Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T20:54:10.199Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Forces of Regional and State Integration in the Western Archipelago, c. 1500–1700

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 August 2009

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

Extract

Unity within the Malay-Indonesian region evolved as an economic force from within and was not artificially superimposed by any political authority. The region was inextricably linked as a ‘geo-economic’ unit which was of paramount importance to international trade. Although it was trade which laid the area open to external intrusions which ultimately forced the region into a single matrix, colonial authority was imposed largely upon a pre-existing inter-regional economic infrastructure.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Southeast Asian Studies , Volume 18 , Issue 1 , March 1987 , pp. 24 - 44
Copyright
Copyright © The National University of Singapore 1987

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

1 The term ‘geo-economic’ unit is used here to describe maritime Southeast Asia which, by virtue of its geography and climate, was the largest single region for the production of spices and pepper for the international market. It was an outstanding pre-colonial export-oriented region but, at the same time, possessed a firm regional economic base with the complementary occupations of food production and commerce. For a brief discussion of the concept of Southeast Asia as a socio-political unit, see Johns, A. H., “Islam in Southeast Asia: Problems of Perspective”, in Southeast Asian History and Historiography, ed. Cowan, C. D. and Wolters, O. W. (Cornell, 1976), p. 304Google Scholar; Fisher, A., Southeast Asia (London, 1971), pp. 7–9Google Scholar.

2 van Setten van der Meer, N. C., Sawah Cultivation in Ancient Java, Aspects of Development during the Indo-Chinese Period, 5th to the 15th Century, Oriental Monograph Series, No. 22 (Canberra, 1979), pp. 74–75Google Scholar. See also Bayard, Donn, “The Roots of Indochinese Civilization: Recent Developments in the Prehistory of Southeast Asia”, Pacific Affairs 53, i (1980): 103–105, 107–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Gungwu, Wang, “The Nanhai Trade. A Study of the Early History of Chinese Trade in the South China Sea”, Journal of the Malayan Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society (JMBRAS) XXXI, ii (1958): 110–11Google Scholar.

4 Andaya, L., “Historical Links between the Acquatic Population and the Coastal Peoples of the Malay World and Celebes”, The Eighth Conference, International Association of Historians of Asia (IAHA),Kuala Lumpur,August 1980, pp. 2–3Google Scholar.

5 Wolters, O. W., Early Indonesian Commerce, A Study of the Origin of Srivijaya (Cornell, 1967), pp. 238–39Google Scholar; Hall, K. R. and Whitmore, J. K., “State and Statecraft in Early Sri Vijaya”, Explorations in Early Southeast Asian History, Michigan Papers on South and Southeast Asia, No. 11 (Michigan, 1976), pp. 72,74Google Scholar; Wolters, , The Fall of Srivijaya in Malay History (London, 1970), pp. 8–10Google Scholar; Hall, K. R., Maritime Trade and State Development in Early Southeast Asia (Honolulu, 1985), pp. 10, 12–14Google Scholar.

6 de Casparis, J. G., Prasasti Indonesia, II (Bandung, 1957), p. 38 n. 17Google Scholar; Wolters, , The Fall of Srivijaya, pp. 13, 16Google Scholar; Wheatley, P., “Stayānṛta in Suvarnadvīpa, From Reciprocity to Redistribution in Ancient Southeast Asia”, in Asian Civilization and Trade, ed. Sabloff, J. M. and Lamberg-Karlovsky, C. C. (Albuquerque, 1975), pp. 249–51Google Scholar.

7 Sungai kuripan were rivers assigned to the wazir and menteri for the duration of their office, while the sungai tulin were apportioned to pengeran on a hereditary basis. See Leys, Peter, “Observations on the Brunei Political System, 1883–85”, JMBRAS XLI, ii (1968): 120–22Google Scholar; Borrough, J.B., “The Development of Periodic Markets in Sabah, Malaysia”, Sabah Society Journal VI, ii (1975/1976): 26Google Scholar. I am grateful to Ranjit Singh of the History Department, University of Malaya, for this reference.

