Hirth and Rockhill remark, p. 98: "Ma Tuan-lin and the Sung-shi
reproduce textually this paragraph (the former writer giving erroneously
the distance between the capital and the sea as 5000 li). Yule, Marco
Polo, II, p. 335, places the principal port of the Chola kingdom at
Kaveripattanam, the 'Pattanam' par excellence of the Coromandel Coast, and
at one of the mouths of the Kaveri. He says that there seems to be some
evidence that the Tanjore ports were, before 1300, visited by Chinese
trade. The only Lo-lan known to mediaeval Chinese is mentioned in the
T'ang-shu, 221'8, and is identified with the capital of Bamian, in
Afghanistan. I think our text is corrupt here and that the character lo
should be changed to si, and that we should read Si-lan, our Ceylon.
Both Ma and the Sung-shi say that 2500 li south-east of Chu-lien was
'Si-lan-ch'i-kuo with which it was at war. Of course the distance
mentioned is absurd, but all figures connected with Chu-lien in Chinese
accounts are inexplicably exaggerated."
XVI., pp. 336-337.
CHINESE PAGODA AT NEGAPATAM.
Sir Walter ELLIOT, K.C.S.I., to whom Yule refers for the information given
about this pagoda, has since published in the Indian Antiquary,
VII., 1878, pp. 224-227, an interesting article with the title: The
Edifice formerly known as the Chinese or Jaina Pagoda at Negapatam,
from which we gather the following particulars regarding its
destruction: -
"It went by various names, as the Puduveli-gopuram, the old pagoda,
Chinese pagoda, black pagoda, and in the map of the Trigonometrical Survey
(Sheet 79) it stands as the Jeyna (Jaina) pagoda. But save in name it has
nothing in common with Hindu or Muhammadan architecture, either in form or
ornament."
"In 1859, the Jesuit Fathers presented a petition to the Madras Government
representing the tower to be in a dangerous condition, and requesting
permission to pull it down and appropriate the materials to their own
use...." In 1867 "the Fathers renewed their application for leave to
remove it, on the following grounds: '1st, because they considered it to
be unsafe in its present condition; 2nd, because it obstructed light and
sea-breeze from a chapel which they had built behind it; 3rd, because they
would very much like to get the land on which it stood; and 4th, because
the bricks of which it was built would be very useful to them for building
purposes.'
"The Chief Engineer, who meanwhile had himself examined the edifice, and
had directed the District Engineer to prepare a small estimate for its
repair, reported that the first only of the above reasons had any weight,
and that it would be met if Colonel O'Connell's estimate, prepared under
his own orders, received the sanction of Government.
