The Hikayat Patani: The Kingdom of Patani

in the Malay and Thai Political World

1
NATHAN PORATH
This paper looks at the Hikayat Patani as a mimetic text. It tries to capture
Patanis power relations with neighbouring kingdoms. From the perspective
of mimesis the text expresses similarity with Ayutthaya even as it describes
the Patani sultan and sultanas rebellions against Ayutthaya. In relation to
the surrounding Malay kingdoms and fiefdoms the text expresses Patanis
superiority. In relation to Johor it fractures mimetic similarity. Building upon
previous works on the Hikayat Patani, this paper offers some interpretations
of the text that have been overlooked by previous scholars.
The Mimetic Model
The pre-modern Southeast Asian state formation was one of various kings and
lords and their city-centres held together in a hierarchical system of mimetic
power in which each vied for cosmic superiority. Rene Girard has explored
mimesis from diverse angles.
2
The main aspect of his argument which is impor-
tant for us here is that in social relationships, mimesis is a competitive power
relationship in which a subject (or what he calls disciple) desires the object of
desire of another, rather than desiring or achieving that object directly. The object
of desire is mediated through the superiority of the model, which represents that
desired object and the subject begins to simulate the model. Once the subject
comes close to achieving the object of desire, the subject begins to enter into a
competing relationship with its model, leading to tense competition and
ultimately to violence. Through this mimetic entanglement the subject royals
were tied to superiors in a cultural relationship of emulation for the cosmic ideal,
which the superiors represented to them as models.
What is generally called the mandala systemin which a central city is circled
by four town centres, which in turn are circled by a growing number of town
centres in an expanding hierarchy of centres, is an ideal representation of the
mimetic power relationship between kings and chiefs, kingdoms and chiefdoms
and their town centres. These power relationships between power-centres have
been referred to in different ways and for different periods as circles of
kings, mandala, cosmic replicas, galactic polities, radial polity.
3
According to
JMBRAS, VOL. 84, Part 2 (2011), pp. 4565
45
1
Acknowledgements: I would like to thank ASEASUK for a small fieldwork grant and the
United States Institute of Peace (USIP) for a generous grant that allowed me to carry out re-
search on which this paper is based. I also would like to thank the International Institute
for Asian Studies (IIAS) for the use of its facilities.
2
Girard (1978, 2005).
3
Tambiah (1976); Hagesteijn (1989); Chutintaranond (1990); Bougas (1994).
8
MBRAS 2011
Suwannathat-Pian the relationship between kings and their power centres was
one of two kinds.
4
The first was one of a superior king in relation to an inferior
one, and the other was one of kings of equal standing. Whereas in the former a
hierarchical political order was maintained between kings and chiefs, the latter
entailed a rivalrous relationship that would ultimately lead to war. Within the
latter type of relationship I would add there were at least three types. The first
was when one power-centre was in direct rivalry to another, as in the case of
Pegu andAyutthaya during the sixteenth century. The second was when a lesser
royal desired to be ruler of the capital, as seems to have been the case in the grow-
ing rivalry between Lord Thammaracha (of Phitsanulok) and King Cakkraphat
during the series of wars between Pegu and Ayutthaya. We shall also see this
type of rivalry may have characterized the sultan of Patanis attack onAyutthaya
in 1664. The third is when a lesser ruler becomes strong enough to be a rival but
concedes to the superiority of his adversary (for whatever reason) on the condi-
tion that certain concessions are met. This situation seems to have characterized
the relationship between the prime minister of Sai and the Sultana of Patani in
the late sixteenth century. It was through these mimetic power relationships that
social, political and cultural identities were formed and transformed and an Indic
hierarchal order of kingdom civility was maintained or challenged.
If mimetic rivalry led kingdom centres from different ethno-cultural
complexes to fight each other, for example the Burmese and Thais, another
version of rivalry was one of deliberate denial of similarity. Harrison has force-
fully argued that identities, be they social, cultural or ethnic, are not just a matter
of creating differential boundaries between recognizably different groups but,
in many respects, an identity can be formed by maintaining differences between
groups that are recognizably similar.
5
This he refers to as fracturing resem-
blances. In other words, the problemof maintaining a difference of identity does
not necessarily emerge in relation to cultural difference but in relation to cultural
similarity. These two types of mimetic processes, one recognizing similarity as
against the actuality of difference, and the other denying similarity, make up the
narrative of the first book of the Hikayat Patani.
The First Book of the Hikayat Patani as a Mimetic Text
As the main source for the early history of the kingdom of Patani, the Hikayat
Patani is a manuscript written in 1839 which was first copied and translated by
Teeuw and Wyatt.
6
All other histories (including that of Syukri)
7
seem to be
structured along similar lines to this text. Whereas most other texts omit certain
features in this text for whatever reason, we do not know whether this text itself
was structured along the lines of an even earlier text. Neither do we knowif there
NATHAN PORATH
46
4
Suwannathat-Pian (1988).
5
Harrison (2005).
6
Teeuw and Wyatt (1970).
7
Syukri (1985).
was an even earlier version of this Hikayat Patani or a version that portrayed a
different historical narrative. We also do not know how the hikayat was
positioned in the multi-vocality of historical narratives that existed when it was
originally composed, even though the hikayat does suggest that other voices
existed. What we do know from Teeuw and Wya is that this copied version of
1839 is itself comprised of six dierent books composed at dierent periods
during the late seventeenth to mid-eighteenth centurythe period following the
end of the original founding-dynasty of Patani and during the kingdoms decline
under kings drawn from Kelantan.
Bradley reminds us that Malay hikayats were composed by court scribes for
reasons of political legitimation.
8
Further, according to Teeuwand Wya the aim
of this version of the Hikayat Patani (which was reecting on a real kingdom lost)
was to supply a charter for the political-social institution of the Sultanate of
Patani.
9
The underlying teleology of the text was to show that certain political
and moral conditions were needed for Patani to be a viable kerajaan (kingdom).
The text, then, is not really concerned with the people of Patani, and the narrative
is not imbued with an ethno-nationalist consciousness as exemplified by Syukris
mid-twentieth century history. In many respects in its portrayal of the kingdoms
history the hikayat is reflecting on the kingdoms identity and its power in the
world of Indic kingdom hierarchies.
10
The text is as much about symbolism of
the kingdoms political power as it is about historical events. Hence this early
version of the hikayat is not merely a historical text but also a symbolically
political-cultural text.
The first book of the Hikayat Patani is mainly concerned with Patanis
relationship with two kingdoms, Ayutthaya in the north and Johor in the south.
Bradley rightly suggests that this texts original composition was oral, unlike the
other books of the same hikayat.
11
Hence it has many features that characterize
oral story-telling, one of which is the use of the trope of mimesis. Bradley notes
that the first text seems to be written as if its stories were told to the author.
