Certain quarters is trying to change the history of Thailand by calling the muslims Ayutthayan Empire as the Thai Kingdom of Ayutthaya. Such name calling is ridiculous simply because the tai nation did not exist then. The Tai Buddhist Kingdom only exist in thr reign of Rama I after Ayutthaya was attacked by the Burmese in 1767 by Alaungphaya.
Earlier the Toung Oo kingdom was part of the Ayutthaya Kingdom which is also a Muslim Kingdom. No wonder there exist 21 mosque within the island city wall of Ayutthaya. Alaungphaya attacked and concquered Toung Oo in 1758 and then only was it known as Burma. King Rama I, Yotfa Chulalok proclaimed himself King after a coup and murder of Thaksin, a former General of the last ruler Boromoraja Ekataat. In Siamese (not thai), Chulalok simply mean son of a minister.The last Ayutthaya King moved to Nakhon Si Tammarat where he is known as the King of Ligor, ruling from 1767 - 1821.
Our highest compliments to HangPC2 for his own researched.
Historical reality is often too bitter to swallow or too hot to stand. History is a large mirror that reflects the facts of the past, and all that has been etched into the glass of history can never be erased. If you don't like a particular historical fact, you may try to cover it up or forget it, but you can never remove it. An historical fact can be interpreted in a variety of ways, but regardless of the interpretation, the fact will never change, The Jakarta Post, july 2005
Thursday, January 31, 2008
SAFINE-YE SOLAYMANI
SAFINE-YE SOLAYMANI,
("Ship of Solayman," henceforth SS), a Persian travel account of an embassy sent by the Safavid ruler Shah Solayman (r. 1666-94) to Siam in the year 1685. The SS was written by the embassy's secretary Moháammad Rabib. Moháammad Ebrahim (commonly referred to as Ebn Moháammad Ebrahim) and translated for the first time into English by John O'Kane, based on a British Museum manuscript. O'Kane's translation from the 1970s has been reprinted once (see Bibliography), with an introduction by the present author. According to Jean Aubin (Jean Aubin, "Les Persans au Siam sous le regne de Narai (1656-1688)" Mare Luso-Indicum 4 (1980), p. 97, n. 12), a second manuscript copy of the SS is said to be extant in Iran. In 1977, Abbas Faruqi published his edition of the Persian text, which was reprinted in 1999.
The SS consists of four main parts, referred to as 'gifts', toháfe in the Persian text, but translated as 'jewels' by O'Kane. The entire account contains Qur'anic quotations and lines of Persian poetry, some apparently by Ebn Moháammad Ebrahim. It starts with the usual doxology of God, the Prophet and Ali b. Abi Táaleb. After this, the author states his own name and profession, "Ebn Mohammad Ebrahim, Mohammad Rabi" [i.e. Moháammad Rabi Ebn Moháammad Ebrahim], "scribe to the contingent of the royal musketeers", which refers apparently to the tofangi [or musketeer-corps]. This is followed by ornate praise of Shah Solayman. The name of Siam's king Narai (r. 1656-88) does not appear throughout the account, although he is referred to indirectly as a tolerant monarch. Moreover, the introduction refers to the purpose of the Iranian embassy: a response to a Siamese embassy to Iran in 1682 which was led by an Iranian, as we shall see later. Our author mentions furthermore his appointment as official scribe for the delegation.
The First Gift
(and in fact the whole account) is written in a highly embellished style and reports on the first part of the travel aboard an English vessel, which started on 25 Rajab 1096/27 June 1685, from the Persian Gulf port Bandar-e Abbas via Muscat in Oman, for Madras in India.
With regard to Muscat, he mentions that it was previously under the Portuguese. After a turbulent journey the ship arrives at Chinapatam, i.e. Madras, in Southeast India, then under the control of the British. There follows a detailed description of the fort and the respectful reception given to the delegation by the British.
He reports, that the nearby city of Maylapur, too, had been previously under the "Franks" (i.e. the Portuguese), but that it was reconquered by the Qotbahis, to whom he refers interestingly merely as valis, 'governors'. He also mentions that news of the death of England's King Charles II (which had occurred on 6 February 1685) reached Madras during his time of stay there.
The Second Gift
elaborates on the travel from India to the then Siamese port of Tanasuri, i.e. Tenasserim in present-day Burma, by crossing the Gulf of Bengal, and from Tenasserim via land first to Ayutthaya and then to Lopburi, at that time the residence of the Siamese king Narai. The ship left Madras on 17 ˆawwal 1096/16 September 1685. This time they almost suffered shipwreck near the coast of the Burmese kingdom of Paigu, i.e. Pegu, to which Ebn Moháammad Ebrahim refers strangely as a part of Kheta' (Kedah), 'Cathay', i.e. China, however, with a "separate king".
Finally, the embassy arrives at the Siamese port of Mergui, where the Iranian Haji Salim, a representative of the Siamese king and former ambassador to the court to Iran, welcomes them. Haji Salim introduces them also to some aspects of Siamese customs and protocol. The reception on the part of Siamese officials present at that port is described as particularly respectful.
Interestingly, our author mentions another Iranian by name of Moháammad Sadeq as governor (Raja daerah) of Siamese Mergui and the entire adjoining province, who functions as their host during their stay in that city. After some days of rest, the embassy continues its way by boat to Tenasserim. Ebn Moháammad Ebrahim refers sometimes to the entire country of Siam as ˆahr-e Nav (Shahrulnuri), but at other occasions he applies that expression only to its capital, Ayutthaya. With regard to Tenasserim, he states that it was inhabited by Siamese, Indian Sunnites, Hindus and 'Franks'.
Interestingly, the Persian word for "Frank", which refers to a "Westerner", entered as a loan word in the Thai language, where it is still used today. From Tenasserim the embassy continues its way to Ayutthaya. En route it is received by one Sayyed Mazandarani, another Iranian governor in Siamese service. They proceed to a city to which our author refers to as 'Suhan', by the "river to ˆahr-e Nav", situated in one day distance by boat-travel from the capital. The present writer is not certain about its exact location, but the river seems to be the Chao Phraya.
The governor, raje, in charge of that town was another Muslim, referred to by our author as 'Ùelebi'. According to Ebn Moháammad Ebrahim, he was "from Rum", i.e. an Anatolian Turk, who had recently "converted" to Shi'ism. Anthony Reid identifies the area administered by 'Ùelebi' with that of today's Bangkok (Anthony Reid, Southeast Asia in the Age of Commerce, 1450-1680. Volume Two: Expansion and Crisis, p. 191).
