Johannes Kurz March 2024
In 1079 representatives from a place called Sanfoqi 三佛齊 in, probably, Sumatra submitted tribute items to the Chinese imperial court in Kaifeng. The Wenxian tongkao records these items as follows: “During the Yuanfeng era envoys arrived twice[1] bringing with them local products such as silver, pearls, as well as polü and xunlu aromatics” (Yuanfeng zhong shizhizhe zai shuai yi baijin zhenzhu polü xunlu xiang 元豐中 使至者再率以白金珍珠婆律薰陸香備方物) (Wenxian tongkao 332.2610). The identification of the “polü and xunlu aromatics” has presented a problem, for several scholars regarded the Chinese term 婆律薰陸香 as a reference to one specific aromatic that had not been encountered before in Chinese texts. As a matter of fact, polü xunlu xiang occurs only once in this context in the Wenxian tongkao and consequently in the Songshi (489.14090). However, the two components of the term, polü and xunlu, by the 11th century had been known to the Chinese for several hundred years already (although a fully satisfactory explanation of what they exactly were and where they came from, is yet to be written). Rather than thus attempting to identify a non-existing “polü xunlu aromatic”, we have to insert a dunhao 頓號, or enumeration mark (婆律、薰陸香), to understand what the Sanfoqi envoys brought.
Willem P. Groeneveldt translated the relevant phrase in the Songshi as follows: “During the period Yüan-fung (1078-1085) envoys came from this country, again bringing silver, pearls, camphor oil, olibanum and other products of the country” (Groeneveldt 1877, 66). He correctly regarded polü and xunlu as two distinct products, addressing the former as camphor oil, and the latter as frankincense. R.A. Donkin used this translation in his own work, paraphrasing it as follows: “Between 1078 and 1085, envoys from southern Sumatra (San-fo-ch’i) to the Chinese court brought ‘camphor oil’ among other ‘products of the country’” (Donkin 1999, 66).
Saint-Denys did not translate the term in the parallel entry in the Wenxian tongkao 文獻通考, at all, merely talking about “des parfums, etc.” (Saint-Denys 1883, 564), while Bielenstein preferred “p’o-lü ointments and aromatics” (Bielenstein 2005, 61).
More recently, Derek Heng repeated the statement about the alleged camphor oil: “Chinese records note that camphor oil was submitted by such Southeast Asian states as Srivijaya in the 1070s and 1080s as a tribute item to the Song court (Heng, 2012: 195).” (Heng 2022, 67).[2] The entry in Heng’s monograph reads: “Between 1078 and 1086 camphor oil was presented as tribute to the Song court.” In another publication, Heng gives two conflicting statements on the date of the submission of “camphor oil” to the Song court: “During the Shenzhong [sic] Yuanfeng period (1078-85), Srivijaya presented camphor oil as a tribute item to the Song court”, and “appearance of camphor oil, first introduced by Srivijaya to the Song court in 1090s [sic], suggests that new types of camphor products, obtained through manufacturing processes and derived from other plants, were successfully being introduced to the Chinese market by Southeast Asian traders” (Heng 2015, 219 and 220, respectively).[3] Four years later, Heng moved the date again: “In 1078, camphor oil featured as a tribute item presented by Srivijaya to the Chinese court” (Heng 2019, 38).
A few short, and by no means complete, notes seem therefore pertinent, and we shall deal with what the likely Chinese term for Heng’s “camphor oil” is, and at what time it may have been presented to the Chinese court.
The dates
Xu Zizhi tongjian changbian 續資治通鑒長編 records two missions from Sanfoqi 三佛齊 (that many scholars believe to be the Song dynasty designation for the elusive state/empire/thalassocracy of “Srivijaya”): one on 2 August 1079, the other one on 10 October 1084 (Xu Zizhi tongjian changbian 299.7265 and 348.8356), but the tribute items submitted by the envoys are not specified.
Wolters has previously dealt with the mission of 1079 in his essay on the alleged move of a Sanfoqi capital to Jambi (Wolters 1966, 232-233), and Hartwell as well as Bielenstein in their surveys of tribute missions to the Chinese court also date it to 1079 (Hartwell 1983, 176; Bielenstein 2005, 61). The dates 1079 and 1084 are confirmed by Song huiyao 宋會要 (Song huiyao jigao 宋會要輯稿 “fanyi” 蕃夷 7.36a (7857) and “fanyi” 7.38a (7858). Thus neither “1078 and 1086”, nor “1078”, are confirmed by the source material. As for the “1090s”: One mission arrived in the twelfth month of the fifth year of the Yuanyou period that corresponds to December 1090/January 1091 (Xu Zizhi tongjian changbian 452.10851), another one in December 1094 (Songshi 宋史 18.341), and a third one in April 1095 (Song huiyao jigao “fanyi” 7.41b (7860)). The texts do not specify any tribute items from any of these missions.
