Article

Cannon

From Munshipedia, the MBRAS digital historical encyclopedia

Cannon

Cannon

Cannon constitute a small but historically dense corpus of material culture in the Malay Peninsula and Borneo, spanning the sixteenth to nineteenth centuries and encompassing both European-cast bronze and iron pieces and locally produced swivel-guns and bombards. Their significance extends well beyond the military: in Borneo they functioned as a stable form of currency and as items of dowry, while in the Straits Settlements and the Malay states they served as objects of sacro-magical veneration, diplomatic gift, and political prestige [1, pp. 145–146], [2, p. 37]. The surviving pieces—numbering in the handful for Dutch-origin cannon in Malaya alone—offer a rare window into the complex interplay of European metallurgy, Malay political economy, and indigenous religious practice that characterised the maritime world of the Indian Ocean and Western Pacific [3, pp. 156–157].

Origins, Typology, and Local Production

The question of whether the Malays produced true cannon of their own design has been debated since the earliest European accounts. Gibson-Hill argued in 1953 that no reliable evidence exists for the casting of cannon in the southern peninsula, and that any Malay ordnance industry was confined to swivel-guns (lela) and squat mortar-like bombards [1, p. 146]. Woolley, writing in 1947, offered a more nuanced position, identifying several places in Malaya that acquired a special reputation for producing good cannon, among the most important being Brunei, Palembang, Atcheh, Menangkabau, and Trengganu [2, p. 35]. He noted that Dr. Linehan recorded the discovery of a mould for casting cannon on the Tembeling, dated to approximately the fourteenth or fifteenth century, and that good cannon were being made in Pahang by 1600 [2, p. 35]. The methods and ornamentation varied by region: in Brunei, Chinese influence was paramount owing to old trading relations, with the metal for the guns obtained from selected Chinese brass cash coins; in Palembang and Atcheh the chief external influence would be Arab; in Java perhaps Hindu [2, p. 36].

The type of cannon best suited to local conditions was the pivot or swivel gun, which Woolley described in considerable detail. Its U-shaped upper part held the trunnions of the gun, and the pointed foot fitted, like a rowlock, into any socket in the bulwarks of a boat or in the walls or embrasures of a fort. At the breech end was a hollow tube, perhaps six inches long—not the round knob usually seen on European guns—into which a wooden spike or handle could be fitted for turning or elevating the muzzle, an efficient aiming device that Woolley compared favourably to the elevating screw of a modern machine gun [2, p. 36]. Eccentricities included a double-barrelled cannon cast in one piece, a bell-mouthed blunderbuss variety, and the highly ornamented guns of Brunei make with muzzles like wide-open crocodile or dragon jaws [2, p. 36]. The guns were often decorated with patterns like those on other brass ware, gongs, or jars, and it was not uncommon to find a specimen with part or all of the barrel bearing a twisted fluted pattern; the lugs were often small dragons or dolphins [2, p. 37].

Gibson-Hill’s linguistic investigation corrected Wilkinson’s claim that the Malay word meriam was of Portuguese origin, showing instead its Arabic derivation from miriam [1, p. 146]. He established that by the early sixteenth century guns were already in use at Malacca, Brunei, and western Java, and that the defenders of Malacca in 1511 employed primitive bombards and firing-tubes rather than true cannon [1, p. 146].

The Dutch Cannon in Malaya

The most extensively documented group of European cannon in Malaya consists of six Dutch pieces still in situ, each catalogued by Gibson-Hill in 1953 with dimensions, inscriptions, decorative features, and a narrative of probable movements [1, pp. 145–174]. The most significant is the 1603 demi-cannon at Georgetown, Penang, the largest brass cannon known in Malaya, with a calibre of 6.10 inches and a barrel length of 118¾ inches. Its silver-inlaid Jawi inscription records its capture by Sultan Iskandar Muda of Aceh at the sack of Batu Sawar on 7 May 1613, and Gibson-Hill reconstructed its subsequent career from Aceh to Selangor (1795), Kuala Selangor (until 1871), and finally Penang [1, pp. 155–156]. The most likely point of entry into Malay hands was a Dutch gift of “two brass guns” to the Johor Sultan in 1605, as recorded by Valentijn [1, p. 156].

The pair of 1736 demi-culverins at Kuala Trengganu, cast in Amsterdam with a calibre of 4.00 inches and an overall length of 108 inches, bear the shield of Portugal in place of the VOC cipher, suggesting a commercial casting for the Portuguese government, possibly destined for Macao [1, pp. 149–150]. Local tradition attributes their acquisition to the reign of Sultan Zainal Abidin II [1, p. 150]. The Kota Bharu culverin, cast in Amsterdam in 1686 with a calibre of 4.37 inches and an overall length of 92 inches, was reportedly brought to Kelantan around 1794 during the succession conflict following the death of Long Yunus, at which point it was already over a century old [1, pp. 153–154].

