354 KEPORT— 1882. 



position, though his Sindai islands are dropt far away. But it would not 

 be difficult to show that Ptolemy's islands have been located almost 

 at random, or as from a pepper-castor. 



"We have said that the Arab Sanf, as well as the Greek Zabai, lay west 

 of Cape Cambodia. This is proved, by the statement that the Arabs on. 

 their voyage to China made a ten days' run from Sanf to Pulo Condor. 



Now they enter another sea, which they call the Sea of Sanji. crossing 

 which they enter the narrow passages and estuaries called the ' Gates of 

 China.' 



In Ptolemy the distance from Zabai to the Sinae is not determined. 

 According to Alexander, as quoted by Ptolemy after Marinus, ' the land 

 beyond the Golden Chersonnese lay facing the south, and sailing by this 

 for twenty days you reach the city of Zabai, and, still sailing on for some 

 days southward, but rather to the left, you reach Kattigara ' (the port of 

 the Sinae). The expression ' southward, but rather to the left,' is easily 

 accounted for, if we recollect what has just been said of the position of 

 Zabai on the west coast of Kamboja. Alexander must precisely have run 

 'south, but rather to the left,' for some days before turning north into the 

 China Sea. 



But no doubt Ptolemy, from his preconceptions of the general 

 geography, necessarily misconstrued the further track of Alexander, and 

 may have failed to quote some further indication. Regarding the Indian 

 Ocean as a closed basin he is compelled to place the Sinae on the 

 imaginary eastern shore of that basin. But we know, of course, that the 

 sea is not a closed basin, and that the Sinae could not have lain south of 

 Zabai and of the Great Cape, unless we are prepared, with a learned 

 German, to put them on the west coast of Borneo ! 



I should say here that I consider it as unreasonable to explain Sinae 

 by any name but Chinese, as it would be to explain Indoi by anything 

 but Hindoos or Indians. Sinae does not require to be demonstrated to 

 be Chinese ; it is Chinese, just as much as Franrais is French or Espagnols 

 Spaniards. But where lay Karrtyopci opfxoc Iiivaif — ^Kattigara, the 

 port of the Chinese ' — is another question. 



When I drew the map of Ancient India, with its elucidations, for Dr.. 

 W. Smith's Classical Atlas, though saying that I saw no means of deter- 

 mining the position of Kattigara, 1 was still inclined to believe that it was 

 on the coast of China proper, either of Fokien or of the Tangtse Delta. 

 But there was always some misgiving that the Ptolemaic statement was 

 briefer and vaguer than would have been probable had the voyagers 

 actually reached the swarming hive of the Central Flowery Kingdom. 

 And to myself the arguments adduced by my friend Bai-on F. von 

 Richthofen in favour of the location of Kattigara in the Gulf of Tongking 

 are absolutely convincing. This position seems to satisfy every con- 

 dition. For : 



1. Tongking was for some centuries at that period (b.c. Ill to a.d. 263),. 

 and at that period only, actually incorporated as part of the Chinese 

 Empire. 



2. The only port mentioned in the Chinese annals as at that period 

 open to foreign traffic was Kiau-chi, substantially identical with the 

 modern capital of Tongking, Kesho or Hanoi. Whilst there are no 

 notices of foreign arrivals by any other approach, there are repeated notices 

 of such arrivals by this province, including that famous embassy from 

 'Antun, King of Ta-t'sin', i.e., M. Aurelius Antoninus, in A.D. 166. 



