The Names They Gave to Giants: How Southeast Asia's Kingdoms Named, Perceived, and Navigated India and China

The Names They Gave to Giants: How Southeast Asia's Kingdoms Named, Perceived, and Navigated India and China

This analysis traces the ancient, mediated pathways of knowledge and nomenclature between India, China, and Southeast Asia, revealing how geographic and cultural barriers shaped civilizational perception. The foundational revelation is that direct Sino-Indian contact was impossible across the Himalayas, forcing initial interaction through the Indus Valley gateway in the northwest. This geographic imperative dictated the names they gave each other: India learned of "Cīna" (from the Qin state) via Central Asian traders, while China understood India as "Tiānzhú" (from Sindhu, the Indus River) via the same intermediaries. These names were not mere labels but encoded the nature of the relationship—China as a distant source of silk, India as a western holy land.

Southeast Asia inherited and powerfully localized these terms, sorting them into two distinct cognitive categories. Names for China (Cīna, Jeen, Tayoke) arrived via secular trade networks, framing it as the "Profitable North"—a political and material powerhouse engaged through diplomacy and commerce. In contrast, names for India (Jambudvīpa, Chomphuthip, Zabudipa) arrived via sacred textual transmission, framing it as the "Sacred West"—the civilizational source of religion, statecraft, and legitimacy. This dichotomy is examined through the unique historical lenses of Indonesia (the maritime synthesizer), Thailand (the pragmatic balancer), Burma (the overland Buddhist recipient), and Vietnam (the resistant Sinic sibling). The process, defined by scholar O.W. Wolters as "localization," demonstrates how Southeast Asian elites actively selected and reinterpreted foreign influences to forge resilient, hybrid identities, using ancient names as tools for geopolitical and cultural self-definition that resonate into the modern political era.

This note explores the intricate historical processes by which the major kingdoms of Southeast Asia—Indonesia, Thailand, Burma, and Vietnam—came to name, understand, and strategically position themselves between the two civilizational giants of India and China. It traces the pathways of knowledge, which were never direct, but filtered through specific geographic and cultural corridors. We examine how the initial contact between India and China itself occurred via the northwestern Indus Valley, not their shared eastern border, setting a precedent for mediated awareness. The core revelation is that Southeast Asia did not simply receive these names passively; it actively sorted them into distinct cognitive categories: one set of terms for the sacred and civilizational source (India), and another for the political and material powerhouse (China). This naming practice became a foundational act of geopolitical and cultural self-definition.

Part I: The Indus Gateway and the Birth of Mutual Nomenclature

Before Southeast Asia could name these giants, the giants had to name each other. This occurred not through a Himalayan dialogue, but along a circuitous northern arc.

The Geographic Imperative: The formidable barriers of the Himalayas and the dense jungles of the northeastern frontier made direct Sino-Indian contact virtually impossible in the ancient era. Instead, as historian Tansen Sen establishes, "the initial interactions between India and China were mediated through the oasis states of Central Asia." The Silk Road’s precursor routes from China’s Hexi Corridor converged not on Bengal, but on the Indus River Valley—the region of Gandhāra. Thus, China's first "India" was the land of the Sindhu (Indus River).

How India Named China: The Term "Cīna"
The Sanskrit name Cīna (चीन) is the lexical seed from which most global names for China grew. Its origin lies in the northwestern contact zone.

1. Source: Scholarly consensus, supported by Edwin G. Pulleyblank, points to the western Chinese state of Qin (秦). The Qin dynasty's prominence near Central Asian trade routes meant its name was carried westwards by steppe intermediaries.
2. Transmission: Scythian and Persian traders transmitted a form of "Qin" (likely Chin) south into the Indian subcontinent via the Khyber and Bolan passes. Linguist Christopher I. Beckwith notes that this transmission highlights the role of Inner Asian peoples as "the primary catalysts in the exchange of goods and ideas between the major civilizations."
3. Indian Textual Evidence: The name is embedded early. The Mahābhārata lists the Cīna as a northwestern tribe. Kautilya’s Arthaśāstra (c. 2nd century BCE) discusses Cīna-paṭṭa (Chinese silk), and the Laws of Manu places them in the north. India thus knew China first as a distant, silk-producing entity from the inner Asian landmass.

