Cael Velho, Calepatanão and Punicale. The Portuguese and the Tambraparni Ports in the Sixteenth Century - article ; n°1 ; vol.82, pg 9-26

Jorge Manuelflores

Description

Bulletin de l'Ecole française d'Extrême-Orient - Année 1995 - Volume 82 - Numéro 1 - Pages 9-26
18 pages
Source : Persée ; Ministère de la jeunesse, de l’éducation nationale et de la recherche, Direction de l’enseignement supérieur, Sous-direction des bibliothèques et de la documentation.

Informations

• Publié par: BULLETIN_DE_L-ECOLE_FRANCAISE_D-EXTREME-ORIENT
• Publié le: 01 janvier 1995
• Nombre de lectures: 17
• Langue: English
• Poids de l'ouvrage: 1 Mo

Extrait

Jorge Manuel Flores
"Cael Velho", "Calepatanão" and "Punicale". The Portuguese
and the Tambraparni Ports in the Sixteenth Century
In: Bulletin de l'Ecole française d'Extrême-Orient. Tome 82, 1995. pp. 9-26.
Citer ce document / Cite this document :
Flores Jorge Manuel. "Cael Velho", "Calepatanão" and "Punicale". The Portuguese and the Tambraparni Ports in the Sixteenth
Century. In: Bulletin de l'Ecole française d'Extrême-Orient. Tome 82, 1995. pp. 9-26.
doi : 10.3406/befeo.1995.2294
http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/befeo_0336-1519_1995_num_82_1_2294Velho", "Calepatanâo" and "Punicale' "Cael
The Portuguese and the Tambraparni Ports
in the Sixteenth Century
Jorge Manuel FLORES
The evolution of the Tambraparni ports has allured historians and geographers of
Southern India, who have mainly relied on both ancient and medieval sources and
archaeological evidence1. Although often ranked as less important, hardly used or even
ignored, the Portuguese documents concerning the region may prove to be a valuable
contribution, especially as there are still many questions to be answered about this
evolution which appears to have reached a decisive stage in the sixteenth century.
The aim of this study, therefore, is to highlight how relevant the Portuguese texts
are on this subject. Roderich Ptak has recently done the same, where Chinese records
are concerned2. In fact, we share the conviction that a thorough knowledge of the
history of the Tambraparni settlements means a detailed analysis of all possible
references, from geomorphological data and archaeological findings to epigraphic
records, local accounts and foreign notices. Undoubtedly, a task to be performed by a
multidisciplinary team3.
The last original Chinese account on the Tambraparni delta goes back to 1436 and
the first Portuguese report on the same area dates from 1498. These six decades
represent a considerable hiatus in the history of the settlements, as the usual sources of
information for this period are not of much help: the Persian Abdur-Razzaq Samarqandi
includes a laconic reference to "Kabel" in his report and the Russian Afanasij Nikitin
provides even less; Girolamo da Santo Stefano, who roamed around the Bay of Bengal
just before the Portuguese arrived, made no mention of the Indian ports of the Gulf of
1. As model studies, see R. Caldwell's classicA History ofTinnevelly, rpt., New Delhi, 1989; and,
already with new perspectives, Jean Deloche, La circulation en Inde avant la révolution des
transports, 2 vols., II (La voie d'eau), Paris, 1980, pp. 93 sq; id., "Études sur la circulation en Inde
(IV. Notes sur les sites de quelques ports anciens du pays tamoul)", in BEFEO, 74 (1985), pp. 141-166
[153-157].
2. Cf. "Yuan and early Ming notices on the Kay al area in South India", in BEFEO, 80/1 (1993),
pp. 137-156.
3. 1 am grateful to Jean Deloche and Sanjay Subrahmanyam for their comments on this article and
particularly for their opinions about the difficult problem of identifying the "three Kayal". L 'Inde et l'Europe entre XVIe et XVIIIe siècles JORGE MANUEL FLORES 10
Mannar, while Nicolo de' Conti came up with only a short piece about "Cahila" and its
pearls4.
In fact, we have to wait until 1498 before we once again have any foreign notices
about this region, and although the Chinese texts usually keep to just ambassadorial
exchanges and tributes, the Portuguese records go much further. They not only allow us
to follow in some detail how the protagonists of the first European expansion in the
Indian Ocean were involved in the Tambraparni settlements — which was just a small
part of their interest in the "Sea of Ceylon5" — but also provide some information
about the identity of the delta ports, their evolution and everyday life.
"Cael Velho", "Calepatanáo" and "Punicale"
"Cael Velho", "Calepatanáo", "Punicale". These are the most common Portuguese
names for the maritime settlements of the Tambraparni region: Palayakayal,
Kayalpatnam, Punnaikayal6. The problem lies in determining how important each one
was in the sixteenth century and how they were ranked.
