Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Monday, April 25, 2011
Malaysian Telugus Indian
History of Telugus in Malaysia
ACCORDING to some records in the National Archives, libraries, museums and other individual sources, Telugu emigrants first arrived in Malaysia as agriculture workers for private enterprise from Mauritius Island in the Indian Ocean.
The labourers were originally to be sent to Malaysia but were taken to Mauritius instead, much to their disappointment! They were sent to work in the sugar cane plantations there, and this was in the year 1835.
Original registers if immigrant labour exhibited for public information at the Mahatma Gandhi Memorial hall in Mauritius have been preserved at our national Archives in Malaysia.
An article under the heading leading Telugus in Early Malaya published in the New Straits Times on Sept 24, 2001, states that the first Indian Association in Malaya was initiated by a Telugu, A.Subbiah Naidu, in Penang in 1892.
The article, written by history professor Datuk Dr.Khoo Kay Kim of the University of Malaya said that and another branch of the Indian Association was established in Taiping in 1894. This branch was headed by M.A.C. Rao.
Organized migration
However, the Indian Association was not an active movement, and so one reverend Raju Naidu stepped in and inspired the movement. He revived the one at Taiping, which had ceased functioning, in April 1906.
Two other prominent Telugu gentlemen, J, AppaRao and V.Rajagopal Naidu, joined as committee members. Rev. Raju Naidu went on to register the association in Taiping as the Indian Association of the FMS, on April 1906. He formed another branch in lpoh on June 9, 1906 with 12 members. Sengarayan Naidu, a wealthy contractor from lpoh, contributed generously towards the association which was named the Kinta Indian Association (KIA). It remains active to this day. Sengarayan contributed much to the local community, not just to the Telugus, and he was honoured for this, In fact, a road in Ipoh- Jalan Sengalrayan- has been named after him.
Under the British Administration of Malaya, representatives from the various ethnic groups were chosen to sit in the Federal and State Councils. One of them was S.H. Veerraswamy, a Telugu who also became an accredited leader of the Indians in Malaya. He was a lawyer and a graduate from the world renowned University of Oxford. Though, few in number, these gentlemen were of an elite class. They strived hard to bring unity to the Indian community, without expecting any reward or personal glory. The Telugus kept a low profile. Many of them who had come to serve in Malaysia prayed significant roles as teachers, traders and businessmen, agricultural labourers and members of various professions.
Immigration from India in an organized manner commenced around 1907, and this was largely as a system of indentured labour to serve the rubber plantations that were rapidly opening up, and as labour for the building of public amenities and the provision of services. Along with them came the more educated group, to serve as clerks, teachers and other professions. The waves of Indian labour to Malaysia for the agricultural plantations and as general labour for public works began increasing so much and there was plenty of exploitation.
The British Administration then attempted to bring some sanity to the process by implementing an organized import of labour”. This took the form of legislation, known as the labour Code of 1912. Under this Code, the Indian immigration Fund was introduced, under which the following facilities were provided to the indentured labourers from South India:
Free passage to the Federated Malay states of Johor, Kedah,Perlis and Kelantan
Expenses for the recruitment of labourers and the maintenance of homes for workers were reimbursed
Quarantine and health facilities were introduced
Depots to process the labourers were maintained at Avadi, Madras, and Nagapatnam in south India and at Penang in the Straits Settlements.
The forgotten ones
Exploitation did not end. Another attempt at organized labour import was made with a fresh Labour Code in 1923, which introduced licenses for the so called Kanganis to authorize agents to recruit labourers under a :manageable: system called the Sanji Labour System.
This method was to better organise the collection of funds and make disbursements as duly authorised under the provisions of the 1912 Labour Code. However, the exploitations never ended, and in 1938 the Government of India decided to cease to allow emigration to the Far East.
Today, many Malaysians of Indian origin as well as those of other races may not know how the early Indian settlers suffered in the developing countries. They came from a fairly good life, hoping for better times. However, it dawned on them, especially those in the plantation sector, that they were just the “slaves” of a system devised to stifle their spirit.
They were provided with poor housing, unhygienic sanitary conditions, long working hours, poor wages and the list goes on. Many untold miseries were suffered by them, and inhumane abuses were hurled at them. They toiled on, undaunted, undeterred. They put up with oppression, suppression, poverty and sickness- what immigrants through out the history of mankind have faced. It was their tenacity of spirit in the face of hardship that saw them through to making immense contributions to the growth, progress, development and prosperity of Malaysia.
Telugu Association
In 1955 the Telugu community formed an organization called as Malaya Andhra Sangamu on 17th July 1955 , changing it later on 16th December 1963 and later on from 1983 as TELUGU ASSOCATION OF MALAYSIA (TAM), which is also known as Malaysia Telugu Sangamu or as Persatuan Telugu Malaysia in the national language. The principal objective of the Telugu Association of Malaysia is to unite and merge the Telugus of the country under one roof in an effort to promote the language and culture of the community, their interests and general well being and to foster goodwill and racial harmony among the communities of Malaysia. TAM is serving about 300,000, Telugu population in this country. There are, to date 26 branches nationwide.
Among its endeavours of TAM is Saamskruthika Nilayam (TSN), a cultural centre for Telugus situated in Serendah, Hulu Selangor which is purely depending on well wishers and donors. To name a few other ownerships, TAM has one Sri Venkateswara Temple at Sungai Sumun, Perak, a five storey building(Telugu Bhavanamu) in a strategic location in Kuala Lumpur, a three storey building in Kulim, an office space in Rawang, Ipoh, Skudai,Johore and a single storey building at Klang are among some of the assets in its possession. Specifically, the TAM has become a reality in the making and we are confident that others will play an effective role in making this project a SUCCESS.
PTM operates from its own premise at No 9-1A Udarama Complex, Telugu Bhavanamu, Jalan 1/64A off Jalan Ipoh, 50350 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Telugu Education in Malaysia
In 1960's there were more than 60 National Type Primary Telugu Schools in Malaysia .These schools were in Perak,Selangor,Negeri Sembian,Kedah, Johore and Pahang, as wherever there were heavy pockets of Telugu population.
Malaysian Secondary School Entrance Examination was then conducted in these schools just like in other primary schools. From 1985 till 1986, Telugu language was offered in OSC/MCE level while from 1968-1992 Telugu language was offered as an optional subject in LCE/PMR examination.In 1991 the Education Director then announced that optional papers such as Punjabi,Telugu and French would no longer be offered from 1993. because they were not in the Integrated Secondary School Curriculum but these subjects would be offered at SPM level. It was strange that Telugu language was taken away in LCE/PMR but to be offered at SPM level. But the Telugu Community was greatly disappointed when the promise to offer Telugu at the SPM level was not implemented. Till to date the Telugu language is not offered either at PMR or SPM level. Article 152(1)(b) of the Federal Constitution guarantees to teach or learn any other language.
Since 1993 no examinations were held for Telugu language. As a result, there was no incentive or motivation for the students to pursue the subject. Being already overburdened with exam oriented subjects, the students and even parents find it a burden for their children to attend the Telugu classes being a non-exam subject. Hence, the number of pupils attending Telugu Classes/Pupils own language (POL) had much dropped. But whatever case Telugu is still been taught at about 25 government schools.
TAM is encouraging POL classes by conducting voluntary classes in all 26 TAM branches nationwide, holding educational and cultural seminars/workshops and various other activities. But our efforts seem futile at times, especially among the younger generations. We only ask our mother-tongue which was here prior to independence and after independence till 1992 to be reinstated in PMR examination so that Telugu language and culture will not be decimated. Telugus have contributed significantly, to the rich cultural heritage of our nation. Loss of Telugu language and culture will be a dent to the rich cultural heritage of Malaysia. So, by including Telugu language in PMR/SPM it will facilitate our efforts immensely and it will spur us further in the promotion of Telugu language and the students too will be motivated to take the subject.
To maintain our the identity language is a must. It is the soul of our race. Your action will save the survival of Telugu community. TAM has faith and confidence in you that you’ll not let Telugu language and culture to become extinct in this lovely land. We have appealed to the Ministry of Education and the cabinet to reinstate Telugu language in PMR/SPM
Newsletter
The TAM’s newsletter ‘ Sanga Charyulu’ is published quarterly and carries news about the regional activities of the persatuan in both Telugu and English. Vice President Sri P S Ramunaidu compiles and edits the articles before distributing the newsletter to all branches.
Radio & Tv
About 1 ½ hour Telugu programmes daily are except on Sunday. During festive seasons especially Telugu New Year Ugadi special programmes were initiated and aired over national Radio Minnal FM and Tv Telugu songs request via SMS is on every Monday from 3.30pm to 4.30pm – MV space…..(message)…. 32770
Presently TV 2 has been screening three Telugu movies yearly. However for last two year only two Telugu films were screened. TAM has been appealed to the authorities.
Astro being a private pay R/TV station, it telecast Telugu movies and a drama serials weekly. TAM has been appealing to increase the frequency of the Telugu movies and daily serials.
MitV another second private pay channel has brought Maa TV, a Telugu channel from Andhra Pradesh and has been operational from 5/9/2005 in Klang Valley. The Telugus living away from Klang Valley are impatiently waiting to receive this Telugu channel.
SREE VENKATESWARA TEMPLE
Annually the Sree Venkateswara Temple at Sungai Sumun, Perak of TAM Lower Perak branch conducts Dasara and other festivals.
Telugus in Malaysia Politics
Among all the Telugus who are in politics, a number of them are found in number of committees and YB K R A Naidu is the only state assembly representative.
TAM also aims to encourage the use of the Telugu language in the country and to popularise Telugu literature and culture. It recognizes that attention is needed to revive, promote and expand cultural activities throughout the country.
It is now hoping to compile statistics of the Telugu populations in Malaysia, in order to use this information as bargaining power when meeting the authorities to seek opportunities for the Telugu people, which are believed to number around 3000,000 in Malaysia.
The association is also initiating several activities to raise funds in order to assist needy Telugu students to pursue tertiary education, locally and abroad. Another project of the association is to encourage the active participation of Telugu in business and in national youth programmes.
It plans to begin research to write the history of Telugu immigration to Malaysia and the contributions and achievements of early Malayan Telugus.
http://enkatesulujuval.blogspot.com/2009/02/history-of-telugus-in-malaysia.html
ACCORDING to some records in the National Archives, libraries, museums and other individual sources, Telugu emigrants first arrived in Malaysia as agriculture workers for private enterprise from Mauritius Island in the Indian Ocean.
The labourers were originally to be sent to Malaysia but were taken to Mauritius instead, much to their disappointment! They were sent to work in the sugar cane plantations there, and this was in the year 1835.
Original registers if immigrant labour exhibited for public information at the Mahatma Gandhi Memorial hall in Mauritius have been preserved at our national Archives in Malaysia.
An article under the heading leading Telugus in Early Malaya published in the New Straits Times on Sept 24, 2001, states that the first Indian Association in Malaya was initiated by a Telugu, A.Subbiah Naidu, in Penang in 1892.
The article, written by history professor Datuk Dr.Khoo Kay Kim of the University of Malaya said that and another branch of the Indian Association was established in Taiping in 1894. This branch was headed by M.A.C. Rao.
Organized migration
However, the Indian Association was not an active movement, and so one reverend Raju Naidu stepped in and inspired the movement. He revived the one at Taiping, which had ceased functioning, in April 1906.
Two other prominent Telugu gentlemen, J, AppaRao and V.Rajagopal Naidu, joined as committee members. Rev. Raju Naidu went on to register the association in Taiping as the Indian Association of the FMS, on April 1906. He formed another branch in lpoh on June 9, 1906 with 12 members. Sengarayan Naidu, a wealthy contractor from lpoh, contributed generously towards the association which was named the Kinta Indian Association (KIA). It remains active to this day. Sengarayan contributed much to the local community, not just to the Telugus, and he was honoured for this, In fact, a road in Ipoh- Jalan Sengalrayan- has been named after him.
Under the British Administration of Malaya, representatives from the various ethnic groups were chosen to sit in the Federal and State Councils. One of them was S.H. Veerraswamy, a Telugu who also became an accredited leader of the Indians in Malaya. He was a lawyer and a graduate from the world renowned University of Oxford. Though, few in number, these gentlemen were of an elite class. They strived hard to bring unity to the Indian community, without expecting any reward or personal glory. The Telugus kept a low profile. Many of them who had come to serve in Malaysia prayed significant roles as teachers, traders and businessmen, agricultural labourers and members of various professions.
Immigration from India in an organized manner commenced around 1907, and this was largely as a system of indentured labour to serve the rubber plantations that were rapidly opening up, and as labour for the building of public amenities and the provision of services. Along with them came the more educated group, to serve as clerks, teachers and other professions. The waves of Indian labour to Malaysia for the agricultural plantations and as general labour for public works began increasing so much and there was plenty of exploitation.
The British Administration then attempted to bring some sanity to the process by implementing an organized import of labour”. This took the form of legislation, known as the labour Code of 1912. Under this Code, the Indian immigration Fund was introduced, under which the following facilities were provided to the indentured labourers from South India:
Free passage to the Federated Malay states of Johor, Kedah,Perlis and Kelantan
Expenses for the recruitment of labourers and the maintenance of homes for workers were reimbursed
Quarantine and health facilities were introduced
Depots to process the labourers were maintained at Avadi, Madras, and Nagapatnam in south India and at Penang in the Straits Settlements.
