I Library of Q<org« B. Mo Farland I
CORNELL
UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY
Cornell University Library
DS 577.B63
Siam and the Malay Peninsula.
3 1924 023 108 644
Date Due
7
0)55-77
ZC3
107
B
VI.
SIAM AND THE MAIAY PENINSULA.
By C. 0. BLAGDEN, S.S.C.S. (Rbtd.), M.R.A.S.
TN his interesting paper on " The Nagarakretagama List.
of Countries on the Indo-Chinese Mainland," ^ Colonel
G-erini objects, reasonably enough, to the claim set up by
the Javanese author of the Nagara Kretagama that the states
of KSdah, Kelantan, Trengganu, and Pafiang in the Malay
Peninsula and the island of Singapore at the south of it
were dependencies of the Jav-anese empire of Majapahit.
This alleged Javanese supremacy over the Peniosula cannot,
ia view of the known facts of Malay history, have been
much more than a mere pretension, never substantiated by
any real efBective occupation. The claim was no doubt mad'e
imder the influence of the stirring events which in or about
the year 1377 a.d. culminated in a great, though transient,
expansion of the Javanese sway. Palembang, Jambi, Pasei,
and Samudra (in Sumatra), Ujong Tanah (the "Land's End"
of ;the Malay Peninsula, now known as JohOr), Bangka,.
Belitung, Eiau, Lingga, Bentan, and a number of other small
islands in this region, as well as certain points on the coast of
Borneo and other places to the eastward, are in theT'asei
Chronicle recorded as having been conquered by Majapahit
at this period or as being tributary to it about this time.
There is little doubt that this was the conquest recorded
in the Malay Annals (the Sejarah Malayu), which expelled
the ruling Malay dynasty from Singapore and led to the
foundation of the new settlement of Malacea. The Javanese
do not appear to have kept Singapore, for we hear of no
1 J.E.A.S., July, 1905.
1
108 SIAM AND THE MALAY PENINSULA.
Javanese settlement being made there ; the place simply
lapses into insignificance as an unimportant dependency of
But so far as the Peninsula itself is concerned, there is no
evidence th#t there was ever any real conquest by the
Javanese or any lasting relation of subjection to Majapahit.
- [in place of this Javanese claim, Colonel G-erini would set
up'a Siamese occupation of the Peninsula, asserting that " aU
that territory then belonged unquestionably to Siam, and
continued to do so until the advent of the Portuguese at
Malacca.^ Similarly, in his very interesting article on
Siamese Proverbs in the Journal of the Siam Society for
^904, he says ^ that " the whole of the Malay Peninsula was
under Siamese sway for the two hundred and fifty years
comprised between the middle of the thirteenth and the end
of the fifteenth century a.d., during which period many
V Siamese customs, institutions, etc., were introduced to the
Malay people."
[Malay history is an obscure subject and hardly, perhaps,
of very general interest, but in view of Colonel Gerini's
recognized position as an authority on matters relating to the
history of South-Eastern Asia, it is impossible to pass over
in silence assertions such as these, which are contrary to
ascertained facts and in the highest degree misleading.^
This is the more necessary as Colonel Gmni is not
* altogether alone in making such assertions. j\J)or some
centuries past the Siamese have exercised a somewhat ill-
defined suzerainty over certain of the northern states of the
Peninsula; and in support of this traditional suzerainty
(which they often tried to convert into something more
substantial) they sometimes roundly claimed that the
Peninsula belonged de jure to them. But they never, so
far as I am aware, adduced any evidence of such an actual
occupation as Colonel Gerini asserts; nor does the latter
L'
t
' p. 27 (p. 17 of the article).
" I need hardly say that I do not for a moment impute to Colonel Gerini any
, intention to mislead ; hut he appears to be so much influenced hy the Siamese
j)pint of view that he sees Malay history through a distorting medium.
f
SIAM. AND THE MALAY PENINSULA. 10&
bring forward any evidence Ijliat is conclusive on the point.
While lie denies the supremacy claimed for Majapahit
(wherein he has the facts of history on his side), and will
not even admit so much as an ephemeral conquest of these
territories by the Javanese (which indeed, es^cept as to
Singapore and its immediate neighbourhood, is unlikely), he
attempts to base his assertion of a Siamese occupation of the
PeninsTila on certain warlike expeditions, beginning about
A.D. 1279-80, of the Sukothai king Ruang, who is said to
have conquered the Peninsula at that remote period.
