Content uploaded by Tai Yew Seng 戴柔星
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Tai Yew Seng 戴柔星 on Dec 01, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
B ’É ’E-O, (), pp.-
The Historic Trading Port of Lamri
on the North Sumatran Coast
Patrick Daly, Edmund EDwarDs McKinnon, R. Michael FEEnEr,
Tai yEw sEng, arDiansyah, Andrew ParnEll, nizaMuDDin,
Nazli isMail, Kerry siEh & Jedrzej MajEwsKi
Abstract
We present archaeological evidence for a trading settlement dating from
the 13th to the mid-16th century
ce
on an elevated headland in Lamreh
village about 30 km east of Banda Aceh, on the northern coast of Sumatra,
Indonesia. We propose this site was part of historic Lamri, known from
documentary sources as an important node in the maritime “silk road”
between the 9th to 16th centuries ce. Our landscape archaeological survey
revealed large concentrations of ceramics on the headland that span from the
early 13th through the mid-16th century, some of them of imperial quality.
Several of the Muslim grave markers at this site are of a distinctive type and
date across nearly the entire range of the 15th century. Geological evidence
suggests low-lying parts of Lamri were destroyed by a major tsunami at
the end of the 14th century. However, our data show that activity on the
elevated headland continued until the site was abandoned in the mid-16th
century. The lack of material culture dating from the 9th to 13th centuries
suggests that earlier textual references to Lamri referred more generally to
a broad stretch of the north Sumatran coast, with the headland in Lamreh
village emerging as the geographic centre of historic Lamri after the turn
of the 13th century.
Keywords: Aceh; Sumatra; Islamic archaeology; Muslim graves; Chinese
ceramics; tsunami.
Résumé
Nous présentons les preuves archéologiques d’un établissement commer-
cial datant du xiii e au milieu du xvi e siècle ec sur un promontoire élevé du
village de Lamreh, à environ 30 km à l’est de Banda Aceh, sur la côte nord
de Sumatra, en Indonésie. Nous l’identions au site historique de Lamri,
décrit par les sources textuelles comme un nœud important de la « route de
la soie » maritime entre le
ix
e
et le
xvi
e
siècle
ec
. Notre prospection a révélé
de grandes concentrations de céramiques sur le promontoire, qui datent
du début du xiii e siècle jusqu’au milieu du xvi e siècle, certaines de qualité
impériale. Plusieurs des stèles funéraires musulmanes de ce site sont d’un
type particulier et datent de la quasi-totalité du
xv
e siècle. Les données
géologiques suggèrent que les parties basses de Lamri ont été détruites par
un fort tsunami à la n du
xiv
e
siècle. Cependant, nos données montrent
que l’activité sur le promontoire s’est poursuivie jusqu’à ce que le site soit
abandonné au milieu du
xvi
e
siècle. L’absence de culture matérielle datant
du
ix
e
au
xiii
e
siècle suggère que les références textuelles antérieures à
Lamri se référaient plus généralement à une grande partie de la côte nord
de Sumatra, le village de Lamreh ne devenant le centre géographique du
Lamri historique qu’après le tournant du xiii e siècle.
Mots-clés : Aceh; Sumatra; archéologie islamique; tombes musulmanes;
céramique chinoise; tsunami.
The Historic Trading Port of Lamri
on the North Sumatran Coast
Patrick Daly, Edmund EDwarDs McKinnon, R. Michael FEEnEr,
Tai yEw sEng, arDiansyah, Andrew ParnEll, nizaMuDDin,
Nazli isMail, Kerry siEh & Jedrzej MajEwsKi*
Introduction
The Indonesian archipelago, at the conuence of the Indian Ocean and
South China Sea trading spheres, has long been noted for its role in maritime
commerce, both as a point of extraction of products from island Southeast
Asia, and as a meeting point of traders from the Middle East, South, and
East Asia (Wolters 1967, 1970; Tibbetts 1971; Reid 1988). In particular,
Aceh, at the northern tip of Sumatra, situated at the entrance to the heavily
travelled Melaka Straits, has played a signicant role in regional trade, as
well as a pivotal role in the entrance of Islam into the archipelago (Feener,
Daly & Reid 2011) (g. 1).
Historic textual sources identify Samudra-Pasai and Lamri as two
prominent sites on the north Sumatran coast. Samudra-Pasai was a trading
port located near present-day Lhokseumawe and served as a leading centre
for Islamic court culture and literary production in the region between the
late 13th through early 16th centuries (Hall 2001). Lamri is mentioned in
Armenian, Arabic, Chinese, Franco-Italian, Javanese, Malay, Portuguese,
and Tamil textual sources between the 9th and mid-16th centuries1 but has
* Patrick Daly, Earth Observatory of Singapore, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore,
PatrickDaly@ntu.edu.sg; Edmund Edwards McKinnon, edmund.edwardsmckinnon@gmail.
com; R. Michael Feener, Center for Southeast Asian Studies, Kyoto University, Feener@cseas.
kyoto-u.ac.jp; Tai Yew Seng, Institute for Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore, taiyewseng@
gmail.com; Ardiansyah, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Syiah Kuala
University, Banda Aceh, Indonesia, ardiansyah@unsyiah.ac.id; Andrew Parnell, Insight Centre
for Data Analytics, Hamilton Institute, Maynooth University, Co. Kildare, Ireland, Andrew.
Parnell@mu.ie; Nizamuddin, Informatics Department, Syiah Kuala University, Banda Aceh,
Indonesia, neazaem@gmail.com; Nazli Ismail, Dept. of Geophysics, Syiah Kuala University,
Banda Aceh, Indonesia, nazli.ismail@unsyiah.ac.id; Kerry Sieh, Earth Observatory of
Singapore, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Sieh@ntu.edu.sg; Jedrzej Majewski,
Earth Observatory of Singapore, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, jmmajewski
@ntu.edu.sg.
1. As detailed in Appendix 1 (in the online supplementary material), Lamri has been identied
by scholars by a variety of toponyms from historic sources. Armenian: Lambrē, Lamrin; Arabic:
al-Rāmanī, Rāmī, Rāmnī, Rāmīn, Lāmurī, Lāmūrī; Chinese: Lan-li 蓝里, Lan-wu-li 蓝无里, Nan-
Wu-Li
南巫里
, Nan-bo-li
喃渤利
, Pu-luo
蒲罗
/ Bu-luo
不罗
; Franco-Italian: Lambri; Javanese:
Lamuri; Malay: Lamiri, Lamri; Portuguese: Lambry, Lambrij; Tamil: Ilamuridesam. See Song shi,
118 Patrick D et al.
not been conclusively veried on the ground.2
The presence of Chinese ceramic sherds dating from the Song to the
Ming dynasties and distinctive Muslim funerary monuments has led schol-
ars to speculate that Lamri was located on a headland near what is now the
Acehnese village of Lamreh (Edwards McKinnon 2015; Montana 1997). As
part of our research on paleo-tsunami along the Aceh coast, between 2010
and 2011 we cut back a beach cliff at the base of the headland in Lamreh
and found well stratied deposits of cultural material dating to the 13th and
14th centuries cE as discussed in more detail below (Sieh et al. 2015). We
posited this was part of ancient Lamri. Importantly, our geological analysis
shows that a tsunami near the end of the 14th century cE impacted low-lying
areas at the base of the headland. These promising leads motivated us to
conduct a more extensive systematic survey to see if the headland contains
the types and date range of material culture consistent with historic texts
describing Lamri (in variant forms of toponym) and verify whether the late
14th century tsunami was responsible for the destruction of Lamri.
In this paper, we rst review historical and archaeological evidence
for Lamri, drawing upon new editions of historic manuscripts, material
obtained from Chinese archives, and a brief summary of our previous geo-
archaeological investigations (Sieh et al. 2015). We then present the results
of our systematic survey of material culture conducted in 2016 in Lamreh
village to provide a detailed account of the spatial extent and duration of
activity for a part of historic Lamri.3
We show that the headland in Lamreh village contains a rich assort-
ment of material culture indicating settlement and trade from the early
Beijing, Zhonghua Publishing, 1977, p. 14121; Zhou Qufei, Ling wai dai da, reprinted and anno-
tated by Yang Wuquan, Beijing, Zhonghua Publishing, 1999, p. 90; Ma Huan, Yingya Shenglan,
translated and annotated in Mills 1970, pp. 122–124; João de Barros, Decada Terceira da Ásia,
Lisboa, Jorge Rodrigues, 1628, p. 114v. See also Kévonian 1998, pp. 54–66, Mackintosh-Smith
et al. 2014, pp. 24–27; Tibbetts 1971, p. 493; Tibbetts 1979, pp. 27–28; Freeman-Grenville 1980,
pp. 40–41; Ferrand 1922, p. 102 ; Wolters 1967, pp. 178–196; Hirth & Rockhill 1911, p. 72; Rockhill
1915, pp. 79, 148–149; Wade 2005b, s.v.; Yule & Cordier 1993, II, pp. 299–301; Yule 1913, II,
pp. 146–150; Robson 1995, p. 33; Cheah 2009, p. 107; Iskandar 1958, pp. 69–73; Cortesão 1944,
I, pp. 137–138; Dames 1921, II, pp. 181–189; Sakhuja & Sakhuja 2009, p. 78. In this paper we
refer to the site simply as Lamri.
