There was a Chinese Buddhist monk by the name of Yijing 義淨 (635–713) who traveled to India in the second half of the seventh century and stayed there for 11 years. Yijing left some records of his journey, and that information has served as “evidence” for the existence of a (imagined) polity at Palembang on the island of Sumatra called “Srivijaya.”
There are two particular pieces of information from Yijing’s journey that scholars have focused on.
1) He mentions a place called Foshi 佛逝 or Shilfoshi 室利佛逝 which George Cœdès claimed in 1918 was a reference to what he believed had been a polity on the island of Sumatra near Palembang called “Srivijaya.”
As we saw in the previous post, there is evidence that demonstrates that this term, (Shili)Foshi, referred to a place in the area of what is now Surat Thani province in Thailand. Nonetheless, the scholars who have examined Yijing’s writings have dismissed that information, and have followed Cœdès’s claim.
2) Yijing mentions stopping at a place called “Moluoyu/Moluoyou” 末羅瑜/末羅遊. Scholars have long argued that this is “Malayu/Melayu” an that it refers to the area where Jambi is on the island of Sumatra.
As such, historians who have examined Yijing’s writings have based their interpretations on these ideas and have argued that Yijing visited “Srivijaya” (i.e., Moluoyu/Malayu).
Scholars have argued that the place which Yijing referred to as Moluoyu was mentioned in Arabic texts as Malāyur and in other Chinese texts variously as Mulayou 木剌由, Moulayou 沒剌由, Maliyu’er 麻里予兒, Wulaiyou 巫来由/無来由, and Malaihu 馬來忽.
I haven’t traced down every one of these references in Chinese texts yet, but so far, I haven’t seen any clearly state where this place was. At least one text notes that it was a Buddhist polity.
Meanwhile, the History of the Yuan records that Siamese (Xian ren 暹人) and Maliyu’er had a long history of fighting each other, but that during the Yuan period (1271-1368) they had “returned to obedience,” implying that it was the moral sway of the Yuan that was responsible for this.
Nonetheless, the account in the History of the Yuan records that the emperor told the Siamese to not harm Malayu’er. (以暹人與麻里予兒舊相讎殺，至是皆歸順，有旨諭暹人「勿傷麻里予兒，以踐爾言」。)
That sounds serious, but for our purposes here, it also seems unrealistic that this would be about Jambi. Did Siamese and people in Jambi have a long-running conflict by the early fourteenth century? If so, where is the evidence? Those two places are quite far apart from each other, and there’s a lot in between, so this is difficult to imagine.
Meanwhile, although the name “Malāyur” does appear in Arabic texts, it is rarely explained where it was. However, Ibn Sa’īd (d.1274) provided a geographical description of Malāyur in the thirteenth which is helpful. He wrote about Malāyur in describing the western side of the Malay Peninsula from the perspective of Lāmurī, a name which scholars associate with the northern end of the island of Sumatra:
“In the south east corner is found the town of Kalāh [Kedah], well known to travelers and renowned for its Kelāhi tin. The latitude of this town is 154°12’.
“On the north east shore is the town of Malāyur, which is well known. It is a place of anchorage. Its longitude is a little more than that of Kalāh and its latitude is the same as Lāmurī. Each one of the towns of which we have spoken is on an estuary. The length of the island is about 800 miles. From the right to the left extent two capes, between which the sea is only two miles wide. The sea there is not deep. They call this place Bintan. There are found small islands out of which come black pirates armed with poison arrows and in ships of war. They rob men but do not take them away. But there are some who have been made prisoners by them. . .”
This is G. R. Tibbetts’ translation (pg. 59). I don’t know what he is translating as longitude and latitude, and when I’ve checked, the numbers he ends up with don’t seem to make sense. So, when I read a passage like this, I just look for more general geographic information.
When we do so, I think that it is easy to see that this could be describing the area between Phuket and Ko Lanta in what is now southern Thailand, a place which, from the perspective of Sumatra, one could say is to the northeast of Kedah.
It looks to me like the island with two capes on its sides could be what is now Ko Yao Yai, as that is an island which is located between what can be considered the two capes of Ko Lanta and Phuket.
