Article

Notes on the old cannon found in Malaya, and known to be of Dutch origin

From Munshipedia, the MBRAS digital historical encyclopedia

Notes on the old cannon found in Malaya, and known to be of Dutch origin

C. A. Gibson-Hill published this survey in 1953, tracing the surviving Dutch-origin cannon in Malaya through their casting, transfer, and local histories spanning the seventeenth to nineteenth centuries. The article argues that the Malays never produced true cannon of their own design, that all surviving meriam of European make were acquired by barter, gift, or seizure, and that the handful of Dutch pieces still identifiable in the peninsula constitute a small but historically rich corpus warranting individual attention.

Summary

The article opens with a linguistic and historiographical discussion of Malay gun terminology, correcting Wilkinson’s claim that meriam was of Portuguese origin and showing instead its Arabic derivation from miriam. Gibson-Hill then establishes that by the early sixteenth century guns were already in use at Malacca, Brunei, and western Java, and that the defenders of Malacca in 1511 employed primitive bombards and firing-tubes rather than true cannon. He argues that no reliable evidence exists for the casting of cannon in the southern peninsula, and that any Malay ordnance industry was confined to swivel-guns (lela) and squat mortar-like bombards.

The substantive portion of the paper is a catalogue of six Dutch pieces still in situ in Malaya, each described in terms of dimensions, inscription, and decorative features, then followed by a narrative of its probable movements. The most extensively treated is the 1603 demi-cannon at Georgetown, Penang, whose silver-inlaid Jawi inscription records its capture by Sultan Iskandar Muda of Aceh at the sack of Batu Sawar on 7 May 1613; Gibson-Hill reconstructs its subsequent career from Aceh to Selangor (1795), Kuala Selangor (until 1871), and finally Penang, drawing on Valentijn’s account of a Dutch gift of “two brass guns” to the Johor Sultan in 1605 as the most likely point of entry into Malay hands. The pair of 1736 demi-culverins at Kuala Trengganu, bearing the arms of Portugal rather than the VOC cipher, are discussed in relation to local tradition of their purchase during the reign of Sultan Zainal Abidin II, while the 1686 Kota Bharu culverin is linked to the succession disturbances following the death of Long Yunus around 1794.

A brief final section notes a previously unrecorded Dutch cast-iron four-pounder (1785) in the grounds of a village mosque near Kg Linggi, Negri Sembilan, and uses contemporary accounts of the Naning War (1831–2) and the Sungei Ujong War (1875) to demonstrate that the Malay forces in both engagements possessed no cannon beyond a single brass piece, confirming the scarcity of heavy ordnance in local hands.

Key Findings

  • The Georgetown demi-cannon (cast 1603, calibre 6.10”, barrel length 118¾”) carries a Jawi inscription dated 1023 A.H. (1613 A.D.) recording its capture at Batu Sawar by Sultan Iskandar Muda of Aceh; it is the largest brass cannon known in Malaya (pp. 155–156).
  • The pair of Kuala Trengganu demi-culverins (cast Amsterdam, 1736, calibre 4.00”, overall length 108”) bear the shield of Portugal in place of the VOC cipher, suggesting a commercial casting for the Portuguese government, possibly destined for Macao (pp. 149–150).
  • The Kota Bharu culverin (cast Amsterdam, 1686, calibre 4.37”, overall length 92”) was reportedly brought to Kelantan around 1794 during the succession conflict following the death of Long Yunus, at which point it was already over a century old (pp. 153–154).
  • The Kg Linggi iron four-pounder (cast 1785, calibre approx. 3.25”, overall length 59½”) bears the VOC cipher with an additional letter “M” (possibly = Malacca) and a category mark “:Z:”; it may have originated from Fort Filipina at the Linggi River mouth, occupied by the Dutch from 1785–6 until the British capture of Malacca in 1795 (pp. 161–162).
  • The 1871 Kuala Selangor expedition resulted in the destruction of the fort and the removal of the 1603 demi-cannon to Penang by men of the Madras Native Infantry; the landing party that day suffered five wounded, one fatally, from Malay fire (pp. 158–159).
  • The 1875 Sungei Ujong War produced a total ordnance haul of 36 iron and brass swivel-guns and 348 muskets from Seri Menanti, Ulu Muar, and Jempol, with no cannon recovered (p. 166).

Conclusion

Gibson-Hill’s definitive takeaway is that the Malays were never a cannon-casting people in the European sense: their indigenous ordnance was limited to swivel-guns and primitive bombards, and every surviving meriam of European make in the peninsula was an imported object whose local biography reflects the political transactions—gifts, purchases, captures—through which heavy artillery passed between the Dutch, Portuguese, and Malay polities over three centuries.

Context

  • The article draws on Valentijn’s History of Malacca (1726), Begbie’s Malayan Peninsula (1834), Newbold’s political accounts (1837, 1839), and Winstedt’s histories of Johor and Malaya, alongside direct physical examination of the cannon and correspondence with Residents and District Officers across the peninsula.
  • It contributes to the material culture history of Southeast Asian warfare by providing the first systematic identification and prosopography of surviving Dutch cannon in Malaya, correcting earlier generalisations (notably Gardner’s claim of Malay cannon-foundries at Trengganu, Java, and elsewhere) with specific epigraphic and dimensional evidence.

References