Home » History » New study on Melaka Sultanate

New study on Melaka Sultanate

Published in The Malay Mail today:

Melaka Malay Sultanate begins in 1278, claims research team

MELAKA: The Melaka Malay Sultanate began in 1278 and not in the 1400s, as discovered by a research team appointed by the Melaka government.

Chief Minister Datuk Seri Mohd Ali Rustam said the year (1278) was chosen based or the Raja Bongsu version of the Malay Annals or the “Sulalatus al-Salatin” (Raffles 18).

Following the discovery, the research committee, chaired by Melaka Islamic University College vice-chancellor Prof. Emeritus Datuk Wira Dr Mohd Yusoff Hashim, agreed that Melaka began as a political entity, known as the Melaka Malay Sultanate, in 1278,” he added.

He said the findings of the research was tabled to the Yang Dipertua Negeri of Melaka Tun Mohd Khalil Yaakob at his office in Ayer Keroh here yesterday.

The research, headed by Prof. Dr Abdullah Zakaria Ghazali from the Department of History, Universiti Malaya, started in June last year.

Mohd Ali said a seminar would be held this year to further discuss the matter.

If the seminar is open to public, I’d be the first to sign up. Yes I am excited about this :)

About these ads

51 Comments

  1. orangair says:

    JMD

    i can’t say i’m surprised
    you go to that seminar and tell us about it
    i share the exitement with you

    orang air

    JMD : I suspect they used the older version of Sejarah Melayu to strengthen their claims. A manuscript named ‘Ceritera Asal Raja Raja Melayu Punya Keturunan’.

    Many believed this is the ‘Hikayat’ that the older version of Sejarah Melayu had based upon. I read it once, it stated even the Hijrah years of all the Raja Raja Melaka had reigned.

    But to be certain, we need to hear from the researchers themselves on this. Hopefully the seminar is open to public so that I can register myself :)

  2. satD says:

    interesting………

  3. Fikri says:

    Salam, JMD.

    This is quite an interesting hypothesis, if Melaka was indeed founded in 1278. Actually, we heard about this from our lecturers (I am a history student from UM) last semester, and this hypothesis, if proven true, would have meant the rewriting of at least 100 years of Malaysian history.

    It, of course, raises a lot of questions, like the true arrival date of Islam in the Malay Peninsula (the Terengganu inscription was dated around the early 1300s), and the name of the missing rulers, at least three of them, and the possible existence of their tombstones and coins.

    But it makes history more interesting, yes?

    JMD : Even in Sejarah Melayu, the earliest Kings of Melaka were not Muslims. Therefore, Batu Bersurat Terengganu may still be correct. But we do know that the Kingdom of Pasai predates Batu Bersurat Terengganu, meaning that Kingdom already embraced Islam long before the date stated in the Batu Bersurat.

  4. kratos says:

    JMD,

    I’m excited too. But pessimistic at the same time. How do you explain the ‘missing link’ between the first king and Parameswara without identifying successive kings?

    Please do report on the seminar since most of us here cannot attend.

    JMD : It must be noted that in Sejarah Melayu, there is no mention of a King named Parameswara. But we do have several historical books detailing this persona. The Ming Dynasty identified him as Pa li Mi Su La. Tom Pires identified him as Permicuri. Thank you.

    • Shah says:

      JMD,

      Just my two cents here. If I am not wrong Parameswara is a Hindu word meaning King. It would therefore depend on the language that it was written. The female counterpart is Permaisuri if I am not wrong. The Malay Kingdom was a Hindu Kingdom for a very long time with Gangga Negara and Srivijaya and so forth. It is not impossible for Melaka then to have been just one of the states or minor kingdom within these Kingdoms. Of course history showed that they flourish when they converted to Islam.

      JMD : Thank you for the comment.

      • Tuah says:

        Some historians believe it was “permaisura” for a male king as his title and not “parameswara”.

        I also think the Chinese transliteration for the word “Pa-Li-Mi-Su-La” is closest to “Pe-R- Mai – Su -Ra”. Since Chinese people are having difficulty to say “R” and they always tend to say it as “L”.
        So, “Per” becomes “Pa Li” in Chinese transliteration.

        Let’s compare “Pa-Ra-Mes-Wa-Ra” with “Pa-Li-Mi-Su-La”. How come “Ra” becomes “Li”? If you can see, there’s no way that “a” is changed with “i”, but it’s likely to have with “Per” becomes “Pa-Li”.

        It’s because as always, “e” in Malay is changed to “a” (by Chinese) and when “R” meets “M” (from Mai) it may change to “Li” + “M”. Finally, “Per-Mai-Su-Ra” becomes “Pa-Li-Mi-Su-La”.

