karya ni belum siap lagi
Jumaat, 17 Julai 2009
Rabu, 3 Jun 2009
www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/16824/what-s-in-a-name
What's in a name?
Historian Charnvit Kasetsiri explains why he believes changing the country's name back to Siam will promote unity and reconciliation.
By: Surasak Tumcharoen
Published: 17/05/2009 at 12:00 AM
Newspaper section: News
Prominent historian Charnvit Kasetsiri recently lodged a petition with Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and the reconciliation and political reform committee calling for the country's name to be changed from Thailand back to Siam.
NATIONAL SYMBOL: The original flag of Siam, featuring a white elephant.
The former rector of Thammasat University and founder of its Southeast Asia Studies Project said the charter should be amended from the "Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand" to read either the "Constitution of the Kingdom of Siam" or the "Constitution of Siam", in order to promote "unity", "harmony" and "reconciliation".
The academic said renaming the country would be the first step to reconciling political and social ills in a country of 60 million people which included more than 50 ethnic groups.
Thailand as a nation, according to the historian, had gradually adopted "ultra-nationalism" in past decades which might be replicated in the present day and beyond. Political turmoil might prevail and wreak havoc on the country where people were not only divided by opposing political views, but by ethnic discrimination.
Renaming the country Siam could pave a stepping stone for the long-awaited solutions to the country's deeply rooted problems, said the academic.
SEAFARERS’ GUIDE: An old map showing the country known as Siam.
Q: Everybody knows this country had been called Siam since the Ayutthaya era. Why was it renamed as Thailand 70 years ago?
A: That was in 1939, the year that World War Two started. The world had cringed at the rise of Adolf Hitler's nazism in Germany and fascism in Italy and Japan. In this country, the military-led government of then-premier Field Marshal Phibulsongkhram (Por) had been considerably influenced by ultra-nationalism which only imitated the powerful nazism and fascism overseas. Siam was renamed as Thailand on the spur of the moment when Field Marshal Por's government was evidently taking sides with the Axis forces during the early years of World War Two.
The ultra-nationalism in Europe and Japan apparently prompted Field Marshal Por's government to take for granted that this country needed some kind of military authoritarianism in times of war. Luang Vichit Vathakarn, then head of the Fine Arts Department, coined the new name for the country on the basis of ethnicity, undoubtedly because the Thai race was the ruling class of a mixed-up society.
The petition is primarily aimed to promote harmony and reconciliation in the country where more than 50 ethnic groups with their distinctive languages reside, including Thai, Yuan, Lao, Lue, Malayu, Mon, Khmer, Teochiu, Cantonese, Hokkien, Hainan, Hakka, Cham, Sakai, Tamil, Pathan, Persian, Arab, Phuan, Tai Yai, Phu Tai, Yong, Hmong, Karen, Museur and farang, etc.
TIME FOR A CHANGE: Historian Charnvit Kasetsiri.
Not until Siam was renamed as Thailand had some people in this country looked down upon others with racial or ethnic biases. In the old Siam, the people had co-existed and spontaneously welcomed diversities which had prevailed in all parts of the country. Many Bangkokians, who may regard themselves as mainstream descents of the Thai race, had a penchant for ridiculing those of Lao origins living in the Isan (northeastern) region.
Ethnically speaking, Muslim villagers living in the southernmost region of the country are not Thais, but of Malay descent. Nevertheless, they were compelled to call themselves Thai purely for territorial integrity reasons.
Q: What was wrong with the name Siam, after all?
A: The government at that time believed Siam was a place where inhabitants were a mixed-up bunch of different ethnic groups who might not have been governed very easily in times of war. They feared the country might have disintegrated.
Ethnically speaking, nothing was wrong with "Siam", but the word did not tell who was the ruler over here. That is nonsense. By the way, the word "Thai" denotes the race, not the country.
Q: Why should Siam be considered a better name than Thailand?
A: "Siam" derives from the archaic word "sam", which means arable land. In Khmer and Mon, that is "siem", as in Siem Reap. In Burmese, that is "shan", as in Shan State, and in Japanese, that is "shamuro".
Astrologically speaking, the initial "s" as in Siam, is considered more auspicious for the country than the initial "th", as in Thailand, which sounds like "Taiwan" to Westerners.
Q: In business, the word Siam is not considered very fortunate. Most businessmen would pick "Thai" instead of "Siam" if they decided to add either word to their corporate names.
A: That is not quite correct. What about Siam Paragon, Siam Square, Siam Commercial Bank and Siam Cement? All those firms were known to be very prosperous, though people superstitiously circumvented this by saying "Thai Phanich" to refer to the bank or "Poon Yai" to refer to the cement firm in Thai.
Q: How could the renaming of the country possibly help address today's polarized politics in which, for instance, people are divided into "yellow" and "red"?
A: Political problems can by no means be resolved just by renaming the country. But such things could be a stepping stone toward political reconciliation. It could pave way for peaceful co-existence and wholehearted recognition of social diversities among all people of this country.
Q: Would the people eventually accept such changes to the country's name?
A: Some people would never care and ask "what difference does it make? A country is a country, no matter what name". They would not be able to tell Siam from Thailand, given 70 years of having been accustomed to the latter name.
It might take a long time for them to learn and understand history as well as to go for the first, easy step toward national harmony and reconciliation.
Historian Charnvit Kasetsiri explains why he believes changing the country's name back to Siam will promote unity and reconciliation.
By: Surasak Tumcharoen
Published: 17/05/2009 at 12:00 AM
Newspaper section: News
Prominent historian Charnvit Kasetsiri recently lodged a petition with Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and the reconciliation and political reform committee calling for the country's name to be changed from Thailand back to Siam.
NATIONAL SYMBOL: The original flag of Siam, featuring a white elephant.
The former rector of Thammasat University and founder of its Southeast Asia Studies Project said the charter should be amended from the "Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand" to read either the "Constitution of the Kingdom of Siam" or the "Constitution of Siam", in order to promote "unity", "harmony" and "reconciliation".
The academic said renaming the country would be the first step to reconciling political and social ills in a country of 60 million people which included more than 50 ethnic groups.
Thailand as a nation, according to the historian, had gradually adopted "ultra-nationalism" in past decades which might be replicated in the present day and beyond. Political turmoil might prevail and wreak havoc on the country where people were not only divided by opposing political views, but by ethnic discrimination.
Renaming the country Siam could pave a stepping stone for the long-awaited solutions to the country's deeply rooted problems, said the academic.
SEAFARERS’ GUIDE: An old map showing the country known as Siam.
Q: Everybody knows this country had been called Siam since the Ayutthaya era. Why was it renamed as Thailand 70 years ago?
A: That was in 1939, the year that World War Two started. The world had cringed at the rise of Adolf Hitler's nazism in Germany and fascism in Italy and Japan. In this country, the military-led government of then-premier Field Marshal Phibulsongkhram (Por) had been considerably influenced by ultra-nationalism which only imitated the powerful nazism and fascism overseas. Siam was renamed as Thailand on the spur of the moment when Field Marshal Por's government was evidently taking sides with the Axis forces during the early years of World War Two.
The ultra-nationalism in Europe and Japan apparently prompted Field Marshal Por's government to take for granted that this country needed some kind of military authoritarianism in times of war. Luang Vichit Vathakarn, then head of the Fine Arts Department, coined the new name for the country on the basis of ethnicity, undoubtedly because the Thai race was the ruling class of a mixed-up society.
The petition is primarily aimed to promote harmony and reconciliation in the country where more than 50 ethnic groups with their distinctive languages reside, including Thai, Yuan, Lao, Lue, Malayu, Mon, Khmer, Teochiu, Cantonese, Hokkien, Hainan, Hakka, Cham, Sakai, Tamil, Pathan, Persian, Arab, Phuan, Tai Yai, Phu Tai, Yong, Hmong, Karen, Museur and farang, etc.
TIME FOR A CHANGE: Historian Charnvit Kasetsiri.
Not until Siam was renamed as Thailand had some people in this country looked down upon others with racial or ethnic biases. In the old Siam, the people had co-existed and spontaneously welcomed diversities which had prevailed in all parts of the country. Many Bangkokians, who may regard themselves as mainstream descents of the Thai race, had a penchant for ridiculing those of Lao origins living in the Isan (northeastern) region.
Ethnically speaking, Muslim villagers living in the southernmost region of the country are not Thais, but of Malay descent. Nevertheless, they were compelled to call themselves Thai purely for territorial integrity reasons.
Q: What was wrong with the name Siam, after all?
A: The government at that time believed Siam was a place where inhabitants were a mixed-up bunch of different ethnic groups who might not have been governed very easily in times of war. They feared the country might have disintegrated.
Ethnically speaking, nothing was wrong with "Siam", but the word did not tell who was the ruler over here. That is nonsense. By the way, the word "Thai" denotes the race, not the country.
Q: Why should Siam be considered a better name than Thailand?
A: "Siam" derives from the archaic word "sam", which means arable land. In Khmer and Mon, that is "siem", as in Siem Reap. In Burmese, that is "shan", as in Shan State, and in Japanese, that is "shamuro".
Astrologically speaking, the initial "s" as in Siam, is considered more auspicious for the country than the initial "th", as in Thailand, which sounds like "Taiwan" to Westerners.
Q: In business, the word Siam is not considered very fortunate. Most businessmen would pick "Thai" instead of "Siam" if they decided to add either word to their corporate names.
A: That is not quite correct. What about Siam Paragon, Siam Square, Siam Commercial Bank and Siam Cement? All those firms were known to be very prosperous, though people superstitiously circumvented this by saying "Thai Phanich" to refer to the bank or "Poon Yai" to refer to the cement firm in Thai.
Q: How could the renaming of the country possibly help address today's polarized politics in which, for instance, people are divided into "yellow" and "red"?
A: Political problems can by no means be resolved just by renaming the country. But such things could be a stepping stone toward political reconciliation. It could pave way for peaceful co-existence and wholehearted recognition of social diversities among all people of this country.
Q: Would the people eventually accept such changes to the country's name?
A: Some people would never care and ask "what difference does it make? A country is a country, no matter what name". They would not be able to tell Siam from Thailand, given 70 years of having been accustomed to the latter name.
It might take a long time for them to learn and understand history as well as to go for the first, easy step toward national harmony and reconciliation.
Selasa, 2 Jun 2009
Benarkah
ARKIB : 12/02/2002
Percanggahan Suma Oriental dengan Sejarah Melayu
Oleh: YUSOF OTHMAN
Parameswara mungkin tidak pernah wujud dalam sejarah tanah air dan dengan demikian Tun Sri Lanang bukan orang yang bertanggungjawab memadamkan nama tersebut dalam buku Sejarah Melayu.
Apa yang sebenarnya berlaku bukan Parameswara yang membuka Melaka seperti yang dicatatkan oleh Sejarah Melayu tetapi ialah Megat Iskandar Syah. Tome Pires melalui bukunya Suma Oriental menggunakan nama Parameswara sebagai pembuka Melaka pada 1402 berasaskan maklumat-maklumat yang dikumpul melalui proses dengar cakap dari orang-orang Melaka yang masih ada selepas Portugis menawan Melaka tahun 1511.
Pada tahun 1512 Tome Pires telah mengumpulkan maklumat itu dan dibukukan mengikut pandangan penjajah Portugis dan kacamata penulisan sejarah Barat. Sudah pasti tidak ada
pembesar-pembesar istana yang masih tinggal di Melaka di masa itu dan sudah tentu pula Tome Pires mendapat maklumat dari orang-orang bukan Melayu dibandar tersebut. Dengan demikian nama-nama yang bukan serasi dengan lidah melayu telah disebut sebagai pembuka negeri Melaka.
Parameswara adalah perkataan Tamil dan Hindu. Perkataan Melayu yang hampir-hampir bunyinya ialah ``Permaisura''. Ada catatan oleh Winstedt (1948) menyebut Parameswara sebagai Sultan Melaka pertama (mangkat 1424) dan Sultan Ketiga Melaka iaitu Raja Ibrahim memakai gelaran Sri Parameswara Dewa Shah (mangkat 1446).
Maklumat ini dikongsi bersama oleh Wake (1964) dan Yung-lo Shih-lu dan Hsuan-te Shih-lu dengan menyebut nama sebagai ``pai-li-mi-su-la'' sebagai pembuka Melaka dan sultan keempat Melaka bernama ``Hsili-pa-mi-hsiwa-er-tiu-pa-sha'' sebagai Sultan Melaka keempat. Apa yang berlaku ialah Winstedt dan Wake memang tidak tahu bahasa Melayu samalah seperti Tome Pires dengan sewenang-wenangnya menyebut ``Permaisura'' sebagai Parameswara manakala Yung-lo Shih-lu dan Hsuan-te Shih-lu menyebut dengan pelat Cina mereka tetapi lebih mirip sebutan itu kepada ``Permaisura''. Sebenarnya Raja Melaka memakai gelaran Sri Permaisura Dewa Syah bukan Sri Parameswara Dewa Syah.
Gelaran Permaisura adalah menggambarkan raja lelaki mengikut istilah Melayu samalah dengan Permaisuri merupakan raja perempuan gelaran yang dipakai sampai hari ini. Dengan demikian tidak hairanlah jika Sultan Iskandar Syah boleh juga digelar Permaisura. Hingga sekarang gelaran Permaisura tidak lagi dipakai di Malaysia tetapi negara Brunei Darussalam masih menggunakannya untuk memberi gelaran kepada ahli-ahli kerabat terdekat.
Ternyata sekali istilah Permaisura adalah istilah Alam Melayu yang gagal digarap oleh sarjana-sarjana asing dengan menukarkannya mesjadi istilah Tamil atau Hindu walaupun kedua-dua sebutan ini berpunca dari bahasa Sanskrit. Hasilnya seluruh Malaysia menggunakan fakta Parameswara sebagai sultan pertama Melaka. Pada saya ia merupakan satu perogolan sejarah yang sangat ketara dan memalukan. Ini tentulah muslihat di sebaliknya.
Parameswara dikatakan adalah anak Raa Sumatera yang lari ke Singapura dan mengalahkan pemimpin tempatan bernama Temagi yang di bawah naungan Siam, dan mengambil alih pemerintahan Singapura.
Oleh kerana takutkan serangan Siam, Parameswara lari ke Melaka dan membuka negeri tersebut. Ini cerita yang dipungut oleh Tome Pires, pengarang penjajah Barat. Sejarah Melayu menyebutkan Sang Nila Utama pembuka Singapura dan mangkat pada tahun 623 Hijrah. Singapura diperintah oleh empat lagi raja-raja Melayu sehinggalah Megat Iskandar Syah dikalahkan oleh Majapahit dan lari ke Melaka dan mangkat pada tahun 678 Hijrah setelah memerintah tiga tahun di Singapura dan 22 tahun di Melaka.
Inilah fakta sejarah yang dirakam oleh Sejarah Melayu tetapi dipadamkan oleh Tome Pires dan disokong pula oleh Winstedt dan Wake.
Lima raja-raja Melayu di Singapura dipadamkan dari sejarah asal apabila Singapura menulis semula sejarah mereka pada tahun 1965 dan ternyata sekali bukan Tun Sri Lanang yang memadamkan nama Parameswara yang tidak pernah wujud dalam sejarah tetapi akar umbi sejarah kita telah diputar belit sehingga lima raja-raja Melayu Singapura telah dipadamkan dari sejarah asal kita.
O.W.Walters dalam bukunya bertajuk Kejatuhan Sri Wijaya Dalam Sejarah Melayu (Cornel University 1969-terjemahan DBP 1990) telah menghentam Tun Sri Lanang habis-habisan pengarang Sejarah Melayu sehingga nama Tun Sri Lanang sendiri disebut sebagai ahli salasilah sahaja. Cara beliau mengkaji dan menghentam karangan Tun Sri Lanang ini seolah-olah dia hidup sezaman dengannya dan mengikut pula teknik-teknik penulisan sejarah terkini.
Tujuan Walters adalah jelas iaitu untuk menolak Sejarah Melayu sebagai bahan sejarah dan hanya layak dianggap sebagai satu hasil sastera sahaja berpandukan teknik-teknik saintifik dan penulisan sejarah semasa. Itulah kejahilan utama sarjana-sarjana barat apabila menilai hasil karya klasik anak pribumi tanpa mengenali budaya etnik tersebut dan di zaman silam pula.
Memanghlah benar ada unsur-unsur mitos kayalan dan legenda dalam Sejarah Melayu seperti Raja Suran turun ke laut dan berkahwin dengan Puteri Mahtabul Bahri sehingga mendapat tiga orang anak iaitu Nila Utama, Nila Pahlawan dan Kerisna Pandita yang kemudiannya naik semula ke darat dan jatuh di Bukit Seguntang. Tetapi keturunan Nila Utama yang menjadi Raja seramai lima orang di Singapura bukanlah satu mitos atau khayalan.
Alasan mitos hanya digunakan untuk memadamkan nama lima orang Raja Melayu Singapura dari buku sejarah. Jika ini dibuat di Singapura ia mempunyai cerita yang lain walaupun Stamford Raffels sendiri mengakui wujudnya lima raja-raja Melayu tersebut.
Ternyata sekali tugas-tugas pengkaji sejarah yang mempunyai motif tertentu dan juga mungkin mendapat upah yang besar dalam usaha pemadaman dan pencabulan sejarah ini. Walters sangat berjaya dalam usahanya dan usaha beliau sudah tentu dibantu oleh Wang Gungwu sarjana yang lebih serdahana yang mengambil fakta dari tulisan sejarah Cina untuk membantu pendapatnya. Walters yang mengambil pelbagai sumber termasuk dari Sri Lanka dan India adalah sarjana upahan yang benar-benar telah berjaya menjahanamkan asas-asas sejarah asal Tanah Melayu dan kerajaan Melayu Melaka.
Sejarah Melayu adalah sebuah karangan agung yang hingga sekarang ini telah diterjemahkan ke lebih 20 bahasa dan menjadi kajian oleh ramai pakar-pakar sejarah dan sastera.
Apabila kini, ia dianggap sebagai suatu hasil sastera sejarah, maka martabatnya telah turun ke taraf yang paling bawah. Ini semua adalah hasil penggunaan teknik-teknik penulisan sejarah moden bagi mengukur hasil tulisan oleh anak watan yang langsung tidak tahu teknik moden dalam penulisan sejarah pada masa itu.
