Aceh Dialects in Connection With Chamic Migrations

7/28/2019 Aceh Dialects in Connection With Chamic Migrations

1/36

Offprint from

VICAL 2Western Austronesian and

Contact LanguagesPapers from the

Fifth International Conference on Austronesian Linguisticsedited by Ray Harlow

Linguistic Society of New ZealandAuckland, New Zealand

1991


2/36


3/36

Achehnese dialects in connectionwith Chamic migrationsH . K . J . CowanI. Introduction.In his recent Grammar of Acehnese on the basis of a dialed of NorthAceh (1985), Durie presents a phonemic analysis of the Achehnese lan-guage which differs considerably on certain points from that of earlierauthors, notably Snouck Hurgronje and Djajadiningrat. Durie com-ments on these differences as 'idiosyncracies of ...(Snouck Hurgronje's)orthography (which) were never questioned. Two problems were hisinconsistent treatment of final [p"] as b but final [ t ' j as


4/36

Cowan

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

1.2 The Hainan ChamsSuggestions concerning the answers to these questions can be found inthe migration of that other off-shoot of the Chamic speaking peoples:the Moslem Cham colony in the Chinese island of Hainan, whose language Paul K. Benedict has rightly recognized as Chamic (Benedict1941:129-134). Their numbers were estimated around that time atsome 2,000 (400 families). However, since they must have been therefor some time, their original numbers may well have been very different. Benedict mentions two traditions concerning their origin, whichhe cites from Stbel (1937:264), who visited them. According to one,their ancestors came to Hainan from Kuang-tung as early as the Sungperiod; according to the other, only 400 years ago, i.e. 400 years beforethe 1930s, by way of Annam. Benedict adds that the latter tradition'accords better with our view that these people are the descendants ofan old Cham colony in Hainan'. In my opinion, however, both tradi-

54


5/36

Achehnese dialects

tions are compatible with historical facts. The second one dates backto the first half of the 16th century A.D. and thus may be the con-sequence of the final fall of the kingdom of Champa1. On the otherhand, the first tradition may well be the consequence of a much ear-lier catastrophe which actually did happen in the Sung period. Thiswas the Annamite invasion of Champa of 982 and the destruction andpillage of the capital Indrapura, the flight of King Indravarman IVto the south, and the whole aftermath of these events as recorded bythe Chinese and described in detail by Maspero (1928:122 ff.). TheAnnamite king of Champa who succeeded Indravarman IV was, saysMaspero (o.c.:125), 'dur envers un peuple qu'en sa qualit d'Annamitei l mprisait profondment, sa domination pesa lourdement aux Chamsqui commencrent d'migrer en grand nombre et s'en allrent cherchera 1'e'tranger la tranquit qu'ils ne trouvaient pas chez eux: en 986nous en voyons dbarquer dans l'e de Hai-nanet demander au prfetde 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 twomigrant groups have settled at different times, but also that in othercountries of S.E. Asia, too, more waves of Cham fugitives may havelanded. This is of direct bearing on our subject.

2. The relevant phonetic phenomena in HainanChamWe will now consider the question whether the relevant phonetic phenomena of 1 supra can for Hainan Cham be related to one or more ofthe aforementioned historical events. For if such a correlation shouldappear to exist, the question would almost automatically present itselfwhether a similar correlation can also be established for the languageof the Chamo-Achehnese migrants to North Sumatra.In Hainan Cham:

1. there are no examples in the few data available of original final*-p. Original final *-


6/36

Cowan

e.g. ba '4' ( = M l d . Cham pa?,written < P C A *patand s t i l l pat in the inscription of 751 Caka = 829 A D , see Ay-monier 1891:27); ds 'mountain' (= M l d . Ch. tik in Benedict'stianshteiation, in Moussay's co'?; cf. Ach. cot, ct < P C A*CAt)3.

2. there is no evidence of a distinction between nasal consonantsother than the nasals proper (m, n, ri, n) vs. oral consonants.The nasals proper, however, do not show the nasalizing influencethey have had in M l d . Ch.; e.g. mi ' 5 ' (= M l d . C h . limu); ma'father' (= M l d . C h . amu); na 'mother' (= M l d . Ch. ini); na-sa' c h i l d ' (na-gai 'son', na-mai 'daughter'; n = M l d . C h . anp;the words for 'mother' and ' c h i l d ' having coincided phonetically,the latter was specified by an additional element); n& 'earth' (=M l d . C h . tanuh).

3. there is no evidence for the distinction of more than one un-rounded central vowel, viz. the one rendered by Benedict as ;e.g. ds 'mountain' (= Mld. C h . tik in Benedict's transcription, in Moussay's C P ) .

4. there is, just as in M l d . Ch., no diphthongization of original long*a in closed or originally closed syllables as in Achehnese; e.g.,ba '4' (= M l d . C h . pa?, Ach. puat < P C A *pa~i cf. supra no1); (lon-)pian 'moon' (= Mld. C h . pildn < P C A *buldn, cf.A c h . bulu&n; the element Ion is also found in lon-d 'star'.)

5. there is, as in M l d . Ch., evidence of loss of voicing contrast in ,e.g. tod '2' (= Mld. C h . twa, ); to 'si t' (= Mld. C h .to?, ); p% ' a l l ' (= Mld. C h . pih, apih, ); -pian'moon' (= M l d . C h . pilan, pulan, cf. supra no. 4). Instead, areverse development seems to be at work in, e.g. gau 'V (=Mld.C h . kw, , cf. Ach. fa, d i a l . kew < P C A *k); giu ' 3 '(= M l d . C h . klow, cf. Ach. Ihea, d i a l . Ihew < P C A *tl); b'4' (= Mld. C h . pa?, cf. supra no. 4); bu '10' (= M ld . C hpluk); da pi 'we' (= M l d . C h . ita 'we ' + (a)pih ' a l l ' ) . A similarphenomenon, but apparently on a much lesser scale, is seen inA c h . guda 'horse', cf. Mal. kuda; gampong 'village', cf. Mkampong; etc.

JIn order to avoid confusion with the glottal top Moussay's o'will hereafterbe rendered by me as and his u' will be replaced by .

56


7/36

Achehnese dialects

Now , i f we considei these examples, we see that even these meagredata allow ceitain conclusions concerning their historical origin to bedrawn. Thus ma 'father', na 'mother', andno- ' c h i l d ' show that thevowels have not (yet)undergone the nasalizing influence as in Mld.C h . , so that they must represent what must have been the first migration to Hainan of 986 A D , cf. 1.2 supra. That is, the time of the O ldCham inscriptions which s t i l l show thepost-nasal o. InM l d . C h. thishas become sothat thehasbecome thevowel inherent in symbolsfor nasals in the Cham script. To indicate nasal + a anadditionalsign must be used, as is otherwise usual for combinations other thancons. + inherent o; see inmore detail 5.2 infra. That the o-voweli n the Hainan words is not a younger development from theM l d . Ch.unrounded central vowel rendered byBenedict and byMoussayfollows from the fact that Hainan Cham does possess this vowel, as inds 'mountain' = Mld. Ch. tsk (Benedict's orthography, see supranos. 1 and 3), and could have used it after nasals if there was a reasonfor it.

