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

MERY, III, 335, where the text really has كوكن تانه «Kokan Tânah», «Thâna of Konkan». What is arbitrary in YULE is to have vocalized here with -i- to suit «Cucintana», while the only forms known for Konkan in mediaeval Mussulman sources and in modern texts are Konkan and Kokan (cf. Y¹, I, 309; Hobson-Jobson², 244). As a matter of fact, the Catalan Map writes «Cocintaya» and it is the Medici Map which has «Cocintana» (cf. Y¹, I, 309; HALLBERG, 505-506). YULE's explanation is probable enough, although we do not know how the double name came to be known to Western cartographers.

353. TANPIGIU (< *CAMPGIU)

capiguy FBt taipinçu, tanpinçu Z tanpingiu Ft, L
capingam, capyngam G tampingiu L tanpiugiu Lm
capyguy FB, FBr tampingui LT, Ps(?), VL tanpiugu Lr
carpiguy, tarpiguy FA tampinguy P tapigni, tapingni TA¹
chanpigui V tanpigiu F, Fr tapigu TA³
chanpingui VA tanpigui VB tapinzu R
pigni TA³r

To the readings of the Polian Mss., add «Tapingui» of the Catalan Map, «Tampizu» of Fra Mauro (in agreement with «Tapinzu» in R, which may almost suggest that the prototype of Z had also an initial t-); cf. HALLBERG, 499; CORDIER, L'Extrême-Orient dans l'Atlas Catalan, 26. It has been identified with Shao-hsing, without any attempt at a phonetic equivalence. I can understand that the identification with Shao-hsing was accepted by YULE (Y, II, 220), who made Polo follow a zigzag route from Hang-chou to Fu-chou. It is more surprising that CHARIGNON (Ch, III, 99) should have accepted it, when he correctly follows Polo's itinerary south-west of Hang-chou; moreover, his etymology of «Tanpigiu» by 東 越 Tung-yüeh is sheer nonsense.
From Yung-lo ta-tien, 19432, 22 b-26 a, and 19426, 9 b-10 a, we can fairly well ascertain the list of the postal relays between Fu-chou and Hang-chou in the Mongol dynasty. A main point on the route was the branching off, after Yen-p'ing, of one road going to Chiang-hsi through Shao-wu, and the other to Hang-chou via Chien-ning (see «Quenlinfu») and Chien-yang. This last road is manifestly the one described by Polo, and I gladly acknowledge that, for that part of Polo's itinerary, CHARIGNON has gone a step further than PHILLIPS, who had already improved on YULE.
But it is then evident that we must look for «Tanpigiu» etc. to the south-west of Hang-chou, and the first important place we meet on the postal road of the time is the modern 嚴 州 府 Yen-chou-fu. CHARIGNON had thought of it (Ch, III, 99) and of an alternative explanation of «Tanpigiu» by a would-be form 東 睦 州 Tung-mu-chou of the beginning of the 7th cent., which however never existed. Yen-chou had been called Mu-chou (not Tung-mu-chou) in T'ang times, but was renamed Yen-chou in the beginning of the 12th cent., and this is the name which remained in use, although its official designation under the Yüan was the lu of Chien-tê. Polo uses the common