Dari segi dialektik ukuran ini sudah tentu tidak boleh dipakai. Tetapi apa yang berlaku kita menerima alasan kajian saintifik sejarah untuk menolak Sejarah Melayu sebagai bahan sejarah.
Jika pihak luar mengatakan Sejarah Melayu bukan buku sejarah atas alasan tidak menggunakan teknik saintifik dalam penulisannya seperti memasukkan unsur-unsur mitos dan khayalan dan tidak pula mempunyai tarikh bagi peristiwa-peristiwa tertentu, maka kita sebagai khalayak kepada buku ini wajib mengambil fakta-fakta penting sebagai asas kepada penulisan sejarah asal usul kita.
Menolak Sejarah Melayu sebagai buku sejarah mendedahkan kita kepada tipu helah penjajah dan konco-konconya untuk menakluk minda dan warisan ketuanan Melayu sejak turun-temurun kepada suatu keadaan lengang sejarah dan lupa sejarah dan mengambil nama-nama asing untuk dijadikan fakta sejarah.
Sejarah Melayu ditulis lebih awal dari Suma Oriental. Ia ditulis di antara tahun-tahun 1445 dan 1450 iaitu sewaktu Sultan Muhammad iaitu Sultan Melaka ketiga dan Sultan Muzaffar Syah Sultan Melaka kelima.
Ini berpandukan kepada rakaman adat istiadat yang terperinci yang dicatatkan dalan buku tersebut.
Namun begitu penulisan buku ini bukan dibuat sepanjang masa tetapi ditimbun-tambah dari semasa ke semasa dalam zaman Sultan Mansor Syah dan Sultan Mahmud (Sultan terakhir) Melaka.
Tun Sri Lanang hanya menyunting serta menokok tambah dan memperbaiki penggunaan bahasa sewaktu beliau tertawan ke Acheh bersama-sama dengan Raja Abdullah (Raja Seberang, Kesultanan Johor Riau-Lingga) pada tahun 1612, ada kemungkinan naskah-naskah lama sejarah Melayu yang tidak tersusun, dirampas oleh Portugis dan disimpan di Goa, India atau naskah ini dilarikan oleh pembesar-pembesar Melayu dan disimpan di Goa, Makassar.
Adalah menjadi tradisi Bendaharalah yang memegang semua surat-surat penting kerajaan pada masa lalu.
Sejarah ringkas zaman melaka ini pernah dipetik secara yang tepat oleh Raja Ali Haji apabila beliau menulis Tuhfat Al-Nafis pada awal kurun ke-19 lama sebelum sarjana-sarjana barat mengkaji buku Sejarah Melayu suntingan Tun Sri Lanang ini.
Pengkaji sejarah bukanlah orang yang boleh dibeli atau ditipu atau golongan orang yang berwibawa dengan gelaran-gelaran Mahaguru. Mereka mahu melihat apa yang benar dan sekali-kali tidak mahu fakta sejarah diputar belitkan apatah lagi jika fakta sejarah yang diputar belitkan itu mempunyai agenda politik terentu bertujuan untuk melemahkan asas-asas kebangsaan dan ketuanan. Tugas menjahanamkan asas-asas ketuanan dan jati diri bangsa memanglah menjadi tujuan utama penjajah dan konco-konco selepasnya.
Sumber : http://www.utusan.com.my
Percanggahan Suma Oriental dengan Sejarah Melayu
Oleh: YUSOF OTHMAN
Parameswara mungkin tidak pernah wujud dalam sejarah tanah air dan dengan demikian Tun Sri Lanang bukan orang yang bertanggungjawab memadamkan nama tersebut dalam buku Sejarah Melayu.
Apa yang sebenarnya berlaku bukan Parameswara yang membuka Melaka seperti yang dicatatkan oleh Sejarah Melayu tetapi ialah Megat Iskandar Syah. Tome Pires melalui bukunya Suma Oriental menggunakan nama Parameswara sebagai pembuka Melaka pada 1402 berasaskan maklumat-maklumat yang dikumpul melalui proses dengar cakap dari orang-orang Melaka yang masih ada selepas Portugis menawan Melaka tahun 1511.
Pada tahun 1512 Tome Pires telah mengumpulkan maklumat itu dan dibukukan mengikut pandangan penjajah Portugis dan kacamata penulisan sejarah Barat. Sudah pasti tidak ada
pembesar-pembesar istana yang masih tinggal di Melaka di masa itu dan sudah tentu pula Tome Pires mendapat maklumat dari orang-orang bukan Melayu dibandar tersebut. Dengan demikian nama-nama yang bukan serasi dengan lidah melayu telah disebut sebagai pembuka negeri Melaka.
Parameswara adalah perkataan Tamil dan Hindu. Perkataan Melayu yang hampir-hampir bunyinya ialah ``Permaisura''. Ada catatan oleh Winstedt (1948) menyebut Parameswara sebagai Sultan Melaka pertama (mangkat 1424) dan Sultan Ketiga Melaka iaitu Raja Ibrahim memakai gelaran Sri Parameswara Dewa Shah (mangkat 1446).
Maklumat ini dikongsi bersama oleh Wake (1964) dan Yung-lo Shih-lu dan Hsuan-te Shih-lu dengan menyebut nama sebagai ``pai-li-mi-su-la'' sebagai pembuka Melaka dan sultan keempat Melaka bernama ``Hsili-pa-mi-hsiwa-er-tiu-pa-sha'' sebagai Sultan Melaka keempat. Apa yang berlaku ialah Winstedt dan Wake memang tidak tahu bahasa Melayu samalah seperti Tome Pires dengan sewenang-wenangnya menyebut ``Permaisura'' sebagai Parameswara manakala Yung-lo Shih-lu dan Hsuan-te Shih-lu menyebut dengan pelat Cina mereka tetapi lebih mirip sebutan itu kepada ``Permaisura''. Sebenarnya Raja Melaka memakai gelaran Sri Permaisura Dewa Syah bukan Sri Parameswara Dewa Syah.
Gelaran Permaisura adalah menggambarkan raja lelaki mengikut istilah Melayu samalah dengan Permaisuri merupakan raja perempuan gelaran yang dipakai sampai hari ini. Dengan demikian tidak hairanlah jika Sultan Iskandar Syah boleh juga digelar Permaisura. Hingga sekarang gelaran Permaisura tidak lagi dipakai di Malaysia tetapi negara Brunei Darussalam masih menggunakannya untuk memberi gelaran kepada ahli-ahli kerabat terdekat.
Ternyata sekali istilah Permaisura adalah istilah Alam Melayu yang gagal digarap oleh sarjana-sarjana asing dengan menukarkannya mesjadi istilah Tamil atau Hindu walaupun kedua-dua sebutan ini berpunca dari bahasa Sanskrit. Hasilnya seluruh Malaysia menggunakan fakta Parameswara sebagai sultan pertama Melaka. Pada saya ia merupakan satu perogolan sejarah yang sangat ketara dan memalukan. Ini tentulah muslihat di sebaliknya.
Parameswara dikatakan adalah anak Raa Sumatera yang lari ke Singapura dan mengalahkan pemimpin tempatan bernama Temagi yang di bawah naungan Siam, dan mengambil alih pemerintahan Singapura.
Oleh kerana takutkan serangan Siam, Parameswara lari ke Melaka dan membuka negeri tersebut. Ini cerita yang dipungut oleh Tome Pires, pengarang penjajah Barat. Sejarah Melayu menyebutkan Sang Nila Utama pembuka Singapura dan mangkat pada tahun 623 Hijrah. Singapura diperintah oleh empat lagi raja-raja Melayu sehinggalah Megat Iskandar Syah dikalahkan oleh Majapahit dan lari ke Melaka dan mangkat pada tahun 678 Hijrah setelah memerintah tiga tahun di Singapura dan 22 tahun di Melaka.
Inilah fakta sejarah yang dirakam oleh Sejarah Melayu tetapi dipadamkan oleh Tome Pires dan disokong pula oleh Winstedt dan Wake.
Lima raja-raja Melayu di Singapura dipadamkan dari sejarah asal apabila Singapura menulis semula sejarah mereka pada tahun 1965 dan ternyata sekali bukan Tun Sri Lanang yang memadamkan nama Parameswara yang tidak pernah wujud dalam sejarah tetapi akar umbi sejarah kita telah diputar belit sehingga lima raja-raja Melayu Singapura telah dipadamkan dari sejarah asal kita.
O.W.Walters dalam bukunya bertajuk Kejatuhan Sri Wijaya Dalam Sejarah Melayu (Cornel University 1969-terjemahan DBP 1990) telah menghentam Tun Sri Lanang habis-habisan pengarang Sejarah Melayu sehingga nama Tun Sri Lanang sendiri disebut sebagai ahli salasilah sahaja. Cara beliau mengkaji dan menghentam karangan Tun Sri Lanang ini seolah-olah dia hidup sezaman dengannya dan mengikut pula teknik-teknik penulisan sejarah terkini.
Tujuan Walters adalah jelas iaitu untuk menolak Sejarah Melayu sebagai bahan sejarah dan hanya layak dianggap sebagai satu hasil sastera sahaja berpandukan teknik-teknik saintifik dan penulisan sejarah semasa. Itulah kejahilan utama sarjana-sarjana barat apabila menilai hasil karya klasik anak pribumi tanpa mengenali budaya etnik tersebut dan di zaman silam pula.
Memanghlah benar ada unsur-unsur mitos kayalan dan legenda dalam Sejarah Melayu seperti Raja Suran turun ke laut dan berkahwin dengan Puteri Mahtabul Bahri sehingga mendapat tiga orang anak iaitu Nila Utama, Nila Pahlawan dan Kerisna Pandita yang kemudiannya naik semula ke darat dan jatuh di Bukit Seguntang. Tetapi keturunan Nila Utama yang menjadi Raja seramai lima orang di Singapura bukanlah satu mitos atau khayalan.
Alasan mitos hanya digunakan untuk memadamkan nama lima orang Raja Melayu Singapura dari buku sejarah. Jika ini dibuat di Singapura ia mempunyai cerita yang lain walaupun Stamford Raffels sendiri mengakui wujudnya lima raja-raja Melayu tersebut.
Ternyata sekali tugas-tugas pengkaji sejarah yang mempunyai motif tertentu dan juga mungkin mendapat upah yang besar dalam usaha pemadaman dan pencabulan sejarah ini. Walters sangat berjaya dalam usahanya dan usaha beliau sudah tentu dibantu oleh Wang Gungwu sarjana yang lebih serdahana yang mengambil fakta dari tulisan sejarah Cina untuk membantu pendapatnya. Walters yang mengambil pelbagai sumber termasuk dari Sri Lanka dan India adalah sarjana upahan yang benar-benar telah berjaya menjahanamkan asas-asas sejarah asal Tanah Melayu dan kerajaan Melayu Melaka.
Sejarah Melayu adalah sebuah karangan agung yang hingga sekarang ini telah diterjemahkan ke lebih 20 bahasa dan menjadi kajian oleh ramai pakar-pakar sejarah dan sastera.
Apabila kini, ia dianggap sebagai suatu hasil sastera sejarah, maka martabatnya telah turun ke taraf yang paling bawah. Ini semua adalah hasil penggunaan teknik-teknik penulisan sejarah moden bagi mengukur hasil tulisan oleh anak watan yang langsung tidak tahu teknik moden dalam penulisan sejarah pada masa itu.
Dari segi dialektik ukuran ini sudah tentu tidak boleh dipakai. Tetapi apa yang berlaku kita menerima alasan kajian saintifik sejarah untuk menolak Sejarah Melayu sebagai bahan sejarah.
Jika pihak luar mengatakan Sejarah Melayu bukan buku sejarah atas alasan tidak menggunakan teknik saintifik dalam penulisannya seperti memasukkan unsur-unsur mitos dan khayalan dan tidak pula mempunyai tarikh bagi peristiwa-peristiwa tertentu, maka kita sebagai khalayak kepada buku ini wajib mengambil fakta-fakta penting sebagai asas kepada penulisan sejarah asal usul kita.
Menolak Sejarah Melayu sebagai buku sejarah mendedahkan kita kepada tipu helah penjajah dan konco-konconya untuk menakluk minda dan warisan ketuanan Melayu sejak turun-temurun kepada suatu keadaan lengang sejarah dan lupa sejarah dan mengambil nama-nama asing untuk dijadikan fakta sejarah.
Sejarah Melayu ditulis lebih awal dari Suma Oriental. Ia ditulis di antara tahun-tahun 1445 dan 1450 iaitu sewaktu Sultan Muhammad iaitu Sultan Melaka ketiga dan Sultan Muzaffar Syah Sultan Melaka kelima.
Ini berpandukan kepada rakaman adat istiadat yang terperinci yang dicatatkan dalan buku tersebut.
Namun begitu penulisan buku ini bukan dibuat sepanjang masa tetapi ditimbun-tambah dari semasa ke semasa dalam zaman Sultan Mansor Syah dan Sultan Mahmud (Sultan terakhir) Melaka.
Tun Sri Lanang hanya menyunting serta menokok tambah dan memperbaiki penggunaan bahasa sewaktu beliau tertawan ke Acheh bersama-sama dengan Raja Abdullah (Raja Seberang, Kesultanan Johor Riau-Lingga) pada tahun 1612, ada kemungkinan naskah-naskah lama sejarah Melayu yang tidak tersusun, dirampas oleh Portugis dan disimpan di Goa, India atau naskah ini dilarikan oleh pembesar-pembesar Melayu dan disimpan di Goa, Makassar.
Adalah menjadi tradisi Bendaharalah yang memegang semua surat-surat penting kerajaan pada masa lalu.
Sejarah ringkas zaman melaka ini pernah dipetik secara yang tepat oleh Raja Ali Haji apabila beliau menulis Tuhfat Al-Nafis pada awal kurun ke-19 lama sebelum sarjana-sarjana barat mengkaji buku Sejarah Melayu suntingan Tun Sri Lanang ini.
Pengkaji sejarah bukanlah orang yang boleh dibeli atau ditipu atau golongan orang yang berwibawa dengan gelaran-gelaran Mahaguru. Mereka mahu melihat apa yang benar dan sekali-kali tidak mahu fakta sejarah diputar belitkan apatah lagi jika fakta sejarah yang diputar belitkan itu mempunyai agenda politik terentu bertujuan untuk melemahkan asas-asas kebangsaan dan ketuanan. Tugas menjahanamkan asas-asas ketuanan dan jati diri bangsa memanglah menjadi tujuan utama penjajah dan konco-konco selepasnya.
Sumber : http://www.utusan.com.my
Selasa, 21 April 2009
perbahasan terkini Khlangkeo (facebook)
Diulas oleh Yusof Gajah pada 7.04 pagi 14hb April
History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon.
Diulas oleh Zubin Mohamad pada 5.20 ptg 21hb April
Dejavu, I tot Pak Yusof already said this, or I am reading the same thing.
Kenapa perlu takut, sememangnya Melayu sebelum Parameswara memeluk islam adalah bukan beragama Islam, tetapi beragama Hindu-Buddha. Apalagi kerajaan-kerajaan lain. Itu tidak bermakna yang ianya bukan milik kita dan sejarah kita.
Untuk menjadi bangsa yang besar kita seharusnya menerima hakikat sejarah kita. Sejarah yang kita bina setelah penjajahan pun bukannya betul sangat, banyak yang telah diubah, pendekkata sejarah itu dibuat dan ditulis oleh orang yang memerintah.
Diulas oleh Norazlan Ahmad pada 9.42 ptg 21hb April
perak man yang ditemui berusia 10000-11000 tahun lampau. tertanya-tanya juga, tak pernah ke tauhid tu wujud di tanah melayu pada masa tu.
ada yang menyatakan islam tu telah datang ke alam melayu pada tahun 800 masihi.
Sebelum Islam datang tidak mustahil wujudnya zaman jahiliah seperti mana dunia arab juga... Baca Seterusnya
Hamka mengemukakan pandangannya mengenai kewujudan agama Hindu di rantau ini.
Menurut beliau kerajaan Hindu tua telah dijangka wujud kira-kira tahun 400 masehi iaitu dua abad sebelum lahirnya Nabi Muhammad SAW, kerajaan tersebut bertapak di Kalimantan Timur iaitu di Kutai, di mana telah ditemui batu tercatat mengenai raja bernama Mulawarman dan huruf pada batu itu adalah bertulisan Pallawa yang menjelaskan ada hubungan kerajaan ini dengan kerajaan di India Selatan.
namun begitu tertanya-tanya juga sebelum 400 masihi tahun hindu-buddha wujud di alam melayu, apakah tidak wujud tauhid agama samawi.
Kita wajib percaya nabi-nabi sebelum nabi Muhammad (s.a.w). Islam hari ini adalah adalah kesinambungan agama-agama samawi ( agama tauhid ) yang di sampaikan oleh nabi-nabi sebelumnya.
Hindu/buddha wujud disebabkan wujudnya zaman jahiliah yang dekat dengan kepecayaan dengan animisme.
Tercatat dalam sejarah, berabad-abad sebelum Masihi, Selat Melaka telah digunakan oleh pedagang Arab sebagai laluan pelayarannya membawa barang perniagaan dari Tiongkok, Sumatera, dan India ke Pelabuhan Yaman.
Dari Sumatera hasil yang paling utama mereka beli ialah rempah kerana rempah ini merupakan keperluan yang penting bagi orang Arab di Saba' (Kerajaan Saba' wujud di antara 115-950 SM pada zaman Nabi Sulaiman yang diperintah oleh Ratu Balqis).
Pelabuhan di Sumatera pula mendapat bekalan rempah ini dari Pulau Maluku di samping Aceh yang sudah terkenal hasil rempahnya ke dunia Arab.
Oleh itu apalah hebatnya tamadun hindu/buddha yang sekejab wujud pada tahun 400 masihi sehinggalah 800 masihi para tabi'in membawa kembali sinar Islam ke tanah melayu.
Inilah kajian sejarah yang perlu dikaji.Ada yang mengatakan orang melayu susur galurnya dari nabi Ismail (a.s). Wallahualam.
History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon.
Diulas oleh Zubin Mohamad pada 5.20 ptg 21hb April
Dejavu, I tot Pak Yusof already said this, or I am reading the same thing.
Kenapa perlu takut, sememangnya Melayu sebelum Parameswara memeluk islam adalah bukan beragama Islam, tetapi beragama Hindu-Buddha. Apalagi kerajaan-kerajaan lain. Itu tidak bermakna yang ianya bukan milik kita dan sejarah kita.