12
In
mimetic terms the text is composed as though it were the authoritative speech of
another. But the first book is mimetic in two other important senses. First, it
places explanatory facts as statements in the mouths of the royal protagonists
themselves. Second, it authoritatively reflects on the kingdoms political relation-
ship with its two big neighbours, Ayutthaya and Johor, through similitude and
dissimilitude. Contrary to our expectations, the hikayat affirms Patanis similarity
with Ayutthaya even as Patani leaders rebel against it, while it fractures Patanis
resemblances with Johor at every possible instance. I suggest that in the narrative,
the contrast in the relationships of Patani and the two other kingdoms reveals an
un-stated recognition that Patani gained certain prestige from its relationship
The Hikayat Patani
47
8
Bradley (2009).
9
Teeuw and Wyatt (1970: 294); see also Bradley (2009).
10
See Bougas (1994).
11
Bradley (2009: 286).
12
Ibid.
withAyutthaya to which it was mimetically drawn as an Indic kingdom. In turn,
the northern kingdom gave a certain elitist confidence to Patani in relation to
other Malay-speaking states and particularly in relation to the emerging power
of Johor during the earlier period. Through a structural presentation of archaic
similarity (with Ayutthaya) and difference (from Johor) the kingdom of Patani is
thus made to stand out in a fluctuating world of Indic-Kingdom hierarchical
political order.
The Founding of the Kingdom and Conversion to Islam
The Hikayat Patani opens with three legendary stories: the origin of the kingdom
and its rajas, the conversion of its rulers to Islam, and the casting of the state
cannon. The founding rajas of the kingdom were originally from an inland king-
dom capital, which the text calls Kota Maligai (citadel) and it was here that the
ancestors of the rajas of the later kingdomof Patani originally resided. According
to the hikayat, legend has it that the inland King Phaya Tu Nakpa (the lord who
likes to go to the forest) founded the kingdom of Patani after failing to hunt
down a numinous albino mouse-deer. The king then saw a fishermans hut
nearby. He asked the old occupants who they were and what this place was. The
old man told the king that they were originally people from Kota Maligai who
had accompanied the Kings grandfather to Ayutthaya in order to build a settle-
ment there. The couple had contracted a skin disease and had been left behind
on the beach where they now lived and made their living. The king then asked
the mans name and he was told Encik Tani. Following this the king decided to
build a settlement on the spot where the albino mouse-deer was seen to
disappear: on this beach here (pada pantai ini); he called it Patani.
The hikayat then relates the conversion of the Raja of Patani to Islam. King
Phaya Tu Nakpa fell ill with a disease which caused his skin to crack all over his
body. He ordered his prime minister to sound the gong throughout the land with
the proclamation that whoever could cure the king would be given the kings
daughter in marriage. The gongs were beaten in every corner of the kingdom
and a Muslim merchant Shaykh Said from Pasai took up the challenge on the
condition that the raja should convert to Islam if he was healed. The raja
recovered, only to go back on his word and then suffer a relapse. Only after the
third time did the king convert to Islam and change his name to Sultan Ismail
Syah Zillullah Fil-Alam.
Patani was originally a Buddhist kingdom and at a certain moment in its
history one of the rajas converted to Islamand over time the population followed.
We do not know when Patani actually converted to Islam. Some authors have
given a date of 1457 after the Raja of Malaccas own conversion. Other authors of
a religious persuasion try to push the date as far back as possible without any
evidence, although early sixteenth-century Portuguese visitors to Patani also
seemed to think that its people had been Muslim for a long time prior to their
NATHAN PORATH
48
arrival.
13
The year 1457, first put forward by Che Man,
14
has become the
standard date of Patani historical studies and has been quoted by other
authors.
15
Teeuwand Wyatt merely speculated that it occurred sometime during
the late fifteenth to early sixteenth century. Further, all the evidence suggests
that during this period Malacca was a threat to Patani, which even aided
Ayutthaya in an attack on Malacca. There is no reason to suppose that Patani
would have followed Malacca. It is also important to make a distinction between
the existence of Muslim communities in Patani living as religious minorities in
a Buddhist Patani kingdom-state and the actual conversion of the raja and
subsequently the expansion of Islam within his jurisdiction. Until further
evidence is available we must simply admit that we do not really knowwhen the
Buddhist kingdom of Patani officially converted to Islam and stop regurgitating
the year 1457. It seems that in the thirteenth century Patani was still a Buddhist
kingdom and, as a tributary of Nakon si Thammarat, it was involved in the
reconstruction of the Buddhist reliquaryas were other Malay-speaking
states
16
but by the time the Portuguese arrived in the early sixteenth century it
was an established sultanate. The important element of the conversion story is
what it represents and how the conversion was reconstructed in cultural
memory. It is not simply a historical story about a rajas conversion; it is a story
about the Malay kingdoms political and social contract with the Islamic faith on
which depended the unity of the kingdom.
Two Social Contracts
In the hikayat we find two skin disease legends: that of Encik Tani and that of the
converting king. According to Jordaan and Josselin de Jong, sickness in Malay/
Indonesian histories is a metaphor for a social contract between ruler and
realm.
17
Most common in these stories is a ruler suffering from a skin disease
although they also point out that sickness can also be experienced by the wife
symbolizing the people.
18
This myth varies in different histories, but the wife is
symbolically associated with the realm and the sickness is a metaphor for a
disrupted relationship between the king and his subjects. The recovery from the
illness symbolizes a re-establishment of this relationship. These scholars suggest
that such tales of skin diseases refer to transitional periods in which authority
is suspended due to the rise or decline of a dynasty.
19
The Encik Tani story
is clearly a variant of this social contract trope. The fisherman and his wife
symbolize indigenes, and the story seems to be suggestive of a realm seeking a
The Hikayat Patani
49
13
See Teeuw and Wyatt (1970).
14
Che Man (1990).
15
See, for example, Gilquin (2002).
16
Wyatt (1994: 45).
17
Jordaan and Josselin de Jong (1985).
18
Ibid.: 253.
19
Ibid.: 272.
ruler. In the text, Ayutthaya is one possibility that is dismissed through the
symbolism of Encik Tanis skin disease. The fisherman and his wife are then left
behind and in turn re-unite with the raja coming from the interior.
Once Patani is politically established the text proceeds with the second social
contract. The kings cracked skin seems to be a symbol for the disrupted
relationship between ruler and realm. The king sends his men to the far-flung
corners of the kingdom to sound their gongs. In the old Malay world the gong
was also a means of defining boundariesas far as the sound of the gong could
be heard the boundaries of the kingdom were delineated. Shaykh Said, who in
the text is probably less of a historical figure than a symbolic one,
20
comes from
Pasai in Aceh and it seems that these Muslim merchants formed a religious
minority in the kingdom, living in a kampung designated for them. The shaykh
rejects the kings offer of a bride and instead demands that if he recovers he
should convert to Islam. If the shaykh had taken the rajas daughter without
converting the king to Islam we would have had a kingdoms alliance with a
Muslim community of the realm. This would have suggested that the Muslim
communitys status was raised, but still remained subordinate to the kingdom
(somewhat similar to the Muslimcommunitys position inAyutthaya under King
Narais rule). The shaykh wanted the king to convert and thus the kings cure
(the unity of ruler and realm) became conditional on his becoming a Muslim.
