Article

Idols and images

From Munshipedia, the MBRAS digital historical encyclopedia

Idols and images

Idols and Images

The study of carved and sculpted figures in the Malay Peninsula and Borneo has long occupied a distinctive position in the Society’s literature, reflecting the region’s complex interplay of indigenous animist practice, Indian religious influence, and colonial-era artistic exchange. The corpus of known images—ranging from rough wooden effigies discovered in coastal caves to polished stone figures of Hindu deities unearthed in Sarawak—reveals a material culture in which the representation of the human and divine body served apotropaic, ritual, and architectural functions across multiple ethnic and religious communities. The records examined here span the early twentieth century to the 1970s and cover four distinct contexts: the Orang Mantong of the Rhio Archipelago, the Chinese temple tradition of Malacca, the stone-working traditions of south-west Borneo, and the Hindu sculptural legacy of the Kapuas basin and its extensions into Sarawak.

Scope and Historical Definition

The term berhala, used in the Malay-speaking world to denote an idol or sacred image, requires careful qualification when applied to the objects documented in the Society’s records. Dr. W. L. Abbott, reporting in 1904 on two wooden human figures found in a cave near Kampong Telok Lanun on Pulo Sanglar in the Rhio Archipelago, explicitly argued that these objects could not be regarded as true berhala [1, p. 129]. The figures, each approximately three and a half feet high, were carved from wood—one in harder timber, the other in soft white wood—and showed signs of long neglect, with roots growing over them and the wood beginning to decay [1, p. 128]. The more carefully carved figure bore three serrated wooden horns projecting from the head, rudely carved arms of softer wood, teeth represented by broken shell, and a blackish diagonal line across the chest meeting a horizontal line above the nipple, with a blackish spot over the heart [1, p. 128]. Abbott interpreted these not as objects of worship but as a form of Sakkat huang, a device used in sickness, analogous to the practice among the Orang Laut of driving a hantu (devil) into a carved figure and then discarding it at sea [1, p. 129]. He suggested the human figures were probably carried into the jungle rather than to the sea, and drew a comparison with the adu adu of Pulo Nias [1, p. 129]. The local Orang Mantong inhabitants denied any knowledge of the images, and no information regarding their use could be obtained [1, p. 128].

In Borneo, the question of definition takes a different form. Tom Harrisson, writing in 1973, established that the island was otherwise rich in megalithic and micro-megalithic traditions but had produced almost no true sculpture in the round prior to the discovery he reported [2, p. 179]. The pre-existing record was confined to four half-life-size figures in soft white schist found near Sarikei in south-west Sarawak, attributed to the recently extinct Seru people, and a single life-size figure seen at Long Po on the upper Kayan in 1945 [2, p. 179]. The five new pieces from the middle Kapuas river region of Kalimantan Barat—three larger sandstone figures and two small carved pebbles—therefore represented a significant expansion of the known corpus, nearly doubling it [2, p. 179]. Harrisson argued that the three sandstone figures, collected by P. Cassenius in the 1930s from the debris of an abandoned village (Kampong Semendai near Nandang) and from the Christian village of Nazareth, were rough but purposeful works, likely serving an apotropaic function analogous to the well-known perishable wood carvings of interior Borneo [2, pp. 179–180]. The largest sandstone figure clearly stood upright, partially buried in the ground, consistent with the placement of apotropaic figures just beyond the village edge [2, p. 180].

Material Traditions and Artistic Exchange

The records reveal that the production of images in the region was not confined to indigenous craftsmen working within a single cultural tradition. C. A. Gibson-Hill’s 1955 study of six carved wooden corbel-blocks in the Cheng Hoon Teng, Malacca’s oldest Chinese temple, demonstrated that these unique figures were south Indian works of the late eighteenth century, produced by craftsmen connected to the British Madras garrison that occupied Malacca from 1795 [3, pp. 173–179]. Unlike the lion-heads or mythical winged figures typical of Malayan Chinese temples, these blocks depicted recognisable human figures in three distinct groups: two European gentlemen in East India Company dress, two European military figures seated on mastiff-like dogs, and two Chinese figures associated with tin ingots [3, p. 175]. Gibson-Hill took photographs to London, where Dr John Irwin at the India Museum identified all six as south Indian work of the latter part of the eighteenth century, noting a strong resemblance to the famous wooden effigy of an East India Company official being devoured by a tiger, made for Tippoo Sahib and recovered from Seringapatam in 1799 [3, p. 176].

The circumstances of their production illuminate the broader dynamics of artistic exchange in the Straits Settlements. Early Chinese immigrants to Malaya were overwhelmingly unskilled labourers, and local Chinese craftsmen lacked the ability to produce original carved figures of this quality [3, p. 177]. The British occupation of Malacca by Madras forces in 1795 provided the most plausible mechanism for the arrival of skilled south Indian woodcarvers, who would have been available when the temple was rebuilt in 1801 by Capitan China Chua Su Cheong [3, p. 177]. Gibson-Hill further demonstrated that four inferior copies of the central pair were later made for the Chwee Eng Shui I in Singapore, built in 1858 by Tan Kim Seng, a Malacca-born Chinese who served as chairman of the Cheng Hoon Teng management committee from about 1855 until his death in 1864 [3, pp. 178–179]. The workmanship of these copies was inferior, with disproportions attributable to incompetence rather than the deliberate caricature of the originals [3, p. 179]. Colonel Cavenagh’s 1863 account confirmed that the figures were already in situ and interpreted as representing “the different nationalities by which the temple is supposed to be sustained” [3, p. 178].