8 The decline of Chinese tributary trade with Srivijaya appears to have been the result, first, of the expansion during the Southern Sung (1127–79) of maritime activity, bringing Chinese shipping to alternate markets in northeast Sumatra and, later, the harsh commercial policy under T'ai-tsu (1368–98), founder of the Ming dynasty. Wolters, , The Fall of Srivijaya, pp. 42, 49–68Google Scholar.

9 Schrieke, B., Indonesian Sociological Studies: Selected Writingsrb, I (The Hague/Bandung, 1955), pp. 9–12Google Scholar; Lane, F. C., “The Mediterranean Spice Trade”, American Historical Review ILV (1940): 586–87Google Scholar.

10 Crawfurd, J., A Descriptive Dictionary of the Indonesian Archipelago and Adjacent Countries, intro. M.C. Ricklefs (Kuala Lumpur, 1971), p. 333Google Scholar. However, Chau Ju-kua, writing during the twelfth century, speaks of the existence already in Sunda of a small grained variety of pepper, presumably of a different variety from that introduced in Pedir, and Pasai, . Chau Ju-kua, trans. Hirth, F. and Rockhill, W. W. (New York, 1966), p. 70Google Scholar; Hall, Kenneth R., “Trade and Statecraft in the Western Archipelago at the dawn of the European era”, JMBRAS LIV, i (1981): 35Google Scholar; Meilink-Roelofsz, , Asian Trade and European Influence (The Hague, 1942), pp. 19, 33–34Google Scholar; Groeneveldt, W.P., “Notes on the Malay Archipelago and Malacca”, Verhandelingen van het Bataviaasch Genootschap van Kunsten en Wetenchappen, XXXIX (Batavia, The Hague, 1880), p. 86Google Scholar; Kathirithamby-Wells, J., The British West Sumatran Presidency (1760–85): Problems of Early Colonial Enterprise (Kuala Lumpur, 1977), pp. 15–16Google Scholar.

11 Hall, , Maritime Trade and State Development, pp. 217–18Google Scholar; Schrieke, , Indonesian Sociological Studies, I, p. 17Google Scholar; II, pp. 296–97.

12 Schrieke, , Indonesian Sociological Studies, I, pp. 56, 114Google Scholar; Wilkinson, R. J., “The Malacca Sultanate”, JMBRAS XIII, ii (1935): 26Google Scholar; Wheatley, P., The Golden Khersonese (Kuala Lumpur, 1966), pp. 311–12Google Scholar; Hill, A. H. (intro. & trans.), Hikayat Raja-Raja Pasai, JMBRAS XXXIII, ii (1960): 9–14Google Scholar; The Travels of Marco Polo, trans. Latham, R. (London, 1958), pp. 253–57Google Scholar; Hall, , Maritime Trade and State Development, pp. 217–18Google Scholar.

13 Meilink Roelofsz, pp. 20–21,64, passim; Cortesāo, A. (ed.), The Suma Oriental of Tomé Pires (London, 1944), I, p. 45Google Scholar; II, pp. 254–55, 270; Arasaratnam, S., “Some Notes on the Dutch in Malacca and the Indo-Malayan Trade, 1641–70”, Journal of Southeast Asian History (JSEAH) X, iii (1969): 480CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wheatley, , The Golden Khersonese, pp. 315–16Google Scholar.

14 Hall, , Maritime Trade and State Development, pp. 254–55Google Scholar.

15 Wheatley, , The Golden Khersonese, pp. 308–309Google Scholar.

16 Rubin, A. P., International Personality of the Malay Peninsula (Kuala Lumpur, 1974), p. 34Google Scholar.

17 Andaya, L., The Kingdom of Johore, 1641–1728 (Kuala Lumpur, 1975), pp. 21–23Google Scholar.

18 Meilink-Roelofsz, , Asian Trade, p. 143Google Scholar; Tiele, P.A., “De Europeërs in den Maleischen Archipel”, Bijdragen Koninklijk Instituut voor Taal-, Land-en Volkenkunde (BKI) XXV (1877): 398Google Scholar.