Within the theme of the social contract metaphor, the kingdoms health, strength
and unity are dependent on it being a Muslim kingdom.
The hikayat ends the story by telling us that after the kings conversion, it
was only the people of the town who followed his example and became Muslim
while the people outside the town continued their own practices, which we can
assume were a combination of Buddhismand animism. Further, we are told that
the king ceased to worship idols and eat pork, but otherwise did not alter a
single one of his heathen habits.
21
Culturally, the king who converted to Islam
and brought the Kingdom of Patani into the faith remained an Indic king. As an
Indic king he became part of the universal world of Islam and took on a grand
title cosmically suitable for him from that religious world that had encompassed
him and his kingdom. These sultans would have balanced the politically Indic
and the Islamic (as Bougas has argued).
22
It was in the realm of the Indic that
mimetic political relationships continued with Ayutthaya and were fractured
with Johor, and the author of the Hikayat Patani was concerned with this realm.
NATHAN PORATH
50
20
Teeuw and Wyatt (1970).
21
Ibid.: 152.
22
Bougas (1994).
Patani in the Malay World:
Superiority and the Fracturing of Resemblances
Since the hikayat tells us that the origin of the ruling house of Patani came from
an inland kingdom centre, Kota Maligai, and created its capital on the coast,
archaeological evidence seems to corroborate the existence of an important
inland settlement in Yarang, which is upriver and inland from present-day
Patani.
23
Further, there is a general assumption by historians that there was a
kingdomin the area called Langkasuka, which was described in Chinese sources
and was last heard of in the late fourteenth or early fifteenth century.
24
Many
authors assume that Patani was the continuation of Langkasuka. It is here impor-
tant to note that when the inland rajas of Kota Maligai (the citadel town) moved
their capital to the coast and created Patani, they constructed a new political
entity. In an old Javanese poem, Desawarnana, completed in 1365 and analysed by
Robson,
25
Patani is not mentioned, but Langkasuka and Sai (which was on the
coast) as well as Kelantan and Terengganu are noted. The poem, which clearly
locates known Thai towns rather accurately, suggests that the kingdom of Patani
may not have been founded during this period. It does seemto speak of Langka-
suka and Sai (as well as Kelantan) as separate political entities. It is possible that
Patani was formed during this period from Langkasuka, or that Langkasuka
ceased to physically exist but continued lingering on in the politico-geographical
imagination of scribes of more distant kingdoms.
The construction of a new political entity along the coast surely would have
affected the power relationship with the ancient coastal polity of Sai. The hikayat
clearly states that during the early period Sai was the personal fiefdom of the
Raja of Sai. It would be reasonable to suggest that when the kings of the inland
dynasty moved their capital to the coastal spot, which they called Patani, they
may have consolidated their power over Sai and consoled the Raja of Sai by
making his office that of the bendahara or the datuk besar (prime minister) of the
newkingdom. Nevertheless, tension remained between the Raja/Sultan of Patani
and the Raja/prime minister of Sai. Raja Aisyah, the sister of the two sultans
mentioned in the text, was married to the mid-sixteenth-century raja of Sai, Raja
Jalal, who was also the bendahara of the kingdom. When her brother, Raja Manzur
Syah, returned from Ayutthaya in 1564 he deceived the bendahara in order to
make sure that he vacated the capital and returned to his fiefdom. When Raja
Manzur Syah ascended the throne, Raja Jalal returned to Patani to pay his
respects to the newking and then returned to his throne in Sai.
26
The hikayat also
tells us that Raja Jalal did not have an heir and the dynasty ended with him. This
not only made the post of bendahara competitively open to other lords but
The Hikayat Patani
51
23
Ibid.: 8.
24
Wheatley (1961).
25
Robson (1997).
26
Ibid.: 163.
becoming prime minister of the kingdom of Patani also meant becoming Raja of
Sai.
27
The tension between the bendahara/rajas of Sai and the sultans of Patani
reached a climax in the revolt of Raja Kayu Kelat against the first Queen of Patani,
Raja Hijau (c.15841616). In this revolt the queen seems to have been compelled
to devolve power to him.
28
The text tells us that after the rebellion, Raja Kayu
Kelat returned to Sai and never went downstream again; neither did Raja Hijau
summon him, suggesting that a balance of power was struck between the sultana
in Patani and the bendahara in Sai.
29
Seventeenth-century European reports all
claim that the queens of Patani were the respected inter-regional figureheads of
the kingdom, but effective internal power rested with the prime ministers of Sai.
Raja Kayu Kelats successful rebellion was the first step in the devolution of
power from the kingdoms centre in Patani to the prime minister in Sai. By the
time the Kelantan dynasty was in place during the middle (if we follow Bradley,
see below) to the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, the prime
minister (bendahara) in Sai held the most powerful post in the kingdom and a
lucrative one for an aspiring lord seeking a fiefdom.
When the inland kings constructed their capital on the coast they would
have also disrupted the political-economic standing of Kelantan. It was only
during the seventeenth century that Kelantan was able to re-appropriate the
coast by sending its royal representatives to sit on its throne as figureheads. The
hikayat explicitly says that only from the time of the second king of the Kelantan
dynasty were ships from Kelantan allowed to anchor as far as the Pier of Kedi.
30
One gains the impression that Patani came to be headed by rajas who, in the
kingdoms glorious days, would have been considered far inferior to the rajas of
the original inland dynasty.
31
According to Teeuw and Wyatt the first Kelantan dynasty ruled for about
forty years after the death of Raja Kuning in 1688. Bradley has recently and rather
convincingly revised this date.
32
He maintains that the King of Kelantan deposed
Raja Kuning in 1649 and installed his own son in 1651 with the support of
Ayutthaya.
33
The hikayat does not mention that the queen was deposed, but only
that she died without an heir.
The Kelantan dynasty seems to have failed Patanis interests. The second
book of the hikayat emphatically states that since the time of the first Kelantanese
dynasty, Patani went into decline and lost its earlier vitality. The text explains
that the old rules and customs kept on changing continually and goes on to say
each and every minister (particularly referring to the rajas of Sai) did whatever
NATHAN PORATH
52
27
Ibid.
28
Ibid.: 173.
29
Ibid.: 175.
30
Ibid.: 197.
31
See also Bougas (1994: 71) for an interesting Kelantanese view of this relationship.
32
Bradley (2009).
33
Ibid.: 275.
he liked, for there was no one who re-instituted the old traditions.
34
Under
Kelantanese rule Patanis decline is portrayed as being not merely political but a
decline in cultural civility. Paraphrasing the text, Bradley calls this the age of
damnation.
