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

846   353. TANPIGIU

MERY, in, 335, where the text really has ail;   «Kokan Tânah », «Thâna of Konkan ». What is

arbitrary in YULE is to have vocalized here with -i- to suit « Cucintana », while the only forms known for Konkan in mediaeval Mussulman sources and in modern texts are Konkan and Kokan (cf. YI, I, 309; Hobson-Jobson2, 244). As a matter of fact, the Catalan Map writes «Cocintaya» and it is the Medici Map which has «Cocintana» (cf. YI, I, 309; HALLBERG, 505-506). YULE'S explanation is probable enough, although we do not know how the double name came to be known to Western cartographers.

353. TANPIGIU ( < *GAMPGIU)

To the readings of the Polian Mss., add « Tapingui » of the Catalan Map, « Tampizu » of Fra Mauro (in agreement with « Tapinzu » in R, which may almost suggest that the prototype of Z had also an initial t-); cf. HALLBERG, 499; CORDIER, L'Extrême-Orient dans l' Atlas Catalan, 26. It has been identified with Shao-hsing, without any attempt at a phonetic equivalence. I can understand that the identification with Shao-hsing was accepted by YULE (Y, II, 220), who made Polo follow a zigzag route from Hang-chou to Fu-chou. It is more surprising that CHARIGNON (Ch, III, 99) should have accepted it, when he correctly follows Polo's itinerary south-west of Hang-chou;

moreover, his etymology of « Tanpigiu » by   ; Tung-yüeh is sheer nonsense.

From Yung-lo ta-tien, 19432, 22 b-26 a, and 19426, 9 MO a, we can fairly well ascertain the list of the postal relays between Fu-chou and Hang-chou in the Mongol dynasty. A main point on the route was the branching off, after Yen-p'ing, of one road going to Chiang-hsi through Shaowu, and the other to Hang-chou via Chien-ning (see « Quenlinfu ») and Chien-yang. This last road is manifestly the one described by Polo, and I gladly acknowledge that, for that part of Polo's itinerary, CHARIGNON has gone a step further than PHILLIPS, who had already improved on YULE.

But it is then evident that we must look for « Tanpigiu » etc. to the south-west of Hang-chou, and the first important place we meet on the postal road of the time is the modern 61 'J'hl jff Yenchou-fu. CHARIGNON had thought of it (Ch, III, 99) and of an alternative explanation of « Tanpigiu » by a would-be form * 111 4,1 Tung-mu-chou of the beginning of the 7th cent., which however never. existed. Yen-chou had been called Mu-chou (not Tung-mu-chou) in T'ang times, but was renamed Yen-chou in the beginning of the 12th cent., and this is the name which remained in use, although its official designation under the Yüan was the lu of Chien-tê. Polo uses the common