Persée

http://www.persee.fr

Hulu-hilir Unity and Conflict: Malay Statecraft in East Sumatra before the Mid-Nineteenth
Century

J. Kathirithamby-Wells

Kathirithamby-Wells J.. Hulu-hilir Unity and Conflict: Malay Statecraft in East Sumatra before the Mid-Nineteenth
Century. In: Archipel. Volume 45, 1993. pp. 77-96.

Voir l'article en ligne

Avertissement
L'éditeur du site « PERSEE » – le Ministère de la jeunesse, de l'éducation nationale et de la recherche, Direction de l'enseignement supérieur,
Sous-direction des bibliothèques et de la documentation – détient la propriété intellectuelle et les droits d’exploitation. A ce titre il est titulaire des
droits d'auteur et du droit sui generis du producteur de bases de données sur ce site conformément à la loi n°98-536 du 1er juillet 1998 relative aux
bases de données.

Les oeuvres reproduites sur le site « PERSEE » sont protégées par les dispositions générales du Code de la propriété intellectuelle.

Droits et devoirs des utilisateurs

Pour un usage strictement privé, la simple reproduction du contenu de ce site est libre.
Pour un usage scientifique ou pédagogique, à des fins de recherches, d'enseignement ou de communication excluant toute exploitation
commerciale, la reproduction et la communication au public du contenu de ce site sont autorisées, sous réserve que celles-ci servent d'illustration,
ne soient pas substantielles et ne soient pas expressément limitées (plans ou photographies). La mention Le Ministère de la jeunesse, de
l’éducation nationale et de la recherche, Direction de l’enseignement supérieur, Sous-direction des bibliothèques et de la documentation sur
chaque reproduction tirée du site est obligatoire ainsi que le nom de la revue et- lorsqu'ils sont indiqués - le nom de l'auteur et la référence du
document reproduit.

Toute autre reproduction ou communication au public, intégrale ou substantielle du contenu de ce site, par quelque procédé que ce soit, de l'éditeur
original de l'oeuvre, de l'auteur et de ses ayants droit.

La reproduction et l'exploitation des photographies et des plans, y compris à des fins commerciales, doivent être autorisés par l'éditeur du site, Le
Ministère de la jeunesse, de l’éducation nationale et de la recherche, Direction de l’enseignement supérieur, Sous-direction des bibliothèques et de
la documentation (voir http://www.sup.adc.education.fr/bib/ ). La source et les crédits devront toujours être mentionnés.
J. KATHIRITHAMBY-WELLS

Hulu-hilir Unity and Conflict:

Malay Statecraft in East Sumatra
before the Mid-Nineteenth Century

Definition of Malay culture and the Negeri

The definition of island Southeast Asia as the Malay Archipelago attests to
the importance and even dominance in this part of the world of a common
Malay 'maritime' culture. The term 'Malay' can best be defined in cultural
terms though the precise attributes of this tradition are variously understood.
Despite the overarching function of the Malay language as the lingua franca
of the maritime world, transcending a kaleidoscope of discrete autochthonous
cultures, the ethnic boundaries of the Malay world are as hard to define as its
geographical perimeters. This paper seeks a more tangible definition of Malay
cultural in terms of its functional natural environment, as articulated in per -
ceptions of space within the traditional polity. Important in this context is the
concept of hulu (upriver, hinterland), as opposed to hilir (downriver, the river-
mouth or estuary), within the equatorial riverine environment of the Malay
polity.
The pioneering interpretation of the Malay negeri by J.M. Gullick, based
on the nineteenth century Peninsular states, contributed to its characterisation
as essentially coastal and estuarine, with the focus of political and economic
control at the kuala or river-mouth 0). Within the broad classification of
Southeast Asian states as coastal/maritime and inland/ agrarian, viewed res -
pectively as 'externally' and 'internally' oriented, the Malay negeri has come
to be associated with the former type. Strictly speaking, however, these two
categories are, in some cases at least, not mutually exclusive the agrarian-
(2);

based, commercially oriented states of Majapahit and the Thai kingdoms cen -
tred on Ayudhaya and Bangkok being relevant examples. Within the Malay
world of the Peninsula and Sumatra, however, with the exception of the Kedah
1

sultanate and the Minangkabau kingdom, there is a distinct absence of an

agrarian-commercial duality. Yet, inherent in the character of the riverine
Malay states was a dual orientation of another nature, based on hulu-hilir rela-
tions vital for their commercial identity. In contrast with the Muslim pasisir or
coastal principalities of fifteenth and sixteenth century north Java, whose
commercial influence was not contingent upon extension of political authority
into the heartland, the viability of the Malay negeri was dependent on the
effective mediation of relations with the hulu. The nature of this relationship
would seem to constitute an important criterion, therefore, for an accurate
definition of Malay cultural ethos.

The 'Sumatran-type' Negeri

In 1977 Bennet Bronson postulated a «working hypothesis» for traditional
exchange networks in the 'Sumatran type' polity based on upstream-down-
stream or hulu-hilir relations. Bronson's model focuses specifically on the
influence of riverine communication on commercial exchange and its political
implications (3). More specifically, Bronson identifies the ideal for a functional
model in the extensive dendritic east Sumatran river systems, rising in the Barisan
highlands. The same hulu-hilir relations were important in the Malay Peninsula
and Borneo, but in Sumatra riverine commercial exchange experienced more
sustained growth. The difference here was the wealth of material and human
resources from Sumatra's interior and their effective exploitation through a set
of competing river systems based on hulu-hilir relations (see map). The island
was singular due to the presence in the highland interior of a number of advanced
cultures. These were founded on mineral wealth and rich volcanic soils
supporting sawah cultivation, metallurgy and crafts in the Batak,
Minangkabau and Kerinci lake regions, and in Pasemah in the southern Barisan
(4). The presence of these cultural nodes in the hinterland and their reliance on
the longer eastern routes to the Straits, rather than the shorter, but less
commercially viable routes to the west coast, brought interaction between hulu
and hilir, far more significant, politically, than comparable relations in the
Peninsula and Borneo.
The population of the Indianized states on the Peninsula were small, coas-
tal or at most estuarine, as at Kedah. F. L. Dunn's study, for example, points
to the relatively modest trade between the coastal Malay and interior abori -
ginal populations even after Pangkalan Bujang emerged as an entre* during
the twelfth to the fourteenth centuries (5). In the case of the Melaka Sultanate,
apart from the collection of alluvial tin and forest produce, via small coastal
settlements on the Peninsula, it drew the bulk of its export resources from the
interior of Sumatra. The development of the Peninsula beyond the coast, fol-
lowing the penetration of Sumatran migration upriver, after the mid-nine-
teenth century, would seem to point to low population density as an important
factor for relatively late economic expansion in these river valleys. Even then,
power relationships which subsequently developed within the independent
riverine states were weighed heavily in favour of the raja-centred hilir. It was
such a pattern which prevailed, despite periodic tensions in relations with the
hulu, whether in Perak reliant on upriver tin, or in Pahang which depended
largely on the interior mineral and forest resources of Hulu Tembeling (6).
 N
tZ.K ti
ARIMU

100 Km
P. KUNDOR

PE NGKALAN 4

s
• BlIa
PAGAfiRUTuNG

5ingkaIal%
k

I nd* rapura

EAST SUMATRA PALEMBANG , J AMBI AND SI AK .