35
It appears that Patani was a political entity against which the more
ancient-based coastal polities of Sai (although a lesser one) and, later, Kelantan,
tried to manage and politically re-appropriate in their respective waysSai
through forcing Patani to devolve power from the centre through ongoing
concessions, and Kelantan by sending its people to be the kingdoms figureheads
in Patani.
If the hikayat portrays the relationship between Patani and other adjacent
Malay coastal polities as one of a superior to an inferior, the relationship with
Johor is very different. Johor is portrayed as a rival to Patanis political standing
and identity. At every juncture, the hikayat recognizes the possibility of similitude
with Johor, while at the same time goes to great lengths to fracture it.
Johor enters the text through its raja, who comes to ask Raja Ungu (the third
queen) for her daughters hand in marriage. His servants are sent to notify her
that he would like to pay his respects. Already there is tension here. They refer
to him as her younger brother to which she corrects them by referring to him
as our son. The servants are made to apologize for their raja and say that he
lacks knowledge of howto make obeisance. As they leave, the Patani servants are
made to say that these people of Johor, whatever they do, it is always for the
sake of their own importance.
36
The text then goes on to tell us that as long as
he stayed in Patani, the raja of Johor did not allow the royal drum to be beaten
as a present to Our mother the queen. The narrative reflects the deflation of the
Raja of Johor in relation to the Queen of Patani. He is allowed to stay at the Pier
of Kedi and Raja Ungus daughter, Raja Kuning, is given to him as a bride.
Shortly afterwards the war with Ayutthaya erupts and the raja of Johor joins the
Patani forces. In the text he seems to be more of a liability to the queen, who calls
him back from the fighting.
Following Raja Ungus death (c.1635) the Raja of Johor is said to have
brought his mother and younger brother to Patani and then returned to Johor. In
his absence his younger brother, knowing that his older brother was impotent,
violated the now Queen of Patani, Raja Kuning (c.16351688 or 1649). Shortly
afterwards he also fell in love with one of the dancers of the royal performing
troupe who, it seems, possessed him through magic. From here on events in the
text portray the Johoreans, who were also with a large Acehnese contingent, as
untrustworthy scoundrels, doing their own bidding without any civilized
consideration for the kingdom that hosted them. At one point in the story Dang
Sirat, a dancer, wanted the prince to beat the Johor drums for her and install her
as a raja. The prince, who was madly in love with this woman, obliged. When his
servants ask him where they will install this woman he retorts that they should
The Hikayat Patani
53
34
Teeuw and Wyatt (1970: 202).
35
Bradley (2009).
36
Teeuw and Wyatt (1970: 181).
do so in Kedi as the drums of Johor and the drums of Patani would sound
discordant with each other.
37
The Raja of Johor then decides to install Dang Sirat
upriver in Tambangan with the intention of developing a settlement with her as
its raja. On hearing this, the nobility of Patani report to the Patani queen. They
revealed their plan that the moment the Johoreans leave Patani they would not
be allowed to enter the city again. Discredited, the Raja of Johor was cast out of
Patani and forced to return to Johor. However, his mother remained in Patani.
After the Johoreans had fled Patani, the Dutchman van Vliet wrote a dispatch to
Batavia in 1644 stating that war was imminent between Patani and Johor and it
was assumed that the rajas mother and other relatives in Patani were
massacred.
38
While the Johoreans were preparing for war in October of the same
year another dispatch was sent to Batavia stating that a Patani envoy had arrived
in Johor to settle the differences between the two kingdoms.
39
This envoy is
probably what the text describes as the mission of Raja Lela in which this lord
was entrusted to bring the rajas mother back to Johor.
The mission, which was sent to Johor to return the rajas mother and to ease
the mounting tension between the two kingdoms, is the last reference to Johor in
the hikayat. The text uses the mission to raise the Malay identity question in order
to fracture total resemblances between the two kingdoms. Raja Lela, originally
from Minangkabau (in West Sumatra) but now a subject of the Queen of Patani,
leaves for Johor accompanied by his forty children and grandchildren for
support. On arriving in Johor he asks for a royal servant, and a certain Encik
Bayani is appointed to serve him. When the servant comes to his ship Raja Lela
confesses that he needs his guidance because he does not know the Malay rules
of conduct. The Johor servant laughs and retorts: is Patani really different from
Johor? If this is Patani and that Johor, then it is Johor in the Patani way.
40
Raja
Lela responds: Johor and Patani are very much alike, but still there are differ-
ences in customs and rules.
41
Raja Lelas meeting with the sultan is also charac-
terized as one exemplifying extreme mistrust of the Patani-Minangkabau envoy.
He keeps his kris beside him wherever he goes and orders his forty children and
grandchildren to keep their eyes focused on him so as to keep him secure in his
identity when in the presence of his superior.
42
Only after the sultan makes Raja
Lela feel secure does he explain to the sultan that he will never serve two kings.
Raja Lela was distrustful of the Johoreans, a distrust that probably characterized
Patanis own general distrust of Johor and the text utilizes the mention of the
original mission to mimetically fracture Patani from Johor once and for all.
NATHAN PORATH
54
37
Ibid.: 188.
38
Teeuw and Wyatt (1970: 256).
39
Ibid.
40
Ibid.: 192.
41
Ibid.: 193.
42
Ibid.: 194.
The Kingdom of Patani and Ayutthaya:
The Affirmation of Similarity even as Patani Rebels
If the text fractures mimetic similarity with Johor it does the reverse with Ayut-
thaya even when it narrates Patanis rebellions against it. Ayutthaya is already
present at the outset of the hikayat when it mentions the founding of the king-
dom. The previous king of Kota Maligai left behind the old fisherman and his
wife because they had contracted a skin disease. This king and his entourage
were on a mission to Ayutthaya. The hikayat hints that the areas relationship
with Ayutthaya already existed before the founding of the kingdom of Patani.
Further, the founding king and his children all have Thai titles before they
convert to Islam. It is not only the hikayat that places the area within Ayutthayas
orbit of political relations; other early sources also seem to have done so. The
first European to mention the kingdom of Langkasuka was the seventeenth-
century Dutchman inAyutthaya, van Vliet, who reconstructed the history of this
kingdom from Thai sources that were probably later destroyed during the
Burmese wars. He mentions that U Tong, the founder of Ayutthaya, travelled
south to Langkasuka in his search for a site for a kingdom, but then decided to
go back north to the location of Ayutthaya.
43
If Langkasuka was in the Patani
region as is assumed, then van Vliets early Siamese sources were mapping out
the furthest point of Ayutthayas political influence through the movements of its
founding father. The Sejarah Melayu (Malay Annals), narrating the history of
Malacca, also defines the limits of Ayutthayas influence within the peninsula as
being in the Patani area. Apart fromthe fact that Patani helpedAyutthaya against
Malacca in the late fifteenth century, the Malay Annals tells us that after Ayut-
thaya attacked Malacca, the Siamese armies retreated, first stopping in the safe
grounds of Patani before moving back up the peninsula.
