John Crawfurd's description of the old Malay Wall of Singapore
(Sunday, 3 February 1822) I walked this morning round the walls and limits of the ancient town of Singapore, for such in reality had been the site of our modern settlement.
It was bounded to the east by the sea (BR), to the north by a wall (RMN), and to the west by a salt creek or inlet of the sea (NCB). The inclosed space is a plain, ending in a hill of considerable extent, and a hundred and fifty feet in height. The whole is a kind of triangle, of which the base is the sea-side, about a mile in length
The length of the shoreline estimated by Crawfurd is probably incorrect since the length of BR is approximately half-a-mile. In order to match Crawfurd's description, we need to extend the shoreline to Point A.
From Point A, we can then draw a nice straight line to the base of the hill, N. If this reconstruction is correct, then AMN should form the line of the old Malay Wall. Since RMN is the actual line of the old Malay Wall, Crawfurd's original description must be incorrect..
BR is the sea-side base of the triangle described by Crawfurd. RMN is the old Malay Wall, which is the course of the present day Stamford Road. NCB is the salt creek line described by Crawfurd. M is the site of present day National Museum of Singapore, C is Fort Canning Hill, and S is site at which the British discovered the Singapore Stone, an epigraph inscribed with ancient Indian script. The map is taken from National Archives of Singapore.
The wall, which is about sixteen feet in breadth at its base, and at present about eight or nine in height, runs very near a mile from the sea coast to the base of the hill, until it meets a salt marsh. As long as it continues in the plain, it is skirted by a little rivulet running at the foot of it, and forming a kind of moat; and where it attains the elevated side of the hill, there are apparent the remains of a dry ditch.
On the western side, which extends from the termination of the wall to the sea, the distance, like that of the northern side, is very near a mile. This last has the natural and strong defence of a salt marsh, overflown at high-water, and of a deep and broad creek.
In the wall there are no traces of embrasures or loop-holes; and neither on the sea side, nor on that skirted by the creek and marsh, is there any appearance whatever of artificial defences.
We may conclude from these circumstances, that the works of Singapore were not intended against fire-arms, or an attack by sea; or that if that latter, the inhabitants considered themselves strong in their naval forces, and therefore thought any other defences in that quarter superfluous.
Crawfurd concluded in the final paragraph that the old Malay Wall in Singapore is not a strong fortification and was unlikely to resist attack by enemies. If this is true, then the strong Temasek Wall mentioned by Wang Dayuan (汪大淵) in his Daoyizhilue 島夷志略 (Description of the Barbarians of the Isles), which was able to resist the Siamese attack for a month, could be a reference to another city wall, probably the Wall of Johore Lama.
It was bounded to the east by the sea (BR), to the north by a wall (RMN), and to the west by a salt creek or inlet of the sea (NCB). The inclosed space is a plain, ending in a hill of considerable extent, and a hundred and fifty feet in height. The whole is a kind of triangle, of which the base is the sea-side, about a mile in length
The length of the shoreline estimated by Crawfurd is probably incorrect since the length of BR is approximately half-a-mile. In order to match Crawfurd's description, we need to extend the shoreline to Point A.
From Point A, we can then draw a nice straight line to the base of the hill, N. If this reconstruction is correct, then AMN should form the line of the old Malay Wall. Since RMN is the actual line of the old Malay Wall, Crawfurd's original description must be incorrect..
The wall, which is about sixteen feet in breadth at its base, and at present about eight or nine in height, runs very near a mile from the sea coast to the base of the hill, until it meets a salt marsh. As long as it continues in the plain, it is skirted by a little rivulet running at the foot of it, and forming a kind of moat; and where it attains the elevated side of the hill, there are apparent the remains of a dry ditch.
On the western side, which extends from the termination of the wall to the sea, the distance, like that of the northern side, is very near a mile. This last has the natural and strong defence of a salt marsh, overflown at high-water, and of a deep and broad creek.
In the wall there are no traces of embrasures or loop-holes; and neither on the sea side, nor on that skirted by the creek and marsh, is there any appearance whatever of artificial defences.
We may conclude from these circumstances, that the works of Singapore were not intended against fire-arms, or an attack by sea; or that if that latter, the inhabitants considered themselves strong in their naval forces, and therefore thought any other defences in that quarter superfluous.
Crawfurd concluded in the final paragraph that the old Malay Wall in Singapore is not a strong fortification and was unlikely to resist attack by enemies. If this is true, then the strong Temasek Wall mentioned by Wang Dayuan (汪大淵) in his Daoyizhilue 島夷志略 (Description of the Barbarians of the Isles), which was able to resist the Siamese attack for a month, could be a reference to another city wall, probably the Wall of Johore Lama.
近年以七十餘艘來侵單馬錫，攻打城池，一月不下。本處閉關而守，不敢與爭。遇爪哇使臣經過，暹人聞知乃遁，遂掠昔里而歸。J. Crawford (1828) Journal of an embassy from the Governor-General of India to the Courts of Siam and Cochin China; exhibiting a view of the actual state of those kingdoms, Henry Colburn, London, pp. 44 - 45. Crawfurd's original entry is coloured in grey. My annotations is shown in black.
. . . in recent years (most likely between 1330 to 1337) they came with seventy odd junks and raided Danmaxi (單馬錫) and attacked the city moat. (The town) resisted for a month, the place having closed its gates and defending itself, and they not daring to assault it. It happened just then that an Imperial envoy was passing by (Danmaxi), so the men of Xian drew off and hid, after plundering Xili (昔里).
The english translation of Wang Dayuan's entry on Siam, is taken from: W. W. Rockhill (1915) Notes on the Relations and Trade of China with the Eastern Archipelago and the Coast of the Indian Ocean during the Fourteenth Century. Part II, T'oung Pao 16(1), pp. 61 - 159.
Comments
johore lama i think, was founded after the fall of Malacca in 1511 and that is 200 years after wang dayuan?