Category: A-Z at Muzium Negara

by Rose Gan

The Peranakan vitrine in Gallery B is dominated by a charming collection of Straits porcelain. This distinctive type of pottery, unique to South East Asia, typifies the blended culture of the Chinese Peranakan communities in Penang, Melaka and Singapore.  Once underrated by ceramics experts for its inferior quality and over-gaudy style, Nyonya ware has finally come into its own and is now considered highly collectible – with a hefty price tag to boot!

Nyonyaware uses the famille rose enamelling technique, although its decorative features are exclusive to the Straits and are quite distinct from other examples of Chinese ceramics of this style, which were usually more ornamental pieces.  Straits Ceramics were intended for use at the family dining table on special occasions, and the pieces are entirely functional: bowls, teacups, teapots, spoons, plates, and lidded containers such as the kamcheng and katmau. They were commissioned from China by wealthy Peranakan families on the occasion of their daughters’ weddings; many contain specifically requested motifs or incorporate the family name, making them unique pieces of family history. Although blue and white Swatow ware was used for everyday purposes, the highly decorated famille rose ware took pride of place for fine dining.

Examples of fine Straits ceramics from Datin Seri Kee Ming-Yuet collection; left: Teacup and saucer, right: Phoenix and peony detail

Most ascribe Jingdezhen as the place of production for Straits Ceramics because that was where the finest examples of Famille Rose pottery were made, but experts have challenged this view. Shards of Straits-style crockery have never been found in the area. It is more likely that Peranakan families ordered their porcelain wedding sets from humbler kilns in Fukien province, and that these are actually examples of coloured Swatow ware (now usually referred to as Zhangzhou ware) using the enamel famille rose technique, but of inferior production.  Many of the oldest surviving examples of this pottery contain reign marks and stamps comparable to those of Jingdezhen, but they may not be reliable; it has been suggested that they may have been forged to suggest an earlier date and place of origin to increase the price. As many overseas Chinese in the Straits originated from Hokkien-speaking Fukien province, this theory is likely.

Some Straits porcelain was even Japanese made, for there was a time when Japan supplied these colourful ceramics to South East Asia. Japanese potters made exact copies, even down to Chinese stamps, and are difficult to distinguish other than by their softer shades of pastel. It is unclear whether Japan was trying to break into the overseas ceramics market or whether they were filling in the demand when wars in China disrupted production. No doubt it was probably a little bit of both!

But that is immaterial. Even if the quality of these wonderful ceramics does not match the finest examples of Chinese porcelain, they are now regarded as an artform in themselves. Richly coloured in vivid shades of pink, green, yellow and purple, Straits ceramics reflect the vibrant mixed heritage of the archipelago: bright colours, abundant flora and fauna, and the hybrid cultural traditions of the Malay peninsula syncretised with Chinese mythological symbols.

There are many similarities between the colours and motifs of these ceramics and the north coast Pekalongan batiks of Java, so favoured by Nyonya ladies for their sarongs. Interestingly these vibrant, busy batiks were themselves a departure from the earthy tones of traditional Javanese batiks and were inspired by Dutch decorative designs of flowers and birds.  It seems that influences constantly pass east to west and back again! Such porcelain was even once referred to as ‘batik crockery’. Peranakan homes were similarly crammed with ornaments and decorative pieces with scarcely a space left empty in the desire of upwardly-mobile families to proclaim their success and prosperity in the richness and excess of their décor. The heyday of Pekalongan batiks was from the 1890s- 1930s, interestingly the same period in which Peranakan ceramics reached their peak.

Pekalongan batiks. Image credit: left and centre: Inger McCabe Elliot; right: http://www.northcoastjavanesebatik.com/2012/07/pekalongan-batik-belanda-buketan-design.html

The decorations on Straits ceramics are unfailingly jolly and bright, like the colours. As they were designed for young brides at the beginning of their married life, the motifs are full of auspicious blessings wishing love, long-life, fertility and happiness. The most popular motifs – from a very long list –  are peony (female beauty), the phoenix (yin and the perfect female qualities), the crane (longevity), the chrysanthemum (immortality), lotus (purity), double happiness etc. The eight Buddhist emblems often ornament the borders, including the paired fish and the endless knot, both particularly connected to lovers.

Colour is always highly symbolic in Chinese art. Red – the colour of the Phoenix – represents warmth, joy and the south; green stands for new life and growth and is connected to fertility; yellow is the earth and the sun, while light blue is the sky and the east. Pink – the most ubiquitous colour on Straits pottery – above all is the dedicated shade of women; it represents femininity and youthfulness.

