Offprint from

VICAL 2
Western Austronesian and Contact Languages Papers from the Fifth International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics
edited by Ray Harlow Linguistic Society of New Zealand Auckland, New Zealand 1991

Achehnese dialects in connection with Chamic migrations

H . K . J . Cowan I. Introduction.
In his recent Grammar of Acehnese on the basis of a dialed of North Aceh (1985), Durie presents a phonemic analysis of the Achehnese language which differs considerably on certain points from that of earlier authors, notably Snouck Hurgronje and Djajadiningrat. Durie comments on these differences as 'idiosyncracies of ...(Snouck Hurgronje's) orthography (which) were never questioned. Two problems were his inconsistent treatment of final [p"] as b but final [ t ' j as <..., and his treatment of nasalisation as a contrast i n nasal versus oral consonants...' (Durie 1985:4; cf. also 20 and 24). But immediately afterwards on the same page, Durie admits that 'Snouck Hurgronje's field studies were restricted to the region of Banda Aceh, due to the political situation at the time..., so he based his orthography on the dialects there... I had the opportunity to research a dialect in this region at Cot Langkuweueh which corresponded closely to Snouck Hurgronje's description...' Further, the fact that 'the contrast [A]:[D] was not observed by Snouck Hurgronje' (p.17) was regarded by Durie as 'also a deficiency of the Standard of Djajadiningrat (1934) who followed Snouck Hurgronje...' (p.26), although on page 17, he had admitted that Snouck Hurgronje 'did his pioneering work with a dialect that had merged [A] into [o] ...', as had Djajadiningrat. In the conviction that, considering the qualities of both 'sides', both must be right, and that there is consequently no reason to speak of 'idiosyncrasies', 'inconsistencies' or 'deficiencies' on either side, I will discuss these controversial phenomena in greater detail i n order to explain the differences in their historical and regional - dialectal perspective. In addition, I will mention two other phonetic phenomena of importance i n this context: the diphthongization of original long *a > nis i n Achehnese in closed or originally closed stressed syllables, and the loss of the voicing contrast i n Chamic. But first we must recall the exact position of the Achehnese language within the Austronesian family. 53

Cowan

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

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

54

Achehnese dialects

tions are compatible with historical facts. The second one dates back to the first half of the 16th century A.D. and thus may be the consequence of the final fall of the kingdom of Champa . On the other hand, the first tradition may well be the consequence of a much earlier catastrophe which actually did happen in the Sung period. This was the Annamite invasion of Champa of 982 and the destruction and pillage of the capital Indrapura, the flight of King Indravarman IV to the south, and the whole aftermath of these events as recorded by the Chinese and described in detail by Maspero (1928:122 ff.). The Annamite king of Champa who succeeded Indravarman IV was, says Maspero (o.c.:125), 'dur envers un peuple qu'en sa qualit d'Annamite il mprisait profondment, sa domination pesa lourdement aux Chams qui commencrent d'migrer en grand nombre et s'en allrent chercher a 1'e'tranger la tranquit qu'ils ne trouvaient pas chez eux: en 986 nous en voyons dbarquer dans l'e de Hai-nan et demander au prfet de Tan-tcheou asile et protection...' (my italics, C ) .
1

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

2. The relevant phonetic phenomena in Hainan Cham

We will now consider the question whether the relevant phonetic phenomena of 1 supra can for Hainan Cham be related to one or more of the aforementioned historical events. For if such a correlation should appear to exist, the question would almost automatically present itself whether a similar correlation can also be established for the language of 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 *-<, which in Mainland Cham had already become a glottal stop, written -k, has been dropped altogether;
'1470 according to Benedict o.e:130, following Maspero 1928:14; but 1471 according to Maspero o.e.:237, in which the course of events is described on the basis of Chinese records and datings, and which is therefore more reliable.

55

Cowan

e.g. ba '4' ( = M l d . Cham pa?, written <pak> < P C A *pat and still pat i n the inscription of 751 Caka = 829 A D , see A y monier 1891:27); ds 'mountain' (= M l d . C h . tik i n Benedict's tianshteiation, i n Moussay's co'?; cf. A c h . cot, ct < P C A
*CAt) .
3

2. there is no evidence of a distinction bet ween nasal consonants other than the nasals proper (m, n, ri, n) vs. oral consonants. The nasals proper, however, do not show the nasalizing influence they have had i n M l d . C h . ; e.g. mi ' 5 ' (= M l d . C h . limu); ma 'father' (= M l d . C h . amu); na 'mother' (= M l d . C h . ini); na-sa 'child' (na-gai 'son', na-mai 'daughter'; n = M l d . C h . anp; the words for 'mother' and 'child' 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 unrounded central vowel, viz. the one rendered by Benedict as ; e.g. ds 'mountain' (= M l d . C h . tik i n Benedict's transcription, i n Moussay's CP).

4. there is, just as i n M l d . C h . , no diphthongization of original long *a i n closed or originally closed syllables as i n Achehnese; e.g., ba '4' (= M l d . C h . pa?, A c h . puat < P C A *pa~i cf. supra no. 1); (lon-)pian 'moon' (= M l d . C h . pildn < P C A *buldn, cf. Ach. bulu&n; the element Ion is also found i n lon-d 'star'.)

5. there is, as i n M l d . C h . , evidence of loss of voicing contrast i n , e.g. tod ' 2 ' (= M l d . C h . twa, <dwa>); to 'sit' (= M l d . C h . to?, <dauk>); p% 'all' (= M l d . C h . pih, apih, <b->); -pian 'moon' (= M l d . C h . pilan, pulan, cf. supra no. 4). Instead, a reverse development seems to be at work i n , e.g. gau 'V ( = M l d . C h . kw, <kau>, cf. A c h . fa, dial. kew < P C A *k); giu ' 3 ' (= M l d . C h . klow, cf. A c h . Ihea, dial. Ihew < P C A *tl); ba '4' (= M l d . C h . pa?, cf. supra no. 4); bu '10' (= M l d . C h . pluk); da pi 'we' (= M l d . C h . ita 'we' + (a)pih 'all'). A similar phenomenon, but apparently on a much lesser scale, is seen i n A c h . guda 'horse', cf. M a l . kuda; gampong 'village', cf. M a kampong; etc.

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

56

Achehnese dialects

Now, i f we considei these examples, we see that even these meagre data allow ceitain conclusions concerning their historical origin to be drawn. Thus ma 'father', na 'mother', and no- 'child' show that the vowels have not (yet) undergone the nasalizing influence as i n M l d . 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 Old Cham inscriptions which still show the post-nasal o. In M l d . C h . this has become so that the has become the vowel inherent i n symbols for nasals i n the Cham script. To indicate nasal + a an additional sign must be used, as is otherwise usual for combinations other than cons. + inherent o; see i n more detail 5.2 infra. That the o-vowel in the Hainan words is not a younger development from the M l d . C h . unrounded central vowel rendered by Benedict and by Moussay follows from the fact that Hainan Cham does possess this vowel, as i n ds 'mountain' = M l d . C h . tsk (Benedict's orthography, see supra nos. 1 and 3), and could have used it after nasals i f there was a reason for i t . To this early part of the Hainan Cham dialect can probably also be attributed the numerals si '7', bad '8', and perhaps td ba '9', which in M l d . C h . are tacuh (<tajuh>), talipan (<dalipan>), and thdlipan (<salipan>) for which latter Benedict gives samilan. Now these M l d . C h . forms are clearly loans from Malay tujuh '7', which represents the 'pointing' finger, i.e. the seventh, counting from left to right on both hands ( M a l . tuju means 'direction'); dlapan < dua-alapan, lit. 'two taken off' (scil. from '10'; M a l . alap = 'take away'), whereas thdlipan = 'one taken off', a synonym of samilan < M a l . smbilan ' 9 ' < sa-ambilan 'one taken away' (Mal. ambil = 'take'); cf. also A c h . sikuruang '9', lit. 'one less'. These M l d . C h . numerals appear to have replaced the original Austronesian forms pitu ' 7 ' (O.Jav. id.), walu '8' (O.Jav. wolu and wwalu), and siwa ' 9 ' (O.Jav. sanga with 'polite' form sang = si), probably for the same taboo reasons as obtained in the Malay language from which they were borrowed. For pitu is a near homophone of piatu 'orphan', walu~ balu means 'widow' (thus still i n O.Jav.), and siwa (O.Jav. sanga) resembles siya(-siya) 'in vain, useless', all words with an unfavourable connotation. It is, of course, not impossible to object that these later loans i n M l d . C h . date from after the migration which followed the final fall of

