ANote on the Tombstone of Master Pu and the Xishan Zazhi

The present article is a preliminary report on the debate surrounding the tombstone of Master Pu discovered in Brunei in 1972. Dated to 1264 by Franke and Ch’en (1973), the tombstone of Master Pu has been regarded as evidence of early contacts between China and Brunei, but also as proof of the existence of Muslim connections between the two countries. Pu allegedly died in Brunei while on a diplomatic mission and was consequently buried there. Of specific importance within this narrative has been a text ‘discovered’ in 1982 in Fujian entitled Xishan zazhi (Miscellaneous record(s) from the western mountain). It reports that Pu arrived in Brunei in 1247, and that the tombstone was commissioned by his sons who also served as envoys to Brunei. I shall describe the as yet unpublished text and discuss its veracity in light of the evidence available.


Introduction
In recent years there has been a re-evaluation of theories concerning artefacts of Chinese origin believed to have been manufactured in Southeast Asia, as well as a critical approach towards the study of ancient tombstones.Examples of these are Kalus and Guillot (2004), who maintain that four Islamic tombstones found in Leran, Java, are actually imports that arrived as ballast and were not local products; Salmon (2008), who traced the origins of a bronze gong heretofore believed to be the product of a local workshop in Muara Jambi to a Chinese workshop in the Song dynasty; and Lambourn (2008), who showed that a tombstone previously regarded as evidence of the rule of the first Muslim sultan of Samudra was instead a much later copy and indeed did not date to 1297.
The present article both reviews existing studies, which date the tombstone of Master Pu discovered in Brunei in 1972 to 1264, and proposes that the Xishan zazhi 西山雜志, the main source to shed light on Master Pu's background, is a fabricated text.As a consequence of scholarly engagement with the tombstone since 1972, and with the text since the late 1980s, it has been established that a long-standing relationship between Brunei and China has existed since the Song dynasty.This article will examine a number of problematic issues with this historical record in both Chinese and Western studies.These issues relate to the identity of Master Pu (Pu gong 蒲公), as well as the provenance of the Xishan zazhi.

Master Pu's Tombstone
In 1972 P.M. Shariffudin and Abdul Latif happened across two Chinese tombstones and showed them to Wolfgang Franke and Ch'en T'ieh-fan.Franke and Ch'en dated one of them to the late nineteenth century right away, but could only date the second one from photographs and further examination in Kuala Lumpur.Franke and Ch'en published the results of their examination of the tombstone, which they dated to 1264, and also briefly described the second tombstone from 1876 (Franke and Ch'en 1973).
They believed that Li Jiazi 李家滋 from Yongchun 永春 in Fujian, whom this latter tombstone was dedicated to, was a Muslim.This suggestion is understandable in so far as Li's tombstone was found in a Muslim cemetery; therefore, it was a reasonable assumption that the owner had been a Muslim.1 kurz Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land-en Volkenkunde 172 (2016) 510-537 Ch'en and Franke provided a translation of the inscription of the older of the two tombstones which reads as follows: Tomb of Master Pu, supervisor of Quanzhou of the Song.Erected in the jiazi [year] of the Jingding [era] by his? son Ying?jia.2 In sum, what Franke and Ch'en (1973) present us with is a translation that is unsure of the name(s) of the son(s) of Master Pu (one character at the time was already illegible); an identification of Master Pu as a Muslim from Quanzhou; as well as a strong affirmation that Master Pu was indeed buried beneath the tombstone as the inscription suggested ('tomb of Master Pu').Franke and Ch'en believed the Rangas cemetery to be the original burial ground and proposed excavating the tomb.This suggestion was not followed up.They presented their findings in the same year, July 1973, at the 29th Congress of Orientalists, held in Paris (Ch'en and Franke 1976).
The stone only raised moderate interest during the 1970s and early 1980s, except in 1986, when Wen Guangyi 温广益 published a translation of the Franke and Ch'en article in a journal devoted to the study of the culture and history of Quanzhou.3Chen Dasheng in 1991 referred to Master Pu's tombstone and its significance for Quanzhou-Brunei relations in his study of an early tombstone in Arabic dedicated to a ruler of Brunei.4Articles published in China from the late 1980s to the 1990s emphasized early contacts between Brunei and China, and found evidence for these, either in the visits of Boni envoys to the Chinese imperial court-based on the idea of Poli 婆 利 being an early designation for Boni-from the sixth to the seventh centuries, or in the tomb of a Boni chieftain buried in Nanjing in 1408 (Ji Shijia 季士家 1987; Huang Guoan 黄国安 1991).The positive identifications of the envoys in the sixth century and the Nanjing tomb resident as being 'Bruneians' to a large extent were provided by Western expatriate researchers working in Brunei.5

Master Pu and the Xishan Zazhi
In 1991 a number of articles were published written by scholars who were drawn to the tombstone again through the recent discovery of a text that established a connection between Master Pu and the well-known Pu clan of Quanzhou.6 The text was the Xishan zazhi, purportedly compiled by the Quanzhou scholar Cai Yongjian 蔡永蒹 (1776-1835).7 Li Yukun 李玉昆 (1988) studied parts of the copy of the text then held by the Jinjiang district library (Jinjiang xian tushuguan 晋江县图书馆) and, by studying ten selected entries, concluded that the information found therein was erroneous.