At that place, the delegation is also greeted by members of the local Iranian community. Soon later, they proceed upstream, thus on the Chao Phraya River, to the royal capital Ayutthaya. There, they are informed of the fact that the king had left for Lubu, i.e. Lopburi. The author describes it as a strong fortress and mentions a certain K¨úaje (Koya) Háasan Ali K¨orasani, supposedly a descendant of K¨úaje Abd-al-Latif, a former Safavid vizier of Khorasan, as the head of the Iranian community residing in Siam and the successor in that position to AÚqa Moháammad, who had died earlier.
Interestingly, the lodgings for the Iranian guests in Lopburi are described by the author as "Iranian" in style, furnished with baths (hammams), carpets, etc. Very important is also his account on the background of the Iranian community's loss of influence and favor with the king, which the author attributes to the "machinations" of a new favorite of the king, the Greek Constantine Phaulkon, to whom he does not refer by this name, but rather by the contemptuous expression "the evil Frank". Ebn Moháammad Ebrahim even claims that it was this person who persuaded the king not to meet the Iranian embassy en route and then also postpone the audience.
Finally, a first audience does take place, whose formalities are described by the author, focusing in particular on the manner in which the letter of the Safavid Shah was presented to the Siamese monarch. About the actual contents of the letter, however, the reader is left in the dark. There follows a description of several hunting expeditions and dinner invitations at which the Iranian delegation had been participating. Subsequently, the king moves to his capital Ayutthaya and the Iranian delegation has to follow him. Again, they are lodged in 'Iranian' houses, with Siamese and Iranian attendants.
Soon later, the members of the Iranian embassy decide to embark on their return journey, this time directly by sea. The author inserts here the important information of the Iranian community in Siam's custom of performing tazia or mourning ceremonies and performances in memory of the martyrdom of the Prophet's grandson Hosayn b.Ali at Karbala, which were financially supported by the Siamese monarch, who also provided special buildings and other facilities for the purpose. The French traveler Guy Tachard, who was about the same time at the Siamese capital, has left us an impressive account of such a performance of particularly Shi'ite religiosity.
The Third Gift
amounts to what can be called a 'report on the internal affairs of the Kingdom of Siam'. The author begins by referring to the terms Ùin and Main as they appear in Muslim geographical literature of earlier times, but, more interestingly, he gives an explanation for the expression ˆahr-e Nav for the country of Siam and, more specifically, for its then capital Ayutthaya. He refers in some length to the conflict of Siam with neighboring Pegu. Of particular interest is his statement that Iranians had been highly respected in the kingdom and that they are even said to have brought King Narai to the throne.
Iranians, he claims, used also to exercise a strong influence over the private habits of the king, such as his choice of dishes and drinks as well as his clothes. Moreover, King Narai, he says, used to surround himself with bodyguards from India, most probably Iranians, or at least Shi'ite Indian Muslims from the southern part of the subcontinent. He refers at some length to the conflict between Phaulkon with his 'pro-French leanings' and the Iranian community. The third part contains also 'comments' on Siamese religious practices, legal system, as well as holidays and festivals, marriage and funeral rites, official titles, criminal investigations and varieties of punishments, but all this from a somewhat haughty perspective of assumed cultural superiority.
After reporting on the suppression of a revolt started by the resident community of Macassar Sunnite Muslims, he closes with a lengthy reference to the daily routine, income, and expenses of the Siamese monarch, and adds to this some remarks on the economy and the major trade goods, as well as the lifestyle and food of the common people. The importance of the 'Third Gift' lies in the fact that it highlights the role played by various members of the local Iranian community as supporters of the Siamese ruler, who is portrayed as an extreme Iranophile. This portion is also very valuable with regard to the earliest history of the still influential Bunnag family which traces its roots back to Iranian ancestry, and which exerted some impact at the Siamese court during the following centuries.
The Fourth Gift
concerns itself in a rather general fashion with an account of some of Siam's neighbors, such as the Philippines, the Dutch possessions in what is now Indonesia, and even China and Japan, mostly based on hearsay, since he did not visit these countries himself. He starts with a 'geographical section', which contains 'observations' on Siam's flora and fauna, and what he perceived to be the 'effects' of the tides, which is generally rather bizarre and fantastic than informative. He refers also to Ceylon, Acheh, the Nicobars and Andamans. This is followed by remarks on countries, which he certainly did not visit, such as the Philippines. He identifies the "Castilians" (Spaniards) as its rulers and gives a detailed (and rather admiring) account of the installment of its governors and the presence of Chinese settlers.
To this he adds what he had heard about Japan, beside the fantastic stories, in particular of the activities of the Dutch and Portuguese in that country, and that only the Dutch were able to retain some favor there. In a similar style he refers to Siam's then neighbors Pegu and China. With regard to his return travel, he states that he passed Pattani, the rebellious Siamese vassal and one of the petty Malay principalities. Interesting is his accurate account of the Malay custom of sending a "golden flower" (Malay: bunga mas) to the kings of Siam as a sign of loyalty. He refers also to the then Dutch port of Malaqe, i.e. Malacca, but states that he did not land there.
Passing on to India, he makes reference to Ku±i, i.e. Cochin, then also under the Dutch suzerainty, and the Malabar coast. He states that the Dutch had recently taken over the port from the Portuguese. The returning Iranian delegation had to stay six full months at Cochin, since they missed the season for sailing directly to the Persian Gulf. Instead, they embarked on a ship bound to Surat. While trying to enter the port of Surat, they found it under a blockade of a British fleet, due to a conflict with the Mughals. The British forced the ship to sail to Mumbai (Bombay), which was under their control, and the party stayed three and a half months there, even if they were apparently treated with consideration by the British. The author here mentions that the city was given by Portugal as dowry to the English king Charles II. Finally, the embassy leaves Mumbai on 5 Jumada II 1099 / 8 April 1688 on a ship bound for the Persian Gulf. They arrive back at Bandar-e Abbas on 24 Rajab 1099/14 May 1688.
The Fourth Gift is followed by a detailed 'Appendix' on the Mughal conquest of Hyderabad on the Deccan - the capital of the Golconda kingdom, ruled by the Shi'ite Qotbæahs - which happened actually on 21 September 1687. News of this significant event had apparently also reached the returning Iranian mission which was passing close by. The earlier fall of the kingdom of Bijapur on 12 September 1686 is also noticed by the author. Remarkably, he refers to the rulers of both kingdoms merely as 'governors'.
