The following is an extract from a letter by the author which was received too late for insertion in the text of the book:—

“I think that the best translation for kramat, in the case of beasts, etc., is ‘sacred.’ I have been going into the kramat question, and it appears to me that kramat animals, trees, and other objects occupy the same place in Malay popular religion as is occupied by Totems in the popular religion of other countries.

“I do not wish to be understood (before going more deeply still into the matter) that they are totems, but that they possess, generally speaking, the same characteristics. They are the bodily tenements or receptacles containing the souls of the departed ancestors of the village. Incense is burnt and prayers are offered to them (e.g. in the case of the sacred elephant), and the mere fact of meeting them when one is engaged in a difficult enterprise is believed to insure success. On the other hand, to kill or wound them is to court disaster.”

To the above I may add that kramat (which is a word of Arabic derivation) properly appears to mean “sanctity,” but is in Malay generally used adjectively, being applied to men, animals, plants, stones, etc. When the word stands alone it almost invariably means a holy place, the word tempat being presumably understood. When applied to a person it implies special sanctity and miraculous power. I remember, in 1895, hearing of a little girl, living with her parents at Sungei Baru in the Alor Gajah district of Malacca, who was reputed to be kramat. People used to travel considerable distances in order to visit her, and thereby gain some benefit or other. I was informed that the modus operandi was to swallow a small quantity of her saliva in a cup of water, but I never verified this statement. These pilgrimages were rather disapproved of by the local Kathi, who was my informant.

As regards true totemism, I am not sure that it can be traced among the Malays of the Peninsula, although a few elements of the system are to be found here and there among them. Thus, for instance, in certain districts (e.g. northern Malacca and the Negri Sembilan) there are clans descending in the female line among whom exogamy is still the rule, to the extent, at least, that intermarriage is forbidden between the children of sisters (J.R.A.S., S.B., No. 23, p. 143); and we also sometimes find tutelary or taboo animals, etc. more or less closely connected with certain families; but these two sets of facts do not seem to be interwoven as they appear to be among certain other races. Traces of animals, etc. being regarded as specially connected with particular families are not, I believe, very common: two instances occur in the Sejarah Malayu, viz. the man “Bat’h,” who emerged from foam vomited by a bull (Malay Annals, p. 23), and who is regarded as the progenitor of the still existing Malay tribe (Bangsa Muntah Lembu) of hereditary bards, to whom beef, milk, etc. are taboo1; and the Indian prince “Mani Farendan” (ibid. p. 110), who on his voyage to Malacca was preserved from drowning by the alu-alu fish and the gandasuli tree, and on that account “forbade all his descendants to eat of the fish alu-alu or to wear the flower of the gandasuli.” His descendants formed a noble family in Malacca, the heads of which usually bore the title of S’ri Naradiraja, and during the 15th century A. D. often held the highest offices of state; so the legend may, probably enough, preserve the record of an actual custom peculiar to that family. Both the above cases, however, seem to be derived from a Hindu origin.

The tutelary animals connected with holy (kramat) places may perhaps sometimes be in point in this connection: for instance, at Malacca Pindah, in Malacca territory, I remember seeing the private burial-place of a certain family (which lived close by), and being informed by the local village headman that, whenever any member of that family died, certain tigers were in the habit of wailing (menangis) round the place at night.

It has been observed by the author (pp. 71, 153, 163) that kramat animals generally have some physical peculiarity, such as a shrunken foot or stunted tusk; it may be added that they are sometimes white (i.e. albino individuals of a species which is not usually white), and thus marked out from their fellows by the characteristic sacred colour. I remember reading in the local Straits newspaper some years ago that a white mouse-deer, which was caught somewhere in the Negri Sembilan, was regarded by the Malays as kramat: very soon after its capture, I believe on the same evening, it escaped from its cage overnight, a fact which no doubt further corroborated the natives in their belief as to its sacred character. I have little doubt that it was purposely released by some superstitious Malay, who thought that no good would come of keeping a sacred animal in captivity.

C. O. B.