Over patchouly-olie en patchouly-blad van Atjeh (1925)

Over patchouly-olie en patchouly-blad van Atjeh (Noord-Sumatra) — On Patchouli Oil and Patchouli Leaf from Atjeh (North Sumatra) — is Bericht No. 21 of the Afdeeling Handelsmuseum of the Kon. Vereeniging Koloniaal Instituut, reprinted from De Indische Mercuur of 8 and 15 May 1925 and published in Amsterdam by Druk De Bussy. The pamphlet is the founding document of the indigenous patchouli-oil industry of Atjeh, recording in detailed correspondence the trials, disappointments and final success of the attempt — begun in 1921 — to distil patchouli oil at Tapa Toean on the Westkust van Atjeh from leaf that until then had been shipped raw to Singapore and Penang. It is the predecessor of Ir. W. Spoon’s *Atjeh Patchouli-Olie* (1932) (Bericht No. 71), which surveyed the same industry ten years on.

Publication and Context

The Bericht appeared in April 1925 as No. 21 in the Berichten van de Afdeeling Handelsmuseum aan de Kon. Vereeniging Koloniaal Instituut — the Communications of the Trade Museum Section of the Royal Colonial Institute Association in Amsterdam. The Trade Museum served as a clearing-house for samples of colonial raw materials and as an intermediary between producers in the Netherlands Indies and potential buyers in Europe. The pamphlet’s two parts were first published in the columns of De Indische Mercuur of 8 and 15 May 1925, the weekly journal of colonial economics, before being reprinted in the De Bussy house in Amsterdam.

The Bericht is composed almost entirely of the running correspondence that the Handelsmuseum had been conducting since August 1921 with the Afdeeling Nijverheid (Industry Section) and the Afdeeling Handel (Trade Section) of the Departement van Landbouw, Nijverheid en Handel at Buitenzorg in the Netherlands Indies, and with the manager of the Atjehsche Oliefabriek at Tapa Toean, Van Vreeswijk. The narrative voice is that of the anonymous editor of the Handelsmuseum’s correspondence, who stringed the letters together into a single published dossier.

The Origin of the Industry (6 August 1921)

The pamphlet opens with a letter of 6 August 1921 from the Afdeeling Nijverheid of the Departement van Landbouw, Nijverheid en Handel at Buitenzorg to the Handelsmuseum in Amsterdam. The letter announced that, through the cooperation of the Gewestelijk Bestuur van Atjeh en Onderhoorigheden (the Regional Government of Atjeh and Dependencies) with the Afdeeling Nijverheid, the distillation of essential oil from patchouli leaves was thenceforth to be carried out in Atjeh itself, at Tapa Toean, rather than — as had until then been the universal practice — exporting the raw leaf to Singapore for distillation by Chinese traders.

The Buitenzorg letter explained the rationale: the great profits of the patchouli-oil trade had hitherto gone “nagenoeg geheel in handen der Singapore’sche handelaren (Chineezen)” — almost entirely into the hands of the Singapore traders (Chinese) — and the population of the Tapa Toean sub-division, where much patchouli was planted, had seen little of this wealth. Now, with the oil to be prepared locally, the arrangement could change; but a market had to be secured for the new product. The Nederlandsche Handel-Maatschappij had agreed to make an advance of ƒ25 per kilogram of oil, so that the population would not have to wait five or six months for payment (which would otherwise be inevitable if the oil were sold in Europe).

The letter further announced that the head of the Afdeeling Handel, Mr. De Kruyff, then just departed for Europe, carried with him a few samples of the first Atjeh-distilled oil, and would visit the Handelsmuseum to deliver a sample in person.

The First Three European Judgements (1921-1922)

The samples arrived in Amsterdam at the end of September 1921 and were immediately distributed to three of the leading essential-oil houses of Europe. The pamphlet reproduces their verdicts in full.