Untuk menjadi bangsa yang besar kita seharusnya menerima hakikat sejarah kita. Sejarah yang kita bina setelah penjajahan pun bukannya betul sangat, banyak yang telah diubah, pendekkata sejarah itu dibuat dan ditulis oleh orang yang memerintah.
Diulas oleh Norazlan Ahmad pada 9.42 ptg 21hb April
perak man yang ditemui berusia 10000-11000 tahun lampau. tertanya-tanya juga, tak pernah ke tauhid tu wujud di tanah melayu pada masa tu.
ada yang menyatakan islam tu telah datang ke alam melayu pada tahun 800 masihi.
Sebelum Islam datang tidak mustahil wujudnya zaman jahiliah seperti mana dunia arab juga... Baca Seterusnya
Hamka mengemukakan pandangannya mengenai kewujudan agama Hindu di rantau ini.
Menurut beliau kerajaan Hindu tua telah dijangka wujud kira-kira tahun 400 masehi iaitu dua abad sebelum lahirnya Nabi Muhammad SAW, kerajaan tersebut bertapak di Kalimantan Timur iaitu di Kutai, di mana telah ditemui batu tercatat mengenai raja bernama Mulawarman dan huruf pada batu itu adalah bertulisan Pallawa yang menjelaskan ada hubungan kerajaan ini dengan kerajaan di India Selatan.
namun begitu tertanya-tanya juga sebelum 400 masihi tahun hindu-buddha wujud di alam melayu, apakah tidak wujud tauhid agama samawi.
Kita wajib percaya nabi-nabi sebelum nabi Muhammad (s.a.w). Islam hari ini adalah adalah kesinambungan agama-agama samawi ( agama tauhid ) yang di sampaikan oleh nabi-nabi sebelumnya.
Hindu/buddha wujud disebabkan wujudnya zaman jahiliah yang dekat dengan kepecayaan dengan animisme.
Tercatat dalam sejarah, berabad-abad sebelum Masihi, Selat Melaka telah digunakan oleh pedagang Arab sebagai laluan pelayarannya membawa barang perniagaan dari Tiongkok, Sumatera, dan India ke Pelabuhan Yaman.
Dari Sumatera hasil yang paling utama mereka beli ialah rempah kerana rempah ini merupakan keperluan yang penting bagi orang Arab di Saba' (Kerajaan Saba' wujud di antara 115-950 SM pada zaman Nabi Sulaiman yang diperintah oleh Ratu Balqis).
Pelabuhan di Sumatera pula mendapat bekalan rempah ini dari Pulau Maluku di samping Aceh yang sudah terkenal hasil rempahnya ke dunia Arab.
Oleh itu apalah hebatnya tamadun hindu/buddha yang sekejab wujud pada tahun 400 masihi sehinggalah 800 masihi para tabi'in membawa kembali sinar Islam ke tanah melayu.
Inilah kajian sejarah yang perlu dikaji.Ada yang mengatakan orang melayu susur galurnya dari nabi Ismail (a.s). Wallahualam.
Selasa, 17 Februari 2009
komentar yang dinanti dan penuh tanda tanya
- Hari ini saya mendapat satu komen terhadap satu artikel tentang klang kio. Mungkin saya patut betulkan ejaannya kepada Khlangkeo.
Sebenarnya selain daripada minat saya terhadap seni lukis. Saya juga berharap yang lukisan-lukisan saya akan membantu sedikit sebanyak masyarakat berfikir tentang Khlangkeo ini.
Jika benar kerajaan Khlangkeo adalah sebuah kerajaan Islam, bukan kerajaan Hindu yang sebagaimana saya dan ramai lagi fikirkan. Ini adalah sesuatu yang perlu dicari kebenarannya dan didedahkan kebenaran tersebut.
Semalam saya sempat ke Galeri Seni Johor untuk perasmian pameran seni khat. Di situ saya berkesempatan bertemu dengan salah seorang penyelidik dari Yayasan Warisan Johor, Dr. rs. Kamaruddin. Beliau mengatakan yang penyelidikannya selama sebulan lebih di tempat tersebut tidak menemui apa-apa.
Apabila saya menanyakan, adakah kemungkinan yang kota tersebut tenggelam di Empangan Linggiu. Beliau menafikannya. Menurutnya sebelum empangan tersebut dibuat, segala kajian tentang kawasan tersebut telah dibuat dan tidak menemuinya. Namun saya percaya jika melihat kepada keupayaan ketika itu tentunya penyelidikan itu tidak menyeluruh.
Di bahagian lain otak saya berfikir dan menaruh syak wassangka. Tentunya ada sesuatu yang tidak kena. Terutamanya apabila empangan tersebut menjadi kepunyaan Singapura.
Berikut adalah komentar yang diberi oleh mosar39. Jika mosar39 tidak keberatan sila email saya di relief_painting@yahoo.com.my
mosar39 berkata...- Saya dah jumpa bukti kewujudan Gelanggi/ Khlangkeo/ Linggiu dan tempatnya di Ulu Sg Johor...tetapi kota tersebut telah dirobohkan pada tahun 1940-an oleh golongan tertentu dgn tujuan utk menutup bukti kewujudan kerajaan Siam Islam pertama pada tahun 900-an yang selari dengan kewujudan candi di Lembah Bujang yg sebenarnya adalah Masjid...ini semua merentas kepada golongan tertentu...untuk menghapuskan bukti Islam dah lama bertapak di Tanah Melayu...Belum masnaya didedahkan....boleh dikesan artifak yg banyak menggunakan metal detector...Walhal negeri tanah Melayu dan Indonesia Islam telah wujud pada 200-300 sebelum masihi...atas arahan Iskandar Zulkarnain.
Rabu, 11 Februari 2009
Perbahasan Tentang Karya Klang kio
|
|
| |
Di dalam rupadiawan.blogspot.com selain artikel yang saya kumpul, saya juga ada ada menulis tentang ciri-ciri artwork saya berdasarkan artikel tersebut.
Ada lebih kurang 27 artikel di dalam blogspot ini. Kalau tak berminat tentunya payah sikit nak membacanya. Namun jika hendak membahaskan artwork saya, artikel-artikel tersebut perlu dibaca.
Ini kerana artwork klang kio ini saya hasilkan melalui pencarian saya melalui artikel yang saya kumpul dan baca tersebut.
- di dalam blog rupadiawan.blogspot.com ini saya ada menyenaraikan lebih kurang 27 artikel tentang klang kio . Melalui artikel itu saya mencirikan artwork saya.
- Melalui karangan Tun sri lanang, dinyatakan yang
- yang memperlihatkan
- melalui artikel yang saya kumpul tersebut. ada yang mengandaikan yang
- keluasan kota itu dianggarkan seluas 2000 hektar. Untuk menunjukkan ia TENGGELAM didalam air saya memilih subjek ikan untuk melambangkan kewujudan kota itu di dalam air secara misteri.
- subjek
- saya tidak melukis kota itu secara jelas kerana kota itu saya dekatkan (close-up). akar-akar itu juga untuk menunjukkan yang kota itu tenggelam di dalam air. selain kesan jalinannya yang juga berbeza.
- saya juga tidak fikir yang kota itu tenggelam dalam lumpur. ini kerana air yang ditakung diempangan linggiu itu adalah sekatan sungai, bukit, dan lembah. saya tidak pasti berapa dalamnya. namun saya percaya kedalamannya lebih 200 meter berdasarkan kedalaman empangan ulu juaseh yang saya tahu.
- oleh itu ikan dan akar tesebut hanya perlambangan tenggelamnya sebuah
Jumaat, 9 Januari 2009
Mungkin cerita sezaman dengan klang kio ( kerajaan Ayuthia siam )
SEJARAH REALITI KEDAH oleh : Mazlan Abdul Majid,
Pensyarah Kanan, UiTM Kedah mazz62@yahoo. com
Saya merujuk kepada Tulisan Tuan Nai Long Kassim Nai Long Ahmad
bertajuk
"Kewujudan Kedah bukan pada 1136 Masihi" yang disiarkan oleh akhbar ini
(Utusan Malaysia) pada 13 Februari 2007 adalah dirujuk.
Tulisan tuan ada banyak kebenarannya dan saya berpendapat masih ada lagi maklumat yang tersimpan dan tidak ingin didedahkan walaupun Malaysia akan menyambut 50 tahun kemerdekaannya pada 31 Ogos 2007. Sebagai penyelidik dari universiti tempatan maklumat-maklumat yang saya selidiki menuju ke arah apa yang diperkatakan oleh Tuan Nai Long Kassim ini ada kebenarannya. .
Seterusnya, saya tertarik dengan nama Raja Maha Besar Benua Siam Dinasti Ayuthia yang bergelar Boromoraja Ekataat V. Nama sebenar Baginda ialah Khalifah Sharif Abu Bakar Syah dan baginda beragama Islam.
Sebelum ini kita semua menyangkakan Empayar Ayuthia (1350 - 1767) yang tinggi peradabannya di Thailand itu sebagai Empayar yang beragama Buddha. Tanggapan ini adalah salah sama sekali. Thailand, asalnya adalah dari bangsa Sukhothai (suku thai @ puak Thai) yang berasal dari Lannathai. Mereka memang sudah berkali-kali cuba menyerang Ayuthia dan akhirnyaberjaya menakluki Ayuthia pada tahun 1767, di ketuai oleh ketuanya bernama Alaungpaya. Akan tetapi siapa sebenarnya yang memerintah Ayuthia sebelum ia ditawan?
Pemerintah Ayuthia menunaikan Haji ke Tanah Suci Mekah, melaksanakan hukum-hukum Islam dan pentadbiran dibahagikan kepada 2 kementerian, untuk Islam dan bukan Islam. Mereka menjalin hubungan dengan Perancis dan sempena lawatan itu dinamakan sebatang jalan di Perancis sebagai Jalan Ayuthia. Mereka ini adalah dari keturunan Siam bukan Thai. Dalam
erti lain Siam itu beragama Islam, Thai itu beragama Buddha.
Sekiranya bahasa jiwa bangsa, sudah pasti, bahasa Thai untuk bangsa Thai danbahasa Siam untuk bangsa Siam. Kita lihat pula di Malaysia hari ini terdapat orang Melayu yang bertutur dalam Bahasa Siam di Kedah, Kelantan dan Perlis dan mereka beragama Islam. Bahasa Siam ini jika ditutur di Thailand, langsung tidak difahami lagi oleh rakyat Thailand hari ini.
Orang-orang Melayu inilah berbangsa Siam, ia itu asal usul keturu! nan bangsa Melayu yang menjadi rakyat Nagara Benua Siam Dinasti Ayuthiadahulu dan Empayar ini meliputi seluruh Nusantara, Champa, termasuk sebahagian India. Arus kemodenan tidak menyentuh mereka sama sekali dan mereka kekal dalam budaya bahasa Siam seperti adanya, 300 tahun dahulu.
Dalam manuskrip Undang-Undang Kedah, yang mula diitulis pada tahun 220 Hijrah (799 masihi) adat Siam ini telah pun lama diguna pakai oleh raja-raja Melayu zaman dahulu. Manuskrip ini dirampas oleh Inggeris di Istana Kota Beruas dahulu dan baru dipulangkan kepada kita sekitar tahun2003/04. Di antaranya penggunaan sirih pinang sewaktu meminang, bekas meminang, cincin emas sebentuk, kain.Sebagai contoh, di dalam buku Undang-undang Kedah, mengenai pakaian dalam Adat Raja Johor,
"Maka adat ini turut adat raja-raja Kedah ini, yang kerajaan itu kuning juga". (ms 34)
"Demikianlah zaman raja-raja dahulu-dahulu itu. Pada adat raja-raja di benua Siam gelar demikian itu bahasa Siam Cau Phaya Kersan". (ms 36)
Tidak teragak jika saya katakan bahawa asal keturunan bangsa Melayu ialah Siam kerana raja-raja Melayu yang menjadi tunggak adat istiadat bangsa Melayu telah pun menggunakan adat tersebut. Seterusnya, dimuka surat yang sama, perihal pemerintah Johor, "Maka pada
Bahasa Melayu Bendahara itu panglima negeri. Pada segala negeri yang kecil-kecil bendahara itu dikatanya lambat pada adat Siam".
Sebelum naik kerajaan pada tahun 1350, pemerintah Ayuthia ini berasal dari Kesultanan Kedah, di mana keturunan mereka tiba dari Cina dan membuka Kota di Kuala Muda. Ketua rombongan dari Cina dan pengikutnya diketuai oleh Putera Waran Wong Ser (Mahawangsa) , cucu kepada Maharaja Cina bernama Sai Tee Sung dari Dinasti Tang. (rujuk kepada Hikayat Merong Mahawangsa)
Maharaja Sai Tee Sung telah diislamkan oleh utusan Baginda Rasullullah SAW bernama Saad bin Waqqas.Baginda pula telah memberi surat watikah kepada cucunya untuk menyebarkan Islam di Nusantara. Apabila naik Kerajaan, Baginda Wa Ren Wong Ser (bermaksud Naga Laut Puak Tentera) memakai gelaran Sultan Madzafar SyahI (222H, 812 M) dan berkahwin dengan Sharifah Mariam ibni Syed Jamal Al Jefri dari keturunan Bani Hashim. Sharifah Maryam berketurunan Arab dan baginda juga di panggil Tok Soh. Makam Tok Soh masa ada lagi di Pin Nang Tung Gal (bermaksud, jadi permaisuri tunggak Negara) dengan ukiran kalimah Shahadah pada nisan nya di Kampung Tok Soh, Pinang Tunggal, Kulim,Kedah.
Mereka mendirikan kota dengan penduduk tempatan di Kuala Muda (Muadat bermaksud belerang), Kedah dan menjalankan pelbagai perniagaan pembuatan senjata yang menggunakan belerang.Contoh dua meriam yang dijumpai di dalam sungai dan telah dihasilkan oleh orang Melayu Saimen boleh dilihat di Muzium Negeri Kedah. Generasi kedua Kesultanan Negara Kedah ialah Po Disut @ SayyidinaJamalull Alam BadrulMunir bergelar Sultan Madzafar Syah II dan generasi ketiga ialahayyidina Ali Wa Maulana Sayyidina Jamalull Alam Badrul Munir @ SultanAlirah Shah Perlak (bersemayam di Istana Bukit Cho Ras), keempat ialah Sultan Hussin Syah dan kelima Sultan Sheikh AbdulKadir Shah @ Tuan Sheikh Keramat. Makam baginda terletak di Lang Gar (bermaksud putus dunia) bertarikh 291H (903 M). Kesemua mereka adalah pemerintah Nagara Kedah Pasai Ma (nama Negara Kedah dahulu).
Yang saya kira menarik sekali ialah pemerintah ke 11 Negara Kedah iaitu Sultan Madzafar Syah III yang juga bergelar Rama Tibodi I (@ Sheikh Ahmad Qomi). Baginda menjadi Maharaja pertama Benua Islam Siam Ayuthia Kedah Pasai Ma. Semasa upacara mengangkat sumpah, Melaka tersurat dan disebut baginda sebagai salah satu tanah jajahan Ayuthia. Pada masa itu
Melaka termasuklah Johor dan Kepulauan Riau.
Pada masa itu juga pemerintah Kedah baru saja mengalahkan KerajaanTenangsari (Burma) yang menyerang Kedah sekaligus menguasainya. Pemerintah Kedua Ayuthia ialah Naresuan yang berkahwin dengan Ratu Iman, Acheh. Pada Makam Baginda, tertulis dlm Bahasa Kawi, Gusta Barubasa empu Kedah Pasai Ma bermaksud, Keluarga yang memeluk Islam menguasai KedahPasai Ma.Kerajaan ini lah yang mana Pattani, Ligor, Singgora, Kesultanan Melaka dan Acheh turut berada di bawah kawalannya. Sebab itulah bilamencari kesan Sejarah Kesultanan Melaka sukar mendapat buktinya kerananama mereka jugatersenarai dalam senarai Raja-raja Ayuthia dalam bahasa Siam !.
Tahukah pembaca semua siapakah yang menjadi Raja Benua Siam Islam NagaraKedah Pasai Ma yang terakhir. Tak lain dan tak bukan iaitu Sultan Jaafar Muadzam Syah atau lebih dikenali sebagai Long Jaafar. Sebelum itu Ayahanda baginda, Syed Alang Alauddin yang juga bergelar Panglima Bukit Gantang menjadi Sultan Benua Siam Islam, Nagara Kedah Pasai Ma. Baginda
melantik puteranya Long Jaafar menjadi menteri di Larut Perak untuk menguruskan lombong bijih kerajaan Nagara Kedah di sana. Apabila ayahanda baginda mangkat dalam tahun 1862, baginda ditabal di Berahman Indra (sekarang Balai Besar) Alor Star bergelar Sultan Jaafar Madzam Syah. Dalam rangka lawatan ke Merbok, baginda ditangkap oleh Thai dan Inggeris dalam tahun 1876, disiksa di Yan, sebelum dipijak dengan gajah hingga mati di
belakang Balai Polis Gurun dalam tahun 1876.Peristiwa ini benar berlaku dan saya cabar sesiapa pun termasuk pengkaji sejarah tempatan untuk mengkaji maklumat ini.
Dalam penyelidikkan saya, dengan terbunuhnya Long Jaafar orang-orang Melayu hilang segala-galanya meliputi sastera, senibina, manuskrip-manuskrip ,syair, industri pembuatan belerang, sajak, puisi dll. Penjajah Inggeris telah menipu kita dimana mereka berpakat denganThai lalu menyerahkan peradaban itu kepada Thai. Mereka memutarbelitkan fakta sejarah sehingga kita menyangkakan Thai dan Siam itu sama saja. Inggeris memberi peradaban Ayuthia milik kita itu kepada Thai agar mereka dapat, menjatuhkan Islam, menjajah Semenanjong dan mengutip hasil bumi seperti bijih timah,emas,rempah ratus dll.
Ditinggalnya kita pada hari ini tanpa warisan sejarah bangsa dan agama untuk memulakan kerajaan Malaysia ketika merdeka. Sejarah yang ditinggalkan adalah versi mereka, bukan versi kita. Kita terpaksa bermula dari bawah untuk memertabatkan bangsa. Kita berjaya melakukannya dalam masa 50 tahun saja. Bayangkanlah sekiranya kita bangsa Melayu keturunan Siam ini memerintah Ayuthia dulu selama 417 tahun, betapa hebatnya peradaban itu! Pasti ia di cemburui dan dingini/diidamkan oleh bangsa lain.