In Borneo, Harrisson identified a parallel but distinct pattern of artistic continuity. A hardwood carving from the same Tilburg series as the Kapuas sandstone figures, 104 cm high, showed striking formal similarities—particularly in the treatment of the head and ears—suggesting a continuous tradition from stone into wood [2, p. 181]. Harrisson argued that the Kapuas figures and the Seru figures may share a remote common origin, both deriving from a stock of Bornean animists who migrated along the classic Kapuas-to-Sarawak corridor during the early Iron Age [2, p. 181]. His definitive position was that the overall “feel” of the work was endemic and native Bornean, even if the idea of expressing form in stone was externally prompted [2, p. 182].

Hindu and Indian Influence

The Hindu sculptural tradition in the region provides a further layer of complexity. J. C. Moulton’s 1922 note documented the discovery of a 24-inch stone figure of Ganesa at Limbang, Sarawak, unearthed by workmen removing the top of a hill near the Limbang Residency [4, p. 210]. The figure, seated on a lotus cushion and in remarkably good preservation, was sent to the Sarawak Museum, Kuching, by Resident F. F. Boult [4, p. 211]. Two scholarly assessments were recorded: Professor N. J. Krom of Leiden University suggested a sixth or seventh century date based on its direct Hindu origin, while Sir John Marshall, Director-General of Archaeology in India, proposed a later date of approximately the thirteenth century on the grounds that the image’s posture—soles of the feet joined—matched Javanese examples from the age of Brambanan and Singasari, indicating Javanese influence [4, p. 211]. Marshall further noted the elaborate head-dress as a possible jata (matted locks), suggesting an ascetic aspect of Ganesa unknown in Indian iconography [4, p. 211]. The discovery drew large crowds to the museum, where attendants had the task of disposing of offerings made to the image [4, p. 211].

Harrisson situated the Kapuas stone figures within this broader Indian-influence framework. Hindu stone figures—nandi, ganesa, yoni, lingga, and buddhas—were known from the same Kapuas sector, where Indian influence was strongest between the ninth and late fifteenth centuries, particularly during the final stages of the Majapahit Empire (1293 to approximately 1520 A.D.) [2, p. 182]. Harrisson acknowledged that these Indian works may have provided a marginal stimulus to the local stone-working tradition, but maintained that the Kapuas figures were fundamentally native in character [2, p. 182]. The dating problem remained unresolved: Harrisson leaned toward an ancient origin, noting that the pecking technique visible on one figure was characteristic of prehistoric megaliths dated to approximately 1,000 A.D. in the Sarawak River delta, but acknowledged that more recent manufacture could not be excluded [2, p. 181]. The two carved pebbles from the Kapuas series were unique in the entire island; all other known pebble use in Borneo involved plain, natural stones, making these the only examples of sculpture in miniature [2, p. 182].

Research and Documentation

The Society’s literature on idols and images reveals a progression from brief field notes to sustained analytical studies, reflecting both the accumulation of material evidence and the maturation of interpretive frameworks. Abbott’s 1904 note on the Pulo Sanglar figures is characteristically concise, offering a preliminary interpretation without the benefit of comparative material or expert consultation [1]. Moulton’s 1922 note on the Limbang Ganesa, while equally brief, already demonstrates the practice of seeking authoritative external opinion—Krom and Marshall—on questions of dating and iconography [4]. The interwar and post-war decades saw a shift toward more systematic investigation. Gibson-Hill’s 1955 article on the Cheng Hoon Teng corbel-blocks represents a significant advance in method: the author combined photographic documentation, expert identification at the India Museum, architectural history, and the reconstruction of colonial administrative circumstances to produce a comprehensive account of the figures’ origin and subsequent replication [3]. Harrisson’s 1973 article on the Kapuas sculptures extends this approach into the prehistoric and ethnographic domain, drawing on his extensive unpublished field material accumulated during his curatorship of the Sarawak Museum (1947–66) and on direct examination of the Tilburg collection [2, p. 183].

A recurring theme across the records is the difficulty of attribution and dating. Abbott could not determine the function of the Pulo Sanglar figures; Harrisson could not resolve the chronology of the Kapuas sculptures; and even the Limbang Ganesa attracted conflicting assessments from two leading authorities [4, p. 211]. The Cheng Hoon Teng blocks, by contrast, benefited from the convergence of stylistic identification, historical documentation, and the physical evidence of derivative copies in Singapore, allowing Gibson-Hill to construct a relatively secure narrative of production and transmission [3]. The records collectively underscore that the study of idols and images in the region remains a discipline in which material evidence, oral tradition, and external scholarly opinion must be brought into careful dialogue, and in which the boundaries between indigenous, Indian, and colonial artistic traditions are often more permeable than earlier classifications assumed.

MBRAS Sources

References

  1. W.L. Abbott (1904). Human images among the Orang Mantong JSBRAS 41: 128–129. Read on JSTOR
  2. Tom Harrisson (1973). Stone sculptures from south-west Borneo (Kalimantan Barat JMBRAS 46(2): 179–184. Read on JSTOR
  3. C.A. Gibson-Hill (1955). Six wooden images in the Cheng Hong Teng, Malacca JMBRAS 28(1): 173–179. Read on JSTOR
  4. J.C. Moulton (1922). Hindu image from Sarawak JSBRAS 85: 210–211. Read on JSTOR