witnessed this for themselves. Chinese emissaries extolled the
emperor’s glory; merchants brought back stories of the extent and
wealth of China; and Southeast Asian envoys reported on the impres-
sive pomp and ritual that accompanied their presentation at the
Chinese court. China did not have to send its armies into Southeast
Asia for regional rulers to accept China’s formal demand that visiting
officials prostrate themselves before the Son of Heaven. The exchange
of presents was for Southeast Asian rulers a matter of courtesy; but if
the Chinese insisted on the formalities of a ‘tributary’ relationship,
then this could be accommodated in the context of Southeast Asian
Hindu/Buddhist worldviews.
Little of this is explicitly stated in the records of Southeast Asian
kingdoms. In part this is because so much of what must have been a
considerable literature and extensive administrative records have dis-
appeared. Climate, the fragility of the treated palm leaf principally
used as a writing medium in Southeast Asia, poor storage facilities that
allowed the ravages of mildew and insects, and the destruction of war,
all have contributed to the dearth of written sources in Southeast Asia
compared to China. All that remains, apart from all-important inscrip-
tions on stone or metal, are those texts that were regularly recopied.
These were mainly religious texts, the copying of which generated
spiritual merit, various technical treatises on such subjects as agricul-
ture, astrology and law, and court chronicles. In few of these, even
the last, can be found any references, however, to political or even
economic relations with China.
The reason why even the court chronicles of Southeast Asian
kingdoms say next to nothing about China does not, however, indicate
China’s unimportance for Southeast Asian rulers, though for most,
China probably did not loom large. More significant is the kind of text
we are dealing with. Court chronicles in the Theravada Buddhist king-
doms of mainland Southeast Asia were not composed as objective
historical records. On the contrary, they formed part of the royal
regalia of legitimation. They recorded the ruler’s genealogy, his
Early relations