Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-zzh7m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T09:12:38.586Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Achehnese Control over West Sumatra up to the Treaty of Painan, 1663

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 August 2009

J. Kathirithamby-Wells
Get access

Extract

The west Sumatran coast between Barus in the north and Inderapura in the south, which came under Achehnese rule, was originally part of the Minangkabau kingdom which developed in the fourteenth century and reigned supreme in central Sumatra up to about the end of the following century The Padang lowlands and the coastal region up to the northern border of Silebar were considered in the Alam Minangkabau as part of the rantau, or acquired territories, as different from the darat, or nucleus of the kingdom formed by the 3 luaks (or districts) of Agam, Tanah Data and Lima Puloh Kota. The important distinction between the darat and the rantau was that the former was administered on genealogical principles with a penghulu at the head of each negeri in the luak while the rantau was divided into several parts and was under the territorial rule of various rajas who were members of the royal family.2 Beneath the rajas appointed by the central administration at Pagarruyong were minor rajas and penghulus selected from amongst the local inhabitants who were in charge of the various districts. In return for the help and protection provided by the darat, especially in times of trouble, the negeris in the rantau were obliged to pay homage and tribute to Pagarruyong, a duty which they evaded during periods of weak central control, as at the end of the fifteenth century.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Southeast Asian History , Volume 10 , Issue 3 , September 1969 , pp. 453 - 479
Copyright
Copyright © The National University of Singapore 1969

Access options

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

References

1. Loeb, M., Sumatra (Vienna, 1935), p. 9–10.Google Scholar

2. Abdullah, Taufik, “Adat and Islam: an examination of conflict in Minangkabau.” Indonesia, Modern Indonesia Project, Cornell University, 1966, No. II, pp. 5–6Google Scholar; de Josselinde Jong, P. E. de Jong, P. E., Minangkabau and Negeri Sembilan: Sociopolitical Structure in Indonesia (Leiden, 1951), p. 7.Google Scholar

3. For a list of these rajas and penghulus in the 1660's refer Valentijn, F., “Beschrijvinge van het Eiland Sumatra,” oud en Nieuw Oost-Indiën (Dordrecht-Amsterdam, 1724–1726), V, pp. 12–16.Google Scholar

4. Abdullah, Taufik, Indonesia, 1966, No. II, pp. 6–8.Google Scholar

5. Wolters, O. A., Early Indonesian Commerce (Cornell, 1965), p. 180.Google Scholar

6. Meilink-Roelofsz, M.A.P.Asian Trade and European Influence (The Hague, 1962), pp. 22–23.Google Scholar

7. Ibid., pp. 24, 30, 80; Cortesāo, A. (ed.). The Suma Oriental of Tomé Pires, 2 vols., Hakluyt Society (London, 1944), I, pp. 115, 263.Google Scholar

8. Schrieke, B., Indonesian Sociological Studies, I (The Hague/Bandung, 1955), p. 42Google Scholar; Tiele, P. A., “De Europeërs in den Maleischen Archipel’, BKI, XXV (1877), pp. 364–65.Google Scholar

9. Veth, P. J., Atchin en zijne betrekkingen tot Nederland (Leiden, 1873), p. 27Google Scholar; Meilink-Roelofsz, , Asian Trade and European Influence, p. 143.Google Scholar

10. Hoesein, Djajadiningrat, “Critisch overzicht van de in Maleise werken vervatte gegevens over de geschiedenis van het soeltanaat van Atjeh’, BKI, LXV (1911), pp. 147, 212Google Scholar. The genealogy and dates for Achehnese rulers will be quoted from the above source unless otherwise mentioned.

