Singapore from Temasek to the 21st Century: Reinventing the Global City

5. Temasik to Singapura: Singapore in the 14th to 15th Centuries

103 ฀ 5 Temasik฀to฀Singapura:฀Singapore฀in฀the฀ 14th฀to฀15th฀Centuries John฀Miksic C H A P T E R Singapore฀was฀a฀city฀before฀it฀was฀even฀called฀by฀this฀name.฀Long฀before฀ the฀ settlement฀ was฀ revived฀ by฀ Stamford฀ Raffles฀ in฀ 1819,฀ the฀ north฀ bank฀ of฀ the฀ Singapore฀ River฀ was฀ linked฀ to฀ regional฀ flows฀ of฀ people,฀ culture,฀ religious฀ ideas,฀ and฀ trade.฀ This฀ chapter฀ asks:฀ who฀ were฀ the฀ inhabitants฀ of฀ 14th-฀ to฀ 15th-century฀ “Singapore”฀ (or฀ Temasik,฀ Banzu,฀ or฀ any฀ of฀ its฀ various฀ other฀ names)?฀ Did฀ they฀ think฀ of฀ themselves฀ as฀ Singaporeans฀ or฀ Malays฀ or฀ did฀ they฀ think฀ of฀ themselves฀ as฀ having฀ other฀ identities?฀ Did฀ these฀ inhabitants฀ imagine฀ that฀ they฀ could฀ make฀ this฀ island฀ a฀ centre฀ of฀ importance฀ in฀ the฀ world฀ they฀ inhabited?฀ Singapore฀ appears฀ in฀ Malay,฀ Chinese,฀Javanese,฀and฀Vietnamese฀records฀as฀a฀place฀of฀some฀significance.฀ What฀ sort฀ of฀ singularity,฀ uniqueness,฀ or฀ comparative฀ advantage,฀ did฀ the฀ island฀ and฀ its฀ inhabitants฀ have?฀ By฀ trying฀ to฀ answer฀ these฀ questions,฀ this฀ chapter฀ may฀ provide฀ a฀ feel฀ for฀ what฀ it฀ was฀ like฀ to฀ live฀ on฀ the฀ island฀ we฀ now฀ call฀ Singapore฀ in฀ the฀ period฀ from฀ the฀ 14th฀ to฀ the฀ early฀ ฀ 17th฀ centuries. Many฀people฀still฀assume฀that฀ancient฀Singapore฀belongs฀to฀the฀world฀ of฀ fable฀ rather฀ than฀ history.1 ฀ Enough฀ archaeological฀ evidence฀ has฀ been฀ 05฀SS21c.indd฀฀฀103 8/30/10฀฀฀9:35:46฀AM 104฀ John฀Miksic collected฀ since฀ 1984฀ to฀ confirm฀ the฀ hypothesis฀ that฀ by฀ 1330,฀ Singapore฀ was฀ already฀ a฀ going฀ concern.฀ Hundreds฀ of฀ thousands฀ of฀ artefacts,฀ local฀ and฀foreign,฀especially฀pottery฀sherds,฀broken฀pieces฀of฀pottery฀unearthed฀ from฀ ancient฀ urban฀ contexts,฀ leave฀ no฀ room฀ for฀ doubt฀ that฀ 500฀ years฀ before฀ Thomas฀ Stamford฀ Raffles฀ made฀ a฀ pact฀ with฀ local฀ Malay฀ rulers,฀ a฀ forerunner฀ to฀ the฀ hypermodern฀ metropolis฀ now฀ occupying฀ this฀ island฀ already฀ existed.฀ This฀ new฀ information฀ allows฀ us฀ to฀ reconsider฀ ancient฀ written฀ records,฀ and฀ integrate฀ Longyamen,฀ Banzu,฀ and฀Temasik฀ into฀ the฀ history฀of฀Singapore. In฀the฀absence฀of฀any฀effusive฀documents,฀attempts฀to฀imagine฀how฀ the฀ people฀ of฀ Singapore฀ actually฀ thought฀ of฀ themselves,฀ what฀ emotional฀ connection฀they฀felt฀to฀this฀piece฀of฀land,฀in฀a฀word฀their฀identities,฀must฀ be฀ speculative.