The SS closes with the mentioning of the escape of the Mughal prince Akbar (not to be confused with his namesake, the famous Mughal emperor) to the court of Persia, which took place in 1682. Substantial are also Ebn Moháammad Ebrahim's observations on the activities of Western powers in the Indian Ocean region, in particular the Dutch, the British and the waning fortunes of the Portuguese. From the perspective of Persian as well as Southeast Asian and Thai studies, the account is particularly rich in information on Siam's late seventeenth century Persian community, providing a kind of "Who's Who" for it.
However, it has no answer to the burning question of who were actually the first Iranian visitors to the country and what were the circumstances of their settlement there. Moreover, it does not contribute to our knowledge of "Shaikh Ahmad of Qumm" (whose name does not even appear in the book), the ancestor of the powerful Bunnag family and Siam's first Shaikh al-Islam, but it does refer to his early successors. The SS is furthermore contemptuous of Siamese customs and beliefs, evincing its author's complete lack of understanding of and sympathy for the country and its hospitable people. He refers constantly to a supposed cultural superiority of Persia and its religion. There are, however, no traces of "ethnic bias" in the text. Finally, Thai expressions, if he bothers to refer to them at all, appear mostly in a corrupted and at times unintelligible form in his account.
Nonetheless, the SS is an outstanding document for the historical and cultural presence of Persia in the eastern Indian Ocean region. It constitutes the only extant Persian source for the extensive Safavid contacts with the region and is also of relevance for the history of the Indian subcontinent, southern India in particular, during the 17th century.
Bibliography. (a) Safine-ye Solaymani (Persian text and translations): Ibn Muhammad Ibrahim, The Ship of Sulayman, transl. John O'Kane, New York, 1972 (Reprint with an introduction by M. Ismail Marcinkowski, Bangkok, 2003). Mohammad Rabi' b. Mohammad Ebrahim, Safine-ye Solaymani: Safarname-ye safir-e Iran be Siyam, 1094-1098, neveshte-ye Mohammad Rabi' b. Mohammad Ebrahim, ed., Abbas Faruqi, Tehran, 1977. Idem, Safine-ye Solaymani, British Museum manuscript BM Or. 6942.
(b) Other works: Aasen, Clarance, Architecture of Siam: A Cultural History Interpretation, Kuala Lumpur, 1998. Aubin, Jean, "The Ship of Sulaiman, translated from the Persian by John O'Kane (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1972)" [review article], Studia Iranica 2, no. 2, 1973, p. 286. Idem, "Les Persans au Siam sous le regne de Narai (1656-1688)," Mare Luso-Indicum 4, 1980, pp. 95-126. Breazeale and Kennon, eds., From Japan to Arabia: Ayutthaya's Maritime Relations with Asia, Bangkok, 1999. Charnvit Kasetsiri, The Rise of Ayutthaya: A History of Siam in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries, Kuala Lumpur, 1976. Cultural Center of the Islamic Republic of Iran [Bangkok] ed., Sheikh Ahmad Qomi and the History of Siam, Bangkok, 1995. Hiromu Nagashima, "Persian Muslim Merchants in Thailand and their Activities in the 17th Century: Especially on their Visits to Japan," Nagasaki Prefectural University Review 30, no. 3, January 30, 1997, pp. 387-99. Kaempfer, Engelbert, A Description of the Kingdom of Siam 1690, Bangkok, 1998. Khalidi, Omar, "The Shi'is of the Deccan: A Historical Outline," Al-Tawhid 9, no. 2, Nov. 1991-Jan. 1992, pp. 163-75. Kukrit Pramoj, Khwampenma khong Itsalam nai prathet Thai [The Origin of Islam in Thailand], Bangkok, B.E. 2514, [in Thai]. Marcinkowski, M. Ismail, "Persian Religious and Cultural Influences in Siam/Thailand and Maritime Southeast Asia in Historical Perspective: A Plea for a Concerted Interdisciplinary Approach," Journal of the Siam Society 88, pt. 1-2, 2000, pp. 186-94. Idem, "Perspectives and Problems for Research on Iranian-Siamese (Thai) Relations during the Safavid Period," (forthcoming in Iranian Studies 35, nos. 1-2, Winter-Spring 2002). Idem, From Isfahan to Ayutthaya: Contacts Between Iran and Siam in the 17th Century, Singapore, 2003. Idem, "Iranians, Shaykh al-Islams and Chularajmontris: Genesis and Development of an Institution and its Introduction to Siam," Journal of Asian History, 2003, (in press). Idem, "The Safavid Presence in the Indian Ocean: A Reappraisal of the Ship of Solayman, a 17th-Century Travel Account to Siam," (forthcoming 2003, London, I.B. Tauris) [paper presented at the International Conference on Iran and the World in the Safavid Age, 6-8 September 2002, London, SOAS]. Idem, "Research on the Safavid-Siamese Relations: A Reappraisal of the Current State of Affairs" (forthcoming 2003). Idem, From Isfahan to Ayutthaya: Buddhism and the Thai People in Ebn Mohammad Ebrahim's 17th-Century Travel Account Safine-ye Solaymani (forthcoming 2003). Meredith-Owens, G. M., Handlist of Persian Manuscripts, 1895-1966, London, 1968. Reid, Anthony, Southeast Asia in the Age of Commerce, 1450-1680, Volume Two: Expansion and Crisis, New Haven and London, 1993. Sherwani, H. K., History of the Qutb Shahi Dynasty (New Delhi, 1974). Subrahmanyam, Sanjay, "Iranians Abroad: Intra-Asian Elite Migration and Early Modern State Formation," The Journal of Asian Studies 51, no. 2, 1992, pp. 340-63. Tachard, Guy, A Relation of the Voyage to Siam, Performed by six Jesuits, sent by the French King, to the Indies and China, in the Year, 1685, Bangkok, 1999. Wyatt, David K., Studies in Thai History: Collected Articles , Chiang Mai, 1999. Idem, Thailand: A Short History, Chiang Mai, 1999, reprint.
(M. Ismail Marcinkowski)
http://www.iranica.com/articles/sup/Safine_ye_Solaymani.html
("Ship of Solayman," henceforth SS), a Persian travel account of an embassy sent by the Safavid ruler Shah Solayman (r. 1666-94) to Siam in the year 1685. The SS was written by the embassy's secretary Moháammad Rabib. Moháammad Ebrahim (commonly referred to as Ebn Moháammad Ebrahim) and translated for the first time into English by John O'Kane, based on a British Museum manuscript. O'Kane's translation from the 1970s has been reprinted once (see Bibliography), with an introduction by the present author. According to Jean Aubin (Jean Aubin, "Les Persans au Siam sous le regne de Narai (1656-1688)" Mare Luso-Indicum 4 (1980), p. 97, n. 12), a second manuscript copy of the SS is said to be extant in Iran. In 1977, Abbas Faruqi published his edition of the Persian text, which was reprinted in 1999.
