Article

Coins

From Munshipedia, the MBRAS digital historical encyclopedia

Coins

Coins of the Malay Peninsula and Borneo constitute a diverse numismatic corpus spanning indigenous pewter and gold issues, European colonial minting, and commemorative medals, with documented evidence stretching from the early sixteenth century to the early twentieth century. The coinage of the region is characterised by a persistent reliance on base metals—particularly tin and pewter—reflecting the abundance of local tin deposits and the limited availability of precious metals in the pre-colonial economy, while gold coinage, though rarer, reveals connections to Indian and Persian monetary traditions [1], [2]. European intervention introduced new metallurgical practices and denominational systems, most notably the Portuguese mint at Malacca in 1511, which struck pewter coins exploiting the local tin supply [3]. The numismatic record of the region is further complicated by the coexistence of multiple concurrent currency systems, the deliberate debasement of coinage by local authorities, and the gradual displacement of indigenous coinage by Straits Settlements and British colonial issues [4], [5].

Indigenous Pewter and Gold Coinage

The indigenous coinage of the eastern seaboard states—Trengganu, Kelantan, and the Siamese province of Patani—was predominantly struck in pewter, a tin-lead alloy well suited to the region’s metallurgical resources. Bucknill’s 1923 survey, published in the inaugural volume of the Journal of the Malayan Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, provides the first systematic attempt to correlate the scattered pewter “piti” coinage of these states with specific rulers, mints, and dates [4]. In Trengganu, the pewter piti underwent a significant devaluation from 3,840 per Spanish dollar (as recorded by the Malay writer Abdullah bin Abdul Kadir in 1838) to 960 per dollar by the mid-nineteenth century, reflecting the state’s economic decline and a shift in the reference unit of value [4, pp. 195–196]. Sultan Omar’s reign (1839–1876) produced two dated pewter issues—A.H. 1265 (1848–49) and A.H. 1271 (1854–55)—both inscribed “Thuriba Trengganu” (Struck Trengganu), providing the first firm mint-and-date evidence for the state’s coinage [4, p. 206]. The later pewter issues of Sultan Zenalabidin III (1892–1918) introduced a ten-keping piece dated A.H. 1310 and, in 1907–8, regular one-cent and half-cent pieces bearing the Sultan’s initials “S. Z. A.” separated by six-pointed stars [4, pp. 206–207]. A 1920 issue, struck under the young successor, was placed on parity with Straits Settlements bronze cents owing to the then-high price of tin, creating a confusing dual currency of visually similar pewter cents of different intrinsic worth [4, p. 197].

Kelantan issued at least six distinct pewter types between 1882 and 1903, all bearing a central circular hole for stringing and inscribed in Arabic script with the state name and a Hegira date [4, pp. 209–210]. Linehan’s 1934 note documents several dated issues, including a rare square-holed coin of 1256 A.H. (1840) described as “of the greatest rarity,” and a puloh coin of 1321 A.H. (1903) that had a nominal value of 1/480 of a dollar but an actual value of less than 1/100 of a dollar [1, pp. 64–66]. The most substantial portion of Linehan’s article is an extended quotation from W. A. Graham’s “General Report of Affairs of the State of Kelantan” (1904–1906), which describes the minting company’s deliberate debasement of the pewter coinage, the resulting financial crisis, and the Siamese government’s decision to take over the mint. The Siamese government redeemed $40,000 worth of debased coin, incurred a debt of $90,000 to His Majesty’s Government, and recovered 85 tons of coin whose metal content was worth only about $40,000; the coin was reminted into small pitis providing a local currency of $55,000 [1, p. 65].

In the Siamese province of Patani, Bucknill records three distinct mints—Patani (inland), Yaring (coastal, approximately 30 miles north), and Saiburi (coastal, approximately 130 miles south of Singora)—each producing pewter coins of slightly different values: 800 to the dollar at Patani, 500 at Yaring, and 500 at Saiburi [4, p. 212]. These coins were not struck by formal government authority and had fallen out of use by approximately 1909, with trade in the region still substantially conducted by barter [4, p. 212].

The gold coinage of the north-eastern Malay states presents a more complex interpretive problem. Linehan’s 1934 note examines four types of gold coin, all reportedly excavated from the north bank of the Kelantan River at Kubang Labu, near the site of an old fort [1, pp. 63–64]. The most significant type bears the inscription Malik al-‘adil (“The just Lord”) on one face and a kijang (barking deer) on the other; Linehan argues for Kelantan provenance on the grounds that similar coins have been found at Jaring near Patani, that Kelantan royalty claim kinship with Patani, and that the kijang appears on the Sultan’s coat of arms [1, pp. 63–64]. A fourth type, dinar matahari (“the sun coin”), bears a floral motif [1, p. 64]. Linehan dates all gold coins to the 17th or 18th century, a period for which Kelantan’s history is “wrapped in almost complete mystery,” noting that the present royal dynasty was only founded around 1793 [1, p. 64].

