The Travels of Marco Polo — Volume 2

Note 1.—✛The name Champa is of Indian origin, like the adjoining Kamboja and many other names in Indo-China, and was probably taken from that of an ancient Hindu city and state on the Ganges, near modern Bhágalpúr. Hiuen Tsang, in the 7th century, makes mention of the Indo-Chinese state as Mahāchampā (Pèl. Boudd., III. 83.)

The title of Champa down to the 15th century seems to have been applied by Western Asiatics to a kingdom which embraced the whole coast between Tong-king and Kamboja, including all that is now called Cochin China outside of Tong-king. It was termed by the Chinese Chen-Ching. In 1471 the King of Tong-king, Lê Thanh-tong, conquered the country, and the genuine people of Champa were reduced to a small number occupying the mountains of the province of Binh Thuan at the extreme south-east of the Coch. Chinese territory. To this part of the coast the name Champa is often applied in maps. (See J. A. sér. II. tom. xi. p. 31, and J. des Savans, 1822, p. 71.) The people of Champa in this restricted sense are said to exhibit Malay affinities, and they profess Mahomedanism. [“The Mussulmans of Binh-Thuan call themselves Bani or Orang Bani, ‘men mussulmans,’ probably from the Arabic beni ‘the sons,’ to distinguish them from the Chams Djat ‘of race,’ which they name also Kaphir or Akaphir, from the Arabic word kafer ‘pagans.’ These names are used in Binh-Thuan to make a distinction, but Banis and Kaphirs alike are all Chams.... In Cambodia all Chams are Mussulmans.” (E. Aymonier, Les Tchames, p. 26.) The religion of the pagan Chams of Binh-Thuan is degenerate Brahmanism with three chief gods, Po-Nagar, Po-Romé, and Po-Klong-Garaï. (Ibid., p. 35.)—H. C.] The books of their former religion they say (according to Dr. Bastian) that they received from Ceylon, but they were converted to Islamism by no less a person than ’Ali himself. The Tong-king people received their Buddhism from China, and this tradition puts Champa as the extreme flood-mark of that great tide of Buddhist proselytism, which went forth from Ceylon to the Indo-Chinese regions in an early century of our era, and which is generally connected with the name of Buddaghosha.

The prominent position of Champa on the route to China made its ports places of call for many ages, and in the earliest record of the Arab navigation to China we find the country noticed under the identical name (allowing for the deficiencies of the Arabic Alphabet) of Ṣanf or Chanf. Indeed it is highly probable that the Ζάβα or Ζάβαι of Ptolemy’s itinerary of the sea-route to the Sinae represents this same name.

[“It is true,” Sir Henry Yule wrote since (1882), “that Champa, as known in later days, lay to the east of the Mekong delta, whilst Zabai of the Greeks lay to the west of that and of the μέγα ακροτήριον—the Great Cape, or C. Cambodia of our maps. Crawford (Desc. Ind. Arch. p. 80) seems to say that the Malays include under the name Champa the whole of what we call Kamboja. This may possibly be a slip. But it is certain, as we shall see presently, that the Arab Ṣanf—which is unquestionably Champa—also lay west of the Cape, i.e. within the Gulf of Siam. The fact is that the Indo-Chinese kingdoms have gone through unceasing and enormous vicissitudes, and in early days Champa must have been extensive and powerful, for in the travels of Hiuen Tsang (about A.D. 629) it is called Mahâ-Champa. And my late friend Lieutenant Garnier, who gave great attention to these questions, has deduced from such data as exist in Chinese Annals and elsewhere, that the ancient kingdom which the Chinese describe under the name of Fu-nan, as extending over the whole peninsula east of the Gulf of Siam, was a kingdom of the Tsiam or Champa race. The locality of the ancient port of Zabai or Champa is probably to be sought on the west coast of Kamboja, near the Campot, or the Kang-kao of our maps. On this coast also was the Ḳomâr and Ḳamârah of Ibn Batuta and other Arab writers, the great source of aloes-wood, the country then of the Khmer or Kambojan People.” (Notes on the Oldest Records of the Sea-Route to China from Western Asia, Proc. R. G. S. 1882, pp. 656–657.)