The SS consists of four main parts, referred to as 'gifts', toháfe in the Persian text, but translated as 'jewels' by O'Kane. The entire account contains Qur'anic quotations and lines of Persian poetry, some apparently by Ebn Moháammad Ebrahim. It starts with the usual doxology of God, the Prophet and Ali b. Abi Táaleb. After this, the author states his own name and profession, "Ebn Mohammad Ebrahim, Mohammad Rabi" [i.e. Moháammad Rabi Ebn Moháammad Ebrahim], "scribe to the contingent of the royal musketeers", which refers apparently to the tofangi [or musketeer-corps]. This is followed by ornate praise of Shah Solayman. The name of Siam's king Narai (r. 1656-88) does not appear throughout the account, although he is referred to indirectly as a tolerant monarch. Moreover, the introduction refers to the purpose of the Iranian embassy: a response to a Siamese embassy to Iran in 1682 which was led by an Iranian, as we shall see later. Our author mentions furthermore his appointment as official scribe for the delegation.
The First Gift
(and in fact the whole account) is written in a highly embellished style and reports on the first part of the travel aboard an English vessel, which started on 25 Rajab 1096/27 June 1685, from the Persian Gulf port Bandar-e Abbas via Muscat in Oman, for Madras in India.
With regard to Muscat, he mentions that it was previously under the Portuguese. After a turbulent journey the ship arrives at Chinapatam, i.e. Madras, in Southeast India, then under the control of the British. There follows a detailed description of the fort and the respectful reception given to the delegation by the British.
He reports, that the nearby city of Maylapur, too, had been previously under the "Franks" (i.e. the Portuguese), but that it was reconquered by the Qotbahis, to whom he refers interestingly merely as valis, 'governors'. He also mentions that news of the death of England's King Charles II (which had occurred on 6 February 1685) reached Madras during his time of stay there.
The Second Gift
elaborates on the travel from India to the then Siamese port of Tanasuri, i.e. Tenasserim in present-day Burma, by crossing the Gulf of Bengal, and from Tenasserim via land first to Ayutthaya and then to Lopburi, at that time the residence of the Siamese king Narai. The ship left Madras on 17 ˆawwal 1096/16 September 1685. This time they almost suffered shipwreck near the coast of the Burmese kingdom of Paigu, i.e. Pegu, to which Ebn Moháammad Ebrahim refers strangely as a part of Kheta' (Kedah), 'Cathay', i.e. China, however, with a "separate king".
Finally, the embassy arrives at the Siamese port of Mergui, where the Iranian Haji Salim, a representative of the Siamese king and former ambassador to the court to Iran, welcomes them. Haji Salim introduces them also to some aspects of Siamese customs and protocol. The reception on the part of Siamese officials present at that port is described as particularly respectful.
Interestingly, our author mentions another Iranian by name of Moháammad Sadeq as governor (Raja daerah) of Siamese Mergui and the entire adjoining province, who functions as their host during their stay in that city. After some days of rest, the embassy continues its way by boat to Tenasserim. Ebn Moháammad Ebrahim refers sometimes to the entire country of Siam as ˆahr-e Nav (Shahrulnuri), but at other occasions he applies that expression only to its capital, Ayutthaya. With regard to Tenasserim, he states that it was inhabited by Siamese, Indian Sunnites, Hindus and 'Franks'.
Interestingly, the Persian word for "Frank", which refers to a "Westerner", entered as a loan word in the Thai language, where it is still used today. From Tenasserim the embassy continues its way to Ayutthaya. En route it is received by one Sayyed Mazandarani, another Iranian governor in Siamese service. They proceed to a city to which our author refers to as 'Suhan', by the "river to ˆahr-e Nav", situated in one day distance by boat-travel from the capital. The present writer is not certain about its exact location, but the river seems to be the Chao Phraya.
The governor, raje, in charge of that town was another Muslim, referred to by our author as 'Ùelebi'. According to Ebn Moháammad Ebrahim, he was "from Rum", i.e. an Anatolian Turk, who had recently "converted" to Shi'ism. Anthony Reid identifies the area administered by 'Ùelebi' with that of today's Bangkok (Anthony Reid, Southeast Asia in the Age of Commerce, 1450-1680. Volume Two: Expansion and Crisis, p. 191).
At that place, the delegation is also greeted by members of the local Iranian community. Soon later, they proceed upstream, thus on the Chao Phraya River, to the royal capital Ayutthaya. There, they are informed of the fact that the king had left for Lubu, i.e. Lopburi. The author describes it as a strong fortress and mentions a certain K¨úaje (Koya) Háasan Ali K¨orasani, supposedly a descendant of K¨úaje Abd-al-Latif, a former Safavid vizier of Khorasan, as the head of the Iranian community residing in Siam and the successor in that position to AÚqa Moháammad, who had died earlier.
Interestingly, the lodgings for the Iranian guests in Lopburi are described by the author as "Iranian" in style, furnished with baths (hammams), carpets, etc. Very important is also his account on the background of the Iranian community's loss of influence and favor with the king, which the author attributes to the "machinations" of a new favorite of the king, the Greek Constantine Phaulkon, to whom he does not refer by this name, but rather by the contemptuous expression "the evil Frank". Ebn Moháammad Ebrahim even claims that it was this person who persuaded the king not to meet the Iranian embassy en route and then also postpone the audience.
Finally, a first audience does take place, whose formalities are described by the author, focusing in particular on the manner in which the letter of the Safavid Shah was presented to the Siamese monarch. About the actual contents of the letter, however, the reader is left in the dark. There follows a description of several hunting expeditions and dinner invitations at which the Iranian delegation had been participating. Subsequently, the king moves to his capital Ayutthaya and the Iranian delegation has to follow him. Again, they are lodged in 'Iranian' houses, with Siamese and Iranian attendants.
Soon later, the members of the Iranian embassy decide to embark on their return journey, this time directly by sea. The author inserts here the important information of the Iranian community in Siam's custom of performing tazia or mourning ceremonies and performances in memory of the martyrdom of the Prophet's grandson Hosayn b.Ali at Karbala, which were financially supported by the Siamese monarch, who also provided special buildings and other facilities for the purpose. The French traveler Guy Tachard, who was about the same time at the Siamese capital, has left us an impressive account of such a performance of particularly Shi'ite religiosity.
