Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-jbqgn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-30T02:16:27.566Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Marco Polo in South-East Asia: A preliminary essay in reconstruction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 August 2009

Colin Jack-Hinton
Get access

Extract

If there is one figure in world history who has certainly not been neglected it is surely Marco Polo. His narrative has appealed to readers since it was first dictated to Rustichello, Polo's fellow prisoner in the dungeons of Genoa, and its many versions have attracted the enthusiastic attentions of some of the finest textual scholars in Europe. It is, however, in respect of the identification of the places which Polo visited in the Far East and Central Asia that a formidable body of published material has now accumulated, embracing the fields of history, linguistics and geography, and of varying quality, perception and relevance. In South-East Asia itself Polo refers to only twelve geographical locations, yet despite this, or perhaps in part because of it, even the most summary investigation of the question of their identity will quickly reveal that the material which has been published on this very limited aspect of Polo's narrative has now reached almost unmanageable proportions, save for the dévoué who is prepared to direct his attentions to little else. In this may be seen the real importance of Polo's narrative within the early history of South-East Asia, for the identification of his geographical nomenclature demands a detailed study of so many aspects of the history of the area prior to and immediately following the period of his narrative. Indeed, with his first cursory examination of Polo's narrative the reader finds himself face to face with some of the more fundamental problems of the study of the early history of South-East Asia.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Southeast Asian History , Volume 5 , Issue 2 , September 1964 , pp. 43 - 103
Copyright
Copyright © The National University of Singapore 1964

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. See also Olschki, 1960:12Google Scholar and Hambis, 1955:xii–xvii.Google Scholar

2. There seem to be no good reason for doubting that Polo is here referring to the old kingdom of Champa extending up the eastern coastline of Indo-China, and I have proceeded from this identification.

3. It is fairly clear, as Marsden was the first to point out, that the narrative is here in error, and that Polo is speaking not of Java but of Chamba (Champa). Whether this error originated in Polo's original narrative or in a later text it is as yet impossible to determine, but I have found no text which renders the name, correctly, as Champa. That the name can only be intended as Champa is perfectly obvious if one attempts to plot Polo's later information on the assumption that Java Major was either Borneo or Java. In either case this results in Polo's later nomenclature being applied to non-existent lands to the south of Java, and it appears to have been this error which led some sixteenth century cartographers to identify much of Polo's nomenclature with an extension of the antipodean and antarctic continent which is so marked a feature of many sixteenth century world-maps. The continent itself had its roots in the cosmographical hypotheses of classical Greek antiquity, but the question of whether this error in Polo's narrative actually induced cartographers to assume that the continent had a promontory to the south of Java, or whether they simply applied his nomenclature to a promontory which seemed to be justified by information obtained from South-East Asian sources of what was in fact Australia, is a question which will be discussed later.

4. All the editors who have treated Polo's narrative in - detail have accepted the necessary correction of south-east to south-west, and some texts read “beyond” “instead of “to the south-east”. To accept the direction as southeast is to identify Lochac with some kingdom in Borneo, and although the early historic importance of that island may well be greater than is generally assumed, it is unlikely that Polo would have wandered from what we know to have been the main maritime trade route between the Straits of Malacca and the China Sea. To accept the reading south-east as correct is to involve a whole sequence of later corrections in order to reconcile Polo's route with the topography of the area.

5. The various renderings of Malaiur are Malayur, Maliur, Malavir, Malenir Malayur.

6. The text seems to be very confused here, and the only conclusion which seems reasonable is that the intrusion of Pentan in association with Malaiur is an error. Some commentators have assumed that Polo is referring to two separate places with similar names, but this is not supported by a textual comparison.

7. Sometimes omitted, e.g. in Yule, 1929:II:284.Google Scholar

8. Polo refers to the cannibalism and heathenism of the people of the interior.

9. Polo continues to describe the rhinoceros; and then to explain how monkeys were killed, dried and treated, and then purveyed as mummified dwarfs.

10. Polo continues to describe how he and his party of 2000 erected fortifications to protect themselves during their five month sojourn. He adds that the people live on rice, describes the collection of palm-wine from the Nipah Palm and also describes coconuts.

11. Polo continues with a description of witchcraft and cannibalism.

12. Polo describes the cultivation of brazil-wood, and refers to tho existence of men with tails and to the fauna of the area.

