Chapter VII

WHEREIN THE ISLES OF SONDUR AND CONDUR ARE SPOKEN OF; AND
THE KINGDOM OF LOCAC.

When you leave Chamba{1} and sail for 700 miles on a course between south and south-west, you arrive at two Islands, a greater and a less. The one is called SONDUR and the other CONDUR.{2} As there is nothing about them worth mentioning, let us go on five hundred miles beyond Sondur, and then we find another country which is called LOCAC. It is a good country and a rich; [it is on the mainland]; and it has a king of its own. The people are Idolaters and have a peculiar language, and pay tribute to nobody, for their country is so situated that no one can enter it to do them ill. Indeed if it were possible to get at it, the Great Kaan would soon bring them under subjection to him.

In this country the brazil which we make use of grows in great plenty; and they also have gold in incredible quantity. They have elephants likewise, and much game. In this kingdom too are gathered all the porcelain shells which are used for small change in all those regions, as I have told you before.

There is nothing else to mention except that this is a very wild region, visited by few people; nor does the king desire that any strangers should frequent the country, and so find out about his treasure and other resources.{3} We will now proceed, and tell you of something else.

NOTE 1.—All the MSS. and texts I believe without exception read
“_when you leave_ Java,” etc. But, as Marsden has indicated, the
point of departure is really _Champa_, the introduction of Java
being a digression; and the retention of the latter name here
would throw us irretrievably into the Southern Ocean. Certain old
geographers, we may observe, did follow that indication, and the
results were curious enough, as we shall notice in next note but
one. Marsden’s observations are so just that I have followed
Pauthier in substituting Champa for Java in the text.

NOTE 2.—There is no reason to doubt that these islands are the
group now known as that of PULO CONDORE, in old times an important
landmark, and occasional point of call, on the route to China. The
group is termed _Sundar Fúlát_ (_Fúlát_ representing the Malay
_Pulo_ or Island, in the plural) in the Arab _Relations_ of the 9th
century, the last point of departure on the voyage to China, from
which it was a month distant. This old record gives us the name
_Sondor_; in modern times we have it as _Kondór_; Polo combines
both names. [“These may also be the ‘Satyrs’ Islands’ of Ptolemy,
or they may be his _Sindai_; for he has a _Sinda_ city on the
coast close to this position, though his Sindai islands are dropt
far away. But it would not be difficult to show that Ptolemy’s
islands have been located almost at random, or as from a pepper
castor.” (_Yule_, _Oldest Records_, p. 657.)] The group consists of
a larger island about 12 miles long, two of 2 or 3 miles, and some
half-dozen others of insignificant dimensions. The large one is now
specially called Pulo Condore. It has a fair harbour, fresh water,
and wood in abundance. Dampier visited the group and recommended
its occupation. The E. I. Company did establish a post there in
1702, but it came to a speedy end in the massacre of the Europeans
by their Macassar garrison. About the year 1720 some attempt to
found a settlement there was also made by the French, who gave the
island the name of _Isle d’Orléans_. The celebrated Père Gaubil
spent eight months on the island and wrote an interesting letter
about it (February, 1722; see also _Lettres Edifiantes_, Rec.
xvi.). When the group was visited by Mr. John Crawford on his
mission to Cochin China the inhabitants numbered about 800, of
Cochin Chinese descent. The group is now held by the French under
Saigon. The chief island is known to the Chinese as the mountain of
Kunlun. There is another cluster of rocks in the same sea, called
the Seven Cheu, and respecting these two groups Chinese sailors
have a kind of _Incidit-in-Scyllan_ saw:—

“_Shang p’a Tsi-chéu, hia-pa Kun-lun,
Chen mi t’uo shih, jin chuen mo tsun._”[1]

Meaning:—

“With Kunlun to starboard, and larboard the Cheu,
Keep conning your compass, whatever you do,
Or to Davy Jones’ Locker go vessel and crew.”

