Article

Pasai

From Munshipedia, the MBRAS digital historical encyclopedia

Pasai

Scope and Historical Definition

Samudra-Pasai was the pre-eminent commercial port on the northern coast of Sumatra from the fourteenth through the early sixteenth centuries, functioning as a critical entrepôt in the international maritime trade network that linked China, Java, the Indian Ocean, and eventually western Europe. The name “Samudra” first appears in Yuan dynasty records when a Chinese mission returning from the Coromandel coast of India in 1282 stopped at Sa-mu-tu-la, whose ruler sent two Muslim ministers to accompany the Yuan envoys on their return voyage [1, p. 28]. The name “Pasai” enters the Chinese record in 1309, when a mission from Pah-sih is noted among three Southeast Asian embassies to the Mongol court [1, p. 29]. According to the Hikayat Raja Pasai, the town of Pasai was founded as a seat of power for a son of the first ruler of Samudra, and the two centres eventually merged into a single political entity known to later sources as Samudra-Pasai [1, p. 29]. The state’s rulers converted to Islam sometime between Marco Polo’s visit in 1292, which found the population unconverted, and a gravestone dated 1296 attributed to a local chief [1, p. 28]. Samudra-Pasai’s commercial dominance was ultimately superseded by the rise of Malacca in the early fifteenth century and its annexation by Aceh in 1524 [1, pp. 30].

Commercial Stature and the Pepper Trade

Samudra-Pasai’s emergence as the leading port on the Sumatra coast was intimately connected to the decline of the older port of Ramni (La-mu-li) to the north and the growing international demand for Sumatra pepper. By the late fourteenth century, Ibn Battuta described Samudra as a normal port of call on the route from India to China, and Ming history noted that “merchants from all sides collect at this place, and as the country is distant and the prices high, the Chinese who go there make more profit than elsewhere” [1, p. 32]. Nicolo di Conti, who travelled to Southeast Asia in 1435, described Samudra-Pasai as “a very noble emporium of that island,” while Duarte Barbosa reported from India at the end of the fifteenth century that it “has a most excellent port” and was known as the most important commercial center on the Sumatra coast [1, p. 32].

The port’s exports, as listed by Ibn Battuta in the mid-fourteenth century, included coco-palms, areca-palms, Indian aloes, various varieties of fruit, camphor, bamboo, tree incense, cloves, nutmeg, and mace [1, p. 35]. The presence of cloves, nutmeg, and mace—products of the eastern Indonesian archipelago—indicates that Samudra-Pasai served as a redistribution point for Javanese spices, attracting western merchants who could acquire these goods without travelling to Java itself [1, p. 35]. However, it was Sumatra pepper that proved the commodity most critical to the port’s long-term commercial stature. Ma Huan, accompanying the eunuch Cheng Ho in the early fifteenth century, reported that Samudra-Pasai was the collection centre for pepper, describing it as a commercial center where “there are foreign ships going and coming in large numbers, hence all kinds of foreign goods are sold in great quantities in this country” [1, p. 35]. Pires estimates Pasai’s annual pepper exports at roughly 8,000 to 10,000 bahars per year in the early sixteenth century [1, p. 36].

The port’s fiscal system reflected its commercial character. An export duty of one maz of gold (one-sixteenth of an ounce) was levied per every bihar of merchandise, while an anchorage fee was charged on all ships entering the harbour according to their size. Imports were subject to a duty of six per cent, except for foodstuffs, which were exempted [1, pp. 38]. A colleague of Ma Huan reports that such duties in Sumatra were not normally collected in gold but were paid with pepper, an arrangement that allowed the Pasai rulers to participate directly in the pepper market through their representatives [1, p. 41]. Pires notes that although no ships were built in Pasai due to a scarcity of suitable wood, the rulers owned small ships (lancharas) which carried Pasai goods to points within the archipelago [1, p. 41].

The international trading community resident at Pasai was cosmopolitan. Pires cites among Pasai’s fifteenth-century trade community Turks, Arabs, Persians, Gujaratis, south Indians, Malays, Javanese, Thai, Peguans, and Kedahans [1, p. 40]. Metals—gold, tin, and silver—feature prominently in accounts of exchange at the port. Friar Odoric’s early fourteenth-century account lists gold and tin as commodities available at Pasai, while Ibn Battuta states that the inhabitants conducted their trade using “pieces of tin and native Chinese gold, unsmelted” [1, p. 41]. These references suggest that Samudra-Pasai’s international commercial community utilised precious metals as a medium of exchange for export goods, while local market exchanges for consumable foods were transacted in kind [1, p. 42].

