Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T04:40:10.109Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

China and Calicut in the early Ming period: envoys and tribute embassies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 March 2011

Roderich Ptak
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Calicut was the most important port in southwest India during the late fourteenth and the fifteenth century. Its rulers, the Zamorins, maintained a vast network of trading relations extending from the coast of East Africa to the Indonesian archipelago and the Far East. This is amply documented in the accounts of foreign travellers, practically all of whom passed through the Malabar ports on the lengthy voyage from west to east and back. Marco Polo, Ibn Baṭṭūṭa, 'Abd al-Razzāq, to name but a few, figure most prominently in a long line of writers whose reports describe various aspects of old Colychachia, as Calicut was then called by Nicolo di Conti, an Italian traveller.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society , Volume 121 , Issue 1 , January 1989 , pp. 81 - 111
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Asiatic Society 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See Tao-i chih-lüeh chiao-shih, by Ta-yüan, Wang, ed. by Chi-ch'ing, Su (Peking, 1981Google Scholar; Chungwai chiao-t'ung shih-chi ts'ung-k'an), pp. 325–330; Hsi-yu lu, by Yeh-lü Ch'u-ts'ai, ed. by Hsiang Ta, and I-yü chih, by Chou Chih-chung, ed. by Lu Chün-ling, two texts in one vol. (Peking, 1981; Chung-wai chiao-t'ung shih-chi ts'ung-k'an), pp. 23–24; I-yü t'u-chih, anonymous, microfilm by Cambridge, 24b. For a description of the I-yü t'u-chih, see Moule, A. C., “An introduction to the I Yū T'u Chih or ‘Pictures and Descriptions of Strange Nations’ in the Wade Collection at Cambridge,” Toung Pao 27 (1930), pp. 179–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 The Mao K'un map is in ch. 240 of Wu pei chih. Calicut is shown on p. 10215 (20a) there. For the bibliographical data see under WPC in the list of references to Calicut (after n. 6 in text). For the Shun-feng hsiang-sung, seeTa, Hsiang. (ed.), Liang chung hai-tao chen-ching (Peking, 1982Google Scholar; Chung-wai chiao-t'ung shih-chi ts'ung-k'an), esp. pp. 41, 78–81. For the Tung-hsi-yang k'ao by Hsieh, Chang, see ed. prepared by Fang, Hsieh (Peking, 1981Google Scholar; Chung-wai chiao-t'ung shih-chi ts'ung-k'an), esp. pp. 178–179. For studies on the first two works, see, for example, Mills, J. V. G. (transl. and ed.), Ma Huan: Ying-yai Sheng-lan. The Overall Survey of the Oceans's shores’ [1433] (Hakluyt Soc., Extra Ser. 42; Cambridge, 1970), esp. pp. 245, 294–7Google Scholar; the same, “chinese navigators in Insulinde about A.D. 1500,” Archipel 18 (1979), pp. 69–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Yü-hu, Hsü, Ming-tai Cheng ho hang-hai-t'u chih yen-chiu (Taipei, 1976), esp. pp. 164–172Google Scholar.

3 See Friedrich Hirth and W. W. Rockhill, Chau Ju-Kua: His Work on the Chinese and Arab Trade in the twelfth and thirteenth Centuries, entitled Chu-fan-chï (rpt. Taipei, 1970), p. 89; Netolitzky, Almut, Das ‘Ling-wai tai-ta’ von Chou Ch'ü-fei. Eine Landeskunde Siidchinas aus dem 12. Jahrhundert (Münchener Ostasiatische Studien 21; Wiesbaden 1) 1977, p. 40Google Scholar.

