The early Sultans of Pahang
R.J. Wilkinson, a senior colonial administrator, published this article in 1932 to resolve a dynastic puzzle in early Pahang history that had been obscured by the loose naming conventions of the Sejarah Melayu. Using the single date provided by Linehan’s discovery of a tombstone (1475), Wilkinson demonstrates that two brothers of Sultan Mansur Shah of Malacca—both styled “Sultan Muhammad” by the chronicler—must be distinguished: the elder, a boy-king who died in 1475, and the younger, the paterfamilias who fathered the three princes traditionally attributed to the first.
Summary
Wilkinson’s central problem is one of source criticism. The Sejarah Melayu and the Bustan al-salatin both refer to a “Sultan Muhammad” of Pahang, but the Annals conflate two distinct rulers who were brothers. The elder, born Raja Ahmad, took the regnal title Sultan Muhammad Shah (also called Sultan Ahmad or Sultan Ahmad Muhammad); the younger, born Raja Muhammad, took the title Sultan Mahmud Shah but was loosely referred to as “Sultan Muhammad” as well. Linehan’s tombstone, dated 1475, belongs to the elder brother—a boy of fourteen or fifteen who had been sent to Pahang after a fatal quarrel with the Bendahara’s son, Tun Besar. The younger brother, Raja Muhammad, arrived in Pahang in 1477 after being passed over for the Malacca throne in favour of his half-brother Alaedin I, and it was he who married the Kelantan princess Mengindra Putri and fathered Raja Ahmad, Raja Jamal, and Raja Mahmud (pp. 45–49).
The article then traces the subsequent reigns through a series of diplomatic incidents and conflicts with Malacca: the murder of Tun Talani of Trengganu by Sri Akar ‘diraja and the Laksamana’s retaliatory mission; the elopement of the Bendahara’s daughter to Malacca; the Laksamana’s theft of the Sultan’s favourite elephant; and the Siamese invasion repelled by a joint Malacca-Pahang force. Wilkinson uses these episodes to illustrate the shifting balance of power between the vassal kingdom and its suzerain, and to show how the Annals’ author, Tun Sri Lanang, shaped the narrative in favour of his patron (pp. 48–52).
In the final section, Wilkinson turns to the fall of Malacca (1511) and its aftermath, arguing that the Bustan al-salatin—written by a foreigner and therefore more disinterested—is the more reliable of the two sources for the period after 1511. He shows that the Bustan records the Achehnese capture of Johor c. 1564, which the Annals’ addendum omits, and that the Annals’ account of the Johor succession is “largely faked history” composed to legitimise the usurper Sultan Ala Jala Abdul-Jalil, the master served by Tun Sri Lanang (pp. 52–53).
Key Findings
- The tombstone discovered by Linehan is dated 1475 and belongs to the boy-king Sultan Muhammad Shah (Raja Ahmad), who died at approximately fourteen or fifteen years of age (p. 45).
- Pahang was conquered by Mansur Shah’s forces in or about 1459; the Siamese governor Maharaja Dewa Sura was captured and his daughter (or a Siamese girl of high rank) named Wanang Sri / Putri Lela Wangsa was taken into the Malacca harem (p. 46).
- Sri Akar ‘diraja, son of the Viceroy Sri Bija ‘diraja, served as hulubalang besar of Pahang and was the agent of the murder of Tun Talani of Trengganu; he was subsequently installed as feudal chief of Trengganu (pp. 47–48).
- The Bustan al-salatin records the Achehnese capture of Sultan Alaedin of Johor and his family c. 1564 (Rouffaer’s date), an event entirely omitted from the Sejarah Melayu addendum (pp. 52–53).
- The last member of the old Pahang dynasty to hold a throne was Iskandar Thani Alaedin Mughayat Shah of Acheen, son of the ex-Sultan Ahmad Shah of Pahang, who was given the Acheen throne by Sultan Mahkota Alam but died without issue (p. 54).
Conclusion
Wilkinson’s definitive takeaway is that the Bustan al-salatin, despite being a foreign composition, is the more trustworthy of the two principal sources for post-1511 Malay history, while the Sejarah Melayu addendum is a product of court propaganda written in the interest of a usurping dynasty. The single date on Linehan’s tombstone is sufficient to untangle the dynastic confusion and reassign parentage, marriages, and succession that had been muddled by the chronicler’s loose use of the name “Sultan Muhammad.”
Context
- Wilkinson was a senior colonial administrator (C.M.G.) who had served in the Straits Settlements and Malaya; his access to the Leyden Library and his earlier publications (a 1900 edition of the Bustan, a 1908 History of the Malay States) gave him a long familiarity with these texts.
- The article draws on two primary sources: the Bustan al-salatin (as published by Winstedt in 1920 from the Pahang manuscript) and the Sejarah Melayu (1898 romanized edition). Wilkinson’s contribution is historiographical: he demonstrates the relative reliability of the two texts and identifies the political motives behind the Annals’ distortions.