11. Marsden, J., History of Sumatra (London, 1811), pp. 418–19Google Scholar; Hill, A. H., “Hikayat Raja-Raja Pasai,” JMBRAS, XXXIII (1960), ii, p. 24.Google Scholar

12. Meilink-Roelofsz, , Asian Trade and European Influence, p. 143.Google Scholar

13. Veth, , Atchin, p. 66Google Scholar; Djajadiningrat, , BKI, LXV (1911), pp. 154, 212Google Scholar; Tiele, , BKI, XXVII (1879), pp. 59–61.Google Scholar

14. In the campaign against Aru the Gujaratis provided 600 men under Kuti Ali Markan, a Malabar sea-captain. Tiele, , BKI, XXVII (1879), p. 64.Google Scholar

15. Ibid., p. 61.

16. Marsden, , History, p. 428.Google Scholar

17. Amrullah, Haji Abdul Karim, Hamka Ajahku Riwajat Hidup (Djakarta, 1951), p. 20.Google Scholar

18. Schrieke, , Indonesian Sociological Studies, I, p. 43Google Scholar; Tiele, , BKI, XXVIII (1880), p. 410.Google Scholar

19. Tiele, , BKI, XXV (1877), p. 364.Google Scholar

20. Cortesāo, (ed.), Suma Oriental, I, pp. 160–61, 163.Google Scholar

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

22. Tiele, , BKI, XXVII (1879), p. 65.Google Scholar

23. Djajadiningrat, , BKI, LXV (1911), p. 155Google Scholar; Veth, , Atchin, p. 66.Google Scholar

24. Schrieke, , Indonesian Sociological Studies, I, p. 52.Google Scholar

25. According to Hadji Abdul Karim Amrullah some Islamic influence probably filtered into the Minangkabau darat during the fourteenth century from Pasai and Perlak. During the time of Tomé Pires one of the Minangkabau royal triumvirate, Raja Alam, was already a Muslim for 15 years, though the other two still remained to be converted. The final large scale conversion of the area to Islam is believed to have taken place only about the mid-sixteenth century via Pariaman and was Achehnese inspired though not necessarily through teachers solely of Achehnese origin. Sjech Ibrahi, whom Jostra believes, heralded Islam during this period into his birth-place in Minangkabau, received his training in Java and returned home via Tiku and Pariaman. Haji Abdul Karim Amrullah, Hamka, p. 19Google Scholar; Cortesāo, , (ed.), Suma Oriental, I, p. 164Google Scholar; Loeb, , Sumatra, p. 98Google Scholar; Van Ronkele, Ph.S., “Een Maleisch Getuigenis over den weg des Islams in Sumatra,” BKI, LXXV (1919), p. 370Google Scholar; Joustra, M., Minangkabau (The Hague, 1923), p. 45.Google Scholar

26. Iskandar, Teuku, “De Hikayat Atjeh”, Verhandelingen Koninklijk Instituut, XXVI (1958), pp. 53–55.Google Scholar

27. Djajadiningrat, , BKI, LXV (1911), pp. 158–59Google Scholar; Iskandar, T. (ed.), Bustanu's-Salatin, Bab II, Fasal 13 (Dewan Bahasa Dan Pustaka, Kuala Lumpur, 1966), p. 23.

28. Ibid., pp. 164–65, 168. Inderapura, which lay between the Padang lowlands in the north and Silebar in the south, was originally a part of the Minangkabau rantau but had later established itself as a virtually independent sultanate. Apart from the royal marriages contracted with Acheh, a daughter of the ruler is believed to have married Hasanuddin, ruler of Bantam (1552–1570), who received as bride-price the region of Inderapura south of the Urei river. De Leeuw, W. J. A., Het Painansch Contract, (Paris, 1926), p. 24Google Scholar; Djajadiningrat, , Critische beschouwing van de Sadjarah-Bantěn (Haarlem, 1913), p. 34Google Scholar; Marsden, , History, p. 353Google Scholar; Westenenk, L.C., “Memorie van overgave van den aftredenden Resident van Benkoelen,” Mededeelingen van het Bureau voor de bestuurszaken der Buitengewesten bewert door het Encyclopaedisch Bureau, Aflevering, XXVIII (Batavia, 1921), p. 41.Google Scholar

29. “Undang2 of Muko2,” (trans.) Richard Farmer, Governor of Benkulen (1717–1718), British Museum, Additional 4928.

