Oleh Prof. Dr. Solehah Yaacob
ALAM MELAYU, SATU PEMERINTAHAN | SEBELUM ISTILAH "AUSTRONESIA"?
Apabila kita mempelajari sejarah, kita sering melihat Alam Melayu sebagai himpunan kerajaan yang berasingan.
Tetapi persoalannya...
Adakah pembahagian yang kita kenali hari ini memang difahami sedemikian oleh masyarakat pada zaman tersebut, atau ia merupakan istilah yang dibentuk kemudian dalam kajian akademik?
Inilah persoalan yang dibahaskan oleh Prof. Dr. Solehah dalam perkongsian kali ini.
Beliau mengajak kita meneliti bagaimana istilah boleh mempengaruhi cara kita memahami sejarah. Menurut perbahasan yang dikongsikan, istilah seperti "Austronesia" dan penggunaan nama "Srivijaya" dalam kerangka sejarah moden dibincangkan sebagai sebahagian daripada proses pengelasan dan penamaan yang berkembang dalam kajian akademik.
Prof. Dr. Solehah turut membawakan satu sudut pandang bahawa sebelum lahirnya istilah-istilah tersebut, rantau ini boleh difahami sebagai Alam Melayu yang mempunyai jaringan pemerintahan maritim, hubungan perdagangan dan raja-raja Melayu yang saling berkait.
Antara persoalan yang dibahaskan:
• Bilakah istilah "Austronesia" mula diperkenalkan dalam kajian akademik?
• Bagaimanakah sesuatu istilah boleh mempengaruhi kefahaman kita terhadap sejarah?
• Adakah kerajaan-kerajaan di Alam Melayu wajar dilihat secara berasingan atau sebagai sebahagian daripada jaringan yang lebih besar?
• Mengapakah sumber sejarah perlu dinilai bersama konteks zaman dan perkembangan ilmu sejarah?
Ini bukan sekadar perbincangan tentang nama atau istilah.
Ini adalah satu ajakan untuk melihat semula sejarah Alam Melayu daripada pelbagai perspektif, memahami bagaimana sesuatu istilah terbentuk, serta meneliti bagaimana bahasa dan penamaan boleh membentuk cara kita melihat sebuah tamadun.
Jika tuan/puan ingin mengikuti lebih banyak perkongsian mengenai sejarah, Tamadun Melayu, manuskrip, bahasa Arab dan pembinaan peradaban, boleh terus membuat pendaftaran melalui pautan berikut:
Atau boleh terus menghubungi / WhatsApp Pn. Muniraa (017-691 2042) untuk maklumat lanjut mengenai program-program yang bakal berlangsung.
Semakin kita memahami asal-usul sesuatu istilah, semakin kita sedar bahawa cara kita menamakan sejarah juga boleh mempengaruhi cara kita memahaminya.
Petikan Jawapan Prof Dr. Solehah Yaacob Kepada Philip Rajoo:
Philip Rajoo:
Prof. Dr. Solehah raises an important question: Is "Austronesia" a modern academic invention, and should we instead see the region as a unified "Alam Melayu" with interconnected maritime kingdoms?
This is a thought-provoking argument. However, it contains several problematic assumptions that need to be examined carefully.
What Prof. Solehah Gets Right
1. Terminology Does Shape Understanding
This is absolutely correct. The words we use to describe history influence how we think about it. When we use the term "Austronesia," we are applying a modern academic framework. When we use "Alam Melayu," we are applying a different framework. Both are choices that shape our understanding.
1. The Term "Austronesia" Is Relatively Recent
Prof. Solehah is correct that the term "Austronesia" was coined in 1899 by the German scholar Wilhelm Schmidt. Before that, people did not use this term to describe themselves. This is a valid historical observation.
1. The Region Had Interconnected Kingdoms
It is also true that the Malay world had interconnected maritime kingdoms. Srivijaya, Malacca, Kedah, and others were linked by trade, language, and culture. They were not isolated from each other.
