UK museum says ship model’s Chinese, but designs similar across region

 

The Royal Museums Greenwich (RMG) in London said that the photograph of a ship model in its collection is correctly attributed as “Foochow junk”, as per its catalogue.

Alex Grover, the museum’s assistant curator of historic photographs and ship plans, said the model was made by a Chinese maker Tung Ya.

However, he said, junk designs in the Southeast Asian regions are likely to bear similarities due to cultural “cross-pollination”.

Grover was responding to Malaysiakini’s query after Universiti Putra Malaysia academics Rozita Che Rodi and Hashim Musa published a paper using the same photograph as an example of a “model of a Malay jong”.

However, French historian Serge Jardin noted that the photograph, attributed to Bahari Museum in Jakarta, was in fact a Foochow junk part of RMG’s collection.

“After consulting with other colleagues, we believe that the model specified is correctly attributed,” Grover said in an email to Malaysiakini.

“This is based on the known provenance which states that this model was made in 1938 by Tung Ya in China.

“It had been commissioned by Lieutenant Commander David Waters, who was serving at the China Station on aircraft carrier HMS Eagle at the time,” he said.

Waters had a great interest in Chinese junks and donated a photographic collection which focused exclusively on Chinese junks, Grover added.

“Bearing all this in mind, we conclude the model is of a Foochow Chinese junk.

“We understand, however, that there is likely to be a cross-pollination of junk designs in Southeast Asia, which resulted in broad similarities across the region,” he said.

Serge also pointed out that the museum is unaware if copies of the model or photographs of the model were displayed in other museums, including the Bahari Museum.

The Indonesian museum and the two UPM academics have yet to respond to Malaysiakini’s emails on the matter.

UPM has defended the paper while the International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences - the journal which published the paper in November last year - is investigating the issue.

Malay archipelago known for shipbuilding expertise

Historians’ understanding of the origins of the English word “junk” has differing conclusions.

Some, like renowned scholar of Southeast Asian history Anthony Reid, said it comes from the old Javanese word “jong”, which means ship, while others say it is derived from the Chinese word “chuan”, which means ship or boat.

However, Reid said Chinese records listed it as a Malay word, while the old Javanese word “jong” was found in an old Javanese inscription of the ninth century.

“It had certainly entered Malay (lexicon) by the 15th century when a Chinese word list identified it as the Malay word for ship.

“The Malay Maritime Code, first drawn up in the late fifteenth century, uses junk routinely as the word for freight ships.

“The interesting point for my present purpose, however, is that the word was applied indiscriminately in the earliest sources to both Chinese and locally-owned vessels sailing in Southeast Asian waters,” Reid wrote in his book, Charting The Shape of Early Modern Southeast Asia.

Portuguese records from the 1500s noted that Chinese vessels were made of softwood connected by nails while Javanese junks were made of teak wood, joined by dowels.

Hybrid South China Sea vessel

Jardin raised the issue of the specific photograph in the UPM paper to criticise the standards of research and academia.

However, on social media, it has triggered cultural wars, with some perceiving the Frenchman’s remarks to mean Malays did not know how to build junks and were relying on Chinese expertise.

While there are differing views on the etymology of the word “junk” or “jong”, historians agree that the Malay archipelago was known for the production of large junks.

Historical records show that in the 1400s and 1500s, the region was filled with junks built by local shipmakers.

The junks were used to transport commodities, including for trade across Asia, and as a source of military naval power.

Reid said that by the sixteenth century, the large cargo ships had various influences and can be referred to as a type of hybrid “South China Sea” junk.

“The evidence of marine archaeology is that the seas of Southeast Asia were dominated in the 16th century by large cargo ships of a common type, showing features predominantly Southeast Asian but with Chinese admixture.

“The literary evidence tells us that these were known as junks, with three or four masts and multiple hulls, and that they were operated by the ‘Javanese’, as well as by the Chinese and Malays,” Reid noted in his book that was published in 1999. - Mkini