2. For an earlier survey of pre-modern textual references to Lamri, see Edwards McKinnon (1988).
As far as we can tell, the archaeological potential of Lamreh village and Lhok Cut as a possible
location for Lamri was rst suggested by Edmund Edwards McKinnon and Pierre-Yves Manguin
during a eld walking survey in 1995. This visit was guided in part by a Portuguese reference
in a 1584 text that mentioned ships mooring on both sides of the bay of Kreung Raya (Alves &
Manguin 1997, pp. 84–86).
3. After our paper was completed and submitted for review, A. Husni, I. Saryulis Husaini
& S. Mokhtar (2019) published a paper on the archaeological remains at Lamreh village. Their paper
covers the same geographic area of our survey and reports some of the same general information
and analysis. The lead author Amir Husni worked as part of our eld survey team before going to
Universiti Sains Malaysia to further his studies. We believe the similarities between our respective
papers indicate that Husni had access to data and interpretations made by our team and published
some of this material without our approval or proper citation. Our documentation and analysis of
both the historical sources and archaeological material presented in this paper are more robust and
comprehensive than what is published in Husni, Saryulis Husaini & Mokhtar 2019.
Fig. 1 — Historic trade sites around the Melaka Straits
(map insert is based upon Sieh et al., 2015).
119
e Historic Trading Port of Lamri on the North Sumatran Coast
13th–mid-16th century
cE
, consistent with historical textual references
to Lamri. However, surprisingly, we recovered no evidence of signicant
settlement or trade activity prior to the 13th century, suggesting that 9th to
12th century Arab and Chinese textual references to Lamri must have been
referring to either another site along the coast, or (more likely?) generically
to a wider stretch of the coast of north-western Aceh. The continued presence
of material culture on the elevated headland throughout the 15th century
moreover shows that settlement and trade activity on the elevated headland
survived the late 14th century tsunami.
120 Patrick D et al.
Historical mentions of Lamri
Lamri is mentioned in various forms in Arab, Chinese, Malay and South
Asian historical sources as a site of maritime commerce on the north-western
tip of Sumatra (detailed in Appendix 1).4 Some of the earliest known men-
tions of Lamri are featured in the sailing itineraries of merchants from the
Middle East and elsewhere as a source for elephants, camphor and other
aromatic woods.
5
One of the earliest primary sources to mention Lamri is an
Arabic text known as the Akhbār al-ṣīn waʾl-hind. This title actually com-
prises two different books – the rst dating to 851/2 cE.6 Book I mentions
a place known as al-Rāmanī, described as a large island 800–900 farsakhs
(approximately 5,000 km) long that was reportedly “ruled by several kings”,
and home to a tribe of cannibals. The second book of this work was penned
by al-Sīrāfī sometime in the early tenth century, and identies al-Rāmanī
as included among the realms of the Maharaja of al-Zābaj, suspected to be
somewhere on the Sumatran side of the Straits of Melaka.
7
Other Arabic ref-
erences from the 9th–12th centuries use other variant forms of the toponym
“Lamri” to refer to both an island and long stretch of the coast of Sumatra
that included multiple settlements, sometimes with multiple kings.8
Variations of “Lamri” appear in other major languages of trans-regional
trade networks by the 11th century cE. What appears to be a Tamil form of the
toponym (Ilamuridesam) is listed among Chola conquests in Southeast Asia
in the Thanjavur inscription of 1025, possibly located at the western end of
Sumatra (Sakhuja & Sakhuja 2009). Chinese texts from the Song Dynasty
era (960–1279) identify Lan-Li 藍里 as a source of tin, which was shipped
to the Malabar coast of India and the Arabian port of Mirbat.9 Wolters used
Chinese sources to identify the toponym Pu-luo 蒲羅 / Bu-luo 不羅 with
4. See Cowan 1933, although the author cautions that “Moreover, it is by no means certain that Rāmī,
Rāmnī designates the same region as Lamuri, etc.” [Het is bovendien ook nog geenszins zeker, dat met
Rāmī, Rāmnī wel dezelfde streek als Lamuri ens. bedoeld is.] Cowan argues for the origin of the latter
toponym as a combination of the Acehnese term lam (dalam) combined with the Sanskrit sufx -pura.
In positing this etymology, however, Cowan did not refer to the earliest surviving transcription of the
toponym presenting the form “al-Rāmanī”: the Akhbār al-ṣīn waʾl-hind. The Arabic forms beginning
with an “L” (ل) – rather than an “R” (ر) – tend to be found in later Arabic texts of the 13th through the
16th centuries, thus somewhat undermining his contention. Indeed, recognising the form as it appears in
al-Sīrāfī’s 10th-century compilation as its earliest Arabic iteration would seem to corroborate the work
of earlier Indologists who saw it rooted in toponyms associated with the Hindu god Rama as they would
be formed in Dravidian vernaculars (e.g. Rāma-bārī). Cf. Gerini 1909, which Cowan criticises directly.
5. Al-Sīrāfī’s compilation served as a source for numerous later Arabic geographical texts, as did
that of his elder contemporary Ibn Khurradādhbih (d. ca. 911), the later 10th-century geographers
Ibn al-Faqīh (903), Ibn Rusta, al-Idrīsī (d. 1165), Ibn al-Wardī (d. 1457) and others. See Mackintosh-
Smith et al. 2014; Tibbets 1979, pp. 27–28, 30.
6. A new Arabic edition, English translation and introduction to this text by Tim Mackintosh-Smith
can be found in Mackintosh-Smith et al. 2014.
7. Mackintosh-Smith et al. 2014, pp. 24–27, 88–89.
8. E.g. in Masʿūdī’s Murūj al-Dhahab (956). The same basic description of al-Rāmanī/Lamri (with
some variation in its description of its major export products and exotic fauna) is also repeated in the
Kitāb al-fawāʾid attributed to Ibn Mājid (d. ca. 1500). Tibbetts 1971, p. 220 and Tibbetts 1979, pp. 27–45.
9. In Zhou Qufei’s Ling wai dai da (1178), juan 3, 40 “Various Arab Counties”. Reprinted and
annotated by Yang Wuquan, 1999 and 2006, Beijing, Zhonghua Publishing, p. 99. See also Wheatley
1959, as reprinted in Wade 2007, pp. 204, 275.
121
e Historic Trading Port of Lamri on the North Sumatran Coast
al-Rāmanī, suggesting it was somewhere near the modern city of Banda
Aceh (Wolters 1967, pp. 182–184). This, however, has been refuted by Ptak
who hypothesised that the related Chinese toponyms (Poluosuo
婆罗娑
,
Polushi 婆鲁师) actually refer to Barus, possibly corresponding to another
Tamil toponym associated with the Sumatra trade, Vārōcu (Ptak 1998).
By the late 12th century, Lamri attracted an increasing number of Chinese
traders, and by 1225 it was identied by Zhao Rugua (趙汝适 1170–1231)
as Lan-wu-li (蓝无里), a source of rattan for Quanzhou (Hirth & Rockhill
1911, p. 72). He recorded that the site was visited by Chinese ships, and that
it was a 40-day sail from Quanzhou, and a further 20 days from Lamri to Sri
Lanka, consistent with a location along the coast near present-day Banda
Aceh. Lamri began to formalise its relations with the Chinese court by send-
ing tribute missions to China in 1284 and 1286.10 At the close of the 13th
century, Marco Polo described “Lambri” as inhabited by “Idolaters… [who]
call themselves subjects of the Great Khan” (Yule & Cordier 1993, II: 299).
In the mid-14th century Lamri was listed among the Sumatran tributaries of
Majapahit in the 1365 Nāgarakṛtāgama (Deśawarṇana).
11
By the 15th cen-
tury, the account of Ma Huan locates Lamri (南浡里 Lan-bo-li) on the coast
of mainland Aceh opposite Pulo Weh, between Li-tai and the open waters of
the Indian Ocean, providing for the rst time this more precise geographic
placement found in premodern textual references to Lamri (Rockhill 1915).
We distil four points of interest about Lamri from historic sources that
are relevant to this paper: 1) Some form of Lamri was important to maritime
trade between the 9th and 16th centuries
cE
, with most early sources indicat-
ing a location in northern Sumatra; 2) Until the 13th century, most historic
references were vague and most likely referred to a stretch of coast rather
than to a clearly dened, specic set of sites; 3) By the 13th century, Lamri
became an important site for Chinese traders, with textual sources seeming
to refer to Lamri as a more specically dened location/site; 4) There are
no historic references to Lamri after the mid-16th century.
Geo-archaeological evidence for Lamri
In 2010 and 2011, we conducted geo-archaeological investigations of
exposed vertical sections along the foothills of the headland in the modern
village of Lamreh looking for paleo-tsunami deposits (g. 1) (for details see
Sieh et al. 2015). We found a sequence of pits dug into coral bedrock through
beach and alluvial deposits, lled with sediment, ceramics and animal
bones. The pits were overlain by a midden deposit rich in material culture.
