was Indianized by the first half of the third century A.D., since it says that 500 families of Indians¹¹ lived there, as well as 1,000 Brahmans who intermarried with the local people, and that there were two Buddhist monuments. That would indicate that Tun-sun must have been already Indianized for some time and enable the date of that Indianization to be carried back to the second century A.D. at least.

There is archaeological and epigraphical evidence which proves a marked Indianization in Kedah (including Province Wellesley) during the Gupta period from c. A.D. 400; and there may have been an Indian or Indianized settlement in the Kinta Valley, Perak, during the Gupta period of the fifth and sixth centuries A.D.¹² It is accepted generally that the Tamil name Kalagam which occurs in the Paṭṭinappalai is the same as the Tamil names Kadaram and Kidaram and the Sanskrit Kataba, all identified with Kedah. If this is so, then Kedah was known to the Tamils as early as that poem which "cannot be placed later than the end of the second century A.D." ¹³

Unfortunately, there is no evidence of any certainty with regard to Indianization in Sumatra prior to the seventh century A.D. It is continually said that the Chinese name Kan-t'o-li, which appears in the Liang Shu as having sent an embassy to China during the period A.D. 454-462, was Sumatra. But the only geographical information is that it was on a chou in the South Sea and there is no mention of gold among its products, which would be extraordinary if it were Sumatra. When the identification is analysed, it will be found to rest upon Chinese tradition in 1879 and a fancied resemblance between Kan-t'o-li and Andelas or Andalas, a Malay name applied to Sumatra according to evidence which is very many centuries later than the Chinese name. There is more probability that the Chinese name P'i-ch'ien applied to some part of Sumatra. The account of it was carried back to China by K'ang T'ai and Chu Ying and, therefore, dates from the first half of the third century A.D.¹⁴ The only geographical information is that it was beyond Tun-sun on a chou in the Great

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¹¹ The word used is hu, which normally indicates Central Asians: Pelliot thought that merchants might be indicated, as the hu were distinguished in the passage from the Brahmans.

¹² H. G. Quaritch Wales, "Archaeological Researches on Ancient Indian Colonization in Malaya", JMBRAS., vol. 18, pt. I (1940), pp. 1-50; Dorathy C. and H. G. Quaritch Wales, "Further Work on Indian Sites in Malaya", JMBRAS., vol. 20 (1947), pp. 1-11.

¹³ K. A. Nilakanta Sastri, "Kataha", Journal of the Greater India Society, vol. 5 (Calcutta, 1938), pp. 128-46, and Sri Vijaya, pp. 25-26: see also the present author, JMBRAS., vol. 22 (1949), pt. I, pp. 5-15.

¹⁴ For English translation see G. H. Luce, "Countries neighbouring Burma" Journal of the Burma Research Society (Rangoon, 1925), vol. 14, pt. 2, pp. 148-49.