        • Tuah says:

          I forgot to mention about “Mai” in “Per-Mai-Su-Ra”.
          Can you see that “Mai” (from Per-Mai-Su-Ra) is closest to “Mi” (from “Pa-Li-Mi-Su-La)?

          So it may seem that “Mes” (of Pa-Ra-Mes-Wa-Ra) is unlikely to be the original spelling of the King of Malacca if we compare it with that Chinese record.

  5. sujini says:

    Jebat

    Lets not Lim Kit Siang or Karpal Singh challenged this or all Malacca-borns will have a nervous breakdown including you. Hehehe.

    (Just being cheeky!)

  6. Kiasu says:

    Must also do a proper research when was the first Pendatang came to Tanah Melayu so that their cucu cicit acknowledges the status of Melayu in Tanah Melayu.

    • donplaypuks says:

      “…when did the first Pendatang come to Tanah Melayu..”

      According to Indon history and legends, Aji Saka, a brahmanical prince and scholar from the court of King Shalivahanan in central India (you can google it), arrived in Java in 78 AD. The latest findings in Bujang Valley indicate the arrival of Indian Hindus/Buddhists as early as 100 AD.

      Given the low quality nature of ships, sea routes and general lack of knowledge in those times and other disclosures in the Ramayana, Mahabharatha and Kedah Annals, an educated guess would place the earliest foreigners here, the Indians, anywhere between 500 BC and 1 AD!!

      The Batu Bersurat Terengganu is dated 1303 AD. However the 9th Sultan of Kedah, Sultan Al-Mudzafar Shah embraced Islam and ruled from 1136-1179 AD. With a little more research by pur historians, I believe we can roll back and narrow down the advent of Islam in Malaya to perhaps about 1000 AD.

      But 1 thing is certain. Islam arrived here well before the Melaka Sultanate and the Batu Bersurat!!

      dpp
      we are all of 1 race, the Human Race

  7. Hee says:

    Saya amat sedih membaca artikel Michael Chick (yang telah banyak membuat artikel menghina Melayu) yang mengatakan Tanah Melayu asal namanya tanah cina!!! (bar chin). Walaupun artikelnya itu tidak ada apa-apa rujukan; namun ramailah juga chigki-chingki yang ketawa sinis dekat Melayu. Apa pendapat bang Jebat.

    JMD : Michael Chick made an article to lambast Umno. It was unobjective and biased research. If we can call it a research at all. There were no reference made to any historical books. Even in Sejarah Melayu or any other books by foreigners such as Tom Pires or Marco Polo, the authors did not even mentioned the word Barr Chin or Barr Kra. Have you seen the map he alleged the Arabs had used? I haven’t. Thank you.

    • donplaypuks says:

      Bro

      The “Barr Chin” map of Michael Chick cab be found at:

      http://pray-for-malaysia.blogspot.com/2010/03/tanah-melayu-formerly-named-barr-chin.html.

      Similarly there’s another map referred to by RPK on M2Day where Malaya is identified as Malacca:

      http://www.malaysia-today.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=30907:ketuanan-malacca&catid=84:archives-2010&Itemid=100149

      Similarly, in “The Study of Ancient Times in the Malay Peninsula” published by the M’sian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society (MBRAS), ptolemaic maps going back to pre-17th century AD, make no mention of Tanah Melayu either.

      But, I wouldn’t worry about that at all. Many do not realise e.g. that before the 20th century, India was known as Hindustan and not Bharat, and that Pakistan was a name coined in the 1940’s. Does that in any way detract from the pride Indians and Pakistanis have for their respective countries?

      dpp
      we are all of 1 race, the Human Race

      JMD : Thank you for the links. However, the map provided is not the map Michael Chick was talking about. That is not the map of the old Arabs. That map did not even say the word ‘Barr Chin’. It was a map made by the British. By the way, “Tanah Melayu” is not a nation. Obviously there was no recording of the name because it did not exist – as a nation. But everybody in those days called this part of the world as the Kepulauan Melayu or negeri Melayu etc. Melaka was the name of the most successful nation-kingdom at that time. Hence, the official name for this area 500 years ago, from the west coast of Sumatera, all the way to the north of the peninsular was Melaka. That’s why, I do agree with you, there is no point in arguing whether this land was called Tanah Melayu or not. Only those who are easily confused or have some sinister motives will deny the pride of the people in this place.

  8. donplaypuks says:

    Bro

    “…Raja Bongsu version of the Malay Annals (Sejaraj Melayu) or the “Sulalatus al-Salatin” (Raffles 18).”

    Raja Bongsu is a reference to Raja Abdullah of Johor (1571-1623).

    “Raffles 18″ refers to Sir Stamford Raffles’ (“founder” of modern S’pore) collection of the rescension manuscript in London, compiled from a critical examination of some 32 variant versions of the Sejarah Melayu!!