30. During the last decades of the sixteenth century, though there was no roval representative at Pariaman, two of the sons of 'Alau'd-Din Ri'ayat Shah (1588–1604) were placed in charge of Pidir and Pasai; Djajadiningrat, , BKI, LXV (1911), pp. 172–73.Google Scholar

31. Marsden, , History, pp. 334, 442.Google Scholar

32. Tiele, , BKI XXVI (1887), pp. 246–47.Google Scholar

33. Das Gupta, A.K., “Acheh in Indonesian Trade and Politics, 1600–1641”, Ph.D. thesis, Cornell, 1926, p. 91.Google Scholar

34. According to Tiele, this “prince” was Maharaja Lela, an Achehnese courtier, who had fled to the west coast having been given reason to fear that the Achehnese ruler might take his wife. Tiele, , BKI, XXXVI (1887), pp. 246–47.Google Scholar

35. Danvers, F. C., and Foster, K. (ed.), Letters Received by the East India Company from its Servants in the East (London, 1896–1902), I, p. 254Google Scholar; Foster, W., The Journal of John Jourdain, 1608–1617, Hakluyt Society (London, 1905), p. 231.Google Scholar

36. Tiele, , BKI, XXXVI (1887), p. 245.Google Scholar

37. Schrieke, , Indonesian Sociological Studies, I. pp. 54–55.Google Scholar

38. Valentijn, , Oud en Nieuw Oost-lndiën, V, p. 6.Google Scholar

39. Harris, J., A Complete Collection of Voyages and Travels, Containing the Memoirs of Admiral Beaulieu's voyage to the East Indies (London, 1748), I, p. 730.Google Scholar

40. Çortesāo, (ed.), Suma Oriental, I, pp. 140, 144Google Scholar; Harris, , Voyages and Travels, I, p. 742.Google Scholar

41. Tiele, P. A., Bouwstoffen voor de Geschiedenis der Nederlanders in den Maleischen Archipel (ed.), Tiele, and Heeres, J. E. (The Hague, 1886–1895), I, pp, 167–68.Google Scholar

42. Said, Mohammed, Atjeh Sepandjang Abad (Medan, 1961), p. 167.Google Scholar

43. Valentijn, , Oud en Nieuw Oost-Indiën, V, p. 12.Google Scholar

44. Daghregister, 19 07 1625, 31 03 1626.Google Scholar

45. Harris, , Voyages and Travels, I, p. 730.Google Scholar

46. Ibid., p. 720.

47. Danvers, and Foster, , Letters Received, III, pp. 210–26.Google Scholar

48. Ibid., V, p. 170; VI, p. 68.

49. Gupta, Das, “Acheh in Indonesian Trade and Politics”, pp. 58–60, 63–64.Google Scholar

50. Foster, W. (ed.), The Voyages of Sir James Lancaster, Hakluyt Society, Series 2, LXXXV (London, 1940), pp. xxix, 100, 109, 134, 145.Google Scholar

51. Gupta, Das, “Acheh in Indonesian Trade and Politics”, pp. 156–57.Google Scholar

52. Ibid., pp. 123–24.

53. Harris, , Voyages and Travels, I, p. 730.Google Scholar

54. MacLeod, N., “De Oost-Indische Compagnie op Sumatra in de 17e Eeuw”, De Indische Gids, II (1902), p. 1246Google Scholar; Foster, , The Voyage of Sir James Lancaster, p. 113Google Scholar; Tiele, , BKI, XXXV (1886), p. 302.Google Scholar

55. Foster, , Journal of John Jourdain, pp. 232–35Google Scholar; Danvers, & Foster, , Letters, VI, p. 24.Google Scholar

56. Tiele, , BKI, XXXV (1886), pp. 266–67.Google Scholar

57. Foster, W., The Voyage of Thomas Best to the East Indies, 1612–1614, Hakluyt Society (London, 1934), pp. 56, 59Google Scholar; Danvers, and Foster, , Letters, I, p. 275.Google Scholar