A previously unrecorded Dutch cast-iron four-pounder, cast in 1785 with a calibre of approximately 3.25 inches and an overall length of 59½ inches, was identified in the grounds of a village mosque near Kg Linggi, Negri Sembilan. It bears the VOC cipher with an additional letter “M” (possibly indicating Malacca) and a category mark “:Z:”; it may have originated from Fort Filipina at the Linggi River mouth, occupied by the Dutch from 1785–6 until the British capture of Malacca in 1795 [1, pp. 161–162].

The 1871 Kuala Selangor expedition resulted in the destruction of the fort and the removal of the 1603 demi-cannon to Penang by men of the Madras Native Infantry; the landing party that day suffered five wounded, one fatally, from Malay fire [1, pp. 158–159]. Gibson-Hill used contemporary accounts of the Naning War (1831–2) and the Sungei Ujong War (1875) to demonstrate that Malay forces in both engagements possessed no cannon beyond a single brass piece, confirming the scarcity of heavy ordnance in local hands [1, p. 166]. The 1875 Sungei Ujong War produced a total ordnance haul of 36 iron and brass swivel-guns and 348 muskets from Seri Menanti, Ulu Muar, and Jempol, with no cannon recovered [1, p. 166].

Cultural, Economic, and Religious Dimensions

Beyond their military utility, cannon acquired profound cultural and economic significance in the Malay world. In Borneo, the ordinary gun with normal decoration was valued at approximately $25–$30 a pikul (a unit of weight), and fines for more serious offences were expressed as “so many pikuls,” with one or more cannon paid to make up the specified weight. Cannon also formed a regular item in brian (dowry) payments. Differences in workmanship, apart from exceptional cases, would not alter to any large extent the intrinsic value of the gun as so much metal, and this value would not fluctuate much, so cannon made a fairly stable currency. A cannon was not difficult to store—it stood up on end and was lashed to a house post—and would not deteriorate by rust, whereas buffaloes or cattle might die instead of multiplying; in case of a raid or on feast days when a loud noise was called for, it might even be positively useful [2, p. 37]. In quite recent years, however, many cannon had been sold as old metal or melted down to provide material for the smaller and less cumbrous gongs and other brass ware [2, p. 37].

Boxer, writing in 1965, broadened the inquiry into a comparative pan-Asian context, arguing that while Asian rulers eagerly acquired European artillery for defence, prestige, and sacro-magical purposes, they largely failed to convert this access into sustained military effectiveness [3, pp. 156–157]. A recurring theme was the consistent Asian preference for European-cast bronze over locally produced iron, which Boxer attributed both to metallurgical quality and to the prestige value attached to “Frank” manufacture [3, p. 157]. He noted that both Portuguese and Dutch authorities were reluctant to transfer military knowledge to Asian rulers who might turn against them, and that papal prohibitions on the sale of munitions to non-Christians—though largely a dead letter in practice—shaped official policy; yet desertion, shipwreck, and the simple covetousness of local sultans ensured a steady trickle of European hardware into Asian hands regardless of official intent [3, p. 158]. The most instructive case Boxer developed was that of Annam, where the Nguyen rulers systematically exploited the Macao gun-foundry and the presence of Jesuit missionaries to build an artillery capability that allowed them to resist the more numerous Trinh armies for generations [3, p. 160].

The sacro-magical revaluation of cannon as prestige objects rather than instruments of war is illustrated by several episodes. Carl Thunberg observed in 1776 that Japanese cannon at Nagasaki were discharged only once every seven years “in order to cleanse and prove them,” with the adjutant of artillery using a long pole to fix the match and firing “with averted eyes” [3, p. 170]. In the Malay context, the “Floating Cannon” of Butterworth—a rusted muzzle-loading cannon, 6½ feet long with a 4½-inch bore, enshrined in a thatched shed near Mitchell Pier and venerated by local Chinese fisherfolk—exemplifies the transformation of a military artefact into an object of cult. Its sacred status derives from the belief that it floated to its present location, a miracle that begot a cult. Competing traditions for its origin include a Chinese story linking it as the “female” mate of the Penang esplanade cannon (inscribed “IAN BERGERUS ME FECIT 1603”), another attributing it to the warrior Ah Chong of the 1862 Larut tin-field wars, and a Malay account of a trader named To Johan who dumped it overboard, after which coastal accretion gradually stranded it on dry land [4, pp. 125–127]. Coope noted the Malay explanation as the most plausible, given the documented accretion of the Butterworth sand-bank. An annual ceremony on the 15th day of the 8th Chinese moon, featuring a Siamese menora performance, is held to propitiate the tutelary spirit believed to guard the cannon; a plague following an omitted celebration is cited as a cautionary precedent [4, p. 128].

A further example of the cultural afterlife of cannon is the brass piece in the garden of Chelsea Hospital, London, captured by the British in the Third Burma War. Blagden transcribed its eleven inlaid inscriptions in Arabic and Malay, including a dated inscription identifying it as the property of “Sultan Sulaiman Shah the Victorious King,” dated Monday 4 Dhu’l-qa’dah A.H. 1063 (26 September 1653), though this ruler remains unidentified. The Malay inscriptions include devotional verses, a maker’s colophon, and a warning to the gunner; the final inscription names the engraver as “Tun Juma’at Abu Mendus” of Singgora. A separate Burmese engraving records the gun’s capture at the conquest of Dwarawati (Siam) in 1128 Burmese era (1766 A.D.), corresponding to the Burmese invasion that captured Ayuthia in 1767 [5, pp. 122–124].