“Camphor oil”
polü
In Liangshu 梁書, polü xiang (54.795) is a product of Langyaxiu 狼牙修 (on the Malay Peninsula).[4] Scholars have understood polü to be a reference to Barus and hence have identified the substance named polü gao 婆律膏 in the Youyang zazu 酉陽雜俎 (18.9a) by Duan Chengshi 段成式 (c. 800-863) as Barus camphor (for instance, Schlegel 1900, 192 (“Baros-perfume (Camphor)”); Pelliot 1904, 341 (“onguent de P’o-lu”); Ferrand 1919, 56; Wheatley 1956, 390; Schafer 1963, 166 (“ointment of Baros”)).
Polü gao is the substance that Groeneveldt (1877, 142) referred to as “camphor oil”. Groeneveldt had retrieved the term from Bencao gangmu 本草綱目 by Li Shizhen 李時珍 (1518-1593) which quoted from Youyang zazu. The latter text in turn was quoted and translated by Hirth and Rockhill (1911, 194) in the entry on camphor (naozi 腦子) in Zhufan zhi 諸蕃志, and they translated the term polü gao as “camphor balm”, while reserving the expression “camphor oil” to a substance called naoyou 腦油 in Zhufan zhi. The Zhufan zhi does not refer to polü gao, so either the term was outdated by the time that Zhao Rukuo compiled his text, or it referred to some other product. Linda Rui Feng in her translation of the Youyang zazu entry identifies polü gao xiang as “Polü aromatic” and polü gao as “Polü oil” (Feng 2024, 14).
The Youyang zazu reports that longnao xiang 龍腦香 (camphor aromatic) originated from trees found in Poli called gubu polü 固不婆律. The trees also grew in Bosi[5]. Depending on the quality of the wood, either longnao xiang or polü gao was produced (Youyang zazu 18.9a). The earlier Bencao shiyi 本草拾遺 compiled by Chen Cangqi 陳藏器 in the first half of the eighth century quoted in the Xiang pu 香譜 by Chen Jing 陳敬 (fl. southern Song), in contrast, describes polü xiang as coming from a tree growing in Polü 婆律 and sharing similarities with longnao 龍腦, saying that the aromatic was the clear resin (qingzhi 清脂) of the tree (Xiang pu 1.4b). Polü in all these instances appears to have a certain viscosity indicated by the term gao (oil, paste,), and is linked generally to camphor. The Tongdian 通典 (late 8th/early 9th cent.) records that polü gao was one of the aromatics (besides shenxiang 沈香 (chenxiang 沉香 agarwood), tanxiang 檀香 (sandalwood), and longnao xiang 龍腦香) that corpses were embalmed with in the country of Podeng (Podeng guo 婆登國) before cremation (Tongdian 188.5105). Podeng according to the Tongdian was south of Linyi 林逸 (on the Indochinese Peninsula), in the east bordered on Heling 訶陵 (Java), in the west on Mililian 迷黎連, and in the north on the “great ocean” (dahai 大海). In Jiu Tangshu the country of Duohuan 陀洹 sent envoys who submitted polü gao to the court and asked in return for horses and copper bells (Jiu Tangshu 187.5272). The Jiu Tangshu adds that the country of Duopodeng 墮婆登 in the twenty-first year of the Zhenguan era (10 February 647-29 January 648) submitted sandalwood (bai tan 白檀) to the throne (Jiu Tangshu 197.5273-5274).[6] Since this description otherwise follows the Tongdian record, including the embalming of deceased persons with “polü gao, longnao 龍腦and other (such) aromatics (dengxiang 等香)”, we must assume that Duopodeng was identical with Podeng. The Tang huiyao has an entry on a place it refers to as Nouduohuan 耨陀洹, that was located to the northwest of Duoheluo 墮和羅 and to reach Guangzhou from there took five months of sailing. The text explains that envoys from Nouduohuan reached the court in the eighteenth year of the Zhenguan era (14 February 644-1 February 645) where they submitted polü gao. The Tang huiyao also adopted the Podeng entry from the Tongdian (100.1782-1783).