How China Named India: From "Shēndú" to "Tiānzhú"
China’s nomenclature for India faithfully reflects the Indus-centric first contact.

1. The Indus Root: All early Chinese names derive from Sindhu. The Persians pronounced it "Hindu," and this form reached the Han court.
2. Phonetic Renderings:
• Shēndú (身毒): Used in Sima Qian’s Shiji (c. 100 BCE), a direct attempt to transliterate "Sindhu."
• Tiānzhú (天竺): The dominant term from the Han through Tang dynasties. While Tiān means "heaven," its use was initially phonetic, approximating "Hin-." However, as Buddhism flourished, the character’s meaning perfectly sanctified India as the "Heavenly Central" land of the Dharma. Historian John Kieschnick observes that "Tiānzhú" transformed India in the Chinese mind into a "Buddhist utopia."
3. Standardization: The pilgrim Xuanzang, dissatisfied with inaccuracies, advocated for Yìndù (印度) in the 7th century, a closer transliteration that became permanent.

Thus, the foundational knowledge was triangular: Central Asia mediated between India and China, with the Indus Valley serving as the physical and lexical gateway.

China's earliest knowledge and contact with the Indian subcontinent was overwhelmingly via the Indus River basin (the northwest), not the eastern side. The influence of the Indus River on the name is central to this story. Here’s a breakdown of how and why: 1. The Geographic Pathway: The Northern Land Routes The formidable natural barriers between China and India—the Himalayas, the dense jungles of Northeast India, and Burma—made direct eastern contact nearly impossible in ancient times. Instead, the connection was forged along the Northern Land Routes, which later became part of the Silk Road network. Route: From China's heartland (Chang'an), through the Gansu Corridor, around the Taklamakan Desert (via oasis cities like Kashgar), and over the Pamir Mountains. Entry Point into India: These routes descended not into eastern India, but into the Indus River Valley—specifically the region of Gandhāra (modern-day northern Pakistan/eastern Afghanistan). This was the gateway. 2. The "Sindhu" → "Hindu" → Chinese Names Chain This geography directly dictated the names China learned: Sindhu (सिन्धु): The ancient Sanskrit name for the Indus River. By extension, it came to refer to the land and people around it. Persian Mediation: The Persians (Achaemenid Empire), who ruled up to the Indus, encountered this word. In Old Persian, an initial "s" sound often became an "h." Thus, Sindhu became Hindu. The Persian term Hinduš referred to the land of the Indus. Transmission to China: Chinese explorers, diplomats, and traders first heard about this distant western land not from Indians directly, but from Central Asian and Persian intermediaries (Sogdians, Bactrians, Parthians) along those northern routes. They heard a word like Hindu or Sindhu. Chinese Transcription: The early Chinese scribes then tried to phonetically transcribe this foreign sound using Chinese characters: Shēndú (身毒) in Sima Qian's Records (c. 100 BCE) likely attempts to capture "Sindhu." Tiānzhú (天竺) became the most common early term. The first character Tiān means "heaven," but this was almost certainly a phonetic borrowing chosen for its sound, not its meaning (a common practice called xiéshēng). "Tiānzhú" is a much closer match to the transmitted "Hindu" than to the original "Sindhu." In short: The Chinese names are phonetic imitations of the Persian-modified name for the Indus River, which they learned as the label for the entire region lying beyond the western mountains. 3. Later Refinement: The Shift to Yìndù (印度) By the Tang Dynasty (7th-9th centuries CE), direct contact between China and India had deepened dramatically, primarily through Buddhist pilgrimage and translation. The great monk-scholar Xuanzang, after his 17-year journey to India, argued in his work The Great Tang Records on the Western Regions that the old transliterations were inaccurate and inconsistent. He advocated for Yìndù (印度), a new, more precise phonetic transliteration that better mirrored the contemporary pronunciation of "India." Crucially, the character Dù (度) was often used in Buddhist texts to translate Sanskrit syllables like "-dha" or "-ta." This shows the shift was driven by scholarly, linguistically-aware Buddhist translators, not just traders. "Yìndù" became standard and remains the modern word for India. Summary: The Indus-Centered Explanation Geography Dictates Contact: The only feasible early routes led to Northwest India (Indus Basin). Intermediaries Dictate the Name: Chinese learned the Persian-derived name Hindu (from Sindhu, the Indus) from Central Asian