Tag: palaeolithic

Posted on

The importance of cross referencing in setting historical facts

Did King Shalmaneser I of Assyria order the construction of a Ziggurat in Qalah (Kedah) in 1,300BCE? Or was it some place else in Mesopotamia with the same name?

Imagine that you are in Melaka just after it was conquered by Alfonso de Albuquerque.  The year is 1512 CE. They were building the Fortaleza Velha, otherwise known as A Famosa.  And then next to the fortress is a building similar to the Petronas Twin Towers.

Would that have made any sense?

When researchers from the Universiti Sains Malaysia headed by Professor Dr Mokhtar Saidin discovered a vast ancient iron-smelting complex in 2009 in Sungai Batu, Kedah, and carbon-dated samples showed that they had originated from the year 788 BCE, I was elated. It was proof that there was an advanced metal-age Malay civilisation that had existed 2,800 years ago.

But something was not right.  When cross-referenced, there were things that did not jive.

Ancient Kedah was not located along the Maritime Silk Road that connected the Indian continent with China during that time.  Trade circa 5th century BCE still passed overland through the Isthmus of Kra instead of through the Strait of Malacca.  The latter only emerged as a trade route first century CE. It only flourished in the 6th and 7th centuries CE. And this is the view that even the UNESCO holds.

Therefore, iron-smelting industries could not have existed in Ancient Kedah before the first century CE.  We were still very much a bunch of Neolithic people in 788 BCE.  All the other archaeological sites in the peninsula of that era, when cross-referenced, confirmed that fact.

Yes, we are proud that there was a very important ancient entrepôt located in Kedah’s Bujang Valley, but that came almost a full millennium later.

In an interview with the New Straits Times (Ancient Seaport of Sg Batu, NST, May 23, 2016), Dr Mokhtar said that the brick riverside jetty, ritual monuments (candi) were built in the 2nd century CE, while the iron smelting sites were used from the 1st century CE.

So, it came as both a surprise and a shock when Dr Mokhtar told Channel News Asia (Kedah Has Southeast Asia’s Oldest Civilisation and Archaeologists Barely Know Its Complete History, CNA, June 2, 2023, updated June 4, 2023) that the Sungai Batu site dates back to 788 BCE.

Not only that, he even went on to mention an unsupported point that the name Qalah – the ancient Arabic name for Kedah – is inscribed in ancient Mesopotamian scripts from 1,300 BCE.  The Assyrian King Shalmaneser I founded Qalah (also spelt Kalah or Kalhu, and Calah in the Bible).

An inscription of the script in the Akkadian language can be found in the British Museum which reads as follows:

“Shalmaneser, great king, strong king, king of the universe, king of Assyria, son of Ashurnasirpal (II), great king, strong king, king of the universe, king of Assyria, son of Tukultï-Ninurta (II), who was also king of the universe and king of Assyria: construction of the Ziqqurat of Calah.” (Brick of Shalmaneser III, lines 1 to 7).

If indeed Shalmaneser I ordered the construction of a Ziqqurat in Ancient Kedah, if Calah is indeed Kedah, then three questions need to be answered.  First, where is the Ziggurat or its remnants? Second, why do archaeologists and historians all over the world agree that Calah is now Nimrud, Iraq? Third, Shalmaneser I ruled over Assyria in 13 century BCE. Sungai Batu, as claimed, existed only in 7th century BCE. Why is there a 500-year discrepancy?

Just as we have Kota Bharu in Kelantan, we also have a Kota Bharu in Perak.  We have at least four more in Indonesia. When the Imperial Japanese Army landed in Kota Bharu on December 8, 1942, I am positive that that did not happen in Perak, just as Calah or Kalah, or Qalah mentioned either in the Brick of Shalmaneser or in the Bible is not referenced to Ancient Kedah.

Furthermore, researches show that trade between Mesopotamia and Ancient Egypt only occurred around 400 BCE while trade with the Indus Valley happened around 300 BCE.  It is very doubtful that they had any trade links with Ancient Kedah in 788 BCE.

