Article

Johore Lama and other ancient sites on the Johore River. {In Papers on Johore Lama and the Portuguese in Malaya (1511–1641

From Munshipedia, the MBRAS digital historical encyclopedia

Johore Lama and other ancient sites on the Johore River. {In Papers on Johore Lama and the Portuguese in Malaya (1511–1641

C.A. Gibson-Hill’s 1955 study examines the archaeological and documentary evidence for the ancient sites along the Johore River, arguing that the fortified city of Kota Batu served as the formal capital of the Johore sultanate for less than forty years in total, and that the kampong of Johore Lama—identified with the Portuguese suburb of Corritao—represents a continuous settlement from the early fifteenth century that never again hosted the court after the Portuguese sack of 15 August 1587.

Summary

The article addresses a persistent confusion in the Johore historiography: the conflation of the surviving kampong of Johore Lama with the fortified city that once stood on the adjacent high ground. Gibson-Hill separates these two entities and traces the succession of capitals along the Johore River from the 1530s to 1720, drawing on Portuguese chronicles (Couto, Santos, Eredia, Linschoten), Dutch records (Valentijn, the Dagh-Register), Malay texts (the Shellabear recension of the Malay Annals, the Bustanu’s-Salatin), and European travel accounts (Vaughan, Hamilton, Tavares, Favre, Logan) to reconstruct the political geography of the river valley. A central argument is that the capital moved repeatedly—Johore Lama, Bukit Seluyut, Batu Sawar, Kota Tinggi, Panchor, Riau—and that Johore Lama’s pre-eminence in later memory was an artifact of its continuous occupation as a port and its association with the temenggong’s fief, rather than any sustained role as a royal residence (pp. 127–30, 173–77).

The 1953 fieldwork provides the physical basis for the reconstruction. Paul Wheatley’s survey of the earthworks and G. de G. Sieveking’s excavations at Tanjong Batu allowed Gibson-Hill to match Couto’s description of the city’s layout to the surviving defences, and to determine that the Portuguese attack of 1587 was delivered from the north rather than the south as previously assumed. The suburb of Corritao is identified with the present kampong, and the outwork of Kota Budak (Kubu Budak) with the fort that de Andria destroyed on 21 July 1587 (pp. 130–32, 147–52).

The final section tackles the question of pre-sixteenth-century occupation. Han Wai Toon and Braddell had proposed Han-period (first to third centuries A.D.) dating on the basis of stamped earthenware sherds and Roman glass beads found at Kota Tinggi and Johore Lama. Gibson-Hill dismantles this case on multiple grounds: the stamped wares show a long local tradition of manufacture rather than evidence of Han imports; the Roman beads, being indestructible, could have been in transit for centuries before reaching the sites; and the earliest datable Chinese porcelain carries Hsuan Te reign marks (A.D. 1426–35), placing the founding of the settlements at the beginning of the fifteenth century at the earliest (pp. 163–81).

Key Findings

  • The fortified city at Kota Batu was established by sultan Ala’u’d-din c. 1540–45, captured by the Achenese c. 1564, reoccupied by sultan Ali Jalla c. 1573, and destroyed by the Portuguese on 15 August 1587—total formal occupation under forty years (pp. 182–83).
  • Sieveking’s 1953 excavation at Tanjong Batu revealed a stone retaining wall of Older Alluvium blocks with a second course of reef coral, beneath a beaten-earth rampart estimated at fifteen feet thick at the base and ten to twelve feet high (pp. 131–32).
  • The 1954 Johore Lama hoard contained Chinese porcelain with imperial reign marks of Lung Ch’ing (1567–72) and Wan Li (1573–1619), consistent with burial during the Portuguese assault of 1587 (p. 161).
  • Population along the Johore River dropped from an estimated 6,000+ adult males in 1718 (Tavares) to approximately 1,000 persons total by c. 1834 (Begbie), and 200 houses by 1839 (Newbold) (pp. 128–29, 148–49).
  • The earliest datable Chinese porcelain sherds from Johore Lama carry Hsuan Te reign marks (A.D. 1426–35), establishing the settlement’s founding no earlier than the beginning of the fifteenth century (p. 164).
  • The capital was never situated at or near Johore Lama after August 1587; subsequent capitals were Batu Sawar (1587–1617/18; 1641–1673), Kota Tinggi (1688–1700), Panchor (1700–08; 1715–20), and finally Riau (from 1720) (pp. 182–83).

Conclusion

Gibson-Hill’s definitive historical takeaway is that Johore Lama’s significance derives not from its brief role as a capital but from its continuous occupation as a trading port and its later association with the temenggong’s hereditary fief, which Gibson-Hill dates to 1722. The site’s inflated reputation as “the” ancient capital was the product of the conflation of kampong and fortified city, the ambiguity of the name “Johore” as applied to whichever site currently housed the court, and the absence of any competing settlement of comparable antiquity in the lower river valley.

Context

  • Primary sources include Portuguese chronicles (Couto’s Decades and Vida de Dom Paulo de Lima Pereira, Santos, Eredia, Linschoten, Faria e Sousa), Dutch records (Valentijn’s Oud en nieuw Oost-Indien, the Dagh-Register), Malay texts (Shellabear recension of the Malay Annals, Bustanu’s-Salatin, Hikayat Negeri Johore), and European travel accounts (Vaughan 1714, Hamilton 1727, Tavares 1717/18, Favre 1849, Logan 1847). The 1953 fieldwork by Wheatley and Sieveking supplied the archaeological evidence.
  • Historiographically, the article corrects Winstedt’s 1932 A History of Johore on the date of sultan Muzaffar’s death (placing it c. 1569/70 rather than 1580), the identity and sequence of the capital sites, and the origin of the temenggong’s fief, while providing the first systematic integration of archaeological and documentary evidence for the Johore River sites.

References