1

A priori assumptions about the character of the Malay kerajaan and the
concept of hulu, based on nineteenth century Peninsular evidence, need to be
reviewed from a wider historical perspective. Perceptions of the hulu in eco-
nomically and culturally negative terms, with emphasis on the urban, coastal
society of the hilir, could be prejudicial to a full comprehension of Malay
political culture. In recent years, for example, W. 0. Wolters has emphasised
the importance of giving due attention to Srivijaya's relations with the hinter -
land and its riverine culture, without exclusive attention to its external com -
mercial orientations (7 Srivijaya's successors, Melaka and Johor, though
).

generally viewed as without substantial hinterlands, were far otherwise. The

economic under-pinnings of both states lay, in fact, in the territories across the
water in east Sumatra, described appropriately in Dutch records of Melaka as
the binnenland or 'interior'. In the Bronson model (see figure p. 81), Melaka
and Johor represent the overseas entrepot 'X'. As premier ports, they were the
recipients of goods from, and the principal suppliers of imports to, the east
Sumatran negeri. These territories were effectively their appanage or jajahan,
administered either directly by Melaka/Johore'princes and ministers or, indi -
rectly, through local rajas. Though, generally, the direct authority of either the
coastal ruler (A), or that of the metropolitan power (X), did not extend beyond
the downriver or hilir territories, the economic viability of the negeri depen-
ded on the extension of political influence upriver, through the commercial
exchange system, effectively linking hilir with hulu. Such a linkage aimed at
integrating within its political system the hierarchical market structure of reci -
procity, redistribution and exchange ( 8).

A study of the etymology of the word hulu, sheds interesting light on the
concept of hulu-hilir relations. Apart from conveying the meaning 'upriver',
commonly associated with the forested hinterland, the word refers to the
handle of a kris, knife, axe, hoe or any such implement. It is perhaps more
than a coincidence that hulu, denoting 'upriver', represented the vital 'handle'
necessary for the functioning of the negeri. The main source of income for the
early Sumatran states derived from upriver gold from Minangkabau, Kerinci
and Pasemah and a variety of forest produce from the highland interior and
coastal lowlands Hinterland products did not always reach the dominant
(9 ).

centre in the hilir as a matter of course. More often, these resources were
mobilised through the extension of political and spiritual influence. In the
case of Srivijaya, there is evidence of the distribution of imprecatory or
`curse' inscriptions linking the capital at hilir Palembang to the furthest
outreach of its influence inland, at Karang Berahi on the Batang Merangin, a
tributary of Sungai Jambi, and at Palas Pasemah, on the southwestern tip of
Lampung (10). These inscriptions imprecate evildoers and confer a blessing
(tantramala), promising security, prosperity and spiritual liberation, to those
who remained loyal to the datu or territorial chiefs (11). The extent of political
influence was not marked by fixed boundaries at the upper end of the valley
system. Instead, there was a gradual thinning out towards the hulu, of effecti-
ve power, in inverse proportion to distance and accessibility from the hilir
capital. This meant that without a hold on the hulu, representing the handle,
and thus an integral part of the blade or hilir, the downriver chief or ruler at
the kuala would lose his grasp on the negeri.

Adapted from Bronson, «Exchange at the Upstream and Downstream Ends>›, pp. 42-3.
Abstract Model Illustration:
1. Exchange between a Drainage Basin Center and an Overseas Power
2. Inter-catchment Portage between Adjacent Drainage Basins
A, the center at the river mouth;
B and C, second- and third-order centers located upstream and at primary and seconda ry
river junctions;
D, the most distant upstream center to participate in the A-based system of market
exchange and the initial concentration point for products originating in more remote
parts of the watershed;
E and F, the ultimate producers of these products and perhaps centers on a separate
exchange system based on non-market institutions, involving goods only part of which
come from or go to the marketized system centered on A;
X, an overseas center which serves as the main consumer of goods exported from A
and the principal supplier of its imports;
A*, another river-mouth center some distance along the coast, controlling a hinterland
similar to that of A;
D and E, connected by foot-paths with C* and D*.
1

The element of compulsion involved for the exploitation of resources from

the hulu was evident in the institution of service obligations by rulers of the
Malay negeri. These were comparable to those imposed downstream but,
functionally, were less effective. It took the form of corvde or kerah, particu-
larly for the building and maintainance of defences and military service and
the delivery of produce through the institutions of serah and larangan diraja.
The universal acknowledgement in the Malay world of the ruler's ultimate
control over all land gave him, technically, rights over mineral and forest pro-
duce and entitled him to a proportion of the yield from all cultivated lands
held in usufruct. Serah constituted a fixed proportion of a variety of marke-
table produce surrendered to chiefs and jajahan holders functioning as the
ruler's representatives. The barang larangan or larangan diraja, on the other
hand, was the imposition of a royal monopoly over exotic and valuable forest
produce. The most sought after items were resins, particularly ju, a substitute
for frankincense (from Boswellia), benzoin (from Styrax benzoin), camphor
(from Dryobalanops aromatica), bezoar stones (guliga) from the stomachs of
porcupines and monkeys; honey, elephant tusk, rhinoceros horn, eagle-wood
or gaharu, derived from Aquilaria malaccensis, and a variety of animal pro-
ducts from musang and pelandok. Part of the produce was reckoned as tribute,
for which the hunter or collector received a suit of clothing or persalinan as
reward. The ruler also held the right of purchase, theoretically at market price,
of the remaining part of the produce. Considering the high market price for
forest produce, the deterioration of hilir relations with the hulu meant evasion
of monopolies and forced deliveries. Widespread smuggling then resulted and
represented a substantial loss to the ruler of profits from commerce (12).

Hulu-hilir conflicts in Jambi

The extent to which resource-rich, high population centres of the Sumatran
hinterland influenced politics in the hilir is evident in the case of Jambi. The
importance, from early times, of the Batang Hari and Batang Merangin in pro-
viding access to Kerinci and Minangkabau gold supplies is attested by the
`Pamalayu' expedition sent, in 1275, by Kertanegara from Singasari in Java
(13), On the subsequent rise of Majapahit, the new kingdom laid claim not only
to Jambi but also to the adjacent rivers of Palembang, Siak, Rokan, Kampar
and Panai and the rich interior regions of Minangkabau, Mandeling, Toba and
Dharmasraya (14) Later, in the 1340's, the founder of the Minangkabau kingdom,
.

the legendary Adityawarman from the kraton of Majapahit, used the access
route via the Batang Hari to establish his base in Dharmasraya ( 15 ).

Relations between hulu and hilir in east Sumatra represented, ideally, a

reconciliation of competing economic interests to facilitate the flow of trade.
In the case of Minangkabau and Kerinci, at the upper end of hulu Jambi, pro-
duction of rice and iron implements linked them with internal markets on the
west coast, but more closely with those along the long reach of the eastern
rantau. Alongside this was the more lucrative trade involving the exchange at
the coastal ports, of Minangkabau produce, for salt and Indian cloth.
Opportunities for mediating trade between the interior and the coast, combi-
ned with surplus population in the highland plateau, produced an eastward
migration. It resulted in the growth, along the river valleys, of Minangkabau

Adapted from Bronson, «Exchange at the Upstream and Downstream Ends>›, pp. 42-3.
 3

diasporas which merged with the Malay populace of the hilir on the coastal
fringes.
By the turn of th e seventeenth century a sub stantial nu mb er of
Minangkabaus were cultivating pepper alongside swiddens. Others mediated
trade between hulu and hilir, based at strategically located muara or river
confluences, as well as at pangkalan or staging points for river-craft. Early
development of these commercial centres can be linked with the Hindu-
Buddhist statuary discovered at Darmasraya, in upper Jambi, and at Karang
Brahi and Ulu Bayat, in upper Merangin (16).