To this early part of the Hainan Cham dialect can probably also beattributed the numerals si '7', bad '8', and perhaps td ba '9', whichi n M l d . Ch. are tacuh (), talipan (), and thdlipan() forwhich latter Benedict gives samilan. Now these M l d .C h . forms are clearly loans from M a l a y tujuh '7', which representsthe 'pointing' finger, i.e. the seventh, counting from left to right onboth hands (Mal. tujumeans 'direction'); dlapan < dua-alapan, l i t .'two taken off' (scil. from '10'; Mal. alap= 'take away'), whereasthdlipan = 'one taken off', a synonym of samilan < M a l . smbilan '9'< sa-ambilan 'one taken away' (Mal. ambil= 'take'); cf. also Ac h.sikuruang '9', lit. 'one less'.

These Mld. Ch. numerals appear to have replaced the originalAustronesian forms pitu '7' (O.Jav. id.), walu '8' (O.Jav. wolu andwwalu), and siwa '9' (O.Jav. sanga with 'polite' form sang= si),probably for thesame taboo reasons asobtained in the M a l a y languagefrom which they were borrowed. For pitu is a near homophone of piatu'orphan', walu~ balu means 'widow' (thus s t i l l in O.Jav.), and siwa(O.Jav. sanga) resembles siya(-siya) ' in vain, useless', all words withan unfavourable connotation.

It is, ofcourse, not impossible to object that these later loans inM l d . Ch. date from after themigration which followed the final fal l of

57


8/36

Cowan

Champa in 1471 A D , and that consequently this migration took withit the original forms to Hainan and changed them there only after thatdate. But considering the points which w i l l be made below concerningthe strong resemblance of some of the new forms with the Thai andKam - S u i languages, and with the Ka d a i , this is improbable.

Hainan Cham td ba, according to Benedict (1941:131), 'is per-haps comparable with IN t'iva[?]'; here, IN means 'Indonesian', andthe original Austronesian form of the numeral '9' follows DempwolfF'sreconstruction. Benedict does not comment on the other two aber-rant Hainan words s '7' and bad '8'. But these forms are reminiscento f those in what Benedict a year afterwards (1942:576rF.) called theKa d a i language stock 'which shows numerous points of contact withThai'. Notably s '7' is very much l i k e Northern Kelao si. For reasonso f space I shall not comment on the fact that Benedict (1942:582) seesaffinities between all Ka d a i numerals and the'Austronesian ones. Iwould only note that, e.g. for '8' the resemblance of the Hainan f o imappears to be even stronger with the Thai and Kam - S u i languages,where this numeral is pat in the Sui dialects, paat in Mak, and peeti n Thai dialects (Fang-Kuei Li 1965:176, no. 266), whereas '7' is sat,set in Sui, set and cit in Northern and Central Thai, and sit in Mak(l.c: no. 299). Since final -t would eventually be dropped via glottalstop (see supra no. 1), sit as in Mak would regularly lead to at. However, the final -d in bad '8' must be the original one in the Thai andKam - S u i languages, where it has now become -t. This -d cannot bethe 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 M l d . Ch. and resulted lateri n 0 in Hainan, so that *bat would have become *ba? long before the-t could have become -d if this -t had been original. This confirmsthe very early loan-relationship involved. The Hainan numeral '9', tdba, on the other hand is comparable neither to any of the forms inthe Ka d a i languages nor to those in the Thai and Kam - S u i languages,while Benedict's comparison with P A N t'iwa[p], though perhaps betterthan with any of the others, is not quite satisfactory.

O n the other hand, the dropping of the final glottal stop, partic-ularly in those cases where it originated from final -/, is a late development from M l d . Ch., which s t i l l has it, written , as in 6a '4'= M l d . Ch. pa? and ds 'mountain' = M l d . Ch. tsk (in Benedict's

58


9/36

Achehnese dialects

transcription; see supra nos. 1 and 4). The same is the case for theloss of final -h in M l d . Ch. - which in its turn developed from original-5 - (a)pih > Hainan C h . pi, with apparent compensatory lengtheningof the vowel.

Similarly, the loss of voicing can be assigned to the later phases ofMld. Ch. , as in e.g. tod '2' - M l d . Ch. twd (); to 'sit' = M l d .C h . to? (); tan 'stand' = Mld. Ch. tan (); pi 'all' =M l d . Ch. (a)pih; pian 'moon' = M ld . Ch. pildn, puldn(); etc,cf. supra nos. 4 and 5. As we have already indicated (see no. 5 supra)an inverse development appears to be active in gauT,giu '3', ba '4',biu '10', and da 'we'.

These later developments of M l d . Ch. in the Hainan dialect musttherefore be attributed to later migrations, probably those that fol-lowed the final fall of Champa in 1471 A D , because this time accords,as Benedict has rightly suggested and I have specified, with the secondtradition of the Hainan people (cf. 1.2) .

3. Historical Cham migrations to Acheh.We have discussed the Hainan Chamdialect in some detail because, aswe have already indicated, a similar procedure of correlating linguisticphenomena and historical events could be ap p e d to Achehnese if thisprocedure should prove successful. Since in fact our test does appearto have been successful, we can proceed with our plans provided thatit can be shown that Cham migrations to North Sumatra have reallytaken place. That such is the case is clear from two pieces of evidence:1. an episode in the Malay chronicle Sejarah Melayu which can beconnected with the Bostdnu 's-saldtn's account of the first king ofAcheh; and 2. a geographical name, viz. Juimpa in North Acheh.

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

59


10/36

Cowan

a l l directions, no one knows where to, except for two sons: Shah IndraBerma (or Brama) and Shah Po L i n g . They fled by boat with manyfollowers ('orang banyak') and their wives and children, the first toMalacca, and Po L i n g to Acheh. Indra Brama was we l l received bysultan Mansur Shah of Malacca, was converted to Islam and becamethe founder of the Cham colony there. Po L i n g was the first of the kingsof Acheh ('ialah raja asal raja Acheh'). In a note on this episode in therecent translation of the Sejarah Melayu by C C . Brown (19833:236,nt 527), the name Kucht (spelt in John Leyden's Londontranslation of 1821, p. 211) is eiplained as 'the word always used onthe East Coast of Malayafor Indo-China', so that the Annamites mustbe meant. The word Bal for the capital of Champa is the modernCham word pal ( s t i l l written ) which simply means 'capital'(Moussay 1971 s.v. pal 2), and refers here to V i j a y a , whose f a l l in1471 meant the final collapse of the Cham kingdom 8.

3.1.1 M aspe ro' s account of Cha mpa 's f a l lThe episode in the Sejarah Melayu can be checked by what Maspero(1928:238-41), using Chinese and Annamite sources, has to say on theevents which led to the collapse of the Cham kingdom in 1471. Thisaccount makes no mention of Po L i n g , nor is there any evidence ofprinces having fled abroad. On the other hand, there is no contradic-tion either, for Maspero states that the Chams were 'rfugis dans l amontagne ou exils sur la terre t r a n g r e ' (1928:241). The Cham kingdied in both reports. Certain details of the catastrophe, such as thoseconcerning Po Brama and Po L i n g may not have interested or were un-known to the other side and so were not mentioned in the Annamiteand Chinese sources.