In the same year, Fu Jialin 傅家麟 (also Fu Yiling 傅衣凌) (1988), professor of history at Xiamen University, published a preface (xu 序) to the text.Fu doubted that the text was written by a single person and instead suggested that the text had been compiled over a number of years by members of the Cai family of Dongshi.He also asserted the great historical value of the work for the understanding of Minnan history.Chen Guoqiang 陈国强 (1990) referred to a copy of the text dated to 1810 and to Fu Jialin's preface, while ignoring Li Yukun's study.Chen had probably worked with a manuscript copy, because he did not identify the publication date and place, or the publisher of the work.8He confirmed the credibility of the Xishan zazhi as a historical source.
In 1991, a major conference took place in Quanzhou under the patronage of unesco entitled China and the Maritime Silk Route: unesco Quanzhou International Seminar on China and the Maritime Routes of the Silk Roads (Lianheguo jiaokewen zuzhi haishang sichou zhi lu zonghe kaocha Quanzhou guoji xueshu taolunhui zuzhiwei 聯合國教科文組織海上絲綢之路綜合考察泉州國際學術 討論會).9Among the papers published in the resulting conference volume in kurz Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land-en Volkenkunde 172 (2016) 510-537 1994 was one by Franke (1991).Franke, although he remained sceptical of the Xishan zazhi, suggested a relationship between Master Pu and Pu Shougeng 蒲 寿庚; he also claimed that Master Pu had indeed travelled to Brunei, where he died.
Pu Shougeng is said to have been a Muslim of Arab or Persian descent and a resident of Quanzhou.He was a successful merchant and for his achievements was given the superintendency of maritime trade in Quanzhou.Since he actively collaborated with the Mongols against the Song, his family was massacred and he allegedly left for the Philippines.10 At the same conference, Zhuang Weiji 莊為璣 (庄为玑), a professor from Xiamen University, Fujian, presented his findings on the famous ship that had been discovered in Quanzhou (Quanzhou wan gu chuan 泉州湾古船) in 1973.He held that a certain Pu Zongmin 蒲宗閔, a relative of Pu Shougeng, was the actual Master Pu, taking his cue from an entry in the Xishan zazhi (Zhuang 1991a:347-8).Access to this work had been made possible through Lin Shaochuan 林少川, who provided Zhuang with a photocopy of the entry on the Pu family that is usually referred to as 'Pucuo' 蒲厝.Consequently, Zhuang used this material in two articles on Master Pu in Brunei (Zhuang 1991b(Zhuang :2, 1991c:36):36).
Pg Karim bin Pengiran Haji Osman (1993) synthesized Franke and Ch'en (1973) with Zhuang Weiji (1991a)  The 'Pucuo' reads as follows: Pucuo is located to the east of Cangling, and faces Puzhong on the other side of the river.During the Shaoding era (1228-1233) of the Song dynasty there was a jinshi by the name of Pu Zongmin who held the post of prefectural supervisor of the Wenling circuit.Later he was promoted to the Investigation Bureau in the Capital (that is, the post of panyuan).
During the bingshen year of the Duanping era (1236) he served as envoy to Annan.In the second year of the Jiaxi era (1238) he served as envoy to Zhancheng, and in the seventh year of the Chunyou era (1247) he again served as envoy to Boni.He later died in office there.(1st paragraph) He had three sons: the oldest was Ying 应, the next one was Jia 甲, and the third one was Lie 烈.Pu Ying went to Boni 渤泥.Pu Jia held the position of fiscal commissioner for the Western Ocean of Zhancheng.The barbarians in the neighbouring countries of Dashi, Bosi,14 and Shizi were pleased with him.(2nd paragraph) The historical records report: The Pu family had made a name for themselves since Liu Congxiao 留从效 in the Five Dynasties period sent Pu Hua's 蒲华 son Pu Youliang 蒲有良15 to Zhancheng, where he served as fiscal commissioner in the Western Ocean and the Bosi people were pleased with him.Therefore the Pu family in Quan [-zhou] commandery were well well known since the Song and Yuan dynasties.The 'Pucuo' says: After a rebellion at the end of the Song dynasty, Pu Shougeng set sail and settled in the Philippines; some people say in the country of Moyi, some people say in the country of Puduan.(3rd paragraph) The Renhe poetry society says: There was a Master Pu, duyuan of Wenling, who three times served as envoy to the barbarians in Boni shan 渤泥山.He died abroad and a burial inscription [was erected] in the alien land.For a thousand years his soul shall remain in [the shade of] the auspicious parasol tree.(4th paragraph) (Zhuang 1991a:346).