4 There already exist a number of articles on relations between China and southern India and on Chinese descriptions of Calicut. These papers, however, are rather general; they do not contain any critical evaluation of the Chinese sources, and they do not examine Calicut's tribute delegations to China and China's diplomatic missions to Calicut in full detail. See especially Bokshchanin, A. A., “Sino-Indian relations from ancient times to the sixteenth century,” in Tikhvinsky, S. L. and Perelomov, L. S. (eds.), China and Her Neighbours: From Ancient Times to the Middle Ages (Moscow, 1981), esp. pp. 132–6Google Scholar; Da-Show, Huang, “An outline of China's contact with South India in the early fifteenth century,” in Asher, R. E. (ed.), Proceedings of the Second International Conference Seminar of Tamil Studies, Madras-India, January 1968 (Madras, 1971), vol. 2, pp. 365–8Google Scholar; Chung-jen, Su, “Chinese knowledge of Calicut during the 14th and 15th centuries,” in Proceedings of the First International Conference Seminar of Tamil Studies (Kuala Lumpur, 1968), vol. 1, pp. 521–8Google Scholar. For surveys of Calicut in pre-Portuguese times, some general works are still useful, such as Ayyar, K. V. Krishna, The Zamorins of Calicut (From the earliest times down to a.d. 1806) (Calicut, 1938), esp. chs. V–VIIGoogle Scholar; Menon, A. Sreedhara, A Survey of Kerala History (Kottayam, 1967), esp. ch. XIIIGoogle Scholar; Sastri, K. A. Nilakanta, A History of South India, from pre-historic times to the fall of Vijayanagar (London, 1966), pp. 334–5Google Scholar. For recent studies on Calicut with useful bibliographical references, see Bouchon, Geneviève, “Sixteenth century Malabar and the Indian Ocean,” in Gupta, Ashin Das and Pearson, M. N. (eds.), India and the Indian Ocean, 1500–1800 (Calcutta, 1987), pp. 162–84Google Scholar, and her “Un microcosme: Calicut au 16e siècle,” in Lombard, Denys and Aubin, Jean (eds.), Marchands et hommes d'affaires asiatiques dans L'Océan Indien et la Mer de Chine, 13e-20e siècles (Ports, routes, trafics 29; Paris, 1988), pp. 49–57Google Scholar. There are also some papers in Chinese on China's relations with southern India. These are often very general. The titles of these papers and of studies dealing with early Ming maritime trade may be found in the bibliographies attached to Cheng Ho yen-chiu tzu-liao hsüan-pien and Cheng Ho hsia Hsi-yang, both ed. wei-yüan-hui, by Chi-nien wei-ta hang-hai-chia … ch'ou-pei and yen-chiu-hui, Chung-kuo hang-hai-shih (Peking, 1985Google Scholar), and in Chung-kuo chinpa-shih nien Ming shih lun-chu mu-lu, ed. by k'o-hsüeh-yüan…, Chung-kuo she-hui (Chenchiang, 1981Google Scholar).

5 On the names, see, for example, Chia-jung, Ch'en, Fang, Hsieh, and Chün-ling, Lu, Ku-tai Nan-hai ti-ming hui-shih (Peking, 1986), esp. pp. 174, 244, 245, 247, 329–31, 338–9, 528, 922–3, 929Google Scholar; Tao-i chih-lüeh chiao-shih, pp. 327–8; Su Chung-jen, pp. 521–3; Sastri, K. A. Nilakanta, The Cōlas (Madras University Historical ser. 9; rev. ed. Madras, 1955), pp. 19–20Google Scholar; Hirth/Rockhill, p. 98; Ch'ang-sen, Yü, “Sung-ch'ao Chu-lien kuo shih-ch'en ju-kung Chung-kuo k'ao,” Hai-chiao shih yen-chiu 10:2 (1986), p. 33Google Scholar; Chia-jung, Ch'en, Chung-wai chiao-t'ung shih (Hong Kong, 1987), pp. 311–2, 437–41Google Scholar.