    The original SM compiled circa 1535 (does not exist now) was revised in 1612. Much of our understanding of the Melaka Sultanate and its history and legends going back to perhaps about 1000 CE is based on the SM.

    So, if the MIUC can shed more light on the Melaka Sultanate and pull back the timlines to 1278 from 1400 and Parameswara, it will be a magnificent achievement.

    It will certainly be interesting when the detailed analysis, genealogies and evidence are revealed.

    dpp
    we are all of 1 race, the Human Race

    JMD : Yes, if they can shed light, it will be very interesting. I am fascinated. This suspense is very exciting.

  9. sputjam says:

    The part about malays eating wild boar for dinner in 1278 will probably be deleted for the sake of bangsa, agama dan negara.

    Our local present day Tun datuk professor Dr Ir, began their career as govenrment scholars who copied their seniors coursework, and ends up as lecturers who plagiarise their research for promotion and titles to hide their insecurity and inferiority complex. This title combination seldom being applied anywhere else on this planet.

    Seldom do they converse anything of substance when gathered amongst their own types, except promotion and titles.

    Whatever was left of the malay sutanate in malacca were eaten by termites, written evidence or buildings.

    The chief minister of malacca is a ketuanan advocate and will do anything in his power to strengthen this subject. There is nothing wrong with this type thingking, as long as he does not threaten, harm or prevent the progress of anyone else, as he is entitles to his own opinion.

    My personal opinion is that, due to malacca being chosen by Admiral Cheng Ho as the R & R port for chinese ships and protected by the chinese navy, it flourished due to the security and protection and the legal framework.

    whether it was sri vijaya or mojopohit, very little written evidence existed because the malays does not believe in recording their history and writing is done by the very few.

    JMD : Wait a minute, what has this professor done wrong TO YOU for you to get very personal like this? I don’t think you know this man well enough for you to spew your nonsense about plagiarism, inferiority complex and the rest.

    How on earth can you operate a sophisticated machinery like the computer you are using now when you are obviously too stupid to make any relevant comments?

    Anyway, everyone knows that the Malays before the spread of Islam were either hindus or pagans. So what is the big deal?

    Bye bye Sputjam. Stupid people are not welcome here.

    • dinturtle says:

      Aaaaarrrggghhhhhhhhhhhh… Mr Siput ! Everything also u must bantai one ?? Haiya, give it a rest la for once. I guess thats another reason for this post by JMD, for everybody to take a breather.

      3000 years from now when they dig up ur mummified corpse, our future researchers would be shocked –wailaweh, this guy’s heart so dark one…. pity him, life must be such a pain for him then…

      • orangair says:

        din

        mamat sputjam ni kita semua dah tahu pe’el dia. geram kan ? ayat-ayat dia macam orang melayu dah bakar rumah dia, anak-bini dia mati, dia tinngal sehelai sepinggang, kerajaan malaysia tak bantu dia bangun balik dan berjaya, tapi kerajaan lain yang bantu.

        sputjam obviously lacks the values of the land, ADAB.

    • OnDaStreet says:

      mojopohit? Am I reading it right or is it a typo? “O” and “A” on the keyboard is kind of far from one another…

      mojopohit.. sputjam, you really make my day start with a smile.. hahaha

      ~ OnDaStreet, mojo of pohit.. hahaha

    • Fikri says:

      Sputjam. I know this is going to sound mean, but were you dropped on your head when you were young? Because no one in their right mind can be that racist and ignorant of history without something bad hitting the brain.

      Government covering up history? Where? Please, pleeze, Im begging you. Show me where the government has attempted to interfere directly in research areas of historians and history students. You can find history books (or self-professed ones, at least) that touched on communism, 13th May, race relations, sold and distributed in major bookstores.

      Malays don’t record history? The Malay people have been recording historical events since before Islam. This could be seen from the stone inscriptions in the Srivijaya era (and i really hope someone doesn’t spout some bull saying that the Srivijayans were not Malays, but Indians because they have Indian names. Because following that logic, there are no Malays today, only Arabs in Malaysia, based on their name alone).

      And so what if Malays ate wild boar before Islam’s arrival? If it’s a historical fact, then it should be recorded. In fact, in Eredia’s ‘Description of Malacca’ (written in the early 17th century), Johor Malays were said to have followed Islam loosely, eating pork and drinking wine. The book’s available, and I don’t see any government agents removing it from shleves ‘demi bangsa, agama and negara’.

  10. sepadu says:

    The seminar should be open to the public and as many academicians, history buffs and laymen as possible allowed to attend. It would be very interesting to have details of the study and know how the Malacca Sultanate is made out to have begun over 100 years earlier than what has been known hitherto.

    It would also be interesting to know how the new dates are reconciled with those concerning the history of the ancient Malay Srivijaya Empire (originally based in Palembang 7th-13th Century) and the Majapahit Empire.

