TANJORE.
Speaking of Chu-lién (Chola Dominion, Coromandel Coast), Chau Ju-kwa, pp. 93–4, says:—
“The kingdom of Chu-lién is the Southern Yin-tu of the west. To the east (its capital) is five li distant from the sea; to the west one comes to Western India (after) 1500 li; to the south one comes to Lo-lan (after) 2500 li; to the north one comes to Tun-t’ien (after) 3000 li.”
Hirth and Rockhill remark, p. 98: “Ma Tuan-lin and the Sung-shï 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 Paṭṭaṇam 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 mediæval Chinese is mentioned in the T’ang-shu, 2218, 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-shï say that 2500 li south-east of Chu-lién was ‘Si-lan-ch’ï-kuo’ with which it was at war. Of course the distance mentioned is absurd, but all figures connected with Chu-lién 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-gôpuram, 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. He therefore recommended that this should be given, and the tower allowed to stand....