The belief that there was historically a dynamic and important maritime kingdom on the island of Sumatra called “Srivijaya” has created an incalculable number of problems for scholarship on premodern Southeast Asian history.
This is because, over the past century, scholar after scholar after scholar has interpreted historical sources with the belief in their minds that the area of southern Sumatra and the Straits of Melaka was very important, and as a result, they have assumed that information in historical sources about sea routes and trade must be somehow related to “Srivijaya” and they have interpreted (or I would say “distorted”) historical sources to make the information indicate this.
In fact, however, there was no dynamic maritime kingdom of Srivijaya in southern Sumatra, and Chinese and Arabic sources do not mention that part of the world until the 1200s.
What I just said there is something that is impossible to discover by reading the secondary scholarship on Southeast Asian history. But if you go back to the primary sources, you can see that this is true.
Let us take as an example the work of historical geographer Paul Wheatley. Wheatley wrote a couple of books on the historical geography of Southeast Asia that employed Chinese sources. Given that the majority of scholars who research about early Southeast Asia have not known Chinese, works like Wheatley’s have been very influential.
As the above image makes clear, Wheatley believed that the maritime route from China to India during the Tang dynasty period passed through the Straits of Melaka, and he placed on the island of Sumatra a place called “Shi-li-fo-shi,” which French scholar George Cœdès had claimed in 1918 was a Chinese name for “Srivijaya,” a kingdom which he believed had existed on that island.
As far as I can tell, virtually every scholar has made the same argument, that is, that the maritime route during the Tang period went through the Straits of Melaka (please let me know of anyone who has indicated a different route if you are aware of one).
What I will do here, however, is to demonstrate that the maritime route did not pass through the Straits of Melaka, but instead, went across the Malay Peninsula. The image in Wheatley’s book is based on information that some Chinese monks recorded. There is more detailed information on this itinerary in the eleventh-century New History of the Tang (Xin Tangshu 新唐書). I will translate and explain that itinerary here.
I have seen scholars discuss this itinerary, and they also have it going through the Straits of Melaka. I will demonstrate, however, that it did not.
Let us begin.
廣州東南海行，二百里至屯門山，乃帆風西行，二日至九州石。又南二日至象石。又西南三日行，至占不勞山，山在環王國東二百里海中。又南二日行至陵山。又一日行，至門毒國。又一日行，至古笪國。又半日行，至奔陀浪洲。又兩日行，到軍突弄山。
From Guangdong you cross the seas to the southeast for 200 leagues until you reach Outpost Gate Mountain (屯門山). Then you sail with the winds to the west until after two days you reach Nine Islet Crag (九州石). After another two days to the south you reach Elephant Rock (象石). Then after traveling three more days to the southwest you reach Mount Zhanbulao (占不勞山; Cu Lao Cham). This mountain is in the middle of the sea, 200 leagues to the east of the Huanwang kingdom [“Champa”].
Then after two days journey to the south you reach Mount Ling (陵山). After another day’s journey you reach the Mendu kingdom (門毒國). After another day’s journey you reach the Guda kingdom (古笪國). A half a day later you reach Bentuolang islet (奔陀浪洲; Panduranga), and after two more day’s journey you reach Mount Juntunong (軍突弄山; Kunlun Island, Côn Đảo).
So, this gets us down to the end of the Indochinese Peninsula. It is all very straightforward.
Let’s move on to the next passage.
又五日行至海硤，蕃人謂之「質」，南北百里，北岸則羅越國，南岸則佛逝國。
After five days you reach a sea pass. The barbarians call this “zhi” 質. From south to north it is one hundred leagues. On the northern coast is the kingdom of Luoyue 羅越, while on the southern coast is the kingdom of Foshi 佛逝.
Ok, there is a lot to unpack here. First, the text doesn’t indicate which direction you go after you reach Côn Đảo. Normally, we would assume that if no mention of a directional change is made, then you continue in the same direction, which in this case would be toward the south. This is what historians have assumed, and have argued that this itinerary led down to the Straits of Melaka.