    One wonders whether all the archives in the whole wide world have been delved into fully. Malacca was a world renowned entrepot and visited by traders and travellers from many parts of the world and some of their accounts may still be left untouched, just as many ancient manuscripts of the Champa Malays in Vietnam and Cambodia have been found only recently and many more are believed to be hidden in caves in the hills of Vietnam.

    This new research finding would provide a new perspective on the Malay civilisation. The Historical Society of Malaysia had published a book, “The Malay Civilisation”, written by Mohd Arof Ishak, in 2007. It is based on the research findings done by experts in linguistics, archaeology, sociology, history and others since the 19th Century until recent years, quotes and refers to the many books written by them and by others. It is the subject of the current post at http://satusekolahuntuksemua.wordpress.com/.

    It provides a big eye opener in knowing that the Malay civilisation is as old as 5,000 – 6,000 years, that the Malays were the original settlers of Madagascar, a part of South Africa, the Christmas Island, New Zealand, Samoa, Fiji, Hawai, Taiwan, Vietnam and Cambodia; that the Malays are a large family of groups and sub-groups comprising the “Rumpun Melayu” that the Bumiputeras of Sabah and Sarawak are a part of, that this Malay-Polynesian-Astronesian family of over 350 million people has over 1,200 languages, and that the Malays had been a nation of seafarers and travellers, adept in ship-building, had navigational and sailing skills.

    Now the new research finding should excite further interest in the study of the Malay civilisaton as a whole, like the interest in the yet-to-be discovered Champa manuscripts had even secured UNESCO participation in making Kuala Lumpur as the centre for studies on the Malay civilisation in Vietnam and Cambodia.

    JMD : Thank you for the link Sepadu. Very educational.

  11. orangair says:

    history of the malays has not been adequately written. when there’s not much written reference on it and effort is made to reasearch it, that is good things. rewriting history i don’t think is in the objective of the good professor for now although eventually it will be if sufficient findings and evidence are further revealed.

    most part south east asia is often referred to as malay achipelago in history books and we should not have a problem with this. it is a fact that cannot be changed. malays in malaysia today trace their roots from everywhere. if there is an effort to bring to light what we all don’t already know, it should be encouraged in the same way learning mandarin and chinese culture is among the chinese in malaysia.

    that is what CM Ali is doing. one cannot ignore the role of melaka in malay history or the role of malay in melaka history and hence malaya federation history. the disappeared melaka sultanate has its lienage in several existing sultanates today. is it not worth researching ?

    i think the world has got to know

    • mohamed says:

      May be we can trace Melaka living linage in several existing sultanates today. It would be exiciting.

      mohamed

  12. Rakesh Kumar says:

    JMD, am contemplating buying Farish Noor’s take on history. I need your advice on that, before buying them. What do you think? Can email me if you feel it’s a bit personal. Am always following your posts and they are awesome as always. Take care, mate. :)

    JMD : Farish Noor is okay I guess. But you need to read more books by other authors so that you will have broader outlook. Thanks.

  13. Rakesh Kumar says:

    Oops, buying means, buying the books, not buying his take. Sorry about that.

  14. Aman Hardi says:

    This is exciting…as far as history is concerned…let’s hope we can dig out as many historical truth as possible and let’s hope nobody will twist and turn historical points to suit their own political leaning and purpose….by the way what if the Malays eat wild boars for dinner? It was 1278 for God sake…haiya some people are so kayu

  15. Politics and the academic study of history should be mutually exclusive, as mentioned by our author Dennis De Witt. There should be no shame on one’s history as what was done in the past remains in the past, but it should serve as a lesson learned and as an identification of one’s heritage. Our understanding of our history shall remain dynamic because history is constantly being rewritten when new findings are discovered. Therefore, it is always best to keep an open mind and to try to think outside the box. It is always interesting to read and discover more about such topics, especially from different perspectives. That is what makes us a matured, thinking and knowledgeable society.

  16. T. Bustamam says:

    As a layman, I consider that the research team has too easily concluded that the year, which the Melaka’s sultanate began in 1278 or 1262 ?, just based on the one and only evidence, i.e., the Raja Bongsu’s Malay Annals / manuscripts. Are the manuscripts reliable enough to be used as a hard evidence to rewArite the current history ? Had the research team read and carefully studied the other relevant data, such as the well known travelers’ reports from that period to crosscheck the reliability of the data given in the manuscripts ? We would note that there were three well known travelers’ reports from that period :

    1. Marcopolo’s back home journey from China to Venice
    (early 1290’s).
    2. Odoricus Boemus de Foro / Odorico da Pordenone /
    Oldrich Cech z Furlanska ), The Travels of the Friar
    Odoric, early 1320’s.
    3. Abu Abdullah ibn Battuta, the Rihla (around 1344 –
    -1345)

    All of these travelers visited all of the well known ports / kingdoms in Southeast Asia at that time, such as Champa, Khmer, Malaiur (Melayu / Zabag / Jambi), Lamuri / Lambri, Samudra Pasei, Barus etc. In addition to these, Odoricus Boemus de Foro also visited several places in Borneo and Java, while Abu Abdullah ibn Battuta also visited the East Coast of Malay Peninsula.