On the claim made by Dr Mokhtar that there has not been any researcher doing work at the Sungai Batu site, the Global Archaeology Research Centre at the Universiti Sains Malaysia has clarified with CNA that there is a team that is continuing Dr Mokhtar’s legacy headed by protohistorian Dr Nasha Rodziadi Khaw.  Dr Nasha is also an expert on early civilisations in Malaysia and Southeast Asia.

I was also told by Dr Nasha, when I met him early in June 2023 at the USM, that the work continues with whatever evidences and artefacts that have been collected thus far. Out of 97 sites identified in Sungai Batu, 54 have been excavated. The other 43 will be left for future researches and when the technology has improved.

No ancient ships have ever been found, let alone seen.  They had found an artefact, a nail, that could have been used on ships but could also have been used on other wooden structures.  No excavation was ever done because they could not confirm if there actually are ancient vessels in the swampy area near the ancient riverside jetty.  Excavations are expensive, and funds are also needed at other sites such as at Bukit Choras, some 45 kilometres to the north.

The four samples that were dated during Dr Mokhtar’s excavation in 2009 have been identified as outliers – in archaeology-speak, anomalies or aberrations.  They were found among the hundreds of samples from one of 54 excavated sites, while the rest of the sites have been dated to around 2 CE when technologically-advanced dating was done in 2019.

Dr Mokhtar was still two years away from retirement, and should know about this as he was still the Director of the Global Archaeological Research Centre then.

When we started off with the discovery of the Sungai Batu sites in 2009, we were delighted that it was dated to 788 BCE. But 10 years later, with advanced technology, peer reviews and cross-references, this has now become 2AD.

Therefore, it is only prudent to save the other 43 sites for a future research using more advanced methods.

We are very proud of Dr Mokhtar’s discovery of the ancient iron-smelting area in Sungai Batu, but until new evidences surface we have to accept the reality that the area only became an industrial trading port after 1 CE, not 788 BCE.

Yes, there was an advanced Malay civilisation that was involved in a massive iron-smelting industry in the Bujang Valley, but that was 2,000 years ago, not 2,800 years ago, and they were certainly not linked to Mesopotamia.

The fact is that those ancient Malays were a tolerant, progressive and welcoming lot, allowing traders from the Indian continent to come trade, stay, and pray.  

That is the spirit that we should all try to emulate in our quest of nation building.

(This article was first published by The Mole) and updated locally at 5.42pm, June 5, 2023).

Posted on

The Lessons of Sungai Batu – Final Part

Remnants of at least a million smelting furnaces with Tuyere were found at this site alone at the Sungai Batu Archaeological Complex in Semeling, Kedah

THE Malay world burst with joy when the discovery of the Sungai Batu archaeological site was announced. 

Imagine finding out that your ancestors were very technologically advanced 800 years before common era, 300 years before the birth of the Roman Republic that preceded the Roman Empire.

I was one of them.

Somehow, that finding did not fit into the larger picture. Other regional ancient iron smelting sites only existed around the first and second centuries of the common era – a difference of 1,000 years. 

True enough, a study made 13 years after the discovery found that the sample dates inaccuracies were due to a small number of dating results used in the earlier analysis.

If that is the case, then whose iron-smelting technology was used?  South India’s. 

Sungai Batu was already a known international trading port by 2 C.E. Similar iron-smelting sites in Khao Sam Kaeo, Ban Don Phlong (both in Thailand) and Sriksetra (in Myanmar) were on the decline.  Iron artefacts such as tools for iron-smelting found at Sungai Batu were not produced there.

They were brought there by the South Indian traders.

And the Malay Ruler of Sungai Batu must have provided the manpower for the iron-smelting industry, and had the candis built for the Hindu and Buddhist traders to attract them to the Bujang Valley.