This colourful pottery belongs to the Famille Rose category that uses coloured enamels to apply decoration to previously-fired white porcelain as an overglaze, which is then fired a second time at lower temperatures. The technique originated in Europe, where it was first used on glass. When the technology reached China in the late 17^th century, this method of enamel finishing was introduced in metalwork (e.g. cloisonné).  It is said that Jesuit priests at the imperial court of the Kangxi Emperor (1654-1722) first suggested its use in porcelain production around 1720, although the method was not perfected until the 1740s, during the Yongzhen era. The general term for such porcelain in China is yangcai or ‘foreign colours’, indicating its European roots. Yangcai ware is particularly connected to the great porcelain production centre of Jingdezhen.

Chinese potters used a limited variety of colours in their porcelain because of the difficulty of working with minerals other than cobalt blue. Thus, a tradition of green (celadon), white (qingbai) and blue and white became the accepted Chinese aesthetic. The new foreign technique of applying colour in an enamel overglaze opened up a range of Chinaware that became very popular overseas, particularly in Europe and US. In China, however, it was regarded as inferior to the more acclaimed Ming and Qing blue and whites but it flourished as export-ware. The name ‘Famille Rose’ was coined in 1865 when Albert Jacquement, a French art historian and ceramic expert, categorised Qing ceramics according to their colour palette.

References

Chan Suan Choo. (2011). The Pinang Peranakan Mansion: A Museum of Straits Chinese Cultural Heritage. Eastern Printers.

Datin Seri Kee Ming-Yuet. (2004). Straits Chinese Porcelain. Cross-Time Matrix.

Elliot, Inger McCabe. (2004). Batik: Fabled Cloth of Java. Periplus.

In this Series

Click HERE for a list of articles in the A-Z at ‘Muzium Negara’ series.

by Rose Gan

Elephants in the museum? Are you sure? Fascinating details are often hidden in plain sight in the galleries of any museum, frequently overlooked. The elephant, the largest animal of the Peninsula, turns up in some unexpected places at Muzium Negara, if you look carefully enough. This great beast, a vital part of the economy of the region since the earliest times, has had many functions: as a beast of burden, a method of transport through thick forest, a farm animal, a vehicle for the nobility, a valuable trade item, and even a war mount in battle. It also has a particular link to South East Asia’s Hindu-Buddhist past, representing Ganesha, the Remover of Obstacles, the particular deity of merchants and travellers for his connections with trade and travel.

So, let us take a quick tour of the galleries and look for elephants! Such quests can be a handy trick to keep in your back pocket when your tour includes children or bored teenagers. ‘How many elephants can you find? Let’s see if you can get more than four…’

The most obvious elephant in Gallery A is a terracotta sculpture, part of the Bujang Valley collection. It may, of course, have a religious significance as a reference to Ganesha, but as it is in no way anthropomorphic, it may simply be a representation of an indigenous creature. Tigers and monkeys, snakes and crocodiles are often found on such pieces, just as on cave paintings, reflecting the animal world of the forest. The elephant was also, of course, important source of everyday labour and transport. This temple decoration came from Candi 21/22, which were Buddhist.

Another elephant example may be represented on the menhirs from Pengkalan Kempas, known colloquially as The Rudder and The Sword. Although there is little certainty about the many complex motifs on these megaliths, there have been suggestions that the animal on the mid left of ‘The Rudder’ is an elephant, whilst the ridge along the top of ‘The Sword’ that rises to a bulbous end may depict an elephant’s trunk. These megaliths are thought to represent several eras: the figures may have been carved at different times, explaining the unusual mix of animist, Hindu-Buddhist and Islamic elements. Pengkalan Kempas was probably a small jetty on a river where goods were exchanged. Ganesha would have been an important votive deity for the merchants who landed there in the hope of a good bargain.

The Makara is an impressive sight at the entry of Gallery B. In Hindu-Buddhist iconography, the makara represents the two opposing forces of the earth, the land and the sea. This highly stylised figure noticeably has a fish tail but also displays a furled trunk as well as tusks, clearly elephant motifs. The makara originated in India where it has a completely different appearance: a hybrid of a dog, a crocodile and a fish. The unique makara of this region, however, draws upon the local elephant and a large fish. It is quite a different chimaera from its Indic origins.

The most interesting elephant in Gallery B, however, is extremely hard to spot unless you are very observant. On the Riau Bugis keris in one of the central cases before the Perak throne, at the very top of the blade where it forms a triangular shape to meet the crosspiece, there is a finely wrought filigree feature. Careful scrutiny – and the help of a laser pointer or torch – reveals this to be a tiny unfurled Ganesha trunk, a trace of the Hindu-Buddhist origins of this archetypal Malay weapon.

