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

284   FATHER TIEFFENTHALER, FATHER GAUBIL AND ANQUETIL DU PERRON.

anything from the Lamas' map, but has gathered his information from Indian sources and from pilgrims who have been at the place and related to him what they have seen. But he also thinks the matter worthy of further exploration, for he says: »Fontes hujus fluminis, ex narratu viatorum, qui ad hunc lacum peregrinantur, cornperti sunt. Certioria alias exploranda.» His wish was to be fulfilled some 8o years later, when H. STRACHEY went to the place.

In the chapter on ,the identity of the lakes Mansaroar & Lanka dhé with the lakes Mapama & Lanken», Anquetil du Perron compares the Lamas' map with those provided by Tieffenthaler. He reminds his readers of d'Anville's words that Kang Hi's curiosity had given the world the knowledge of the situation of the source of the Ganges. He ordered some men, »instructed in mathematics», to penetrate to the very place, from where the Ganges originates. From their map,

the Lamas' map», d'Anville had learnt that Mount Kentaïssé was the water-shed of two great rivers. One of them, the Ganges, was formed from several sources, and went through first one and then the second of two great lakes and took its course towards the west until it met with a mountain that forced it to turn to the south or to India and only by force could it secure for itself a passage through the mountains.

We have seen before that the explorers of Kang Hi were not less successful than those that Akbar sent out for the same purpose. In the case of Kang Hi's explorers the most serious misunderstanding was the identification of the Satlej with the Ganges. And the same confusion arose from the information brought by Tieffenthaler, who mixed up the Satlej and the Gagra and believed his Gagra to begin from Langak-tso. D'Anville had to trust to the material brought to him, although he found the Ganges to be rather long.

Comparing the Lamas' map with the Indian one of Tieffenthaler, Anquetil du Perron, to begin with, concludes that the lakes are the same, as in both cases they are surrounded by mountains and give rise to several big rivers going east and west. He also compares the names; Chinese: Lanken and Mapama, Père Gaubil: Lanka and Lapama Talaï, the Indian map of Tieffenthaler: Lanka Dhé and Mansaroar.

Then he approaches the question of the rivers.' The Chinese map (Pl. LI) shows a great river called Latchou coming out from the mountains, at the foot of which are the lakes; it flows to the west. On the Indian map, Pl. LII, the Satlej issues from Lake Mansaroar, and flows first to the N.W., then to the Panjab. But he forgets that on d'Anville's Lama map there is also a Lanctchou, which issues from Lake Lanken and comes from Lake Mapama. So Anquetil du Perron ought rather to have compared the »Satloudj» of the Indian map with the Lanctchou instead of the Latschou, which does not at all touch the lakes and in

I Op. cit. p. 354.