This would explain the construction of the candis— same-sized clay bricks, and constructed at about the same time. They were constructed to provide a good climate for foreign investments. Investments enriched the nation and kept the people happy.

As for religion, the Malays were generally animistic. If, at all, there was any conversion, it was all at a low level where the workers were exposed to the foreign religions, or partook in rituals.

Perhaps the locals participated with the Hindu traders in reciting the Ganesha Sloka prior to commencement of work going ‘Vakra tunda Maha kaaya. Soorya-koti sama prabha. Nir vighnam kuru e Deva. Sarva-karyeshu Sarvadaa.’

There is no evidence that they were practising Hindus or Buddhist because there is an absence of any form of deities or structures from that era inland to support that hypothesis.

Up until about four decades ago, Malays still practised age-old animistic rituals such as invoking the spirits of the padi fields, and float little boats containing offerings for spirits of the sea (melayarkan Ancak) at the beginning of the Muslim month of Safar.

But what can we deduce and learn from all the above is that Ancient Kedah and its people were respectful, tolerant and open to new social and cultural practices; they were innovative and quick to accept and adapt to new technologies; it was also possible that Ancient Kedah thrived on multiculturalism as it was a melting pot, and this was the identity that was built in the Bujang Valley area.

Finally, Ancient Kedah was more of a confederation as opposed to the federation that we have now.

Each archaeological site existed because of what they had, but worked closely together to ensure that each of the Bujang Valley entrepôt thrived.

Forward 2,000 years, we have a federation of states that competes with one another economically.

The competitions could be healthy, but in some cases, they are not; we are a melting pot but we are not one. We respect and tolerate each other because the laws tell us to, not because we earn the tolerance or respect; and to make matters worse, we do not have innovation. 

We have blueprints for our industries but they remain as blueprints. We have a 38-year old car industry that has not made it elsewhere; we have an aviation industry that came with the very first edition of LIMA, but we have yet to see even a light commercial aircraft being built.

We have a shipbuilding industry that has failed its customers a number of times, and still relies heavily on government bailouts. 

Multinational manufacturing companies have left and are leaving our industrial zones.

Yes, there is a lot that we can learn from Sungai Batu. We still don’t know much.

The above is based on the most recent data and current findings. Sadly, there are so many other related sites that are not within the gazetted area that are being destroyed.

The government needs to step in in a more serious manner to preserve these sites, and the others as well. 

More funding is needed to preserve and learn about our past, because although life must be lived forward, it has to be understood backwards.

If we do not understand our past according to the narrative based on facts and data, then nation-building and building of the Malaysian identity can never be fully achieved.

(This article was first posted on The Mole ).

Part 1 can be found here.

Part 2 can be found here.

Posted on

The Lessons of Sungai Batu – Part 2

Gunung Jerai as seen from the ancient trading port of Pengkalan Bujang. 2,000 years ago this would have been a view of the sea.

IN the previous write-up the importance of a narrative conforming to the latest data and findings was highlighted.

The latest data and findings also have to fit into the region’s bigger picture. If, as in the joke mentioned, the Hindus had found a fibre optic cable beneath an ancient temple, a comparative study of the region’s historical development of that era should tell us whether or not that finding fits into the whole logic.  

Therefore, it is important for us to understand the evolution of man and the technology they had in order to understand the intricacies of Sungai Batu. 

Like the rest of the world, the people of the Malay peninsula had undergone several eras or ages of development.

The early Palaeolithic age began about 1.83 million years ago, and this finding was made through the discovery of a 3 sq. km. Palaeolithic site at Bukit Bunuh in Lenggong, Perak. 

This early Palaeolithic age lasted till about 10,000 years ago. The stone tools associated with this era are mostly Oldowan assemblages that included pounders, choppers and scrapers, made mainly by the Homo Habilis and Homo Erectus species of archaic human beings.

These tools were improved to Acheulean assemblages during the Upper Lower Palaeolithic stage by the early archaic Homo Sapiens to include hand axes, and other stone tools that had the ability to skin and butcher game, as well as cutting of wood.