Minangkabau activity in the main valleys of the hulu, adjacent to the pri-
mitive forest collectors in the subsidiary valleys, which offered opportunities
for a lucrative trade, meant potential conflict of interest between them and the
coastal Malays. In Jambi, resolution of the conflict is embodied in the genea -
logy of the royal chronicles. According to it, the original ruler, Tantalanai of
the Bangsa XII, who established himself in the neighbourhood of Muarasabak,
on the coast, married a Minangkabau princess, Puteri Selaras Pinang Masak.
Following this marriage, she is believed to have brought to Jambi a great
entourage of Minangkabau migrants who settled all along the Batang Hari, as
far as Tembesi, to become the Anak Raja of Bangsa XII Muara Tembesi
(17),

subsequently grew into a popular Minangkabau mart for trade between the
interior and the coast.
Exercise of royal control over hilir resources, was relatively easier than
over produce from the more distant hulu. Pepper in the Batang Hari, for
example, was collected from independent cultivators by the anak raja
(princes) and licensed agents of the ruler, some of whom were Chinese In ( 1 8 ).

contrast, in the distant reaches of the hulu Jambi, in Tembesi, Kerinci,

Duabelas, Tabir and the area inhabited by the Kubu, between the Palembang
and Jambi river valleys, there was hostility to strangers. Here, rulers were
obliged to attract alliances through gifts of clothing and weapons to the local
chiefs. To win loyalty and introduce a semblance of territorial control, chiefs
were conferred superior titles and placed under the general authority of a royal
representative, or jenang, who mediated trade and collected tribute (19) .

In Kerinci, according to traditional accounts, the ruler of Jambi originally

commissioned a distinguished emigre of Majapahit descent, Pangeran
Temenggung Kebaruh to administer the interior of Jambi with his headquar -
ters at Muara Mesumai on the Sungai Merangin. The heads of the mendapo
were given the superior title of dipati or adipati with a present of kain, or
length of cloth, symbolic of their attainment of higher status. The stipulated
tribute from Kerinci hilir to the ruler of Jambi was gold and essential food
supplies in the form of a buffalo and 100 bambu of rice from each village. By
the beginning of the nineteenth century, however, tribute collection by the
ruler of Jambi through his jenang appears to have ceased. It was only occasio-
nally imposed and appropriated by the pangeran, a member of the royal fami-
ly, who held Merandin as his appanage or jajahan. A lively trade at the same
time subsisted between Kerinci and the east coast. This was by way of an
alternate route via Sungai Tabir and Tanah Ranah, by passing the capital of
Jambi, and involved the importation of cotton and salt for rice, earthenware,
iron tools and parang (20).
 4

The Kubu of hulu Jambi, also known as the Orang Hulu or Orang Darat,
were important to hilir commercial interests because of their role in the col-
lection of jungle produce. Populating the highland forests between the upper
reaches of the Air Musi and the Sungei Tembesi, they numbered some 1,900
inhabitants out of a total population of 73,000 estimated for Jambi in the
1870's (21). Like other areas in the hulu, they were placed under the headships of
chiefs appointed as depati and the overall authority of a temenggung.
Relations with the capital at Tanah Pilih were acknowledged through the pay-
ment of a tribute to the ruler's jenang based in Muara Bungo. The barter by
the Kubu of benzoin, 'dragon's blood' (from Daemonorhops, spp.), rattan and
gum for rice, tobacco and salt was conducted exclusively through the jenang.
Exchange with the Malays was originally through 'silent barter'. By the
seventeenth century there was evidently increased contact for commerce, as
suggested by the copper charter or piagam which the Kubu of the adjacent
regions of Musi and Rawas are believed to have received (22).
Though, reputedly, through the efforts of Raja Hitam, a son of Puteri
Selaras Pinang Masak, Jambi subsequently cast off Javanese hegemony, its
links with the hulu remained an integral part of its viability as a negeri.
Evidence of this is to be found in Sultan Ingalaga's withdrawal to the hulu in
the 1680s, following his rift with the Dutch. Here the ex-ruler joined forces
with the Minangkabau people in supporting Ahmad Syah ibn Iskandar, pur-
portedly the Raja Sakti from Pagarruyung, who appeared in upper Jambi
during the course of his pan-Islamic campaign in the archipalago for waging a
`holy war' against the VOC (23).
Ingalaga's subsequent banishment by the Dutch to Batavia failed to restore
the division between hulu and hilir. The appointment to the throne of his
eldest son, Radin Cakranegara or Pangeran Dipati as Sultan Kiai Gede, led to
the withdrawal of his brothers, Pangeran Pringabaya (Raden Jelat) and Kiai
Singa Pati, once more to the hinterland. Rallying support in the hulu and with
appropriate sanction from the Minangkabau court, Pangeran Pringabaya suc-
ceeded in establishing himself as Sultan Sri Maharaja Batu, far up the river, at
the new capital of Mangunjaya at Muaratebu (24). The viability of the hulu
administration and effective resistance to the ruler at Tanah Pilih was made
possible by the availability there of an alternate mechanism for economic
exchange. The adjacent area of Jujohan had direct access to Alahan Panjang
and Sijungjung in the Padang highlands. More importantly, the Minangkabau
migrants who cultivated pepper in VII and IX kotas, could find alternate mar-
kets on the coast through footpaths connected to Kuantan (Inderagiri) and
Tungkal (See A* in the Bronson model) (25).
The Dutch attempt in 1709 to effect a reconciliation between Sultan Kiai
Gede and the dissenting princes stemmed from the importance of restoring
hulu-hilir relations in the interests of trade. On the failure of this attemp (26),
dual kingship in Jambi lasted for some 30 years, with Pangeran Pringabaya
maintaining his influence in the hulu. Nontheless, the situation did not result
in a permanent division of territory between hulu and hilir rulers. Despite the
fragility of upriver-downriver relations in Jambi, dual rulership was to all
intents and purposes considered to be temporary, as at other times of political
dissent. The rift between hulu-hilir forces awaited reconciliation, essential for
5

restoring the viability of the negeri. In this particular instance, the conflict
could have been complicated, and perhaps even prolonged, by Dutch inter -
ference and their alliance with the raja hilir. Following the death of Sultan
Kiai Gede his son succeeded him; but subsequently the succession passed per -
manently to the descendants of Maharaja Batu Refusal of the Sultan Raw
(27).

Taha Siaffudin, who came to power in 1855, to acknowledge Dutch sovereign ty

caused an even longer lasting rift, of some half-a-century, between hulu and hilir
in Jambi. On his expulsion by the Dutch and the appointment in 1858 of his
uncle, Ratu Ahmad Nasarruddin as the new ruler, Sultan Taha withdrew
upriver and established his headquarters strategically at Muara Tebu. From
here he exercised extensive influence over all the hulu inhabitants in the re-
gion between Semolidu and Tabir, and the adjoining territory of Tungkal, who
acknowledged him as de facto ruler. Even the crown prince or Pangeran Ratu,
who administered the intermediate territory between Tabir and Tembesi as his
personal 'fief' or jajahan, was more inclined towards the ex-ruler Taha (28)
.

The rebel ruler's power was broken only after Dutch forces moved, as of
1901, into the interior to occupy key positions in the hulu. Dutch garrisons
were stationed at Muara Tembesi, to guard upper Batang Hari, and at Surulan -
gan (at the confluence of the Batang Asai and Tembesi), to control communi -
cations with upper Musi. In 1903 civil administrators were stationed at Me -
ringin, Mesumi and Tembesi, at the top end of the Batang Hari, to guard
routes to Kerinci and Kuantan. This move, to take control over the hulu, was
seen as an important prerequisite for establishing Dutch authority over the sul -
tanate ( 2 9
).