traders. Phonetic Transcription: Early Chinese terms (Shēndú, Tiānzhú) are attempts to write that sound. Scholarly Correction: With direct knowledge, later Buddhist scholars refined the transliteration to Yìndù. Therefore, the enduring influence of the Indus River in China's name for India is a direct linguistic fossil, preserved from those first indirect contacts that came from the northwest, not the east. It's a testament to how geography shapes history and language. The name by which ancient India referred to China is "Cīna" (चीन)—and it is the ultimate root for the Western names "China," "Chine," etc. The Evidence and Usage Textual Sources: The term Cīna appears in several key ancient Indian texts: The Mahābhārata (composed between 3rd century BCE and 3rd century CE) mentions the Cīna people, often in lists of northwestern tribes. The Arthaśāstra of Kauṭilya (circa 2nd century BCE – 3rd century CE) refers to Chinese silk as "Cīnaṃśuka" (Cīna-silk) or "Cīna-paṭṭa" (Cīna-silk cloth), indicating that "Cīna" was the source of a prized traded commodity. Legal Smṛti texts like the Manusmṛti (circa 2nd century BCE – 3rd century CE) place the Cīnas in a geographical context, often with other border peoples. Early Buddhist Jātaka tales and Pali texts also mention Cīna. Spread of the Name: From India, the term traveled west. The Sanskrit Cīna (likely via Persian Chīn) became Greek Σῖναι (Sīnai), Latin Sinae, and eventually Arabic aṣ-Ṣīn (الصين). This became the root for the Western names, entering Europe through medieval trade and texts. The Debate on the Root of "Cīna" There is no absolute scholarly consensus, but two primary theories dominate, both pointing to a specific Chinese polity from the late 1st millennium BCE: 1. The "Qin" Dynasty Theory (Most Popular) Argument: The Sanskrit Cīna is derived from the name of the Qin Dynasty (秦, pronounced "Chin," 221-206 BCE), the short-lived but immensely consequential dynasty that first unified China. Logic: The Qin state existed and was powerful in western China for centuries before unification, precisely along the trade routes (like the later Silk Road) that would have connected to Central Asia and India. The unification under Qin Shihuangdi would have made the dynasty's name synonymous with the entire region to outside traders. Phonetically, the Old Chinese pronunciation of "Qin" is reconstructed as something like *dzin or *gin, which is a plausible source for Cīna. Strength: It is chronologically and geographically plausible. The timing of the Qin's rise coincides with increased interactions across Inner Asia. 2. The "Jin" State Theory Argument: It may refer to the earlier Jin State (晋, 11th century – 376 BCE), a major power during the Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods, located in what is now central China. Logic: Jin was a dominant and wealthy state for centuries before Qin. Its Old Chinese pronunciation is reconstructed as *tsin, also a good match for Cīna. Some scholars argue that contact could have been earlier, via the Northern Steppe route, making the contemporaneous powerful state of Jin the likely referent. Strength: Accounts for potentially earlier contact and the prominence of Jin in its era. The Verdict and Important Context Current Scholarly Weight: The "Qin" theory is more widely accepted, primarily because the Qin's consolidation of the western frontier and its legacy as a unified empire created a durable external identity for China. Not a Self-Referential Term: It is crucial to understand that "Cīna" was an external exonym used by Indians (and later others). Ancient Chinese people did not call themselves "Cīna" or "Qin" in this broad sense after the dynasty fell; they used terms like Zhōngguó (中國, "Central States"), Huáxià (華夏), or dynasty names (e.g., Hàn). Route of Transmission: The name almost certainly did not come directly from China to India, but via Central Asian intermediaries (Saka, Sogdian, or Bactrian traders) along the nascent Silk Road networks. These intermediaries transmitted the name of the eastern civilization they traded with. Other Ancient Indian Terms Later, as Buddhist contact intensified (from 1st century CE onward), more specific terms emerged: Mahācīna (Greater China): Sometimes used. References to specific Chinese regions or cities known through Buddhist pilgrims, but Cīna remained the foundational and most influential term. In summary: Ancient Indians called China "Cīna." The most compelling root is the name of the Qin Dynasty, which unified China just as long-distance Eurasian exchange was accelerating, causing the dynasty's name to be projected westward as the identifier for the entire land and its people.

