Article

Seals as sources for the history of Negri Sembilan

From Munshipedia, the MBRAS digital historical encyclopedia

Seals as sources for the history of Negri Sembilan

Annabel Teh Gallop’s 2013 article in the Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society re-examines the 27 documented seals of Negeri Sembilan to demonstrate that the names cited on them—most notably “Sultan Abdul Jalil Muazzam Syah”—are symbolic Minangkabau regnal titles representing the institution of Sumatran kingship, not references to a specific Johor sultan as colonial-era historians had long assumed. This reinterpretation fundamentally challenges the chronological framework that R. J. Wilkinson and subsequent scholars built around a supposed Johor patronage date of c.1760.

Summary

Gallop begins by establishing the two distinct sigillographic traditions at work in Negeri Sembilan: the Malay tradition of personal official seals, in which the inscription names a specific individual with pedigree and date, and the Minangkabau tradition, in which royal seals bear symbolic regnal names that designate the institution of kingship rather than any particular ruler, and seals of patronage take the syntactic form of a full grant of authority issued by the patron (always “Sultan Abdul Jalil”) to the sealholder. Negeri Sembilan, settled by Minangkabau immigrants from at least the sixteenth century and long a fiefdom of the Johor Bendahara, sits at the confluence of these two traditions, and its seals exhibit a range of hybrid forms that resist simple categorization (pp. 1–3).

The article then surveys the seals district by district—Rembau, Sungai Ujong, Linggi, Jelebu, Johol, Inas, Ulu Muar, Naning, Kelang, and Seri Menanti—documenting inscriptions, dates, and contexts of use. Gallop identifies several seals as unambiguous Minangkabau seals of patronage (such as Raja Ali’s 1811 seal, which is of Sumatran manufacture and names “Sultan Abdul Muhyiuddin of Jambi” as recipient), others as seals of office used by successive incumbents (the Undang of Rembau, the Penghulu of Jelebu, the Penghulus of Johol and Inas), and still others as typical Malay personal seals (Syed Syaaban’s seal, the late-nineteenth-century seals of Tunku Antah and Tunku Muhammad). A critical finding is that the name “Sultan Muhammad Jalil” appearing on four Sungai Ujong seals is not a known Johor sultan but a variant of the Minangkabau symbolic name, and that “Sultan Mahmud ibn Sultan Abdul Jalil” on the Ulu Muar seal may refer specifically to Raja Melewar, the first Yang Dipertuan Besar (pp. 4–19).

Gallop then turns to the historiographical consequences. Wilkinson’s 1911 “Notes on the Negeri Sembilan” had identified the “Sultan Abdul Jalil Muazzam Syah” of the seals with Tengku Besar Abdul Jalil, a brief Johor ruler who died in 1761, and had used this identification to date the creation of various offices to c.1760. Gallop demonstrates that this identification was a “red herring” driven by peninsula-centric assumptions and the paucity of information on Minangkabau history, and that Winstedt’s subsequent dismissal of the 1826 credentials brought from Sumatra by Raja Labu as “ludicrous” was a direct consequence of the same error (pp. 23–24). The article closes with a discussion of the 1876 treaty that banned Tunku Antah from using a seal bearing the title “Sultan,” arguing that this provision served the specific interests of the Maharaja of Johor, who was still climbing toward the title himself, and that the colonial redefinition of “Sultan” as denoting an absolute ruler was inconsistent with the de facto practice in Negeri Sembilan (pp. 24–27).

Key Findings

  • The “Sultan Abdul Jalil Muazzam Syah” cited on Negeri Sembilan seals is a symbolic Minangkabau regnal name representing the institution of kingship, not a reference to the Johor prince who died in 1761; this identification by Wilkinson in 1911 was a “red herring” that distorted subsequent historiography (pp. 23–24).
  • Raja Ali’s 1811 seal (#267) is a classic Minangkabau seal of patronage of Sumatran manufacture, naming “Sultan Abdul Muhyiuddin of Jambi” as recipient; three other seals with the same shape and inscription exist in Minangkabau, none linked to the named recipient, demonstrating the non-referential use of Minangkabau seals (pp. 6, 17).
  • The four Sungai Ujong seals cite a patron “Sultan Muhammad Jalil” who is not a known Johor sultan; Gallop argues this is a variant of the Minangkabau symbolic name, undermining Newbold’s description of him as a Johor ruler (p. 18).
  • The 1876 treaty’s final article, which mandated a new seal for Tunku Antah without the title “Sultan,” was a unique marker in Malay sigillographic history and likely served the interests of the Maharaja of Johor, who had not yet attained the title himself (pp. 14–15, 26).
  • The Undang of Rembau’s seal is a seal of office in which the filiative “ibn” (son) is used symbolically to indicate succession in office rather than biological descent; the same seal was used by two different incumbents with different dates (pp. 4–5, 19).
  • The High Commissioner’s 1909 ruling that the title “Sultan” had lapsed for Negeri Sembilan reflected a colonial redefinition of the term as denoting an absolute ruler, inconsistent with the state’s own historical practice in which multiple officeholders had used the title (pp. 15–16, 26–27).

Conclusion

Gallop’s definitive takeaway is that the seals of Negeri Sembilan, properly understood through the lens of Minangkabau sigillographic conventions, reveal a state whose political legitimacy was rooted in Sumatran rather than Johor patronage, and that the colonial-era historiography which anchored Negeri Sembilan’s institutional history to a Johor date of c.1760 was built on a misreading of symbolic regnal names as references to specific individuals. The seals, far from being mere curiosities, are “extremely reliable historical witnesses” whose proper interpretation requires understanding the fundamental difference between the referentiality of Malay seals and the institutional, non-referential character of Minangkabau seals (pp. 1, 21).

Context

  • The article draws on seals held in the British Library (MSS. Eur. G.38/III, MSS. Eur. D.742/1), the National Archives of Singapore, the Muzium Negara, and the Istana Seri Menanti, as well as on Newbold’s 1835–36 publications, which included the first published reproductions of Malay seals.
  • The 1909 Kuala Kangsar meeting records (PRO CO 273/351), reproduced in the appendix, document the High Commissioner’s intervention in the dispute over the Yang Dipertuan Besar’s right to use the title “Sultan,” illustrating the colonial administration’s role in shaping the political iconography of Malay rulership.

References