CONCERNING THE PROVINCE OF TENDUC, AND THE DESCENDANTS
OF PRESTER JOHN.
Tenduc is a province which lies towards the east, and contains numerous
towns and villages; among which is the chief city, also called TENDUC.
The king of the province is of the lineage of Prester John, George by
name, and he holds the land under the Great Kaan; not that he holds
anything like the whole of what Prester John possessed.{1} It is a
custom, I may tell you, that these kings of the lineage of Prester
John always obtain to wife either daughters of the Great Kaan or other
princesses of his family.{2}
In this province is found the stone from which Azure is made. It
is obtained from a kind of vein in the earth, and is of very fine
quality.{3} There is also a great manufacture of fine camlets of
different colours from camel’s hair. The people get their living by
their cattle and tillage, as well as by trade and handicraft.
The rule of the province is in the hands of the Christians, as I have
told you; but there are also plenty of Idolaters and worshippers of
Mahommet. And there is also here a class of people called _Argons_,
which is as much as to say in French _Guasmul_, or, in other words,
sprung from two different races: to wit, of the race of the Idolaters
of Tenduc and of that of the worshippers of Mahommet. They are
handsomer men than the other natives of the country, and having more
ability, they come to have authority; and they are also capital
merchants.{4}
You must know that it was in this same capital city of Tenduc that
Prester John had the seat of his government when he ruled over the
Tartars, and his heirs still abide there; for, as I have told you, this
King George is of his line, in fact, he is the sixth in descent from
Prester John.
Here also is what _we_ call the country of GOG and MAGOG; _they_,
however, call it UNG and MUNGUL, after the names of two races of people
that existed in that Province before the migration of the Tartars.
_Ung_ was the title of the people of the country, and _Mungul_ a name
sometimes applied to the Tartars.{5}
And when you have ridden seven days eastward through this province
you get near the provinces of Cathay. You find throughout those seven
days’ journey plenty of towns and villages, the inhabitants of which
are Mahommetans, but with a mixture also of Idolaters and Nestorian
Christians. They get their living by trade and manufactures; weaving
those fine cloths of gold which are called _Nasich_ and _Naques_,
besides silk stuffs of many other kinds. For just as we have cloths of
wool in our country, manufactured in a great variety of kinds, so in
those regions they have stuffs of silk and gold in like variety.{6}
All this region is subject to the Great Kaan. There is a city you come
to called SINDACHU, where they carry on a great many crafts such as
provide for the equipment of the Emperor’s troops. In a mountain of the
province there is a very good silver mine, from which much silver is
got: the place is called YDIFU. The country is well stocked with game,
both beast and bird.{7}
Now we will quit that province and go three days’ journey forward.
NOTE 1.—Marco’s own errors led commentators much astray about
Tanduc or Tenduc, till Klaproth put the matter in its true light.
Our traveller says that Tenduc had been the seat of Aung Khan’s
sovereignty; he has already said that it had been the scene of
his final defeat, and he tells us that it was still the residence
of his descendants in their reduced state. To the last piece of
information he can speak as a witness, and he is corroborated by
other evidence; but the second statement we have seen to be almost
certainly erroneous; about the first we cannot speak positively.
Klaproth pointed out the true position of Tenduc in the vicinity
of the great northern bend of the Hwang-Ho, quoting Chinese
authorities to show that _Thianté_ or _Thianté-Kiun_ was the name
of a district or group of towns to the north of that bend, a name
which he supposes to be the original of Polo’s _Tenduc_. The
general position entirely agrees with Marco’s indications; it lies
on his way eastward from Tangut towards Chagannor, and Shangtu (see
ch. lx., lxi.), whilst in a later passage (Bk. II. ch. lxiv.), he
speaks of the Caramoran or Hwang-Ho in its lower course, as “coming
from the lands of Prester John.”
M. Pauthier finds severe fault with Klaproth’s identification of
the _name_ Tenduc with the Thianté of the Chinese, belonging to a
city which had been destroyed 300 years before, whilst he himself
will have that name to be a corruption of _Tathung_. The latter is
still the name of a city and Fu of northern Shansi, but in Mongol
time its circle of administration extended beyond the Chinese
wall, and embraced territory on the left of the Hwang-Ho, being
in fact the first _Lu_, or circle, entered on leaving Tangut, and
therefore, Pauthier urges, the “Kingdom of Tanduc” of our text.
I find it hard to believe that Marco could get no nearer TATHUNG
than in the form of _Tanduc_ or _Tenduc_. The origin of the last
may have been some Mongol name, not recovered. But it is at least
conceivable that a name based on the old _Thianté-Kiun_ might
have been retained among the Tartars, from whom, and not from the
Chinese, Polo took his nomenclature. Thianté had been, according to
Pauthier’s own quotations, the _military post of Tathung_; Klaproth
cites a Chinese author of the Mongol era, who describes the
Hwang-Ho as passing through _the territory of the ancient Chinese
city of Thianté_; and Pauthier’s own quotation from the Modern
Imperial Geography seems to imply that a place in that territory
was recently known as Fung-chau-_Thianté-Kiun_.
In the absence of preciser indications, it is reasonable to suppose
that the Plain of Tenduc, with its numerous towns and villages, was
the extensive and well-cultivated plain which stretches from the
Hwang-Ho, past the city of Kuku-Khotan, or “Blue Town.” This tract
abounds in the remains of cities attributed to the Mongol era.