57

Cowan Champa i n 1471 A D , and that consequently this migration took with it the original forms to Hainan and changed them there only after that date. But considering the points which will be made below concerning the strong resemblance of some of the new forms with the T h a i and Kam-Sui languages, and with the Kadai, this is improbable. Hainan Cham td ba, according to Benedict (1941:131), 'is perhaps comparable with I N t'iva[?]'; here, IN means 'Indonesian', and the original Austronesian form of the numeral '9' follows DempwolfF's reconstruction. Benedict does not comment on the other two aberrant Hainan words s '7' and bad '8'. But these forms are reminiscent of those i n what Benedict a year afterwards (1942:576rF.) called the Kadai language stock 'which shows numerous points of contact with T h a i ' . Notably s '7' is very much like Northern Kelao si. For reasons of space I shall not comment on the fact that Benedict (1942:582) sees affinities between all Kadai numerals and the'Austronesian ones. I would only note that, e.g. for '8' the resemblance of the Hainan foim appears to be even stronger with the Thai and Kam-Sui languages, where this numeral is pat in the Sui dialects, paat in Mak, and peet in Thai dialects (Fang-Kuei L i 1965:176, no. 266), whereas '7' is sat, set in Sui, set and cit i n Northern and Central Thai, and sit in Mak (l.c: no. 299). Since final -t would eventually be dropped via glottal stop (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 T h a i and Kam-Sui languages, where it has now become -t. This -d cannot be the result of the inverse voicing feature mentioned under no. 5 supra. This is a very recent development, more recent even than that of -t > - ? , which had already taken place in M l d . C h . and resulted later in 0 in Hainan, so that *bat would have become *ba? long before the -t could have become -d i f this -t had been original. This confirms the very early loan-relationship involved. The Hainan numeral '9', td ba, on the other hand is comparable neither to any of the forms in the Kadai languages nor to those i n the T h a i and Kam-Sui languages, while Benedict's comparison with P A N t'iwa[p], though perhaps better than with any of the others, is not quite satisfactory. On the other hand, the dropping of the final glottal stop, particularly i n those cases where it originated from final -/, is a late development from M l d . C h . , which still has it, written <-k>, as i n 6a '4' = M l d . C h . pa? and ds 'mountain' = M l d . C h . tsk (in Benedict's

58

Achehnese dialects

transcription; see supra nos. 1 and 4). The same is the case for the loss of final -h in Mld. Ch. - which in its turn developed from original -5 - (a)pih > Hainan Ch. pi, with apparent compensatory lengthening of the vowel. Similarly, the loss of voicing can be assigned to the later phases of Mld. Ch., as in e.g. tod '2' - Mld. Ch. twd (<dwa>); to 'sit' = Mld. Ch. to? (<dauk>); tan 'stand' = Mld. Ch. tan (<d->); pi 'all' = Mld. Ch. (a)pih; pian 'moon' = Mld. Ch. pildn, puldn (<b->); etc, cf. supra nos. 4 and 5. As we have already indicated (see no. 5 supra) an inverse development appears to be active in gau T, giu '3', ba '4', biu '10', and da 'we'. These later developments of Mld. Ch. in the Hainan dialect must therefore be attributed to later migrations, probably those that followed the final fall of Champa in 1471 AD, because this time accords, as Benedict has rightly suggested and I have specified, with the second tradition of the Hainan people (cf. 1.2).

3. Historical Cham migrations to Acheh.

We have discussed the Hainan Cham dialect in some detail because, as we have already indicated, a similar procedure of correlating linguistic phenomena and historical events could be apped to Achehnese if this procedure should prove successful. Since in fact our test does appear to have been successful, we can proceed with our plans provided that it can be shown that Cham migrations to North Sumatra have really taken place. That such is the case is clear from two pieces of evidence: 1. an episode in the Malay chronicle Sejarah Melayu which can be connected with the Bostdnu 's-saldtn's account of the first king of Acheh; and 2. a geographical name, viz. Juimpa in North Acheh. 3.1 The Sejarah Melayu The Sejarah Melayu gives us a piece of information which indirectly provides us with a reliable date. According to Shellabear's edition in Arabic characters (1313 A.H. = 1895/96 A.D., pp. 188-192; cf. also his edition in Latin characters of A D 1898, pp. 94-96), the king of Kuchi attacked Champa and occupied its capital Bal. The king of Champa died, and all the sons of the king fled with their following in 59

Cowan

all directions, no one knows where to, except for two sons: Shah Indra Berma (or Brama) and Shah Po Ling. They fled by boat with many followers ('orang banyak') and their wives and children, the first to Malacca, and Po Ling to Acheh. Indra Brama was well received by sultan Mansur Shah of Malacca, was converted to Islam and became the founder of the Cham colony there. Po Ling was the first of the kings of Acheh ('ialah raja asal raja Acheh'). In a note on this episode i n the recent translation of the Sejarah Melayu by C C . Brown (1983 :236, nt 527), the name Kucht (spelt <Cochi> in John Leyden's London translation of 1821, p. 211) is eiplained as 'the word always used on the East Coast of Malayafor Indo-China', so that the Annamites must be meant. The word Bal for the capital of Champa is the modern Cham word pal (still written <bal>) which simply means 'capital' (Moussay 1971 s.v. pal 2), and refers here to Vijaya, whose fall i n 1471 meant the final collapse of the Cham kingdom .
3 8

3.1.1 M a s p e r o ' s a c c o u n t o f C h a m p a ' s fall The episode in the Sejarah Melayu can be checked by what Maspero (1928:238-41), using Chinese and Annamite sources, has to say on the events which led to the collapse of the Cham kingdom i n 1471. This account makes no mention of Po Ling, nor is there any evidence of princes having fled abroad. O n the other hand, there is no contradiction either, for Maspero states that the Chams were 'rfugis dans l a montagne ou exils sur l a terre trangre' (1928:241). The Cham king died i n both reports. Certain details of the catastrophe, such as those concerning Po Brama and Po Ling may not have interested or were unknown to the other side and so were not mentioned in the Annamite and Chinese sources. The reliability of the Sejarah Melayu concerning this episode will be seen i n 3.3 when we consider the name Po Ling. 3.2 T h e Bostanu 's-salattn.