Where the Argument Falls Short
1. "Melayu" Is Also a Relatively Recent Term
Here is the problem. If Prof. Solehah argues that "Austronesia" is a modern invention, she must also acknowledge that "Melayu" is also a term that evolved over time.
As we have shown in our book:
· The word "Melayu" originally referred to a specific kingdom in Jambi, Sumatra
· It did not originally mean the entire Malay world
· It was not used as a unified ethnic label until much later
· It was the British who later expanded it to mean the entire peninsula in 1849
So if "Austronesia" is a "new" term from 1899, "Melayu" as a broad ethnic label is also relatively new. Neither term is "ancient" in the way Prof. Solehah implies.
1. The "Alam Melayu" Concept Is Also a Construction
Prof. Solehah suggests that "Alam Melayu" is a natural, organic term that existed before modern academic labels. But is this true?
The concept of a unified "Alam Melayu" was not how the people of the region saw themselves. They identified with:
· Their local kingdoms (Kedah, Malacca, Johor, Pahang)
· Their rulers (Sultans, Maharajas)
· Their communities
The idea of a single "Malay world" encompassing all these kingdoms is also a later construction—whether by colonial administrators or modern scholars.
1. The Orang Asli Are Completely Ignored
This is the most serious problem. In Prof. Solehah's discussion of "Alam Melayu," the Orang Asli—the true original inhabitants—are completely invisible.
If we are talking about the "original" people of the region, we must start with the Orang Asli. They were here for 50,000 years before the Austronesians arrived. Their languages, cultures, and histories are distinct from the Malays.
To talk about "Alam Melayu" as if it is the only legitimate framework is to erase the Orang Asli from history. This is exactly the same problem we see in the "Tanah Melayu" narrative.
1. The Austronesian Framework Is Based on Science, Not Politics
Prof. Solehah seems to suggest that "Austronesia" is just a modern academic invention with no basis in reality. But this is not true.
The Austronesian framework is based on:
· Linguistics: The Malay language is part of the Austronesian language family, which includes languages from Madagascar to Hawaii
· Genetics: DNA studies prove the Austronesian migration from Taiwan
· Archaeology: The spread of outrigger canoes, pottery, and crops shows the Austronesian expansion
This is not a "colonial" invention. It is a scientific framework that helps us understand the real history of human migration.
1. The Argument Confuses "Term" with "Reality"
There is a logical problem here. Just because the term "Austronesia" was coined in 1899 does not mean the Austronesian people did not exist before 1899.
The people existed. They had their own languages, cultures, and histories. The term "Austronesia" was simply a label that scholars created to describe a pre-existing reality.
The same is true of "Melayu." The people existed. The kingdoms existed. The term was just a label that evolved over time.
1. The Promotional Element
As with the previous discussion, this post ends with a promotional link for a program. This raises questions about whether the primary purpose is academic discourse or marketing. It would be stronger if the argument stood on its own without a sales pitch.
What Prof. Solehah's Argument Misses
The Simple Timeline
Let us look at the simple timeline:
Period What Existed What Term Was Used
Before 5th century CE Orang Asli, Austronesian peoples No unified term
5th–13th century CE Hindu-Buddhist kingdoms Local names (Kedah, Srivijaya, etc.)
13th century onward Islamic sultanates Local names, "Melayu" as ethnic label
1849 British colonial rule "Tanah Melayu" invented
1899 Academic linguistics "Austronesia" coined
The key point: Both "Melayu" and "Austronesia" are terms that were coined or expanded at specific points in history. Neither is "ancient." Neither is "original."
The Deeper Problem
The deeper problem with Prof. Solehah's argument is that it seems to be suggesting that the "Melayu" framework is more valid than the "Austronesia" framework because it is "older" or "more authentic."
Both frameworks are useful for different purposes:
· Austronesia helps us understand the broader migration patterns and linguistic connections across the Pacific and Indian Oceans
· Melayu helps us understand the specific cultural and political history of the Malay Peninsula and Sumatra
Neither framework is "better." They are just different lenses for viewing the same reality.
