Prajit P. Prasad - Researcher
The story of “Srivijaya Empire”
and the location of it have become a topic of highly
controversial.
Historians and archaeologists tried to pinpoint hypothesis but failed to do so
according to the meager evidence. However,Thai
historians have reluctantly suggested that
the
capital of Srivijaya was on the peninsula of Thailand at the vicinity of Chaiya
in Surat
Thani.
Although some other historians have stated with the evidence based on the power
centralized in Sumatra
and suggested that Palembang
was the center of Srivijaya. Have we
accepted
in such cases?.
Tenri,
Nara, Japan.
To update
the conclusions to meet with the present evidence of
Srivijaya,
I myself, as the writer, accept the influence of
Srivijaya as they extended their domains
to
control over the
Malay Peninsula as well as the islands of Java and
Sumatra. The story
of Srivijaya has always been interesting. It is worthwhile
to follow the works of the former
historians as the
professional in this field since they
supplied us with the considering
evidence. But it is highly controversial and,of course, is
necessary to add, pick or choose
what to accept and
what to discard. However, we have to
carefully study with
the
ancient documentary evidence, take them into conclusions and
analyze the information
systematically with the adequate reference. Since the study
on Srivijaya has not
yet been
concluded, therefore, we have to investigate with these available information before
recommending and proposing the conclusions.
Most of the foreign historical records
described Srivijaya in normal accounts except
only the written
records of I-ching, the Chinese monk
who started his adventurous journey
to Srivijaya and India during 671-695 A.D.
The written accounts described
about the time
factor, distance, the number of dates related to the various
local places, and climate at that
time. These are
valuable historical sources that have almost no written records of their
histories.
Therefore,
I-ching’s written accounts might be the solution that could solve the
mystery of Srivijaya
throughout the early period, as the key clearly enough to pinpoint
the hypothesis on
Srivijaya regarding the names and places in Srivijaya history.
Before we
bring the reader to determine the various place - names in Srivijaya
history which, of course, very doubtful, we know for certain
that the peninsula of Thailand
has a significant sources in history and archaeology.
According to these information we
focus on the establishment of the kingdom and the location
of the capital that have been the
major subject of
disputes during the last four or
five decades.
In early
time, scholars and historians tried to determine the location of the center of
Srivijaya Empire
compared with various significant
evidence such as fine arts and
monuments of Brahmanism and Buddhism. The art that
developed in southern Thailand
during this period has thus termed “Srivijayan Art” which
was related
to the art of the
“Sailendra Dynasty”. Presumably, the sculptures found in the peninsular during
this
period exhibit a
similar style of the Pala art of Vajrayana Buddhism from
Nalanda in the
northeastern India
that spread throughout the southeast Asia, China, and Java. Moreover,
the archives and interpretations referencing by both Thai and
foreign experts tracing back
to the root, are the earliest proof of its emergence and thriving of the kingdom of
Srivijaya
since the 7th century where it was flourishing
during 8th-9th centuries
as the Trading Empire
lying on the route between China in the east, and India, Persia and Europe in the
west.
When we say the
word “Srivijaya”, most of the
scholars at present, accept that
professor George Coedes produced
this word in 1918 A.D. and located the centre of
Srivijaya at Palembang in the south of Sumatra. After
that, the foreign scholars followed
Coedes’theory that
Srivijaya was at Palembang. However,the excavations at Palembang have
not yielded any significant evidence. According to the
Sumatran inscriptions including
with the Kedukan Buket inscription from Palembang, dated 682
A.D., there were five name
of places and one
name was the river. Those inscriptions
had been found at Muara Takus,
Jambi, Lampung, and Palembang. One of the inscription at Talang Tuwo ( Palembang)
in
684 A.D. mentioned the name “Dapunta Hiyam
Sri Jayanasa” who built a park called Sri
Ksetha for the
people. Ceramic and wares found in
Palembang might have been the 9th -10th
centuries which obviously was the latest of
Srivijaya period.
If we do
not accept that Palembang was the capital of Srivijaya, some scholars
suggested that Chaiya was certainty the center of Srivijaya since the 7th – 9th centuries or
before that period (
such as Chand Chirayu Rajani M.C.,1999 A.D.,Sippanan
Nuanla-ong,
2014 A.D.,Thammatas
Banij,1991 A.D., and Nongkran Srichai,
2001 A.D.)
Srivijaya
is one of the various names which appeared throughout the history in the
documentary evidence and the inscriptions such as Bodhi, Sri
-Bodhi, San-fo- tsi, Javaka,
Zabag, Fo-shih, and Shih-li-fo-shih.