Gallery C contains a colourful reference to elephants in one of the pictures at the back of a vitrine in the Portuguese section. During the terrible fighting from June-July 1511 that culminated in the Portuguese capture of Melaka, Sultan Mahmud commanded a huge army of 20,000, gathered from the many vassal states of the Melakan Empire, including Pahang, Sumatra and Java. Amongst this host were 20 war elephants. The image in Gallery C depicts the thick of battle with Melaka town burning in the distance. Centre stage is a furious bull elephant, ridden by Malay warriors armed with spears, charging into a melee of Portuguese infantry and Indian troops, all fleeing in terror. Two other war-elephants bring up the rear. Sadly, despite the superior local forces – and the fearsome elephants – after a battle lasting 40 days, the Portuguese eventually triumphed. The rest is history.

There is another elephant reference in the same gallery, in the pictorial display of Transportation towards the end of the room. Three working elephants, two with open rattan howdahs, the other with a woven covered canopy stand proudly facing the camera with their mahouts. They remind us of the vital role the elephant played in negotiating the narrow paths through the forest in an earlier time as transportation, beast of burden, and a valuable dragging and lifting machine before the invention of modern tractors and forklifts!

Even Gallery D has an elephant reference, although only those very well-informed about royal costume might notice it. Amongst the collection of the tengkoloks of the sultans of Malaysia, is the ceremonial Tanjak diRaja of the Sultans of Terengganu. It has a distinctive high folded front-piece that curves outwards, known as the tengolok belalai gajah (the elephant trunk).

I found seven elephants – have I missed any?

References

Ahmad Sarji bin Abdul Hamid (Chairman, Editorial Board). (2011) The Encyclopaedia of Malaysia: Vol. 16 – The Rulers of Malaysia. Editions Didier Millet.

Gan, Rose. & Maganjeet Kaur (Eds.). (2017). A Malaysian Tapestry: Rich Heritage at the National Museum. JMM. MPH Group Printing.

National Museum Curators. (2011). Muzium Negara Kuala Lumpur Gallery Guide. JMM.

Salina Abdul Manan, Hamdzun Haron, Mohammed Jamal Mat Isa, Daeng Haliza Daeng Jamal, Narimah Abd. Mutalib. (2020). Tengkolok as a Traditional Work of Art in Malaysia: An Analysis of Design. Journal of Critical Reviews, 7(19). http://www.jcreview.com/fulltext/197-1598175690.pdf

by Maganjeet Kaur

The Dennis Fire Engine on the grounds of Muzium Negara bearing registration BE 3842 was donated by the Fire Service Department of the Federal Territory on 6 January 1982.

The pleasure of digging through archival documents to get more information on BE 3842 will have to wait until the pandemic is over. However, one can picture this vehicle tearing down the streets of Kuala Lumpur, sirens wailing, in a race against time to save lives and properties. We do not know how many fire incidences it participated in but it was in service for a good 22 years and we do know that the Dennis engine is a good workhorse. Please do share with us any photos you may have of the BE 3842 in action at a fire site, racing down the streets or simply at rest.

The engine was purchased on 24 December 1958 from Dennis Brothers Limited, a manufacturer of commercial vehicles based in Guilford, Surrey, England. Established in 1895 by brothers John Cawsey Dennis and Herbert Raymond Dennis, they started the business producing bicycles and later made motorcars. They subsequently moved to manufacturing heavy-duty commercial vehicles including buses, trucks and dustcarts; fire engines were first produced in 1908. The commercial vehicles manufactured by the company were made-to-order based on customers’ requirements and were stronger than the mass-produced vehicles of their competitors. An example of their hardiness comes from Singapore where a Dennis fire engine is said to have worked non-stop for 87 hours to put out a huge fire at a copra godown on Havelock Road in February 1929; this surely must have been a record of sorts!

Loyal fans of Dennis vehicles have established their own society. Made up of owners and enthusiasts, they provide useful advice for anyone wanting to restore a Dennis vehicle. Their website has a page listing Dennis fire engines that are being preserved and Muzium Negara’s fire engine is on this list, specified as having an F2 body type with chassis number 4416. The museum’s display board identifies it as Dennis RR B80-50A, thus indicating it has a Rolls Royce (petrol) engine.

During the time it was in service, BE 3842 was likely housed at the Central Fire Station at Shaw Road (today Jalan Hang Tuah). This fire station was built in 1955 to the tune of $750,000 and it replaced the old fire station on Church Street (Jalan Gereja). Designed by Eric Taylor, Municipal architect, it had push-button doors that opened instantly. The new station accommodated married firemen in self-contained two-room flats. It was equipped with two Dennis engines, BE 3842 undoubtedly one of them.

