Pottery cones from Kodiang, Kedah
G. de G. Sieveking’s 1956 note in the Journal of the Malayan Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society examines a collection of hollow, perforated cord-impressed pottery cones recovered from an undisturbed cave at Kodiang, Kedah, and argues against the prevailing interpretation of these objects as ritual incense-burners, proposing instead that they functioned as practical working gear in Neolithic pottery production.
Summary
The cones were found in a large north-west-facing cave in the Bukit Kaplu limestone outcrop at Kodiang, alongside three polished stone axes, sherds of cord-impressed pottery (including shallow round-bottomed and carinated bowls), and other Neolithic material. Sieveking describes the cones in considerable technical detail: they are thick, hand-made, fired in an oxidising atmosphere to a reddish-yellow colour, and show clear evidence of being rolled up from a flat sheet of clay laid on a cord mat. Two opposing perforations, made with a flat instrument approximately 10 mm broad while the clay was still wet, penetrate the body of each cone. The open end terminates in a flat horizontal rim that is heavily striated with cord impression.
Sieveking’s central argument is a rebuttal of Williams-Hunt’s earlier suggestion that the cones had ritual significance, possibly Buddhist, or were associated with incense burning. He marshals two lines of evidence against this interpretation. First, the cones are markedly cruder in finish and construction than the contemporary earthenware vessels found with them, and appear consistently under-fired; if they were intended as functional incense-burners, one would expect workmanship comparable to other products of the same potters. Second, none of the surviving fragments shows any impregnation with burnt incense particles, whereas known-used earthenware censors in museum collections (notably Kelantan and Negri Sembilan specimens in the Perak Museum) display a distinct blackish internal crust of incense residue that cannot be removed without damaging the vessel surface.
Sieveking’s positive interpretation is that the cones served as supports or moulds in the potter’s workshop: the heavily striated rim would grip wet clay, the pointed end could be stuck into sand, and a newly formed vessel could be set on the rim to dry or to receive cord impressions. The two perforations would then function as slots for wooden pegs, allowing the cone to be rotated while the vessel on its base was decorated. He notes that similar cones have been reported from Buang Bep in Surat (Siam) by Evans and from Jeram Kwi on the Tembeling River by Linehan, suggesting the form is a shared feature of the Malayan Neolithic across the Peninsula.
Key Findings
- The reconstructed cone measures 277 mm in length and 75 mm in diameter at the lip; proportions appear consistent across the fragmentary collection (p. 191).
- Perforations were made with a flat instrument approximately 10 mm broad, held in the same plane as the cone’s length, while the clay was still wet; some slope slightly upward toward the rim, others are strictly horizontal (p. 189).
- The cave collection comprised three quadrangular polished stone axes, fragments of at least twenty-five pottery cones, and a large number of cord-impressed sherds including shallow round-bottomed and carinated bowls (p. 189).
- Used earthenware incense-burners in the Perak Museum (Kelantan and Negri Sembilan specimens) show an incomplete blackish internal crust of incense particles with a darkened surface layer beneath, evidence entirely absent from the Kodiang cones (pp. 192–193).
- Comparable cones of similar form and dimensions were documented by Evans from Buang Bep, Ta Kanawn district, Surat, Siam, and a single specimen by Linehan from Jeram Kwi, Tembeling River, Pahang (p. 193).
- The Kodiang cave site was scheduled as an ancient monument by the State Government due to its undisturbed sedimentary deposits believed to contain further traces of prehistoric occupation (p. 189).
Conclusion
Sieveking concludes that the cones had no ritual significance and were not used for burning incense; rather, they were part of the potter’s working gear—functional supports for drying or decorating vessels—rather than finished examples of craftsmanship. Their inferior quality relative to contemporary earthenware and the complete absence of use-wear consistent with incense burning are, in his view, decisive against any ritual interpretation.
Context
- The article draws on material held in the Perak Museum and Raffles Museum collections, and engages directly with prior publications by Williams-Hunt (1952), Evans (1931), and Linehan (1928) on comparable Neolithic material from the Peninsula.
- Sieveking’s contribution is primarily methodological: he applies a comparative use-wear argument (the absence of incense residue) to overturn an earlier speculative functional attribution, a approach that would become standard in subsequent Malayan prehistoric studies.