The forgotten ones
Exploitation did not end. Another attempt at organized labour import was made with a fresh Labour Code in 1923, which introduced licenses for the so called Kanganis to authorize agents to recruit labourers under a :manageable: system called the Sanji Labour System.
This method was to better organise the collection of funds and make disbursements as duly authorised under the provisions of the 1912 Labour Code. However, the exploitations never ended, and in 1938 the Government of India decided to cease to allow emigration to the Far East.
Today, many Malaysians of Indian origin as well as those of other races may not know how the early Indian settlers suffered in the developing countries. They came from a fairly good life, hoping for better times. However, it dawned on them, especially those in the plantation sector, that they were just the “slaves” of a system devised to stifle their spirit.
They were provided with poor housing, unhygienic sanitary conditions, long working hours, poor wages and the list goes on. Many untold miseries were suffered by them, and inhumane abuses were hurled at them. They toiled on, undaunted, undeterred. They put up with oppression, suppression, poverty and sickness- what immigrants through out the history of mankind have faced. It was their tenacity of spirit in the face of hardship that saw them through to making immense contributions to the growth, progress, development and prosperity of Malaysia.
Telugu Association
In 1955 the Telugu community formed an organization called as Malaya Andhra Sangamu on 17th July 1955 , changing it later on 16th December 1963 and later on from 1983 as TELUGU ASSOCATION OF MALAYSIA (TAM), which is also known as Malaysia Telugu Sangamu or as Persatuan Telugu Malaysia in the national language. The principal objective of the Telugu Association of Malaysia is to unite and merge the Telugus of the country under one roof in an effort to promote the language and culture of the community, their interests and general well being and to foster goodwill and racial harmony among the communities of Malaysia. TAM is serving about 300,000, Telugu population in this country. There are, to date 26 branches nationwide.
Among its endeavours of TAM is Saamskruthika Nilayam (TSN), a cultural centre for Telugus situated in Serendah, Hulu Selangor which is purely depending on well wishers and donors. To name a few other ownerships, TAM has one Sri Venkateswara Temple at Sungai Sumun, Perak, a five storey building(Telugu Bhavanamu) in a strategic location in Kuala Lumpur, a three storey building in Kulim, an office space in Rawang, Ipoh, Skudai,Johore and a single storey building at Klang are among some of the assets in its possession. Specifically, the TAM has become a reality in the making and we are confident that others will play an effective role in making this project a SUCCESS.
PTM operates from its own premise at No 9-1A Udarama Complex, Telugu Bhavanamu, Jalan 1/64A off Jalan Ipoh, 50350 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Telugu Education in Malaysia
In 1960's there were more than 60 National Type Primary Telugu Schools in Malaysia .These schools were in Perak,Selangor,Negeri Sembian,Kedah, Johore and Pahang, as wherever there were heavy pockets of Telugu population.
Malaysian Secondary School Entrance Examination was then conducted in these schools just like in other primary schools. From 1985 till 1986, Telugu language was offered in OSC/MCE level while from 1968-1992 Telugu language was offered as an optional subject in LCE/PMR examination.In 1991 the Education Director then announced that optional papers such as Punjabi,Telugu and French would no longer be offered from 1993. because they were not in the Integrated Secondary School Curriculum but these subjects would be offered at SPM level. It was strange that Telugu language was taken away in LCE/PMR but to be offered at SPM level. But the Telugu Community was greatly disappointed when the promise to offer Telugu at the SPM level was not implemented. Till to date the Telugu language is not offered either at PMR or SPM level. Article 152(1)(b) of the Federal Constitution guarantees to teach or learn any other language.
Since 1993 no examinations were held for Telugu language. As a result, there was no incentive or motivation for the students to pursue the subject. Being already overburdened with exam oriented subjects, the students and even parents find it a burden for their children to attend the Telugu classes being a non-exam subject. Hence, the number of pupils attending Telugu Classes/Pupils own language (POL) had much dropped. But whatever case Telugu is still been taught at about 25 government schools.
TAM is encouraging POL classes by conducting voluntary classes in all 26 TAM branches nationwide, holding educational and cultural seminars/workshops and various other activities. But our efforts seem futile at times, especially among the younger generations. We only ask our mother-tongue which was here prior to independence and after independence till 1992 to be reinstated in PMR examination so that Telugu language and culture will not be decimated. Telugus have contributed significantly, to the rich cultural heritage of our nation. Loss of Telugu language and culture will be a dent to the rich cultural heritage of Malaysia. So, by including Telugu language in PMR/SPM it will facilitate our efforts immensely and it will spur us further in the promotion of Telugu language and the students too will be motivated to take the subject.
To maintain our the identity language is a must. It is the soul of our race. Your action will save the survival of Telugu community. TAM has faith and confidence in you that you’ll not let Telugu language and culture to become extinct in this lovely land. We have appealed to the Ministry of Education and the cabinet to reinstate Telugu language in PMR/SPM
Newsletter
The TAM’s newsletter ‘ Sanga Charyulu’ is published quarterly and carries news about the regional activities of the persatuan in both Telugu and English. Vice President Sri P S Ramunaidu compiles and edits the articles before distributing the newsletter to all branches.
Radio & Tv
About 1 ½ hour Telugu programmes daily are except on Sunday. During festive seasons especially Telugu New Year Ugadi special programmes were initiated and aired over national Radio Minnal FM and Tv Telugu songs request via SMS is on every Monday from 3.30pm to 4.30pm – MV space…..(message)…. 32770
Presently TV 2 has been screening three Telugu movies yearly. However for last two year only two Telugu films were screened. TAM has been appealed to the authorities.
Astro being a private pay R/TV station, it telecast Telugu movies and a drama serials weekly. TAM has been appealing to increase the frequency of the Telugu movies and daily serials.
MitV another second private pay channel has brought Maa TV, a Telugu channel from Andhra Pradesh and has been operational from 5/9/2005 in Klang Valley. The Telugus living away from Klang Valley are impatiently waiting to receive this Telugu channel.
SREE VENKATESWARA TEMPLE
Annually the Sree Venkateswara Temple at Sungai Sumun, Perak of TAM Lower Perak branch conducts Dasara and other festivals.
Telugus in Malaysia Politics
Among all the Telugus who are in politics, a number of them are found in number of committees and YB K R A Naidu is the only state assembly representative.
TAM also aims to encourage the use of the Telugu language in the country and to popularise Telugu literature and culture. It recognizes that attention is needed to revive, promote and expand cultural activities throughout the country.
It is now hoping to compile statistics of the Telugu populations in Malaysia, in order to use this information as bargaining power when meeting the authorities to seek opportunities for the Telugu people, which are believed to number around 3000,000 in Malaysia.
The association is also initiating several activities to raise funds in order to assist needy Telugu students to pursue tertiary education, locally and abroad. Another project of the association is to encourage the active participation of Telugu in business and in national youth programmes.
It plans to begin research to write the history of Telugu immigration to Malaysia and the contributions and achievements of early Malayan Telugus.
http://enkatesulujuval.blogspot.com/2009/02/history-of-telugus-in-malaysia.html
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Monday, July 19, 2010
Foochow people(福州人)
Fuzhou(福州) also seen as Foochow, Fuchow, Fuh-chau, Fuh-Chow, Hock Chew or Hokchew in earlier Western documents, is the capital and the largest municipality of Fujian (福建) province, People's Republic of China. The city is also referred to as Rongcheng (榕城 or Ṳ̀ng-siàng) which means "city of banyan trees".
Along with the many counties of Ningde(宁德), those of Fuzhou are considered to constitute the Mindong (闽东, literally East of Fujian) linguistic and cultural area.
Fuzhou's core counties lie on the north (or left) bank of the estuary of Fujian's largest river, the Min River(闽江). All along its northern border lies Ningde(宁德), and Ningde's Gutian County(古田县) lies upriver. Fuzhou's counties south of the Min border on Putian莆田, Quanzhou泉州, Sanming三明 and Nanping南平 municipalities.
Fuzhou People福州人
The people of Fuzhou (福州人), also known as Foochowese and Hokchewese, usually refers to people who originate from Fuzhou region and adjacent Gutian County, Pingnan County in Fujian province of the People's Republic of China and in Matsu Islands of the Republic of China. Majority of native Foochowese are Han Chinese and are a part of Min-speaking group, who speaks Eastern Min language or specifically Fuzhou dialect. There is also a significant overseas Foochowese population, particularly distributed in Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, United States, Japan, United Kingdom, etc.
Some of the famous Fuzhou people are:
1. Lin Zexu (林则徐, 1785—1850), Chinese scholar and official, considered a national hero for his strong opposition to the trade of opium before the First Anglo-Chinese War
2. Bing Xin (冰心, 1900—1999), female Chinese writer
3. Watchman Nee (倪柝声, 1903—1972), Chinese Christian author and church leader
In Malaysia Fuzhou people are referred to as "Hockchiu". There are significant numbers of Fuzhou people in Malaysia, mainly in Sibu, Sarawak; Sitiawan, Perak; and Sri Jaya, Pahang. In fact, there is a saying that Sibu is the “small Hock Chew province”, Sitiawan is the “small Sibu” and Sri Jaya is the “small Sitiawan”.
Many politician, ministers and great enterpreneurs in Malaysia are from Hock Chew people:
1. Chin Peng, former OBE[1] (Traditional Chinese: 陳平, Simplified Chinese: 陈平, Mandarin Chén Píng) (born 1924), was born Ong Boon Hua (Mandarin: Wang Yonghua or Wang Wenhua Chinese: 王文華) in Sitiawan, and was a long-time leader of the Malayan Communist Party (MCP). A determined anti-colonialist, he was notorious for leading the party's guerrilla insurgency in the Malayan Emergency and beyond. 陈平在1924年生于马来西亚霹雳州实兆远，籍贯在中国福建省福州的福清Fuqing-shi。父亲王声标，是霹雳州的商人
2. Robert Kuok Hock Nien (郭鹤年) (born 6 October 1923, in Johor Bahru, Johor), is an influential Malaysian Chinese businessman. His ancestral land is 中国福建省福州市盖山.
According to Forbes his net worth is estimated to be around $10 billion on May 2008, making him the richest person in Southeast Asia.
Kuok is media shy and discreet; most of his businesses are privately held by him or his family. Apart from a multitude of businesses in Malaysia, his companies have investments in many countries throughout Asia. His business interests range from sugarcane plantations (Perlis Plantations Bhd), sugar refineries, flour milling, animal feed, oil, mining, finance, hotels, properties, trading, freight and publishing. He was a student from the prestigious school Raffles Institution.
3. Tan Sri Datuk Tiong Hiew King (张晓卿) is the Malaysian Chinese founder and chairman of the Rimbunan Hijau Group, a timber company founded in 1975. Its overseas timber operations in Papua New Guinea is the largest in that country. He also has interests in logging operations in Russia.
Mr Tiong resides in Sibu, a town in Sarawak, of Borneo island that belongs to Malaysia. He is ancestor is from Foozhou Minqing-xian(福州闽清).
With a reported net worth of about US$1.1 billion, Tiong is ranked by Forbes as the 840th richest person in the world. Tiong's Rimbunan Hijau Group also controls Sin Chew Jit Poh and Guang Ming Daily, two of the major Chinese national dailies in Malaysia, The National Daily in Papua New Guinea and Ming Pao Holdings Ltd in Hong Kong. He is forging a global Chinese publishing group with his Ming Pao Enterprises; Ming Pao newspaper is also available in San Francisco (no longer in business since Feb. 15, 2009), New York, Vancouver and Toronto
4. Tun Dr. Ling Liong Sik, former Minister of Transport
5. Tan Sri Dato' Seri Dr Ting Chew Peh, former Minister of Housing
Malaysian Foozhou Association
The Malaysian Foozhou are represented by THE FEDERATION OF FOOCHOW ASSOCIATIONS OF MALAYSIA(马来西亚福州社团联合总会)
Foozhou Associations in Malaysia
Kedah
Kedah Foochow Association
785, Jalan Langgar
05460 Alor Setar
Kedah, Malaysia
Tel: 04-7321729
Perak
The Foochow Association Taiping
196-198, Cross Street. No.8
34000 Taiping
Perak, Malaysia.
Tel: 05-8073358
Persatuan Foochow Dinding
No.22, 1st Floor, Tmn Wong Beng Hea, Kampung Koh
32000 Sitiawan
Perak, Malaysia
South Perak Foochow Associaition
67, Jalan Pasar
36000 Teluk Intan
Perak, Malaysia
Tel: 05-6224457, 62211704
Selangor
Persatuan Foochow Selangor dan Kuala Lumpur
18M, Lorong Thambi Dua, Pudu
55100 Kuala Lumpur
Tel: 03-2412051
Fax: 03-2412030
Coastal Foo Chew Ten District Association
39, Lorong Tingkat, 1st Floor
41000 Kelang
Selangor, Malaysia
Negeri Sembilan
Foochow Association of Negeri Sembilan
76, Temiang
70200 Seremban
Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia.