Liu Yingsheng 刘迎胜 adopted the evidence provided in the text that linked Master Pu to Quanzhou, his mission to Boni, and his sons.16Liu had attended He remarks that Chen Tiefan, Wolfgang Franke, and Gong Yanming 龚延明 in their articles published in Haijiaoshi yanjiu 海交史研究 2 (1991) had expressed doubts about the veracity of the 'Pucuo' , and that not only was the 'Pucuo' not compiled by Cai Yongjian, but that it had been created by an anonymous author after the fall of the Qing dynasty in 1911.Until further documentation and archaeological evidence emerges, Xie warns, it is difficult to ascertain the identity of Master Pu.He accepts that Cai Yongjian on his travels as a merchant through Southeast Asia may have heard about, or may have even seen, the tombstone in Brunei.He thus confirms Brunei as the original location of the tombstone.
Xie cites Gong Yanming, who had already affirmed that a Pu Zongmin was not recorded in Song sources, except by one official who served in Sichuan zazhi that was given to him by an official from the Quanzhou Maritime History Museum (Quanzhou haiwai jiaotong shiguan 泉州海外交通史馆).For the Pu Zongmin story, in note 7, Nie refers to p. 347 of Zhuang 1991a.Obviously that entry did not form part of the copy held at the Quanzhou Maritime Museum.Therefore, I wonder if the reference that Nie gives in his article ('Pucuo' in the Xishan zazhi) may have been copied from Zhuang 1991a as well.Further citing Gong, Xie maintains that du chayuan was not a bureaucratic agency of the Song, but of the Ming and Qing dynasties.In addition, he suggests that Cai Yongjian made a mistake by understanding panyuan as a general reference to tongpan and du chayuan.He reaffirms that Cai, after having seen the actual inscription in Brunei, may have made the wrong connection.He explains further that during Tang times Zhancheng was an independent country; hence the two Pus could not have served as fiscal commissioners (zhuanyunshi) of the Western Ocean.The latter term did not occur in historical records until the Yuan dynasty, the earliest reference to the Western Ocean being the Zhenla fengtuji 真臘風土記 by Zhou Daguan 周達觀 (fl.1295-1297).21 The last point that Xie raises is the unlikelihood of Pu Shougeng travelling to the Philippines and the appellation Feidao 菲島, which only came into use in the late Qing and early Republican era to denote the Philippines.Xie concludes that the Xishan zazhi most likely was collated towards the end of the Qing era.For the dating of the text, he refers to the Renhe shishe mentioned in the fourth paragraph of the 'Pucuo' .The Renhe shishe was a poetry society established as the Renhe gongsuo in Taiping, Perak, Malaysia, in 1885 by a local Hokkien association.22There were thus scholars who, by 1998, were not completely convinced of the credibility of the text, as well as others that regarded the text as a valuable and genuine historical work.It may not have been widely circulating anyway, for some texts on China-Brunei history followed the established historical tra- Huang says that his family possessed two handwritten copies.
Since the two texts are approximately similar in contents and style, written in small characters, 'it must have taken a long time to copy' .The paper used was fuxie zhi 复写纸, carbon copy paper, which likely refers to xylographic paper.
The writing tool was a modern ball pen ( yuanzhubi 圆珠笔) which was also used to write the date 9.8.82 at the top of the first page.
Together, the reporter and his informant read the preface by Cai Yongjian.Huang points out that Cai used local names for landmarks and consequently leads the reporter to these to see for himself and examine the veracity of Cai's information.
The reporter then asks Lin Shaochuan, head of the Quanzhou studies department (Quanzhou xue yanjiusuo 泉州学研究所) about it.Lin explains: 'The author of this handwritten notebook (biji 笔记) is Cai Yongjian of the Qing dynasty who hailed from Dongshi in Jinjiang.'According to Lin, the book was not published because it contains characters tabooed under the Qing dynasty as well as references to books that were outlawed by the Qing government.The complete text comprised twelve volumes with altogether 1630 pages, half of which were lost during tumultuous times.A descendant of Cai named Cai Chuncao 蔡春草 preserved the surviving text until the 1950s.Lin confirms the authenticity of the text, pointing out that it cites from long-lost works.These works are then listed to show that the author had had access to them before they vanished.