    Very interestingly, all of these travelers didn’t mention at all about Melaka in their reports, which could be concluded that Melaka at that time or didn’t yet exist or just still an insignificant small fishermen’s village.

    On the contrary, a wellknown Chinese Admiral, Zheng He/ Ma Huan / Cheng Ho had visited Melaka several times in the period between 1405 – 1433 at which time Melaka had already been established as an important sea port / sultanate.

    Based on the above, it can be concluded that the Melaka’s Sultanate was founded sometime in the late 14 century, but not earlier.

  17. T. Bustamam says:

    Correction for “line no. 7 ” from the bottom :

    … ” their reports, which could be concluded that Melaka at that time didn’t yet “….

  18. koko says:

    Even if Malacca started at 1400s, Malay history is longer than that, Parameswara himself is a prince of Sri Vijaya that started in around at least 500 years before that. Before the establishment of Sri Vijaya in Sumatera, kedudukan bukit inscription said about war between two kingdom and the Sri Vijaya king is the victor, thus, before the war happen, there must be a kingdom there that are in rivalry with one another, establishment of these two kingdom bring the periods hundreds of years before existence of Sri Vijaya, there can’t be a victor of war out of nothing. We need to dig more inside of our soil and learn about our “nenek moyang”.

    • sputjam says:

      Unfortunately, numerous adminstrators of melaka cannot be bothered about history, and all they care abouit is reclaiming land and bulldozing hertage buildings. Whatever was left by the old sultanate is now underneath reclaimed and shopping malls/hotels and shop houses. And these new developments does not even blend with the heritage buildings.

      The way I see it, Sri Vijaya or anything were of Indian origins and they ruled the malay archipelago for centuries until the arabs turned malays into muslims. Malays probably were dressed in sarong covering only the waist for both men and women, like they still do in Bali. This dressing was perfect for our weather, hot and humid, simple to wash etc.

      Nowadays, prominent buildings lke those in Putrajaya, new high court buildings and the new palace that is under construction, no longer have malay heritage in its design. The funny thing is that nobody seems to care. Our country looks more and more like northern india or middle east. It is tragic that these things are allowed to happen. Unfortunately, most prominent right wing malay guys lineage are from the middle east and northern india, so maybe that is why nobody has spoken up.

  19. Iqbal Putra says:

    Hi all,

    History is a two edged sword, but do not let it injure yourself. There are anomalies in our history and finding conclusive proof and evidence is even harder for us. Reason being one, history to Malays is mere entertainment (JC Bottoms) and thus fiction and facts are all jumbled up. Maybe the reference to Pateh Gadja Mada in both Hikayat Hang Tuah and Sejarah Melayu referred to the real Pateh Gadja Mada who historically existed in years between 1330 to 1364 at the height of Majapahit (Hayam Wuruk’s reign) and therefore was mentioned respectfully in both manuscripts? Why one would relates the great malacca to a weak Majapahit who loses its colony one by one at that time, and even the King of Majapahit, Bhre Jertabumi flee to Demak in 1478? Truly, the facts and fictions are all mixed up, and even more messed up as all of these are being handed down through penglipur lara and awang batil (entertainers equivalent to movies today), by word of mouth and none by proper documents (i.e. official documents (why would the sultans and ministers of that time regard highly of educated individuals (even Hang Nadim and Tun Mutahir was executed), who could see how important records and documentations for future generations, as education and knowledge is nothing but an enemy, so to say)).
    500 years has passed by, next year on the 24th August 2011, would make the conquest of Malacca , 500 years old. Our history as so called, is a mere 111 years prior to that date (if Malacca was founded in 1400) or a blank history of another 138 years (if Malacca Sultanate started in 1262).
    There are too much perhaps, too much maybe’s, too much might be’s and too much if, for something that has happened and not the future. All that I could say is, with a messed up history, we are surely would have a messed up future.

    Again I remind you all, history is a double edged sword, don;t let it injure yourself.

    And in the land of the blinds, one-eyed is king.

    Iqbal Putra

    p/s I am attempting to produce a documentary about the Fall of Malacca, please do not hesitate to contact me to participate.
    iqbal.putera@gmail.com

  20. Saloma says:

    I received this email n thought of sharing it with everyone here. I hope to find some answers here…tks.