Johor
Hock Chew Association Yong Peng
7, Jalan Templer
83700 Yong Peng
Johor, Malaysia
Persatuan Rong Lian dan Fu Zhou Sepuluh, Kawasan Skudai, Johor
40A, Jln Temenggong 9
Taman Ungku Tun Aminah
81300 Skudai
Johor, Malaysia
Pahang
Persatuan Foochow Pahang
E-2272/2274, 2nd Floor, Jalan Wong Ah Jang
25100 Kuantan
Pahang, Malaysia
Tel: 09-5142657, 5139498
Penang
Foo Chow Hoay Kuan Penang(槟城福州会馆)
N0.36, Jalan Argyll,
10050 Pulau Pinang
The Foochow Coffee Shop Owners'Association
160 Jalan Gurdwara,
10300 Pulau Pinang
Sarawak
Persatuan Foochow Kuching马来西亚福州古晋公会
16-20, Jalan Chan Chin Ann
93100 Kuching
Sarawak, Malaysia
Tel: 082-240653, 240781
Fax: 082-240653
Sibu Foochow Association诗巫福州公会
8-10, Central Road
P.O. Box 1697
96008 Sibu
Sarawak, Malaysia
Tel: 084-320445
Fax: 084-324427
Persatuan Foochow Miri马来西亚美里福州公会,
Lot 893, 3rd Floor, Waterfront,
Jalan Permaisuri
98000 Miri
Sarawak, Malaysia
Tel: 085-431443
Fax: 085-432529
沙罗越古田公会
，97, Jln Pedada,
96000 Sibu, S
arawak, Malaysia.
Tel: 084-330925
巴都尼亚福州公会
Batu Niah Foochow Association
Lot 583, Batu Niah Town,
Rxtension,
98200 Batu Nine,
Miri Sarawak,
Malaysia.
电话：+6085-736 799 /737 789 /+6019-854 8948 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting +6019-854 8948 end_of_the_skype_highlighting begin_of_the_skype_highlighting +6019-854 8948 end_of_the_skype_highlighting begin_of_the_skype_highlighting +6019-854 8948 end_of_the_skype_highlighting/+6019-854 8948
传真：+6085-736 779 /737 789
电邮：lonplny@yahoo.com.sg
巴南福州公会
Baram Foo Chow Association
Lot 29, Jalan Kapitan Lim Ching Kiat,
98050 Marudi,
Baram, Sarawak,
Malaysia.
电话：+6085-755 717
传真：+6085-755 333
加那逸福州公会
Kanowit Foochow Association
3, Main Bazaar,
Kanowit, P.O.Box 78,
96707 Kanowit,
Sarawak,
Malaysia.
电话：+6084-752 409
老越福州公会
Persatuan Foochow Lawas Sarawak
1st Floor, Lot No 9,
Jalan Muhibbah,
98850 Lawas,
Sarawak,
Malaysia.
林梦福州公会
Limbang Foo Chow Association
Lot 1347, Kampung Bangkita,
97000 Limbang,
Sarawak,
Malaysia.
电话：+6085-212 273
马拉端福州公会
Persatuan Foochow Meradong Sarawak
Meradong Foochow Association Sarawak
Jalan Ted Kui Ngo,
Bintangor,
Sarawak,
Malaysia.
电话：+6084-692 594
传真：+6084-692 594
民丹莪福州公会
Persatuan Foochow Bintangor
21, C-D , Jalan Teo Kui Ngo,
96500 Bintangor,
Sarawak,
Malaysia.
电话：+6084-692 594
传真：+6084-692 595
沐胶福州公会
Persatuan Foochow Mukah
Foo Chow Association Mukah
Oya Road,
P.O.Box 97,
96400 Mukah,
Sarawak,
Malaysia.
电话：+6084-871
泗里街福州公会
Persatuan Foochow Sarikei
Sarikei Foochow Association
No.8, 2nd Floor,
Jalan Tok Tok,
96100 Sarikei,
Sarawak,
Malaysia.
电话：+6084-652 751
传真：+6084-652 751
Sabah
FOOCHOW ASSOCIATION KOTA KINABALU SABAH MALAYSIA(沙巴亚庇福州公会)
BANGUNAN PERSATUAN FOOCHOW KOTA KINABALU,
3.5KM, JALAN KOLAM, BUKIT PADANG, LUYANG,
88100 KOTA KINABALU, SABAH,MALAYSIA
TEL : 088-246442, 088-240028
FAX : 088-240029
Persatuan Foochow Sarawak-Sabah, Malaysia砂沙福州同乡会（西马）
B-16-5, Megan Avenue 2,
No.12, Jalan Yap Kwan Seng,
50450 Kuala Lumpur
http://www.sasafoochow.com/
Along with the many counties of Ningde(宁德), those of Fuzhou are considered to constitute the Mindong (闽东, literally East of Fujian) linguistic and cultural area.
Fuzhou's core counties lie on the north (or left) bank of the estuary of Fujian's largest river, the Min River(闽江). All along its northern border lies Ningde(宁德), and Ningde's Gutian County(古田县) lies upriver. Fuzhou's counties south of the Min border on Putian莆田, Quanzhou泉州, Sanming三明 and Nanping南平 municipalities.
Fuzhou People福州人
The people of Fuzhou (福州人), also known as Foochowese and Hokchewese, usually refers to people who originate from Fuzhou region and adjacent Gutian County, Pingnan County in Fujian province of the People's Republic of China and in Matsu Islands of the Republic of China. Majority of native Foochowese are Han Chinese and are a part of Min-speaking group, who speaks Eastern Min language or specifically Fuzhou dialect. There is also a significant overseas Foochowese population, particularly distributed in Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, United States, Japan, United Kingdom, etc.
Some of the famous Fuzhou people are:
1. Lin Zexu (林则徐, 1785—1850), Chinese scholar and official, considered a national hero for his strong opposition to the trade of opium before the First Anglo-Chinese War
2. Bing Xin (冰心, 1900—1999), female Chinese writer
3. Watchman Nee (倪柝声, 1903—1972), Chinese Christian author and church leader
In Malaysia Fuzhou people are referred to as "Hockchiu". There are significant numbers of Fuzhou people in Malaysia, mainly in Sibu, Sarawak; Sitiawan, Perak; and Sri Jaya, Pahang. In fact, there is a saying that Sibu is the “small Hock Chew province”, Sitiawan is the “small Sibu” and Sri Jaya is the “small Sitiawan”.
Many politician, ministers and great enterpreneurs in Malaysia are from Hock Chew people:
1. Chin Peng, former OBE[1] (Traditional Chinese: 陳平, Simplified Chinese: 陈平, Mandarin Chén Píng) (born 1924), was born Ong Boon Hua (Mandarin: Wang Yonghua or Wang Wenhua Chinese: 王文華) in Sitiawan, and was a long-time leader of the Malayan Communist Party (MCP). A determined anti-colonialist, he was notorious for leading the party's guerrilla insurgency in the Malayan Emergency and beyond. 陈平在1924年生于马来西亚霹雳州实兆远，籍贯在中国福建省福州的福清Fuqing-shi。父亲王声标，是霹雳州的商人
2. Robert Kuok Hock Nien (郭鹤年) (born 6 October 1923, in Johor Bahru, Johor), is an influential Malaysian Chinese businessman. His ancestral land is 中国福建省福州市盖山.
According to Forbes his net worth is estimated to be around $10 billion on May 2008, making him the richest person in Southeast Asia.
Kuok is media shy and discreet; most of his businesses are privately held by him or his family. Apart from a multitude of businesses in Malaysia, his companies have investments in many countries throughout Asia. His business interests range from sugarcane plantations (Perlis Plantations Bhd), sugar refineries, flour milling, animal feed, oil, mining, finance, hotels, properties, trading, freight and publishing. He was a student from the prestigious school Raffles Institution.
3. Tan Sri Datuk Tiong Hiew King (张晓卿) is the Malaysian Chinese founder and chairman of the Rimbunan Hijau Group, a timber company founded in 1975. Its overseas timber operations in Papua New Guinea is the largest in that country. He also has interests in logging operations in Russia.
Mr Tiong resides in Sibu, a town in Sarawak, of Borneo island that belongs to Malaysia. He is ancestor is from Foozhou Minqing-xian(福州闽清).
With a reported net worth of about US$1.1 billion, Tiong is ranked by Forbes as the 840th richest person in the world. Tiong's Rimbunan Hijau Group also controls Sin Chew Jit Poh and Guang Ming Daily, two of the major Chinese national dailies in Malaysia, The National Daily in Papua New Guinea and Ming Pao Holdings Ltd in Hong Kong. He is forging a global Chinese publishing group with his Ming Pao Enterprises; Ming Pao newspaper is also available in San Francisco (no longer in business since Feb. 15, 2009), New York, Vancouver and Toronto
4. Tun Dr. Ling Liong Sik, former Minister of Transport
5. Tan Sri Dato' Seri Dr Ting Chew Peh, former Minister of Housing
Malaysian Foozhou Association
The Malaysian Foozhou are represented by THE FEDERATION OF FOOCHOW ASSOCIATIONS OF MALAYSIA(马来西亚福州社团联合总会)
Foozhou Associations in Malaysia
Kedah
Kedah Foochow Association
785, Jalan Langgar
05460 Alor Setar
Kedah, Malaysia
Tel: 04-7321729
Perak
The Foochow Association Taiping
196-198, Cross Street. No.8
34000 Taiping
Perak, Malaysia.
Tel: 05-8073358
Persatuan Foochow Dinding
No.22, 1st Floor, Tmn Wong Beng Hea, Kampung Koh
32000 Sitiawan
Perak, Malaysia
South Perak Foochow Associaition
67, Jalan Pasar
36000 Teluk Intan
Perak, Malaysia
Tel: 05-6224457, 62211704
Selangor
Persatuan Foochow Selangor dan Kuala Lumpur
18M, Lorong Thambi Dua, Pudu
55100 Kuala Lumpur
Tel: 03-2412051
Fax: 03-2412030
Coastal Foo Chew Ten District Association
39, Lorong Tingkat, 1st Floor
41000 Kelang
Selangor, Malaysia
Negeri Sembilan
Foochow Association of Negeri Sembilan
76, Temiang
70200 Seremban
Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia.
Johor
Hock Chew Association Yong Peng
7, Jalan Templer
83700 Yong Peng
Johor, Malaysia
Persatuan Rong Lian dan Fu Zhou Sepuluh, Kawasan Skudai, Johor
40A, Jln Temenggong 9
Taman Ungku Tun Aminah
81300 Skudai
Johor, Malaysia
Pahang
Persatuan Foochow Pahang
E-2272/2274, 2nd Floor, Jalan Wong Ah Jang
25100 Kuantan
Pahang, Malaysia
Tel: 09-5142657, 5139498
Penang
Foo Chow Hoay Kuan Penang(槟城福州会馆)
N0.36, Jalan Argyll,
10050 Pulau Pinang
The Foochow Coffee Shop Owners'Association
160 Jalan Gurdwara,
10300 Pulau Pinang
Sarawak
Persatuan Foochow Kuching马来西亚福州古晋公会
16-20, Jalan Chan Chin Ann
93100 Kuching
Sarawak, Malaysia
Tel: 082-240653, 240781
Fax: 082-240653
Sibu Foochow Association诗巫福州公会
8-10, Central Road
P.O. Box 1697
96008 Sibu
Sarawak, Malaysia
Tel: 084-320445
Fax: 084-324427
Persatuan Foochow Miri马来西亚美里福州公会,
Lot 893, 3rd Floor, Waterfront,
Jalan Permaisuri
98000 Miri
Sarawak, Malaysia
Tel: 085-431443
Fax: 085-432529
沙罗越古田公会
，97, Jln Pedada,
96000 Sibu, S
arawak, Malaysia.
Tel: 084-330925
巴都尼亚福州公会
Batu Niah Foochow Association
Lot 583, Batu Niah Town,
Rxtension,
98200 Batu Nine,
Miri Sarawak,
Malaysia.
电话：+6085-736 799 /737 789 /+6019-854 8948 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting +6019-854 8948 end_of_the_skype_highlighting begin_of_the_skype_highlighting +6019-854 8948 end_of_the_skype_highlighting begin_of_the_skype_highlighting +6019-854 8948 end_of_the_skype_highlighting/+6019-854 8948
传真：+6085-736 779 /737 789
电邮：lonplny@yahoo.com.sg
巴南福州公会
Baram Foo Chow Association
Lot 29, Jalan Kapitan Lim Ching Kiat,
98050 Marudi,
Baram, Sarawak,
Malaysia.
电话：+6085-755 717
传真：+6085-755 333
加那逸福州公会
Kanowit Foochow Association
3, Main Bazaar,
Kanowit, P.O.Box 78,
96707 Kanowit,
Sarawak,
Malaysia.
电话：+6084-752 409
老越福州公会
Persatuan Foochow Lawas Sarawak
1st Floor, Lot No 9,
Jalan Muhibbah,
98850 Lawas,
Sarawak,
Malaysia.
林梦福州公会
Limbang Foo Chow Association
Lot 1347, Kampung Bangkita,
97000 Limbang,
Sarawak,
Malaysia.
电话：+6085-212 273
马拉端福州公会
Persatuan Foochow Meradong Sarawak
Meradong Foochow Association Sarawak
Jalan Ted Kui Ngo,
Bintangor,
Sarawak,
Malaysia.
