Ancient Indian Colonies in the Far East (Vol. I: Champa; Vol. II: Suvarnadvipa) v2.c13.s2.t2.80

v2.c13.s2.t2.80

These statements appear to be decisive in favour of the identification of San-fo-tsi with Palembang. But when we read the detailed account which follows the statement quoted above from the History of the Ming dynasty, the view is bound to be changed. It tells us in effect that when the Javanese had conquered San-fo-tsi, they could not keep all the land and the whole country was disturbed. It then describes how two Chinese adventurers set up as kings of San-fo-tsi and Ku-Kang. From this Groeneveldt has made the obvious inference that Ku-Kang and San-fo-tsi were different places.¹ It might appear that Ku-Kang was the name given to that part of the extensive kingdom of San-fo-tsi which was under the control of Java, and by a natural process, the name of the former kingdom, San-fo-tsi, came to be applied to the latter, which originally formed merely a part of it. But then we should remember that San-fo-tsi and Ku-kang are treated as two different places in Tao-yi Che-lio (1349-50 A.D.), i.e. long before Java finally conquered San-fo-tsi. All these certainly go against the view that San-fo-tsi is equivalent to Ku-kang or Palembang.² That San-fo-tsi and Palembang were different places is also proved by the account of Chau Ju-kua who includes Pa-lim-fong or Palembang among the dependencies of San-fo-tsi.³ Palembang was thus a dependent kingdom of, and therefore different from, San-fo-tsi.