EARLY SINGAPORE 1300s~1819 ‘ext am SINGAPORE9 From Temasek to Singapore: Locating a Global City-State in the Cycles of Melaka Straits History* Kwa Cuone Guan The Problem of Singapore before Raft Outlining the historical background of Singapore for a University of Singapore volume commemorating the 180th anniversary of the founding of Singapore in 11969, then-Raffles Professor of History K. G. Tregonning argued that “modern Singapore began in 1819. Nothing that occurred on the island prior to this date has par- ticular relevance to an understending of the contempo- Tary scone; it is of antiquarian interest onl “Antiquarian” as used by Trogonning in this statement ‘appears to be an attempt to distinguish history, usual- ly of the recent political past which can be rigorously studied through an snalysis of documents, from an ‘older past which is known only through the collection of its relics and antiques, physical artefacts which ight be considered too fragmentary to he worthy of systematic study.” i i Facully of Arts & Social Sciences ‘The “Antiquities” of Singapore Some of the “antiquities” of Singapore which Professor Tregonning may be referring to were seen by Sir Stamford Raffles when he landed at the mouth of the Singapore River in January 1819. These included an earthen rampart running along the banks of what is now the Stamford Canal from where the canal enters the sea. to near the old National Musoum, at the base of Fort Canning, then known as the Forbidden Hill or Bukit Larangan to the Malays, as ghosts of old rulers were believed to haunt it. Tho “tombs ofthe old Malay kings” on Fort Canning were another series of “antiquities” also noted by Raffles during hs last visit to Singapore in October 1822 when he built himself a bungalow on the hill. Raffles atthe time gloomlly accepted that he could woll be buried among these tombs should he dfe in Singapore of the severe headaches which afflicted him.? In February 1822 Dr. John Craw ocome Singapore's second Residen ‘when he visited Singaps courts of Siam and Cochin China as as India Company. Crawfurd spent t sround Singapore and climbed the Fo! hhe recorded sighting a number of ol Which he rightly concluded were t wooden buildings. Exploring further, sandstone around these platforms inferred were the bases of wooden p: Chinese coins and fragments of g1 celadon. Crawfurd also noted the cart hhad seen three years earlier, and esti ‘metres broad and rising to height of Systematic archaeological excavati ‘was unfortunately undertaken only ir time the brick platfonns Crawfurd se “tombs” Raffles wrote about had been fortress built in 1859, Other artefact: construction of the covered reservoir underground command centre for th: Command in the 19308, It was therefe cache of gold oraments,* which have froesures, was found intact in the an find of gold ornaments, Winstedt ider the rings and the armlets engraved Majapahit. But no coherent narrative ¢ from these chance finds. The dovel Canning have iretiovably destroyed rr ological evidence, and what we hav since 1984 fs therefore fragmontary ant One other major piece of evidence + standing at the south bank of what useof Singapore tuities” of Singapore which Professor bbe referring to were seen by Sir when he landed at the mouth of the nn January 1819, These iricluded an caning along the banks of what is now 1 from where the canal enters the sea ational Museum, at th base of Fort ‘own as the Forbidden Hill or Bukit Aalays, as ghosts of old rulers were it The “tombs of the old Malay kings” ‘wore another series of “antiquities” 9 during his last visit to Singapore in n he built himself e bungelow on the ‘time gloomily accepted that he could rong these tombs should he die in vere headaches which afflicted him? In February 1822 Dr. John Crawfurd, who was to become Singapore's second Resident, also saw these “antiquities” when he visited Singapore en route to the courts of Siam end Cochin China as an envoy of the East India Company. Crawfurd spent two days walking around Singapore and climbed the Forbidden Hill, There he recorded sighting a number of old brick platforms, Which he rightly concluded were the foundations of ‘wooden buildings. Exploring further, he found blocks of sandstone around these platforms which he correctly inferred were the bases of wooden pillars of buildings, Chinese coins and fragments of green porcelain or celadon. Crawfurd also noted the earthen rampart Reles hhad seen threo yours earlier, and estimated it to be 4.8 ‘metres broad and rising to a height of 2,7 metres. Systematic archaeological excavation of Fort Canning ‘was unfortunately undertaken only in 1984,' by which time the brick platforms Crawfurd saw and the Malay “tombs" Raffles wrote about had been demolished forthe fortress built in 1859. Other artefacts were lost in the construction of the covered reservoir in 1926 and the underground command contre for the British Far East ‘Command in the 1930s, Tt was therefore fortunate that a cache of gold ornaments" which have-become national {woasures, was found intact in the area, Reporting this find of gold ornaments, Winstedt identified the style of the rings and the armlets engraved with a kala as Majapabit. But no cohorent narrative could be made out from these chance finds. The developments on Fort Canning have iretrievably destroyed much of the archae- ological evidence, and what we have been recovering since 1984 is therefore fragmentary and incomplete.” One ather major piece of evidence was an ineeription standing atthe south bank of what used to be the mouth From ene Sere of the Singapore River bofore reclamation projects extended the coastline. Crawfurd saw this inscription during his visit in 1822 and described it as carved into one face ofa lange 3 by 3.metro sandstone boulder which hhad been split into two, Unfortunately the rock with its inscription was destroyed in 1849 to enable development of the area around the mouth ofthe Singapore River, and only fragments of this inscription ware saved and deposited in our National Museum and the Calcutta Museurn.* These fragments heve proven to be inadequate for the epigraphists who have examined it. The estimates ‘which wore given by the epigraphists far the date of the inscription range from fourteenth-century Majapabit -kawi script to earlier kaw (c, 025-1250 cs)? Records and Notices of Early Singapore ‘The textual records on Singapore before Raffles are like- wise fragmentary end amphibolic.® Was Singapore the ‘emporium identified by the mid-second century sce Greek astronomer and cartographer Klaudios Ptolemy 0s, Sabra at the southern tip of a khryse Khersonese (golden hersonese) east of India? How much of Ptolemy is truly original and how much the work of Byzantine clerics re- writing and incorporating later Arabic data into Ptolemy's text? The early Chinese records are also frag- ‘mentary in their possible references to Singapore. One of the more detailed and coherent accounts of Singapore is by the Yuan dynasty trader Wang Dayuan, recording his {impressions of the ports he visited in the course of his travels. Wang's account of Singapore remains central to ‘ourre-construction of Singapore inthe fourteenth century, and as such continues to be much debated. Interpreting the frst vix chapters ofthe principal clas- sical Malay literary text, the Sejarah Melayu (Malay