电话：+6084-692 594
传真：+6084-692 594
民丹莪福州公会
Persatuan Foochow Bintangor
21, C-D , Jalan Teo Kui Ngo,
96500 Bintangor,
Sarawak,
Malaysia.
电话：+6084-692 594
传真：+6084-692 595
沐胶福州公会
Persatuan Foochow Mukah
Foo Chow Association Mukah
Oya Road,
P.O.Box 97,
96400 Mukah,
Sarawak,
Malaysia.
电话：+6084-871
泗里街福州公会
Persatuan Foochow Sarikei
Sarikei Foochow Association
No.8, 2nd Floor,
Jalan Tok Tok,
96100 Sarikei,
Sarawak,
Malaysia.
电话：+6084-652 751
传真：+6084-652 751
Sabah
FOOCHOW ASSOCIATION KOTA KINABALU SABAH MALAYSIA(沙巴亚庇福州公会)
BANGUNAN PERSATUAN FOOCHOW KOTA KINABALU,
3.5KM, JALAN KOLAM, BUKIT PADANG, LUYANG,
88100 KOTA KINABALU, SABAH,MALAYSIA
TEL : 088-246442, 088-240028
FAX : 088-240029
Persatuan Foochow Sarawak-Sabah, Malaysia砂沙福州同乡会（西马）
B-16-5, Megan Avenue 2,
No.12, Jalan Yap Kwan Seng,
50450 Kuala Lumpur
http://www.sasafoochow.com/
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Kota Gelanggi
Kota Gelanggi is an archaeological site reported in 2005 as potentially the first capital of the ancient Malay Empire of Srivijaya ca. 650-900 and one of the oldest pre-Islamic Malay Kingdoms on the Malay Peninsula.
That the city was part of the "Ayuthia Kingdom" (Ancient Siam now known as Thailand) & may be the unidentified Naksat city of the Siamese folklore. Hence, the the word "Gelanggi" could be a mispronounciation of the Thai word "Ghlong-Keow" meaning box of emeralds or treasury of jewels.
The Malay annal, "Sejarah Melayu" (meaning History of Malay) has mentioned that the main fort of Kota Gelanggi was made of black stone & was named "Kota Batu Hitam" in Malay meaning "Black Rock City". Sejarah Melayu is a 17th Century Malay text.
Ancient Tamil inscriptions otherwise inform us that during the era of south Indian Chola Dynasty in 1025, after destroying the Malay Kingdom, Gangga Nagara.
The 12th Naksat Cities - the lost city
Kota Gelanggi was also reported to be the 12th city, the lost city of The Naksat Cities. The Naksat cities are a chain of twelve inter-linked cities or muangs of the ancient Malay Kingdom of Tambralinga(today capital city of province Nakorn Si Thammarat). The cities acted as an outer shield, surrounding the capital Nakorn Si Thammarat, and were connected by land so that help could be sent from one city to another in the event of surprise attacks.
The term Naksat refers to the Lunar calendar system, the Naksat Pi, which is based on a duodenary cycle of years, with each year being associated with a particular animal.
Eleven of the twelve cities have been identified and are all located on the Malay Peninsula. The eleven cities with their associated animal "years" are Narathiwat (Rat), Pattani (Ox), Kelantan (Tiger), Kedah (Big Snake), Patalung (Little Snake), Trang (Horse), Chumporn (Goat), Krabi (Monkey), Kanchanadit (Chicken), Phuket or Takuapa (Dog) and Kraburi (Pig). The missing city, Muang Pahang, is associated with the Year of the Rabbit. It has also been speculated that Kota Gelanggi is the twelfth city.
Reference to the cities appear in the chronicles of Nakorn Si Thammarat and the chronicles of the Phra Dhatu Nakorn.
The discovery of lost city
The history
The reported site of this ancient city is in the dense jungles of the southern Malaysian state of Johor Darul Takzim, near a forest reserve currently managed as a water catchment area, the Linggiu Dam, by the Public Utilities Board (PUB) of Singapore. This description locates the site somewhere within a 140 square kilometre are of the forest reserve surrounding Sungai Madek and Sungai Lenggiu.
Kota Gelanggi is referenced in the Sejarah Melayu or Malay Annals, an early 17th century Malay historical text. In it, Kota Gelanggi is said to be found on the upper reaches of the Johor River. The main fort of Kota Gelanggi was reportedly made of black stone (or Kota Batu Hitam in Malay). Its name 'Kota Gelanggi' was apparently derived from the Malay mispronunciation of the Thai word 'Ghlong-Keow' or 'Box of Emeralds', hence in Malay, 'Perbendaharaan Permata' ('Treasury of Jewels'). Some scholars believe that the city formed part of the Ayutthaya Kingdom, and may thus be the unidentified 12th Naksat city of ancient Siamese folklore. Ancient Tamil inscriptions inform us that the city was raided by the Chola conqueror Rajendra Chola I, of the South Indian Chola Dynasty in 1025, after he had destroyed the Malay Kingdom of Gangga Negara. The latter is generally equated with the ruins and ancient tombs which still can be seen in the district of Beruas, Perak Darul Ridzuan. Old European maps of the Malay Peninsula further show the location of a city known as 'Polepi' (i.e. 'Gelanggi') at the southern tip of the Malay Peninsula (see Sebastian Munster's (1614) Map of Taprobana).
References to Kota Gelanggi were reported in the late 19th and early 20th centuries by colonial scholar-administrators including Dudley Francis Amelius Hervey (1849-1911); who published eyewitness reports of the city in 1881; and Sir Richard Olof Winstedt (1878-1966); who stated that an Orang Asli was prepared to take people to the site in the late 1920s. The ancient city was also known to the adventurer-explorer Gerald Gardner (1884-1964), who discovered the ruins of Johore Lama while searching for Kota Gelanggi.
The discovery
Raimy Che-Ross published "The 'Lost City' of Kota Gelanggi: An Exploratory Essay Based on Textual Evidence and an Excursion into 'Aerial Archaeology'" in the Journal of the Malayan Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society.
That article announced the discovery of a pre-Malaccan city in the forests of Johore. Since then, the "Lost City" was featured in the press and has become the subject of intense discussion and speculation by academics, heritage-enthusiasts and the general public.
News of the discovery attracted the notice of international media. The Malaysian Cabinet has now designated it a national priority, with a formal expedition into the jungles being planned. Verification of the discovery will have a great impact on regional history and archaeology, not to mention the potential significance for the tourism industry.
Raimy Che Ross
RAIMY CHE-ROSS was a Malay Tutor at the Department of Foreign Affairs & Trade (1994), a Graduate Intern at the National Gallery of Australia (1998) and a Visiting Scholar with the Malaysian Commonwealth Studies Centre at Trinity College, Cambridge (2003).
His latest publications include studies on Munshi Abdullah's manuscripts and lithographs, the Jewish Diaspora in pre-WWII Penang, the Private Papers of Baginda Omar, IXth Sultan of Terengganu, and rare Jawi and Javanese letters from Raffles discovered in the New South Wales State Library. Raimy is now working on a catalogue of the Cambridge University Library Malay Manuscripts Collection, a monograph on Royal Malay letters and artefacts at the Royal Archives in Windsor Castle, and exploring pre-Malacca sites in Perak.
(source: http://habitatnews.nus.edu.sg/index.php?entry=/talks/20050318-lostcitytalk.txt)
The site's existence was announced dramatically as a 'discovery' by the Malaysian Press on 3 February 2005.
Recent evidence of the city's existence and approximate location was presented as the result of a decade-long research project based on Malay manuscripts, cartographical and topographical surveys, aerial inspections and assessing local folklore. A preliminary discussion on the subject based on these sources was published as a lengthy academic paper entitled The "Lost City" of Kota Gelanggi (JMBRAS, Vol. 77 Pt. 2, pp.27-58) in 2004. Prior to that, its author, Raimy Che-Ross, an independent researcher, had tabled and discussed his findings with experts at the Asia Research Institute (ARI), National University of Singapore, the Johor Chapter of Badan Warisan Malaysia (Malaysian Heritage Trust) and to archaeologists at the Jabatan Muzium dan Antikuiti Malaysia (Museums and Antiquities Department of Malaysia), between January-June 2004.
The paper was given wide coverage by the Malaysian Media, who prematurely reported the introductory article as the announcement of a major 'discovery'. This prompted the then Minister for Heritage, Culture and the Arts to himself announce ambitious plans to 'discover' the city by selected museum and government officials.
On April 28th 2006, the Malaysian National News Service (Bernama) reported that the "Lost City does not exist". Khalid Syed Ali, the Curator of Archaeology in the Department's Research and Development Division, said a team of government appointed researchers carried out a study over a month in July last year [2005] but found no trace of the "Lost City".
However, Khalid later added that 'the Heritage Department (Jabatan Warisan) does not categorically deny that it exists, only that research carried out until now [over the month of July] has not shown any proof that can verify the existence of the ancient city of Linggiu ' (Azahari Ibrahim, 'Kota Purba Linggiu: Antara Realiti dan Ilusi', Sejarah Malaysia, July-August 2006, p.37). When pressed for details, he revealed that Che-Ross was not involved in the museum's search team for the lost city.
Three elder Orang Asli headmen from the Linggiu Dam area nonetheless insist that the city indeed exists. According to Tuk Batin Abdul Rahman, 85, 'the city is very large, I have seen it myself because it was located near my village. I estimate its fort to be approximately forty feet square, with three holes like windows along its walls'. He added that the area was formerly inhabited by him and fifty Orang Asli families, before being moved by the British due to the Communist threat in the late 1940s-50s. He further said that he had first stumbled across the fort in the 1930s, while foraging for jungle produce. Tuk Batin Abdul Rahman's statements were independently verified by Tuk Batin Daud, 60 and Tuk Batin Adong, 58, who added that their people had visited the site on numerous occasions before, and had seen the black stone walls themselves (Amad Bahri Mardi, 'Kota Gelanggi hanya wujud pada nama', Berita Harian, Sunday, 20 February 2005, p.18). Two old manuscript drawings believed to depict the ruins are in the possession of Tuk Batin Adong. The rough outline coloured sketches show a large building surrounding a steep hill. Two circular apertures are found on the walls on each side of the entrance into this structure.
Note that the Kota Gelanggi of Johor Darul Takzim is different from the Kota Gelanggi Caves near Jerantut in Pahang Darul Makmur. The Kota Gelanggi Caves of Jerantut hold Neolithic sites, with no evidence of substantial habitation beyond that period having been found despite extensive archaeological digs in its caverns by the museums department.
Late in May 2008, the Malaysian Press reported the discovery of an ancient bronze vessel or Kendi near a river close to Mentakab, Pahang Darul Makmur that may be connected to the ancient city of Kota Gelanggi in Johor Darul Takzim. Both sites are linked by a network of rivers once believed to form a trans-peninsular trading route cutting across the Malay Peninsula.
(source: Wikipedia)
It's amazing that a federal Minister of Culture announced that the government will do everything possible to bring out the lost city. It was excitement and even the mass media published widely on the issue. But suddenly the issue and the lost city, was all really lost in silence. Gone were the excitement of the government and the mass media......
Look at the amount of money Indonesia makes from Borobudur, and Cambodia makes from Angkor Wat, the ancient city of Kota Gelanggi should be great for Malaysia. It will be Angkor Wat of Malaysia, and a tourism potential for tourist dollars. Like Bujang Valley, the lost city was a Srivijayan Hindu/Buddhist kingdom. Is the lost city reveal too much history that the authority cannot accept the fact, as it is too sensitive to disclose it at the moment for the political reality; or it was all falsified historical news?.....something fishy is happening, and the truth is not reveal....
I hope some external independent party will continue research on the lost city; may be some day some hero will reveal some shocking news, that ......and the lost city will never be forever lost.....
.....and hope that the history is not covered up or altered for the sake of politic ..... historical fact must be the truth of the past, not the falsified data to meet the political agenda of the time.... whatsoever the historical truth, the mature Malaysian are prepared to accept the historical fact.
That the city was part of the "Ayuthia Kingdom" (Ancient Siam now known as Thailand) & may be the unidentified Naksat city of the Siamese folklore. Hence, the the word "Gelanggi" could be a mispronounciation of the Thai word "Ghlong-Keow" meaning box of emeralds or treasury of jewels.
The Malay annal, "Sejarah Melayu" (meaning History of Malay) has mentioned that the main fort of Kota Gelanggi was made of black stone & was named "Kota Batu Hitam" in Malay meaning "Black Rock City". Sejarah Melayu is a 17th Century Malay text.
Ancient Tamil inscriptions otherwise inform us that during the era of south Indian Chola Dynasty in 1025, after destroying the Malay Kingdom, Gangga Nagara.
The 12th Naksat Cities - the lost city
Kota Gelanggi was also reported to be the 12th city, the lost city of The Naksat Cities. The Naksat cities are a chain of twelve inter-linked cities or muangs of the ancient Malay Kingdom of Tambralinga(today capital city of province Nakorn Si Thammarat). The cities acted as an outer shield, surrounding the capital Nakorn Si Thammarat, and were connected by land so that help could be sent from one city to another in the event of surprise attacks.