M. Barth says that this identification would agree well with the testimony of his inscription XVIII. B., which comes from Angkor and for which Campā is a part of the Dakshiṇāpatha, of the southern country. But the capital of this rival State of Kamboja would thus be very near the Trêang province where inscriptions have been found with the names of Bhavavarman and of Īçānavarman. It is true that in 627, the King of Kamboja, according to the Chinese Annals (Nouv. Mél. As. I. p. 84), had subjugated the kingdom of Fu-nan identified by Yule and Garnier with Campā. Abel Rémusat (Nouv. Mél. As. I. pp. 75 and 77) identifies it with Tong-king and Stan. Julien (J. As. 4^e Sér. X. p. 97) with Siam. (Inscrip. Sanscrites du Cambodge, 1885, pp. 69–70, note.)

Sir Henry Yule writes (l.c. p. 657): “We have said that the Arab Ṣanf, as well as the Greek Zabai, lay west of Cape Cambodia. This is proved by the statement that the Arabs on their voyage to China made a ten days’ run from Ṣanf to Pulo Condor.” But Abulfeda (transl. by Guyard, II. ii. p. 127) distinctly says that the Komār Peninsula (Khmer) is situated west of the Ṣanf Peninsula; between Ṣanf and Komār there is not a day’s journey by sea.

We have, however, another difficulty to overcome.

I agree with Sir Henry Yule and Marsden that in ch. vii. infra, p. 276, the text must be read, “When you leave Chamba,” instead of “When you leave Java.” Coming from Zayton and sailing 1500 miles, Polo arrives at Chamba; from Chamba, sailing 700 miles he arrives at the islands of Sondur and Condur, identified by Yule with Sundar Fúlát (Pulo Condore); from Sundar Fúlát, after 500 miles more, he finds the country called Locac; then he goes to Pentam (Bintang, 500 miles), Malaiur, and Java the Less (Sumatra). Ibn Khordâdhbeh’s itinerary agrees pretty well with Marco Polo’s, as Professor De Goeje remarks to me: “Starting from Mâit (Bintang), and leaving on the left Tiyuma (Timoan), in five days’ journey, one goes to Kimèr (Kmer, Cambodia), and after three days more, following the coast, arrives to Ṣanf; then to Lukyn, the first point of call in China, 100 parasangs by land or by sea; from Lukyn it takes four days by sea and twenty by land to go to Kanfu.” [Canton, see note, supra p. 199.] (See De Goeje’s Ibn Khordâdhbeh, p. 48 et seq.) But we come now to the difficulty. Professor De Goeje writes to me: “It is strange that in the Relation des Voyages of Reinaud, p. 20 of the text, reproduced by Ibn al Fakîh, p. 12 seq., Sundar Fúlát (Pulo Condore) is placed between Ṣanf and the China Sea (Sandjy); it takes ten days to go from Ṣanf to Sundar Fúlát, and then a month (seven days of which between mountains called the Gates of China). In the Livre des Merveilles de l’Inde (pp. 85, 86) we read: ‘When arrived between Ṣanf and the China coast, in the neighbourhood of Sundar Fúlát, an island situated at the entrance of the Sea of Sandjy, which is the Sea of China....’ It would appear from these two passages that Ṣanf is to be looked for in the Malay Peninsula. This Ṣanf is different from the Ṣanf of Ibn Khordâdhbeh and of Abulfeda.” (Guyard’s transl. II. ii. 127.)

It does not strike me from these passages that Ṣanf must be looked for in the Malay Peninsula. Indeed Professor G. Schlegel, in a paper published in the T’oung Pao, vol. x., seems to prove that Shay-po (Djava), represented by Chinese characters, which are the transcription of the Sanskrit name of the China Rose (Hibiscus rosa sinensis), Djavâ or Djapâ, is not the great island of Java, but, according to Chinese texts, a state of the Malay Peninsula; but he does not seem to me to prove that Shay-po is Champa, as he believes he has done.