The other Malay text we mentiond in 3, the Bostanu 's-saldtn, in a chapter on Acheh, states that the first king of 'Acheh Daru's-salam'
In this discussion, I have followed the texts in Shellabear's editions rather than Brown's translations, because of inaccuracies in this latter work.
3

60

Achehnese dialects

was Sultan 'Al Mughayat Shah, who came to power on Sunday, the first of the month Jumada '1-awwal (sic, C.) A . H . 913, and who was also the first to be converted to Islam (Niemann ed. 1907 :II, 120). He strongly promoted the faith, conquered Pidi ('Pedir'), Samudra ('Samadar') and other smal] countries. He died in 928 A . H . This text provides us with a date, that of his coming to power: 1 Jumada '1-la 913 A . H . , which agrees with the 8th of September 1507 A D according to Freeman-Grenvle (1977 :43 cal.). However, there are inconsistenties i n the dates provided by this document and the sultan's tombstone, with respect to his death and the length of his reign.
4 J

Most workers in this field regard the Bostanu 's-salatin as the most reliable Malay chronicle, which may seem unjustified. In my opinion, it is partly true, particularly where its apparently unbiased religious attitude is concerned. See below in our discussion of the Hikayat Acheh. T . Iskandar (1958) discussed the problems concerning the reign of 'Al Mughayat Shah i n connection with the Hikayat Acheh. As we have seen, the Bostanu's-salatn gives the year A . H . 913 for his coming to power, and A . H . 928 for his death, i.e. 1507 and 1522 A D respectively. But the Hikayat Acheh mentions 919 A . H . for his accession to the throne (Hik. A c h . , p. 21, in Iskandar 1958:75) and 937 A . H . for his demise (Hik. A c h . p. 29, in Iskandar 1958:79), i.e. 1513/14 and 1530/31 A D respectively. According to the inscription on his tombstone, his death occurred in A . H . 936 on Dh'l-hijjah 12, which corresponds to 7th August 1530 A D . Given the demonstrable inconsistencies in the Bostan, this chronicle may be mistaken here. Then there remains the discrepancy between tombstone and Hikayat Acheh, which is, however, small (only one Hijrah year), and in which the tombstone can be regarded as conclusive evidence. As for the dates of the Bostanu's-salatn, i n view of its religious objectivity (cf. supra), the year 1507 A D could be that of 'AlT Mughayat Shah's accession as the Hindu 'king' of Indrapuri - or of Indrapatra (Lamri) for that matter - whereas the year 1513/14 of the Hikayat Acheh, which is averse to pagan memories, could be that of his conversion and thus the beginning of his reign as a Moslem sultan. In his recapitulation of the data, H . Djajadiningrat (1911:152) comes to the following conclusion, (translated from the Dutch), 'the Portuguese reports accord with the most reliable Malay chronicle... Before 1500 Acheh was a place of no significance. In 'AlT Mughayat

61

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 succeeded by his son Salah ad-Dn'. In a footnote on that page, Djajadiningrat stated that he had not succeeded in deciding whether he was also the first who embraced Islam as the Bostanu 's-salatn has it. In this reconstruction, Djajadiningrat disregards the date of A.H. 936 on the sultan's tombstone, possibly because he did not know it, since it was published in the 'Oudheidkundig Verslag' (Archaeological Report) of 1914, p. 78, three years after Djajadiningrat's publication. My final conclusion would be - with the necessary reservations that the date of 1507 A.D. according to the Bostan can be the date of 'Al Mughayat Shah's coming to power as a Hindu king, and that 1513/14 could mark the beginning of his reign as Moslem sultan, as already indicated above. This would mean a total reign of 1530 minus 1507 = 23 years, and a Moslem reign of 1530 minus 1513/14 - 16/17 years. In formulating this conclusion, I have had in mind, apart from the Bostdn\ obvious religious objectivity, the fact that we are concerned here with the oldest history of Acheh before the accession of the famous Iskandar Muda (1607). A reinterpretation of the evidence was, therefore, not only allowed, but even indicated in view of the additional data obtained for our objective. And in the framework of my interpretation of the data the Hindu king of Indrapuri - or of Lamri and the first king of Acheh Dar as-Salam were one and the same 'king' before whom there were only merahs .
4

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

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

62

Achehnese dialects

3.3 P o L i n g . There is yet other evidence, though not concrete proof, in favour of the hypothesis that Po Ling was the founder of the small Hindu principality of Indrapuri or Indrapatra / Lamri. The word ling in this name must be the Prakrit and younger spoken form of Sanskrit liriga, the phallus symbol and 'god', which we find mentioned in Old Cham inscriptions in compounds like civalinga and liriga bhagavat (Bergaigne 1888:103). The word ling is not found in this sense in the dictionaries of Aymonier and Cabaton or Moussay. But neither is the full Skr. form linga. I find confirmation of my interpretation in the fact that Djajadiningrat (1911:148, nt. 2) states that Professor Cabaton at Paris had written him that Po Ling is 'undoubtedly = Po, lord, master + linga, phallus, symbol of Civa'. The reliability of the Sejarah Melayu on this point is shown by the very fact that its author as a Moslem Malay can hardly have invented the Hindu Prakrit word ling. A good thing too that he did not know what it means, for otherwise he might well have thought better as a Moslem to omit this episode. The liriga had great importance in C h a m p a . However, it will be clear that this object of adoration sounded horribly pagan to Moslem ears. I suggest that the pagan name was adapted to the changed conditions after conversion to Islam by changing it to Po L m , which is the hereditary title of the most powerful u l b a l a n g in Great Acheh, Teuku Panglima P Lm. T . Panglima P L m ' s position is usually regarded as characterized by this very name, lm, an abbreviation of dalm, 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'.
5

It could be objected that the word (da)lm or a related form with this meaning is not found in the Cham dictionaries. But in view of the fact that these are far from complete, the very fact that it exists in Achehnese could imply that it must have existed in the C h a m dialect imported by Po Ling. The question whose (da)lm, 'elder brother', could be meant then at the time of the change to lm cannot be answered by the traditional view of the original position of Panglima P L m with regard to the king. For 'AlT Mughayat Shah, being the first king of Acheh, both Hindu and Moslem, there was no room for
6

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

63

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 the brotherly family relationship is meant, there are other more probable possibilities: Po Ling may have been the older of the two Cham princes who escaped from the ruin of their country. Alternatively, if the Hindu prince of Indrapuri or Indrapatra/Lamri who was converted to Islam and mounted the Achehnese throne as 'AlT Mughayat Shah was a son of Po Ling and not himself (cf. supra 3-2), he may have been the older of the latter's sons; etc. These possibilities seem to me to be much simpler and therefore preferable.

4. Jeumpa
In 3, I stated that there is a second piece of evidence for Cham migrations to Acheh, viz. the geographical name Jeumpa. This 'is a place situated on the border between Samalanga and Peusangan on Acheh's North Coast. The name Jeumpa was explained by Rouffaer (n.d.:206) as representing Csmpa. Rouffaer recalled the well-known Javanese tradition, preserved with various variants i n Javanese chronicles, of the Ratu Putr Cempa, who was the Moslem consort of the king of Majapahit i n East Java where she played an important role in the advancement of Islam. She died according to her tombstone at Trawulan, Majapahit, i n 1370 Qaka (= 1448 A . D . ) . Rouffaer added that this Campa had always been regarded as being the kingdom of Champa on the Asian Mainland, wrongly according to him, for what was really meant is probably Jeumpa i n North Acheh. In a footnote on 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 chempakaflower is called (bungng) jeumpa i n Achehnese, a main point of evidence was that there has never been a Moslem king of Champa. Moreover, i n the chronicle of Banjermasin, which also mentions a variant of this tradition, Pasai is the place where the princess came from, not Csmpa. Jeumpa was at that time probably already a dependency of Samudra-Pasai, which latter had i n fact been islamic since the end of the 13th century A . D . It had been doubted that a Moslem could have given his daughter i n 64