The term Naksat refers to the Lunar calendar system, the Naksat Pi, which is based on a duodenary cycle of years, with each year being associated with a particular animal.
Eleven of the twelve cities have been identified and are all located on the Malay Peninsula. The eleven cities with their associated animal "years" are Narathiwat (Rat), Pattani (Ox), Kelantan (Tiger), Kedah (Big Snake), Patalung (Little Snake), Trang (Horse), Chumporn (Goat), Krabi (Monkey), Kanchanadit (Chicken), Phuket or Takuapa (Dog) and Kraburi (Pig). The missing city, Muang Pahang, is associated with the Year of the Rabbit. It has also been speculated that Kota Gelanggi is the twelfth city.
Reference to the cities appear in the chronicles of Nakorn Si Thammarat and the chronicles of the Phra Dhatu Nakorn.
The discovery of lost city
The history
The reported site of this ancient city is in the dense jungles of the southern Malaysian state of Johor Darul Takzim, near a forest reserve currently managed as a water catchment area, the Linggiu Dam, by the Public Utilities Board (PUB) of Singapore. This description locates the site somewhere within a 140 square kilometre are of the forest reserve surrounding Sungai Madek and Sungai Lenggiu.
Kota Gelanggi is referenced in the Sejarah Melayu or Malay Annals, an early 17th century Malay historical text. In it, Kota Gelanggi is said to be found on the upper reaches of the Johor River. The main fort of Kota Gelanggi was reportedly made of black stone (or Kota Batu Hitam in Malay). Its name 'Kota Gelanggi' was apparently derived from the Malay mispronunciation of the Thai word 'Ghlong-Keow' or 'Box of Emeralds', hence in Malay, 'Perbendaharaan Permata' ('Treasury of Jewels'). Some scholars believe that the city formed part of the Ayutthaya Kingdom, and may thus be the unidentified 12th Naksat city of ancient Siamese folklore. Ancient Tamil inscriptions inform us that the city was raided by the Chola conqueror Rajendra Chola I, of the South Indian Chola Dynasty in 1025, after he had destroyed the Malay Kingdom of Gangga Negara. The latter is generally equated with the ruins and ancient tombs which still can be seen in the district of Beruas, Perak Darul Ridzuan. Old European maps of the Malay Peninsula further show the location of a city known as 'Polepi' (i.e. 'Gelanggi') at the southern tip of the Malay Peninsula (see Sebastian Munster's (1614) Map of Taprobana).
References to Kota Gelanggi were reported in the late 19th and early 20th centuries by colonial scholar-administrators including Dudley Francis Amelius Hervey (1849-1911); who published eyewitness reports of the city in 1881; and Sir Richard Olof Winstedt (1878-1966); who stated that an Orang Asli was prepared to take people to the site in the late 1920s. The ancient city was also known to the adventurer-explorer Gerald Gardner (1884-1964), who discovered the ruins of Johore Lama while searching for Kota Gelanggi.
The discovery
Raimy Che-Ross published "The 'Lost City' of Kota Gelanggi: An Exploratory Essay Based on Textual Evidence and an Excursion into 'Aerial Archaeology'" in the Journal of the Malayan Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society.
That article announced the discovery of a pre-Malaccan city in the forests of Johore. Since then, the "Lost City" was featured in the press and has become the subject of intense discussion and speculation by academics, heritage-enthusiasts and the general public.
News of the discovery attracted the notice of international media. The Malaysian Cabinet has now designated it a national priority, with a formal expedition into the jungles being planned. Verification of the discovery will have a great impact on regional history and archaeology, not to mention the potential significance for the tourism industry.
Raimy Che Ross
RAIMY CHE-ROSS was a Malay Tutor at the Department of Foreign Affairs & Trade (1994), a Graduate Intern at the National Gallery of Australia (1998) and a Visiting Scholar with the Malaysian Commonwealth Studies Centre at Trinity College, Cambridge (2003).
His latest publications include studies on Munshi Abdullah's manuscripts and lithographs, the Jewish Diaspora in pre-WWII Penang, the Private Papers of Baginda Omar, IXth Sultan of Terengganu, and rare Jawi and Javanese letters from Raffles discovered in the New South Wales State Library. Raimy is now working on a catalogue of the Cambridge University Library Malay Manuscripts Collection, a monograph on Royal Malay letters and artefacts at the Royal Archives in Windsor Castle, and exploring pre-Malacca sites in Perak.
(source: http://habitatnews.nus.edu.sg/index.php?entry=/talks/20050318-lostcitytalk.txt)
The site's existence was announced dramatically as a 'discovery' by the Malaysian Press on 3 February 2005.
Recent evidence of the city's existence and approximate location was presented as the result of a decade-long research project based on Malay manuscripts, cartographical and topographical surveys, aerial inspections and assessing local folklore. A preliminary discussion on the subject based on these sources was published as a lengthy academic paper entitled The "Lost City" of Kota Gelanggi (JMBRAS, Vol. 77 Pt. 2, pp.27-58) in 2004. Prior to that, its author, Raimy Che-Ross, an independent researcher, had tabled and discussed his findings with experts at the Asia Research Institute (ARI), National University of Singapore, the Johor Chapter of Badan Warisan Malaysia (Malaysian Heritage Trust) and to archaeologists at the Jabatan Muzium dan Antikuiti Malaysia (Museums and Antiquities Department of Malaysia), between January-June 2004.
The paper was given wide coverage by the Malaysian Media, who prematurely reported the introductory article as the announcement of a major 'discovery'. This prompted the then Minister for Heritage, Culture and the Arts to himself announce ambitious plans to 'discover' the city by selected museum and government officials.
On April 28th 2006, the Malaysian National News Service (Bernama) reported that the "Lost City does not exist". Khalid Syed Ali, the Curator of Archaeology in the Department's Research and Development Division, said a team of government appointed researchers carried out a study over a month in July last year [2005] but found no trace of the "Lost City".
However, Khalid later added that 'the Heritage Department (Jabatan Warisan) does not categorically deny that it exists, only that research carried out until now [over the month of July] has not shown any proof that can verify the existence of the ancient city of Linggiu ' (Azahari Ibrahim, 'Kota Purba Linggiu: Antara Realiti dan Ilusi', Sejarah Malaysia, July-August 2006, p.37). When pressed for details, he revealed that Che-Ross was not involved in the museum's search team for the lost city.
Three elder Orang Asli headmen from the Linggiu Dam area nonetheless insist that the city indeed exists. According to Tuk Batin Abdul Rahman, 85, 'the city is very large, I have seen it myself because it was located near my village. I estimate its fort to be approximately forty feet square, with three holes like windows along its walls'. He added that the area was formerly inhabited by him and fifty Orang Asli families, before being moved by the British due to the Communist threat in the late 1940s-50s. He further said that he had first stumbled across the fort in the 1930s, while foraging for jungle produce. Tuk Batin Abdul Rahman's statements were independently verified by Tuk Batin Daud, 60 and Tuk Batin Adong, 58, who added that their people had visited the site on numerous occasions before, and had seen the black stone walls themselves (Amad Bahri Mardi, 'Kota Gelanggi hanya wujud pada nama', Berita Harian, Sunday, 20 February 2005, p.18). Two old manuscript drawings believed to depict the ruins are in the possession of Tuk Batin Adong. The rough outline coloured sketches show a large building surrounding a steep hill. Two circular apertures are found on the walls on each side of the entrance into this structure.
Note that the Kota Gelanggi of Johor Darul Takzim is different from the Kota Gelanggi Caves near Jerantut in Pahang Darul Makmur. The Kota Gelanggi Caves of Jerantut hold Neolithic sites, with no evidence of substantial habitation beyond that period having been found despite extensive archaeological digs in its caverns by the museums department.
Late in May 2008, the Malaysian Press reported the discovery of an ancient bronze vessel or Kendi near a river close to Mentakab, Pahang Darul Makmur that may be connected to the ancient city of Kota Gelanggi in Johor Darul Takzim. Both sites are linked by a network of rivers once believed to form a trans-peninsular trading route cutting across the Malay Peninsula.
(source: Wikipedia)
It's amazing that a federal Minister of Culture announced that the government will do everything possible to bring out the lost city. It was excitement and even the mass media published widely on the issue. But suddenly the issue and the lost city, was all really lost in silence. Gone were the excitement of the government and the mass media......
Look at the amount of money Indonesia makes from Borobudur, and Cambodia makes from Angkor Wat, the ancient city of Kota Gelanggi should be great for Malaysia. It will be Angkor Wat of Malaysia, and a tourism potential for tourist dollars. Like Bujang Valley, the lost city was a Srivijayan Hindu/Buddhist kingdom. Is the lost city reveal too much history that the authority cannot accept the fact, as it is too sensitive to disclose it at the moment for the political reality; or it was all falsified historical news?.....something fishy is happening, and the truth is not reveal....
I hope some external independent party will continue research on the lost city; may be some day some hero will reveal some shocking news, that ......and the lost city will never be forever lost.....
.....and hope that the history is not covered up or altered for the sake of politic ..... historical fact must be the truth of the past, not the falsified data to meet the political agenda of the time.... whatsoever the historical truth, the mature Malaysian are prepared to accept the historical fact.
Ligor or Nakhon Si Thammarat(洛坤)
Ligor is now called Nakhon Si Thammarat, which is the Thai rendition of its original name Nagara Sri Dhammaraja. Ligor used to be a powerful Malay kingdom in its time. It had close links with Prey Nokor, i.e. the Angkorian Khmer kingdom.
Unlike Kedah and Pattani, however, Ligor did not fully convert to Islam. Although quite a large number of its citizens became Muslim, Ligor is believed to have remained as a mainly Buddhist kingdom until it was eventually invaded and conquered by Sukhotai.
Map of Nakhon Si Thammarat
View Larger Map
Tambralinga
Tambralinga was an ancient kingdom located on the Malay Peninsula that at one time came under the influence of Srivijaya. The name had been forgotten until scholars recognized Tambralinga as Nagara Sri Dharmaraja. Early records are scarce while estimations range from the seventh to fourteenth century. The kingdom ceased to exist around 700.
By the end of the twelfth century, Tambralinga became independent of Srivijaya as the empire suffered a decline in prestige. At its height between the thirteenth century and the beginning of fourteenth century, Tambralinga had occupied most of the Malay Peninsula and become one of the dominant Southeast Asian states. By the end of the fourteenth century, Tambralinga was recorded in Siamese history as Nagara Sri Dharmaraja Kingdom.
Tambralinga first sent tribute to the emperor of the Tang dynasty in 616. In Sanskrit, tambra means "red" and linga means "Siva" or "phallus".
LIGOR (NAGARA SRI DHARMARAJA) IN 11TH CENTURY
Introduction
A Chinese text recorded that at the end of the tenth century, a Srivijayan ambassador sent to the court of China reported the attack from Java and requested protection. During the winter of 992, it was learned from Canto that this ambassador, who had left the capital of China two years before, had learnt that his country had been invaded by She-po (Java) and as a consequence, had remained in Canton for a year. In the spring of 992, the ambassador went to Champa with his ship, but since he did not hear any good new there, he returned to China and requested that an imperial decree be promulgated placing San-fo-chi under the protection of China. About the same time, the Chinese court received Javanese envoys that brought corroborative information to China. They reported that their country was continually at war with San-fo-chi, but what they did not say was that the aggression came from them.
In 995, the geographer Masudi spoke in grandiloquent terms of the "kingdom of the Maharaja", king of the islands of Zabag; among theirs exploits were Kalah (Kedah) and Sribuza (Srivijaya).
At 999 it appears that a Sri Vijaya king had moved his court to Vijaya court at Prey Nokor (i.e. Angkor) by judging from his incomplete coronation name "Yang Pu ku Vijaya Sri" found in an inscription of the region. This “movement” is believed to refer to the “relocation“ of his throne from Ligor to Lavo. This Srivijayan king is believed to be Sujitaraja, also titled Jayaviravarman, Preah Botomvaravamsa n also Sri Kshetraindraditya. He was King of Nagara Sri Dharmaraja (Ligor). He was a Ligorian Malay prince with Srivijayan blood. He also married a Khmer princess. At that time, the Srivijayan realm had sort of split into 2 sub-realms, i.e. the mainlandic Angkorian realm n the islandic realm. Nagara Sri Dharmaraja (Ligor) as well as Kedah had then become a sort of bridge connecting the 2 sub-realms. Looked at in another way, they had also become contested territory, sort of a battleground, between Angkor n Palembang, with the Chola Tamils n their Javanese allies also coming in as interested, competing outsiders.
Sri Vijaya's attack on the Cakravartin (Angkorian) Empire
At the same time, the Mon tradition recalled the conflict between Lavo and Haripunjaya. The story is reported in various Pali chronicles composed in Chiangmai. The Chamadevivamsa, written at the beginning of the fifteenth century, and the Jinakalamali, finished in 1516, contain the following account:
"A king of Haripunjaya named Atrasataka went to attack Lavo where Ucchittachakravatti reigned. At the moment when the two sovereigns prepared for battle, a king of Sri-dhammanagara named Sujita arrived at Lavo with a considerable army and fleet. Confronted by this surprise attack, the two adversaries fled in the direction of Haripunjaya. Ucchita arrived first, married the queen and proclaimed himself king.