However, Professor De Goeje adds in his letter, and I quite agree with the celebrated Arabic scholar of Leyden, that he does not very much like the theory of two Ṣanf, and that he is inclined to believe that the sea captain of the Marvels of India placed Sundar Fúlát a little too much to the north, and that the narrative of the Relation des Voyages is inexact.

To conclude: the history of the relations between Annam (Tong-king) and her southern neighbour, the kingdom of Champa, the itineraries of Marco Polo and Ibn Khordâdhbeh as well as the position given to Ṣanf by Abulfeda, justify me, I think, in placing Champa in that part of the central and southern Indo-Chinese coast which the French to-day call Annam (Cochinchine and Basse-Cochinchine), the Binh-Thuan province showing more particularly what remains of the ancient kingdom.

Since I wrote the above, I have received No. 1 of vol. ii. of the Bul. de l’Ecole Française d’Extrême-Orient, which contains a note on Canf et Campā, by M. A. Barth. The reasons given in a note addressed to him by Professor De Goeje and the work of Ibn Khordâdhbeh have led M. A. Barth to my own conclusion, viz. that the coast of Champa was situated where inscriptions have been found on the Annamite coast.—H. C.]

The Sagatu of Marco appears in the Chinese history as Sotu, the military governor of the Canton districts, which he had been active in reducing.

In 1278 Sotu sent an envoy to Chen-ching to claim the king’s submission, which was rendered, and for some years he sent his tribute to Kúblái. But when the Kaan proceeded to interfere in the internal affairs of the kingdom by sending a Resident and Chinese officials, the king’s son (1282) resolutely opposed these proceedings, and threw the Chinese officials into prison. The Kaan, in great wrath at this insult (coming also so soon after his discomfiture in Japan), ordered Sotu and others to Chen-ching to take vengeance. The prince in the following year made a pretence of submission, and the army (if indeed it had been sent) seems to have been withdrawn. The prince, however, renewed his attack on the Chinese establishments, and put 100 of their officials to death. Sotu then despatched a new force, but it was quite unsuccessful, and had to retire. In 1284 the king sent an embassy, including his grandson, to beg for pardon and reconciliation. Kúblái, however, refused to receive them, and ordered his son Tughan to advance through Tong-king, an enterprise which led to a still more disastrous war with that country, in which the Mongols had much the worst of it. We are not told more.

Here we have the difficulties usual with Polo’s historical anecdotes. Certain names and circumstances are distinctly recognisable in the Chinese Annals; others are difficult to reconcile with these. The embassy of 1284 seems the most likely to be the one spoken of by Polo, though the Chinese history does not give it the favourable result which he ascribes to it. The date in the text we see to be wrong, and as usual it varies in different MSS. I suspect the original date was MCCLXXXIII.

One of the Chinese notices gives one of the king’s names as Sinhopala, and no doubt this is Ramusio’s Accambale (Açambale); an indication at once of the authentic character of that interpolation, and of the identity of Champa and Chen-ching.

[We learn from an inscription that in 1265 the King of Champa was Jaya-Sinhavarman II., who was named Indravarman in 1277, and whom the Chinese called Che li Tseya Sinho phala Maha thiwa (Çri Jaya Sinha varmma maha deva). He was the king at the time of Polo’s voyage. (A. Bergaigne, Ancien royaume de Campā, pp. 39–40; E. Aymonier, les Tchames et leurs religions, p. 14.)—H. C.]

There are notices of the events in De Mailla (IX. 420–422) and Gaubil (194), but Pauthier’s extracts which we have made use of are much fuller.

Elephants have generally formed a chief part of the presents or tribute sent periodically by the various Indo-Chinese states to the Court of China.

[In a Chinese work published in the 14th century, by an Annamite, under the title of Ngan-nan chi lio, and translated into French by M. Sainson (1896), we read (p. 397): “Elephants are found only in Lin-y; this is the country which became Champa. It is the habit to have burdens carried by elephants; this country is to-day the Pu-chêng province.” M. Sainson adds in a note that Pu-chêng, in Annamite Bó chańh quân, is to-day Quang-binh, and that, in this country, was placed the first capital (Dong-hoi) of the future kingdom of Champa thrown later down to the south.—H. C.]