Complexity of hulu-hilir relations in Palembang

The extensive river system of Palembang placed within its geographic
realm the hulu Rawas, Lematang and Pasemah. In addition, though the area
had no direct communication with the Minangkabau highlands, the upper
Musi provided access to the Minangkabau pepper areas of Tembesi, a tributa ry
of the Batang Hari, via the Rawas, Limun and Asai rivers (30 Part of the
).

Tembesi basin had originally been captured by Palembang and brought under
its jurisdiction. Then, some time during the early seventeenth century, the ter -
ritory was given as dowry for a local princess, Nyai Gedeh, who married a son
of Penambahan Ratu Bagus, the ruler of Jambi. The same area was later trans -
ferred by Nyai Gedeh to her grand-daughter on her marriage to Pangeran Aria
of Palembang. The large number of immigrants which Tembesi attracted from
Palembang, as well as its brittle relations with Jambi's capital at Tanah Pilih,
were other factors which favoured Palembang's reassertion of its claims.
Implicit in its ambitions was the divertion of Tembesi's pepper supplies to its
own exchange network. The matter remained a bone of contention between the
two states, resulting in intermittent conflicts (30.

At the beginning of the nineteenth century, Palembang considered Tembesi

and its tributaries as being within its area of jurisdiction. According to the
Hikayat Palembang written during this period the negeri's territories included
the «pucukan batanghari sembilan di hulu negeri sekilian» (`The nine tributa-
ries of the Tembesi, at the head of Hulu Batang Had') (32) Overland paths lead
.

from the upper Tembesi to the Musi route via Air Rawas and Batang
 6

Harilek ( 33 ) to alternate markets, escaping customary obligations to Tanah

Pilih, and contributed to a pragmatic alliance between the adjacent hulu areas.
Hulu Jambi was hereby drawn inevitably towards the axis of hulu-hilir power
politics in the Musi basin.
In addition to Tembesi pepper, the adjoining area of Rawas, in the upper
reaches of the Sungei Musi, was an important source of hulu resources for Pa-
lembang. The area produced, mainly rattan, bee's wax, 'dragon's blood', tusks
and kayu lakar, collected by the Kubu. The importance of forest produce in
Palembang's economy is evident in the high prices it fetched and their relative
importance for export earnings. At the beginning of the nineteenth century, in
comparison with pepper which sold at about 3 dollars a pikul of 125 Dutch
pounds, dragon's blood and benzoin sold at 14-25 Spanish dollars and 30 dol -
lars respectively per pikul, and rattans at 17 dollars per bundle of a hundred
(34).
The importance of Hulu Musi for the negeri's viability became evident
when Anglo-Dutch rivalry for control over its trade came to a head at the
beginning of the nineteenth century. During this period, the ruler at the hilir
capital of Martapura was intent on guarding his interests in the resource rich
hulu. Though by the treaty concluded during the reign of Pangeran
Jayawikrama, Sultan Badaruddin (1724-8), Palembang gave the VOC mono -
poly over exports of pepper and forest produce, especially ivory (gading) and
rhinoceros horn (cula), it retained control over sources of production in the
hulu. According to the Hikayat Palembang, the Dutch were prohibited from
going upstream without permission from the menteri (35).

Kompani... jikalau hendak is pergi di Palembang

bermain-main ke hulu negeri, beritahu kepada menteri
Palembang. Jikalau berrnain-main / berjalan atawa berperahu
ke hulu negeri tiada memberitahu kepada menteri yang juluk
Memenggung fKjertanegara itu dibunuh orang jahat-jahat,
tiada suatu bicaranya. Dan jikalau berjalan atawa berperahu
ke hilir negeri, tiada suatu apa larangan.

Later, when faced with the threat of British intervention, the ruler found
co-operation in the hulu, particularly from Rawas. In May 1811 when the
British captured Palembang and dethroned Sultan Badaruddin (1804-12, 1813,
1818-21) in favour of his younger brother, Ahmad Najamuddin (1812-13,
'1813-18), the former withdrew to Muara Rawas, some 150 miles upriver, car -
rying with him the state treasure. With assistance there of the orang hulu, the
Melayu Hulu Jambi and the Melayu Padang (Minangkabaus), he built defen -
ces and effectively established himself during 1812-13 as the Raja Hulu, in
defiance of the Raja Hilir (36 ). As against a British force of only 300, he is
estimated to have raised a following of about 2000, enabling him to take <<a
strong position, embracing both sides of the river [Air Rawas], connected by
an island The period of dual rulership, here as elsewhere, proved to be
(37).

one of instability and confusion, generating widespread amuk.

In contrast, the period between the withdrawal of Dutch forces in 1818, un -
der pressure from Sultan Badaruddin, and their return in 1821 is portrayed in
the Hikayat Palembang as one of unity between hulu and hilir. In reinforcing
 7

his power upstream, through building fortifications at Tambakbaya (at Marta-

pura) and other points, Sultan Badaruddin had the full support of the hulu
people. The reconciliation between Badaruddin and his brother, Najamuddin,
preceding the banishment of the former to Ternate, meant also a time for rene-
wed loyalties towards a single ruler. In the ceremonial gathering at court
which followed, chiefs from throughout the negeri were assembled, including
the pasirah hulu The peace established was soon shattered by Company
( 38 ).

interference in the hilir administration on the accession to the throne of

Badaruddin's nephew, Sultan Ahmad Najamuddin, son of Susuhunan Husain
Dia'uddin (the former Sultan Najamuddin, 1812-13, 1813-18). Following his
rift with the VOC, the ruler fled to Muara Beliti. On being pursued there by
court officials acting for the Company, he was forced to seek refuge amongst
the Pasemah, in the even remoter parts of Hulu Lematang and Ogan ( 39 ).

Pasemah, though resource-rich and populous, compared with Kerinci in its

isolation from the coastal capital. In the western interior of Palembang,
Pasemah Lebar which occupies the broad plain of Air Lematang, a tributary of
the Palembang, was an important source of elephant tusk, rattan, 'dragon's
blood', alum, pulas twine, cotton and sulphur. The cultivated part of the coun-
try produced tobacco, gambler and raw silk ( 40). These products were
exchanged at strategic river-points, such as Muara Mulang, for cloth, salt and
opium brought by long boats, up to 60 feet long, through a fourteen-day jour-
ney from Palembang. Because of the importance of Lematang for the exchange
network further up the valley, towards the rich Pasemah Lebar, it was
referred to in local parlance as Lematang Ilir [Hilirl ( 41 ).

In the upper Musi, as in the pepper areas lower down the river, royal tribute
and monopolies ensured the flow of hulu resources towards the capital. Here,
as in Lampung and east Sumatra, the marga chiefs were drawn into the resource
network of the hilir by their appointment as territorial heads with the hereditary
titles of pangeran and pasirah ( 4 2 ).

In c. 1700, the pangeran of Dusun Tanjung Kurung, in Pasemah, received

a silver piagam (an inscribed plate bearing a royal order) from the ruler of
Palembang, reiterating his authority in the region. The area was recognised to
be under the ultimate jurisdiction of Palembang and was reminded of its tribute
and military obligations Palembang's control over the hulu, though less
(43).

problematic than Jambi's over the upper Musi, continued to be weak even after
the Dutch assumed control over the capital in August 1823. Disturbances
amongst the Pasemah culminated in a revolt involving Komering Hulu,
Tebing Tinggi and Lahat in August 1851. The Company was obliged to send
forces into the hulu and, after a prolonged struggle, broke the resistance in
1856 (44)
.