    —–> SUBJECT: HARI INI DALAM SEJARAH

    The Truth Revealed (with evidence)!

    In June 1998, the government of Malaysia had hired a team of experts from all over the world to be gathered here in Malaysia for a research project to compliment the history studies that we undertook in our secondary school.

    The objective of the research is simply:

    1. To find proof and evidence that show the Malays were the origins of Malaysia and they were the first race and religion that landed their feet in Malaysia .

    2. To further strengthen their claims, first they need to find the graveyard of the Hang Tuah, Hang Jebat, Hang Lekiu and others.. to show the existence of their pioneers.

    3. The Batu Bersurat in Terengganu, reveals that the islamic religion has landed in Malaysia for more than a hundred years ago which further strengthen their claims!

    BEWARE & OPEN YOUR EYES!!! Go and ask your brother, sister, niece, nephew etc. Since the year 1999 (if I’m not mistaken) or year 2000, do they study about HANG TUAH anymore?

    Why is that popular subject GONE? Missing in action? or evidence reveals something else that caused the government to stop the syllabus and HIDE the TRUTH?

    Here are the Evidences of the findings by the team of scientists, archaeologist, historian and other technical staff from the United States , United Kingdom , Germany , Canada , Yemen & Russia .

    The evidence are:

    1) They finally found the graveyard of Hang Tuah, Hang Jebat and others, their skeletons had been analyzed and samples of DNA taken with the results showing: Hang Tuah, Hang Jebat, Hang Lekiu and mates were NOT MALAY!!! They were CHINESE origins (Islamic) from China !!! Why were they here in Malacca? If you go back in history, you would know that they were on a mission to protect the UNGRATEFUL MALAY Sultanate from the frequent attacks by the Kingdom of SIAM ( Thailand ).

    So Hang Tuah was not a Malay hero! They were the protectors of the useless and ungrateful Parameswara (who was from INDONESIA ) who landed in Malacca and claimed that the land belonged to him!

    Hang Tuah and friends were all from China , they were being assigned to the Malacca Sultanate because Parameswara requested the Ming Dynasty Emperor for protection! Hence, the rich historical heritage of the Babas & Nyonyas were being closely linked to the Seven Voyages to the Western Ocean by Admiral Zheng He who incidentally was a Chinese Muslim himself!

    That’s why the Hang Tuah series of history is MISSING from the Malaysian SEJARAH today!

    Note: Remember Princess Hang Li Poh? – All surname ‘HANG’

    Second Evidence:

    The researchers hired by the government found the oldest tombstones (graveyard) in Kelantan in year 2000. Surprisingly, the tombstones were at least 900 years old! Older than the so-called Batu Bersurat. And the interesting thing was that they all belonged to the CHINESE!

    Being landed first in Malacca doesn’t mean Malay is the first in Malaysia because during that time, the road was too long or undeveloped for them to reach or see the other side of the coast where the Chinese had landed much earlier. If you want the hard evidence of what the truth of the Research reveals, please write to The Federal Association of Archaeology & Research of Michigan , USA .

    This is a good reason to remind the Bumiputras NOT to ask the Chinese or Indians to go back to their Motherlands because the evidence had shown that Malays were NOT the original people of Malaysia ! The Truth Revealed (with evidence) and anthropologists have yet to ascertain if there was indeed a Malay race!

    Send this to all your non Malay friends so that they are aware where their roots come from…………..

    JMD : Tolong jangan jadi mangsa propaganda tolol golongan tertentu. Sila baca di sini. Terima kasih.

    • Saloma says:

      Hi JMD, thank u for your reply. Pls don’t get me wrong for posting the email here. It saddens me to see it being circulated aggressively amongst the non Malays.

      JMD : No worries Saloma. Have a nice day.

  21. Iqbal Putra says:

    After all my researches and my ignorance, I am very interested to know about the research and the findings as claimed, in June 1998 and the findings are with the Federal Association of Archeology and research of Michigan, correct?

    And as the team were comprised of multi-national individuals, surely there must be reports or at least denials, I would appreciate if anyone could give me the lead towards the findings.

    it would also be very much appreciated if you could point me to the person in charge (either still in position or ex) so as I could at least get a more detailed information on the reports whereabouts, because I have try to the utmost to find the Federal Association of Archeology and research of Michigan thru federal registries of association of the USA and michigan state, the so called the Federal Association of Archeology and research of Michigan does not exist.

    However, I am really interested to know, where are the facts , reports, findings can be found, is it top secret stuff or sumthin like that?

    Thank You

    Iqbal Putra

    JMD : The said Association does not exist. Hence, it was a hoax. You could not find anything because no research was made back in 1998. A bit surprised to read that you know the team was comprised of multi national individuals. Do you know who they were? Thank you.