In an article published four months later, Cai Yongjian is introduced as a relative of the famous Zheng Chenggong 鄭成功 (1624-1662) in the seventh generation.26According to this version, Lin Shaochuan in the late 1980s-a specific date is not given-carried out research in Dongshi and happened upon the four remaining volumes that had been in the hands of Cai Chuncao in a general store in Dongshi.Only after extensive bargaining was the shopkeeper willing to lend the volumes for copying, because two additional volumes had disappeared previously after having been borrowed by people who had not cared to return them.On further inquiry and by deducing that if people had copied the two missing volumes, then they were likely to still exist, Lin finally found them.He recovered volumes of the original copy by Cai Yongjian and an unspecified number of copies of the two previously missing volumes.Because of differences in the texts that Lin received-he mentions copies in the possession of Zhuang Weiji 庄为玑, Chen Sidong 陈泗东, Chen Yundun 陈允敦, and Chen Cunguang 陈存广-he struggled to compile, revise, and edit the text, but nevertheless he earmarked it for publication in the Quanzhouxue yanjiu xilie congshu 泉 州学研究系列丛书 (Compendium of the research series on Quanzhou studies).
When Barend ter Haar undertook research in Quanzhou in 1993, he met Lin Shaochuan, who believed in the 'credibility of the manuscript' because the present owner-could that have been young Huang or the anonymous shopkeeper?-did not 'possess sufficient cultural knowledge to fake (parts of) the text' .To prove that the manuscript was correct and genuine, Lin handed Ter Haar a copy of his article on Master Pu published in Haijiaoshi yanjiu 海交史研 究 in 1991 in addition to an article on the Xishan zazhi with no date and place kurz Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land-en Volkenkunde 172 (2016) 510-537 of publication.27He declared that the text had one single author and that the paper on which it was written was old.The article that Lin showed to Ter Haar was probably Chen Guoqiang's.Ter Haar suggested that the old paper does 'not preclude a falsification' undertaken in the late Qing dynasty or the Republican period.
How should we understand Lin's ideas about the text?If what he said in 2006 is true, then only the four surviving volumes were written by Cai Yongjian, but the other two were copies in the hands of local people like xiao Huang.Do all copies have the same credibility?Lin rediscovered the Xishan zazhi in the late 1980s, but how is it possible that the Anhai local gazetteer's (Anhai zhi 安海志) editorial office already had a copy of the Xishan zazhi in 1983?28 Obviously at least parts of the text had been quoted in the gazetteer of Anhai town (Anhai zhen 安海镇) that was circulated internally (neibu 内部), that is, amongst cadres.Zheng Xifu 鄭喜夫 and Wei Yongchun 魏永春 (2013:7) refer to a biography of Cai Yongjian in the Anhai zhi.This text explains that the original Xishan zazhi comprised of no more than ten volumes, which were preserved in the Jinjiang district library (Jinjiang xian tushuguan 晋江县图书馆), just like Li (1988) had said.
All copies circulating in 1988 were presumably copied from this master text.Furthermore, in 1988 the Jinjiang district museum (Jinjiang xian bowuguan 晋 江县博物馆) was planning to send the text to the press.29 Lin referred not once to the Anhua district text nor to the one held by the Jinjiang district library, both of which possibly antedate the text he had retrieved.

Western Scholarship on Master Pu and the 'Pucuo'
Western scholarship was slow to pick up on the subject of Master Pu's tombstone and its connection to the Xishan zazhi.The study of early Brunei history was for a long time the preserve of local scholars and expatriates working in the country itself; in addition, so far no publication by local scholars has hit the book shelves or download sites.The works that have had the largest impact  Hall (2008).Hall placed the location of the tombstone in an 'estuary' , which may be the geologically correct designation, but failed to acknowledge that the cemetery is situated in the present-day capital of Brunei Darussalam, Bandar Seri Begawan.For Hall, Pu was a member of the Pu clan and he thus reconfirmed Franke and Ch'en (1973) and Karim (1993).30 After acknowledging Franke and Ch'en (1973) and Franke (1991), Chaffee (2009:120) explained: 'Evidence for Sino-Muslim traders in this period is rare, but there is an intriguing Chinese stone inscription from a Muslim cemetery in Borneo for a Mr. Pu ('Abu'), supervisor from Quanzhou 泉州判院蒲公 dated 1273.31Kenneth Hall argues quite plausibly that Pu was a member of the Muslim Pu clan of Pu Shougeng.' Chaffee continued to follow Hall (2008) by accepting Chen Dasheng's dating of the Maharaja Brunei tombstone to 1301 as correct.As I have mentioned above, 1301 was but an educated guess by Chen.On account of the as yet unconfirmed religious affiliation of Master Pu and the original provenance of the tombstone, I find Chaffee's confirmation of Hall's statements obscure.In 2008 Hall had not yet referred to the Xishan zazhi directly, but he did so in 2011.His translation was largely based on the one found in Karim (1993).He refers to the Xishan zazhi as a 'Ming era source' , while misrepresenting Zhuang Weiji as Zhuang Qi Ji (Hall 2011:62, 72n32).He replaces the Hanyu pinyin transcription of the Pu surname in the Wong translation with Bu.He does not explain why he shifted the pronunciation of the character 蒲 from Pu to Bu, but perhaps he did so because he had introduced Master Pu as Master Bu two paragraphs prior to the presentation of the Xishan zazhi excerpt.32The pronunciation Bu was more likely to represent Abu perhaps, and is thus an indication of the Muslim background of Master Pu.Hall did not discuss the veracity of the Xishan zazhi or examine its credibility, and was indifferent towards the etymological origins of the character pu.Ferrand (1922), albeit in an easily overlooked footnote, disputed the Arabic connotation of the character Pu.33 Instead, he suggested that Pu was part of an honorific title in pre-modern 'Indonesia' , similar to Mpu.In addition, the character may also have been used to transcribe the same or a similar title, Po, from the Cham language.That of course would fit with the names of the two gentlemen mentioned in the 977 Taiping huanyuji 太平寰宇記 record of Boni渤泥, namely Puyali 蒲亞利 and Puluxie 蒲盧歇 (Yue Shi 樂史 2007:179.3436-3437).