The Bocarro Foundry and the Macao Connection

The Bocarro gun-foundry at Macao, operating from approximately 1627 to 1680, produced what were acknowledged to be the finest bronze cannon in the East [3, pp. 168–169]. A gun cast there in 1627 was captured by the English in Kwangtung in 1841 and is preserved in the Tower of London [3, p. 169]. A cannon cast at Macao by the Macaonese gun-founder Joao da Cruz in 1664 bears the inscription “De Cochinchina Champa i Camboia Ioao da Crus a fes em 1664” and was preserved alongside an English piece dated 1601 [3, p. 167]. The Kuala Trengganu demi-culverins of 1736, bearing the Portuguese shield rather than the VOC cipher, may represent a similar commercial casting destined for the Macao trade [1, pp. 149–150]. Boxer noted that the Count of Linhares, Viceroy of India (1629–35), erected the gunpowder-mill at Panelim, Goa, which by 1631 was producing over 700 lbs of gunpowder per day, underscoring the scale of European military-industrial activity in the region [2, p. 159, n. 11].

Research and Documentation

The Society’s literature on cannon reveals a clear evolution from localised artefact description to comparative historiography. Woolley’s 1947 note, written by a British colonial administrator in North Borneo with direct familiarity with local collections, foregrounded the economic rather than purely military significance of cannon in Bornean society and integrated European travel accounts—Marsden, Hamilton, St. John—with local ethnographic evidence [2, pp. 35–38]. His article also recorded the loss of a Brunei cannon formerly in Government House, Sandakan, and property of the North Borneo Government, which had disappeared by 1947, presumably melted down as scrap by the Japanese [2, p. 37].

Gibson-Hill’s 1953 survey represented a methodological advance, providing the first systematic identification and prosopography of surviving Dutch cannon in Malaya, correcting earlier generalisations—most notably Gardner’s claim of Malay cannon-foundries at Trengganu, Java, and elsewhere—with specific epigraphic and dimensional evidence [1, pp. 145–174]. The article drew on Valentijn’s History of Malacca (1726), Begbie’s Malayan Peninsula (1834), Newbold’s political accounts (1837, 1839), and Winstedt’s histories of Johor and Malaya, alongside direct physical examination of the cannon and correspondence with Residents and District Officers across the peninsula [1, p. 174].

Boxer’s 1965 “footnote” to Gibson-Hill broadened the inquiry into a comparative pan-Asian context, drawing on Portuguese viceroy correspondence, Dutch VOC records, English East India Company papers, and the published accounts of travellers such as Tavernier, Thevenot, Borri, Cocks, and Thunberg [3, pp. 156–172]. His central concern was to explain why, despite three centuries of access to European cannon and the services of European gunners, the rulers of Asia rarely developed artillery into a decisive military arm [3, p. 157]. The article anticipated later scholarship on technology transfer and the military dimensions of the “Great Divergence,” and Boxer closed by recommending C.M. Cipolla’s Guns and Sails (1965) for a fuller treatment of the socio-cultural factors that opposed the diffusion of Western military technology in Asia [3, p. 172].

The shorter notes by Coope (1947), Blagden (1941), and Gibson-Hill and Luckham (1950) illustrate the Society’s practice of recording individual specimens and local traditions as they came to light, often before systematic surveys could be undertaken. Coope’s account of the Butterworth cannon and its associated cult, and Blagden’s transcription of the Chelsea Hospital inscriptions, both preserve information that might otherwise have been lost [4, pp. 126–128], [5, pp. 122–124]. Gibson-Hill’s note on the cannon at Pulau Aur, situated approximately 15 miles east of Mersing in the Johore Archipelago, records the island’s visit by Government Surveyor J.T. Thomson in July 1849 during a survey of the east coast, though the text is truncated in the archival record [6, p. 139]. Together, these documents constitute a fragmented but valuable record of a material culture that was, by the mid-twentieth century, already in the process of disappearing through melting, loss, and neglect.

MBRAS Sources

References

  1. C.A. Gibson-Hill (1953). Notes on the old cannon found in Malaya, and known to be of Dutch origin JMBRAS 26(1): 145–174.
  2. G.C. Woolley (1947). Malay cannon JMBRAS 20(2): 35–38. Read on JSTOR
  3. C.R. Boxer (1965). Asian potentates and European artillery in the 16th–18th centuries: a footnote to Gibson-Hill JMBRAS 38(2): 156–172. Read on JSTOR
  4. A.E. Coope (1947). The floating cannons of Butterworth JMBRAS 20(1): 126–128.
  5. C.O. Blagden (1941). A XVIIth century Malay cannon in London JMBRAS 19(1): 122–124.
  6. C.A. Gibson-Hill and H.A.L. Luckham (1950). The cannon at Pulau Aur JMBRAS 23(1): 139–142. Read on JSTOR