The reliability of the Sejarah Melayu concerning this episode wi l lbe seen in 3.3 when we consider the name Po Ling.

3.2 The Bostanu 's-salattn.The other Ma l a y text we mentiond in 3, the Bostanu 's-saldtn, in achapter on Acheh, states that the first king of 'Acheh Daru's-salam'

3 In this discussion, I have followed the texts in Shellabear'seditionsrather thanBrown's translations, because of inaccuracies in this latter work.

60


11/36

Achehnese dialects

was Sultan 'Al Mughayat Shah, who came to power on Sunday, thefirst of the month Jumada '1-awwal (sic, C.) A . H . 913, and who wasalso the first to be converted to Islam (Niemann ed. 19074:II, 120).He strongly promoted the faith, conquered Pidi ('Pedir'), Samudra('Samadar') and other smal] countries. He died in 928 A . H . This textprovides us with a date, that of his coming to power: 1 Jumada '1-la913 A . H . , which agrees with the 8th of September 1507 A D accordingto Freeman-Grenvle (1977J:43 cal.). However, there are inconsistenties 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 mostreliable Ma l a y chronicle, which may seem unjustified. In my opinion, itis partly true, particularly where its apparently unbiased religious attitude is concerned. See below in our discussion of the Hikayat Acheh.

T. Iskandar (1958) discussed the problems concerning the reigno f 'Al Mughayat Shah in connection with the Hikayat Acheh. Aswe have seen, the Bostanu's-salatn gives the year A . H . 913 for hiscoming to power, and A . H . 928 for his death, i.e. 1507 and 1522A D respectively. But the Hikayat Acheh mentions 919 A . H . for hisaccession to the throne (Hik. Ach., p. 21, in Iskandar 1958:75) and937 A . H . for his demise (Hik. Ach. p. 29, in Iskandar 1958:79), i.e.1513/14 and 1530/31 AD respectively. According to the inscriptionon his tombstone, his death occurred in A . H . 936 on Dh'l-hijjah 12,which corresponds to 7th August 1530 A D .G i v e n the demonstrableinconsistencies in the Bostan, this chronicle may be mistaken here.Then there remains the discrepancy between tombstone and HikayatAcheh, which is, however, small (only one Hijrah year), and in whichthe tombstone can be regarded as conclusive evidence. As for the dateso f the Bostanu's-salatn, in view of its religious objectivity (cf. supra),the year 1507 A D could be that of ' A l T Mughayat Shah's accession asthe Hindu ' k i n g ' o f Indrapuri - or o f Indrapatra (Lamri) for that matter- whereas the year 1513/14 of the Hikayat Acheh, which is averse topagan memories, could be that o f his conversion and thus the beginningo f 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), 'thePortuguese reports accord with the most reliable Ma l a y chronicle...Before 1500 Acheh was a place of no significance. In ' A l T Mughayat

61


12/36

Cowan

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 succeededby his son Salah ad-D n ' . In a footnote on that page, Djajadiningratstated that he had not succeeded in deciding whether he was also thefirst who embraced Islam as the Bostanu 's-salatn has it. In this re-construction, Djajadiningrat disregards the date of A . H . 936 on thesultan's tombstone, possibly because he did not know it, since it waspublished in the 'Oudheidkundig Verslag' (Archaeological Report) of1914, 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 Bostancan be the dateof 'Al Mughayat Shah's coming to power as a Hindu king, and that1513/14 could mark the beginning of his reign as Moslem sultan, asalready indicated above. This would mean a total reign of 1530 minus1507 = 23 years, and a Moslem reign of 1530 minus 1513/14 - 16/17years. In formulating this conclusion, I have had in mind, apart fromthe Bostdn\ obvious religious objectivity, the fact that we are con-cerned here with the oldest history of Acheh before the accession ofthe famous Iskandar Muda (1607). A reinterpretation of the evidencewas, therefore, not only allowed, but even indicated in view of the ad-ditional data obtained for our objective. And in the framework of myinterpretation 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 onlymerahs4.

Now the year 1507 of the accession of that 'first king' is not so faroff from the time of Po Ling's flight from Champa at the final fall ofits capital in 1471 A.D. He must have passed other countries beforereaching Acheh. For if, for instance, the prince had been somethingbetween 20 and 25 years of age, he would have been 56-61 when hecame to power in Acheh. It seems therefore highly probable that theCham prince Po Ling was the founder of the (small?) Hindu kingdomwhose seat was Indrapuri or Lamri, and that he - or otherwise per-haps his son - was afterwards converted to Islam and became the firstsultan 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.

62


13/36

Achehnese dialects

3.3 Po Ling .There is yet other evidence, though not concrete proof, in favour of thehypothesis that Po Ling was the founder of the small Hindu principal-ity of Indrapuri or Indrapatra / Lamri. The word ling in this namemust be the Prakrit and younger spoken form of Sanskrit liriga, thephallus symbol and 'god', which we find mentioned in Old Cham in-scriptions in compounds like civalinga and liriga bhagavat (Bergaigne1888:103). The word ling is not found in this sense in the dictionariesof Aymonier and Cabaton or Moussay. But neither is the full Skr. formlinga. I find confirmation of my interpretation in the fact that Djajadiningrat (1911:148, nt. 2) states that Professor Cabaton at Paris hadwritten him that Po Ling is 'undoubtedly = Po, lord, master + linga,phallus, symbol of Civa'. The reliability of the SejarahMelayu on thispoint is shown by the very fact that its author as a Moslem Malay canhardly have invented the Hindu Prakrit word ling. A good thing toothat he did not know what it means, for otherwise he might well havethought better as a Moslem to omit this episode.

The liriga had great importance in Champa5 . However, it will beclear that this object of adoration sounded horribly pagan to Moslemears. I suggest that the pagan name was adapted to the changed con-ditions after conversion to Islam by changing it to Po L m , which isthe hereditary title of the most powerful ulbalang in Great Acheh,Teuku Panglima P Lm. T. Panglima P Lm's position is usuallyregarded as characterized by this very name, lm, an abbreviation ofdalm, meaning 'elder brother', which according to Snouck Hurgronje(1906:1, 133) 'probably typified the original relation between the powerful sagi-chief (Ach. sag 'confederation') and the sultan'.

It could be objected that the word (da)lm or a related form withthis meaning is not found in the Cham dictionaries. But in view ofthe fact that these are far from complete, the very fact that it exists inAchehnese could imply that it must have existed in the Cham dialectimported by Po Ling. The question whose (da)lm, 'elder brother',could be meant then at the time of the change to lm cannot be an-swered by the traditional view of the original position of PanglimaP L m with regard to the king. For 'AlT Mughayat Shah, being thefirst king of Acheh, both Hindu and Moslem, there was no room for

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

63


14/36

Cowan

such a relationship. (Da)m also means simply 'venerable (old)man',and this could have been meant originally. On the other hand, i f thebrotherly family relationship is meant, there are other more probablepossibilities: Po L i n g may have been the older of the two Cham princeswho escaped from the ruin of their country. Alternatively, i f the Hinduprince of Indrapuri or Indrapatra/Lamri who was converted to Islamand mounted the Achehnese throne as ' A l T Mughayat Shah was a sono f Po L i n g and not himself (cf. supra 3-2) , he may have been theolder of the latter's sons; etc. These possibilities seem to me to bemuch simpler and therefore preferable.

