"Ibi invenitur una insula in qua est unus
rex quem vocant Lamovich. Civitas et insula vocantur Pontavich." Ram.:
"Chiamasi la citta Malaiur, e cosi l'isola Malaiur."
All this is very perplexed, and it is difficult to trace what may have
been the true readings. The 30 miles beyond the straits, whether we give
the direction south-east as in G.T. or no, will not carry us to the
vicinity of any place known to have been the site of an important city. As
the point of departure in the next chapter is from Pentam and not from
Malaiur, the introduction of the latter is perhaps a digression from the
route, on information derived either from hearsay or from a former voyage.
But there is not information enough to decide what place is meant by
Malaiur. Probabilities seem to me to be divided between Palembang, and
its colony Singhapura. Palembang, according to the Commentaries of
Alboquerque, was called by the Javanese MALAYO. The List of Sumatran
Kingdoms in De Barros makes TANA-MALAYU the next to Palembang. On the
whole, I incline to this interpretation.
[In Valentyn (V. 1, Beschryvinge van Malakka, p. 317) we find it
stated that the Malay people just dwelt on the River Malayu in the
Kingdom of Palembang, and were called from the River Orang Malayu. - MS.
Note. - H.Y.]
[Professor Schlegel in his Geog. Notes, IV., tries to prove by Chinese
authorities that Maliur and Tana-Malayu are two quite distinct countries,
and he says that Maliur may have been situated on the coast opposite
Singapore, perhaps a little more to the S.W. where now lies Malacca, and
that Tana-Malayu may be placed in Asahan, upon the east coast of
Sumatra. - H.C.]
Singhapura was founded by an emigration from Palembang, itself a Javanese
colony. It became the site of a flourishing kingdom, and was then,
according to the tradition recorded by De Barros, the most important
centre of population in those regions, "whither used to gather all the
navigators of the Eastern Seas, from both East and West; to this great
city of Singapura all flocked as to a general market." (Dec. II. 6, 1.)
This suits the description in our text well; but as Singhapura was in
sight of any ship passing through the straits, mistake could hardly occur
as to its position, even if it had not been visited.
I omit Malacca entirely from consideration, because the evidence appears
to me conclusive against the existence of Malacca at this time.
The Malay Chronology, as published by Valentyn, ascribes the foundation of
that city to a king called Iskandar Shah, placing it in A.D. 1252, fixes
the reign of Mahomed Shah, the third King of Malacca and first Mussulman
King, as extending from 1276 to 1333 (not stating when his conversion
took place), and gives 8 kings in all between the foundation of the city
and its capture by the Portuguese in 1511, a space, according to those
data, of 259 years. As Sri Iskandar Shah, the founder, had reigned 3 years
in Singhapura before founding Malacca, and Mahomed Shah, the loser,
reigned 2 years in Johore after the loss of his capital, we have 264
years to divide among 8 kings, giving 33 years to each reign. This
certainly indicates that the period requires considerable curtailment.
Again, both De Barros and the Commentaries or Alboquerque ascribe the
foundation of Malacca to a Javanese fugitive from Palembang called
Paramisura, and Alboquerque makes Iskandar Shah (Xaquem darxa) the son
of Paramisura, and the first convert to Mahomedanism. Four other kings
reign in succession after him, the last of the four being Mahomed Shah,
expelled in 1511.
[Godinho de Eredia says expressly (Cap. i. Do Citio Malaca, p. 4) that
Malacca was founded by Permicuri, primeiro monarcha de Malayos, in the
year 1411, in the Pontificate of John XXIV., and in the reign of Don Juan
II. of Castille and Dom Juan I. of Portugal.]
The historian De Couto, whilst giving the same number of reigns from the
conversion to the capture, places the former event about 1384. And the
Commentaries of Alboquerque allow no more than some ninety years from the
foundation of Malacca to his capture of the city.
There is another approximate check to the chronology afforded by a Chinese
record in the XIVth volume of Amyot's collection. This informs us that
Malacca first acknowledged itself as tributary to the Empire in 1405, the
king being Sili-ju-eul-sula (?). In 1411 the King of Malacca himself,
now called Peilimisula (Paramisura), came in person to the court of
China to render homage. And in 1414 the Queen-Mother of Malacca came to
court, bringing her son's tribute.
Now this notable fact of the visit of a King of Malacca to the court of
China, and his acknowledgment of the Emperor's supremacy, is also recorded
in the Commentaries of Alboquerque. This work, it is true, attributes the
visit, not to Paramisura, the founder of Malacca, but to his son and
successor Iskandar Shah. This may be a question of a title only, perhaps
borne by both; but we seem entitled to conclude with confidence that
Malacca was founded by a prince whose son was reigning, and visited the
court of China in 1411. And the real chronology will be about midway
between the estimates of De Couto and of Alboquerque. Hence Malacca did
not exist for a century, more or less, after Polo's voyage.
[Mr. C.O. Blagden, in a paper on the Mediaeval Chronology of Malacca
(Actes du XI'e Cong. Int. Orient. Paris, 1897), writes (p. 249) that "if
Malacca had been in the middle of the 14th century anything like the great
emporium of trade which it certainly was in the 15th, Ibn Batuta would
scarcely have failed to speak of it." The foundation of Malacca by Sri
Iskandar Shah in 1252, according to the Sejarah Malayu "must be put at
least 125 years later, and the establishment of the Muhammadan religion
there would then precede by only a few years the end of the 14th century,
instead of taking place about the end of the 13th, as is generally
supposed" (p. 251). (Cf.
