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

Āin-i-Akbarī. Finally, the Chinese transcriptions are not what Ferrand makes them to be, and
this obliges me to enter into a more detailed examination of them than I should otherwise have
wished to do in the present notes.

Ferrand's reasoning is based on the Ming forms Hsü-wên [文]-ta-la, Hsü-wên-ta-na, Su-mên-
[門]-ta-la, where he says wên and mên fundamentally contain the vowel sound -a-; this is extremely
doubtful; wên and mên are not wan or man; at such a late date, the vowel of wên and mên would
sound somewhat like u in Engl. pun, and may represent both short a and short u. But, what
is more important, Ferrand has left out of account all the older transcriptions, namely those of the
Mongol period, beginning in 1282, in which the second syllable is always rendered by 木
mu (cf. BEFEO, iv, 327); the form is almost always Su-mu-tu-la, once Su-mu-ta-la (YS, 12, 4 a;
13, 8 b; 14, 4 a; 18, 4 a; 131, 8 b; 134, 8 a; 210, 8 b; Yüan wên lei, 41, 20 b). There can be no doubt
that all these represent Sumudra, not Sumatra. As to the later forms, beginning with the Hsü-
wên-ta-la of 1349-1350 (cf. TP, 1915, 151, 152, 156; add the Chinese map of the early 15th cent.
and Ming shih, 325, 5 b), they seem to represent *Sumundara or possibly *Sumandara (but I doubt
the existence of a Skr. sāmundri quoted in Hobson-Jobson², 977; for a form Samundar of Samudra,
as a name of the lower Brahmaputra, cf. Fe, 354; samundar is the Hindi form of samudra). It may
be that the transcriptions beginning with hsü = sü, sʿu, not su, have something to do with Conti's
« Sciamuthera » (Šamutra), Barbosa's « Çamatra » and the Šumuṭrah of late Arabic authors. The
late Chinese transcriptions, on the other hand, are in agreement with the late Malay legend giving
for the state of Samudra a would-be etymological form « Samandara » (Y, II, 294). The vowel -u-
in the second syllable of the name is so evident that Ferrand himself, speaking of the Arabic vocaliza-
tion of Šumuṭrah, says most inconsequently (JA, 1922, II, 81) that it agrees with these very Chinese
transcriptions Hsü-wên-ta-la and Su-mên-ta-la, which he had asserted in 1919 to have an -a- in the
second syllable.

It is thus plain that we must start from a form Sumudra as being the usual one in the 13th
cent.; but it also occurs with a hardening of -d- into -t- in Polo's « Sumatra », in Rašīdu-'d-Dīn's
« Sūmūtrah » and in the later Arabic transcriptions. Eventually the form « Sumatra » prevailed.
Cœdès (BEFEO, XXIII, 469) thought of a metathesis samudra > sumadra; I am myself more in
favour of the retroaction of a labial on a preceding vowel, samudra > sumudra, and this is perhaps
also to be considered for double forms like Tumihang < Tamihang (Tamyang), Tumasik < Tamasik
(Têmasik); for other similar cases, cf. BEFEO, II, 3; Rec. des inscr. du Siam, I, 123. Finally, I can
but concur with Rouffaer that Sumudra and Sumatra are derived from Samudra.

This conclusion is corroborated by the identification of the state of « Sumatra » or Samudra.
In 1933 (TP, 1933, 275, and passim; 1934-1935, 293-294) I was mistaken when I repeated an old
identification with the Achin territory (cf. BEFEO, IV, 327; TP, 1915, 151 sq.); it is « Lambri »
(Lamuri) which afterwards became Achin. Already in 1886, Yule (cf. Hobson-Jobson², 865)
considered that the old city of Samudra must be represented by the present village of Samudra
on the river Pasei (Pasè); we must abide by this conclusion, for which the Dutch scholars have found
fresh evidence (cf. Rouffaer, in Bijdragen, Vol. 74 [1918], 138). As I explain under « Basman »,
the Dutch scholars speak of the old state of « Samudra-Pasè »; both names may have been used
concurrently, even if at one time they were applied to two neighbouring cities, so that the name