The examples of Guy (2010) and De Vienne (2015) illustrate continuing scholarly inaccuracies in relation to Master Pu.Guy identifies Pu Zongmin as a southern Song ambassador from Quanzhou to Brunei and explains that 'his grave site bears the oldest Chinese tombstone in Island Southeast Asia' .He credits Franke and Ch'en (1973) as the source of this information (Guy 2010:163).This is not quite accurate because Franke and Ch'en (1973) never referred to Master Pu as Pu Zongmin.Clearly, Guy had not consulted Karim (1993), otherwise he would not have assumed the tombstone to be marking a 'gravesite ' .34For De Vienne (2015), relations between Brunei and China began when 'the first Brunei embassy sailed on a Sino-Muslim ship from Quanzhou looking for camphor, tortoise-shells and sandalwood […]' .She is probably referring to the entry in the Taiping huanyuji that appeared earlier in her essay.The text does not refer to the ship as a Sino-Muslim ship-it only says it was commanded by a foreigner ( fanren 番人)-nor does it identify its port of origin as Quanzhou.35estuary commemorating "Master Bu", provides a vital local window on Boni's thirteenth century trade networking.[…] This inscription and China sources establish that the Bu family had come from Arabia to China by way of the "South Seas", probably from Southeast Asia.'He only made minor changes to his 2008 text.33 Stephen G. Haw drew my attention to this important footnote.34 Guy (2010:164) also refers to the studies by Chen Dasheng (1992 and1995) and the study by Nicholl (1984).Employing the assertive conditional that is symptomatic of studies of early Brunei history, Guy says: 'Despite the Indic title given to him by the Chinese chronicler, the Brunei ruler must have (my emphasis) been a Muslim.'The 'Indic title' of the Boni chieftain originates with Groeneveldt (1877:111), who transcribed the Chinese original Manarejiana as Maradja Ka-la.See on this also Brown 1974.The transcription 'Maharaja Karna' appears to have come from Nicholl (1984).He used it first in an unpublished and typewritten manuscript, which antedates his 1984 article.35 De Vienne (2015:32n59) identifies this foreigner as an Arab merchant.

Concluding Remarks
What we can state with certainty is that Master Pu died probably in or around 1264,37 and that his son(s) had a stone inscribed to mark his tomb.The stele itself is made from a stone that does not naturally occur in Borneo (Karim 1993:5).It is impossible to identify the position of Master Pu or to reconstruct his first name.In addition, we cannot confirm his religious persuasion.For Geoff Wade (2010a:380), for instance, the identification of Master Pu as a Muslim is a mere assumption.Most likely the stone arrived from China in Brunei at a date later than 1264, perhaps in Kota Batu, from whence it was removed and put up in the Rangas cemetery in the 1930s.Karim (1993:8) provides the information that the stone was purchased as part of a shipment of stones from Kota Batu for the building of a shop house in Brunei Town (since 1968 Bandar Seri Begawan).An unidentified person then bought the stone as a marker of the tomb of a family member buried in the Rangas cemetery.
Possibly the stone had been erected upon the death of Master Pu in Quanzhou.How and when it arrived from Quanzhou in northern Borneo, however, cannot be ascertained, unless of course one accepts the as yet unfounded narrative of Master Pu having actually travelled himself to Boni and that Boni is the precursor of modern Brunei.Authors like to point to artefacts such as ceramics and coins dating to the early Song dynasty as evidence of direct trade relations between Brunei and China.38The problem with this is that we do not know how and when exactly the items arrived at their present location.