I propose to consider this alleged Siamese occupation of
the Peninsula in the light of Malay history. But first of
all, in order to avoid ambiguity, I would say that when
I speak of the Malay Peninsula I do not (like some other
writers, including Colonel Gerini) include in the term the
whole territory which lies between Tenasserim and Singapore.
As a matter of physical geography, the Peninsula begins
about lat. 7° 30', where it joins the long isthmus which
connects it with the mainland of Indo-OhinaJ But that
is a mere matter of technical terminology, whereas the-
distinction I wish to draw is of substantial importance.
[The Malay Peninsula, in the sense in which I use the
expression here, comprises that part only of this long tongue
of land where for centuries past the bulk of the settled
population has been of Malay race and speech and of the
Muhammadan religion. In that sense the Malay Peninsula
begins about lat. 7°.^ A few generations ago the ethnical
frontier was on the whole somewhat to the north of that
parallel,^ but during^ the last two centuries it has lifted
slowly southward, y It is said that Senggora (lat. 7° 12')
was once a Malay town ; if that was so, it must have been
a very long time ago, for now the place is mainly Siamese,.
n so far as it is not OhineseJ] Even to the south of lat. 7°
' Apparently rather to the north of this parallel jon the west coast of the
Peninsma, and to the south of it in the districts further east.
2 See Newbold, "Straits of Malacca," vol. ii, pp. 2, 67.
3 lUd., pp. 71-3; Annandale & Eobinson, Fasciculi Malayenses, Supple-
ment, p. xii.
no SIAM AND THE MALAY PENINSULA.
there are at tlie present day a few small patches where
Siamese constitute the bulk of the settled population, but,
roughly speaking, the ethnical boundary may be taken to be
about lat. 7°. ^Here Siamese territory, in the true sense of
the word, liorders on two historic Malay states: KSdah,
which still survives as a tributary state, and Patani, which,
like Kedah, was ravaged by the Siamese some seventy years
ago, and, less fortunate than its neighbour, has been broken
p by the invaders into a number of small fragments, over
most of which weak Malay rulers are allowed to exercise
a nominal sway under the suzerainty of the Siamese King
and the supervision of a Siamese High Commissioner. But
broken or whole, with diminished boundaries and in a position
of dependence though they may be, Kedah and Patani have
for centuries been essentially Malay states, the circumstance
of their being officially styled Siamese provinces and having
strange Siamese names conferred upon them notwithstanding.
They have their place in Malay history, and by their speech,
race, and faith they are unmistakably alien to the Siamese.
There are relatively few Siamese elements in their popiilation,^
and those have probably only come in during the last few
generations. Further to the south, in the remaining states
of the Peninsula such as Kelantan, TrSngganu, Perak, and
Pahang (to say nothing of Selangor, the N6gri Sembilan,
and Johor), there are no Siamese worth mentioning, and
there is no evidence that there ever were any.
To return to the alleged Siamese sway over the Peninsula
from circ& a.u. 1250 to 1511, I would observe that it 'is
in tfi-ms contradicted by some of Colonel Gerini's own
authorities, viz., the Chinese works known as the Ying-yai
Sheng-lan (of 1416), the Hai-yii (of 1537), and the History
of the Ming Dynasty (1368-1643), Book 325.^ These
authorities expressly state that in the year 1403 the Chinese
' See FasciciiE Malayenses, Supplement, p. xxii, for the census figures showing
the Malay preponderajice in the Patani states. (No figures are giyen for K^dah,
which is even more Malay.) In Ligor, Patalung, and Senggoraj on the other
hand, the Siamese preponderance is marked.
* Groeneveldt in " Miscellaneous Papers relating to Indo-China," 2nd aeries,
vol. i, pp. 243 d seq.
SIAM AND THE MALAY PENINSULA, 111
-emperor sent an embassy to Malacca ; that Malacca returned
the compliment in 1405, on which occasion the Chinese
-emperor invested the local chief with regalia and appointed
him king of the country; likewise that in 1409 another
Chinese embassy again recognized the independent status
of Malacca.* In 1419, and again in 1431, Malacca com-
plained to the Court of China that Siam was planning an
attack against her, and the Emperor forbade the Siamese
King from carrying out his supposed intention, and on the
second occasion issued a decree that he should live in
harmony with his neighbours and refrain from acting
against the orders of the Imperial Court. So say the Chinese
records ; but it is to be feared that these paternal admonitions
had little effect on the Siamese, who repeatedly made war
on Malacca in spite of the Emperor's orders.
