An Account of Several Inscriptions Found in Province Wellesley on the Peninsula of Malacca. Facsimile reprint. With a note H. Ting Mu Hung
Lieut.-Col. James Low, the British Resident of Province Wellesley, published this account in 1848 (reprinted here as a facsimile in JMBRAS 2025) to document a suite of epigraphic and numismatic finds from the northern Malay Peninsula, arguing that the region had sustained a significant Indianised religious presence—both Buddhist and Shaivite—well before the colonial period.
Summary
Low’s article is essentially a field report on five categories of material (labelled A through E) recovered from Province Wellesley, the British-administered territory on the mainland opposite Penang. The most substantial item is a group of seven inscriptions carved on a granite rock at Tokoon (modern Cherok Tokkun), which Low reached by elephant through swampy terrain and copied over three days using a chalk-and-feather technique. He notes the letters are unusually large and thick for ancient inscriptions, and while he recognises their Indian origin, he declines to attempt a full decipherment, citing the unhelpfulness of local Brahman and Buddhist priests.
The second major find is a fragment of slate bearing what James Prinsep identified in a 1837 letter as Sanskrit (not Pali, on the basis of the form karmma), with a letter style comparable to the Allahabad No. 2 inscription. Low uses this to advance his central argument: that Buddhism and the cult of Śiva were co-existent or at least contemporaneous on the Malaccan coast, and that a syncretic phase—when schismatic Buddhists had “reconciled the two religions”—preceded the eventual abandonment of Buddhism in the region. The occurrence of the word Buddha in the inscription and the seven-tiered spire motif (characteristic of Indo-Chinese dagobas) are his principal evidence.
The remaining items—Sanskrit verses in alto-relievo on a brazen dish, Devanagari letters imprinted on a brick, and two coins (one copper, one of mixed metal) found near the Kedah frontier and beneath a brick ruin—serve as corroborating material. Low personally selected the coins from sifted baskets to pre-empt doubts about genuineness, and he identifies them as Buddhist on the basis of their emblems, though the chief priest of the Hindu temple at Penang disputes his reading of one figure as a deity rather than a king.
Key Findings
- The Tokoon rock inscriptions (A) measure approximately ten feet in length for the largest panel and were copied using finely powdered chalk brushed off with feathers (p. 123).
- Inscription B, a slate fragment from Buddhist temple ruins, was identified by James Prinsep (13 June 1837) as Sanskrit, with the letter style compared to the Allahabad No. 2 inscription and the Hala Canara record (pp. 123–124).
- Low had forwarded a copy of inscription B to Prinsep as early as 1836, indicating a decade of sustained epigraphic work in the province (p. 123).
- Two coins—one copper, one of a mixed metal that “decrepitates on being submitted to the blowpipe”—were found in the Kedah country near the British frontier and beneath the foundation of a brick building; several hundred similar coins were contained in a metallic cup at the latter site (p. 125).
- Low states he had been conducting archaeological research in the region for “twelve or fourteen years” at the time of writing, i.e. roughly since the mid-1830s (p. 123).
Conclusion
Low’s definitive takeaway is that the Malaccan Peninsula, and Province Wellesley in particular, was home to a layered Indian religious culture in which Buddhism and Śaivism co-existed, with Buddhism ultimately giving way. He frames this as an open question—tracing the “mysterious kind of connection” between the two traditions to its origin—but his evidence points to a syncretic phase preceding the total displacement of Buddhism from the coast.
Context
- Low was the British Resident of Province Wellesley (1834–1849), and the article is written from the standpoint of a colonial administrator conducting antiquarian research as a personal pursuit alongside his official duties. His frustration with the “apathy of the villagers” and “suspicious conduct of the native chiefs” reflects the typical colonial framing of local populations as obstacles to knowledge production (p. 123).
- The 2025 facsimile reprint includes a brief editor’s note by H. Ting Mu Hung identifying Tokoon as modern Cherok Tokkun in Seberang Perai and clarifying that the final three paragraphs of the original (concerning a Singapore inscription) have been omitted (p. 123).