Sujita, the king of Ligor, established himself as master of Lavo. At the end of three years, his successor, or perhaps his son, Kambojaraja, went to attack Ucchita again at Haripunjaya, but was defeated."
The conflict between Lavo and Haripunjaya mirrors the feud between the Javanese and the Sri Vijaya that grew in a bigger scale to become the dynastic crisis of the Cakravaltin establishment. Under the Javanese attack, the Srivijaya was obviously looking for an escape and in a twist of destiny, the Angkorian site became their target.
Scholars have mistaken this attack as a conquest of the mighty Angkorian Empire over its weaker neighboring states, Lavo and Haripunjaya. On the contrary, it was the Angkorian court that was under attack since the story clearly indicates that the conqueror was from Sri Dhammaraja or Ligor.
The ruler of Lavo, Ucchittachakravatti, was quoted as a Chakravati, a reference to the Angkorian Monarch of the time. He was either Jayavarman IV or a successor of him. As Lavo was the military command post of the Cakravatin Empire, the control of Lavo resulted in the capture of the Angkorian throne.
The Viravamsa Dynasty
After the reign of Jayavarman V, inscriptions appear to show three kings, Udayadityavarman, Jayaviravarman and Suryavarman were reigning concurrently at the Angkorian site. Scholars speculated that they were contending over the Angkorian Throne.
While in fact, they were all belonged to the Ligor court and were joined in their fight to take control of the mainland. A passage of the Khmer chronicle (RPNK: Botomvaravamsa) shed some light to the enigma.
There was a nephew of Maharaja who, arranged by Prah Dhammavidhi rsiphatta, wedded the late queen and ascended the throne under the name of Botomvaravamsa. He commissioned Virauraja as his Obyuvaraja and Udayaraja as his Obraja. After the death of Botomvaravamsa, Prah Virauraja who was Obyuvaraja ascended the throne. After the reign of Virauraja, Prah Udayaraja who was commissioned as Mahaobjraja ascended the throne.
According to the passage, arrangement had been established by the Angkorian high priest to accommodate the new leadership. Jayaviravarman (Preah Botomvaravamsa) who was the nephew of the late Angkorian King and was set to ascend the Angkorian throne while Suryavarman (king Virauraja) became his Obyuvaraja (second king) and Udayadityavarman (Udayaraja) became his Obraja (army marshal).
We shall see that Jayaviravarman and Udayadityavarman were brothers and were related to the court of Chrestapura (Lavo) and despise their true origin from Ligor, they were no strangers to the Angkorian court. They were the collaborators of the younger Suryavarman I, who was the son of Jayaviravarman (also called Sujita, Preah Botomvaravamsa n Sri Kshetraindraditya) who alone would be the ultimate ruler of the Angkorian throne.
Jayaviravarman (1002-1006)
He was the elder brother of Udayadityavarman and was mentioned in the inscription of Prasat Khna as Sri Narapativiravarman. His title indicates that he was then Narapati or ruler of Lavo and army marshal of Jayavarman V. The inscription of Ta Praya (Stele de ta Praya), confirms that he hold the position since 962 during the reign of Harshavarman II. The same inscription indicates that he was the brother in law of Jayavarman V and served as his army general, thus an insider of the Angkorian court. The Inscription of Prasat Trapan Run (BEFEO28: Nouvelles Inscriptions du Cambodge: La Stele du Prasat Trapan Run) introduces him as the Mala king (Maulimalaraja), connecting (i.e equating) him to the Sri Vijaya king Sujita of the Mon chronicle.
Obviously Sri Vijaya of the Malay archipelago (i.e. islandic Srivijaya) was a cardinal state of the Angkorian Empire, and as part of the Cakravatin establishment its ruler could hold an important function for the Middle country. The fact that he was himself the army general (senapati) of the Angkorian Empire explains why king Sujita had a large army at his diposition to overrun Lavo and the Angkorian throne. The part B of the inscription mentioned that he ascended the throne at 1002 and still reigning on 1006 when he granted a piece of land in Aninditpura (Dvaravati) to his master priest Kavindrapandita. The chronology set him as a contemporary king of Suryavarman I who according to many inscriptions was also reigning at 1002 AD. Other inscriptions reveal his active role in the state affair during his late reign that ended in 1006, obviously during his old age.
Suryavarman I (1002-1050)Many inscriptions attest the reign of Suryavarman, as early as at 1002 AD (Saka 924). If the date is exact, Suryavarman was crowned at the same time as king Jayaviravarman that leaded to the speculation that either the twos were contending the Angkorian throne or was only one king using different titles. We shall see that neither speculation is true. To start, the inscription of Phimanakas (BEFEO XIII, K292, P 12) make it clear that for his ascension on 1002 AD (924 caka), Suryavarman I was ascending Sri Dharmaraja throne.
"Dhati vrah pada kamraten kamtvan an cri suryavarmmadeva ta sakata svey vrah dharmarajya nu 924 caka."
The same inscription mentions that he was lined from the Suryavamsa dynasty and inherited the title of "Kamtvan", a reverence to a Kam king. It is reflecting a strong connection with the Kambojean court of Tambralinga. These evidences support the Khmer tradition that Suryavarman I (Virauraja) had served as the second king (Obyuraja) to king Jayaviravarman (Botomvaravamsa). Some sources mentioned that he was in fact the son of king Sujita or Jayaviravarman himself. While the latter was ascending the Angkorian throne in 1002 AD, Suryavarman I was anointed at the same time to rule Sri Dharmamaraja. It was only after the death of Jayaviravarman that Suryavarman I ascended the Angkorian throne, presumably on 2007 AD.
He was obviously the Kambojaraja of the Chamadevivamsa and the Jinakalamali chronicles that went out to attack the Lavo court forcing them to settle at Haripunjaya. Inscriptions of his name were more numerous in the western site that suggests his involvement in the conquest and reestablishment of Lavo. It was not clear that he received immediate support from the Angkorian court. The inscription of Ta Prom mentions his marriage to the princess Viralaksmi of Chrestapura. Descended from Yasovarman of the pre-Angkorian line, princess Viralaksmi was clearly a ticket of legitimacy to the Angkorian throne. According to the Khmer chronicle, she was the queen of the last Angkorian monarch, presumably Jayavarman V or his immediate successor whose reign was cut short by the crisis.
The inscription of Tep Pranam (JA March-Apr: Le Stele de Tep Pranam, George Coedes) contains a small addition in Khmer Language by Suryavarman to the Sanskrit part of king Yasovarman I to commemorate his involvement in the building of Saugatasramas in the royal palace (vrah Thlvain). This could be an attempt to show his support for the past Angkorian tradition and at the same time to stress on his relationship with Yasovarman I whose legitimacy over the Angkorian throne was incontestable. To command their loyalty, he had Angkorian dignitaries to sworn in the oath of allegiance, and as a reminder, he had their names engraved on the inner surface to the entrance of the Royal Palace. He received his Devaraja cult from the chaplain Jayendrapandita. His support for Buddhism earned him the posthumous name Nirvanapada at the time of his death in early 1050.
Udayadityavarman II (1050-1066)
He received his Devaraja cult from the same chaplain Jayendrapandita. His crown name indicates that he might be a direct descendent from Udayadityavarman I. His reign was particularly plagued with internal crisis. During his sixteen years reign, Udayadityavarman II had to cope with a series of uprisings. The repression of the unrest, entrusted to a General Sangrama, is recounted in epic style by a Sanskrit stele placed at the base of the Baphuon, the temple of the royal linga to which Sangrama made a gift of his booty.
The first revolt took place in 1051, in the south of the country leaded by Aravindahrada. Well trained in the archery, leader of an army of heroes, he was vanquished by Sangrama and fled to Champa. Another revolt took place at 1065 in the northwest. A valiant hero of the king named Kamvau, becoming an army general, secretly planned the attack and left the city with his troop. During the fight with Sangrama, he wounded the latter in the jaw but was killed by three arrows. The last revolt took place in the east, by two brothers named Sivat and Sidhikara with the accomplice of a third warrior named Sasantribhuvana. They were put-down by the same general Sangrama.
Harshavarman III (1066-1080)
Harshavarman III, who ascended the throne in 1066, kept himself busy with repairing the structures ruined in the wars of the preceding reigns. The inscription of Ta-Prohm (BEFEO VI, La Steles de Ta-Prohm, George Coedes) identified him as a descendant of King Bhavavarman I and the queen Kambojarajalakshmi. This connection proved his origin from Sri Dhammaraja even-though we know nothing about his relationship with either Suryavarman I and Udayaditya II. Between 1074 and 1080, he himself was involved in the quarrel with Champapura.
Through one of his inscription, the Champa king Harivarman IV claimed to have defeated the troops of Cambodia at Somesvara and seized the prince Sri Nandavarmandeva who commanded the army with the rank of Senapati. Perhaps it was during this battle that the prince Pang, younger brother of the king of Champa, and later king himself under the name of Paramabodhisatva, went to take the city of Sambhupura (Sambor). After destroying all its sanctuaries he gave the Khmer war prisoners to the various sanctuaries of Sri Isanabhadrasvara (at Mison) as servants. He received the posthumous name Sadasivapada. (ESSA:The Mahidharapura dynasty of Cambodia).
What the above is saying in outline, is that:
A Malay king of Ligor named Sujita, alternately also titled Jayaviravarman, Preah Botomvaravamsa n Sri Kshetraindraditya, actually became king of the Angkorian empire in 1002 AD, after capturing Lavo (now Lopburi in Thailand), which was like the military HQ of the Angkorian realm. He was able to achieve that incredible feat because he was then Chief Commander of the Angkorian army.
At the same time, Suryavarman I, who was his son by a Khmer princess, became King of Ligor cum Young King (Regent) of Angkor. While his younger brother, Udayadityavarman I, became the new Chief Commander of the army.
When Sujita died in 1007, Suryavarman I became the new Angkor king, while his nephew, Udayadityavarman II (grandson of Udayadityavarman I), became the new King of Ligor cum Young King (Regent) of Angkor.
When Suryavarman I died in 1050, Udayadityavarman II then moved up to become new King of Angkor.
When Udayadityavarman II died in 1066, Harshavarman III, another King of Ligor moved up to become King of Angkor.
Thus a succession of 4 Malay kings of Ligor actually became kings of mighty Angkor, and the Ligor kingship became for a while a sort of stepping stone to becoming king of Angkor.
(source: http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/lofiversion/index.php/t163209.html)
Nakhon Si Thammarat
Nakhon Si Thammarat (นครศรีธรรมราช, 那空是贪玛叻,也称洛坤) or Nakhon Sri Thammarat(from Pali Nagara Sri Dhammaraja), which is a town in southern Thailand, capital of the Nakhon Si Thammarat Province and the Nakhon Si Thammarat district. It is about 610 km (380 miles) south of Bangkok, on the east coast of the Malay Peninsula. The city was the administrative center of southern Thailand during most of its history. Originally a coastal city, silting moved the coastline away from the city. The city has a much larger north to south extension than west to east, which dates back to its original location on a flood-save dune. The modern city centre around the train station is located north of Old Town.
It is one of the most ancient cities of Thailand, previously Kingdom of Ligor, and contains many buildings and ruins of historical significance. With the fall of the Siamese capital of Ayutthaya in 1767 it regained independence, but returned to its allegiance on the founding of Bangkok. In the 17th century British, Portuguese and Dutch merchants set up factories there and carried on an extensive trade.
History
According to the inscription no.24 found at wat Hua-wieng (Hua-wieng temple) in Chaiya near to Nakhon Si Thammaraj, the ruler of Tambralinga named Chandrabhanu Sridhamaraja was the king of Patama vamsa (lotus dynasty). He began to reign in 1230, he had the Phrae Boromadhatu (chedi in Nakhon Si Thammaraj, from Sanskrit dhatu - element, component, or relic + garbha - storehouse or repository) reparation and celebration in the same year. Chandrabhanu Sridhamaraja brought Tambralinga reached the pinnacle of its power in the mid-thirteenth century. From the Sri Lankan materials, this Chandrabhanu was a Javakan king from Tambralinga who had invaded Sri Lankan in 1247. His navy launched an assault on the southern part of the island but defeated by the Sri Lankan king. However Chandrabhanu was able to establish an independent regime in the north of the island, but in 1258 he was attacked and subjugated by Pandya. In 1262 Chandrabhanu launched another attack on the south of the island, his army strengthened this time by the addition of Tamil and Sinhalese forces, only to be defeated when Pandya sided with the Sri Lankan side; Chandrabhanu himself was killed in the fighting. Chandrabhanu’s son retained control over the northern kingdom, though subservient to Pandya, but this regime too had disappeared by the end of the fourteenth century.
It is popularly believed that the advent of the first Malays to Sri Lanka took place in the middle of the thirteenth century with the invasion of Chandrabhanu, the Buddhist King of Nakhon Sri Tammarat in the Isthmus of Kra of the Malay Peninsula (presently Southern Thailand ). He landed during the eleventh year of Parakrmabahu II (AD 1236-1270). The Culavamsa states:
When the eleventh year of the reign of this King Parakramabahu II had arrived, a king of the Javakas known by the name of Chandrabhanu landed with a terrible Javaka army under the treacherous pretext that they too were followers of the Buddha. All these wicked Javaka soldiers who invaded every landing place and who with their poisoned arrows, like (sic) to terrible snakes, without ceasing harassed the people whomever they caught sight of, laid waste, raging in their fury, all Lanka. (Culavamsa LXXXIII, 36-51)
The Javaka mentioned in this source refers to the Malays of the Peninsula . Chandrabhanu's first invasion did not succeed and he tried a second time to attack the Sinhalese Kingdom with mercenaries from South India . This second campaign failed and resulted in the death of this king.
