In a recent blog post, I talked about how in Song dynasty era sources, there is a “surname” that appears in numerous Chinese records about tribute missions coming from Southeast Asia — “Pu” 蒲 – that scholars have argued indicates the Arabic name “Abu” or certain Southeast Asian terms.
Among the Southeast Asian terms suggested are pu/po, a Cham honorific, and empu/mpu, a term found in the Malay-Javanese world where it was, as far as I can determine (but feel free to correct me if I’m wrong), used to refer to a master craftsman, such as someone who forged kris, or traditional daggers.
In much of the scholarship on maritime China and Southeast Asia, scholars have favored the “Abu” idea, and see the appearance of this term as a reference to a Muslim foreign merchant. More recently, scholars like Stephen G. Haw and Johannes Kurz have pushed back against this reading, and I agree with their arguments.
However, Haw and Kurz have not sought to determine exactly what the term meant in the Southeast Asian context beyond arguing that it was Southeast Asian, with pu/po and mpu both being possibilities. In the previous post, I examined the geographical distribution of the term as it appears in Song dynasty era sources, and argued that it is the Cham term, pu/po.
To continue that line of argument, I place below lists of the names of envoys from Champa and Java who journeyed to China in the late fourteenth century to present tribute. They did so under a new dynasty, the Ming dynasty, which was attempting to re-establish tributary relations with kingdoms in Southeast Asia, relations that in many cases had been broken during the preceding period of Mongol rule.
Like the case with the Song dynasty records, the Ming records show a pu/po-like term in many of the names/titles of envoys from Champa. In particular, we find the following characters: Pu 蒲, Bao 寶, Bao 保, Pou 婆, Bu 布, Bu 卜, and Bo 伯, all of which, I argue, are acceptably close to pu/po. Again, as was the case in the previous post, I’m not saying that every appearance of these characters in this list below is an exact match with pu/po, but only that it is possible. Some cases, however, seem very clear.
After the list of envoys from Champa, I provide a list of envoys from island Java during the same period. In those names, there is no evidence of pu/po. Instead, we can see evidence of well-known Javanese titles, like patih and sang arya.
The Romanizations are taken from Geoff Wade’s translation of the Ming shilu (https://epress.nus.edu.sg/msl/).
Champa
1369: Hu-du-man 虎都蠻
1369: Pu-dan-ma-du 蒲旦麻都
1370: Da-ban She-li 打班舍利
1371: Da-ban Gua-bu-nong 荅班瓜卜農
1372: Yang-bao Mo-he-ba-di Fu-lu 陽寶摩訶八的佛祿
1375: Bao-gui Sai Xi-na-ba-di 寶圭賽西那八
1377: Bao-gui Shi-na-ba-di 保圭尸那八的
1378: Bao-lu-gui Zhao Po-lang 寶祿圭照婆郎
1379: Yang-xu-wen-dan 陽須文旦
1380 Da-bing-lun 大併崙
1382: Yang Ma-jia-yi 楊麻加益
1384: Zhao Wen-bu 昭聞部
1386: Bao Bu-ling-shi-na-ri-wu 寶部領詩那日勿
1387: Xin-jia-duo 辛加咄
1387: Bao Luo Gui A-na-lai-yu 寶絡圭阿那來郁
1388: Bu-la-ji-bo-la-pai-di 不剌機伯剌拍弟
1397: Bu-luo-ji Zhen-bu-nong 卜落記真卜農
1398: Sun Zi-bu–po-lou-gai-wu-tai-ye-pi-ma 孫子布婆陋垓烏台夜皮麼
Java
1370: Lang-jia Zhan-bi Hu-xian 郎加占必忽先
1372: Ba-di Zhan-bi 八的占必
1377: Ba-zhi Wu-sha 八智巫沙
1380: A-lie Yi-lie-shi 阿烈彛烈
1382: Seng A-lie A-er 僧阿烈阿兒
1393: Seng A-lie Jun-lu 僧阿烈均祿
There is nothing in the above Javanese titles that can be seen as representing mpu. By contrast, there are many characters in the list of Cham envoys that could indicate pu/po.
So, to reiterate my point, the “Pu’s” that we find in Song dynasty era sources were NOT Abu’s or Mpu’s. They were Cham Pu’s/Po’s.
This idea that Pu = Abu has been in circulation for over a century. What I find amazing is that the modern field of Southeast Asian history/studies emerged in the post-colonial era, and it’s driving mission was the effort to create an “autonomous history” of Southeast Asia, one that did not view the region through the prism of colonial era scholarship which had focused on documenting foreign influences on the region.
And yet, rather than seeing the actual agency of people in Southeast Asia, somehow scholars have been totally content to believe that a bunch of “Abus” (and why did they all have the same name anyway?) could come from afar and easily dominate the seas of the region. . .
Do scholars of Southeast Asian history really think that people in the region had such limited maritime knowledge and skills that foreigners could easily arrive and take charge? Isn’t that the kind of idea that we are supposed to believe is a Western colonial bias. . .