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

the biography of Uriyangqadai in YS, 121, where the name appears several times. But nothing
is said of Ya-ch'ih c. The geographica; dictionary Ti-ming ta-tz'ü tien published by the Commercial
Press, p. 467, registers only Ya-ch'ih a, from the biography of Uriyangqadai, and is content with
saying that it is to the east of the hsien of Lo-tz'ü; this notice is simply taken from Ta-Ch'ing i-t'ung
chih, 369, 4 b. As to Ya-ch'ih c, the same dictionary, p. 1257, knows it only as the name of a river
in the Kui-chou province, where certain warlike events took place towards the end of the Ming
dynasty. Ya-ch'ih c, in this last case, seems to be a purely Chinese name, meaning « Duck Lake ».
But I think that the Ya-ch'ih c of YS, 8, 3 b (1274, 1st moon), and of YS, 10, 5 b (1278, 12th moon),
is only another way of writing the Yači of Ya-ch'ih a and Ya-ch'ih b, and that the same holds good
for the Ya-ch'ih c of Yung-lo ta-tien, 19417, 15 a and b. In any case, I can prove that Ya-ch'ih c
was used in the Yüan period as a transcription of Yači. An unpublished inscription of 1340,
in « spoken » Chinese, reproduces an edict then issued in favour of « the Chiung-chu-ssŭ of the
Yü-an-shan of the city of Yači of Yün-nan » (雲 南 鴨 池 城 子 玉 案 山 竹 竹 寺); here Yači
is written as Ya-ch'ih c. The Yü-an-shan is not here the mountain of that name which is entered
in Ti-ming ta-tz'ü tien, 235, and which is in the region of Ta-li, but another one, situated on the
north-west side of the Tien-ch'ih or Lake of Yün-nan-fu, north-north-east of the Pi-chi-shan (cf.
Ta-Ch'ing i-t'ung chih, 369, 2 b; Hsü Yün-nan t'ung-chih kao, 3, 10-11; 15, 9 b); the Chiung-chu-
ssŭ is a well-known Buddhist temple of the Yü-an-shan (cf. Ta-Ch'ing i-t'ung chih, 369, 6 b; Hsü
Yün-nan t'ung-chih kao, 66, 11-12). It might thus be supposed that Yači was close to the Yü-
an-shan, and on the bank of the Lake of Yün-nan-fu, but to the west of Yün-nan-fu itself; and only
Yün-nan-fu would be on the site of the former Chih-tung or Shan-shan, second capital of the Nan-
chao and later Ta-li kingdom. I do not think, nevertheless, that such a supposition is satisfactory.
The inscription of 1340, like all official documents of the time in « spoken » Chinese, is certainly
a translation from the Mongolian; and from its wording, we can be sure that the name of Yači,
although already banished from official nomenclature, was still in use in 1340 in Mongolian and in
the popular nomenclature of the Chinese even at the Imperial Court. The popular form
ch'êng-tzŭ, instead of ch'êng alone, also testifies to a Mongol original; the temple Chiung-chu-
ssŭ was certainly said in the original Mongol edict to belong to Yači-balayasun, « the city of
Yači ». But that does not mean that it was in the city, which moreover is impossible in view of
its actual position; Yači-balayasun must have then been in use in Mongolian as the ordinary
form for the whole administrative district the centre of which was at Yači-balayasun, and that
would imply that Yači was the most important place in that region.
This importance is also confirmed of course by the fact that both Polo and Rašid say that Yači
is the capital of Qara-Jang. In the same way, we read that, after participating in the Tonking cam-
paign of 1257, Uriyangqadai came back to Yači, and, in 1258, when he and his son A-shu (see «Agiul»)
had engaged in an unfortunate campaign against the Sung, they wrought vengeance on Yači for the
capture of some of their horses by the T'u-la-man (see « Toloman »; I cannot understand why
they should have butchered the population of Yači; the text may be corrupt for « returned to Yači »).
But what then about Chih-tung (alias Shan-shan)? It was certainly the Eastern capital of Nan-chao
and, from the itineraries I have studied in BEFEO, IV, 368, 374, 376, 377 (add the quotation from Man
shu in Hsü Yün-nan t'ung-chih kao, 15, 10 a), it is to be placed at Yün-nan-fu, in agreement with an