Sebelum ini raja-raja kita membayar ufti kepada Siam Islam, ibarat cukai Kerajaan Negeri kepada Kerajaan Persekutuan tetapi bila Thai mengambil alih Ayuthia, seolah-olah memberi ufti kepada Kerajaan asing yang berlainan agama. Bila raja-raja daerah kita enggan membayar, walau ada yang cuba berbaik-baik, Thai tetap menyerang orang-orang Melayu, mengugut, membunuh dan menyiksa dengan kejam. Akhirnya ramai kerabat dan rakyat di Negara Kedah dan Pattani menjadi 'Korban Musuh Bisik' dalam tahun 1821. Setelah usaha ini selesai mereka mengubah sistem pendidikan mereka, rakyat siam hanya boleh belajar bahasa Thai sahaja,dll,
sehingga apabila selesai dinamakan negara mereka,Thailand. Semua ini berlaku kerana Raja Chakri Sukhothai benci bangsa Siam ini ujud lebih dahulu daripada Thai lalu dibakarnya manuskrip Al Quran, Hikayat Merong Mahawangsa, Sejarah Melayu dll sewaktu berjaya menawan Ayuthia dalam tahun 1767.
Sewaktu Thai (bukan Siam) menjajah Kedah selama 5 tahun (1876-1881) dengan pertolongan Inggeris mereka membakar istana-istana lama (17, mungkin lebih) milik Raja Benua Siam Islam, Nagara Kedah Pasai Ma termasuk di Bukit Cho Ras (istana Sayyidina Ali, Sultan Alirah Shah,
Perlak), diserang dan dibunuh orang-orang Siam Islam Pattani, Kedah, Majapahit dan tentera Cina Manchu (Islam). Seorang saksi yang tinggal berdekatan, berusia sekitar 90 tahun menceritakan bagaimana Inggeris sekitar awal 1910 datang semula memecahkan lagi 3 bilik dibawah tanah ditapak istana Bukit Choras yang telah dibakar oleh Thai 35 tahun terdahulu. Di
setengah-setengah lokasi seperti candi ditanamnya patung-patung tertentu untuk menyesatkan penyelidik kita pada hari ini. Syukurlah orang Melayu masih tetap berpegang kepada Islam. Sekarang saya harap saudara/i mula faham kenapa berlaku kekecohan di Pattani. Saya difahamkan juga bahawa Inggeris ingin menyerahkan Pattani, Satun,Yala, Ligor dan Songkhala untuk merdeka bersama kita dalam tahun 1957 dahulu tetapi ditolak oleh TAR kerana datuknya Raja Chulalongkorn tidak mengizinkannya (TAR cucu raja Siam itu). Inggeris tahu bahawa daerah ini jajahan Nagara Kedah, berdasarkan manuskrip Undang-Undang Kedah yang tercatat di m.s.15.
Oleh itu, sempena menyambut Hari Kemerdekaan ke 50 tahun, marilah kita
sama-sama mencari kembali permata yang telah hilang itu.
Mazlan Abdul Majid
Pensyarah Kanan
UiTM Kedah
************ ********* *****
Utusan Malaysia 13 Feb 2007
Kewujudan Kedah bukan pada 1136 Masihi?
KENYATAAN Timbalan Menteri Kebudayaan, Kesenian dan Warisan, Datuk Wong Kam Hong baru-baru ini yang menyarankan agar mengkaji semula sejarah kedatangan Islam di Nusantara, adalah dirujuk.
Saya selaku waris mutlak kesultanan Sultan Jaafar Muadzam Shah, pemerintah benua Siam Islam membantu untuk menjelaskan kedudukan sebenar atau realiti sejarah.
Kewujudan Kedah memang terbukti sejak tahun 222 Hijrah bersamaan 812 Masihi seperti tercatat dalam tulisan jawi (rujuk lampiran 65 bertulisan jawi Undang-Undang Kedah Transliterasi Teks, penyelenggara Mariyam Salim, Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka Kuala Lumpur 2005). Di sini ternyata kewujudan Kedah bukan tahun 1136 Masihi seperti diuar-uarkan oleh ahli sejarah Kedah Darul Aman.
Boleh dikatakan banyak nama tempat atau negara adalah berasal daripada perkataan Siam. Ini disebabkan negara-negara berkenaan memang berasal dari benua Siam Kedah Kheang Tesh.
Negara Filipina misalnya, kewujudan negara tersebut adalah pada tahun 1758 masihi. Ia didirikan dan diperintah oleh Raja Maha Besar Benua Siam Dinasti Ayuthia yang digelar Boromoraja V Ekataat Cau Phaya Sharif Yang Dipertuan Yang Maha Mulia. Baginda bersemayam di Ayuthia (Thailand).
Putera baginda bergelar Cau Phaya Kersan bermakna Cau = Tuanku, Phaya = Maharaja, Kersan = Yang Ke-II. Nama sebenar ialah Koya Long Sultan Muzaffar Shah. Semasa menjadi raja di Kemboja, baginda digelar Pho Chan iaitu Putera Lelaki Beta.
Pada tahun 1976 Masihi semasa baginda bersemayam di Kota Ayuthia Cempaka Sari, Kemboja, baginda diusir oleh tentera raja Buddha Aluang Phraya Lanna Thai. Aluang Phraya berasal dari India dan mereka menubuhkan kerajaan di Luang Phrabang Benua Siam pada tahun 1736 Masihi. Apabila diusir, Koya Long kembali ke Brahman Indera (Balai Besar), Alor Star.
Para pegawai Koya Long ditempatkan di Pulau Langkawi dan sempena penempatan itu maka tempat itu dinamakan Kampung Kamboja. Tenteranya pula ditempatkan di Bendang Raja Mukim Rambai Pendang, Kedah.
Pada 1758, baginda berpindah ke Kuala Kangsar, Perak lalu membina sebuah Ayuthia dari kayu dan buluh, sesudah itu baginda membina kota Bukit Gantang dan menempatkan istana di dalam kota tersebut.
Kini kota tersebut dikenali dengan nama Kota Long Jaafar. Long Jaafar ialah cucu Koya Long. Long Jaafar ialah Sultan Jaafar Muadzam Shah Perak. Putera Koya Long yang bernama Sultan Syed Alang Alauddin Panglima Bukit Gantang ialah ayahanda kepada Sultan Jaafar Muadzam Shah Perak.
Syed Alang Alauddin bersemayam di Ayuthia Ban Nai Lang dalam kawasan Na Thawi, Songkhla Thailand. Perkataan Songkhla bermakna hantar benih. Hantar benih di sini bermaksud Raja Maha Besar benua Siam Sharif Shah menghantar keturunannya untuk menjadi raja di Songkhla.
- NAI LONG KASIM IBNI NAI LONG AHMAD,
Langgar, Kedah.
Pensyarah Kanan, UiTM Kedah mazz62@yahoo. com
Saya merujuk kepada Tulisan Tuan Nai Long Kassim Nai Long Ahmad
bertajuk
"Kewujudan Kedah bukan pada 1136 Masihi" yang disiarkan oleh akhbar ini
(Utusan Malaysia) pada 13 Februari 2007 adalah dirujuk.
Tulisan tuan ada banyak kebenarannya dan saya berpendapat masih ada lagi maklumat yang tersimpan dan tidak ingin didedahkan walaupun Malaysia akan menyambut 50 tahun kemerdekaannya pada 31 Ogos 2007. Sebagai penyelidik dari universiti tempatan maklumat-maklumat yang saya selidiki menuju ke arah apa yang diperkatakan oleh Tuan Nai Long Kassim ini ada kebenarannya. .
Seterusnya, saya tertarik dengan nama Raja Maha Besar Benua Siam Dinasti Ayuthia yang bergelar Boromoraja Ekataat V. Nama sebenar Baginda ialah Khalifah Sharif Abu Bakar Syah dan baginda beragama Islam.
Sebelum ini kita semua menyangkakan Empayar Ayuthia (1350 - 1767) yang tinggi peradabannya di Thailand itu sebagai Empayar yang beragama Buddha. Tanggapan ini adalah salah sama sekali. Thailand, asalnya adalah dari bangsa Sukhothai (suku thai @ puak Thai) yang berasal dari Lannathai. Mereka memang sudah berkali-kali cuba menyerang Ayuthia dan akhirnyaberjaya menakluki Ayuthia pada tahun 1767, di ketuai oleh ketuanya bernama Alaungpaya. Akan tetapi siapa sebenarnya yang memerintah Ayuthia sebelum ia ditawan?
Pemerintah Ayuthia menunaikan Haji ke Tanah Suci Mekah, melaksanakan hukum-hukum Islam dan pentadbiran dibahagikan kepada 2 kementerian, untuk Islam dan bukan Islam. Mereka menjalin hubungan dengan Perancis dan sempena lawatan itu dinamakan sebatang jalan di Perancis sebagai Jalan Ayuthia. Mereka ini adalah dari keturunan Siam bukan Thai. Dalam
erti lain Siam itu beragama Islam, Thai itu beragama Buddha.
Sekiranya bahasa jiwa bangsa, sudah pasti, bahasa Thai untuk bangsa Thai danbahasa Siam untuk bangsa Siam. Kita lihat pula di Malaysia hari ini terdapat orang Melayu yang bertutur dalam Bahasa Siam di Kedah, Kelantan dan Perlis dan mereka beragama Islam. Bahasa Siam ini jika ditutur di Thailand, langsung tidak difahami lagi oleh rakyat Thailand hari ini.
Orang-orang Melayu inilah berbangsa Siam, ia itu asal usul keturu! nan bangsa Melayu yang menjadi rakyat Nagara Benua Siam Dinasti Ayuthiadahulu dan Empayar ini meliputi seluruh Nusantara, Champa, termasuk sebahagian India. Arus kemodenan tidak menyentuh mereka sama sekali dan mereka kekal dalam budaya bahasa Siam seperti adanya, 300 tahun dahulu.
Dalam manuskrip Undang-Undang Kedah, yang mula diitulis pada tahun 220 Hijrah (799 masihi) adat Siam ini telah pun lama diguna pakai oleh raja-raja Melayu zaman dahulu. Manuskrip ini dirampas oleh Inggeris di Istana Kota Beruas dahulu dan baru dipulangkan kepada kita sekitar tahun2003/04. Di antaranya penggunaan sirih pinang sewaktu meminang, bekas meminang, cincin emas sebentuk, kain.Sebagai contoh, di dalam buku Undang-undang Kedah, mengenai pakaian dalam Adat Raja Johor,
"Maka adat ini turut adat raja-raja Kedah ini, yang kerajaan itu kuning juga". (ms 34)
"Demikianlah zaman raja-raja dahulu-dahulu itu. Pada adat raja-raja di benua Siam gelar demikian itu bahasa Siam Cau Phaya Kersan". (ms 36)
Tidak teragak jika saya katakan bahawa asal keturunan bangsa Melayu ialah Siam kerana raja-raja Melayu yang menjadi tunggak adat istiadat bangsa Melayu telah pun menggunakan adat tersebut. Seterusnya, dimuka surat yang sama, perihal pemerintah Johor, "Maka pada
Bahasa Melayu Bendahara itu panglima negeri. Pada segala negeri yang kecil-kecil bendahara itu dikatanya lambat pada adat Siam".
Sebelum naik kerajaan pada tahun 1350, pemerintah Ayuthia ini berasal dari Kesultanan Kedah, di mana keturunan mereka tiba dari Cina dan membuka Kota di Kuala Muda. Ketua rombongan dari Cina dan pengikutnya diketuai oleh Putera Waran Wong Ser (Mahawangsa) , cucu kepada Maharaja Cina bernama Sai Tee Sung dari Dinasti Tang. (rujuk kepada Hikayat Merong Mahawangsa)
Maharaja Sai Tee Sung telah diislamkan oleh utusan Baginda Rasullullah SAW bernama Saad bin Waqqas.Baginda pula telah memberi surat watikah kepada cucunya untuk menyebarkan Islam di Nusantara. Apabila naik Kerajaan, Baginda Wa Ren Wong Ser (bermaksud Naga Laut Puak Tentera) memakai gelaran Sultan Madzafar SyahI (222H, 812 M) dan berkahwin dengan Sharifah Mariam ibni Syed Jamal Al Jefri dari keturunan Bani Hashim. Sharifah Maryam berketurunan Arab dan baginda juga di panggil Tok Soh. Makam Tok Soh masa ada lagi di Pin Nang Tung Gal (bermaksud, jadi permaisuri tunggak Negara) dengan ukiran kalimah Shahadah pada nisan nya di Kampung Tok Soh, Pinang Tunggal, Kulim,Kedah.
Mereka mendirikan kota dengan penduduk tempatan di Kuala Muda (Muadat bermaksud belerang), Kedah dan menjalankan pelbagai perniagaan pembuatan senjata yang menggunakan belerang.Contoh dua meriam yang dijumpai di dalam sungai dan telah dihasilkan oleh orang Melayu Saimen boleh dilihat di Muzium Negeri Kedah. Generasi kedua Kesultanan Negara Kedah ialah Po Disut @ SayyidinaJamalull Alam BadrulMunir bergelar Sultan Madzafar Syah II dan generasi ketiga ialahayyidina Ali Wa Maulana Sayyidina Jamalull Alam Badrul Munir @ SultanAlirah Shah Perlak (bersemayam di Istana Bukit Cho Ras), keempat ialah Sultan Hussin Syah dan kelima Sultan Sheikh AbdulKadir Shah @ Tuan Sheikh Keramat. Makam baginda terletak di Lang Gar (bermaksud putus dunia) bertarikh 291H (903 M). Kesemua mereka adalah pemerintah Nagara Kedah Pasai Ma (nama Negara Kedah dahulu).
Yang saya kira menarik sekali ialah pemerintah ke 11 Negara Kedah iaitu Sultan Madzafar Syah III yang juga bergelar Rama Tibodi I (@ Sheikh Ahmad Qomi). Baginda menjadi Maharaja pertama Benua Islam Siam Ayuthia Kedah Pasai Ma. Semasa upacara mengangkat sumpah, Melaka tersurat dan disebut baginda sebagai salah satu tanah jajahan Ayuthia. Pada masa itu
Melaka termasuklah Johor dan Kepulauan Riau.
Pada masa itu juga pemerintah Kedah baru saja mengalahkan KerajaanTenangsari (Burma) yang menyerang Kedah sekaligus menguasainya. Pemerintah Kedua Ayuthia ialah Naresuan yang berkahwin dengan Ratu Iman, Acheh. Pada Makam Baginda, tertulis dlm Bahasa Kawi, Gusta Barubasa empu Kedah Pasai Ma bermaksud, Keluarga yang memeluk Islam menguasai KedahPasai Ma.Kerajaan ini lah yang mana Pattani, Ligor, Singgora, Kesultanan Melaka dan Acheh turut berada di bawah kawalannya. Sebab itulah bilamencari kesan Sejarah Kesultanan Melaka sukar mendapat buktinya kerananama mereka jugatersenarai dalam senarai Raja-raja Ayuthia dalam bahasa Siam !.
Tahukah pembaca semua siapakah yang menjadi Raja Benua Siam Islam NagaraKedah Pasai Ma yang terakhir. Tak lain dan tak bukan iaitu Sultan Jaafar Muadzam Syah atau lebih dikenali sebagai Long Jaafar. Sebelum itu Ayahanda baginda, Syed Alang Alauddin yang juga bergelar Panglima Bukit Gantang menjadi Sultan Benua Siam Islam, Nagara Kedah Pasai Ma. Baginda
melantik puteranya Long Jaafar menjadi menteri di Larut Perak untuk menguruskan lombong bijih kerajaan Nagara Kedah di sana. Apabila ayahanda baginda mangkat dalam tahun 1862, baginda ditabal di Berahman Indra (sekarang Balai Besar) Alor Star bergelar Sultan Jaafar Madzam Syah. Dalam rangka lawatan ke Merbok, baginda ditangkap oleh Thai dan Inggeris dalam tahun 1876, disiksa di Yan, sebelum dipijak dengan gajah hingga mati di
belakang Balai Polis Gurun dalam tahun 1876.Peristiwa ini benar berlaku dan saya cabar sesiapa pun termasuk pengkaji sejarah tempatan untuk mengkaji maklumat ini.
Dalam penyelidikkan saya, dengan terbunuhnya Long Jaafar orang-orang Melayu hilang segala-galanya meliputi sastera, senibina, manuskrip-manuskrip ,syair, industri pembuatan belerang, sajak, puisi dll. Penjajah Inggeris telah menipu kita dimana mereka berpakat denganThai lalu menyerahkan peradaban itu kepada Thai. Mereka memutarbelitkan fakta sejarah sehingga kita menyangkakan Thai dan Siam itu sama saja. Inggeris memberi peradaban Ayuthia milik kita itu kepada Thai agar mereka dapat, menjatuhkan Islam, menjajah Semenanjong dan mengutip hasil bumi seperti bijih timah,emas,rempah ratus dll.
Ditinggalnya kita pada hari ini tanpa warisan sejarah bangsa dan agama untuk memulakan kerajaan Malaysia ketika merdeka. Sejarah yang ditinggalkan adalah versi mereka, bukan versi kita. Kita terpaksa bermula dari bawah untuk memertabatkan bangsa. Kita berjaya melakukannya dalam masa 50 tahun saja. Bayangkanlah sekiranya kita bangsa Melayu keturunan Siam ini memerintah Ayuthia dulu selama 417 tahun, betapa hebatnya peradaban itu! Pasti ia di cemburui dan dingini/diidamkan oleh bangsa lain.
Sebelum ini raja-raja kita membayar ufti kepada Siam Islam, ibarat cukai Kerajaan Negeri kepada Kerajaan Persekutuan tetapi bila Thai mengambil alih Ayuthia, seolah-olah memberi ufti kepada Kerajaan asing yang berlainan agama. Bila raja-raja daerah kita enggan membayar, walau ada yang cuba berbaik-baik, Thai tetap menyerang orang-orang Melayu, mengugut, membunuh dan menyiksa dengan kejam. Akhirnya ramai kerabat dan rakyat di Negara Kedah dan Pattani menjadi 'Korban Musuh Bisik' dalam tahun 1821. Setelah usaha ini selesai mereka mengubah sistem pendidikan mereka, rakyat siam hanya boleh belajar bahasa Thai sahaja,dll,
sehingga apabila selesai dinamakan negara mereka,Thailand. Semua ini berlaku kerana Raja Chakri Sukhothai benci bangsa Siam ini ujud lebih dahulu daripada Thai lalu dibakarnya manuskrip Al Quran, Hikayat Merong Mahawangsa, Sejarah Melayu dll sewaktu berjaya menawan Ayuthia dalam tahun 1767.