The proximity of the British administered west coast territories of

Benkulen, within eight-hour walking distance from the head of the Musi, pro-
vided alternate markets for the inhabitants of Pasemah Ulu Mana. As of the
mid-eighteenth century, a steady trickle of Pasemah migrants took advantage
of the rich soils of Mana (over the mountains on the west coast), and the
incentives offered by the British, to cultivate pepper on the west coast (45) .

These lines of diversion did not, however, affect the mainstream of trade to
Palembang, particularly after Dutch military intervention in Pasemah. In 1855,
the capital serviced some 2,300 rivercraft which handled approximately
11,000 tons of produce. Of this, 90,830 pikul constituted husked rice and
33,000 pikul raw cotton which had superseded pepper, totalling a mere 167
pikul (46)
.

Dynamism of hulu-hilir Relations in Siak

Interplay of hulu-hilir forces in east Sumatra was perhaps nowhere more
dynamic than in Siak. The most important factor in Siak's favour was its stra -
tegic location in proximity to Peninsular entreptits first, Melaka and Johor
and, later, Penang and Singapore. Despite the more direct route offered by the
Sungai Inderagiri into the Minangkabau interior, political instability in the
area, compared to the consolidation of independent authority in Siak during
the eighteenth century, brought greater emphasis to its coast-interior route.
Following this riverine route, the upper reaches of the Siak, formed by the
Tapang Kanan and Tapang Kiri, were connected by footpaths to the upper
Kampar and Kuantan, providing direct access to the Minangkabau highlands.
Originally, Siak and Kampar, were administered by separate rulers appoin -
ted by the Melak sultanate whose authority appears not to have extended
( 47)

into the hulu. The importance of the Siak and Kampar rivers for mediating
trade between the Minangkabau heartland and the markets of the Melaka
Straits meant the Pagarruyung's greater influence here, than elsewhere on the
eastern rantau (48) The pull of monarchical authority at both ends of the river
.

system weakned hilir control, contributing to the political instability of Siak

throughout the seventeenth century.
Hulu-hilir relations in Siak were further complicated by Johor's succession
to the former Melaka sultanate's claims in the area, challenged by the Dutch.
In 1662 Johor administered these areas through separate syahbandar but (49)

remained unable to exert its authority in the hulu. In the Siak river basin,
which provided shorter routes into the interior, compared to the adjacent
Kampar, Johor's influence was limited to the area below the strategic Sungai
Tapang Kiri (50) By and large, it was the Minangkabau traders who conducted
.

the riverine trade, conveying the pepper, gold and tin to Johore's syahbandar
stationed at Bengkalis, in exchange for salt and cloth (51 ).

The most important section of hulu Siak, in terms of resources both in

manpower and produce, was the Sungai Tapang Kiri, which lay beyond
Johor's authority. It led to the tin deposits of Patapahan, Kabun and Tandun
and, via the upper Sungai Kampar Kanan, to the gold of the Minangkabau
highlands. Patapahan was also an important river station, connected by footpa -
th, to Taratangbuluh on Sungai Kampar Kanan, leading to the prosperous
highland market centre of Payakumbuh via Pangkalan Kota Baru.
In addition to the route via Sungai Siak, the same footpaths from
Patapahan to Taratakbuluh offered alternate communication with the coast,
d o w n t h e S u n g a i K a m p a r, v i a P e l a l a w a n
( T h e s e hulu a r e a s o f
5 2
).

Minangkabau negeri remained fiercely independent of hilir control. In fact, at

Patapahan, the penghulu (later the bendahara) claimed to be the ruler of
Pagarruyung's representative and, like the surrounding negeri chiefs, sent him
annual tribute. In 1692, Akirsama, claiming to be a son of the ruler at
 1

Pagarruyung, arrived to restore good relations between Kabun and Patapahan

and prevent further disruption of trade. Continued links between the rantau
and the Minangkabau heartland meant that Siak's authority upriver depended
on its influence with the penghulu and could not be arbitrarily imposed ( 5 3 ).

In 1676, the Governor at Melaka, Balthasar Bort, concluded a treaty with

the chiefs occupying the main routes into the highland, at Kota-Rena and
Kabun. To facilitate trade with these areas, a further treaty was concluded
with the four important negeri at the strategic location of Patapahan (54) .

Though the Dutch did not gain effective control over supplies the inde- ( 5 5 ),

pendence of the Minangkabau negeri and their ambiguous relations with Johor
provided opportunity for Melaka to have a share of the trade. Apart from the
principal products of minerals and pepper, the Dutch competed for the purcha se
of forest produce such as sandal-, eagle-, and gaharu woods; resin, bamboo,
beeswax, gutta-percha (getah perca from Palaquim gutta) and bezoars,
reputedly ten times the price of gold. Siak was also an important source of
wood for the repair of ships at Melaka In 1783/4, Tomas Dias, the Portu -
( 5 6 ).

guese mestizo emissary, led the Dutch mission from Melaka to the Minang -
kabau capital at Pagarruyung (then at Kumanis). It was sent evidently in the
interests of securing hulu co-operation through establishing connections with
the Minangkabau ruler, but failed in its long-term objective (57 ).

No less successful were the efforts of the Johor laksamana, Paduka Raja
Abdul Jamil, to corner the trade of hulu Siak in the face of Dutch competition.
In 1689, representatives of Kua and Air Tiris, two of the four negeri in
Patapahan, arrived in Melaka appealing for trade and protection, contravening
their earlier alliance with the Paduka Raja (58 Rivalry and intermittent disputes
).

between Patapahan and Kabon further affected trade. The laksamana

attempted to attract Minangkabau resources to Bengkalis by elevating the
penghulu at Patapahan to the status of bendahara. At the same time, he deve-
loped an alternate trade outlet at Kampar (59 These measures failed to solve the
),

fluidity of hulu hilir relations which were exacerbated by the political tur moils
-

following the 1699 regicide in Johor (6°).

It remained for Raja Kecil (1716-46), ostensibly the posthumous son of the
murdered Sultan Mahmud of Johhor ( 1685-99), to bring hulu Siak into a clo-
ser relationship with hilir authority. Raja Kecil, believed to have been raised
in the court of Pagarruyung, claimed regal credentials from the illustrious
Malay courts at both ends of the exchange network. He employed a crucial
strategy for establishing his power in Siak through attempting to gain a suffi -
cient share of the riverine trade What helped him achieve this objective
( 61 ) .

was his close relations with the large number of Minangkabau coastal and
riverine settlers, many of whom were traders. Known as the Anak Empat Suku
they won, as reward for their military assistance to Raja Kecil, a greater
degree of autonomy than they had hitherto enjoyed, with datuk appointed to
supersede the traditional penghulu. Payment by these communities of the cus-
tomary ground-tax and export duties was also waived (62) The ruler's good
.

relations with the Minangkabaus helped establish hilir influence in the hinter-
land.
By the beginning of the eighteenth century trade from hulu Siak began to
converge on the important market-place of Pekanbaru (Senapelan). It was in
2

the direction of this key centre that the capital was gradually shifted by suc-
cessive rulers following Raja Kecil. Raja Kecil's son and successor, Raja
Mahmud (1746-60) shifted the capital from Buantan (Siak Sri Inderapura), a
few miles up to Mempawa. His brother and successor, Raja Alam (1761-79),
moved finally to Senapelan which, through the new ruler's initiative was
expanded, to be renamed Pekanbaru. It controlled the route to Patapahan, from
where the Sungai Tapang Kiri was navigable all the way into the interior, as
far as Pajakumbo. With the expansion of gambier cultivation in Minangkabau
during the second half of the eighteenth century, Pekanbaru gained access to
the prosperous trade centred at Patapahan (63). The new capital was also stra-
tegically located in relation to Kampar, «to allow for the ready use of the Pe-
lalawan back door to Sialo) Pelalawan was administered by Sayid Abdul
( 6 4 ).