 

Part II: The Southeast Asian Synthesis: Localizing the Giants

Southeast Asia inherited these names not from the source, but via the mediums of its own unique engagements—trade for China, religion for India. The region then performed a profound act of cognitive sorting, embedding the names into its own worldview.

1. The Indonesian Archipelago: The Maritime Middleman

Perception: A strategic maritime nexus that viewed both giants through the lens of commerce and universal religion.

• On China:
• Name: Cina (from Sanskrit Cīna, via Indian and Persian Muslim traders). The modern term Tiongkok (from Zhōngguó) is a 20th-century political adoption.
• View: China was the preeminent trading partner and source of luxuries. The historian Anthony Reid, in Southeast Asia in the Age of Commerce, identifies it as the "dominant market." Chinese ceramics (porselen), silk, and coins were integral to local economies and status systems. Communities of Chinese merchants were established in ports like Palembang and Tuban, seen as useful but separate. As Indonesian chronicler Pramoedya Ananta Toer reflected, "China was a fact of life… a source of wealth and occasional brides, but not a model for the state."
• On India:
• Names: Jambudwipa (in Old Javanese texts, from Sanskrit cosmology) and Hindustan (from Persian, in Malay literature).
• View: India was the civilizational "source." It transmitted Hinduism, Buddhism, and the framework of kingship. The great archaeologist John N. Miksic notes that Indian concepts provided "the ideological glue" for states like Srivijaya and Majapahit. This was not imitation but localization—the Ramayana became the Javanese Kakawin, and Shiva merged with local deities. Scholar Hermann Kulke calls this a process where "Indian ‘great tradition’ was selectively adopted and reinterpreted by local elites."

2. Thailand (Siam): The Balanced Buddha Realm

Perception: A mainland polity that expertly balanced the two influences, using them to build a resilient, sovereign identity.

• On China:
• Name: Jeen (จีน), from the Sanskrit Cīna.
• View: China was the "Great Emperor to the North," a crucial participant in the tributary system for political legitimacy and trade. As historian David K. Wyatt notes, "Ayutthaya’s kings were pragmatists; tribute to Beijing was a small price for recognition and profit." Chinese migrants played vital roles as bureaucrats and merchants. Yet, culturally, China remained external—a source of goods, not ideas.
• On India:
• Name: Chomphuthip (ชมพูทวีป), the formal term from Jambudvīpa, and the cosmological basis for kingship.
• View: India was the sacred fount of religion and statecraft. Theravada Buddhism (via Sri Lanka) and the concepts of Dhammaraja (righteous king) and Devaraja (god-king) were foundational. The Ramakien (the Thai Ramayana) is, as scholar Stanley J. Tambiah described, a "charter for kingship." Thailand absorbed the Indian "galactic polity" model but localized it utterly. The Thai script itself, while derived from Khmer (and ultimately Pallava scripts of South India), symbolizes this independent synthesis.