The following is the extract from "An Outline of the Past and Present of the Malays of Sri Lanka", by Melathi Saldin(B.A),University of Kelaniya, Sri Lanka; http://www.mabolemalays.com/html/aboutUs.html:-
By the end of the fourteenth century, Tambralinga had been submerged by the Sumatran Melayu Kingdom which had the backing of Java. Finally, in 1365 Majapahit kingdom of Java recognized Nakorn Sri Dharmaraj as Siam. Despite its rapid rise to prominence in the thirteenth century, that is, by the following century Danmaling, or Tambralinga, the former member state of Sanfoshih – Javaka, had become a part of Siam
(source: http://www.mabolemalays.com/html/aboutUs.html)
Chandrabhanu(Ruled 1230-1270)
Chandrabhanu (died 1270?) or Chandrabhanu Sridhamaraja was the King of the Malay state of Tambralinga in present day Thailand. He was known to have ruled from during the period of 1230 until 1270. He was also known for building a well-known Buddhist stupa in southern Thailand. He spent more than 30 years in his attempt to conquer Sri Lanka. He was eventually defeated by Pandyan forces from South India in 1270.
In 1247 he sent an expedition to the island ostensibly to acquire the Buddhist relic from the island. His forces, using poison darts, were able to occupy the northern part of the island. In 1253 his forces faced an invasion of the island by Pandyan forces. In 1258 Tambralinga forces commanded by his son and two Sinhalese princes were defeated by the Pandyans. In 1270 he invaded the island once again, only to be defeated decisively by the Pandyans. The defeat was so complete that in 1290, Tambralinga was absorbed by the neighboring Thai Kingdoms.
(source: wikipedia)
After the fall of Ayutthaya, Nakorn Sri Dharmaraj enjoyed a short period of independence, but quickly subdued by King Taksin the great on his mission to reunite Siam.
With the thesaphiban reform of Prince Damrong Rajanubhab at the end of the 19th century the kingdom was finally fully absorbed into Siam. A new administrative entity named monthon (circle) was created, each supervising several provinces. Monthon Nakhon Si Thammarat, established 1896, covered those areas on the east coast of the peninsula, i.e. the provinces Songkhla, Nakhon Si Thammarat and Phatthalung.
Monthon Nakhon Si Thammarat
A new administrative entity named monthon ("Mandala") was created, each supervising several provinces. Nakorn Sri Dhamaraj mandala or monthon(มณฑลนครศรีธรรมราช), established in 1896, covered those areas on the east coast of the peninsula, i.e. the provinces Songkhla, Nakorn Sri Dhamaraj and Phatthalung. 1896-97 the administration was located in Songkhla in the present-day Songkhla national museum. 1925 Monthon Surat was incorporated into Monthon Nakhon Si Thammarat, in 1932 also Monthon Pattani. Like all remaining monthon, monthon Nakhon Si Thammarat was dismantled in 1933.
List of commissioners:
* 1896-1906 Phraya Sukhumnaiwinit (Pan Sukhum)
* 1906-1910 Phraya Chonlaburanurak (Charoen Charuchinda)
* 1910-1925 Prince Lopburi Ramet
* 1925-1933 ?
The Naksat Cities
The Naksat cities are a chain of twelve inter-linked cities or muangs of the ancient Malay Kingdom of Tambralinga.
The Naksat cities acted as an outer shield, surrounding the capital Nakorn Si Thammarat, and were connected by land so that help could be sent from one city to another in the event of surprise attacks.
The term Naksat refers to the Lunar calendar system, the Naksat Pi, which is based on a duodenary cycle of years, with each year being associated with a particular animal.
Eleven of the twelve cities have been identified and are all located on the Malay Peninsula. The eleven cities with their associated animal "years" are Narathiwat (Rat), Pattani (Ox), Kelantan (Tiger), Kedah (Big Snake), Patalung (Little Snake), Trang (Horse), Chumporn (Goat), Krabi (Monkey), Kanchanadit (Chicken), Phuket or Takuapa (Dog) and Kraburi (Pig). The missing city, Muang Pahang, is associated with the Year of the Rabbit. It has also been speculated that Kota Gelanggi is the twelfth city.
Reference to the cities appear in the chronicles of Nakorn Si Thammarat and the chronicles of the Phra Dhatu Nakorn.
Unlike Kedah and Pattani, however, Ligor did not fully convert to Islam. Although quite a large number of its citizens became Muslim, Ligor is believed to have remained as a mainly Buddhist kingdom until it was eventually invaded and conquered by Sukhotai.
Map of Nakhon Si Thammarat
View Larger Map
Tambralinga
Tambralinga was an ancient kingdom located on the Malay Peninsula that at one time came under the influence of Srivijaya. The name had been forgotten until scholars recognized Tambralinga as Nagara Sri Dharmaraja. Early records are scarce while estimations range from the seventh to fourteenth century. The kingdom ceased to exist around 700.
By the end of the twelfth century, Tambralinga became independent of Srivijaya as the empire suffered a decline in prestige. At its height between the thirteenth century and the beginning of fourteenth century, Tambralinga had occupied most of the Malay Peninsula and become one of the dominant Southeast Asian states. By the end of the fourteenth century, Tambralinga was recorded in Siamese history as Nagara Sri Dharmaraja Kingdom.
Tambralinga first sent tribute to the emperor of the Tang dynasty in 616. In Sanskrit, tambra means "red" and linga means "Siva" or "phallus".
LIGOR (NAGARA SRI DHARMARAJA) IN 11TH CENTURY
Introduction
A Chinese text recorded that at the end of the tenth century, a Srivijayan ambassador sent to the court of China reported the attack from Java and requested protection. During the winter of 992, it was learned from Canto that this ambassador, who had left the capital of China two years before, had learnt that his country had been invaded by She-po (Java) and as a consequence, had remained in Canton for a year. In the spring of 992, the ambassador went to Champa with his ship, but since he did not hear any good new there, he returned to China and requested that an imperial decree be promulgated placing San-fo-chi under the protection of China. About the same time, the Chinese court received Javanese envoys that brought corroborative information to China. They reported that their country was continually at war with San-fo-chi, but what they did not say was that the aggression came from them.
In 995, the geographer Masudi spoke in grandiloquent terms of the "kingdom of the Maharaja", king of the islands of Zabag; among theirs exploits were Kalah (Kedah) and Sribuza (Srivijaya).
At 999 it appears that a Sri Vijaya king had moved his court to Vijaya court at Prey Nokor (i.e. Angkor) by judging from his incomplete coronation name "Yang Pu ku Vijaya Sri" found in an inscription of the region. This “movement” is believed to refer to the “relocation“ of his throne from Ligor to Lavo. This Srivijayan king is believed to be Sujitaraja, also titled Jayaviravarman, Preah Botomvaravamsa n also Sri Kshetraindraditya. He was King of Nagara Sri Dharmaraja (Ligor). He was a Ligorian Malay prince with Srivijayan blood. He also married a Khmer princess. At that time, the Srivijayan realm had sort of split into 2 sub-realms, i.e. the mainlandic Angkorian realm n the islandic realm. Nagara Sri Dharmaraja (Ligor) as well as Kedah had then become a sort of bridge connecting the 2 sub-realms. Looked at in another way, they had also become contested territory, sort of a battleground, between Angkor n Palembang, with the Chola Tamils n their Javanese allies also coming in as interested, competing outsiders.
Sri Vijaya's attack on the Cakravartin (Angkorian) Empire
At the same time, the Mon tradition recalled the conflict between Lavo and Haripunjaya. The story is reported in various Pali chronicles composed in Chiangmai. The Chamadevivamsa, written at the beginning of the fifteenth century, and the Jinakalamali, finished in 1516, contain the following account:
"A king of Haripunjaya named Atrasataka went to attack Lavo where Ucchittachakravatti reigned. At the moment when the two sovereigns prepared for battle, a king of Sri-dhammanagara named Sujita arrived at Lavo with a considerable army and fleet. Confronted by this surprise attack, the two adversaries fled in the direction of Haripunjaya. Ucchita arrived first, married the queen and proclaimed himself king.
Sujita, the king of Ligor, established himself as master of Lavo. At the end of three years, his successor, or perhaps his son, Kambojaraja, went to attack Ucchita again at Haripunjaya, but was defeated."
The conflict between Lavo and Haripunjaya mirrors the feud between the Javanese and the Sri Vijaya that grew in a bigger scale to become the dynastic crisis of the Cakravaltin establishment. Under the Javanese attack, the Srivijaya was obviously looking for an escape and in a twist of destiny, the Angkorian site became their target.
Scholars have mistaken this attack as a conquest of the mighty Angkorian Empire over its weaker neighboring states, Lavo and Haripunjaya. On the contrary, it was the Angkorian court that was under attack since the story clearly indicates that the conqueror was from Sri Dhammaraja or Ligor.
The ruler of Lavo, Ucchittachakravatti, was quoted as a Chakravati, a reference to the Angkorian Monarch of the time. He was either Jayavarman IV or a successor of him. As Lavo was the military command post of the Cakravatin Empire, the control of Lavo resulted in the capture of the Angkorian throne.
The Viravamsa Dynasty
After the reign of Jayavarman V, inscriptions appear to show three kings, Udayadityavarman, Jayaviravarman and Suryavarman were reigning concurrently at the Angkorian site. Scholars speculated that they were contending over the Angkorian Throne.
While in fact, they were all belonged to the Ligor court and were joined in their fight to take control of the mainland. A passage of the Khmer chronicle (RPNK: Botomvaravamsa) shed some light to the enigma.
There was a nephew of Maharaja who, arranged by Prah Dhammavidhi rsiphatta, wedded the late queen and ascended the throne under the name of Botomvaravamsa. He commissioned Virauraja as his Obyuvaraja and Udayaraja as his Obraja. After the death of Botomvaravamsa, Prah Virauraja who was Obyuvaraja ascended the throne. After the reign of Virauraja, Prah Udayaraja who was commissioned as Mahaobjraja ascended the throne.
According to the passage, arrangement had been established by the Angkorian high priest to accommodate the new leadership. Jayaviravarman (Preah Botomvaravamsa) who was the nephew of the late Angkorian King and was set to ascend the Angkorian throne while Suryavarman (king Virauraja) became his Obyuvaraja (second king) and Udayadityavarman (Udayaraja) became his Obraja (army marshal).
We shall see that Jayaviravarman and Udayadityavarman were brothers and were related to the court of Chrestapura (Lavo) and despise their true origin from Ligor, they were no strangers to the Angkorian court. They were the collaborators of the younger Suryavarman I, who was the son of Jayaviravarman (also called Sujita, Preah Botomvaravamsa n Sri Kshetraindraditya) who alone would be the ultimate ruler of the Angkorian throne.
Jayaviravarman (1002-1006)
He was the elder brother of Udayadityavarman and was mentioned in the inscription of Prasat Khna as Sri Narapativiravarman. His title indicates that he was then Narapati or ruler of Lavo and army marshal of Jayavarman V. The inscription of Ta Praya (Stele de ta Praya), confirms that he hold the position since 962 during the reign of Harshavarman II. The same inscription indicates that he was the brother in law of Jayavarman V and served as his army general, thus an insider of the Angkorian court. The Inscription of Prasat Trapan Run (BEFEO28: Nouvelles Inscriptions du Cambodge: La Stele du Prasat Trapan Run) introduces him as the Mala king (Maulimalaraja), connecting (i.e equating) him to the Sri Vijaya king Sujita of the Mon chronicle.
Obviously Sri Vijaya of the Malay archipelago (i.e. islandic Srivijaya) was a cardinal state of the Angkorian Empire, and as part of the Cakravatin establishment its ruler could hold an important function for the Middle country. The fact that he was himself the army general (senapati) of the Angkorian Empire explains why king Sujita had a large army at his diposition to overrun Lavo and the Angkorian throne. The part B of the inscription mentioned that he ascended the throne at 1002 and still reigning on 1006 when he granted a piece of land in Aninditpura (Dvaravati) to his master priest Kavindrapandita. The chronology set him as a contemporary king of Suryavarman I who according to many inscriptions was also reigning at 1002 AD. Other inscriptions reveal his active role in the state affair during his late reign that ended in 1006, obviously during his old age.
Suryavarman I (1002-1050)Many inscriptions attest the reign of Suryavarman, as early as at 1002 AD (Saka 924). If the date is exact, Suryavarman was crowned at the same time as king Jayaviravarman that leaded to the speculation that either the twos were contending the Angkorian throne or was only one king using different titles. We shall see that neither speculation is true. To start, the inscription of Phimanakas (BEFEO XIII, K292, P 12) make it clear that for his ascension on 1002 AD (924 caka), Suryavarman I was ascending Sri Dharmaraja throne.
