<!-- Pramāṇa, a library of Indian primary sources · https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.majumdar-1927.v2.c13.421 -->

[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Studies](https://indike.org/pramana/ins) › [General history and culture](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general) › [Ancient Indian Colonies in the Far East (Vol. I: Champa; Vol. II: Suvarnadvipa)](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.majumdar-1927) › v2.c13.421

# Ancient Indian Colonies in the Far East (Vol. I: Champa; Vol. II: Suvarnadvipa) v2.c13.421

Ancient Indian Colonies in the Far East (Vol. I: Champā; Vol. II: Suvarṇadvīpa) v2.c13.421

- **Language:** English

### [v2.c13.421](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.majumdar-1927.v2.c13.421)

Now, on the basis of the identification of San-bo-tsai with Śrī-Vijaya and Palembang, Groeneveldt, Schlegel, and other scholars took Kan-to-li of the Liang and First Sung annals as equivalent to Palembang. This view has been strongly criticised by Gerini. Referring to the identification of Kan-to-li with San-bo-tsai by the late Ming historians, he remarks: "This late identification looks, I need not say, exceedingly suspicious, especially in view of the fact that we have more than once caught Chinese authors at fault in this sort of game; and last, but not least, because there was and still exists a Khanthuli or Kanturi district on the east coast of the Malay Peninsula, which may very well be the old Kan-to-li of First Sung and Liang periods." The criticism of Gerini appears to be a valid one, and neither Pelliot nor Ferrand is willing to put much faith in the identification proposed by later Chinese historians. But the identification proposed by Gerini has not found general acceptance. Ferrand quotes a passage from the Ḥāwiya of Ibn Majid (dated A.D. 1462), which shows that Kandari was a general appellation of the island of Sumatra. Ferrand suggests that the Ming historians really conveyed an authentic information, though their wordings are a little inaccurrte ; for, instead of saying that San-bo-tsai was a part of Kan-to-li, they said that San-bo-tsai was Kan-to-li.

- [Previous: v2.c13.420](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.majumdar-1927.v2.c13.420)
- [Next: v2.c13.422](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.majumdar-1927.v2.c13.422)
- [Up: v2.c13](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.majumdar-1927.v2.c13)

---
Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.majumdar-1927.v2.c13.421](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.majumdar-1927.v2.c13.421) · Pramāṇa
