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

384. YARCAN   883

has to assume that an interversion has occurred in the pilgrim's account, and that he passed the « great sand mountain » before reaching the Slid or Yârkänd River.

This is merely a hypothesis, but one which finds a certain support in itineraries of the T'ang period. Of course Kök-yar is not, like Yârkänd and Qaryaliq, on the main road from Kägyar to Khotan so that, if Chê-ch'u-chia or Chu-chu-po were Kök-yar, we should not expect to find it mentioned among the stages of the route from Khotan to Kasyar; but if one of the names be Yârkänd and the other Qaryaliq, or if both be Qaryaliq, the absence of both is more surprising. Such is the case, however, in Chia Tan's itinerary from Khotan to Kas1ar, dating from the end of the 8th cent., which is given in Hsin T'ang shu, 43 B, 15 b-16 a, and has been translated by CHAVANNES, Doc. sur les Tou-kiue, 123. Not one of the names has been identified, but on some of them certain comments are possible. In 635 and 648 respectively, « general governments » (tu-tu-fu) had been established at Kägyar and at Khotan; they had under their jurisdiction 15 districts (*I chou) for Kàsyar, and 5, sub-divided into 10 in 675, for Khotan. The list of those districts has not been preserved, but some of their names are given in Chia Tan's itineraries; others, sometimes the same, are included in a curious list of « Hu districts » (Iranian and « Tocharian » districts) which are said to belong to Ho-hsi (Tangut, Kan-su), but which are in fact all situated in the western part of Chinese Turkestan (Hsin

T'ang shu, 43 B, 8 a). In Chia Tan's itinerary, the first stage, 80 li south of Kâsyar, is   a 01
Yen-to-chou; this is evidently the same as the 'A Jx 'J Yin-to-chou of the list of « Hu districts ». Although the name Yen-tu or Yin-tu has not been identified, one is tempted to locate that « district »

at Yangï-hisar. Going 160 li farther to the south-east, one reaches V   Shuang-ch'ü, «Twin

Canals », which was the ancient lodging-house (kuan)   Chieh-fan (*Kiat-b`j<wrn). Going again

320 li to the south-east, one arrives at the town (ch'êng) of ff x A Chih-chih-man (*T'siét-t'sje-

muân), which is also called   f$j J'ji Chi-nan-chou. I have no doubt that this is the   X AJ j
Ying-chi-man-chou, or « district of Ying-chi-man (*Iäng-g`jap-muân) » of the list of « Hu districts ».

The « River of the lodging-house (kuan)   I (* .Iei) » is crossed south-east of Chih-chih-man, and
then one goes east; from Chih-chi-hman to Khotan the distance is 670 li. CHAVANNES supposed that Chih-chih-man, judging from the distances, was the place corresponding to Hsuan-tsang's Chêchü-chia.

I think that two of the above names are mentioned in the itinerary preserved by the Hucliicl al-

`.4lam and by Gardézi (Mi, 260). The second stage from Kâgyar to Khotan is called   Karyân
by the first text, ~l~f Karmân by the second. Whether we correct both to j.,Ç *Karbàn, or the first one to the Karman given by the second, we have in either case a very satisfactory transcription of Chia Tan's « lodging-house » of Chieh-fan (*Kjät-b`iwBn). The next name is written ~l

Uc.hbàn) in the Hudûd   H.&mân by Gardézi. Although Chih-chih-man
(of which the « Hu district » Ying-chi-man must be a clerical corruption) does not come imme-

diately after Chieh-fan in Chia Tan's list, it is very tempting to read   Ciêimân, which would
be in exact agreement with the Chinese transcription.

But even if these equations be correct, identifications on the map are very hypothetical. If the « River of the lodging-house I » were the Yàrkänd River, Chih-chih-man might be Yârkänd itself. The other name Chi-nan-chou would almost favour the identification, since it means « District South of the Desert ». The « desert » would be the sand dune Bayram-qumi mentioned as being between