^{page 587 note 1} See section III below.

^{page 587 note 2} Braddell, R., ‘Notes on ancient times in Malaya’, JMBRAS, XXIII 3, 1950, 34;Google ScholarWheatley, P., ‘Langkasuka’, TP, XLIV, 1956, 387–412.Google Scholar

^{page 587 note 3} Cœdès, G., Becueil des inscriptions du Siam, II, Bangkok, 1929, 41–3.Google Scholar

^{page 587 note 4} For example: Cœdès, G., Les états hindouisés d'Indochine et d'Indonesie, Paris, 1948, 72–3;Google ScholarSastri, K.A. Nilakanta, History of śrī Vijaya, Madras, 1949, 21.Google Scholar

^{page 587 note 5} JMBRAS, XXVIII, 1, 1955, 83.Google Scholar

^{page 588 note 1} Recueil, I, 1924, 48.

^{page 588 note 2} Cœdès, G., ‘Documents sur I'histoire politique et religieuse du Laos Occidental’, BEFEO, XXV, 1925, 23 ff., 158.Google Scholar This event is also mentioned in the sixteenth century Pali Jinakālamālini; ibid., 80.

^{page 588 note 3} ‘Victorious is the king, the lord of Śrīvijaya, whose sovereignty is recognised and whose commands are obeyed by the neighbouring kings ….’ K. A. N. Sastri, History of Śrī Vijaya, 121.

^{page 588 note 4} Cœdés, G., ‘Le royaume de Çrīvijaya’, BEFEO, XVIII, 6, 1918, 33–4.Google Scholar

^{page 588 note 5} For a detailed investigation of the art history of the Tāmbraliṅga region see: Dupont, P., ‘Le Buddha de Grahi et l'école de C'ăiya’, BEFEO, XLII, 1942, 103–8.Google Scholar Dupont criticized too comprehensive a definition of the ‘Art of Śrīvijaya’. His analysis of the linguistic and archaeological evidence from the region seems to tally with the conclusions about its political history suggested in this essay.

^{page 588 note 6} Ferrand, G., ‘L'empire sumatranais de Çrīvijaya’, JA, XXI, 1922, 44–5.Google Scholar 224; Recueil, II, 5–6; Les états, 240–2; K.A.N. Sastri, History of Sri Vijaya, 81; Braddell, R., JMBRAS, XXIII, 3, 1950, 29.Google Scholar

^{page 589 note 1} Recueil, II, 6–9. Chao Ju-kua, Chufan chih, 1225, Chung hua shu chti, Peking, 1956. Later Professor Cœdès looked to Malayu for Grahi's suzerain. Bijdragen, LXXXIII, 1927, 468 ff. Professor Coedes knew that Chao Ju-kua stated that there was a Cambodian province of ‘Teng-liumei’ somewhere in the area but he was unwilling to accept it as Tāmbralinga, among other reasons because there would have been a SVivijayan enclave at Jaiya in the middle of it. Les è'tats, 304, n. 5; 310, n. 2. See below for his treatment of the problem.

^{page 589 note 2} Skeat, W.W. and Blagden, C.O., Pagan races of the Malay Peninsula, London, 1906, II, 377 ff.;Google Scholar Dupont, ‘C'ăiya’, 108.

^{page 589 note 3} Sung shih, Ssǔ pu ts'ung k'an collection, Po-na edition, 489, 24 a–b.

^{page 589 note 4} CFC, 7, 10, 17; F. Hirth and W. W. Rockhill, Chau Ju-kua, St. Petersburg, 1911, 53, 57–8, 62, 67–8. Chou Ch'ü-fei the author of the Ling wai tai ta of 1178 (henceforth referred to as LWTT), also referred to ‘Teng-liu-mei’: Pi chi hsi shou ta kuan collection, , 5, 2a.

^{page 589 note 5} ‘Le royaume de Çrīvijaya’, BEFEO, XVIII, 1918, 6, 15–18.Google Scholar Pelliot would not express an opinion about the location of ‘Tan-ma-ling’ except to argue that there were objections to its being a phonetic reconstruction of ‘Tanah Malayu’ (Takakusu) or to its location outside the Peninsula and in eastern Sumatra (Schlegel). BEFEO, IV, 1904, 328, n. 6.

