National Institute of Informatics - Digital Silk Road Project
Digital Archive of Toyo Bunko Rare Books

(*Fe*, 524). Somewhat older is the mention of « Mutapalay » on the so-called « Cantino » map of 1502
(cf. Kammerer, *La Mer Rouge*, ii, 391).

It may possibly also be the 沒特不 Mo-t'ê-pu or Mu-t'ê-pu (= *Mutepul* ?) of an « ancient
Chinese map », as supposed by Fujita in his commentary on the *Tao-i chih-lio* (8 *b*).

Yule is certainly right when he says that Polo called the kingdom of Telingana by the name of
the port he touched at. As to the story of the widow who reigned some forty years after the death
of her husband, I have to point out that, according to *JRAS*, 1927, 598, this queen was not the
widow, but the daughter of the deceased king.

**293. NAIAN**

*naan* Ft *naias* FAt *nayam* LT, P, TA³
*naiam* F, FA, TA¹, TA³, VA; R *nain* Fr, V *nayan* Fr, *t*, FA
*naian* F, Fr, FA, FB, L, V, VB *nania* VL *noiam* VA

Nayan (Ch. 乃顏 Nai-yen, Pers. نایان Nayan; means « eighty » in Mongolian) is given by
Yule (*Y*, i, 334; ii, 505) as « the great-great-grandson of Chinghiz's brother Uchegin, called in the
Chinese annals Bilgutai », and Benedetto (*B*¹, 445) makes him a descendant of another of Chinghiz-
khan's brothers, Jöči-qasar. Benedetto's opinion is simply a mistake. As to Yule's information,
it is an arbitrary combination of two apparently conflicting statements, that of *YS*, 107, 4 *b*, which
names the « great prince » 乃顏 Nai-yen as the son of the prince of 廣寧 Kuang-ning 瓜都
Kua-tu (read 爪 都 Chao-tu, Jautu) and the great-grandson (not great-great-grandson) of Chinghiz-
khan's half-brother Bälgütäi (cf. also *YS*, 59, 1 *b*), and that of the Persian historians, who see in
him a descendant of Chinghiz-khan's youngest brother, Tämügä-otčigin (not « uchegin » [= üčügän],
as is still said too often). Kuang-ning is to the WSW. of Mukden, N. of 錦州 Chin-chou, and there
is no doubt that this appanage belonged to Bälgütäi's family, but the « great prince » Nayan of the
genealogical tables (*YS*, 107, 4 *b*) must be the prince 納牙 Na-ya (Naya) who was almost induced
to join in Nayan's revolt; Rašidu-'d-Din also employs sometimes نایا Naya for Nayan, and the two
forms seem to be equivalent; there are thus two princes Nayan living at the same time and almost
in the same regions. The Nayan who revolted against Qubilai is not named in the genealogical
tables perhaps because his name had been suppressed from the Imperial family records after he
had been put to death, and it is by mistake that subsequent writers (for instance the *Yüan shih
hsin-pien*, 19, 1 *a*) have thought he was the Nayan of the lineage of Bälgütäi. Hung Chün and
particularly T'u Chi (75, 8 *a*) have shown that the Chinese texts themselves give strong arguments
for placing Nayan among Tämügä-otčigin's descendants, and there is no doubt that the Persian histo-
rians are correct on that point. The genealogy of Nayan can almost certainly be fixed as follows :
Tämügä-otčigin, Jibügän, Tayačar (> Tāčar), Ajul, Nayan; Nayan was thus a great-great-grandson
of Tämügä-otčigin (cf. *Bl*, ii, 94, corrected with T'u Chi, 75, 7 *b*-8 *b*); instead of being Qubilai's
« uncle », as Polo has it, he was a cousin younger by three generations.