“Most Powerful in the East”

The first Dennis fire engine in Kuala Lumpur was purchased in 1911, arriving in October on the steamship Benavon. This petrol vehicle had a 500-gallon capacity, and, with a horsepower of 70, it was claimed to be the most powerful engine in the East. However, there is no pleasing everyone. Alexander Simpson, Engineer of the Selangor Fire Brigade, considered the horsepower “a little in excess of the needs of Kuala Lumpur and District under prevailing circumstances”.  Simpson had the task of putting the engine together, which was done at the Works of the Federated Engineering Company. He had other minor grouses as well, albeit valid. Nevertheless, a test done at half power on 30 October showed the engine worked well and was ready to be put in action.

It kind of saw action very soon. On the night of Saturday 11 November, a prankster, probably very eager to see the new fire engine, pulled the fire alarm on nearby Weld Hill (Bukit Kewangan). The fire brigade was out the door in their new Dennis fire engine in just five minutes (with one member of the team still in pyjamas). Although they saw no signs of fire, just a smashed fire alarm, the incident showed that the Dennis fire engine was quicker compared to the 15-20 minutes required to get the old steam engine ready.

Bellamy’s Brigade

History of the Fire Brigade in Kuala Lumpur dates to 28 May 1884 when Captain Harry Syers was tasked by the British Resident to round up members for a Volunteer Fire Brigade. Thirty-odd people signed up and they became the founders of the brigade. The members comprised government officials and residents of Kuala Lumpur, Thamboosamy Pillai and Yap Ah Loy were among the prominent locals. H.F. Bellamy, the Superintendent of the Public Works Department, was appointed Chief Officer. His passion was the driving force behind the brigade, which came to be known as Bellamy’s Brigade.

The Fire Brigade was headquartered at the Central Police Station, which at the time was located on Cross Street (Jalan Tun Tan Siew Sin). The Brigade only had a manual engine, which they dragged by hand. They later obtained Merryweather’s Greenwich Gum steam pump, also dragged by hand. It must have been quite a sight to see the pillars of society – brigade members included the likes of H. Conway Belfield, Magistrate & Revenue Collector; A.R. Venning, the State Treasurer; and A.C. Norman, the government architect – racing down the street, dragging a steam pump!

In 1893, Kuala Lumpur’s first fire station was built on Church Street (Jalan Gereja), and officiated on 30 November. In the same year, Shire horses were imported from Britain for the onerous task of pulling the steam pump. The horses were stabled in stalls on either side of the station’s central bay. They were trained to move to their place in front of the engine at the sound of the fire alarm. Bellamy himself drove the horses. In 1895, the Volunteer Fire Brigade was disbanded and the Fire Brigade became a paid unit.

By 1902, the Brigade had purchased their very first motor fire engine – the earliest model of Merryweather’s Fire King. They were the first in the East to have such an engine. When Penang purchased their Fire King in 1906, Kuala Lumpur showed off, “They move slowly in the northern settlement, and sometimes a good deal slower in the southern.” Perhaps they should have waited for the next model because their Fire King did not perform as well as the later model obtained by Singapore.

The Fire King was a steam engine and it was replaced by the Dennis petrol engine in 1911. By this time, Bellamy had returned to Britain (in around the mid-1910s).

References

Gullick, J.M. (2017). A History of Kuala Lumpur: 1856-1939. MBRAS.

Simpson, Alexander. (1911, December 14). Letter from Alexander Simpson to E.G. Broadrick. ‘Report on Dennis Motor Fire Engine, K. Lumpur’. Arkib Negara 1957/0159945.

Dennis Society. Preserved Dennis Fire Engines. https://www.dennissociety.org.uk/preserved/fire/index.html#anchorbe3842

Jabatan Bomba dan Penyelamat Malaysia. Latarbelakang. https://www.bomba.gov.my/index.php/pages/view/4?mid=165

(Untitled). (1906, 7 February). Eastern Daily Mail and Straits Morning Advertiser, 3.

Selangor’s Fire Engine: Most Powerful in the East. (1911, October 17). The Singapore Free Press and Mercantile Advertiser, 4.

(Untitled). (1911, November 16). The Straits Times, 8.

Selangor Fire Brigade. (1913, February 24). The Straits Times, 10.

A Record? (1929, February 13). Malaya Tribune, 10.

$750,000 Fire Station. (1955, May 16). The Straits Times, 4.

by Kon Cze Yan

I write about King Chulalongkorn with some trepidation. Thailand’s Lese-Majeste Law prosecutes for slights against both living and dead royals. I do want to visit Thailand again after the pandemic!

