National Institute of Informatics - Digital Silk Road Project
Digital Archive of Toyo Bunko Rare Books

(3) 羅 利 Lo-ch'a (*Lâ-ṭṣ'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 « Lagëḥ », and « Rangëḥ », « Ranga »).
As to «Lochac», «if not actually Latcha in Chanaḅ, it is undoubtedly Legeh or Lagëḥ». 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 B¹, 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 rakṣasa, « 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-li, I even suspect that there might be
here some influence of a Buddhist legend, since, in the Tsa p'i-yü ching translated about A. D.
180, «rakṣasa demons» (lo-ch'a kuì) are mentioned in connection with the kingdom of 波 利 弗
Po-li-fu (Paṭaliputra ?) or Po-li (Tripiṭ. of Meiji, Tōkyō ed., 藏, VII, 32 a). In any case, the more
or less legendary kingdom of 607 can have nothing to do with Polo's « Lochac ».

(4) Lëngkasuka. In 1904, I first connected the Lëngkasuka of the Nāgarakrētāgama of
1365 with the Ling-ya-ssŭ-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 Lëng-
kasuka was on the eastern coast of the Malay Peninsula, near Ligor. But this position is too northern,
and derives from an identification of Lëngkasuka 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 PHILLIPS's notes; this is 狼 西 加 Lang-
hsi-chia (*Langsika; cf. also the « Lung-ya-hsi-chio », with semantic adaptation, of the Hsing-ch'a
shëng-lan, in TP, 1915, 127; 1933, 330). Hence, in FERRAND's Arabic sources of c. 1500, we must
read, with the Turkish version, لنج ساكا Lanj-sakā (= Lang-sakā), not Lanj-šakā. Its exact position
must have been at the entrance of the Patani river, and I think that Lëngkasuka 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 Lëngkasuka 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, TOMAŠEK had supposed that Polo's «Lochac» stood for
« Lōchac » and phonetically represented *«Lonšak»; 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 Lëngkasuka to *Lōnšak is not so easy, a fundamental error lies in the
belief that Rustichello's ch has the value of š; for him, ch or c before a always has the value of k.
TOMAŠEK's idea must therefore be abandoned. Nor can I agree either with ROUFFAER (Bijdragen,
LXXVII, 86-103, 144-145), who sees in « Lochac » the ancient name Laṅkā, identified by him with
Lëngkasuka, and referring, in his opinion, to the whole southern half of the Malay Peninsula;