Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 36

Offprint from


Western Austronesian and Contact Languages Papers from the Fifth International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics

edited by Ray Harlow Linguistic Society of New Zealand Auckland, New Zealand


Achehnese dialects in connection with Chamic migrations

H. K.J.


I. Introduction.

In his recent Grammar of Acehnese on the basis of a dialed of North

Aceh (1985), Durie presents a phonemic analysis of the Achehnese lan- guage which differs considerably on certain points from that of earlier authors, notably Snouck Hurgronje and Djajadiningrat. Durie com-


orthography (which) were never questioned. Two problems were his


his treatment of nasalisation as a contrast i n nasal versus oral conso- '

(Durie 1985:4; cf. also 20 and 24). But immediately after-

wards on the same page, Durie admits that 'Snouck Hurgronje's field

studies were restricted to the region of Banda Aceh, due to the politi-

, I had the opportunity to research a dialect in this region at

Cot Langkuweueh which corresponded closely to Snouck Hurgronje's

Further, the fact that 'the contrast [A]:[D] was not ob-

served by Snouck Hurgronje' (p.17) was regarded by Durie as 'also

deficiency of the Standard of Djajadiningrat (1934) who followed '

(p.26), although on page 17, he had admitted

that Snouck Hurgronje 'did his pioneering work with a dialect that

ha d merge d [A] int o [o]

In the conviction that, considering the qualities of both 'sides', both must be right, and that there is consequently no reason to speak of 'idiosyncrasies', 'inconsistencies' or 'deficiencies' on either side, I will discuss these controversial phenomena in greater detail in order

to explain the differences in their historical and regional - dialectal -

perspective. In addition, I will mention two other phonetic phenomena

of importance in this context: the diphthongization of original long *a

so he based his orthography on the dialects

ments on these differences as 'idiosyncracies of


inconsistent treatment of final [p"] as b but final [t' j as <


cal situation at the time





Snouck Hurgronje

' , as ha d Djajadiningrat .


> nis in Achehnese in closed or originally closed stressed syllables, and the loss of the voicing contrast i n Chamic. But first we must recall the exact position of the Achehnese language within the Austronesian family.


1.1 Achehnese an d Chamic


It is by now a well-established fact that the Achehnese language, though situated in North Sumatia, is most closely related to the Chamic languages of the South East Asian Mainland and Cham itself in par- ticular. It forms with these a specific sub-group of West-Austronesian which I have called Chamo-Achehic and Shorto has called Achino- Cham (Shorto 1975, Cowan 1981; cf. also recently Durie 1985, intro- duction). This relations hip with Mainland Chamic is evident on all levels: phonology, morphology and vocabulary, and largely includes even those peculiarities of the Chamic languages which they share with the Mon-Khmer languages (MK), and which originally induced cer- tain earlier authors to classify Chamic as Mon-Khmer (see inter alios Cowan 1948 and 1981, and the literature mentioned there). This fact implies that Achehnese like Chamic - and probably therefore Proto- Chamo-Achehic - must have had neighbourly relations with the M K languages, which lasted so long and were so strong that their influ- ence is still clearly seen in Sumatran Achehnese today. This raises the questions: how long ago did the Chamo-Achehnese migrants come to Sumatra, how strong were their numbers, what was the reason for their migration, etc? For that there must have been migrations is certain, as will be seen below.

1.2 Th e Haina n Cham s

Suggestions concerning the answers to these questions can be found in the migration of that other off-shoot of the Chamic speaking peoples:

the Moslem Cham colony in the Chinese island of Hainan, whose lan- guage Paul K . Benedict has rightly recognized as Chamic (Benedict 1941:129-134). Their numbers were estimated around that time at some 2,000 (400 families). However, since they must have been there for some time, their original numbers may well have been very differ- ent. Benedict mentions two traditions concerning their origin, which he cites from Stübel (1937:264), who visited them. According to one, their ancestors came to Hainan from Kuang-tung as early as the Sung period; according to the other, only 400 years ago, i.e. 400 years before the 1930s, by way of Annam. Benedict adds that the latter tradition 'accords better with our view that these people are the descendants of an old Cham colony in Hainan'. In my opinion, however, both tradi-


Achehnese dialects

tions are compatible with historical facts. The second one dates back to the first half of the 16th century A.D . and thus may be the con- sequence of the final fall of the kingdom of Champa 1 . O n the other hand, the first tradition may well be the consequence of a much ear- lier catastrophe which actually did happen in the Sung period. This was the Annamite invasion of Champa of 982 and the destruction and pillage of the capital Indrapura, the flight of King Indravarman IV to the south, and the whole aftermath of these events as recorded by the Chinese and described in detail by Maspero (1928:122 ff.). The Annamite king of Champa who succeeded Indravarman IV was, says Maspero (o.c.:125), 'dur envers un peuple qu'en sa qualité d'Annamite

il méprisait profondément, sa domination pesa lourdement aux Chams

qui commencèrent d'émigrer en grand nombre et s'en allèrent chercher

1'e'tranger la tranquiüté qu'ils ne trouvaient pas chez eux: en 986 nous en voyons débarquer dans l'üe de Hai-nan et demander au préfet '

de Tan-tcheou asile et protection


(my italics, C) .

Benedict must have missed this piece of information of Maspero's. But it is very important because it shows not only that in Hainan two migrant groups have settled at different times, but also that in other countries of S.E. Asia, too, more waves of Cham fugitives may have landed. This is of direct bearing on our subject.



The relevant phonetic


in Hainan

We will now consider the question whether the relevant phonetic phe- nomena of §1 supra can for Hainan Cham be related to one or more of the aforementioned historical events. For if such a correlation should

appear to exist, the question would almost automatically present itself whether a similar correlation can also be established for the language


the Chamo-Achehnese migrants to North Sumatra.


Hainan Cham:

1. there are no examples in the few data available of original final *-p. Original final *-<, which in Mainland Cham had already become a glottal stop, written -k, has been dropped altogether;

'1470 according to Benedict o.e:130, following Maspero 1928:14; but 1471 ac- cording to Maspero o.e.:237, in which the course of events is described on the basis of Chinese records and datings, and which is therefore more reliable.




and still pat i n the inscription of 751 Caka = 829 AD , see Ay -

monier 1891:27); dsê 'mountain' ( = Mld. Ch . tiêk i n Benedict's

tianshteiation, i n Moussay's co'?; cf. Ach . cot,

cöt < PC A

ba '4'




Cham pa?, written <pak>

< PC A


*CAt) 3 .

2. there is no evidence of a distinction between nasal consonants other than the nasals proper (m, n, ri, n) vs. oral consonants. The nasals proper, however, do not show the nasalizing influence they have had i n Mld. Ch.; e.g. mi '5 ' (= Mld. Ch . limu); ma 'father' ( = Mld. Ch . amu); n a 'mother' ( = Mld. Ch . iniï); na-sa 'child' (na-gai 'son', na-mai 'daughter'; n ö = Mld . Ch . anüp; the words for 'mother' and 'child' having coincided phonetically, the latter was specified by an additional element); n& 'earth' (= Mld. Ch . tanuh).

3. there is no evidence for the distinction of more than one un- rounded central vowel, viz. the one rendered by Benedict as ê; e.g. dsê 'mountain' (= Mld . Ch . tiêk i n Benedict's transcrip- tion, i n Moussay's CÖP).

4. there is, just *a i n closed

as in Mld. Ch., no diphthongization of original long or originally closed syllables as in Achehnese; e.g.,

ba '4' (= Mld.

1); (lon-)pian 'moon' (= Mld . Ch . pildn < PC A

Ach. bulu&n; the element Ion is also found i n lon-dü 'star'.)

Ch . pa?, Ach. puat < PC A *pa~i cf. supra no

*buldn, cf.

5. there is, as i n Mld. Ch., evidence of loss of voicing contrast in , e.g. tod '2 ' (= Mld . Ch . twa, <dwa>); to 'sit' (= Mld . Ch . to?, <dauk>); p% 'all' (= Mld . Ch . pih, apih, <b->); -pian 'moon' (= Mld. Ch . pilan, pulan, cf. supra no. 4). Instead, a reverse development seems to be at work in , e.g. gau 'V (=Mld. Ch. köw, <kau> , cf. Ach . fa», dial. kew < PC A *kü); giëu '3 ' (= Mld. Ch . klow, cf. Ach . Ihea, dial. Ihew < PC A *tlü); b

Ch .


( =

Mld . Ch . pa?, cf.

supra no .