In the Hikayat Patani, the relationship with Ayutthaya is brought back into
the text after the section that tells us of the kingdoms conversion to Islamand the
casting of the cannon. The story is building up to the story of the first rebellion
of Patani against Ayutthaya. Sultan Mudhaffar Syah, the king of Patani (153064),
decides to pay a friendly visit to Ayutthaya. The king of Ayutthaya is said to have
received the sultan as his guest and showered himwith honours. He even invited
himto stay in the palace compound and offered the sultan the hand of a princess
in marriage; the sultan politely declined the offer. On his departure the Ayut-
thaya king gave the sultan prisoners of war from Pegu and Lancang. The sultan
took these prisoners back with himto Patani and settled themin Kampung Kedi.
The sultan then returned to Patani and gathered his ministers, including his
brother, 1,500 soldiers and 100 women and again set sail for Ayutthaya. He also
took the state cannon with him. As in the previous visit, the hikayat tells us that
the sultan arrived with presents for the monarch as is the tradition of kings when
making a marriage proposal. One night, for no apparent reason, the sultan
The Hikayat Patani
55
43
Baker et al. (2005).
plotted with his brother and some of the ministers to take over Ayutthaya. The
sultan and his men entered the palace on a Friday morning as the gates of the
royal compound were opened. The Siamese king was forced to flee. The royal
servant beat the royal drum, which called the Siamese guards in and severe
fighting broke out. Although the sultans brother realized that this battle was a
lost cause, the sultan continued fighting. He ordered his brother to leave and
return to Patani before he was killed.
Although the hikayat narrates two visits, it is probably merging two different
historical stories, one which entailed an earlier marriage relationship and the
other the attack onAyutthaya. The sultans attack on the Ayutthaya palace is con-
firmed by the Ayutthaya chronicles as well as by van Vliets historical account.
44
The Luang Prasoert chronicle tells us that the sultan took one of King
Cakkraphats white elephants and rode it in the palace plaza just after the
Burmese king left Ayutthaya for Pegu.
45
Since King Cakkraphat was titled the
king of the white elephants, portraying the Sultan of Patani riding on one of
Cakkraphats elephants in the royal compound suggests that for a brief moment
the sultan was able to appropriate the cosmic power of Ayutthaya for himself.
The text tells us that the sultan then dismounted from the elephant and left
through the execution gate (probably symbolic for his own execution). Van Vliet,
whose account preceded that of the Luang Prasoert chronicles, gives the reason
for the sultans sudden change of heart. He tells us that King Cakkraphat and
his son Prince Mahin were seen by all as weak kings who were on the verge of
losing Ayutthaya to the Burmese. On seeing their weakness, the Sultan of Patani
attempted to usurp the Siamese throne.
46
Bougas has rightly interpreted this
rebellion as an attempted usurpation within the Indic manner of political succes-
sion.
47
In the words of Ibrahim, an Iranian who visited Ayutthaya in the seven-
teenth century, even if the king himself may still be free and have his army intact,
if the house and throne are captured, the buttress and mainstay of his power is
considered destroyed.
48
Under such circumstances anyone could have placed
himself as a contender to the throne if they had the ability and resources.
49
But does the Hikayat Patani make a reference to the context of the Ayut-
thaya/Burmese war as the backdrop of the rebellion? When discussing the first
rebellion, the Hikayat Patani does not directly mention the Ayutthaya/Burmese
war. However, I suggest that it does indirectly refer to the war in one of the most
baffling mimetic sentences of the entire text: the one in which Sultan Mudhaffar
Syah says to his ministers just before his first visit to Ayutthaya: What would you
say if We went to Ayutthaya for the king is no stranger to us and after all two
countries are better than one.
NATHAN PORATH
56
44
Ibid.: 219.
45
Cushman (2006).
46
Ibid.: 219; see also Wood (1924: 119).
47
Bougas (1994: 68).
48
Ibrahim (1972: 136).
49
Ibid.
In the original Malay, but not in Teeuw and Wyatts translation, the sultan
says, apa bicara bendahara karena kita hendak pergi ke Ayutia dan Beracau itu pun
tiada orang lain dari pada kita dan dari pada sebuah negeri baiklah dua.
50
The sultan
says that king is not different fromus rather than he is no stranger to us. There
is a very clear affirmation of mimetic identity with the king of Ayutthaya. This
suggests that there is something more than a very close alliance and common
understanding between Patani and Ayutthaya. In a Thai version of the hikayat
the sultan says because he is an affinal relative of mine.
51
The second part of the
sentence runs in my own translation of the Malay as rather than one country,
two is better. As it stands, this phrase could be interpreted as an expression of
a desire for an alliance with Ayutthaya; two countries are stronger than one. But
the second half of the sentence can also be interpreted as the opposite; that keep-
ing two countries apart is preferred, but which two countries? Many authors
suggest that the two countries referred to are Patani and Ayutthaya. I maintain
that although the hikayat does not mention the Ayutthaya/Burmese war directly
it does suggest it through this sentence which reflects what would have been a
major political concern for everybody in the area: whether Ayutthaya would be
subject to Burma, and two countries would become one country or remain apart.
This image was preserved in the Ayutthaya chronicles.
In 1548 King Tabinshweti of Pegu exploded onto the political scene after
bringing the various kingdoms of Burma into his orbit. He then decided to take
advantage of the political turmoil in Ayutthaya and attack it. He did not manage
to take Ayutthaya, which was now ruled by King Cakkraphat. After Tabinsh-
wetis assassination, Bayinnaung (155181) restored order, and in 1563 thunder-
ously marched onAyutthaya. The Ayutthaya chronicles written in the nineteenth
century make two white elephants the trigger of the war. The King of Hong-
sawadi (Burma) demanded that King Cakkraphat share two white elephants
with him, a statement reflecting the desire to subjugate his adversary. The nine-
teenth-century chronicles place the following description of the Burmese king
and his declaration of war on Ayutthaya in his alleged letter to Cakkraphat, stat-
ing that the two countries Hongsawadi and Ayutthaya will become closely
joined royal allies, one great golden country.
52
Fifteen years after the fall of Ayut-
thaya in 1568 Prince Nerasuan revolted against Burma. In the chronicles he
dramatically says the Capital and Great Royal Metropolis of Ayutthaya and the
City of Hongsawadi from this day forth shall not form a single golden kingdom
as in the past but shall be totally divorced from each other.
53
The image of the
subjection of Ayutthaya to Pegu is that of two countries becoming one golden
one. I maintain that this idea of one golden country had also entered the Hikayat
Patani. The reference to the Ayutthaya/Burmese war as the political backdrop for
The Hikayat Patani
57
50
Teeuw and Wyatt (1970: 79).
51
Wyatt (1967: 25).
52
Cushman (2006: 423).
53
Ibid.: 89.
the sultans visit to the Siamese capital is dari pada sebuah negeri baiklah dua (rather
than one country, two is better).
