Ancient Khotan : vol.1 / 543 ページ（白黒高解像度画像）

0543	Ancient Khotan : vol.1
古代コータン : vol.1

But the most striking evidence, I think, can be derived from the facts brought to light about the site of Ulūgh-Ziārat. Its position, three miles to the south of Uzun-Tati, accords most accurately with the 15 li to the south at which Sung Yün's narrative places the great temple, with the miracle-working statue of Buddha, relative to the town of Han-mo ⁵. After all the evidence which the previous survey of sacred sites in and around the Khotan oasis has furnished of the tenacity of local worship in this region, we can safely recognize the name and sacred character of the 'Ulūgh-Ziārat' as a distinct indication of an important Buddhist shrine having once stood there. The mere fact that the Ziārat, though assumed to be the resting-place of saints, is not called after any one of them is significant.

But the antiquarian importance of the very name Ulūgh-Ziārat, 'the holy Shrine', is still further increased by the fact that we can prove it to be of old date. We have already, in the preceding section, in connexion with the Keriya river route, had occasion to refer to the legendary or Tadhkira of Maḥmūd Karam Kābulī, of which M. Grenard has furnished interesting extracts ⁶. This text, which seems to contain certain historical elements going back to the twelfth century of our era, describes in some detail the conquest by the Muhammadan champions of the territory of 'Kenhān', situated between the Keriya river and Khotan. Its ruler, the infidel 'Turk Terkhān', is spoken of as a Jew and as a dependent of Nūdūn Khān, the 'Tersa' or Christian, who held Khotan with his Kirghiz Kalmak or Kara-Khitai. After defeating Turk Terkhān the Muhammadan host is said to have taken and pillaged the rich town of Ulūgh-Ziārat, which was close to his capital Kenhān ⁷. The latter itself vanished through magic, while the Muslim host next occupied Chīra, and victoriously advanced upon Khotan. Whatever interpretation we may care to put upon any historical reminiscences that may possibly have mingled with this legend, it is quite clear on topographical grounds that by 'the province of Kenhān' must be meant the oases stretching from Keriya to Chīra, and by 'the town of Ulūgh-Ziārat' the site of Ulūgh-Ziārat ⁸. The 'town of Kenhān', Turk Terkhān's capital, which is said to have vanished, may, at the time not exactly known to us when the legend took the shape recorded in the Tadhkira, have been looked for among the sands of Uzun-Tati.

Whether the distinction made in the legend between the fate of the two towns indicates that Uzun-Tati was abandoned earlier to the desert than Ulūgh-Ziārat, is a point which cannot be decided, nor one of much consequence for our inquiry. What, however, clearly results is that local tradition assumed both sites to have been inhabited down to the twelfth century, the time of the Kara-Khitai. This brings us still nearer than the archaeological evidence already detailed to the time of Marco Polo. Seeing that Hsüan-tsang's P'i-mo must be located at Uzun-Tati and that old Muhammadan tradition points to the same site as the capital of the tract, I think the conclusion becomes highly probable that Marco's 'Pein, the capital of the kingdom', lay also at this site or in its close vicinity ⁹.

These days in the desert had convincingly demonstrated the serious difficulties which must always attend a search for scanty remains hidden away among deceptive sand-dunes if made

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

引用情報

OCR読み取り結果

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

引用情報

OCR読み取り結果

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