3. Burma (Myanmar): The Overland Buddhist Recipient

Perception: A land deeply shaped by overland contact with India, viewing China as a more distant, sometimes threatening, power.

• On China:
• Name: Tayoke (ကြေးတိုင်း), derived from Cīna via the Mon language (Kreik).
• View: China was a periodic continental power, respected but often antagonistic. Relations were characterized by border tensions and sporadic large-scale invasions (as under Kublai Khan). Trade existed, but the relationship lacked the systematic tributary intimacy of Siam. Burmese chronicles often portray China as a potential disruptor of the eastern frontier.
• On India:
• Name: Zabudipa (ဇမ္ဗူဒီပ), from Pali Jambudīpa.
• View: India was the Holy Land of Buddhism. Burma’s conversion to Theravada Buddhism defined its civilization. Pilgrimages to Bodh Gaya were undertaken, and the Pali Canon was meticulously preserved. As historian Michael Aung-Thwin writes, "Burmese monarchy drew its legitimacy from its role as defender and promoter of the Sasana (Buddhist teachings)." Indian artistic and architectural models (seen at Bagan) were directly imported and adapted, but always in service of a distinctly Burmese Buddhist state.

4. Vietnam: The Resistant Sinic Sibling

Perception: The unique case of a Southeast Asian society that politically and literarily absorbed the Chinese model, only to fiercely assert a separate southern identity, while looking to India for an alternative spiritual framework.

• On China:
• Name: Trung Quốc (中國), a direct Sino-Vietnamese borrowing meaning "Middle Kingdom."
• View: China was the civilizational antecedent and perennial antagonist. Vietnam used Chinese bureaucratic systems, Confucian ideology, and literary classics to administer its own state, a process historian Keith W. Taylor calls a "dialogic relationship." Yet, this was always paired with a ideology of resistance, encapsulated in phrases like "Nam Quốc Sơn Hà" (Southern Kingdom’s Rivers and Mountains). Vietnam saw itself as the rightful "Middle Kingdom" of the South.
• On India:
• Name: Historically Tây Trúc (西竺, "Western Cīna") in Buddhist contexts, later Ấn Độ (from Chinese Yìndù).
• View: India was the land of Buddhism, an alternative spiritual universe to the Chinese Confucian orthodoxy. While never politically dominant, Indian-inspired Cham kingdoms in the south and the widespread adoption of Mahayana Buddhism (especially under the Trần dynasty) provided a crucial counterweight to Sinitic influence. The scholar Li Tana notes that Indianized Champa represented "a different model of statecraft and cosmology" that contrasted sharply with the Sinicized Vietnamese court.

