IIIF Color HighRes
National Institute of Informatics - Digital Silk Road Project
| |||||||||
|
| IIIF Color HighRes |
| Notes on Marco Polo : vol.1 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Citation Information
154 111. CAMUL
form, while the Mongols pronounce Ijamil. In a Sogdian document of the first centuries of our era (end of 2nd cent.?), Km'yJ, which can be read as *Kamel, seems to furnish the first mention of the native name (cf. TP, 1931, 460). There is a huge gap between that first occurrence and the second example, found in 1050-1052 in the Persian account of Gardezi; this time the name is written Jy.9 Qämul (cf. BARTHOLD, Ot5ët o komandirovké, 92, 117; Mi, 229). The same spelling occurs in 1340 in the Nuzhat al-Qulûb (transi. LE STRANGE, 249). In 1420, Sàh-Rib's envoys passed through J.•V; Qamul (or Qamil?; cf. QUATREMÉRE, in Not. et Extr., XIV, I, 310, 389; P, I, 273) ; they found there side by side a mosque and a Buddhist temple. Marignolli made a number of converts at « Kamul » (Wy, 550). The Catalan Map writes « Camull »; Fra Mauro, « Chamul » (HALLBERG, 108). RAMUSIG'c informant « Chajji Memet » mentioned Camul (RAMUSZO, II, Dichiaratione, 160; Y', I, 293). Benedict Goes stayed one month at Camui in 1606 (Y', rv, 239). « Hamil » appears on RENAT'S Map I (cf. BADDELEY, Russia, Mongolia, China [1919], I, ccu). The existence of a Nestorian bishopric of Qomul (« Camula »), whose occupant was present at the inauguration of the Catholicos Denha in 1266, is mentioned as probable by YULE (I, 211), and given as established in SAEKI, The Nestorian Documents and Relics in China, 1937, chart facing p. 348, but omitted from HERRMANN, Atlas of China, map 45; and would require substantiating. The source is a list in ASSEMANI, Bibliotheca Orientalis, u, 455-456, and the name may be corrupt or refer to another place.
Qomul occurs on the Chinese map of c. 1330, in the form  7[∎ Ha-mu-li (Br, II, 20),
but as it is not included in the dominions of the house of Cayatai, it is not listed at the end of YS, 63, nor is it mentioned by T'u Chi, 160.
The name is repeatedly mentioned in the YS, though written in different ways. BRETSCHNEIDER said (Br, It, 20, 21) that the modern form Ha-mi occurred in ch. 122, in the biography of the ïdiqut Bar6uq-art-tegin, and CORDIER repeated it in Y, I, 211. But this is a mistake. The form
in YS, 122, 2 a, is PO jj Ha-mi-li, Qamil (with the wrong information that Ha-mi-li lay south
of Qarà-ko o). I have not so far been able to find the form Ha-mi before the Ming dynasty; but it is the only one used in the account of the mission of Ch'ên Ch'êng in 1414 (Hsi-yii hsing-ch'êng chi, ed. of the Peiping National Library, 4 a) and in the companion work, equally the work of Ch'ên Ch'êng, entitled Hsi-yü fan-kuo chip (same edition, 20 a-b).
The most usual transcription of the name in YS in  Ha-mi-li, Qamil (' ho always
stands for tad ha in the proper names of the Mongol period), occurring first in 1286 ( YS, 14, 4 a and b, perhaps also 8 b), then in 1294 ( YS, 18, 2 a : « Tegin-tängrim of Ha-mi-li »), in 1303 (YS,
21, t b) and in 1304 (YS, 21, 6 a). Other transcriptions are â ra Ha-mi-ii in 1288 (YS, 15,
5 b), fl4 ? . K'o-mi-ii (YS, 133, 3 a), and V jJ Han-mien-li which I had noted, but cannot
now trace. Ail these are based on Qamil. But p 4 Ha-mu-ii in 1289 (YS, 15, 7 a), R
Ha-mu-ii also in 1289 (YS, 50,11 a), j 7 c , Kan-mu-ii in 1290 (YS, 16, 1 a) and ,g 4c Kan-mu-lu, the motherland of a Uighur monk (YS, 202, 2 a), are transcriptions of Qamul. A â
,,6 Ha-ma-ii of YS, 8, 4 b, may represent a different name. The A fIt Han-i-lo (*Ham-i-lo)
mentioned in a preface of 1270 and a colophon of 1277 (Tokyo Tripit. of Meiji, AvI, 114 b, 124 a) renders Qamil, our « Camul », but with a curious syllabic division. It is also Qamil which is miswritten poi;f . . A-mu-li (for K'o[ M*]-mu-ii?) in the Chinese map of c. 1330 (cf. Br, II,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copyright (C) 2003-2019 National Institute of Informatics and The Toyo Bunko. All Rights Reserved.