And it is not improbable that the city of Tenduc was Kuku-Khotan
itself, now called by the Chinese Kwei-hwa Ch’eng, but which was
known to them in the Middle Ages as _Tsing-chau_, and to which we
find the Kin Emperor of Northern China sending an envoy in 1210
to demand tribute from Chinghiz. The city is still an important
mart and a centre of Lamaitic Buddhism, being the residence of a
_Khutukhtu_, or personage combining the characters of cardinal and
voluntarily re-incarnate saint, as well as the site of five great
convents and fifteen smaller ones. Gerbillon notes that Kuku Khotan
had been a place of great trade and population during the Mongol
Dynasty.
[The following evidence shows, I think, that we must look for the
city of Tenduc to _Tou Ch’eng_ or _Toto Ch’eng_, called _Togto_ or
_Tokto_ by the Mongols. Mr. Rockhill (_Diary_, 18) passed through
this place, and 5 _li_ south of it, reached on the Yellow River,
Ho-k’ou (in Chinese) or Dugus or Dugei (in Mongol). Gerbillon
speaks of Toto in his sixth voyage in Tartary. (_Du Halde_,
IV. 345.) Mr. Rockhill adds that he cannot but think that Yule
overlooked the existence of Togto when he identified Kwei-hwa
Ch’eng with Tenduc. Tou Ch’eng is two days’ march west of Kwei-hwa
Ch’eng, “On the loess hill behind this place are the ruins of
a large camp, Orch’eng, in all likelihood the site of the old
town” (_l.c._ 18). M. Bonin (_J. As._ XV. 1900, 589) shares Mr.
Rockhill’s opinion. From Kwei-hwa Ch’eng, M. Bonin went by the
valley of the Hei Shui River to the Hwang Ho; at the junction of
the two rivers stands the village of Ho-k’au (Ho-k’ou) south of the
small town To Ch’eng, surmounted by the ruins of the old square
Mongol stronghold of Tokto, the walls of which are still in a good
state of preservation.—(_La Géographie_, I. 1901, p. 116.)
On the other hand, it is but fair to state that Palladius (21)
says: “The name of Tenduc obviously corresponds to T’ien-te Kiun, a
military post, the position of which Chinese geographers identify
correctly with that of the modern Kuku-hoton (_Ta tsing y t’ung
chi_, ch. on the Tumots of Kuku-hoton). The T’ien-te Kiun post
existed under this name during the K’itan (Liao) and Kin Dynasties
up to Khubilai’s time (1267); when under the name of Fung-chow it
was left only a district town in the department of Ta-t’ung fu. The
Kin kept in T’ien-te Kiun a military chief, _Chao-t’ao-shi_, whose
duty it was to keep an eye on the neighbouring tribes, and to use,
if needed, military force against them. The T’ien-te Kiun district
was hardly greater in extent than the modern aïmak of Tumot, into
which Kuku-hoton was included since the 16th century, _i.e._ 370 _li_
from north to south, and 400 _li_ from east to west; during the Kin
it had a settled population, numbering 22,600 families.”
In a footnote, Palladius refers to the geographical parts of
the _Liao shi, Kin shi_, and _Yuen shi_, and adds: “M. Polo’s
commentators are wrong in suspecting an anachronism in his
statement, or trying to find Tenduc elsewhere.”
We find in the _North-China Herald_ (29th April, 1887, p. 474)
the following note from the _Chinese Times_: “There are records
that the position of this city [Kwei-hwa Ch’eng] was known to the
builder of the Great Wall. From very remote times, it appears to
have been a settlement of nomadic tribes. During the last 1000
years it has been alternately possessed by the Mongols and Chinese.
About A.D. 1573, Emperor Wan-Li reclaimed it, enclosed a space
within walls, and called it Kwei-hwa Ch’êng.”
Potanin left Peking on the 13th May, 1884, for Kuku-khoto (or
Kwei-hwa-Ch’eng), passing over the triple chain of mountains
dividing the Plain of Peking from that on which Kuku-khoto is
situate. The southernmost of these three ridges bears the Chinese
name of Wu-tai-shan, “the mountain of five sacrificial altars,”
after the group of five peaks, the highest of which is 10,000 feet
above the sea, a height not exceeded by any mountain in Northern
China. At its southern foot lies a valley remarkable for its
Buddhist monasteries and shrines, one of which, “Shing-tung-tze,”
is entirely made of brass, whence its name.
“Kuku-Khoto is the depôt for the Mongolian trade with China. It
contains two hundred tea-shops, five theatres, fifteen temples, and
six Mongol monasteries. Among its sights are the Buddhist convent
of Utassa, with its five pinnacles and bas-reliefs, the convent of
Fing-sung-si, and a temple containing a statue erected in honour of
the Chinese general, Pai-jin-jung, who avenged an insult offered
to the Emperor of China.” (_Proc. R. G. S._ IX. 1887, p. 233.)
—H. C.]
A passage in Rashiduddin does seem to intimate that the Kerait,
the tribe of Aung Khan, _alias_ Prester John, did occupy territory
close to the borders of Cathay or Northern China; but neither from
Chinese nor from other Oriental sources has any illustration yet
been produced of the existence of Aung Khan’s descendants as rulers
in this territory under the Mongol emperors. There is, however,
very positive evidence to that effect supplied by other European
travellers, to whom the fables prevalent in the West had made the
supposed traces of Prester John a subject of strong interest.
