Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-zzh7m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T16:32:51.102Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Royal Authority and the Orang Kaya in the Western Archipelago, Circa 1500–1800

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 August 2009

J. Kathirithamby-Wells
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Ironically, the focus which Schrieke and Van Leur first brought to bear on socioeconomic changes in the Archipelago inspired scholars after them, Benda, Wertheim and Meilink-Roelofsz, among others, to plead for more dynamic structural changes than the pioneers of “Southeast Asia-centric historiography” presumed fit. The more cautious approach of Schrieke and Van Leur would appear to arise from their anxiety to establish cultural continuity as a viable basis for the study of socio-economic change. Since then change has come to be understood, particularly with reference to the maritime societies of Southeast Asia, as an indispensable element which guaranteed continuity within the basic traditions of the regions.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Southeast Asian Studies , Volume 17 , Issue 2 , September 1986 , pp. 256 - 267
Copyright
Copyright © The National University of Singapore 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

This is a revised version of a paper originally presented at a symposium held in Manila in January 1982 on “Western Presence in Southeast Asia”, organised by the British Institute in Southeast Asia and the Philippines Historical Institute and at a seminar in Leiden University in Oct. 1984.

1 Benda, H., “The Structure of Southeast Asian History: Some Preliminary Observations”, Journal of Southeast Asian History (JSEAH) III, i (1962): 118–20Google Scholar; Wertheim, W.F., International Encyclopaedia of Social Sciences. Vol. I (New York/London, 1972), pp. 427–28Google Scholar; Meilink-Roelofsz, M.A.P., Asian Trade and European Influence (The Hague, 1962), pp. 9–10Google Scholar.

2 See Villiers, John, “Trade and Society in the Banda Islands in the Sixteenth Century”, Modern Asian Studies 15, iv (1981): 728–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Wheatley, P., The Kings of the Mountain: An Indian Contribution to Statecraft in Southeast Asia, Second Sri Lanka Endowment Fund Lecture delivered at the University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur (Kuala Lumpur, 1980), pp. 8–13Google Scholar; Wolters, O. W., History, Culture and Region in Southeast Asian Perspectives, Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (Singapore, 1982), pp. 16–18Google Scholar.

4 See Schrieke, B., “The End of the Classical Hindu-Javanese culture in central Java”, in Indonesian Sociological Studies, II (The Hague/Bandung, 1957), pp. 298–300Google Scholar; Bronson, Bennet, “The Archaeology of Sumatra and the Problem of Srivijaya”, in Early South East Asia: Essays in Archaeology, History and Historical Geography, ed. Smith, R.B. & Watson, W. (New York, 1979), pp. 403–404Google Scholar.

5 Johns, A.H., “Islam in Southeast Asia: Problems of Perspective”, in Southeast Asian History and Historiography, ed. Cowan, C.D. & Wolters, O.W., Essays presented to D.G.E. Hall (Cornell, 1976), pp. 306–307Google Scholar.

6 Tambiah, Stanley, “The Galactic Polity: The Structure of Traditional Kingdoms in Southeast Asia”, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 293 (1977): 69CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wheatley, , Kings of the Mountain, pp. 21–22Google Scholar.

7 Wolters, O. W., The Fall of Srivijaya in Malay History (London, 1970), p. 9Google Scholar.

8 Bosch, F.D.K., Selected Studies in Indonesian Archaeology (The Hague, 1962), pp. 17–18Google Scholar. By the time of Srivijaya the brāhmana appear to have been incorporated into the official administrative machinery under the title stāhpaka. The supreme powers of adjudication, originally held by the priests, were now vested in a separate class of royal judges or dandanāyaka, acting on behalf of the ruler.

Hall, Kenneth R., “State and Statecraft in Early Srivijaya”, in Explorations in Early Southeast Asian History, ed. Hall, Kenneth R. & Whitmore, J.K., Michigan Papers on South and Southeast Asia, No. 11 (1976), pp. 70–72Google Scholar. This phenomenon appears to have been evident even in the mainland states. Benda has pointed out how, after the mid-thirteenth century, the Buddhist monkhood no longer played a dominant role at the centre where they were replaced by the scholar-gentry. See: “The Structure of Southeast Asian History”, 115. In Java, secularization was evident, for instance, in the modified role of the pujangga, the original clerical priests, who by Majapahit times were essentially clerics and court literati. By the process of administrative evolution it was the chief minister who came to take a dominant role at the centre while the position of the kadi during Islamic times was politically obscure. The dominant role played by priests in the courts of the early Indiamzed states may be attributed to their indispensable role in the inauguration of sovereign rulers and dynasties. Subsequently, the problem of political and administrative unification would appear to have assumed greater importance giving rise to the evolution of a semi-bureaucratic elite who took precedence over the priests. See Pigeaud, T.G. Th., Java in the 14th Century, IV (The Hague, 1962), pp. 484, 491Google Scholar.