Now of course it is open to argument whether the
Emperor of China had any sort of jurisdiction or locus standi
to interfere between Siam and Malacca at all, even if Siam
stood (as it is generally believed to have done) in some sort
of dependent relation towards the Celestial throne. But
it is surely perfectly obvious that China could not have
solemnly recognized the independence of Malacca and
invested its ruler as king, if the place had been at that
time actually in Siamese occupation. Thus these Chinese
authorities, which, it must be remembered, are matter of fact
documents, some of them official records and contemporary
with the events they relate, suffice to knock rather more
than a century off the alleged two and a half centuries of
Siamese sway over the Peninsula. ' *
It is true that these same records state that " formerly "
Malacca was not a kingdom, but was a mere chieftainship
tributary to Siam, the Hai-yii adding that the chief who was
in charge of the country had revolted against his master and
1' This independence is of course considered by the Chinese chroniclers as being
Bubiect to the general OTerriding suzerainty then claimed by China over the whole
of Eastern Asia. It is really comical to read of Java, Siam, and China all almost
at the same time claiming supremacy over the Peninsula, while in fact none of
them had any actual footing there. These rival claims (even if we did not
know their hdllowness aliim&) are enough to destroy one another.
112 ST AW AND THE MALAY PENINSULA.
made Mmself independent at some period whicli could not
(in 1537) be ascertained.U I will return to that point
hereafter ; but in the meantimejj would emphasize the fact
that during the whole of the fifteenth century Malacca, th&
leading stat^ of the Peninsula, was an independent Malay-
kingdom, recognized as such by the Chinese Imperial
authorities, and was often at war with Siam, but in no
sense under Siamese sway. The King and people were
Muhammadans ; they had their own laws,^ their own
administratiTe system, their own language and customs ;
in fact, with the exception of that tincture of Indian
civilization which is shared by most of the ciTolized races of
Further India, they had nothing whatever in common with
Siam. During the whole of this period they maintained, at
frequent intervals,. diplomatic relations with China by the
sending and receiving of embassies, which were openly
accorded official recognition. It is quite certain that from
the year 1405, when China, then beyond aU question the
leading power in Eastern Asia, recognized the claims of
Malacca, its independence was de facto maintained till 1511,
when the place fell into the hands of the Portuguese.
This state of things is in all essentials confirmed by the
evidence of the Commentaries of Alboquerque* and by the
Malay Annals (the SSjarah Malayu).* The former work no
doubt merely embodies the oral traditions current about the
time of the Portuguese conquest ; the latter, though probably
based in part on earlier written sources,, was not itself
1 The account in the History of the Ming Dynasty might he taken to mean
that Malacca was trihutary to Siam up to the year 1403, and renounced its
allegiance at the suggestion of the Chinese envoy. But this hardly seems
consistent mth the conservative tendencies of Chinese policy, and is therefore
improhable. If it was, however, the fact, it goes to show that the Siamese
supremacy was of a very nominal character, seeing that it could be thrown off so
easily.- There can have been no real sway, no actual Siamese occupation, but
a mere paper suzerainty at the most.
* A translation of the laws of Malacca will be found in Newbold, op. cit.,
vol. ii, p. 231 et seq.
2 Translated by W. de Cr. Birch in the Hakluyt Society's publications. See
especially vol. iii, pp. 71-84.
* Partly translated by John Leyden under the title "Malay Annals." The
best edition in Malay is that of Singapore (1896, ed. Shellabear).
^AM ANB THE MALAY PENINSULA. 113
composed till a.b. 1612. Both are therefore inferior as
authorities to the earlier Chinese records. But where they
agree with these records, their value as independent cor-
roborative evidence is not to be denied. It is pretty clear
from a comparison of these sources, as I tried to show some
years ago,i that the usually recei-^^ed Malay chronology is
incorrect and must be cut down considerably. But it
is also evident that some five or six of the Malay rajm of
Malacca, whose conquests and other exploits are related
in the Sejarah Malayu, are perfectly historical personages,
even though their Malay chronicler has woven some legendary
lore into his history of their lives. They reaUy lived and
reigned in the fifteenth century. They conquered neigh-
bourrag states, such as Pahang, Siak, Kampar, and Indragiri
(these last three in Sumatra), squabbled* with Palembang
(another Sumatran state), ^ were in diplomatic relations with
Majapahit and Chiua, and were several times at open feud
with Siam. They came near to welding the whole Peninsida,
as far as Kedah and Patani inclusive, into a Malay empire,
and but for their conquest by the Portuguese it is possible
that they might have succeeded in doing so. Anyhow,
a few years before the Portuguese conquest, they defeated
a Siamese fleet which had been sent to attack them.
