Article

Bronzes

From Munshipedia, the MBRAS digital historical encyclopedia

Bronzes

Bronzes constitute a significant category of artefact in the archaeological and ethnographic record of the Malay Peninsula and Borneo, spanning from ancient ritual objects in the Bujang Valley of Kedah to living cult items among highland peoples of interior Sarawak and Kalimantan. The evidence, though fragmentary, points to a complex metallurgical tradition that cannot be reduced to a single external source; rather, it reflects a combination of indigenous craft, long-distance exchange, and local specialisation that persisted across centuries and into the modern period [1, p. 259]. The objects range from small personal toggles and ritual implements to architectural and ceremonial components, and their study has engaged scholars in debates over provenance, function, and the relative weight of mainland versus insular influences in shaping the region’s material culture [2, pp. 193–198], [3, pp. 48–50].

Scope and Typological Range

The bronze objects documented in the Society’s literature fall into several distinct categories. In the Bujang Valley of Kedah, excavations conducted by H. G. Quaritch Wales in the 1930s yielded a number of metal fragments that have since been the subject of chemical and comparative analysis. Among these, a piece previously identified as a “trident of Siva” from Candi Bukit Batu Pahat (Site 8) was reinterpreted by F. E. Treloar as the upper portion of a Siva priest’s hand-bell, a type still in use from India to Bali [3, p. 49]. A “fragmentary base of an image” from the same site was likewise reidentified as the central dish of a bronze hanging temple lamp, comparable to an example in the Jakarta Museum described as used for religious dance ceremonies in Central Sumatra in the thirteenth century [3, p. 49]. Treloar further noted a similarity in form and size between a “bronze aureole” from Wales’s Site 16 and the suspending aureole surrounding the dancing figure in the Jakarta lamp, offering additional support for the reinterpretation [3, p. 49].

In Pahang, a bronze object from the Tembeling area, originally published by Mr. Linehan in 1928 as a burial-urn lid, was corrected by R. O. Winstedt in 1929 to be the head of a bronze drum [4, p. 456]. Winstedt drew on comparative examples in the Batavian Museum, noted by Dr. P. H. van Stein Callenfels, as well as finds from Annam and Java and modern drums in Bangkok Buddhist wats to support his identification [4, p. 456]. He observed that, so far as he was aware, no other specimen of this type had been unearthed in Malaya [4, p. 456]. A postscript records that I. H. N. Evans had independently identified the fragment as part of a drum face of the same type in the Journal of the Federated Malay States Museum (XII, 1929, p. 187) [4, p. 456].

In Borneo, the evidence takes a different form. Tom Harrisson’s 1965 note documents three small bronze turtle figurines from the Kayan area above Belaga in interior Sarawak, in the far headwaters of the Baloi branch of the Rejang River, and over into the Batang Kayan in Kalimantan [1, p. 256]. The largest of the two specimens in Harrisson’s possession measures 60 mm across at its widest, 47 mm to the neck, and 7–9 mm thick in the body, with a head 18 mm high at the crown and a “beak” curving up 25 mm from the back of the head [1, p. 256]. The smaller example measures 46 mm across, 44 mm to the neck (including a 4 mm upcurved tail), up to 6 mm thick, with a head only 10 mm high and 14 mm long [1, p. 257]. A third, superior example, 60 mm long with a 30 mm nose-curve, belonged to Tama Basa, brother of Kayan chief Tama Bulan, and was lost during a Confrontation border battle near Long Jawi in early 1964 [1, p. 256].

Indigenous Craft and the Dongson Question

The most sustained argument in the Society’s literature concerns the origin and character of Bornean bronze-casting. Harrisson’s central contention is that the bronze objects found in Borneo represent a localised, specialised branch of a broader tradition rather than direct imports from the Dongson culture of the Asian mainland [1, p. 256]. He argues that the typology of the objects themselves, together with Kayan genealogies that trace the “bronze cult” back to the early origins of the race, makes it unlikely that they are less than many centuries old [1, p. 256]. The present stock, he suggests, represents only a fraction that have survived the wars, massacres, mass-migrations, and epidemics that have confounded the Kayan ethnic group in proto-historical times [1, p. 256].

The casting technique of the Belaga turtles is described as fairly rough, suggesting cleaning off after casting, and Harrisson infers a mass production, local-level job, with expert skill but rough execution [1, p. 257]. The initial artistry, however, is of a high order, with a dynamic impact in keeping with Kayan-Kenyah aesthetic sensibilities [1, p. 257]. The head treatment of the larger turtle, with its S-curved upper jaw and cobra-like protrusion, reflects the hornbill-spiral theme that persists in modern Kayan and Iban carvings, a continuity Harrisson had documented in his earlier Artibus Asiae paper on the Imun Ajo figurine [1, pp. 256–257].

A critical piece of evidence for the indigenous-craft hypothesis is the finding of a socketed bronze ceilt and a cire perdue cast for a bronze gauge in stratified cave deposits on the Segama River, Sabah, by a Sarawak Museum–Sabah government team in September 1964 [1, p. 259]. Harrisson identifies this as the first in situ bronze-tool find for Indonesia or Malaysia, and the cast powerfully suggests local or at least area manufacture of finer objects in bronze [1, p. 259]. He concludes that if further ethnological and archaeological fieldwork produces more evidence along these lines, the prevailing “Dongson culture” model and its supposed domination in South-East Asia may have to be recast, at least so far as the outer islands are concerned [1, p. 259].