(_Ritter_, IV. 1017; _Reinaud_, I. 18; _A. Hamilton_, II. 402;
_Mém. conc. les Chinois_, XIV. 53.)

NOTE 3.—Pauthier reads the name of the kingdom _Soucat_, but I
adhere to the readings of the G. T., _Lochac_ and _Locac_, which
are supported by Ramusio. Pauthier’s C and the Bern MS. have _le
chac_ and _le that_, which indicate the same reading.

Distance and other particulars point, as Hugh Murray discerns, to
the east coast of the Malay Peninsula, or (as I conceive) to the
territory now called Siam, including the said coast, as subject or
tributary from time immemorial.

The kingdom of Siam is known to the Chinese by the name of
_Sien-Lo_. The Supplement to Ma Twan-lin’s Encyclopædia describes
Sien-Lo as on the sea-board to the extreme south of Chen-ching. “It
originally consisted of two kingdoms, _Sien_ and _Lo-hoh_. The Sien
people are the remains of a tribe which in the year (A.D. 1341)
began to come down upon the Lo-hoh, and united with the latter into
one nation.... The land of the Lo-hoh consists of extended plains,
but not much agriculture is done.”[2]

In this _Lo_ or LO-HOH, which apparently formed the lower part
of what is now Siam, previous to the middle of the 14th century,
I believe that we have our Traveller’s Locac. The latter half of
the name may be either the second syllable of Lo-Hoh, for Polo’s
_c_ often represents _h_; or it may be the Chinese _Kwŏ_ or _Kwé_,
“kingdom,” in the Canton and Fo-kien pronunciation (_i.e._ the
pronunciation of Polo’s mariners) _kok_; _Lo-kok_, “the kingdom of
Lo.” _Sien_-LO-KOK is the exact form of the Chinese name of Siam
which is used by Bastian.

What was this kingdom of Lo which occupied the northern shores of
the Gulf of Siam? Chinese scholars generally say that _Sien-Lo_
means Siam and _Laos_; but this I cannot accept, if Laos is to bear
its ordinary geographical sense, _i.e._ of a country bordering Siam
on the _north-east and north_. Still there seems a probability that
the usual interpretation may be correct, when properly explained.

[Regarding the identification of Locac with Siam, Mr. G. Phillips
writes (_Jour. China B. R. A. S._, XXI., 1886, p. 34, note): “I can
only fully endorse what Col. Yule says upon this subject, and add
a few extracts of my own taken from the article on Siam given
in the _Wu-pé-ché_. It would appear that previously to 1341 a
country called Lohoh (in Amoy pronunciation Lohok) existed, as
Yule says, in what is now called Lower Siam, and at that date
became incorporated with Sien. In the 4th year of Hung-wu, 1372, it
sent tribute to China, under the name of Sien Lohok. The country
was first called Sien Lo in the first year of Yung Lo, 1403. In
the T’ang Dynasty it appears to have been known as _Lo-yueh_,
pronounced _Lo-gueh_ at that period. This _Lo-yueh_ would seem to
have been situated on the Eastern side of Malay Peninsula, and to
have extended to the entrance to the Straits of Singapore, in what
is now known as Johore.”—H. C.]