4); bïu

'10 ' ( =

Mld .

pluk); da pi 'we' (= Mld. Ch . ita 'we' + (a)pih 'all'). A similar

phenomenon, but apparently on a much lesser scale, is seen i n Ach. guda 'horse', cf. Mal . kuda; gampong 'village', cf. Ma kampong; etc.

J I n order to avoid confusion with the glottal «top Moussay's o' will hereafter be rendered by me as ö and his u' will be replaced by ü.


Achehnese dialects

Now, i f we considei these examples, we see that even these meagre

data allow ceitain conclusions concerning their historical origin to be drawn. Thus ma 'father', na 'mother', an d no- 'child' show that the vowels have not (yet) undergone the nasalizing influence as i n Mld . Ch., so that they must represent what must have been the first migra- tion to Hainan of 986 AD, cf. §1.2 supra. That is, the time of the Old

Cham inscriptions which still show the post-nasal

has become ü so that the ü has become the vowel inherent in symbols

for nasals

sign must be used, as is otherwise usual for combinations other than

cons. + inherent o; see i n more detail §5.2 infra. That the o-vowel in the Hainan words is not a younger development from the Mld. Ch . unrounded central vowel rendered ê b y Benedict an d ü b y Moussay

follows from the fact that Hainan Cham does possess this vowel, as i n dsê 'mountain' = Mld . Ch . tsêk (Benedict's orthography, see supra

nos. 1 and for it .

o. In Mld. Ch . this

i n th e Cham script. T o indicate nasal + a a n additional

3), and could have used i t after nasals

i f there was a reason

To this early part of the Hainan Cham dialect can probably also be

attributed th e numerals si '7', bad '8', and perhaps tüd ba '9', which in Mld. Ch . are tacuh (<tajuh>), talipan (<dalipan>), an d thdlipan


Ch. forms are clearly loans from Malay tujuh '7', which represents

the 'pointing' finger, i.e . the seventh, counting from left to right o n both hands (Mal . tuju means 'direction'); dêlapan < dua-alapan, lit.

'two taken off' (scil. from

thdlipan = 'one taken off', a synonym of samilan < Mal. sëmbilan '9 '

for which latter Benedict gives samilan. Now these Mld.

'10'; Mal . alap = 'take away'), whereas

< sa-ambilan 'one taken away' (Mal. ambil = 'take'); cf. also Ach . sikuruang '9', lit. 'one less'.

These Mld . Ch . numerals appear to have replaced the original Austronesian forms pitu '7 ' (O.Jav. id.), walu '8 ' (O.Jav. wolu an d

wwalu), and siwa '9 ' (O.Jav. sanga with 'polite'

probably for the same taboo reasons as obtained in the Malay language from which they were borrowed. For pitu is a near homophone of piatu 'orphan', walu~ balu means 'widow' (thus still i n O.Jav.), an d siwa (O.Jav. sanga) resembles siya(-siya) 'in vain, useless', all words with an unfavourable connotation.

form sang = si),

It is, o f course, not impossible to object that these later loans i n


Ch . date from after th e migration which followed the final fall of



migration took with

it the original forms to Hainan and changed them there only after that

But considering the points which will be made below concerning


Champa i n 1471 AD, and that consequently this

the strong resemblance of some of the new forms with the Thai and

Kam-Sui languages, and with the Kadai, this is improbable.

Hainan Cham tüd ba, according to Benedict (1941:131), 'is per- haps comparable with IN t'iva[?]'; here, IN means 'Indonesian', and the original Austronesian form of the numeral '9' follows DempwolfF's

reconstruction. Benedict does not comment on the other two aber- rant Hainan words '7 ' and bad '8'. But these forms are reminiscent of those i n what Benedict a year afterwards (1942:576rF.) called the Kadai language stock 'which shows numerous points of contact with

Thai' . Notably '7 ' is very much like Northern Kelao

of space I shall not comment on the fact that Benedict (1942:582) sees affinities between all Kadai numerals and the'Austronesian ones. I would only note that, e.g. for '8 ' the resemblance of the Hainan foim appears to be even stronger with the Thai and Kam-Sui languages, where this numeral is pat in the Sui dialects, paat in Mak, and peet in Thai dialects (Fang-Kuei L i 1965:176, no. 266), whereas '7' is sat, set in Sui, set and cit i n Northern and Central Thai, and sit in Mak (l.c: no. 299). Since final -t would eventually be dropped via glottal

si. For reasons

stop (see

supra no.

1), sit as i n Ma k would regularly lead to at. How-

ever, the


-d i n

bad '8 ' must be the original one i n

the Tha i and

Kam-Sui languages, where it has now become -t. This -d cannot be the result of the inverse voicing feature mentioned under no. 5 supra. This is a very recent development, more recent even than that of -t

> -? , which had already taken place in Mld.

in 0 in Hainan, so that *bat would have become *ba? long before the -t could have become -d i f this -t had been original. This confirms the very early loan-relationship involved. The Hainan numeral '9', tüd ba, on the other hand is comparable neither to any of the forms in the Kadai languages nor to those in the Thai and Kam-Sui languages, while Benedict's comparison with PAN t'iwa[p], though perhaps better than with any of the others, is not quite satisfactory.

Ch . and resulted later

On the other hand, the dropping of the final glottal stop, partic- ularly i n those cases where it originated from final -/, is a late devel- opment from Mld. Ch. , which still has it, written <-k>, as in 6a '4'

= Mld . Ch . pa? and dsê 'mountain' = Mld . Ch . tsêk (in Benedict's


Achehnese dialects

transcription; see supra nos. 1 and 4). Th e same is the case for the loss of final -h in Mld. Ch . - which in its turn developed from original -5 - (a)pih > Hainan Ch. pi, with apparent compensatory lengthening of the vowel.

Similarly, the loss of voicing can be assigned to the later phases of Mld. Ch., as in e.g. tod '2' - Mld. Ch . twd (<dwa>); to 'sit' = Mld. Ch. to? (<dauk>); tan 'stand' = Mld. Ch . tan (<d->); pi 'all' = Mld. Ch . (a)pih; pian 'moon' = Mld. Ch . pildn, puldn (<b->); etc, cf. supra nos. 4 and 5. As we have already indicated (see no. 5 supra) an inverse development appears to be active in gau T, giëu '3', ba '4', biu '10', and da 'we'.

These later developments of Mld. Ch . in the Hainan dialect must therefore be attributed to later migrations, probably those that fol- lowed the final fall of Champa in 1471 AD , because this time accords, as Benedict has rightly suggested and I have specified, with the second tradition of the Hainan people (cf. §1.2).

3. Historical Cham migrations to Acheh.

We have discussed the Hainan Cham dialect in some detail because, as we have already indicated, a similar procedure of correlating linguistic phenomena and historical events could be appüed to Achehnese if this procedure should prove successful. Since in fact our test does appear to have been successful, we can proceed with our plans provided that it can be shown that Cham migrations to North Sumatra have really taken place. That such is the case is clear from two pieces of evidence:

1. an episode in the Malay chronicle Sejarah Melayu which can be connected with the Bostdnu 's-saldtïn's account of the first king of Acheh; and 2. a geographical name, viz. Juimpa in North Acheh.


Th e Sejarah


The Sejarah Melayu gives us a piece of information which indirectly provides us with a reliable date. According to Shellabear's edition in Arabic characters (1313 A.H . = 1895/96 A.D., pp. 188-192; cf. also his edition in Latin characters of A D 1898, pp. 94-96), the king of Kuchi attacked Champa and occupied its capital Bal. The king of Champa died, and all the sons of the king fled with their following in



all directions, no one knows where to, except for two sons: Shah Indra Berma (or Brama) and Shah P o Ling. They fled by boat with many followers ('orang banyak') and their wives and children, the first to Malacca, and Po Ling to Acheh. Indra Brama was well received by sultan Mansur Shah of Malacca, was converted to Islam and became the founder of the Cham colony there. Po Ling was the first of the kings of Acheh ('ialah raja asal raja Acheh'). In a note on this episode in the recent translation of the Sejarah Melayu by CC . Brown (1983 3 :236, nt 527), the name Kucht (spelt <Cochi> in John Leyden's London translation of 1821, p. 211) is eiplained as 'the word always used on the East Coast of Malayafor Indo-China', so that the Annamites must be meant. The word Bal for the capital of Champa is the modern Cham word pal (still written <bal>) which simply means 'capital'

s.v. pal 2), and refers here to Vijaya, whose fall i n

(Moussay 1971


meant the

final collapse of the Cha m kingdom 8 .


