key part of Sentosa's plans to create a new maritime museum filled with artifacts salvaged from shipwrecks.
In early 2011, while the maritime museum was being built, some of the ‘Tang Treasure’ went on display at the ArtScience Museum on the Singapore waterfront. The plan was to transfer the exhibition to the Smithsonian Institution in Washington DC the following year. But then a coalition of American archaeologists intervened. They were furious that a private company had been allowed to excavate such a rare and precious site. Some accused the Institution of promoting looting. It became an argument between idealists and cynics – between those who believed that best archaeological practice should be observed in every case and those who felt that the real-world problems of looting and of financing exploration demanded real-world solutions. In April 2011, the Smithsonian gave in and cancelled the exhibition. Walterfang accused his critics of being ‘social climbers’ playing ‘yet another political game’. 9 Relations haven't improved much since.
Even worse, the Maritime Experiential Museum on Sentosa has also snubbed the Tang Treasure. There are pieces there from other wrecks but not a single piece from Belitung. At the time of writing, only a tiny fraction of the cargo is on public display, in a few cases inside the Goodwood Park Hotel in Singapore, formerly owned by Mr Khoo. It seems Singaporeans have little interest in one of the world's most remarkable archaeological discoveries. Pamelia Lee is disappointed that the people of the island state, in many ways the modern equivalent of Funan or Srivijaya, have not understood the significance of the treasure. ‘My vision is that in years to come, when they have the best of all gadgets, they will look for something tangibly different,’ she sighs 10 . But perhaps there's a more profound message here. It appears that not only do Singaporeans have no sense of ‘ownership’ of the cargo, they have no sense of ownership towards the sea either, despite the fact that their entire country owes its existence to seaborne trade. Singapore is an entrepôt, capitalising on the east–west currents passing its harbours, but that doesn't translate into a sense of entitlement to its riches.
Its modern meaning aside, what the Belitung wreck proves to archaeologists is that by the middle of the Tang era (the three centuries between 618 and 907) the South China Sea trade had become a highly integrated export industry. Enterprises in many parts of China were designing products for specific markets (decorated with Buddhist symbols or Koranic inscriptions as required) and mass-producing them. Local agents were then transporting the goods over land, down rivers and around the coastto the entrepôts where foreign merchants would handle the long-distance shipping. There was a clear division of labour between domestic manufacture and foreign trade.
The Tang court took special measures to encourage the relationship. Early on it ordered that provisions be made available to foreigners arriving in Guangzhou and created an official position to supervise the trade. Malay traders (perhaps those Nusantao again) moved to Guangzhou in significant numbers along with Arabs, Persians, Armenians and Indians. They brought with them the finest products from their home countries: pearls, rugs and minerals from Persia (including the cobalt blue used in pottery glazes), frankincense, myrrh, and dates from Arabia, jewels and glassware from India and spices and perfumes from Southeast Asia. They exchanged them for the ceramics, silks and metalwork of China. The maritime silk route, the Abbasid–Tang superhighway from Guangzhou to Baghdad, by way of Srivijaya and Sri Lanka, created vast wealth for those who could control it.
Under the Tang, trade was the preserve of the court and only appointed officials could handle imports: eunuchs who had every incentive to demand bribes and exploit traders at their most