In 1864, Dr. Bastian communicated to the Asiatic Society of Bengal
the translation of a long and interesting inscription, brought [in
1834] from Sukkothai to Bangkok by the late King of Siam [Mongkut,
then crown prince], and dated in _a_ year 1214, which in the era of
Salivahana (as it is almost certainly, see _Garnier_, cited below)
will be A.D. 1292–1293, almost exactly coincident with Polo’s
voyage. The author of this inscription was a Prince of _Thai_ (or
Siamese) race, styled Phra Râma Kamhêng (“The Valiant”) [son of Srī
Indratiya], who reigned in Sukkothai, whilst his dominions extended
from Vieng-chan on the Mekong River (lat. 18°), to Pechabur, and
Srī-Thammarat (_i.e._ Ligór, in lat. 8° 18′), on the coast of the
Gulf of Siam. [This inscription gives three dates—1205, 1209, and
1214 śaka = A.D. 1283, 1287 and 1292. One passage says: “Formerly
the Thaïs had no writing; it is in 1205 śaka, year of the goat =
A.D. 1283, that King Râma Kamhêng sent for a teacher who invented
the Thaï writing. It is to him that we are indebted for it to-day.”
(Cf. _Fournereau, Siam ancien_, p. 225; _Schmitt, Exc. et Recon._,
1885; _Aymonier, Cambodge_, II. p. 72.)—H. C.] The conquests of
this prince are stated to have extended eastward to the “Royal
Lake,” apparently the Great Lake of Kamboja; and we may conclude
with certainty that he was the leader of the Siamese, who had
invaded Kamboja shortly before it was visited (in 1296) by that
envoy of Kúblái’s successor, whose valuable account of the country
has been translated by Rémusat.[3] Now this prince Râma Kamhêng
of Sukkothai was probably (as Lieutenant Garnier supposes) of the
_Thai-nyai_, Great Thai, or Laotian branch of the race. Hence the
application of the name Lo-kok to his kingdom can be accounted for.

It was another branch of the Thai, known as _Thai-noi_, or Little
Thai, which in 1351, under another Phra Rama, founded Ayuthia and
the Siamese monarchy, which still exists.

The explanation now given seems more satisfactory than the
suggestions formerly made of the connection of the name _Locac_,
either with Lophāburi (or _Lavó, Louvo_), a very ancient capital
near Ayuthia, or with _Lawék_, _i.e._ Kamboja. Kamboja had at an
earlier date possessed the lower valley of the Menam, but, we see,
did so no longer.[4]

The name _Lawek_ or Lovek is applied by writers of the 16th and
17th centuries to the capital of what is still Kamboja, the ruins
of which exist near Udong. _Laweik_ is mentioned along with
the other Siamese or Laotian countries of Yuthia, Tennasserim,
Sukkothai, Pichalok, Lagong, Lanchang (or Luang Prabang), Zimmé
(or Kiang-mai), and Kiang-Tung, in the vast list of states claimed
by the Burmese Chronicle as tributary to Pagán before its fall. We
find in the _Aín-i-Akbari_ a kind of aloes-wood called _Lawáki_, no
doubt because it came from this region.

The G. T. indeed makes the course from Sondur to Locac _sceloc_ or
S.E.; but Pauthier’s text seems purposely to correct this, calling
it, “_v. c. milles_ oultre _Sandur_.” This would bring us to the
Peninsula somewhere about what is now the Siamese province of
Ligor,[5] and this is the only position accurately consistent with
the next indication of the route, viz. a run of 500 miles _south_
to the Straits of Singapore. Let us keep in mind also Ramusio’s
specific statement that Locac was on _terra firma_.

As regards the products named: (1) gold is mined in the northern
part of the Peninsula and is a staple export of Kalantan, Tringano,
and Pahang, further down. Barbosa says gold was so abundant in
Malacca that it was reckoned by _Bahars_ of 4 cwt. Though Mr. Logan
has estimated the present produce of the whole Peninsula at only
20,000 ounces, Hamilton, at the beginning of last century, says
Pahang alone in some years exported above 8 cwt. (2) Brazil-wood,
now generally known by the Malay term _Sappan_, is abundant on
the coast. Ritter speaks of three small towns on it as entirely
surrounded by trees of this kind. And higher up, in the latitude
of Tavoy, the forests of sappan-wood find a prominent place in
some maps of Siam. In mediæval intercourse between the courts of
Siam and China we find Brazil-wood to form the bulk of the Siamese
present. [“Ma Huan fully bears out Polo’s statement in this matter,
for he says: This Brazil (of which Marco speaks) is as plentiful
as firewood. On Chêng-ho’s chart Brazil and other fragrant woods
are marked as products of Siam. Polo’s statement of the use of
porcelain shells as small change is also corroborated by Ma Huan.”
(_G. Phillips, Jour. China B. R. A. S._, XXI., 1886, p. 37.)—H. C.]
(3) Elephants are abundant. (4) Cowries, according to Marsden
and Crawford, are found in those seas largely only on the Sulu
Islands; but Bishop Pallegoix says distinctly that they are found
_in abundance_ on the sand-banks of the Gulf of Siam. And I see Dr.
Fryer, in 1673, says that cowries were brought to Surat “from Siam
and the Philippine Islands.”