9 Hall, Kenneth R., “State and Statecraft in Early Srivijaya”, pp. 71–79Google Scholar. The ruler's fear of the royal princes is evident in the Telaga Batu inscription which bears the warning, “Crown Prince, and other princes who are invested with the charge of the datu, you are cursed if you are not obedient to me”. G. Ferrand, quoted in van Naerssen, F. H. and de Iongh, R.C., The Economic and Administrative History of Early Indonesia (Leiden/Köln, 1977), p. 35Google Scholar.

10 Kartodirjo, Sartono, “Bureaucracy and Aristocracy, the Indonesian Experience in the XIX Century”, Archipel 7 (1914): 152Google Scholar.

11 Brown, C.C. (trans.), Sejarah Melayu: Malay Annals (Kuala Lumpur, 1970), p. 46Google Scholar.

12 Ibid., pp. 75, 83–84, 88–89, 116.

13 Pires, Tomè, Suma Oriental, II (London, 1944), pp. 260–62Google Scholar.

14 Ibid., pp. 55–56, 58, 83, 88–89, 96–97, 119.

15 Ibid., p. 57.

16 For further reference on this see Andaya, Leonard, The Kingdom of Johor, 1641–1728 (Kuala Lumpur, 1975), pp. 186–91Google Scholar.

17 Fang, Liaw Yock, Undang-Undang Melaka (The Hague, 1976), p. 171Google Scholar.

18 Winstedt, R. O., “The Malay Annals of Sejarah Melayu”, Journal of the Malayan Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society (JMBRAS) XVI, ii (1938): 123, 220Google Scholar; Shellabear, W.G. (trans.), Sejarah Melayu (Kuala Lumpur, 1975), pp. 242–4, 249, 267, 297Google Scholar.

19 Winstedt, , JMBRAS XVI, ii (1938): 220–22Google Scholar; Shellabear, , Sejarah Melayu, pp. 249, 267Google Scholar.

20 Winstedt, , JMBRAS XVI, ii (1938): 84–85, 104, 129, 140Google Scholar.

21 Shellabear, , Sejarah Melayu, pp. 35, 40, 158, 307Google Scholar.

22 Ibid., p. 250.

23 Andaya, L., The Kingdom of Johor, p. 43Google Scholar.

24 Ibid., chapter III, passim; Andaya, L., “The Structure of Power in 17th Century Johor”, in Pre-Colonial State Systems in Southeast Asia, ed. Reid, Anthony and Castles, Lance, Monograph of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, No. 6 (1975), p. 6Google Scholar.

25 Andaya, , The Kingdom of Johor, pp. 61, 73, 75–76Google Scholar.

26 Lewis, Dianne, “The Dutch East India Company and the Straits of Malacca, 1700–1784: Trade and Politics in the Eighteenth Century” (Ph. D. thesis, Canberra, 1970), pp. 113–32Google Scholar.

27 See Kathirithamby-Wells, J., “The Johor-Malay World, 1511–1785: Changes in Political Ideology”, Malaysian History Project (in press)Google Scholar.

28 Andaya, B. Watson, Perak, The Abode of Grace (Kuala Lumpur, 1979), pp. 23–28Google Scholar.

29 Ibid., p. 30; Chulan, Raja, Misa Melayu (Kuala Lumpur, 1966), pp. 23, 26Google Scholar.

30 Andaya, Watson, Perak, p. 32Google Scholar.

31 After the Orang Besar Empat he placed the Orang Besar Delapan or Hulubalang Delapan and, after them, the sixteen minor chiefs. See Wilkinson, R.J. (ed.), Papers on Malay Subjects, intro. by Burns, P.L. (Kuala Lumpur, 1971), p. 82Google Scholar.

32 Wilkinson, (ed.), Papers on Malay Subjects, pp. 81–82Google Scholar; Andaya, Watson, Perak, pp. 193–94, 222–23Google Scholar; Andaya, B. Watson, “The Nature of the State in 18th Century Perak”, in Pre-Colonial State Systems, pp. 30–31Google Scholar.

33 Andaya, Watson, Perak, p. 32Google Scholar.

34 Ibid., pp. 46–47.

35 Kathirithamby-Wells, J., “Acehnese Control over West Sumatra up to the Treaty of Painan of 1663”, JSEAHX, iii (1969): 457Google Scholar. Assassinations ended the reigns of Sultan Mughal, Raja Sri Alam (1575–76), Sultan Zainu'l-'Abidin (1576–77) and Sultan 'Ali Ra'ayat-Syah (1583–85). Iskandar, , Bastanu's-Salatin, pp. 32–34Google Scholar.

36 Kathirithamby-Wells, J., “The Inderapura Sultanate: The Foundations of its Rise and Decline from the sixteenth to the eighteenth centuries”, Indonesia, No. 21 (1976): 65–68Google Scholar.

37 Reid, A.J.S., “Trade and the Problem of Royal Power in Aceh c. 1550–1700”, in Pre-Colonial State Systems, pp. 48–49Google Scholar.

38 Reid, “Trade and the Problem of Royal Power”, p. 50; “The Expedition of Commodore Beaulieu to the East Indies”, in Harris, J., A Complete Collection of Voyages and Travels, containing the Memoir of Admiral Beaulieu's voyage to the East Indies, II (London, 1764), p. 734Google Scholar.