This is logical, however, the problem with this interpretation is that it then becomes very difficult to explain the place names and information about them that follow. So, what I will do instead here is to argue that after mariners during the Tang period reached Côn Đảo, they then journeyed five days to the west across the Gulf of Thailand, and then crossed the Malay Peninsula. What we will see is that this is indeed what the information in this itinerary documents, and it becomes relatively easy to match place names with locations along that route.
The itinerary begins by stating that “After five days you reach a sea pass.” I deliberately translated the term here, haixia 海硤, as “sea pass” because the second character, xia 硤, is usually used to describe a “pass” between mountains, and we will see a reference to such a pass below. When that term is preceded by the character for sea, hai 海, then it can mean a “strait,” but ultimately it just refers to a passage between two higher pieces of land.
After sailing for five days to the west from Côn Đảo across the Gulf of Thailand, is there any “sea pass” that one might encounter? Yes, there is. The two islands of Ko Pha Ngan and Koh Samui have a passageway between them, like a passage between two mountains. Further, those two islands are a very distinctive feature along a coast that does not have any competing significant features and therefore would have been a perfect landmark for mariners to aim for in their journey.
According to this account, the locals called this sea pass “zhi” 質. Is there any word in a local language that might match this? We can only speculate, but Pulleyblank’s historical reconstruction of this term and the proto-Monic word for a “gully,” etc. look like they are close enough to me to be “in the ballpark,” especially when we consider that we don’t know exactly how it was pronounced, or how it was heard by the person who recorded it, or what form of “Chinese” the person who recorded this information spoke, etc.
Then you have a long coast that stretches for 100 leagues from south to north, in the north is a kingdom called Luoyue 羅越 (not to be confused with the Luoyue 駱越 that refers to a people in what is now southern China in antiquity [a.k.a. the Lạc Việt]), while in the south is a kingdom called Foshi 佛逝.
This “Foshi” is also called Shilifoshi 室利佛逝, and it is a name that George Cœdès claimed in 1918 referred to “Srivijaya.” In the article that he published that year, Cœdès claimed that there were two names in Chinese sources that referred to “Srivjaya” – Shilifoshi and Sanfoqi – and that this was a kingdom on the island of Sumatra. However, as we will see as we continue our examination of this itinerary, (Shili)Foshi was nowhere near the island of Sumatra.
So where was it? Ok, so according to Pulleyblank, the name of the kingdom to the north along the same coastline, Luoyue 羅越, might have been pronounced something like La Wuat. That gets us very close to Lavo, the name of an important Mon kingdom at this time which was based in the area of the Chao Phraya river valley. However, it likely controlled areas down on the Malay Peninsula as well.
As for Foshi, that name appears in other sources, such as in the writings of the Chinese monk, Yijing 義淨 (635-713), as it was an important center of Buddhist learning. In Yijing’s writings, Foshi is repeatedly said to have been a journey of 20-30 days from China, depending on the winds. That is the same as the journey we have been discussing here.
Based on the information in this itinerary, Foshi should have been located somewhere around Surat Thani province in what is now southern Thailand. And guess what? This is a place where archaeologists have found A LOT of evidence of early Buddhist activity, particularly at a place known as the Chaiya district.
Indeed, there have been historians in Thailand who have argued against the idea of “Srivijaya” by pointing to the fact that the term “(Shili)Foshi” clearly indicated a place in southern Thailand, not a place on the island of Sumatra. They are right. But let’s continue the journey.
佛逝國東水行四五日，至訶陵國，南中洲之最大者。
From the east of the kingdom of Foshi, you travel by sea for four or five days and then reach the kingdom of Heling 訶陵, the greatest island in the south.
Ok, so four or five days down the eastern coast of the Malay Peninsula from Surat Thani was a place called “Heling” 訶陵. This is that name’s modern pronunciation. Let’s try to see what it might have sounded like in the past.
This name appears frequently in the writings of the Chinese monk Yijing, and a lot of the place names in his work were created based on the way that Sanskrit words were transcribed into Chinese. If “Heling” was created using that same technique, then it might have been pronounced something like “Haling.” Meanwhile, in Vietnamese, which gets its pronunciation of Chinese words largely from the Tang period, it would be Ha Lăng. Finally, Pulleyblank reconstructs these characters as something like Xa Ling.