6 For the I-yü t'u-chih (late Yüan/early Ming) and Shun-feng hsiang-sung – both listings not repeated here – see notes 1 and 2. For references to Calicut in MSL, also see Watanabe, Hiroshi, “An index of embassies and tribute missions from Islamic countries to Ming China (1368–1644) as recorded in the Ming Shih-lu, classified according to geographic area,” Memoirs of the Research Department of the Toyo Bunko 33 (1975), pp. 339–40 (52–3)Google Scholar, and listings in Lingyeong, Chiu et al. (ed.), Ming shih-lu chung chih Tung-nan-ya shih-liao, 2 vols. (Hong Kong, 1976Google Scholar). Some (but not all) of the references to Calicut listed here may be found in the useful source book by Hao-sheng, Cheng and I-chün, Cheng, Cheng Ho hsia Hsi-yang tzu-liao hui-pien, 2 vols. (Chinan, 1980–1983), esp. vol. 2:2, pp. 1537–41, 1786–90, 1872–4, 1903–5Google Scholar. Only a few Chinese descriptions of Calicut were translated into Western languages; see, for example, Mills, , Ying-yai Sheng-lan, pp. 137–46Google Scholar; Rockhill, W. W., “Notes on the relations and trade of China with the eastern archipelago and the coasts of the Indian Ocean during the fourteenth century,” Toung Pao 16 (1915), pp. 454–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sastri, K. A. Nilakanta (ed.), Foreign Notices of South India from Megasthenis to Ma Huan (Madras Univ. Historical Ser. 65; Madras, 1939), pp. 294–5, 297–8, 306–8Google Scholar; Su Chung-jen (as in n. 4); Ptak, R., Cheng Hos Abenteuer im Drama und Roman der Ming-Zeit (Münchener Ostasiatische Studien 41; Stuttgart, 1986), pp. 55–9, 78–88, 94–7, 114–9Google Scholar. For three additional Ming references to Calicut not available to me, see Ku-tai Nan-hai ti-ming hui-shih, p. 244. Most, if not all information on Calicut in mid and late Ming works as well as in Ch'ing works is ultimately based on MSL, YYSL, HYFKC, HCSL, TMHT, and HYCKTL.

7 More listings in Ku-tai Nan-hai ti-ming hui-shih, p. 244, and in some of the sources mentioned in Fairbank, J. K. and Têng, S. Y., “On the Ch'ing tributary system,” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 6 (1941), pp. 209–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 HWSL, ch. 38, p. 0775; ch. 50, p. 0987; KC, ch. 3, p. 383.

9 HWSL, ch. 53, p. 1049; ch. 71, p. 1313; KC, ch. 4, p. 420; ch. 5, p. 460. Pelliot, Paul, “Les grands voyages maritimes chinois au début du XVe siècle,” Toung Pao 30 (1933), p. 328 n. 2CrossRefGoogle Scholar, thinks that T'a-hai T'ieh-mu-erh may be identical with Tayai Temür, an envoy sent to the Oirat area at the beginning of the Yung-lo reign.

10 HWSL, ch. 56, p. 1100. Pelliot, Paul, “Notes additionelles sur Tcheng Houo et sur ses voyages,” Voting Pao 31 (1935), pp. 306–7Google Scholar, tentatively transcribes I-tieh-na-wa-li-sha as Idenavarsa.

11 HWSL, ch. 71, p. 1313; KC, ch. 5, p. 460. Note that Cheng Hao-sheng and Cheng I-chün take Ch'e-ma…” and “Kan-ti…” as two names twice and as one name twice; see vol. 1, p. 85, vol. 2:2, pp. 1050, 1406–7, 1163. Hsiang-lin, Lo, “Ming ch'u Chung-kuo yü Hsi-yang So-li chih chiao-t'ung,” Ta-lu tsa-chih 36:2 (1968), p. 37Google Scholar, takes them as two names; Pelliot, , “Voyages,” p. 328 n. 3Google Scholar, quotes the HMSIK and takes them as one name, leaving out the first character.

12 Pelliot, , “Voyages,” p. 327Google Scholar; also see n. 19 below.

13 MS, ch. 2, p. 25 (also n. 2 there); ch. 325, p. 8424; TWL, ch. 36, 87b, HMHHL, 25b; Pelliot, , “Voyages,” p. 327Google Scholar. Lo Hsiang-lin, p. 37, is wrong in saying that the name of the envoy sent by Pieh-li-t'i would not be known. It is listed in MSL as stated above.

14 MS, ch. 325, p. 8424; Pelliot, , “Voyages,” p. 327Google Scholar.

15 KTTC, ch. 330, 47b–48a.

16 MS, ch. 325, p. 8424.

17 HMSIK, pp. 548–9; HPL, p. 106; WPC, ch. 237, pp. 10075–6; Ich'eng, ch. 7, 37a, 38a; HMHHL, ch. 5, 25a–26a; TWL, ch. 36, 87b–88a; Ming Shu, ch. 167, p. 3313; KTTC, ch. 330, 47b–48a; MHY, ch. 79, pp. 1545–6; KCHCL, ch. 120, p. 5353. Also see Cheng Haosheng/Cheng I-chün, vol. 2:2, pp. 1542–7.

