Further notes upon a study of ancient times in the Malay Peninsula
R.J. Wilkinson, C.M.G., contributed these notes in 1937 to supplement Robert Bagnall’s essay on ancient Malayan history published in the same volume of the JMBRAS. The piece functions as a set of scholarly corrections and additions, drawing on epigraphic, textual, and comparative-linguistic evidence to refine the identification of early polities in the Peninsula and to challenge prevailing assumptions about Malayan antiquity and its economic significance to the ancient world.
Summary
Wilkinson addresses five distinct problems. First, he locates the Annals’ Gangga-negara at the Bruas river area in Dindings, Perak, where local Malays preserve the remains of an ancient city including a fort, drumming ground, and silted harbour. He argues that Rajendra Chola’s inscription, which mentions both a “water-city” and a “city with high walls,” corroborates the Sejarah Melayu’s account of a walled harbour at the site during the Chola War of c. 1028. Second, he proposes that Lenggiu derives from the Indo-Chinese Klang-khiau (“Treasury of Jewels”), a royal honorific that Rouffaer had verified, and that this name explains the origin of “Johore” itself—since “jewel” in later Malay becomes jauhar or johar.
The most substantial argument concerns Raja Suran, whom Wilkinson dismisses as a composite figure conflating Alexander the Great with the Persian Feridun tradition of three sons ruling Iran, Turan, and Rum. He documents multiple versions of this tripartite royal genealogy in Malay texts and notes that Suran’s mermaid-wife Mahtab al-bahri corresponds to Roxana, further confirming the Alexander identification. On the Sejarah Melayu itself, Wilkinson performs a source-critical analysis: the Annalist knew of the Chola War (c. 1028), the Majapahit destruction of Singapore (c. 1360), Kartanegara’s conquests of 1275, and genuine Palembang court ceremonial, yet was ignorant of the names Śailendra and Śrīvijaya and had no concept of the Palembang kingdom’s seven-century span.
Finally, Wilkinson corrects the impression that first-century Malaya was a significant gold or tin supplier to India. Citing the Periplus, Pliny, and Tacitus, he shows that Indian gold imports came largely from Europe, and that the Sanskrit word for tin (kasthira) is a direct borrowing from Greek kassiteris, indicating European origin. Malayan tin trade under the Arabic name kalai (“the Kedah metal”) emerged only at a considerably later date, suggesting that early Indian “colonisation” of the Peninsula was superficial and that Ptolemy’s emporia were small and poorly situated.
Key Findings
- The Sejarah Melayu places Gangga-negara at di-darat Dinding; local Malays at Bruas preserve unexcavated remains of a fort, drumming ground, and silted harbour, guarded by evil spirits (p. 167).
- Rajendra Chola’s inscription references a “water-city” and a “city with high walls,” which Wilkinson matches to gangga-negara and dinding respectively (p. 167).
- Lenggiu is identified with Indo-Chinese Klang-khiau (“Treasury of Jewels”); Rouffaer verified the original and showed that “jewel” in later Malay becomes jauhar/johar, explaining the name Johore (p. 168).
- Wilkinson documents at least five versions of the tripartite royal genealogy (three sons ruling Persia, Tartary/China, and a third realm) across Malay texts, all referable to the Persian Feridun tradition (p. 168).
- The Sanskrit word for tin, kasthira, is a direct loan from Greek kassiteris, proving first-century Indian tin imports came from Europe, not Malaya; the Arabic kalai (“the Kedah metal”) marks a later, distinct trade phase (p. 170).
- The Annalist of the Sejarah Melayu was ignorant of the names Śailendra and Śrīvijaya and had no awareness of the Palembang kingdom’s seven-century duration, yet correctly preserved knowledge of the Chola War (c. 1028), the Majapahit war (c. 1360), and genuine Palembang court ceremonial including the chiri and muntah Lembu (pp. 169–170).
Conclusion
Wilkinson’s overarching takeaway is that the Sejarah Melayu, despite its evident ignorance of Indian epigraphic and dynastic chronology, preserves a surprisingly accurate skeletal framework of Śrīvijaya history—correctly identifying the Chola invasion, the Majapahit destruction of Singapore, and the transition from older yang-dipertuan to Indian raja titles in the seventh century—while the figure of Raja Suran and the supposed ancient wealth of Malaya in gold and tin are largely mythological or economically unfounded.
Context
- The notes draw on Rajendra Chola’s epigraphic inscription, the Periplus of the Erythraean Sea, Ptolemy’s geography, and a thirteenth-century French manuscript of the Iskandar legend held in Athens (p. 168).
- Historiographically, the piece extends the source-critical work of Rouffaer on the Sejarah Melayu and applies comparative Indo-Chinese and Persian philology to Malayan toponyms, a method relatively novel in local scholarship of the period.