On glancing through Portuguese texts, one may find the following: from 1498 to ca.
1540, the sole port referred to was "Cael". The 40s saw a fairly clear change, as the first
references to "Cael Velho" appeared. At the same time the port of "Punicale" emerged,
and we come across the first clear allusions to "Calepatanáo". One of these two was
"Callegrande" which Joâo de Barros mentions in his Decada I (1552) 7. certainly
How do these data match with what has been written about the evolution of the
Tambraparni ports ? From an initial reading, we are led to believe that until ca. 1540 the
Portuguese visited the same port that Marco Polo had known centuries before. Soon
after, the settlement fell into an irreversible decline and was accordingly renamed :
"Cael Velho". At the same time, the Kayalpatnam and Punnaikayal settlements began to
develop and the latter shortly became the Portuguese base on the Fishery Coast (Costa
da Pescaria).
But is this explanation not too lineal? Its greatest weakness lies exactly in the
suggested chronology for Kayal's demise. As a matter of fact, a port does not silt up in
a short space of time. It certainly did not take two or three years for Kayal to replace
Korkai, just as it did not take two or three years for Kayal to fade away8. For many
years, the Portuguese continued to mention Palayakayal in their texts. A document
4. Cf. India in the fifteenth century. Being a collection of narratives of voyages to India..., ed. R.
H. Major, Hakluyt Society, London, 1857.
5. See my Os Portugueses e о Mar de Ceilâo, 1498-1543: trato, diplomacia e guerra,
unpublished MA Thesis, Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, Universidade Nova de Lisboa,
Lisbon, 1991.
6. G. Schurhammer and J. Wicki noted other versions in their general introduction to the letters
from Francisco Xavier to Francisco Mansilhas between 23rd February and 18th December 1544
(Epistolae S. Francisci Xaverii aliaque eius scripta [henceforth EX], I, Rome, 1944, p. 182).
7. Joâo de Barros, Asia. Dos feitos que os Portuguezes fizeram no Descubrimento, e Conquista
dos Mares, e Terras do Oriente, (Livraria Sam Carlos, Lisbon, 1973-1975), 1/9-1 (Barros hereafter).
There are also references to "Chereacalle" (?), and "Calecare" (Kilakkarai). Schurhammer and Wicki
(cf. previous note) identified "Callegrande" as Kayalpatnam.
8. On studying the ports in the kingdom of Eli, Geneviève Bouchon demonstrated how slow the
decline of Mâtâyi was, despite having been substituted by Cannanore. Before this, the shift from
Kachilpattanam to Mâtàyi was also slow. Both Taliparamba and Tambraparni cases show that an up
and coming port, in all its glory, does not necessarily mean the downfall of its predecessor; cf. Mamale
de Cananor, un adversaire de l'Inde portugaise (1507-1528), Geneva-Paris, 1975, pp. 12-15. Portuguese and the Tambraparni Ports 1 1 The
dated 1631 infers that "Caileuelho" was a sort of "inn" for travellers overland between
Manappad and Tuticorin9. Thanks to Jesuit records, we know that in the early
seventeenth century Palayakayal was still the market for pearls and pearl dust10.
Moreover, both the Dutch and the English fought for its possession11 and in the second
half of the last century, local sailors still stopped off at this port 12.
Records prior to the arrival of the Portuguese appear to show that, however slow,
Kayal's decline had begun long before the sixteenth century. This is the hypothesis that
we had put forward in a previous study, although with less certainty, when we
advocated that its downfall occured somewhere between Marco Polo's visit and the
arrival of the Portuguese 13. In the meantime, specialists such as Jean Deloche have
confirmed this theory14. Also Roderich Ptak's study15 shows that the Yuan sources
noted the simultaneous decline of Kayal and the growth of another port in the area,
marked by the presence of Muslim merchants: Punnayakayal? Kayalpatnam?
Thus, when referring to "Cael" before 1540, the Portuguese were not necessarily
referring to Palayakayal16. We believe that they were talking about the port of
Kayalpatnam and it is that very same port they visited, along with another Fishery
Coast settlement which was well to the north of the Tambraparni river : Kilakkarai. The
solution to the problem appears to be found in Islam. As we shall later see, for the first
forty years of the sixteenth century this port was repeatedly reported to be under
Muslim control. If that is the case, where is the difference between Kayal in the 20s and
30s - an anti-Portuguese city under the control of a mighty Islamic colony - and the city
of Kayalpatnam which, in the middle of the century, had exactly the same features 17?
Certainly, the name "Calepatanâ