58. Ibid., II, pp. 129, 185, 187, 191.

59. Ibid., IV, p. 72.

60. Gepta, Das, “Atjeh in Indonesian Trade and Politics”, pp. 122, 125, 131.Google Scholar

61. Danvers, & Foster, , Letters, V, pp. 166–68, 171.Google Scholar

62. Ibid., p. 1717.

63. Tiele, , BKI, XXXVI (1887), p. 243.Google Scholar

64. Das Gupta, , “Acheh in Indonesian Trade and Politics”, p. 146.Google Scholar

65. Though Pasaman was at the time the main source of pepper on the northwest coast the unhealthiness of the place prevented the English from making direct collections more frequently. Danvers, and Foster, , Letters, IV, p. 91Google Scholar; Foster, , Voyage of Thomas Best, pp. 67, 73, 214, 258.Google Scholar

66. Tiele, , Bouwstoffen, I, pp. 67–69Google Scholar; MacLeod, , De Indische Gids, II (1903), pp. 1248–49.Google Scholar

67. Tiele, , BKI, XXVI (1887), p. 244.Google Scholar

68. Gupta, Das, “Acheh in Indonesian Trade and Politics”, p. 166.Google Scholar

69. Foster, , Voyage of Sir James Lancaster, p. 113.Google Scholar

70. Schrieke, , Indonesian Sociological Studies, I, p. 52.Google Scholar

71. MacLeod, , De Indische Gids, II (1903), p. 1254Google Scholar; Harris, , Voyages and Travels, I, p. 733.Google Scholar

72. Van Bazel, , “Begin en voortgang van onzen handel en bezittingen op Sumatra's Westkust,” Tijdschrift voor Neêrlands-Indië, II (1847), p. 6.Google Scholar

73. Tiele, , Bouwstoffen, II, p. xxvGoogle Scholar; De Leeuw, , Het Painansch Contract, p. 2; Daghregister, 19 July 1625; 31 March 1626; 29 09 1626.Google Scholar

74. MacLeod, , De Indische Gids, II (1903), p. 1256.Google Scholar

75. Ibid., p. 1261; Coolhaas, W.Ph. (ed.), Generate Missiven van Gouverneurs-Generaal en Raden aan Heren XVII der Vereenigde Oostindische Compagnie ('s-Gravenhage, 1960), I, pp. 386–87.Google Scholar

76. Tiele, , Bouwstoffen, II, p. 304.Google Scholar

77. Ibid., p. 355; Coolhaas, , Generale Missiven, II, 12 01 1639.Google Scholar

78. Coolhaas, , Generate Missiven, II, 12 01 1639Google Scholar; 18 Dec. 1639; 12 Dec. 1642.

79. Van Bazel, , TNI, II (1847), p. 10.Google Scholar

80. De Leeuw, , Het Painansch Contract, pp. 3–4.Google Scholar

81. The 1641 firman was largely a renewal of privileges granted in 1638 by Iskandar Thani; Refer: Heeres, J. E., Corpus Diplomaticum Neerlando-Indicum, I, BKI, LVII (1907), pp. 345–46.Google Scholar