Details from a Pursian painting
showing a ship.
I-ching sailed to the east
coast of Malaya with cross - ocean ship ( Poss- eu or
Persian ship).
On his way, he reached “Fo-shih” (Srivijaya) in 671 A.D.
On his way, he reached “Fo-shih” (Srivijaya) in 671 A.D.
To find out the story of Srivijaya, from
earliest time when folks learnt how to sail
crosswind. People set sail from south
China when the northeastern Monsoon blew and
sailed before the wind to the east coast of Malaya with
cross - ocean ship ( such as poss- eu
or Persian ship)
plying between China and Far East. I-ching, the Chinese monk who started
his journey from China to India, on his way, he reached “Fo-shih”(Srivijaya) in
671 A.D. I -ching
described Srivijaya as a confederation of
states with 10 colony states
He spent six months learning Sabdavidya (Sanskrit grammar) before he left for
India.
From Fo-shih, he
sailed down the east coast for around
fifteen days to the country
of
Mo-lo-yu (Jambi) where he stayed for two months. From
Mo-lo-yu, he went in the other
direction up the west coast and through the Malacca strait for another fifteen days
to
Chieh-cha (Kedah). In
winter he embarked on the king’s ship and sailed to India and studied
at Nalanda for thirteen years (673-685 A.D.)
According to I-ching, the kingdom of Ho-ling was
due east of Fo-shih at a
distance
that could be covered
in a sea journey of four days. Ho-ling,
or Po-ling as I-ching stated
some people pronounced the name; was from the combination of the word “Bodhi” and
“Galinga”. Bodhi is a name of a tree and
Galinga, at that time was the name
of Indian
tribes “Galingaras” who had moved from India to Malay Peninsula to
establish their
domicile at Ho-ling and Fo-shih. R.C. Majumdar, an
archaeologist and historian suggested
that Galinga had been moving in as refugees from the war risks in India in the 6th
century.
The Chalukya Dynasty attacked the key port cities
of Ganga and Sairodbhava
Dynasty
where Galinga was one of the target for foreign power
that would last over a hundred year.
Probably,the word “Maharaja” is not a
personal name. It appeared only in Misore and
Galinga state under Ganga Dynasty. It might have been
intimidated by this word as a generic
name or the title of the Sailendra king ruling in
India in the 6th century.
However,
Srivijayan capital in the Malay
Peninsula became an important center
of the Vajrayana Buddhism from
Nalanda in the northeastern India and spread over to
China and Java during 7th- 9th century AD. This influence had extended to
the kingdom of
Srivijaya. It was the
evidence that in Java, the Sailendra king of Srivijaya (king Vishnu)
had ordered the
construction of Borobudur,one of
the largest and most magnificent of
Buddhist monumental building in the world.
An inscription discovered at Wat
Wiang, Chaiya, dated 775 A.D., showed that
the kingdom was
called “Srivijaya”. However, the rulers of Chaiya were related to the
Sailendra Dynasty
in India, so that, it could have
been the origin of the Sailendra
Dynasty in the
peninsula as the name “Galinga”
had obviously been related to the word
“Ho-ling”.
In 685A.D.,
I-ching returned the same way from India to China. While in
Mo-lo-yu
he mentioned that
”After a month, we come to the country of Mo-lo-yu which has now
become Fo-shih”
I-ching stayed in Fo-shih during 687-695A.D. for eight years to translate
original Sanskrit
Buddhist scriptures into Chinese. I-ching praised the high level of
Buddhist
scholarship in Srivijaya. According to I-ching’s notes, he
mentioned that:-
“In the fortified
city of Fo-shih, there are more
than a thousand monks in the city
whose minds are bent on learning and
good practice. They investigate
and study all the
subjects that exist just as in India. The rules and
ceremonies are not at all different. If
a
Chinese priest wishes
to go to the west in order to hear and read the original scriptures,
he had better stay here one or two years and practice the
proper rules.
Many of the kings and chieftains in the
islands of the Southern Sea admire and
believe in Buddhism,
and their hearts are set on accumulating good actions”
From
I-ching’s records and memoirs we gather the following facts:-
1
Fo-shih, the capital, was on the river
“Fo-shih”, and it was the chief trading port with China.
