The period and the nature of “traditional” settlement in the Malay Peninsula
Zaharah binti Hj. Mahmud (1970) examines the period and nature of “traditional” settlement in the Malay Peninsula, defined as the span between the termination of the Indianised millenia and the onset of widespread European colonisation (approximately 10th–18th centuries A.D.). Her overarching thesis is that the centuries between the decline of Indianised polities and the rise of the Melaka Sultanate were not a historical “limbo” but a period of active and continuous development of wet rice cultivation and the accompanying social, economic, and political institutions that constitute the “traditional” Malay way of life.
Summary
The article addresses a fundamental gap in peninsular historical geography: the near-total absence of specific information on settlement types, economic activities, and their distribution during the “traditional” centuries. Mahmud argues that the prevalent scholarly assumption of a cultural vacuum between the Indianised period and the Melaka Sultanate is an artefact of source scarcity rather than historical reality. She demonstrates that the traditions of wet rice cultivation, permanent settlement, and the associated social and political organisations were being established on a widespread basis throughout the lowlands during this period, and that by the time of the Melaka Sultanate, an established pattern of man and activity had already crystallised across the peninsula’s river valleys.
The core analytical framework identifies multiple sources of influence on the development of traditional settlement: Indianisation (which introduced wet rice techniques, particularly in the northern river valleys of Kedah, Kelantan, and Trengganu), Thai political and cultural influence (which accelerated the spread of these practices), the arrival of Islam (which became a universal institutional element of traditional life), the indigenous pre-sedentary agricultural heritage (visible in the kampong plot), and Indonesian immigration from the 15th century onwards (which brought already-definitive systems of settlement to the southern states). The article then proceeds to a state-by-state reconstruction of the areas, morphology, size, and distribution of traditional settlement, drawing on Chinese accounts, the Nagarakertagama, the Sejarah Melayu, Portuguese and Dutch visitor accounts, and physical-geographical evidence.
A significant portion of the argument is devoted to explaining why certain river valleys developed more extensive traditional settlements than others. Environmental factors—particularly the presence of peat soils, brackish water, and formidable swamp forests—constrained settlement in states like Selangor, Melaka, and parts of Perak, while the northern states, with their earlier exposure to Indianisation and more favourable natural drainage, accumulated larger traditional populations. The article also challenges the assumption that the Melaka Sultanate represented the epitome of traditional Malay civilisation, arguing that Melaka’s rise was fundamentally a commercial phenomenon unrelated to the development of traditional settlement in its immediate hinterland.
Key Findings
- The Nagarakertagama (1365) lists Pahang, Johore, Muar, Langkasuka, Kelantan, Trengganu, Dungun, Temasik, Sungei Ujong, Kelang, and Kedah as dependencies of Majapahit, confirming that lower-valley settlement was an accomplished fact by the 14th century (p. 93).
- A Chinese account by Tschau Jou Kua (1225) mentions rice as an abundant product of the lower Kelantan, lower Trengganu, and lower Pahang rivers, with tin, pepper, and gold as export commodities—evidence that these settlements were already operating within the traditional economy by the 13th century (p. 98).
- Captain Hamilton’s description of Kuala Trengganu (1719/1729) records approximately 1,000 houses “scattered, ten or twenty in one place,” consistent with a large centre of traditional settlement (p. 100).
- The 1835 population estimates show Kedah and Kelantan at 50,000 each, Pahang at 40,000, Perak at 35,000, Trengganu at 31,000, Negri Sembilan at 27,000, Johore at 25,000, and Selangor at only 12,000—reflecting the relative strengths of traditional settlement (p. 94).
- The Tanjong Karang Drainage and Irrigation Scheme in Selangor brought 48,763 acres into wet rice cultivation in the early 20th century, accounting for almost the entirety of the state’s wet rice area—meaning the only major wet rice region in present-day Selangor has a completely non-traditional origin (p. 105).
- The lower Muar valley of Johore, described by Tome Pires in the 16th century as having “beautiful farms” and “plenty of foodstuffs,” had a population of 2,000 men (heads of households), implying a total population of 10,000–12,000 persons (p. 112).
Conclusion
Mahmud’s definitive takeaway is that the “traditional” Malay settlement pattern—characterised by wet rice cultivation, kampong morphology, riverine location, and a hierarchical socio-political structure—was not a sudden creation of the Melaka Sultanate but the product of centuries of gradual development from at least the 10th century A.D., shaped by Indianisation, Thai influence, Islam, indigenous heritage, and Indonesian immigration. The Melaka Sultanate, far from being the climax of traditional civilisation, was a commercial entity whose rise was coincidental to, rather than causally connected with, the maturation of traditional settlement patterns in the peninsula’s river valleys.
Context
- The study draws on a wide range of primary sources including Chinese travel accounts (Tschau Jou Kua, 1225; History of the Ming Dynasty), the Nagarakertagama (1365), the Sejarah Melayu, the Suma Orientale of Tome Pires, D’Eredia’s 16th-century map, and 17th–18th century European visitor accounts, supplemented by physical-geographical observation of surviving settlement patterns in Kelantan and Trengganu which remained largely unaltered by modern drainage schemes.
- Historiographically, the article contributes to the emerging field of historical geography in Malaysia by attempting to reconstruct past cultural landscapes from fragmentary and often indirect evidence, and by challenging the then-prevailing narrative that treated the pre-Melaka centuries as a cultural void.