So, in the past, Heling could have been pronounced something like Haling or Xaling or Ha Lăng.
The same text where this itinerary appears, the New History of the Tang, claims that Heling was the same place as “Dupo” 社婆 or “Shepo” 闍婆. This is a name that I have previously explained scholars believe was read as “Jaba” or “Java,” and I have argued repeatedly that it was located in the area of what is now Songkhla in southern Thailand. Further, this Shepo/Jaba is described in multiple Chinese sources as a major meeting place for traders.
As I wrote in a recent post, Ibn Khurdādhbih recorded in an 850 text that in crossing the peninsula from the west, one proceeded “to the islands of Jāba, Salāhiṭ, and Harang,” all of which were clearly close together. This “Harang” could easily be “Heling/Haling/Ha Lăng.”
If I were to guess, I would argue that the terms Heling/Ha Lăng and Harang are corruptions of the term “Phatthalung,” and in particular, replicate the final part of that name: [t]halung. The thirteenth-century text, the Zhufan zhi 諸蕃志, records that another name for Shepo/Jaba was “Pujialong” 莆家龍, a term that clearly suggests “Patthalung.” That same text, meanwhile, does not mention Heling, whereas the eleventh-century New History of the Tang recorded that Heling was another name for Shepo/Jaba.
If you look at the map of where Patthalung and Songkhla are located, it is easy to see how they could be closely related. Both were located on interconnected internal bodies of water, and both were probably at the receiving end of an overland trade route.
Songkhla, additionally, sat at the natural entryway to the internal bodies of water where these two settlements were located, and that probably is the reason why it appears to have become the “capital” of a kind of island “empire” that foreigners referred to as “Jaba,” or some variation of that name. However, archaeological work that was done in the 1980s found evidence of past canals, so there may have been a more direct route to Patthalung in the past.
又西出硤，三日至葛葛僧祇國，在佛逝西北隅之別島，國人多鈔暴，乘舶者畏憚之。其北岸則箇羅國。箇羅西則哥谷羅國。
To the west, a mountain pass emerges. In three days you reach the kingdom of Gegesengzhi. This is a separate island in the northwest corner of Foshi. The people there often rob others. Passengers on ships fear them. On its northern shore is the kingdom of Geluo. To the west of Geluo is the kingdom of Geguluo.
Ok, so after reaching Heling (Harang), this itinerary mentions that to the west emerges a mountain pass. Why mention this? I think it is because travelers passed through that mountain pass to get to the other side of the peninsula.
This itinerary doesn’t specifically say “you get off your boat at Phatthalung and travel overland to the other side of the peninsula and get on another boat.” However, none of the accounts that provide us with evidence for trans-peninsular routes do this. The way we can see this is by 1) following the itineraries and seeing that a trans-peninsular crossing makes sense, and by 2) noting traces of information, like this comment about a mountain pass emerging, and Ibn Khurdādhbih’s change in using a land measurement for distance, as I explained in a previous post.
Let’s look at where the itinerary goes next to see if it makes sense to place those locations on the western side of the Malay Peninsula. The itinerary mentions Gegesengzhi 葛葛僧祇, Geluo 箇羅, and Geguluo 哥谷羅. Wow! We have suddenly entered the “ge” world as we have all of these polities that begin with “ge.”
According to Pulleyblank, back in Tang times, that sound would have been pronounced something like “kah.” Is there any place in this area that has place names like that? Yes, there is.
On the western side of the Malay Peninsula, heading northward after crossing over from Songkhla, you today have places like Ko Libong, Ko Lanta, Ko Pu, Ko Yao Yai, and many other “ko” locations. All of these place names begin with the Mon word for island, “kɔ?,” and that is CLEARLY what this itinerary is indicating with its repeated use of characters that represent the sound “ge” (kah).
From the information in this itinerary, it is impossible to determine exactly where Gegesengzhi was, but it seems to be a reference to a place somewhere around where Ko Lanta and Krabi are today.
The itinerary states of Gegesengzhi that “This is a separate island in the northwest corner of Foshi.” Does this make any sense? It does.