For some centuries after this time Siam was generally known to
traders by the Persian name of _Shahr-i-nao_, or New City. This
seems to be the name generally applied to it in the _Shijarat
Malayu_ (or Malay Chronicle), and it is used also by Abdurrazzák.
It appears among the early navigators of the 16th century, as Da
Gama, Varthema, Giovanni d’Empoli and Mendez Pinto, in the shape
of _Sornau, Xarnau_. Whether this name was applied to the new city
of Ayuthia, or was a translation of that of the older _Lophāburi_
(which appears to be the Sansk. or Pali _Nava pura_ = New-City) I
do not know.

[Reinaud (_Int. Abulfeda_, p. CDXVI.) writes that, according to
the Christian monk of Nadjran, who crossed the Malayan Seas, about
the year 980, at this time, the King of Lukyn had just invaded
the kingdom of Ṣanf and taken possession of it. According to Ibn
Khordâdhbeh (_De Goeje_, p. 49) Lukyn is the first port of China,
100 parasangs distant from Ṣanf by land or sea; Chinese stone,
Chinese silk, porcelain of excellent quality, and rice are to be
found at Lukyn.—H. C.]

(_Bastian_, I. 357, III. 433, and in _J. A. S. B._ XXXIV. Pt. I. p.
27 _seqq._; _Ramus._ I. 318; _Amyot_, XIV. 266, 269; _Pallegoix_,
I. 196; _Bowring_, I. 41, 72; _Phayre_ in _J. A. S. B._ XXXVII.
Pt. I. p. 102; _Aín Akb._ 80; _Mouhot_, I. 70; _Roe and Fryer_,
reprint, 1873, p. 271.)

Some geographers of the 16th century, following the old editions
which carried the travellers south-east or south-west of Java
to the land of _Boeach_ (for Locac), introduced in their maps a
continent in that situation. (See _e.g._ the map of the world by
P. Plancius in Linschoten.) And this has sometimes been adduced to
prove an early knowledge of Australia. Mr. Major has treated this
question ably in his interesting essay on the early notices of
Australia.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- [1] [From the _Hsing-ch’a Shêng-lan_, by Fei Hsin.]

[2] The extract of which this is the substance I owe to the kindness of
Professor J. Summers, formerly of King’s College.

[3] I am happy to express my obligation to the remarks of my
lamented friend Lieutenant Garnier, for light on this subject,
which has led to an entire reform in the present note. (See his
excellent Historical Essay, forming ch. v. of the great “_Voyage
d’Exploration en Indo-Chine_,” pp. 136–137).

[4] The _Ḳakula_ of Ibn Batuta was probably on the coast of Locac. The
_Ḳamárah Ḳomar_ of the same traveller and other Arab writers, I
have elsewhere suggested to be _Khmer_, or Kamboja Proper. (See
_I. B._ IV. 240; _Cathay_, 469, 519.) Ḳakula and Ḳamarah were both
in “_Mul-Java_”; and the king of this undetermined country, whom
Wassáf states to have submitted to Kúblái in 1291, was called _Sri
Rama_. It is possible that this was Phra Rama of Sukkothai. (See
_Cathay_, 519; _Elliot_, III. 27.)

[5] Mr. G Phillips supposes the name Locac to be Ligor, or rather
Lakhon, as the Siamese call it. But it seems to me pretty clear
from what has been said that Lo-kok, though including Ligor, is a
different name from Lakhon. The latter is a corruption of the
Sanskrit, _Nagara_, “city.”