Thus John of Monte Corvino, afterwards Archbishop of Cambaluc or
Peking, in his letter of January, 1305, from that city, speaks of
Polo’s King George in these terms: “A certain king of this part of
the world, by name George, belonging to the sect of the Nestorian
Christians, and of the illustrious lineage of that great king who
was called Prester John of India, in the first year of my arrival
here [_circa_ 1295–1296] attached himself to me, and, after he had
been converted by me to the verity of the Catholic faith, took the
Lesser Orders, and when I celebrated mass used to attend me wearing
his royal robes. Certain others of the Nestorians on this account
accused him of apostacy, but he brought over a great part of his
people with him to the true Catholic faith, and built a church of
royal magnificence in honour of our God, of the Holy Trinity, and
of our Lord, the Pope, giving it the name of _the Roman Church_.
This King George, six years ago, departed to the Lord, a true
Christian, leaving as his heir a son scarcely out of the cradle,
and who is now nine years old. And after King George’s death,
his brothers, perfidious followers of the errors of Nestorius,
perverted again all those whom he had brought over to the Church,
and carried them back to their original schismatical creed. And
being all alone, and not able to leave His Majesty the Cham, I
could not go to visit the church above-mentioned, which is twenty
days’ journey distant.... I had been in treaty with the late King
George, if he had lived, to translate the whole Latin ritual, that
it might be sung throughout the extent of his territory; and whilst
he was alive I used to celebrate mass in his church according to
the Latin rite.” The distance mentioned, twenty days’ journey from
Peking, suits quite well with the position assigned to Tenduc, and
no doubt the Roman Church was in the city to which Polo gives that
name.
Friar Odoric, travelling from Peking towards Shensi, about
1326–1327, also visits the country of Prester John, and gives to
its chief city the name of _Tozan_, in which perhaps we may trace
_Tathung_. He speaks as if the family still existed in authority.
King George appears again in Marco’s own book (Bk. IV. ch. ii.) as
one of Kúblái’s generals against Kaidu, in a battle fought near
Karakorúm. (_Journ. As._ IX. 299 _seqq._; _D’Ohsson_, I. 123;
_Huc’s Tartary_, etc. I. 55 _seqq._; _Koeppen_, II. 381; _Erdmann’s
Temudschin_; _Gerbillon_ in _Astley_, IV. 670; _Cathay_, pp. 146
and 199 _seqq._)
NOTE 2.—Such a compact is related to have existed reciprocally
between the family of Chinghiz and that of the chief of the
Ḳunguráts; but I have not found it alleged of the Kerait family
except by Friar Odoric. We find, however, many _princesses_ of this
family married into that of Chinghiz. Thus three nieces of Aung
Khan became wives respectively of Chinghiz himself and of his sons
Juji and Tului; she who was the wife of the latter, Serḳuḳteni
Bigi, being the mother of Mangú, Hulaku, and Kúblái. Duḳuz Khatun,
the Christian wife of Hulaku, was a grand-daughter of Aung Khan.
The name _George_, of Prester John’s representative, may have been
actually Jirjis, Yurji, or some such Oriental form of Georgius. But
it is possible that the title was really _Gurgán_, “Son-in-Law,” a
title of honour conferred on those who married into the imperial
blood, and that this title may have led to the statements of Marco
and Odoric about the nuptial privileges of the family. Gurgán in
this sense was one of the titles borne by Timur.[1]
[The following note by the Archimandrite Palladius (_Eluc._ 21–23)
throws a great light on the relations between the families of
Chinghiz Khan and of Prester John.
“T’ien-te Kiun was bounded on the north by the _Yn-shan_ Mountains,
in and beyond which was settled the Sha-t’o Tu-K’iu tribe, _i.e._
Tu-K’iu of the sandy desert. The K’itans, when they conquered
the northern borders of China, brought also under their rule the
dispersed family of these Tu-K’iu. With the accession of the Kin,
a Wang Ku [Ongot] family made its appearance as the ruling family
of those tribes; it issued from those Sha-t’o Tu-K’iu, who once
reigned in the north of China as the How T’ang Dynasty (923–936
A.D.). It split into two branches, the Wang-Ku of the Yn-shan,
and the Wang-Ku of the Lin-t’ao (west of Kan-su). The Kin removed
the latter branch to Liao-tung (in Manchuria). The Yn-shan Wang-Ku
guarded the northern borders of China belonging to the Kin, and
watched their herds. When the Kin, as a protection against the
inroads of the tribes of the desert, erected a rampart, or new
wall, from the boundary of the Tángut Kingdom down to Manchuria,
they intrusted the defence of the principal places of the Yn-shan
portion of the wall to the Wang-Ku, and transferred there also
the Liao-tung Wang-Ku. At the time Chingiz Khan became powerful,
the chief of the Wang-Ku of the Yn-shan was Alahush; and at the
head of the Liao-tung Wang-Ku stood _Pa-sao-ma-ie-li_. Alahush
proved a traitor to the Kin, and passed over to Chinghiz Khan; for
this he was murdered by the malcontents of his family, perhaps by
Pa-sao-ma-ie-li, who remained true to the Kin. Later on, Chingiz
Khan married one of his daughters to the son of Alahush, by name
Po-yao-ho, who, however, had no children by her. He had three sons
by a concubine, the eldest of whom, Kiun-pu-hwa, was married to
Kuyuk Khan’s daughter. Kiun-pu-hwa’s son, Ko-li-ki-sze, had two
wives, both of imperial blood. During a campaign against Haidu, he
was made prisoner in 1298, and murdered. His title and dignities
passed over in A.D. 1310 to his son _Chuan_. Nothing is known of
Alahush’s later descendants; they probably became entirely Chinese,
like their relatives of the Liao-tung branch.