Sewaktu Thai (bukan Siam) menjajah Kedah selama 5 tahun (1876-1881) dengan pertolongan Inggeris mereka membakar istana-istana lama (17, mungkin lebih) milik Raja Benua Siam Islam, Nagara Kedah Pasai Ma termasuk di Bukit Cho Ras (istana Sayyidina Ali, Sultan Alirah Shah,
Perlak), diserang dan dibunuh orang-orang Siam Islam Pattani, Kedah, Majapahit dan tentera Cina Manchu (Islam). Seorang saksi yang tinggal berdekatan, berusia sekitar 90 tahun menceritakan bagaimana Inggeris sekitar awal 1910 datang semula memecahkan lagi 3 bilik dibawah tanah ditapak istana Bukit Choras yang telah dibakar oleh Thai 35 tahun terdahulu. Di
setengah-setengah lokasi seperti candi ditanamnya patung-patung tertentu untuk menyesatkan penyelidik kita pada hari ini. Syukurlah orang Melayu masih tetap berpegang kepada Islam. Sekarang saya harap saudara/i mula faham kenapa berlaku kekecohan di Pattani. Saya difahamkan juga bahawa Inggeris ingin menyerahkan Pattani, Satun,Yala, Ligor dan Songkhala untuk merdeka bersama kita dalam tahun 1957 dahulu tetapi ditolak oleh TAR kerana datuknya Raja Chulalongkorn tidak mengizinkannya (TAR cucu raja Siam itu). Inggeris tahu bahawa daerah ini jajahan Nagara Kedah, berdasarkan manuskrip Undang-Undang Kedah yang tercatat di m.s.15.
Oleh itu, sempena menyambut Hari Kemerdekaan ke 50 tahun, marilah kita
sama-sama mencari kembali permata yang telah hilang itu.
Mazlan Abdul Majid
Pensyarah Kanan
UiTM Kedah
************ ********* *****
Utusan Malaysia 13 Feb 2007
Kewujudan Kedah bukan pada 1136 Masihi?
KENYATAAN Timbalan Menteri Kebudayaan, Kesenian dan Warisan, Datuk Wong Kam Hong baru-baru ini yang menyarankan agar mengkaji semula sejarah kedatangan Islam di Nusantara, adalah dirujuk.
Saya selaku waris mutlak kesultanan Sultan Jaafar Muadzam Shah, pemerintah benua Siam Islam membantu untuk menjelaskan kedudukan sebenar atau realiti sejarah.
Kewujudan Kedah memang terbukti sejak tahun 222 Hijrah bersamaan 812 Masihi seperti tercatat dalam tulisan jawi (rujuk lampiran 65 bertulisan jawi Undang-Undang Kedah Transliterasi Teks, penyelenggara Mariyam Salim, Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka Kuala Lumpur 2005). Di sini ternyata kewujudan Kedah bukan tahun 1136 Masihi seperti diuar-uarkan oleh ahli sejarah Kedah Darul Aman.
Boleh dikatakan banyak nama tempat atau negara adalah berasal daripada perkataan Siam. Ini disebabkan negara-negara berkenaan memang berasal dari benua Siam Kedah Kheang Tesh.
Negara Filipina misalnya, kewujudan negara tersebut adalah pada tahun 1758 masihi. Ia didirikan dan diperintah oleh Raja Maha Besar Benua Siam Dinasti Ayuthia yang digelar Boromoraja V Ekataat Cau Phaya Sharif Yang Dipertuan Yang Maha Mulia. Baginda bersemayam di Ayuthia (Thailand).
Putera baginda bergelar Cau Phaya Kersan bermakna Cau = Tuanku, Phaya = Maharaja, Kersan = Yang Ke-II. Nama sebenar ialah Koya Long Sultan Muzaffar Shah. Semasa menjadi raja di Kemboja, baginda digelar Pho Chan iaitu Putera Lelaki Beta.
Pada tahun 1976 Masihi semasa baginda bersemayam di Kota Ayuthia Cempaka Sari, Kemboja, baginda diusir oleh tentera raja Buddha Aluang Phraya Lanna Thai. Aluang Phraya berasal dari India dan mereka menubuhkan kerajaan di Luang Phrabang Benua Siam pada tahun 1736 Masihi. Apabila diusir, Koya Long kembali ke Brahman Indera (Balai Besar), Alor Star.
Para pegawai Koya Long ditempatkan di Pulau Langkawi dan sempena penempatan itu maka tempat itu dinamakan Kampung Kamboja. Tenteranya pula ditempatkan di Bendang Raja Mukim Rambai Pendang, Kedah.
Pada 1758, baginda berpindah ke Kuala Kangsar, Perak lalu membina sebuah Ayuthia dari kayu dan buluh, sesudah itu baginda membina kota Bukit Gantang dan menempatkan istana di dalam kota tersebut.
Kini kota tersebut dikenali dengan nama Kota Long Jaafar. Long Jaafar ialah cucu Koya Long. Long Jaafar ialah Sultan Jaafar Muadzam Shah Perak. Putera Koya Long yang bernama Sultan Syed Alang Alauddin Panglima Bukit Gantang ialah ayahanda kepada Sultan Jaafar Muadzam Shah Perak.
Syed Alang Alauddin bersemayam di Ayuthia Ban Nai Lang dalam kawasan Na Thawi, Songkhla Thailand. Perkataan Songkhla bermakna hantar benih. Hantar benih di sini bermaksud Raja Maha Besar benua Siam Sharif Shah menghantar keturunannya untuk menjadi raja di Songkhla.
- NAI LONG KASIM IBNI NAI LONG AHMAD,
Langgar, Kedah.
Khamis, 8 Januari 2009
Museum hopes Johor will assist in lost city quest
Feb 3, 2005
KUALA LUMPUR: Museum officials are hoping that the Johor government will assist in efforts to verify the location of Kota Gelanggi.
Department of Museums and Antiquities director-general Datuk Dr Adi Taha said Johor would also be asked to preserve the area for research.
He said the National Museum would work with Raimy Che-Ross, an independent Malaysian researcher, to mobilise an expedition to verify the site of Kota Gelanggi.
According to Raimy, he was told that the museum had earlier sent teams to locate the site but had failed each time.
The most recent attempt saw their boat capsizing thrice, leading the team to abandon the mission.
Adi said his department would also work with the State Heritage Foundation on this, as it would have knowledge of the area, he said.
He said the search for Kota Gelanggi had been an ongoing endeavour for many scholars and researchers since the days of the British Empire.
“They never did find it as our history did not give any exact whereabouts of the city.
“Even Tun Seri Lanang (the Bendahara – equivalent to a modern day prime minister) did not state the location in Sejarah Melayu (Malay Annals),” he added.
He said archaeologists hoped to find evidence of physical structures and also a fairly advanced irrigation system, which used to exist in the city.
“A big city would have good infrastructure such as irrigation to sustain its inhabitants.
“We also expect and hope to find Sri Vijaya artefacts from the site similar to those found in Gua Chawas in Kelantan,” he added.
Adi said the public should not attempt to enter the site to look for artefacts and treasure as it was an offence under the Antiquities Act 1976.
“Anyone found doing so can be fined or jailed,” he said.
On the expedition, Adi said that due to the inaccessibility of the site, the team would have to plan very thoroughly before attempting to enter the dense jungles.
The Star
KUALA LUMPUR: Museum officials are hoping that the Johor government will assist in efforts to verify the location of Kota Gelanggi.
Department of Museums and Antiquities director-general Datuk Dr Adi Taha said Johor would also be asked to preserve the area for research.
He said the National Museum would work with Raimy Che-Ross, an independent Malaysian researcher, to mobilise an expedition to verify the site of Kota Gelanggi.
According to Raimy, he was told that the museum had earlier sent teams to locate the site but had failed each time.
The most recent attempt saw their boat capsizing thrice, leading the team to abandon the mission.
Adi said his department would also work with the State Heritage Foundation on this, as it would have knowledge of the area, he said.
He said the search for Kota Gelanggi had been an ongoing endeavour for many scholars and researchers since the days of the British Empire.
“They never did find it as our history did not give any exact whereabouts of the city.
“Even Tun Seri Lanang (the Bendahara – equivalent to a modern day prime minister) did not state the location in Sejarah Melayu (Malay Annals),” he added.
He said archaeologists hoped to find evidence of physical structures and also a fairly advanced irrigation system, which used to exist in the city.
“A big city would have good infrastructure such as irrigation to sustain its inhabitants.
“We also expect and hope to find Sri Vijaya artefacts from the site similar to those found in Gua Chawas in Kelantan,” he added.
Adi said the public should not attempt to enter the site to look for artefacts and treasure as it was an offence under the Antiquities Act 1976.
“Anyone found doing so can be fined or jailed,” he said.
On the expedition, Adi said that due to the inaccessibility of the site, the team would have to plan very thoroughly before attempting to enter the dense jungles.
The Star
Johor relics predate Malacca
BY TEOH TEIK HOONG AND AUDREY EDWARDS
PETALING JAYA: Artefacts dated older than the Malacca Sultanate have been found in the area where the lost city of Kota Gelanggi is said to be located.
These finds have reinforced claims of the existence of the ancient site which independent researcher Raimy Che-Ross said he had located last year.
Archaeologist Professor Datuk Dr Nik Hassan Suhaimi Nik Abdul Rahman said excavation teams had found proof that there had been settlements near the area prior to the 14th century.
“People have always believed that the settlements or kingdoms in Johor came after the fall of Malacca based on pottery and tombstones that were excavated,” he said in an interview yesterday.
Dr Nik Hassan Suhaimi, who is attached to the Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Institute of the Malay World and Civilisation, also said that discoveries inside an old fort were dated at between the ninth and 12th century.
He was commenting on the discovery of what was believed to be the site of Kota Gelanggi by Raimy.
Dr Nik Hassan Suhaimi said nothing could be confirmed about the existence of the lost city until more fieldwork had been carried out.
“We have an expedition planned this year,” he said.
He had started the survey on the area in 1977 and has had excavation teams working in the vicinity.
“If at all a kingdom is found, it is likely we will find forts or protective walls made from brick, stone or earth. Presumably, there will also be a Hindu or Buddhist temple there, “ he added.
Johor Heritage Foundation deputy director Mohd Ismail Zamzam said what had been highlighted by Raimy reinforced the foundation’s work in the area.
“The foundation with the help of archaeologist Dr Nik Hassan Suhaimi had begun work to verify the existence of a Malay civilisation at this site since 1996.
“Our objective is to confirm the existence of a civilisation which dates back even further than Malacca,” he said.
The Malaysian branch of the Royal Asiatic Society secretary Datuk Henry Barlow said the society published Raimy’s work as it was of great significance to the country.
The Star
PETALING JAYA: Artefacts dated older than the Malacca Sultanate have been found in the area where the lost city of Kota Gelanggi is said to be located.
These finds have reinforced claims of the existence of the ancient site which independent researcher Raimy Che-Ross said he had located last year.
Archaeologist Professor Datuk Dr Nik Hassan Suhaimi Nik Abdul Rahman said excavation teams had found proof that there had been settlements near the area prior to the 14th century.
“People have always believed that the settlements or kingdoms in Johor came after the fall of Malacca based on pottery and tombstones that were excavated,” he said in an interview yesterday.
Dr Nik Hassan Suhaimi, who is attached to the Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Institute of the Malay World and Civilisation, also said that discoveries inside an old fort were dated at between the ninth and 12th century.
He was commenting on the discovery of what was believed to be the site of Kota Gelanggi by Raimy.
Dr Nik Hassan Suhaimi said nothing could be confirmed about the existence of the lost city until more fieldwork had been carried out.
“We have an expedition planned this year,” he said.
He had started the survey on the area in 1977 and has had excavation teams working in the vicinity.
“If at all a kingdom is found, it is likely we will find forts or protective walls made from brick, stone or earth. Presumably, there will also be a Hindu or Buddhist temple there, “ he added.
Johor Heritage Foundation deputy director Mohd Ismail Zamzam said what had been highlighted by Raimy reinforced the foundation’s work in the area.
“The foundation with the help of archaeologist Dr Nik Hassan Suhaimi had begun work to verify the existence of a Malay civilisation at this site since 1996.
“Our objective is to confirm the existence of a civilisation which dates back even further than Malacca,” he said.
The Malaysian branch of the Royal Asiatic Society secretary Datuk Henry Barlow said the society published Raimy’s work as it was of great significance to the country.
The Star
It's a secret! | The Star
PETALING JAYA: Everyone wants to know the location of the lost city of Kota Gelanggi, but for obvious reasons we have omitted the details.
The Star has been swamped with calls from readers on the whereabouts of this site.
In the interest of preserving the sanctity of this site, we have made the decision not to disclose any details.
There are fears that the public and treasure hunters might rush to the site and subsequently destroy the site which is more than 1,000 years old.
Ongoing research is being carried out by authorities, who are verifying the location of the lost city and its existence.
The Star will continue to update readers about the search
The Star has been swamped with calls from readers on the whereabouts of this site.
In the interest of preserving the sanctity of this site, we have made the decision not to disclose any details.
There are fears that the public and treasure hunters might rush to the site and subsequently destroy the site which is more than 1,000 years old.
Ongoing research is being carried out by authorities, who are verifying the location of the lost city and its existence.
The Star will continue to update readers about the search
Foreign media and readers seek more info | The Star
PETALING JAYA: Media from all over the world have swamped The Star with calls asking for more information on the Kota Gelanggi lost city, its whereabouts in Johor and independent researcher Raimy Che-Ross.
Calls came from FujiTV, NHK Japan, Radio Australia, AFP, BBC and several other foreign media.
Readers of The Star also flooded the office with calls from as early as 8.30am.
Many of the callers were confused over the Johor site and the Kota Gelanggi cave complex in Pahang, a site known for its pre-historic links, about 30km from Jerantut.
Six years ago, a team of archaeologists unearthed artefacts there believed to be more than 1,500 years old in one of the caves.
The relics included pottery, hunting tools, weapons and ornamental pieces.
It indicated a settlement of early humans in the Kota Gelanggi caves known as the “Hoabinhian” or the “Neolitic” people of the more advanced Stone Age. They were believed to have lived there until the Bronze Age.
Archaeologist William Cameron, who visited the site in 1882, recorded the early human settlements.
The site was gazetted by the Pahang government as a Historical Heritage Area in 1995.
The 1,000-year-old lost city in Johor, on the other hand, is believed located in dense jungle.
Raimy's discovery of what is thought to be the site of Kota Gelanggi or Perbendaharaan Permata (Treasury of Jewels) has prompted museum officials to plan an expedition to confirm his findings.
Calls came from FujiTV, NHK Japan, Radio Australia, AFP, BBC and several other foreign media.
Readers of The Star also flooded the office with calls from as early as 8.30am.
Many of the callers were confused over the Johor site and the Kota Gelanggi cave complex in Pahang, a site known for its pre-historic links, about 30km from Jerantut.
Six years ago, a team of archaeologists unearthed artefacts there believed to be more than 1,500 years old in one of the caves.
The relics included pottery, hunting tools, weapons and ornamental pieces.
It indicated a settlement of early humans in the Kota Gelanggi caves known as the “Hoabinhian” or the “Neolitic” people of the more advanced Stone Age. They were believed to have lived there until the Bronze Age.
Archaeologist William Cameron, who visited the site in 1882, recorded the early human settlements.
The site was gazetted by the Pahang government as a Historical Heritage Area in 1995.
The 1,000-year-old lost city in Johor, on the other hand, is believed located in dense jungle.
Raimy's discovery of what is thought to be the site of Kota Gelanggi or Perbendaharaan Permata (Treasury of Jewels) has prompted museum officials to plan an expedition to confirm his findings.
Tracking down Kota Gelanggi | The Star
BY TEOH TEIK HOONG AND AUDREY EDWARDS
KUALA LUMPUR: After more than a decade of visiting various research facilities, putting up with shocked looks from relatives and scholars and saving money, Raimy Che-Ross finally stood at an entrance, which could lead to Kota Gelanggi.
“As I approached the area, I had this sense of an overwhelming aura. It was like I was entering someone’s house and had to be very careful with what I did,” he said of his expedition in early 2003, which lasted one week.
That first visit, he said did not produce any results and the team did not see any tracks which could lead into the lost city.
Raimy said they found embankments along the path on the second day and noted that primary growth surrounded the secondary one, which was unusual as it was usually the reverse.
He added that it was difficult to approach the area as it took about two hours of trekking on very rough terrain.
“We told the Tok Batin (orang asli head) that we were going fishing for haruan and had to go through dirt tracks with a four-wheel drive to the base camp. From here, it was a boat ride, which lasted about one-and-a-half hours,” he said.
He said the orang asli refused to enter the area, which they claimed had a lot of pantang (taboo).
“When I told them about the area I wanted to enter, they said Itu tak boleh kacau. Nanti kena makan hantu. Ratus tahun dulu orang Cina ada bikin barang. Banyak hantu, hantu dulu tinggal sana. Rimau banyak (That place cannot be disturbed or you will be eaten up by ghosts. The Chinese had built things there. A lot of ghosts stay there. There are many tigers),” he said.
They eventually agreed to send Raimy and his friend to the area but refused to enter it.
“They would send us in the morning from base camp and pick us up in the evening. They said they would leave after five minutes if we did not show up,” he said.
On the last day, they had an unusual experience when Raimy was determined to find the lost city.
“We did our usual thing and lit Indian incense and spread jasmine as a way of asking for permission to enter the pathway. Suddenly, we found a path which had not been there before. I felt that there was something beckoning and urging me to enter,” Raimy said.
“There were flowers like tepus, melur and bunga kantan, and it was very fragrant and beautiful. We just kept on walking and my friend suddenly stopped me and told me to head back.”
“He went pale and he asked me whether I could hear anything. It was then I realised that everything was silent,” said Raimy.
The two headed back and when they turned back after some distance, they found that the path had disappeared.