1. How Southeast Asia Referred to CHINA The terms generally fall into two broad families, corresponding to the two major spheres of historical influence: A. The "Sinitic" Family (Derived from Chinese Dynastic Names) This is used predominantly in Vietnam and, historically, in languages heavily influenced by Classical Chinese. Root: The Chinese endonym Zhōngguó (中國) – "Middle Kingdom" or "Central State." Examples: Vietnamese: Trung Quốc (中國). This is a direct Sino-Vietnamese borrowing, showing Vietnam's deep historical and literary connection to the Chinese imperial sphere. Historical Korean & Japanese: Also used Chūgoku (中国) in classical contexts, though these are Northeast Asian. Alternate Sinitic Root: "Đại Thanh" (大清) or "Đại Minh" (大明) were used in historical Vietnamese documents to refer to China by its current dynasty (Great Qing, Great Ming), a practice mirroring Chinese protocol. B. The "Cīna/Chin" Family (Derived via Indian & Persian Trade) This is the dominant pattern across maritime and mainland Southeast Asia, reflecting Indo-Persian transmission. Root: The Sanskrit/Persian term Cīna (चीन), as discussed previously, likely from the Qin Dynasty. Examples: Thai: Jeen (จีน) Khmer (Cambodian): Chen (ចិន) Lao: Jiin (ຈີນ) Malay/Indonesian: Cina (historically common, now often replaced by Tiongkok for political/social reasons, though Cina remains the standard root in ethnonyms like orang Cina). Burmese: Tayoke (ကြေးတိုင်း) – This is a notable variation, believed to be derived from "Cīna" via a Mon language intermediary (e.g., Kreik), showing sound shifts over centuries of land contact. Why this pattern? These terms entered the region via Indian and Persian Muslim traders who dominated the maritime silk routes. They brought the name Cīna/Chin with them to the ports of Sumatra, the Malay Peninsula, and the Gulf of Thailand, where it was adopted into local languages. 2. How Southeast Asia Referred to INDIA The names for India are even more telling, revealing the profound and lasting impact of Indianization—the spread of Hinduism, Buddhism, Sanskrit, and statecraft—across the region. A. The "Greater India" Concept (Sanskritic Roots) The most widespread and prestigious terms derive from Sanskrit "Jambudvīpa" or other classical names. Jambudvīpa / Zabudipa / Chomphuthip: Root: Jambudvīpa (जम्बुद्वीप), the name for the Indian subcontinent in Buddhist and Hindu cosmology (the "land of the rose-apple tree"). Examples: Thai: Chomphuthip (ชมพูทวีป) – Used in formal, literary, and religious contexts. Burmese: Zabudipa (ဇမ္ဗူဒီပ) – Used in Pali-based religious and historical contexts. Significance: This term arrived with Buddhist monks and Hindu Brahmins, who transmitted religion, statecraft, and literature. It signifies India as a sacred, civilizational source. Hindustan / Indu: Root: The Persian-derived Hindustan (land of the Hindus) or Sanskrit Indu. Examples: Malay/Indonesian: Hindustan – Used historically and poetically. Khmer: Hindustan (ហិណ្ឌូស្ថាន) – Also a formal term. B. The "Land of the Ganges" Pattern This reflects the immense sacred geographical importance of the Ganges River in Indian religion. Root: Gaṅgā (गङ्गा), the Ganges River. Examples: Thai: Krung Thep Maha Nakhon is Bangkok's ceremonial name, but historical Thai kingdoms saw themselves as part of a Buddhist world centered on the Ganges cosmology. More directly, the poetic name for India is Phra Bang Khan (พระบางคัน), referencing the Ganges. Khmer: Ganga (គង្គា) can refer to India in a cosmological sense. C. The "Western Land" Pattern (A Geographic Descriptor) This is a simple, directional term used in some languages. Root: West. Example: Vietnamese: Ấn Độ is the modern term (from Chinese Yìndù), but historically, Tây Trúc (西竺 – "Western Cīna") was used in Buddhist contexts to refer to the Indian homeland of Buddhism. Summary & Key Insights Region/Language Term for CHINA (Root) Term for INDIA (Root) Primary Influence Channel Vietnam Trung Quốc (Zhōngguó) Ấn Độ (via Chinese Yìndù) / Tây Trúc (Buddhist) Sinic Sphere (Classical Chinese texts) Thai/Khmer/Lao Jeen/Chen (Sanskrit Cīna) Chomphuthip (Sanskrit Jambudvīpa) Indianized Sphere (Buddhism/Hinduism + Maritime Trade) Malay/Indonesian Cina (Sanskrit Cīna) Hindustan (Persian) / Jambudwipa (Sanskrit) Maritime Trade (Indian & Persian merchants) Burmese Tayoke (via Mon from Cīna) Zabudipa (Pali Jambudīpa) Overland & Buddhist (via Mon kingdoms, Theravada Buddhism) The Big Picture: For China: The name spread primarily via traders (the Cīna/Chin family), except in Vietnam, which was part of the Sinic literary world (Zhōngguó/Trung Quốc). For India: The name spread primarily via religion and high culture (the Jambudvīpa family), reflecting India's role as the source of Buddhism, Hinduism, and Sanskrit statecraft. The terms are often more formal, cosmological, and sacred. These names are not just labels; they are historical fossils that tell us whether a Southeast Asian kingdom first understood its powerful neighbors primarily as trading partners (China) or as civilizational and religious mentors (India).