C14 dates from the pit lls and midden deposit range from 1200–1320 cE
10. Heng 2012, pp. 104–107, 201–202. In the Yuan Shi (Yuan Dynasty History), Lambri is written
as Nan-wu-li 南无力 or Nan-wu-li 南巫里. The second characters in both toponyms are different,
but they refer to the same polity. This “kingdom” was recorded to have paid tribute twice in 1285
and 1286, and sent a mission to China in 1292 during the Mongol’s Java campaign (Yuan Shi, juan
13, 14, 131, 210. Beijing, Zhonghua Publishing, 1976, pp. 270, 292, 3199, 4670).
11. In Canto 13.2; see Pigeaud (1960–1963, III, p. 16) and Robson (1995, p. 33).
Fig. 2 — Prole of cut back sea cliff at the base of the headlands in Lamreh. Refer to Sieh et al.
(2015) for a detailed account and interpretation of this exposure and its context.
122 Patrick D et al.
(g. 2 and table 1). We recovered a mix of South Asian red ware ceramics
and stoneware ceramics from Fujian (Tong’an-type and Cizao Minnan
ware), Zhejiang Longquan, and Guangdong dating between 1200–1400
(Appendix 1, see online supplementary material). We also recovered one
Chinese coin dating to 1111–1118, although it is likely that the coin was in
circulation for a considerable period before deposition.
We encountered a compacted lime plaster oor overlying the midden
deposit halfway up the stratigraphic sequence, with post-holes indicat-
ing a foundation for a wooden structure. This foundation is covered by a
high-energy marine overwash deposit with high concentrations of marine
microfossils that we interpret as evidence of a tsunami. The C
14
dates place
the destruction of the structure between 1300 and 1450. A precise U/Th
(uranium-thorium) date from coral in the foundation of a similar structure
50 m inland yields a date of construction of 1367±3, and tsunami destruc-
tion likely occurred within decades of that date.
Table 1 — Table of radiocarbon dates obtained from stratied deposits from a cut back sea cliff
at the base of the Lamreh headland. Stratigraphic units are shown in g. 2. The units
in the table are ordered by stratigraphic sequence, from upper to lower deposits.
Radiocarbon samples were analysed by Beta Analytic, and calibrated using IntCal04.
Sample number Stratigraphic unit Type of sample Calibrated dates
LAM-BS1-2 1023 bone 1280–1410 cE
LAM-BS1-21 1027 tooth 1270–1310 cE
1360–1390 cE
LAM-BS1-3 1009 bone 1300–1430 cE
LAM-BS1-20 1009 charcoal 1260–1310 cE
1360–1390 cE
LAM-BS1-6 1008 bone 1220–1300 cE
LAM-BS1-8 1008 tooth 1260–1310 cE
1360–1390 cE
LAM-BS1-11 1006 bone 1270–1320 cE
1350–1390 cE
LAM-BS1-12 1006 bone 1240–1300 cE
1370–1380 cE
LAM-BS1-18 1005 bone 1210–1280 cE
LAM-BS1-19 1005 bone 1260–1300 cE
LAM-BS1-16 1003 bone 1200–1270 cE
LAM-BS1-17 1003 bone 1210–1280 cE
123
e Historic Trading Port of Lamri on the North Sumatran Coast
The date of the tsunami destruction layer at Lamreh is within the broad
date range of tsunami sands on the west coasts of Aceh and Thailand, which
have radiocarbon constraints between about 1300 and 1500 (Jankaew et al.
2008; Monecke et al. 2008). The post-1367 date of the Lamreh tsunami is
also consistent with evidence from Simeulue island off the west coast of
Sumatra of two large uplifts comparable to those of 2004, which have very
precise dates of 1394±2 and 1450±3 (Meltzner et al. 2010). Based upon our
geo-archaeological investigations of the low-lying Lamreh beach section,
we posited that a tsunami in 1394 (and perhaps a second tsunami in 1450
as well) destroyed historic Lamri, perhaps causing a shift of trade to other
areas along the Sumatran coast (Sieh et al. 2015). We further substantiate the
impact of a major tsunami upon coastal settlements in Aceh based upon the
results of a large-scale landscape survey of over 40 km of coastal villages
to the east and west of the city of Banda Aceh (Daly et al. 2019).
Survey methods
To gain more information about Lamri, and test whether the 1394 tsunami
destroyed the entire site, we systematically surveyed the modern village of
Lamreh. The village covers approximately 700 ha and is partially situated on
a peninsula that consists of a hilly headland locally known as Ujong Batee
Kapai (Ujung Batu Kapal, “Ship Rock Point”), and underlain by limestone
and volcanic rocks. In most places the headland rises steeply from the
shoreline, but its upper surface is gently undulating at elevations that range
up to 60 m above sea level. The headland is roughly triangular in shape, and
124 Patrick D et al.
occupies about 300 ha (Appendix 2, see online supplementary material). It
is bounded on the west by the bay of Krueng Raya, and on the east by the
bay of Lubhok. On the west, shipping access to the headland was via a nar-
row channel through the coral reef at Lhok Cot (Sieh et al. 2015). Offshore
islands to the north and west, including Pulo Weh (mentioned in Chinese
historic records), are clearly visible from the headland. Currently, some low-
lying areas around the headland are used for aquaculture and coconut palm
plantations, and the headland is mainly used for grazing goats and cattle.
There is no evidence for modern settlement on the headland, most likely
related to the lack of a permanent water sources on the hill, though several
patches of thin soil are cultivated for chilli production on a seasonal basis.
In 2016 a team of Acehnese researchers surveyed Lamreh village as
part of a more extensive landscape survey conducted in partnership with
the International Centre for Aceh and Indian Ocean Studies (ICAIOS).
12
The team conducted interviews with village elders and recorded oral his-
tories about Lamreh village, which will be published as part of a book on
vernacular history in Aceh. The eld team walked transects, locating and
documenting sites. For purposes of this survey, a “site” was dened as any
discrete concentration of historic material, including grave markers, struc-
tural remains, and surface scatters of material culture such as ceramics. The
team recorded all sites using a standardised approach, including obtaining
GPS coordinates, site descriptions, extensive photography, and collection
of ceramic material.
For each site containing ceramics, the eld team recorded the extent
of the scatter and collected all ceramics sherds of a sufcient size to be
diagnostic. We analysed each sherd to identify the provenance, date range,
weight, type, and form. Date ranges vary considerably by the type of ceramic
vessel – some types were only produced in a specic year, while other types
were produced for decades or even centuries. To manage the date ranges and
constrain human activity to multi-decadal precision we applied a statistical
model to the ceramic dataset to calculate probable activity levels for each
year, using the BchronDensityFast function in Bchron (Haslett & Parnell
2008; Parnell et al. 2008).13
12. The results presented in this paper are part of a broader survey of cultural heritage and geo-
hazards conducted by the International Centre for Aceh and Indian Ocean Studies and the Earth
Observatory of Singapore.
13. The BchronDensityFast function estimates activity levels for a large set of dates by rst
drawing a large number of samples (default 2000) from the probability distribution of each date,
and then using the Mclust density estimation procedure (Fraley & Raftery, 2002; Scrucca et al.
2016) to t a mixture of univariate normal distributions to the samples. The Mclust procedure ts
the model via the EM algorithm and so does not produce estimates of uncertainty in the param-
eters. It further requires as input the number of individual mixture components; we set this at 30.
Some informal exploration showed that the results were insensitive to this value. The output of the
BchronDensityFast model is an estimate, for each age value, of the activity level measured as a
probability density and so summing to 1. This can subsequently be interpreted as showing periods
of high and low relative activity, especially when compared across different groups. By default
Bchron only accepts either radiocarbon or normally distributed dates whereas the present data set
contained dates only dened on a uniform interval. For that reason all dates were converted so that
the uniform range was re-expressed as a 99% condence interval for a normally distributed date.
125
e Historic Trading Port of Lamri on the North Sumatran Coast
The eld team made detailed records, including photography, coordi-
nates, measurements, and orientation for each grave marker. Some graves
were marked by single stones, and some by paired headstones/footstones.
We compared the gravestones at Lamreh with well-studied Islamic grave-
stones from elsewhere in Aceh, Pasai, Malaysia, and Patani (Guillot & Kalus
2008; Kalus & Guillot 2012, 2013, 2014, 2016, 2017; Lambourn 2004;
Perret 2005; Perret, Razak & Kalus 1999, 2004). Researchers at the Syiah
Kuala University GIS lab used data on the ceramic scatters and gravestones
to produce distribution maps within Arc-View GIS. This paper is part of
a much larger archaeological landscape survey that covered over 40 km
along the coast around the city of Banda Aceh. We are in the process of
publishing a series of papers that cover different aspects of the cultural and
environmental history of the Aceh coast (Daly et al. 2019; Tai et al. 2020).
