Holy S*&t!!!! This is really getting crazy!!!
I have clearly opened an enormous can of worms. . .
One hundred years ago, George Cœdès declared that 1) there had once been a kingdom called “Srivijaya,” that 2) its capital was at Palembang, and that 3) the Chinese terms “Shilifoshi” and “Sanfoqi” referred to “Srivijaya.”
All of that is false, and I have demonstrated that in the previous posts. “Srivijaya” was never the name of a kingdom. There may have been a “kadatuan” at Palembang, but we have no idea what it was called, but we know for certain that it was not called “Shilifoshi” or “Sanfoqi.” Those two terms referred to Muaro(-Jambi) and Angkor (Kambuja), respectively.
Once you realize this, it is amazing to see how the extant historical information in Chinese sources about Southeast Asia falls into place.
For the past 100 years, it’s as if scholars have been trying to put together a puzzle that is upside down. Yes, you can make some of the pieces fit together, but when you turn the puzzle over and look at it right-side up, then suddenly you see that all of the pieces fit together very nicely, and you are not left with any questions.
So there is a big debate about Arabs in Champa. There are some scholars who claim that roughly around 1,000 AD there were Arabs in the area of Champa, and that some Cham converted to Islam.
Why do they think this way? First, they cite the fact that in Chinese sources the character “pu” 蒲 starts to appear in what some people believe are Cham names, and there is an argument that this comes from the Arab name “Abu,” and that this signifies that some Cham had converted to Islam.
Second, there are two Arabic inscriptions that were allegedly found in the area of Champa, one of which is about a man named Abu Kamil.
Third, scholars note that the History of the Song states that the customs and clothing of Champa are like those of Dashi, the Chinese name at that time for the Arab world (其風俗、衣服與大食國相類。). This seems to indicate that at least some Cham had converted to Islam and were dressing like Arabs.
Then there are other historians who reject all of the above claims.
Regardless of their views on this issue, virtually all of the historians in this debate make reference at one point or other in the course of their writings to some aspect of the “Srivijaya” myth.
One side, for instance, might note that Chinese sources say that frankincense, an Arabian product, was delivered to China from “Sanfoqi,” and thinking that “Sanfoqi = Srivijaya = Palembang,” they will say, “See, Arabs were down on the island of Sumatra, not up there in Champa,” etc.
Ok, but as I have demonstrated in the previous posts, Sanfoqi was not “Srivijaya = Palembang,” it was “Samfhutshiaj = Kambuja = Angkor.”
When you realize that, and you look again at the sources, then you can start to see a resolution to this debate, because the pieces of the puzzle finally get flipped right-side-up and can fit clearly together.
Take a look at the above image, for instance. It contains quotes from the History of the Song that mention “Sanfoqi” (Angkor) kings and the envoys they sent to China to present tribute in the tenth and early eleventh centuries.
For the sake of the argument that I’m making here, I’m simply going to refer to the people whose name begins with “pu” as “Abu,” and I’m going to note the opening characters in the names of kings as well.
In 904, a certain Abu who is listed as the “Commander of the Barbarians” and who also has the title of general, was sent on a mission to China. He was the first of several “Abu” envoys to perform that same task for Sanfoqi (Angkor).
As for the kings, we have some with an Indic “Sri” title, and a couple with the Islamic title of “Haji.”
Then after the dates listed here, the “Abus” disappear from the records about “Sanfoqi” (Angkor).
Based on this information alone, it looks to me like we have here a classic drama of foreigners gaining prominent positions at a court, but then getting too closely involved in royal rivalries (and with a couple of kings converting to Islam), and with that ultimately leading to their downfall.
There are many examples of this type of drama in premodern Southeast Asian history, from Bugis intrigue at the court of the Sultanate of Johor to the saga of Greek adventurer Constantine Phaulkon in Siam.
The above image, meanwhile provides the same information for Zhenla, a polity that I argue covered areas of the Mekong Delta, including coastal areas.
The first thing we can see is that the names of the kings use Cham and Indic terms, which as far as we know was the norm for Cham rulers. This supports the idea that I made in an earlier post that Zhenla was Cham, or “Chamic.”
As for the envoys, they seem to be quite diverse, but there are what appear to be Chinese names there, and the name “Abu” appears as well. There is an “Abu” in 999 who served as a deputy envoy to what appears to be a Chinese main envoy.
Then in 1053 and 1056, there are two envoys whose name begins with “pu.” Again, if this is “Abu,” then it is interesting to note that this name starts appearing here in the records for Zhenla after that same name disappears from the Sanfoqi (Angkor) records following its last mention in 1028.
In his thirteenth-century work on foreign countries, the Zhu Fan Zhi, Song Dynasty official Zhao Rukuo stated with regards to the kingdom of Sanfoqi that “Many of the people in the kingdom are surnamed ‘Pu’” (國人多姓蒲。).
Scholars have long debated what exactly Zhao Rukuo was referring to, especially since he never left China. However, they have done so thinking that “Sanfoqi” was “Srivijaya = Palembang.”
When, however, we understand that “Sanfoqi” was “Samfhutshiaj = Kambuja = Angkor,” then it becomes perfectly clear why Zhao Rukuo would make that comment. Looking at the records of envoys who had come to China from Sanfoqi, it seemed obvious to him that they were all “surnamed Pu” because their names began with that character, and in the Chinese world, the first character of a name is the surname.
Further, the statement from the History of the Song that the customs and clothing of Champa are like those of Dashi likewise makes sense, as there were “Abus” who came to China from there as well.
But who exactly were these “Abus”? Where they Cham converts? The evidence above suggests that the people who served as envoys for Sanfoqi (Angkor) and Zhenla were actual Arabs, as it looks like certainly in Angkor and perhaps to some extent in Zhenla as well there was a division of labor, where foreigners were responsible for carrying out tribute missions to China.
Did people in contact with these people convert to Islam? I have no idea, but when you understand that “Sanfoqi = Samfhutshiaj = Kambuja = Angkor,” it’s clear that there were Arabs in Angkor and Zhenla in the tenth-eleventh centuries.
Finally, Arabic sources refer to a place in Southeast Asian called “Zabag.” Scholars have long struggled to explain how “Zabag” can mean “Srivijaya.”
Struggle no more! Because Zabag is “Kambuj[a].”
This Post Has 4 Comments
As Chenla was likely a Chamic state, we should not rule out the possibility that the title “Po” (蒲) was not a rendering of Islamic “Abu” but simply the honorary title “Po” in Cham language.
I agree. This title of “po”, as Chenla was likely a Chamic state, can be interpreted as the honorary title “Po” in Cham language. For comparison, title “pu” (and its variants, such as mpu, ĕmpu, ampu) was used in Old Javanese to indicate distinguished person, “master”, “lord”.
Is “Zabag” somehow related to the closely-located “Zabai” from (Geographia) of Ptolemy? I’ve heard theories about “Zabai” being Champa (then Linyi) or Funan. So, if there is a relation and “Zabag” is Kambuja, then “Zabai” is more likely to be Funan (assuming there is no consensus on where “Zabai” is).
I haven’t looked into that yet, but my guess would be that, like “Sanfoqi,” they are all indicating “Kambuja.” They’re capturing the “Kambuj” part. Again, I haven’t looked into this yet, but that’s my guess.