That will not stop him although he knows that it will take a long time to realise his dream.
KUALA LUMPUR: After more than a decade of visiting various research facilities, putting up with shocked looks from relatives and scholars and saving money, Raimy Che-Ross finally stood at an entrance, which could lead to Kota Gelanggi.
“As I approached the area, I had this sense of an overwhelming aura. It was like I was entering someone’s house and had to be very careful with what I did,” he said of his expedition in early 2003, which lasted one week.
That first visit, he said did not produce any results and the team did not see any tracks which could lead into the lost city.
Raimy said they found embankments along the path on the second day and noted that primary growth surrounded the secondary one, which was unusual as it was usually the reverse.
He added that it was difficult to approach the area as it took about two hours of trekking on very rough terrain.
“We told the Tok Batin (orang asli head) that we were going fishing for haruan and had to go through dirt tracks with a four-wheel drive to the base camp. From here, it was a boat ride, which lasted about one-and-a-half hours,” he said.
He said the orang asli refused to enter the area, which they claimed had a lot of pantang (taboo).
“When I told them about the area I wanted to enter, they said Itu tak boleh kacau. Nanti kena makan hantu. Ratus tahun dulu orang Cina ada bikin barang. Banyak hantu, hantu dulu tinggal sana. Rimau banyak (That place cannot be disturbed or you will be eaten up by ghosts. The Chinese had built things there. A lot of ghosts stay there. There are many tigers),” he said.
They eventually agreed to send Raimy and his friend to the area but refused to enter it.
“They would send us in the morning from base camp and pick us up in the evening. They said they would leave after five minutes if we did not show up,” he said.
On the last day, they had an unusual experience when Raimy was determined to find the lost city.
“We did our usual thing and lit Indian incense and spread jasmine as a way of asking for permission to enter the pathway. Suddenly, we found a path which had not been there before. I felt that there was something beckoning and urging me to enter,” Raimy said.
“There were flowers like tepus, melur and bunga kantan, and it was very fragrant and beautiful. We just kept on walking and my friend suddenly stopped me and told me to head back.”
“He went pale and he asked me whether I could hear anything. It was then I realised that everything was silent,” said Raimy.
The two headed back and when they turned back after some distance, they found that the path had disappeared.
That will not stop him although he knows that it will take a long time to realise his dream.
Interest and perseverance pays off for Raimy | The Star
Feb 4, 2005
PETALING JAYA: He was Jawi illiterate until he was 17, but now independent researcher Raimy Che-Ross' career is centred around the translating and studying the Malay Arabic script.
“I would get A’s in everything but failed Agama because I could not read Jawi. And the ustazah (religious teacher) would pick on me because I could not do so.
“Then, the headmaster called me up one day when I was in Form 5 and told me that I had to pass the subject to get a good grade.
“So, I taught myself Jawi six weeks before the exam. I borrowed books and even went to Kampung Baru to buy the Utusan Melayu, which was in Jawi, to read.
“People on the bus would stare wondering what this boy was doing reading the newspaper. But I passed the exam in the end,” said the Canberra-based researcher in an interview.
Raimy, who is of Chinese-Malay-Pattani and Acehnese descent, eventually went on to do his bachelor of arts in political science, anthropology and art history at the Australian National University in Canberra.
It was at the University that he stumbled upon references to Kota Gelanggi while he was translating the Raffles Malay 18 Sejarah Melayu (the oldest version) from Jawi to Romanised text.
Saying that most of the Malay literature featured stories of mythical places or individuals such as Puteri Bunian or Istana Kayangan, Raimy’s first encounter with a true-life location turned out to be Kota Gelanggi (or Kota Batu Hitam), which he found references beginning with Raffles Malay 18 and subsequent versions of the Sejarah Melayu.
“It referred to a place that was located in Johor. This was not an Istana Kayangan but a physical reference. I thought it odd but did not think much of it at the time. When I translated other texts later there were references to the place from different sources like Chinese, Indian and Malay literature,” he said.
However, it was only six years ago that it dawned on him that he had stumbled upon a “treasure trove”.
“I pulled out the boxes, put on a “Ministry of Sound” CD and sorted the documents according to theme. When dawn broke, I was dumbfounded because it was not just a fairy tale or figment of imagination but an actual thing.
“I continued to work on it and research was a priority. I had no academic tenure and did it out of my own interest. There was no research support. Sometimes, it was a choice between a cup of coffee or photocopying a document,” added Raimy.
He continued on his quest by finding the oldest topographical map of Johor and subsequent copies of it. He proceeded to calculate distances and did an elimination process before finally pinpointing an area measuring about 5sq km.
Raimy is an accredited national Malay translator under the National Accreditation Authority for Translators and Interpreters, Australia and his first job was as a Malay tutor at the Australian foreign affairs and trade department’s language studies unit.
Other positions that he has held include a visiting scholar at the Cambridge University Trinity College, Commonwealth Trust (Malaysian Commonwealth Studies Centre), research administrator at the National Art Gallery in Kuala Lumpur and appointed senior research consultant for the Jawi Transliteration Project at the National University of Singapore history department.
Raimy has written articles including “Malay Manuscripts in New Zealand: The “Lost” MS of the Hikayat Abdullah & other Malay MSS in the Thomson Collection” and on the oldest published syair entitled “Syair Peri Tun Raffles Pergi ke Minangkabau: A previously unknown text.”
PETALING JAYA: He was Jawi illiterate until he was 17, but now independent researcher Raimy Che-Ross' career is centred around the translating and studying the Malay Arabic script.
“I would get A’s in everything but failed Agama because I could not read Jawi. And the ustazah (religious teacher) would pick on me because I could not do so.
“Then, the headmaster called me up one day when I was in Form 5 and told me that I had to pass the subject to get a good grade.
“So, I taught myself Jawi six weeks before the exam. I borrowed books and even went to Kampung Baru to buy the Utusan Melayu, which was in Jawi, to read.
“People on the bus would stare wondering what this boy was doing reading the newspaper. But I passed the exam in the end,” said the Canberra-based researcher in an interview.
Raimy, who is of Chinese-Malay-Pattani and Acehnese descent, eventually went on to do his bachelor of arts in political science, anthropology and art history at the Australian National University in Canberra.
It was at the University that he stumbled upon references to Kota Gelanggi while he was translating the Raffles Malay 18 Sejarah Melayu (the oldest version) from Jawi to Romanised text.
Saying that most of the Malay literature featured stories of mythical places or individuals such as Puteri Bunian or Istana Kayangan, Raimy’s first encounter with a true-life location turned out to be Kota Gelanggi (or Kota Batu Hitam), which he found references beginning with Raffles Malay 18 and subsequent versions of the Sejarah Melayu.
“It referred to a place that was located in Johor. This was not an Istana Kayangan but a physical reference. I thought it odd but did not think much of it at the time. When I translated other texts later there were references to the place from different sources like Chinese, Indian and Malay literature,” he said.
However, it was only six years ago that it dawned on him that he had stumbled upon a “treasure trove”.
“I pulled out the boxes, put on a “Ministry of Sound” CD and sorted the documents according to theme. When dawn broke, I was dumbfounded because it was not just a fairy tale or figment of imagination but an actual thing.
“I continued to work on it and research was a priority. I had no academic tenure and did it out of my own interest. There was no research support. Sometimes, it was a choice between a cup of coffee or photocopying a document,” added Raimy.
He continued on his quest by finding the oldest topographical map of Johor and subsequent copies of it. He proceeded to calculate distances and did an elimination process before finally pinpointing an area measuring about 5sq km.
Raimy is an accredited national Malay translator under the National Accreditation Authority for Translators and Interpreters, Australia and his first job was as a Malay tutor at the Australian foreign affairs and trade department’s language studies unit.
Other positions that he has held include a visiting scholar at the Cambridge University Trinity College, Commonwealth Trust (Malaysian Commonwealth Studies Centre), research administrator at the National Art Gallery in Kuala Lumpur and appointed senior research consultant for the Jawi Transliteration Project at the National University of Singapore history department.
Raimy has written articles including “Malay Manuscripts in New Zealand: The “Lost” MS of the Hikayat Abdullah & other Malay MSS in the Thomson Collection” and on the oldest published syair entitled “Syair Peri Tun Raffles Pergi ke Minangkabau: A previously unknown text.”
Clues from an ancient text
PETALING JAYA: The lost city of Kota Gelanggi in Johor may be the unidentified temple shown in a 1000-year-old illustration of an unknown place in the region, a Cambridge University expert said.
R.C. Jamieson, Keeper of Sanskrit Manuscripts at the University of Cambridge, Britain, said the origin of the illustration which showed a former Buddha, Dipamkara, making a gesture of reassurance and holding a fold of his robe at his shoulder in a temple in Java had yet to be verified.
“However, we must bear in mind that Java then might not have been just the present island alone. At the time of The Perfection of Wisdom in 8,000 Lines (Astasahasrikaprajnaparamita) manuscript, the term encompassed Sumatra and part of the Malay peninsula.
“The manuscript states that the image was taken around 1015AD,” he said in an e-mail interview from London.
The palm-leaf manuscript got to Cambridge from Nepal and the main text was in Sanskrit, Jamieson added.
The illustration also shows two attendants who are bodhisattvas (deities) making the gesture of explanation and holding a blue lotus, among other items, while standing in a temple between some trees.
Jamieson said whether or not the illustration was of the lost city of Kota Gelanggi, it was worth detailed investigation.
He said: “If they were the one and the same, it would be a fabulous discovery. If they are not, the work is still valuable and the style of the illustrated building and remains could still be very similar.” He expressed his willingness to assist in any expedition to verify the lost city initiated by the Museum and Antiquities Department.
Jamieson said the history of such places was important in the history of religion, trade, and international contact at the time and in many other spheres.
“I feel sure something has been found and the only sensible thing is to examine it in a scholarly fashion,” he added.
A website located at www.edlis.org/pow depicts many illustrations from the book.--- The Star/ SNNi
R.C. Jamieson, Keeper of Sanskrit Manuscripts at the University of Cambridge, Britain, said the origin of the illustration which showed a former Buddha, Dipamkara, making a gesture of reassurance and holding a fold of his robe at his shoulder in a temple in Java had yet to be verified.
“However, we must bear in mind that Java then might not have been just the present island alone. At the time of The Perfection of Wisdom in 8,000 Lines (Astasahasrikaprajnaparamita) manuscript, the term encompassed Sumatra and part of the Malay peninsula.
“The manuscript states that the image was taken around 1015AD,” he said in an e-mail interview from London.
The palm-leaf manuscript got to Cambridge from Nepal and the main text was in Sanskrit, Jamieson added.
The illustration also shows two attendants who are bodhisattvas (deities) making the gesture of explanation and holding a blue lotus, among other items, while standing in a temple between some trees.
Jamieson said whether or not the illustration was of the lost city of Kota Gelanggi, it was worth detailed investigation.
He said: “If they were the one and the same, it would be a fabulous discovery. If they are not, the work is still valuable and the style of the illustrated building and remains could still be very similar.” He expressed his willingness to assist in any expedition to verify the lost city initiated by the Museum and Antiquities Department.
Jamieson said the history of such places was important in the history of religion, trade, and international contact at the time and in many other spheres.
“I feel sure something has been found and the only sensible thing is to examine it in a scholarly fashion,” he added.
A website located at www.edlis.org/pow depicts many illustrations from the book.--- The Star/ SNNi
Lost city believed found in Johor
BY TEOH TEIK HOONG and AUDREY EDWARDS
PETALING JAYA: A 1,000-year-old lost city, possibly older than Angkor Wat in
The discovery of what is thought to be the site of Kota Gelanggi or Perbendaharaan Permata (Treasury of Jewels) by an independent Malaysian researcher has prompted museum officials to plan an expedition to confirm the finding.
If indeed the site is that of the lost city , it is set to transform the historical landscape of the region, said Raimy Che-Ross, who spent 12 years researching Malay manuscripts all over the world and conducting aerial searches of the area before locating the site.
He said the discovery of “unusual formations” from the air had led him to believe that the site could be the first capital of the Sri Vijaya Malay empire dating back to 650AD.
“If the city is what we suspect it to be, then the Malacca Sultanate can no longer be considered as the start of modern Malay history.
“Once verified, the honour will go to Johor, as one thousand years ago Malacca had not even been established,” he said.
Raimy had tried to enter the site in early 2003 but failed, managing to get only as far as to the formations which are believed to be trenches and embankments of the outer city.
Department of Museum and Antiquities director-general Datuk Adi Taha said an archaeological expedition would be mounted this year to verify the location of the lost city, with Raimy’s assistance.
Funds for the expedition would be sought under the 9th Malaysia Plan.
Adi said he and the department were very enthusiastic about Raimy’s research findings and would work with him to verify the location of the lost city, which could be spread out over a few hundred square kilometres.
+ The Star -
Manuscript leads to lost city
PETALING JAYA: It was an old Malay manuscript once owned by Sir Stamford Raffles, the founder of Singapore, in a London library that led Raimy Che-Ross to the existence of the lost city in Johor.
According to Raimy, the presence of a lost city in the jungles at the southern end of the Malay peninsula had been indicated in Malayan forklore for over four centuries.
His findings on the lost city has been published in the latest issue of Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 2004.
In his paper, he said the place was raided by the Indian-Chola conqueror Raja Rajendra Cholavarman I, of the South Indian Chola Dynasty in 1025A.D.
The ruins could be as old as Borobodur, and could pre-date Angkor Wat, Raimy said, adding that aerial photographs taken over the site and tales from the orang asli had indicated the existence of structures.
“From the air I could see formations which looked like a set of double-walls, protecting the inner city.
“I have verified all the information by reviewing and reassessing old colonial records and travellers tales,” he said.
Information on Kota Gelanggi appears in the Sejarah Melayu (Malay Annals) which was edited and revised by Tun Seri Lanang, the Bendahara (equivalent to the prime minister of a sultanate) of the Royal Court of Johor in 1612 A.D.
The manuscript narrated an account of the devastating raids by Raja Rajendra Cholavarman I, who after destroying the city of Gangga Negara (now Beruas in Lower Perak) turned his attention to Kota Gelanggi.
Raimy said he did not expect to find in Kota Gelanggi structures similar to Angkor Wat, as the lost city in Johor Gelanggi was much older.
“We can expect to find simple granite and brick structures, walls, buildings and possibly undisturbed tombs.
“Based on the data I have collected and consultations with archaeologists over the years, it is believed that Kota Gelanggi in Johor, which some scholars believe to be the kingdom of Lo-Yue, was also the first centre of trade for Sri Vijaya.
“It was in Johor that the whole Malay civilisation was born. The Sri Vijaya site in Palembang has artefacts which date back to the 13th or 14th century,” he said.
He said that official Japanese records noted that an Imperial Crown Prince of Japan, Prince Takaoka, Shinnyo Hosshinno, reportedly met his death in Lo-Yue after being attacked by a tiger. Perhaps we may find his tomb here,” he said.
Raimy said that while its main activity was a trading post, Kota Gelanggi was also a centre of sacred learning.
“Hinduism and Buddhist statues and figurines may exist but what I hope to find is epigraphic inscriptions (writings on granite),” he added.
According to Raimy, the presence of a lost city in the jungles at the southern end of the Malay peninsula had been indicated in Malayan forklore for over four centuries.
His findings on the lost city has been published in the latest issue of Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 2004.
In his paper, he said the place was raided by the Indian-Chola conqueror Raja Rajendra Cholavarman I, of the South Indian Chola Dynasty in 1025A.D.
The ruins could be as old as Borobodur, and could pre-date Angkor Wat, Raimy said, adding that aerial photographs taken over the site and tales from the orang asli had indicated the existence of structures.
“From the air I could see formations which looked like a set of double-walls, protecting the inner city.
“I have verified all the information by reviewing and reassessing old colonial records and travellers tales,” he said.
Information on Kota Gelanggi appears in the Sejarah Melayu (Malay Annals) which was edited and revised by Tun Seri Lanang, the Bendahara (equivalent to the prime minister of a sultanate) of the Royal Court of Johor in 1612 A.D.
The manuscript narrated an account of the devastating raids by Raja Rajendra Cholavarman I, who after destroying the city of Gangga Negara (now Beruas in Lower Perak) turned his attention to Kota Gelanggi.
Raimy said he did not expect to find in Kota Gelanggi structures similar to Angkor Wat, as the lost city in Johor Gelanggi was much older.
“We can expect to find simple granite and brick structures, walls, buildings and possibly undisturbed tombs.
“Based on the data I have collected and consultations with archaeologists over the years, it is believed that Kota Gelanggi in Johor, which some scholars believe to be the kingdom of Lo-Yue, was also the first centre of trade for Sri Vijaya.
“It was in Johor that the whole Malay civilisation was born. The Sri Vijaya site in Palembang has artefacts which date back to the 13th or 14th century,” he said.
He said that official Japanese records noted that an Imperial Crown Prince of Japan, Prince Takaoka, Shinnyo Hosshinno, reportedly met his death in Lo-Yue after being attacked by a tiger. Perhaps we may find his tomb here,” he said.
Raimy said that while its main activity was a trading post, Kota Gelanggi was also a centre of sacred learning.
“Hinduism and Buddhist statues and figurines may exist but what I hope to find is epigraphic inscriptions (writings on granite),” he added.
Yayasan belum kesan tapak Kota Gelanggi
JOHOR BAHRU: Yayasan Warisan Johor (YWJ) mengakui sebuah kota lama dipercayai dibangunkan di negeri ini sebelum zaman Kesultanan Melayu Melaka, memang wujud seperti disebut dalam Sejarah Melayu tulisan Tun Sri Lanang.
| |
Timbalan Pengarahnya, Ismail Zam, bagaimanapun berkata YWJ yang menjalankan kajian mengenainya sejak 1996, sehingga kini belum dapat mengesahkan lokasi sebenar tapak kota lama itu yang dikatakan ditemui penyelidik bebas, Raimy Che-Ross.
Beliau berkata, dalam tempoh kajian itu pihaknya mengumpul pelbagai maklumat dan kajian penyelidikan mengenai kewujudan kota lama itu daripada pakar arkeologi tempatan serta luar negara.
“Kita mengakui kewujudan kota lama ini seperti disebut dalam Sejarah Melayu yang ditulis Tun Sri Lanang tetapi masih sukar untuk kita sahkan lokasinya.