14
Results
We located 82 discrete clusters of surface material culture in Lamreh vil-
lage, largely consisting of grave markers and/or concentrations of ceramic
scatters on the ground surface (Appendices 2 & 3, see online supplementary
material). Most sites are concentrated on the elevated headland, with several
outlier sites along the coast to the east. This indicates that settlement activ-
ity was largely constrained on the headland, with only several lower-lying
sites along the shore, and near the mouth of a small stream. We recovered
ceramics from 56 sites, with 15 sites having more than 100 sherds each
(g. 3). Fifty-seven sites contained gravestones, with typically between
1–5 stones at each site (g. 4). Seven sites had concentrations of more
than 10 gravestones. Some graves were marked by a single stone, others
by a headstone/footstone pair. Thirty-ve sites had both gravestones and
ceramics, but given the lack of stratied physical relationships, care must
be taken when inferring relationships between the different sets of material
culture in terms of chronology. Below we present analysis of the ceramics,
then gravestone data, focusing on what these sets of material culture can tell
us about types of activity, chronology, and possible cultural connections.
Ceramic scatters
We analysed a total of 4,149 sherds from 56 discrete surface scatters of
ceramic material (g. 3). We were able to determine the provenance of 3,735
In general, the BchronDensityFast function can be seen as a more sophisticated density estimation
method to that of the SUM functions currently implemented in OxCal (Bronk Ramsey 1995).
14. The project is producing a series of academic papers covering the destruction of the Aceh
coast by a tsunami in the late 14th century (Daly et al. 2019): this paper focusing in detail on the
trading site of Lamri; a paper on 15th century Islamic funerary monuments found along the Aceh
coast; a paper on the implications of the composition of the imported trade ceramics recovered in
Aceh for understanding regional trade networks (Tai et al. 2020); and a detailed paper on the crea-
tion of the Acehnese sultanate. Each of these papers represents a distinct line of inquiry, drawing
upon the same overall dataset.
Fig. 3 — Map showing the distribution and density of surface ceramics located in Lamreh village
during the survey.
Fig. 4 — Map showing the distribution of stone grave markers located in Lamreh village during
the survey.
126 Patrick D et al.
Fig. 5 — Plot of probable activity in Lamreh village over time, based upon analysis of the ceramic
data using the BchronDensityFast function in Bchron. The peaks show the most likely time
periods when ceramics from different regional production centres were present at Lamri.
Fig. 6 — Counts of ceramic sherds by time period. Given the overlapping range of some of the
ceramics, we include totals for the ceramics material that we can say with condence ts
within each period, and the total maximum total of sherds that could t within each period.
Burma
(n = 247)
China
(n = 2194)
Thailand
(n = 266)
Vietnam
(n = 32)
1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800
0.000
0.003
0.006
0.009
0.0000
0.0025
0.0050
0.0075
0.0100
0.0000
0.0025
0.0050
0.0075
0.0100
0.000
0.005
0.010
Age
Activity
985
2175
60
342
210
495
614 0 8
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
Pre-1400 Max Pre-
1400
1400 - 1450 Max 1400 -
1450
1450-1550 Max 1450-
1550
1550-1650 Max 1550-
1650
1650 - 1800 Max 1650-
1800
127
e Historic Trading Port of Lamri on the North Sumatran Coast
and date range for 2,598 sherds respectively.15 The majority of the ceram-
ics are Chinese. The remainder of the material was produced in Thailand,
Burma, Vietnam, India and Syria. The bulk of the ceramics date from the
early 13th century through the end of the 15th century (gs. 5 & 6). The
peak of activity, based upon sherd count, was between 1300 and 1400.
15. We recovered three sherds of Indian Fine Northern Grey ware that date between 100 bcE and
100
cE
, demonstrating that connections between Aceh and Indian Ocean trade routes date back over
2,000 years. However, we found no further tangible evidence for such early activity.
Fig. 7 — Examples of the main types
of Chinese ceramics found
in Lamreh village.
a & b: Guangdong large jar with
outward rolled rim and
yellowish-brown glaze.
The “eye” of the rolled rim
can be seen and the interior
is applied with iron-wash.
Dated to the 13th century.
c & d: Tongan bowl with green
-
ish glaze applied to the
lower exterior. The biscuit
ring for stack-firing is a
distinctive characteristic
of Fujian ceramics dated
to the 13th century.
e & f: Longquan celadon large
dish with flattened and
raised rim. The cavetto
is decorated with carved
leaves scroll. Dated to the
14th century.
a b
c d
fe
128 Patrick D et al.
The ceramic data supports the emergence of the headland as a distinct
trading site starting in the early 13th century. For a period between 1200
and 1400, almost all of the ceramics recovered are Chinese trade wares.
Over half the assemblage from this period consists of coarse ware from
Guangdong and Fujian kilns. The Guangdong wares are mainly ne paste
large jars. These are applied with yellowish-brown glaze on the exterior
and iron-wash on the interior (g. 7). These large vessels were mainly used
as containers during shipping and commonly sold to locals when unload-
ing cargo at port sites. Subsequently these vessels were used by locals for
a variety of purposes, including storage, food preparation, and, in some
contexts, burials. The Fujian wares are mainly coarse Tong’an-type bowls,
with a glassy glaze with green or blue tinge (g. 7), and were commonly
used as kitchen ware, indicating some basic domestic activities.
Fig. 8 — The Longquan celadon LRH-36-12 with
Ming imperial pattern and comparable
item from the Chinese imperial collec-
tion in the National Palace Museum,
Taipei. (The photo of the imperial
collection is reproduced from Tsai
Mei-fen, Green: Longquan Celadon of
Ming Dynasty, Taipei, National Palace
Museum, 2009, pp. 76–77.)
129
e Historic Trading Port of Lamri on the North Sumatran Coast
We recovered a signicant quantity of Longquan celadon and Jingdezhen
porcelain, both known as higher status ne ware. Longquan started to
produce celadon glaze greenware from the second half of the 12th century.
Jingdezhen started to produce blue and white porcelain for a limited period
in the second quarter of the 14th century. Both styles represent some of the
highest quality ceramics in circulation during that period. The presence of
a signicant quantity of high-status ceramics at Lamreh suggests that at
least some inhabitants on the headland were sufciently prosperous and
well-connected to Chinese tribute-trade networks to acquire such pieces.
The ceramic assemblage from this period is consistent with the material
signature for the trading site of Lamri as depicted in historical records.
There was a drastic reduction of ceramics starting in the late 14th–early
15th century (g. 5). The “Ming sea ban” that limited export of Chinese
ceramics between 1371–1505 and 1521–1567 is likely to have been a con-
tributing factor to the lower counts. We recovered only 21 sherds of Chinese
material denitely dating to the early 15th century, with several sherds hav-
ing imperial decoration (g. 8). While China did not commercially export
ceramics during the Ming ban, the Celestial Court did present special tribute
ceramics as gifts to rulers throughout Southeast Asia.
This type of imperial ware was designed and made in Jingdezhen and
Longquan, and exported overseas by ofcial Chinese missions. We suspect
that the imperial wares found on the headland were related to the voyages of
the Chinese admiral Zheng He, who is documented to have repeatedly visited
Lamri during the early 15th century – but this is admittedly speculative.16
16. According to the Ming Shi, the Ming Dynasty sent three missions to Nan-wu-li 南巫里 in 1405,
1408 and 1416. The missions of 1408 and 1416 were led by Zheng He. Elsewhere in the same text,
130 Patrick D et al.
According to the Ming chronicles, three missions called at Nan-wu-li
南巫里
in 1405, 1408, and 1416 (Ming shi, juan 326, waiguo 7: “Nan-wu-li”),
while two missions called at Nan-bo-li 南渤利 in 1412 and 1430 (Ming shi,
juan 325, waiguo 6: “Nan-bo-li”), both of which are variant toponyms of
Lamri. The imperial quality ceramics recovered provide strong evidence for
an ofcial relationship between the site and the Ming court, and documentary
sources corroborate that the Ming eet made landfall at Lamri repeatedly
in the early 15th century.
We recovered 15th century ceramics from Thailand, Burma and Vietnam
(g. 5). The Thai material largely consists of heavily potted celadon dishes
with glassy glaze nish from Sawankhalok and opaque white glazed bowls
from the Sukhothai production centres. The Burmese ceramics are mainly
large Martaban jars, replacing the earlier Guangdong jars, and white glazed
earthenware bowls. This indicates that while reduced, the headland remained
an active trade site during the Ming ban through the 15th century, with
the disappearance in Chinese trade ceramics partially compensated for by
imports from other regional production centres.17
The ceramic record indicates that activity on the headland faded out by
the early 16th century, ending abruptly by the mid-16th century. Ceramics
from the early 16th century are mainly a mix of Thai and Burmese mate-
rial. Importantly, we recovered only two sherds of 16th century Chinese
Jingdezhen ceramics. This is signicant because the Ming ban was briey
lifted between 1509 to 1521, which resulted in a resumption of exports
of Chinese ceramics (Tai et al. 2020). We anticipate that sites actively
engaged with regional trading networks during this window would have
notable quantities of early 16th century Jingdezhen ware, common at trade
sites around the region. As discussed in another article, we recovered
large amounts of early 16th century Jingdezhen ceramics from a number
of coastal sites within 30 km of the Lamreh headland; thus their absence
on the headland, which has the largest concentration of pre-15th century
Chinese ceramics along 40 km of coast extending from Banda Aceh,
strongly suggests that the site had ceased to be a major node of trade by
around 1509 (Daly et al. 2019).