[The Chams, according to their tradition, had three capitals: the most ancient, Shri-Banœuy, probably the actual Quang-Binh province; Bal-Hangov, near Hué; and Bal-Angoué, in the Binh-Dinh province. In the 4th century, the kingdom of Lin-y or Lâm-âp is mentioned in the Chinese Annals.—H. C.]

Note 2.—The date of Marco’s visit to Champa varies in the MSS.: Pauthier has 1280, as has also Ramusio; the G. T. has 1285; the Geographic Latin 1288. I incline to adopt the last. For we know that about 1290, Mark returned to Court from a mission to the Indian Seas, which might have included this visit to Champa.

The large family of the king was one of the stock marvels. Odoric says: “Zampa is a very fine country, having great store of victuals and all good things. The king of the country, it was said when I was there [circa 1323], had, what with sons and with daughters, a good two hundred children; for he hath many wives and other women whom he keepeth. This king hath also 14,000 tame elephants.... And other folk keep elephants there just as commonly as we keep oxen here” (pp. 95–96). The latter point illustrates what Polo says of elephants, and is scarcely an exaggeration in regard to all the southern Indo-Chinese States. (See note to Odoric u.s.)

Note 3.—Champa Proper and the adjoining territories have been from time immemorial the chief seat of the production of lign-aloes or eagle-wood. Both names are misleading, for the thing has nought to do either with aloes or eagles; though good Bishop Pallegoix derives the latter name from the wood being speckled like an eagle’s plumage. It is in fact through Aquila, Agila, from Aguru, one of the Sanskrit names of the article, whilst that is possibly from the Malay Kayu (wood)-gahru, though the course of the etymology is more likely to be the other way; and Αλόη is perhaps a corruption of the term which the Arabs apply to it, viz. Al-’Ud, “The Wood.”

[It is probable that the first Portuguese who had to do with eagle-wood called it by its Arabic name, aghāluḥy, or malayālam, agila; whence páo de’ aguila “aguila wood.” It was translated into Latin as lignum aquilae, and after into modern languages, as bois d’aigle, eagle-wood, adlerholz, etc. (A. Cabaton, les Chams, p. 50.) Mr. Groeneveldt (Notes, pp. 141–142) writes: “Lignum aloes is the wood of the Aquilaria agallocha, and is chiefly known as sinking incense. The Pen-ts’au Kang-mu describes it as follows: ‘Sinking incense, also called honey incense. It comes from the heart and the knots of a tree and sinks in water, from which peculiarity the name sinking incense is derived.... In the Description of Annam we find it called honey incense, because it smells like honey.’ The same work, as well as the Nan-fang Ts’au-mu Chuang, further informs us that this incense was obtained in all countries south of China, by felling the old trees and leaving them to decay, when, after some time, only the heart, the knots, and some other hard parts remained. The product was known under different names, according to its quality or shape, and in addition to the names given above, we find fowl bones, horse-hoofs, and green cinnamon; these latter names, however, are seldom used.”—H. C.]

The fine eagle-wood of Champa is the result of disease in a leguminous tree, Aloexylon Agallochum; whilst an inferior kind, though of the same aromatic properties, is derived from a tree of an entirely different order, Aquilaria Agallocha, and is found as far north as Silhet.

The Bonus of the G. T. here is another example of Marco’s use, probably unconscious, of an Oriental word. It is Persian Abnús, Ebony, which has passed almost unaltered into the Spanish Abenuz. We find Ibenus also in a French inventory (Douet d’Arcq, p. 134), but the Bonús seems to indicate that the word as used by the Traveller was strange to Rusticiano. The word which he uses for pen-cases too, Calamanz, is more suggestive of the Persian Ḳalamdán than of the Italian Calamajo.

“Ebony is very common in this country (Champa), but the wood which is the most precious, and which is sufficiently abundant, is called ‘Eagle-wood,’ of which the first quality sells for its weight in gold; the native name is Kínam.” (Bishop Louis in J. A. S. B. VI. 742; Dr. Birdwood, in the Bible Educator, I. 243; Crawford’s Dict.)

[1] 1344 is the date to which a Javanese traditional verse ascribes the edifice. (Crawford’s Desc. Dictionary.)

