Myths of Old Kedah

My flight this afternoon could possibly take me close over Kedah Peak, where the Bujang Valley and Choras Hill lie to its south and north respectively. These two locations have been in the spotlight recently, as they are key archaeological sites linked to Old Kedah. The current excitement stems from the discovery of an almost intact Buddha statue in an old, abandoned temple or shrine on Choras Hill.

According to Dr Nasha Rodziadi Khaw, who led the archaeological team behind this discovery, there is still much to be explored—and hopefully unearthed—at the site. The temple’s southern-facing area remains untouched, and who knows what lies hidden there? There’s speculation, perhaps even hope, that another Buddha statue awaits discovery.

About 10 days ago, I attended a 90-minute talk by Dr Nasha at the Penang Institute. It was an engaging session where he connected his findings to the broader, intriguing question: was Old Kedah once the seat of an ancient Hindu-Buddhist kingdom? His answer was a clear no. If Hinduism or Buddhism had been the dominant religion of Old Kedah, he explained, we would expect to find large temples scattered across the landscape—not shrines or kandis like the one on Choras Hill or those found in the Bujang Valley.

These kandis, he emphasised, were modest in scale and likely built by traders from India and Ceylon who passed through the region. They erected these small temples to practise their faith while in foreign lands—a matter of personal devotion and convenience, rather than state-backed religious infrastructure. There is no evidence of a widespread or centralised Buddhist presence, let alone a Buddhist kingdom, in Old Kedah.

Despite this scholarly perspective, controversy has erupted. A group recently staged a protest outside Universiti Sains Malaysia, where Dr Nasha teaches, demanding the cancellation of an upcoming international conference scheduled for next month. Sadly, it appears that this group is made up of misinformed or poorly informed individuals—worse yet, totally uninformed—fearful of archaeological narratives that don’t align with their worldview. If only they could adopt a more open-minded approach and engage with the academic findings presented by experts in the field, we might see far less friction in the country.

More recently, I came across an opinion piece written by someone named Abdul Rahmat Omar. I shall not reproduce the full article—it can be read here—but I will share the first half of the essay below. It makes for a good, informed reading:

History of ancient Kedah: nation-building should be based on facts, not racial polemics – Abdul Rahmat Omar

2,400 years ago, people believed that the universe revolved around the Earth in a geocentric orbit. This belief — that Earth was the centre of the universe — was widely accepted until around 600 years ago, when it came to be understood that the Sun is at the centre of our solar system.

With the discovery of other galaxies, we now know that none of them move around a single centre. That is the current narrative — until a new discovery may come along to challenge it.

Recently, a protest was held outside the gates of a prominent public university against the organisation of a conference said to be discussing and defining the narrative surrounding ancient Kedah. The concern was that this narrative might be shaped by those who do not prioritise the interests of a particular race or religion.

Such fears are rooted in the opinions of individuals who have never been formally trained in the disciplines of History or Archaeology. As someone who has been specifically trained in History at a well-known local public university, I would like to explain why the protest was a fruitless exercise.

Evidence matters

Can anyone write about history? Certainly. You could even write a paper on the effectiveness of nuclear fission energy if you wanted to. However, there are several factors and conditions that must be fulfilled before your work can be accepted — especially by experts in the field. This includes the standards of evidence and sources you use, and how you interpret those findings.

Your sources must be empirical or academically peer-reviewed. If your references are merely social media posts, you may as well write a romance novel. You must adhere to ethical research practices and subject your findings to rigorous scrutiny by other experts to ensure they meet strict and credible academic standards.

If your writing is based on personal opinion, then it no longer qualifies as academic work. That is propaganda — or at best, baseless rhetoric.

Free from bias

Your research must also be free from bias. This means you cannot write to support one side or dismiss another. You must remain objective. We cannot fabricate a narrative and then create fictional evidence to support it. Historiography must be free from centrism of all forms — be it ethnocentrism, anachronism, political centrism, religious centrism, or other imbalances.

In the case of the aforementioned protest, it was driven by emotions rooted in ethnocentrism and religious centrism. Among the claims made was that the Malays of ancient Kedah practised Islam and not Hindu-Buddhism, as has been widely accepted.

However, there is currently no verified discovery that supports the claim that Malays in ancient Kedah practised a form of Islam or even an early version of it. We have discovered prehistoric human remains dating back to the Palaeolithic and Neolithic eras, such as the Pulau Pinang Woman (6,000 years ago), the Perak Man (11,000 years), and the Nenggiri Woman (14,000 years). Yet, none of these findings provide any evidence of Islamic practices — if anything, they suggest a belief system rooted in animism.

This also does not mean that all Malays in ancient Kedah were influenced by Hindu-Buddhism. Nearly all temples (candi) found in the Bujang Valley were built between the 4th and 13th centuries AD. They were discovered at ancient trading sites such as Sungai Batu, Kampung Pendiat, Pengkalan Bujang, and Kampung Sungai Mas. Only the temples at Bukit Choras and Bukit Batu Pahat were located slightly further inland.

All of them are small in size compared to Angkor Wat, Borobudur, Gedingsuro, or Welan temples. This suggests that the Bujang Valley temples served as places of worship for Indian and Chinese traders, and perhaps a small number of local Malays involved in international trade. They were not built for a large population of Hindu-Buddhist worshippers. In short, only a small segment of Malays in ancient Kedah adopted Hindu-Buddhism.

This is further supported by the absence of temples inland, including in the upper reaches of the Sungai Muda — a key trading hub — or after ancient Kedah declined as a major destination post-14th century. If the local population truly practised Hindu-Buddhism, more temples would surely have been found by researchers who have studied the area since the late 19th century.

Finally, I would want to reproduce what I wrote here more than a year ago after my trip to Sri Lanka. There, my friends and I had stopped at the University of Sri Jayewardenepura. "We sat through a 45-minute presentation by Ishini Thamodya, a third-year Archaeology undergraduate of the Department of History and Archaeology. The most important lesson from her was the distinction between archaeology and history. Whereas history is written by people and often reflects their interpretations and biases, archaeology provides factual records derived from physical evidence, offering an objective glimpse into the past. Archaeology uncovers artifacts, structures and other physical remains, which allow us to reconstruct past cultures and societies without the distortion of personal opinions."

#oldkedah #kedahtua #bujangvalley #lembahbujang #chorashill #bukitchoras #kedahpeak #gunongjerai #usm #universitisainsmalaysia #nasha #nasharodziadikhaw #archaeology #buddhism #hinduism