^{page 590 note 1} Pelliot, P., ‘Deux itinéraires de Chine en Inde à la fin du VIIIe siécle’, BEFEO, IV, 1904, 233–4.Google Scholar Pelliot did not have at his disposal the Sung hui yao kao. (See n. 4, p. 592, below.) Nevertheless he foresaw the identification of ‘Tan-mei-liu’ with ‘Teng-liu-mei’. He chose, however, to give credence to the former name because Ma Tuan-lin had a similar rendering in the form of ‘Chou-mei-liu -’ and because the Sung shih gave a lengthy geographical description of it. With Pelliot’s sponsoring of’ Tan-mei-liu ‘, its survival in the histories of South East Asia was guaranteed. This has had unfortunate consequences. Because it only appeared in 1001, the problem arose of finding its equivalent in 1225. The unanimity among historians in accepting ‘Tan-mei-liu’ (1001) as Tāmbraliṅga disappeared when confronted with the problem of ‘Teng-liu-mei’ or ‘Tan-ma-ling’ (1225). Professor Cœdès chose ‘Tan-ma-ling’, and Professor Sastri and Sir Roland Braddell followed him:. History of Śrī Vijaya, 90; JMBRAS, XXIII, 3, 1950, 34. The effect of this tradition has been to leave ‘Teng-liu-mei’ high and dry and, as this essay will suggest, to introduce a Śrīvijayan rather than a Cambodian bias into the history of the mid-Malay Peninsula. Hirth and Rockhill, without great conviction, were content to follow Pelliot in identifying ‘ Teng-liu-mei’ with Ligor. See their joint publication, Chao-Ju-kua, 57–8! Dupont, in the field of art history, seemed to exclude Srivijaya from the area after the beginning of the eleventh century: ‘C'0103;iya’, 108. Mr. Briggs lumped all places beginning with ‘T’ under Tāmbraliṅga and decided that Tāmbraliṅga was free from Śrījayan control from the eleventh century, but he compromised by including ‘ Tan-ma-ling’ among the variety of names by which the Chinese knew Tāmbraliṅga ‘The Khmer Empire and the Malay Peninsula’, FEQ, IX, 05 1950, 291–2.Google Scholar

^{page 591 note 1} On the identification of these place-names see Additional note (1).

^{page 591 note 2} See Additional note (1).

^{page 591 note 3} ‘Documents’, 23 ff., 158 ff. Professor Coedes upheld the suggestion in 1948: Les états, 231–2.

^{page 591 note 4} ‘Documents’, 24–5; Recueil, II, 10; Les états, 229. But Dupont (‘C'0103;iya’, 108), who was one of the few writers to give some weight to the ‘Khmer’ connexion with the Tāmbraliṅga area, suggested that some vaguely Khmer element in the local population would have assisted Sūryavarman I in becoming ruler of Cambodia without cutting too foreign a figure.

^{page 591 note 5} Les états, 229.

^{page 591 note 6} Casparis, J.G. de, Prasasti Indonesia, II, Bandung, 1956, 15–46.Google Scholar See also: Cœdés, , ‘Les inscriptions Malaises de Çrīvijaya’, BEFEO, XXX, 1930, 48–9.Google Scholar

^{page 592 note 1} Casparis, ibid., 17–18. Briggs, FEQ, IX, May 1950, 292, speaks of the ‘conquest’ of Tāmbraliṅga by Sujita. It is more likely that Tāmbraliṅga drifted into a semi-independent and then completely independent status.

^{page 592 note 2} Briggs, L.P., The ancient Khmer empire, Philadelphia, 1951, 134, 140, 146.Google Scholar

^{page 592 note 3} Cœdès, G. and Dupont, P., ‘Les stèles de Kăk Thoṃ, Phnoṃ Sandak et Práḥ Vihãr’, BEFEO, XLIII, 1943–1946, 71–2;Google ScholarLes états, 228. See also n. 3, p. 596, below.