Ko Yao Yai literally means “Big Yao Island,” and just to its north is Ko Yao Noi, or “Little Yao Island.” Ibn Sa’īd could have been referring to both of these islands as Malāyur, and I would also wonder if those two islands could have been connected 800 years ago, as it looks like the water between them is not very deep.
However, perhaps more likely, it could be a reference to the peninsula itself, and perhaps the area around what is now Krabi. In Arabic texts, the term “island” did not always refer to an actual island, and the “800 miles” could be the distance to (Shili)Foshi/Surat Thani. I don’t know what Tibbetts translated as “mile” and what its actual distance was, and of course, we don’t know if that information is accurate.
Further, the mention of pirates here fits perfectly with the information in the Tang Dynasty era itinerary that we looked at in the previous post, as that itinerary appears to pass through this same area and also notes the fear that people had of being attacked.
Finally, it would make much more sense to find that the Siamese had a conflict with people in this area (particularly given its access to the sea and trade), as the History of the Yuan claimed, then it would be to imagine that they were engaged in an on-going feud/conflict with far-away Jambi.
With this information in our minds, let’s now look at how Yijing traveled to, and back from, India. I will do this by first presenting Paul Wheatley’s translations from Yijing’s writings in his 1961 work, The Golden Khersonese, as that work has been an important source of information for scholars.
“In less than twenty days we reached [Shili]Foshi (Śrī Vijaya) where I spent six months learning the Śabdavidya (Sanskrit grammar). The king befriended me and sent me to the country of Moluoyu (Malāyu = Jambi), where I stayed for two months. Then I changed direction toward (zhuanxiang 轉向) Jiecha (Kedah). In the twelfth month I embarked on the king’s ship and set sail for India. Sailing northwards from Jiecha [Kedah] for more than ten days, we came to the kingdom of the Naked People (Nicobar Islands).” (42)
So, I’m more or less ok with this translation. However, what I’m not so ok with is Wheatley’s insertion of “Śrī Vijaya” and “Jambi” to explain (Shili)Foshi and Moluoyu, respectively, because what is written here makes perfect sense when we follow the information in the itinerary that we looked at in the previous post, as well as take into consideration Ibn Sa’īd’s description of Malāyur.
In particular, let us recall that in that Tang-era itinerary some place in the area of Phuket/Krabi/Ko Lanta was described as being in a “corner” of (Shili)Foshi. yes, it said “northwest” instead of a more accurate “southwest” but again, given the complexity of what was being documented, I’m not going to worry about that. What I’m interested in is this idea that there were places on both sides of the Malay Peninsula that were part of (Shili)Foshi.
One important piece of information that Wheatley left out is that after “Moluoyu” is mentioned in this passage, there is an annotation which says “This has now been changed to Shilifoshi” (今改為室利佛逝也).
A lot of ink has been spilled trying to figure out what that comment means, with various scholars arguing that it indicates that “Srivijaya” had taken control of “Jambi,” etc.
The one thing we can say is that this annotation must have been added at some later point. So, when Yijing went to India, Moluoyu was not connected to (Shili)Foshi, but at some later point, there was a connection between these two places.
Here is how I would translate this passage.
未隔兩旬果之佛逝。經停六月漸學聲明。王贈支持送往末羅瑜國(今改為室利佛逝也)復停兩月轉向羯荼。至十二月舉帆還乘王舶漸向東天矣。從羯荼北行十日餘至裸人國。
In less than twenty days I reached Foshi. I passed six months gradually learning the Śabdavidya. The king bestowed support and sent me off to Moluoyu (This has now been changed to Shilifoshi), where I again spent two months and then changed direction toward Kedah. At the time of the twelfth lunar month, the sails were hoisted and I boarded the king’s ship headed for India. From Kedah I went north for more than ten days and reached the kingdom of Naked People.
So, how can we understand this? Yijing journeyed in less than 20 days to the area around Surat Thani province, where (Shili)Foshi was located. Other sources indicate that the journey from Guangdong to (Shili)Foshi took 20-30 days, depending on the wind, so Yijing had good winds.
After spending time there, the king sent Yijing off to Moluoyu. Nothing is said here about boarding a ship or traveling by water. It is therefore 1,000% possible that Yijing went overland to Ko Yao Yai/Krabi.