19 Kathirithamby-Wells, J., “The Inderapura Sultanate: The foundations of its rise and decline, from the sixteenth to the eighteenth centuries”, Indonesia 21 (1976): 65–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

20 Cortesão, (ed.), The Suma Oriental of Tomé Pires, 1, pp. 160–65Google Scholar.

21 Tiele, , BKI XXVII (1879): 31Google Scholar.

22 Reid, A.J.S., “Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century Turkish Influence in Western Indonesia”, JSEAH X, iii (1969): 395–414Google Scholar; Kathirithamby-Wells, J., “Acehnese Control over West Sumatra up to the Treaty of Painan of 1663”, JSEAH X, iii (1969): 455–56Google Scholar; Tiele, , BKI XXVIII (1879): 59Google Scholar.

23 Djajadiningrat, Hoesein, “Critisch overzicht van de in Maleische werken vervatte, gegevens over de geschiedenis van het Soeltanaat van Atjeh”, BKI LXV (1911): 153–55Google Scholar; Das Gupta, A.K., “Acheh in Indonesian Trade and Politics, 1600–1641” (Ph.D. thesis, Cornell, 1962), pp. 46–47Google Scholar; Tiele, , BKI XXVII (1879): 64–65Google Scholar; Reid, “Sixteenth Century Turkish Influence in Western Indonesia”, pp. 404–411.

24 Tiele, , BKI XXVII (1879): 65Google Scholar.

25 Djajadiningrat, “Critisch overzicht … van het Soeltanaat van Atjeh”, pp. 158–59; Iskandar, T. (ed.), Bustanu's-Salatin (Kuala Lumpur, 1966)Google Scholar, Bab II, fasal 13.

26 de Graaf, H.J. and Pigeaud, Th. G. Th., “The Eerste Moslimse Vorstendommen op Java, Studien over de staatkundige geschiedenis van de 15de en 16de eeuw”, Verhandelingen van het Koninklijk Instituut voor Taal-, Land-en Volkenkunde van Nederlandsch-Indië (VKI) LXIX (1974): 117–18Google Scholar.

27 Ibid., pp. 118–21.

28 Djajadiningrat, Hoesein, Critische beschouwing van de Sadjarah-Bantĕn (Haarlem, 1913), p. 34Google Scholar; Marsden, J., A History of Sumatra, intro. J. Bastin (Kuala Lumpur, 1966), p. 353Google Scholar.

29 van Hoëvell, W.R., “De Lampongsche Distrikten op het Eiland Sumatra”, Tijdschrift voor Neerlands (Nederlandsch)-indië, Batavia (TNI) XIV, i (1852): 249Google Scholar; Djajadiningrat, , Sadjarah Bantĕn, pp. 118–19Google Scholar.

30 Canne, H. D., “Bijdrage tot de Geschiedenis der Lampongs”, Tijdschrift voor Indische Taal, Land-en Volkenkunde (Batavia) (TBG) XI (1862): 510Google Scholar.

31 Djajadiningrat, , Sadjarah Bantĕn, pp. 39, 149, 151, 163Google Scholar.

32 De Graaf and Pigeaud, “De Eerste Moslimse Vorstendommen op Java”, p. 120; Canne, “Bijdrage tot de Geschiedenis der Lampongs”, p. 14.

33 Djajadiningrat, , Sadjarah-Bantēn, pp. 54, 61Google Scholar; Schrieke, , Indonesian Sociological Studies, I, pp. 46, 51Google Scholar. Also see p. 40.

34 Van Hoëvell, , “De Lampongsche Distrikten op het Eiland Sumatra”, p. 251Google Scholar; Canne, , “Bijdrage tot de Geschiedenis der Lampongs”, p. 315Google Scholar.

35 Tiele, , BKI XXV (1877): 385, 401–402Google Scholar.

36 Ibid., pp. 347–8.

37 Ibid., p. 348.

38 Tiele, , BKI XXVII (1879): 27Google Scholar; Cortesāo, (ed.), The Suma Oriental of Tomé Pires, I, pp. 115, 153Google Scholar; II, p. 263.

39 Meilink-Roelofsz, , Asian Trade, p. 138Google Scholar; Tiele, , BKI XXVIII (1830): 305–306Google Scholar.

40 A Portuguese account of Aceh describes its coastal territories during the end of the sixteenth century as “tributary regions”. Tiele, , BKI XXIX (1881): 167Google Scholar.

41 Canne, , “Bijdrage tot de Geschiedenis der Lampongs”, pp. 509–512Google Scholar; Djajadiningrat, , Sadjarah-Bantĕn, pp. 118–19Google Scholar; J. Kathirithamby-Wells, “Banten: A West Indonesian Port and Polity in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries” (in press).

