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

274. LOCHAC

*alcay* G *locac* F, TA¹ *loear* TA³
*chacho* VB *lochac* F, Z, L, R *lothac* Z
*locach, locach* VL *lochach* P, V *soncat* FA
*jocach, jocath* S *locheac* LT *tac, thac* FB
*leochar, leocharde* VA

Rustichello's spelling seems to have been « Lochac » or « Locac », but I am almost tempted
to suppose that Polo said « *Logac ». All sorts of explanations and identifications have been
proposed. Some, like PAUTHIER's « Borneo » and MARSDEN's « Cambodia », may be left out without
further discussion. The others are:

(1) 羅 越 Lo-yüeh (*Lâ-ji*et). This name occurs at the end of the 8th cent., in Chia Tan's
itineraries, as a designation of the southern extremity of the Malay Peninsula; we meet it a century
later in a Japanese account; it occurs once in the *Hsin T'ang shu*, and finally twice c. 1000 A. D.
in the *Sung shih* (cf. *BEFEO*, IV, 231-234). Its identification with « Lochac » was suggested by
PHILLIPS in 1886 (cf. *Y*, II, 278); it has been partly retained by BLAGDEN (in *Pe*, lvii), who supposed
that « Lochach » may be « Lo ÷ kok », « *Lo* » being the first syllable of Lo-yüeh, and « *kok* » or « *kwok* »
the Chinese 國 *kuo* (*k*ʷ*ok*), « kingdom ». Geographically, I have already refuted this hypothesis
in *BEFEO*, IV, 237. Linguistically, *lo* of the T'ang period can only represent *la* or *ra*; and we
have no examples outside of China of names ending with the Chinese *kuo*, except, in the Mongol
period, of « Çipingu » and « Caugigu », that is, with the modern pronunciation of *kuo*, and in the
case of countries which, being within the pale of Chinese civilization, could be designated under
a Chinese name. CŒDES (*BEFEO*, XXIII, 470) proposes to see in Lo-yüeh the Malay « Laut »
(< Lawat), « the Sea » (cf. « Orang Laut », for the Johore region), a designation analogous to that
of Samudra, « Ocean » > Sumatra; phonetically, this is unimpeachable. In any case, « Lochac »
cannot be Lo-yüeh.

(2) Ligor. PHILLIPS proposed this etymology (*Y*, II, 279), and GERINI, though preferring
another solution, had thought of it too (*Researches into Ptolemy's Geography*, 497). YULE, while
rejecting any etymological connection, was of opinion that « Lochac » must be at Ligor or in the
neighbourhood, and I was formerly inclined to accept that view (*BEFEO*, IV, 237). It is needless
to repeat here the phonetic objections to Nagara > Ligor and Lakhon being « Lochac ». YULE's
purely geographical identification resulted from his idea that « Lochac » was Siam, and he chose
Ligor as being the southernmost place under Siamese rule in Polo's time; but it will be seen below
that «Lochac»'s identification with Siam does not entail any similar deduction, at least in my opinion.