Schimmel & Co. of Miltitz (December 1921)

The Saxon firm of Schimmel & Co. at Miltitz near Leipzig — at the time the world’s largest essential-oil house — reported in December 1921, with the analysis signed by Dr. Richard Dunkel. The two samples (a first-distillate from the first two hours, and a second-distillate from the next two hours) gave the following constants:

Constant	Oil I	Oil II
Specific gravity (15°)	0.9391	0.9801
Optical rotation (100 mm)	+1°…	-1°…
Refractive index (20°)	1.50689	1.50956
Acid value	0.6	0.6
Ester value	1.9	2.6
Solubility in 90% alcohol	not fully soluble in 10 vol.	soluble in ca. 7 vol., with turbidity

Schimmel’s verdict was not encouraging. Oil I had “abweichende Konstanten” (deviating constants) and failed in odour, “der viel zu schwach ist” (which is much too weak). Oil II, while no complete distillate, showed “leidliche Uebereinstimmung mit den Singapore-Patchouliölen” (tolerable agreement with the Singapore patchouli oils) and might “unter Umständen für den Handel in Frage kommen” (under circumstances come into question for trade). But “ein vollwertiges Konkurrenzprodukt für das Singaporeöl ist aber auch dieses Destillat nicht” — a full-value competitive product for the Singapore oil this distillate is not.

Roure, Bertrand fils of Grasse (December 1921)

The French perfumery house of Roure, Bertrand fils at Grasse — one of the oldest and most prestigious French essential-oil firms — reported in December 1921 with a quite different tone. Of their two samples, sample I had “un bouquet excellent de beaucoup supérieur à celui du No. II” (an excellent bouquet, far superior to that of No. II); both were “de très bonne qualité et possèdent une valeur commerciale indiscutable” (of very good quality and possess an indisputable commercial value).

The Handelsmuseum was nonplussed by the disagreement: “Daar sprak een gansch andere toon uit!” — a wholly different tone spoke from that! — but with three such divergent verdicts, no conclusion could be drawn.

Polak & Schwarz’s Essencefabrieken of Hilversum (January 1922)

The Dutch firm of Polak & Schwarz’s Essencefabrieken at Hilversum reported in January 1922. Their laboratory found both samples identical, with specific gravity 0.9489, optical rotation +1°7’, refractive index 1.5068, acid value 0.9, ester value 3.17. But on the decisive question of odour, they judged: “in vergelijking met olie, welke als standaard is te beschouwen, zeer matig moet worden genoemd” — in comparison with oil that is to be considered the standard, [the odour] must be called very mediocre. Although the constants met the requirements, “voor de parfumerie weinig waarde” — for perfumery, little value. Only if the price were 30–40% below the current Singapore price (then ƒ45 per kilogram) might the oil find use for “goedkoope doeleinden” — cheap purposes.

The Handelsmuseum’s Advice (11 January 1922)

The Handelsmuseum passed these three verdicts to Buitenzorg with the circumspect advice of 11 January 1922. They warned against stopping the project on the strength of three divergent opinions, and recommended instead that a larger consignment be placed in France, where the reception had been most favourable. They further suggested three improvements to the distillation process:

Make the time from picking to distilling as short as possible
Distil at low temperature (= reduced pressure)
Distil with much water, and especially not with superheated steam dry

On 19 January 1922 the Handelsmuseum wrote again to De Kruyff, then in Switzerland, observing that the superiority of the Singapore product remained an open question. Two of the firm’s experts had suggested that the quality might be influenced favourably by a slight fermentation or “broei” (sweating) before distilling, and unfavourably by too hot or too dry distilling. They urged that “de grootste zorg aan de destillatie” — the greatest care — be devoted to the distillation.

The September 1923 Leaf Consignment

After a long silence, De Kruyff — now returned to the Indies — wrote on 12 September 1923. He now sent not oil but raw leaf, two bales shipped by way of the landbouwconsulent (agricultural consultant) at Koeta Radja. He raised the question whether the leaf might undergo a “nafermentatie” (after-fermentation) after shipping from Atjeh, or whether the time elapsed between packing and distilling influenced the quality.

The two bales were received in autumn 1923 and again distributed by the Handelsmuseum: one-third to the Laboratorium voor Technische Botanie (Laboratory for Technical Botany) at Delft, and one-third each to two Dutch essential-oil factories.

The Delft Laboratory’s Report (January 1924)

The Laboratorium voor Technische Botanie at Delft reported in January/February 1924. The fermented leaf weighed 20 kg, contained 15% moisture, and on distillation at 100–120 °C gave a yield of 4.10% to 4.38%. The oil’s physical constants were: density 0.9707 at 15.7°, refractive index 1.5077 at 18°, optical rotation −58°2’ at 20°. These constants were “the most similar to Singapore patchouli oil” — for which the corresponding values are density 0.9628, refractive index 1.50784, optical rotation −58° to −60°. The odour was “buitengewoon sterk” (extraordinarily strong); the laboratory could not compare it with other freshly distilled oil and so offered no final judgement. The yield was respectable: 2.6% for Singapore leaf in the Indies, 4% for the same leaf distilled in Europe.