^{page 592 note 4} For a note on the Sung hui yao kao, see Ssu-yu Teng and Biggerstaff, K., An annotated bibliography of selected Chinese reference works, Harvard University Press, 1950, 162–3.Google Scholar The relevant passages in the Sung shih were based on the Sung hui yao kao, though the subject matter of the latter was much fuller. The Sung hui yao kao was not published (in a photolithographic edition) until 1936 and was therefore not available to Pelliot in 1904. One assumes that Ou-yang Hsüan and Wang Ying-lin, the compilers of the Sung shih and the Yü hai respectively, and also Ma Tuan-lin had access to the same official documents for many of the events included in these works. For Pelliot's views on the relationship between the texts used by Ma Tuan-lin and Ou-yang Hsüan, see BEFEO, III, 1903, 651.

^{page 593 note 1} Sung shih, 489, 24a–b.

^{page 593 note 2} Sung hui yao kao, Ta tung shu chü, Peking, 1936, , 14b. Hsü tzǔ chih t'ung chien ch’ang pien, Che Chiang shu chü, 1881, 49, 3b, stated that was in diplomatic relationship with China for the first time as a result of this mission which was sent by The envoys were and the party included nine persons. Yü hai, Chiang Ning t'ao kuei t'ing, 1738, 154, 30b, stated that in 1001 sent a mission to China.

^{page 593 note 3} Wen hsien t'ung h'ao, Wan-yu wen-k'u edition, 332, 2612.

^{page 593 note 4} Ling wai tai ta, , 2, 5a; , 7, la. Chufan chih, 7, 10. The editor of the LWTT, , 7, la, observed that the referred to and the Sung shih to .

^{page 593 note 5} In the absence of further evidence Pelliot took the opposite view. BEFEO, IV, 1904, 233.Google Scholar

^{page 593 note 6} SS, 489, IIb.

^{page 594 note 1} SS, 489, 24a.

^{page 594 note 2} located, Pelliot‘Lo-hu’ in the region of the lower Menam; BEFEO, IV, 1904, 233–4.Google Scholar Professor Cœdès thought that it was Lavo = Lopburi: BEFEO, XLI, 1941, 292, n. 1; Les éals, 304.

^{page 594 note 3} Briggs, L.P., ‘The Khmer Empire and the Malay Peninsula’, FEQ, IX, 05 1950, 285.Google Scholar There are a number of references to ‘ Chen-li-fu ‘ in the Chinese sources, and the SHYK, 4, 99 ff., has a special section on this State. See Additional note (4) below on the problem of its embassy in 1200. A study should be made of ‘Chen-li-fu’ and of Pānduranga which seem, in spite of their being under Khmer and Cham suzerainty respectively, to have been capable on occasion of diplomatic relations with China. was in the same position, but for good reasons. Any information on the nature of vassalage in early South East Asia would be helpful in making possible a fuller understanding of Śrīvijayan history. It might for example throw light on the relationship between Kalah and Jambi and the suzerain.

^{page 594 note 4} SS, 489, llb; 24a.

^{page 594 note 5} LWTT, J; , 2, 5a; , 7, la. The meaning of the term = ‘mart’ is denned in , 2, 4b.

^{page 594 note 6} CFC, 7–8, 10. Nevertheless ‘Tan-ma-ling’, which also had a ruler was mentioned by Chao Ju-kua as sending tribute to Śrīvijaya (ibid., 17).

^{page 594 note 7} SS, 489, lla.

^{page 594 note 8} CFC, 7–8, 13.

^{page 595 note 1} SHYK, 44, la.

^{page 595 note 2} Caesalpinia sappan, Burkill, L.I.H., A dictionary of the economic products of the Malay Peninsula, Oxford, 1935, 1, 386–93,Google Scholar states that it is found throughout Malaysia. In the Peninsula it is found in the centre under the mountains. He quotes Linschoten's statement that at the end of the sixteenth century it was exported from the Patani area. ‘Chin’ means ‘catty’ but, in view of probable changes in the value of the measure, it is prudent not to render it as ‘catty’ in the context of the early eleventh century.

