Article

History of Kedah

From Munshipedia, the MBRAS digital historical encyclopedia

History of Kedah

R. O. Winstedt, a British colonial administrator and scholar based in the Straits Settlements, published this survey of Kedah’s political history in 1920, tracing the state from its earliest attestation in ninth-century Arab geography through its successive subjugations by Palembang, Siam, Acheen, the Dutch, and finally Siam again, to the 1909 transfer of suzerainty to Great Britain. The article’s central argument is twofold: that Kedah was a strategically significant tin-trading centre whose political independence was perpetually curtailed by external powers, and that the Hikayat Marong Mahawangsa (the “Kedah Annals”), while preserving genuine historical kernels, is so heavily interpolated and chronologically confused that it cannot be relied upon as a straightforward narrative source.

Summary

Winstedt opens by assembling the earliest external references to Kedah, drawing on Arab geographers (Ibn Khordadzbeh, Sulaiman, Ibn Muhalhal) and Chinese chronicles (Chao Ju Kua, the Liang dynasty history) to establish that the state was known as Langkasuka or “Kilah” and was famous for its tin mines from at least the ninth century. He identifies the predominant cultural influence as Indian and Buddhist, supported by inscriptions in Kedah and Province Wellesley that Kern dated to 400 A.D. and by Nagari-script clay tablets of the tenth century. The political trajectory he reconstructs is one of successive suzerainties: first Palembang (Srivijaya), then the Chula kings of Coromandel, then Majapahit, and after the decay of these powers, the Siamese to the north. The conversion to Islam, dated by a Chinese account to 1474 A.D., marks the transition to the Muhammadan dynasty whose first ruler, Mudzaffal Shah, is recorded in the Kedah Annals.

The bulk of the article is devoted to the early modern period, where Winstedt demonstrates that Siamese suzerainty was nominal and ineffective: it did not prevent the Portuguese destruction of Kedah in 1611, the Achinese captivity of Sultan Sulaiman Shah in 1619, or the Dutch commercial monopoly imposed by the 1642 treaty and enforced by naval blockade in the 1660s. He then turns to a critical evaluation of the Kedah Annals themselves, identifying specific anachronisms—most notably the reference to Shaikh Nuru’d-din’s Siratu’l-mustakim, a work composed in 1634, which proves that at least part of the text was interpolated well after the events it purports to record. The article closes with the Siamese invasion of 1821, the 23-year occupation, and the 1909 transfer of suzerainty to Britain, before noting two curious details in the Annals: the claim that certain Kedah mountains were once islands (which geology confirms but which tradition could not have preserved from such deep antiquity), and a legend of Kedah’s founding of Perak that Winstedt identifies as a late interpolation.

Key Findings

  • Arab geographers from 846 A.D. (Ibn Khordadzbeh) and c. 851 A.D. (Sulaiman) record “Kilah” or “Kalah-bar” as a tin-mining centre; the Chinese Chao Ju Kua (1250 A.D.) lists Langkasuka among states subject to Palembang (pp. 29–30).
  • Inscriptions found in Kedah and Province Wellesley, dated by Kern to 400 A.D. in Southern Indian Sanskrit script, and Nagari-script clay tablets of the 10th century, confirm the early Buddhist and Indian cultural influence (p. 30).
  • The Dutch East India Company secured a treaty on 11 July 1642 granting it half of Kedah’s tin production at a fixed price; the Company blockaded the Kedah river in 1663–1664, and Malay pirates attacked Dutch sloops in 1676 (pp. 32–33).
  • The Siamese invasion of 1821 reduced Kedah’s population from 180,000 to 6,000 within six years; Siam divided the state into four administrative parts (Kedah, Setul, Perlis, Kubang Pasu) (p. 35).
  • The Kedah Annals contain a reference to Shaikh Nuru’d-din’s Siratu’l-mustakim, a Malay translation completed in 1634 A.D., proving that the text was interpolated or revised well after the events it narrates (p. 31).
  • Suzerainty over Kedah and Perlis was formally transferred by Siam to Great Britain in 1909 (p. 35).

Conclusion

Winstedt’s definitive historical takeaway is that Kedah’s long history is one of a commercially valuable but politically vulnerable state, whose tin wealth made it a perpetual target for external powers while its nominal Siamese suzerainty provided no effective protection. Equally important is his methodological contribution: by cross-referencing the Kedah Annals against Portuguese, Dutch, Chinese, and Malay sources, he demonstrates that the text is a composite work of multiple recensions, unreliable in its chronology, and useful only when its claims are independently verified.

Context

  • Winstedt served as a British colonial officer in the Straits Settlements and was a prolific contributor to the JSBRAS; this article reflects the administrative interest of the colonial service in the historical and legal foundations of suzerainty over the northern Malay states, particularly in the period immediately following the 1909 Anglo-Siamese treaty.
  • The article draws on a wide range of primary sources including the Hikayat Marong Mahawangsa (Maxwell collection, RAS London; von de Wall MS, Batavia Society), Dutch Dagregister entries, Barbosa’s 1516 manuscript, and the Sejarah Melayu, alongside secondary works by Blagden, Skeat, and Col. Low.

References