The Xin Tangshu, as regards Duohuan, explains that its alternate name was Nouduohuan, and that it took ninety days to reach it from Jiaozhou in northern Vietnam. presents information of Duopodeng where the people not only applied polü gao on dead persons, but also longnao and other varieties of aromatics (longnao zhong xiang 龍腦眾香). This place is said to have been south of Huanwang 環王 and one could reach it after a voyage of two months (Xin Tangshu 222C.6303). To its east was Heling, to its west was Miliche 迷黎車, and in the north it bordered on the ocean. Its customs were identical with those of Heling. If we accept Heling as a region in northern Java, then Duopodeng may either have been in western Java or eastern Sumatra.
Ouyang Xiu and his co-authors summarized the information they had and thus referred to two missions from Duohuan that supposedly arrived during the Zhenguan era and submitted polü gao (Zhenguan shi bing qian shizhe zai ru chao you xian polü gao 貞觀時並遣使者再入朝又獻婆律膏). Duohuan was one of two countries subject to Duoheluo, hence the details concerning Duohuan are included in the sparse description of Duoheluo (Xin Tangshu 222C.6303).
Meng Yuanlao 孟元老 (c. 1090-1150) cites the Xiang pu 香譜 by Hong Chu 洪芻 (jinshi of 1094) on aromatics, among which are longnao xiang 龍腦香, xunlu xiang 薰陸香, bolü xiang 波律香, and ruxiang 乳香 (Dongjing menghua lu jianzhu 2.99). Evidently, longnao xiang and bolü xiang are specific items, the latter likely being a variant of polü xiang. Similarly, xunlu xiang is different from ruxiang, even though many writers treat both terms as designations for frankincense (e.g., most recently, Chen Ming 2022, 487[7]).
xunlu
The Guangzhi 廣志 (3rd – 4th cent. A.D.) reports that xunlu xiang came from the southern ocean (nanhai 南海) (Xiang pu 1.13b), the Weilüe 魏略 of the third century A.D. identifies the place as Daqin 大秦 (Fayuan zhulin jiaozhu 法院竹林校注 36.1158; Taiping yulan 太平御覽 982.2a (4347)), and the Nanfang caomu zhuang 南方草木狀 of the early fourth century addresses it as a product of the coastal regions of Daqin (Nanfang caomu zhuang 2.1b).[8] Daqin perhaps is the origin for a possible xylographic error; in any case, the mention of the coastal region makes identification of Daqin with a port at the “Gulf of Akabah”, as for instance Hirth (1885, 159) suggests, somewhat questionable.
We encounter xunlu xiang again in the Da Tang xiyuji 大唐西域記 by Xuanzang 玄奘 (602-664), who describes a xunlu xiang tree that is endemic to the country of Azhali 阿吒釐 (Da Tang xiyu ji jiaozhu 大唐西域記校注 11.907). Azhali has been identified with a region in India (Soothill and Hodous 1937, 286), while Beal tentatively identified xunlu in the context as “Indian gum, olibanum” (Beal 1884, 265).
Scholars preferred and continue to address ruxiang and xunlu xiang frankincense as an Arabian product since Hirth and Rockhill’s translation of Zhufan zhi 諸蕃志 (1225), who regarded Dashi as referring to Arab countries (Hirth and Rockhill 1911, 195). The text explains that the product was transported by elephants to the coast, which challenges the idea of an Arab origin of the aromatic in question. Paul Wheatley, therefore, declared Zhao Rukuo 趙汝适, the author of the Zhufan zhi, to have made a mistake, since “camels were the beast of burdens in that part of the world” (Wheatley 1959, 48). Apparently, Zhao Rukuo quoted an earlier text, for the Xiang pu 香譜 by Chen Jing 陳敬 (fl. Southern Song) cites a statement by Ye Tinggui 葉廷珪 (jinshi of 1115) according to which xunlu xiang was another name for ru xiang, that came from a region several thousand li south of Dashi 大食. It was transported by elephants to Dashi, from where it was shipped to Sanfoqi 三佛齊 (southern Sumatra?). From Sanfoqi it was transported on large merchant ships to Guangzhou and Quanzhou (Xiang pu 1.11). It would be quite extraordinary, if both Ye Tinggui and Zhao Rukuo had confused elephants and camels.
Concluding remarks
The present case shows that the retrieval and perusal not only of the secondary literature, but also the original textual material are necessary when treating pre-modern Chinese historical topics. The 1079 mission from Sanfoqi did not bring any “manufactured” camphor oil to the Chinese court, but two distinct aromatics which at that time already were known in China for several hundred years.
References
Source material
Chenshu 陳書, by Yao Silian 姚思廉. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1972.