Achehnese dialects

maiiiage to a Hindu. But the Banjeimasin chronicle adds that the father did hesitate at first, but gave i n for fear of the Hindu king's power. As I have shown in my review of R . A . Kern (1938) (Cowan 1939:5; cf. also the literature mentioned there), the Javanese and Malay chronicles often mention such marriages, so that political necessity i n such cases is quite well realized. As for the Achehnese voiced j as compared with the unvoiced c, in Jeumpa ~ Campa, cf. A c h . guda = M a l . kuda 'horse', A c h . gampong = M a l . kampong 'village', A c h . gubeue = Skr. gopal(a) 'to herd (cattle)'; e t c , see also supra 2, no. 5. The eu-vowel instead of o is due to the strong stress on the final syllable, as i n A c h . deunda 'punishment' from Skr. danda; it represents a i n the Campa of the Javanese tradition as in deunda it represense the i n Malay denda. The equation is therefore perfect: the jeitmpa-flower of Achehnese = the campa-flower of the Cham language; hence Jeumpa = Champa. The probability of coincidence, according to the Poisson chance distribution formula as adapted for comparative linguistic purposes, is only 3.6% (5 phonemes agreeing), which is significantly lower than the 5% accepted in statistics as the limit (Cowan 1962:75 ff., especially 81). It could, of course, be objected that the Jeumpa river may have been so named after the flower and not after the Champa kingdom. But even then the equation stands, and it shows that at an early date a Chamo-Achehnese dialect was spoken there i n a region which originally must have been Gayo-speaking (see infra, 6). This dialect cannot have been Achehnese imported from Great Acheh, because the first (converted) Moslem king of Acheh, 'AlT Mughayat Shah, was the one who conquered Pidi, Samudra and other small countries (see 3.2 supra), and he came to power only i n A . D . 1507 and died some 16/17 years later, much too late for the time we are concerned with. To the East, Malay was at the time apparently the native tongue of Samudra, as is confirmed by two sources: (1) the Chinese who visited Samudra in 1416 and reported that its language was the same as that of Malacca (Ying-yai Shng-lan in Groeneveldt 1876:87); and (2) the famous Old Malay inscription on a tombstone of Miny Tujoh written i n an O l d Sumatran script, and showing a curious mixture of Sanskrit, Malay, and Arabic words. It is usually dated i n 1380 A . D . (cf. Stutterheim 1936:268-281, and Marrison 1951:162-165), but i n my opinion should be dated i n 1389 A . D . , and in any case almost a century

65

Cowan

after Samudra's conversion to Islam. To the West of our region lay Nakur, i.e. the Chinese name of Pidi. Its original language is unknown, but the form Nakur does not sound Malay, nor Achehnese or Cham. It resembles Skr. nogar(a) 'town, country', which is in Achehnese nanggr, Cham nkar (<-g->), Khmer nkr (<nagar>), Mon nt'jfc ( < n i g > ) , but especially Thai nakhn (<nakor>). It has also been connected with Nagore in India. The cognacy of the Achehnese Jeumpa and the name of the ancient Asian Mainland kingdom must be ascribed to relations between the two, just as in modern times colonists in overseas countries, particularly for instance in the Americas, often took with them geographical names from the mother country to apply them to the new settlements. This leads automatically to the conclusion that there, in Jeumpa, is to be located an area where Cham colonists settled in North Sumatra. The date of this early settlement must evidently have been some time before 1448 A.D., when the Moslem princess who became Majapahit's Hindu king's consort died, though how long before we do not know. In any event, it cannot have been the result of the final fall of Champa (1471), as must have been the case for Great Acheh, where, as we have seen, the Cham prince Po Ling settled. Nor can it have been the consequence of that early great disaster of 985, also a time when the Chams 'commencrent d'migrer en grand nombre...' (cf. supra 1.2) because at that time the influence of nasals on a foliowing a had not been evident yet, witness the Hai-nan dialect (cf. 2, no. 2). However, there are yet other possibilities: the civil wars of the l l t h century (Maspero 1928:137 ff.); the wars with the Annamites of the l l t h and the 12th centuries (Maspero o.c.:140ff.);the wars with the Khmers (Maspero o.c.: ch. VII); and the wars with the Mongols of Kubilai Khan (Maspero o.c: ch. VIII). It would lead us much too far to describe even summarily all those events. We can restrict ourselves to mentioning two of them whose outcome is not quite known. The first of these is the Annamite war of 1069, when the Cham king Rudravarman III 'instruit de la dfaite, quitte Vijaya de nuit avec sa familie; et ... les habitants de la ville, perdant tout espoir ... viennent faire leur soumission ...' (Maspero o.c.:141-42). 'A son retour de captivit, Rudravarman trouva le pays dans un tat d'anarchie complet, et nous ignorons s'il parvint a ressaisir le pouvoir' (i6d.:143). This

66

Achehnese dialects

does not necessarily imply that he emigrated with great following. The second possibility concerns the wars with Cambodia of 11771203 and especially the final phase of them, when the Khmers, i n retaliation for a Cham surprise attack (Maspero o.c.:164), invaded Champa, took the capital, and made king Jaya Indravarman I V prisoner. Champa was divided into two kingdoms, Vijaya i n the North and Panrang i n the South (ibid.:165). The latter was attacked again by the Cambodians in 1203 and its king fled abroad. 'D arriv au port de Co'-la en aot 1203, suivi de toute sa familie et de nombre de ses fidles sur une flotte de plus de deux cents jonques et y demandait asile' (i&id.:167), which he did not get, and the king, Maspero concludes, 'reprit l a mer et 1'histoire ne nous dit pas ce qu'il devint, 1203' (ibid.). From that time until 1220, when the Khmers evacuated the country, Champa was a Cambodian province. Both these possibilities date from before Ibn B a t t t a h ' s visit to Samudra in 1345-46 A . D . (Defrmery and Sanguinetti 1858), when Jeumpa was probably a dependency of Samudra. O f the two, the second is the more probable for the origin of the Cham colony here, especially since the more than two hundred junks with migrants that accompanied the fleeing king of Panrang show that their numbers were large enough to form a settlement. We shall see hereafter that our conclusion also agrees with the linguistic evidence.

5. The linguistic evidence.

We shall now consider the phonetic phenomena that we have called relevant i n connection with our historical findings and see whether they can be related to these as was done for Hainan Cham in 2 supra. I shall list them now i n what I regard as the order of their importance and decisiveness for that purpose, beginning with the least and finishing with the most important, thus: 1. The diphthongization in Achehnese of the original long *a i n closed or originally closed stressed syllables; 2. The contrast of nasal consonants (other than the nasals proper TO, n, ri, n) vs. oral ones i n Achehnese; 3. The distinction of three vs. two unrounded central vowels i n North and in Great Acheh respectively; 67

Cowan

4. The loss of voicing contrast i n Cham; and 5. The final -b i n the Great Acheh dialects of Snouck Hurgronje and others vs. final -p ' i n Durie's North Acheh dialect.

5.1 D i p h t h o n g i z a t i o n o f * i n c l o s e d o r o r i g i n a l l y c l o s e d s y l lables i n A c h e h e n e s e . In Achehnese, original long *a i n closed or originally closed syllables carrying stress has become uo (except, as we shall see i n 5.2., after nasals); e.g., bulvaan 'moon, month' < P C A *buldn, cf. Cham (pi)lan, Jarai Won; uiman 'forest' < P C A *fttitn, cf. Cham hatan; etc. but pinmri 'areca' < P C A *ptnri, cf. Cham pantin; onon 'child' < P C A *anaP cf. Cham anp, Raglai anoo; etc. This development is not found either i n Mainland or i n Hainan Cham. Now it is a remarkable fact that diphthongization of long *a is also found i n Khmer, e.g., khweal 'to herd (cattle)' < Skr. gopdl(a), cf. A c h . gubm (<-al>); K h m . ceat 'become' < Skr. jat(a), cf. A c h . juut; K h m . peoife 'read' < Skr. wdc(a) 'word, speech', cf. A c h . buat (<-c> or <-j>); etc. If it is not an independent spontaneous development of its own i n Achehnese, this could be taken as an indication of Khmer influence. In fact, we have seen (supra 4) that the Chams waged wars with the Khmers, and that Champa was even a Cambodian province from 1203-1220. Also many of them sought refuge i n Cambodia during the Annamite wars of the l l t h - 1 2 t h centuries A . D . (3.1). Even i n modern times, a Cham group was living i n Cambodia. Yet this cannot be the explanation of the Achehnese phenomenon since, as we have already said, it does not occur i n the Cham language, not even i n the dialect of the Cambodian group. Also the Achehnese diphthong ua is not the same as the Khmer ea. It must have been a comparatively late development because it was still actively at work when Islam was introduced, Arabic words having followed the change also (cf. Cowan 1974:193f. and 208f.; and 1983:159 and 161). This could mean that it was an independent spontaneous development i n Achehnese itself. However, there is another, much more probable explanation which occurred to me on reading a passage i n Gorgoniyev's The Khmer Language (1966:25). After having stated that 'the diphthongs ea, e:a, o:a are known to have developed from the old o', Gorgoniyev adds: 'The diphthong m:a is generally found only i n words