al-Rahman, a son of the ruler's influential Arab ally, Assayidi Syarif Osman
Syahabuddin, commonly known as Sayid Osman, from the house of Syabab
(see below). He acted as the ruler's representative, bearing the title of Bandar,
which later passed to his son, Raja Hashim (65).
The consolidation of hulu-hilir interests achieved by the independent
Malay-Minangkabau dynasty founded by Raja Kecil was threatened, during
the latter half of the century, by the intervention of Arab adventurers in Siak's
political affairs. Soon, the rulers were virtually puppets in the hands of the
Sayid Osman and his family whose increasing grip on hulu affairs provoked
rebellion in Patapahan. During the minority of Sultan Yahaya (1781-91), the
notorious Arab adventurer, Sayid Ali, another son of Sayid Osman, assisted
the old mangkubumi, Tengku Muhammad Ali, in his attempt to take control
over Patapahan. With forces mobilised at Pekanbaru, an attack was launched
on the settlement. The penghulu there successfully appealed for assistance to
the interior people of Lima Kota, in whose interests it was to ensure the free
flow of trade downriver, and the combined forces defeated Sayid Ali (").
Patapahan maintained its traditional independence until 1858 when it was
brought under Siak's authority by a Dutch treaty. Only then was a bendahara
appointed there as the ruler's representative and the post filled by Sayid
Hamid, a son of Sayid Abdul al-Rahman (67).
In the intervening period, the new Arab dynasty at Siak founded by Syed
Ali (1791-1821), derived considerable wealth, however, from the hilir trade
centred at Pekanbaru. As well as supporting the royal house, the profits from
this trade laid the foundations for a prosperous community of Arab traders
involved in Siak's fast growing commerce with Singapore and Penang (68).
The Arab trade was, to a large degree, dependent on the Minangkabau com-
mercial network, connecting their chain of diasporas along the main river sys-
tems. From Patapahan the coast could be reached in 8 days and took a further
3 days by sea to Pulau Pinang (69). Minangkabau entrepreneurs, assisted by
hundreds of pedlars, took advantage of the expansion of gambier and coffee in
the interior, to engage in the bulking trade and the exchange of goods for
imports from the Straits, mainly salt, cloth and opium. The trade invariably
boosted Minangkabau settlement in Siak. By the beginning of the nineteenth
century they are estimated to have constituted some 10,000 inhabitants, out of
a total population of 17,000 (70).

The harmonizing of hulu-hilir activity in Siak, in contrast with subordina-

3

tion of hulu enterprise to hilir political authority in Palembang and Jambi,

contributed to the spectacular growth of indigenous merchant activity in the
area (71 Symptomatic of the rationalisation of hulu-hilir relations within the
).

sultanate of Siak was a significant decline in Dutch Melaka's trade with the
area. As compared to the annual total of about 3,000 tahil of gold Dutch
Melaka estimated to have received previously from Sumatra, by 1789 it
imported barely 200 tahil The success of co-ordinated upriver-downriver
(72).

entrepreneural activity in Siak, clearly, was dependent upon the stability of

hilir administration. Decline of Arab political authority towards the mid-nine -
teenth century marked, therefore, the prelude to Dutch intervention.
The relevance of east Sumatran hulu politics to international trade culmi-
nated in the dynamic growth, spurred by Islamic revivalism, of Minangkabau
trade with Penang and Singapore during the early nineteenth century. In 1830
when Governor-General Johannes van den Bosch turned his attention to the
challenge this trade posed to Dutch interests, he devised an astute strategy for
curbing the network of trade with the British settlements. The plan was based
on establishing fortified Dutch settlements at strategic points, principally at
river mouths along the east coast. These were to be linked, with improved
communication, to a complementary set of strategically located and fortified
interior market-places for commercial exchange with hinterland produ -
c er s
(73).

Conclusion
This overview of hulu-hilir relations in the extensive river basins of Jambi,
Palembang and Siak before the mid-nineteenth century suggests integral links
in the functioning of the Malay negeri. Hulu resources, whether drawn from
the immediate hinterland, or subject territories elsewhere in the region, were
fundamental to the commercial viability of the kerajaan. The nature of this
relationship was, to a large extent, determined by geographical features pecu -
liar to individual river systems and their hinterlands apropos external commer -
cial forces. The relative independence and autonomy of the east Sumatran
hulu communities was attributable to the availability of alternative outlets for
market exchange through adjacent river systems. The resulting economic
instability of hilir regimes was prejudicial to the sustained growth of states.
The fluidity of hulu-hilir relations, nonetheless, ensured a free market system,
precluding effective royal monopoly, as known in seventeenth century Aceh
and Banten, controlling shorter river courses and narrow coastal plains.
The east Sumatran negeri, defined by extensive river systems, providing
inter-catchment portage, and servicing exchange between resource- rich hin-
terlands and strategic locations in the Melaka Straits, are an outstanding
example of powerful hulu-hilir relations. Hulu-hilir interaction was, in fact,
fundamental to the political economy of the Malay world, spanning territories
from as far as Barus in west Sumatra to Banjarmassin in Kalimantan. The
early Malay kingdoms of Srivijaya, Melaka, Brunei and Johor, controlling
multiple river systems, and the later riverine states of Sumatra and the
Peninsula, were equally dependend on upriver resources. Even in areas such
west Peninsular Malaya, where interaction with the immediate hinterland was
less significant, migrations inland, as of the second half of the nineteenth cen-
 4

tury, coupled with the absence of strong leadership from the hulu, triggered
unprecedented conflicts among coastal chiefs for hinterland produce, mainly
tin, from the foothills and some hulu areas.
State formation in the Malay region was synonymous with the steady
expansion of dendritic commercial networks upriver for forest produce. The
later addition of hulu based cash-crops, for the servicing of international
trade, meant increased emphasis and related strains on riverine exchange.
European intervention in hilir affairs played no small part in escalating these
tensions and eroding the balance between antipodeal forces, leading to the
gradual fragmentation of Malay political authority.
Despite regional variations in the nature of hulu and hilir relations, they
constituted an integral aspect of Malay statecraft. Mobilisation of hulu
resources was fundamental to the viability of the riverine polity, accounting to
a large measure for its political fragility. In the case of east Sumatra, tempora -
ry disruption of upriver-downriver relations was offset by initiatives from the
hulu. Alternate routes via adjoining river systems were utilised by hulu com-
munities to sustain coast-interior trade during periods of tension. Equally,
hulu co-operation proved imperative for restoring the effective functioning of
the negeri. These factors contributed to the less coersive and more egalitarian
structure of the Malay polity, relative to the mainland agrarian states, obser -
ved by Bronson. Hutu and hilir interactions which manifested the composite
functions of resource mobilisation and redistribution downriver, with produc -
tion and purchase upriver, epitomised the reciprocity between ruler and ruled
—the touchstone of Malay statecraft. Hulu-hilir relations are a feature of a
specific environment. They warrant deeper study for a composite view of
Malay culture and an understanding of the configuration of its influence.