The Third Gift
amounts to what can be called a 'report on the internal affairs of the Kingdom of Siam'. The author begins by referring to the terms Ùin and Main as they appear in Muslim geographical literature of earlier times, but, more interestingly, he gives an explanation for the expression ˆahr-e Nav for the country of Siam and, more specifically, for its then capital Ayutthaya. He refers in some length to the conflict of Siam with neighboring Pegu. Of particular interest is his statement that Iranians had been highly respected in the kingdom and that they are even said to have brought King Narai to the throne.
Iranians, he claims, used also to exercise a strong influence over the private habits of the king, such as his choice of dishes and drinks as well as his clothes. Moreover, King Narai, he says, used to surround himself with bodyguards from India, most probably Iranians, or at least Shi'ite Indian Muslims from the southern part of the subcontinent. He refers at some length to the conflict between Phaulkon with his 'pro-French leanings' and the Iranian community. The third part contains also 'comments' on Siamese religious practices, legal system, as well as holidays and festivals, marriage and funeral rites, official titles, criminal investigations and varieties of punishments, but all this from a somewhat haughty perspective of assumed cultural superiority.
After reporting on the suppression of a revolt started by the resident community of Macassar Sunnite Muslims, he closes with a lengthy reference to the daily routine, income, and expenses of the Siamese monarch, and adds to this some remarks on the economy and the major trade goods, as well as the lifestyle and food of the common people. The importance of the 'Third Gift' lies in the fact that it highlights the role played by various members of the local Iranian community as supporters of the Siamese ruler, who is portrayed as an extreme Iranophile. This portion is also very valuable with regard to the earliest history of the still influential Bunnag family which traces its roots back to Iranian ancestry, and which exerted some impact at the Siamese court during the following centuries.
The Fourth Gift
concerns itself in a rather general fashion with an account of some of Siam's neighbors, such as the Philippines, the Dutch possessions in what is now Indonesia, and even China and Japan, mostly based on hearsay, since he did not visit these countries himself. He starts with a 'geographical section', which contains 'observations' on Siam's flora and fauna, and what he perceived to be the 'effects' of the tides, which is generally rather bizarre and fantastic than informative. He refers also to Ceylon, Acheh, the Nicobars and Andamans. This is followed by remarks on countries, which he certainly did not visit, such as the Philippines. He identifies the "Castilians" (Spaniards) as its rulers and gives a detailed (and rather admiring) account of the installment of its governors and the presence of Chinese settlers.
To this he adds what he had heard about Japan, beside the fantastic stories, in particular of the activities of the Dutch and Portuguese in that country, and that only the Dutch were able to retain some favor there. In a similar style he refers to Siam's then neighbors Pegu and China. With regard to his return travel, he states that he passed Pattani, the rebellious Siamese vassal and one of the petty Malay principalities. Interesting is his accurate account of the Malay custom of sending a "golden flower" (Malay: bunga mas) to the kings of Siam as a sign of loyalty. He refers also to the then Dutch port of Malaqe, i.e. Malacca, but states that he did not land there.
Passing on to India, he makes reference to Ku±i, i.e. Cochin, then also under the Dutch suzerainty, and the Malabar coast. He states that the Dutch had recently taken over the port from the Portuguese. The returning Iranian delegation had to stay six full months at Cochin, since they missed the season for sailing directly to the Persian Gulf. Instead, they embarked on a ship bound to Surat. While trying to enter the port of Surat, they found it under a blockade of a British fleet, due to a conflict with the Mughals. The British forced the ship to sail to Mumbai (Bombay), which was under their control, and the party stayed three and a half months there, even if they were apparently treated with consideration by the British. The author here mentions that the city was given by Portugal as dowry to the English king Charles II. Finally, the embassy leaves Mumbai on 5 Jumada II 1099 / 8 April 1688 on a ship bound for the Persian Gulf. They arrive back at Bandar-e Abbas on 24 Rajab 1099/14 May 1688.
The Fourth Gift is followed by a detailed 'Appendix' on the Mughal conquest of Hyderabad on the Deccan - the capital of the Golconda kingdom, ruled by the Shi'ite Qotbæahs - which happened actually on 21 September 1687. News of this significant event had apparently also reached the returning Iranian mission which was passing close by. The earlier fall of the kingdom of Bijapur on 12 September 1686 is also noticed by the author. Remarkably, he refers to the rulers of both kingdoms merely as 'governors'.
The SS closes with the mentioning of the escape of the Mughal prince Akbar (not to be confused with his namesake, the famous Mughal emperor) to the court of Persia, which took place in 1682. Substantial are also Ebn Moháammad Ebrahim's observations on the activities of Western powers in the Indian Ocean region, in particular the Dutch, the British and the waning fortunes of the Portuguese. From the perspective of Persian as well as Southeast Asian and Thai studies, the account is particularly rich in information on Siam's late seventeenth century Persian community, providing a kind of "Who's Who" for it.
However, it has no answer to the burning question of who were actually the first Iranian visitors to the country and what were the circumstances of their settlement there. Moreover, it does not contribute to our knowledge of "Shaikh Ahmad of Qumm" (whose name does not even appear in the book), the ancestor of the powerful Bunnag family and Siam's first Shaikh al-Islam, but it does refer to his early successors. The SS is furthermore contemptuous of Siamese customs and beliefs, evincing its author's complete lack of understanding of and sympathy for the country and its hospitable people. He refers constantly to a supposed cultural superiority of Persia and its religion. There are, however, no traces of "ethnic bias" in the text. Finally, Thai expressions, if he bothers to refer to them at all, appear mostly in a corrupted and at times unintelligible form in his account.
Nonetheless, the SS is an outstanding document for the historical and cultural presence of Persia in the eastern Indian Ocean region. It constitutes the only extant Persian source for the extensive Safavid contacts with the region and is also of relevance for the history of the Indian subcontinent, southern India in particular, during the 17th century.
Bibliography. (a) Safine-ye Solaymani (Persian text and translations): Ibn Muhammad Ibrahim, The Ship of Sulayman, transl. John O'Kane, New York, 1972 (Reprint with an introduction by M. Ismail Marcinkowski, Bangkok, 2003). Mohammad Rabi' b. Mohammad Ebrahim, Safine-ye Solaymani: Safarname-ye safir-e Iran be Siyam, 1094-1098, neveshte-ye Mohammad Rabi' b. Mohammad Ebrahim, ed., Abbas Faruqi, Tehran, 1977. Idem, Safine-ye Solaymani, British Museum manuscript BM Or. 6942.