42 Van Leur, , Indonesian Trade, pp. 117–18Google Scholar. The ruler's obligation to act in consultation with his ministers is stressed in the Sejarah Melayu. According to it, Sultan Alauddin Riayat Syah (1477–88) on his death-bed advised his son and successor, “See to it that you consult with your ministers and chiefs, for no ruler, however great his wisdom and understanding, shall prosper or succeed in doing justice unless he consults with those in authority under him.” Sejarah Melayu, ‘Malay Annals’, trans. Brown, C.C., intro. R. Roolvink (London, 1970), p. 117Google Scholar.

43 For an account of the role of the nobility in trade at Banten see: Van Leur, , Indonesian Trade, pp. 137–38Google Scholar. In the Melaka Sultanate, Sultan Muhammad Syah (1414–23/24) apparently was active in trade while Bendahara Sri Maharaja's participation enhanced his influence and made him a man of wealth. See: Brown, (trans.), Sejarah Melayu, pp. 154–55Google Scholar. The phenomenon was evidently not peculiar to the Malay-Indonesian region. Meilink-Roelofsz notes the participation in trade during the sixteenth century of the Syah of Persia. In fact, commercial participation of the royalty and nobility was known, according to Van Leur, even in ancient Greece and Egypt. Meilink-Roelofsz, , “The Structure of Trade in Asia in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries”, Mare Luso-lndicum, L'Ocean Indien, Les Pays Riverains Et Les Relations Internationales, XVIe–XVIIIe siècles, Société d'Histoire de L'Orient Paris, IV (1980): 8Google Scholar; Van Leur, , Indonesian Trade, pp. 60–61Google Scholar.

44 The local monopoly systems quoted by Van Leur were especially a feature of the end of the seventeenth century with rising European demand and competition. Prior to this there is no evidence of a comparable system of royal monopoly in western Indonesia. Some duress, apparently, was employed both by Srivijaya and Melaka during their initial period of growth but was not perpetuated. Royal commercial privileges during the pre-colonial period never assumed the proportions of total state monopolies encountered during the seventeenth century. The case for the non-existence of a monopoly system, particularly in Melaka, has been argued by Meilink-Roelofsz, in “Trade and Islam in the Malay-Indonesian Archipelago”, Papers on Colonial History, Islam and the Trade of Asia (Oxford, 1970), pp. 140–41Google Scholar.

45 Cole, C.W., Economic History of Europe (Boston, 1952), pp. 156–63Google Scholar; Meilink-Roelofsz, , Asian Trade, pp. 57–58Google Scholar.

46 Reid, R.J.S., “Trade and the Problem of Royal Power in Aceh, Three Stages: C. 1550–1700”, 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), pp. 47–48Google Scholar.

47 Van Leur, , Indonesian Trade, pp. 118, 132–33Google Scholar.

48 Reid, , “Trade and the Problem of Royal Power”, pp. 49–51Google Scholar.

49 Kathirithamby-Wells, , “Acehnese Control”, pp. 457–58Google Scholar; Kathirithamby-Wells, , “The Inderapura Sultanate”, pp. 67–68Google Scholar; Danvers, F. C. and SirFoster, William (ed.), Letters received by the East Indian Company from its Servants in the East, 1602–17 (London, 1896–1902), III, pp. 210–26Google Scholar; Daghregister, 20 06 1637, p. 163Google Scholar.

50 Kathirithamby-Wells, , “The Inderapura Sultanate”, p. 70Google Scholar; Tiele, , BKI XXXVI (1887): 243Google Scholar.

51 Kathirithamby-Wells, , “Acehnese Control”, pp. 460–61Google Scholar; Foster, W. (ed.), The Voyage of Thomas Best, 1612–14 (London, 1934), p. 256Google Scholar; Danvers, and Foster, , Letters, John Millward to E.I. Co. Tiku, 13 12 1615, pp. 223–24Google Scholar; Das, Gupta, “Acheh in Indonesian Trade and Politics, 1600–1641”, p. 166Google Scholar; Valentijn, F., “Beschrijvinge vanhet Eiland Sumatra”, Oud en Nieuw Oost-Indien, V (Dordrecht-Amsterdam, 1724–1726), p. 6Google Scholar.