2
In 665A.D., Huai-ning, the Chinese monk,
went to the state of Ho-ling or Po-ling
as
I-ching stated some people pronounced the name, as reference by the
biographics of the
Chinese pilgrims to India which I-ching has compiled. We
are also told that Hui-ning on his way to India, stopped for
three years in Ho-ling,
and, in
collaboration with a local monk called “Jnanabhadra”,translated
several
scriptural
texts.
In
689A.D.,I-ching described that Ho-ling, Tan-tan(Don-din of the history of Sui),
and Pan-pan (I-ching
called Pu-pen), all these states became subordinate to the new state of
Fo-shih (Srivijaya). In fact, the country was named “Shih-li-fo-shih”.
For over a
half century, Srivijaya has been the major subject of disputes as its
location remained in
obscurities. With these basic uncertainties, we cannot discuss properly
the history of ancient Southeast Asia. Some historians talked about “Mandala”,
but it
explains nothing. What state was the center of the ancient
kingdom (Srivijaya), and
where was it? Had the ancient state named “Fo-shih” been
inexistence at that time? or
was Chaiya a capital of Srivijaya? Such problems inevitably dominated among the
topic
of discussions.
To find the
lacation of Fo-shih, we have to check I-ching”s itinerary that could bring
the information such as name of places, the duration of
times, and distance among the places.
We found that the people at the olden times compared the
shadow (with the dial-plate) to
communicate with each
other at the place of observation. We know that the world is round,
so that, at the same time of
day, day of year and month, the
shadow length should be
different depends on
the area of observation. I would like to know whether I-ching’s
statements about
the sundial readings based on the
observations could be the solution to the
location of the capital of Srivijaya since the 6th
and 7th centuries. I-ching’s “sundial
readings” would
help us to
locate several of I-ching’s toponyms,
such as Fo-shih, Ho-
ling,and Mo-lo-yu. Therefore, it might be the tremendous
changes of the history of Southeast
Asia especially
in the southern part of Thailand.
Accordingly, from the geographical information,we have:-
Chaiya district is at the
north latitude 9 degrees and 8minutes.
(The sun is
over head on the 15th of April and the 30th of
August)
Palembang (old habour,Chiu-chiang) is
at the south latitude 3 degrees.
(The sun is
over head on the 14th of
March and the 1st of October)
The location of
“Fo-shih” and “Ho-ling” within the Srivijaya kingdom by the archaeologists and
historians.
Professor P.J.Bee worked
out for the location of Srivijaya
in his book “ The Hsin
Tang Shu, pagssage
about Pan Pan” in 1974A.D. He calculated the location of the capital
using the
information given in the New Tang
History (Hsin Tang Shu) pointed to the
north
latitude of 6 degrees
and 7 minutes and at that time it was called Shih-li-fo-shih.
When we check with I-ching’s itinerary and the
sundial readings (gnomon readings),
the information are as
follows:-
-“In the country of Shih-li-fo-shih,
we see the shadow of the dial-plate become neither
long nor short (i.e.”remain
unchanged” or “no shadow”) in the middle of the eight month
(autumn equinox) and at
midday no shadow falls from a man who
stands on that day, so it
is in the middle of
spring(vernal equinox)”.
-“At Mo-lo-yu, at
midday, no shadow falls from a
man who stands on that day”.
It means that
Mo-lo-yu was on the equator.
-“At
Ho-ling, at noon on the day of the summer solstice(on the 21st of June),
a gnomon 8 sh’ih in height casts a southern shadow 2 sh’ih 5 fs’un in height”. It means
that Ho-ling was above the equator. (note: sh’ih = foot, and fs’un = inch in English scale).
a gnomon 8 sh’ih in height casts a southern shadow 2 sh’ih 5 fs’un in height”. It means
that Ho-ling was above the equator. (note: sh’ih = foot, and fs’un = inch in English scale).
-“At
Fo-shih, at noon on the day of the summer solstice, a gnomon 8
sh’ih in
height casts a southern shadow 2 sh’ih 4 fs’un in height”.
It means that Fo-shih was at
the north of the equator
not far from Ho-ling and it was slightly higher than Ho-ling
(north of Ho-ling).
To compensate the
tilt of the rotation axis of the earth (ɛ)
With the information of the article of Mr.
Nipon Saipet, the astronomer of
“The Thai Astronomical Society”, presenting to the scholars
of the Science Society
in 2001 A.D. as follows:-
Seasons on the
earth are due to the tilt of the rotation axis of the earth with
respect to the normal
to the plane of the orbit of the earth
about the sun. ( see
figure) This calls
the “obliquity” and its symbol is ɛ.