18 Ibid., p. 1161 (comment on YLSL, ch. 56, p. 1100); Lo Hsiang-lin, p. 36. Note that Mills, Ying-Yai Sheng-lan, does not completely equate Hsi-yang So-li and So-li; see pp. 20, 194, 218 there. Mills says nothing on Hsi-yang kuo. Chieh, Chu, Cheng Ho (Peking, 1956), p. 85Google Scholar, equates Hsi-yang So-li and So-li but does not mention Hsi-yang kuo.

19 Pelliot, , “Voyages,” pp. 327–9Google Scholar; Lo Hsiang-lin, p. 36. Lo believes that the expression “Hsiyang chu-kuo” in t he MSL entry of 1369 refers to Chola; this is the only case where Lo refers to the MSL in his essay!

20 See references to KC in notes 8 and 9; SIKC, 936b.

21 YLSL, ch. 22, p. 0408; MS, ch. 325, p. 8424; Lo Hsiang-lin, pp. 36–7.

22 SYCTL, ch. 8, 25a; Cheng Hao-sheng/Cheng I-chün, vol. 2:2, pp. 1540, 1546. Interestingly, Wen Liang-fu is also said to have gone to Siam in the beginning of the Hung-wu period; see sources in Cheng/Cheng, pp. 1078–9, 1474–8.

23 HWSL, ch. 88, pp. 1564–5; KC, ch. 5, p. 500.

24 YLSL, ch. 7, p. 0205; Cheng Hao-sheng/Cheng I-chün, vol. 1, pp. 92, 111, vol. 2:2, pp. 1057, 1434. The KC, ch. 12, p. 878, for example, leaves out “Hsi-yang.”

25 YLSL, ch. 22, p. 0408; ch. 23, pp. 0421–2. Also see KC, ch. 13, pp. 909, 912. MS, ch. 6, p. 80, is imprecise: there it is said that Ma Pin was sent to Java and “other places.”

26 YLSL, ch. 24, pp. 0435, 0447. Also see KC, ch. 13, p. 917.

27 YLSL, ch. 40, p. 0668; ch. 46, pp. 0709, 0715. Also see KC, ch. 13, p. 960.

28 Lo Hsiang-lin, pp. 36–7; Cheng Hao-sheng/Cheng I-chün, vol. 2:2, pp. 1083, 1541.

29 For Hsi-yang taken as Hsi-yang So-li, see MS, ch. 325, p. 8424; for La-ni, see ch. 326, p. 8456. Note that in ch. 326, the MS editors seem to have taken Hsi-yang and La-ni as one name; they also seem to have considered the expression “Hui-hui Ha-chih Ma-ha-mo Chi-ni” (see YLSL, ch. 24, p. 0447, as in n. 26 above) to refer to one person (Hui-hui being a general designation for Muslims, Ha-chih being a title: Hājjī). Cheng Hao-sheng and Cheng I-chün, vol. 2:2, p. 1194, thought that in the case of the MSL two places and two persons were meant. For Lani's possible location, see Mills, , Ying-yai Sheng-lan, p. 202Google Scholar. For Hsi-yang La-ni taken as two names in MC, see ch. 8, p. 80, there. Other references here: SYCTL, ch. 8, 25b; HPL, p. 106; I ch'eng, ch. 7, 38a.

30 YLSL, ch. 24, p. 0440; ch. 46, pp. 0711–2. The full Chinese transcription of the “Samutiri” (Sea King or Zamorin) is “Sha-mi-ti-hsi” and may be found, for example, in MS, ch. 32, p. 8440. Also see Mills, , Ying-yai Sheng-lan, p. 10Google Scholar.

31 YLSL, ch. 46, p. 0716; ch. 47, p. 0721.

32 Cheng Hao-sheng/Cheng I-chün, vol. 2:2, p. 1200.

33 MHT, ch. 106, p. 1597; HMHHL, ch. 5, 21b; KC, ch. 13, pp. 915, 959; MS, ch. 326, p. 8440; KTTC, ch. 330, 51b. The MHY, ch. 79, p. 1545, does not list the name Sha-mi-ti(-hsi). In MC, ch. 8, p. 79, it is only said that Yin Ch'ing went to Malacca and Cochin; the date was confused there. For the name “Sha-mi-ti(-hsi),” see n. 30. More in Pelliot, , “Voyages,” p. 276 n. 1Google Scholar.

