What? No Sri Vijaya
Toms Note: This is a condensation of a 53-page essay written by Liam Kelley and published in China and Asia in 2022. I requested Dr Kelley to review the manuscript, and he added minor corrections. Contact me if you want the whole essay.
George Coed’es, a famous french scholar in 1918, wrote a paper in french stating the existence of Srivijaya. Since that time, almost everybody agreed with him, and Srivijaya became a permanent kingdom in south Sumatra. He said it was built on the present site Palembang. Many other papers and books have expanded on his theory. Since then, scholars have agreed and included the Kingdom of Srivijaya as part of the history of Southeast Asia.
One person has disputed Coed’es theory. Dr Liam Kelley of the University of Brunei and previously at the University of Hawai’i stated that Sri Vijaya was a person instead of a kingdom, challenging the Sanscript translation. He also states Coedes used information from a researcher, Dr.W.P. Groeneveldt (Coed’es did give credit), who related
1)Sanfoqi was indeed a Chinese name for Sri Vijaya. Groeneveldt also said 2)Sanfoqui was on the east coast of Sumatra and that 3) Kota Kapur inscriptions were near Sumatra. However, Groeneveldt did not come up with the nation-state of Sri Vijaya. Coed’es tied all three of these together and came up with the Kingdom of Sri Vijaya. These three different statements by Groeneveldt are all Codes used to proclaim the Kingdom of Sri Vijaya.
Kelley begins by looking at how Chinese knowledge about places in Southeast Asia changed over time. By the late Ming and early Qing periods (~ the 1700s), Chinese scholars could see that there were place names in historical sources that no longer existed. They then tried to link current places with these older place names. (Kelley in an e-mail to Tom)
Kelley then divides his essay into sections. In the first section, Xianluo 暹羅 are the names of Kingdoms that existed on the plains of Thailand. Xian was not fit for farming, while Luo was an area of great fertility. They combined forces and became Xianlou.
The second section deals with three entities, Sanfoqi, Gantuoli and Zhenla. Sanfoqui used to be called Gantuoli 干陀利.
According to Chinese sources, both Sanfoqi and Gantuoli gave tribute to China, and they were thought to be precursors of Champa占城.
Zhenla was divided into two, one called Water Zhenla 水真臘 and the other called Land Zhenla 陸真臘. Another name for Land Zhenla was Wendan 陸真臘. A name also appears as Jimie 吉蔑, which is supposed to be Khmer. Kelley argues that Land Zhenla was an early name for Angkor.
The third part of his essay deals with Shepo and Java. Kelley argues that Shepo was in southern Thailand at Songkhla and was not the same place as Java. In the late Ming and early Qing periods, Chinese scholars saw that there were references to a place called Shepo that no longer existed in historical sources. They then said the Java of their day used to be called Shepo. Kelley argues that Shepo was in southern Thailand at Songkhla and was not the same place as Java.
The fourth part of the essay is entitled Zhenla, Sanfoqi, and Shepo in the Yuan and Ming. All three entities are present in the book, History of the Yuan. However, in the History of the Ming, Shepo disappears after sending a tribute to China in 1378. Sanofi is placed in Cambodia, where it has always been and not in southern Sumatra.
The fifth part, Sanfoqi and Old Harbor, describes the relationship between the two entities. Old Harbor is a generic name, and many places could have been named that. Java attacked and destroyed Old Harbor, which was located next to Sanfoqi in Cambodia. Scholars have argued that Old Harbor was near Palembang, but Kelley has ample evidence to prove it was not.
The sixth part of his essay is about Old Harbor and Palembang. Kelley compares and contrasts two texts, Overall Survey of the Ocean’s Shores and Overall Survey of the Star Raft. Both texts indicate there was a single polity but had different names. The state was Sanfoqi. However, the state no longer existed when they visited in 1409 and 1453. By then, Sanfoqi had been renamed Old Harbor, while the locals referred to it as Bolingban.
The seventh part deals with a Sumatran Old Harbor. Kelley states there was a map where a place called Old Harbor where the Musi river flows into the sea and on Sumatra itself a point called Old Harbor. However, Kelley wonders where that information came from. He states the Dutch Sinologist Groeneveldt misread the Chinese. Where the actual translation was Old River, he read it to be Old Harbor.
The eighth part tells of Cambodian Old Harbor. Kelley claimed there were two entities, Zhenla and Angkor. Kelley claims that terms like Zhenla, Sanfoqi and Xianlo were bureaucratic categories and bore no relationship to locations. Zhenla, where it was, was probably located close enough to Angkor but far enough away to maintain its polity. He also states that Cambodia was made up of multiple city-states.
Conclusion
Kelly concludes with the following points:
1. Kelley calls into question whether there ever was an entity called Sanfoqi in Palembang, which refers to Sri Vijaya. Sanfoqi was in Cambodia.
2. Sri Vijaya was not located on the island of Sumatra.
3. No factual information links Old Harbor with Sanfoqi on Sumatra.
Fr:
Kelley, Liam Rescuing Sri Vijaya from History: The Fall of Angkor in the Ming Shilu Part One in China and Asia, 4 2022
BorneoHistory.net