 

Part III: The Enduring Dichotomy and Modern Echoes

The pattern across the region is consistent and revealing:

• China-related names (Cīna, Jeen, Tayoke) arrived via secular, trade networks. They connoted material wealth, political power, and external diplomacy.
• India-related names (Jambudvīpa, Chomphuthip, Zabudipa) arrived via sacred, textual transmission. They connoted cosmology, legitimacy, law, and spiritual authority.

This dichotomy reflects what scholar O.W. Wolters termed the process of "localization," where foreign elements were stripped of their original context and made "to belong to the local culture." The names were not just labels; they were tools used by Southeast Asian elites to navigate a complex world.

In the modern era, these ancient names carry political weight. The Indonesian shift from Cina to Tiongkok is a post-colonial recalibration of identity. The Thai monarchy’s meticulous preservation of Pali-Sanskrit ritual, what scholar Maurizio Peleggi calls a "necromantic" project, directly draws on the sacred authority of the Indian connection to bolster modern legitimacy.

Conclusion: A Triangulated Worldview

The story of how Southeast Asia named India and China is ultimately the story of how it understood its own place in the world. It was a region that:

1. Received mediated knowledge from giants who themselves met indirectly via the Indus.
2. Categorized that knowledge into separate spheres: the profitable/material (China) and the sacred/civilizational (India).
3. Synthesized both with a persistent indigenous substrate to create unique, resilient cultures—from the Javanese wayang to the Thai wat, from the Vietnamese nôm script to the Burmese stupa.

The names are living artifacts. To say "Jeen" or "Chomphuthip" in Thailand, or "Cina" and "Hindustan" in Indonesia, is not merely to denote a geography; it is to unconsciously invoke a millennia-old framework of perception, one that saw the world not as a binary choice between giants, but as a triangulated space where one’s own identity could be forged in the creative space between them.

Reflection

This exploration of historical nomenclature transcends linguistics to become a lesson in pre-modern geopolitics and the sociology of knowledge. It underscores a profound truth: how we name the "other" is fundamentally a process of defining the "self." The mediated journey of the terms Cīna and Tiānzhú/Jambudvīpa reveals that civilizations first understood each other not through direct encounter, but through the refracted perceptions of third-party intermediaries—Central Asian nomads, Persian courts, and Buddhist monks. This "triangulation" of awareness meant that initial impressions were often partial, skewed, and tied to specific commodities (silk) or concepts (sacred geography), creating enduring stereotypes that predated any nuanced, firsthand understanding.

The Southeast Asian response to these imported names is a powerful testament to regional agency. The consistent cognitive sorting of China into the material realm and India into the spiritual realm was not passive reception but an active, strategic framework for engagement. It allowed Southeast Asian polities to compartmentalize external influence: one could procure porcelain and political recognition from Beijing while deriving cosmic legitimacy and literary models from the Indian subcontinent, all while maintaining a core indigenous identity. This sophisticated balancing act, exemplified by kingdoms like Ayutthaya and Majapahit, challenges outdated notions of Southeast Asia as a mere receptacle of "greater" civilizations. Instead, it appears as a savvy curator of global influences.

The modern political life of these ancient names—the Indonesian shift from Cina to Tiongkok, or Thailand's ceremonial use of Pali-Sanskrit—shows that this history is not dead. It is a living toolkit for contemporary nation-building and diplomatic posturing. Ultimately, this study highlights that the flow of ideas in the ancient world was rarely bilateral. It operated within a multipolar, networked system where borderlands and maritime corridors were not peripheries, but dynamic centers of translation and innovation. The names we use today are thus palimpsests, containing within their syllables forgotten trade routes, lost empires, and the enduring human impulse to map the world by categorizing the power of others.