The ceramic record of the site ends abruptly around 1550, reinforced
by the complete lack of Zhangzhou ware, a very common coarse ware that
ooded Southeast Asian markets starting in 1550 taking the place of earlier
Tong’an-type wares. We recovered large quantities of this material from
nearby coastal sites (Daly et al. 2019).
it is recorded that the Ming Dynasty sent two mission to Nan-bo-li
南渤利
in 1412 and 1430 (Ming
shi, 1974 edition, Beijing, Zhonghua Publishing, pp. 8427, 8454). Zheng He thus apparently led
at least four missions to Nan-wu-li and Nan-bo-li (Wade 2005a).
17. The Ming Emperor Hong Wu banned sea faring in 1371. The ban was lifted in 1567. In
between, there is a window of 1506–1521, during which the Chinese traded with Portuguese after
the latter took over Melaka in 1511. The window was closed after the former Melaka ruler com-
plained about the Portuguese to the Ming court (Tai et al. 2020).
131
e Historic Trading Port of Lamri on the North Sumatran Coast
Stone grave markers
We documented 266 gravestones in 57 clusters in Lamreh village, almost
all located on the headland (g. 4).
18
Seven of the clusters contained 10
or more stones.19 The prevalence of Arabic inscriptions, largely contain-
ing Islamic religious formulae, and the orientation of many of the graves
toward Mecca, indicate Muslim burials. Among the diverse forms of Muslim
gravestone found on the headland, of particular interest is the concentration
of plang-pleng
20
type monuments. This unique collection of Muslim graves
generally dates to the 15th century based upon inscriptions, and comparison
with similar published dated graves from the region.21
We assigned 207 gravestones to 8 types based upon physical char-
acteristics, illustrated in g. 9. Types 1–4 consist of vertical stone slabs
in a number of styles. Type 5 are upright unworked “megalithic” stones.
Type 6 are rectangular pillars (the width across the face is greater than
the thickness of the stone). Type 7 are squared pillars with pyramidal
tops, known locally as plang-pleng. Most of the Type 6 and 7 stones are
ornately decorated, including oral and geometric patterns, often also with
Arabic inscriptions. Type 8 graves are all stones that fall into the batu Aceh
category of gravestones widely associated with the Acehnese Sultanate.
Below we provide a brief description of each type and an assessment of
chronology and cultural afliation. Representative samples from each type
are provided in appendices to this paper (Appendix, gs. 4–11, see online
supplementary material).
Type 1 graves
Type 1 stones are largely nondescript vertical slabs with rounded tops
(Appendix 4, see online supplementary material). Two Type 1 stones have
simple carved linear ornamentation. Type 1 stones are between 15–25 cm
across, 6–13 cm thick, and 21–46 cm tall. The generic nature of these
stones does not allow us to determine date or cultural afnity. We recorded
34 Type 1 stones on the headland.
18. In this paper we limit our analysis of the graves to discussion of chronology and cultural con-
nections with regional sites. We will provide a more detailed examination of the graves, including
transcription of inscriptions in a future publication.
19. Most of the gravestones exhibit signs of attrition, damage, and in some cases displacement. It
was common to nd stones overturned, broken, overgrown, partially buried or on their sides in or
near what we interpret to be their original locations. We attribute the condition of the gravestones
to natural attrition, and in some cases human disturbance.
20. “Plang-Pleng” is a local term meaning “varied [ornamentation]” in Acehnese, and refers to
a category of carved gravestones that seem to be unique to this stretch of the Aceh coast. Montana
refers to this type of gravestones as “plakpling” (Montana 1997), but we have found no indication
supporting the local use of that term.
21. Our survey has yielded a large new data set of previously undocumented material for the
history of Muslim material culture in Southeast Asia. These grave markers and their signicance
for the broader cultural history of Islam in Southeast Asia will be discussed in more detail in a
forthcoming article.
a: Type 1
b–c: Type 2
d: Type 3
e–f: Type 4
g: Type 5
h–i: Type 6
j–k: Type 7
l–n: Type 8
Fig. 9 — The main types of gravestones found during the survey in Lamreh village.
ab c d
e f g h i
j k l
m
n
132 Patrick D et al.
Type 2 graves
Type 2 stones are vertical slabs with pointed tops (Appendix 5, see online
supplementary material). Two of the stones have carved ornamentation,
one with elaborate carvings and an Arabic inscription [LRH-47-GS1], and
the other with geometric patterns [LRH-60-GS3]. Most Type 2 stones are
between 13–18 cm across, 6–9 cm thick, and 18–42 cm tall. The elaborately
carved LRH-47-GS1 is considerably larger – measuring 33 cm across, 12 cm
thick, and 98 cm tall. We cannot date Type 2 stones with condence based
upon inscription or dated parallels. We recorded 7 Type 2 stones.
Type 3 graves
Type 3 stones are vertical slabs, with rounded shoulders, topped with at
nials (Appendix 6, see online supplementary material). A group of three
stones have carved line “borders” just inside the edges of the stone [LRH-
39-GS1–3]. No other Type 3 stones have any form of decoration. Type 3
stones are between 12–26 cm across, 4–11 cm thick, and 22–47 cm tall.
Similar undecorated slabs are known also from Pasai, Peureulak and Kota
Fig. 10 — a–c: graves recovered on the headland in Lamreh village. These have similar forms and
decorative patterns with graves dated between 1430 and 1440 at Pasai.
d: Teungku Sareh, Grave XIX, 1437 (Lambourn 2004, Or. 23, 481, photograph 458.
Leiden University Library, Legatum Warnerianum).
e: Peuet Ploh Peuet, Grave X, 1430 (Lambourn 2004 Or. 23, 481, photograph 315.
Leiden University Library, Legatum Warnerianum).
f: Kuta Kareung Cemetery, Tomb KK21, 1415 (Guillot & Kalus 2008).
a b c
d e f
133
e Historic Trading Port of Lamri on the North Sumatran Coast
Rentang in Deli/Serdang. Two stones with similar characteristics from Minye
Tujuh were dated to 1380 and 1389 (Guillot & Kalus 2008). We recorded
19 Type 3 stones on the headland.
Type 4 graves
Type 4 stones are vertical slabs, with rounded shoulders, topped with squat
onion nials (Appendix 7, see online supplementary material). Most of the
stones have gently curved sides, narrowing toward the waist of the stone.
Two stones have carved line borders [LRH-21-GS1 & LRH-24-GS4]. Two
stones (most likely a pair) are ornamented with elaborate geometric and
oral patterns [LRH-48-GS1–2]. These two stones have similar decorative
patterns as gravestones recorded at Pasai, dated by inscriptions to between
1430 and 1440 cE, suggesting cultural interaction between the inhabitants
of the Lamreh headland and the royal court of Pasai around the mid-15th
century cE (g. 10). No other Type 4 stones have any form of decoration.
Type 4 stones are between 15–24 cm across, 6–11 cm thick, and 31–63 cm
tall. We recorded 13 Type 4 gravestones at Lamreh.
134 Patrick D et al.
Type 5 graves
Type 5 graves consist of naturally shaped (uvial), upright oblong stones
(Appendix 8, see online supplementary material). None of the stones have
any indications of human shaping or ornamental carving. Type 5 stones are
between 9–20 cm in diameter, and 22–44 cm tall. We cannot date Type 5 stones
with any condence based upon dated parallels. We recorded 11 Type 5 stones.
Type 6 graves
Type 6 stones are vertical, rectangular pillars (Appendix 9, see online supple-
mentary material). There is a range of different styles within Type 6. All Type
6 stones have some form of multi-layered, knobbed tops. Seventeen stones
lack carved decoration and inscriptions. The rest of the stones have often
highly elaborate, exquisitely carved ornamentation on all faces. Common
motifs include upright and inverted curved lines immediately below the
apex. The most prominent elements of ornamentation on Type 6 stones are
contained within framed panels on all four sides. This includes two or three
panels of carved Arabic inscription, as well as symmetrical and asymmetrical
oral and geometric patterns. Type 6 stones are between 15 and 39 cm wide,
9–23 cm thick, and 37–122 cm in height.
We were not able to obtain any specic dates from the legible inscriptions.
However, we were able to identify circumstantial indicators of dating based
upon comparison with published dated gravestones from the region. The type
of stone used, the three panel Arabic inscriptions, and the invested curved line
ornamental motif are similar to elements on stones found at Pasai dating to
1415 and 1483–1484
cE
. The oral and “chain link” motifs found on many of
the Type 6 stones are similar to decorations found on slab graves AB-LHR-
41-GS1/2, and seemingly related gravestones from Pasai dated between 1430
and 1440. While circumstantial, we speculate that these material and stylistic
similarities relate at least some of the Type 6 gravestones at Lamreh, with
15th century burials from Pasai. We recorded 33 Type 6 gravestones.