(b) Other works: Aasen, Clarance, Architecture of Siam: A Cultural History Interpretation, Kuala Lumpur, 1998. Aubin, Jean, "The Ship of Sulaiman, translated from the Persian by John O'Kane (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1972)" [review article], Studia Iranica 2, no. 2, 1973, p. 286. Idem, "Les Persans au Siam sous le regne de Narai (1656-1688)," Mare Luso-Indicum 4, 1980, pp. 95-126. Breazeale and Kennon, eds., From Japan to Arabia: Ayutthaya's Maritime Relations with Asia, Bangkok, 1999. Charnvit Kasetsiri, The Rise of Ayutthaya: A History of Siam in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries, Kuala Lumpur, 1976. Cultural Center of the Islamic Republic of Iran [Bangkok] ed., Sheikh Ahmad Qomi and the History of Siam, Bangkok, 1995. Hiromu Nagashima, "Persian Muslim Merchants in Thailand and their Activities in the 17th Century: Especially on their Visits to Japan," Nagasaki Prefectural University Review 30, no. 3, January 30, 1997, pp. 387-99. Kaempfer, Engelbert, A Description of the Kingdom of Siam 1690, Bangkok, 1998. Khalidi, Omar, "The Shi'is of the Deccan: A Historical Outline," Al-Tawhid 9, no. 2, Nov. 1991-Jan. 1992, pp. 163-75. Kukrit Pramoj, Khwampenma khong Itsalam nai prathet Thai [The Origin of Islam in Thailand], Bangkok, B.E. 2514, [in Thai]. Marcinkowski, M. Ismail, "Persian Religious and Cultural Influences in Siam/Thailand and Maritime Southeast Asia in Historical Perspective: A Plea for a Concerted Interdisciplinary Approach," Journal of the Siam Society 88, pt. 1-2, 2000, pp. 186-94. Idem, "Perspectives and Problems for Research on Iranian-Siamese (Thai) Relations during the Safavid Period," (forthcoming in Iranian Studies 35, nos. 1-2, Winter-Spring 2002). Idem, From Isfahan to Ayutthaya: Contacts Between Iran and Siam in the 17th Century, Singapore, 2003. Idem, "Iranians, Shaykh al-Islams and Chularajmontris: Genesis and Development of an Institution and its Introduction to Siam," Journal of Asian History, 2003, (in press). Idem, "The Safavid Presence in the Indian Ocean: A Reappraisal of the Ship of Solayman, a 17th-Century Travel Account to Siam," (forthcoming 2003, London, I.B. Tauris) [paper presented at the International Conference on Iran and the World in the Safavid Age, 6-8 September 2002, London, SOAS]. Idem, "Research on the Safavid-Siamese Relations: A Reappraisal of the Current State of Affairs" (forthcoming 2003). Idem, From Isfahan to Ayutthaya: Buddhism and the Thai People in Ebn Mohammad Ebrahim's 17th-Century Travel Account Safine-ye Solaymani (forthcoming 2003). Meredith-Owens, G. M., Handlist of Persian Manuscripts, 1895-1966, London, 1968. Reid, Anthony, Southeast Asia in the Age of Commerce, 1450-1680, Volume Two: Expansion and Crisis, New Haven and London, 1993. Sherwani, H. K., History of the Qutb Shahi Dynasty (New Delhi, 1974). Subrahmanyam, Sanjay, "Iranians Abroad: Intra-Asian Elite Migration and Early Modern State Formation," The Journal of Asian Studies 51, no. 2, 1992, pp. 340-63. Tachard, Guy, A Relation of the Voyage to Siam, Performed by six Jesuits, sent by the French King, to the Indies and China, in the Year, 1685, Bangkok, 1999. Wyatt, David K., Studies in Thai History: Collected Articles , Chiang Mai, 1999. Idem, Thailand: A Short History, Chiang Mai, 1999, reprint.
(M. Ismail Marcinkowski)
http://www.iranica.com/articles/sup/Safine_ye_Solaymani.html
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Kehidupan rukun beragama di wilayah Nakhon Si Thammarat, Selatan Thai
Julai 7, 2005
Terkenal sebagai wilayah yang menyimpan banyak sejarah peradaban agama Buddha, Nakhon Si Thammarat di Selatan Thailand turut didiami penduduk Islam. Imej menyingkap kehidupan masyarakat Islam di sana.
Walaupun jumlah penduduk Islam tidak sebesar di wilayah lain seperti Pattani, Yala dan Naratthiwat, Nakhon Si Thammarat, juga dikenali dengan namanya Ligor tetap mekar dengan pengamalan dan budaya Islam. Kedatangan Islam di wilayah Nakhon, yang bermaksud kota untuk raja ini, dikatakan berlaku sekitar pertengahan abad ke-19 namun ada juga pendapat mengatakan Islam bertapak lebih awal daripada itu, apabila pedagang Arab singgah ke wilayah itu kerana kedudukannya di Teluk Siam. Encik Abdul Razak Panaemalae, seorang pensyarah di Universiti Walailak di Nakhon Si Thammarat memberi gambaran penghidupan masyarakat Islam di sana.
Di Nakhon Si Thammarat ini penduduknya purata di wilayah hampir satu juta kemudian penduduk Muslimnya sekitar 100 ribu orang sahaja atau pun 7%. Apa yang saya lihat cara hidup mereka tidak jauh beza dengan orang Melayu di Pattani. Seperti orang-orang tua masih berkain sarong, berkopiah, berbaju Melayu… Kalau saya keluar dari kampus ini, di kedai kopi, seperti biasa, ada nasi dagang, nasi berlauk, kopi–o, teh-o, tapi mereka bercakap dalam bahasa Thai sahaja. Dan sebahagiannya pelaut, nelayan, balik ke rumah, pergi ke pasar menjual ikan. Itu keunikan orang Melayu di sini, dalam konteks negara Thai.
Sekilas penghidupan masyarakat Islam di wilayah Nakhon Si Thammarat. Selain mengekalkan budaya Melayu yang memang sinonim dengan penghidupan Islam di Selatan Thai, penyebaran agama di masjid dan institusi pendidikan tradisional seperti pondok menjadi ciri tetap di wilayah Nakhon.