The Perak Man existed during the Upper Palaeolithic stage. The now-resident of the Lenggong Archaeological Museum was an Australomelanesoid who lived in the area 10,000 years ago.

It was during his time that Mousterian stone tools were refined and took pointed forms or have sharpened blades and were attached wooden handles, and were used for hunting and used as spears.

Then came the Neolithic age. The people of this age produced more complex tools and accessories such as earthenware, bracelets and other adornments. They have beliefs, customs and rituals.

Unlike their Palaeolithic ancestors who bury their dead in foetal positions, the Neolithic people bury theirs straight.

They live in more permanent settlements, and most probably were engaged in farming as well as livestocks.

According to archaeological studies, the Neolithic age arrived in Malaysia around 4,500 years ago.

In the peninsular, Neolithic settlements date back between 4,300 and 2,000 years ago. 

In Sabah and Sarawak they were around between 3,000 to 2,000 years ago. In Perak, the Neolithic people who lived in Gua Dayak in Lenggong, Perak were there around 1,610 B.P (B.P is Before Present, with its base set in 1950 C.E or Common Era), and that translates to around the year 340 C.E. 

The Neolithic people of Gua Sagu near Kuantan, Pahang were there around 2,835 B.P or 885 B.C.E.

This goes to show that the people of the peninsular were still in a Neolithic age, and the dating of Sungai Batu as a civilisation that were already into iron smelting to 783 B.C.E certainly does not fit into the bigger picture. 

Therefore, iron smelting in the Sungai Batu/Bujang Valley area could have begun in the second century C.E as it did in other areas of the ISEA region.

The Strait of Malacca was also not a preferred trade route during that period. 

East-West trade mostly crossed the Isthmus of Kra in Thailand to get to the other side.

 Iron ingots could not have been traded back then as the weight would have been a hindrance for the overland travel. 

The Strait only became a trade route after the first century C.E. 

While Roman artefacts have been found in northern Vietnam and in China, they all dated after the first century C.E and some came from the Antonine period (between 96 C.E to 192 C.E).

Trade between Rome and the East mostly centred in India and China where silk and spices were sought from.

Alexander the Great (356 B.C.E to 323 B.C.E) only made it up till the Hyphasis river (now the Beas river) in India before his army mutinied, refusing to march farther east.

He never made it to Ancient Kedah.

Meanwhile, the area only came under the Chola dynasty influence during the reign of Rajendra Chola I (between 1,014 C.E to 1,044 C.E), more than a millennium after the existence of the Bujang Valley maritime polity.

Even then, the absence of any Cholan or large Hindu structure of the period to substantiate the claim of a major Cholan influence, or the Indianisation of Kedah. Even the famous Candi Batu Pahat was dated to the 6th and 8th Centuries C.E.

The decline of the Bujang Valley’s maritime importance was due to two main factors— one, the environmental and geomorphological changes to sea levels in the area.

The lowering of sea levels causing the sea line to recede further west rendered the areas of Sungai Batu and Pengkalan Bujang inaccessible to traders. It is possible that after the decline of maritime trade, the ancient Malays shifted their economic activity to agriculture. 

Two, the decline of the Srivijayan empire and the rise of Melaka as an important trading port in 1262 contributed to the end of the role of Ancient Kedah and especially the Bujang Valley as an important trading port.

The above shows that it is virtually illogical for a Neolithic community in the Bujang Valley to have begun its Metal Age era while the rest of the area was still populated by Neolithic people. 

It is illogical for the Roman Empire to have traded with Ancient Kedah for iron ingots in 783 B.C.E as the trade route did not flow through the Strait of Malacca.

It is illogical for Alexander the Great to have set foot in Ancient Kedah as his farthest advance was to a river in northern India. 

And it is illogical for the Bujang Valley industries to have been part of the Cholan empire as it had existed 1,000 years before Chola’s Rajaraja I was even born.

(This article was first published in The Mole )