82. Coolhaas, , Generale Missiven, II, 9 01 1644.Google Scholar

83. De Leeuw, , Het Painansch Contract, p. 5.Google Scholar

84. Ibid., pp. 6–7.

85. Coolhaas, , “Malacca under Jan varr Riebeeck,” JMBRAS, XXXVIII (1965), ii, p. 178.Google Scholar

86. Van Bazel, , TNI, II (1847), p. 12Google Scholar; De Leeuw, , Het Painansch Contract, p. 7.Google Scholar

87. Ibid., pp. 7–8.

88. Heeres, , Corpus Diplomaticum, I, BKI, LVII (1907), pp. 528–31.Google Scholar

89. De Leeuw, , Het Painansch Contract, pp. 9–11Google ScholarVan Bazel, , TNI, II (1847), p. 13.Google Scholar

90. Dutch Records, A, Vol. I, p. 314.Google Scholar

91. Coolhaas, , Generale Missiven, II, 20 Jan. 1651; 24 12 1652.Google Scholar

92. Ibid., II, 20 Jan. 1651.

93. Van Bazel, , TNI, II (1847), p. 13Google Scholar; Winsledt, R. O., “A History of Perak,” JMBRAS, XII (1934), i, pp. 27–28Google Scholar; MacLeod, . De Indische Gids, I (1904), p. 626.Google Scholar

94. Ibid., pp. 628–37.

95. Van Bazel, , TNI, II (1847), p. 14.Google Scholar

96. MacLeod, , De Indische Gids, I, (1904), pp. 633–34.Google Scholar

97. Ibid.

98. Ibid., p. 634; Coolhaas, , Generale Missiven, III (seen in proof form), 24 12 1655; 4 Dec. 1656.Google Scholar

99. Heeres, , Corpus Diplomaticum, II, BKI, LXXXVII (1931), p. 244–45.Google Scholar

100. MacLeod, , De Indische Gids, I (1904), pp. 623–24Google Scholar; De Leeuw, , Het Painansch Contract, pp. 12–5Google Scholar; Van Bazel, , TNI, II (1847), p. 16.Google Scholar

101. Refer p. 11; Tiele, , BKI, XXXVI (1887), p. 224.Google Scholar

102. Ibid.

103. Coolhaas, , Generale Missiven, III, 31 01 1657.Google Scholar

104. Ibid., III, 4 Dec. 1658.

105. Heeres, , Corpus Diplomaticum, II, BKI, LXXXVII (1931), pp. 152–55Google Scholar; Van Bazel, , TNI, II (1847), pp. 17–18.Google Scholar

106. Ibid., pp. 18–19; Seri Nara Wangsa and Seri Indera took a leading part in the Dutch-Achehnese negotiations which led to the 1659 treaty. They accompanied Bort to Perak before proceeding to Batavia. Seri Nara Wangsa never returned to Acheh, he died on his way back at Padang. Coolhaas, , Generate Missiven, III, 16 12 1660; 26 Jan. 1661.Google Scholar

107. Van Bazel, . TNI. II (1847), pp. 18–19.Google Scholar

108. Heeres, , Corpus Diplomaticum, II, BKI, LXXXVII (1931), pp. 165–67.Google Scholar

109. De Leeuw, , Het Painansch Contract, p. 15Google Scholar; MacLeod, , De Indische Gids, II (1963), p. 1263Google Scholar; Daghregister, 5 12 1661.Google Scholar

110. Coolhaas, , Generale Missiven; III, 31 01 1657.Google Scholar

111. I have found no evidence to confirm this claim

112. Coolhaas, , Generale Missiven, III, 16 12 1660.Google Scholar

113. Van Bazel, , TNI, II (1847), p. 19.Google Scholar

114. Daghregister, 28 01 1661.Google Scholar Johan Groenewegen, who came out in 1637 as Assistant in the Company's service, became “Onderkoopman” at Malacca in 1645, “Koopman” in 1650 at Ujong Selang and, in 1656, was appointed Secretary to the Council of Justice (Raad van Justitie) before he became Resident at Acheh in 1669; Coolhaas, , Generale Missiven, II, p. 518, f.n.3.Google Scholar

115. Ibid., III, 1 Feb. 1656.

116. Daghregister, 28 01 1661Google Scholar; Curiously enough this letter of 1661 to Governor General Maetsuyker was addressed by a certain Paducca Seri Sultan “Nulma Alam” of Acheh and not by Taju'l-Alam Safiatu'd-Din Shah whose reign is assumed to have lasted till 1675. In the Generale Missiven of 1 02 1656Google Scholar mention is made of the fact that the Queen was too old and the “young sultan”, to whom the-Queen was mother, was too inexperienced. Whether the “young sultan” referred to here was Nuru'l-Alam Nakiatu'd-Din Shah Berdaulat, the female successor to Taju'l-Alam and, if so, whether she nominally took the title of Sultan during the lifetime of the old Queen remains uncertain.