68

Achehnese dialects

w h i c h are T h a i b y o r i g i n ' , a v e r y significant statement w h i c h provides us w i t h a v e r y plausible e x p l a n a t i o n . F o r between A n n a m a n d C a m b o d i a o n the one h a n d a n d N o r t h S u m a t r a o n the other lies the M a l a y P e n i n s u l a , w h i c h T h a i l a n d n o w occupies as far d o w n as K e d a h o n the W e s t a n d K o t a B a r u ( K e l a n t a n ) o n the E a s t coast. A c c o r d i n g to H i l l (1960:7; cf. also the l i t e r a t u r e m e n t i o n e d there) i t s ' s o u t h w a r d e x p a n sion ...through the M a l a y P e n i n s u l a ... began a b o u t A . D . 1280', w h i c h was one o f 'the events w h i c h l e d to the collapse o f S r i v i j a y a ' . H o w ever, b y the t u r n o f the 13th c e n t u r y at the latest the T h a i e x p a n s i o n h a d a l r e a d y reached a p o i n t sufficintly s o u t h w a r d o n the p e n i n s u l a opposite the N o r t h - E a s t coast o f A c h e h - w h i c h therefore c a n n o t have been far from the present K e d a h border - to enable the T h a i s to i n v a d e Pas a i a n d c a r r y off her k i n g M a l i k a d - D a h i r as a prisoner. Since this M a l i k a d - D a h i r must be the M u h a m m a d M a h k a d - D a h i r , son o f M a l i k a s - S a l i h (the first M o s l e m k i n g o f S a m u d r a - P a s a i ) , o f the t o m b s t o n e i n P a s a i w h i c h mentions his complete name a n d the year o f his d e a t h (1326 A . D . ) ; a n d since a c c o r d i n g to the more reliable Sejarah Melayu, he suffered a v e r y l o n g exile before b e i n g able to r e t u r n home a n d res u m power, the t i m e o f the Siamese i n v a s i o n m u s t be placed t o w a r d s the b e g i n n i n g o f the 14th century. T h e Hikayat Raja? Pasai, w h i c h also m e n t i o n s the Siamese i n v a s i o n , is for obvious reasons p a r t i a l a n d describes the conflict as a complete rout for the enemy whose c o m m a n d e r was k i l l e d , a n d the k i n g ' s absence as a pleasure t r i p ; see i n d e t a i l C o w a n (1938:206f. a n d 1973:256ff.) T h e more t h a n t w o h u n d r e d j u n k s o f the fleeing k i n g o f P a n r a n g c o u l d perhaps have reached N o r t h S u m a t r a b y r o u n d i n g the s o u t h e r n most p o i n t o f the M a l a y p e n i n s u l a , b u t w h y s h o u l d they; i t is more probable t h a t he l a n d e d m u c h nearer i n the P e n i n s u l a , i n a p a r t a l r e a d y or soon afterwards o c c u p i e d b y T h a i l a n d , to stay there for some l e n g t h o f t i m e , a n d p u r s u e d his trek m u c h later across the S t r a i t s to N o r t h A c h e h . A s for P o L i n g ' s m i g r a t i o n to G r e a t A c h e h , as we have seen ( 3 . 1 ) , his b r o t h e r I n d r a B r a m a is a c t u a l l y r e p o r t e d to have gone to M a l a c c a , where he s t a y e d . It is v e r y plausible t h a t , since b o t h fled at the same t i m e a n d a p p a r e n t l y together, the l a t t e r went o n to M a l a c c a w h i l e the former p u r s u e d his j o u r n e y after some t i m e to A c h e h . T h e t i m e between 1203 w h e n the j u n k s from P a n r a n g were refused a s y l u m i n C o ' - l a - the present p o r t o f C o ' - a n h - n h n g ( M a s p e r o 1928:167, nt. 1) - a n d the early decades o f the 14th century before I b n B a t t t a h ' s visit to S a m u d r a w h e n the J e u m p a c o l o n y m u s t have been f o r m e d

69

Cowan

(cf. supra 4) is amply sufficint for the language to have acquired peculiarities from Thai. I have shown elsewhere (Cowan 1983:182, 184; cf. also 155) a certain correspondence between the diphthong in Achehnese and i n T h a i or dialects and languages of the T h a i group. Thus, e.g., using Paul K . Benedict's and Fang-Kuei Li's material (Benedict 1942, 1966 and 1967; Fang-Kuei L i 1965): Sek (a Northern T h a i type of the Thakhek region in Laos) has pblian 'moon', and reconstructed Proto-Thai (Benedict 1966:241) gives *?blan with the diphthong a, which is practically homophonic with the Achehnese diphthong H in the evidently related Achehnese word bulvasn same meaning (< *bulan, cf. C h a m pilan, written with <b->, Jarai blan). Similarly Proto-Thai Hhan 'forest' (Benedict l.c.) corresponds to A c h . utwsn same meaning (<
P C A *hutan, cf. Cham hatan); and Laqua kn (but N . L i khan) 'to

eat' (Benedict 1942:586) is comparable to A c h . makuan ' i d . ' (of distinguished persons), jakuan 'ruminate, chew the cud', cf. also Malay makan 'eat'. These examples already suggest that the diphthong, both in Achehnese and in Thai, derives from an original long *a. This is confirmed by a word like Stand. T h a i khwaay, other dialects kwaay 'water buffalo' (Benedict 1967:213; cf. also Jones 1965:208, 212), i f compared with A c h . kuibxiB same meaning, which derives from P C A *kabaw, cf. Cham kapaw (<-b->), in which the long a persisted i n Thai instead of diphthongizing, probably for combinatory reasons. In order to avoid misunderstanding I note that in Standard Achehnese orthography the diphthong ue is written <eue>.

5.2 Distinction of oral vs. nasals proper.

nasal consonants other than the

The problem of the contrast of oral vs. nasal consonants other than the nasals proper m, n, ri, n concerns the analysis of the combination of such nasals plus following nasal vowel. Snouck Hurgronje, among others, has treated those nasal consonants as independent variants of their oral counterparts; and I have described them as 'phonetically nasalized variants of the corresponding oral ones, but phonologically distinct phonemes' (Cowan 1981:526). The vowel which follows such a nasal consonant is, in my view, nasalized secondarily by the preceding nasal consonant in the same way as those following the nasals

70

Achehnese dialects

'proper'. Its nasality is therefore no more than a combinatory phenomenon and not phonemic. Durie, however, regards these vowels as nasal phonemes and the preceding consonant as a non-distinctive variant (Durie 1985:16, 23-24). I consider these differences i n analysis to be directly relatable to differences of approach. Durie's approach is strictly synchronie, whereas I agree with a statement made by Andr Martinet (1954:125) to the effect that 'the unity of linguistics is to be found i n the over coming of the Saussurian antinomy between diachrony and synchrony'. For the nasals i n Achehnese have a strong modifying influence on the following vowel. Thus i n P A N *yumah 'house' the m modifies the following o to A c h . 5: rumh; and P A N *buria 'flower' even becomes bvnon; P A N Hama > A c h . tamSri. Similarly, P A N *nawa 'soul' > A c h . na Wan; and i n loans, e.g., Persian-Arabic mawar 'rose' > A c h . maW5\ Arab. mait 'corpse' > A c h . manyt; Dutch majoor 'major' > Ach. manyo; e t c , i n which the initial nasal m nasalized via the first a the w to nasal W and this i n turn nasalized the second a to 5, and again, nasalized via the a the y to ny (n) and this ae following vowel to and 5 respectively (y as such has no nasal counterpart, its function being filled by n, i.e. ny). From an historical point of view, these examples prove beyond doubt that the nasality of the vowel is secondary, dependent on the preceding consonant and positionally conditioned by that consonant; in other words, these vowels are combinatory variants of the oral vowels and not phonemes. There is no reason for a different interpretation for oppositions like Pib (i.e. pislb) 'suck'; pib 'hom for bullets'; Sub ' l u n g ' : sub 'eat with hands'. It must be noted, however, that this contrast has a clear tendency to disappear, in some cases both nasal and oral consonant being allo wed. In so-called 'register' languages like M o n and Khmer of the SouthEast Asian Continent, whose scripts derive from Devanagar, the ancient signs for voiced stops have lost their distinctive voicing and are used to indicate the corresponding voiceless stops but with a concomitant 'register' (pitch) feature. It is remarkable that these voiceless stops with this concomitant feature have the same modifying influence on the following vowel as the nasals proper. This parallelism extends even to the writing system, where the inherent vowel of the signs i n question is no longer a, as it is in scripts of Indian origin and still is i n the ancient M o n and Khmer signs for voiceless stops, but a vowel: M o n and Khmer 3 with pitch feature, so that the signs for original *ma, *na, *iia, and *na as well as those for *ba, *da, *ga, etc. represent