4. JeumpaIn 3, I stated that there is a second piece of evidence for Cham migrations to Acheh, viz. the geographical name Jeumpa. This 'is aplace situated on the border between Samalanga and Peusangan onAcheh's North Coast. The name Jeumpa was explained by Rouffaer(n.d.:206) as representing Csmpa. Rouffaer recalled the well-knownJavanese tradition, preserved with various variants in Javanese chron-icles, of the RatuPutr Cempa,who was the Moslem consort of theking of Majapahit in East Java where she played an important rolei n the advancement of Islam. She died according to her tombstone atTrawulan, Majapahit, in 1370 Qaka (= 1448 A . D . ) . Rouffaer addedthat this Campa had always been regarded as being the kingdom ofChampa on the A s i a n Mainland, wrongly according to him, for whatwas really meant is probably Jeumpa in North Acheh. In a footnoteon the same page he emphasized that this Jeumpa itself is 'of course'nothing other than a transformation of Champa.

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 (bungng) jeumpa in Achehnese, a main point of ev i dence was that there has never been a Moslem king of Champa. More-over, in the chronicle of Banjermasin, which also mentions a varianto f this tradition, Pasai is the place where the princess came from, notCsmpa. Jeumpa was at that time probably already a dependency ofSamudra-Pasai, which latter had in fact been islamic since the end ofthe 13th century A . D .

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

64


15/36

Achehnese dialects

maiiiage to a Hindu. But the Banjeimasin chronicle adds that the father did hesitate at first, but gave in for fear of the Hindu king's power.A s I have shown in my review of R . A . K e r n (1938) (Cowan 1939:5; cf.also the literature mentioned there), the Javanese and M a l a y chroni-cles often mention such marriages, so that political necessity in suchcases is quite we l l realized.

A s for the Achehnese voiced j as compared with the unvoiced c,i n Jeumpa ~ Campa, cf. Ach. guda = M a l . kuda 'horse', Ach. gam-pong = M a l . kampong 'village', A c h . gubeue = Skr. gopal(a) 'to herd(cattle)'; etc, see also supra 2, no. 5. The eu-vowel instead of ois due to the strong stress on the f ina l syllable, as in Ach. deunda'punishment' from Skr. danda; it represents a in the Campa of theJavanese tradition as in deunda it represense the in M a l a y 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 only3.6% (5 phonemes agreeing), which is significantly lower than the 5%accepted in statistics as the l i m i t (Cowan 1962:75 ff., especially 81).

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

To the East, M a l a y was at the time apparently the native tongueo f Samudra, as is confirmed by two sources: (1) the Chinese whovisited Samudra in 1416 and reported that its language was the sameas that of Malacca ( Y i n g - y a i Shng-lan in Groeneveldt 1876:87); and(2) the famous O l d M a l a y inscription on a tombstone of Miny Tujohwritten in an Old Sumatran script, and showing a curious mixture ofSanskrit, M a l a y , and Arabic words. It is usually dated in 1380 A . D .(cf. Stutterheim 1936:268-281, and Marrison 1951:162-165), but in myopinion should be dated in 1389 A . D . , and in any case almost a century

65


16/36

Cowan

after Samudra's conversion to Islam.T o the West of our region lay Nakur, i.e. the Chinese name of

Pid i . Its original language is unknown, but the form Nakur doesnot sound Malay, nor Achehnese or Cham. It resembles Skr. no-gar(a) 'town, country', which is in Achehnese nanggr, Cham nkar(), Khmer nkr (), M on nt'jfc ( < n i g > ) , but especiallyThai nakhn (). It has also been connected with Nagore inIndia.

The cognacy of the Achehnese Jeumpaand the name of the an-cient Asian Mainland kingdom must be ascribed to relations betweenthe two, just as inmodern times colonists in overseas countries, partic-ularly for instance in the Americas, often took with them geographicalnames from the mother country to apply them to the new settlements.This leads automatically to the conclusion that there, in Jeumpa, isto be located an area where Cham colonists settled in North Suma-tra. The date of this early settlement must evidently have been sometime before 1448 A . D . , when the Moslem princess who became Ma-japahit's Hindu king's consort died, though how long before we do notknow. In any event, it cannot have been the result of the final fall ofChampa (1471), as must have been the case for Great Acheh, where,as we have seen, the Cham prince Po Ling settled. Nor can it havebeen the consequence of that early great disaster of 985, also a timewhen the Chams 'commencrent d'migrer en grand nombre...' (cf.supra 1.2) because at that time the influence of nasals on a foliowinga 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 llthcentury (Maspero 1928:137 ff.); the wars with the Annamites of thellth and the 12th centuries (Maspero o.c.:140ff.);the wars with theKhmers (Maspero o.c.: ch. VII); and the wars with the Mongols ofKubilai Khan (Maspero o.c: ch. VIII). It would lead us much too farto describe even summarily all those events. We can restrict ourselvesto mentioning two of them whose outcome is not quite known.

The first of these is the Annamite war of 1069, when the Cham kingRudravarman III 'instruit de la dfaite , quitte Vijaya de nuit avec safamilie; et ... les habitants de la ville, perdant tout espoir ... viennentfaire leur soumission ...' (Maspero o.c.:141-42). 'A son retour de cap-t iv i t , Rudravarman trouva le pays dans un ta t d'anarchie complet,et nous ignorons s'il parvint a ressaisir le pouvoir' ( i6d.:143). This

66


17/36

Achehnese dialects

does not necessarily imply that he emigrated with great fo l lowing .The second possibility concerns the wars with Cambodia of 1177-

1203 and especially the f inal phase of them, when the Khmers, inretaliation for a Cham surprise attack (Maspero o.c.:164), invadedChampa, took the capital, and made king Jaya Indravarman IV pris-oner. Cham pa was divided into two kingdoms, V i j a y a in the Northand Panrang in the South (ibid.:165). The latter was attacked againby the Cambodians in 1203 and its king fled abroad. 'D arriv au portde Co ' - l a en aot 1203, s u i v i de toute sa familie et de nombre de sesfidles sur une flotte de plus de deux cents jonques et y demandaitasile' (i&id.:167), which he did not get, and the k ing , Maspero con-cludes, 'reprit la mer et 1'histoire ne nous dit pas ce qu ' i l devint, 1203'(ibid.). From that time until 1220, when the Khmers evacuated thecountry, Champa was a Cambodian province.

Both these possibilities date from before Ibn Bat t tah ' s visit toSamudra in 1345-46 A . D . (Defrmery and Sanguinetti 1858), whenJeumpa was probably a dependency of Samudra. Of the two, thesecond is the more probable for the origin of the Cham colony here,especially since the more than two hundred junks with migrants thataccompanied the fleeing king of Panrang show that their numbers werelarge enough to form a settlement. We shall see hereafter that ourconclusion also agrees with the linguistic evidence.

