274. LOCHAC 767
-
gIJ Lo-ch'a (*LA-ts`at). According to GERINI (Researches, 496-497), the kingdom of Lo-ch'a of the Chinese is to be looked for on the eastern side of the Malay Peninsula, and represents possibly either « Rochor », or « Latcha », or « Legeh » (also « Lagëh », and « Rangëh », « Ranga »). As to «Lochac », «if not actually Latcha in Chanah, it is undoubtedly Legeh or Lagëh ». GERINI'S identification of « Lochac » with Lo-ch'a has been taken over and developed in Ch, III, 160-162, and is quoted with some sort of approval in BI, 444, with an attempt at a more precise localization in the direction of Trengganu. But the only texts mentioning a kingdom of Lo-ch'a relate to Ch'ang Chün's mission to Ch'ih-t'u (« Red Earth ») in 607, and it is very doubtful whether Ch'ih-t'u can be located in Siam; Lo-ch'a is said to be to the east of P'o-li which I think is the island of Bali (cf. BEFEO, iv, 281-282, 406). Moreover, lo-ch'a is the usual transcription of raksasa, « demon », and the name of the kingdom probably means « Demons' Kingdom », and was given by the Chinese to some savage tribe. In view of its association with P'o-ii, I even suspect that there might be here some influence of a Buddhist legend, since, in the Tsa p'i-yii ching translated about A. D. 180, «raksasa demons» (lo-ch'a kui) are mentioned in connection with the kingdom of 7: *~J Po-li-fu (Pataliputra ?) or Po-li (Tripit. of Meiji, Tokyo ed., -` , vii, 32 a). In any case, the more or less legendary kingdom of 607 can have nothing to do with Polo's « Lochac ».
-
Léngkasuka. In 1904, I first connected the Léngkasuka of the Nâgarakrëtdgama of 1365 with the Ling-ya-ssû-chia of Chau Ju-kua (1225), but could not decide on its position (BEFEO, Iv, 325, 407). More documents have come to light since that time, and FERRAND has devoted a special study to the name (JA, 1918, II, 134-145), in which he comes to the conclusion that Léngkasuka was on the eastern coast of the Malay Peninsula, near Ligor. But this position is too northern, and derives from an identification of Léngkasuka with the Lang-ya-hsiu, etc., of the 6th-7th cents., an identification which, I think, must be abandoned. A document hitherto unnoticed in Western researches leaves no doubt as to the location. On the Chinese map of the early 15th cent., there
appears, between Sungora and Kelantan, a name omitted in PHII.T,IPs's notes; this is a to Lang-
hsi-chia (*Langsika ; cf. also the « Lung-ya-hsi-chio », with semantic adaptation, of the Hsing-ch'a shêng-lan, in TP, 1915, 127; 1933, 330). Hence, in FERRAND'S Arabic sources of c. 1500, we must
read, with the Turkish version, ,J Lan)-sakâ (= Lang-sakâ), not Lanj-sakà. Its exact position
must have been at the entrance of the Patani river, and I think that Léngkasuka is the old name of Patani; this last name does not occur, so far as I am aware, before the 15th cent. (the identification of Léngkasuka with Patani, based on the 15th cent. map, is already in FuJITA's commentary on the Tao-i chih-lio, 55 b). Now, in 1897, TOMASEK had supposed that Polo's «Lochac» stood for « Lochac » and phonetically represented «*Longak»; this has been accepted as certain by FERRAND (JA, 1918, II, 91, 138, 144) and is quoted without objection in Y, III, 104. But, apart from the fact that the reduction from Léngkasuka to *Lonsak is not so easy, a fundamental error lies in the belief that Rustichello's ch has the value of .§"; for him, ch or c before a always has the value of k. TOMAgEK's idea must therefore be abandoned. Nor can I agree either with ROUFFAER (Bijdragen, I.xxvll, 86-103, 144-145), who sees in « Lochac » the ancient name Leila, identified by him with Léngkasuka, and referring, in his opinion, to the whole southern half of the Malay Peninsula;
IIIFカラー高解像度