It looks like the king of (Shili)Foshi had a ship that traveled between Kedah and India. This makes sense, as it seems that Kedah was a place where large ships anchored. Kedah is mentioned in Arabic sources, for instance, as a “terminus.”
So, Yijing needed to get to Kedah to board that ship. To do this, he probably journeyed on a smaller boat down the coast from Moluoyu (Ko Yao Yai/Krabi), a place which at that time was perhaps not under the direct control of the king of (Shili)Foshi. Hence, the later annotation.
It also makes sense that the text says that Yijing “changed direction toward” (zhuanxiang 轉向) Kedah, because while India was towards the west, Yijing had to first go south to Kedah to get on a larger ship that would then take him westward to India.
Ok, so now let us look at how Paul Wheatley translated the passage about Yijing’s return.
“[Tāmralipti] is the place where we embark when returning to China. Sailing from here towards the south-east, in two months we come to Jiecha [Kedah]. By this time a ship from [Shili]Foshi will have arrived, generally in the first or second month of the year. . . We stay in Jiecha until winter, and then embark on a ship for the south. After a month we come to the country of Moluoyu which has now become Foshi. . . We generally arrive in the first or second month. We stay there until mid-summer, when we sail to the north and reach Guangfu (Guangdong) in about a month. The voyage is completed by the end of the first half of the year.”
Ok, so I have some serious problems with this translation.
I also find it worth pointing out that while Wheatley presents the Chinese text for other passages that he translates, he does not do so for this passage, and the work he cites does not lead us to a copy of this text either. . .
Hmmm, what was going on here, Paul? Was there something you didn’t want us to see??
This is how I would translate this passage:
即是昇舶入海歸唐之處。從斯兩月汎舶東南到羯茶國此屬佛逝。舶到之時當正二月。若向師子洲西南進舶傳有七百驛。停此至冬汎舶南上一月許到末羅遊洲今為佛逝多國矣。亦以正二月而達。停至夏半汎舶北行。可一月餘便達廣府經停向當年半矣。
[Tāmralipti] is the place where you board and ship and enter the sea on the return journey. From here I sailed for two months to the southeast until I reached the polity of Kedah (Jiecha 羯茶). This belongs to Foshi 佛逝. We arrived in the second lunar month. If you want to go to the island of Sri Lanka (師子洲 Shizi zhou), then you have to proceed by boat [from here] to the southwest for [the equivalent of] 700 courier stations.
We waited here [in Kedah] until winter when a ship coming up from the south took us in a little over a month to the island of Muoluoyu 末羅遊. This is now [one of] Foshi’s many polities. It was already the second lunar month when we arrived. We waited until the middle of summer and then sailed to the north. In a little more than a month we reached Guangfu (Guangdong), [the trip] having taken about a year and a half.
I have two main issues with what Wheatley wrote.
1) When he wrote that “Sailing from here towards the south-east, in two months we come to Jiecha [Kedah]. By this time a ship from [Shili]Foshi will have arrived, generally in the first or second month of the year,” the text actually records that “From here I sailed for two months to the southeast until I reached the polity of Kedah (Jiecha 羯茶). This belongs to Foshi 佛逝. We arrived in the second lunar month.”
What I have translated as “belong” here is a character, shu 屬, which can mean “belong” in the sense of being a vassal or tributary.
So, similar to the annotation in the passage about Yijing’s journey to India that says of Moluoyu that “This has now been changed to Shilifoshi,” the text here indicates that the king of (Shili)Foshi had some kind of authority over Kedah.
This makes a lot of sense because, as I have shown in other posts in this series, places like Jaba/Songkhla and Nakhon Si Thammarat, at different times brought areas on both sides of the Malay Peninsula under their authority. Indeed, if one were to write an overview history of this region, that would be an obvious and important story.
2) Wheatley says that “We stay in Jiecha until winter, and then embark on a ship for the south. After a month we come to the country of Moluoyu which has now become Foshi. . .”
This passage is admittedly a bit unclear, but it is difficult to say that Yijing embarked on a ship “for the south.” The expression in the text is “nanshang” 南上, which literally means “south up.”