34 HPL, p. 100; I ch'eng, ch. 7, 35a.

35 YLSL, ch. 17, p. 0303; ch. 46, p. 0709.

36 For Chinese designations of Chola, Chulya, etc., see sources in n. 5.

37 HYTC, ch. 118, 18a; TMITC, ch. 90, p. 5554; WPC, ch. 237, pp. 10059–60; Mingshu, ch. 166, p. 3283; HMSIK, p. 511. Mana Vikraman is a title. It is impossible to specify to which ruler the Chinese sources refer under Mana Vikraman. Pelliot, , “Voyages,” p. 277 n. 1Google Scholar, tentatively transcribes Ma Shu as “Mas'ūd.”

38 SYCTL, ch. 8, 25b; SIKC, 936b; TWL, ch. 36, 69a.

39 SIKC, 936b.

40 Duyvendak, J. J. L., “The true dates of the Chinese maritime expeditions in the early fifteenth century,” Toung Pao 34 (1938), pp. 359–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mills, , Ying-yai Sheng-Lan, p. 11Google Scholar; HMSIK, p. 511. As indicated in n. 37 above, I was unable to trace the exact sequence of the Calicut rulers and their respective dates of government in the early fifteenth century. Since there were several Mana Vikramans and Samutiris in Calicut history – for this, see, for example Ayyar – there remains the remote possibility that the Chinese sources refer to one and the same person although this would not make very much sense from the point of view of these sources.

41 YLSL, ch. 43, p. 0685 (there wu-yüeh instead of liu-yüeh); KC, ch. 13, p. 953; MS, ch. 6, p. 82; MTC, ch. 14, p. 647; MC, ch. 8, p. 82. Also see Pelliot, “Notes,” p. 281Google Scholar.

42 KC, ch. 13, p. 953; text and translation of inscriptions, for example, in Duyvendak, pp. 347, 352, and Cheng Hao-sheng/Cheng I-chün, vol. 1, pp. 41, 43.

43 See references to YLSL in notes 30 and 31.

44 YLSL, ch. 71, p. 0987; Pelliot, , “Notes,” pp. 281–2Google Scholar. In n. 1 on p. 282 Pelliot tentatively transcribes the envoy's name as Vijaya-mantri. Other sources listing Cheng Ho's return and/or the 1407 envoy are, for example: KC, ch. 14, p. 994; MS, ch. 6, p. 85; ch. 326, p. 844C (envoy listed indirectly); MTC, ch. 15, p. 667 (Calicut not mentioned explicitly); MC, ch. 8, p. 86 (same); HYCKTL, p. 102 (note different editions as noted by Hsieh Fang!); HMHHL, ch. 5, 21b; SIKC, 936b; SYCTL, ch. 8, 25b; KTTC, ch. 330, 51b (indirectly).

45 YLSL, ch. 71, p. 0994.

46 Duyvendak, pp. 347, 353 (inscriptions), also 364 (possible date of order for second expedition). Mills, , Ying-yai Sheng-lan, p. 11Google Scholar, following Duyvendak, suspects that Cheng Ho did not join this expedition (see below). More on the dates in YLSL, ch. 83, p. 1114; MS, ch. 6, p. 85; Pelliot, , “Notes,” pp. 282–3Google Scholar. Also see MTC, ch. 15, p. 674; MC, ch. 8, p. 87 (neither mentions Calicut); KC, ch. 14, p. 1010.

47 See reference to KC in n. 33.

48 For this inscription, see, for example, Pelliot, Paul, “Encore à propos des voyages de Tcheng Houo,” Toung Pao 32 (1936), p. 215CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Ptak, p. 24 n. 36, and p. 117 notes 22 and 23 (references there).

49 Duyvendak, esp. p. 371; Mills, , Ying-yai Sheng-lan, p. 11Google Scholar.

50 YLSL, ch. 112, p. 1431.

51 YLSL, ch. 43, p. 0688.

52 Duyvendak, pp. 347, 353 (inscriptions), 371 n. 2.

53 YLSL, ch. 94, p. 1252.

54 MS, ch. 6, p. 87; ch. 326, p. 8440 (indirectly); KC, ch. 14, p. 1025; HMHHL, ch. 5, 21b; HYCKTL, p. 102 (different editions!); KTTC, ch. 330, 51b (indirectly).