Maspero' s accoun t o f Champa' s


The episode in the Sejarah Melayu can be checked by what Maspero

(1928:238-41), using Chinese and Annamite sources, has to say on the events which led to the collapse of the Cham kingdom in 1471. This account makes no mention of Po Ling, nor is there any evidence of

there is no contradic-

tion either, for Maspero states that the Chams were 'réfugiés dans l a montagne ou exilés sur la terre étrangère' (1928:241). The Cham king died in both reports. Certain details of the catastrophe, such as those concerning Po Brama and Po Ling may not have interested or were un- known to the other side and so were not mentioned in the Annamite and Chinese sources.


be seen i n §3.3 when we consider the name Po

princes having fled abroad. O n the other hand,

The reliability of the

Sejarah Melayu

concerning this episode



Th e



The other Malay text we mentiond i n §3, the Bostanu 's-saldtïn, i n a

on Acheh, states that the first king of 'Acheh Daru's-salam'


3 In this discussion, I have followed the texts in Shellabear's editions rather than Brown's translations, because of inaccuracies in this latter work.




was Sultan 'Alï Mughayat Shah, who came to power on Sunday, the

first of the month Jumada '1-awwal (sic, C.) A.H. 913, and who was also the first to be converted to Islam (Niemann ed. 1907 4 :II, 120). He strongly promoted the faith, conquered Pidië ('Pedir'), Samudra ('Samadar') and other smal] countries. He died in 928 A.H. This text provides us with a date, that of his coming to power: 1 Jumada '1-üla

913 A.H. , which agrees with the 8th of September

to Freeman-Grenvüle (1977 J :43 cal.). However, there are inconsisten- ties in the dates provided by this document and the sultan's tombstone, with respect to his death and the length of his reign.

Most workers in this field regard the Bostanu 's-salatin as the most reliable Malay chronicle, which may seem unjustified. In my opinion, it is partly true, particularly where its apparently unbiased religious at- titude is concerned. See below in our discussion of the Hikayat Acheh.

T. Iskandar (1958) discussed the problems concerning the reign of 'Alï Mughayat Shah i n connection with the Hikayat Acheh. A s

we have seen, the Bostanu's-salatïn gives the year A.H. 913 for his coming to power, and A.H. 928 for his death, i.e. 1507 and 1522

A D respectively. But the Hikayat Acheh mentions 919 A.H. for his

21, in Iskandar 1958:75) and

accession to the throne (Hik. Ach. , p.

937 A.H. for his demise (Hik. Ach . p. 29, in Iskandar 1958:79), i.e.

1530/31 A D respectively. According to the inscription

on his tombstone, his death occurred in A.H. 936 on Dhü'l-hijjah 12,

which corresponds to 7th August 1530 AD . Given the demonstrable inconsistencies in the Bostan, this chronicle may be mistaken here. Then there remains the discrepancy between tombstone and Hikayat Acheh, which is, however, small (only one Hijrah year), and in which

1507 A D according

1513/14 and

the tombstone can be regarded as conclusive evidence. A s for the dates of the Bostanu's-salatïn, i n view of its religious objectivity (cf. supra),


the Hindu 'king' of Indrapuri - or of Indrapatra (Lamri) for that matter

- whereas the year 1513/14 of the Hikayat Acheh, which is averse to

pagan memories, could be that of his conversion and thus the beginning of his reign as a Moslem sultan.

In his recapitulation of the data, H . Djajadiningrat (1911:152)

comes to the following conclusion, (translated from the Dutch), 'the

Portuguese reports accord

Before ±1500 Acheh was a place of no significance. In 'AlT Mughayat

year 1507 A D could be that of 'AlT Mughayat Shah's accession as

with the most reliable Malay chronicle



Shah alias Raja Ibrahim it got its first powerful ruler, its first sultan He reigned from, say 1514, to 1528. Then he died, and was succeeded by his son Salah ad-Dïn'. In a footnote on that page, Djajadiningrat stated that he had not succeeded in deciding whether he was also the first who embraced Islam as the Bostanu 's-salatïn has it. In this re- construction, Djajadiningrat disregards the date of A.H . 936 on the sultan's tombstone, possibly because he did not know it, since it was published in the 'Oudheidkundig Verslag' (Archaeological Report) of 1914, p. 78, three years after Djajadiningrat's publication.

My final conclusion would be - with the necessary reservations - that the date of 1507 A.D. according to the Bostan can be the date of 'Alï Mughayat Shah's coming to power as a Hindu king, and that 1513/14 could mark the beginning of his reign as Moslem sultan, as already indicated above. This would mean a total reign of 1530 minus 1507 = 23 years, and a Moslem reign of 1530 minus 1513/14 - 16/17 years. In formulating this conclusion, I have had in mind, apart from the Bostdn\ obvious religious objectivity, the fact that we are con- cerned here with the oldest history of Acheh before the accession of the famous Iskandar Muda (1607). A reinterpretation of the evidence was, therefore, not only allowed, but even indicated in view of the ad- ditional data obtained for our objective. An d in the framework of my interpretation of the data the Hindu king of Indrapuri - or of Lamri - and the first king of Acheh Dar as-Salam were one and the same 'king' before whom there were only merahs 4 .

Now the year 1507 of the accession of that 'first king' is not so far off from the time of Po Ling's flight from Champa at the final fall of its capital in 1471 A.D . He must have passed other countries before reaching Acheh. For if, for instance, the prince had been something between 20 and 25 years of age, he would have been 56-61 when he came to power in Acheh. It seems therefore highly probable that the Cham prince Po Ling was the founder of the (small?) Hindu kingdom whose seat was Indrapuri or Lamri, and that he - or otherwise per- haps his son - was afterwards converted to Islam and became the first sultan of Acheh Dar as-Salam under the name of'AlT Mughayat Shah. The name Indrapuri recalls that of one of the capitals of Champa, Indrapura, mentioned by Maspero (1928:24).

4 merah is the word for the ancient pre-sultanate native districts of Acheh.


Achehnese dialects


P o

Ling .

There is yet other evidence, though not concrete proof, in favour of the hypothesis that Po Ling was the founder of the small Hindu principal-

ity of Indrapuri or

must be the Prakrit and younger spoken form of Sanskrit liriga, the phallus symbol and 'god', which we find mentioned in Old Cham in- scriptions in compounds like civalinga an d liriga bhagavatï (Bergaigne 1888:103). Th e word ling is not found in this sense in the dictionaries of Aymonier and Cabaton or Moussay. But neither is the full Skr. form linga. I find confirmation of my interpretation in the fact that Djaja- diningrat (1911:148, nt. 2) states that Professor Cabaton at Paris had written him that Po Ling is 'undoubtedly = Po, lord, master + linga, phallus, symbol of Civa'. Th e reliability of the Sejarah Melayu on this point is shown by the very fact that its author as a Moslem Malay can hardly have invented the Hindu Prakrit word ling. A good thing too that he did not know what it means, for otherwise he might well have thought better as a Moslem to omit this episode.

However, it will be

Indrapatra / Lamri. Th e word ling in this name


liriga had great importance in Champa 5 .

clear that this object of adoration sounded horribly pagan to Moslem ears. I suggest that the pagan name was adapted to the changed con- ditions after conversion to Islam by changing it to Po Lém, which is the hereditary title of the most powerful ulèëbalang in Great Acheh, Teuku Panglim a Pö Lém. T . Panglim a P ö Lém' s position is usually regarded as characterized by this very name, lém, an abbreviation of dalém, meaning 'elder brother', which according to Snouck Hurgronje

(1906:1, 133) 'probably typified the original relation between the pow-

erful sagi-chief (Ach . sagöë

It could be objected that the word (da)lém or a related form with this meaning is not found in the Cham dictionaries. But in view of the fact that these are far from complete, the very fact that it exists in Achehnese could imply that it must have existed in the Cham dialect

imported by P o Ling. Th e

question whose (da)lém, 'elder brother',

could be meant then at the time of the change to lém cannot be an- swered by the traditional view of the original position of Panglim a

being the

first king of Acheh, both Hindu and Moslem , there was no room for


and the sultan'.

P ö Lé m with regard to the king. For 'AlT Mughayat Shah,

6 cf. Bergaigne 1888:66 and Maspero 1928:10.



such a relationship. (Da)ïém also means simply 'venerable (old) man',

and this could have been meant originally. O n the other hand, i f the brotherly family relationship is meant, there are other more probable


who escaped from the ruin of their country. Alternatively, if the Hindu

prince of Indrapuri or Indrapatra/Lamri who was converted to Islam and mounted the Achehnese throne as 'AlT Mughayat Shah was a son of P o Ling and not himself (cf. supra §3-2), he may have been the older of the latter's sons; etc. These possibilities seem to me to be much simpler and therefore preferable.