“The Wang-Ku princes were thus _de jure_ the sons-in-law of the
Mongol Khans, and they had, moreover, the hereditary title of
Kao-t’ang princes (Kao-t’ang wang); it is very possible that they
had their residence in ancient T’ien-te Kiun (although no mention
is made of it in history), just as at present the Tumot princes
reside in Kuku-hoton.
“The consonance of the names of Wang-Khan and Wang-Ku (Ung-Khan and
Ongu) led to the confusion regarding the tribes and persons, which
at Marco Polo’s time seems to have been general among the Europeans
in China; Marco Polo and Johannes de Monte Corvino transfer the
title of Prester John from Wang-Khan, already perished at that
time, to the distinguished family of Wang-Ku. Their Georgius is
undoubtedly Ko-li-ki-sze, Alahush’s great-grandson. That his name
is a Christian one is confirmed by other testimonies; thus in the
Asu (Azes) regiment of the Khan’s guards was Ko-li-ki-sze, _alias_
Kow-r-ki (†1311), and his son Ti-mi-ti-r. There is no doubt that
one of them was Georgius, and the other Demetrius. Further, in
the description of _Chin-Kiang_ in the time of the Yuen, mention
is made of Ko-li-ki-sze Ye-li-ko-wen, _i.e._ Ko-li-ki-sze, the
Christian, and of his son Lu-ho (Luke).
“Ko-li-ki-sze of Wang-ku is much praised in history for his valour
and his love for Confucian doctrine; he had in consequence of a
special favour of the Khan two Mongol princesses for wives at the
same time (which is rather difficult to conciliate with his being
a Christian). The time of his death is correctly indicated in a
letter of Joannes de M. Corvino of the year 1305: _ante sex annos
migravit ad Dominum_. He left a young son _Chu-an_, who probably
is the Joannes of the letter of Ioannes (Giovani) de M. Corvino,
so called _propter nomen meum_, says the missionary. In another
Wang-ku branch, Si-li-ki-sze reminds one also of the Christian name
_Sergius_.”—H. C.]
NOTE 3.—“The _Lapis Armenus_, or Azure, ... is produced in the
district of Tayton-fu (_i.e._ _Tathung_), belonging to Shansi.” (_Du
Halde_ in _Astley_, IV. 309; see also _Martini_, p. 36.)
NOTE 4.—This is a highly interesting passage, but difficult, from
being corrupt in the G. Text, and over-curt in Pauthier’s MSS. In
the former it runs as follows: “_Hil hi a une jenerasion de jens
que sunt appellés_ Argon, _qe vaut à dire en françois_ Guasmul,
_ce est à dire qu’il sunt né del deus generasions de la lengnée
des celz_ Argon Tenduc et des celz reduc et des celz que aorent
Maomet. _Il sunt biaus homes plus que le autre dou païs et plus
sajes et plus mercaant_.” Pauthier’s text runs thus: “_Il ont
une generation de gens, ces Crestiens qui ont la Seigneurie, qui
s’appellent_ Argon, _qui vaut a dire_ Gasmul; _et sont plus beaux
hommes que les autres mescreans et plus sages. Et pour ce ont il la
seigneurie et sont bons marchans._” And Ramusio: “_Vi è anche una
sorte di gente che si chiamano_ Argon, _per che sono nati di due
generazioni_, cioè da quella di Tenduc che adorano gl’idoli, e da
quella che osservano la legge di Macometto. _E questi sono i piu
belli uomini che si trovino in quel paese e più savi, e più accorti
nella mercanzia._”
In the first quotation the definition of the _Argon_ as sprung _de
la lengnée, etc._, is not intelligible as it stands, but seems to
be a corruption of the same definition that has been rendered by
Ramusio, viz. that the Argon were half-castes between the race of
the Tenduc Buddhists and that of the Mahomedan settlers. These two
texts do not assert that the Argon were Christians. Pauthier’s text
at first sight seems to assert this, and to identify them with the
Christian rulers of the province. But I doubt if it means more
than that the Christian rulers _have under them_ a people called
Argon, etc. The passage has been read with a bias, owing to an
erroneous interpretation of the word _Argon_ in the teeth of Polo’s
explanation of it.
Klaproth, I believe, first suggested that _Argon_ represents the
term _Arkhaiún_, which is found repeatedly applied to Oriental
Christians, or their clergy, in the histories of the Mongol era.[2]
No quite satisfactory explanation has been given of the origin of
that term. It is barely possible that it may be connected with that
which Polo uses here; but he tells us as plainly as possible that
he means by the term, not a Christian, but a _half-breed_.