5. The linguistic evidence.We shall now consider the phonetic phenomena that we have called relevant in connection with our historical findings and see whether theycan 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 andfinishing with the most important, thus:

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

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

3. The distinction of three vs. two unrounded central vowels inNorth and in Great Acheh respectively;

67


18/36

Cowan

4. The loss of voicing contrast i n Cham; and5. The final -b in the Great Acheh dialects ofSnouck Hurgronje

and others vs. final -p ' inDurie's North Acheh dialect.

5.1 Diphthongization of * in closed or originally closed s y l -lables in Achehenese.In Achehnese, original long *a inclosed or originally closed syllablescarrying stress hasbecome uo (except, as we shall seei n 5 .2 . , afternasals); e.g., bulvaan 'moon, month' < P C A *buldn, cf. Cham (pi)lan,Jarai Won; uiman 'forest' < P C A *fttitn, cf. Cham hatan; etc. butpinmri 'areca' < P C A *ptnr i , cf. Cham pantin; onon ' c h i l d '


19/36

Achehnese dialects

which are T h a i by origin ' , a very significant statement which providesus with a very plausible explanation. For between A n n a m and Cam-bod ia on the one hand and Nor th Su mat ra on the oth er lies the M a l a yPeninsula , which T h ai l an d no w occupies as far do wn as Kedah on theWest and K o t a Baru (Kelantan) on the East coast. According to H i l l(1960:7; cf. also the literature mentioned there) its 'southward expan-sion ...through the M a l a y Pen insul a ... began about A . D . 1280', whichwas one of 'the events which led to the collapse of Srivijaya' . However, by the t ur n o f the 13th century at the latest the T h a i expansionhad already reached a point suff icintly southward on the peninsulaopposite the North-East coast of Acheh - which therefore cannot havebeen far from the present Kedah border - to enable the Thais to invadePasa i an d carr y off her k ing M a l i k ad-Dahir as a prisoner. Since thisM a l i k ad- Dah ir must be the Muh a mma d Mahk ad-Dahir, son of M a l i kas-Salih (the first Moslem king of Samudra- Pasa i) , o f the to mbsto nei n Pasai which menti on s his co mplete name an d the year o f his death(1326 A . D . ) ; and since according to the more reliable Sejarah Melayu,he suffered a very long exile before being able to return home and res um power, the time of the Siamese invasion must be placed towardsthe begin ni ng o f the 14th century. T h e Hikayat Raja? Pasai, whichalso mention s the Siamese in vasi on, is for obvio us reasons pa rt i al an ddescribes the conflict as a complete rout for the enemy whose com-mander was k i l l e d , an d the k ing 's absence as a pleasure t ri p; see i ndetail Cowan (1938:206f. and 1973:256ff.)

T h e more than tw o hun dre d j un k s o f the fleeing k ing of Panrangcould perhaps have reached Nor th Sumatra by rounding the southern-most point of the M a l a y peni nsul a, but w hy shou ld they; it is moreprobable that he landed much nearer i n the Pen in sul a, i n a part alreadyor soon afterwards oc cupied by T h ai la n d, to stay there for some lengtho f ti me, an d pursued h is trek muc h later across the Str ai ts to Nor thAcheh. A s for Po Ling 's migration to Great Acheh, as we have seen( 3 . 1 ) , his brot her In dra B r a ma is actuall y reported to have gone toMalacca, where he stayed. It is very plausible that , since both fled atthe same time an d apparen tly together, the lat ter w ent on to Malaccawhile the former pursued his journey after some ti me to Acheh. T h etime between 1203 when the junks from Panrang were refused asylumi n C o ' - l a - the present port o f Co ' - a n h - n h n g (Maspero 1928:167, nt.1) - an d the ear ly decades o f the 14th cen tury before Ibn B a t t t a h ' svisit to Samudra when the Jeu mpa co lo ny must have been fo rmed

69


20/36

Cowan

(cf. supra 4) is amply sufficint for the language to have acquiredpeculiarities from Thai.

I have shown elsewhere (Cowan 1983:182, 184; cf. also 155) a cer-tain correspondence between the diphthong in Achehnese and in Thaior dialects and languages of the Thai group. Thus, e.g., using Paul K .Benedict's and Fang-Kuei L i ' s material (Benedict 1942, 1966 and 1967;Fang-Kuei L i 1965): Sek (a Northern Thai type of the Thakhek regioni n Laos) has pblian 'moon', and reconstructed Proto-Thai (Benedict1966:241) gives *?blan with the diphthong a, which is practicallyhomophonic with the Achehnese diphthong H in the evidently re-lated Achehnese word bulvasn same meaning (< *bulan, cf. Champilan, written with , Jarai blan). S im i l a r l y Proto-Thai Hhan'forest' (Benedict l.c.) corresponds to Ach. utwsn same meaning (

Cham an:P, Ach. aniP; P C A *minya? ' o i l ' > Chamminy:?, Ach. minyw?; P C A *pinan 'arecapalm' > Cham pin:ri,A c h . pinm; etc. This means not only that - as we have said in2 supra - this illustrates and confirms the early migration of a firstgroup of Chams to Hainan whose dialect had s t i l l preserved original aafter nasal, but also that the Chamo-Achehnese dialects of both GreatAcheh and Jeumpa, which both show the nasal influence on the f o l l ow -in g vowel, are of considerably later date than the Hainan migration of985 A . D . This agrees wel l with our conclusion concerning the Po L i n gmigration to Great Acheh of the endof the 15th century A . D . as wel las that of the Jeumpa colonizationof the first decade of the 14th.

72


23/36

Achehnese dialects

5.3 The dist inct ion o f three unro und ed cent ral vowels i n N o rt hAcheh vs. two in Great Acheh.

According to Durie (1985:16), there are in his dialect of North Achehthree unrounded vowels which he describes as 'unrounded back vowels.. all somewhat central auditorily', and which I shall style 'unroundedcentral vowels'. These are ar, 9 and A in Durie's notation. But theGreat Acheh dialects studied by Snouck Hurgronje, among others, (in-cluding myself) have only two such vowels, in my notation ar (in Stan-dard orthography ) and a (Cowan 1981:525). The reason for thisis that the latter dialects did not distinguish, as does North Acheh, between A and 9, merging both to o(Durie o.c: 5, 17). Durie calls thedistinction of A and 0 a 'diachronically important contrast', rightlyso, as is shown by a comparison with Cham. According to the Gram-maire de la langue Tjame of t. Aymonier (1889:25f., 28f.), there wasan original distinction of three such unrounded vowels, designated bythe author with d, os and . In the dialect of B i n h Thuan (Annam),the first two were confused with each other, while in the Cambodiadialect d was confused with a. was distinctive only in B i n h Thuan,being 'gnralement confondue avec os mme dans la prononciation' inCambodia (Aymonier 1889:26). The reduction of the three unroundedcentral vowels to two was therefore already practically a fact at thattime. In Moussay's dictionary (1971:XII), they have merged into u'('aperture l e r degr') and o' ('aperture 2' d eg r ' ) , which I have written and respectively in order to prevent confusion with the glottalstop. Although the Cham migrations into Acheh are of much earlierdate than Aymonier's observations, the process o f reduction must havetaken some time. In any case, it is a fact that even the present day dialects of North Acheh s t i l l distinguish three unrounded central vowelsas against the two of Great Acheh, cf. the place name Ct Tring (with = Standard orthography for A ) in North Acheh, where Durie studiedhis dialect, over against Cot Langkuweueh (with o = orthography forD) in Great Acheh, whose dialect closely conforms to that of SnouckHurgronje (Durie 1985:5; cot ~ ct means ' h i l l ; steep' and is in ChamC P , written with , 'montagne'). The fact that the original sit-uation of distinction between three unrounded central vowels is foundi n North Acheh, and the reduction to two in Great Acheh, can onlymean that the Cham colony of Jeumpa in North Acheh was older thanthe colony of Great Acheh, in accordance with our historical e x p o s .