Nowadays, this
angle (ɛ1) is about 23˚ 26΄
22˝
( 23.439444444˚) which is
the latitude of
the tropic of cancer.
ɛ will be decreasing
to the minimum value 22.6˚ within 10,200
years.
After that, this value will be gradually increasing to reach
the maximum value of 24.2˚.
Around 10,000 years
ago, we obtained this maximum value.
We cannot
use today’s value ( 23˚ 26΄ 22˝) for the calculation because of the errors.
Therefore , we must
compensate with some value to obtain
the real obliquity value (ɛ2)
that had happened during the time of I-Ching’s journey to the ten
states of the southern
seas in 687 A.D. when
he returned from India
and stayed in the kingdom
of Srivijaya.
From the calculation
we could obtain ɛ2 = 23˚ 32΄ 25˝
It means in the year
687 A.D., the value of the tropic of
cancer (ɛ2) was
23˚ 32΄ 25˝. We
use this value (ɛ2) in our calculation compare to the time when
I-Ching stayed in the fortified city of Fo-shih and the state of Ho-ling.
From the
calculations, we could have:-
-Fo-shih was
at the latitude 7 degrees and
17 minutes north.
-Ho-ling was
at the latitude 6 degrees and
44 minutes north.
Since Chaiya district is situated at the latitude 9
degrees and 8 minutes north, so that,
Chaiya was not the Fo-shih
state. Also, Nakhon si Thammarat (or Tambralinga) is at the
latitude 8 degrees and 25 minutes north, it was not the
Ho-ling state eventhough Nakhon si
Thammarat is obviously at the east coast of Chaiya. It
was the misunderstanding or
misplace since we
studied the history of
Srivijaya. I-ching also pointed
out that Ho-ling
was due east of the
city of Fo-shih at a distance that could be covered in a sea journey of
four days. The exact location could
obtain only from the calculation which is one of the
solution
regarding Srivijaya History.
Therefore,
both Fo-shih and Ho-ling can be located with certainty by the
calculations as follows:-
7 degrees and 17 minutes north is
Singhanakhon district in Songkla province
in South Thailand.
And. 6 degrees and 44 minutes north
is Yarang district (Langkasuka) in
Pattani province
in South Thailand.
Was it probably that I-ching stayed in Singhanakhon
(Chalair sub-district) for six
months to study Sanskrit ?
If this was true, then he went on
board the king’s ship to the
country of Mo-lo-yu
and arrived there after fifteen
days’ sail at a distance of around 1,100
kilometers.
If this was possible,
it means:-
……I-ching departed from Kwang-fu(Canton) in 671A.D. and
after twenty days’ sail he
was in Fo-shih (this
can be possible). From Fo-shih, he
reached Mo-lo-yu after fifteen days
and stayed there (
also, this can be possible). Starting the journey from Fo-shih, he could
sail toward the south covered with around 70 sea-kilometers
per day. Please be noted that,
from Mo-lo-yu to
Palembang (old habour) could possibly be
in five days’sail. The journey
between Palembang and
Mo-lo-yu took only a few days not in 15
days as I-ching stated
in his itinerary
from Fo-shih to Mo-lo-yu.
We have quite frequent questions for the Palembang theory on
I-ching. Did I-ching
go to Palembang within
20 days from Kwang-fu (Canton)?
It might be physically
impossible
to reach the old port of Palembang within 20 days. I-ching also wrote that it
took more than one
month from Mo-lo-yu to Kwang-fu.
Mo-lo-yu (Jambi) was nearer than
Palembang to
Kwang-fu. Therefore, from Kwang-fu to Palembang was much
longer taking
twice of the 20 days’
sailing time. This explains why the kingdom of
Srivijaya, the “Shih-li-
fo-shih” of Chinese
document was not Palembang(old habour)
at that
time.
Fo-shih attacked
Mo-lo-yu and Palembang.
In 685A.D., I-ching embarked on a
ship from Chieh-cha (Kedah) for the south.
After a month, in 686 A.D.,
he arrived in the country of
Mo-lo-yu which had become
Fo-shih. He arrived
in the first or second Chinese lunar month generally in February or
March. At Mo-lo-yu, he measured the shadow length of 8 sh’ih (R ) bar and found that at
midday no
shadow falls from a
standing person ( equal to 0 ).