55 Duyvendak, pp. 371–3.

56 HCSL, ch'ien-chi mu-lu, p. 1; Mills, , Ying-yai Sheng-lan, p. 59Google Scholar.

57 YLSL, ch. 116, p. 1477; KC, ch. 15, p. 1062; MTC, ch. 16, p. 696; MS, ch. 6, p. 89; MC, ch. 9, p. 90. Pelliot, , “Notes,” p. 283Google Scholar, does not distinguish between the second and third expeditions. For the Ceylon conflict, see, for example, Needham, Joseph, Science and Civilisation in China, vol. IV:3 (Cambridge, 1971), pp. 515–6Google Scholar and notes a and b there; Chung-jen, Su, “The battle of Ceylon, 1411,” in Essays in Chinese Studies Presented to Professor Lo Hsiang-lin (Shou Lo Hsianglin chiao-shou lun-wen chi) (Hong Kong, 1970), pp. 291–7Google Scholar.

58 YLSL, ch. 117, pp. 1487–8; KC, ch. 15, p. 1065; MS, ch. 6, p. 89.

59 YLSL, ch. 119, pp. 1503, 1507, 1508.

60 KC and MS as in n. 58; SIKC, 936b–937a; SYCTL, ch. 8, 25b–26a.

61 SYCTL, ch. 8, 26a. I-chün, Cheng, Cheng Ho hsia Hsi-yang (Peking, 1985Google Scholar; T'ai-p'ing-yang yen-chiu ts'ung-shu), pp. 208–11, discusses the itinerary of the third expeditionary fleet in detail but overlooks this point.

62 YLSL, ch. 134, p. 1369; KC, ch. 15, p. 1083; MTC, ch. 16, p. 704; MS, ch. 6, p. 90 (date g corrected in Chung-hua ed.); MC, ch. 9,92 (same wrong date as originally in MS); Duyvendak, 347–8, 353, 373–8 (dates, fourth voyage); Pelliot, , “Notes,” p. 285Google Scholar (third and fourth expedition mixed up); Mills, , Ying-yai Sheng-lan, p. 35 (for Ma Huan)Google Scholar.

63 YLSL, ch. 166, p. 1859; KC, ch. 16, p. 1119 (note statement by Ho Ch'iao-yüan there, where ? Hsi-yang is listed – obviously for Calicut); MTC, ch. 16, p. 719; MS, ch. 7, p. 95; MC, ch. 9, p. 95 Pelliot, , “Notes,” p. 285Google Scholar.

64 YLSL, ch. 168, pp. 1870–1, 1876–7; ch. 169, p. 1882; KC, ch. 16, p. 1121; MS, ch. 7, p. 95; ch. 326, p. 8440.

65 Duyvendak, pp. 379–80.

66 YLSL, ch. 166, p. 1859; KC, ch. 16, p. 1120; MS, ch. 304, p. 7769; HCSL, ch'ien-chimu-lu, p. 1, and ch'ien-chi, pp. 39, 41. Mills, , Ying-yai Sheng-lan, p. 59Google Scholar, believes that Fei Hsin accompanied Cheng Ho on his fifth expedition. In this he follows Duyvendak, pp. 383–4, who merges Hou's and Cheng Ho's fifth voyage into one expedition suggesting that Hou and some of Cheng's ships returned in 1418. For this problem, also see Pelliot, , “Notes,” pp. 285–6Google Scholar. For Hou Hsien's participation in Cheng Ho's expedition, also see Ptak, R., “Über Wang Ching-hungs und Hou Hsiens Teilnahme an Cheng Hos Expeditionen,” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 134:2 (1984), pp. 337–43Google Scholar.

67 YLSL, ch. 182, pp. 1963–4; KC, ch. 16, pp. 1135–6; MC, ch. 10, p. 96; MS, ch. 7, p. 96; ch. 326, p. 8440; Pelliot, , “Notes,” pp. 286–7Google Scholar.

68 YLSL, ch. 183, pp. 1969–70; KC, ch. 16, p. 1136; MTC, ch. 16, p. 724; MC, ch. 10, p. 96; MS, ch. 7, p. 96; Pelliot, , “Notes,” pp. 287–8Google Scholar (note: in later sources many details are not reported).