P o Ling may have been the older of the two Cham princes

4. Jeumpa

In §3, I stated that there is a second piece of evidence for Cham mi- grations to Acheh, viz. the geographical name Jeumpa. This 'is a place situated on the border between Samalanga and Peusangan on Acheh's North Coast. Th e name Jeumpa was explained by Rouffaer (n.d.:206) as representing Csmpa. Rouffaer recalled the well-known

Javanese tradition, preserved with various variants in Javanese chron-

icles, o f the Ratu Putrï Cempa, who was

king of Majapahit i n East Java where she played an important role in the advancement of Islam. She died according to her tombstone at Trawulan, Majapahit, i n 1370 Qaka (= 1448 A.D.). Rouffaer added that this Campa had always been regarded as being the kingdom of Champa on the Asian Mainland, wrongly according to him, for what was really meant is probably Jeumpa in North Acheh. In a footnote on the same page he emphasized that this Jeumpa itself is 'o f course' nothing other than a transformation of Champa.

the Moslem consort o f the

There can be no doubt that Rouffaer was right (cf. Cowan 1939:5).

Apart from the curious fact that the name of the well-known chempaka-

flower is called (bungóng)

dence was that there has never been a Moslem king of Champa. More-

over, i n the chronicle of Banjermasin, which

of this tradition, Pasai is the place where the princess came from, not Csmpa. Jeumpa was at that time probably already a dependency of Samudra-Pasai, which latter had i n fact been islamic since the end of the 13th century A.D.

jeumpa i n Achehnese, a main point of evi-

also mentions a variant

It had been doubted that a Moslem could have given his daughter in




maiiiage to a Hindu. But the Banjeimasin chronicle adds that the fa- ther did hesitate at first, but gave i n for fear of the Hindu king's power. As I have shown in my review of R.A. Kern (1938) (Cowan 1939:5; cf. also the literature mentioned there), the Javanese and Malay chroni- cles often mention such marriages, so that political necessity i n such cases is quite well realized.

As for the Achehnese voiced j as compared with the unvoiced c, in Jeumpa ~ Campa, cf. Ach . guda = Mal. kuda 'horse', Ach . gam- pong = Mal. kampong 'village', Ach. gubeue = Skr. gopal(a) 'to herd (cattle)'; etc , see also supra §2, no. 5. Th e eu-vowel instead of o is due to the strong stress on the final syllable, as in Ach . deunda 'punishment' from Skr. danda; it represents a in the Campa of the Javanese tradition as in deunda it represense the » in Malay denda. The equation is therefore perfect: the jeitmpa-flower of Achehnese = the campa-flower of the Cham language; hence Jeumpa = Champa. The probability of coincidence, according to the Poisson chance distri- bution formula as adapted for comparative linguistic purposes, is only 3.6% (5 phonemes agreeing), which is significantly lower than the 5% accepted in statistics as the limit (Cowan 1962:75 ff., especially 81).

It could, of course, be objected that the Jeumpa river may have been so named after the flower and not after the Champa kingdom. But even then the equation stands, and it shows that at an early date a Chamo-Achehnese dialect was spoken there in a region which originally must have been Gayo-speaking (see infra, §6). This dialect cannot have been Achehnese imported from Great Acheh, because the first (converted) Moslem king of Acheh, 'AlT Mughayat Shah, was the one who conquered Pidië, Samudra and other small countries (see §3.2 supra), and he came to power only i n A.D. 1507 and died some 16/17 years later, much too late for the time we are concerned with.

To the East, Malay was at the time apparently the native tongue of Samudra, as is confirmed by two sources: (1) the Chinese who visited Samudra i n 1416 and reported that its language was the same as that of Malacca (Ying-yai Shêng-lan in Groeneveldt 1876:87); and (2) the famous Old Malay inscription on a tombstone of Minyè Tujoh written in an Old Sumatran script, and showing a curious mixture of Sanskrit, Malay, and Arabic words. It is usually dated i n 1380 A.D. (cf. Stutterheim 1936:268-281, and Marrison 1951:162-165), but i n my opinion should be dated i n 1389 A.D. , and i n any case almost a century



after Samudra's conversion to Islam.

To the West of our region lay Nakur, i.e.

the Chinese name of

Pidië. Its original language is unknown, but the form Nakur does not sound Malay, nor Achehnese or Cham. It resembles Skr. no- gar(a) 'town, country', which is in Achehnese nanggröé, Cham nökar (<-g->), Khmer nökór (<nagar>), Mon nt'jfcë (<nigö>) , but especially Thai nakhön (<nakor>). It has also been connected with Nagore in India.

The cognacy of the Achehnese Jeumpa and the name of the an- cient Asian Mainland kingdom must be ascribed to relations between the two, just as in modern times colonists in overseas countries, partic- ularly for instance in the Americas, often took with them geographical names from the mother country to apply them to the new settlements. This leads automatically to the conclusion that there, in Jeumpa, is to be located an area where Cham colonists settled in North Suma- tra. The date of this early settlement must evidently have been some time before 1448 A.D., when the Moslem princess who became Ma- japahit's Hindu king's consort died, though how long before we do not know. In any event, it cannot have been the result of the final fall of Champa (1471), as must have been the case for Great Acheh, where, as we have seen, the Cham prince Po Ling settled. Nor can it have been the consequence of that early great disaster of 985, also a time '

when the Chams 'commencèrent d'émigrer en grand nombre

supra §1.2) because at that time the influence of nasals on a foliowing a had not been evident yet, witness the Hai-nan dialect (cf. §2, no. 2). However, there are yet other possibilities: the civil wars of the llt h century (Maspero 1928:137 ff.); the wars with the Annamites of the llt h and the 12th centuries (Maspero o.c.:140ff.); the wars with the Khmers (Maspero o.c.: ch. VII); and the wars with the Mongols of Kubilai Khan (Maspero o.c: ch. VIII). It would lead us much too far to describe even summarily all those events. We can restrict ourselves to mentioning two of them whose outcome is not quite known.


The first of these is the Annamite war of 1069, when the Cham king

Rudravarman III 'instruit de la défaite, quitte Vijaya de nuit avec sa


faire leur soumission

tivité, Rudravarman trouva le pays dans un état d'anarchie complet, et nous ignorons s'il parvint a ressaisir le pouvoir' (i6»d.:143). This

familie; et

les habitants de la ville, perdant tout espoir

' (Maspero o.c.:141-42). ' A son retour de cap-




does not necessarily imply that he emigrated with great following.

The second possibility concerns the wars with Cambodia of 1177-

1203 and especially the final phase of them, when the Khmers, i n

retaliation for a Cham surprise attack (Maspero o.c.:164), invaded Champa, took the capital, and made king Jaya Indravarman IV pris- oner. Champa was divided into two kingdoms, Vijaya in the North and Panrang i n the South (ibid.:165). The latter was attacked again by the Cambodians i n 1203 and its king fled abroad. 'D arrivé au port de Co'-la en aoüt 1203, suivi de toute sa familie et de nombre de ses fidèles sur une flotte de plus de deux cents jonques et y demandait asile' (i&id.:167), which he did not get, and the king, Maspero con- cludes, 'reprit l a mer et 1'histoire ne nous dit pas ce qu'il devint, 1203' (ibid.). From that time until 1220, when the Khmers evacuated the country, Champa was a Cambodian province.

Both these possibilities date from before Ibn Battütah' s visit to Samudra i n 1345-46 A.D. (Defrémery and Sanguinetti 1858), when Jeumpa was probably a dependency of Samudra. O f the two, the second is the more probable for the origin of the Cham colony here, especially since the more than two hundred junks with migrants that

accompanied the fleeing king of Panrang show that their numbers were

large enough to form a settlement. W e

shall see hereafter tha t our

conclusion also agrees with the linguistic evidence.


The linguistic evidence.

We shall now consider the phonetic phenomena that we have called rel- evant i n connection with our historical findings and see whether they can be related to these as was done for Hainan Cham in §2 supra. I shall list them now in what I regard as the order of their impor- tance and decisiveness for that purpose, beginning with the least and finishing with the most important, thus:

1. The diphthongization in Achehnese of the original long *a in closed or originally closed stressed syllables;

2. The contrast of nasal consonants (other than the nasals proper TO, n, ri, n) vs. oral ones i n Achehnese;

central vowels in

3. The distinction of three vs.

two unrounded

North and in Great Acheh respectively;



4. Th e loss of voicing contrast i n Cham; and

5. Th e final -b i n th e Great Acheh dialects o f Snouck Hurgronje

and others vs. final

-p ' i n Durie's North Acheh dialect.