One may well ask, what is there, so far as the fifteenth
century is concerned, to show for the alleged Siamese sway
over the Peninsula, seeiag that its leading state at this time
enjoyed such a perfectly autonomous position ?
Perhaps, however, it may be suggested that even if
Malacca was independent from 1405 onwards, it may have
been in Siamese hands some twenty-five years earher, at
the time when the Nagara Kretagama was written. If that
be so, I should like to have it explained how, in such a short
space of time, the Siamese so conipletely lost their hold over
^ Actes du Onzi^me Congr^s International des OrientaJistes, ii, pp. 239-253.
* See Groeneveldt, op. cit., p. 163. At some time benreen 1408 and 1415 the
King of Malacca appears to have raised a claim to sovereignty over Palembang,
which place seems to have been still under Javanese supremacy, and there was
a suggestion that this claim was put forward with the sanction of China; but
this was formally repudiated by the Chinese emperor.
114 SIAM AND THE MALAY PENINSULA.
tliis region. But what evidence is there that it was really-
Siamese in 1380, any more than in 1405 or 1500 ? According
to the Sejarah Malayu, Malacca w.as founded in consequence
of and soon after the destruction of Singapore by the forces
of Majapahif. This event, I believe, I was the first to date
at about the year 1377,' and I am glad to observe that
Colonel Gerini agrees with me : it avoids the necessity of
restating here the groimds which led me to that conclusion.
I suppose, therefore, that I shall not be far wrong in
assuming the foundation of Malacca to have been ap-
proximately synchronous with the writing of the Nagara
KrStagama, which apparently contains no mention of the
new settlement. The Malay chronicler tells us nothing
very definite as to the condition of the Peninsula at the
time of its foundation, except that Muhammadanism had not
yet become the established religion of the country. The
conversion of the ruling dynasty to Islam must, however,
have happened a few years later, as the Chinese embassy
of 1409 found that religion established.
According to Colonel Grerini's contention, we are to
believe, it seems, that in 1380 or thereabouts the Peninsula
was held by the Siamese, who were good enough to
acquiesce in the establishment of a new Malay state in their
midst, and who. in the space of a single generation had so
completely effaced themselves that not a trace of them
remained. This strikes me as being in the highest degree
improbable.
]^ data do not enable me to pursue the alleged Siamese
occupation of the Peninsula further back into the dim past ;
but I have not the slightest hesitation in asserting that if
the conquest of the Peninsula in 1279-80 by King Ruang
really took place — if, that is to say, that warlike monarch or
his army ever got further south than Ligor or Senggora —
the exploit was a mere episode which left no permanent
traces. What, in Jact, are the Siamese customs, institutions,
etc., that during this supposed period of Siamese occupation
' Actes du OaziSme Congrfes International des Orientaliates, ii, pp. 250-1.
SIAM AM) THE MALAY PENINSULA. 115
were introduced among tlie Malays ? I know of no single
specifically Tai (or Thai) characteristic among the Malays
or any of the other indigenous inhabitants of the Peninsula,
as defined aboTe. This is the more remarkable as there is
plenty of evidence in the Peninsula of a former Indo-Chinese
domination, as I shall state presently, but it is not Siamese
at all. One would, however, like to have fuUer and better
particulars as to the expeditions of King Ruang, and I trust
that Colonel Grerini will be good enough to supply them.
It wiU be objected to my argimients that the authorities
I have referred to expressly state that Siam "formerly"
owned the Peninsula, and that local legends and traditions
ascribe to the Siamese a number of ancient forts, mines, and
other striking landmarks, the real origin of which is lost in
antiquity. Further, it may be pointed oiA that the Siamese
suzerainty over the northern states of the Peninsula has
been acknowledged for several centuries by the Malay rulers
sending periodical tribute in, the form of 'golden flowers*
{bunga emas) to the Court of Siam.
I wlU deal with this last point first. It seems to me
entirely irrelevant to the issue here raised. /The northern
states of the Peninsula have for centuries pastTiad good and
sufficient reasons for desiring to propitiate vtheir powerful
neighbour. To them the King of Siam and his viceroy of
Ligor were ever a dangerous menace, and it needs no
hj^othesis of conquest or occupation to explain the attitude
wMch the Malay rajas adopted. J During the early part of
the last century gallons of inK were spilt in learned^dis-
sertations as to the precise rights of the King of Siam over
these Malay feudatories, vassals, or subordinate allies of his.
