago, provides information on the nature of trade, the geo-political situation, the socio-cultural practices of the natives, and the dominant religion of that time—Buddhism—as it was practiced and patronized by the ruler of the port-city. An open-access translation of the text by J. Takakusu, published in 1896, is available online.1 

The second text is the Zhufanzhi, dated to 1225 and written by Zhao Rugua while he served as the Song court’s Superintendent of Mercantile Shipping at Quanzhou. The text contains entries on the key ports and states in Southeast Asia, including at South Vietnam, Sumatra, the Gulf of Siam, Myanmar, and Java, with information on the geo-politics of these states, the key ethnographic characteristics of the respective inhabitants of these ports and states, as well as the commercial practices, currencies, and goods imported and exported by these places. Importantly, this account takes the perspective of a Chinese official responsible for the commercial activities at a major Chinese port-city, and therefore not only provides information through the lens of a Chinese individual but also that of the Chinese officialdom of the early thirteenth century. An open-access translation of the text by Friedrich Hirth and William Rockhill, published in 1911, is available and may be found online.2 

The third text is The Travels of Marco Polo, a late thirteenth-century text written by Rustichello da Pisa on the travels of Marco Polo through Asia between 1271 and 1295. Volume two of this text contains several entries on the major Chinese port-cities of Quanzhou (named Zayton in the account), Hangzhou (named Kinsay in the account), and Guangzhou (named Manzi in the account), as well as several entries on the port-cities along the east coast of Sumatra along the Straits of Melaka, the southern tip of the Malay Peninsula, the north coast of Java, and the south Vietnam coast. An open-access version of the text, translated by Henry Yule, may be found online.3 

One other primary source that is visual, as opposed to textual, is the Chinese landscape painting entitled Qingming shanghetu. Painted by Zhang Zeduan (1085-1145), the painting is likely a depiction of the Chinese city of Kaifeng, the capital of the Song dynasty until the 1120s, with its attendant economic activities and the people who would have been found in such a city during that time. While it is a depiction of a city that was located fairly far inland along the Grand Canal, the painting nonetheless provides a visual depiction of the urban socio-economic setting on which China-Southeast Asian economic relations were dependent—large urban centers with the population base and wealth to consume large quantities of foreign products, while at the same time serving as the collection and distributions centers of the goods produced by the Chinese hinterland. An open-access copy of the painting4 and a brief synopsis of the painting, by Winston Ho, may be found online.5 

Sources for Projects on Shipping Networks between China and Southeast Asia

Over the last two decades a number of shipwrecks in Southeast Asia and South China have been excavated, providing us with substantial information on the nature of the shipping networks that plied these regions’ waters during the late first through the second millennium C.E. Cartographic information and a database containing on-going research on shipwrecks in Southeast Asia, the Indian Ocean, and South China Sea may be found at an online site entitled Shipwreck Asia.6 A more detailed synopsis of shipwrecks founds in Southeast Asian and South Chinese waters, and their use as historical data, has been written by the present author entitled “Ships, Shipwrecks, And Archaeological Recoveries as Sources of Southeast Asian History,” published in the Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Asian History. This article is presently an open-access article.7 

Of the wrecks that are presently known and have been excavated, three will be highlighted here as possible sources for projects that seek to deepen students’ awareness of the nature of shipping networks that operated between Southeast Asia and China in the late first to mid-second millennium C.E.

The first is the Belitung Wreck, an early ninth-century Middle Eastern vessel located off the southeast coast of Sumatra. Amongst the vessel’s cargo were over 55,000 pieces of Chinese ceramics, 30 Chinese bronze mirrors, 30 Chinese silver and gold items, 18 Chinese silver ingots, and several large jars of South Chinese and Southeast Asian spices, including star anise and candlenuts.8 

In 2008, the Sultanate of Oman commissioned the construction of a replica of the Belitung wreck, utilizing the same ancient techniques of ship construction as those utilized in the late first millennium C.E., and gifted the vessel to the people of Singapore in 2010. The entire process, from construction to sailing (from Oman to Singapore) and the final presentation of the vessel in Singapore, has been archived and made available at an online site entitled Jewel of Muscat. The site contains information on the entire project, including a 3D digital reconstruction of the vessel and videos and pictures of the project.9 

The second is the Cirebon Wreck, a Southeast Asian sea-going vessel dated to the tenth century, located off the northeast coast of Java. Amongst the wreck’s cargo were 150 tons of Chinese iron products, 250,000 pieces of Chinese ceramics, and several bronze Vajrayana Buddhist objects. A brief description of the archaeological excavation, the vessel, and the cargo, is hosted by and has been made available open-access by the Musee Royal de Mariemont.10 