No other author has made the connection because there is a tendency to
interpret this statement in terms of the present-day ethno-political context in
which Patani is part of Thailand but some factions want it to secede. The earlier
kingdom of Patani would not have seen itself as being one country with
Ayutthaya and neither does the hikayat suggest this. Moreover, if the sultan
wanted to sever his relationship with Ayutthaya, then surely he could have
simply ignored Ayutthaya, and waited for the response, as later rajas did.
It seems then that Sultan Mudhaffar Syah went to Ayutthaya as an aide and
ally to keep Ayutthaya independent from Pegu during the most critical moment
of Ayutthayas history. Then, when he saw that the Ayutthaya king and his
prince-elect were weak he tried to usurp the throne for himself. The first rebellion
of Patani was a failed usurpation and, to my mind, should not be treated as some
authors do, as the first attempt in Patanis history to secede fromThai rule. Sultan
Mudhaffar Syahs rebellion was not a rebellion of Patani at all. It was a betrayal
of an ally within an Indic frame of mimetic kingdom-hood power. Shortly after-
wards, Raja Thammaracha of Phitsanulok would do the same and, with Burmese
support, succeed in his attempt, but at the expense of having Ayutthaya unified
for 15 years as one golden country with Pegu.
Ambassadorial Missions for Peace
On his return, Raja Manzur Syah succeeded his brother on the throne and
became the new sultan of Patani. Following a description of an attack on Patani
by Palembang,
54
the hikayat describes the restoration of relations with
Ayutthaya.
55
The text suggests that the instigator was Sultan Manzur Syah, who
wanted to send a mission to Siam in order to find out news of his brother.
56
The
sultan sends Wan Muhammad and preparations are made according to the
tradition of his elder brother when he used to pay homage to the Phracao.
57
The
text seems to imply that such tribute was an aspect of political heritage and
civility between independent kingdoms. This mission would have occurred
sometime between 1569 (when Ayutthaya fell) and 1572. It would seem that the
Ayutthaya king in question was King Maha Thammaracha (156990) as Sultan
Manzur Syah died in 1572.
The description of the mission of Wan Muhammad (Seri Agar) to the
Ayutthaya court is symbolically replete with the restoration of hierarchical
order between Ayutthaya and Patani. The description of the mission of Wan
NATHAN PORATH
58
54
Ibid.: 1634.
55
Ibid.: 1656.
56
Ibid.
57
Ibid: 167. The hikayat does not tell us what this tradition entailed and neither does it mention
the bunga emas dan perak (gold and silver flowers) as the symbolic identifier of its tributary
relationship with Ayutthaya.
Muhammad is a rather accurate account of how such missions were conducted
in the Ayutthaya court as it conforms to later European eye-witness descrip-
tions.
58
Since the Hikayat Patani is as much a charter for conditions in the Patani
kerajaan as it is a history of the kingdom, the detailed description of Wan Muham-
mads mission also serves as a general account of the kingdoms ambassadorial
relationship with Ayutthaya. It describes the ritualized hierarchical relationship
between the two kingdoms as reflected in the tribute ceremony.
The Second Rebellion:
Hes a Rascal, Murderer and Traitor...
The next mention of Ayutthaya in the text is in reference to the second rebellion
which seems to have occurred some sixty years after the first, in the early seven-
teenth century during the reign of the third Queen of Patani, Raja Ungu. It was
resolved in 1636, in the first year of the reign of her daughter (Raja Kuning).
Many changes had occurred in the Southeast Asian kingdom world. Ayutthaya
had managed to release itself from Burma and regain its previous glory. Patani
was now ruled by a succession of queens who were the daughters of the late
Sultan Manzur Syah. Effective political power in the Patani kingdom had
devolved from the monarchs to the ministers and wealthy merchants (orang
kaya). Patani had also developed an uneasy relationship with Johor to the south.
Both Ayutthaya and Patani had their first Dutch and English merchant visitors.
The Age of Commerce (as Reid calls it) had arrived in Southeast Asia, and both
these kingdoms were its beneficiaries throughout the seventeenth century.
During this golden period, Patani developed a new political and economic
confidence.
The second rebellion had many complicated political facets to it involving
events not just in Patani, or the Malay world, but also in Ayutthaya and Ligor.
According to the hikayat, Raja Ungu had a daughter, Raja Kuning, who at the
age of twelve was given in marriage to a nobleman from Ligor, the southern
province, which represented Patani. The text names this nobleman as Okphaya
Deca who, sometime later, left for Siam to Patani. In the meantime, the King of
Johor came to ask the Queen of Patani for permission to marry Raja Kuning and
the queen agreed. This enraged Okphaya Deca. He returned to Ayutthaya and
requested the king to wage war on Patani. The king of Siam granted his
request.
59
Okphaya Deca is probably the same office holder van Vliet calls Oyas
Lygoor, the governor of Ligor,
60
who led the army that attacked Patani. We have
no other evidence that there was a marriage between the princess Raja Kuning
The Hikayat Patani
59
58
See, for example, Tachard (1686), quoted in Kemp (1969: 15, fn. 11).
59
Teeuw and Wyatt (1970: 180).
60
Baker et al. (2005).
and the governor of Ligor. The hikayat, however, says that the reason Okphaya
Deca went to war was because the queen and Raja Kuning jilted him in his
absence. It seems to be using the actual marriage of Raja Kuning as a symbol for
the shifting alliances of Patani with her neighbours.
In 1629 Ayutthaya was in political turmoil. The monarchy had undergone
severe succession disputes leaving many people dead. Okya Kalahom Suriwong
used trickery, murder and court intrigue to deprive Ayutthaya of the three
rightful heirs to the throne. As king, Okya KalahomSuriwong came to be known
as Prasat Thong (the king of the golden palace). A number of monarchs and
chiefs disagreed with the coronation of Prasat Thong. The Shogun of Japan broke
off all correspondence with him. The small kingdom of Lampang stopped
sending its tribute. Ligor in the south was also rebelling. While in Patani the
queen (Raja Ungu) had made it known in public that the king of Siam did not
have the right to wear the crown and that he had killed the true kings and their
heirs. For this reason the Patani regents could not recognise him as a legal king
but as a tyrannical conqueror to whom the kingdom did not need to pay
homage.
61
In the hikayat this rejection is symbolized by the queen, Raja Ungu, rejecting
her royal Thai title. Patani queens were given a royal title from the king of Ayut-
thaya which reflected their Siamese spheres of relationships. Syukri provides the
full Thai title as Phra Nang Chaou Ying (Her Majesty the female raja).
62
Syukri
also tells us that the local Patani people pronounced the title as raja nang
chayang, thus suggesting that this term did become part of the Patani lexicon for
its female monarchs.
63
The hikayat uses the term peracau (monarch). The Ayut-
thaya court granted this title to these queens as a sign of honour and respect for
their royal pedigree and used it in their correspondence with the Patani rulers.
But, to be able to confer this honour one had to have a royal pedigree oneself.