69 Duyvendak, pp. 348, 354, 381; Cheng Hao-sheng/Cheng I-chün, vol. 1, p. 125; Pelliot, , “Notes,” p. 314Google Scholar, and “Encore,” pp. 211–2; sources in Ptak, , Abenteuer, p. 107, n. 15Google Scholar.

70 Cheng Hao-sheng/Cheng I-chün, vol. 2:2, pp. 1597, 1598 (quoting TWL, ch. 3, and MS, ch. 7, p. 97), once read “Hsi-yang, Su-lu” and once “Hsi-yang Su-lu.” The MS date is wrong; it should be wu-yüeh and not ssu-yüeh. Chang Ch'ien was sent on another mission in the ninth lunar month; see YLSL, ch. 192, p. 2026, or KC, ch. 16, p. 1144.

71 YLSL, ch. 214, p. 2149; Pelliot, , “Notes,” pp. 288–9Google Scholar. Also see n. 73.

72 KC, ch. 17, p. 1161, MC, ch. 10, p. 98, and MS, ch. 7, pp. 98–9 do not mention Calicut, but MTC, ch. 17, p. 737 does.

73 Duyvendak, pp. 384–5, quotes the Ming ta-cheng tsuan-yao, ch. 14, which says that some; foreign envoys (including one from Calicut) arrived in the sixth year of Yung-lo. Believing that “sixth year” is an error for “sixteenth year” (1418), Duyvendak concludes that these envoys had perhaps arrived in China together with Hou Hsien's returning fleet, i.e. in 1418. Whether this in itself is sufficient to explain why there is no Calicut envoy mentioned in other works in connection with the year 1419, remains a matter of debate. For the mi-li-kao, see Duyvendak, pp. 348, 354, and his special study “The Mi-li-kao identified,” Toung Pao 35 (1939), pp. 215–18Google Scholar. For Malacca, see YLSL, ch. 216, p. 2155, or KC, ch. 17, p. 1162.

74 MS, ch. 7, p. 99; ch. 326, p. 8440; MHY, ch. 79, p. 1545; KTTC, ch. 330, 51b.

75 YLSL, ch. 217, p. 2161; ch. 224, p. 2207; ch. 229, p. 2226.

76 HYFKC, orders, p. 9.

77 YLSL, ch. 233, p. 2255, 2256 (note Calicut given as “Yu-li” which is an error for “Ku-li”); KC, ch. 17, p. 1177; MC, ch. 10, p. 99; MS, ch. 7, pp. 100–1; ch. 326, p. 8440; MTC, ch. 17, p. 743; Pelliot, , “Notes,” p. 289Google Scholar.

78 Mills, , Ying-yai Sheng-lan, p. 35Google Scholar.

79 HYFKC, orders, p. 9; Pelliot, , “Voyages,” p. 342Google Scholar, and “Notes,” pp. 289–90; Duyvendak, , “Dates,” pp. 385–7Google Scholar; YLSL, ch. 250, p. 2344; KC, ch. 17, p. 1196; MTC, ch. 17, p. 754; MC, ch. 10, p. 101; MS, ch. 7, p. 102. Information on the Chinese envoys mentioned in the orders, for example, in Cheng Hao-sheng/Cheng I-chün, vol. 1, pp. 162 et seq.; also see sources listed in Ptak, , Abenteuer, pp. 238–9, n. 7Google Scholar.

80 YLSL, ch. 263, p. 2401. According to the text used by Cheng Hao-sheng/Cheng I-chün, vol. 1, p. 175, and vol. 2:2, p. 1069, only 93 men returned. Perhaps Chou Ting is identical with a eunuch called Chou (in YYSL) and with Chou Man. See Cheng/Cheng, vol. 1, pp. 165, 175; Duyvendak, , “Dates,” pp. 385–6Google Scholar; Mills, , Ying-yai Sheng-lan, p. 155Google Scholar.

81 YLSL, ch. 263, p. 2403. Also see KC, ch. 17, p. 1205; TWL, ch. 36, 69a; MS, ch. 7, p. 103; ch. 326, p. 8440; KTTC, ch. 330, 51b.

82 HMSIK, p. 549; HPL, p. 106 (date wrong; reference seems to be to 1423, however); WPC, ch. 237, p. 10076; Ich'eng, ch. 7, 38a(date wrong); HMHHL, ch. 5, 25b; TWL, ch. 36,87b; Ming shu, ch. 167, p. 3313; MHY, ch. 79, p. 1546 (no date given but reference seems to be to the 1423 embassy); MS, ch. 325, p. 8424 (note: date is wrong; in ch. 7, p. 103, Hsi-yang So-li is not listed which shows the inconsistency of the MS editors).