Chulalongkorn appears in Muzium Negara in the old photograph below.

Chulalongkorn has the epithet “Phra Piya Maharat”, the Great Beloved King. He is Rama V, 5th monarch of the reigning Chakri dynasty of Siam (now Thailand). The Chakri dynasty has ruled since 1782. He is the great-grandfather of the current King of Thailand.

A Glimpse of Chulalongkorn’s family life

Chulalongkorn was the 9th son of King Mongkut (Rama IV), but since he was the first to be born to a royal queen, he was recognized as heir to the throne. His mother was Queen Debsirindra and she was Mongkut’s grandniece.

Chulalongkorn was only 15 years old when his father died in 1868. He succeeded the throne under the regency of Somdet Chao Phraya Si Suriyawong. Over the next 5 years, he prepared to assume duties by observing court business and by travels to British Malaya, Dutch East Indies, Burma and India.

Chulalongkorn had at least five royal consorts who were his half-sisters (Mongkut’s daughters) and about 92 consorts and concubines in total. Nothing to raise your eyebrows about. Royal intermarriage used to be very prevalent in Europe and other parts of the world as well. (For Lese-Majeste reasons, note this is a statement and not a criticism!) Once when he visited Italy, he was asked by the Queen of Italy how many wives he had and his reply to her was, “Had I met you first perhaps I would have had only one.” The King of course knew how many he had because each wife was given a sum of money for personal expenses every year.

In theory, the King could make any of his wives a queen. However, in practice, his queens were the daughters of kings. They were called Somdet Phra Raja Devi. From these he promoted the mother of the Crown Prince who was the eldest son. The Crown Prince’s mother was called Somdet Phra Boroma Rajinee.

Chulalongkorn was a prolific producer of children. He had 77 children. Not as many as his father, King Mongkut, who had at least 82 children! (For Lese-Majeste reasons, note this is a statement and not a criticism!)

Why is Chulalongkorn one of Thailand’s most loved and revered Kings?

King Chulalongkorn is considered one of the greatest kings of Thailand. His reign was characterized by extensive social and economic reforms and development.

Chulalongkorn matured into a shrewd politician and managed to fend off very skilfully the threat of European colonialism. Large tracts of Siam were ceded to the Europeans during the period, but Thailand remains the only country in Southeast Asia to have never been colonized.

His abolition of slavery made him the Beloved Great King of all people of Siam. In the beginning of his reign, more than a third of the population were slaves.

Chulalongkorn was the first Siamese King to send the Royal Princes to be educated in Europe. He nurtured a corps of bright Western-educated royal relatives who helped him carry out reforms and to conduct diplomacy.

Dummies’ Quick Guide to What Was Happening In and Around Siam during Chulalongkorn’s Reign

In 1782, Rama I, the first king of the Chakri dynasty, founded a new capital city across the Chao Phraya River in an area known as Rattanakosin Island, now called Bangkok.

From the middle of the 16th century, there were many Burmese-Siamese wars and repeated attacks on Siam. In the 1790s, Burma was defeated and driven out and Siam reached its greatest extent around 1809.

Left: Greatest extent of Rattanakosin’s orbit (c. 1809). Image credit: Wikipedia
Right: Territorial cessation of Siamese protectorates in 19th to 20th centuries. Purple to France. Red to Britain. Image credit: Wikipedia

Two kings, Mongkut and Chulalongkorn, witnessed the expansion of both France and Britain to increase their colonial territories in Southeast Asia and encircle Siam. From the west, the British “conquered” India (mid-18th century), Burma (1826-1885) and Malaya (1874), and from the east, the French “conquered” Vietnam (1859), Cambodia (1863) and Laos (1893).

The French takeover of Cambodia and Vietnam led to keen French interest in the Lao territories. They saw (wrongly) the Mekong as a potentially major trade route with China. They feared Thai interests in the territories would be championed by their imperial rival, Britain (also wrong!). The loss of Laos to France in 1893 was a prime example of gunboat diplomacy practiced by western powers. With French gunboats menacing Bangkok, Siam reluctantly signed the Franco-Siamese treaty, which transferred to the French Lao territories east of the Mekong.

After the Franco-Siamese War of 1893, King Chulalongkorn realised the threat of western colonial powers, and accelerated extensive reforms in the administration, military, economy and society of Siam.

In 1896, British and French concluded the Anglo-French Declaration, which made a border between their colonies, with Siam defined as a buffer state. The negotiations for this started around 1887 and the exceedingly subtle and active role that Siamese diplomats played must be appreciated.