Rentse’s 1939 article re-examines the so-called “kijang” gold coin, arguing that the animal depicted is not a barking deer but a sacred bull—most likely the Nandi of Shiva—and that the coinage was introduced by Muslim Indian traders and subsequently minted locally in states such as Kelantan, Patani, and Kedah using indigenous gold [2]. Drawing on a larger and better-struck corpus of specimens, Rentse identifies seven distinct types and argues that the animal is a bull, citing the presence of bull-like horns, a hump, a tasseled tail, and in one type a clearly depicted sexual organ consistent with Indian cult imagery [2, p. 92]. The local term mas-dinar derives from the Persian dinar (itself from Latin denarius), indicating a Western origin for the coinage concept [2]. Rentse connects the bull imagery to the Malay Annals legend of the Nandi bull that appeared at Siguntang near Mount Mahameru, carrying the ancestor of Malay royalty [2]. Skeat’s 1899 field notes from Jering, Patani, provide independent corroboration: coins were dug up in a bottle at Bukit Kuwong, traditionally attributed to Raja Merkah after his conversion to Islam, and Skeat himself identified the figures as bulls rather than kijang [2, p. 93]. The coins served practical and magical functions in local society—worn as amulets for children, used in bird-training rituals, and passed down through families [2, pp. 92].

A brief note by Gardner (1933) describes an eight-sided silver-copper alloy coin (0.77 g, approximately 70 per cent silver) reported to have come from Kedah, with an inscription translated by R. O. Winstedt as “Dziyau’d-din Sultan, Sanat 1076” (A.D. 1665) [6]. Gardner compares the specimen with coins illustrated by Millies in Recherches sur les Monnies des Indigènes de l’Archipel Indien et de la Péninsule Malaise, observing that while Millies shows one eight-sided tin coin from Kedah, nothing exactly matching this specimen is known [6].

European Minting and Colonial Currency

The Portuguese mint at Malacca in 1511 represents the only European mint ever established in the city. Hanitsch’s 1903 article documents a remarkable hoard of coins recovered from the foreshore near the mouth of the Malacca River and deposited in the Raffles Museum, the most significant contribution of which is the identification of tin coins struck by Albuquerque’s mint [3]. Hanitsch demonstrates, through Albuquerque’s Commentaries, that the Sultanate of Malacca possessed a native pewter coinage (the caixes) before 1511, contradicting Millies’ assertion that no such numismatic monument survived [3]. The Portuguese mint struck pewter rather than copper (as at Goa) to exploit the local tin supply, with three denominations: dinheiro, soldo, and bastardo [3, pp. 186–187]. Three coins in excellent condition bearing the legend “EWANVEL: R: P: ET: A: DOVINE” (Emmanuel Rex Portugaliæ et Algarbiorum) date to the reign of King Emmanuel and are likely bastardos of 30 mm diameter and 10.3–10.8 g weight [3, p. 189]. A coin bearing the letters “I S M A” in the angles of a cross is interpreted as “Ioannes, Malacca,” providing direct mint-mark evidence for the Malacca mint during John III’s reign [3, p. 190]. The Portuguese tin coins from Malacca are probably unique in world numismatic collections: the British Museum holds none, and enquiries in Lisbon and elsewhere yielded no other known specimens [3, p. 181].

The Dutch never minted coins specifically for Malacca; all Dutch material in the Hanitsch collection is Java currency, the earliest copper coin dating from 1729 [3, p. 192]. Neilson’s 1929 note describes a collection of forty-four copper coins and eight Chinese tokens recovered from tin-washing operations near Seremban, spanning a remarkable date range from 1734 to 1826, suggesting a private hoard concealed in old tailings [7]. The coins include duits struck in the Netherlands for the Dutch East India Company, quarter-stuivers struck for the Netherlands East Indies (1823–1826), duits bearing the Soerabaia stamp, a single English East India Company coin dated 1798, and a Javanese duit of 1810 restamped with the undeciphered letters “L.N.” [7, pp. 466–469].

The post-First World War period saw a severe disruption to Malayan coinage. Bucknill’s 1922 note traces the long decline in silver prices from 1870 to 1910 and explains how the post-war appreciation rendered Malayan silver coins worth more as bullion than at face value, prompting their export and melting [5]. Despite legislative attempts to curb export and hoarding, the dollar and subsidiary silver coins rapidly disappeared from circulation by 1917, and even the bronze coinage began to vanish [5, p. 125]. The Government faced a difficult situation: the Indian Mints were overburdened and the Royal Siamese Mint at Bangkok could not assist for technical reasons, so it was nearly three years before replacement coins appeared [5]. In the interim, the first emergency measure was the issue of a locally printed 10 cent note produced at the Government Printing Works, Singapore, printed on thick, coarse, open-textured paper that tore easily and absorbed dirt, making them unpopular [5, p. 125].