73


24/36

Cowan

5.4 The loss of voicing contrast in Cham.

In 5 .2 we have already touched on the question of the loss of the voicin g contrast in Cham - as in Mon and Khmer - in connection with thedistinction in Achehnese between oral and nasal consonants other thanthe nasals proper. According to Lee (1974:659; cf. also Blood 1962:12,an d Cowan 1983:166), it must have been this loss of the voicing contrast that in Cham, as in Mon and Khmer, led to the developmentof 'voice register' which in Cham is represented by pitch and in cer-tain environments manifested as fortisness. Equally, in $5.2, we havetentatively considered the possibility of a certain original relationshipbetween this contrast of voice register and the Achehnese contrast ofnasal vs. oral consonants. However, Achehnese has not lost the voicing contrast nor is it disappearing, and it has not developed 'register',whatever the explanation of the Achehnese phenomenon may be. Thismeans that the process of devoicing had not begun yet, or at least wasnot decisively completed, when the migrant Chams settled in NorthSumatra. The language of the Old Cham inscriptions which also useboth voiced and unvoiced stop signs, must have had a voicing contrast, at least at first. For obvious reasons we do not learn from themwhether, and if so when, the voiced quality of the voiced stop signswas lost and was replaced by 'register'. In Hainan Cham, the voicingcontrast was already lost (cf. 2 supra). Now, since this fact mustbe due to the later group of Hainan immigrants (cf. ibid.), the explanation must be that this Hainan group left the South-East AsianMainland later than P Ling and his foliowers, who fled immediatelyat the final fall of the Cham capital in 1471 A . D . This Hainan group,however, must have stayed some considerable time on the Continent.O f particular relevance in this connection is Maspero's comment onthat decisive end of the Chams as a nation, who were ' d s o r m a i s ...a la merci des Annamites ... R f u g i s dans la montagne ou e x i l s surl a terre t r a n g r e - au Cambodge (my italics, C.) - Us n'auront pluscomme dernier hen que ce nom de 'Chams' ...' (Maspero 1928:241,already partly quoted in 3 . 1 . 1 . supra). In Cambodia they must havelost the voicing contrast and adopted the Khmer 'register' to replacei t , whereas P Ling and his people had gone early enough to takethe voicing feature with them to Great Acheh still intact, or perhapsrather in the early undecisive and not completed phase of its reduction. At this point, the process may have been stopped in time and the

74


25/36

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 150years at least before the final catastrophe of the Cham kingdom sothat her colonists had taken the distinction of voice quite intact withthem. Although much has changed in the course of time, this couldperhaps partly still explain the prestige which Durie (1985:7) ascribesto the dialects of North Acheh.

It could perhaps also explain the phonetic form of the name Achehwith e. This presupposes original nasal , and hence nasal C, becauseotherwise e < i would be expected. Confirmation of this could be seenin early Portuguese (e.g. Duarte Barbosa's Livro of 1516) Achem, i.e.Ach, and early English Achin (Cowan 1974:205). The spelling Achemalso occurs on the Portuguese map of ca. 1513 AD partly reproducedby Hill (1960:23) and even on the map published by Langren in 1623(Hill 1960:172). The spelling -emis usual Portuguese orthographyfor nasalized . In this connection it is interesting to note that IbnBa t t t ah ' s account of his visit to Samudra according to the Frenchtranslation of Defrmery and Sanguinetti (1858:228) reads '... nousarrivames a 1'fle de Djaouah (Sumatra) but that after the words'the island of Jawah' the Arabic text adds something that does notappear in the translation . Transliterated, it reads bi 'l-jm, bi 'l-jm orbi'l-jaim, with the preposition bi + the article ai as usual. But what isthis jim or jm or jaim? The word strongly resembles the bain-azim atSumatra'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 IbnBa t t t ah ' s text the -'l-could be the Arab writer's addition as if it werethe article, while the / , like the z in azimon Canerio's map could be theoriginal voiced consonant which would have been devoiced to c underthe influence of the beginning process of loss of voicing. This form thenstuck when the process was stopped, but retained traces of it in thenasalized quality of the consonant in accordance with our suggestionof a certain relation between the contrast of 'register' in South-EastAsian languages and the Achehnese contrast of nasalized versus oralconsonants ( 5 .2 ) . The nasal quality was eventually lost because, aswe have already said (5 . 2 ) , the entire contrast has a tendency todisappear (see also Cowan 1974:205). This would then be the veryfirst mention of the name Acheh, viz. the year 1345/46. And thesentence in Ibn Ba t t t ah ' s text would mean: 'we arrived at the island

75


26/36

Cowan

o f Jawa in (or by) Acheh'.

5.5 Final -b in Great Acheh versus -p' in North Acheh.Durie's criticism of what he has called 'certain idiosyncracies of ...(Snouck Hurgronje's) orthography (which) were never questioned' byh is followers, is directed, among other things, against 'his inconsistenttreatment of final [p " ] as b but final [t' ] as V (Durie 1985:4; cf. also p.20 ) . But apart from the fact that the manuscripts in Arabic charactersthemselves used to write final -b and not -p beside -t, comparison withpresent day Cham shows that there is no idiosyncrasy and no incon-sistency. In Cham, said Aymonier, whose treatment was based on thewritten forms, 'a la fin des mots, les consonnes k et p ne se prononcentpresque pas et donnent au mot un arrt un peu brusque de la v o i x '(Aymonier 1889:32). Moussay's dictionary, which shows both writtenand spoken forms, then makes clear what the exact value of writtenfinal -p now is. Since the Ch am script is of ancient origin, and the written forms reflect an older stage of the language, the spoken forms i n d i -cate younger phonetic developments. Moussay (1971:xviii) emphasizesthis, particularly for final -p, saying that 'dans Pcriture les consonnespostvocaliques ... et ... (P) expriment un parler ancien, que 1'on peutencore rencontrer chez les Curu ou les Jarai. Dans le parler actuel ceslettres ne sont plus prononces comme autrefois et sont remplaces parune occlusion glottale, qui est not (sic) dans la transcription par uneapostrophe comme les occlusions glottales que Pcriture exprime paru n ' K V However, the relevant lemmata in the dict ionary show thatthis description is not quite complete. Thus, writ ten is spokenkw? 'parent, p a r e n t ; autrui' (see the dictionary under the spokenform), cf. Durie's gop (Durie 1985:21). S i m i l a r l y krw? ( )'tous, tout'; raw? () and harawP () 'aspirer' (cf. A ch .harab, Mal. harap); tawP () 'coller'; Uw?, hatiw? ( ; the last form only in Aymonier 1889) 'vivre' (cf. Ach. udeb,M a l . hidup); etc; see Moussay under the spoken forms.