The third is the Quanzhou wreck, a Chinese sea-going vessel dated to the late thirteenth century, located at Houtu Bay in Quanzhou (Fujian Province), South China. Amongst the wreck’s cargo were Southeast Asian products such as pepper, aromatic woods, and betel nuts.11 

Sources for Projects on the Products Exchanged between Southeast Asia and China

The richness and breath of the products exchanged between Southeast Asia and China may be found in Chinese records of the mid-first to the mid-second millennium C.E. Because of the issue of the language of these documents, I will only highlight one here as an accessible source for projects on the nature of this commodities trade. This document is recommended for two primary reasons: the entire document has been translated to English; and its stylistic structure, in the form of entries on specific ports-cities in Southeast Asia, contains standardized information categories such as the ethnographic description of the locals, the types of currencies used, the local products that they made available for export, and the Chinese products that they demanded. This document not only allows for basic projects explorations of trade information, but also lends itself easily to the construction of ethnographic and economic tables. This text is the Zhufanzhi (Treatise on the Various Foreigners) by Zhao Ruguo, information of which has already been provided above on sources on port-cities.

Many of the spices that originate from Southeast Asia, which are mentioned in the Zhufanzhi, may be found in supermarkets today. These include such spices as cinnamon, black pepper, cloves, cardamom, cumin, nutmeg, and mace. Using these items in class discussion brings a tactile and sensorial element to discussions, particularly on such questions as how the aromatic and chemical qualities of such items may have been perceived in value, quality, or exoticness by consumers in regions (such as China) that did not produce such natural products, to how consumers in foreign regions (such as China) may have adapted these products into their everyday lives.

Conclusion: Key Take-Aways

As historical case examples, the study of the economic interactions between two regions that are located next to each other has the potential to demonstrate to students the complexity of interactions that could develop when specific factors and conditions are at play. In the case of Southeast Asia-China economic interactions in the late first to mid-second millennium C.E., the historical narrative can be used to highlight the depth of the connectedness that develops when both regions, possessing the requisite communications technology and economic capabilities, reach out to each other in a sustained manner over a prolonged period of time. The longevity of such connections has a tendency to last over centuries, setting the framework for our understanding of such interactions up to the present day.

As a final note, pedagogically, one of the most effective ways of getting students to appreciate such trans-regional topics of history, beyond the task of generating historical information and even a historical narrative of the various aspects of Southeast Asia-China economic interactions, is to establish an appreciation for the problems that historians may face in working with the available sources of information. While the data sources highlighted above are rich, they do present certain challenges, including the specificity of the sources, the absence of quantifiable data, and methodological dilemmas such as how different sources of information may be used in an integrative manner in order to produce as complete a picture as may be possible.

J. Takakusu, trans., A Record of the Buddhist Religion as Practised in India and the Malay Archipelago (A. D. 671-695) by I-Tsing (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1896). (accessed on 7th Feb 2019).
Friedrich Hirth & W. W. Rockhill, Chau Ju-Kua: His Work on the Chinese and Arab Trade in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries, entitled Chu-fan-chi (St. Petersburg: Printing Office of the Imperial Academy of Sciences, 1911). (accessed on 7th February 2019).
Henry Yule, trans., The Book of Ser Marco Polo, The Venetian Concerning the Kingdoms and Marvels of the East (London: John Murray, 1903). (accessed on 7th February 2019).
Zhang Zeduan 張擇端, Along the River during the Qingming Festival 清明上河圖. 1100s. Palace Museum, Beijing. (accessed on 7th February 2019).
Winston Ho, “Special Feature: The Qingming Scroll.” Researching Chinese American History in New Orleans. (Accessed on 7th February 2019).
Jun Kimura, “Shipwreck Asia.” Shipwreck Asia. (Accessed on 7th February 2019).
Derek Heng, “Ships, Shipwrecks and Archaeological Recoveries as Sources of Southeast Asian History”. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Asian History. (accessed on 7th February 2019).
Regina Krahl and John Guy, eds., Shipwrecked: Tang Treasures and Monsoon Winds (Washington, DC, and Singapore: Arthur M. Sackler Gallery; National Heritage Board; Singapore Tourism Board, 2010).
“Jewel of Muscat.” Jewel of Muscat. (Accessed on 8th February 2019).
“The Cargo from Cirebon Shipwreck: One of the Oldest Shipwrecks from the Java Sea.” Musee Royal de Mariemont. (Accessed on 8th February 2019).
D. Merwin, “Selections from Wen-Wu on the Excavation of a Sung Dynasty Seagoing Vessel in Chuan-Chou,” Chinese Sociology and Anthropology, Vol. 9, No. 3 (1977): 3–106.