Note 1.—All the MSS. and texts I believe without exception read “when you leave Java,” etc. But, as Marsden has indicated, the point of departure is really Champa, the introduction of Java being a digression; and the retention of the latter name here would throw us irretrievably into the Southern Ocean. Certain old geographers, we may observe, did follow that indication, and the results were curious enough, as we shall notice in next note but one. Marsden’s observations are so just that I have followed Pauthier in substituting Champa for Java in the text.

Note 2.—There is no reason to doubt that these islands are the group now known as that of Pulo Condore, in old times an important landmark, and occasional point of call, on the route to China. The group is termed Sundar Fúlát (Fúlát representing the Malay Pulo or Island, in the plural) in the Arab Relations of the 9th century, the last point of departure on the voyage to China, from which it was a month distant. This old record gives us the name Sondor; in modern times we have it as Kondór; Polo combines both names. [“These may also be the ‘Satyrs’ Islands’ of Ptolemy, or they may be his Sindai; for he has a Sinda city on the coast close to this position, though his Sindai islands are dropt far away. But it would not be difficult to show that Ptolemy’s islands have been located almost at random, or as from a pepper castor.” (Yule, Oldest Records, p. 657.)] The group consists of a larger island about 12 miles long, two of 2 or 3 miles, and some half-dozen others of insignificant dimensions. The large one is now specially called Pulo Condore. It has a fair harbour, fresh water, and wood in abundance. Dampier visited the group and recommended its occupation. The E. I. Company did establish a post there in 1702, but it came to a speedy end in the massacre of the Europeans by their Macassar garrison. About the year 1720 some attempt to found a settlement there was also made by the French, who gave the island the name of Isle d’Orléans. The celebrated Père Gaubil spent eight months on the island and wrote an interesting letter about it (February, 1722; see also Lettres Edifiantes, Rec. xvi.). When the group was visited by Mr. John Crawford on his mission to Cochin China the inhabitants numbered about 800, of Cochin Chinese descent. The group is now held by the French under Saigon. The chief island is known to the Chinese as the mountain of Kunlun. There is another cluster of rocks in the same sea, called the Seven Cheu, and respecting these two groups Chinese sailors have a kind of Incidit-in-Scyllan saw:—

“Shang p’a Tsi-chéu, hia-pa Kun-lun,

Chen mi t’uo shih, jin chuen mo tsun.”[1]

Meaning:—

“With Kunlun to starboard, and larboard the Cheu,

Keep conning your compass, whatever you do,

Or to Davy Jones’ Locker go vessel and crew.”

(Ritter, IV. 1017; Reinaud, I. 18; A. Hamilton, II. 402; Mém. conc. les Chinois, XIV. 53.)

Note 3.—Pauthier reads the name of the kingdom Soucat, but I adhere to the readings of the G. T., Lochac and Locac, which are supported by Ramusio. Pauthier’s C and the Bern MS. have le chac and le that, which indicate the same reading.

Distance and other particulars point, as Hugh Murray discerns, to the east coast of the Malay Peninsula, or (as I conceive) to the territory now called Siam, including the said coast, as subject or tributary from time immemorial.

The kingdom of Siam is known to the Chinese by the name of Sien-Lo. The Supplement to Ma Twan-lin’s Encyclopædia describes Sien-Lo as on the sea-board to the extreme south of Chen-ching. “It originally consisted of two kingdoms, Sien and Lo-hoh. The Sien people are the remains of a tribe which in the year (A.D. 1341) began to come down upon the Lo-hoh, and united with the latter into one nation.... The land of the Lo-hoh consists of extended plains, but not much agriculture is done.”[2]

In this Lo or Lo-hoh, which apparently formed the lower part of what is now Siam, previous to the middle of the 14th century, I believe that we have our Traveller’s Locac. The latter half of the name may be either the second syllable of Lo-Hoh, for Polo’s c often represents h; or it may be the Chinese Kwŏ or Kwé, “kingdom,” in the Canton and Fo-kien pronunciation (i.e. the pronunciation of Polo’s mariners) kok; Lo-kok, “the kingdom of Lo.” Sien-Lo-Kok is the exact form of the Chinese name of Siam which is used by Bastian.