The Two Factories (Late 1923 — Early 1924)

Of the two commercial factories, the first reported a yield of 632 grams of oil from 14 kg of leaf — 4.5%, “een buitengewoon hooge opbrengst” (an extraordinarily high yield), higher than any yield reported in the literature for European-distilled oil from dried leaf. The constants were normal, but the odour “nog te versch” (still too fresh) to judge. The factory raised the question whether the botanical identity of the leaf had been verified: “of het blad soms van een andere Pogostemon of een ander geslacht afkomstig is dan gewoonlijk” — whether the leaf perhaps came from another Pogostemon species or another genus than usual.

The second factory reported a much lower yield — 0.520 kg from 14.5 kg of leaf, or “nauwelijks 3%” (barely 3%). But the odour was finer: the factory compared four oils (old Java, new Java, Atjeh, Singapore) and its own distillate. The Java oils had a “hooiachtige bijlucht” (hay-like off-odour), absent from the Atjeh and the Handelsmuseum’s own distillate. The Singapore oil was “geuriger” (more fragrant) than the Atjeh, but the Atjeh oil’s “achterblijvende reuk is echter vrij goed” (after-remaining odour is however fairly good). The factory’s verdict: “de verzending van gedroogde Patchouly-bladen voor destillatie in Europa verdient de voorkeur” (the shipment of dried patchouli leaves for distillation in Europe is to be preferred), because the European-distilled oil lacks the off-odour attributable to leaf with “een begin van rotting of fermentatie” (a beginning of rot or fermentation).

The Quarterly Programme and the Bakongan Discovery (1924)

The Handelsmuseum proposed a regular quarterly shipment programme, and Buitenzorg agreed: the Afdeeling Nijverheid would send roughly 55 kg of leaf every two months, direct from Atjeh. The botanical question — what species of Pogostemon was being grown? — could not be answered, since the patchouli “noch op Java, noch op Atjeh ooit bloeit” (neither on Java nor on Atjeh ever flowers). Plants had been set out at Tjibodas in the hope that they might flower under montane conditions.

In July 1924 the first baal — one pikol — was shipped from Tapa Toean under European supervision, so that the leaf could be guaranteed not to be adulterated with foreign leaves, sand, stones and branches, “zooals bij de Inlandsche handelaren dikwijls het geval is” (as is often the case with the native traders).

The baal was in fact shipped by the new manager of the Atjehsche Oliefabriek at Tapa Toean, Van Vreeswijk, who had taken over the factory after a period of standstill. In his letter of 16 August 1924 to the Handelsmuseum, Van Vreeswijk gave the new light on the patchouli question that would prove decisive:

“De kwaliteit is geheel afhankelijk van de plaats van herkomst.” — The quality is wholly dependent on the place of origin.

He then ranked the Atjeh patchouli districts:

Labohan-Hadji — the least valuable. The leaf “komt zeer vuil op de markt” (comes very dirty to market), often weighted with sea-water. Market price ƒ5–ƒ6 per pikol; after cleaning only 50% remains.
Loboang Koang — better. The locality is right by Tapa Toean. The leaf is better cared for and gives a better oil yield. Van Vreeswijk had bought freshly picked leaf here and dried it himself, and had sent the Handelsmuseum one baal of it.
Bakongan — the best. On a recent trip Van Vreeswijk had found that “verreweg de meeste zorg door de Inlanders eraan besteed” — by far the most care is devoted to it by the natives. The leaf “komt biina geheel gezuiverd aan de markt” (comes almost wholly cleaned to market). Within the last year the planters of Bakongan had begun to plant on a strip of land along the coast, bounded on the other side by swamp-land; the conjunction of swamp and sand “schijnt de plant zeer ten goede te komen” (seems to agree very well with the plant). The plants had been picked twice already, and a third picking would follow within the year. The dried leaf had “veel sterker” odour than from any other region in Atjeh. Market price: ƒ14 per pikol.

Van Vreeswijk had therefore made up the second shipment — sent end of October 1924 — from Bakongan leaf.

The Bakongan Triumph (December 1924 — April 1925)

The Bakongan leaf was distributed to the same two factories, plus a sample to Schimmel & Co. of Miltitz. The results, when they came in over the winter of 1924-1925, were uniformly good.