In the next post I will provide evidence to show that (Shili)Foshi controlled areas on both sides of the Malay Peninsula. This was probably more difficult for (Shili)Foshi to do than places like Shepo/Java and Patthalung/Heling/Harang because the overland trade route between (Shili)Foshi and its outpost on the western side of the Malay Peninsula was farther away. Nonetheless, it is clear that (Shili)Foshi had such a western outpost, and I will demonstrate that in the next post.
So, when this itinerary records that Gegesengzhi was “in the northwest corner of Foshi,” what makes sense here is that a place on the western side of the Malay Peninsula was considered as part of the “territory” (or under the authority of) of a polity that was based on the eastern side.
The location, however, isn’t accurate. It would be more accurate to say that Gegesengzhi was “in the southwest corner of Foshi.” However, I don’t think this was an easy calculation to make, and I give whoever created this itinerary credit for at least trying to locate Gegesengzhi in relation to (Shili)Foshi on the other side of the peninsula.
又從葛葛僧祇四五日行，至勝鄧洲。又西五日行，至婆露國。又六日行，至婆國伽藍洲。又北四日行，至師子國，其北海岸距南天竺大岸百里。
From Gegesengzhi traveling four or five days you reach Shengdeng island 勝鄧洲. Then you got the west five days to the Puoluo kingdom 婆露國, and another six days to the Puo kingdom’s Jialan island 婆國伽藍洲. Then you go north for four days and reach the Lion kingdom (Shizi guo 師子國, i.e., Sri Lanka). Its northern coast is separated from the great coast of southern India by 100 leagues.
This final passage covers the crossing of the Andaman Sea and the Bay of Bengal to Sri Lanka.
Hopefully it should be clear that this itinerary did NOT go through the Straits of Melaka. In fact, it didn’t go anywhere near the Straits of Melaka. What is more, when we look at the itineraries of other travelers from this period, and later (such as during the Song Dynasty period), we see that they likewise did not go through the Straits of Melaka, but instead, crossed the Malay Peninsula.
The fact that this isn’t common knowledge today is, again, because of “Srivijaya.” That idea that there was a very important maritime polity of that name in the area of southern Sumatra has led countless scholars to try to see historical information as relating to that part of Southeast Asia.
However, so much of the historical information that has been employed to do that, is NOT about that part of Southeast Asia, and this itinerary is a perfect example, as there are historians who have tried to interpret the above information to indicate a passage through the Straits of Melaka. To do so though, they have encountered great difficulty in trying to get the place names and information to match any locations in that area.
This Post Has 20 Comments
for some reason there is not much known about the mon kingdoms. there seems to be a massive gap in their history. they left behind a lot of art and temples and were one of the most advanced civilisations of south east asia.
Well, it is not impossible to find traces of this great power game, which enfolded on the Malay peninsular, even in the few Mon sources that are available. If one were to dig deep, some more vestiges might appear. Nothing of the nature of the Chinese annals, but shadows of the past coded in legends. The only thing that’s required is a good dose of viriya and some funds.
Take this passage from the Siamese adaptation of the Mon epic Ratchathirat:
“Later a report was received which contained the following message: “Armies of the Khaek Chawa have come to attack the principalities, which are tributary to the Kingdom of Sukhothai. Since the enemy soldiers are of large numbers, we beg the army of the Kingdom of Sukhothai to render assistance. If your relief arrives slowly, we will surely be defeated and become captives of the enemy soldiery.” After His Majesty King Phra Ruang had thus been given notice of the affairs of the realm, he had land and sea forces prepared. When he was about to set out, he entrusted the palace and government to the care of Khun Wang, whom he ordered to stay behind. The king then led the royal army to subdue the troops of the Khaek Chawa.”
Khaek Chawa awfully sounds like java. i know Khaek in modern times refer to indians though. i wonder who these khaeks chawa were?
It’s this place on the Malay Peninsula around Songkhla. Arabs referred to it as Jaba/Zabaj, Chinese referred to it as Jaba/Java (although we can’t see that in the modern pronunciation of the term, Shepo), Cambodians referred to it as Java. It’s mentioned over and over and over in historical sources, and it’s clear in those sources that it’s not the island of Java. Island Java gets mentioned for the first time in Arabic and Chinese sources only in the 1200s.