Type 7 graves
Type 7 stones are locally known as plang-pleng. They are vertical pillars,
with squared bases and tapering pyramidal tops (Appendix 10, see online
supplementary material). All examples recorded in Lamreh have extensive
carved decoration, including panels of Arabic inscription along the base,
panels of oral motifs and geometric patterns along the base, upward and
downward pointing “buffalo horns”, and oral or geometric spiralling rising
up the top. Some of the stones have knobbed nials. Type 7 stones range
between 14–28 cm across, 13–27cm thick, and 42–110 cm high. Most of
the stones found in the survey were broken and/or eroded.
A number of plang-pleng from Lamreh have previously been studied
for their epigraphy (Guillot & Kalus 2008; Montana 1997).22 Analysis of
22. In the work of Guillot & Kalus (2008) there are four inscribed plang-pleng graves recorded
in Kuta Lubhok (KL 01, dated 1406/7; KL02, d. 1441; KL03, d. 1421; KL04, d. 1437; PC01, n.d.),
135
e Historic Trading Port of Lamri on the North Sumatran Coast
Arabic inscriptions of a small cluster of graves near Lubhok Bay, at the
base of the headland, by Guillot and Kalus (2008) provide ve dated plang-
pleng grave stones (1406–1407, 1421, 1437, 1439, 1441). This gives us a
denite indication of burial activity in Lamreh village in the rst half of the
15th century. Guillot and Kalus published a further ve plang-pleng from
cemeteries in Pande, Meunasa Kandang, Aceh dated to 1441, 1446, 1458,
1460, and 1461; and two plang-pleng from Glee Jong cemetery, Lamno,
Aceh dated to 1457–1458 and 1471. Given the precise inscription dates from
Lamreh and nearby sites, it is reasonable to assume that the plang-pleng
tradition [Type 7] spans most of the 15th century, with a possible peak in
the mid-15th century.
We recorded 6 Type 7 gravestones in Lamreh that differ slightly from
most other plang-pleng in terms of material and decorative patterns
(e.g. AB-LHR-10-GS12 & 13). These have inscriptions in three panels
near the base, well dened, symmetrical patterns running above the inscrip-
tions, topped by a knobbed nial. Similar characteristics appear on Tomb
KK21, dated to 1415 cE from Kuta Kareung Cemetery from Samudera Pasai
(g. 10). In total, we recorded a total of 83 Type 7 gravestones.23
The relatively tight constraints on both the geographic range and the
chronology of dated plang-pleng and other distinctive Muslim grave markers
show a highly distinctive funerary tradition on the Lamreh headland in the
15th century
cE
. The Lamreh graves are distinct from the well-known fam-
ily of Muslim gravestones identied as batu Aceh – that date from the late
16th century onwards and is associated with the rise and expansion of the
Acehnese Sultanate. Batu Aceh have been the subject of the overwhelming
predominance of modern scholarship on Muslim gravestones in Southeast
Asia (Ambary 1984; Lambourn 2004; Perret, Razak & Kalus 1999, 2004;
Yatim 1985). Our survey, however, discovered only 7 batu Aceh in Lamreh
village, ve of which were painted white and placed within what seems to be
a modern settling – raising questions about their authenticity and provenance
(Appendix 11, see online supplementary material). Regardless, Lamreh vil-
lage lacks the large quantities of batu Aceh graves common throughout the
surrounding area, indicating that the headland was only used extensively
for burial purposes before the major development of the batu Aceh tradition
and in the surroundings of Banda Aceh (KA06, d. 1482/3?; TKI/A, n.d.; TKI/B, n.d.; TKI/01, n.d.;
TKI/02, n.d.; TKI/03, d. 1446; TKI/04, d. 1460; TKI/05, d. 1483/4; TKI/07, d. 1458; TKI/18, n.d.;
TKI/19, d. 1461; TKII/17, d. 1441; SNo1, n.d.; SNo2, n.d.), but only two in Lamno (GJ01, n.d.;
GJ04, d. 1457/8), and one (KK 21, d. 1415) at Kuta Kareueng in Pasai. Edmund Edwards McKinnon
has also identied two further examples in the area of Pasai (Aceh Utara): one at Kandang Aceh,
and another at Meureuhom Meukota Alam. Suwedi Montana (1997) also published a plang-pleng
at Lamno, dated to 1388. However, this and his dating of three other plang-pleng at Lamri between
1320–1401 remains unconrmed and is open to some question as we have not been able to identify
these same stones on the site in the course of our survey. Additional plang-pleng graves were located
at Lambaroneujid and Lamteungoh, but as previous studies have mainly focused on stones with
inscriptions, the total count of plang-pleng graves across the broader region in other inventories
beyond our own project might be distorted.
23. Some of the dated and published plang-pleng from Lamreh village have been moved off site,
and therefore are not included in our survey data.
136 Patrick D et al.
in the 16th century. This may reect the rise and subsequent eclipse of a
form of Muslim material culture that was briey established on the head-
land site of Lamri in the 15th century and associated with local elite with
religious titles, but which was later displaced by the rising prestige of new
styles associated with the rise of the Acehnese sultanate in the 16th century.
Discussion
The evidence from our earlier excavations and landscape survey demonstrate
the presence of a coastal site dating from the early 13th century through the
end of the 16th century on the headland. While there is insufcient exca-
vated data to determine the exact nature of the site and its inhabitants, the
collection of material culture – including domestic and trade ceramics from
China, mainland Southeast Asia, and local provenance – support the site as
a point of exchange connected to commercial networks across the Indian
Ocean and South China Sea trading routes, as well as in the 15th century
tributary relations with the Chinese court. This ts with what is known from
historical sources about the role of historic Lamri as a trading site for mer-
chants from the Middle East, South, and East Asia. Toward the middle of the
14th century there is evidence for development of a concentrated settlement
on and at the base of the Lamri headland, including the construction of two
timber structures situated on compacted lime and ground coral foundations
(Sieh et al. 2015).
We found evidence that elements of Lamri situated near sea level were
destroyed by a tsunami at the end of the 14th century (Sieh et al. 2015).
This is supported by a destruction layer found in the excavated section
consisting of a chaotic, bimodal deposit of terrestrial, cultural and marine
elements. Interestingly, evidence from the elevated headland shows that
the site continued to function until around 1550 and therefore survived
the tsunami, with concentrations of ceramic material and gravestones sup-
porting this chronology. The occupation of the site seems to end abruptly
around 1550. This contrasts with the dramatic expansion of sites along the
nearby coast that have ceramics and gravestones from the mid-16th century
onwards associated with the rise of the Aceh sultanate and the relocation
of commercial and political activity on this stretch of the Sumatran coast
(Daly et al. 2019).
While there are no signicant concentrations of later ceramics or grave-
stones on the headland, there are structural remains of two forts (Edwards
McKinnon 2009). One, known locally as Inöng Balèe, served as an artil-
lery battery commanding the approach to Lhok Cut. A smaller structure
overlooking the river mouth at Lubhok, which we dated to the 16th century
(Sieh et al. 2015), was mentioned specically in a 1615 letter from Sultan
Iskandar Muda to Kings James I and VI as an important possession of the
Aceh Sultanate (Gallop 2011).
It is intriguing to think about the fate of Lamri – which maintained
its position as a notable trading station for over three centuries, during
137
e Historic Trading Port of Lamri on the North Sumatran Coast
which its elevated geography helped the settlement to survive a tsunami
which devastated surrounding parts of the Aceh coast. It was then fortied
sometime in the 16th or 17th centuries, but there is no material evidence
for continued settlement or trade activity thereafter. It is possible that as
the Aceh Sultanate began to ourish along the coast to the west of Lamri,
it replaced Lamri as the main regional trade stop, and fortied it in part as
an effort to consolidate power and trans-regional commerce at the capital
of the new sultanate in Banda Aceh.
We believe that the cultural material recorded in the village of Lamreh
represents one particular phase in the history of the place identied as the
Lamri mentioned in various documentary sources. However, with the excep-
tion of one Chinese coin, and one piece of Syrian Raqqa ware dating to the
12th century
cE
, neither the excavations nor the landscape survey identied
signicant traces of material dating before 1200
cE
. This contrasts with his-
torical sources documenting activity at Lamri from at least the 9th century cE.
Ceramics from the Tang (618–907) and early Song (960–1279) dynas-
ties have been found at sites and shipwrecks in the region (Brown 2009;
Brown & Sjostrand 2010; Finlay 2010; Flecker 2001; Goddio, Pierson
& Crick 2000; Kotitsa & D’Angelo 2004; Krahl & Effeny 2010; Ptak 1998).