"Dhati vrah pada kamraten kamtvan an cri suryavarmmadeva ta sakata svey vrah dharmarajya nu 924 caka."
The same inscription mentions that he was lined from the Suryavamsa dynasty and inherited the title of "Kamtvan", a reverence to a Kam king. It is reflecting a strong connection with the Kambojean court of Tambralinga. These evidences support the Khmer tradition that Suryavarman I (Virauraja) had served as the second king (Obyuraja) to king Jayaviravarman (Botomvaravamsa). Some sources mentioned that he was in fact the son of king Sujita or Jayaviravarman himself. While the latter was ascending the Angkorian throne in 1002 AD, Suryavarman I was anointed at the same time to rule Sri Dharmamaraja. It was only after the death of Jayaviravarman that Suryavarman I ascended the Angkorian throne, presumably on 2007 AD.
He was obviously the Kambojaraja of the Chamadevivamsa and the Jinakalamali chronicles that went out to attack the Lavo court forcing them to settle at Haripunjaya. Inscriptions of his name were more numerous in the western site that suggests his involvement in the conquest and reestablishment of Lavo. It was not clear that he received immediate support from the Angkorian court. The inscription of Ta Prom mentions his marriage to the princess Viralaksmi of Chrestapura. Descended from Yasovarman of the pre-Angkorian line, princess Viralaksmi was clearly a ticket of legitimacy to the Angkorian throne. According to the Khmer chronicle, she was the queen of the last Angkorian monarch, presumably Jayavarman V or his immediate successor whose reign was cut short by the crisis.
The inscription of Tep Pranam (JA March-Apr: Le Stele de Tep Pranam, George Coedes) contains a small addition in Khmer Language by Suryavarman to the Sanskrit part of king Yasovarman I to commemorate his involvement in the building of Saugatasramas in the royal palace (vrah Thlvain). This could be an attempt to show his support for the past Angkorian tradition and at the same time to stress on his relationship with Yasovarman I whose legitimacy over the Angkorian throne was incontestable. To command their loyalty, he had Angkorian dignitaries to sworn in the oath of allegiance, and as a reminder, he had their names engraved on the inner surface to the entrance of the Royal Palace. He received his Devaraja cult from the chaplain Jayendrapandita. His support for Buddhism earned him the posthumous name Nirvanapada at the time of his death in early 1050.
Udayadityavarman II (1050-1066)
He received his Devaraja cult from the same chaplain Jayendrapandita. His crown name indicates that he might be a direct descendent from Udayadityavarman I. His reign was particularly plagued with internal crisis. During his sixteen years reign, Udayadityavarman II had to cope with a series of uprisings. The repression of the unrest, entrusted to a General Sangrama, is recounted in epic style by a Sanskrit stele placed at the base of the Baphuon, the temple of the royal linga to which Sangrama made a gift of his booty.
The first revolt took place in 1051, in the south of the country leaded by Aravindahrada. Well trained in the archery, leader of an army of heroes, he was vanquished by Sangrama and fled to Champa. Another revolt took place at 1065 in the northwest. A valiant hero of the king named Kamvau, becoming an army general, secretly planned the attack and left the city with his troop. During the fight with Sangrama, he wounded the latter in the jaw but was killed by three arrows. The last revolt took place in the east, by two brothers named Sivat and Sidhikara with the accomplice of a third warrior named Sasantribhuvana. They were put-down by the same general Sangrama.
Harshavarman III (1066-1080)
Harshavarman III, who ascended the throne in 1066, kept himself busy with repairing the structures ruined in the wars of the preceding reigns. The inscription of Ta-Prohm (BEFEO VI, La Steles de Ta-Prohm, George Coedes) identified him as a descendant of King Bhavavarman I and the queen Kambojarajalakshmi. This connection proved his origin from Sri Dhammaraja even-though we know nothing about his relationship with either Suryavarman I and Udayaditya II. Between 1074 and 1080, he himself was involved in the quarrel with Champapura.
Through one of his inscription, the Champa king Harivarman IV claimed to have defeated the troops of Cambodia at Somesvara and seized the prince Sri Nandavarmandeva who commanded the army with the rank of Senapati. Perhaps it was during this battle that the prince Pang, younger brother of the king of Champa, and later king himself under the name of Paramabodhisatva, went to take the city of Sambhupura (Sambor). After destroying all its sanctuaries he gave the Khmer war prisoners to the various sanctuaries of Sri Isanabhadrasvara (at Mison) as servants. He received the posthumous name Sadasivapada. (ESSA:The Mahidharapura dynasty of Cambodia).
What the above is saying in outline, is that:
A Malay king of Ligor named Sujita, alternately also titled Jayaviravarman, Preah Botomvaravamsa n Sri Kshetraindraditya, actually became king of the Angkorian empire in 1002 AD, after capturing Lavo (now Lopburi in Thailand), which was like the military HQ of the Angkorian realm. He was able to achieve that incredible feat because he was then Chief Commander of the Angkorian army.
At the same time, Suryavarman I, who was his son by a Khmer princess, became King of Ligor cum Young King (Regent) of Angkor. While his younger brother, Udayadityavarman I, became the new Chief Commander of the army.
When Sujita died in 1007, Suryavarman I became the new Angkor king, while his nephew, Udayadityavarman II (grandson of Udayadityavarman I), became the new King of Ligor cum Young King (Regent) of Angkor.
When Suryavarman I died in 1050, Udayadityavarman II then moved up to become new King of Angkor.
When Udayadityavarman II died in 1066, Harshavarman III, another King of Ligor moved up to become King of Angkor.
Thus a succession of 4 Malay kings of Ligor actually became kings of mighty Angkor, and the Ligor kingship became for a while a sort of stepping stone to becoming king of Angkor.
(source: http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/lofiversion/index.php/t163209.html)
Nakhon Si Thammarat
Nakhon Si Thammarat (นครศรีธรรมราช, 那空是贪玛叻,也称洛坤) or Nakhon Sri Thammarat(from Pali Nagara Sri Dhammaraja), which is a town in southern Thailand, capital of the Nakhon Si Thammarat Province and the Nakhon Si Thammarat district. It is about 610 km (380 miles) south of Bangkok, on the east coast of the Malay Peninsula. The city was the administrative center of southern Thailand during most of its history. Originally a coastal city, silting moved the coastline away from the city. The city has a much larger north to south extension than west to east, which dates back to its original location on a flood-save dune. The modern city centre around the train station is located north of Old Town.
It is one of the most ancient cities of Thailand, previously Kingdom of Ligor, and contains many buildings and ruins of historical significance. With the fall of the Siamese capital of Ayutthaya in 1767 it regained independence, but returned to its allegiance on the founding of Bangkok. In the 17th century British, Portuguese and Dutch merchants set up factories there and carried on an extensive trade.
History
According to the inscription no.24 found at wat Hua-wieng (Hua-wieng temple) in Chaiya near to Nakhon Si Thammaraj, the ruler of Tambralinga named Chandrabhanu Sridhamaraja was the king of Patama vamsa (lotus dynasty). He began to reign in 1230, he had the Phrae Boromadhatu (chedi in Nakhon Si Thammaraj, from Sanskrit dhatu - element, component, or relic + garbha - storehouse or repository) reparation and celebration in the same year. Chandrabhanu Sridhamaraja brought Tambralinga reached the pinnacle of its power in the mid-thirteenth century. From the Sri Lankan materials, this Chandrabhanu was a Javakan king from Tambralinga who had invaded Sri Lankan in 1247. His navy launched an assault on the southern part of the island but defeated by the Sri Lankan king. However Chandrabhanu was able to establish an independent regime in the north of the island, but in 1258 he was attacked and subjugated by Pandya. In 1262 Chandrabhanu launched another attack on the south of the island, his army strengthened this time by the addition of Tamil and Sinhalese forces, only to be defeated when Pandya sided with the Sri Lankan side; Chandrabhanu himself was killed in the fighting. Chandrabhanu’s son retained control over the northern kingdom, though subservient to Pandya, but this regime too had disappeared by the end of the fourteenth century.
It is popularly believed that the advent of the first Malays to Sri Lanka took place in the middle of the thirteenth century with the invasion of Chandrabhanu, the Buddhist King of Nakhon Sri Tammarat in the Isthmus of Kra of the Malay Peninsula (presently Southern Thailand ). He landed during the eleventh year of Parakrmabahu II (AD 1236-1270). The Culavamsa states:
When the eleventh year of the reign of this King Parakramabahu II had arrived, a king of the Javakas known by the name of Chandrabhanu landed with a terrible Javaka army under the treacherous pretext that they too were followers of the Buddha. All these wicked Javaka soldiers who invaded every landing place and who with their poisoned arrows, like (sic) to terrible snakes, without ceasing harassed the people whomever they caught sight of, laid waste, raging in their fury, all Lanka. (Culavamsa LXXXIII, 36-51)
The Javaka mentioned in this source refers to the Malays of the Peninsula . Chandrabhanu's first invasion did not succeed and he tried a second time to attack the Sinhalese Kingdom with mercenaries from South India . This second campaign failed and resulted in the death of this king.
The following is the extract from "An Outline of the Past and Present of the Malays of Sri Lanka", by Melathi Saldin(B.A),University of Kelaniya, Sri Lanka; http://www.mabolemalays.com/html/aboutUs.html:-
By the end of the fourteenth century, Tambralinga had been submerged by the Sumatran Melayu Kingdom which had the backing of Java. Finally, in 1365 Majapahit kingdom of Java recognized Nakorn Sri Dharmaraj as Siam. Despite its rapid rise to prominence in the thirteenth century, that is, by the following century Danmaling, or Tambralinga, the former member state of Sanfoshih – Javaka, had become a part of Siam
(source: http://www.mabolemalays.com/html/aboutUs.html)
Chandrabhanu(Ruled 1230-1270)
Chandrabhanu (died 1270?) or Chandrabhanu Sridhamaraja was the King of the Malay state of Tambralinga in present day Thailand. He was known to have ruled from during the period of 1230 until 1270. He was also known for building a well-known Buddhist stupa in southern Thailand. He spent more than 30 years in his attempt to conquer Sri Lanka. He was eventually defeated by Pandyan forces from South India in 1270.
In 1247 he sent an expedition to the island ostensibly to acquire the Buddhist relic from the island. His forces, using poison darts, were able to occupy the northern part of the island. In 1253 his forces faced an invasion of the island by Pandyan forces. In 1258 Tambralinga forces commanded by his son and two Sinhalese princes were defeated by the Pandyans. In 1270 he invaded the island once again, only to be defeated decisively by the Pandyans. The defeat was so complete that in 1290, Tambralinga was absorbed by the neighboring Thai Kingdoms.
(source: wikipedia)
After the fall of Ayutthaya, Nakorn Sri Dharmaraj enjoyed a short period of independence, but quickly subdued by King Taksin the great on his mission to reunite Siam.
With the thesaphiban reform of Prince Damrong Rajanubhab at the end of the 19th century the kingdom was finally fully absorbed into Siam. A new administrative entity named monthon (circle) was created, each supervising several provinces. Monthon Nakhon Si Thammarat, established 1896, covered those areas on the east coast of the peninsula, i.e. the provinces Songkhla, Nakhon Si Thammarat and Phatthalung.
Monthon Nakhon Si Thammarat
A new administrative entity named monthon ("Mandala") was created, each supervising several provinces. Nakorn Sri Dhamaraj mandala or monthon(มณฑลนครศรีธรรมราช), established in 1896, covered those areas on the east coast of the peninsula, i.e. the provinces Songkhla, Nakorn Sri Dhamaraj and Phatthalung. 1896-97 the administration was located in Songkhla in the present-day Songkhla national museum. 1925 Monthon Surat was incorporated into Monthon Nakhon Si Thammarat, in 1932 also Monthon Pattani. Like all remaining monthon, monthon Nakhon Si Thammarat was dismantled in 1933.
List of commissioners:
* 1896-1906 Phraya Sukhumnaiwinit (Pan Sukhum)
* 1906-1910 Phraya Chonlaburanurak (Charoen Charuchinda)
* 1910-1925 Prince Lopburi Ramet
* 1925-1933 ?
The Naksat Cities
The Naksat cities are a chain of twelve inter-linked cities or muangs of the ancient Malay Kingdom of Tambralinga.
The Naksat cities acted as an outer shield, surrounding the capital Nakorn Si Thammarat, and were connected by land so that help could be sent from one city to another in the event of surprise attacks.
The term Naksat refers to the Lunar calendar system, the Naksat Pi, which is based on a duodenary cycle of years, with each year being associated with a particular animal.
Eleven of the twelve cities have been identified and are all located on the Malay Peninsula. The eleven cities with their associated animal "years" are Narathiwat (Rat), Pattani (Ox), Kelantan (Tiger), Kedah (Big Snake), Patalung (Little Snake), Trang (Horse), Chumporn (Goat), Krabi (Monkey), Kanchanadit (Chicken), Phuket or Takuapa (Dog) and Kraburi (Pig). The missing city, Muang Pahang, is associated with the Year of the Rabbit. It has also been speculated that Kota Gelanggi is the twelfth city.
Reference to the cities appear in the chronicles of Nakorn Si Thammarat and the chronicles of the Phra Dhatu Nakorn.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)