Well, it does. But in this context it makes no sense to assume it meaning the island of Java itself. For that purpose a land army would be utterly useless. It seems much more likely that a land and sea campaign was meant, – one that would be conducted in the deep south. In his famous inscription Phra Ruang also claims that Nakhon Si Thammarat was among his tributaries. That definitely fits into a picture of competing claims to the control of the overland transport routes.
I think the naming in this source is not that significant, since this is a translation from the late 18th century, and the people then might not have known whom they were actually talking about. One would have to check the original text for clues. Today “khaek” is an umbrella term under which Arabs, Persians, Malays and all kinds of Indians fall. I could imagine that the Siamese translators mistook the actual “Chawanese” for Javanese.
The same might be true for the chronicles of Ayutthaya. There is a passage squeezed into the narrative between the events of 1384 AD (746) and 1387 AD (757) that mentions an attack of “Vietnamese” on Cambodian territory:
“Later on the Vietnamese invaded. When a small force appeared, the inhabitants of Kamphucha were brave and fought, but when a large force arrived they wavered. Phraya Chainarong sent a written report to the King. The King had a message sent in reply ordering that the inhabitants be rounded up and marched back to the Capital.”
But that invasion seems to be far to early for the Vietnamese that we know. The text, however, actually mentions Yuan or Yawana as perpetrators. That fits much better to the pincer movement of Majapahit raiders against coastal Cambodia. I guess that is what has been alluded to before.
Considering the large number of posts devoted to this hypothesis, I have the impression that a timetable or an outline of the chain of events might be welcome.
Oh my goodness!! Thank you for pointing this out!!!
Yes, and now I just realized that at the start of a muay “Thai” boxing match you first have the playing of the pi chawa (usually translated as “Javanese” oboe) and the klong chawa (“Javanese” drum). That “chawa” was not island Java. That’s our Songkhla (area) “Java,” that is, the “Khaek Chawa” mentioned in this Mon chronicle. Yes, there are definitely traces of a great power game there. 😉
Hi
I have no problem with the Chinese crossing over the Kra Peninsula to India in later times.
They must have pressed further south much earlier to Jambi and Palembang.
Given the complexity of the issue, the multitude of polities involved and the potential implications, one might arrive at the conclusion that the Angkor-hypothesis ought to be deliberated in a more conducive setting, like for example an in-person workshop (?).
Ideally, that is what should be done, but in practical terms that is much easier said than done.
1) First, one would need to find people who work extensively with primary sources, and there are surprisingly few historians these days who do that. Look at the bibliographies of works on early Southeast Asian history and you generally find that they are filled with secondary scholarship and translations, and mostly in English.
2) From that small group, you would then have to find people who don’t think I’m crazy, and their only way to check my sanity is by comparing what I am saying against the extant secondary scholarship. When one does that, one sees that what I am saying is completely different from what is in the extant secondary scholarship. Therefore, the logical conclusion is that Liam Kelley is completely nuts, stay away from the guy.
So, yes, I agree with you, but I don’t see it happening anytime soon. Therefore, in the meantime I am just keep marching into the unknown. 🙂
How does the Belitung Shipwreck (aka Tang Shipwreck), found in the Java Sea, dating from the 830s or so, fit into this theory of ships not going through the Straits of Malacca during the Tang dynasty? The ship was going from China to the Middle East, carrying in excess of 60,000 pieces of ceramics – a difficult cargo to transport overland, of course.
Thanks for the question.
1) First of all, I am not putting forward a theory that ships did not go through the Straits of Melaka. What I am saying is that, contrary to what is written in the secondary scholarship, we do not have historical information in Arabic or Chinese historical sources which documents that. The historical information up to the 1200s in Arabic and Chinese only mentions places to the north of the Straits of Melaka, such as northern Sumatra and the areas to the east of there on the Malay Peninsula. Obviously, at that time there were important polities in places like Java, and obviously, they must have engaged in trade, so “somebody” went through the Straits of Melaka, at least certainly from Java to northern Sumatra and Kedah. However, we do not have historical evidence of that itinerary. I haven’t looked at Javanese inscriptions yet, but there is supposedly at least one that mentions foreign peoples (none though that would correspond to Arabs or Persians).