However, we found none of this material at Lamreh and recovered very
little of it along the 40 km of our wider survey area. This suggests two pos-
sibilities. Tang and early Song material may not have been found because
of a recovery bias: perhaps ceramics dating prior to 1200 cE were buried
too deep, or were located at sites that have subsided into the sea. The Aceh
coast experiences high levels of tectonic instability, and we know from batu
Aceh type graves that are now located in the intertidal zone that signicant
areas of the coast have subsided over the centuries. However, while this
might explain the absence of earlier material on low-lying coastal sites, it
cannot explain their absence on the headland, which was not likely to have
been affected by subsequent deposition or subsidence.
The other interpretation, which we feel is more likely, is that textual
references to Lamri from the 9th through the 13th centuries do not refer to
the rich concentration of material culture on the headland at Lamreh village.
We located several sites in our survey area with small concentrations of
ceramics dating prior to the 13th century in Cot Me and Tibang, raising the
possibility that prior to the 13th century, Lamri included low-lying coastal
sites in the vicinity of the headland. During the early 13th century, there is a
clear consolidation of activity on the headland near the present-day village
of Lamreh. We propose that the historic textual sources to Lamri from the
13th century onwards refer to a polity centred on the headland in Lamreh
village – when the toponym comes to refer to a more distinct and identi-
able centre of settlement and exchange.
Our work on Lamri is an important reminder of the need to triangulate
different sources of historic data, as each can tell a different story. The results
of our landscape survey show that our initial assumptions that the headland
in Lamreh village was the site of Lamri noted in textual records starting in
138 Patrick D et al.
the 9th century, and that Lamri was destroyed by the 1394 tsunami were
only partially correct. It was only after we were able to triangulate textual
records, material culture from the survey, and geological data that we
could piece together the complex history of this important stretch of coast.
Furthermore, the lack of material evidence matching the earliest historic
references to Lamri suggests that much more work is needed to tell the full
story of trade along the north Sumatran coast over the past millennium.
Acknowledgements
The research reported in this paper was conducted over several eld trips
between 2008 and 2014. Investigation at the beach cliffs was conducted
by members of the Aceh Heritage Community and authorised by Tony
Djubiantono, former head of the National Research Centre of Archaeology,
Jakarta. The landscape survey was conducted by an all Acehnese team
through the International Centre for Aceh and Indian Ocean Studies and
Syiah Kuala University with the approval of the Aceh governor’s ofce and
by the heads of all the villages in our survey area. The eld survey team con-
sisted of the following persons: M. Irawani (project manager); Hayatullah
(eld team leader); J. Taran, A. Zaki, M. Zahara, S. Wahyuni, C. Salana,
Fitriani, A. Wahid A. Gapi, A. Munandar, Ariyusnanda, A. Muziburrahmi,
M. Ikhsanuddin, D. Satria, and A. Husni (heritage survey team); Jihan,
P. Arafat, Muksalmina, A. Yamani, S. Novita, M. Syafruddin, and R. Zahara
(artefact and data processing); and C.D. Fitri Safrida, H. Adnin, and
E. Arisandi (administrative and logistical support). Their incredible efforts
under difcult conditions were essential to collect the data used in this
paper, and we, and the people of Aceh, owe them a debt of gratitude. Our
geological investigations along the Aceh coast are currently in collabora-
tion with the Tsunami and Disaster Mitigation Research Center (TDMRC),
Syiah Kuala University, with approval from RISTEK. We especially thank
Professor E. Srimulyani, Dr. S. Ihsan, Dr. Aransyah, Dr. A. Widyanto,
Dr. S. Mahdi, and Dr. T. Zulkar for their advice and support. Y. Descatoire
at the Earth Observatory of Singapore provided extensive support in drafting
the gures used in this paper. This research was supported by the National
Research Foundation Singapore and the Singapore Ministry of Education
under the Research Centres of Excellence Initiative. This work comprises
Earth Observatory of Singapore contribution no. 259.
Supplementary material
To view supplementary material for this article, please visit https://doi.org/
10.34816/efeo.befeo.105.1
139
e Historic Trading Port of Lamri on the North Sumatran Coast
References
alvEs, J.M. Dos Santos & Pierre-Yves Manguin
1997 O roteiro das cousas do Achem de D. João Ribeiro Gaio: um
olhar português sobre o norte de Samatra em nais do século
XVI, Lisboa, Comissão Nacional para as Comemorações dos
Descobrimentos Portugueses.
aMbary, H. Muarif
1984 “L’art funéraire musulman en Indonésie des origines au
xixe
siè-
cle”, Ph.D., Paris, École des hautes études en sciences sociales
[unpublished].
bronK raMsEy, Christopher
1995 “Radiocarbon calibration and analysis of stratigraphy: the OxCal
Program”, Radiocarbon 37 (2), pp. 425–430.
brown, Roxanna
2009 The Ming Gap and Shipwreck Ceramics in Southeast Asia:
Towards a Chronology of Thai Trade Ware, Bangkok, The Siam
Society.
brown, Roxanna & Sten sjosTranD
2010 Maritime Archaeology and Shipwreck Ceramics in Malaysia,
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysian Department of Museum and
Antiquities.
chEah, Boon Kheng (ed.)
2009 Sejarah Melayu: The Malay Annals, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysian
Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society.
corTEsão, Armando (transl. & ed.)
1944 The Suma Oriental of Tomé Pires: An account of the East
from the Red Sea to Japan, written in Malacca and India in
1512–1515, 2 vols., London, Hakluyt Society.
cowan, H.K.J.
1933 “Lamuri – Lambri – Lawri – Ram(n)i – Lan-li – Lan-Wu-Li –
Nan - Po - Li”, Bijdragen van het Koninklijk Instituut voor Taal-,
Land- en Volkenkunde 90 (1), pp. 421–424.
Daly, Patrick, Kerry siEh, Yew Seng Tai et al.
2019 “Archaeological evidence that a late 14th-century tsunami dev-
astated the coast of northern Sumatra and redirected history”,
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United
States of America 116 (24), pp. 11679–11686.
DaMEs, Mansel Longworth (transl. & ed.)
1921 The Book of Duarte Barbosa: An Account of the Countries
Bordering on the Indian Ocean and their Inhabitants, Written
by Duarte Barbosa, and Completed about the Year 1518 A.D.,
London, Hakluyt Society.
EDwarDs McKinnon, Edmund
1988 “Beyond Serandib: a note on Lambri at the northern tip of Aceh”,
Indonesia 46, pp. 103–121.
140 Patrick D et al.
2009 “Aceh’s Defences”, Indonesia and the Malay World 37 (109),
https://doi.org/10.1080/13639810903269334.
2015 “Aceh and the Maritime Silk Route: Aceh and North Sumatra,
Key Locations on the Ancient Maritime Silk Route”, in D. Q
in
&
J. y
uan
(eds.), Ancient Silk Trade Routes: Selected Works from
Symposium on Cross Cultural Exchanges and Their Legacies
in Asia, Singapore, WSPC, pp. 149–168.
FEEnEr, R. Michael, Patrick Daly & Anthony rEiD (eds.)
2011 Mapping the Acehnese Past, Leiden, KITLV Press.
FErranD, Gabriel
1922 “L’empire sumatranais de Çrīvijaya”, Journal Asiatique 20,
pp. 1–104, 161–246.
Finlay, Robert
2010 The Pilgrim Art: Cultures of Porcelain in World History,
Berkeley, University of California Press.
FlEcKEr, Michael
2001 “The Bakau wreck: an early example of Chinese shipping
in Southeast Asia”, The International Journal of Nautical
Archaeology 30 (2), pp. 221–230.
FralEy, Chris & Adrian E. raFTEry
2002 “Model-based clustering, discriminant analysis, and density
estimation”, Journal of the American Statistical Association,
97 (458), pp. 611–631 (doi: 10.1198/016214502760047131).
FrEEMan-grEnvillE, G.S.P.
1980 Captain Buzurg ibn Shahriyar of Ram Hurmuz. The book of the
wonders of India, mainland, sea and islands, London, East-West
Publications.
galloP, Annabel T.
2011 “Gold, Silver, and Lapis Lazuli: Royal letters from Aceh in
the Seventeenth Century”, in R. Michael FEEnEr, Patrick Daly
& Anthony r
EiD
(eds.), Mapping the Acehnese Past, Leiden,
KITLV Press, pp. 105–140, 243–258.
gErini, Gerolamo Emilio
1909 Researches on Ptolemy’s Geography of Eastern Asia, London,
Royal Asiatic Society.
goDDio, Franck, Stacey PiErson & Monique cricK
2000 Sunken Treasure: Fifteenth Century Chinese Ceramics from the
Lena Cargo, London, Periplus.
guilloT, Claude & Ludvik Kalus
2008 Les monuments funéraires et l’histoire du Sultanat du Pasai,
Paris, Cahiers d’Archipel.
hall, Kenneth
2001 “Upstream and downstream unication in Southeast Asia’s rst
Islamic polity: the changing sense of community in the fteenth
century ‘Hikayat Raja-Raja Pasai’ court chronicle”, Journal of the
Economic and Social History of the Orient 44 (2), pp. 198–229.