The second factory reported that its directors had judged the oil: “Het ons gezonden monster van het Koloniaal Instituut Nr 21718 ruikt heel goed en komt ons inziens in reuk overeen met goede kwaliteit Penang-olie en is in ieder geval veel beter dan de Java-olie (z.g. Dilem-olie). De kleur is heel mooi.” — The sample sent to us by the Colonial Institute, No. 21718, smells very good and in our opinion in odour corresponds to good-quality Penang oil, and is in any case much better than the Java oil (the so-called Dilem oil). The colour is very beautiful.

Schimmel & Co. confirmed in German: “Die untersuchten Dilemblätter sind hiernach den Singapore-Patchouliblättern als gleichwertig zu erachten. Die Oelausbeute ist recht befriedigend und das Oel selbst nach Geruch und Konstanten von guter Qualität.” — The examined Dilem leaves are accordingly to be considered equivalent to the Singapore patchouli leaves. The oil yield is quite satisfactory and the oil itself, in odour and constants, is of good quality.

The Handelsmuseum’s conclusion, in its letter to Buitenzorg of December 1924, was concise: “prima blad, prima olie; op de winning van het goede blad komt het aan! en niet op de nabehandeling te Penang of Singapore.” — Prime leaf, prime oil; it is the winning of the good leaf that matters, and not the after-treatment at Penang or Singapore.

The Concluding Prospect (April 1925)

The pamphlet closes on an optimistic note. The Atjeh factory was seeking commercial connections in the Netherlands and was unlikely to be disappointed. The Handelsmuseum reported that, following a conversation with the American vice-consul at Medan in the previous month, a report on the patchouli-culture of Atjeh would shortly appear in the United States.

“Er openen zich aldus voor de cultuur van nilam-blad in Atjeh, en de verwerking tot olie aldaar ên in Nederland, aardige perspectieven! Er is een sluier opgeheven, en de afhankelijkheid van Singapore en Penang, wat betreft het verkrijgen van prima patchouly, vervallen.” — There thus open up for the cultivation of nilam-leaf in Atjeh, and for its processing into oil there and in the Netherlands, attractive prospects! A veil has been lifted, and the dependence on Singapore and Penang, in respect of obtaining prime patchouli, has lapsed.

Significance

The 1925 Bericht is significant for the encyclopedia of Aceh history on three grounds. First, it is the founding document of the indigenous patchouli-oil industry of Atjeh, recording in unprecedented detail the four-year experimental programme that began in 1921 and ended in 1925 with the proof that Atjeh-grown leaf, when properly dried and cared for, could yield an oil equal to the best Singapore-Penang product. Second, it documents the discovery of the Bakongan leaf — the leaf of the small coastal strip of the Bakongan landschap, planted on the conjunction of sand and swamp, that proved to be the finest patchouli-leaf of Atjeh, and that has remained so ever since. Third, it preserves a detailed documentary record of the colonial industrial-research methodology: the systematic distribution of samples, the cross-comparison of judgements from different European houses, the patient pursuit of the botanical question, and the close cooperation between the Afdeeling Nijverheid at Buitenzorg, the Afdeeling Handel at Buitenzorg, the Gewestelijk Bestuur van Atjeh en Onderhoorigheden, the Afdeeling Handelsmuseum at Amsterdam, the Atjehsche Oliefabriek at Tapa Toean, and the European essential-oil houses of Schimmel & Co. (Miltitz), Roure, Bertrand fils (Grasse), and Polak & Schwarz’s Essencefabrieken (Hilversum).

Source

Over patchouly-olie en patchouly-blad van Atjeh (Noord-Sumatra). Berichten van de Afdeeling Handelsmuseum van de Kon. Vereeniging Koloniaal Instituut, No. 21. Overgedrukt uit De Indische Mercuur van 8 en 15 Mei 1925. Amsterdam: Druk De Bussy. OCR-filename: 20260801_233856_DLP-153-Over_patchouly_olie_en_patchouly_blad_van_Atjeh_Noord_Sumatra_Nemotron-OCR-v2_OCR.txt, pp. 3-21.

tags	document, source-document, scientific, dutch, colonial, acheh, 1925, patchouli, essential-oil, koloniaal-instituut, handelsmuseum, nilam, tapa-toean, bakongan, loboang-koang, labohan-hadji, de-kruyff, van-vreeswijk
aliases	Patchouly-olie en patchouly-blad van Atjeh, Bericht No. 21 van de Afdeeling Handelsmuseum, Atjeh patchouli oil 1925, De Indische Mercuur 8 and 15 May 1925, Over patchouly-olie en patchouly-blad van Atjeh (Noord-Sumatra)

Explorer