13. Polo describes tue sago palm, the preparation of sago and the use of its wood as darts.

14. Ferrand, 1922:157–8.Google Scholar

15. Ferrand, 1922:3–6Google Scholar; Coedès, 1944:98.Google Scholar

16. Ferrand, 1922:36Google Scholar; Coedès, 1944:102–4.Google Scholar

17. Ferrand, 1922:7.Google Scholar

18. Ferrand, 1922:14, 17.Google Scholar

19. From the Sanskrit joya or vijaya.

20. Ferrand, 1922:152–7.Google Scholar

21. Groeneveldt, 1876Google Scholar; Möens, 1940.Google Scholar

22. Braddell, 1941.Google Scholar

23. Groeneveldt, 1874:13Google Scholar reads Cho-p'o as Djapa or Djava.

24. Coedès, 1944:114–5Google Scholar. In the late eighth century the Javanese Sailendras claimed suzerainty over Cambodia. The name Cho-p'o may, however, have been used loosely in this reference to raids from the south.

25. Ferrand, 1922:161Google Scholar; Coedès, 1944:110.Google Scholar

26. Ferrand, 1922:17.Google Scholar

27. Coedès, 1944:231.Google Scholar

28. See Wheatley, 1961:300.Google Scholar

29. Ferrand, 1922:19.Google Scholar

30. Ferrand, 1922:8–14.Google Scholar

31. Coedès, 1944:231–2.Google Scholar

32. Ferrand, 1922:15, 21.Google Scholar

33. Ferrand, 1922:173–4.Google Scholar

34. Ferrand, 1922:123–4.Google Scholar

35. Ferrand, 1922:127.Google Scholar

36. Groeneveldt, 1876:20.Google Scholar

37. Ferrand, 1922:175.Google Scholar

38. Coedès, 1944:268.Google Scholar

39. Ferrand, 1922:176Google Scholar; Wheatley, 1961:301.Google Scholar

40. Earlier Chinese records refer to what may have been a southern peninsular kingdom aa Lo-yu-eh.

41. Ferrand, 1922:181.Google Scholar

42. The Ying-yai Sheng-lan of 1416 refers to Ku-bang as formerly San-bo-tsai and also called Palembang.

43. See Wheatley, 1961:31–34.Google Scholar

44. Duyvendak, 1938:349–50.Google Scholar

45. Phillips, 1885Google Scholar and Phillips, 1886.Google Scholar

46. See Gibson-Hill, 1954Google Scholar; Gibson-Hill, 1956Google Scholar; and also Mills, 1937:1–52Google Scholar; Wheauey, 1961:88–103Google Scholar; Phillips, 1886Google Scholar; Phillips, 1885Google Scholar; Barnes, 1911.Google Scholar

47. Castanheda, (Historia do descobrimento, book III, cap. LXXXVI, p. 288)Google Scholar describes the narrowness of the “Straits of Singapore” through which “all vessels” from China, Patani and Siam passed on their way to the Straits of Malacca. This could hardly have been the Johore or Tehran Strait (which De Barros explicitly describes and says was little used, most vessels passing to the south of Singapore), and must have been the Keppel Harbour Strait. This does not, however, disprove a traditional knowledge of Main Strait.

48. Kennedy, 1948a.Google Scholar

49. Braddell, 1956Google Scholar; Wheatley, 1961.Google Scholar

50. See Tibbetts, 1956Google Scholar; Wheatley, 1961:210–51Google Scholar, for more detailed references to Arab sources.

51. Note the other references to the sea to the west of Sumatra as the Sea of Lantbri (Lamuri) and the application of this name to the whole island.

52. See, for example. Fatimi, 1960.Google Scholar

53. See Gibb, 1929:273–277.Google Scholar

54. Tibbetts, 1956:43.Google Scholar

55. Wheatley, 1961:222–3.Google Scholar

56. Tibbetts, 1956:58–9.Google Scholar

57. See illustration,

58. Cortesäo, 1944:135Google Scholaret seq., 463 et seq.

59. Biar is intruded here, but Pires appears to be equating achei (Acheh) and lambry (Lambri) as one place.

60. On the Ptolemaic Geographia see Bagrow, 1945Google Scholar; Bagrow, 1947Google Scholar; Nordenskiold, 1889Google Scholar; Stevenson, 1932Google Scholar; Wheatley, 1916:121–162Google Scholar; Renou, 1925.Google Scholar

61. De Couto, : Decadas, iv, Book 1, Cap i.Google Scholar

62. Linschoten, 1885:107et seq.Google Scholar

63. Duarte Barbosa also followed this identification of Java Major with Java and Java Minor with Sumbawa (Dames, 1921:194).Google Scholar

64. On the Dieppe cartographers see: Forsyth, 1955:23–28Google Scholar; Fonteneau, 1940Google Scholar; Spate 1957; Collingridge, 1891–1892Google Scholar; Morgan, 1891Google Scholar; Chicoteau, 1959Google Scholar; Anthiaume, 1916:I:59–180, 494Google Scholaret seq; Rainaud, 1893–286–92Google Scholar; Major, 1859:xxvii et seq.Google Scholar

65. See the inscription on Le Testu's planisphere of 1566 in his illuminated atlas in the Bibliothèque National, Paris (Res Ge AA625).