 

References

Primary Sources & Pre-Modern Texts

• Kautilya. Arthaśāstra. c. 2nd century BCE - 3rd century CE.
• Laws of Manu (Manusmṛti). c. 2nd century BCE - 3rd century CE.
• Mahābhārata. Composed between 3rd century BCE and 3rd century CE.
• Sima Qian. Records of the Grand Historian (Shiji). c. 100 BCE.
• Xuanzang. The Great Tang Records on the Western Regions (大唐西域記). 7th century CE.

Secondary Sources

• Aung-Thwin, Michael. The Mists of Rāmañña: The Legend that was Lower Burma. University of Hawaiʻi Press, 2005.
• Beckwith, Christopher I. Empires of the Silk Road: A History of Central Eurasia from the Bronze Age to the Present. Princeton University Press, 2009.
• Coedès, George. The Indianized States of Southeast Asia. Translated by Susan Brown Cowing, University of Hawaiʻi Press, 1968.
• Kieschnick, John. The Impact of Buddhism on Chinese Material Culture. Princeton University Press, 2003.
• Kulke, Hermann. "The Early and the Imperial Kingdom in Southeast Asian History." In Southeast Asia in the 9th to 14th Centuries, edited by David G. Marr and A.C. Milner, pp. 1–22. Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 1986.
• Lieberman, Victor. Strange Parallels: Southeast Asia in Global Context, c. 800–1830. Volume 1: Integration on the Mainland. Cambridge University Press, 2003.
• Miksic, John N. Singapore and the Silk Road of the Sea, 1300–1800. NUS Press, 2013.
• Peleggi, Maurizio. The Politics of Ruins and the Business of Nostalgia. White Lotus Press, 2002.
• Pollock, Sheldon. The Language of the Gods in the World of Men: Sanskrit, Culture, and Power in Premodern India. University of California Press, 2006.
• Pulleyblank, Edwin G. "The Chinese and Their Neighbors in Prehistoric and Early Historic Times." In The Origins of Chinese Civilization, edited by David N. Keightley, pp. 411–466. University of California Press, 1983.
• Reid, Anthony. Southeast Asia in the Age of Commerce, 1450–1680. Volume Two: Expansion and Crisis. Yale University Press, 1993.
• Sen, Tansen. India, China, and the World: A Connected History. Rowman & Littlefield, 2017.
• Tambiah, Stanley J. World Conqueror and World Renouncer: A Study of Buddhism and Polity in Thailand against a Historical Background. Cambridge University Press, 1976.
• Taylor, Keith W. A History of the Vietnamese. Cambridge University Press, 2013.
• Toer, Pramoedya Ananta. This Earth of Mankind. Translated by Max Lane, Penguin Books, 1996. (Note: Referenced for historiographical perspective).
• Wang Gungwu. "The China Seas: Becoming an Enlarged Mediterranean." In The East Asian 'Mediterranean': Maritime Crossroads of Culture, Commerce and Human Migration, edited by Angela Schottenhammer, pp. 7–22. Harrassowitz Verlag, 2008.
• Wolters, O.W. History, Culture, and Region in Southeast Asian Perspectives. Revised edition, Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 1999.
• Wyatt, David K. Thailand: A Short History. 2nd ed., Yale University Press, 2003.

Scholarly Articles & Chapters

• Li Tana. "A View from the Sea: Perspectives on the Northern and Central Vietnamese Coast." Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, vol. 37, no. 1, 2006, pp. 83–102.
• Pramoedya Ananta Toer. "Historical Consciousness and National Awakening." Indonesia, no. 47, 1989, pp. 101–112. (For perspective on Indonesian historiography).

Conceptual & Theoretical Frameworks

• The concept of "Localization" as defined by O.W. Wolters (1999).
• The "Sanskrit Cosmopolis" as theorized by Sheldon Pollock (2006).
• The "Galactic Polity" model as applied to Thailand by Stanley J. Tambiah (1976).