National Institute of Informatics - Digital Silk Road Project
Digital Archive of Toyo Bunko Rare Books

832   337. SILINGIU

« Barscol » the hypothesis that «Sichin- » might ben   Shih-hsing (*Si-hing), a district (hsien)

at the seat of Chao-chou under the Chin; « Sichin- » would be correct enough for Shih-hsing, but there is little likelihood that this obscure hsien should have survived under the Mongols and come to the knowledge of Polo; moreover it never was a chou. The name of « Sichintingiu » is probably corrupt, with a wrong duplication of the second syllable; but I have as yet no reasons to decide for « Sichingiu » or for «Sitingiu ».

I do not believe in « Shang-ching » « Tung-ching », quoted from YULE-CORDIER in B', 447, and still less in writing « Shing-king », i. e. Shêng-ching (Mukden); this last name dates only from the 17th cent.

337. SILINGIU

City

bugiun V singiu F

Province silingui Z

City or Province cinguy P

singui L, VA, Z   sirigai VL

singuy FA, FB, LT   zigoi VB

siulagui V

singhui TA1, TA3   singui R

This had been identified with IN   Hsi-ning-chou (Hsi-ning-fu under the Ch'ing) by

MARSDEN, PAUTHIER, and YULE, even though the Mss. usually only gave « Singiu »; « Sitingiu » occurs only in the recently discovered Z, but is confirmed by « Sinlingin » on Fra Mauro's map (Zu, 34; HALLBERG, 479). It is well known that in Central Asian languages the name of that place is Siting, Seling, etc. (cf. Y, I, 276; YULE, Hobson-Jobson2, 846-847; LAUFER, in TP, 1916, 518-519); despite the usual Tibetan form Zi-lin (for instance in Sarat CHANDRA DAS'S Dictionary), the Geography of the Min-Yul butuktu (V. VASIL'EV, Geografiya Tibeta, 1895, p. 52) writes Si-lin.

PARKER'S hypothesis of 45 1l1 Shan-chou, quoted in Y, III, 61-62, is unnecessary and falls to the ground, at least phonetically, now that we have the true reading « Silingiu ». It is under the name of Hsi-ning that the place appears in YS, 60, 13 a, and in the itineraries of Yung-lo ta-tien, 19426, 6 b. Polo speaks here of a part of China which he never visited and which lay between his route Kan-chou—Liang-chou—Ning-hsia, when he came to the Court of Qubilai, and his later itinerary via Hsi-an—Han-chung—Ch'êng-tu, when he went to Yün-nan. Polo's tendency to put « seloc », south-east, for all sorts of places in China which he passed through affords ample explanation of his giving the same indication about a place of which he speaks from hearsay, and which is really south-south-west. CHARIGNON has proposed 2 Jlj Ling-chou (Ch, I, 233-234), which is impossible, since