国立情報学研究所 - ディジタル・シルクロード・プロジェクト
『東洋文庫所蔵』貴重書デジタルアーカイブ

369. TUNOCAIN   863

In 1220, 2i   Yen Shih had submitted to Muqali, the lieutenant-general left by Chinghiz-khan

in Northern China, and brought under Mongol rule 300,000 families of Chang-tê, Ta-ming, etc.; he was then made head of a government (hsing-t'ai), the seat of which was established at Tungp'ing-fu, with 54 chou and hsien under him. When Yen Shih died in 1240, his son E 1,1, to Yen Chung-chi was appointed in his stead; the latter in his turn was replaced in 1261 by another son

4 Yen Chung-fan. But Qubilai soon brought to an end the abnormal position given to the Yen family and to their fief of Tung-p'ing-fu. In 1268, Tung-p'ing-fu was reduced to the state of a san-fu, altered to a lu of the 3rd class in 1272, with only six hsien under its jurisdiction. The Yen family nevertheless remained at the head of Tung-p'ing-fu, and that is why the Imperial commissioners of 1276, when passing through Tung-p'ing-fu, note that they were the guests of Yen hsiang-kung (cf. YS, I, 8 b; 58, 10 a-b; 148, 7 a-8 a; TP, 1912, 432; 1915, 399; for the value of hsiang-kung, see « Sangon »).

The Yüan postal relays from Ling-chou (Tê-hsien, see « Chianglin ») to Chi-ning (see « Singiu matu ») were : From Ling-chou, south-east to P'ing-yüan, 90 li; to Kao-t'ang (no distance given) ; south-east to Shih-p'ing, 90 li; to Tung-o, 90 li; to Tung-p'ing (« Tundinfu », no distance given); to Chi-ning, south, slightly west, 70 li (Yung-lo ta-tien, 19426, 4 b; but the text is very corrupt).

Correctly explained as   9 .)Ÿ Tun-u-Qain, from the name of two neighbouring cities in

Kuhistan. YULE has quoted other examples of that same form ( Y, I, 86, 128), and given an analogous modern double form Tun-u-Tabas or Tabas-u-Tun. I may add that another mediaeval form Tunutan.Tab (= Tun-u-Tanjah) is used in Armenian by Kirakos (cf. PATKANOV, Istoriya Mongolov, II, 114), but I doubt that « Tanjah » should be i Tan) near Merv, as PATKANOV says; Mery is very far from Kuhistan. On Tùn and Qain, cf. LS, 352-354; Mi, 103.

BRETSCHNEIDER (Br, II, 96) has supposed that a place it);:] Fa-yin, which is missing on the map of c. 1330, but is named in the list of YS, 63, 16 b, might be Qain, but does not say how. An error fa for {:1 ch'ieh would be easy, but the result gives *Käin, not Qain. To have Qain, we must suppose a misreading l; *Fain of an original map in Arabic characters, which is however not impossible. I do not know where T'u Chi, 160, 30 b (or rather his source HUNG Chün) found the singular information that Qain was also called Fain.