฀ How฀ did฀ inhabitants฀ of฀“the-place-now-called-Singapore”฀ of฀ the฀ 14th฀ century฀ perceive฀ their฀ place฀ in฀ the฀ world?฀ Would฀ they฀ have฀ called฀themselves฀Singaporeans?฀It฀might฀be฀more฀prudent฀to฀leave฀these฀ questions฀ alone,฀ since฀ no฀ definitive฀ answer฀ can฀ ever฀ be฀ given,฀ but฀ the฀ undeniable฀ interest฀ these฀ subjects฀ now฀ raise฀ can฀ be฀ cited฀ as฀ reasonable฀ justification฀for฀describing฀a฀range฀of฀answers,฀and฀presenting฀reasons฀why฀ some฀answers฀are฀more฀plausible฀than฀others.฀ This฀ chapter฀ sets฀ the฀ stage฀ by฀ discussing฀ places฀ with฀ comparable฀ characteristics฀ to฀ Singapore,฀ thus฀ allowing฀ us฀ to฀ form฀ some฀ conjectures฀ regarding฀the฀probable฀composition฀of฀Singapore’s฀population฀in฀1350฀and฀ its฀ethnic฀diversity.฀We฀can฀reconstruct฀with฀some฀degree฀of฀confidence฀a฀ picture฀of฀how฀various฀groups฀came฀to฀Singapore,฀and฀how฀they฀perceived฀ their฀relations฀with฀their฀fellow฀residents฀who฀came฀from฀different฀origins.฀ Next,฀we฀can฀imagine฀how฀people฀here฀saw฀their฀place฀in฀an฀international฀ context.฀They฀were฀certainly฀concerned฀about฀relations฀with฀Java,฀Sumatra,฀ Vietnam,฀Siam,฀South฀Asia,฀and฀China.฀The฀conclusion฀of฀these฀deliberations ฀ is฀ that฀ some฀ relationships฀ and฀ identities฀ were฀ surprisingly฀ similar฀ to฀contemporary฀concepts฀of฀Singaporeans฀as฀people฀with฀both฀local฀and฀ global฀points฀of฀reference. Simple฀words฀like฀“identity”฀set฀off฀fierce฀debates฀among฀sociologists฀ and฀anthropologists.฀Ideas฀about฀ethnicity฀and฀culture฀were฀very฀different฀ in฀the฀previous฀centuries.฀It฀is฀inadmissible฀to฀project฀modern฀definitions฀ of฀ ethnicity฀ 700฀ years฀ into฀ the฀ past,฀ and฀ highly฀ unlikely฀ that฀ all฀ criteria฀ used฀ today฀ to฀ determine฀ who฀ belongs฀ to฀ what฀ group฀ would฀ have฀ been฀ meaningful฀ to฀ people฀ then.฀ The฀ concept฀ that฀ natal฀ or฀ birth฀ community฀ confers฀ permanent฀ ethnic฀ identity,฀ which฀ some฀ people฀ still฀ believe฀ today,฀ has฀not฀always฀been฀taken฀for฀granted฀in฀the฀past.2 ฀Robert฀Hefner฀proposed฀ 05฀SS21c.indd฀฀฀104 8/30/10฀฀฀9:35:47฀AM Temasik฀to฀Singapura:฀Singapore฀in฀the฀14th฀to฀15th฀Centuries฀ 105 the฀ term฀ “permeable฀ ethnicity”฀ to฀ refer฀ to฀ the฀ ease฀ with฀ which฀ people฀ in฀ the฀ Straits฀ of฀ Melaka฀ and฀ elsewhere฀ in฀ Southeast฀ Asia฀ could฀ switch฀ ethnic฀ identification.฀ A.C.฀ Milner฀ went฀ further,฀ arguing฀ that฀ “it฀ may฀ be฀ misleading฀ to฀ read฀ the฀ concept฀ of฀ ‘ethnicity’฀ in฀ any฀ form฀ back฀ into฀ the฀ precolonial฀ archipelago฀ world.฀ To฀ speak฀ of฀ civilisational฀ communities฀ or฀ groupings฀ may฀ be฀ more฀ helpful”.3 ฀ A฀ wide...