Prof.Dr. Solehah Yaacob"
Philip Rajoo: The Philological Misconception "Melayu" is ancient geophilology, NOT a 1849 British invention. The critique claims "Melayu" was only expanded to a broad regional term by the British in 1849 and originally referred merely to a localised kingdom in Jambi. Ancient toponymy and primary epigraphic and historical records prove "Melayu" as a macro-regional descriptor predates Western colonial rule by over a millennium.
Chinese imperial records as early as the 7th century CE refer to Mo-lo-yu (644 CE) as a strategic maritime centre integrated into the broader Malayo-Polynesian trade matrix.
The Sanskrit and Epigraphic evidence could be discovered in the Ramayana and Vayu Purana, which refer to Malayadvipa ("the Malay Island/Continent"), denoting the entire Sunda region as a cohesive geographical entity rich in gold and spices—centuries before any European presence.
Also, the self-designation in Epigraphy in the 14th-century Amoghapasa inscription (1347 CE) explicitly invokes Adityawarman as Maharajadiraja of Bhumi Malayu, proving that indigenous rulers actively used "Melayu" to signify a broader territorial and sovereign realm, long before British colonial administration. Otherwise, the epistemological disconnect is considered an organic civilizational space vs. taxonomical categorisation.
The critic equates the term "Austronesia" (coined in 1899) with "Alam Melayu," asserting both are mere modern labels.
Ontological vs. Taxonomical Difference: "Austronesia," called "Austronesia," is an exonym created by Western linguists (Wilhelm Schmidt) using Greek roots (Austro = South, Nesos = Island) to categorise language families under a 19th-century positivist framework.
In contrast, "Alam Melayu" (or Nusantara / Tanah Melayu) is an endonymic worldview, an organic civilizational ecosystem defined by a shared lingua franca (Bahasa Melayu Klasik), maritime jurisprudence (Undang-Undang Laut Melaka), custom (Adat), and trade networks across the Malacca Straits and Sunda Shelf. It also conflates an artificial taxonomy designed for comparative linguistics with a living, historical civilizational sphere and misunderstands how indigenous societies conceptualised their geopolitical reality.
The false dichotomy regarding Orang Asli and Indigenous continuity of the fallacy critique accuses the "Alam Melayu" narrative of "erasing" Orang Asli by portraying them as distinct and completely separate from Malays. However, the continuum of the Malay World, as modern ethnolinguistics and deep-history genetics recognize that Orang Asli (Semang, Senoi, and Proto-Malay) and coastal Malay populations do not exist in isolation but rather form an indigenous continuum (Orang Asal) inhabiting the Sunda Shelf before its inundation. In addition, cultural and trade symbiosis in historical records shows Orang Asli were integral actors within the polity of Alam Melayu, serving as forest-product collectors, guardians of inland trade routes, and specialised scouts for the Malay Sultans. To claim that using "Alam Melayu" erases Orang Asli is a divisive binary that ignores thousands of years of ecological and political symbiosis between inland and coastal indigenous populations.
There was a methodological bias in the "Out of Taiwan" model. The critic presents the "Out of Taiwan" model for Austronesian migration as absolute scientific consensus. The genetic and archaeological debates on the rigid "Out of Taiwan" (Express Train) hypothesis have been heavily challenged by recent archaeogenetics and palaeogeography (e.g., Prof. Stephen Oppenheimer's Eden in the East). Also, the Sunda Shelf Hypothesis, based on DNA studies focusing on mitochondrial lineages (M7c, E1a), demonstrates that human expansion flowed out of the drowned Sunda Continent (Pentas Sunda) into continental Asia and the Pacific following post-glacial sea-level rises (~14,000–8,000 BP). The "Alam Melayu" paradigm aligns with this deep-time Sundaland maritime origin, whereas the colonial "Austronesian" narrative often oversimplifies human migration into a one-way unidirectional displacement.
C&P
5 August 2026: 10.57 p.m
.png)