  22. T. Bustamam says:

    Saloma,

    The email forwarded by you on 4th August 2010 is entirely a HOAX, therefore it is no need to be contested.

  23. shazwina says:

    aku ni nak jadik orang gila tauuu nanti aku marah

  24. shazwina says:

    nama aku bukan saloma tau ok!

  25. shazwina says:

    fikri engkau jangan ejek aku saloma tau aku sayang engkautau

  26. shazwina says:

    siapa tuuuuuuuu………………………..

  27. shazwina says:

    x nampak lahh pulak

  28. BaronV says:

    hi there. just wanted to draw attention to this article on Malaysia-today which claims thar the REAL Malacca is actually Muar on the basis that there is no real pre-portugese evidence of the Sultanatte of Melaka in present day Melaka – a very interesting article!

    http://www.malaysia-today.net/mtcolumns/letterssurat/35605-demise-of-malacca-addendum

    • Baron..

      I read John Doe’s article. Bodohnya dia..

      He mistakenly believe that the Mongols of China and the Moghuls of India are the same people. Hahahah
      He thinks The Mongols are Muslims? Genghis Khan was a Muslim? He said that Shah Rukh Khan came from the long lines of the Mongols?

      So farnee laaaa u people..

      Hello people in Malaysia Today… the easiest way to see the lies in John Doe’s article is to look at the old maps from Tome Pires’ book and Admiral Zheng He’s book.
      In the maps, it specifically stated the places such as Melaka and Muar (Muo as in Pires’ book).
      Malacca and Muar existed at the same time. And the name Malacca is on the lips of all the traders at that time. Malacca was so great at that time that whoever controls Malacca, hold the throat of Venice. That is why Portugal decided to control@attack Malacca. Malacca was already great before the arrival of Portuguese. Not just some Kampung Nelayan as what the stupid John Doe had said.
      He said no Raja Malacca’s tomb has been found and that’s why he said that Malacca did not exist. Hello braderrr….. have u not visited Parameswara’s grave in Tanjung Tuan, Port Dickson and Sultan Alauddin’s tomb in Pagoh? U can even see Hang Kasturi’s tomb in Jalan Hang Jebat, Malacca! You can also see Makam Tun Teja in Kg Sempang, Malacca! John Doe is writing fiction or what?

      • mas says:

        a) i believe, the moghuls are descendents of the monggols, who are not chinese, but monggolians.
        b)to make a succesful port, the sea must be deep enough for ships to navigate, and the waters must be protected. most port are within deep rivers or surrounded by islands. today, as we can see in malacca, none of the criteria that makes a succesful port is retained. the sea is shallow and nothing could protect ships at anchor from storms.
        c)remnants of malay heritage could have been destroyed by the portuguese, as what the europeans did in suth america.

        • Tuah says:

          I strongly agree to the point C.
          If I’m not wrong, there are some Portuguese historical documents stating about stones taken from “tombs” and etc. to build the “A Famosa” fort.

  29. Ja'afar says:

    Don’t make people laugh. The world is laughing. What quality of PhDs?
    Remeber Emeperor Yongle?
    Remember Parameswara, the Hindu interloper pince from Sumetera?
    Remember Auythia?
    Remember being a vasssal state and protectyorate?
    Rememebr hitching a ride in Cheng Ho’s fleet to go kowtow to the Chinese Ming Emperor?
    All these are found in arhived in histories of Siam, China and Wikipedia.
    So please keep the BTN to the illiterate.

  30. meljev says:

    Personally, i have also suspected that malacca was founded long before 1400. However,my opinion is based on a few assumptions (most of them my own), certain proven facts and my own logic. Please consider these statements:-
    1) There is a makara stone in the malacca museum that has never been dated. I have read that it has been assumed by
    historians to date to the 11th century.
    2) The first visit by a Malaccan sultan to China was made as early as 1409 (if im not mistaken). If Malacca was founded as late
    as 1400, it would have just taken Parameswara and his motley band of followers 9 years to form an empire worthy of
    attention from the Chinese. I think that would have been impossible.
    3) Pottery from the Song dynasty (960-1279) has been discovered in Malacca. The Malacca museum even has a collection of
    Roman coins.
    4) Islam came to Malacca as early as 1414 or 1424. It would have been a fairly civilized city for missionaries to have decided to
    embark there.
    5) Most towns are never founded by a king and a group of male followers. Supposing that Parameswara did arrive with his
    army, he would not have just started a settlement out of nothing. There must have already been a town or at least a village
    on the site of Malacca. His soldiers would have required women to marry in order to populate the place. My assumption is
    that Parameswara did in Malacca what he had done earlier in Singapore, which was to kill its ruler and take over the town. If
    that did happen, then there was already a settlement at Malacca and Parameswara could not have founded Malacca.
    6) I have read that there is a letter dated AD 888 from a Queen of Malacca to a king of a small kingdom in Tamil Nadu on the
    internet. However, i do not know whether it is a genuine letter or it has been put up by someone to attract attention. If such a
    letter does exists, then it should be studied. However, most of the other information on that site, as i can recall was based on
    fact and can be found in books by well known historians.
    I believe that Malacca was founded very early on in history. My own assumption would be around AD 700. There is such a theory by a Portuguese historian, Duarte Barbosa and is also worth studying. At that time, Sriwijaya was at its epogee and it is highly logical that a city could have been founded on the Eastern side of the Straits of Malacca. As most things in the tropics are perishable and most buildings were made of wood, such an early city would have almost seemed like a village and no trace of it would have been left. However, as I mentioned earlier, items that predate 1400 have already been found in Malacca. My opinion is that Malacca had existed long before 1400 and that Parameswara was a king that might have defeated Malacca in a war sometime before 1400, taken over the city and built it up as an empire. The groundwork for the empire of Malacca would have been done far earlier by another person.