Did Arabs and Persians go through the Straits of Melaka to get to China? Maybe, but the historical sources for that period do not indicate this until we get to people like Ibn Battuta in the fourteenth century who refers to island Java as “mul-Java,” a term that seems to have started to emerge in the previous century to differentiate island Java from the place which Persians and Arabs had frequented over the previous few centuries, “Java/Jaba” on the Malay Peninsula. Did Chinese ships go down to Java? Maybe, but the historical sources do not indicate this until the late 1200s and 1300s when historical sources start mentioning “Zhuawa.” Were there local ships that moved through these areas? I would certainly assume so, but I do not know of historical sources that document such an iterary. In Arabic sources, we can see Kedah referred to as a “terminus.” Presumably, the Arab and Persian traders who landed there would have obtained goods that came both overland and up through the Straits of Melaka, however, we only have historical information about itineraries that went overland.
2) As far as I know, the origins of the ship in the Belitung shipwreck are still an open question. There is a good discussion of the ship in the early account by Flecker, but there is no definitive proof in that discussion that this was an Arab/Persian ship or that it was going to the Middle East. Perhaps there has been subsequent scholarship that has been able to put forth a stronger case. From what I can see though, it looks equally possible that this was a Southeast Asian ship that traveled down the eastern side of the Malay Peninsula and could have been heading for Java. That said, I’m definitely not an expert on this, but I have yet to see a convincing argument that this was an Arab/Persian ship. Again, if that case has been made, then I’d love to know where that information is.
Flecker, M. (2001). A ninth-century AD Arab or Indian shipwreck in Indonesia: First evidence for direct trade with China. World Archaeology, 32(3), 335–354. doi:10.1080/00438240120048662
There has been further research on this – perhaps the most comprehensive is “The Tang Shipwreck: Art and Exchange in the 9th Century”, a book produced in 2017 by the Asian Civilisations Museum, Singapore – where the bulk of the recovered cargo resides (and where I work). Flecker contributed an updated essay to the volume, concluding that the ship was most likely of Middle-Eastern origin.
The immense cargo of Chinese ceramics from the Changsha kilns points to a probable departure from Guangzhou, and stylistic analysis of the ceramics makes the Abbasid Empire a likely destination. But there are still many mysteries about this shipwreck.
Anyway – I’d be happy to send you a copy if you give me your address.
That’s very kind of you. I went to Flecker’s ResearchGate page and found a couple of other articles, but if you are able to share that book chapter, that would be wonderful as I don’t have access to it.
Stephen Haw suggested that the passage hrough the strait of Melaka was a relatively late development, and that ships would rather sail past the western coastbof Sumatra and then pass through the Sunda Strait.
Yes, I also recall him saying that it was not clear from Arabic sources how people (or at least one person he was talking about) got from the western side of the Malay Peninsula to the eastern side. If you look at those sources though, it’s pretty clear that they group places into two groups: there are the places that are on the “China route” (across the peninsula to Cambodia, Champa and china) and then there are places on (northern) Sumatra. The places on northern Sumatra, however, are not talked about in connection with Cambodia, Champa and China.
So, I can see how he might come up with such a theory, but if you look closely at the sources, I don’t think they support that idea.
M. Jacq-Hergoualc’h thought that land transport across the Malay Peninsula did not happen as the hazards of the jungle precluded such it. Would one really leave the relative safety of one’s vessel? As long as your commodities are within the belly of your ship you control them. The logistics of moving people and wares across land at the time we are talking about must have been already quite challenging. The source material be it Arabic or Chinese (or whatever other there is) is not helpful either as it remains vague. The material evidence (on both the western and the eastern side of the Malay Peninsula) as far as I understand similarly is difficult to be linked in such a way as to make a landroute a possibility.