Dakers’ 1937 note describes two unpublished “Mules” (die combinations) among the British copper tokens of the Straits Settlements held in the Raffles Museum, Singapore, building on H. Leslie Ellis’s earlier catalogue of the series [8]. Dakers identifies a Mule combining obverse F (Cock right, earliest type) with reverse No. 1 (proper to the Sumatra and Sultana coins), and an extraordinary piece combining obverse J (Cock left, C.R. Read’s type) with obverse K (the genuine East India Company obverse of the 1803 Quarter Faluce of Madras), which he judges to be a purposely concocted freak [8, p. 129].

Brunei and the Boxer Codex

The Boxer Codex, a late sixteenth-century Spanish manuscript describing the sultanate of Brunei under Sultan Lixar (Saif-ul-Rejal) circa 1589–1590, provides the most extensive surviving European-language account of Brunei’s internal affairs in the late sixteenth century [9]. Carroll’s 1982 translation and commentary identifies the anonymous author as likely a ranking Spanish secular official in Manila, drawing on information from a Malay-speaking Tagalog trader who had visited Brunei as recently as 1589 [9, p. 1]. The Codex records the minting of pitis (tin or lead) and paku (copper-silver alloy) coins to replace the silver batguin that foreigners had been carrying away, a system of weights based on the bahara–pikul–kati–tahil hierarchy, and a floating market of over five hundred boats operating twice daily [9, pp. 13–14]. The sultan replaced the silver batguin coin (worth 4½ reales) with base-metal pitis and paku coins because foreign traders were draining the kingdom of its silver; a paku was valued at 32 pitis, and a laksa of pitis was worth 322 tomines (approximately 193.2 grams of silver) [9, pp. 13]. Carroll correlates the Codex’s coinage with the tin and lead coins excavated by Tom and Barbara Harrisson at Kota Batu in 1957, concluding that Brunei began minting its own currency between 1521 and 1589 [9, p. 19].

The Term Ringgit

Sim Ewe Eong’s 1974 article traces the etymology and numismatic history of the word ringgit, prompted by the termination of currency interchangeability between Malaysia and Singapore and the subsequent public curiosity about why the native term had supplanted “dollar” in official usage [10]. The word ringgit derives from the root meaning “jagged” or “serrated,” cognate with gerigi (saw-teeth), and was originally applied to silver coins with milled or serrated edges that distinguished them from the earlier crude “cob” Spanish pieces of eight, which were called real batu (stone real) for their irregular shape [10]. The historical narrative explains why European mints introduced serrated edges in the first place: to combat the widespread practices of clipping and sweating, which had degraded the metal content of hammered coins in circulation [10]. By the nineteenth century, the term ringgit had broadened to encompass all silver coins of equivalent size and fineness regardless of edge type, and Sim catalogues the rich local nomenclature that developed to distinguish them: ringgit meriam (Pillar Dollar, with the Pillars of Hercules mistaken for cannons), ringgit geroda (Mexican eagle coin), ringgit tongkat (British Trade Dollar with Britannia’s trident), and ringgit tengkorak (Dutch 2½ guilder with William II’s bald head) [10].

A notable regional distinction is drawn between ringgit and rial: in Kedah, Kelantan, and Thailand, the Spanish Pillar Dollar was known as rial (a word introduced by early Arab traders), and when serrated-edge coins later arrived, they were labelled rial beringgit to differentiate them [10]. The word ringgit appears in Marsden’s Dictionary of the Malayan Language (1812) and in Abbot Favre’s Malais-Français Dictionnaire, confirming its use as a monetary term by the early nineteenth century [10, p. 58]. The Oriental Banking Corporation of Singapore used “Lima Ringgit” on its $5 notes in 1849, providing documentary evidence of the term’s official assimilation by the mid-nineteenth century [10, p. 61]. The Jawi script “Satu Ringgit” first appeared on the reverse of the British Trade Dollar in 1895, followed by the Straits Settlements dollar coin of King Edward VII in 1903 and King George V in 1919 [10, p. 61].

