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

In 1220, 嚴 實 Yen Shih had submitted to Muqali, the lieutenant-general left by Chinghiz-khan
in Northern China, and brought under Mongol rule 300,000 families of Chang-tê, Ta-ming, etc.;
he was then made head of a government (hsing-t'ai), the seat of which was established at Tung-
p'ing-fu, with 54 chou and hsien under him. When Yen Shih died in 1240, his son 嚴 忠 濟 Yen
Chung-chi was appointed in his stead; the latter in his turn was replaced in 1261 by another son
嚴 忠 範 Yen Chung-fan. But Qubilai soon brought to an end the abnormal position given to
the Yen family and to their fief of Tung-p'ing-fu. In 1268, Tung-p'ing-fu was reduced to the state
of a san-fu, altered to a lu of the 3rd class in 1272, with only six hsien under its jurisdiction. The
Yen family nevertheless remained at the head of Tung-p'ing-fu, and that is why the Imperial com-
missioners of 1276, when passing through Tung-p'ing-fu, note that they were the guests of Yen
hsiang-kung (cf. YS, 1, 8 b; 58, 10 a-b; 148, 7 a-8 a; TP, 1912, 432; 1915, 399; for the value of
hsiang-kung, see « Sangon »).

The Yüan postal relays from Ling-chou (Tê-hsien, see « Chianglin ») to Chi-ning (see « Singiu
matu ») were : From Ling-chou, south-east to P'ing-yüan, 90 li; to Kao-t'ang (no distance given);
south-east to Shih-p'ing, 90 li; to Tung-o, 90 li; to Tung-p'ing (« Tundinfu », no distance given);
to Chi-ning, south, slightly west, 70 li (Yung-lo ta-tien, 19426, 4 b; but the text is very corrupt).

369. TUNOCAIN

canocain G thimochaym, tymochaym P tonochan TA¹, TA³
chunonchaim, chunonchain, thunacaim, thunochaym LT tucoain F
tenochain VA timocaim, timochaim R tuncai VL
cunocain, torocain L tinchain TA³ tunocain F, FA, L, Z; G
elot(?), nouochan, timochaim V tonacarin, tunecain FB tunochayn Z
temocan, temochan, tenicanVB tonocain F, L turnochain TA¹

Correctly explained as تون و قاين Tün-u-Qāïn, from the name of two neighbouring cities in
Kuhistan. YULE has quoted other examples of that same form (Y, 1, 86, 128), and given an ana-
logous modern double form Tun-u-Tabas or Tabas-u-Tun. I may add that another mediaeval
form Tunutan'ab (= Tun-u-Tan|ab) is used in Armenian by Kirakos (cf. PATKANOV, Istoriya
Mongolov, II, 114), but I doubt that « Tan|ab » should be طاب Tan| near Merv, as PATKANOV says;
Merv is very far from Kuhistan. On Tün and Qāïn, cf. LS, 352-354; Mi, 103.

BRETSCHNEIDER (Br, II, 96) has supposed that a place 法 因 Fa-yin, which is missing on the
map of c. 1330, but is named in the list of YS, 63, 16 b, might be Qāïn, but does not say how. An
error fa for 忒; ch'ieh would be easy, but the result gives *Kāin, not Qāïn. To have Qāïn, we must
suppose a misreading فاين *Fāïn of an original map in Arabic characters, which is however not
impossible. I do not know where T'u Chi, 160, 30 b (or rather his source HUNG Chün) found the
singular information that Qāïn was also called Fāïn.