“Kita sukar untuk menyatakan bahawa tapak kota lama berkenaan wujud sebelum zaman Kesultanan Melayu Melaka tetapi kemungkinan itu ada berdasarkan penyelidikan sebelum ini,” katanya ketika ditemui di sini, petang semalam.
Tapak Kota Gelanggi yang juga dikenali Kota Klang Kio yang bermaksud permata dalam bahasa Thai atau Kota Gangga Ayu iaitu air nyaman dalam bahasa Jawa kuno, dikatakan terletak di kawasan hutan di Ulu Tiram dekat sini.
Mengikut Sejarah Melayu, Raja Suran atau Raja Cola selepas menakluki Gangganegara, dikatakan berlayar ke Kota Gangga Ayu, sebuah kerajaan besar dengan kotanya diperbuat daripada batu hitam dan dipercayai masih wujud di ulu Sungai Johor.
Ismail berkata, hasil penyelidikan 30 ahli kumpulan arkeologi YWJ mendapati tapak Kerajaan Johor Lama di tiga lokasi di persisiran Sungai Johor wujud selepas kejatuhan Kerajaan Melayu Melaka.
Kumpulan itu diketuai Pensyarah Arkeologi Institut Alam dan Tamadun Melayu (Atma) Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM), Datuk Prof Dr Nik Hassan Shuhaimi Nik Abdul Rahman yang juga Karyawan Tamu YWJ.
Sehubungan itu, katanya, kajian mendalam dan terperinci mengenai tapak kota lama itu perlu dilakukan termasuk mengadakan kerja mencari gali bagi mengesan artifak untuk membuktikan kewujudan kota lama itu.
Beliau berkata, YWJ tidak menghebahkan kajian penyelidikan terhadap tapak kota lama itu kerana belum mempunyai bukti kukuh bagi mengesahkan kewujudannya.
“Kita sudah mengumpul semua maklumat dan dokumen berkaitan kota lama ini tetapi kita belum membuat kerja mencari gali artifak yang dapat membuktikan kawasan berkenaan adalah tapak kota lama berkenaan,” katanya.
Selain itu, katanya, kumpulan arkeologi YWJ sedia bekerjasama dengan Muzium Negara bagi mengkaji kewujudan kota lama itu.
Beliau berkata, pihaknya juga sudah mengesan tiga lokasi penempatan kerajaan Johor-Riau-Lingga di Sungai Sayong, Panchor dan Kampung Kota Lama, Kota Tinggi, berdasarkan penemuan bahan artifak seperti senjata dan seramik di kawasan terbabit.
Klang Kio Dari Wikipedia Bahasa Melayu, ensiklopedia bebas.
Klang Kio adalah sebuah bandar purba yang disebut di dalam Sulalatus Salatin / Sejarah Melayu .Pemerian Sulalatus Salatin mengenai bandar Klang Kio adalah sedemikian:
Setelah berapa lamanya dijalan, datanglah kepada negeri Ganggayu.Shahadan dahulu kalanya negeri itu negeri besar, kotanya daripada batu hitam, datang sekarang lagi ada kotanya itu di hulu Sungai Johor. Ada pun asal namanya Klang Kio, iaitu bahasa Siam,ertinya perbendaharaan permata; oleh kita tiada tahu menyebut dia, jadi Ganggayu. Adapun nama rajanya Raja Chulan; adalah akan baginda itu raja besar, segala raja-raja di bawah angin dalam hukumnya.(W.G.Shellabear:1975:10)
Gambar : kawasan yang dikatakan terletaknya kota klang kio
Pada sekitar Februari 2005, terdapat laporan bahawa tapak Klang Kio telah ditemui dalam kawasan hutan Ulu Tiram,daerah Kota Tinggi, Johor. Laporan ini pertama kali dibuat oleh Raimy Che Ross, seorang penyelidik bebas dalam bidang manuskrip lama. Tapak Klang Kio ini telah dikenal pasti dengan merujuk kepada manuskrip lama Melayu dan manuskrip lama China, laporan orang asli dan juga fotografi satellite. Walaupun begitu, kesahihan penemuan ini diperlukan usaha cari gali yang selanjutnya.
Setelah berapa lamanya dijalan, datanglah kepada negeri Ganggayu.Shahadan dahulu kalanya negeri itu negeri besar, kotanya daripada batu hitam, datang sekarang lagi ada kotanya itu di hulu Sungai Johor. Ada pun asal namanya Klang Kio, iaitu bahasa Siam,ertinya perbendaharaan permata; oleh kita tiada tahu menyebut dia, jadi Ganggayu. Adapun nama rajanya Raja Chulan; adalah akan baginda itu raja besar, segala raja-raja di bawah angin dalam hukumnya.(W.G.Shellabear:1975:10)
Gambar : kawasan yang dikatakan terletaknya kota klang kio
Pada sekitar Februari 2005, terdapat laporan bahawa tapak Klang Kio telah ditemui dalam kawasan hutan Ulu Tiram,daerah Kota Tinggi, Johor. Laporan ini pertama kali dibuat oleh Raimy Che Ross, seorang penyelidik bebas dalam bidang manuskrip lama. Tapak Klang Kio ini telah dikenal pasti dengan merujuk kepada manuskrip lama Melayu dan manuskrip lama China, laporan orang asli dan juga fotografi satellite. Walaupun begitu, kesahihan penemuan ini diperlukan usaha cari gali yang selanjutnya.
Kota Gelanggi: Missing piece in ancient chain | The Star
Feb 7, 2005
BY TEOH TEIK HOONG AND AUDREY EDWARDS
KUALA LUMPUR: The lost city of Kota Gelanggi could be the missing one in a chain of inter-linked cities of an ancient Siamese empire.
Badan Warisan council member Dr Chandran Jeshurun said that this was based on an article, which appeared in the Nusantara journal more than 30 years ago.
The article entitled “Lang-Ya-Shu and Langkasuka: A Re-Interpretation” was written by a Siamese prince Mom Chao Chand. He discussed the locations of two 7th century Chinese toponyms (identifying ancient places and relating them to present day locations).
He had also explored the location of the mythical kingdom of Langkasuka.
“The article appeared in July 1972. I was editor of the journal then and had met Prince Mom Chao Chand at the Chiengmai University where I was a visiting lecturer for a month.
“We got to know each other and spoke about a lot of things including Langkasuka. That was when I asked him to contribute to the journal,” Dr Chandran said yesterday.
He was commenting on the possibility of locating the lost city of Kota Gelanggi in Johor.
Dr Chandran, who is a former Universiti Malaya Professor of Asian History, said the prince had written about the 12 Naksat Cities (see graphic), which appeared in both the chronicles of Nakorn Sri Thammaraj and the chronicles of the Phra Dhatu Nakorn.
Naksat, refers to the name of an animal which represents a certain year in a twelve-year cycle. However, only 11 have been identified in the Malay peninsular, with three in Kedah, Kelantan and Pahang located in present day Malaysia.
The prince while referring to the third as Pahang, however, wrote that this does not refer to the present location of that name as Pahang was a Muang (a city, not a district or province). This missing city was the “year of the rabbit” (Muang Pahang).
“It was a place in the south. And when I heard Raimy (Che-Ross) briefing us last year, I remembered this article. As Raimy told us about the walls and layouts, I thought of the possibility that this could be the 12th missing city,” said Dr Chandran.
He added that it was just speculation and an expedition would prove once and for all whether there was any ancient structure in the area.
The prince had also written that the 12 cities acted as an outer shield, which surrounded the capital Nakorn Sri Thammaraj.
“They were connected by land against surprise attacks, when help could be sent from one city to another,” he wrote.
The 11 Muangs with their “years” are Narathiwat (rat), Patani (ox), Kelantan (tiger), Kedah (big snake), Patalung (little snake), Trang (horse), Chumporn (goat), Krabi (monkey), Kanchanadit (chicken), Phuket or Takuapa (dog) and Kraburi (pig).
It was also suggested in the article that aerial photography could be a means of locating these cities as had been successfully done in Thailand. Independent researcher Raimy had carried out such an exercise to track down Kota Gelanggi.
BY TEOH TEIK HOONG AND AUDREY EDWARDS
KUALA LUMPUR: The lost city of Kota Gelanggi could be the missing one in a chain of inter-linked cities of an ancient Siamese empire.
Badan Warisan council member Dr Chandran Jeshurun said that this was based on an article, which appeared in the Nusantara journal more than 30 years ago.
The article entitled “Lang-Ya-Shu and Langkasuka: A Re-Interpretation” was written by a Siamese prince Mom Chao Chand. He discussed the locations of two 7th century Chinese toponyms (identifying ancient places and relating them to present day locations).
He had also explored the location of the mythical kingdom of Langkasuka.
“The article appeared in July 1972. I was editor of the journal then and had met Prince Mom Chao Chand at the Chiengmai University where I was a visiting lecturer for a month.
“We got to know each other and spoke about a lot of things including Langkasuka. That was when I asked him to contribute to the journal,” Dr Chandran said yesterday.
He was commenting on the possibility of locating the lost city of Kota Gelanggi in Johor.
Dr Chandran, who is a former Universiti Malaya Professor of Asian History, said the prince had written about the 12 Naksat Cities (see graphic), which appeared in both the chronicles of Nakorn Sri Thammaraj and the chronicles of the Phra Dhatu Nakorn.
Naksat, refers to the name of an animal which represents a certain year in a twelve-year cycle. However, only 11 have been identified in the Malay peninsular, with three in Kedah, Kelantan and Pahang located in present day Malaysia.
The prince while referring to the third as Pahang, however, wrote that this does not refer to the present location of that name as Pahang was a Muang (a city, not a district or province). This missing city was the “year of the rabbit” (Muang Pahang).
“It was a place in the south. And when I heard Raimy (Che-Ross) briefing us last year, I remembered this article. As Raimy told us about the walls and layouts, I thought of the possibility that this could be the 12th missing city,” said Dr Chandran.
He added that it was just speculation and an expedition would prove once and for all whether there was any ancient structure in the area.
The prince had also written that the 12 cities acted as an outer shield, which surrounded the capital Nakorn Sri Thammaraj.
“They were connected by land against surprise attacks, when help could be sent from one city to another,” he wrote.
The 11 Muangs with their “years” are Narathiwat (rat), Patani (ox), Kelantan (tiger), Kedah (big snake), Patalung (little snake), Trang (horse), Chumporn (goat), Krabi (monkey), Kanchanadit (chicken), Phuket or Takuapa (dog) and Kraburi (pig).
It was also suggested in the article that aerial photography could be a means of locating these cities as had been successfully done in Thailand. Independent researcher Raimy had carried out such an exercise to track down Kota Gelanggi.
Lost city is ‘not Kota Gelanggi’
BY MAZWIN NIK ANIS
JOHOR BARU: The Johor government agrees that there is a lost city in the state but is disputing its name.
As the mystery of the site deepens, Mentri Besar Datuk Abdul Ghani Othman said there was a historic city in Johor located within the deep jungles of Kota Tinggi but it was not Kota Gelanggi.
He said based on historical facts and archaeological finds over the past 10 years by the state heritage foundation Yayasan Warisan Johor, there was evidence that the historic city in Kota Tinggi is Kota Klang Kiu or Ganggayu.
The search for the lost city drew nationwide interest after The Star broke the story last week, prompting the Federal Government to say it would be given top priority.
When he first responded to the report, Ghani had stated that it was a fantastic development for the state, something that would enrich the history of Johor and the nation.
Yesterday, however, he said historical facts showed that the Kota Gelanggi mentioned by independent researcher Raimy Che Ross was situated in Pahang and not in Johor.
“I do not know how Raimy came to the conclusion (that Kota Gelanggi is in Johor),” he said.
He added that the researcher was not part of the state’s team in searching for historical sites.
Ghani said apart from what was written in Sejarah Melayu (Malay Annals), a discovery by English scholar Quaritch Wales of a temple known as Candi Bemban along Sungai Madek and other artefacts there strengthened the belief that a government had existed way before the Johor-Riau-Lingga sultanate.
He said the foundation, led by prominent archaeologist Prof Datuk Nik Hassan Suhaimi, had, since 1996, carried out excavation work and study in the area.
“We believe that until today, some parts of the city are still standing somewhere upstream from Sungai Johor,” he said, referring to records in the Sejarah Melayu that after conquering Gangganegara, Raja Suran of Thailand had sailed to Ganggayu.
He declined to disclose the site of the lost city in Johor but said the area could be “somewhere within the 14,000ha site of the forest reserve where Sungai Madek and Sungai Lenggiu are located.”
Ghani said the whole area where the historical artefacts were found and the possible site of Kota Klang Kiu had been gazetted as forest reserve.
“No one is allowed to enter the area without the state authorities' go ahead,” he said.
To a question, Ghani said Federal agencies had no jurisdiction over the area until there was a discovery and that any expedition work, study and excavation would be under the state's purview.
“However, we have no problem working together with the National Museum on this matter,” he said.
JOHOR BARU: The Johor government agrees that there is a lost city in the state but is disputing its name.
As the mystery of the site deepens, Mentri Besar Datuk Abdul Ghani Othman said there was a historic city in Johor located within the deep jungles of Kota Tinggi but it was not Kota Gelanggi.
He said based on historical facts and archaeological finds over the past 10 years by the state heritage foundation Yayasan Warisan Johor, there was evidence that the historic city in Kota Tinggi is Kota Klang Kiu or Ganggayu.
The search for the lost city drew nationwide interest after The Star broke the story last week, prompting the Federal Government to say it would be given top priority.
When he first responded to the report, Ghani had stated that it was a fantastic development for the state, something that would enrich the history of Johor and the nation.
Yesterday, however, he said historical facts showed that the Kota Gelanggi mentioned by independent researcher Raimy Che Ross was situated in Pahang and not in Johor.
“I do not know how Raimy came to the conclusion (that Kota Gelanggi is in Johor),” he said.
He added that the researcher was not part of the state’s team in searching for historical sites.
Ghani said apart from what was written in Sejarah Melayu (Malay Annals), a discovery by English scholar Quaritch Wales of a temple known as Candi Bemban along Sungai Madek and other artefacts there strengthened the belief that a government had existed way before the Johor-Riau-Lingga sultanate.
He said the foundation, led by prominent archaeologist Prof Datuk Nik Hassan Suhaimi, had, since 1996, carried out excavation work and study in the area.
“We believe that until today, some parts of the city are still standing somewhere upstream from Sungai Johor,” he said, referring to records in the Sejarah Melayu that after conquering Gangganegara, Raja Suran of Thailand had sailed to Ganggayu.
He declined to disclose the site of the lost city in Johor but said the area could be “somewhere within the 14,000ha site of the forest reserve where Sungai Madek and Sungai Lenggiu are located.”
Ghani said the whole area where the historical artefacts were found and the possible site of Kota Klang Kiu had been gazetted as forest reserve.
“No one is allowed to enter the area without the state authorities' go ahead,” he said.
To a question, Ghani said Federal agencies had no jurisdiction over the area until there was a discovery and that any expedition work, study and excavation would be under the state's purview.
“However, we have no problem working together with the National Museum on this matter,” he said.
Raimy: The one in Pahang is not lost city
Feb 8, 2005
PETALING JAYA: The existence of another “Kota Gelanggi” has presented itself as a puzzle for the public since reports that a lost city is apparently located in Johor.
However, independent researcher Raimy Che-Ross, who first broke the news of the possible location of the lost city, pointed out that the one in Pahang was a cave complex with pre-historic links located about 30km from Jerantut.
“Artefacts found at the caves include pottery, food waste and traces of stone tools. Explorer William Cameron visited the site in 1882 and recorded local fairy tales about its existence,” he said yesterday.
The site was gazetted as a Historical Heritage Area in 1995 by the Pahang government.
However, the Kota Gelanggi he refers to as the lost city in Johor is well recorded by Tun Sri Lanang in the Sejarah Melayu, describing its granite structure and its location “di Hulu Sungai Johor (at the head waters of the Johor River).”
“I have no reason to doubt this description,” he said.
Raimy said he was aware of the confusion and urged interested parties to read his published findings.
His article “The ‘Lost City’ of Kota Gelanggi” appears in the latest issue of the Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society and could be obtained at the society’s website at www.mbras.org.my.
PETALING JAYA: The existence of another “Kota Gelanggi” has presented itself as a puzzle for the public since reports that a lost city is apparently located in Johor.
However, independent researcher Raimy Che-Ross, who first broke the news of the possible location of the lost city, pointed out that the one in Pahang was a cave complex with pre-historic links located about 30km from Jerantut.
“Artefacts found at the caves include pottery, food waste and traces of stone tools. Explorer William Cameron visited the site in 1882 and recorded local fairy tales about its existence,” he said yesterday.
The site was gazetted as a Historical Heritage Area in 1995 by the Pahang government.
However, the Kota Gelanggi he refers to as the lost city in Johor is well recorded by Tun Sri Lanang in the Sejarah Melayu, describing its granite structure and its location “di Hulu Sungai Johor (at the head waters of the Johor River).”
“I have no reason to doubt this description,” he said.
Raimy said he was aware of the confusion and urged interested parties to read his published findings.
His article “The ‘Lost City’ of Kota Gelanggi” appears in the latest issue of the Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society and could be obtained at the society’s website at www.mbras.org.my.
Archaeologist tells of lifelong quest | The Star
Feb 9, 2005
Archaeologist tells of lifelong quest | The Star
BY AUDREY EDWARDS
BANGI: He has criss-crossed Malaysia to unearth prehistoric ruins but the possible lost city in Johor is one that has proven elusive all these years.
“I have always wanted to locate it.
“My search for the lost kingdom is to satisfy my curiosity and finding it would prove my theories are true,” said archaeologist Prof Datuk Dr Nik Hassan Suhaimi Nik Abdul Rahman of Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia’s Institute of the Malay World and Civilisation.
Only Dr Nik Hassan Suhaimi, 61, believes that the possible lost city, which independent researcher Raimy Che-Ross has said is probably Kota Gelanggi, might actually have been known as Klang Kiu.
Dr Nik Hassan Suhaimi said that getting into the area where the city is believed to be would require proper planning to ensure safety and security.
“We have to plan things properly to find the lost kingdom of Klang Kiu. We have to be very careful because the area was a 'black area' during the Emergency period.
“We have to involve the police, military, geologists, surveyors and foresters. The plan is to go in during the next few months,” he said.
He said the process of locating the site, which included carrying out aerial photography, remote sensing and cross-checking with the Survey Department, was going on.