71

Cowan

m and ma, n and no etc. respectively, and p and p, i and to etc. respectively. T o render consonant plus o-vowel a specific additional sign is necessary. In Cham too, the nasals have influenced the following vowel so that even the inherent o became (Moussay's u') as, e.g. i n tanh 'land, earth', cf. A c h . tanoh < P C A Hanah; tam 'enter', cf. A c h . tamon < P C A *iama\ etc. In Cham, just as i n M o n and Khmer, the ancient voiced stop signs of the Indian-derived Cham writing are used to i n dicate voiceless stops with a component of pitch. Therefore, although there are certain discrepancies, it may well be that the Achehnese contrast of nasalized versus oral consonants is i n its origin to be related to the contrast of 'voice register' i n those South-East Asian Mainland languages; see i n detail Cowan (1983:165f.); and cf. also infra 5.4 concerning 'loss of voicing contrast i n Cham'. Of immediate interest for our historical problem is the fact itself of the nasal influence on an original a i n Cham as i n Achehnese. We have already mentioned A c h . tanoh, Cham tanh and A c h . tamon, Cham tam, and we can add A c h . inon = Cham in 'woman', and Ach. umori Cham ham 'rice field, etc. These examples contain an originally short vowel i n the final syllable. The situation is different for those words which contain an originally long a, i n that position. Whereas i n Cham, the vowel remains the same except for the length feature, i n Achehnese the original long a, which i n closed or originally closed syllables carrying stress would otherwise become diphthongized to UB (cf. 5.1 supra), is prevented from diphthongizing by the preceding nasal consonant and becomes simple nasalized r ; e.g. P C A
*ana? 'child' > Cham an:P, A c h . aniP; P C A *minya? ' o i l ' > C h a m

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

72

Achehnese dialects

5.3 T h e d i s t i n c t i o n o f t h r e e u n r o u n d e d c e n t r a l vowels i n N o r t h A c h e h vs. two i n Great A c h e h . According to Durie (1985:16), there are i n his dialect of North Acheh three unrounded vowels which he describes as 'unrounded back vowels .. all somewhat central auditorily', and which I shall style 'unrounded central vowels'. These are ar, 9 and A i n Durie's notation. But the Great Acheh dialects studied by Snouck Hurgronje, among others, (including myself) have only two such vowels, i n my notation ar (in Standard orthography <eu>) and a (Cowan 1981:525). The reason for this is 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 the distinction of A and 0 a 'diachronically important contrast', rightly so, as is shown by a comparison with Cham. According to the Grammaire de la langue Tjame of t. Aymonier (1889:25f., 28f.), there was an original distinction of three such unrounded vowels, designated by the author with d, os and . In the dialect of Binh Thuan (Annam), the first two were confused with each other, while in the Cambodia dialect d was confused with a. was distinctive only i n Binh Thuan, being 'gnralement confondue avec os mme dans l a prononciation' i n Cambodia (Aymonier 1889:26). The reduction of the three unrounded central vowels to two was therefore already practically a fact at that time. In Moussay's dictionary (1971:XII), they have merged into u' ('aperture l degr') and o' ('aperture 2 ' degr'), which I have written and respectively in order to prevent confusion with the glottal stop. Although the Cham migrations into Acheh are of much earlier date than Aymonier's observations, the process of reduction must have taken some time. In any case, it is a fact that even the present day dialects of North Acheh still distinguish three unrounded central vowels as against the two of Great Acheh, cf. the place name Ct Tring (with = Standard orthography for A ) in North Acheh, where Durie studied his dialect, over against Cot Langkuweueh (with o = orthography for D) i n Great Acheh, whose dialect closely conforms to that of Snouck Hurgronje (Durie 1985:5; cot ~ ct means 'hill; steep' and is in Cham CP, written with <-k>, 'montagne'). The fact that the original situation of distinction between three unrounded central vowels is found in North Acheh, and the reduction to two in Great Acheh, can only mean that the Cham colony of Jeumpa in North Acheh was older than the colony of Great Acheh, i n accordance with our historical expos.
e r

73

Cowan

5.4 T h e loss o f v o i c i n g contrast i n C h a m . In 5.2 we have already touched on the question of the loss of the voicing contrast in Cham - as in Mon and Khmer - in connection with the distinction in Achehnese between oral and nasal consonants other than the nasals proper. According to Lee (1974:659; cf. also Blood 1962:12, and Cowan 1983:166), it must have been this loss of the voicing contrast that in Cham, as in Mon and Khmer, led to the development of 'voice register' which in Cham is represented by pitch and in certain environments manifested as fortisness. Equally, in $5.2, we have tentatively considered the possibility of a certain original relationship between this contrast of voice register and the Achehnese contrast of nasal vs. oral consonants. However, Achehnese has not lost the voicing contrast nor is it disappearing, and it has not developed 'register', whatever the explanation of the Achehnese phenomenon may be. This means that the process of devoicing had not begun yet, or at least was not decisively completed, when the migrant Chams settled in North Sumatra. The language of the Old Cham inscriptions which also use both voiced and unvoiced stop signs, must have had a voicing contrast, at least at first. For obvious reasons we do not learn from them whether, and if so when, the voiced quality of the voiced stop signs was lost and was replaced by 'register'. In Hainan Cham, the voicing contrast was already lost (cf. 2 supra). Now, since this fact must be due to the later group of Hainan immigrants (cf. ibid.), the explanation must be that this Hainan group left the South-East Asian Mainland later than P Ling and his foliowers, who fled immediately at 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 on that decisive end of the Chams as a nation, who were ' d s o r m a i s ... a la merci des Annamites ... Rfugis dans la montagne ou e x i l s sur la terre t r a n g r e - au Cambodge (my italics, C.) - Us n'auront plus comme dernier hen que ce nom de 'Chams' ...' (Maspero 1928:241, already partly quoted in 3.1.1. supra). In Cambodia they must have lost the voicing contrast and adopted the Khmer 'register' to replace it, whereas P Ling and his people had gone early enough to take the voicing feature with them to Great Acheh still intact, or perhaps rather in the early undecisive and not completed phase of its reduction. A t this point, the process may have been stopped in time and the