NOTES
1. J. M. Gullick, Indigenous Political Systems in Western Malaya, London,
1958, PP. 27.
0. See J. Kathirithamby-Wells, The Southeast Asian Port and Polity Rise
and Demise, Singapore, 1990, p. 3.
1. For recent studies of hulu-hilir relations in Sumatra see J. Drakard,
«UpriverDownriver relationships in Barus, A northwest Sumatran case study»,
in The Malay-Islamic World of Sumatra, (ed.) J. Maxwell, Monash, 1982, pp. 74-
94; B. Andaya, «Cash Cropping and Upstream-Downstream Tensions: the case of
Jambi in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries», in Southeast Asian Commerce
in the Early Modern Era, (ed.) A. Reid, Cornell Universiry Press, Ithaca,
N.Y., (Forthcoming).
3. B. Bronson, «Exchange in the Upstream and Downstream Ends Notes towards a
Functional Model of the Coastal State in Southeast Asia», in Economic Exchange
and Social Interaction in Southeast Asia Perspectives from Prehistory and
Ethnography, (ed.) Karl L. Hutterer, Centre for South and Southeast Asian
Studies, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1977, pp. 39-52.
2. E. M. Loeb, Sumatra, Its History and People, Vienna, 1935, pp. 23-4, 100-
1; J. Miksic, «Classical Archaeology in Sumatra», Indonesia, 30 (1980) pp. 43-4;
46-8.
3. F. L. Dunn, Rainforest Collectors and Traders, A Study of Resource
Utilization in Modern and Ancient Malaya, Monograph 5, MBRAS Kuala Lumpur,
1975, pp. 107-8.
5

6. B. Andaya, Perak the Abode of Grace, A Study of an Eighteenth Century

Malay State, Kuala Lumpur, 1979, pp. 144-5, 289-2; W. Linehan, «A History
of Pahany, JMBRAS, XIV (1936), Reprinted 1973, pp. 55-89.
7. 0. W. Wolters, Early Indonesian Commerce A Study of the Origins of
Srivijaya, Cornell, 1967, p. 2.
0. K. Polanyi, «Economy as Instituted Process», in Trade and Market in
Early Empires, (ed.) K. Polanyi, C. M. Arensberg and H. W. Pearson, Chicago,
1947, pp. 250-6.
8. Wang Gangwu, «The Nanhai Trade A Study of the Early History of
Chinese Trade in the South China Sea», JMBRAS, 31, ii (1958) pp. 103, 110-11;
M. 0. Woelders, Het Sultanaat Palembang, 1811-25, VKI, 72 (1971) pp. 95-127.
9. 0. W. Wolters, «Restudying some Chinese writings in Srivijaya»,
Indonesia, 42 (1986) p. 4.
10. E. McKinnon, «Early Polities in South Sumatra Some preliminary
observations based on archaeological evidence», Indonesia, 40 (1985) pp. 1-6.
11. H. A. Hijmans van Anrooij, «Nota omtrent het Rijk van Sialo›, TBG, 30
(1985) pp. 274-9.
12. G. Coedes, The Indianized States of Southeast Asia, Kuala Lumpur,
1968, pp. 198, 204; M.D.Mansoer, Sedjarah Minangkabau, Jakarta, 1970, pp.
52-3; J. Miksic, «Classical Archaeology in Sumatra», Indonesia, 30 (1980), p. 56.
13. T. G. Th. Pigeaud, Java in the Fourteenth Century A Study in Cultural
History, III, The Hague, 1960, cantos 13 & 41.
14. C. Dobbin, Islamic Revivalism in a Changing Peasant Economy London
/Malmo, 1983, pp. 61-2.
15. McKinnon, «Early Polities in South Sumatra)›, pp. 25-6.
16. J. Tideman, Djambi, Koninklijke Vereeniging «Koloniaal Instituutm.,
Amsterdan Mededeeling no.42, Amsterdam, 1938, pp. 63-7; F. M. Schnitger,
Forgotten Kingdoms in Sumatra, Leiden, 1964, pp. 23-30.
0. Java Factory Records, India Office Library, Foreign and Commonwealth
Office, London, G121/5, 25 May 1664, f.27; ? Dec. 1664; J. Kathirithamby-
Wells, «Forces of Regional and State Integration in the Western Archipelago,
15001700», JSEAS, 18, i, 1987, p. 43.
17. A. L. van Hasselt, <Nolkbeschrijving van Midden-Sumatra», in J.Veth,
Midden Sumatra Reisen en Onderzoekingen der Sumatra-Expeditie uitgerust door
het Aardrijkskundige Genootschap 1877-1879, 4 vols., Leiden, 1882, vol.3, pt.i,
1, pp. 200-1; C. Lekkerkerker, Land en Volk van Sumatra, Leiden, 1916, pp. 115.
18. J. Kathirithamby-Wells (ed.), Thomas Barnes' Expedition to Kerinci in
1881, Occasional Paper no.7, Southeast Asian Studies, University of Kent, 1986,
pp. 21-4.
19. Ve t h , Midden-Sumatra, v o l . 2 , p . 7 6 .
20. J . A nd e r s on, Acheen, and the Ports of North and East Coasts of
Sumatra, London, 1840, Reprinted O.U.P., Kuala Lumpur, 1971, pp. 167-70;
Tideman, D j a m b i , pp. 61-2; D. J. van Dongen, «De Koeboes in de
onderafdeeling Koeboestreken der Residentie Palembang», BK1, 63 (1910) pp.
204-5; Loeb, Sumatra, pp. 281.
21. See J. Kathirithamby-Wells. «Ahmad Syah ibn Iskandar and the late 17th
century `Holy War' in Indonesia>, JMBRAS, 43, i (1970) p. 61; W. Ph. Coolhaas
(ed.), Generale Missiven van Gouverneurs-Generaal en Raden aan Heren XVII
der Verenigde Oostindische Compagnie, vol.5, S'Gravenhage, 1975, 28 Feb. 1687,
p. 81
22. Tideman, Djambi, pp. 29-30; W. Ph. Coolhaas (ed.), Generale Missiven, 6
(1976) 25 Nov. 1708, pp. 543; HasseIt, Volksbeschrijving van Midden-Sumatra, pp.
2013.
 6

