Ancient Indian Colonies in the Far East (Vol. I: Champa; Vol. II: Suvarnadvipa) v2.c13.s2.t2.72

v2.c13.s2.t2.72

As regards (1) we have seen above that Zābag is different from Sribuza, and this alone is sufficient to show the weakness of the theory. Che-li-fo-che and Sribuza are both obviously equivalent to Śrī-Vijaya, but the same cannot be said either of San-fo-tsi or of Zābag. M. Aurousseau, no doubt, equates San-fo-tsi with Che-li-fo-che,² but Ferrand is of opinion that it is impossible to equate San-fo-tsi with Śrī-Vijaya from a philological point of view.¹ Further, the Chinese accounts do not seem to imply that Che-li-fo-che is the same as San-fo-tsi. The history of the Ming Dynasty² says that San-fo-tsi was formerly called Kan-da-li ( or Kan-to-li ). According to Chau Ju-kua³ San-fo-tsi began to have relations with China during 904-907 A.D. Both these statements are definitely against the proposed identification. It is true that Cūḍā-maṇivarman and Śrī-Māra-vijayottuṅgavarman are referred to as kings of San-fo-tsi, but that does not prove that San-fo-tsi was Śrī-Vijaya. For, as stated above, we have no right to infer from the Cola records that these two were primarily kings of Śrī-Vijaya. We should rather regard them as kings of Kaḍāram, and Śrī-Vijaya was included in their realm. Thus the fact remains that no satisfactory evidence has yet been brought forward to show that San-fo-tsi is equivalent to Śrī-Vijaya. It is noteworthy that there is no reference to Che-li-fo-che in Chinese records after 742 A.D.,⁴ while San-fo-tsi makes its appearance early in the tenth century A.D., shortly after the first reference to Zābag by Arab writers. Of course if ultimately San-fo-tsi proves to be the same as Śrī-Vijaya, we have to dissociate the former from Zābag.