And in this sense the word is still extant in Tibet, probably also
in Eastern Turkestan, precisely in Marco’s form, ARGON. It is
applied in Ladak, as General Cunningham tells us, specifically to
the mixt race produced by the marriages of Kashmirian immigrants
with Bōt (Tibetan) women. And it was apparently to an analogous
cross between Caucasians and Turanians that the term was applied
in Tenduc. Moorcroft also speaks of this class in Ladak, calling
them _Argands_. Mr. Shaw styles them “a set of ruffians called
_Argoons_, half-bred between Toorkistan fathers and Ladak
mothers.... They possess all the evil qualities of both races,
without any of their virtues.” And the author of the Dabistan,
speaking of the Tibetan Lamas, says: “Their king, if his mother be
not of royal blood, is by them called _Arghún_, and not considered
their true king.” [See p. 291, my reference to _Wellby’s Tibet_.
—H. C.] Cunningham says the word is probably Turki, ارغون, _Arghún_,
“Fair,” “not _white_,” as he writes to me, “but _ruddy_ or _pink_,
and therefore ‘fair.’ _Arghún_ is both Turki and Mogholi, and is
applied to all fair children, both male and female, as _Arghun
Beg, Arghuna Khatun_,” etc.[3] We find an _Arghún_ tribe named in
Timur’s Institutes, which probably derived its descent from such
half-breeds. And though the Arghún Dynasty of Kandahar and Sind
claimed their descent and name from Arghún Khan of Persia, this may
have had no other foundation.
There are some curious analogies between these Argons of whom
Marco speaks and those Mahomedans of Northern China and Chinese
Turkestan lately revolted against Chinese authority, who are called
_Tungăni_, or as the Russians write it _Dungen_, a word signifying,
according to Professor Vámbéry, in Turki, “a convert.”[4] These
Tungani are said by one account to trace their origin to a large
body of Uighúrs, who were transferred _to the vicinity of the Great
Wall_ during the rule of the Thang Dynasty (7th to 10th century).
Another tradition derives their origin from Samarkand. And it
is remarkable that Rashiduddin speaks of a town to the west or
north-west of Peking, “most of the inhabitants of which are natives
of Samarkand, and have planted a number of gardens in the Samarkand
style.”[5] The former tradition goes on to say that marriages were
encouraged between the Western settlers and the Chinese women.
In after days these people followed the example of their kindred
in becoming Mahomedans, but they still retained the practice of
marrying Chinese wives, though bringing up their children in Islam.
The Tungani are stated to be known in Central Asia for their
commercial integrity; and they were generally selected by the
Chinese for police functionaries. They are passionate and ready to
use the knife; but are distinguished from both Manchus and Chinese
by their strength of body and intelligent countenances. Their
special feature is their predilection for mercantile speculations.
Looking to the many common features of the two accounts—the origin
as a half-breed between Mahomedans of Western extraction and
Northern Chinese, the position in the vicinity of the Great Wall,
the superior physique, intelligence, and special capacity for
trade, it seems highly probable that the Tungani of our day are the
descendants of Marco’s Argons. Otherwise we may at least point to
these analogies as a notable instance of like results produced by
like circumstances on the same scene; in fact, of history repeating
itself. (See _The Dungens_, by _Mr. H. K. Heins_, in the _Russian
Military Journal_ for August, 1866, and _Western China_, in the
_Ed. Review_ for April, 1868;[6] _Cathay_, p. 261.)
[Palladius (pp. 23–24) says that “it is impossible to admit that
Polo had meant to designate by this name the Christians, who
were called by the Mongols _Erkeun_ [_Ye li ke un_]. He was well
acquainted with the Christians in China, and of course could not
ignore the name under which they were generally known to such a
degree as to see in it a designation of a cross-race of Mahommetans
and heathens.” From the _Yuen ch’ao pi shi_ and the _Yuen shi_,
Palladius gives some examples which refer to Mahommedans.
Professor Devéria (_Notes d’Épig._ 49) says that the word Ἄρχων
was used by the Mongol Government as a designation for the members
of the Christian clergy at large; the word is used between 1252
and 1315 to speak of _Christian_ priests by the historians of
the Yuen Dynasty; it is not used before nor is it to be found in
the Si-ngan-fu inscription (_l.c._ 82). Mr. E. H. Parker (_China
Review_, xxiv. p. 157) supplies a few omissions in Devéria’s paper;
we note among others: “Ninth moon of 1329. Buddhist services
ordered to be held by the Uighúr priests, and by the Christians
[_Ye li ke un_].”
Captain Wellby writes (_Unknown Tibet_, p. 32): “We impressed into
our service six other muleteers, four of them being Argoons, who
are really half-castes, arising from the merchants of Turkestan
making short marriages with the Ladakhi women.”—H. C.]
Our author gives the odd word _Guasmul_ as the French equivalent
of Argon. M. Pauthier has first, of Polo’s editors, given the true
explanation from Ducange. The word appears to have been in use in
the Levant among the Franks as a name for the half-breeds sprung
from their own unions with Greek women. It occurs three times in
the history of George Pachymeres. Thus he says (_Mich. Pal._ III.
9), that the Emperor Michael “depended upon the _Gasmuls_, or mixt
breeds (συμμíκτοι), which is the sense of this word of the Italian
tongue, for these were born of Greeks and Italians, and sent them
to man his ships; for the race in question inherited at once the
military wariness and quick wit of the Greeks, and the dash and
pertinacity of the Latins.” Again (IV. 26) he speaks of these
“Gasmuls, whom a Greek would call διγενεῖς, men sprung from Greek
mothers and Italian fathers.” Nicephorus Gregoras also relates how
Michael Palaeologus, to oppose the projects of Baldwin for the
recovery of his fortunes, manned 60 galleys, chiefly with the tribe
of Gasmuls (γένος τοῦ Γασμουλικοῦ), to whom he assigns the same
characteristics as Pachymeres. (IV. v. 5, also VI. iii. 3, and XIV.
x. 11.) One MS. of Nicetas Choniates also, in his annals of Manuel
Comnenus (see Paris ed. p. 425), speaks of “the light troops whom
we call _Basmuls_.” Thus it would seem that, as in the analogous
case of the _Turcopuli_, sprung from Turk fathers and Greek
mothers, their name had come to be applied technically to a class
of troops. According to Buchon, the laws of the Venetians in Candia
mention, as different races in that island, the _Vasmulo_, Latino,
Blaco, and Griego.
Ducange, in one of his notes on Joinville, says: “During the time
that the French possessed Constantinople, they gave the name of
_Gas-moules_ to those who were born of French fathers and Greek
mothers; or more probably _Gaste-moules_, by way of derision, as
if such children by those irregular marriages ... had in some sort
debased the wombs of their mothers!” I have little doubt (_pace
tanti viri_) that the word is in a Gallicized form the same with
the surviving Italian _Guazzabúglio_, a hotch-potch, or mish-mash.
In Davanzati’s _Tacitus_, the words “Colluviem _illam nationum_”
(_Annal._ II. 55) are rendered “_quello_ guazzabuglio _di
nazioni_,” in which case we come very close to the meaning assigned
to _Guasmul_. The Italians are somewhat behind in matters of
etymology, and I can get no light from them on the history of this
word. (See _Buchon_, _Chroniques Etrangères_, p. xv.; _Ducange_,
_Gloss. Graecitatis_, and his note on _Joinville_, in _Bohn’s
Chron. of the Crusades_, 466.)
NOTE 5.—It has often been cast in Marco’s teeth that he makes
no mention of the Great Wall of China, and that is true; whilst
the apologies made for the omission have always seemed to me
unsatisfactory. [I find in Sir G. Staunton’s account of Macartney’s
Embassy (II. p. 185) this most amusing explanation of the reason
why Marco Polo did not mention the wall: “A copy of Marco Polo’s
route to China, taken from the Doge’s Library at Venice, is
sufficient to decide this question. By this route it appears that,
in fact, that traveller did not pass through Tartary to Pekin, but
that after having followed the usual track of the caravans, as far
to the eastward from Europe as Samarcand and Cashgar, he bent his
course to the south-east across the River Ganges to Bengal (!),
and, keeping to the southward of the Thibet mountains, reached the
Chinese province of Shensee, and through the adjoining province
of Shansee to the capital, without interfering with the line of
the Great Wall.”—H. C.] We shall see presently that the Great Wall
is spoken of by Marco’s contemporaries Rashiduddin and Abulfeda.
Yet I think, if we read “between the lines,” we shall see reason
to believe that the Wall _was_ in Polo’s mind at this point of
the dictation, whatever may have been his motive for withholding
distincter notice of it.[7] I cannot conceive why he should say:
“Here is what we call the country of Gog and Magog,” except as
intimating “Here we are _beside the_ GREAT WALL known as the
Rampart of Gog and Magog,” and being there he tries to find a
reason why those names should have been applied to it. Why they
were really applied to it we have already seen. (_Supra_, ch. iv.
note 3.) Abulfeda says: “The Ocean turns northward along the east
of China, and then expands in the same direction till it passes
China, and comes opposite to the Rampart of Yájúj and Májúj;”
whilst the same geographer’s definition of the boundaries of China
exhibits that country as bounded on the west by the Indo-Chinese
wildernesses; on the south, by the seas; on the east, by the
Eastern Ocean; on the north, by the _land of Yájúj and Májúj_, and
other countries unknown. Ibn Batuta, with less accurate geography
in his head than Abulfeda, maugre his travels, asks about the
Rampart of Gog and Magog (_Sadd Yájúj wa Májúj_) when he is at
Sin Kalán, _i.e._ Canton, and, as might be expected, gets little
satisfaction.
[Illustration: The Rampart of Gog and Magog.]
Apart from this interesting point Marsden seems to be right in the
general bearing of his explanation of the passage, and I conceive
that the two classes of people whom Marco tries to identify with
Gog and Magog do substantially represent the two genera or species,
TURKS and MONGOLS, or, according to another nomenclature used by
Rashiduddin, the _White_ and _Black_ Tartars. To the latter class
belonged Chinghiz and his MONGOLS proper, with a number of other
tribes detailed by Rashiduddin, and these I take to be in a general
way the MUNGUL of our text. The _Ung_, on the other hand, are the
UNG-_ḳut_, the latter form being presumably only the Mongol plural
of UNG. The Ung-ḳut were a Turk tribe who were vassals of the Kin
Emperors of Cathay, and were intrusted with the defence of the Wall
of China, or an important portion of it, which was called by the
Mongols _Ungu_, a name which some connect with that of the tribe.
[See note pp. 288–9.] Erdmann indeed asserts that the wall by which
the Ung-ḳut dwelt was not the Great Wall, but some other. There are
traces of other great ramparts in the steppes north of the present
wall. But Erdmann’s arguments seem to me weak in the extreme.