Da Tang xiyu ji jiaozhu 大唐西域校注, by Xuanzang 玄奘 with commentary by Ji Xianlin 季羡林. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 2004.
Dongjing menghua lu jianzhu 東京夢華錄箋注, by Meng Yuanlao 孟元老 with commentary by Yi Yongwen 伊永文. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 2006.
Jiu Tangshu 舊唐書, by Liu Xu 劉 et al. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1975.
Liangshu 梁書, by Yao Silian 姚思廉. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1973.
Nanfang caomu zhuang 南方草木狀, attributed to Ji Han 嵇含. Siku quanshu.
Song huiyao jigao 宋會要輯稿, compiled by Xu Song 徐松. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1957.
Songshi 宋史, by Tuotuo 脫脫 et al. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1977.
Taiping yulan 太平御覽, compiled by Li Fang 李昉 et al. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1960.
Tongdian 通典, compiled by Du You 杜佑. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1988.
Wenxian tongkao 文獻通考, by Ma Duanlin 馬端臨. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1986.
Xiang pu 香譜 by Chen Jing 陳敬. Siku quanshu.
Xin Tangshu 新唐書, by Ouyang Xiu 歐陽修 et al. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1975.
Xu Zizhi tongjian changbian 續資治通鑒長編, by Li Tao 利燾. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 2007.
Youyang zazu 酉陽雜俎, by Duan Chengshi 段成式. Siku quanshu.
Secondary literature
Andaya, Leonard. 2001. “The Search for the Origins of ‘Melayu’”, Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 32.3, 315-330.
Beal, Samuel. 1884. Si-yu-ki: Buddhist Records of the Western World Translated from the Chinese of Hiuen Tsiang (A.D. 629). London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner and Co, 1884.
Bielenstein, Hans. 2005. Diplomacy and Trade in the Chinese World, 589-1276. Leiden/Boston: Brill.
Chen Ming 陳明. 2022. “Transmission of Persian Medicine into China across the Ages”, in: Vivienne Lo and Michael Stanley-Baker (eds), Routledge Handbook of Chinese Medicine (London: Routledge), 475-492.
Donkin, Robin A. 1999. Dragon’s Brain Perfume: An Historical Geography of Camphor. Leiden/Boston/Köln: Brill.
Feng, Linda Rui. 2024. “Foreign Aromatics, Olfactory Culture, and Scent Connoisseurship in Late Medieval China”, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1356186323000640.
Ferrand, Gabriel. 1919. “Le K’ouen-louen et les anciennes navigations interocéaniques dans les mers du sud (suite)”, Journal asiatique July-August, 5-68.
Groeneveldt, Willem Pieter. 1877. “Notes on the Malay Archipelago and Malacca”, Verhandelingen van het Bataviaasch Genootschapp van Kunsten en Wetenschappen, deel 29, 1-144.
Hartwell, Robert. 1983. “Tribute Missions to China, 960-1126”. Self-published MS. Philadelphia.
Heng, Derek. 2006. “Export Commodity and Regional Currency: The Role of Chinese Copper Coins in the Melaka Straits, Tenth to Fourteenth Centuries”, Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 37.2, 179-203.
Heng, Derek. 2012. Sino-Malay Trade and Diplomacy from the Tenth through the Fourteenth Century. Athens: Ohio University Press.
Heng, Derek. 2013. “Transregionalism and Economic Self-Dependency in the South China Sea: the Case of China and the Malay Region (tenth to Fourteenth Centuries AD)”, The International Review 35.3, 486-510. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07075332.2013.795496
Heng, Derek. 2015. “Southeast Asian Primary Products and Their Impact on Chinese Material Culture in the Tenth to Seventeenth Centuries”, in: Victor H. Mair and Liam C. Kelley (eds), Imperial China and Its Southern Neighbours (Singapore: ISEAS), 214-238.
Heng, Derek. 2019. “Premodern Island-Southeast-Asian History in the Digital Age: Opportunities and Challenges through Chinese Textual Database Research”, Bijdragen tot de taal-, land- en volkenkunde 175, 29-57.
Heng, Derek. 2022. Southeast Asian Interconnections: Geography, Networks and Trade. In: Cambridge Elements: Elements in the Global Middle Ages, eds Geraldine Heng and Susan Noakes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hirth, Friedrich and William W. Rockhill. 1911. Chau Ju-kua: His Work on the Chinese and Arab Trade in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries, Entitled Chu-fan-chi. St. Petersburg: Imperial Academy of Sciences.