The Maloh and the Bronze Cult

Harrison identifies the Maloh, a group numbering at least 30,000 in the headwaters of the Kapuas in Kalimantan, as of special relevance to the Bornean bronze tradition [1, p. 259]. Until Confrontation, the Maloh roamed freely over Borneo as smiths; in recent times mainly as silversmiths, making Dayak belts and ornaments, but in early outside reports, and in their own tradition and folklore, they were brass-workers [1, p. 259]. They have been resident in and trading out of the Kapuas for at least seven centuries, probably much longer, and their tradition, culture, and domestic life suggest an exceptional stability by Borneo standards [1, p. 259]. Their legends and genealogies record the later arrival of the Kayans and the Ibans, and the carefully kept Iban tusut genealogical histories correspond with Maloh information on this point [1, p. 259]. The Maloh established a modus vivendi with the Iban, unlike the Seru, Bukitan, nomadic Punan, and Kantu, who were either destroyed or absorbed by the Iban westward expansion [1, p. 259]. Both the Maloh in the interior and the Bruneis on the coast preserved ancient brass-bronze traditions into the present century [1, p. 259].

The special significance of the turtle toggles in the Belaga area is connected, Harrisson suggests, to the turtle grade found as one of the sohun ranks in the mamat man’s society of the Kenyahs and related peoples [1, p. 258]. Among the Apo Kayan Kenyahs in Kalimantan, this grade seems to have disappeared, notably among the Leppo Tau of Long Nawang, who otherwise have the most elaborate and intricate mamat grade system [1, p. 258]. The smaller turtle toggle was found associated with a carved cross-section of Sambhur stag (rusa) antler, 60 mm in diameter and up to 9–10 mm thick, with four concentric incised rings and scratched lines suggesting a form of grade or personal identification [1, p. 257].

A Kayan narrative recorded in 1964 illustrates the living belief behind the objects: an old man dreams that a woman will protect him from illness and enemies, but must not kill or eat snakes, which are her grandfather. In the morning he finds a small river-turtle in his fish-trap, beats it dead, and carries it home; when he opens his basket to cut it up for food, the turtle has changed into brass, and he remembers his dream [1, p. 258]. Some Kayan people, Harrisson notes, are not allowed to eat any type of turtle or snake [1, p. 258].

Chemical Analysis and Provenance

In the Peninsular context, F. E. Treloar’s 1968 note reports the chemical analysis of metal objects from Chandi Bukit Batu Pahat in Kedah, with the aim of suggesting their origin and date [2, pp. 193–198]. The compositional data contribute to the broader question of the antiquity and cultural affiliations of early metalwork in northern Peninsular Malaysia [2, pp. 193–198]. Treloar’s later 1979 note, while adding little to debates over Indian versus indigenous origins of Bujang Valley ritual culture, demonstrates close cultural and trading links between Kedah and Sumatra during the late Sri Vijayan period [3, p. 49]. He advocates a fragment-by-fragment analytical approach to building up a picture of the period’s culture [3, p. 49].

Research and Documentation

The Society’s literature on bronzes reveals a progression from brief identification notes to more sustained analytical and interpretive work. Winstedt’s 1929 correction of the Pahang drum-head [4, p. 456] and Treloar’s 1968 chemical analysis [2, pp. 193–198] represent the earlier, more descriptive phase, in which the primary task was to establish what the objects were and where they came from. Treloar’s 1979 reinterpretation of the Kedah artefacts [3, pp. 48–50] marks a shift toward functional reanalysis, using comparative museum evidence to challenge earlier identifications. Harrisson’s 1965 note [1, pp. 256–259] represents the most developed position, combining fieldwork, typological analysis, ethnographic narrative, and archaeological evidence to advance a sustained argument for indigenous Bornean bronze-casting traditions. His work builds on two decades of publication, including the Artibus Asiae paper on the Imun Ajo figurine (1964), and engages directly with the then-prevailing Dongson-centric model of South-East Asian metallurgy. The key debate that emerges from these records is not merely one of provenance but of method: whether the outer islands of the Indonesian archipelago can be understood as recipients of a mainland tradition, or whether they possessed their own metallurgical cultures of sufficient antiquity and sophistication to require a fundamental revision of the regional narrative [1, p. 259].

MBRAS Sources

References

  1. Tom Harrisson (1965). Bronze turtles in Central Borneo JMBRAS 38(1): 256–259. Read on JSTOR
  2. F.E. Treloar (1968). Chemical analysis of some metal objects from Chandi Bukit Batu Pahat, Kedah: suggested origin and date JMBRAS 41(1): 193–198. Read on JSTOR
  3. F.E. Treloar (1979). A priest’s bell and a temple lamp: reinterpretation of the function of some Kedah artefacts JMBRAS 52(2): 48–50.
  4. R.O. Winstedt (1929). Indonesian bronze drum-head from Pahang JMBRAS 7(3): 456. Read on JSTOR