74

Achehnese dialects

contiast saved through the influence and piestige of Moslem Jeumpa. For Jeumpa was, as we have seen (4 and 5.1) colonized some 150 years at least before the final catastrophe of the Cham kingdom so that her colonists had taken the distinction of voice quite intact with them. Although much has changed in the course of time, this could perhaps partly still explain the prestige which Durie (1985:7) ascribes to the dialects of North Acheh. It could perhaps also explain the phonetic form of the name Acheh with e. This presupposes original nasal , and hence nasal C, because otherwise e < i would be expected. Confirmation of this could be seen in early Portuguese (e.g. Duarte Barbosa's Livro of 1516) Achem, i.e. Ach, and early English Achin (Cowan 1974:205). The spelling Achem also occurs on the Portuguese map of ca. 1513 A D partly reproduced by Hill (1960:23) and even on the map published by Langren in 1623 (Hill 1960:172). The spelling -em is usual Portuguese orthography for nasalized . In this connection it is interesting to note that Ibn Batttah's account of his visit to Samudra according to the French translation of Defrmery and Sanguinetti (1858:228) reads '... nous arrivames a 1'fle de Djaouah (Sumatra) but that after the words 'the island of Jawah' the Arabic text adds something that does not appear in the translation . Transliterated, it reads bi 'l-jm, bi 'l-jm or bi'l-jaim, with the preposition bi + the article ai as usual. But what is this jim or jm or jaim? The word strongly resembles the bain-azim at Sumatra's North-West point on Canerio's map of 1502 which Rouffaer (n.d.:207a) tentatively interpreted as meaning bahr Acheh 'Acheh-sea' if compared with the baurazyar on Cantino's map, also of 1502. In Ibn Batttah's text the - 'l- could be the Arab writer's addition as if it were the article, while the / , like the z in azim on Canerio's map could be the original voiced consonant which would have been devoiced to c under the influence of the beginning process of loss of voicing. This form then stuck when the process was stopped, but retained traces of it in the nasalized quality of the consonant in accordance with our suggestion of a certain relation between the contrast of 'register' in South-East Asian languages and the Achehnese contrast of nasalized versus oral consonants (5.2). The nasal quality was eventually lost because, as we have already said (5.2), the entire contrast has a tendency to disappear (see also Cowan 1974:205). This would then be the very first mention of the name Acheh, viz. the year 1345/46. And the sentence in Ibn Batttah's text would mean: 'we arrived at the island

75

Cowan

of Jawa i n (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' by his followers, is directed, among other things, against 'his inconsistent treatment of final [p " ] as b but final [t' ] as V (Durie 1985:4; cf. also p. 20). But apart from the fact that the manuscripts in Arabic characters themselves used to write final -b and not -p beside -t, comparison with present day Cham shows that there is no idiosyncrasy and no inconsistency. In Cham, said Aymonier, whose treatment was based on the written forms, 'a la fin des mots, les consonnes k et p ne se prononcent presque pas et donnent au mot un arrt un peu brusque de l a voix' (Aymonier 1889:32). Moussay's dictionary, which shows both written and spoken forms, then makes clear what the exact value of written final -p now is. Since the Cham script is of ancient origin, and the written forms reflect an older stage of the language, the spoken forms indicate younger phonetic developments. Moussay (1971:xviii) emphasizes this, particularly for final -p, saying that 'dans Pcriture les consonnes postvocaliques ... et ... (P) expriment un parler ancien, que 1'on peut encore rencontrer chez les Curu ou les Jarai. Dans le parler actuel ces lettres ne sont plus prononces comme autrefois et sont remplaces par une occlusion glottale, qui est not (sic) dans la transcription par une apostrophe comme les occlusions glottales que Pcriture exprime par un ' K V However, the relevant lemmata i n the dictionary show that this description is not quite complete. Thus, written < g p > is spoken kw? 'parent, parent; autrui' (see the dictionary under the spoken form), cf. Durie's gop (Durie 1985:21). Similarly krw? ( < g r p > ) 'tous, tout'; raw? (<rap>) and harawP (<harap>) 'aspirer' (cf. A c h .
harab, M a l . harap); tawP (<tap>) 'coller'; Uw?, hatiw? ( < h a d i p ,

h u d i p > ; the last form only in Aymonier 1889) 'vivre' (cf. A c h . 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 of final -w?. Apart from the glottalization of the w, which is a reminder of the -p (cf. the quotation from Moussay supra) and also occurs in Durie's p ', w and b are closely related phones which interchange regularly i n Austronesian languages. There can be no doubt that the 76

Achehnese dialects

final -6 i n the Achehnese dialects of Gieat Acheh - and hence i n the Achehnese manuscripts - conesponds to the final -w i n modern Cham. This means that the Great Acheh dialects represent a younger Cham dialect than those of North Acheh with preserved final -p *. This again accords with our conclusion that the Cham colony of Jeumpa was of considerably older date than that of Great Acheh.

6. Recapitulation and conclusion.

In the foregoing paragraphs I have dealt only with Cham influences in North Sumatra, for that was my aim. Except for some allusions, where it seemed necessary in a given context, I have intentionally omitted mentioning other, particularly Indian, influences, both Hindu - which, for instance, gave rise to kingdoms like Majapahit i n Java and Crvijaya in Sumatra and pre-islamic Samudra - and Islamic - which brought about the conversion of Perlak and Samudra-Pasai, among others, i n North Sumatra. For those I refer the reader to the existing works on these subjects. As for the Chams, we have found that there have been two main colonies of Cham-speaking groups in what is now Acheh, one i n North Acheh, particularly Jeumpa, which dates from the early decades of the 14th century, and one in Great Acheh which dates from after the final fall of the Cham kingdom in 1471 and was therefore considerably younger than the other. These two groups imported the language which has become what is now Achehnese. What language or languages was or were spoken i n the area before that time can only be inferred from tradition. It seems to have been a Gayo-related dialect or dialects, considering that the Gayos now live i n the interior. Besides, Durie (1985:2) mentions oral traditions from Bireuen according to which the Gayos once lived on the coast. A similar observation had already been made by Snouck Hurgronje (1903:75-76) for the region of Samudra-Pasai. In the South-West, where even now Minangkabau is spoken beside Achehnese, it may have been a Minangkabau-like Malay dialect. I do not believe that before the coming and spread of Achehnese, preAustronesian languages like Nicobar were spoken i n Acheh, as Collins thinks (1975, an unpublished P h . D . dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, which was not available to me nor obtainable i n the 77

Cowan

libraiies here, and therefore is cited here following Durie 1985:3; cf. also p. 274). This pre-Austronesian language or languages must have been superseded at least for the greater part by Austronesian already long before that time. M y conclusion that the Chamic colony in Jeumpa came earlier and its language represents an older dialect than that of Great Acheh is contrary to what Durie (1985:3-4) says about 'the evidence of present day dialects (which) suggests that Greater Acheh and Daya on the west coast form the oldest Achehnese speaking area, for these are where the greatest dialect variation is to be found'. The hypothesis that maximal linguistic diversity i n a particular area is prima facie evidence that (related) languages diverged there and spread outward from that area was posed by Dyen, among others such as Davenport and Goodenough, i n the Comments on Capell's 'Oceanic Linguistics to-day' (Dyen 1962a:402fT., especially p. 405; cf. also Dyen 1962b:39), where he tried to prove on similar grounds that Melanesia was the area where the Austronesian languages originated from, not the Asian Mainland. However, as I have shown in detail (Cowan 1965:217 ff.) the theory is untenable. In the first place, Dyen appeared to be unaware of the fact that H . Kern has already as early as 1889 seriously considered the possibility of an Oceanic origin of Austronesian ( H . Kern 1917). 'He rejected the possibility solely on factual evidence ... his data, which were mainly lexical, included 112 languages, from the I N , P N , and ' M N ' groups. Kern's word-list included 35 to 40 items, mostly plant and animal names ...' (Cowan 1965:217). In the second place, I recalled that 'for instance, maximal diversity within the Indo-European family is found i n the Central Balkans, where Albanian, Greek, Slavic, and Italic (Rumanian) are concentrated i n a relatively small area. But we know from historical sources that this situation is due to comparatively recent mutations and migrations and has little or nothing to do with the original splitting up of Indo-European' (Cowan 1965:218). I am, therefore, of the opinion that my conclusion concerning the priorities of the Cham dialects of Jeumpa and Great Acheh stands, and see confirmation of this view i n what Durie adds to his statement quoted above: 'The dialects of Daya are particularly idiosyncratic as they are isolated from Greater Acheh by a narrow and rocky stretch of coastland. Dialects i n both regions differ even between neighbour-

