Article

The genealogy of Malacca’s kings from a copy of the Bustanu‘s-Salatin

From Munshipedia, the MBRAS digital historical encyclopedia

The genealogy of Malacca’s kings from a copy of the Bustanu‘s-Salatin

R.O. Winstedt published this article in 1920 in the Journal of the Straits Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society (Vol. 81, pp. 39–47), presenting a Romanized Malay genealogical passage copied from a manuscript of the Bustanu’s-Salatin that had belonged to the late Sultan of Pahang. The text, originally intended for publication by the late W. Barnes, provides a variant royal genealogy linking the kings of Singapore and Malacca through the post-conquest dynasties of Johor and Pahang to the Acheenese sultanate, offering a rare window into how early seventeenth-century Acheenese historiographers understood the peninsular Malay past.

Summary

Winstedt’s contribution is primarily editorial and philological rather than argumentative. He introduces the passage by situating the Bustanu’s-Salatin within the Acheenese scholarly tradition, noting its composition by Shaikh Nuru’d-din Muhammad Jilani ibni Hasanji ibni Muhammad Hamid a’r-Raniri, and lamenting the loss of R.J. Wilkinson’s manuscript before the chapters on peninsular Malay history could be printed (p. 39). The passage itself—titled “Fasal yang Ketiga pada Menyatakan Tarikh Segala Raja-raja”—is a continuous genealogical narrative that begins with the descent of Sang Sapurba and Sang Nila Utama from the Indian lineage, traces the founding of Singapore and Malacca, and then follows the royal line through the Portuguese conquest, the establishment of Johor, and the parallel Pahang succession, ultimately arriving at the birth of Sultan Iskandar Ala’ud-din Mughayat Shah II of Acheen (1636–1641) (pp. 40–47).

The historical significance lies in the variant details it offers against the more commonly known Sejarah Melayu tradition. The text identifies Raja Iskandar Shah (styled Seri Rama Adikrama) as the first to “open” Malacca, giving him a reign of thirty-two years, and presents a more elaborate account of Sultan Mansur Shah’s conquests of Kampar, Siak, and Indragiri, as well as his five wives and their offspring (pp. 41–42). The Pahang succession is rendered in considerable detail, with sultans distinguished by honorifics such as Marhum Ziarat, Marhum di-Hilir, Marhum di-Tengah, Marhum di-Bukit, and Marhum Shahid, and the text records the assassination of Sultan Mansur Shah of Pahang by his own hulubalang (p. 45). Winstedt appends footnotes recording variants from a second manuscript, indicating textual divergence in key names and phrasings (pp. 40–47).

Key Findings

  • Raja Iskandar Shah (Seri Rama Adikrama) is identified as the first ruler to establish Malacca, with a reign of thirty-two years (p. 41).
  • Sultan Mansur Shah is described as the most wise and powerful Malaccan king, credited with conquering Kampar, Siak, and Indragiri, and with five wives including a Pahang princess, a Majapahit princess, and a Chinese princess (pp. 41–42).
  • The Portuguese conquest of Malacca occurred during the reign of Sultan Mahmud Shah, who then withdrew to Ujong Tanah and founded Johor (p. 43).
  • The Johor royal line terminates with Raden Bahar, who was poisoned shortly after being sent back to Johor by Sultan Ali Mughayat Shah of Acheen to succeed his father (p. 44).
  • The Pahang succession includes at least seven named sultans between Sultan Ahmad Muhammad Shah and Sultan Abdul-Ghafar Mohaidin Shah, with distinct honorifics (Marhum Ziarat, di-Hilir, di-Tengah, di-Bukit, Shahid) marking their burial or commemorative sites (pp. 44–46).
  • The text explicitly connects the Acheenese sultanate to the Malaccan royal house: Sultan Iskandar Ala’ud-din Mughayat Shah II of Acheen (1636–1641) is presented as the son of Sultan Ahmad Shah of Pahang and Puteri Bongsu Chendera Dewi, herself a descendant of the Malaccan line through Siak (pp. 46–47).

Conclusion

Winstedt’s definitive takeaway is that this passage constitutes a valuable variant witness to the peninsular Malay royal genealogy as understood in early seventeenth-century Acheen, and that the loss of Wilkinson’s manuscript has left a significant gap in the available printed editions of the Bustanu’s-Salatin. He urges the scholarly community to locate and print a complete copy, noting that the Leyden, Logan, and Royal Asiatic Society manuscripts all appear to contain the relevant passage (pp. 39–40).

Context

  • The primary source is a Romanized extract copied for W. Barnes from a manuscript of the Bustanu’s-Salatin formerly owned by the Sultan of Pahang; the original manuscript has not been traced (p. 39).
  • The article’s historiographical contribution lies in providing a comparative textual witness to the Sejarah Melayu royal genealogy, with variants noted against a second manuscript whose source Winstedt could not identify (pp. 39–40).

References