What was this kingdom of Lo which occupied the northern shores of the Gulf of Siam? Chinese scholars generally say that Sien-Lo means Siam and Laos; but this I cannot accept, if Laos is to bear its ordinary geographical sense, i.e. of a country bordering Siam on the north-east and north. Still there seems a probability that the usual interpretation may be correct, when properly explained.

[Regarding the identification of Locac with Siam, Mr. G. Phillips writes (Jour. China B. R. A. S., XXI., 1886, p. 34, note): “I can only fully endorse what Col. Yule says upon this subject, and add a few extracts of my own taken from the article on Siam given in the Wu-pé-ché. It would appear that previously to 1341 a country called Lohoh (in Amoy pronunciation Lohok) existed, as Yule says, in what is now called Lower Siam, and at that date became incorporated with Sien. In the 4th year of Hung-wu, 1372, it sent tribute to China, under the name of Sien Lohok. The country was first called Sien Lo in the first year of Yung Lo, 1403. In the T’ang Dynasty it appears to have been known as Lo-yueh, pronounced Lo-gueh at that period. This Lo-yueh would seem to have been situated on the Eastern side of Malay Peninsula, and to have extended to the entrance to the Straits of Singapore, in what is now known as Johore.”—H. C.]

In 1864, Dr. Bastian communicated to the Asiatic Society of Bengal the translation of a long and interesting inscription, brought [in 1834] from Sukkothai to Bangkok by the late King of Siam [Mongkut, then crown prince], and dated in a year 1214, which in the era of Salivahana (as it is almost certainly, see Garnier, cited below) will be A.D. 1292–1293, almost exactly coincident with Polo’s voyage. The author of this inscription was a Prince of Thai (or Siamese) race, styled Phra Râma Kamhêng (“The Valiant”) [son of Srī Indratiya], who reigned in Sukkothai, whilst his dominions extended from Vieng-chan on the Mekong River (lat. 18°), to Pechabur, and Srī-Thammarat (i.e. Ligór, in lat. 8° 18′), on the coast of the Gulf of Siam. [This inscription gives three dates—1205, 1209, and 1214 śaka = A.D. 1283, 1287 and 1292. One passage says: “Formerly the Thaïs had no writing; it is in 1205 śaka, year of the goat = A.D. 1283, that King Râma Kamhêng sent for a teacher who invented the Thaï writing. It is to him that we are indebted for it to-day.” (Cf. Fournereau, Siam ancien, p. 225; Schmitt, Exc. et Recon., 1885; Aymonier, Cambodge, II. p. 72.)—H. C.] The conquests of this prince are stated to have extended eastward to the “Royal Lake,” apparently the Great Lake of Kamboja; and we may conclude with certainty that he was the leader of the Siamese, who had invaded Kamboja shortly before it was visited (in 1296) by that envoy of Kúblái’s successor, whose valuable account of the country has been translated by Rémusat.[3] Now this prince Râma Kamhêng of Sukkothai was probably (as Lieutenant Garnier supposes) of the Thai-nyai, Great Thai, or Laotian branch of the race. Hence the application of the name Lo-kok to his kingdom can be accounted for.

It was another branch of the Thai, known as Thai-noi, or Little Thai, which in 1351, under another Phra Rama, founded Ayuthia and the Siamese monarchy, which still exists.

The explanation now given seems more satisfactory than the suggestions formerly made of the connection of the name Locac, either with Lophāburi (or Lavó, Louvo), a very ancient capital near Ayuthia, or with Lawék, i.e. Kamboja. Kamboja had at an earlier date possessed the lower valley of the Menam, but, we see, did so no longer.[4]

The name Lawek or Lovek is applied by writers of the 16th and 17th centuries to the capital of what is still Kamboja, the ruins of which exist near Udong. Laweik is mentioned along with the other Siamese or Laotian countries of Yuthia, Tennasserim, Sukkothai, Pichalok, Lagong, Lanchang (or Luang Prabang), Zimmé (or Kiang-mai), and Kiang-Tung, in the vast list of states claimed by the Burmese Chronicle as tributary to Pagán before its fall. We find in the Aín-i-Akbari a kind of aloes-wood called Lawáki, no doubt because it came from this region.