The quoted sentence is an explanation of how
Mo-lo-yu become Fo-shih. We should
explain why
Mo-lo-yu had become the vassal state
of Srivijaya (Fo-shih). At that
time, in
682 A.D., the king Sri
Jayanasa was the Maharaja of Srivijaya. He
was probably a prince
who was made Commander - in- Chief of the
Srivijaya expedition that conquered
Palembang as mentioned in ” the South Sumatran
inscriptions”. Srivijaya (Fo-shih) based in
the Malay Peninsula
sent big
navy to the South of Sumatra and
conquered Jambi (or Mo-
lo-yu) and Palembang
to control the whole Malacca strait.
Rokuro Kuwata, a
Japanese scholar, made several points
regarding Chih-tu (The
Red Earth Land).
In 607 A.D.,Chang-chun was
sent as an envoy from Sui court
to
Chih-tu. Rokuro
Kuwata compared with several
evidence and concluded that Chih-tu had
become “Shih-li-fo-shi” as the capital
of the region. In 670-673 A.D.,
the king Ho-mi-to
of Shih-li-fo-
shih sent envoy to the
great Tang. Rokuro Kuwata made a
point that Shih-li-
fo-shih sent envoys
instead of Chih-tu as
it was “the same
state”.They sent 8 embassies
to the Tang court during 670-742 A.D. I-ching also recorded that the king of Fo-shih (Ho-
mi-to)possessed ships,probably for commerce, sailing between
India and Chieh- cha (Kedah).
According to the
records on Chang-chun’s story of “Chih-tu, the Book
of Sui”,
Chih-tu was located among the South Sea, the
northwards it faced the ocean, and the
southwards was
“Ho-lo-tan”. Ho-lo-tan was probably the same
as “Tan-tan” which
mentioned in I-ching’s written records.
Ho-lo-tan (Kelantan) was located on the east coast
of the Malay Peninsula.
In the Song Shu ( the first Song or
Lieu Song ), there is a description of Ho-lo-tan
and the relations with Java Shu. Ho-lo-tan sent
embassies to the first Song during
430-452 A.D. and
stopped suddenly(Srivijaya towards
Chaiya,Takashi Suzuki, 2012AD).
According to Sui
Shu, Tan-tan (Ho-lo-tan) is situated in the northwest of Taruma
(West Java).
There are around 20,000 families. The
king holds audiences for two times
every day. The
king has eight senior ministries who are
Brahmans, and the government
style is Indian. It
means the location we could expect was the Malay Peninsula and
not
Sumatra.
Tan-tan sent embassy to China as tributary country in
531A.D.
An envoy from
Tan - tan presented to the Liang court namely 2 ivory
images, 2 stupas, fine pearls, cotton
fabrics, various perfumes and drugs.
According
to the History of Song Dynasty(960-1279A.D.), there
was a country in the
south sea called “ San-fo-tsi”.
After Sailendra was expelled from Java, the major Srivijaya
city-states
formed a new allied state, called
San-fo-tsi which was easily approved by
the
Song Dynasty as the former successor of Shih-li-fo-shih.
However, the Song did not know
the relation between Shih-li-fo-shih, the first Srivijaya
and San-fo-tsi. When Srivijaya
group formed
“San-fo-tsi”, the leader of
San-fo-tsi is unknown. Anyway, the Sailendra
could have
established the full hegemony and it is the firm evidence that Shih-li-fo-shih
was the predecessor
of San-fo-tsi. San-fo-tsi sent its envoy to the Tang in 904 A.D.
I-ching
also mentioned that, Fo-shih, the capital was on the river ”Fo-shih”
(the name was same
as the city). It was
the chief trading port
with China. The river
Fo-shih is
obviously a stream channel of landform between the Satingpra cape
and
Nang-kham island in
Songkla lake. There is a
spectacular view in front as the island
is located across
the vast lake so it appears like the channel is a wild
river flowing from
the north to
the south side.
Another entrepột recorded
by the Chinese annalist is Pan-pan
. Ma-tuan-lin
recorded about Pan-pan
in the 6th century. The Chinese chronicler recorded that Pan-pan
was a small state with no solid city wall and
poorly equipped army. The ordinary people
lived mostly by the
water-side, and in default of city walls erected palisades entirely of short
wood. Ma Tuan-lin, relates that the arrows
employed in the kingdom of Pan-pan were
tipped with heads made of a very hard stone;
spears are fitted with blades sharpened on their
double cutting edges. Pan-pan was bordered
by another polity, Langkasuka (Wheatley,
1961:48). We know
something of the rituals of the court of Pan-pan. When the
king held
audiences, he was
wont to lounge upon a gilt couch shaped
like a dragon. The dignitaries of
his entourage attended
in a kneeling posture in front of
him, the body erect, and the arms
crossed in such
a manner that the hands rest upon
the shoulders. At his court
may be seen
many Brahmans,who had come from India
in order to profit by his munificence. The king
favoured the Indian Brahmans,but there were also
Buddhists in the kingdom.