141
e Historic Trading Port of Lamri on the North Sumatran Coast
haslETT, John & Andrew C. ParnEll
2008 “A simple monotone process with application to radiocarbon-
dated depth chronologies”, Journal of the Royal Statistical
Society, Series C (Applied Statistics) 57 (4), pp. 399–418.
hEng, Derek
2012 Sino-Malay Trade and Diplomacy from the Tenth through the
Fourteenth Century, Singapore, ISEAS Press.
hirTh, Friedrich & William Woodville rocKhill
1911 Chau Ju-Kua: His Work on the Chinese and Arab Trade in
the twelfth and thirteenth Centuries, entitled Chu-Fan-Chï,
St. Petersburg, Imperial Academy of Sciences.
husni, Amir, Ibrahim saryulis husaini & Saidin MoKhTar
2019 “An Investigation of Archaeological Remains at Lamreh Site,
Aceh, Indonesia and their Context within the Lamuri Kingdom”,
International Journal of Asia-Pacic Studies 15 (2), pp. 59–98.
isKanDar, Teuku
1958 De Hikajat Atjéh, ‘s-Gravenhage, Nijhoff.
janKaEw, Kruawun, Brian F. aTwaTEr, Yuki sawai et al.
2008 “Medieval forewarning of the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami in
Thailand”, Nature 455, pp. 1228–1231.
Kalus, Ludvik & clauDE guilloT
2012 “Note sur le sultanat de Peudada, n XVe-début XVIe s. [Épi-
graphie islamique d’Aceh. 5]”, Archipel 83, pp. 7–15.
2013 “La principauté de Daya, mi-XV
e
-mi-XVI
e
siècle [Épigraphie
islamique d’Aceh. 6]”, Archipel 85, pp. 201–236.
2014 “Cimetière de Tuan di Kandang [Épigraphie islamique d’Aceh.
8]”, Archipel 88, pp. 71–147.
2016 “Cimetières d’Aceh, Varia I [Épigraphie islamique d’Aceh. 10]”,
Archipel 91, pp. 55–103.
2017 “Cimetières d’Aceh, Varia II [Épigraphie islamique d’Aceh. 11]”,
Archipel 93, pp. 31–84.
Kévonian, Kéram
1998 “Un itinéraire arménien de la mer de Chine”, in C. g
uilloT
(ed.),
Histoire de Barus. Le Site de Lobu Tua. I. Études et Documents,
Paris, Cahiers d’Archipel.
KoTiTsa, Zoi & Alessandra D’angElo (eds.)
2004 The Belitung Wreck: Sunken Treasures from Tang China, New
Zealand, Seabed Explorations.
Krahl, Regina & Alison EFFEny (eds.)
2010 Shipwrecked: Tang Treasures and Monsoon Winds, Washington,
D. C., Smithsonian Institution.
laMbourn, Elizabeth
2004 “The formation of the batu Aceh tradition in fteenth-cen-
tury Samudera-Pasai”, Indonesia and the Malay World 32,
pp. 211–248.
142 Patrick D et al.
MacKinTosh-sMiTh, Tim, James MonTgoMEry, Philip F. KEnnEDy
& Shawkat M. Toorawa (eds.)
2014 Two Arabic Travel Books: Accounts of China and Indian and
Mission to the Volga, New York, NYU Press.
MElTznEr, Aron J., Kerry siEh, Hong-Wei chiang et al.
2010 “Coral evidence for earthquake recurrence and an A.D.
1390–1455 cluster at the south end of the 2004 Aceh-Andaman
rupture”, Journal of Geophysical Research-Solid Earth 115,
B10402, doi: 10.1029/2010JB007499.
Mills, J.V.G. (ed.)
1970 Ying-Yai Sheng-Lan: The Overall Survey of the Ocean’s Shores,
Translated from the Chinese text edited by Feng Ch’eng-Chün,
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press (Hakluyt Society).
MonEcKE, Katrin, Willi FingEr, David KlarEr et al.
2008 “A 1,000-year sediment record of tsunami recurrence in northern
Sumatra”, Nature 455, pp. 1232–1234.
MonTana, Suwedi
1997 “Nouvelles données sur les royaumes de Lamuri et Barat”,
Archipel 53, pp. 85–95.
ParnEll, Andrew C., John haslETT, Judy R.M. allEn et al.
2008 “A exible approach to assessing synchroneity of past events
using Bayesian reconstructions of sedimentation history”,
Quaternary Science Reviews 29 (19–20), pp. 1872–1885.
PErrET, Daniel
2005 Études sur l’histoire du sultanat de Patani, Paris, École française
d’Extrême-Orient.
PErrET, Daniel, Kamarudin bin Ab. razaK & Ludvik Kalus
1999 Batu Aceh: Warisan Sejarah Johor, Johor Barhu, Yayasan
Warisan Johor/École française d’Extrême-Orient.
2004 Batu Aceh Johor Dalam Perbandingan, Johor Bahru, Yayasan
Warisan Johor/ École française d’Extrême-Orient.
PigEauD, Theodoor Gautier Thomas
1960–1963 Java in the 14th Century: A Study in Cultural History,
5 vols., The Hague, M. Nijhoff.
PTaK, Roderich
1998 “Possible Chinese references to the Barus area (Tang to Ming)”,
in C. guilloT (ed.), Histoire de Barus. Le Site de Lobu Tua. I.
Études et Documents, Paris, Cahiers d’Archipel, pp. 119–147.
rEiD, Anthony
1988 Southeast Asia in the Age of Commerce, 1450–1680: Volume
One: The Lands Below the Winds, New Haven, Yale University
Press
robson, Stuart (ed. & transl.)
1995 Deśawarṇana (Nāgarakṛtāgama) by Mpu Prapanca, Leiden,
KITLV Press.
143
e Historic Trading Port of Lamri on the North Sumatran Coast
rocKhill, W.
1915 “Notes on the relations and trade of China with the eastern archi-
pelago and the coast of the Indian Ocean during the Fourteenth
Century. Part II”, T’oung Pao 16 (1), pp. 61–159.
saKhuja, Vijay & Sangeeta saKhuja
2009 “Rajendra Chola I’s Naval Expedition to Southeast Asia: A
Nautical Perspective”, in K. K
EsavaPany
, H. K
ulKE
& Vijay
saKhuja (eds.), Nagapattinam to Suvarnadwipa: Reections
on the Chola Naval Expeditions to Southeast Asia, Singapore,
ISEAS Press, pp. 76–90.
scrucca, Luca, Michael FoP, T. Brendan MurPhy & Adrian E. raFTEry
2016 “mclust 5: Clustering, classication and denisity estimation
using Gaussian Finite Mixture Models”, The R Journal 8 (1),
pp. 289–317.
siEh, Kerry, Patrick Daly, Edmund EDwarDs McKinnon et al.
2015 “Penultimate predecessors of the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami
in Aceh, Sumatra: Stratigraphic, archaeological, and historical
evidence”, Journal of Geophysical Research-Solid Earth 120,
pp. 308–325.
Tai, Y., Patrick Daly, Edmund EDwarDs McKinnon et al.
2020 “The impact of Ming and Qing dynasty export bans on trade
ceramics recovered from coastal settlements in northern
Sumatra, Indonesia”, Archaeological Research in Asia 21,
doi: 100174.
TibbETTs, G.R.
1971 Arab Navigation in the Indian Ocean before the Coming of the
Portuguese, London, Luzac and Company
1979 A Study of the Arabic Texts Containing Material on South-East
Asia, Leiden, E.J. Brill.
waDE, Geoff
2005a “The Zheng He voyages: a reassessment”, Journal of the
Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 78 (1), pp. 37–58.
2005b Southeast Asia in the Ming-Shi-Lu: http://www.epress.nus.edu.
sg/msl/search/node/Nan-wu-li (last accessed 11/11/2019).
2007 Southeast Asia-China Interactions, Kuala Lumpur, The Malaysian
Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society.
whEaTlEy, Paul
1959 “Geographical Notes on Some Commodities Involved in Sung
Maritime Trade”, Journal of the Malay Branch of the Royal
Asiatic Society 32 (2), pp. 1–140.
wolTErs, Oliver William
1967 Early Indonesian Commerce: A Study of the Origins of Srivijaya,
Ithaca, Cornell University Press.
1970 The Fall of Srivijaya in Malay History, Ithaca, Cornell University
Press.
144 Patrick D et al.
yaTiM, Othman
1985 “Batu Aceh: A Study of 15th-19th Century Islamic Gravestones
in Peninsular Malaysia”, Ph.D. dissertation, Durham, University
of Durham [unpublished].
yulE, Henry
1913 Cathay and the Way Thither: Being a Collection of Medieval
Notices of China, 2 vols., London, Hakluyt Society.
yulE, Henry & Henri corDiEr
1993 The Travels of Marco Polo: The Complete Yule-Cordier Edition
- Including the unabridged third edition (1903) of Henry Yule’s
annotated translation, as revised by Henri Cordier, together
with Cordier’s later volume of notes and addenda, 2 vols., New
York, Dover Publications.