Coast-Hinterland Relations and State Formation

The commercial success of Samudra-Pasai depended upon its ability to draw pepper and other commodities from its upriver hinterland, a relationship that was characterised by persistent tension. Kenneth R. Hall applies Bennet Bronson’s model of decentralised riverine political systems to the Samudra-Pasai case, identifying the coastal port as the trade “centre” (point A) and the upriver settlements as secondary and tertiary nodes (points B, C, and D) whose loyalty to the coastal marketing system was minimal [1, pp. 33–34]. The Hikayat Raja Pasai preserves a founding legend in which a prince from northern Sumatra journeys upriver, negotiates an alliance with the chiefs of the interior, and then leads their warriors back downriver to establish his authority over the coastal realm [1, p. 37]. This narrative encodes the fundamental economic relationship: the coastal rulers depended upon the hinterland for pepper and other export commodities, while the hinterland chiefs retained their traditional patterns of chieftainship [1, p. 37].

Ibn Battuta’s mid-fourteenth-century account provides the most detailed contemporary evidence of this relationship. He describes the coastal population as Muslim and the hinterland as “heathen,” and reports constant warfare between the two, which he interprets as the attempt of the Muslim coast to convert the interior [1, p. 37]. Hall argues, however, that these wars were in reality economic in motive, as the coastal rulers attempted to secure “aromatic plants” (pepper) from the hinterland’s population to market in their port. Ibn Battuta adds that the “infidels pay the Muslim lords a poll-tax to secure peace,” reflecting a tributary relationship whereby the interior was expected to provide commodities for export, and failure to do so was met with military expedition [1, p. 38].

This volatile relationship had significant commercial consequences. By the late fifteenth century, Samudra-Pasai was importing food to feed its commercial community—a marked contrast to Friar Odoric’s early fourteenth-century view of the port as having an abundance of locally produced consumable food. Pires states that Pasai exempted all foodstuffs from import duties, and that annually sixteen junks of rice from Pegu and thirty from Ayudhya supplied Malacca and Pasai before 1511 [1, p. 38]. Hall suggests two explanations: either the interior population had become specialised in pepper production to the point that they could no longer tend to foodstuffs for their own consumption, or the hostilities between coast and hinterland prevented the flow of consumable foods from the interior to the coast [1, pp. 38–39].

The political history of Samudra-Pasai, as recorded in the Hikayat Raja Pasai, is dominated by dynastic conflict. The chronicle focuses upon almost continuous family conflict, political feuds, and general disorder; family conflicts took place in every generation and form the main theme of the narrative [1, p. 43]. Barbosa noted that “the Moors of Samudra-Pasai are very treacherous and oftimes murder their own kings and set up others,” while Pires records the rumour that “on one day there were seven kings in Pase” [1, p. 43]. The Chinese eunuch Cheng Ho intervened in a dynastic crisis during the fourth expedition (1413–1415), chasing a usurper to the Pasai throne into the territory of La-mu-li to the north [1, p. 31].

Sometime during the late fifteenth century, the centre of Samudra-Pasai authority was moved inland, perhaps as a result of a victory by a branch of the royal family which had its power base in the hinterland [1, p. 43]. Pires alludes to this shift in the context of his report of frequent quarrels between the inland populations and the coastal administration, recording that the ruling class of Pasai thereafter had their power base among the people of the interior [1, p. 43]. Hall interprets this move as the culmination of dynastic conflict and hostilities between the Muslim coastal elite and the more traditionally oriented society of the hinterland, suggesting that the interior leadership may have effectively taken over the Pasai throne [1, p. 44].

The Rise of Malacca and the Demise of Pasai

The foundation of Malacca in 1402 by Prince Paramesvara initiated a transformation in the commercial geography of the Straits region that ultimately proved fatal to Samudra-Pasai’s pre-eminence. Malacca emerged as China’s preferred trade intermediary shortly after its founding, and with the Ming withdrawal from active participation in Southeast Asian affairs in the second quarter of the fifteenth century, Javanese traders began to shift their spice trade from Pasai to Malacca [1, p. 36]. Indian Ocean traders soon followed, and a number of merchants shifted their commercial activities away from Pasai to Malacca’s port [1, p. 42]. A corresponding increase in demand for Sumatra pepper in western markets softened the impact of this shift: initially the Bengal region of India became a market for Pasai’s pepper, but with greater western activity in the maritime routes throughout the fifteenth century, the market for Sumatra pepper increased further [1, p. 36].

Malacca possessed a structural advantage over Pasai in the form of political stability and security. The Sejarah Melayu reports no usurpation or internal political confusion; indeed its focus is confirming the establishment of a peaceful setting for trade, with Malacca’s rulers guaranteeing security for traders and the traders in turn agreeing to observe rules governing proper conduct within the markets [1, p. 43]. This record of peace and security stands in strong contrast to the history of Samudra-Pasai as reported in the Hikayat Raja Pasai [1, p. 43].

