To the East of Samatata

Summary

Padmanath Bhattacharyya’s article “To the East of Samatata” forms the third installment in a scholarly debate on the geographical identifications of six regions mentioned—but not visited—by the 7th-century Chinese pilgrim Yuan Chwang (Hiuen Tsang). The author defends his earlier interpretations against criticisms made by M. L. Finot, the eminent French Indologist, particularly those published in Indo-China in the Records of Chinese Pilgrims (IHQ, Vol. II, No. 2). Background and Aim The discussion originates from Bhattacharyya’s earlier studies (1912–1924) on the Nidhanpur copper-plate grant of King Bhaskaravarman of Kamarupa, discovered in Sylhet. He had previously argued that Sylhet (Śrīhatta) was not part of Bhaskaravarman’s Kamarupa and identified it instead with Shih-li-ch’a-ta-lo, one of the six kingdoms mentioned by Yuan Chwang to the east of Samatata. M. Finot challenged these identifications, prompting this third article in defense of the author’s geographical and historical conclusions. Response to Finot’s Criticisms 1. Transliteration Issue: Bhattacharyya rejects Finot’s objection to his spelling “Yuan Chwang” instead of “Hiuen Tsang,” arguing that absolute accuracy in Chinese transliteration is impossible and that he followed the form authorized by the Royal Asiatic Society edition of Watters’ Yuan Chwang. 2. Methodological Argument: He emphasizes that Yuan Chwang noted even unvisited regions to record Indian cultural influence, proving their cultural proximity to India, not Southeast Asia. 3. Specific Rebuttals: o Campā / Lin-i (Annam): He refutes Finot’s insistence that “Campā” must mean Annam, explaining that the Chinese “Lin-i” could apply to multiple colonial cities derived from the Indian Campā (of Anga in Bihar). o I-shang-na-pu-lo (Īśanapura): The Cambodian capital under Īśanavarman (7th c.) could not be Yuan Chwang’s reference, since it no longer existed by the time of his travels (c. 643 A.D.). o To-lo-po-ti (Dvāravatī): He questions the identification of this kingdom with Lower Siam, emphasizing that Yuan Chwang’s description lacks reference to any coastline or gulf. o Ka-mo-lang-ka (Kamalanka): He points out the inconsistency of placing this region variously in Pegu, Tenasserim, or the Malay Peninsula, instead asserting that Comilla–Tripura fits Yuan Chwang’s coordinates and textual details. o Shih-li-ch’a-ta-lo (Śrīhatta): Firmly reinstates his identification of Sylhet, based on topographical, historical, and linguistic grounds. He notes references to Sāgara (sea) and Nauvataka in Sylhet copper-plate inscriptions and Caitanya-maṅgala, indicating its ancient coastal nature. o Yen-mo-na-chou (Tampadeepa): He interprets “Yen-mo-na” as a Chinese transcription of Jambudvīpa and locates it in southern Burma (Tampadeepa), supported by communication with Burmese archaeologist Taw Sein Ko, who accepted the plausibility of this identification. Supporting Evidence • Historical and linguistic sources: Watters’ Yuan Chwang, Abhidhānacintāmaṇi, Sueishu, Takakusu’s I-tsing, and other Chinese and Sanskrit texts. • Topographical evidence: Shifting river channels of Bengal (Brahmaputra and Meghna), shown in early maps such as Rennell’s 18th-century survey, which justify the author’s geographical reasoning. • Contemporary corroboration: References in Jayananda’s Caitanya-maṅgala and Sylhet inscriptions confirm the ancient presence of sea or estuary connections in the region.