^{page 595 note 3} SHYK, 4, 97a.

^{page 595 note 4} SS, 489, 24a-b.

^{page 595 note 5} SHYK, , 30b; HZ, 83, 2a-b.

^{page 595 note 6} ‘SHYK, 7, 20b. The first-class powers were the Arabs, the Colas, Śrīvijaya, and Java or, in other words, the chief competitors in the international trade of those times.

^{page 595 note 7} SHYK, 7, 31b.

^{page 596 note 1} BEFEO, XXXIV, 1934, 420, n. 4, 422; ibid., XI, 1911, 400. Unfortunately there are no references on these inscriptions to the time of the year.

^{page 596 note 2} ‘ Documents ‘, 80, 158.

^{page 596 note 3} The embassy arrived in China (or at the capital of K’ai Feng in the north) on the third day of the seventh month. Would the invasion of Cambodia have already begun? Those with an intimate knowledge of the climate of Cambodia will be able to suggest the likely month when campaigning would begin. If Professor Cœdès is correct in concluding that the 1001 inscriptions of Sūryavarman in the eastern part of the country suggest that the campaign began there, one presumes that the invading army travelled by sea. A fleet would not have sailed until the north-east monsoon at the beginning of the year had blown itself out. Mr. Briggs assigns the conquest of Lavo by Sujita to some time after the conquest of Cambodia by Sūryavarman. This view seems to be based on an unrealistic interpretation of the relationship between the father and his son. ‘The Khmer Empire and the Malay Peninsula,’ FEQ, IX, 05 1950, 286.Google Scholar See Additional note (2).

^{page 596 note 4} This suggestion is encouraged by M. Damais’ revised date for the destruction of the Matarām kraton. See Additional note (3) on the briskness of Srivijayan diplomacy in the early eleventh century.

^{page 597 note 1} Maspero, G., Le royaume de Champa, 1928, 145.Google Scholar

^{page 597 note 2} Bosch, F.D.K., ‘De laatste der Pāṇṭawa's’, Bijdr., civ, 1948, 542–69.Google Scholar His view is discussed by MrBriggs, in The ancient Khmer empire, 1951, 148.Google Scholar

^{page 597 note 3} Sastri, K.A.H., History of Sri Vijaya, Madras, 1949, 80 and n. 14.Google Scholar

^{page 598 note 1} SHYK, , 31b. This is a quotation from the YH.

^{page 598 note 2} Les états, 234–5.

^{page 598 note 3} ibid., 258–9.

^{page 598 note 4} In 1948 Professor Coedès was still impressed by the way in which this title recalled later titles used by Jambi rulers and wondered whether the author of the 1183 inscription was a ruler of Malayu; Les états, 301. Professor Sastri disagreed; History of Śri Vijaya, 92. Both these scholars saw the problem in terms of Sumatran power politics.

^{page 598 note 5} For the fleet, an unusual Khmer weapon, see G. Maspero, Le royaume de Champa, 155, quoting later Viet sources. Professor Coedès, Les états, 274, on the strength of a quotation from Hervey de Saint-Denys' translation of Ma Tuan-lin's Méridionaux, implied that Sūryavarman II was involved in trading relations with China. de Saint-Denys, Hervey, Ethnographie des peuples étrangers à la Chine, Genève, II 1883, 487.Google Scholar This leads one to inquire what further evidence may be available about the commercial activities of the Angkor kings. Unfortunately, the translation is inaccurate. WHTK, 332, 2605, seems only to refer to a routine mission and the arrangements made to pay for the presents offered by the envoys. The year was 1131.

‘In the first year of the chao hsing period (1131–63) the Kuang Nan trade commissioner reported that this country (i.e. Cambodia) had sent a letter (by messenger). The letter had been handed over to the chih chou t‘i chü. The imperial instruction was that the (gifts) should not be accepted. If any of these goods were in the category of “official goods”, their value should be estimated and paid for. Moreover gifts from the province should be given in return.’