This was quickly followed by the Anglo-Siamese Secret Convention 1897 whereby, in return for a Siamese undertaking not to grant any concession or cede any part of the Malay Peninsula without prior British approval, Britain pledged itself to come to the defence of Siamese rights in that region if they were threatened by any third power.

The Entente Cordiale of 8 April 1904 ended the rivalry between Great Britain and France over Siam. As far as Siam was concerned, what the two Powers did in 1904 was nothing more than a reaffirmation of their previous agreement of 1896.

The Anglo-Siamese Treaty of 1909 defined the modern border between Siam and British Malaya. The treaty stated that Siam transfer all rights of suzerainty over its four Malay dependencies – Kelantan, Terengganu, Kedah and Perlis – to Britain. In return, Britain agreed to relinquish its extraterritorial rights over British subjects in Siam. Britain also agreed to abrogate the 1897 Secret Convention and loan Siam £4 million for the construction of a railway to the Malay Peninsula.

When King Chulalongkorn died in 1910, Siam had achieved the borders of today’s Thailand. In 1910, he was peacefully succeeded by his son Vajiravudh, who reigned as Rama VI.

Was Anna Leonowans real?

My first memory of the King of Siam was from the musical “The King & I”. The source material for this musical was a 1944 novel “Anna and the King of Siam” by Margaret Landon, a missionary to Thailand. Anna Leonowans herself did write her own commercially successful memoirs, “The English Governess at the Siamese Court” (1870) and “The Romance of the Harem”(1873), to which King Chulalongkorn responded with the statement that she “has supplied by her invention that which is deficient in her memory.”

Many movie and musical versions have been made of Anna’s story – all highly sensationalized and fictionalized. One was even filmed in Malaysia – “Anna & the King” (1999) starring Jodie Foster & Chow Yun Fat. These movies are banned in Thailand and considered to be lèse majesté because of their disrespectful treatment of King Mongkut.

A World Without A Sun

King Chulalongkorn died in 1910 of kidney disease. He was nursed by Queen Saovabha and his favourites. Princess Chongchitra said, ”It was very sad in the Palace after King Chulalongkorn’s death because his successor was unmarried and would not live Inside. So for us Inside, it was like a world without a sun. Life was all monotony. No King’s meals to prepare; nothing to do for him. We, who had talked about what the King did, what he said, what he liked and what he disliked, now had nothing to talk about.”

References

Aldrich, Robert (Ed.). (2007). The Age of Empires. Thames & Hudson.

Chandran Jeshurun. (1970). The Anglo-French Declaration of January 1896 and the Independence of Siam by Chandran Jeshurun.  Amended version of a paper presented to the Institute of Asian Studies, Chulalongkorn University. http://www.siamese-heritage.org/jsspdf/1961/JSS_058_2h_Jeshurun_AngloFrenchDeclarationJanuary1896.pdf

Chan Su-ming. (1965). Kelantan and Trengganu, 1909-1939. Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, 38(1), 159-198.

Chulalongkorn: king of Siam. Encyclopaedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Chulalongkorn

Chulalongkorn. (2021, 3 July). In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chulalongkorn&action=history

Church, Peter (Ed.). (2017). A Short History of South-East Asia. John Wiley & Sons.

Life in the grand palace: the story of Princess Chongchitra. (2012, January 3). Bangkok Post. https://www.bangkokpost.com/learning/advanced/273517/life-in-the-grand-palace

Mendonça, Amanda Francesca. (2018, June 27). The Real Story Of Anna Leonowens That Inspired ‘The King And I’. bookmyshow. https://in.bookmyshow.com/buzz/blog/Events/the-real-story-that-inspired-the-king-and-i

Moore, Wendy Khadijah. (2007). Malaysia: A Pictorial History 1400 – 2004. Editions Didier Millet.

Nik Mohd bin Nik Mohd Salleh. (2011). Kelantan Sultanate. In Ahmad Sarji bin Abdul Hamid (Chairman, Editorial Board), Encyclopedia of Malaysia: Vol 16 – The Rulers of Malaysia (pp. 97-107). Editions Didier Millet.

Royal Thai Embassy, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

by Maganjeet Kaur

Mahanavika¹ Buddhagupta was a mariner who lived possibly in the second half of the fifth century CE. The title ‘Mahanavika’ bestowed on him implies he was a skilled navigator while his given name, Buddhagupta², identifies his religious affiliation. Hailing from Raktamṛttika, his visit to the northern Malay Peninsula has entered into the annals of history though a stone stele he donated to a local shrine.

Only the upper part of this stele has survived; it measures 66 centimetres in height, between 29 to 34 centimetres in width and 8 to 9 centimetres in depth. The main feature on this slab is the representation of a stupa with an almost spherical dome, in itself unusual given that they are typically semi-hemispherical.