78

Achehnese dialects

ing villages; over greater distances the differences can be so much as to make communication dimcult. It is certainly the case that the distance of a few kilometres i n Greater Acheh can involve a dialect contrast greater than that which would be achieved by travelling two hundred kilometres in North Acheh' (Durie 1985:3-4). This seems to reveal the real reason of the diversity: historical causes as i n the case of the Balkans, perhaps dating partly from the second world war and the shifting of population groups caused by it under the Japanese occupation, and partly even already from ancient times when the dialect of the colony of P Ling slowly spread to outlying and isolated places where it then began to lead its own life. Abbreviations Ach. Ar. Hik. A c h . IN JMBRAS KHM. Mal. MK Mld. Ch. MN M o d . Cham N. O.Jav. PAN PCA PN Skr. Stand. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Achehnese Arabic Hikayat Acheh Indonesian Journal of the Malayan Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society Khmer Malay Mon-Khmer Mainland C h a m Melanesian Modern Cham North(ern) Old Javanese Proto-Austronesian Proto-Chamo-Achehic Polynesian Sanskrit Standard

References
Aymonier, E . 1889. Grammaire de la langue Tjame (Extrait des ' E x cursions et Reconnaissances, no. 31, 1889.) Saigon: Imprimerie 79

Cowan

Coloniale. 1891. 'Premire Etude sur les Inscriptions Tchames', Journal Asiatique, 8me srie, tome X V I I . and A . Cabaton 1906. Dictionnaire Cham-Franqais. Imprimerie Nationale. Paris:

Benedict, P . K . 1941. ' A Cham colony on the Island of Hainan', Harvard Journal of Astatic studies, 6:129-134. 1942. 'Thai, Kadai, and Indonesian: a new Alignment in Southeastern Asia', American Anthropologist, New Series 44:576601. 1966. 'Austro-Thai', Behavior Science Notes, 1:227-261. 1967. 'Austro-Thai Studies', Behavior Science Notes, 2:203244. Bergaigne, A . 1888. 'L'ancien Royaume de Campa, dans 1'Indo-Chine, d'aprs les inscriptions', Journal Asiatique 8me srie, t. XL5-105. Blood, D . W . 1962. 'Refleies of Proto-Malayo-Polynesian i n Cham', Anthropological Linguistics, 4, no. 9:11-20. Bostanu's-salatn: see Niemann, G . K . ed. (1907 ).
4

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 a Lumpur: Oxford University Press. Collins, I.V. 1975. The Austro-Asiatic substratum in Achehnese. U n published P h . D . dissertation, University of California, Berkeley. Cowan, H . K . J . 1938. 'Bijdrage tot de kennis der Geschiedenis van het Rijk Samudra-Pas (n.a.v. vier nog niet beschreven gouden munten)', Tijdschrift voor Indische Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde, 78:204-214. 1939. Review of R . A . Kern, 'De Verbreiding van den Islam' (8th chapter of Geschiedenis van Nederlandsch-Ind under the direction of D r F . W . Stapel, Amsterdam 1938), Djdwd (the Journal of the Java Institute of the time), no. 2, vol. 19:1-6. 1948. 'Aanteekeningen betreffende de Verhouding van het Atjhsch tot de Mon-Khmer talen', Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Landen Volkenkunde van Nederlandsch-Indi, 104:429-514.

80

Achehnese dialects

1962. 'Statistica] Deteimination of linguistic Relationship', Studia Linguistica, 16:57-96. 1965. ' O n Melanesian and the Origin of Austronesian', Current Anthropology, 6:217-220. 1973. ' L a Lgende de Samudra. T e i t e malais, avec Introduction, Commentaire et Traduction abrge', Archipel, 5:253-286. 1974. 'Evidence of long vowels in Early Achehnese', Oceanic Linguistics, 13:187-212. 1981. ' A n outline of Achehnese phonology and morphology', Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 44:522-549. 1983. 'The Achehnese diphthong u e and its possible implications for Proto-Austronesian', Acta Orientalia, 44:153-185. Defrmery, C . and B . R . Sanguinetti. 1858. ed. and transl.: Voyages d'Ibn Batoutah. Collection d'Ouvrages Orientaux, publie par l a Socit Asiatique, t. 4. Paris: Imprimerie Impriale. Djajadiningrat, H . 1911. Recapitulation of data concerning Shah. Djajadiningrat, R . A . Hoesein. 1934. Atjhsch-Nederlandsch boek. The Hague: M . Nijhoff. 'AlMughayat Woorden-

Durie, M . 1985. A Grammar of Acehnese on the basis of a dialect of North Aceh. Verhandelingen van het Koninklijk Instituut voor Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde, vol. 112. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. Dyen, I. 1962a. Comment on A . CapeU's 'Oceanic Linguistics to-day', Current Anthropology, 3:402-405. 1962b. 'Lexicostatistical classification of the Malayo-Polynesian Languages', Language, 38:38-46. Fang-Kuei L i . 1965. 'The Tai and the Kam-Sui Languages', 14:148-179. Lingua,

Freeman-Grenville, G.S.P. 1977. The Muslim and Christian Calendars, being tables for the conversion of Muslim and Christian dates from the Hijra to the year A . D . 2000, 2nd ed. London: Rex Collings L t d . Gorgoniyev, Y . A . 1966. The Khmer Language. Moscow: Nauka pub-

81

Cowan

lis hing. Groeneveldt, W . P . 1876. 'Notes on the Malay Archipelago and Malacca compiled from Chinese sources', Verhandelingen van het Koninklijk Bataviaasch Genootschap van Kunsten en Wetenschappen, 29, 1. Also published i n Miscellaneous papers relating to IndoChina and the Indian Archipelago, reprinted for the Straits Branch, Royal Asiatic Society, 2nd ser., vol. I, 1887. Hill, A . H . 1960. 'Hikayat Raja-raja Pasai, a revised romanised version with an English translation, an introduction and notes', Journal of the Malayan Branch, Royal Asiatic Society, 33, pt. 2:5-215. Iskandar, T . 1958. 'De Hikajat Atjh', Verhandelingen van het Koninklijk Instituut voor Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde, 26. The Hague: M . Nijhoff. Jones, R . B . 1965. 14:194-229. ' O n the Reconstruction of Proto-Thai', Lingua, bepaling van het Stamland his Verspreide Geschriften, en Mededelingen der Koninafd. Letterkunde, 3e reeks,

Kern, H . 1917. 'Taalkundige gegevens ter der Maleisch-Polynesische Volken', in 6:105-120 (first published in Verslagen klijke Akademie van Wetenschappen, vol. 6, Amsterdam 1889).

Lee, E . W . 1974. 'Southeast Asian areal features i n Austronesian Strata of 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 Malay poem i n O l 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: E d i tions G . van Oest. Moussay, G . 1971. Dictionnaire rang: Centre Culturel Cam. Niemann, G . K . 1907. Bloemlezing uit Maleische Geschriften, 4th ed.:120-140. The Hague: M . Nijhoff. 82 vol. 2, Cam-Vietnamien-Franqais. Phan-

Achehnese dialects

Rouffaer, G . P . (n.d.). 'Sumatra, Geschiedenis, I. Oudste Periode, tot op de komst der Hollanders (1596)', Encyclopedie van Nederlandsch-Indi, lst ed. (undated):199-210. Shellabear, W . G . 1895/96. (ed.) Sejarah Melayu. Singapore: American Mission Press (ed. i n Arabic characters). 1898. (ed.) Sejarah Melayu or the Malay Annals. Singapore: American Mission Press (ed. i n Latin 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. E . J . Brill, Leiden:

1906. The Achehnese, translated from the Dutch by A . W . S . O'Sullivan, 2 vols. Leiden: E . J . Brill. Stbel, H . 1937. Die Li-Stdmme der Insel Hainan. Ein Beitrag zur Volkskunde Sd-Chinas, unter Mitwirkung von P. Meriggi. Berlin: W . de Gruyter. Stutterheim, W . F . 1936. ' A Malay sha'ir in O l d Sumatran characters of 1380 A . D . ' , Acta Orientalia, 14:268-279.

83