The transfer of Pasai’s government to the interior had further commercial consequences. Pasai’s new rulers, consistent with the experience of their hinterland supporters as suppliers rather than traders of commercial goods, began to refocus Pasai’s economic system towards the production of goods for foreign markets, especially as a source of pepper, rather than continuing as a leader in the trade itself [1, p. 44]. The Portuguese takeover of Malacca in 1511 and the establishment of Portuguese commercial interest within the Straits contributed to the final demise of Pasai as a commercial power [1, p. 44]. Aceh’s growing success as the dominant port on the northern Sumatra coast was due to its internal order and, similar to Malacca, an alliance between its commercial sector and rulers; its resulting political and economic strength allowed Aceh to dominate Samudra-Pasai’s former northern Sumatra pepper realm along both the eastern and western coasts [1, p. 44].

Hall concludes that Samudra-Pasai is best understood as a transitional state, participating in the new patterns of trade but incapable of subordinating the riverine systems of the Sumatra coast to the degree that Aceh later achieved. Its authority appears to have been confined to the Sumatra coast in a way similar to the pattern of Srivijaya’s statecraft, but its dominance over other ports was of an economic rather than political nature [1, p. 46].

Research and Documentation

The study of Pasai within the Society’s journal spans nearly five decades, reflecting shifting methodological priorities from textual criticism to economic and political analysis. R. O. Winstedt’s 1938 article “The chronicles of Pasai” established the foundational textual work, arguing that the Hikayat Raja-Raja Pasai was composed in the fifteenth century and served as a direct literary model for the Sejarah Melayu, with verbatim quotations appearing in chapters 7 and 9 of the latter [2, p. 24]. Winstedt identified six recurring motifs shared between the two texts, including parallel foundation folk-tales, long ethical exhortations from dying rulers, and mythical accounts of a court’s conversion to Islam [2, p. 26]. He also highlighted the text’s value for understanding Indian cultural penetration at Pasai, pointing to ministerial names common in Delhi, a South Indian miner who discovers gold, and a South Indian yogi who bestows a royal title [2, p. 26]. The sole known manuscript was copied on 2 January 1814, with lists of place-names appended after the colophon [2, p. 24].

Winstedt’s 1940 note on a Persian memorial inscription discovered near the village of Samudra, associated with a Pasai chief named Husam al-Din who died in 1420, extended the epigraphic evidence for the state’s cultural connections, noting that the inscription contained verses from the Tayyibat of the poet Sa’di and was unique in Malaysia [3, p. 149].

H. Overbeck’s 1933 article on the Hikayat Maharaja Ravana, while not directly concerned with Pasai, contributed to the broader textual tradition in which Pasai’s literary heritage was being recovered and analysed [4]. More directly relevant to Pasai’s historiography is R. Roolvink’s 1965 article “The answer of Pasai,” which presents a newly discovered Palembang-origin version of the famous Malay Annals episode in which Sultan Mansur Shah of Malacca sends a theological question to the learned men of Pasai [5, p. 129]. Roolvink demonstrates that three known recensions of this episode represent a textual evolution in which the story’s satirical aim is progressively sharpened: in the Shellabear version the Pasai Makhdum is the butt of the joke; in the Raffles 18 version Tun Hasan gives the correct answer and the Makhdum escapes unscathed; in the Palembang version the entire structure is inverted, and it is Sultan Mansur Shah himself who delivers the devastating reply, exposing the collective ignorance of the Pasai theologians [5, pp. 131–134]. Roolvink concludes that the Palembang version is a later, more skillful redaction that eliminates narrative inconsistencies and concentrates the satire on Pasai as a whole rather than on an individual figure [5, p. 134].

The most substantial contribution to the study of Pasai in the Society’s literature is Kenneth R. Hall’s 1981 article, which synthesises Chinese dynastic records, Arab travel accounts, Portuguese sources, and the Malay court chronicles within Bronson’s theoretical framework for riverine political systems [1]. Hall’s study shifts analytical attention from the political narrative of Srivijaya’s “fall” to the commercial and economic dynamics that drove the emergence of new state forms, and applies Bronson’s model specifically to the Sumatran case [1]. His analysis of the coast-hinterland relationship, the fiscal system, and the commercial competition between Pasai, Malacca, and Aceh represents the most comprehensive treatment of Pasai’s economic and political history to appear in the Society’s journal.

MBRAS Sources

References

  1. Hall K.R (1981). Trade and statecraft in the western archipelago at the dawn of the European age JMBRAS 54(1): 21–47. Read on JSTOR
  2. R.O. Winstedt (1938). The chronicles of Pasai JMBRAS 16(2): 24–30.
  3. R.O. Winstedt (1940). A Pasai chief with a Persian memorial inscription JMBRAS 18(2): 149.
  4. H. Overbeck (1933). Hikayat Maharaja Ravana JMBRAS 11(2): 111–132. Read on JSTOR
  5. R. Roolvink (1965). The answer of Pasai JMBRAS 38(2): 129–139. Read on JSTOR