Problem With The Malay Theory – Part II

Continuing from the last post which showed how the Land of Promise was in the Americas and that the early inhabitants came from Mesopotamia and Jerusalem in contrast to Ralph Olsen’s claims, this post will deal with the area of Malay since it is considered by some to be a theory of the location of the Land of Promise.

First of all, Olsen’s theory is based upon a coastal voyage from the Arabian coast of Oman/Yemen along the coasts of Pakistan, India, and Burma, through the Bay of Bengal and into the Andaman Sea. This, of course, is the route early traders took between Indonesia and Arabia. This was a well-known area, and as long as a coastal vessel is involved (shallow bottom, light weight, single sail, usually dependent upon oars), there would be little problem sailing this course as Olsen prescribes for the Lehi Colony. However, there are significant problems:

1. Everyone would know where Lehi’s ship passed;

2. Everyone would eventually know where the Lehi Colony settled;

3. There would be no separation from the nations of the earth, since numerous peoples traveled this route constantly trading among each other;

4. The Malay Peninsula was settled, according to anthropologists, dating to 2500 to 1500 B.C. by the proto-Malay peoples;

5. The Malay peninsula (today called the Peninsular Malaysia) archipelago is closely connected with portions of adjacent islands of Southwest Asia, including the east coast of Sumatra, the coast of Borneo and smaller islands that lie between these areas;

6. The entire area of Malay has been strongly influenced by Siamese, Javanese, Sumatran, and Indians of India and historically the Malay intermarried a lot with the people of Thailand, a country that today occupies the eastern half of the upper peninsula;

7. For nearly two thousand years the unremitting traffic of traders between the Archipelago and India resulted in frequent inter-marriage along the whole of the west coast of the peninsula, the trading traffic has been heavy since earliest times.

In addition, in the second century A.D., at the time when the Nephites were all united and there were no Lamanites or other “ites,” (4 Nephi 1:17), there were at least a hundred separate small kingdoms on the Malay Peninsula according to Chinese records of Wu. Then, too, the entire peninsula lacks broad, extensive, fertile plains and was always unable to support densely populated civilization such as Cambodia and Java did. Thus, the peninsula was populated with renowned seafarers who became prosperous through trade, and the peninsula a prosperous maritime trading area.

These descriptions hardly agree with the Book of Mormon record of the Land of Promise and the peoples who settled there.

Finally, what is called the proto-Malay people, also known as Melayu asli (aboriginal Malay) or Melayu purba (ancient Malay) are the mongolic (East and North Asian peoples, mostly Mongol) and austronesian peoples (south sea islanders), who moved to the Malay peninsular and Malay archipelago in a long series of migrations between 2500 and 1500 B.C. Most anthropologists claim that the Malay people and the Cambodian people both originated in China’s Yunnan province at the source of the Mae Nam Khong (Khong, Mother of Water, known in English as the Mekong River, and to locals as the Khong River). This would make the peoples of China, Burma, Laos, Thailand, Cambodia, and Vietnam an original group, all originating somewhere along the Mekong source.

According to the ethnicity and identity in the Malay Peninsula based on Btsisi’ folklore and ethnohistory, the original Malay people are believed to have come from China around 2000 B.C. While these intermarried with numerous other groups from nearby islands, etc., there are still small tribes of aborigines, descendants of pre-Malay immigrants, that are found in the hills and jungles.

(See the next post, Problems With Malay Theory Part III,” for more information, and specifically how Olsen claims Lehi reached the Malay Peninsula)