This shows that final -p was in Cham prior to and proto-form offinal -w?. Apart from the glottalization of the w, which is a remindero f the -p (cf. the quotation from Moussay supra) and also occursi n Durie's p ', w and b are closely related phones which interchangeregularly in Austronesian languages. There can be no doubt that the

76


27/36

Achehnese dialects

final -6 in the Achehnese dialects of Gieat Acheh - and hence in theAchehnese manuscripts - conesponds to the final -w in modern Cham.This means that the Great Acheh dialects represent a younger Chamdialect than those of North Acheh with preserved final -p *. This againaccords with our conclusion that the Cham colony of Jeumpa was ofconsiderably older date than that of Great Acheh.

6. Recapitulation and conclusion.In the foregoing paragraphs I have dealt only with Cham influences inNorth Sumatra, for that was my aim. Except for some allusions, wherei t seemed necessary in a given context, I have intentionally omittedmentioning other, particularly Indian, influences, both Hindu - which,for instance, gave rise to kingdoms l ike Majapahit in Java and Crvijayain Sumatra and pre-islamic Samudra - and Islamic - which broughtabout the conversion of Perlak and Samudra-Pasai, among others, inNorth Sumatra. For those I refer the reader to the existing works onthese subjects.

A s for the Chams, we have found that there have been two maincolonies of Cham-speaking groups in what is now Acheh, one in NorthAcheh, particularly Jeumpa, which dates from the early decades ofthe 14th century, and one in Great Acheh which dates from after thefinal fal l of the Cham kingdom in 1471 and was therefore considerably younger than the other. These two groups imported the languagewhich has become what is now Achehnese. What language or languages was or were spoken in the area before that time can only beinferred from tradition. It seems to have been a Gayo-related dialector dialects, considering that the Gayos now l ive in the interior. Be-sides, Durie (1985:2) mentions oral traditions from Bireuen accordingto which the Gayos once l i v ed on the coast. A similar observation hadalready been made by Snouck Hurgronje (1903:75-76) for the region ofSamudra-Pasai.

In the South-West, where even now Minangkabau is spoken besideAchehnese, it may have been a Minangkabau-like Ma l a y dialect. Ido not believe that before the coming and spread of Achehnese, pre-Austronesian languages l ike Nicobar were spoken in Acheh, as Co l l i n sthinks (1975, an unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Ca l i -fornia, Berkeley, which was not available to me nor obtainable in the

77


28/36

Cowan

libraiies here, and therefore is cited here following Durie 1985:3; cf.also p. 274). This pre-Austronesian language or languages must havebeen superseded at least for the greater part by Austronesian alreadylong before that time.

M y conclusion that the Chamic colony in Jeumpa came earlier andits language represents an older dialect than that of Great Acheh iscontrary to what Durie (1985:3-4) says about 'the evidence of presentday dialects (which) suggests that Greater Acheh and Daya on thewest coast form the oldest Achehnese speaking area, for these arewhere the greatest dialect variation is to be found'. The hypothesis that maximal linguistic diversity in a particular area is prima facieevidence that (related) languages diverged there and spread outwardfrom that area was posed by Dyen, among others such as Davenportand Goodenough, in the Comments on Capell's 'Oceanic Linguisticsto-day' (Dyen 1962a:402fT., especially p. 405; cf. also Dyen 1962b:39),where he tried to prove on similar grounds that Melanesia was thearea where the Austronesian languages originated from, not the As i a nMainland.

However, as I have shown in detail (Cowan 1965:217 ff.) the theoryis untenable. In the first place, Dyen appeared to be unaware of thefact that H. Ke r n has already as early as 1889 seriously considered thepossibility of an Oceanic origin of Austronesian (H. Ke r n 1917). 'Herejected the possibility solely on factual evidence ... his data, whichwere mainly l ex i c a l , included 112 languages, from the IN, P N, and' M N ' groups. Kern's word-list included 35 to 40 items, mostly plantand animal names ...' (Cowan 1965:217). In the second place, I recalledthat 'for instance, maximal diversity within the Indo-European familyis found in the Central Balkans, where Albanian, Greek, S lav i c , andItalic (Rumanian) are concentrated in a relatively small area. But weknow from historical sources that this situation is due to comparativelyrecent mutations and migrations and has little or nothing to do withthe original splitting up of Indo-European' (Cowan 1965:218).

I am, therefore, of the opinion that my conclusion concerning thepriorities of the Cham dialects of Jeumpa and Great Acheh stands,and see confirmation of this view inwhat Durie adds to his statementquoted above: 'The dialects of Daya are particularly idiosyncratic asthey are isolated from Greater Acheh by a narrow and rocky stretcho f coastland. Dialects in both regions differ even between neighbour-

78


29/36

Achehnese dialects

ing villages; over greater distances the differences can be so much asto make communication dimcult. It is certainly the case that thedistance of a few kilometres i n Greater Acheh can involve a dialectcontrast greater than that which would be achieved by travelling twohundred kilometres in North Acheh' (Durie 1985:3-4). This seems toreveal the real reason of the diversity: historical causes as in the caseo f the Balkans, perhaps dating partly from the second world war andthe shifting of population groups caused by it under the Japanese oc-cupation, and partly even already from ancient times when the dialectof the colony of P L i n g slowly spread to outlying and isolated placeswhere it then began to lead its own l i fe .

Abbrevia t ionsA c h . = AchehneseA r . = ArabicH i k . Ach. = Hikayat AchehIN = IndonesianJ M B R A S = Journal of the Malayan Branch

o f the R o y a l Asiatic SocietyK H M . = KhmerM a l . = M a l a yM K = Mon-KhmerM l d . Ch . = Mainland ChamM N = MelanesianM o d . Cham = Modern ChamN . = North(ern)O.Jav. = Old JavaneseP A N = Proto-AustronesianP C A = Proto-Chamo-AchehicP N = PolynesianSkr. = SanskritStand. = Standard

ReferencesAymonier, E. 1889. Grammaire de la langue Tjame (Extrait des 'Ex-

cursions et Reconnaissances, no. 31, 1889.) Saigon: Imprimerie

79


30/36

Cowan

Coloniale.1891. 'Premire Etude sur les Inscriptions Tchames', Journal

Asiatique, 8me s r ie , tome X V I I .and A . Cabaton 1906. Dictionnaire Cham-Franqais. Paris:

Imprimerie Nationale.Benedict, P. K. 1941. ' A Cham colony on the Island of Hain an ', Har-

vard Journal of Astatic studies, 6:129-134.1942. 'Thai, K a d a i , and Indonesian: a new Alignment in

Southeastern A s i a ' , American Anthropologist, New Series 44:576-601 .