5.1 Diphthongizatio n o f *ö i n closed o r originally closed syl-

lables i n Achehenese.

In Achehnese, original long *a i n closed or originally closed syllables carrying stress has become uo (except, as we shall see i n §5.2., after nasals); e.g., bulvaan 'moon, month' < PC A *buldn, cf. Cham (pi)lan,

Jarai Won; uiman 'forest' < PC A

*fttitón, cf. Cham hatan; etc . bu t

pinmri 'areca' < PC A *ptnöri, cf. Cham pantin; onon» 'child' < PC A *anaP cf. Cham anüp, Raglai anoo; etc . This development is no t found either in Mainland or in Hainan Cham.

Now it is a remarkable fact that diphthongization of long *a is also found i n Khmer, e.g., khweal 'to herd (cattle)' < Skr. gopdl(a), cf. Ach. gubm» (<-al>); Khm . ceat 'become' < Skr . jat(a), cf. Ach . juut; Khm . peoife 'read' < Skr. wdc(a) 'word, speech', cf. Ach . buat (<-c> or <-j>); etc. If it is not an independent spontaneous devel- opment of its own in Achehnese, this could be taken as an indication of Khmer influence. I n fact, we have seen (supra §4) that the Chams waged wars with the Khmers, an d that Champa was even a Cambo- dian province from 1203-1220. Also many o f them sought refuge i n Cambodia during the Annamite wars of the llth-12th centuries A.D. (§3.1). Even i n modern times, a Cham group was living i n Cambo- dia. Yet this cannot be the explanation of the Achehnese phenomenon

since, as we have already said, it does not occur i n the Cham language, not even i n the dialect of the Cambodian group. Also the Achehnese diphthong ua is not the same as the Khmer ea. It must have been a comparatively late development because i t was still actively at work when Islam was introduced, Arabic words having followed the change also (cf. Cowan 1974:193f. an d 208f.; an d 1983:159 an d 161). This could mean that it was an independent spontaneous development i n Achehnese itself. However, there is another, much more probable ex- planation which occurred to me on reading a passage i n Gorgoniyev's

having stated that 'th e diph-

thongs ea, e:a, o:a are known to have developed from the old o', Gor-

goniyev adds: 'Th e diphthong m:a is generally found only i n words

The Khmer Language (1966:25).



Achehnese dialects

which are us with a

bodia on the one hand and North Sumatra on the other lies the Mala y

Peninsula, which Thailan d now occupies as far dow n as Keda h

West and Kot a Bar u (Kelantan) on the East coast. According to Hill

(1960:7; cf. also the literature mentioned there) its 'southward expan-

began about A.D . 1280', which

was one of 'the events which led to the collapse of Srivijaya'. How- ever, by the turn of the 13th century at the latest the Tha i expansion had already reached a point sufficiëntly southward on the peninsula opposite the North-East coast o f Acheh - which therefore cannot have been far from the present Keda h border - to enable the Thais to invade Pasai and carry off her king Malik ad-Dahir as a prisoner. Since this Malik ad-Dahir must be the Muhamma d Mah k ad-Dahir, son of Malik as-Salih (the first Moslem king of Samudra-Pasai), of the tombstone in Pasai which mentions his complete name and the year of his death (1326 A.D.) ; an d since accordin g to the more reliable Sejarah Melayu, he suffered a very long exile before being able to return home and re- sum é power, the time of the Siamese invasion must be placed towards

on the

Tha i by origin', a very significant statement which provides very plausible explanation. For between Anna m and Cam -



the Mala y Peninsula

century. Th e Hikayat Raja? Pasai, whic h invasion, is for obvious reasons partia l an d

describes the conflict as a complete rout for the enemy whose com- mander was killed, an d the king's absence as a pleasure trip; see i n detail Cowan (1938:206f. and 1973:256ff.)

the beginnin g o f the 14th also mentions the Siamese

tha n tw o hundre d junk s o f the fleeing kin g o f Panran g

could perhaps have reached North Sumatra by rounding the southern- most point of the Mala y peninsula, but wh y should they; it is more probable that he landed much nearer i n the Peninsula, i n a part already

soon afterwards occupied by Thailand , to stay there for some length of time, and pursued his trek much later across the Straits to North

Acheh. A s for P o Ling's

migration to Great Acheh, as we have seen


T h e

mor e

(§3.1), his brother


Bram a is actually reported

to have gone


Malacca , where he

stayed .

It is ver y plausibl e that , since bot h


a t

the same time and apparently together, the latter went on to Malacca while the former pursued his journey after some time to Acheh. Th e time between 1203 when the junk s from Panrang were refused asylum in Co'-la - the present port of Co'-anh-nhüön g (Maspero 1928:167, nt. 1) - and the early decades of the 14th century before Ibn Battütah' s visit to Samudra when the Jeump a colony must have been formed



(cf. supra §4) is amply sufficiënt for the language to have acquired peculiarities from Thai. I have shown elsewhere (Cowan 1983:182, 184; cf. also 155) a cer- tain correspondence between the diphthong in Achehnese and in Thai or dialects and languages of the Thai group. Thus, e.g., using Paul K . Benedict's and Fang-Kuei Li's material (Benedict 1942, 1966 and 1967; Fang-Kuei Li 1965): Sek (a Northern Thai type of the Thakhek region in Laos) has pblian 'moon', and reconstructed Proto-Thai (Benedict 1966:241) gives *?blüan with the diphthong üa, which is practically homophonic with the Achehnese diphthong H» in the evidently re- lated Achehnese word bulvasn same meaning (< *bulan, cf. Cha m pilan, written with <b->, Jarai blan). Similarly Proto-Thai Hhüan 'forest' (Benedict l.c.) corresponds to Ach . utwsn same meaning (<


*hutan, cf.

Cha m

hatan); and

Laqu a küön


N . L i khan)


eat' (Benedict 1942:586) is comparable to Ach. makuan 'id. ' (of dis- tinguished persons), jakuan 'ruminate, chew the cud', cf. also Malay makan 'eat'. These examples already suggest that the diphthong, both in Achehnese and in Thai, derives from an original long *a. This is confirmed by a word like Stand. Thai khwaay, other dialects kwaay 'water buffalo' (Benedict 1967:213; cf. also Jones 1965:208, 212), i f compared with Ach . kuibxiB same meaning, which derives from PC A *kabaw, cf. Cham kapaw (<-b->), in which the long a persisted in Thai instead of diphthongizing, probably for combinatory reasons. In order to avoid misunderstanding I note that in Standard Achehnese orthography the diphthong ue is written <eue>.

5.2 Distinctio n of oral vs.



nasal consonants othe r tha n


The problem of the contrast of oral vs. nasal consonants other than

the nasals proper m, n, ri, n concerns the analysis of the combination

of such nasals plus following nasal vowel. Snouck Hurgronje, among

others, has treated those nasal consonants as independent variants of their oral counterparts; and I have described them as 'phonetically nasalized variants of the corresponding oral ones, but phonologically distinct phonemes' (Cowan 1981:526). The vowel which follows such

a nasal consonant is, in my view, nasalized secondarily by the pre-

ceding nasal consonant in the same way as those following the nasals


Achehnese dialects

'proper'. Its nasality is therefore no more than a combinatory phe- nomenon an d not phonemic. Durie, however, regards these vowels as

nasal phonemes and the preceding consonant as a non-distinctive vari-

ant (Durie 1985:16,

23-24). I consider these

differences i n analysis to

be directly relatable to differences o f approach. Durie's approach is strictly synchronie, whereas I agree with a statement made b y André Martinet (1954:125) to the effect that 'th e unity of linguistics is to be found in the overcoming of the Saussurian antinomy between diachrony and synchrony'. For the nasals in Achehnese have a strong modifying influence on the following vowel. Thus in PAN *yumah 'house' the m modifies th e following o to Ach . 5: rumóh; an d PA N *buria 'flower' even becomes bvnon; PA N Hama > Ach . tamSri. Similarly, PA N *nawa 'soul' > Ach. na Wan; and in loans, e.g., Persian-Arabic mawar 'rose' > Ach . maW5\ Arab. mait 'corpse' > Ach . manyét; Dutch ma- joor 'major' > Ach. manyo; etc, in which the initial nasal m nasalized

via the first a the w to nasal W an d this i n turn nasalized

ond a to 5, and again, nasalized via the a the y to ny (n) and this ae following vowel to ê and 5 respectively (y as such has no nasal counterpart, its function being filled b y n , i.e. ny). From a n historical point of view, these examples prove beyond doubt that the nasality of the vowel is secondary, dependent on the preceding consonant and po- sitionally conditioned by that consonant; in other words, these vowels are combinatory variants of the oral vowels and not phonemes. There is no reason for a different interpretation for oppositions like Piëb (i.e. pislb) 'suck'; piëb 'ho m for bullets'; Suëb 'lung' : suëb 'eat with hands'. It must be noted, however, that this contrast has a clear tendency to disappear, in some cases both nasal and oral consonant being allowed.