The earliest evidence of a naval vessel in Brunei waters is the so-called Brunei shipwreck that was discovered in 1997 about 40 km off the coast of Brunei, and whose shipment of ceramics from Thailand, Vietnam, and China was consequently salvaged in 1998.So far the ship, of which nothing remains, has been dated to the late fifteenth or early sixteenth century on account of the porcelain it was carrying.39Interestingly, Wang Gungwu, who was consulted for a tv programme produced in 2001 entitled The sultan's lost treasure, which dealt with the Brunei shipwreck, explained that the ship very likely had not come from China, but from a port in Southeast Asia-he suggested Vietnam-and that the Chinese component of the shipment had reached that port from China.40That contradicts the widely held belief of direct trade relations between Brunei and China since the tenth century.The discovery of porcelain and ceramics dating to the tenth century, especially in Sungai Limau Manis in 2002, certainly reinforced this conception.41 None of the details concerning the Brunei tombstone provided by the Xishan zazhi can be substantiated, namely that Master Pu's full name was Pu Zongmin; that he died in Boni in 1247; that he was a three-time envoy from the Song dynasty; and that his son Ying buried him when he served as an envoy to Boni, then had the stone made and shipped to Boni in 1264.Cleverly, however, the text never refers straightforwardly to Pu as a Muslim.Instead, persons and places that have a more or less well-defined Muslim connection appear in the text.Wade (2010b)  the 'Pucuo' has Pu Zongmin move from Fujian to Champa, while one of the early Pu, Pu Youliang, in the third paragraph serves in Champa.That same paragraph also establishes the relationship between the Pu in the tenth century and the famous Pu Shougeng in the thirteenth century.The affiliation of the Pu as residents of Quanzhou serves to underline their Muslim identity, as that city has a long history of Muslim communities living in or near it.43Incidentally, the year 1991, when the Xishan zazhi was introduced as the key to the identity of Master Pu, was the year that Brunei and the People's Republic of China began official diplomatic relations (on 30 September).Master Pu as an early envoy has been instrumental in attesting to the existence of ancient links between the two countries.Yet, in a publication dedicated to the fifteenth anniversary of official relations, Master Pu paradoxically is not mentioned because this volume was focusing on the even more interesting persona of the Boni chieftain who allegedly was a king of ancient Brunei and died and was buried in Nanjing in 1408.44However, Master Pu was at the center of the 2015 exhibition in Brunei that displayed prominent examples of historical cooperation.In preparation for the exhibition, the deputy director of the Quanzhou Maritime Museum went to look for the tomb (mu 墓); he noted that 'though it was hard to find, it is still well preserved' .'Tomb' in this case can only refer to the tombstone, the location of which was not disclosed.45Huang Haothe father of Pu Shougeng, of Arab descent, and resident of Champa, and the other a jinshi from Houguan in Fujian.These two became mixed up in the sources and hence Pu Shougeng was given a Fujian background.As for the Xishan zazhi, it cannot be considered a genuine historical text.This is because of its provenance as a handwritten manuscript that only resurfaced in the early 1980s; the fact that it was only seen, studied, and published piecemeal by an exclusive group of people from southern Fujian; and because it only provides explanations for solid material that so far cannot be otherwise explained (for instance, a tombstone in Brunei, rock carvings in Hui'an and the ancient Quanzhou boat).To back up this suspicion or to discard it, we will need to await the publication of the text, which will most likely not be happening soon.
The defenders of the Xishan zazhi will say that it provides intimate information that would not have been picked up by official records, or even private records.The text is said to have never been printed or published because of political reasons during the Qing dynasty, and secondly, because Lin Shaochuan apparently is unable to reconcile the various copies that are circulating.
What is obvious is that the excerpts that appeared over the years are linked to material remains and issues that are related to Fujian.The Xishan zazhi provides answers to these, albeit in the case of Master Pu in a haphazard way.Additionally, the acceptance of the Xishan zazhi as a historical source for either political or academic reasons by scholars rather hampers an objective approach to the study of early Borneo-China relations.
If we could with absolute certainty place the tombstone of Master Pu in Brunei in 1264, then indeed the inscription would be the oldest Chinese epigraph in Southeast Asia.If we could further prove that Master Pu indeed was an envoy from the Song dynasty, we would have to rethink pre-modern contacts between China and Borneo.However, with the material at hand, this is impossible.
People in Quanzhou refer to Quanzhou as Wenling colloquially, but I have not been able to trace a scholarly work on this.50If Wenling in fact does refer to Quanzhou, then the statement about it being a dao is incorrect as well.Quanzhou, first established in the Tang period, was referred to as Quanzhou Qingyuan prefecture (Quanzhou Qingyuan jun 泉州清源郡) within the Fujian provincial circuit (Fujian lu 福建路) in the Song era, became Quanzhou route command (lu 路) in Yuan times, before it finally achieved the status of Quanzhou prefecture ( fu 府) in the Ming dynasty (Zang Lihe 臧勵龢 1982:636).
Duchayuan 都察院: The Censorate (duchayuan) was established as one of the major agencies of the central government only in 1382 (Hucker 1985:7183 [536]).If we take du to refer to the capital, then the translation of chayuan should be Investigation Bureau, a designation pointing to an institution that had existed in the capital since the Tang dynasty.This agency was staffed with investigating censors ( jiancha yushi 監察禦史) (Hucker 1985:56 [105]).Hall's translation of duchayuan as chief censor is incorrect.