Kurz, Johannes. 2023. “Did Jambi Really Become a Capital in Sumatra in 1079-1082? An Examination of Relevant Chinese Sources”, https://doi.org/10.48796/20240111-000.
Pelliot, Paul. 1904. “Deux itinéraires de Chine en Inde à la fin du VIIIe siècle”, Bulletin de l’École Française d’Extrême-Orient 4, 131-413.
Schafer, Edward H. 1963. The Golden Peaches of Samarkand: A Study of T’ang Exotics. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Schlegel, Gustaaf. 1898. “Geographical Notes II: 狼牙修 or 狼牙須 Lang-ya-siu or Lang-ya-su and Sih-lan-shan 錫蘭山 Ceylan”, T’oung Pao 9.3, 191-200.
Soothill, William Edward and Lewis Hodous. 1937. A Dictionary of Chinese Buddhist Terms. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner and Co.
Wheatley, Paul. 1956. “Langkasuka”, T’oung Pao 44.4-5, 387-342.
Wheatley, Paul. 1959. “Geographical Notes on Some Commodities in Sung Maritime Trade”, Journal of the Malayan Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 32.2, 3, 5-41, 43-139.
Wolters, Oliver W. 1966. “A Note on the Capital of Śrīvijaya during the Eleventh Century”, Artibus Asiae Supplementum 23, 225-239.
Yu Taishan. 2013. “China and the Ancient Mediterranean World: A Survey of Ancient Chinese Sources”, Sino-Platonic Papers No. 242.
[1] Groeneveldt translates zai 再 with “again” (Groeneveldt 1877, 66), but the following text makes clear that zai means twice, referring to the 2nd and the 5th year of the Yuanfeng era. Saint-Denys has “deux ambassades vinrent encore” (Saint-Denys 1883, 564)
[2] Earlier, Heng had identified the tribute items as “white gold, camphor, frankincense and foreign products” (Heng 2006, 183). There is no mention of “foreign products” unless Heng misunderstood the structure of the sentence and thus fangwu 方物 ended up as another item, instead of being the general term under which the tribute items fell.
[3] Heng in 2013 refers to “camphor and camphor products” only in an alleged “list of products presented to the Song court” (Heng 2013, 490). He also refers to a 1082 “shipment of camphor and textiles … to Guangzhou”. On this specific incident which did not involve an “official” mission, but very likely was an attempt by a Southeast Asian trader to bribe the official in charge at the port of Guangzhou, see Kurz 2023, 7-9.
[4] Andaya maintains that Langkasuka submitted “very high quality camphor” that was “highly prized” on its frequent embassies to China (Andaya 2001, 327). Liangshu records only one mission in the fourteenth year of the Tianjian 天監 era of the Liang (516) for which no tribute items are recorded in the description of Langyaxiu (Liangshu 54.795). In the Liangshu basic annals three missions are recorded for Tianjian 14, ninth month, guihai 癸亥 (16 October 515) (Liangshu 2.55); Putong 普通 4, 12th month, gengwu 庚午 (9 January 524) (Liangshu 3.67); and Zhong datong 中大通 3, 9th month, gengyin 庚寅 (19 October 531) (Liangshu 3.75). Chenshu 陳書 adds another in Guangda 廣大 2nd year, 9th month (7 October-4 November 568) (Chenshu 4.69). There are no indications of the existence of camphor in Langyaxiu nor that camphor was submitted by Langyaxiu to the Chinese.
[5] Hirth and Rockhill suggested Perak on the Malay Peninsula for Poli as well as an involvement of Persian ships transporting the aromatic to China (Hirth and Rockhill 1911, 194). Both Poli and Bosi will probably have to be looked for in western Indonesia, with Poli in Bali and Bosi on Sumatra. On this see Laufer 1919, 478-479.
[6] This place according to Jiu Tangshu lay to the southwest of Linyi in the ocean, and bordered on Duoheluo, to which it was a vassal, in the southwest. The journey from Jiaozhi in northern Vietnam took more than three months.
[7] Chen distinguishes between xunlu 薰陸, frankincense, and xunlu 熏陸, mastic resin. Feng notes that there is a problem with the identification of xunlu 熏陸 with ruxiang 乳香, frankincense, and therefore gives the translation “land-infusing aromatic” (Feng 2024, 4), which is not helpful in the identification of the product.
[8] Note that Yu Taishan who thinks that the latter text stems from Southern Song times, in his translation of the entry identifies xunlu with frankincense (Yu Taishan 2013, 163).
Eastern explorations and experiences 