At long last, the first part of a 2-part article on “Srivijaya” has just been published. In this article, I argue that information in Chinese sources (about “Sanfoqi” 三佛齊) that has been used to construct the history of a supposed maritime polity in Southeast Asia called “Srivijaya” is actually about “Kambuja” (i.e., Angkor).
The article can be found here:
https://www.academia.edu/83822426/Rescuing_History_from_Srivijaya_The_Fall_of_Angkor_in_the_Ming_Shilu_Part_1_
And I continue to write about this topic here on the blog in the “Srivijaya 3.0” series.
congratulations on getting your paper published liam. was waiting for this for ages
Thank you!! It’s been a long wait for me too!!!
This first published article was, if I am not mistaken, devoted to Chinese language sources from China “only” and what they had to say about the overseas polities in question. How did Vietnamese historians deal with the same issue? As far as I can see Chenla and Java are mentioned in Đại Việt sử ký toàn thư as well.
According to “Le Đại-Việt et ses voisins: d’après le “Đại Việt sử ký toàn thư””, Cambodia was always called Chenla, while the term for “Srivijaya” appears once only.
« Giáp thìn (1184). Au printemps, le 3e mois, le Champa apporta le tribut. Des commercants venant du Siam et de Tam-phật-tè [* Il s’agissait du royaume de Crivijaya.] abordèrent au poste de Vân-đôn et offrirent des objets précieux, afin de solliciter l’autorisation de faire du commerce.
Tân hội (1191). Au printemps, le Chenla apporta le tribut. »
Thank you for pointing this out!! Yes, I looked through the Vietnamese version and saw some references. I need to check the Hán/Chinese original. I will look at this more closely very soon!! You are right though, that source needs to be addressed. 🙂