National Institute of Informatics - Digital Silk Road Project
Digital Archive of Toyo Bunko Rare Books
|
|
Color Thumbnail -
Page Number -
Biliographic Information (Metadata) -
Caption -
Color Image -
Gray HighRes. Image -
Facing Pages -
Graphics -
| 0236 |
Notes on Marco Polo : vol.1 |
Citation Information
OCR Text
in Mussulman countries was خطا Ḥïtäi or خطای Ḥïtäï. Ḥïtäi maintained itself in Turkish (Broc-
kelmann, Kāšγarī, 251) and in Persian, and passed to the countries which heard of China through a
Turkish channel like Russia («Kitai») and Greece («Κιτσίvo»). As the first vowel was never written, خطا
Ḥïtäi > خطا Ḥïtä (sometimes قطا Qïtä) was often read « Ḥätäi », « Ḥätä », particularly by the Arabs
(cf. the various forms given by Ferrand, in JA, 1919, II, 184), and this explains why the countries
of Western Europe which first heard of China from Arabs in the Near East adopted « Cata », « Catai »,
« Cathay » (where -th- simply represents -t-). Plan Carpine's isolated « Kitai » bears evidence once
again to his use of Russian interpreters. In an Uighur Manichaean manuscript published by von
Le Coq (Türk. Manichaica aus Chotscho, I, 29, 44, 45; Bang, Manich. Hymnen, in Muséon,
xxxviii, 47), a note has been added by a Manichaean « hearer » *Yapyun or *Fapḥua on his
return from « Ḥtai » (or « Qtai »), i. e. from northern China. If the name be *Fapḥua, the first
part would represent Ch. 法 fa (*pi̯ᵒop), and the fact that the final labial was still heard would
point to a date not later than the 10th cent.; this would be the earliest mention of the modern
name in Central Asia. But *Faphua is a doubtful reading. At any rate, it is interesting to find
« Ḥtai » (or « Qtai »); the writing does not distinguish between ḥ and q) written in Uighur without
the first vowel as is done in the Arabic transcriptions.
The final element is more embarrassing : ᵒtan according to the Chinese, ᵒtaγ in the Orkhon
inscriptions, ᵒtai in Uighur and Persian forms. Here certain observations are necessary. We
generally transcribe such Turkish finals as -ai, but the last element is actually a semi-vowel, and
the proper transcription would be -ay. As to the Orkhon inscriptions, the « runic » letter which
Thomsen finally transcribed as -γ̈ is of a somewhat doubtful value, but certainly contained a
nasal element. It occurs in Toγuquq, the first syllable of which is transcribed tun in Chinese;
in qoγ̈, « sheep », later qoi, but in Mong. qoni, etc. The presence of a nasal element in the name
of the Ch'i-tan is indirectly confirmed by the Mongol form, « Kitad » :> Kitat. This is a plural,
but it can only be accounted for by starting from a singular *Kitan (< *Qïtan; cf. Vladimircov,
in Doklady Ak. N. 1929, 172; Ramstedt, Kalm. Wörterbuch, 233), identical with the Chinese
transcription and very close to what Qïtaγ must have really sounded. An Uighur pronunciation
*Qïtan is required by the forms « Ge-tan » and « Ge-tan » of the Tibetan translation mentioned
above. The alternative *Qïtan / *Qïtai is more or less similar to that of « altan » and « Altai »
(see « Altai »). This phonetic link also connects the Ch'i-tan with the Mongols. I do not feel
inclined to accept Mostaert's view (Bull. Cath. Univ. of Peking, No. 9 [1934], 40) that *Qïtan
is an ancient plural of Qïtai.
According to Bretschneider (Br, I, 265), « the first emperor of the Liao dynasty received
an embassy from the Ta-shih in 924, when he was sojourning near the ancient capital of the Hui-
hu »; in principle the Ta-shih are of course the Arabs; the ancient capital of the Hui-hu or Uighur is
Qara-balyasun in the Orkhon basin (cf. Howorth, in JRAS, 1881, 175, who also speaks of the
embassy as coming to the camp in Mongolia, but believes that the Ta-shih here referred to were
not the Arabs, but Persians). Barthold (12 Vorlesungen, 120) also speaks of this meeting of
Mussulmans and the Ch'i-tan in Mongolia, on the sole authority of Bretschneider. Here again,
I am afraid that the text has been misunderstood. In the pên-chi, under the year 924, we hear
of the various stages of T'ai-tsu's advance into Mongolia, but life went on in the meantime as
1
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
11
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
21
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
31
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
41
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
51
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
61
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
71
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
81
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
91
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
101
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
111
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
121
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
131
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
141
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
151
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
161
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
171
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
181
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
191
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
201
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
211
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
221
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
231
.
.
234
235
236
237
238
.
.
241
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
251
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
261
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
271
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
281
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
291
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
301
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
311
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
321
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
331
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
341
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
351
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
361
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
371
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
381
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
391
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
401
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
411
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
421
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
431
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
441
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
451
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
461
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
471
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
481
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
491
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
501
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
511
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
521
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
531
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
541
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
551
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
561
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
571
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
581
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
591
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
601
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
611
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
621
.
.
.
.
|
.
.
.
.
631
632
Copyright (C) 2003-2019
National Institute of Informatics
and
The Toyo Bunko. All Rights Reserved.