I understand that Wheatley believed that there was a place called “Srivijaya” in southern Sumatra and that Jambi was connected to it, and that he believed that the terms “(Shili)Foshi” and “Moluoyu” indicated these two places. He therefore undoubtedly wanted to find a way to get Yijing to pass by at least one of those places on his return journey, but. . . it is really difficult to get “south up” to indicate movement in the direction of the south. (And could that be why Wheatley did not include the Chinese text, or a citation linking to that text, for this translation??)
Although I don’t think that this a common expression, it still makes much more sense to see it as meaning that “a ship coming up from the south took us in a little over a month to the island of Moluoyu” (汎舶南上一月許到末羅遊洲). That may seem like a long time to travel from Kedah to Ko Yao Yai/Krabi, but I think we could assume that this would have been a local “coastal” boat that probably stopped off at places along the way.
What is more, taking a month to go from Kedah to Jambi, as Wheatley has it, is completely unrealistic.
Further, given all of the other information that we have provided concerning Moluoyu and (Shili)Foshi, it makes perfect sense that on his return journey, Yijing went northward after reaching Kedah, just as on his journey to India he had gone southward to Kedah from possibly Ko Yao Yai or Krabi.
Again, this information about Yijing has played a very important role in providing “evidence” for the existence of “Srivijaya.” Hopefully, this post has made it clear that Yijing’s writings do not do that.
Yijing did not go to Jambi or anywhere else in the Straits of Melaka area. The furthest south he went was Kedah.
This should not surprise us, for as the previous post showed, in the Tang period the main maritime route between China and India did not pass through the Straits of Melaka. Or at the very least, we do not have historical evidence of people traversing that route.
Yijing’s writings have been used as “evidence” of this, but they are not.
Finally, in these past two posts, I have been using the modern Chinese transcription for (Shili)Foshi. This is obviously a transcription of a Sanskrit name. I’m not sure what would be the most accurate rendering of that name, but it could be something like Sri Budhja or Sri Bodja.
With that in mind. . . this could be a total coincidence, but look at the name of this island:
As I said, this might be a total coincidence, but this is precisely in the area where I have been arguing in these two posts that (Shili)Foshi/Sri Budhja/Sri Bodja in Surat Thani extended its influence over.
Could Sri Boya be a remnant trace of Sri Bodja?
Maybe it’s time to get out the Lidar!!! 😊
19 August 2022 Update: I now have a slightly different location in mind, but this one is for sure!!
Please see the post below.
This Post Has 6 Comments
Very interesting. Could it be that the journey north on the Western coast took comparatively long because of the time of his arrival and unfavorable seasonal winds?
Yes, I think that’s logical too. The difference in travel times depending on the winds seems to have been quite significant.
Travel time was something that the last post had me thinking about. Why go the hassle of debarking, walking over the peninsula with luggage and then reembarking in a new ship? Because sailing down to the straits and back up is a considerable distance, and if the season’s wind favoured one way it’d hinder the other.
Of course, a pilgrim using the equivalent of local bus routes is a bit different to a major trader with a shipping container…
Is there easy way to do the GIS calculations for different routes, factoring in seasonal travel times (wind direction and land routes being washed out)?
Thanks for the comment! One thing that I have been thinking about is the “hassle” of moving overland. Maybe it wasn’t actually a “hassle.” Arabic and Chinese sources both indicate that “Jaba” (the place I think was around Songkhla) was a major settlement and congregation site for traders, and its king, the Maharaja, was said to rule over many “islands.” Given the scale of what these sources imply, I would imagine that there was probably a very well-oiled (human) machine in place for moving cargo overland. If you had a lot of slaves who carried goods on palanquins. . . Wouldn’t crossing the peninsula not be such a big deal? This is what I’m starting to wonder.
One might imagine various competing polities/entrepots, with the local authorities acting as logistics providers/guarantors, that maintain “branch offices” on both coasts of the peninsula. Traders from the Indian ocean world could call upon the ports on the Andaman side to purchase goods from China and vice versa. Was not mention made of pirates as well???
There is in fact a passage in L. Gesick’s thesis on “Kingship and Political Integration in Traditional Siam” in which the author briefly mentions the 18th and early 19th century elephant trail between Trang to Nakhon Si Thammarat and Songkhla (p. 170-1).
Longitude and latitude bearings in Tibbets are according to Arabic usage, ascexplained by Tibbetts on pp. 192-93.