83 HHSL, ch. 1A, pp. 0015–6; Jung-pang, Lo, “The termination of the early Ming naval expeditions,” in Parsons, James B. (ed.), Papers in Honour of Professor Woodbridge Bingham, a festschrift for his seventy-fifth birthday (Chinese Materials and Research Aids Service Center, Occasional Papers 33; San Francisco, 1976), pp. 134–5Google Scholar.

84 HTSL, ch. 67, p. 1577; KC, ch. 21, p. 1394; MTC, ch. 20, p. 847; MC, ch. 12, p. 116; Pelliot, , “Voyages,” pp. 302–3Google Scholar, “Notes,” p. 292; Duyvendak, , “Dates,” p. 390Google Scholar. The exact date poses a problem: Cheng Ho either received orders in the fifth or in the sixth lunar month – compare the date given in HYFKC, orders, p. 10.

85 Mills, , Ying-yai Sheng-lan, pp. 35, 36, 56, 59Google Scholar; HYFKC, preface, p. 5, HCSL, ch'ien-chimu-lu, p. 1.

86 For a translation of the entry in Chu's book, see, for example, Mills, , Ying-yai Sheng-lan, pp. 15–18Google Scholar, or Pelliot, , “Voyages,” pp. 305–11Google Scholar. The year of the actual departure, 1431, is also confirmed through one of the T'ien-fei inscriptions; see Duyvendak, , “Dates,” pp. 354–5Google Scholar. For MSL and KC see n. 84.

87 HYFKC, order, p. 10; Mills, , Ying-yai Sheng-lan, p. 17Google Scholar.

88 Mills, ibid.

89 HYFKC, p. 46; HYCKTL, p. 119; Mills, , Ying-yai Sheng-lan, pp. 16 (map), 19, 177–8Google Scholar; Pelliot, , “Voyages,” pp. 303–4, 324, “Notes,” p. 296 and n. 3 thereGoogle Scholar; Duyvendak, J. J. L., Ma Huan Re-Examined (Verhandelingen der Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen te Amsterdam, Afd. Letterkunde, n. r. 32:3; Amsterdam, 1933), p. 74Google Scholar. Note: different ranks and names are given for the T'ien-fang envoy; also see HTSL, ch. 105, p. 2341. Pelliot thinks that Hung Pao arrived in Calicut on a detached ship via Bengal.

90 Mills, , Ying-yai Sheng-lan, pp. 17–8Google Scholar.

91 Cheng I-chün, pp. 334–41; Wei-chi, Chuang, “Shih lun Cheng Ho yu Wang Ching-hung chih ssu,” Hai-chiao shih yen-chiu 11:1 (1987), pp. 87–8Google Scholar. For more sources, see Ptak, , Abenteuer, p. 14 n. 3Google Scholar.

92 HTSL, ch. 105, p. 2341; KC, ch. 22, p. 1458; MTC, ch. 22, p. 899; MS, ch. 9, p. 124; ch. 326, p. 8440; KTTC, ch. 330, 51b; Pelliot, , “Notes,” pp. 293–8Google Scholar.

93 HTSL, ch. 105, p. 2344; ch. 105, p. 2350.

94 CTSL, ch. 19, p. 0385; KC, ch. 23, p. 1522; MTC, ch. 22, p. 899; MC, ch. 13, p. 121; MS, ch. 10, p. 129; ch. 324, p. 8404; ch. 326, p. 8440; KTTC, ch. 330, 52a; Pelliot, , “Notes,” pp. 294 n. 2, 301–2Google Scholar. Obviously, an earlier order of 1435 (ssu-yüeh hsin-ssu), listed in CTSL, ch. 4, p. 0081, did not come into effect.

95 Some ideas of how trade was carried on in Calicut when a Chinese vessel arrived are given in Mills, , Ying-yai Sheng-lan, p. 138Google Scholaret seq., or Mathew, K. S., Portuguese Trade with India in the Sixteenth Century (Delhi, 1983), pp. 10–11, 17–18, 28Google Scholar, and sources quoted there.