Tongpan 通判: A tongpan in Song times was a controller-general, who usually was sent on temporary assignments in the prefectures to check on prefects.In Ming times tongpan referred to an assistant prefect in a prefecture (Hucker 1985:555).The original text does not include the explanation that a tongpan is a panyuan ( ji panyuan 即判院).This very likely has been inserted to make clear that Pu Zongmin, the tongpan of the Xishan zazhi, was Master Pu, who is addressed as a panyuan in the tombstone inscription.A tongpan is not the same as a panyuan.Panyuan (also pan yuanshi 判院事) means being in charge of an agency.51Gong Yanming suggests that panyuan is short for pan dengwen yuan shi 判登聞院事 (supervisor of the affairs of the Public Petitioners Office), established in 995 which was renamed dengwen jianyuan 登聞檢院 (Public Petition- and Chen Dasheng's work.11Of specific interest here was the excerpt of the Xishan zazhi on Pu Zongmin from Zhuang Weiji's text, as it recognized Pu Zongmin as Master Pu. Quanzhou conference where he had met Wolfgang Franke.It is likely that he received the text of the relevant Xishan zazhi entry through Zhuang Weiji's earlier article, although he does not mention this.Liu positively identifies Master Pu as Pu Zongmin ('mu zhu 'Quanzhou panyuan Pu Gong' ji Pu Zongmin' 墓主泉州判院蒲公即蒲宗閔) and concludes that he possibly died overseas.Liu suggests that the stele was perhaps erected several years after Pu's death, which may have occurred prior to 1264.Xie Fang 谢方 (1998) was among the first to point out factual inaccuracies of the 'Pucuo' .Xie has vast experience with texts from the Ming and Qing dynasties.17He begins his examination with the tombstone and explains that it was either commissioned by Master Pu's son Yingjia, or his sons Pu Ying and Pu Jia.18He then asks several questions: What is the full name of Master Pu? What kind of official position is panyuan?Why is Pu buried in Brunei?Who are Pu Ying and Pu Jia, and what is their relationship to Pu Shougeng in Quanzhou?
14A study of what 'Bosi' may have referred to is provided by Haw forthcoming.15 Or 'Pu Huazi and Pu Youliang' .16 Liu Yingsheng 1995:151-2.Interestingly, Nie Dening 聂德宁, author of yet another outline of the ancient trade relations between China and Brunei, refers to a copy of the Xishan Downloaded from Brill.com04/14/2019 02:11:13PM via free access kurz Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land-en Volkenkunde 172 (2016) 510-537 the 1991 In the Minshu 閩書 by He Qiaoyuan 何喬遠 ( jinshi 1586) of the late Ming period, a Pu Kaizong 蒲開宗 is listed as the father of Pu Shougeng, and Xie says that through copy errors Pu Kaizong may have morphed into Pu Zongmin.19He furthermore points out that whereas Pu Zongmin is said to have been a jinshi, Pu Kaizong was a merchant in Guangzhou.20 See Nie 2008.17 Xie has annotated the Xiyang chaogong dianlu 西洋朝貢典錄 (Record of the customs of the tributaries in the Western Ocean, 1520) by Huang Shengzeng 黃省曾; the Dong Xi yang kao 東西洋考 (On the Eastern and Western oceans, 1618) by Zhang Xie 張燮; and the Zhifang waiji 職方外紀 (Record of places outside the known world) by Giulio Aleni (Chinese name: Ai Rulüe 艾儒略, 1582-1649).See Xie (2000a and b).18 Xie incorrectly dates the Franke and Ch'en 1973 article to 1993.See Xie 1998:108n1.Downloaded from Brill.com04/14/2019 02:11:13PM via free access Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land-en Volkenkunde 172 (2016) 510-537 (see below).

The Discovery of the Xishan Zazhi
19Xie merely refers to juan 153 of the Minshu.The relevant entry is found in HeQiaoyuan  1995, vol.5, 152.4494.20For a discussion of some of the names and terms in the 'Pucuo' , see the Appendix.21Thetermappears in Zhou Daguan 周達觀 2000:76.WanMing 万明 (2004:12-3)views the use of the term in the Xishan zazhi with similar caution.22According to Cai Huiren 蔡惠仁 (2015), the Renhe gongsuo was founded in 1883, and its members predominantly came from Dongshi in Jinjiang.They named their society after the old name for Dongshi, Renhe hamlet (Renhe li 仁和里).To commemorate the centennial of the Jin Hoe Association-as they refer to themselves-in 1983, a booklet of pinpointing the start of mutual relations either in the Liang dynasty of the sixth century ('Poli'/Brunei) or the early Song dynasty in the tenth century ('Boni'/Brunei), without referring to the tombstone and the 'Pucuo's' Pu Zongmin at all.23In 2006 the Dongnan zaobao 东南早报 published an article about the Xishan zazhi in which Lin Shaochuan figures prominently.24In the article Zhu Caiyun 朱彩云, the reporter, talks with a local villager from Bogu village, Dongshi township of Jinjiang city 晋江东石檗谷,25 referred to only as young Huang (xiao Huang 小黄).
