Kelantan bull-fighting
C.C. Brown, a Malay States Civil Service officer, published this ethnographic account of Kelantan bull-fighting in 1928 in the Journal of the Malayan Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society. Writing from direct observation of the Kota Baharu and Kubang Krian rings, Brown documents the sport as a sophisticated cultural institution with its own taxonomy of fighting styles, colour nomenclature, and ritual practices, while arguing that it is fundamentally distinct from the “cruel” spectacle of Spanish bullfighting because the bull remains a free agent throughout.
Summary
Brown’s article is a comprehensive ethnographic survey of bull-fighting as practised in Kelantan in the late 1920s. He establishes that the sport was borrowed from Siam, where it remains popular, and that wealthy Kelantan owners still source their fighting bulls from Petani. The bulk of the article is devoted to the internal logic of the sport: a detailed nomenclature of fourteen recognised coat colours (from kumbang, the deepest jet-black, to lasat, the lightest), a classification of fighting styles into two broad classes—horning-match fighters (penikam and penebas) and endurance fighters (pandai, berani, and pemulas)—and a system of conformational “points” by which bulls are judged. Brown draws on his own ring-side experience and on the testimony of local experts to explain how an untried bull’s fighting style can be predicted from the position of hair whorls on its head, and how the shape of the horns (closely set versus wide apart) determines tactical advantage.
The article also traces the full lifecycle of a fight from purchase through training to the day of the contest. Brown notes the surprisingly modern training regimen (a daily drench of Guinness stout for ten days), the elaborate magical preparations (pakan and peruang) applied to the bulls’ horns and hides, and the role of the soothsayer (nujum) in determining the bull’s correct starting position according to a compass chart. The betting culture is described in some detail, including the casual, ticket-less practices of the tok jora and the vulnerability of country folk to confidence tricks. Throughout, Brown’s narrative is informed by direct participation and by the vernacular phraseology of the ring, which he quotes extensively in Kelantanese Malay.
A recurring thread is Brown’s insistence on distinguishing the Kelantan sport from what he considers genuinely brutal animal combat. He argues that because the bull can always break off the fight when it has had enough, no element of compulsion exists, and therefore the sport, while not painless, cannot be called brutal. This defensive framing runs from the early discussion of fighting styles to the closing paragraph.
Key Findings
- Proven fighting bulls imported from Siam (Petani) could cost up to $300 by the time they reached Kota Baharu; untried animals should not exceed $80 (p. 78).
- Stakes (tarohan dalam) between rival owners had historically reached $1,000 a side, but by 1928 a stake of $250 was considered “big money,” with matches between untried bulls typically staked at $25–$100 a side (pp. 78–79).
- The Kota Baharu bull-ring (bong) measured approximately 60 yards square; admission was 10 cents, rising to 20 cents for special fights (p. 81).
- The two principal permanent rings were at Kota Baharu and at Kubang Krian (the property of the Raja Muda, about 4 miles from Kota Baharu); temporary rings were erected at Tumpat, Pasir Puteh, Pasir Mas, and Kuala Krai for the Sultan’s birthday celebrations (p. 81).
- The Kelantan fighting bull is of Zebu stock, standing under four feet at the shoulder with a hump approximately nine inches high on the withers (p. 74).
- A typical penikam fight lasted little over five minutes, whereas a contest between two berani bulls could continue for nearly an hour (p. 83).
Conclusion
Brown’s definitive historical takeaway is that Kelantan bull-fighting constitutes a legitimate and culturally coherent sport, governed by its own aesthetic and tactical logic, and that its essential non-brutality—rooted in the bull’s perpetual freedom to withdraw—distinguishes it categorically from the Spanish model. The article thus functions as both a descriptive record and a quiet defence of the practice against the moral objections that a colonial administrator might be expected to voice.
Context
- Brown held the post of M.C.S. (Malay States Civil Service) officer in Kelantan; the article is written from the perspective of a sympathetic colonial participant-observer who had embedded himself in the ring-side culture.
- The piece draws on no formal archival collections; its evidential basis is entirely the author’s personal observation and informal interviews with local experts, trainers, and book-makers during his posting.