    Note: This is my own opinion. My contribution to your blog. Thanks

    JMD : Thank you so much. I love history. All these new findings are worth studying. If you could perhaps guide me on the links or books that you had gained this information especially on point 6, then I would appreciate it a lot.

    Thank you.

    • tempawan says:

      that makes sense than meljev.
      the first famous leader of malacca was a figutive on rampage.
      after killing the chief of temasek, which was related or under thai rule, and taking over temasek briefly, before the thais sent in their royal navy, he must have ran off, like most cowards, and seek refuge north. and after studying all possibilities, decided to plan a coup and bump the chief of malacca off, and declare himself sultan.
      he is a wanted by two states, the sri vijaya, who he ran away from, and the thais. thus when the chinese came by, he sought refuge and declre his allegiance to the emperor of china, by sending tributes, hence making malacca a chinese protectorate. otherwise, the sri vijayas and thais eould have obliterated him.

      • ikhwan says:

        Dont really want to reply you, Tempayan

        Just want readers to see your stupidity and kebodohan SEJARAH

        This is what happen when you learn Sejarah Melayu from Prof Lim Kit Siang dari Universiti DAP.

        Temasek related to Thai rules? Hello brader! What year is this that you are talking about!!? Thai does not even exist!!! Then how come Temasek become one of the Thai’s if Thailand itself doesnt even exist???

        That Temagi, my friend was a representative of the Malay Kingdom, Sri Dharmaraja who separated from another Malay kingdom Srivijaya. Their centre was at a region now in modern day call Thailand and that is that. Malay is not just here in Malaysia, there is also Malay in Pattani (In Thailand), Indonesia, Brunei…. Duh!!!

        More information on your misinformation can be read here: http://halamansrikandi.blogspot.com/2011/01/adakah-kita-perlu-melayan-ngomelan.html

        If you want to talk more about Sejarah Melayu, talk to this lady above. I bet she will whack the shit out of you!

        • Tan Syh Ren says:

          Hmm, I do not really agree with what you have said. As I read from a book, Parameswara flee to Temasek, and killed Temagi, which some sort related or under Siamese control. He then turned Singapore(Temasek) into a pirate base. This has pissed off the Siamese and they ordered the ships to attack Parameswara and then only he ran to Malacca.

          And also, you said that Thai doesn’t exist. Yes, it’s true, because its name was Siam.

  31. Meljev says:

    Sorry, the theory that I mentioned in my article is not by Duarte Barbosa but by Gaspar Correia.

    Apologies for the mistake…

  32. origin says:

    Why every finding must link to Melayu interest. Research should be done purely according to the actual. Your ego and greed for personal interest will destroy the actual history. If the record is wrong written will be a joke and laughing stock to next generation. They will be amended and rewrite.

  33. Sincere Advice says:

    Wat are you talk, Mister? Do you understand what the post says or not? If not, read again, understand it, if still not clear, ask a friend or somebody, then come in here and talk. Then maybe we can discuss what you say.

    You don’t know that this country’s history concerns Malay interest? That’s why you should have learnt history in school. Good that History will start as a compulsory subject in schools in a few days’ time.

    You may be an adult and missed learning history. But you can still learn the history of this country. Google the subject of interest to you. But don’t just rely on wikipedia. it’s dangerous. Any ahmad, thambu and gohcheng can write there, sometimes nonsense. 1-2 blokes may try to say the history of this country starts from the time pendatangs came in big numbers in the 19th century. That’s utter nonsense.

    Look for articles that have well-known and well-established writers or authors. Like History Professor Emeritus Tan Sri Khoo Kay Kim. Or simply borrow the History text books the boys bring back from school. Nothing wrong to read school History text books. They are solid information in there.

Astound us with your intelligence!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: