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

It is most probably Yārkänd which is referred to in the Secret History (§ 263), as lying between
Kāšyar and Kuča, with the corrupt form 兀 里 羊 Wu-li-yang, *Uriyang. T'u Chi thought that
there was here a wrong reading due to the Chinese text only, and corrected 羊 yang to 羌 ch'iang;
he introduced this corrected form, Wu-li-ch'iang = Yārkänd, into his Mêng-wu-êrh shih-chi
(III, 19 b, 27 b). But the Ms. in Ulān-bātor which preserves part of the original Secret History
in Mongolian writing gives Üriyāng, so that the misreading -i- instead of -k-, easy in Mongolian script,
must have occurred in Mongolian before the transliteration with Chinese characters was made at
the end of the 14th cent. The Ms. in Ulān-bātor is very faulty, and no stress can be laid upon its
palatalized reading. On the other hand, u- or ü- instead of ya- or yā- cannot be accounted for,
so that the whole name, as well as its identification, remain open to some doubt.
Yārkänd is not mentioned on the Chinese map of c. 1330, nor in the corresponding section of
YS, 63; but the name occurs in other chapters of YS. On March 8, 1274, « thirteen water postal
relays (水 驛 shui-i) were established at the two cities Khotan and 鴉兒看 Ya-êrh-k'an (Yārkän [d]),
and two land postal relays (陸 驛 lu-i) [were established] to the north of Sha-chou (see 'Saciou') »
(YS, 8, 3 b). On June 1 of the same year, « an Imperial edict was issued to calm and comfort (an-
wei) the cities of Khotan, Ya-êrh-k'an (Yārkän[d]) and Kāšyar » (YS, 8, 4 a; in Br. II, 48-49, this is
wrongly connected with a grant made on the same day to the families of soldiers fallen at the siege
of Hsiang-yang). These measures may have been taken in connection with the revolt of the Prince
Hoqu, which must have taken place in the region of Khotan at about that time (see « Badascian»).
Another form is 押見 奉 Ya-êrh-ch'ien (YS, 120, 7 a; Br, I, 234). According to BRETSCHNEIDER
(Br, II, 47), Yārkänd is « repeatedly noticed » in YS, and generally the transcription is Yeh-li-ch'ien.
But I find the latter form only once, in the 也 里 虔 Yeh-li-ch'ien of YS, 180, 2 (Br, I, 162), where
the identification with Yārkänd is only probable.
Although Yārkänd had real importance in Ming times and even, for a period the length of
which is not fully established (see « Cascar »), was the capital of the western part of Chinese Turkestan,
there is no notice on the place in the Ming shih. A bare mention of the name, transcribed 牙 力
干 Ya-li-kan, occurs, however, in the Ming itinerary incorporated in the Pien-chêng k'ao of 1547
(Peiping National Library ed., 8, 7 b; cf. China Review, v, 235, where BRETSCHNEIDER translates
the same text from later sources).
From the middle of the 17th cent. to the middle of the 18th, the forms used in Chinese transcrip-
tion were 葉爾 奇 木 Yeh-êrh-ch'i-mu (*Yārkim) and 葉爾 欽 Yeh-êrh-ch'in (*Yārkin);
cf. Hsi-yü t'u-chih, 18, 1 a; Br, II, 310. Ch'i Shao-nan (1707-1768) adopted an abnormal 也 勒
乜 目 Yeh-lo-ch'i-mu in his Shui-tao t'i-kang (cf. Hsi-yü shui-tao chi, I, 16 b). All are Mongol
forms, in which the palatalized second syllable has reacted on the first, in agreement with the rules
of Mongol euphony; on the other hand, alternations of final -n and -m are of frequent occurrence
in Mongolian. « Yārkin », which must have originated at the time of the Kalmuk domination
in Chinese Turkestan, accounts for RENAT's « Ērken » and UNKOVSKIĬ's « Erkan » (in this last form,
Russian e- is of course pronounced ye-).
At the time of the Chinese re-conquest of Chinese Turkestan in the middle of the 18th cent.,
a new form was adopted, 葉爾 羌 Yeh-êrh-ch'iang, transcribed in Mandchu, Mongol, and Kalmuk
writings as Yārkyāng or Yerkyeng, in Tibetan as Yer-khyaṅ, in Turki as يارکنگ Yārkäng; a gloss