Dr Nik Hassan Suhaimi’s love affair with archaeology began 33 years ago and he had been involved in excavations at Kedah's Bujang Valley and Perak's Kuala Selingsing and Gangga Negara (now known as Beruas).
EXCAVATION MEMORIES: Dr Nik Hassam Suhaimi showing pictures of the Tasik Chini expedition in Bangi recently.
The most recent excavations he was involved in were at sites along the Johor River and Tasik Chini.
“Archaeology is the love of my life because I get to spend most of my time searching for something new – although it is old,” he said.
His most exciting dig was at Kuala Selingsing in 1980.
“There were not many people to track down the site or who could withstand the various problems associated with the place such as water supply problems, mosquitoes and the negative aspects of the environment,” he said.
He added that one also had to stay at the site for weeks and in the process unearth objects such as old human bones.
“There were just so many ancient human remains. We kept digging and we came across them at every strata until we reached the lowest level where we found one which was dated 200BC.”
He said anyone who found the lost city should be lauded.
“I am not bothered who discovers it. I will be happy to know that someone has, because as an archaeologist and historian, I feel proud that the country has such a heritage site,” he added.
Archaeologist tells of lifelong quest | The Star
BY AUDREY EDWARDS
BANGI: He has criss-crossed Malaysia to unearth prehistoric ruins but the possible lost city in Johor is one that has proven elusive all these years.
“I have always wanted to locate it.
“My search for the lost kingdom is to satisfy my curiosity and finding it would prove my theories are true,” said archaeologist Prof Datuk Dr Nik Hassan Suhaimi Nik Abdul Rahman of Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia’s Institute of the Malay World and Civilisation.
Only Dr Nik Hassan Suhaimi, 61, believes that the possible lost city, which independent researcher Raimy Che-Ross has said is probably Kota Gelanggi, might actually have been known as Klang Kiu.
Dr Nik Hassan Suhaimi said that getting into the area where the city is believed to be would require proper planning to ensure safety and security.
“We have to plan things properly to find the lost kingdom of Klang Kiu. We have to be very careful because the area was a 'black area' during the Emergency period.
“We have to involve the police, military, geologists, surveyors and foresters. The plan is to go in during the next few months,” he said.
He said the process of locating the site, which included carrying out aerial photography, remote sensing and cross-checking with the Survey Department, was going on.
Dr Nik Hassan Suhaimi’s love affair with archaeology began 33 years ago and he had been involved in excavations at Kedah's Bujang Valley and Perak's Kuala Selingsing and Gangga Negara (now known as Beruas).
EXCAVATION MEMORIES: Dr Nik Hassam Suhaimi showing pictures of the Tasik Chini expedition in Bangi recently.
The most recent excavations he was involved in were at sites along the Johor River and Tasik Chini.
“Archaeology is the love of my life because I get to spend most of my time searching for something new – although it is old,” he said.
His most exciting dig was at Kuala Selingsing in 1980.
“There were not many people to track down the site or who could withstand the various problems associated with the place such as water supply problems, mosquitoes and the negative aspects of the environment,” he said.
He added that one also had to stay at the site for weeks and in the process unearth objects such as old human bones.
“There were just so many ancient human remains. We kept digging and we came across them at every strata until we reached the lowest level where we found one which was dated 200BC.”
He said anyone who found the lost city should be lauded.
“I am not bothered who discovers it. I will be happy to know that someone has, because as an archaeologist and historian, I feel proud that the country has such a heritage site,” he added.
Government to decide future expedition in August | The Star
Feb 18, 2005
KUALA LUMPUR: Future missions to unearth the secrets of the lost city of Kota Gelanggi will depend on the maiden expedition to locate the site next month and the findings submitted to the Cabinet in August.
“What’s important is that come August, we’ll have the report and decide whether we should conduct further research,” said Culture, Arts and Heritage Minister Datuk Seri Dr Rais Yatim at the Malay College Kuala Kangsar's centennial celebration.
Dr Rais said several scientific observations would be made in Johor.
“What we are concerned about is the history of Peninsular Malaysia at that time.
“But we have to be careful and not make any announcements that will confuse the public until the experts are clear on the real situation,” he said, adding that his Cabinet colleagues wanted to know more about the lost city.
The expedition members would comprise independent researcher Raimy Che-Ross and experts from Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Universiti Sains Malaysia, the Johor Heritage Foundation, the Johor Forestry Department and the Malaysian Centre For Remote Sensing.
Department of Museums and Antiquities director-general Datuk Dr Adi Taha said the members would have their first meeting on Feb 24 and hoped to start the expedition by the middle of next month.
“Although the site in Johor may be of a different name, we’ll use Kota Gelanggi as the working name for the project. The first phase is to make sure the site exists and we’ll carry on from there,” he said.
Dr Rais also said his ministry would be organising a writing competition on local history to create interest in the country’s history among Malaysians.
“We hope the contest will stir the community's love for local history, especially of their hometowns and villages,” he said.
He hoped that with the competition, more Malaysians would write about local history instead of relying on foreigners.
KUALA LUMPUR: Future missions to unearth the secrets of the lost city of Kota Gelanggi will depend on the maiden expedition to locate the site next month and the findings submitted to the Cabinet in August.
“What’s important is that come August, we’ll have the report and decide whether we should conduct further research,” said Culture, Arts and Heritage Minister Datuk Seri Dr Rais Yatim at the Malay College Kuala Kangsar's centennial celebration.
Dr Rais said several scientific observations would be made in Johor.
“What we are concerned about is the history of Peninsular Malaysia at that time.
“But we have to be careful and not make any announcements that will confuse the public until the experts are clear on the real situation,” he said, adding that his Cabinet colleagues wanted to know more about the lost city.
The expedition members would comprise independent researcher Raimy Che-Ross and experts from Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Universiti Sains Malaysia, the Johor Heritage Foundation, the Johor Forestry Department and the Malaysian Centre For Remote Sensing.
Department of Museums and Antiquities director-general Datuk Dr Adi Taha said the members would have their first meeting on Feb 24 and hoped to start the expedition by the middle of next month.
“Although the site in Johor may be of a different name, we’ll use Kota Gelanggi as the working name for the project. The first phase is to make sure the site exists and we’ll carry on from there,” he said.
Dr Rais also said his ministry would be organising a writing competition on local history to create interest in the country’s history among Malaysians.
“We hope the contest will stir the community's love for local history, especially of their hometowns and villages,” he said.
He hoped that with the competition, more Malaysians would write about local history instead of relying on foreigners.
Satellite confirms structures of Kota Gelanggi
Feb 19, 2005
Malaysia Gis - http://www.malaysiagis.com
The search for the lost city of Kota Gelanggi has taken a leap forward with satellite maps confirming the existence of structures on site.
A remote sensing satellite image taken by the Malaysian Centre for Remote Sensing (Macres) has revealed possible structures which match aerial photographs taken by Canberra-based independent researcher Raimy Che-Ross last year.
The image has also shown that the apparent structures are much more extensive than previously thought.
Raimy, when contacted yesterday, said the satellite image and other recent evidence had convinced him that he had found the lost city of Kota Gelanggi.
"Call it by any other name, but this is definitely the Lost City of Kota Gelanggi. "Thanks to both the evidence and the satellite images, I am absolutely sure that my original hypothesis and findings are correct," he told The Star yesterday.
A Kuala Lumpur-based Geographical Information System (GIS), mapping and remote sensing consultant who analysed the satellite image said there was no doubt that there were peculiar structures.
"Johor does not have natural rock formations and what is seen in the satellite image is man-made. The lines could be walls or trenches," he said.
However, the consultant added that there were also other possibilities of what these structures could constitute. They include former logging trails, fluvial networks caused by receding waters of a dam which is the result of sedimentation.
"It could also be the lost city of Kota Gelanggi.
"What is sure is that you have the same site shown in earlier pictures. I am 90% sure the image is that of the area the authorities are looking for."
On the possibility that some of the lines seen on the satellite image were modern-day fences, the consultant said, "Fences are never built around dams in the country. I suspect these could be 'fences' built long ago."
He said it was necessary for the authorities to go and verify the authenticity of the site.
Malaysia Gis - http://www.malaysiagis.com
The search for the lost city of Kota Gelanggi has taken a leap forward with satellite maps confirming the existence of structures on site.
A remote sensing satellite image taken by the Malaysian Centre for Remote Sensing (Macres) has revealed possible structures which match aerial photographs taken by Canberra-based independent researcher Raimy Che-Ross last year.
The image has also shown that the apparent structures are much more extensive than previously thought.
Raimy, when contacted yesterday, said the satellite image and other recent evidence had convinced him that he had found the lost city of Kota Gelanggi.
"Call it by any other name, but this is definitely the Lost City of Kota Gelanggi. "Thanks to both the evidence and the satellite images, I am absolutely sure that my original hypothesis and findings are correct," he told The Star yesterday.
A Kuala Lumpur-based Geographical Information System (GIS), mapping and remote sensing consultant who analysed the satellite image said there was no doubt that there were peculiar structures.
"Johor does not have natural rock formations and what is seen in the satellite image is man-made. The lines could be walls or trenches," he said.
However, the consultant added that there were also other possibilities of what these structures could constitute. They include former logging trails, fluvial networks caused by receding waters of a dam which is the result of sedimentation.
"It could also be the lost city of Kota Gelanggi.
"What is sure is that you have the same site shown in earlier pictures. I am 90% sure the image is that of the area the authorities are looking for."
On the possibility that some of the lines seen on the satellite image were modern-day fences, the consultant said, "Fences are never built around dams in the country. I suspect these could be 'fences' built long ago."
He said it was necessary for the authorities to go and verify the authenticity of the site.
Orang asli manuscripts depict ancient temple | The Star
PETALING JAYA: A chandi (temple) is believed to be located in the lost city, according to an illustration on rare orang asli manuscripts.
The manuscripts together with a pictorial book have been kept by orang asli families who lived near the area until the 1950s, when they were relocated by the British Army following a communist insurgency.
Independent researcher Raimy Che-Ross believes that the manuscripts depict a naive but highly-accurate front elevation and ground-plan representation of the Chandi Kota Gelanggi and its ancillary temple-complex when the orang asli visited the site in 1920-30s.
He cautiously assumes the basic chandi was slightly smaller than Borobudur and could be the same age or slightly older.
“The most important and significant historical and archaeological structure that lies in the ruins of this lost city is the Chandi Kota Gelanggi. It is a large multi-terraced chandi crowned by a triple-layered stupa. There is no other structure comparable to it in the Malay peninsula.
“One of the manuscripts drawing show the double-walls of the temple enclosure, with crenulations (regular gaps along the top of a castle for firing arrows) along its upper walls. There is also a detailed drawing of the main temple-gateway and the terraces leading up to the triple-stupa,” he said when contacted.
Raimy also said another manuscript showed a small pavilion-like structure framed by thin granite pillars, inside of which were granite walls with two round windows on either side of its main doorway, similar to that found at the Cheng Hoon Teng Temple in Malacca.
“The squiggles drawn all around the temple are referred to by the orang asli as their 'prayers'. It is possible that they represent epigraphic inscriptions, which may be found carved and inscribed onto the temple walls,” he said.
He added that the squiggles could resemble an attempt to replicate examples of Kawi or Sanskrit similar to those found on existing Srivijayan Prasasti (inscribed prayers and historical statements on stone).
“If this is true, and we do indeed find epigraphic inscriptions on the chandi, then the immense value of the discovery for Malay history is beyond imagination,” he added.
The manuscripts are being kept by 41-year-old Edin Lekok, who received it from his father, Lekok Jenta, last year.
They were passed down by his great-great grandmother Nenek Tunggal.
The orang asli from this area who practice a kind of worship called Alam Mulia, however, do not know what the manuscripts mean but consider them holy items.
The colour of the ink has not faded through the years and Edin has laminated the manuscripts to keep it from falling apart.
Edin also said that although he had known of the manuscripts' existence, his father did not show them to him until the day they were handed over to him.
The manuscripts together with a pictorial book have been kept by orang asli families who lived near the area until the 1950s, when they were relocated by the British Army following a communist insurgency.
Independent researcher Raimy Che-Ross believes that the manuscripts depict a naive but highly-accurate front elevation and ground-plan representation of the Chandi Kota Gelanggi and its ancillary temple-complex when the orang asli visited the site in 1920-30s.
He cautiously assumes the basic chandi was slightly smaller than Borobudur and could be the same age or slightly older.
“The most important and significant historical and archaeological structure that lies in the ruins of this lost city is the Chandi Kota Gelanggi. It is a large multi-terraced chandi crowned by a triple-layered stupa. There is no other structure comparable to it in the Malay peninsula.
“One of the manuscripts drawing show the double-walls of the temple enclosure, with crenulations (regular gaps along the top of a castle for firing arrows) along its upper walls. There is also a detailed drawing of the main temple-gateway and the terraces leading up to the triple-stupa,” he said when contacted.
Raimy also said another manuscript showed a small pavilion-like structure framed by thin granite pillars, inside of which were granite walls with two round windows on either side of its main doorway, similar to that found at the Cheng Hoon Teng Temple in Malacca.
“The squiggles drawn all around the temple are referred to by the orang asli as their 'prayers'. It is possible that they represent epigraphic inscriptions, which may be found carved and inscribed onto the temple walls,” he said.
He added that the squiggles could resemble an attempt to replicate examples of Kawi or Sanskrit similar to those found on existing Srivijayan Prasasti (inscribed prayers and historical statements on stone).
“If this is true, and we do indeed find epigraphic inscriptions on the chandi, then the immense value of the discovery for Malay history is beyond imagination,” he added.
The manuscripts are being kept by 41-year-old Edin Lekok, who received it from his father, Lekok Jenta, last year.
They were passed down by his great-great grandmother Nenek Tunggal.
The orang asli from this area who practice a kind of worship called Alam Mulia, however, do not know what the manuscripts mean but consider them holy items.
The colour of the ink has not faded through the years and Edin has laminated the manuscripts to keep it from falling apart.
Edin also said that although he had known of the manuscripts' existence, his father did not show them to him until the day they were handed over to him.
Ancient texts point to black stone structures : The Star
Feb 20, 2005
PETALING JAYA: Ancient Chinese manuscripts have indicated the existence of the lost city of Kota Gelanggi as a city of shining black stone, according to a Chinese history expert.
The city, also believed to be called Klang Kiu, was mentioned in the more than 1,000-year-old manuscript found in the book Strange Countries from the Cambridge Library Rare Books Collection, said Universiti Putra Malaysia chemical engineering Prof Dr Tan Ka Kheng who has been researching for several years.
Tan, who minors in History of Science, said the book had an illustration of a bell adorned by two Buddhas, lotus flowers and birds, which apparently existed in the city, which had a stupa-like multi-tiered structure.
“The structure according to the book was 32 chang (each chang is 3.3m) high and they were surrounded by 300 graves,” he said.
“The structure could accommodate 360 people at any one time,” he told The Star.
“The scriptures had indicated that this city was somewhere in the peninsula,” he said.
Another sketch from the manuscript had a picture of a Buddha and a Hindu deity on an altar and a worshipper paying homage to them and this could also be from the lost city which was also called Pulau An, he said.
He said Pulau An meant peace and took four nights by boat to travel from Majapahit in Jawa then.
Dr Tan also noted that Chinese maps dating 1600AD had mentioned the existence of the ancient city in the peninsula.
“The city was an important point for trade and supplies and functioned as a stop over for people,” he said.
“Many of the scriptures recorded the observations of Chinese travellers at their port of call such as the characteristics of the people and the area, distinct cultures and customs of the locals,” he added.
Dr Tan said artefacts found downstream from the site in Kota Gelanggi, which were being kept by the Johor Heritage Foundation, confirmed that the city was a trading post.
Among the artefacts found were porcelain items from the Chinese dynasties like the Soong, Ming and Qing, and from Thailand, Khmer and Vietnam.
Earthenware with carvings believed to be from the 11th century had also been located.
Dr Tan, who has studied Chinese maps and scriptures for 15 years, said the city of Klang Kiu should not be confused with Langkasuka, which is believed to be sitting at the bottom of Tasik Chini in Pahang.
“Chinese scriptures indicated that Langkasuka had lotus ponds and people who wore sarong, made pottery and had the practice of cutting their long hair,” he said.
PETALING JAYA: Ancient Chinese manuscripts have indicated the existence of the lost city of Kota Gelanggi as a city of shining black stone, according to a Chinese history expert.
The city, also believed to be called Klang Kiu, was mentioned in the more than 1,000-year-old manuscript found in the book Strange Countries from the Cambridge Library Rare Books Collection, said Universiti Putra Malaysia chemical engineering Prof Dr Tan Ka Kheng who has been researching for several years.
Tan, who minors in History of Science, said the book had an illustration of a bell adorned by two Buddhas, lotus flowers and birds, which apparently existed in the city, which had a stupa-like multi-tiered structure.
“The structure according to the book was 32 chang (each chang is 3.3m) high and they were surrounded by 300 graves,” he said.
“The structure could accommodate 360 people at any one time,” he told The Star.
“The scriptures had indicated that this city was somewhere in the peninsula,” he said.
Another sketch from the manuscript had a picture of a Buddha and a Hindu deity on an altar and a worshipper paying homage to them and this could also be from the lost city which was also called Pulau An, he said.
He said Pulau An meant peace and took four nights by boat to travel from Majapahit in Jawa then.
Dr Tan also noted that Chinese maps dating 1600AD had mentioned the existence of the ancient city in the peninsula.
“The city was an important point for trade and supplies and functioned as a stop over for people,” he said.
“Many of the scriptures recorded the observations of Chinese travellers at their port of call such as the characteristics of the people and the area, distinct cultures and customs of the locals,” he added.
Dr Tan said artefacts found downstream from the site in Kota Gelanggi, which were being kept by the Johor Heritage Foundation, confirmed that the city was a trading post.
Among the artefacts found were porcelain items from the Chinese dynasties like the Soong, Ming and Qing, and from Thailand, Khmer and Vietnam.
Earthenware with carvings believed to be from the 11th century had also been located.
Dr Tan, who has studied Chinese maps and scriptures for 15 years, said the city of Klang Kiu should not be confused with Langkasuka, which is believed to be sitting at the bottom of Tasik Chini in Pahang.
“Chinese scriptures indicated that Langkasuka had lotus ponds and people who wore sarong, made pottery and had the practice of cutting their long hair,” he said.
Langgan:
Catatan (Atom)