The trade of Cambodia is still an obscure subject. Chao Ju-kua said that the country was rich in natural resources, and Chou Ta-kuan at the end of the thirteenth century indicated that there was considerable Chinese economic penetration, reflected perhaps in the stacks of porcelain excavated at Angkor and in the Ta Prohm (1186) and Preah Khan (1191) inscriptions with references to Chinese articles including mosquito nets. A Chinese sailor guided the Cham fleet to Angkor in 1177.

Who handled Cambodian foreign trade? Was there such a person as a Khmer merchant? There were at least two. They are mentioned in the SHYK, 4, 28b. In 1008 they were thrown out of Tongking into southern China where they were given assistance.

^{page 599 note 1} These dates are based on evidence at present available and should be regarded as provisional. There seems to be no reason for upsetting 1178 as the date of the last Śrīvijayan mission. SS, 489, 15a; SHYK, 55b–56a. For Champa see SHYK, 4, 82a–b. Champa's diplomatic relations with China were complicated by its piracy and its preparations for the Cambodian campaigns of 1170 and 1177. Professor Coedès’ latest date for Java, based on Groeneveldt, was 1109. Les états, 268. This was an embassy. The Sung emperors were conferring honours on the Javanese rulers after that date. Groeneveldt, translating the Sung shih, 489, 17b–18a, supplied the date 1132, while the SHYK, 4, 98a, supplied further dates until 1170. It is assumed that the occasions for these honours were missions, but this is not certain. See Additional note (4) for problems connected with Cambodian missions in the twelfth century.

^{page 599 note 2} See Additional note (4) on the doubtful embassy from Cambodia in 1200 and the suggestion that, though Jayavarman VII might still have been living then, his control over the southwestern provinces had weakened, a circumstance which would help to account for the drifting of into independence early in the thirteenth century.

^{page 600 note 1} LWTT, 7, 1.

^{page 600 note 2} From quoted by Han-sheng, Ch’üan, ‘External and internal trade of Canton during the Sung dynasty’, Academia Sinica Bulletin (Shanghai), VIII, 1939, 316–17.Google Scholar

^{page 600 note 3} CFC, 10.

^{page 600 note 4} Recueil, II, 8–9; Les états, 310–11.

^{page 600 note 5} Professor Coedès pointed out that the language of the 1230 inscription, though in Sanskrit, showed a strong Pali influence. He also called attention to the fact that at the end of the thirteenth century Hīnayāna was flourishing in Ligor. (Bijdr., LXXXIII, 1927, 471.Google Scholar) Dupont believed that there were Ceylon influences in the origins of the ‘School of C'ăiya’ art though no exact dating could be assigned to them; ‘C'ăiya’, 111–13.

^{page 602 note 1} Sauvaget, J., Relation de la Chine et de l'Inde, Paris, 1948, 43;Google ScholarBraddell, R., JMBRAS, XXIII, 1, 1950,Google Scholar 21 ff.

^{page 602 note 2} Pelliot, P., ‘Deux itinéraires …’, BEFEO, IV, 1904, 351–3.Google Scholar Also his review of Hirth and Rockhill's, Chao Ju-kua, TP, XII, 1912, 453.Google Scholar

^{page 602 note 3} Sastri, K.A.N., ‘Takuapa and its Tamil inscription’, JMBRAS, XXII, 1, 1949, 25–30;Google ScholarRecueil, II, 49, 57.

^{page 602 note 4} According to the T’ung tien, Wan-yu wen-k’u edition, 188, 1007, ‘Ko-lo’ had been heard of in Han times.

^{page 602 note 5} LWTT, 2, 5b.

^{page 602 note 6} Ferrand, G., Relations de voyages et textes géographiques arabes, persans, et turks relatifs a l'extrême-orient du VIII au XVIIIe siècles, Paris, 1913, 1, 83,Google Scholar 96.

^{page 602 note 7} SHYK, 4, 68b–69a; YH, 154, 21a. These references answer Maspero's query about the origin of the lion; Le royaume de Champa, 132, n. 7.

