Article

Notes on ancient times in Malaya. Parts 2 and 3

From Munshipedia, the MBRAS digital historical encyclopedia

Notes on ancient times in Malaya. Parts 2 and 3

Roland Braddell’s 1947 “Notes on Ancient Times in Malaya, Parts 2 and 3” (JMBRAS Vol. 20) is a supplementary continuation of his earlier multi-volume Introduction, published after the Japanese occupation interrupted his original project. The article argues that the Malay Peninsula’s ancient history—spanning prehistoric megalithic cultures through proto-historic Indian settlement—has been systematically understudied, and that geographical and navigational evidence must take priority over etymological speculation in identifying ancient toponyms.

Summary

Braddell opens with a methodological critique of the prevailing practice in south-east Asian historical geography. He contends that scholars have too readily accepted identifications of ancient place-names on the basis of phonetic similarity alone, ignoring contradictory geographical data such as gnomon readings and navigational constraints. He cites Hirth’s warning that “the name of a place ought to be the last thing we should think of” and applies this principle to contested identifications including Fa-hien’s supposed visit to Java, the location of Ho-ling, and the position of Ch’i-t’u (pp. 3–4). He proposes five basic facts—winds, ships, navigation, monsoon periodicity, and coastal geography—that must anchor any reconstruction of ancient sea-routes, and draws on European navigational records as a proxy for conditions the ancients would have faced (pp. 4–5).

The article then surveys the pre-history and proto-history of the Peninsula. On megaliths, Braddell reviews the batu hidup at Malacca and the carved stones at Pengkalan Kempas, noting that their precise dating remains undetermined and that the Berhala Lima “megaliths” in Kelantan proved to be natural rock outcroppings upon excavation (pp. 7–8). On the Neolithic, he discusses the Kedah stone point recovered from the Padang Pelandok tin-mine, which Dr. Callenfels identified as unique on the mainland, and links it to Chinese records of the state P’an-p’an, whose inhabitants used stone arrow-heads alongside iron spears—evidence of a blending of stone and iron cultures (pp. 9–11). He also addresses the terminological dispute over “Melanesoid” versus “Hoabinhian” or “Bacson-Hoabinhian” for the cave-culture complex, concluding that the former term should be abandoned (pp. 11–12). Von Heine-Geldern’s thesis that the Malay Peninsula was the last common homeland of the Austronesian peoples before their dispersal is presented as a powerful argument for systematic research (p. 12).

The central and most developed section concerns the slab-graves of Perak. Braddell addresses three questions: who built them, what the builders were doing, and when they were constructed. He identifies the Bernam River as Ptolemy’s Khrysoanas, a view originally established by Dato Douglas and independently reached by H. D. Noone, and argues that the graves lie in a major gold-mining district still in production (pp. 13–15). The absence of gold objects in the graves is explained by the likelihood that extracted gold was exported rather than worked locally, in contrast to Sumatra where a long art history exists (p. 15). The “tulang mawas” iron implements found in and around the graves are explained by V. B. C. Baker, a senior Pahang miner, as timber-shaping tools held by a rotan loop under the armpit and worked from the elbow (p. 13). For dating, Braddell relies on bead typology: H. C. Beck’s analysis places the slab-grave beads in the same period as the Kuala Selinsing and Johore assemblages, i.e. between 1 and 400 A.D. (p. 19). He reinforces this with the Virampatnam (Pondichery) excavations, which yielded Arretine pottery (c. 1–50 A.D.), Brahmi graffiti (200 B.C.–200 A.D.), and a bead-manufacturing complex identical in form to Malayan finds, suggesting a shared South Indian bead industry (pp. 20–21). The Oc-Eo discoveries in Funan—a Sassanid cabochon of the mid-fourth century, a Roman gold medallion bearing an Antonine effigy, and a cornelian intaglio with a Roman bust—further confirm the integration of the region into western trade networks (pp. 21–22).

Key Findings

  • The Kedah stone point, dredged from the Padang Pelandok tin-mine near Sintoh, is provisionally accepted as a Malayan neolithic artefact; Chinese records of P’an-p’an (first embassy 424–453 A.D.) confirm the use of hard-stone arrow-heads in a neighbouring state, supporting its authenticity (pp. 9–11).
  • The slab-graves near the Bernam, Kruit and Slim Rivers contain cornelian, crystal and glass beads, socketed iron implements, bronze objects, and broken pottery, but no skeletal remains; the only stone implement found was a cross-hatched bark-pounder at Changkat Mantri (p. 13).
  • H. C. Beck’s bead analysis allocates the Slim-grave collection to the same period as the Kuala Selinsing and Johore assemblages, placing all three between 1 and 400 A.D. (p. 19).
  • The Virampatnam site (Pondichery) produced Arretine pottery datable to c. 1–50 A.D., Brahmi graffiti assigned to 200 B.C.–200 A.D., and a “collared barrel” bead type distributed across India and the eastern Mediterranean, confirming a South Indian bead-manufacturing industry contemporary with the Malayan finds (pp. 20–21).
  • Oc-Eo (Funan) yielded a Sassanid pate-de-verre cabochon (mid-4th c. A.D.), a gold medallion with an Antonine effigy and partial Latin inscription (AVREL…), and a cornelian intaglio with a Roman bust, directly linking the Straits region to Roman and Sasanian trade (pp. 21–22).
  • Von Heine-Geldern’s archaeological evidence points to the Malay Peninsula as the last common homeland of the Austronesian peoples before their southward dispersal, a view not supported by Kern’s earlier philological placement on the Annamese coast (p. 12).

Conclusion

Braddell’s definitive historical takeaway is that the Malayan slab-graves should be dated, at least provisionally, to the beginning of the first millennium A.D. and their builders identified as South Indians engaged in gold mining along the Bernam (Khrysoanas) corridor (p. 24). He frames this within a broader argument that the Peninsula’s pre-history and proto-history cannot be understood in isolation from India, the Pacific basin, and Australia, and that the “Greater India” narrative has obscured the existence of an indigenous civilisation already present when Indian traders arrived. The article closes with an urgent call for systematic, government-funded archaeological research, noting that the Malayan Governments “owe a duty to the world of science at large” (p. 7).

Context

  • Written in the immediate post-war period, the article acknowledges the loss of four working years during the Japanese occupation and the fortunate preservation of Braddell’s notes and library by Japanese authorities at Raffles Museum, Singapore (p. 2).
  • Braddell explicitly links the study of Malayan history to the forthcoming foundation of a Malayan university and the creation of a spirit of Malayan citizenship, arguing it must be taught properly in higher schools and colleges (p. 2).

References