In so-called 'register' languages like Mo n and Khmer of the South- East Asian Continent, whose scripts derive from Devanagarï, the an - cient signs for voiced stops have lost their distinctive voicing and are used to indicate the corresponding voiceless stops but with a concomi- tant 'register' (pitch) feature. It is remarkable that these voiceless stops with this concomitant feature have the same modifying influence

the sec-

on the following vowel as the nasals proper. This parallelism extends even to the writing system, where the inherent vowel o f the signs i n question is no longer a, as it is in scripts of Indian origin and still is in

Mo n

è an d Khmer 3 with pitch

the ancient Mo n and Khmer signs for voiceless stops, but a vowel:


so that the signs for original *ma,

*na, *iia, an d *na as well as those for *ba, *da, *ga, etc. represent



an d ma , an d no etc . respectively, an d an d pó, iè an d to etc . respectively. T o render consonant plus o-vowel a specific additional sign is necessary.

In Cham too, the nasals have influenced the following vowel so that

even the inherent o became ü (Moussay's u') as, e.g. i n

earth', cf. Ach . tanoh < PC A Hanah; tamü 'enter', cf. Ach . tamon

< PC A *iama\ etc. In Cham, just as i n Mo n an d Khmer, the ancient

voiced stop signs of the Indian-derived Cham writing are used to in - dicate voiceless stops with a component o f pitch. Therefore, although there are certain discrepancies, it may well be that the Achehnese con- trast of nasalized versus oral consonants is i n its origin to be related to the contrast of 'voice register' i n those South-East Asian Mainland languages; see i n detail Cowan (1983:165f.); an d cf. also infra §5.4 concerning 'loss of voicing contrast i n Cham'.

Of immediate interest for our historical problem is the fact itself

tanüh 'land,

of the

have already mentioned Ach . tanoh, Cham tanüh an d Ach . tamon,

Cham tamü,

Ach. umori — Cham hamü 'rice field, etc. These examples contain a n originally short vowel i n the final syllable. Th e situation is different for those words which contain a n originally long a, i n tha t position . Whereas i n Cham, the vowel remains the same except for the length feature, i n Achehnese the original long a, which in closed or originally closed syllables carrying stress would otherwise become diphthongized to UB (cf. §5.1 supra), is prevented from diphthongizing by the pre- ceding nasal consonant and becomes simple nasalized ür ; e.g. PC A

nasal influence on an original a i n Cham as i n Achehnese. W e

an d we can ad d Ach . inon = Cham inü 'woman', an d

*ana? 'child ' > Cha m anü:P,

Ach .



*minya? 'oil ' >

Cha m

minyü:?, Ach . minyw?; PC A *pinan 'arecapalm' > Cham pinü:ri, Ach. pinüm; etc. This means not only that - as we have said i n §2 supra - this illustrates an d confirms the early migration o f a first group o f Chams to Hainan whose dialect had still preserved original a after nasal, but also that the Chamo- Achehnese dialects of both Great Acheh and Jeumpa, which both show the nasal influence on the follow- ing vowel, are of considerably later date than the Hainan migration of 985 A.D. This agrees well with our conclusion concerning the P o Ling migration to Great Acheh of the end of the 15th century A.D. as well as that o f the Jeumpa colonization of the first decade o f the 14th.


Achehnese dialects

5.3 Th e distinctio n o f thre e unrounde d centra l vowel s i n Nort h

Ache h vs.

two i n Great

Acheh .

According to Durie (1985:16), there are in his dialect of North Acheh three unrounded vowels which he describes as 'unrounded back vowels all somewhat central auditorily', and which I shall style 'unrounded

central vowels'. These are ar, 9 and A

Great Acheh dialects studied by Snouck Hurgronje, among others, (in- cluding myself) have only two such vowels, i n my notation ar (in Stan- dard orthography <eu>) and a (Cowan 1981:525). The reason for this is that the latter dialects did not distinguish, as does North Acheh, be- tween A and 9, merging both to o (Durie o.c: 5, 17). Durie calls the distinction of A and 0 a 'diachronically important contrast', rightly so, as is shown by a comparison with Cham . According to the Gram- maire de la langue Tjame of Ét. Aymonier (1889:25f., 28f.), there was an original distinction of three such unrounded vowels, designated by the author with d, os and ê. In the dialect of Binh Thuan (Annam), the first two were confused with each other, while in the Cambodia dialect d was confused with a. ê was distinctive only in Binh Thuan, being 'généralement confondue avec os même dans la prononciation' in Cambodia (Aymonier 1889:26). The reduction of the three unrounded central vowels to two was therefore already practically a fact at that time. In Moussay's dictionary (1971:XII), they have merged into u'

i n Durie's notation. But the

('aperture l e r degré') and o' ('aperture 2 ' degré'), which I have writ- ten ü and ö respectively in order to prevent confusion with the glottal stop. Although the Cham migrations into Acheh are of much earlier date than Aymonier's observations, the process of reduction must have taken some time. In any case, it is a fact that even the present day di- alects of North Acheh still distinguish three unrounded central vowels as against the two of Great Acheh, cf. the place name Cöt Triëng (with

ö = Standard orthography for A ) in North Acheh, where Durie studied

his dialect, over against Cot Langkuweueh (with o = orthography for

D) i n Great Acheh, whose dialect closely conforms to that of Snouck

Hurgronje (Durie 1985:5; cot ~ cöt means 'hill; steep' and is in Cha m CÖP, written with <-k>, 'montagne'). The fact that the original sit- uation of distinction between three unrounded central vowels is found in North Acheh, and the reduction to two in Great Acheh, can only mean that the Cham colony of Jeumpa in North Acheh was older than the colony of Great Acheh, in accordance with our historical exposé.



5.4 Th e loss o f voicin g contrast i n

Cham .

In §5.2 we have already touched on the question of the loss of the voic- ing contrast in Cham - as in Mo n and Khmer - in connection with the distinction in Achehnese between oral and nasal consonants other than the nasals proper. According to Lee (1974:659; cf. also Blood 1962:12, and Cowan 1983:166), it must have been this loss of the voicing con- trast that in Cham, as in Mo n and Khmer, led to the development of 'voice register' which in Cham is represented by pitch and in cer- tain environments manifested as fortisness. Equally, in $5.2, we have tentatively considered the possibility of a certain original relationship between this contrast of voice register and the Achehnese contrast of nasal vs. oral consonants. However, Achehnese has not lost the voic- ing contrast nor is it disappearing, and it has not developed 'register', whatever the explanation of the Achehnese phenomenon may be. This means that the process of devoicing had not begun yet, or at least was not decisively completed, when the migrant Chams settled in North Sumatra. Th e language of the Old Cham inscriptions which also use both voiced and unvoiced stop signs, must have had a voicing con- trast, at least at first. For obvious reasons we do not learn from them whether, and if so when, the voiced quality of the voiced stop signs was lost and was replaced by 'register'. In Hainan Cham, the voicing contrast was already lost (cf. §2 supra). Now, since this fact must be due to the later group of Hainan immigrants (cf. ibid.), the ex- planation must be that this Hainan group left the South-East Asian Mainland later than P ö Ling and his foliowers, who fled immediately

of the Cha m capital in 1471 A.D . This Hainan group,

however, must have stayed some considerable time on the Continent. Of particular relevance in this connection is Maspero's comment on

at the final fall

that decisive end of the Chams as a nation, who were 'désormais

Réfugiés dans la montagne ou exilés sur

la terre étrangère - au Cambodge (my italics, C.) - Us n'auront plus

comme dernier hen que ce nom de 'Chams'

already partly quoted in §3.1.1. supra). In Cambodia they must have lost the voicing contrast and adopted the Khmer 'register' to replace it, whereas P ö Ling and his people had gone early enough to take the voicing feature with them to Great Acheh still intact, or perhaps rather in the early undecisive and not completed phase of its reduc- tion. A t this point, the process may have been stopped in time and the

a la merci des Annamites

' (Maspero 1928:241,


Achehnese dialects

contiast saved through the influence and piestige of Moslem Jeumpa. For Jeumpa was, as we have seen (§§ 4 and 5.1) colonized some 150 years at least before the final catastrophe of the Cham kingdom so that her colonists had taken the distinction of voice quite intact with them. Although much has changed in the course of time, this could perhaps partly still explain the prestige which Durie (1985:7) ascribes to the dialects of North Acheh.