Yea, I don’t think vessels were necessarily safe. Ibn Battuta had a nice crash or two. . . 🙂
M. Jacq-Hergoualc’h was just guessing that because he didn’t know that there is evidence for it. He just followed the flawed secondary scholarship of people like Wheatley who distorted the sources to try to get them to fit the Srivijaya myth.
But check out this image of where Tang-era ceramics have been found (source: The Tang Shipwreck: Art and exchange in the 9th century, 150-151). They are exactly where the main trans-peninsular routes were.
https://www.facebook.com/leminhkhaiblog/photos/a.166276964752733/821174369262986/
And check out this map from 1842 that still shows trans-peninsular routes right in the exact places where they should have been 1,000 years earlier.
http://www.davidrumsey.com/maps873.html
I took a closer look at the Arrowsmith map. The note to the road between Trang and Ligor reads as far as I can see “Gt. trade route between Bengal and the Siamese Cap?”. Anderson writing in 1824 suggested that communications between “Ligor, Sangora, and Trang and the territories of Quedah” were maintained through elephants which took 6-8 days to reach the respective places. This appears to confirm the idea of cross-peninsula routes, but no definitive date can be identified. Linehart 1975 writing about the Malay States before British intervention says that “the major means of communication among the states” was “travel by sea”, and that a “loosely joined system of footpaths and tracks evolved over time, but rivers served as the most reliable and efficient mode of transportation.” This does certainly not preclude previous overland routes between the west and east coasts, but again when did these routes start.
The two places in Heng’s map where Tang ceramics were found have no overland links, but are connected via a maritime route. They were not “in business” for a long time either (after 800 AD to before 900 AD) if one wants to trust Ho et al. (1990). Besides Tang ceramics have been found in Sumatra (Musi River) which would speak in favor of Palembang-“Srivijaya”.
It is also noteworthy that there is a cluster of wrecks in the vicinity of Sumatra, Java and the Sunda Strait which though perhaps accidental could be regarded as evidence for two major centers of trade there and the shipping route through the Sunda Strait.
Yes, I’m definitely not an expert on the shipwrecks, but I’ve had someone who is more knowledgeable tell me that most of those ships were “Southeast Asian.” If that is the case, then they provide evidence for shipping, but not a clear indication of from where to where.
As for, “The two places in Heng’s map where Tang ceramics were found have no overland links, but are connected via a maritime route. ”
That’s because Heng didn’t know that the Tang itinerary and Yijing’s earlier itinerary indicate that the route went over the peninsula. So, of course, he would draw lines around the peninsula. That is not evidence that Tang-era travelers were going around the peninsula. It’s evidence that Heng, like so many other scholars, followed the (flawed) secondary scholarship rather than looking closely at the primary sources. And that’s not surprising because so many people had done that for so long by the time Heng wrote this piece. In a “normal” historical field, you would expect that basic information like this would be “established” by now, but the “Srivijaya dream” has made the field of premodern Southeast Asian history very “abnormal.”
Again, if you look at the Arabic sources, you see two separate clusterings of names. There is a “China route” (Kedah, Zabaj, Cambodia, China), and then there are places on Sumatra that get mentioned (mostly, as far as I can tell though, at the northern end and on the northwestern side). But I see no evidence there that they were going around the peninsula or through the Sunda Strait and then on to China.
Ibn Battuta came across 13 Chinese ships in Calicut, so in the 1300s there were at least some ships that went all that way, and they must have gone around the Malay Peninsula (at least once). But he himself doesn’t travel on those ships (because 12 leave first, and the 13th gets destroyed in a storm). Instead, he travels on different ships for different legs of his journey (as Yijing and Marco Polo must have done).
So, I think scholars have the idea that it was “the norm” to travel in a single ship all the way from India to China. My sense is that this was probably the exception, and that it developed later rather than earlier.
Oh, and as for the ceramics, yes, ceramics have been found in Palembang (and many other places), but not at the scale that they have been found on the Malay Peninsula. That is what I see as the important part, and that is what that graphic is showing.
The Chinese were not much of a seafaring people when compared to the Balangay boat people who come from archipelago domicile. Chinese waters immediately surrounding their mainland are too chilly for going out to sea.