Mempunyai masjid yang berdaftar 75 buah berdaftar dengan kerajaan di Bangkok. Tetapi yang tidak berdaftar, yang kecil-kecil masih banyak lagi. Dan di sini juga mempunyai beberapa buah pondok yang mengajar sistem pengajian Islam secara tradisional ada. Di antaranya pondok Bantan di mana bekas Tuan Guru Hj Ismail Kassim ialah ayah kepada Dr Surin Pitsuwan, mantan Menteri Luar Thai di Bantan(Dr Surin beragama Islam). Kemudian ada beberapa pondok lagi yang masih berfungsi dengan memberi pendidikan kepada penduduk-penduduk Melayu Islam di sekitar, antaranya paling menonjol, sebuah pondok, sekolah agama yang dulunya pondok tetapi sekarang telah berubah menjadi madrasah iaitu pondok Muniti Santitham Islam di lembah Cina, di tengah-tengah bandar Ligor, Nakhon.
Terdapat juga sebuah badan di peringkat wilayah yang antara peranannya, mendapat pandangan penduduk Muslim berkaitan isu-isu yang menjejas kehidupan beragama mereka. Encik Abdul Razak menjelaskan,
Ada badan dikenali dengan nama majlis agama Islam Nakhon Si Thammarat. Ini juga berfungsi untuk mengendalikan, menyelenggarakan hal ehwal tentang orang-orang Islam. Mereka inilah di antara memain peranan penting dalam menyebarkan agama Islam- Majlis agama Islam, sekolah agama – sekolah pondok tradisional dan sekolah moden. Dan ketiga adalah masjid. Ini antaranya fungsi yang memainkan peranan penting dalam hal ini.
Tidak banyak yang membezakan penghidupan Islam di Nakhon berbanding wilayah-wilayah majoriti Islam di selatan Thai. Dengan pergolakan yang sering mendapat perhatian dunia di kawasan itu beberapa tahun kebelakangan ini, apakah kesan yang sama turut dirasakan di Nakhon? Apakah berlaku ketegangan agama di antara penganut Islam dan Buddha? Encik Abdul Razak dengan pemerhatiannya.
Di Nakhon tidak timbul masalah tidak suka menyukai atau benci membenci tidak timbul... tapi apa yang saya ingin katakan apa yang disiarkan di media mengenai kejadian di Pattani, Naratthiwat sebagai satu titik saja dalam sebahagiaannya. Kalau kita membacara akhbar memang kita rasa dah berlaku ketegangan antara puak ataupun perkauman Melayu dan agama asing. Memang ada, potong kepala, tembak menembak tetapi itu sebahagian kecil sahaja. Tidak semuanya orang-orang Melayu di sana suka dengan perbuatan atau kejadian itu. Memang di sini Nakhon, orang Melayu walaupun beragama Islam tapi mereka adalah warga Thai yang mempunyai satu dasar kerajaan telah menetapkan bahawa orang Melayu – kerajaan tidak mempunyai policy untuk mengkhianati orang Melayu malah mereka menganggap itu adalah warga negara Thai keseluruhannya. Jadi tidak timbul perkara benci-membenci atau bias-membias. Faktor kedua kerana dalam agama orang Melayu dikenali sebagai berbudi-bahasa, dan agama Islam menekan bahawa kita sepatutnya kenal antara satu bangsa, rumpun, suku kaum – telah diajar dalam agama, ditanam sikap walaupun mereka tidak beragama Islam tetap juga rakan manusia di dunia ini yang patut kita beri penghormatan. Dua faktor penting yang menyebabkan orang Melayu di sini tidak terasa seperti mahu benci kepada saudara di satu wilayah.
Encik Abdul Razak Panaemalae, pensyarah di Universiti Walailak di wilayah Nakhon Si Thammarat, Selatan Thailand.
Nakhon Si Thammarat, wilayah lama di selatan Thailand yang kaya dengan kesan sejarah dan mercu tanda peradaban agama Buddha. Menariknya di sini juga berdiri masjid-masjid, pondok dan madrasah yang menjadi nadi penghidupan masyarakat Islam minoriti. Pada luarannya mungkin ini dilihat sebagai simbolik namun turut mencerminkan persefahaman antara agama yang telah lama wujud sejak berabad lama. Inilah yang mungkin harus diberi perhatian dalam kita mengawasi pergolakan yang berlaku di Selatan Thailand.
Untuk Imej kali ini. Saya Emillia Amin dari Radio Singapura Internasional untuk Ehwal Semasa Radio Mediacorp. Salam hormat.
Friday, January 18, 2008
Sejarah Perlis
BRIEF HISTORY
The State of Perlis (Negeri Perlis Indera Kayangan) has its origins during the period of Thai rule over the northern Malay states. The Thais followed a classic "divide and rule policy", no doubt in full conformity with the traditional Asian values of which we have heard so much. They divided the states into smaller units under, frequently headed by rival members of the ruling houses. Perlis, a region within Kedah, became a separate polity under the former Sultan Zia ud-din Mukarram Shah II, after he abdicated in 1803.
Sultan Zia's daughter married a Syed of Arabic descent, named Abu Bakar Harun Jamal' ul-Lail. The latter had been Penghulu, or subordinate chief, of Arau since 1797. His son and successor, Syed Husain received promotion to Raja of Perlis Indera Kayangan in 1843, after helping the Thais to suppress a revolt by the Raja of Ligor, one of the micro states into which Patani had been divided. Syed Husain's successors ruled peacefully for the rest of the century, sending the occasional tributes of gold or silver flowers to the Siamese overlord in Bangkok.
.....................................................................................
Ini menunjukkan bahawa Raja Ligor adalah entiti yang berbeza (separate entiti) dengan Raja Thai. Raja Ligor beragama Islam sementara Raja Thai beragama Buddha. Tetapi bila tahunnya digantikan dengan bukan Islam?
http://www.4dw.net/royalark/Malaysia/perlis.htm
The State of Perlis (Negeri Perlis Indera Kayangan) has its origins during the period of Thai rule over the northern Malay states. The Thais followed a classic "divide and rule policy", no doubt in full conformity with the traditional Asian values of which we have heard so much. They divided the states into smaller units under, frequently headed by rival members of the ruling houses. Perlis, a region within Kedah, became a separate polity under the former Sultan Zia ud-din Mukarram Shah II, after he abdicated in 1803.
Sultan Zia's daughter married a Syed of Arabic descent, named Abu Bakar Harun Jamal' ul-Lail. The latter had been Penghulu, or subordinate chief, of Arau since 1797. His son and successor, Syed Husain received promotion to Raja of Perlis Indera Kayangan in 1843, after helping the Thais to suppress a revolt by the Raja of Ligor, one of the micro states into which Patani had been divided. Syed Husain's successors ruled peacefully for the rest of the century, sending the occasional tributes of gold or silver flowers to the Siamese overlord in Bangkok.
.....................................................................................