It could perhaps also explain the phonetic form of the name Acheh with e. This presupposes original nasal ë, and hence nasal C, because otherwise e < i would be expected. Confirmation of this could be seen in early Portuguese (e.g. Duarte Barbosa's Livro of 1516) Achem, i.e. Achê, and early English Achin (Cowan 1974:205). The spelling Achem also occurs on the Portuguese map of ca. 1513 A D partly reproduced by Hill (1960:23) and even on the map published by Langren in 1623 (Hill 1960:172). The spelling -em is usual Portuguese orthography

for nasalized ê. In this connection it is interesting to note that Ibn Battütah's account of his visit to Samudra according to the French

translation of Defrémery and Sanguinetti (1858:228) reads '

arrivames a 1'fle de Djaouah (Sumatra) but that after the words

'the island of Jawah' the Arabic text adds something that does not appear in the translation . Transliterated, it reads bi 'l-jïm, bi 'l-jêm or bi'l-jaim, with the preposition bi + the article ai as usual. But what is this jim or jëm or jaim? The word strongly resembles the bain-azim at Sumatra's North-West point on Canerio's map of 1502 which Rouffaer (n.d.:207a) tentatively interpreted as meaning bahr Acheh 'Acheh-sea' if compared with the baurazyar on Cantino's map, also of 1502. In Ibn Battütah's text the - 'l- could be the Arab writer's addition as if it were the article, while the / , like the z in azim on Canerio's map could be the original voiced consonant which would have been devoiced to c under the influence of the beginning process of loss of voicing. This form then stuck when the process was stopped, but retained traces of it in the nasalized quality of the consonant in accordance with our suggestion of a certain relation between the contrast of 'register' in South-East Asian languages and the Achehnese contrast of nasalized versus oral consonants (§5.2). The nasal quality was eventually lost because, as we have already said (§5.2), the entire contrast has a tendency to disappear (see also Cowan 1974:205). This would then be the very

first mention of the name Acheh, viz. the year 1345/46.

sentence in Ibn Battütah' s text would mean: 'we arrived at the island


An d the



of Jawa i n (or by) Acheh'.

5.5 Fina l -b in Great

Acheh versus -p'

in Nort h

Acheh .

Durie's criticism of what he has called 'certain idiosyncracies of (Snouck Hurgronje's) orthography (which) were never questioned' by his followers, is directed, among other things, against 'his inconsistent treatment of final [p " ] as b but final [t' ] as V (Durie 1985:4; cf. also p. 20). Bu t apar t from the fact tha t the manuscript s i n Arabi c characters themselves used to write final -b and not -p beside -t, comparison with present day Cham shows that there is no idiosyncrasy and no incon- sistency. In Cham , said Aymonier, whose treatment was based on the written forms, 'a la fin des mots, les consonnes k et p ne se prononcent presque pas et donnent au mot un arrêt un peu brusque de la voix' (Aymonier 1889:32). Moussay's dictionary, which shows both written and spoken forms, then makes clear what the exact value of written

script is of ancient origin, and the writ-

ten forms reflect an older stage of the language, the spoken forms indi-

cate younger phonetic developments. Moussay (1971:xviii) emphasizes

this, particularly for final -p, saying that 'dans Pécriture les consonnes

(P) expriment un parler ancien, que 1'on peut

encore rencontrer chez les Curu ou les Jarai. Dans le parler actuel ces

lettres ne sont plus prononcées comme autrefois et sont remplacées par une occlusion glottale, qui est noté (sic) dans la transcription par une apostrophe comme les occlusions glottales que Pécriture exprime par un 'K V However, the relevant lemmata in the dictionary show that this description is not quite complete. Thus, written <göp> is spoken köw? 'parent, parenté; autrui' (see the dictionary under the spoken

1985:21). Similarly kröw? (<gröp> )

'tous, tout'; raw? (<rap>) and harawP (<harap>) 'aspirer' (cf. Ach .

final -p now is. Since the Cha m



form), cf. Durie's gop (Durie

harab, Mal .

harap); tawP (<tap> )


Uw?, hatiw?


hudiöp>; the last form only in Aymonier 1889) 'vivre' (cf. Ach . udeb,

Mal .


etc ; see Moussay under the spoken forms.

This shows that final -p was i n Cha m prior to and proto-form of final -w?. Apart from the glottalization of the w, which is a reminder of the -p (cf. the quotation from Moussay supra) and also occurs in Durie's p ', w and b are closely related phones which interchange regularly in Austronesian languages. There can be no doubt that the




final -6 i n the Achehnese dialects of Gieat Acheh - and hence i n the

Achehnese manuscripts - conesponds to the final -w i n modern Cham .

This means that the Great Acheh dialects represent a younger Cham dialect than those of North Acheh with preserved final -p *. This again accords with our conclusion that the Cham colony of Jeumpa was of considerably older date than that of Great Acheh.

6. Recapitulation and conclusion.

In the foregoing paragraphs I have dealt only with Cham influences in North Sumatra, for that was my aim. Except for some allusions, where it seemed necessary in a given context, I have intentionally omitted mentioning other, particularly Indian, influences, both Hindu - which, for instance, gave rise to kingdom s like Majapahi t i n Jav a an d Crïvijay a in Sumatra and pre-islamic Samudra - and Islamic - which brought about the conversion of Perlak and Samudra-Pasai, among others, in North Sumatra. For those I refer the reader to the existing works on these subjects.

As for the Chams, we have found that there have been two main colonies of Cham-speaking groups in what is now Acheh, one in North

Acheh, particularly Jeumpa, which dates from the early decades of the 14th century, and one in Great Acheh which dates from after the

final fall

ably younger than the other. These two groups imported the language which has become what is now Achehnese. What language or lan- guages was or were spoken i n the area before that time can only be inferred from tradition. It seems to have been a Gayo-related dialect or dialects, considering that the Gayos now live in the interior. Be- sides, Durie (1985:2) mentions oral traditions from Bireuen according to which the Gayos once lived on the coast. A similar observation had already been made by Snouck Hurgronje (1903:75-76) for the region of Samudra-Pasai.

In the South-West, where even now Minangkabau is spoken beside Achehnese, it may have been a Minangkabau-like Malay dialect. I do not believe that before the coming and spread of Achehnese, pre- Austronesian languages like Nicobar were spoken in Acheh, as Collins thinks (1975, an unpublished Ph.D . dissertation, University of Cali- fornia, Berkeley, which was not available to me nor obtainable in the

of the Cha m kingdom i n 1471 and was therefore consider-



libraiies here, and therefore is cited here following Durie 1985:3; cf.

also p. 274). This pre-Austronesian language or languages

been superseded at least for the greater part by Austronesian already long before that time. My conclusion that the Chamic colony in Jeumpa came earlier and its language represents an older dialect than that of Great Acheh is contrary to what Durie (1985:3-4) says about 'the evidence of present day dialects (which) suggests that Greater Acheh and Daya on the west coast form the oldest Achehnese speaking area, for these are where the greatest dialect variation is to be found'. The hypothe- sis that maximal linguistic diversity in a particular area is prima facie evidence that (related) languages diverged there and spread outward from that area was posed by Dyen, among others such as Davenport and Goodenough, in the Comments on Capell's 'Oceanic Linguistics to-day' (Dyen 1962a:402fT., especially p . 405; cf. also Dyen 1962b:39), where he tried to prove on similar grounds that Melanesia was the area where the Austronesian languages originated from, not the Asian Mainland.