Raja Ungu was a direct descendant of the inland dynasty who, according to the
hikayat, founded the kingdom of Patani. Moreover, according to the same text,
she was descended from Lady White Blood who came from heaven and who
had white blood running through her veins. How could such a dignified person
be royally titled by a person who, in van Vliets mimetic rendering, was con-
sidered a lowly usurper, a rascal, murderer and traitor? Instead of her Thai
title Raja Ungu gave herself the grand Islamic/Malay title of Paduka Syah Alam
(Majestic Ruler of the World). Van Vliet describes her as having had the ambition
to obtain the highest power.
64
By rejecting her Thai title, Raja Ungu was severing
Patanis ties with Ayutthaya in a way that had never been done before. By reject-
ing King Prasat Thong this queen rejected (or took the opportunity to reject)
Ayutthayas authority wholesale.
NATHAN PORATH
60
61
Ibid.: 129.
62
Syukri (1985: 30).
63
Ibid.
64
Baker et al. (2005: 129).
Van Vliet provides us with a very brief comment reflecting an extremely
important detail about this rebellion. He mentions that the queen was supported
by a number of mandarins and particularly one person titled dato bestaar (datuk
besar, bendahara), and adds that these ministers and this datuk besar were not
loved by most of the Orangh Cayos (orang kaya, noble merchants).
65
What he
seems to be suggesting is that not everybody in Patani wanted this anti-Siamese
policy and that there were factions. Bougas interprets this as most of the orang
kaya did not agree with the new course Patani was taking because war with
Ayutthaya would have certainly disrupted commerce.
66
On the other hand, the
narrative seems to make the datuk besar (bendahara of Sai) the hero of the war,
suggesting that he may have been the real instigator behind the rebellion.
Hence under Paduka Syah Alam and her datuk besar, Patani attacked Ligor
during the first year of Prasat Thongs reign. Later, as an act of defiance, Patani
confiscated two of King Prasat Thongs vessels which were on their way to
Batavia to trade with the Dutch East India Company.
In 1632 King Prasat Thong himself headed an army to attack Lampang, one
of the petty kingdoms that had stopped paying tribute to him. The war was used
as propaganda and Lampang was ruthlessly made an example of Patanis fate if
the latter continued with its defiant policies. Also in 1632 Prasat Thong sent an
ambassador to re-establish the relationship between Ayutthaya and Patani. The
Patani queen treated the Ayutthaya ambassador with disrespect.
67
The king then
mobilized 60,000 men for an army headed by the Governor of Ligor, Okya
Kalahom, the Pra Klang and Rabisit, the last being a Muslim official.
68
The king
also asked for aid from the Dutch in Batavia, who agreed to send a number of
armed ships, but their ships came too late.
According to the hikayat, Patani was able to defeat the army through a
simple strategy of deliberately helping them deplete their stocks of supplies
which they carried with themoverland. Fraser mentions a similar legend, stating
that the soldiers of Patani would mingle unnoticed with the Siamese soldiers
after the fighting.
69
It is interesting that in this legend again we have a mimetic
assertion that recognizes similarity between the Patani people and the Siamese
to the degree that the latter could not tell the other apart. However, it should be
stressed that the Siamese army sent to fight against Patani not only comprised a
large body of people from Ligor and surrounding areas, but also had a Malay
faction, some of whom may have originally come from Patani.
70
Nevertheless,
the hikayat again stresses mimetic similarity.
The hikayat makes a very important historical comment that this was the
first time the governor of Ligor and Siam had attacked Patani.
71
It seems that a
The Hikayat Patani
61
65
Ibid.
66
Bougas (1994: 69).
67
Baker et al. (2005: 129).
68
Ibid.: 130.
69
Fraser (1960).
70
Baker et al. (2005: 130).
71
Ibid.: 184.
radical change occurred in the PataniAyutthaya relationship during the years
between the first and second rebellions. Patani started developing an inherent
antagonistic side in its political relationship with the Siamese kingdom. During
these years it saw great Ayutthaya weakened and subject to another. After the
Siamese comeback Patani sawwhat seemed to be the Ayutthaya monarchy losing
its royal bloodline, a line to which the Patani royal house had apparently once
been distantly related. Although Islam did not play a part in these early rebel-
lions, by the late sixteenth century the boundaries between those of the faith and
those not of the faith had already been drawn in Southeast Asia.
72
Finally, at the
dawn of the Age of Commerce Patani saw its own potential to become a grand
kingdom. What may not have been so apparent at the time was that its possibility
for greatness in a world of overlapping hierarchical kingdoms may have been
because of its alliance with Ayutthaya, which gave this small kingdom the
arrogance it needed in relation to Malay kingdoms further south. It is this
mimetic relationship of power between Patani andAyutthaya, that the narrative
of the Hikayat Patani seems to recognize and tries to convey to its readers by
affirming mimetic similarity with this kingdom.
Concluding Remarks
According to Bougas, Patanis kingdomhood was one caught between two
mandala systems.
73
However, I would suggest that Patani never sawitself in this
way as it never considered itself as being subordinate to Johor. Patani existed on
the extreme periphery of the Ayutthaya mandala hierarchical system of king-
doms. To paraphrase Horstmann, the kingdoms of Patani and Siam shared the
same cosmos. Patani inherited it from its Buddhist past and it was not shared
with Johor; later it could not be shaken off.
74
It is interesting that in its description of events the hikayat does not moralize
or criticize Ayutthaya for its political relationship with Patani even though one
would think it would have had good reason to do so. Instead, the hikayat seems
to present Ayutthaya as an amoral and somewhat distantly respected kingdom.
Nevertheless, and precisely because of this, the sultans are depicted in the
narrative as heroic and courageous silhouettes within the narratives affirmative
mimetic backdrop of PataniAyutthaya relations. The trickster-type portrayals of
the sultan's activities against Ayutthaya textually mirror the very power that
these royals gained through their mimetic relationship with this alter-ego
kingdom.
Bradley rightly reminds us that if the hikayat was first composed in written
form in the last decade of the seventeenth century the scribes would have had
sixty years of warfare with Ayutthaya on their minds.
75
One of the intriguing
NATHAN PORATH
62
72
Reid (1992: 149).
73
Bougas (1994).
74
Horstmann (2004).
75
Bradley (2009: 281).
questions then is why does the hikayat not portray Ayutthaya in more negative
terms as the scribes would have had good reasons to do so. Instead, the text
seems to portray a shared political-cultural atmosphere with Ayutthaya that is
lacking in other hikayat. For example, in the Malay Annals, Malacca soldiers fight
for the Ayutthaya king but deny outright any resemblance with that kingdom.
76
Suwannathat-Pian has also shown the denial of resemblances with Siam in the
various Malay histories, which also portray this northern kingdom in more
negative terms.
