The Chinese Name Of Mukden Is Shing-King, But
I Know Not If It Be So Old As Our Author's Time.
I think it very possible
that the real reading is Sinchin-tingin, and that it represents
SHANGKING-TUNGKING, expressing the two capitals of the Khitan Dynasty in
this region, the position of which will be found indicated in No.
IV. map
of Polo's itineraries. (See Schott, Aelteste Nachrichten von Mongolen und
Tartaren, Berlin Acad. 1845, pp. 11-12.)
[Sikintinju is Kien chau "belonging to a town which was in Nayan's
appanage, and is mentioned in the history of his rebellion. There were two
Kien-chow, one in the time of the Kin in the modern aimak of Khorchin; the
other during the Mongol Dynasty, on the upper part of the river Ta-ling
ho, in the limits of the modern aimak of Kharachin (Man chow yuen lew
k'ao); the latter depended on Kuang-ning (Yuen-shi). Mention is made of
Kien-chow, in connection with the following circumstance. When Nayan's
rebellion broke out, the Court of Peking sent orders to the King of Corea,
requiring from him auxiliary troops; this circumstance is mentioned in the
Corean Annals, under the year 1288 (Kao li shi, ch. xxx. f. 11) in the
following words: - 'In the present year, in the fourth month, orders were
received from Peking to send five thousand men with provisions to
Kien-chow, which is 3000 li distant from the King's residence.' This
number of li cannot of course be taken literally; judging by the
distances estimated at the present day, it was about 2000 li from the
Corean K'ai-ch'eng fu (then the Corean capital) to the Mongol Kien-chow;
and as much to the Kien-chow of the Kin (through Mukden and the pass of Fa-
k'u mun in the willow palisade). It is difficult to decide to which of
these two cities of the same name the troops were ordered to go, but at any
rate, there are sufficient reasons to identify Sikintinju of Marco Polo
with Kien-chow." (Palladius, 33.) - H. C.]
We learn from Gaubil that the rebellion did not end with the capture of
Nayan. In the summer of 1288 several of the princes of Nayan's league,
under Hatan (apparently the Abkan of Erdmann's genealogies), the
grandson of Chinghiz's brother Kajyun [Hachiun], threatened the provinces
north-east of the wall. Kublai sent his grandson and designated heir,
Teimur, against them, accompanied by some of his best generals. After a
two days' fight on the banks of the River Kweilei, the rebels were
completely beaten. The territories on the said River Kweilei, the
Tiro, or Torro, and the Liao, are mentioned both by Gaubil and De
Mailla as among those which had belonged to Nayan. As the Kweilei and Toro
appear on our maps and also the better-known Liao, we are thus enabled to
determine with tolerable precision Nayan's country. (See Gaubil, p. 209,
and De Mailla, 431 seqq.)
["The rebellion of Nayan and Hatan is incompletely and contradictorily
related in Chinese history. The suppression of both these rebellions
lasted four years. In 1287 Nayan marched from his ordo with sixty
thousand men through Eastern Mongolia. In the 5th moon (var. 6th) of the
same year Khubilai marched against him from Shangtu. The battle was fought
in South-Eastern Mongolia, and gained by Khubilai, who returned to Shangtu
in the 8th month. Nayan fled to the south-east, across the mountain range,
along which a willow palisade now stands; but forces had been sent
beforehand from Shin-chow (modern Mukden) and Kuang-ning (probably to
watch the pass), and Nayan was made prisoner.
"Two months had not passed, when Hatan's rebellion broke out (so that it
took place in the same year 1287). It is mentioned under the year 1288,
that Hatan was beaten, and that the whole of Manchuria was pacified; but
in 1290, it is again recorded that Hatan disturbed Southern Manchuria, and
that he was again defeated. It is to this time that the narratives in the
biographies of Liting, Yuesi Femur, and Mangwu ought to be referred.
According to the first of these biographies, Hatan, after his defeat by
Liting on the river Kui lui (Kuilar?), fled, and perished. According to
the second biography, Hatan's dwelling (on the Amur River) was destroyed,
and he disappeared. According to the third, Mangwu and Naimatai pursued
Hatan to the extreme north, up to the eastern sea-coast (the mouth of the
Amur). Hatan fled, but two of his wives and his son Lao-ti were taken; the
latter was executed, and this was the concluding act of the suppression of
the rebellion in Manchuria. We find, however, an important variante in
the history of Corea; it is stated there that in 1290, Hatan and his son
Lao-ti were carrying fire and slaughter to Corea, and devastated that
country; they slew the inhabitants and fed on human flesh. The King of
Corea fled to the Kiang-hwa island. The Coreans were not able to withstand
the invasion. The Mongols sent to their aid in 1291, troops under the
command of two generals, Seshekan (who was at that time governor of
Liao-tung) and Namantai (evidently the above-mentioned Naimatai). The
Mongols conjointly with the Coreans defeated the insurgents, who had
penetrated into the very heart of the country; their corpses covered a
space 30 li in extent; Hatan and his son made their way through the
victorious army and fled, finding a refuge in the Niuchi (Djurdji) country,
from which Laotai made a later incursion into Corea. Such is the
discrepancy between historians in relating the same fact. The statement
found in the Corean history seems to me more reliable than the facts given
by Chinese history." (Palladius, 35-37.) - H. C.]
NOTE 3. - This passage, and the extract from Ramusio's version attached to
the following chapter, contain the only allusions by Marco to Jews in
China. John of Monte Corvino alludes to them, and so does Marignolli, who
speaks of having held disputations with them at Cambaluc; Ibn Batuta also
speaks of them at Khansa or Hangchau.
Enter page number
PreviousNext
Page 279 of 335
Words from 284075 to 285103
of 342071
