In researching about “Srivijaya” and in talking to colleagues, one thing that has become obvious to me is that we have developed a habit of accepting that there are passages in Chinese sources on Southeast Asia that we just can’t understand, or that the confusing information there is the result of a careless error on the part of a Chinese scribe.
This tendency has enabled the “Srivijaya myth” (that is, the idea that George Cœdès proposed in 1918 that Shilifoshi = Sanfoqi = Srivijaya = Palembang) to persist.
As I’ve said, Cœdès created a framework that everyone since has used to examine the Southeast Asian past. I’ve also said that all scholars have encountered problems in reconciling what they find in historical sources, such as Chinese sources, with this framework, and being able to attribute inconsistencies to Chinese scribal errors has been a convenient crutch to rely on.
However, when you realize that Sanfoqi is Angkor, then many of the problems and inconsistencies in the sources disappear.
There is a comment in the Mingshi (History of the Ming) that states in reference to the early fifteenth century the following:
“At that time, Java had already destroyed Sanfoqi and occupied its territory, changing its name to the ‘Old Port.’ Within the kingdom there was great unrest. Java was not able to fully control the land. Chinese settlers continually rose up and occupied it.”
(時爪哇已破三佛齊，據其國，改其名曰舊港，三佛齊遂亡。國中大亂，爪哇亦不能盡有其地，華人流寓者往往起而據之。)
Historians have traditionally seen “Sanfoqi” here as indicating “Srivijaya” (i.e., Palembang), and “Java” as indicating a kingdom on the island of Java.
Let’s now take a closer look.
The above passage about how “Java” had destroyed “Sanfoqi” is in the section on Sanfoqi in the Mingshi.
Meanwhile, in the section on “Java” in the Mingshi, there is no mention of this. That’s kinda odd, no?
There is one mention of “Sanfoqi” in the section on “Java” in the Mingshi, and it is about a mysterious episode in 1380 where an envoy from Java killed a Chinese envoy who was going to deliver a seal to the king of Sanfoqi. No details were given for the motive for this murder.
(明年[洪武十三年]又貢。時遣使賜三佛齊王印綬， 爪哇 誘而殺之。天子怒，留其使月餘，將加罪，已，遣還，賜敕責之。)
Finally, in the section on “Sanfoqi” in the Mingshi, there are details about “Java’s” conquest of “Sanfoqi.”
I argued in this post here (https://leminhkhai.blog/the-real-fall-of-srivijaya/), that the “Java” that conquered Sanfoqi was not a kingdom on the island of Java, but is a reference to the Thai term for a ruler, the “Cao Fa,” and in this case, it was referring to the “Cao Fa” of Lavo, a member of one of the two families that were struggling to “cooperate” in ruling over the new kingdom of Ayutthaya.
As I also argued in that post, we should understand “Sanfoqi” to be “Kambuja,” that is, Angkor.
When we do this, we can see that the above passage is about the “Cao Fa’s” conquest of “Kambuja,” not the island of “Java’s” imagined conquest of the imagined “Srivijaya.”
The above passage mentions Chinese settlers. That there would be Chinese settlers at Angkor would seem obvious, and that in the scholarship to date we have virtually no evidence of Chinese at Angkor except for Zhou Daguan should lead us to second guess our understanding of the past. How on earth, after all, could it be possible that for centuries Chinese traders never knew about Angkor or never left a trace of their presence there???
But why would “Angkor” be called the “Old Port”?
At the end of the section on Sanfoqi in the Mingshi, there is some general information where this term is mentioned. Some of this information comes from the Songshi (History of the Song), while some of it is new.
It says that “Those below refer to those above as ‘zhanbi’ (詹卑). This is also the kingdom’s ruler, and it is called the Zhanbi Kingdom. The old capital has changed to the ‘Old Port.’ At first, it was rich in abundance, but since the Chao Fa (java) annihilated it, it has gradually become desolate. Merchant ships rarely come. As for its customs and products, they are all detailed in the Songshi.” (16 Nov Update: I no longer think that this is Chao Fa, but I still think that it is referring to the ruler of Lavo. I’ll post an explanation soon)
(下稱其上曰詹卑 ，猶國君也。後大酋所居，即號 詹卑國，改故都為舊港。初本富饒，自爪哇破滅，後漸致蕭索，商舶鮮至。其他風俗、物產，具詳宋史。)
One of the things that has become clear to me in conducting this research is that there are “different types” of Chinese terms for foreign places and things foreign. The monk Yijing created Sanskritized Chinese names for foreign places. Through tributary relations, certain “orthodox” terms got established. Finally, there are also some terms that clearly reflect oral transmission through visitors.
This information about how “those below refer to those above as ‘zhanbi’” can only have been obtained by a Chinese visitor.
So what word might this be indicating? Is there a term in Khmer that common people use to refer to their superiors? And does this Chinese term come close? The answer to both of those questions is “yes.”
While we can’t rely entirely on historical linguistics, I think the guestimates for how “zhan” and “bi” were pronounced in the past (see the image below) would easily enable those two characters to indicate the common Khmer term for referring to a superior, particularly a high ruler or a king – somdech.
What is more, this is hypothetical but even the choice of characters seems deliberate for this meaning. The “zhan” here is very similar to another character (above in the image below), which if combined with the meaning of “bei” would have some sense of “the upward looking of the lowly.”
Yet another point that has been made extremely clear to me in conducting this research is that place names are very complex phenomena. Foreigners need a name to refer to a place, but local rulers don’t. It can just be “my family’s kingdom.”
That common people in Angkor would refer to their ruler (and other high officials) as “Somdech,” makes perfect sense. That Chinese settlers would transform that term into a place name, the “Somdech’s Kingdom” 詹卑國, makes perfect sense too.
Scholars who have believed that Sanfoqi = “Srivijaya,” have seen this “zhanbi” as indicating Jambi, a place on Sumatra. While the sounds are conveniently similar, the point that this term was used by “people below” to refer to superiors doesn’t make sense for “jambi,” but it does make sense for “somdech.”
But what about the “Old Port”? I don’t have a clear answer for that. In reading Zhou Daguan’s late thirteenth century account of his journey to Angkor, it looks like he traveled through the Mekong Delta to Kampon Chhnang, and then switched to another boat that took him through the Tonle Sap to a place called “Kampong Tshy” (?). This is where Zhou Daguan felt that the central area of Angkor began (可抵其地曰干傍取 ).
Since there must have been a port at this place, perhaps this is what Chinese traders referred to as the “Old Port.” “Old” in Chinese usage does not have to mean that something was actually “old.” San Francisco, for instance, quickly became “Old Gold Mountain” once Chinse started traveling there.
As for why the old capital changed to the “Old Port,” it could be that after the Chao Fa destroyed the center of Angkor, that the administrative center moved to the “Old Port” on the Tonle Sap.
Lots to ponder here.