A balcony can be seen on top of the dome and rising from this is a staff carrying seven parasols of diminishing sizes ending in two semi circles. The dome sits within the upturned petals of a lotus blossom while downward petals of the lotus frame the base. This base is decorated by three pilasters – the pilaster in the centre is shown complete while the two side pilasters are in halves. Alternatively, these could have been pillars. The stone is broken off under the pilasters/pillars – the base could have been resting on a plinth as in the case of the Kampung Sungai Mas inscription.

---

Inscriptions run along the sides of the stupa as well as along the sides of the slab. The language is Sanskrit and the script Pallava. There are two parts to this inscription. The inscription that runs along the right side of the stupa is a karma verse that can be translated as:

Through ignorance, karma is accumulated. The cause of birth is karma. Through knowledge karma is not accumulated. Through absence of karma one is not reborn.³

---

This verse has also been found on inscriptions at two locations in southern Kedah – Kampung Sungai Mas and Bukit Meriam – in both cases coupled with the Buddhist Ye Dharma Hetu credo. The coupling of the karma and the Ye Dharma Hetu verses has not been found in India or Sri Lanka and, hence, could have been a local blending of philosophies.

The second part of the inscription mentions a Mahanavika Buddhagupta from Raktamṛttika giving thanks for a successful voyage. The inscription likely continues onto the broken-off piece of the stele and hence this inscription is not complete. The translation by Kern⁴ of the surviving inscription is below.

Right-hand side of stele: ‘Of the eminent shipowner Buddhagupta resident at Raktamrttika…’

Left-hand side of stele: ‘In every way, from everything, in every respect, all… who has performed a successful journey’

---

Raktamṛttika translates to ‘red earth’. This location was initially identified with the Chitu mentioned in Chinese records, which also translates to ‘red earth’; it is believed to have been located in Kelantan. Another possibility is the Raktamṛttika Mahavihara mentioned in the writings of Hiuen-Tsang (Xuanzang), a Chinese traveller to India in the seventh century CE. He wrote that the most learned men in the kingdom congregated at this vihara. Its location has been identified with the archaeological site at Rajbaridanga in West Bengal, India.

And… just for fun… an attempt to transliterate one line of the Pallava script.

The stele was discovered in 1834 by Captain James Low while he was excavating some ruins at a sandy site in Seberang Perai (at its border with Kedah). Low did not leave behind any further details of the location but later researchers speculate it to be Guar Kepah, a sandy site at Penaga on the southern bank of Muda River.

Guar Kepah has other calls to fame. At one time coastal, it lies on an old beach ridge and it was previously made up of shell middens, i.e. mounds made up mainly from remains of edible molluscs and other kitchen waste. The shell midden at Guar Kepah was recorded in 1860 by G.W. Earl as being six metres high; by 1936, this had been reduced to less than two metres due to quarrying activities for lime. Shell middens signal the presence of prehistoric settlements and the Guar Kepah site was in occupation during the Hoabinhian and the Neolithic. Excavations during the colonial period had unearthed 41 skeletons and the discovery in 2017 of ‘Penang Woman’, a 5,710 year-old skeleton, puts the focus back on Guar Kepah.

With such a long history, it is thrilling to think that the shell mounds may have back dropped a stupa of the design shown on the stele. Guar Kepah is not done revealing its secrets and we can only hope that future discoveries will illuminate the Buddhagupta period, shedding light on the community that resided in the area at the time.

¹ ‘Navika’ is a Sanskrit word translated initially as ‘sea-captain’. However, present-day scholarship leans towards ‘navigator’ as the more accurate meaning. ‘Mahanavika’ thus translates to ‘Great Navigator’.

² Names identifying religious affiliation were common. As an example, among the 193 Indic inscriptions discovered at Hoc Cave on Socotra Island in Yemen, many were personal names indicating religious affiliation with Vishnu, Siva, Kartikeya or Surya. Incidentally, Budhagupta was also the name of an emperor of the Gupta Dynasty, reigning between c. 476 and 495 CE. The navigator who arrived on the shores of Kedah may have been named after him.

³Jacq-Hergoualc’h (2002, 216)

⁴Kern (1907, 96)

References

Allen, Jane. (1986-87). An Inscribed Tablet from Kedah, Malaysia: Comparison with Earlier Finds. Asian Perspectives, 27(1), 35-57.