Commemorative Medals

Wodak’s 1951 article catalogues a small group of commemorative medals struck in France to mark diplomatic encounters between Siam and the French court, spanning from the embassy of King Narai to Louis XIV in 1686 to King Chulalongkorn’s visit to the Paris mint in 1897 [11]. The earliest, a copper medal of 1686 (73 mm, 172 g), commemorates the audience granted to Siamese ambassadors by Louis XIV following the successful second embassy dispatched under the influence of the Greek-born Prime Minister Constantine Phaulkon; two examples reside in the Louvre and one in Bangkok [11, pp. 176–177]. A silver medal of 1861 (72 mm, 204.4 g) marks the reception of King Mongkut’s ambassadors by Napoleon III at Fontainebleau on 27 June of that year [11, pp. 177–178]. A silver medal of 1897 (41 mm, 39.8 g) commemorates Chulalongkorn’s visit to the Paris mint, where the king expressed interest in modernising Siamese coinage and ultimately discontinued the issue of bullet coins [11, p. 178]. Wodak notes that King Narai’s reign (1657–1688) is the only pre-Bangkok Dynasty period for which bullet-coin marks can be identified, making his era of particular interest to coin collectors [11, p. 177].

Research and Documentation

The Society’s literature on coins reveals a progression from descriptive cataloguing to interpretive analysis, with shifting priorities reflecting both the availability of specimens and the broader intellectual currents of each period. The earliest contributions—Hanitsch (1903) and Bucknill (1922, 1923)—are fundamentally descriptive, establishing the physical characteristics, provenance, and chronological sequence of coin types. Bucknill’s 1923 article, published in the inaugural volume of the Journal of the Malayan Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, set the agenda for subsequent scholarship by providing the first systematic correlation of pewter coinage with specific rulers and mints, while candidly acknowledging the limits of attribution in a field where find-spot rarely equals mint of origin [4]. His work drew on specimens collected during his official postings in the Malay Peninsula (1914–1920) and on correspondence with local British advisers and Siamese authorities, reflecting the Society’s early commitment to documenting the material culture of the Malay states during the period of British protectorate administration [4].

The 1930s saw a shift towards interpretive and comparative analysis. Linehan (1934) moved beyond mere description to argue for the indigenous Kelantan origin of the gold kijang coins, challenging earlier assumptions of Achinese provenance [1]. Rentse (1939) went further, reinterpreting the animal motif as a sacred Indian bull and situating the coinage within the broader commercial and religious history of the northern Malay states, drawing on Indian cult imagery and the Malay Annals [2]. This period also saw the publication of short notes on individual specimens—Gardner’s Kedah coin (1933) and Dakers’ die combinations (1937)—which, while limited in scope, contributed to the cumulative building of the institutional numismatic record [6], [8].

The post-war period brought a broader contextual approach. Carroll’s 1982 translation of the Boxer Codex’s Brunei folios provided the first European-language account of Brunei’s coinage system in the late sixteenth century, correlating textual evidence with archaeological finds at Kota Batu [9]. Sim Ewe Eong’s 1974 article on ringgit addressed a question of immediate public relevance—the etymology and legal legitimacy of the national currency term—while simultaneously providing a detailed numismatic history of silver coinage in the region [10]. Wodak’s 1951 article on Siamese medals, though modest in scope, addressed the numismatic problem posed by the scarcity of documentary records for Siamese commemorative issues, relying instead on physical specimens and earlier descriptions [11].

Throughout this body of literature, several recurring themes emerge: the persistent difficulty of attributing coins to specific mints in the absence of explicit mint-marks; the economic significance of tin as the primary base metal for indigenous coinage; the role of foreign trade in driving both the introduction of new coin types and the debasement of existing ones; and the tension between the numismatic record and the broader historical narrative, particularly for periods such as seventeenth- and eighteenth-century Kelantan, where the coinage provides some of the only material evidence for a state whose written history is fragmentary [1], [4], [2].

MBRAS Sources

References

  1. W. Linehan (1934). Coins of Kelantan JMBRAS 12(2): 63–69.
  2. A. Rentse (1939). Gold coins of the north-eastern Malay states JMBRAS 17(1): 88–97.
  3. Hanitsch R (1903). On a collection of coins from Malacca JSBRAS 39: 183–202.
  4. J.A.S. Bucknill (1923). Observations upon some coins obtained in Malaya and particularly from Trengganu, Kelantan and southern Siam JMBRAS 1(1): 194–217. Read on JSTOR
  5. J.A.S. Bucknill (1922). Remarks upon certain currency notes, coins and tokens emanating from Malaya during and after the war JSBRAS 85: 124–134. Read on JSTOR
  6. G.B. Gardner (1933). A coin from Kedah JMBRAS 11(2): 184.
  7. J.B. Neilson (1929). On some coins found near Seremban JMBRAS 7(3): 467–469.
  8. C.H. Dakers (1937). Some copper tokens in the Raffles Museum, Singapore JMBRAS 15(2): 127–129.
  9. J.S. Carroll (1982). Berunai in the Boxer Codex: with commentary JMBRAS 55(2): 1–25. Read on JSTOR
  10. Sim Ewe Eong (1974). Ringgit JMBRAS 47(1): 58–65.
  11. E. Wodak (1951). Medals connected with Siam JMBRAS 24(1): 176–180.