1966. 'Austro-Thai', Behavior Science Notes, 1:227-261.1967. 'Austro-Thai Studies', Behavior Science Notes, 2:203-

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

d'aprs les inscriptions', Journal Asiatique 8me s r ie , t. X L 5 - 1 0 5 .B l o o d , D. W. 1962. 'Refleies of Proto-Malayo-Polynesian in Cham',

Anthropological Linguistics, 4, no. 9:11-20.B o s t a n u ' s - s a l a t n : see Niemann, G . K . ed. (19074).Brown, C C . 1983. Sejarah Melayu or Malay Annals, an annotated

translation, with a new Jntroduction by R. Roolvink, 2nd ed. K u a l aLumpur: Oxford University Press.

Co l l i n s , I . V . 1975. The Austro-Asiatic substratum in Achehnese. Un-published Ph .D. dissertation, University of C a l i f o r n i a , Berkeley.

Cowan, H . K . J . 1938. 'Bijdrage tot de kennis der Geschiedenis vanhet R i j k Samudra-Pas (n.a.v. vier nog niet beschreven goudenmunten)', Tijdschrift voor Indische Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde,78:204-214.

1939. Review of R . A . K e r n , 'De Verbreiding van den Islam'(8th chapter of Geschiedenis van Nederlandsch-Ind under the di-rection of Dr F . W . Stapel, Amsterdam 1938), Djdwd (the Journalof the Java Institute of the time), no. 2, vo l. 19:1-6.

1948. 'Aanteekeningen betreffende de Verhouding van hetAtjhsch tot de Mon-Khmer talen', Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Landen Volkenkunde van Nederlandsch-Indi, 104:429-514.

80


31/36

Achehnese dialects

1962. 'Statistica] Deteimination of linguistic Relationship',Studia Linguistica, 16:57-96.

1965. 'On Melanesian and the Or ig in of Austronesian', Cur-rent Anthropology, 6:217-220.

1973. 'La Lgende de Samudra. Teite malais, avec Introduc-tion, Commentaire et Traduction a b r g e ' , Archipel, 5:253-286.

1974. 'Evidence of long vowels in Early Achehnese', OceanicLinguistics, 13:187-212.

1981. ' An outline of Achehnese phonology and morphology',Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 44:522-549.

1983. 'The Achehnese diphthong ue and its possible im p l i -cations for Proto-Austronesian', Acta Orientalia, 44:153-185.

Def r me r y , C. and B.R. Sanguinetti. 1858. ed. and transl.: Voyagesd'Ibn Batoutah. Collection d'Ouvrages Orientaux, publie par laSocit Asiatique, t. 4. Paris: Imprimerie Imp r i a l e .

Djajadiningrat, H. 1911. Recapitulation of data concerning 'AlMughayatShah.

Djajadiningrat, R . A . Hoesein. 1934. Atjhsch-Nederlandsch Woordenboek. The Hague: M . Nijhoff.

Durie, M . 1985. A Grammar of Acehnese on the basis of a dialect ofNorth Aceh. Verhandelingen van het Kon i nk l i j k Instituut voorTaal-, Land- en Volkenkunde, vol. 112. Dordrecht: Foris P u b l i -cations.

Dyen, I. 1962a. Comment on A . CapeU's 'Oceanic Linguistics to-day',Current Anthropology, 3:402-405.1962b. 'Lexicostatistical classification of the Malayo-Poly-

nesian Languages', Language, 38:38-46.Fang-Kuei L i . 1965. 'The Tai and the K am - S u i Languages', Lingua,

14:148-179.Freeman-Grenville, G . S . P . 1977. The Muslim and Christian Calen-

dars, being tables for the conversion of Mu s l i m and Christiandates from the Hi j r a to the year A . D . 2000, 2nd ed. London: RexCollings Ltd.

Gorgoniyev, Y . A . 1966. The Khmer Language. Moscow: Nauka pub-

81


32/36

Cowan

l ishing.Groeneveldt, W . P . 1876. 'Notes on the M a l a y Archipelago and Malacca

compiled from Chinese sources', Verhandelingen van het Koninklijk Bataviaasch Genootschap van Kunsten en Wetenschappen,29, 1. A l s o published in Miscellaneous papers relating to Indo-China and the Indian Archipelago, reprinted for the Straits Branch,R o y a l Asiatic Society, 2nd ser., vol. I, 1887.

H i ll , A . H . 1960. 'Hikayat Raja-raja Pasai, a revised romanised versionwith an English translation, an introduction and notes', Journalof the Malayan Branch, Royal Asiatic Society, 33, pt. 2:5-215.

Iskandar, T. 1958. 'De Hikajat A t j h ' , Verhandelingen van het Koninklijk Instituut voor Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde, 26. The Hague:M . Nijhoff.

Jones, R . B . 1965. 'On the Reconstruction of Proto-Thai ', Lingua,14:194-229.

K e r n , H. 1917. 'Taalkundige gegevens ter bepaling van het Stamlandder Maleisch-Polynesische V o l k e n ' , in his Verspreide Geschriften,6:105-120 (first published in Verslagen en Mededelingen der Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen, afd. Letterkunde, 3e reeks,v o l . 6, Amsterdam 1889).

Lee, E . W . 1974. 'Southeast A s i a n areal features in Austronesian Stratao f the Chamic languages', Oceanic Linguistics, 13:643-682.

Leyden, J. 1821. Malay Annals, translated from the Malay Language,with an Introduction by Sir Thomas Stanford Rajfles. London:Longman, Hurst, Rees, Ome, and Brown.

Marrison, G. E . 1951. ' A M a l a y poem in Ol d Sumatran characters',Journal of the Malayan Branch, Royal Asiatic Society, 24, pt.1:162-165.

Martinet, A . 1954. 'The Unity of Linguistics', Word, 10.Maspero, G . 1928. Le Royaume de Champa. Paris and Brussels: Edi-

tions G . van Oest.Moussay, G. 1971. Dictionnaire Cam-Vietnamien-Franqais. Phan-

rang: Centre Culturel Cam.Niemann, G. K. 1907. Bloemlezing uit Maleische Geschriften, vol. 2,

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

82


33/36

Achehnese dialects

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

Shellabear, W . G . 1895/96. (ed.) Sejarah Melayu. Singapore: A m e r i -c a n M i s s i o n Press (ed. in Arabic characters).1898. (ed.) Sejarah Melayu or the Malay Annals. Singapore:

American M i s s i o n Press (ed. in L a t i n characters).Shorto, H . L . 1975. 'Achinese and Mainland Austronesian', Bulletin of

the School of Oriental and African Studies, 38:81-102.Snouck Hurgronje, C. 1903. Het Gajoland en zijne Bewoners. Leiden:

E . J . B r i l l ,1906. The Achehnese, translated from the Dutch by A . W . S .

O'Sullivan, 2 vols. Leiden: E. J . B r i l l .S t b e l , H. 1937. Die Li-Stdmme der Insel Hainan. Ein Beitrag zur

Volkskunde Sd-Chinas, unter Mitwirkung von P. M e r i g g i . B e r l i n :W . de Gruyter.

Stutterheim, W. F. 1936. ' A M a l a y sha'ir in Ol d Sumatran charactersof 1380 A . D . ' , Acta Orientalia, 14:268-279.

83


34/36


35/36


36/36

Date post:	03-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	malaystudies
View:	216 times
Download:	0 times

Aceh Dialects in Connection With Chamic Migrations

Documents