66. British Museum (MS 5413).

67. British Museum (Royal MS 20 EIX ff 29v–30).

68. See Jack-Hinton, 1964.Google Scholar

69. Mills, 1930:185.Google Scholar

70. See Mills, 1930:60–61.Google Scholar

71. See Bibliothèque Royale, Brussels, MS No. 7264, f33.

72. See Mills, 1930Google Scholar:Plate V. Meridional India was the southern land of the Ptolemaic “Table 12 of Asia”.

73. On Eredia see Spate 1956.

74. See, for instance, the papers in JMBRAS Vol. XXII, Part 4, 1949.Google Scholar

75. Yule, 1929:II:274–5.Google Scholar

76. Coedès, 1944:262.Google Scholar

77. or an error introduced in an early transcription.

78. Wheatley, 1961:159.Google Scholar

79. Ferrand, 1918:91, 134–145Google Scholar, after Tomaschek, 1897. Carte XXIII.Google Scholar

80. See Coedès, 1944:262.Google Scholar

81. Gerini, 1909:497. Although dogmatic Gerini's identification seems likely to have been correct.Google Scholar

82. See Yule, 1929:II:277–8.Google Scholar

83. Garnier, 1874:136–7.Google Scholar

84. He added that it was the Little Thais, another branch, who founded Ayuthia in 1351.

85. Yule, 1929:II:278.Google Scholar

86. Phillips, 1886:34.Google Scholar

87. Penzer, 1929:241:lvii.Google Scholar

88. Yule, 1929:II:280–1.Google Scholar

89. Coedès, 1944:262.Google Scholar

90. Penzer, 1929:lvii. after Blagden.Google Scholar

91. Penzer, 1929:lvii.Google Scholar

92. Barnes, 1911.Google Scholar

93. Gerini, 1909:531–9.Google Scholar

94. Which other scholars would identify as Pulau Tioman.

95. There is indeed a Kampong Sungei Malaya at the mouth of the Sungei Malayu in 103°41′S 1°27′N.

96. I can find no evidence of this name today.

97. Ferrarid, 1922:140.Google Scholar

98. Schlegel espoused a peninsular identification of Polo's Malaiur in 1898 on the same grounds.

99. Logan.

100. See Coedès, 1944:262–3.Google Scholar

101. See BEFFO, vol. iv, 1904, pp. 321–333, 341, 347.Google Scholar

102. Yule, 1929:II:281.Google Scholar

103. Yule, 1929:II:287.Google Scholar

104. Penzer, 1929:lix.Google Scholar

105. Coedès, 1944–263.Google Scholar

106. Yule, 1929:II:288–9.Google Scholar

107. Penzer, 1929:lix.Google Scholar

108. Coedès, 1944–263.Google Scholar

109. It will be immediately clear to the reader that the rendering of this name is crucial to its identification.

110. Hill, 1963:8.Google Scholar

111. Hill for example (Hill, 1960: 11) refers to “Polo's statement that in 1292 only Perlak was Muslim”, and attributes a positive statement to Polo which he never in fact made. Polo simply remarks that the inhabitants of the port of Ferlec had become Muslim, but he neither says nor implies anything about the presence or absence of Islamic influence in the other kingdoms.Google Scholar

112. Most students of this question seem to have limited themselves by their choice of text, or been limited by the availability of texts, and have worked on the assumption that the name of the port was Samara, the rendering of the name in Ramusio and the FG texts.

113. Kern, 1938:310.Google Scholar

114. Hill, 1963:8.Google Scholar

115. Yule 1929:11:297.

116. Phillips, 1895:528.Google Scholar

117. Phillips, 1885:221Google Scholar

118. Penzer, 1929:lix.Google Scholar

119. Coedès, 1944:263.Google Scholar

120. Hambis, 1955:405.Google Scholar

121. Yule, 1929:II:300–301.Google Scholar

122. Yule, 1929:II:301.Google Scholar

123. Penzer and Blagden remaik that Lambry “is well known from other sources and cannot have been situated far away from Kota Raja, the capital of Achin, close to the NW end of Sumatra” (Penzer, 1929:lix)Google Scholar. Coedès, 1944:263Google Scholar; Yule, 1929:II:302–3.Google Scholar

124. Penzer 1929:lx; Yule 1929:II:307;

125. This at least has been the opinion of most commentators. On the other hand in some versions of his text, eg. LT, Polo claims to have visited the six out of eight kingdoms in Sumatra which he names, and I can see no reason why we should doubt Polo's statement that he did visit Fansur.