国立情報学研究所 - ディジタル・シルクロード・プロジェクト
『東洋文庫所蔵』貴重書デジタルアーカイブ

« Facfur »], and then semantic, and due to the influence on *Manṣūr of the true Manṣūrah of III,
378-379). Down to the 16th cent., Fanṣūr is regularly mentioned as the place from which the
best camphor, called fanṣūrī, came (cf. Hobson-Jobson², 152; Fe, 696, 702; as usual with him,
Ferrand read ﻑ as č, which is an interpretation, not a transcription; JA, 1922, II, 72-73, 95;
also Ḥudūd-al-ʿĀlam, Pers. text, 14 b; Mi, 240-241). Fanṣūr is an arabicized form, and it is the
one which has been used by Polo. Owing to errors in diacritical points, Fanṣūr and fanṣūrī have
been variously altered, mostly into qaiṣūrī, which has remained in use in India almost until our day
(cf. Hobson-Jobson², 151). But the fault has been long denounced, and ought not still to occur
in Gay, Glossaire archéologique, I, 269; II, 256.
In 1904 (BEFEO, IV, 341), I considered as identical with Fanṣūr Chinese transcriptions of
the 13th-15th cent. beginning with a p-. Yule (Y, II, 302) has quoted a form « Pansor » from Ibn
Serapion, but this proves nothing, since the same letter is used both for p- and f- in Syriac; and in
the Arabic translation of Ibn Serapion, the word is written « Faiṣūr », a misreading instead of Fanṣūr
(cf. Fe, 142). As to the identification of these forms in p- with Fanṣūr, Ferrand (JA, 1922, II, 72)
has expressed doubts from a geographical point of view, and I have yielded to his arguments in
TP, 1933, 331; but I think, at least in some cases, I must come back to my former opinion. With
Chao Ju-kua's 賓 棗 Pin-su (su had a final -t; HR, 193, 194), the case is perfectly plain, since
Pin-su is given as a great source of camphor; we must restore *Pānsur = Pansur, the Fanṣūr of
the Arabs. In 1349-1350, the 班 卒 Pan-tsu of the Tao-i chih-lio is more embarrassing, since
the author represents it as a mountain «behind Lung-ya-mên» and, for him, Lung-ya-mên is the Straits
of Singapore. Rockhill, while restoring the name into «Panchor?», thought of an identification
with Batam of Bintan, south of the Straits (TP, 1915, 66, 133). On account of the name, I accepted
in 1933 Ferrand's idea of the island (« île »; « état » is a misprint in my note, and also « 1413 » for
« 1415 ») of Pančur on the north-eastern coast of Sumatra. In 1613, Godinho de Eredia still knows
another « Panchor » on the mainland, in the region of Malacca (L. Janssen, Malaca, Brussels, 1882,
11). The only characteristic feature in the Tao-i chih-lio is that the author, Wang Ta-yüan,
ascribes to the inhabitants of Pan-tsu a wine of fermented rice called 明 家 ming-chia, left
without explanation by Rockhill. It recalls to some extent the pao-lêng-chio rice wine mentioned
by Chou Ta-kuan in Cambodia, the second part of which must be Khmer raṅko, now aṅka, « un-
husked rice»; cf. BEFEO, XVIII, IX, 9; though the partial analogy may be fortuitous. But much
in Wang Ta-yüan's notices is open to doubt; and here his Lung-ya-mên may be quite different from
the Straits of Singapore, and refer to the south-western coast of Sumatra. There is in the Ming
shih (324, 9 b; 326, 1 a) a mention of a state of 班 卒 兒 Pan-tsu-êrh, about 1415, and of a state of
古 里 班 卒 Ku-li Pan-tsu, which sent an embassy in 1403-1424; nothing shows where they were
located. But, on the Chinese map of the beginning of the 15th cent., we find on the south-western
coast of Sumatra a place and a river Lung-ya-chia-mao, in which Phillips has seen the city and the
river of Indrapura, but they seem to be more to the north-west (Lung-ya-êrh-shan and Lung-ya-shan
in Phillips are misreadings; cf. TP, 1915, 127; 1933, 330), and still more to the north-west, north
of the southern coast and about where we should place Baros, there is on the map a name Pan-tsu,
written with the same characters as in the Tao-i chih-lio and in the Ming shih. Here *Pantsur =
Fanṣūr is surely meant, and the Lung-ya-mên of the Tao-i chih-lio has perhaps, in the present case,
4.