The Acehnese past and its present state of study R. Michael ... - kitlv

More documents

Recommendations

Info

32 Daniel Perret approximately 200 ha. More than 1,000 m² were excavated in Lobu Tua, mostly in this central settlement area. Chinese ceramics (nearly 17,000 shards), dating between the mid-ninth century and the end of the eleventh century, were found here. South Asia is represented by several categories of artefacts, including pottery. Indeed, based on their shapes and decorative motifs, much of this pottery could have been made in Coromandel during the Chola dynasty and in Sri Lanka, with some other pieces probably originating from northwest India. There are cooking pots of various shapes, including the kadhai (in Tamil) and the kalaya (in Sinhalese), sometimes with a honeycomb printed decoration, as well as dishes, plates, jars and pots brought by traders for their daily use. Lobu Tua also yielded artefacts made in the Middle East, including jars and pots dating between the mid-ninth century and the beginning of the eleventh century, notably from Siraf – a port located at the bottom of the Persian Gulf in present-day Iran. In addition, there are polychrome incised artefacts known as sgraffi ato, often decorated with pseudo-inscriptions and probably made in Iran during the eleventh century. More than 9,000 shards of blown glass dating between the ninth and eleventh centuries were also collected during the excavations. Most of these artefacts were made in the Persian Gulf region, while others came from the eastern Mediterranean, most likely Egypt or Syria. These artefacts are bowls, bottles, carafes, jars, ewers, goblets and small bottles. The fi nds also include a seal incised with Kufi c script, which reads ‘Allah. Muhammad’ or ‘by Allah. Muhammad’, dated from the tenth or eleventh century (Kalus 2000). Among other signifi cant fi nds from this site are gold coins as well as fragments of moulds for coins very similar to those which can be seen in Tamil Nadu, especially in the museum of Gangaikondacholapuram – the site of the Chola capital during the eleventh century. Based on the present state of knowledge, Barus is the fi rst place in Sumatra to have produced a currency, perhaps as early as during the tenth century. From the results of these excavations, it can be concluded that Lobu Tua was a foreign trading settlement, probably founded around the mid-ninth century by South Indian or Sri Lankan traders, and quickly followed by traders from the Middle East, all looking for camphor. There is no indication of the existence of strong political power, but Lobu Tua was an important link in an Indian Ocean trading network that connected the Middle East, India and the Indonesian Archipelago. Indians appear to have played a prominent role in the town’s commercial activities, where they appear to have worked closely with the Javanese in trade and in the extraction of gold from the interior of the island. Lobu Tua was, however, suddenly abandoned around the turn of the twelfth century. A local Malay chronicle, written at the end of the nineteenth century, recounts that Lobu Tua was attacked by giants, but no
Aceh as a fi eld for ancient history studies 33 additional details are given. This chronicle is remarkable because certainly, without knowing about the existence of the ancient settlement of Lobu Tua, and knowing even less about the existence of the Tamil inscription, it recounts that Barus was founded by Chetti and Hindus (Drakard 2003:142). As such, the chronicle preserves in the collective memory a 1,000-year-old event now confi rmed by archaeology. The account of the successive foundations of settlements in the Barus area in the same chronicle leads us to the site of Bukit Hasang. From a physical perspective, this site is very similar to Lobu Tua. It overlooks the coast at an altitude of about 20 m, and includes a fortifi ed central area estimated at some 15 ha, if we take into account the erosion processes that have ‘eaten away’ one of its sides (Perret and Surachman, 2009). Nearly 700 m² were excavated on this site. Among the artefacts found are more than 43,000 shards of imported ceramics and more than 120,000 shards of pottery exceeding a ton in weight. Although the analysis of these artefacts has yet to be completed, we can already suggest that the site was founded by the mid-twelfth century and reached its peak between the mid-thirteenth century and the turn of the fi fteenth century. Deserted during most of the fi fteenth century, it was resettled again between the end of the fi fteenth century and the mid-sixteenth century over a wider area, probably between 45 and 65 ha. The proportion of imported pottery seems much less signifi cant than at Lobu Tua, suggesting a more homogeneous population. The inscription on one of the oldest dated tombstones found on the site (1370) gives an idea of the complexity of this society. It contains Arabic words using Persian grammar, a Malay word, a name that could be Chinese, as well as a formula attested in Turkey and Yemen (Kalus 2003:305-6). Other connections between Barus and the Middle East are documented with the recent rediscovery, by Ludvik Kalus and Claude Guillot, of the epitaph of Hamza Fansuri. This early Malay sufi poet’s name, ‘Fansuri’, indicates a strong relation with Barus (Kalus and Guillot 2000, 2007). The inscription on his gravestone was recorded in 1934 by an Egyptian epigraphist at a cemetery in Mecca, dating the death of Shaykh Hamza b. Abd Allah al-Fansuri to 933 H/1527 CE – well before the date generally assumed. It is thus possible to suggest that Hamza Fansuri may have lived in Bukit Hasang at some point before moving to Mecca. Apart from the implications of this rediscovery for the history of the poet himself, it is now clear that he probably never lived in Aceh proper, which was just emerging as a trading centre and Muslim polity at that time. Based on this rediscovery, it can be suggested that Barus was perhaps an important centre for Malay literature during this period. Barus was certainly strongly infl uenced by Aceh later, as seen in the Acehnese tombstones brought there and in the Aceh-infl uenced monuments made there between the sixteenth century and the turn of the twentieth century. Directly
Page 1 and 2: CHAPTER I The Acehnese past and its
Page 3 and 4: The Acehnese past and its present s
Page 9 and 10: Figure 4. The Gunongan on the forme
Page 25 and 26: CHAPTER II Aceh as a fi eld for anc
Page 27 and 28: Aceh as a fi eld for ancient histor
Page 31: Aceh as a fi eld for ancient histor
Page 39 and 40: CHAPTER III Aceh as crucible of Mus

The Acehnese past and its present state of study R. Michael ... - kitlv

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?