117. Kroeskamp, H., De Westkust en Minangkabau, 1665–1668 (Utrecht, 1931), pp. 14, 45.Google Scholar

118. “Salida gold” was, on the average, 8–10 kaTat with a high silver content, as compared to the 19–23/24 karat gold which came from the other areas, but preferred by the Dutch for export to the Coromandel for making Palikat pagodas. Ibid., p. 45.

119. Valentijn, , Oud and Nieuw Oost-lndiën, p. 16.Google Scholar

120. Daghregister, 5 12 1661.Google Scholar

121. Ibid., 5 Dec. 1661; 25 March 1663.

122. Ibid., 25 May 1661.

123. There was nothing in the 1659 treaty permitting the Dutch lodge at Padang or Salida. Refer: Heeres, Corpus Diplomaticum, II. BKI, LXXXVII (1931). pp. 152–55.Google Scholar

124. Daghregister, 27 03 1663.Google Scholar

125. Van Bazel, , TNI, II (1847), p. 20.Google Scholar

126. Daghregister, 27 03 1663.Google Scholar

127. The Sa-puloh Buah Bandar was administered theoretically by 4 main rajas and several minor rajas. The former were the Raja Palangey, Raja Kambang, Raja Bonge Passang and Lakitan and Raja Ayer Haji. In actual fact the main rajas had only formal powers, the real influence having passed into the hands of some of the minor chiefs, particularly those resident in the commercially prosperous area of Salida. It was one of these minor chiefs of influence, Raja Sampuma (given the name of Raja Kerbau by the Dutch) who in 1661 initiated the petition to Batavia. Daghregister, 25 05 1661; 27 March 1663.Google Scholar

128. Sa-puloh Buah Bandar had not, however, paid the homage for 18 years. De Leeuw, , Het Painansch Contract, p. 28.Google Scholar

129. Daghregister, 27 03 1663.Google Scholar

130. Ibid.

131. Kroeskamp, , De Westkust and Minangkabau, p. 37Google Scholar; Daghregister, 27 03 1663.Google Scholar

132. Ibid., 27 March 1663; 4 April 1663; 21 Dec. 1665; 17 Feb. 1664.

133. Ibid., 4 April 1663; 6 July 1663; 28 July 1663.

134. Ibid., 21 Dec. 1663.

135. De Leeuw, , Het Painansch Contract, p. 43.Google Scholar

136. Heeres, , Corpus Diplomaticum, II, BKI, LXXXVII (1931), pp. 251–55.Google Scholar

137. Daghregister, 21 12 1663.Google Scholar

138. Ibid.

139. Ibid., 17 March 1664.

140. Ibid.

141. Ibid., 13 Jan. 1665; 22 April 1665; 27 Aug. 1665.

142. Daghregister, 1 08 1666Google Scholar; 3 Nov. 1666; 27 Feb. 1667; 26 Dec. 1667; Kroeskamp, , De Westkust en Minangkabau, pp. 62–63, 67–70, 73–79, 81–89Google Scholar.

Chijs, Van der, “Kapitien Jonker 1630 (?) – 1689”, TBG, XXVIII (1883) pp. 386–92.Google Scholar

143. Ibid., pp. 45–46; Daghregister, 27 Aug. 1665; 31 10 1665.Google Scholar

144. Kroeskamp, , De Westkust en Minangkabau, pp. 55, 77.Google Scholar

145. Ibid., pp. 65–67.

146. Ibid., pp. 98–99; Heeres, , Corpus Diplomaticum, II, BKI, LXXXVII (1931), pp. 383–89.Google Scholar

147. Daghregister, 3 11 1666.Google Scholar