52 Harris, J., “The Expedition of Commodore Beaulieu to the East Indies”, Navigantium atque itinerantium bibliotheca, I (London, 1764), pp. 731, 734Google Scholar; Danvers, and Foster, , Letters, aboard the Hector in Achin, 15 04 1615, III, p. 95Google Scholar; Capt. Arthur Spaight to the E.I. Co., III, p. 217.

53 Ibid., p. 226.

54 Veth, P. J., Atchin en zijne betrekkingen tot Nederland (Leiden, 1873), p. 55Google Scholar.

55 Foster, W. (ed.), The Voyages of Sir James Lancaster, Hakluyt Society, Series 2, LXXXV (London, 1940), pp. 232–35Google Scholar; Danvers, and Foster, (ed.), Letters, VI (London, 1896–1902), p. 24Google Scholar.

56 Ibid., III, p. 226.

57 Reid, , “Trade and the Problem of Royal Power”, p. 50Google Scholar; Iskandar, Teuku, “De Hikayat Atjeh”, VKI XXVI (1958): 46–47Google Scholar. This, presumably, was the same Laksamana mentioned by Beaulieu in Harris, (ed.), Navigantium atque itinerantium bibliotheca, I, pp. 732, 734, 737Google Scholar.

58 Danvers, and Foster, (ed.), Letters, [John Millward] to General Keeling [at Banten?], 21 04 1616, V, p. 165Google Scholar.

59 Ibid., Henry Pattison to Wm. Nicholls, Chief at Aceh, Tiku, 4 January 1616 [1617], V, p. 31.

60 Reid, , “Trade and the Problem of Royal Power”, pp. 50–51Google Scholar; Hall, , Maritime Trade and State Development, pp. 2, 257Google Scholar.

61 These divisions were often exacerbated by the ready offer of alliances by the European powers. Pahang became a tributary of the Portuguese in 1518 in revolt against the Melaka ruling house. During the next century, in anticipation of Iskandar Muda's ambition to master them, the east Sumatran states of Siak, Indragiri, Palembang, Jambi and Kampar concluded a defensive alliance with Sultan Hammat Syah of Johor (1613–23). Tiele, , BKI XXXVI (1887): 245Google Scholar; Van Bazel, , “Begin en voortgang van onzen handel en bezittingen op Sumatra's Westkust”, Tijdschrift voor Neerlands-Indiĕ (TNI) II (1847): 6Google Scholar.

62 Veltman, T. T., “Nota over de Geschiedenis van het Landschap Pidië”, TBG LVIII (1919): 77Google Scholar. For the influence of the orang kaya at court see also: Veth, , Atchin, pp. 81–82Google Scholar.

63 Reid, , “Trade and the Problem of Royal Power”, pp. 50, 53Google Scholar; Hurgronje, C. Snouck, The Achehnese, trans. O'Sullivan, A.W.S. (Leiden/London, 1906), pp. 80–85Google Scholar.

64 Kathirithamby-Wells, , “Acehnese Control”, p. 478Google Scholar.

65 Djajadiningrat, , Sadjarah-Bantĕn, pp. 41–42Google Scholar.

66 Blussé, L., “Trojan Horse of Lead: The picis in early 17th century Java”, Between People and Statistics, Essays on Indonesian History presented to P. Crutzberg, ed. van Anrooij, F. (The Hague, 1979), pp. 36–37Google Scholar.

The picis (as the Javanese called it) was fabricated from a mixture of lead and copper dross and cast in Chuan-Chou (Fukien). Some form of it appears to have been already in use in Java during the thirteenth century and it was later introduced by Chinese traders into the Banten market as a substitute for the more expensive Ch'ien. The picis was carried around in strings of fixed amounts:

For further details, see Hirth, and Rockhill, , Chau Ju-kua, pp. 82–83Google Scholar; Blussé, “Trojan Horse of Lead”, pp. 33–47.

67 Meilink-Roelofsz, , Asian Trade, pp. 249–52Google Scholar; Leonard-Blussé, , “Western Impact on Chinese Communities in Western Java at the beginning of the 17th century”, Nampo-Bunka: Tenri Bulletin of South Asian Studies, No. 2 (1975): 33Google Scholar. The important role played by rulers and princes in the trade of Banten and their reliance on Chinese and Indian merchants for capital has been stressed by Meilink-Roelofsz.

68 Blussé, “Western Impact on Chinese Communities in Western Java”, pp. 41–43; Meilink-Roelofsz, , Asian Trade, pp. 252–54Google Scholar.

69 Meilink-Roelofsz, , Asian Trade, p. 257Google Scholar; de Jonge, J.K.J., De Opkomst van net Nederlandsch Gezag in Oost-Indië, V (The Hague, 1870), p. 103Google Scholar; VI (1872), pp. lxxvi–lxxvii.

70 De Jong, , Opkomst, V (1870), p. cxivGoogle Scholar; Djajadiningrat, , Sadjarah-Bantěn, pp. 49–51, 126Google Scholar.

71 Schrieke, , Indonesian Sociological Studies, II, p. 242Google Scholar. Jonge, Je, Opkomst, VII (1873), pp. cxiii–cxxivGoogle Scholar.

72 Kathirithamby-Wells, J., “Ahmad Syah ibn Iskandar and the late 17th century ‘Holy War’ in Indonesia”, JMBRAS XLIII, i (1970): 52–53Google Scholar.

73 Meinsma, J.J., “Eene Proklamatie van een Sultan van Bantam”, BKI XX (1873): 154Google Scholar.

74 Canne, , “Bijdrage tot de Geschiedenis der Lampongs”, TBG XI (1862): 514–15Google Scholar.

75 De Jonge, , Opkomst, VII (The Hague, 1873), pp. clxiii–clxvGoogle Scholar.

76 Heeres, J.E. (ed.), “Corpus Diplomaticum Neerlando Indicum”, I, BKI LVII (The Hague, 1907): 365–66Google Scholar; Kathirithamby-Wells, J., “The Johor-Malay World, 1511–1784: Changes in Political Ideology”, Malaysian History (in press)Google Scholar.

77 Ibid.; Kathirithamby-Wells, J., “Royal Authority and the Orang Kaya in the Western Archipelago, c. 1500–1800”, JSEAS XVII, 2 (1986): 256–67Google Scholar.

78 Andaya, , The Kingdom of Johor, pp. 69–76Google Scholar. Meilink-Roelofsz points out that the issue of permits by the VOC and other European powers to Asian traders became useless and actually increased the liberty of Asian trade and navigation as permits issued by one European power offered protection to Asian skippers against seizure by other Europeans. “This development”, according to her, “led to a remarkable expansion of Asian shipping at the end of the 17th century”, Mare Luso-lndicum IV (1980), pp. 14–15Google Scholar.

79 Rubin, , International Personality of the Malay Peninsula, pp. 84–85Google Scholar.

80 Kathirithamby-Wells, “The Johor-Malay World, 1511–1784” (in press).

81 Andaya, , The Kingdom of Johor, pp. 26–61, 63, 84–100Google Scholar.

82 Ibid., pp. 152–61, 166–67.

83 Kathirithamby-Wells, “The Johor-Malay World, 1511–1784” (in press).

84 Andaya, , The Kingdom of Johor, pp. 181–88Google Scholar.

85 The increased supplies of pepper to Melaka during the Portuguese and Dutch periods came from Jambi which also supplied Johor. Meilink-Roelofsz, , Asian Trade, pp. 145–47, 185Google Scholar; Andaya, , The Kingdom of Johor, p. 128Google Scholar.

86 Groeneveldt, , “The Malay Peninsula and Malacca”, p. 77Google Scholar.

87 Andaya, , The Kingdom of Johor, pp. 136, 140–41Google Scholar; Netscher, E., “De Nederlanders in Djohor en Siak”, VBG XXXV (1870): 38–41Google Scholar.

88 Andaya, , The Kingdom of Johor, pp. 74–76Google Scholar; Coolhaas, W. Ph., “Malacca under Jan van Riebeeck”, JMBRAS XXXVIII, ii (1965): 76–78Google Scholar.

89 Andaya, , The Kingdom of Johor, pp. 138, 143, 145–46, 150–52Google Scholar; Also see: Tiele, , BKI XXXVI (1887): 247–48Google Scholar.

90 Bort, Balthasar, “Report of Governor Balthasar Bort on Malacca 1678”, trans. Bremner, M.J., intro. CO. Blagden, JMBRAS V, i (1927): 133Google Scholar.

91 Ibid., p. 203.

92 See Coedés, G., Angkor, An Introduction (London, 1961), pp. 29–30Google Scholar; Heine-Geldern, R., Conceptions of State and Kingship in Southeast Asia, Data Paper No. 18, Southeast Asia Program, Department of Asian Studies (Cornell, 1956), pp. 3, 6–7Google Scholar; Wolters, , The Fall of Srivijaya, pp. 99–102, 128–31Google Scholar.

93 See Brown, (trans.), Sejarah Melayu, p. 16Google Scholar.

94 Kathirithamby-Wells, “The Johor-Malay World, 1511–1784” (in press).

95 Kathirithamby-Wells, , “Acehnese Control”, pp. 472–79Google Scholar.

96 Andaya, , The Kingdom of Johor, pp. 110–12Google Scholar.

97 Dobbin, C., “Economic Change in Minangkabau as a factor in the rise of the Padri Movement, 1784–1830”, Indonesia 23 (1977): 4–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Andaya, , The Kingdom of Johor, p. 128Google Scholar.

98 Kathirithamby-Wells, “Ahmad Syah ibn Iskandar”, pp. 50–58; Andaya, , The Kingdom of Johor, pp. 109–110, 112–13Google Scholar.

99 Andaya, , The Kingdom of Johor, pp. 250–73Google Scholar.

100 Schrieke, , Indonesian Sociological Studies, I, pp. 56–57Google Scholar; Van Leur, , Indonesian Trade, pp. 125, 218, 241Google Scholar.

101 Schrieke, , Indonesian Sociological Studies, I, pp. 46, 56–57, 60Google Scholar; II, pp. 225–26.

102 Ibid., I, p. 57.

103 Ibid., I, p. 29; II, pp. 140, 146; Meilink-Roelofsz, , Asian Trade, p. 283Google Scholar.

104 Schrieke, , Indonesian Sociological Studies, I, p. 62Google Scholar.

105 Andaya, B., “Intermediary Figures in Diplomacy in the Malay World before 1900”, The Eighth Conference, International Association of Historians of Asia(1980)Google Scholar.

106 Andaya, , The Kingdom of Johor, pp. 95, 109, 121, 128Google Scholar.

107 Schrieke, , Indonesian Sociological Studies, I, p. 62Google Scholar.

108 Hall, “State and Statecraft in Early Srivijaya”, passim.

109 Brown, (trans.), Sejarah Melayu, pp. 71–72, 84, 88–89, 116, 126, 168–70Google Scholar.

110 Tun Perak, head of Kelang, when queried by Sri Amarat on Sultan Muzaffar Syah's orders about complaints lodged against him by an inhabitant replied, “As for the business of us who administer territory, what concern is that of yours?… What we think should be done we do, for the Ruler is not concerned with the difficulties we administrators encounter, he only takes account of the good results we achieve…. Sultan Muzaffar Shah found Tun Perak's reply to his liking….” Brown, (trans.), Sejarah Melayu, pp. 56–57Google Scholar. In the internal administration only the imposition of the death sentence was deemed as a royal prerogative and a jealousy guarded one. Ibid., p. 100.

111 See p. 28; The anti-Acehnese alliance organised by Johore (see fn. 61) was based, presumably, on traditional ties.

112 Van, Hoëvell, “De Lampongsche Distrikten op het Eiland Sumatra”, pp. 245–51Google Scholar.

113 Andaya, , The Kingdom of Johor, p. 174Google Scholar.

114 Blussé, , “Western Impact on Chinese Communities in Western Java”, p. 39Google Scholar, Schrieke, , Indonesian Sociological Studies, I (1955), p. 56Google Scholar; Meilink-Roelofsz, , Asian Trade, p. 246Google Scholar.

115 Schrieke, , Indonesian Sociological Studies, I (1955), p. 56Google Scholar.

116 Marsden, , The History of Sumatra, p. 131Google Scholar.