According
to the Tong-dian,compiled by Du-you in 801
A.D., Pan-pan in the 6th
century AD, was as follows:-
” There are ten
monasteries where Buddhist monks and nuns study their canon.
They eat all
types of meat but refrain from wine. There is also one monastery of
“Daoshis”( religiously advanced devotees; Rishi –Hindu
Indian priest ) who partake neither
of meat nor wine. They study the classic of the Asura king ( Ramayana), but they enjoy no
great respect. The ordinary
Buddhist priests are commonly
called “ pi-chu” (
bhiku for
male, and bhikuni for
female), the others “tan” (
Tan means “Sir”)”.
Details from a Chinese painting
showing an emissary from Langkasuka
(Achito, 515A.D.) with description of the kingdom.
Liang Dynasty’s painting dated during 526-539 A.D.
(Achito, 515A.D.) with description of the kingdom.
Liang Dynasty’s painting dated during 526-539 A.D.
The Center
of Srivijaya.
Pranjicʹ P. Prasad ,
Bangkok, Thailand
Email : pranjicprasad@gmail.com
The
article was reported in Thai in the monthly magazine Art&Culture,
on the 9th of July,2015(7 th issue
of the year
2015).
Preliminary report
submitted by Pranjic P. Prasad,
who during the time was
doing part of this paper dealing with the Fine Arts University in Bangkok since
July, 2014
References:-
1) The Vestige of Srivijaya by Nongkran Srichai, published in A.D.2001.
2) The History of Indian Ocean by Dr. Tida Saraya,
Muangboran press,A.D.2011.
3) The Flourish of Dharmaratpura as recorded in the Southern
Chronicle by Dharmatart
Panich, The first
meeting and seminar on the Nakhon si Thammarat History, Bangkok:
A.D. 1982.
4) The Historical Evidence of Srivijaya Empire by Chand
Chirayu Rajani M.C.,
The second meeting and seminar on the Nakhon si
Thammarat History, Bangkok :
A.D. 1982.
5) Tambralinga, Srivijaya, the Forgotten Kingdom by police general Sanpet
Dharmathikul, published in
A.D. 1995.
6) The article “ The Tilt of the Rotation Axis of the Earth”
by Nipon Saipet, presented at
the meeting of the
Royal Scholars, Science Academy, on the 17th of January, A.D.2001.
Vishnu stone; 6th-7th
century A.D.
Discovered at the ancient city pillar in Muang district, Songkla province.
On displayed at the National Museum, Songkla.
Body of Vishnu stone; 7th
century A.D.
Discovered at Khun Chang temple, Ranode district, Songkla province.
On displayed at the National Museum, Songkla.
Shiva bronz; 9th-10th
century A.D.
Discovered at
Nong Hoy in Wat Khanun
subdistrict,Songkla province.
On displayed at the National Museum, Songkla.
Shiva-lingam;7th -
8th century A.D.
Discovered at Ban Pangpao, Satingpra district, Songkla province.
On displayed at the National Museum, Songkla.
View from Satingpra cape to Songkla lake (
Nangkham island)
in the west. Where it was seen as a river “Bodhi” by I-ching,
a Chinese visitor in 687 A.D. Sulaiman, an Arab traveler in 851 A.D.,
also called the river by the name “Sea-large”, which was flowing
to the sea.
in the west. Where it was seen as a river “Bodhi” by I-ching,
a Chinese visitor in 687 A.D. Sulaiman, an Arab traveler in 851 A.D.,
also called the river by the name “Sea-large”, which was flowing
to the sea.
View from the Tigris River.
This was
recorded by an Arab
traveller (Sulaiman,851 A.D.), who looked at
the Songkla lake. He saw the Nangkham
island and described the scenery
in front
similarly to the
silt deposited in the Tigris
river, flowing to Baghdad
and Basra.
Note : Refer to the
article of Nipon Saipet,
The President of “ The Thai Astronomical
Society” ,presented at the
meeting of the Royal Scholars, Science Academy, on the
17th of January, A.D.2001.
Map
of Songkhla (Fo-shih) and Pattani (Ho-ling)