Anderson, John. (1883). Catalogue and hand-book of the archaeological collections in the Indian Museum. The Order of the Trustees, Calcutta. https://www.indianculture.gov.in/rarebooks/catalogue-and-hand-book-archaeological-collections-indian-museum

Bahadur Chand Chhabra. (1965). Expansion of Indo-Aryan culture during Pallava Rule. Munshi Ram Manohar Lal.

Bulbeck, David F. (2005). The Guar Kepah Human Remains. In Zuraina Majid (Ed.), The Perak Man and other Prehistoric Skeletons of Malaysia (pp. 383-423). Penerbit Universiti Sains Malaysia.

Jacq-Hergoualc’h, Michel. (2002). The Malay Peninsula: Crossroads of the Maritime Silk Road (100 BC–1300 AD). Translated by Hobson, Victoria. Brill.

Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal (JASB) , 1835, 4, plate III.

Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal (JASB), 1848, 17(2), plate IV.

Kern, H. (1907). Concerning some old Sanskrit Inscriptions in the Malay Peninsula. Journal of the Straits Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, 49, 95-101.

by Maganjeet Kaur

Muzium Negara has on display a few personal items that belonged to Haji Abdul Rahman bin Abdul Hamid, a religious scholar and freedom fighter from Kuala Terengganu. Born in 1868, Abdul Rahman was a successful entrepreneur with business dealings as far as Menara (today Narathiwat) in southern Thailand. His frequent visits to Limbong in Kemaman to trade as well as to preach earned him the moniker ‘Limbong’, which was tacked to the end of his given name. Some simply called him ‘Tok Limbong’. In spite of his wealth, he was down to earth, generous and ready to help; this made him well known especially along the middle part of the Terengganu River. He was very versatile; apart from trade, he had agricultural concerns, practised silat and was a religious teacher.

History remembers him for the role he played in protesting against the land and forest management laws introduced by the British. Forest produce, such as timber, attap, rattan and eaglewood, was an important source of revenue for the state. Taxation on these products had been in place even before British intervention – Malay district chiefs, through royal grants, exercised monopoly over their purchase. However, the rates were flexible and, importantly, transactions were mainly through barter. The British introduced a much higher tax rate for jungle products and included many additional items into the taxable list. Their tax collection process was also more efficient as they completely replaced the barter system with cash. In addition, permits were required before trees could be felled preparatory to dry-rice cultivation. All these measures put a huge burden on the peasantry.

In 1921, in an effort to end shifting cultivation, the government introduced a license to cultivate land on a temporary basis, with a hefty fine for non-compliance. The following year, a group of farmers disregarded the law and worked the land in Beladau without permit, supported by Haji Abdul Rahman. When 43 of these farmers were served with warrants for their rebellion, Haji Abdul Rahman applied for a special attorney’s license to defend them during their trial. However, too many supporters turned up in court, some bearing weapons, and Haji Abdul Rahman’s refusal to cooperate with the authorities saw him lose his special license. His license as a religious teacher and permit to hold circumcisions were also revoked. He was viewed with concern as his ability to garner support and rile up a crowd pegged him as a powerful and dangerous leader.

Discontent over the land duties and royalty over jungle produce continued to mount. The Malay chiefs were also unhappy losing their customary claims over land. On 20 May 1928, with a conviction that the land belonged to God and that the State had no right over it, around 2,000 people marched to Kuala Berang. The District Officer and the police, made up of a sergeant and four men, made a prudent retreat and summoned help. A team of 25 policemen later caught up with the dissidents in Kuala Telemong. Here, after failing to disperse the crowd in spite of repeated warnings, the police fired one volley, killing eleven men including one of the key leaders of the rebellion, i.e. Lebai Deraman, better known as To’ Janggut  (not be to confused with the Kelantanese rebel leader). Further reinforcements arrived the next day from the Federated Malay States and the dissidents finally dispersed.

Twelve other ringleaders were arrested and given long prison sentences coupled with hard labour. Haji Abdul Rahman, though he did not take part in the actual disturbance, was identified as the leader behind the incident and he was exiled to Mecca.

References

Berhanundin bin Abdullah, Kamaruzaman bin Yusoff & Mansoureh Ebrahimi (2015). Haji Abdul Rahman Limbong (1868-1928): Fighter against the Colonialist. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 6(6), 281-289.

Kathirithamby-Wells, Jeyamalar (2005). Nature and Nation: Forests and Development in Peninsular Malaysia. NIAS Press and NUS Press.

Last Year’s Riots in Trengganu. (1929, 31 December). The Straits Times. https://tinyurl.com/pzc7xpyv

Tuan Azam Tuan Johan. (2007, 21 May). Descendant sheds more light on Tok Limbong. The Star. https://www.thestar.com.my/news/community/2007/05/21/descendant-sheds-more-light-on-tok-limbong