It might just as well be an Italianate, or Frankish, or perhaps Latin, construction: ‘Acbalec [di/de] Mangi’. The Qarakhanids, who controlled a large part of Central Asia during the eleventh and early twelfth centuries (including Transoxania), ‘cherished their Turkish ways’, and ‘fostered the development of a new Turkish literature alongside the Persian and Arabic literatures that had arisen earlier’. The name then remained in use in Persian and Arabic, right up to the Yuan period. If there was a distinctively Persian term for southern China, then it was Machin. He records that the area around the town ‘used to be called Organum and used to have its own language and script but now it has all been seized by the Turcomans’. 1 D.O. 14 F. Wood, Did Marco Polo Go to China? Ye Yiliang 葉奕良, Yilangxue z ai Zhongguo lunwen ji 伊朗學在中國論文集, (2) (Beijing: Beijing daxue chubanshe, 1998), pp.42–43. 37 J.F. [276] Such a translation really cannot be justified. Li Xiusheng 李修生, Quan Yuan wen 全元文, Vol.29 (Nanjing: Jiangsu guji chubanshe, 2004), j.952, pp.297–98. It will only take a few minutes. This is also an interesting early use of the Perso-Arabic script for writing Turkic. 149 Morgan, ‘Persian as a Lingua Franca,’ p.163. In Chinese, this was canzhi zhengshi 参知政事 (Second Privy Councillor), commonly shortened to canzheng 参政. 256 Hao Sumin 郝蘇民 and Liu Wenxing 劉文性, ‘Guanyu Keyou Zhongqi yexunpai alabo zimu wenzi dushide zai taolun,’ 関于科右中旗夜巡牌阿拉伯字母文字讀釋的再討論 Minzu yuwen 1996(3): 71–72. To the Chinese, Persian would have been just another ‘barbarian’ language. 258 G. Doerfer, Türkische und Mongolische elemente im Neupersischen unter besondere Berüchsichtigung älterer neupersischer Geschichtsquellen, vor Allem der Mongolen- und Timuridenzeit, Band 1, Mongolische elemente im Neupersischen, (Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1963), pp.239–41. ed., In the Service of the Khan (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1993), pp.466–79. [243] However, as has already been noted above, Turkic was being written with the Perso-Arabic script at the court of Güyük Qa’an, in Mongolia, as early as 1246. P.B. [209] It is quite likely that many of the Nestorian Christian Uighurs in Quanzhou were merchants. Golden, An Introduction to the History of the Turkic Peoples (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1992), p.195. The evidence for this, in the surviving letter from Güyük to the Pope, is incontrovertible. 237 Huang Shijian, ‘Persian language in China,’ p.93. 63 J.L. 243 Huang Shijian 黄時鑒, ‘Yuandai siti mingwen tongquande kaoshi 元代四體銘文銅權的考釋,’ in ed. Many bestiaries are illustrated, and the pictures commonly show a spotted animal, with no sign of any stripes. Brose, ‘Uyghur Technologists of Writing and Literacy in Mongol China,’ T’oung pao 91 (2005): 396–435, at pp.405–06. [102] The person intended was Fan Wenhu 範文虎, but ‘samcin’ comes not from his name but from his title. Most Nestorian remains have been found in north-west China and Inner Mongolia, but there are a significant quantity from Beijing, Yangzhou and Quanzhou. Word of the Day 139 Morgan, ‘Persian as a Lingua Franca,’ p.165; William of Rubruck, ‘The Journey,’ p.136; original Latin text in Recueil de voyages et de m émoires, Vol.4, p.281. At a slightly later date, William of Rubruck made a similar journey to that of John’s, apparently passing south of Lake Balkhash and spending twelve days in Qayalïq (if his ‘Cailac’ is this town, as seems very likely). As it was in the Ili region, east of Qayalïq, it seems unlikely that it was William’s ‘Equius’; more likely is Pelliot’s other choice, Iki-ögüz, south-west of Qayalïq (see B.D. [173] Great as is my respect for Professor de Rachewiltz, I am convinced that he is quite wrong about this. 201 Tombstones are, in fact, not a very good reflection of the living population. [51] Indeed, at one point, he refers to ‘Machin — which the Cathaians call Manzi and the Mongols call Nankiyas’. 120 YS, Vol.1, j.7, p.128; T.T. It must be noted, however, that the inscriptions on weights and paizi are not certainly Persian. 62 Moule and Pelliot, Marco Polo, Vol.1, p.227; Yule, Marco Polo, 3rd ed., Vol.1, p.397. The Chinese name was Dadu or Daidu 大都, the Mongolian version of this was Taidu. My hometown is Shenzhen, China. 260 Allsen, ‘The Rasûlid Hexaglot,’ p.38. It is the fact that it is indeed vernacular that makes it hard to know exactly when it came into use, for written Chinese was generally very different from the spoken language, at least until recent times. 192 Hu Sanxing 胡三省, Zi zhi tong jian yin zhu 資治通鑑音註, in Sima Guang 司馬光, Zi zhi tong jian 資治通鑑 (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1956), Vol.15, j.221, p.7076; this passage is paraphrased in Mackerras, The Uighur Empire, p.136n. [210] An inscription in Tamil discovered in Quanzhou records the installation of an image of a god in a Hindu temple in the city in 1281. [190] It is also mentioned in the Chinese annals of the Tang dynasty. 5 Only a very small fraction of the Chinese sources for the Mongol/Yuan period have ever been translated into any other language. [235] There are, then, no more than about twenty Mongol paizi currently extant.[236]. It does not include the paizi in the collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, for example. [149] This is probably generally correct, but it must be likely that Turkic languages were predominant, at least on the overland trade routes through the largely Uighur regions around the Tarim Basin, and the mainly Turkic Semirechye and Khwarazm.