The G. T. indeed makes the course from Sondur to Locac sceloc or S.E.; but Pauthier’s text seems purposely to correct this, calling it, “v. c. milles oultre Sandur.” This would bring us to the Peninsula somewhere about what is now the Siamese province of Ligor,[5] and this is the only position accurately consistent with the next indication of the route, viz. a run of 500 miles south to the Straits of Singapore. Let us keep in mind also Ramusio’s specific statement that Locac was on terra firma.

As regards the products named: (1) gold is mined in the northern part of the Peninsula and is a staple export of Kalantan, Tringano, and Pahang, further down. Barbosa says gold was so abundant in Malacca that it was reckoned by Bahars of 4 cwt. Though Mr. Logan has estimated the present produce of the whole Peninsula at only 20,000 ounces, Hamilton, at the beginning of last century, says Pahang alone in some years exported above 8 cwt. (2) Brazil-wood, now generally known by the Malay term Sappan, is abundant on the coast. Ritter speaks of three small towns on it as entirely surrounded by trees of this kind. And higher up, in the latitude of Tavoy, the forests of sappan-wood find a prominent place in some maps of Siam. In mediæval intercourse between the courts of Siam and China we find Brazil-wood to form the bulk of the Siamese present. [“Ma Huan fully bears out Polo’s statement in this matter, for he says: This Brazil (of which Marco speaks) is as plentiful as firewood. On Chêng-ho’s chart Brazil and other fragrant woods are marked as products of Siam. Polo’s statement of the use of porcelain shells as small change is also corroborated by Ma Huan.” (G. Phillips, Jour. China B. R. A. S., XXI., 1886, p. 37.)—H. C.] (3) Elephants are abundant. (4) Cowries, according to Marsden and Crawford, are found in those seas largely only on the Sulu Islands; but Bishop Pallegoix says distinctly that they are found in abundance on the sand-banks of the Gulf of Siam. And I see Dr. Fryer, in 1673, says that cowries were brought to Surat “from Siam and the Philippine Islands.”

For some centuries after this time Siam was generally known to traders by the Persian name of Shahr-i-nao, or New City. This seems to be the name generally applied to it in the Shijarat Malayu (or Malay Chronicle), and it is used also by Abdurrazzák. It appears among the early navigators of the 16th century, as Da Gama, Varthema, Giovanni d’Empoli and Mendez Pinto, in the shape of Sornau, Xarnau. Whether this name was applied to the new city of Ayuthia, or was a translation of that of the older Lophāburi (which appears to be the Sansk. or Pali Nava pura = New-City) I do not know.

[Reinaud (Int. Abulfeda, p. cdxvi.) writes that, according to the Christian monk of Nadjran, who crossed the Malayan Seas, about the year 980, at this time, the King of Lukyn had just invaded the kingdom of Ṣanf and taken possession of it. According to Ibn Khordâdhbeh (De Goeje, p. 49) Lukyn is the first port of China, 100 parasangs distant from Ṣanf by land or sea; Chinese stone, Chinese silk, porcelain of excellent quality, and rice are to be found at Lukyn.—H. C.]

(Bastian, I. 357, III. 433, and in J. A. S. B. XXXIV. Pt. I. p. 27 seqq.; Ramus. I. 318; Amyot, XIV. 266, 269; Pallegoix, I. 196; Bowring, I. 41, 72; Phayre in J. A. S. B. XXXVII. Pt. I. p. 102; Aín Akb. 80; Mouhot, I. 70; Roe and Fryer, reprint, 1873, p. 271.)

Some geographers of the 16th century, following the old editions which carried the travellers south-east or south-west of Java to the land of Boeach (for Locac), introduced in their maps a continent in that situation. (See e.g. the map of the world by P. Plancius in Linschoten.) And this has sometimes been adduced to prove an early knowledge of Australia. Mr. Major has treated this question ably in his interesting essay on the early notices of Australia.

CHAPTER VI.

CHAPTER VII.