However, as I have shown in detail (Cowan 1965:217 ff.) the theory is untenable. In the first place, Dyen appeared to be unaware of the

fact that H . Kern has already as early as 1889 seriously considered the possibility of an Oceanic origin of Austronesian (H . Kern 1917). 'H e

must have

rejected the possibility solely on factual evidence

were mainly lexical, included 112 languages, from the IN , PN , an d 'MN' groups. Kern's word-list included 35 to 40 items, mostly plant

and animal names

that 'for instance, maximal diversity within the Indo-European family is found i n the Central Balkans, where Albanian, Greek, Slavic, and Italic (Rumanian) are concentrated i n a relatively small area. But we know from historical sources that this situation is due to comparatively recent mutations and migrations and has little or nothing to do with the original splitting up of Indo-European' (Cowan 1965:218).

his data, which

' (Cowan 1965:217). In the second place, I recalled

therefore, of the opinion that m y conclusion concerning the

priorities of the Cham dialects of Jeumpa and Great Acheh stands,

and see confirmation of this view i n what Durie adds to his statement quoted above: 'The dialects of Daya are particularly idiosyncratic as they are isolated from Greater Acheh by a narrow and rocky stretch

differ even between neighbour-

of coastland. Dialects i n both regions

I am,


Achehnese dialects

ing villages; over greater distances the differences can be so much as to make communication dimcult. It is certainly the case that the

distance of a few kilometres i n Greater Acheh can

contrast greater than that which would be achieved by travelling two hundred kilometres in North Acheh' (Durie 1985:3-4). This seems to reveal the real reason of the diversity: historical causes as in the case

of the Balkans, perhaps dating partly from the second world war and the shifting of population groups caused by it under the Japanese oc- cupation, and partly even already from ancient times when the dialect of the colony of Pö Ling slowly spread to outlying and isolated places where it then began to lead its own life.

involve a dialect



= Achehnese


= Arabic

Hik. Ach.

= Hikayat Acheh


= Indonesian


= Journal of the Malayan Branch


of the Royal Asiatic Society = Khmer


= Malay


= Mon-Khmer



= Mainland Cham


= Melanesian


Cham = Modern Cham


= North(ern)


= Old Javanese


= Proto-Austronesian


= Proto-Chamo-Achehic


= Polynesian


= Sanskrit


= Standard


Aymonier, E . 1889.


de la langue Tjame (Extrait des 'Ex -

cursions et Reconnaissances,


31, 1889.)








'Première Etude sur les Inscriptions Tchames',



8me série,

tome XVII .

and A . Cabaton 1906. Dictionnaire Imprimerie Nationale.



Benedict, P.K . 1941. ' A Cham colony on the Island of Hainan', Har-

vard Journal

of Astatic

studies, 6:129-134.


'Thai, Kadai, and Indonesian: a new Alignment in

Southeastern Asia', American Anthropologist, New Series 44:576-




'Austro-Thai', Behavior





'Austro-Thai Studies', Behavior

Science Notes, 2:203-


Bergaigne, A . 1888. 'L'ancien Royaume de Campa, dans 1'Indo-Chine,


'Refleies of Proto-Malayo-Polynesian i n Cham' ,

d'après les inscriptions', Journal



8me série, t.

Blood, D.W . 1962. Anthropological

Bostanu's-salatïn: see Niemann, G.K . ed.

Brown, CC . 1983. Sejarah Melayu or Malay Annals,

with a new Jntroduction by R. Roolvink,

4, no. 9:11-20.

(1907 4 ).


an 2nd ed. Kuala


Lumpur: Oxford University Press.

Collins, I.V. 1975.

The Austro-Asiatic

substratum in Achehnese. Un -

published Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.

Cowan, H.K.J. 1938. 'Bijdrage tot de kennis der Geschiedenis van het Rijk Samudra-Pasè (n.a.v. vier nog niet beschreven gouden munten)', Tijdschrift voor Indische Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde,


1939. Review of R.A. Kern, 'De Verbreiding van den Islam'

(8th chapter of Geschiedenis van Nederlandsch-Indü under the di -

rection of D r F.W. Stapel, Amsterdam 1938),

of the Java Institute

Djdwd (the Journal

of the time), no. 2, vol. 19:1-6.

1948. 'Aanteekeningen betreffende de Verhouding van het

Atjèhsch tot de Mon-Khmer talen', Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land-



van Nederlandsch-Indiê,



Achehnese dialects

1962. 'Statistica] Deteimination of linguistic Relationship',




1965. 'O n Melanesian and the Origin of Austronesian', Cur-

rent Anthropology,


1973. 'L a Légende de Samudra. Teite malais, avec Introduc-

tion, Commentaire et Traduction abrégée', Archipel,



'Evidence of long vowels in Early Achehnese',





'A n outline of Achehnese phonology and morphology',


Studies, 44:522-549.

1983. 'The Achehnese diphthong u e and its possible impli-

of the School of Oriental and African

cations for Proto-Austronesian', Acta


d'Ibn Batoutah. Collection d'Ouvrages Orientaux, publiée par l a

Société Asiatique, t.



Defrémery, C . and B.R . Sanguinetti.

1858. ed. and transl.:

4. Paris: Imprimerie Impériale.



H . 1911. Recapitulation of data concerning 'AlïMughayat

Djajadiningrat, R.A. Hoesein. 1934. Atjèhsch-Nederlandsch boek. The Hague: M . Nijhoff.

Durie, M . 1985.


Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde, vol. 112. Dordrecht: Foris Publi- cations.

Dyen, I. 1962a. Comment on A . CapeU's 'Oceanic Linguistics to-day',

Verhandelingen van het Koninklijk Instituut voor




of Acehnese on the basis of a dialect of






'Lexicostatistical classification of the

nesian Languages', Language,



Fang-Kuei Li.



'The Ta i and the Kam-Sui Languages',


Freeman-Grenville, G.S.P. 1977. The Muslim and Christian Calen- dars, being tables for the conversion of Muslim and Christian dates from the Hijra to the year A.D. 2000, 2nd ed. London: Rex Collings Ltd.

Gorgoniyev, Y.A.


The Khmer


Moscow: Nauka pub-





Groeneveldt, W.P. 1876. 'Notes on the Malay Archipelago and Malacca compiled from Chinese sources', Verhandelingen van het Konin- klijk Bataviaasch Genootschap van Kunsten en Wetenschappen, 29, 1. Also published i n Miscellaneous papers relating to Indo- China and the Indian Archipelago, reprinted for the Straits Branch, Royal Asiatic Society, 2nd ser., vol. I, 1887.

Hill, A.H. 1960. 'Hikayat Raja-raja Pasai, a revised romanised version with an English translation, an introduction and notes', Journal of the Malayan Branch, Royal Asiatic Society, 33, pt. 2:5-215.

Iskandar, T . 1958. 'De Hikajat Atjèh', Verhandelingen van het Konin-

klijk Instituut

voor Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde,

26. The Hague:







'O n the


of Proto-Thai',



Kern, H . 1917. 'Taalkundige gegevens ter bepaling van het Stamland der Maleisch-Polynesische Volken', in his Verspreide Geschriften, 6:105-120 (first published in Verslagen en Mededelingen der Konin- klijke Akademie van Wetenschappen, afd. Letterkunde, 3e reeks, vol. 6, Amsterdam 1889).

Lee, E.W. 1974. 'Southeast Asian areal features i n Austronesian Strata

of the Chamic languages',

Oceanic Linguistics,


Leyden, J . 1821. Malay Annals, translated from the Malay Language,


with an Introduction

by Sir

Thomas Stanford


Longman, Hurst, Rees, Ome, and Brown.

Marrison, G.E . 1951. ' A Malay poem in Old Sumatran characters', Journal of the Malayan Branch, Royal Asiatic Society, 24, pt.


Martinet, A . 1954. 'The Unity of Linguistics',

Maspero, G . 1928. Le Royaume de Champa.

Word, 10.

Paris and Brussels: Edi -


G . van Oest.


G . 1971. Dictionnaire Cam-Vietnamien-Franqais. Phan-

rang: Centre Culturel Cam.

Niemann, G.K . 1907.


uit Maleische


vol. 2,

4th ed.:120-140. The Hague: M . Nijhoff.




Rouffaer, G.P . (n.d.). 'Sumatra, Geschiedenis, I. Oudste Periode, tot op de komst der Hollanders (1596)', Encyclopedie van Nederland- sch-Indië, lst ed. (undated):199-210.


Shellabear, W.G.



Sejarah Melayu.



Mission Press (ed. i n Arabic


1898. (ed.)

Sejarah Melayu or the Malay Annals.

American Mission Press (ed. in Latin



Shorto, H.L. 1975. 'Achinese and Mainland Austronesian', Bulletin

and African

Snouck Hurgronje, C . 1903. Het Gajoland en zijne Bewoners.


the School of Oriental

Studies, 38:81-102.





The Achehnese, translated from the Dutch by A.W.S.

O'Sullivan, 2 vols. Leiden: E.J . Brill.


H . 1937.

Die Li-Stdmme

der Insel Hainan.




Volkskunde Süd-Chinas,


de Gruyter.

unter Mitwirkung von P . Meriggi. Berlin:

Stutterheim, W.F . 1936. ' A Malay sha'ir in Ol d Sumatran

of 1380 A.D.' ,