Ini menunjukkan bahawa Raja Ligor adalah entiti yang berbeza (separate entiti) dengan Raja Thai. Raja Ligor beragama Islam sementara Raja Thai beragama Buddha. Tetapi bila tahunnya digantikan dengan bukan Islam?
http://www.4dw.net/royalark/Malaysia/perlis.htm
Phaya Thaksin @ Putera MokhTAR HusSAIN yang murtad
Following an internal political conflict in 1782 King Taksin allegedly became insane and started to regard himself as the second coming of Buddha. Whether true or not, he was deposed by his ministers, who then executed him in the custom reserved for royalty -- by shackling his hands and feet with gold restraints, sewing him into a velvet sack so that no royal blood touched the ground, then beating him to death with a Sandalwood club. (Dah pukul kepala hingga mati, hari ni buat tugu peringatan untuk dia pulak !!)
During the Ayutthaya period a surprising number of Thai kings are reported to have become insane and were eliminated. As in previous cases, many heirs to the king were also executed(biasalah , bunuh keturunan). General Chakri a close and trusted aide of the former King Taksin succeeded him to the throne. King Taksin's achievements have caused prosperity to bestow on him the epithet "the Great".
Siam was under the control of the Burmese since the sacking of Ayutthaya, but had to withdraw the bulk of its army from Siam to ward of the Chinese invasions, leaving behind only a small contingent. General Taksin taking advantage of the situation, organized his force and revolted.
General Taksin; At first was a guerrilla leader with only five hundred followers but within fifteen years his dominion was to embrace all of Siam. During the revolt Taksin managed to escape to Rayong on the East coast of Siam. Here with the help of Phraya Pichai, now his Commander-in-Chief, raised an army and declared all out war on Burma. The action was to eventually regain freedom for the Siamese people.
http://www.usmta.com/history-heros-1.htm
During the Ayutthaya period a surprising number of Thai kings are reported to have become insane and were eliminated. As in previous cases, many heirs to the king were also executed(biasalah , bunuh keturunan). General Chakri a close and trusted aide of the former King Taksin succeeded him to the throne. King Taksin's achievements have caused prosperity to bestow on him the epithet "the Great".
Siam was under the control of the Burmese since the sacking of Ayutthaya, but had to withdraw the bulk of its army from Siam to ward of the Chinese invasions, leaving behind only a small contingent. General Taksin taking advantage of the situation, organized his force and revolted.
General Taksin; At first was a guerrilla leader with only five hundred followers but within fifteen years his dominion was to embrace all of Siam. During the revolt Taksin managed to escape to Rayong on the East coast of Siam. Here with the help of Phraya Pichai, now his Commander-in-Chief, raised an army and declared all out war on Burma. The action was to eventually regain freedom for the Siamese people.
http://www.usmta.com/history-heros-1.htm
Siapa Sultan Kedah tahun 1832?
SOME 19th CENTURY VISITORS TO CAVES IN PENINSULAR MALAYSIA
LIZ PRICE
The earliest record I have found, which actually predates the period covered in this paper, is by Dr. J.G. KOENIG, who went to Quedar (Kedah) on 15-30 December 1779. On 25 Decemberhe saw the Gerai Mountains, and on the 26th the Elephant Mountain.
Dr. Jean Gerard Koenig(1728-1785) was born in Livland, and was a pupil of Linnaeus. He became a noted botanist. In 1768 he travelled to India. His original manuscripts are in the Natural History Museum, London.
Various other people later wrote about Elephant Mountain or Gunung Giriyan (now called Keriang). T. WARD was probably the first person to describe it. He was an assistant surgeon inthe Madras Establishment. In November 1832 he visited Quedah and examined Gunong Giriyan (Keriang).
He went to the rock on an elephant loaned by the Rajah of Ligore. Guides showed him the caves; he visited four which he explored and recorded. He also knocked off specimens to study. He noted how the hill was surrounded by sea not too long ago. Today Gunung Keriang rises majestically above rice paddies, near the town of Alor Setar.
...................................................................................
Dalam tahun 1832 Raja Ligor yang dimaksudkan ialah Syed Alang Alauddin Panglima Bukit Gantang dan baginda sememangnya menetap di Alor Setar Kedah. Raja Ligor adalah gelaran kepada Sultan Kedah yang pernah menetap di Ligor dulu iaitu Syarif Yang Di Pertuan (datuk kepada Syed Alang Alauddin)selepas baginda berundur dari Ayuthia yang diserang oleh puak Tai. Gelaran itu kekal dibawa oleh cucunya juga.
Semakin lama semakin banyak bukti yang timbul semula
LIZ PRICE
The earliest record I have found, which actually predates the period covered in this paper, is by Dr. J.G. KOENIG, who went to Quedar (Kedah) on 15-30 December 1779. On 25 Decemberhe saw the Gerai Mountains, and on the 26th the Elephant Mountain.
Dr. Jean Gerard Koenig(1728-1785) was born in Livland, and was a pupil of Linnaeus. He became a noted botanist. In 1768 he travelled to India. His original manuscripts are in the Natural History Museum, London.
Various other people later wrote about Elephant Mountain or Gunung Giriyan (now called Keriang). T. WARD was probably the first person to describe it. He was an assistant surgeon inthe Madras Establishment. In November 1832 he visited Quedah and examined Gunong Giriyan (Keriang).
He went to the rock on an elephant loaned by the Rajah of Ligore. Guides showed him the caves; he visited four which he explored and recorded. He also knocked off specimens to study. He noted how the hill was surrounded by sea not too long ago. Today Gunung Keriang rises majestically above rice paddies, near the town of Alor Setar.
...................................................................................
Dalam tahun 1832 Raja Ligor yang dimaksudkan ialah Syed Alang Alauddin Panglima Bukit Gantang dan baginda sememangnya menetap di Alor Setar Kedah. Raja Ligor adalah gelaran kepada Sultan Kedah yang pernah menetap di Ligor dulu iaitu Syarif Yang Di Pertuan (datuk kepada Syed Alang Alauddin)selepas baginda berundur dari Ayuthia yang diserang oleh puak Tai. Gelaran itu kekal dibawa oleh cucunya juga.
Semakin lama semakin banyak bukti yang timbul semula
Thursday, January 17, 2008
FOR MONKS ONLY
>>Mee Kari di Chiengmai?<<
Kat Kedah pun ada jual Mee Kari Chieng Mai....korang tak tahu ke?
Ada rupa-rupanya kat sane ye....tapi bila pulak orang Pahang pandai buat Mee Kari kena hantar pegi ke Chieng Mai????...Pandai lah buat cerita puak ni. Baca disini,
http://www.lastappetite.com/khao-soi/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)