39 Harris, , A Complete Collection of Voyages and Travels, pp. 731, 734Google Scholar; Danvers, and Foster, , Letters, Laus Deo abroad the Hector in Achin, 15 04 1615, III, p. 95Google Scholar; Capt. Arthur Spaight to the E.I. Co., III, p. 217.

40 Kathirithamby-Wells, , JSEAH X, iii (1969): 460–61Google Scholar.

41 Iskandar, Teuku, Bustanu's-Salatin, Bab II, Fasal 13 (Kuala Lumpur, 1966), pp. 52, 60, 62, 63Google Scholar.

42 Iskandar, Teuku, “De Hikajat Atjeh”, Verhandelingen van het Koninklijk Instituut voor Taal-, Land-en Volkenkunde XXVI (1958): 74, 96Google Scholar.

43 Ibid., pp. 85, 91.

44 Reid, , Pre-Colonial State Systems, pp. 52–55Google Scholar; Reid, A.J.S., “Trade and State Power in 16th and 17th Century Southeast Asia”, Proceedings of the Seventh IAHA Conference (Bangkok, 1977), pp. 410–11Google Scholar; Anderson, J., Acheen and the Ports on the North and East Coasts of Sumatra (Oxford, 1971), pp. 62–63Google Scholar. Speaking on the power of the Panglima Polim of the 22 mukim in 1817 Captain Coombs, agent of the Penang Government wrote: “Panglima Polim is, beyond comparison, the most powerful in regard to wealth, the extent of his territories and the number of his followers, and his will appears, at present, to be exercised as law….”Ibid., p. 111.

45 Kathirithamby-Wells, J., “Myth and Reality: Minangkabau Institutional Traditions in the Rantau”, Change and Continuity in Minangkabau: Local, Regional, and Historical Perspectives on West Sumatra, ed. Thomas, Lynn L. and von Benda-Beckmann, Franz, Monographs in International Studies, Southeast Asia Series, No. 71 (Ohio, 1985), p. 127Google Scholar; Dobbin, Christine, “The Exercise of Authority in Minangkabau in the 18th century”, Pre-Colonial State Systems, p. 87Google Scholar.

46 Kathirithamby-Wells, , JSEAH X, iii (1969): 476–77Google Scholar.

47 Daghregister, 22 Dec. 1667, p. 404.

48 Although the British records mention him as “Protector” (see Bassett, D.K., “The Factory of the English East India Company at Bantam, 1602–82”, Ph.D. thesis, London, 1955, p. 93Google Scholar), there is no evidence in the Sejarah Bantě to confirm this. There is no mention of a “Protector” appointed to succeed Pangeran Ranamanggala when he abdicated in 1626. Kay Wangsadipa is mentioned, however, as having played a prominent role in the affairs of Banten during the reign of Kadhir, Sultan Abdul. Critische Beschouwing van de Sadjarah-Bantěn (Haarlem, 1931), pp. 46, 49, 50, 54–56, 61Google Scholar.

49 Bassett, “The Factory of the English East India Company at Bantam”, p. 60.

50 Veth, P.J., Java (Haarlem, 1912), pp. 13, 62Google Scholar; de Jonge, J.K.J., De Opkomst van het Nederlandsch Gezag in Oost-Indië, III (The Hague, 1862–1888), p. cxivGoogle Scholar. The rift climaxed in 1680 in open war between Sultan Agung and the Prince and the acceptance of Dutch protection by the latter. Ibid., III, pp. clvii–clxviii.

51 Meilink-Roelofsz, , Asian Trade, p. 240Google Scholar; Dagh Register, 26 March 1624, pp. 36–38. In the 1659 transactions with Batavia, Kiai Arya Mangjaya took the lead and the orang kaya are not mentioned. Dagh Register, 5 May 1659, pp. 90–92.

52 This area of south Sumatra was first brought under Banten control by Sultan Hasanuddin (1552–70). Djajadiningrat, Hoesein, Critische Beschouwing van de Sadjarah-Bantěn, pp. 34, 151Google Scholar.

53 Kathirithamby-Wells, J., “A Survey of British Influence on Indigenous Authority in Southwest Sumatra, 1685–1824”, Bijdragen tot de Taal–, Land– en Volkenkunde van Nederlandsch-lndië (The Hague) CXXIX, ii & iii (1973): 241–43Google Scholar; Canne, H.D., “Bijdrage tot de Geschiedenis der Lampongs”, Tijdschrift van Indische Taal– Land– en Volkenkunde (Batavia) XI (1862): 515Google Scholar; van Hoëvel, W.R., “De Lampongsche distrikten op het Eiland Sumatra”, Tijdschrift voor Neêrlands (Nederlandsch) — Indië (Batavia) XIV, i (1852): 245–51Google Scholar.

54 Kay = Ki: abbreviation for Kyai = “senior”. This non-royal title was held by officials of the rank of punggawa in Banten. It was used in full for religious teachers.

55 Kartodirdjo, Sartono, “The Peasant Revolt of Banten in 1885”, Verhandelingen Koninklijk Instituut 50 (1966): 70–71Google Scholar.