http://news.sohu.com/20060220/n241915387.shtml (4-2-2015).25Jinjiang is administered by Quanzhou and is the location of Quanzhou airport.Dongshi is located on the coast.Downloaded from Brill.com04/14/2019 02:11:13PM via free access Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land-en Volkenkunde 172 (2016) 510-537 written by foreigners, and the first book that enjoyed moderate success in terms of sales and citations was Graham Saunders's A history of Brunei, first published in 1994.Saunders (2002:36)merely reiterated Franke's idea of Pu's burial ('there is no doubt about the tomb of a Chinese Muslim, Chin (2010:159)explains he consulted an entry from the Xishan zazhi in the Anhai gazetteer relevant for his study.Anhai zhen is located in Jinjiang district.29 See the first paragraph of Li Yukun 1988 for this.Downloaded from Brill.com04/14/2019 02:11:13PM via free access Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land-en Volkenkunde 172 (2016) 510-537 have mostly been De Vienne similarly regards Master Pu as a Muslim ('born in Quanzhou') and refers to the stele as 'the first Muslim epigraph [sic]' .Hence like Hall, Chaffee, and Guy, De Vienne concludes that Islam arrived in Brunei from Quanzhou.36 Downloaded from Brill.com04/14/2019 02:11:13PM via free access Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land-en Volkenkunde 172 (2016) 510-537 36 De Vienne 2011:27-8.The accepted version of the spread of Islam in Brunei is linked to the third sultan, Sharif Ali, who as a descendant of the Prophet Mohammad arrived directly from Taif, Arabia.By marrying the daughter of his predecessor he assumed the throne.See Schelander 1998:15 and Saunders 2002:42.37 The jiazi year extended into mid-January 1265.38 See for instance Haji Matussin bin Omar 1994:6.For a critical remark on the scarcity of archaeological evidence, see De Vienne 2015:19.
kurz Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land-en Volkenkunde 172 (2016) 510-537 provides a family history of the Pu, based on sources and literature published so far.He identifies the Pu as Arabs or Persians and as residents of Champa, who later moved to Quanzhou.42The first paragraph of to thank Geoff Wade for providing me with a copy of his essay.For a Chinese contribution to the discussion, see Zhang Xiumin 张秀民1979.Zeng Zhaoxuan 曾昭璇 1991 suggests that Pu was a resident of Guangzhou and hailed from Central Asia.Hu Xiaowei 胡晓伟 2015 explains that there were two men of the name Pu Kaizong: one Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land-en Volkenkunde 172 (2016) 510-537 Chaffee 2006and Fan 20019, on Quanzhou, Fujian, and their Muslim connection, see alsoChaffee 2006and Fan 2001 and 2003.There are of course many authors who have dealt with the topic.For a good introduction to Quanzhou as an important centre of maritime commerce, see Schottenhammer 2001.The famous Quanzhou mosque is treated in Steinhardt 2008.This building is regarded as the earliest proof of the existence of a Muslim community in Quanzhou, having been built probably between 1009 and 1010.The remains, visible today, date from 1310.44 The editor of the book in his preface emphasizes 'friendly exchanges between the two countries' and that 'the earliest records date back more than 2,000 years' (Liu Xinsheng 2006).The alleged long-standing relations between China and Borneo in general implicitly also serve to underline Chinese claims to the South China Sea, as in Wan Kong (2013:1): 'Historical relations between China and Borneo can be traced back two thousand years or more.Borneo has in fact been a significant part of China's orbit ever since the Chinese conquered [sic] the South China Sea.' 45 See Quanzhou xiayue fu Wenlai ban haisi tezhan-kan liangdi jinghuo wenhua yuanyuan 泉州下月赴文莱办海丝特展看两地经货文化渊源 (Quanzhou to prepare special exhibition on maritime silk road in Brunei-to display origins of trade and culture of Downloaded from Brill.com04/14/2019 02:11:13PM via free access 50The Wenming feng 文明风 website presents an article with the title 'Quanzhou baijia xing zhi Lin: zhongxiao you sheng tiandi lao, gujin wushu zisun xian' 泉州百家姓之 林： 忠孝有声天地老古今无数子孙贤, 18-6-2013, http://wmf.fjsen.com/wmcl/2013-06/18/content_11678126_3.htm(accessed9-2-2015).This is the only reference for Quanzhou/Wenling i could find so far.51Hucker1985:364provides a list of offices in the Song dynasty that a panyuan could supervise.Boni shan 渤泥山: This term describes Boni as a mountain, but may also refer to it being an island most certainly inhabited by southern barbarians (man Downloaded from Brill.com04/14/2019 02:11:13PM via free access 蠻).Downloaded from Brill.com04/14/2019 02:11:13PM via free access