[Mr. Rockhill (_Rubruck_, p. 112) writes: “The earliest mention I
have found of the name _Mongol_ in Oriental works occurs in the
Chinese annals of the After T’ang period (A.D. 923–934), where it
occurs in the form _Meng-ku_. In the annals of the Liao Dynasty
(A.D. 916–1125) it is found under the form _Meng-ku-li_. The first
occurrence of the name in the _Tung chien kang mu_ is, however, in
the 6th year Shao-hsing of Kao-tsung of the Sung (A.D. 1136). It
is just possible that we may trace the word back a little earlier
than the After T’ang period, and that the _Meng-wa_ (or _ngo_, as
this character may have been pronounced at the time), a branch of
the Shih-wei, a Tungusic or Kitan people living around Lake Keule,
to the east of the Baikal, and along the Kerulun, which empties
into it, during the 7th and subsequent centuries, and referred to
in the _T’ang shu_ (Bk. 219), is the same as the later Meng-ku.
Though I have been unable to find, as stated by Howorth (_History_,
i. pt. I. 28), that the name _Meng-ku_ occurs in the T’ang shu,
his conclusion that the northern Shih-wei of that time constituted
the Mongol nation proper is very likely correct.... I. J. Schmidt
(_Sanang Setzen_, 380) derives the name _Mongol_ from _mong_,
meaning ‘brave, daring, bold,’ while Rashid-eddin says it means
‘simple, weak’ (_d’Ohsson_, i. 22). The Chinese characters used to
transcribe the name mean ‘dull, stupid,’ and ‘old, ancient,’ but
they are used purely phonetically.... The Mongols of the present
day are commonly called by the Chinese _Ta-tzŭ_, but this name
is resented by the Mongols as opprobrious, though it is but an
abbreviated form of the name _Ta-ta-tzŭ_, in which, according to
Rubruck, they once gloried.”—H. C.]
Vincent of Beauvais has got from some of his authorities a
conception of the distinction of the Tartars into two races, to
which, however, he assigns no names: “_Sunt autem duo genera
Tartarorum, diversa quidem habentia idiomata, sed unicam legem
ac ritum, sicut Franci et Theutonici_.” But the result of _his_
effort to find a realisation of Gog and Magog is that he makes
_Guyuk Kaan_ into Gog, and _Mangu Kaan_ into Magog. Even the
intelligent Friar Ricold says of the Tartars: “They say themselves
that they are descended from Gog and Magog: and on this account
they are called _Mogoli_, as if from a corruption of _Magogoli_.”
(_Abulfeda_ in _Büsching_, IV. 140, 274–275; _I. B._ IV. 274;
_Golden Horde_, 34, 68; _Erdmann_, 241–242, 257–258; _Timk._ I.
259, 263, 268; _Vinc. Bellov. Spec. Hist._ XXIX. 73, XXXI. 32–34;
_Pereg. Quat._ 118; _Not. et Ext._ II. 536.)
NOTE 6.—The towns and villages were probably those immediately
north of the Great Wall, between 112° and 115° East longitude,
of which many remains exist, ascribed to the time of the Yuen or
Mongol Dynasty. This tract, between the Great Wall and the volcanic
plateau of Mongolia, is extensively colonised by Chinese, and has
resumed the flourishing aspect that Polo describes. It is known now
as the _Ku-wei_, or extramural region.
[After Kalgan, Captain Younghusband, on the 12th April, 1886,
“passed through the [outer] Great Wall ... entering what Marco Polo
calls the land of Gog and Magog. For the next two days I passed
through a hilly country inhabited by Chinese, though it really
belongs to Mongolia; but on the 14th I emerged on to the real
steppes, which are the characteristic features of Mongolia Proper.”
(_Proc. R. G. S._ X., 1888, p. 490.)—H. C.]
Of the cloths called _nakh_ and _nasij_ we have spoken before
(_supra_ ch. vi. note 4). These stuffs, or some such as these, were,
I believe, what the mediæval writers called _Tartary cloth_, not
because they were made in Tartary, but because they were brought
from China and its borders through the Tartar dominions; as we
find that for like reason they were sometimes called stuffs of
_Russia_. Dante alludes to the supposed skill of Turks and Tartars
in weaving gorgeous stuffs, and Boccaccio, commenting thereon, says
that Tartarian cloths are so skilfully woven that no painter with
his brush could equal them. Maundevile often speaks of cloths of
Tartary (_e.g._ pp. 175, 247). So also Chaucer:
“On every trumpe hanging a broad banere
Of fine _Tartarium_.”
Again, in the French inventory of the _Garde-Meuble_ of 1353 we
find two pieces of _Tartary_, one green and the other red, priced
at 15 crowns each. (_Flower and Leaf_, 211; _Dante, Inf._ XVII.
17, and _Longfellow_, p. 159; _Douet d’Arcq_, p. 328; _Fr.-Michel,
Rech._ I. 315, II. 166 _seqq._)
NOTE 7.—SINDACHU (Sindacui, Suidatui, etc., of the MSS.) is
SIUEN-HWA-FU, called under the Kin Dynasty _Siuen-te-chau_, more
than once besieged and taken by Chinghiz. It is said to have been a
summer residence of the later Mongol Emperors, and fine parks full
of grand trees remain on the western side. It is still a large town
and the capital of a _Fu_, about 25 miles south of the Gate on the
Great Wall at Chang Kia Kau, which the Mongols and Russians call
Kalgan. There is still a manufacture of felt and woollen articles
here.
