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

the Great Khan Tämür and died on his way back in India (see « Caçan »). YULE supposed that
Polo had confused Ruknu-'d-Dīn Mas'ūd and Faḫru-'d-Dīn Aḥmad to form his « Ruknu-'d-Dīn
Aḥmad». This has been accepted by PENZER (Pe, 175, 176), and has caused hesitation in SINCLAIR,
160. I am not altogether convinced that the chronology of TEIXEIRA's Chronicle is always to be
trusted, but, in the present case, its text provides what I believe, with MARSDEN, to be the obvious
solution. Polo has confused the two kindred forms Aḥmad and Maḥmūd, but his Ruknu-'d-Dīn
Aḥmad can be no other than the Ruknu-'d-Dīn Maḥmūd of the Chronicle (for a similar confusion,
cf. Hethum who gives to the ilkhan Aḥmad the name of « Mahomet Can »; see « Acmat² »). It
might be suggested that the chronology of the said chronicle is inaccurate, and that Ruknu-'d-Dīn
Maḥmūd was still on the throne in 1293. But no such change is required, since there is no reason
to date Polo's notice on Hormuz from 1293. On the contrary, the statement in the Chronicle,
according to which Ruknu-'d-Dīn Maḥmūd died in 1277/1278, provides a powerful argument for
placing Polo's notice at the time of the outward journey, i. e. in 1273.

325. SACIOU

sacchion LT sacion F, FA(?), FB, L sanzechiam VL
sachiom VA saciou (?) FA sazizion VB
sachion LTm, P, TA¹; R sagiom TA² suçio V

This reading, instead of the « Sacion » of F, is supported by Z's « Suçio »; on this rare rendering
of °chou with °ciou instead of °giu, see « Campçio ». «Saciou» is of course 沙 州 Sha-chou, better
known to-day under its older name of Tun-huang. The name of Sha-chou goes back to the second
quarter of the 4th cent. (it does not first appear in A. D. 622, as CORDIER says in Y, I, 206, relying
on Br, II, 18). Situated at the western limit of Kan-su province, this oasis is the first to be reached
by travellers coming by the road south of the Lop-nor, as the Polos did.

The name of Sha-chou must have been known to Mussulman geographers in late T'ang times;
it has passed from them into the Ḥudūd al-'Ālam of 982-983 and into Gardīzī (11th cent.), where
it is spelt ساجو Šājū (= Šāčū) and شاجو Šājū (= Šāčū). According to Gardīzī, Šājū is the first
important stage after Qomul (see « Camul ») on the way from Čīnānčkāt (= Qočo; see « Carachoço »)
to Ḥumdān (= Hsi-an-fu; see « Quengianfu »), which is perfectly true. The Ḥudūd al-'Ālam says
that the inhabitants of Šājū and of Ḫājū (probably Kua-chou in Kan-su) are Manichaeans, and
there were really Uighur Manichaeans in Kan-su in late T'ang times (cf. Mi, 85, 229, 233). MINOR-
SKY also gives Sha-chou as the probable original of شاجو Šānjū on Kāšyarī's map of 1076 (Mi,
230), and HERRMANN (Imago Mendi, 1935, 21-28) has taken the same view. I have already said
in TP, 1936, 363, that, in my opinion, Kāšyarī's Šānjū is not Sha-chou, but 善 州 Shan-chou on
the river of Hsi-ning, an important place for foreign intercourse in late T'ang times; it would take
too long to give here the reasons for such an identification (see also « Silingiu »).

Sha-chou is also named in Tibetan and « Saka » (= Khotanese) documents of the 9th-10th cents.;
the name is spelt Ša-ču in Tibetan, Šaču in Khotanese (cf. JRAS, 1927, 808; 1931, 303).