^{page 603 note 1} ‘The Khmer Empire and the Malay Peninsula’, FEQ, IX, 05 1950, 284,Google Scholar 286.

^{page 604 note 1} Damais, L.C., ‘Études d'epigraphie indonésienne, III,’, BEFEO, XLVI, 1, 1952, 64–5, n. 2;Google Scholarde Casparis, J.G., Prasasti Indonesia, II, 1956, 297, n. 68.Google Scholar

^{page 604 note 2} SS, 489, 13b. SBYK, 7, 15a, adds that it was in the ninth month but did not mention the temple.

^{page 604 note 3} SS, 490, 19b.

^{page 604 note 4} SS, 489, 14a. Confirmed by SHYK, 7. 17a.

^{page 604 note 5} SHYK, 4, 30b. Confirmed by HZ, 83, 2a–b.

^{page 604 note 6} SHYK, 7 , 20b.

^{page 604 note 7} SS, 489, 14a. The SHYK, 7, 21a, quoting the YH, omits a reference to the memorial and states that in the sixth month the Śrīvijayan envoys were allowed to present incense at a festival in honour of the dynasty's ancestor. YH, 154, 22a. HZ, 89, 15b.

^{page 604 note 8} SHYK, 7, 21a–b, quoting the

^{page 604 note 9} Burkill, I.H., A dictionary of the economic products of the Malay Peninsula, I,Google Scholar 961 ff.; II, 1522 ff.

^{page 605 note 1} CFC, 108.

^{page 605 note 2} SHYK, 4, 97.

^{page 605 note 3} SS, 489, 21b. SHYK, 7, 20b.

^{page 605 note 4} SHYK, 7, 20b.

^{page 605 note 5} Les états, 270, 274, 275, 291.

^{page 605 note 6} BEFEO, XXIX, 1929, 328.Google Scholar

^{page 605 note 7} SS, 489, lla; 11b.

^{page 605 note 8} SS, 489, 11b. WHTK, 332, 2605.

^{page 605 note 9} See n. 5, p. 598 above.

^{page 605 note 10} WHTK, 332, 2605. SHYK, 4, 98a.

^{page 605 note 11} YH, 154, 33b.

^{page 605 note 12} SHYK, 47a.

^{page 606 note 1} YH, 154, 33b. WHTK, 332, 2605. 88, 489, 11b. SHYK, 4, 99 ff. SHYK, 7, 56a.

^{page 606 note 2}

‘Among its (Cambodia's) dependencies is Chen-li-fu. It is in the south-western corner of Cambodia. At the south-east of Chen-li-fu is Po-szŭ-lan. At the south-west of Chen-li-fu is Teng liu-mei which is its neighbour. Chen-li-fu has sixty and more settlements. In the sixth year of the period (1195–1201) its ruler had been ruling for twenty years. This ruler sent an envoy with a memorial and tribute in local goods and also two tame elephants. The emperor thanked him. But, because the voyage was a long one, the emperor decreed that thereafter there was no need for tribute to be sent’

^{page 606 note 3}

^{page 606 note 4} SHYK, 4, 99 ff.

^{page 606 note 5} It is of interest that the chapter about ‘Chen-li-fu’ in the Sung hui yao kao, 4, 99b, contains a reference to Chinese trading vessels visiting this country with cargoes of silk goods and porcelain. The number of unmistakable references to Sung shipping in South East Asia are few, and this addition is a welcome one.

^{page 606 note 6} BEFEO, XXIX, 1929,Google Scholar 327 ff.

^{page 607 note 1} BEFEO, XXIX, 1929,Google Scholar 327 ff. Also see: Coedès, G., ‘L'année du lièvre, 1219 A.D.’, India antiqua, Leyden, 1947, 83–8,Google Scholar for a reasoned argument in favour of Jayavarman VII's extreme old age in spite of the absence of evidence to prove it. An inscription which may contain the date equivalent to 1204 is attributed to Jayavarman and would be his latest inscription if the date could be verified. The last firm date associated with him has always been 1200 on the strength of the embassy which in fact came from ‘Chen-li-fu’ and not from Cambodia.