I do not propose to revive these extinct controversies, for
they can have no bearing on the purely historical question
of the relation of Siam to the Malay Peninsula in medieval
times. I would only observe that, ^til a comparatively recent
period, the Siamese overlordship (whateyer its theoretical
rights may have been) remained in fact a purely external
suzerainty : these Malay states were left to enjoy autonomy
so long as they sent their periodical tribute of golden flowers
116 SIAM AND THE MALAX PENINSULA.
with reasonable punctuality. Suoii as it was, this homage?
was confined to the four northern states of the Peninsula,
Kedah, Patani, Kelantan, and TrSngganu ; the others^ -which
are now under British protection or suzerainty, had, as a rule,
no dealings with Siam at all.
The other argument at first sight seems much stronger :
we have aU the authorities, Chinese, Portuguese, Malay
(and, I suppose, Siamese), alleging or admitting that in some
far distant past Siam had held the Peninsula. Well,, is it
quite certain that ' Siam ' and ' the Siamese ' are, in this
instance, conyertible terms ? The people we call Siamese
do not apply that name to themselves, but call themselves
Thai, and are a branch of the Tai race. Long before they
came down from their original seats in Southern China, the
country which th^ were eventually to occupy already bore
the name of Siam. This coimtry, the valley of the Me-nam,
had (as Colonel Gerini has shown us elsewhere ^) a long
. history prior to its conquest by the Tai race. [For the first
ten centuries or more of our era it was inhabitedr by a race
aUied to the Mon people of Pegu and the Khmer people of
Camboja. N'ow of the influence of this race there are in
the Malay Peninsula abundant traces. The dialects of the
remnants of the wild aboriginal tribes that have esca,ped
absorption by the more civilized Malay population are not
merely distantly related to the languages of the Peguans
and Cambojans, but also ia certain parts of the Peninsula
exhibit traces of direct contact with some such Indo-Chinese
race^ Thus in certain portions of the Peninsula^ the numerals
used by these rude tribes are nearly identical with the Mon
numeralsr] Now it is quite certain that there has been no
possibility of recent contact between the Mons and these
wild tribes; since the time when the Malays colonized the
Peninsida and the Siamese occupied the isthmus leading to
it, these tribes have been completely cut o£E from all relations
*
' See his contributions to the Imperial and Asiatic Quarterly Review in the
years 1900-1902.
2 Southern S^langor, North-Eastern Pahang, the NSgri SSmbilan, and Northern
Johor.
SIAM AND THE MALAY PENINSULA. 117
ith the Mon and Khmer peoples. But, on the other hand,
leir ntunerals have diverged so slightly from the Mon
rpe that there must have been direct contact at a period
hich in the history of human development cannot be styled 1
jmote.^ I think one would not be far wrong iSi suggesting V
lat it was something less than a thousand years ago.
Here, then, we have real evidence of the former presence \
f a strong Indo-Chinese element in the Peninsula ; but it \
i not Siamese in our sense of the word at all, that is to \
ly, it is not Thai or Tai. It is Siamese in the old sense, 1
iz., that it probably proceeded from the country which j
ears that name ; but of Thai (or Tai) influence there is-^
ot a trace to be found.
These are some of the grounds on which, until better
vidence is adduced, I venture to ^ doubts the reality of any
iich early Siamese occupation of the Peninsula as Colonel
}-erini alleges J The early history of this region is somewhat
f a mystery, but it would appear that, before the Malays
olonized it, it was in part occupied by a Mon- Khmer race,
rho probably held a few points on the coasts Then, some-
where about the eleventh or twelfth century perhaps, these
3mote possessions were given up, probably because the home
juntry of these Indo-Chinese settlers was in the throes
£ war and in course of being conquered by the invading
hai race. When, after a prolonged series of struggles, the
ttter had made themselves masters of Siam^ it is quite
tfssible that they took stock of what they had conquered, and
ideavoured to claim for themselves all the territories that
ad formerly been occupied by the race they had overcame :
is a familiar principle, applied a few years ago against Siam
1 Compare the forms of these numerals : —
1 2 3 i 5,' 6 7
rathern Sakai | ^^ .j^^^-^. ,^^, ^^^^^ masokn p«ru' tempo
on (written) ... mwai mba pi' pan mSsiin tSrau thSpah
, , . .„ ,. (pi or (pan or (m%onor(t'rau or (th'pS,hor
on (spoken) ... maS, mba |^^j |^^^ |p,g-^ ^j^.^.^^ \kh'pah.