25. Akira Oki, «The River Trade in Central and South Sumatra in the
Nineteenth Century», in Environment, Agriculture and Society in the Malay
World (ed.) Tsuyoshi Kato, Mochtar Lufti and Narifumi Maeda, Centre for
Southeast Asian Studies, Kyoto University, Kyoto, 1968, map.6, pp. 20; J. W.
Ijzerman, Dwars door Sumatra, Tocht van Padang naar Siak, Haarlem/Batavia,
1895, p. 31.
0. Generale Missiven, 6, 15 Jan. 1709, pp. 575-8; 30 Nov. 1711, pp. 766-7.
26. Andaya, «Cash-Cropping and Upstream-Downstream Tensions»,
(Forthcoming); Hasselt, Volksbeschrijving van Midden-Sumatra, p. 203.
27. Veth, Midden-Sumatra, vol.2, pp. 70-71; Tideman, Djambi, pp. 34-5.
28. E. S. de Klerck, History of the Netherlands Indies, Rotterdam, 1938,
reprinted, Amsterdam, 1975, vol. 2, pp. 283-5, 436-7, 438-9; Veth, Midden-
Sumatra, vol.', i, pp. 18-21, 74, 254.
29. K.A. 1184 (A.R.A.), Twee copie missiven door het opperhooft Dick de
Hoes..., 15 Oct. 1672 en 18 Feb. 1673 aen den Gouverneur Generaal en de
raden van Indien geschreven, f.398.
30. Hasselt, «Volkbeschrijving van Midden-Sumatra», p. 360; Coolhaas
(ed.), Generale Missiven, 4 (1971), 29 April 1681, p. 473; 19 March 1683, p. 532;
11 Dec.1785, p. 803; 5, 28 Feb. 1687, p. 80; N. MacLeod, «De Oost-Indische
Compagnie op Sumatra in de 17e eeuw», pt.v, De Indische Gids, 27 (1905) ii, pp.
1599, 1601, 1604-5.
31. M. 0. Woelders, Het Sultanaat Palembang, 1811-1825, VKI, 72 (1975)
pp. 75 para. 3-4, 101 para. 51.
32. Oki, «The River Trade», pp. 19-20.
33. Maj. M. M.Court, An Exposition of the Relations of the British Government
with the Sultan and State of Palembang, London 1821, pp. 106-7; Veth,
MiddenSumatra, von, pt.ii, pp. 50-1; Oki, «The River Trade», Table 8, p. 35; F. J.
B. Strom van 's Gravesande, «De Stad Palembang», TBG, 5 (1856) pp. 461-2.
34. Woelders, Het Sultanaat Palembang, p. 77.
35. J. Bastin, «Palembang in 1811 and 1812», in Essays on Indonesian
and Malaysian History, Singapore, 1961, pp. 83-6; Woelders, Het
Sultanaat Palembang, pp. 93-4.
36. Courts, An Exposition of the Relations of the British Government..., pp.
25-44.
37. Woelders, Het Sultanaat Palembang, pp. 104, 106.
38. De Klerck, History of the Netherlands Indies, vol.2, pp. 142-3.
39. J. Marsden, A History of Sumatra, London, 1811, reprinted, Kuala Lumpur,
1966, pp. 216, 359-60, 363-4.
40. Court, An Exposition of the Relations of the British Government..., pp.
116-7, 119, 248-50.
41. Marsden, Sumatra, p. 216; J. Kathirithamby-Wells, The British West
Sumatran Presidency, 1760-85 Problems of Early Colonial Enterprise, Kuala
Lumpur, 1977, p. 20.
42. E. N. (Anonymous), islets betreffende de verhouding der Pasemah-landen tot
de sulthans van Palembang>>, TBG, 4 (1855) pp. 194-6.
43. De Klerck, History of the Netherlands Indies, vol.2, pp. 279-80.
44. Kathirithamby-Wells, The British West Sumatran Presidency, pp. 17, 117,
121.
45. Oki, «The River Trade», p. 33-5, quoting F. J. B. Storm van Gravesande,
«De Stad Palembang», TBG, 5 (1856) pp. 461-62.
46. C. C. Brown, Sejarah Melayu or Malay Annals, Kuala Lumpur, 1970, pp.
188-9, 115-6.
7
47. For the Pagarruyung ruler's relations with the rantau see J. Kathirithamby-
Wells, «Minangkabau Socio-Political Structures in th e r an ta u» , in Change
and Continuity in Minangkabau (ed.) L. L. Thomas & F. von Benda-Beckmann,
Ohio
 8

University Monographs in International Studies, no.71, Athens, Ohio, 1985, pp.

122-3, 133.
49. E. Netscher, De Nederlanders in Djohor en Siak, 1902 tot 1865
Historische Beschrijving, Batavia, 1870, p. 33.
50. L. Andaya, The Kingdom of Johor, 1641- 1728, Kuala Lumpur, 1975, p.
222; Van Anrooij, «Nota omtrent het Rijk van Siak», pp. 262-3.
51. G. Du Rij van Beest Holle, «Aanteekeningen betreffende de Landschappen
V1 Kotta Pangkallan en XII Kotta Kampar», TBG, 24 (1887) pp. 398-9; Dobbin,
Islamic Revivalism, p. 104.
52. Se e Oki, The Ri ve r Tr a de », Ma p 4- 1, p. 15.
53. Andaya, The Kingdom of Johor, pp. 133, 222.
54. Netscher, «De Nederlanders in Djohor en Siak», pp. 39-40; Generale
Missiven, 5, 13 Feb. 1679, p. 302.
55. Coolhaas, Generale Missiven, 5, 13 Dec. 1686, p. 50.
56. Diane Lewis, «The Dutch East India Company and the Straits of Malacca,
170084: Trade and Politics in the Eighteenth Century», Unpublished PhD.
thesis, A.N.U. Canberra, 1970, pp. 48-9; J.S.G. Gramberg, «Reis Naar Siak»,
TBG, 13 (1864) p. 524; J. Anderson, Mission to the East Coast of Sumatra, in
1823, Edinburgh & London 1826, Reprinted O.U.P., Kuala Lumpur, 1971, p. 207.
57. F. de Haan, «Naar Midden Sumatra in 1684», TBG, 39 (1897) pp. 327-
66; Generale Missiven, 4, 12 Feb. 1685, pp. 764-5.
0. Generale Missiven, 5, 30 Dec. 1689, pp. 320-21; Andaya, The Kingdom of
Johor, p. 146.
58. Andaya, The Kingdom of Johor, pp. 146-7; Generale Missiven, 5, 11 Dec.
1692, p. 535; N. MacLeod, «De Oost-lndische Compagnie op Sumatra», pt.7,
De Indische Gids, (1907) i, pp. 788-9, 792.
59. Andaya, The Kingdom of Johor, pp. 173-4, chapters 8-10.
60. V. Matheson & B. Andaya (anno. & trans.), The Precious Gift (Tuhfat al-
Nafis), Kuala Lumpur, 1982, pp. 47-8 para. 52-3.
61. Van Anrooij, «Nota omtrent de Rijk van Siak», pp. 314-8.
62. C. Dobbin, «Economic Change in Minangkabau as a factor in the Padri
movement», Indonesia, 23 (1977), pp. 20.
63. D. J. Goudie (ed. & trans.), Syair Perang Siak A Court Poem presenting the
state policy of a Minangkabau-Malay royal family in exile, Monograph
no.17, MBRAS, Kuala Lumpur, 1989, pp. 51-2.
64. Netscher, De Nederlanders in Djohor en Siak, pp. 129-30.
1. Ibid, pp. 140-1.
65. Van Anrooij, «Nota Omtrent de Rijk van Siak», pp. 354, 357-9.
66. Dobbin, Islamic Revivalism, p. 94; Anderson, Acheen, London, 1840,
reprinted O.U.P., 1971, pp. 168-9, 351-3; Acheen, pp. 206-8.
67. VOC 3867 (A.R.A.), no. 57, Copie consideratien van opperhoofd van
Sumatras westcust, von Erath, van 22 Dec. 1789, nopens Compagnie handel en
besittingen op die kust, ff.956, 981-2.
68. F. N. Niewenhuijzen, «Het Rijk Siak Sri Indrapoera», TBG, 13 (1864) p.
392.
69. Dobbin, Islamic Revivalism, pp. 46-7, 70, 91, 93-4, 103-4.
70. VOC 3867, no.57, «Copie consideratien...», f.958.
9
71. Dobbin, Islamic Revivalism, pp. 147-8, 219; Tideman, Djambi, pp. 31.
10

ABBREVIATIONS
A.R.A. Algemeen Rijksarchief, The Hague
BKI Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land-, en Volkenkunde van Nederlandsch lndie, uitgegeyen
door het Koninklijk Instituut voor Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde
JMBRAS Journal of the Malayan Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society
JSEAS Journal of Southeast Asian Studies
MBRAS Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society
TBG Tijdschrift voor lndische Taal-, Land-, en Volkenkunde, uitgegeven door het
Bataviaasch Genootschap van Kunsten en Wetenschappen VKI
VBG Verhandelingen van het Koninklijk Instituut voor de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde
van Nederlandsch-lndie (The Hague).

NOTE
A first version of this paper was delivered at the 8th ECIMS (Kungalv, June
1991).