[Mr. Rockhill writes to me that this place is noted for the
manufacture of buckskins.—H. C.]
_Ydifu_ has not been identified. But Baron Richthofen saw old mines
north-east of Kalgan, which used to yield argentiferous galena; and
Pumpelly heard of silver-mines near Yuchau, in the same department.
[In the _Yuen-shi_ it is “stated that there were gold and silver
mines in the districts of Siuen-te-chow and Yuchow, as well as
in the Kiming shan Mountains. These mines were worked by the
Government itself up to 1323, when they were transferred to private
enterprise. Marco Polo’s _Ydifu_ is probably a copyist’s error, and
stands instead of Yuchow.” (_Palladius_, 24, 25.)—H. C.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Mr. Ney Elias favours me with a curious but tantalising
communication on this subject: “An old man called on me at Kwei-hwa
Ch’eng (Tenduc), who said he was neither Chinaman, Mongol, nor
Mahomedan, and lived on ground a short distance to the north of
the city, especially allotted to his ancestors by the Emperor, and
where there now exist several families of the same origin. He then
mentioned the connection of his family with that of the Emperor,
but in what way I am not clear, and said that he ought to be, or
had been, a prince. Other people coming in, he was interrupted and
went away.... He was not with me more than ten minutes, and the
incident is a specimen of the difficulty in obtaining interesting
information, except by mere chance.... The idea that struck me
was, that he was perhaps a descendant of King George of Tenduc;
for I had your M. P. before me, and had been inquiring as much as
I dared about subjects it suggested.... At Kwei-hwa Ch’eng I was
very closely spied, and my servant was frequently told to warn me
against asking too many questions.”
I should mention that Oppert, in his very interesting monograph,
_Der Presbyter Johannes_, refuses to recognise the Kerait chief at
all in that character, and supposes Polo’s King George to be the
representative of a prince of the Liao (_supra_, p. 205), who, as
we learn from De Mailla’s History, after the defeat of the Kin, in
which he had assisted Chinghiz, settled in Liaotung, and received
from the conqueror the title of King of the Liao. This seems to me
geographically and otherwise quite inadmissible.
[2] The term _Arkaiun_, or _Arkaun_, in this sense, occurs in the
Armenian History of Stephen Orpelian, quoted by St. Martin. The
author of the _Tárikh Jahán Kushai_, cited by D’Ohsson, says
that Christians were called by the Mongols _Arkáún_. When Hulaku
invested Baghdad we are told that he sent a letter to the Judges,
Shaikhs, Doctors and _Arkauns_, promising to spare such as should
act peaceably. And in the subsequent sack we hear that no houses
were spared except those of a few _Arkauns_ and foreigners. In
Rashiduddin’s account of the Council of State at Peking, we are
told that the four _Fanchan_, or Ministers of the Second Class,
were taken from the four nations of Tájiks, Cathayans, Uighúrs, and
_Arkaun_. Sabadin _Arkaun_ was the name of one of the Envoys sent
by Arghun Khan of Persia to the Pope in 1288. Traces of the name
appear also in Chinese documents of the Mongol era, as denoting
_some_ religious body. Some of these have been quoted by Mr. Wylie;
but I have seen no notice taken of a very curious extract given
by Visdelou. This states that Kúblái in 1289 established a Board
of nineteen chief officers to have surveillance of the affairs of
the Religion of the Cross, of the _Marha_, the _Siliepan_, and
the _Yelikhawen_. This Board was raised to a higher rank in 1315:
and at that time 72 minor courts presiding over the religion of
the _Yelikhawen_ existed under its supervision. Here we evidently
have the word _Arkhaiun_ in a Chinese form; and we may hazard
the suggestion that _Marha_, _Siliepan_ and _Yelikhawen_ meant
respectively the Armenian, Syrian, or Jacobite, and Nestorian
Churches. (_St. Martin, Mém._ II. 133, 143, 279; _D’Ohsson_, II.
264; _Ilchan_, I. 150, 152; _Cathay_, 264; _Acad._ VII. 359; Wylie
in _J. As._ V. xix. 406. Suppt. to _D’Herbelot_, 142.)
[3] The word is not in Zenker or Pavet de Courteille.
[4] Mr. Shaw writes _Toongânee_. The first mention of this name that
I know of is in Izzat Ullah’s Journal. (Vide _J. R. A. S._ VII.
310.) The people are there said to have got the name from having
first settled in _Tungan_. Tung-gan is in the same page the name
given to the strong city of T’ung Kwan on the Hwang-ho. (See Bk.
II. ch. xli. note 1.) A variety of etymologies have been given, but
Vámbéry’s seems the most probable.
[5] Probably no man could now say what this means. But the following
note from Mr. Ney Elias is very interesting in its suggestion of
analogy: “In my report to the Geographical Society I have noticed
the peculiar Western appearance of Kwei-hwa-ch’eng, and the little
gardens of creepers and flowers in pots which are displayed round
the porches in the court-yards of the better class of houses, and
which I have seen in no other part of China. My attention was
especially drawn to these by your quotation from Rashiduddin.”
[6] A translation of _Heins’_ was kindly lent me by the author of this
article, the lamented Mr. J. W. S. Wyllie.
[7] I owe the suggestion of this to a remark in _Oppert’s Presbyter
Johannes_, p. 77.