77
If, as Bradley has suggested, the aimof writing this charter for
the viability of Patani was to restore it to its former glory then it follows that
what the hikayat is telling us through authoritative mimetic speech and portrayals
of similitude and hierarchical Indic order with Ayutthaya is that one precondi-
tion for the existence of the Patani kerajaan is the maintenance of peace and
hierarchic order with that kingdom.
By contrast, what today we would call the ethnic identity-question is raised
in the text in relation to Johor only to fracture mimetic similarity. Here there is
also a disparagement of Johors culture of civility. This can be compared to the
affirmation of mimetic similarities found in a text such as Tuhfat al Nafis (The
Precious Gift) where the nuances of mimetic difference and similarities are
questioned through concepts of hybridity and authenticity within the Malacca
kingdomhood complex.
78
One is even tempted to suggest that the Hikayat Patani
is contesting Malay civility with Johor.
What may prevent us from fully appreciating the Hikayat Patani is our
modernist concept of ethnicity. Reading the text from an ethnicist perspective
would all too easily lead us to conclude that the hikayat is trying to tell us, via the
mouth of Sultan Mudhaffar Syah, that Patani should exist as a state apart from
Ayutthaya. Instead, through mimetic speech (speaking in the name of the sultan
himself), the composer is clearly affirming friendship and alliance with Ayut-
thaya.
Or an ethnicist perspective could claim that Patani felt ethnic affinity with
Johor and other Malay kingdoms. Of course there was semi-civilizational cultural
affinity with other Malay kingdoms and it was precisely because of this that the
question of identity was raised for the purpose of fracturing resemblances. It was
important to maintain internal political differentiation within the Malay-speak-
ing world in which one power could very easily have swallowed up another.
In the Malay-speaking world the kingdom of Patani was a relatively recent
political entity. Royals established this kingdom on the political-economic struc-
ture of an earlier and more ancient kingdom over which their dynasty was once
sovereign. In the early period Patani saw itself as an elite order apart from
surrounding political entitiesand an exemplar of cultural and customary
civility of which Johor was an uncouth second. Through mimetic tropes the
hikayat seems to be hinting the reason for this. However, in the end some of the
The Hikayat Patani
63
76
Brown (1952).
77
Suwannathat-Pian (1984).
78
See Maier (1997).
power of Patanis royal seat gradually devolved to Sai, and was later appropri-
ated by Kelantanese-related sultans who realigned their state with that kingdom.
Finally the kingdom was shattered and swallowed up by its original patron,
Siam.
References
Baker, C., Na Pombejra, D., Kraan, Alfons van der and Wyatt, D. K. (2005), Van
Vliets Siam, Chiang Mai: Silkworm Books.
Bougas, W. A. (1994), The Kingdom of Patani, between Thai and Malay Mandalas,
Bangi: Institut Alam dan Tamadun Melayu, Universiti Kebangsaan
Malaysia.
Bradley, F. R. (2009), Moral Order in a Time of Damnation: The Hikayat Patani in
Historical Context, Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 40/2: 26793.
Brown, C. C. (transl.) (1952), The Malay Annals, JMBRAS, 25/23.
Che Man, W. K. (1990), Muslim Separatism: The Moros of Southern Philippines and
the Malays of Southern Thailand, Singapore: Oxford University Press.
Chutintaranond, S. (1990), Mandala, Segmentary State and Politics of Centraliza-
tion in Medieval Ayudhya, Journal of the Siam Society, 78/1: 89100.
Cushman, R. D. (2006), The Royal Chronicles of Ayutthaya, Bangkok: The Siam
Society.
Damrong R., Prince (2008), A Biography of King Naresuan the Great, Bangkok:
Toyota Thailand Foundation.
Fraser, T. M. Jr. (1960), Rusembilan: A Malay Fishing Village in Southern Thailand,
Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.
Gilquin, M. (2002), The Muslims of Thailand, transl. Michael Smithies, Chiang Mai:
Silkworm Books.
Girard, R. (1978), To Double Business Bound: Essays on Literature, Mimesis, and
Anthropology, Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
_______ (2005), Violence and the Sacred, London, New York: Continuum.
Hagesteijn, R. (1989), Circles of Kings: Political Dynamics in Early Continental South-
east Asia, Dordrecht: KITLV Press.
Harrison, S. (2005), Fracturing Resemblances: Identity and Mimetic Conflict in
Melanesia and the West, New York: Berghahn Books.
Horstmann, A. (2004), Ethnohistorical Perspectives on Buddhist-Muslim Rela-
tions and Coexistence in Southern Thailand: From Shared Cosmos to the
Emergence of Hatred?, Sojourn, 19/1: 7699.
Ibrahim, Rabi ibn Muhammad (1972), The Ship of Sulaiman, transl. John OKane,
London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Jordaan, R. E. and Josselin de Jong, P. de (1985), Sickness as a Metaphor in
Indonesian Political Myths, Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde,
141/23: 25374.
Kemp, J. (1969), Aspects of Siamese Kingship in the Seventeenth Century, Bangkok:
Social Science Review.
NATHAN PORATH
64
Maier, H. (1997), We are Playing Relatives: Riau, the Cradle of Reality and
Hybridity, Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde, 153/4: 67298.
Reid, A. (1992), Southeast Asia in the Age of Commerce, 14501680, Vol. 1: The Lands
below the Winds, New Haven: Yale University Press.
Robson, S. (1997), Thailand in an Old Javanese Source, Bijdragen tot de Taal-,
Land- en Volkenkunde, 153/3: 4315.
Satha-Anand, C. (1996), Pattani in the 1980s: Academic Literature and Political
Stories, Sojourn, 7/1: 138.
Skinner, C. (1983), A Malay Mission to Bangkok during the reign of Rama II,
JMBRAS, 56/2: 13540.
Suwannathat-Pian, K. (1984), Siam as Portrayed in the Indigenous Malay
Sources. Unpublished paper presented at the international Conference on
Thai Studies, Bangkok, 2224 August 1984.
_______ (1988), ThaiMalay Relations: Traditional Intra-Regional Relations from the
Seventeenth Century to the Early Twentieth Century, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Syukri, Ibrahim (1985), The Malay Kingdom of Patani, transl. C. Bailey and J. N.
Miksic, Chiang Mai: Silkworm Books.
Tambiah, S. J. (1976), World Conqueror and World Renouncer, Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Teeuw, A. and Wyatt, D. K. (1970), Hikayat Patani: The Story of Patani, The Hague:
Martinus Nijhoff.
Wheatley, P. (1961), The Golden Khersonese: Studies in the Historical Geography of
the Malay Peninsula before A.D. 1500, Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya
Press.
Wood, W. A. R. (1924), A History of Siam, from the Earliest Times to the Year A.D.
1781, with a Supplement Dealing with More Recent Events, Bangkok:
Chalermnit Press.
Wyatt, D. K. (1967), A Thai Version of Newbolds Hikayat Patani, JMBRAS,
40/2: 1537.
_______ (1994), Studies in Thai History: Collected Articles, Chiang Mai: Silkworm
Books.
The Hikayat Patani
65