Article

Historical notes, mainly about Klang

From Munshipedia, the MBRAS digital historical encyclopedia

Historical notes, mainly about Klang

W. Linehan’s 1951 article traces the historical identity and etymology of Klang from its bronze-age origins through the 19th century, arguing that the name derives from a Mon-Khmer word meaning “store-house” or “citadel” rather than from the Malay word for tin. Published in the Journal of the Malayan Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, the piece synthesises Chinese, Javanese, Portuguese, and Malay sources to reconstruct the political and linguistic history of the Klang region.

Summary

Linehan’s central concern is the identification of Klang across successive historical periods and the derivation of its name. He begins by establishing the antiquity of the site through bronze-age artefacts (a ceremonial drum and three elephant bells) and a 6th-century Chinese reference to a king riding an elephant with drums and banners, suggesting Klang was already a place of royal significance by that date. He then examines the T’ang cartographer Chia Tan’s mention of Ko-lo (compiled 785–805 A.D.), noting that while Braddell identified it with Kedah, it is “not at all unlikely” that it described the Klang region as it existed in the 7th–9th centuries.

The article’s most sustained argument concerns the 11th-century Chola raid recorded in the Malay Annals, in which Raja Shulan conquered Gangga (Shah) Nagara in the Dindings and then subdued Glang Gui (also rendered Lenggui or Klenggiu). Linehan marshals several converging lines of evidence—proximity to the Dindings, the sequence of conquest, phonetic affinity between Klang and Glang Gui, and the pre-existing importance of the region—to argue that Glang Gui was Klang. He further suggests that the “black stone fort” (kota batu hitam) mentioned in the Annals may have been the Batu Caves, noting that caves were sometimes described as kota (as with Kota Gelanggi in Pahang).

The etymological discussion draws on the Nagarakretagama (1365), which lists Kelang as a Majapahit dependency; the Suma Oriental of Tomé Pires (1512–1515), which records Clam and Calangor as tin-producing tributaries of Malacca; and Cham and Khmer lexical sources. Linehan rejects the popular derivation of “Klang” from kalian (tin or mine-workings), a confusion he traces from Pires through Newbold, and instead proposes a Mon-Khmer origin in klo’ng (store-house, market, public place) or galang/galo’ng (connected to Khmer khlang, royal store-house, citadel). This aligns with the Annals’ own gloss of Glang Gui as perbendaharaan permata (“treasure-house of jewels”), where perbendaharaan itself derives from Sanskrit benda (thing of value).

Key Findings

  • Bronze-age ceremonial objects (a drum and three elephant bells) found at Klang are interpreted as insignia of a king or chief, with a 6th-century A.D. Chinese source (History of the Liang Dynasty) describing a king of Lang-ya-hsiu riding an elephant surrounded by drums and banners (p. 81).
  • The T’ang cartographer Chia Tan (compiled 785–805 A.D.) mentions Ko-lo, which Pelliot (1912) placed “roughly between Malacca and Kedah” on the west coast; Linehan considers it plausible that this referred to the Klang region (p. 81).
  • The Nagarakretagama (1365 A.D.) lists Kelang as a Majapahit dependency, positioned between Tumasik (Singapore) and Keda (Kedah), with no mention of Johore, Selangor, or Perak as named states (p. 82).
  • Tomé Pires’s Suma Oriental (1512–1515) records the Klang river area as Clam and the Selangor river area as Calangor or Calamgor, both paying annual tribute to Malacca in calains (tin ingots); Pires mistakenly derived both names from the Malay word for tin (pp. 83–84).
  • The name Selangor first appears in the Malay Annals during the reign of Mahmud, the last Sultan of Malacca before the Portuguese conquest of 1511, implying the state as such was unknown before that period (p. 83).
  • Cham lexical sources (Aymonier and Cabaton) provide klo’ng (store-house, market, public place where the king received tribute) and galang/galo’ng (connected to Khmer khlang, royal store-house, citadel), which Linehan proposes as the etymological source of “Klang” (p. 85).

Conclusion

Linehan’s definitive takeaway is that Klang’s name is not derived from the Malay word for tin (kalian), a misconception propagated from Pires through 19th-century British writers, but from a Mon-Khmer term denoting a store-house or citadel. This etymology is corroborated by the Malay Annals’ own gloss of Glang Gui as perbendaharaan permata and by the Cham and Khmer lexical parallels, reinforcing the broader argument that Klang’s cultural and political foundations were laid by Khmer-speaking Funan rather than by later Malay or Bugis influences.

Context

  • The article draws on Chinese dynastic histories, the Nagarakretagama, the Suma Oriental, the Malay Annals (Raffles No. 18 and Shellabear texts), Cham-French dictionaries, and 19th-century British travel literature; it builds directly on Braddell’s 1950 article on Ko-lo in the same journal.
  • Linehan’s earlier work on Pahang (JMBRAS XIV, pt. 2, 1936) is cited for the Kota Gelanggi identification, indicating a sustained research interest in the toponymy and early political geography of the Malay Peninsula.

References