It ,is obvious that in some cases the modern forms in the aboriginal dialects of
e Peninsula are more archaic than the modern Mon speech itself.
118 SIAM AND THE MALAY PENINSULA,
by the French, when they claimed all the tributary states
over which the empire of Annam had formerly exercised
suzerainty. But in the meantime thfe Peninsula had been
colonized by the Malays from Sumatra, and Siam did not
succeed in \fresting it from its new rulers. That is my
reading of the history of this region : a hollow claim tO'
supremacy by the Siamese, founded not on their own
conquests or- actual occupation, but on t;he earlier settlements
of the Mon^ Khmer race whose country they had taken "J.
a failure to make good these pretensions^ and a series of
raids and aggressions on the small Malayan states : that
is a brief sununary of the relations of Siam to the Peninsula
in medieval times ; and that, I take it, is why the Peninsula
is rightly called the Malay Peninsula, although at the
present day Siam as poKtically suzerain over the northern
third of it.i J
For the rest, though venturing to differ entirely from
Colonel Grerini's interpretation of history, I may perhaps
be allowed to add that his identification of the Nagara
Kretagama names of countries appears to me to be un-
impeachable. With regard to the doubt which he throws
on the antiquity of the name of Kedah, I would observe
that this state is mentioned under that name in the Sejarah
Malayu as obtaining regalia by investiture from the King-
of Malacca.^ That is not, of course, very conclusive, as this
event is related of a period just preceding the Portuguese
conquest, but, after all, Kedah may very well be the old
native name of the country and Langkasuka its literary
namf. Many places in Further India and the islands bear
two names : thus, Pegu was styled Hamsawati, Tumasik -
was called Singapura ; similarly Siak (in Sumatra) is known
1 The rest is under British overlordship. The Peninsula, having never
achieved pojitical unity, suffers from the want of a convenient proper name.
..tS" ,9''™TT ^^ "Malay Peninsula" are clumsy deicriptions.
Malacca was (and to some extent stiU is) used by Continental authorities as
a name tor the Peninsula, but has not found favour with English writers, and
sounds rather absurd locSUy because the town to which the name reaUy belongs
has lost all its old political and commercial importance.
^JfJ'^V^'! "Malay Annals," pp. 321-3; " Sgjarah Malayu" (ed. 1896).
pp. !"▼. "AA, * "
SIAM AND THE MALAY PENINSULA. 119
S6ri Indrapura, and many other such instances could
! given. All this merely illustrates the varnish of Indian
Iture which spread over these regions during the first
izen centuries or so of our erd. Sometimes the native
ime alone has survived, sometimes the -jlndian one,
casionaUy both.^
I do not propose in this place to criticize in detail the
ymologies which Colonel Grerini suggests for some of the
der local names: some of them seem to me of a rather
leculative character. But it is worth mention that Langkar-
ika still lives in the memory of the local Malays. It
is developed into a myth, being evidently the ' spirit-land '
iferred to as Lak§.n Suka (' Lakawn Suka ') by the peasantry
: the Patani states and the realm of Alang-ka-suka,
tterpreted by a curious folk-etymology as the ' country of
hat you will,' ^ a sort of fairy-land where the Kedah Malays
cate the fairy princess Sadong, who rules over the Little
eople and the wild goats of the limestone hills, and per-
stently refuses aU suitors, be they never so high-born or
;herwise eligible.^
I trust that these observations, made in no spirit of carping
iticism, but with the genxdne desire that the history of
le Malay Peninsula may be set in a true light, may lead
le able author from whom I have ventured on some points
> differ, to contribute additional evidence in support of his
wn point of view, and thus further elucidate the obscure
ast of this somewhat neglected region.
1 Little weight can be attached to the etatement in the Marong Mahayangsa
1 which Colonel Gerini relies. That work is one of the least satisfactory of
alay chronicles, being indeed little more than a collection of fairy tales.
2 As my friend Mr. R. J. Willanson has pointed ont to me, the name should,
it is to fit this fictitious etymology, he pronounced Alang-kah-suka.
3 See Fasciculi Malayenses, pt. ii (a), pp. 25-6 ; and Skeat, " Fables and
oik Tales from an Eastern Forest," pp. 49-51, 81.
[Library o? G,erg, p^ MoF..rUn.l
^'d^l
II
t
-^
.^e ^
^ )
