CHAPTER XXV.
[(1.)] “Samabram.”—Ibn Haukal describes Shabran as being, in his time, a small place, but “pleasant, and well supplied with provisions”. This town appears as Sabran, in Castaldo’s map, 1584, and De Wit’s atlas, 1688, and is called Schabran by Olearius (Voyages, etc., 1038). It has now totally disappeared, its ruins being on the Shabran-tchaï, a small river flowing into the lake Ak-Sibir on the Caspian shore.
Schiltberger states that the prince passed through “Strana”, “Gursey”, “Lochinschan”, “Schurban”, “Samabram”, and “Temurtapit”; but as the king’s son was sent for, to return forthwith to his own country, it is more probable that he selected a short route, in which case he would have travelled, if the names are here correctly interpreted, through Astara, Shirwan, Shabran, Georgia, Lezghistan, and the Iron Gate, undoubtedly Derbent, which divided Persia from Tatary.
“Strana” I take to be intended for Astara, for the following reasons. It is stated in the last chapter, that Aboubekr took a country called “Kray”; probably Kars, which had been occupied by Timour in 1393, after laying siege to the fortress of Alindsha. Aboubekr than proceeded to “Erban”, Erivan, where he seized upon his brother “Mansur”, and strangled him. “Zegra”, being with Aboubekr, was therefore apparently in Armenia, and must have travelled northwards by keeping close to the Caspian, instead of traversing the heart of the Christian kingdom of Georgia.—Ed.
[(2.)] “Temurtapit.”—According to Sprengel (Gesch. der wichtigsten Geog. Entd., etc., 362, 99), the Iron Gate through which the author passed when on his way from Persia into Tatary, was not the Iron Gate at Derbent, in the Caucasus, but the Caspian Gate in Khorasan. Malte Brun (Précis de la Géog. Univ., i, 188) and Sreznevsky (Hojdenye za try mory’a, etc., 241) are of similar opinion, while Neumann has no doubt that the Gate of Derbent, called Demyr kapou, Iron Gate, by the Turks, is the “ysen tor” of the text, which, had it been other than that at Derbent, would hardly have been described as being near Georgia and Shabran.—Bruun.
[(3.)] “a river called Edil.”—Neumann attempts, but in vain, to identify the city of “Origens”, described as being in the middle of the river “Edil”, with Astrahan, although it is clear that the author was not ignorant of the real name of the latter place, Hadjy-tarkhan being included among the cities he visited in Tatary (“Haitzicherchen”, see [Chapter 36]). It is not even necessary to conclude that “Origens”, like Astrahan, was bathed by the waters of the Volga, though the Turk name of that river is actually Etel, or Edil, a designation that may have been applied to some other river, because Schiltberger states elsewhere (Chap. 36) that “Orden”, Ourjenj, the chief town of “Horosaman”, Khwarezm, was situated near the “Edil”, and it cannot be doubted that he there alludes to the Jyhoun, or Oxus, and not to the Volga.
The first large river the author got to after leaving Derbent, was the Terek; we are, therefore, at liberty to suppose that “Origens” was in the delta of that river. Güldenstadt (Reisen durch Russl., i, 166) informs us that the vestiges of the ancient cities of Terki and Kopaï-Kala—now known as Guen-kala, the Burnt Fortress, were close to that locality, and that near the mouth of the river were other ruins, which he took to be those of the cities of Tumen and Bortchala, or “the town of the three walls”. It is certain that in these parts must have been the residence of the Khozar kings, called Semender, or Saraï-Banou—the lady’s palace—Hammer, Gesch. d. G. H., 8) distant a four days’ journey only from Derbent, but a seven days’ journey from the Itil (Dorn, Géog. Cauc. in Mém. de l’Ac. de St. P., vi, ser. vii, 527), which is equal to the twenty farsangs that separated this city from the great river Varshan, or Orshan, alluded to in the celebrated letter of the king of the Khozars to the minister of Abdor-Rahmen III. (D’Ohsson, Des Peup. du Cauc., Par. 828, p. 208.) In these same parts, also, should be placed the residence of the Tchamkal, known to the natives by a name that it was found impossible to pronounce. This name, so difficult of pronunciation, may have been transformed by Schiltberger into “Origens”, seeing that Russian annalists have construed it into Ornatch or Arnatch, evidently to be identified with Tenex or Ornacia (Ornatia, Oruntia, Cornax, Tornax). The monk Alberic (Rel. de Jean du Plan de Carpin, 114) tells us that this city was taken by the Mongols in 1221, upon the occasion of their irruption into the territory of the Comans and Russians, a city apparently identical with Ornas, “civitas Ornarum”, inhabited by Russians, Alans, and other Christians, but belonging to the Saracens. It was completely destroyed by the hordes of Batou, before their invasion of the country of the Russians and Turks (Turcorum, Taycorum, and Tortorum), as we learn from Giovanni dal Piano di Carpine and his travelling companion.
It is to be regretted that, whilst admitting the identity of this city under its various denominations, authors are unable to agree as to its site. Karamsin, D’Avezac, and Kunik are in support of Thunmann’s theory, that it was Tana, the modern Azoff. Others, Leontief (Propilei, iv), for instance, are in favour of Frachn’s (Ibn Foszlan, 162) opinion that the Oruntia of Alberic, the Ornas of Giovanni dal Piano di Carpine, and the Arnatch of the Russian chroniclers, were all identical with the Ourjenj of Khorasan. I did at one time support these views, but have since sought to prove (Sitzungsberichte d. Kön. Bay. Akad., 1869, ii, 276 et seq.) that the city in question was equidistant from Azoff and Ourjenj, or, in other words, that it coincided with “Origens”, situated, as we read in the text, on the “Edil”, a great river, viz., the Terek. It is pretty clear that “Origens”, and Ornatch or Arnatch of the Russians, are corruptions of Anjadz or Anjak, which, according to Khanikoff (Mémoire sur Khâcâni, vi, v) was a port in the Caspian Sea near Astrahan, of which the people of the eastern provinces near the Caspian might have availed themselves for the purpose of penetrating into Southern Russia.
There can scarcely, however, be a doubt that the city of “Origens” must be looked for near the Caucasus, seeing that Schiltberger quitted it just before entering the mountains of “Setzulet”, manifestly the “Zulat”, which we are told in Chapter 36 was the chief city of the mountainous country of “Bestan”. We cannot fail to recognise in this “Setzulet”, or “Zulat”, the city of Joulad, where Timour, in 1395, gained a signal victory over Toktamish, after having annihilated a body of Kaitaks near Terky or Tarkou. Little enough is left to attest to the ancient splendour of Joulad, situated on the Terek, at no great distance from Yekaterynograd; but Güldenstadt found in its neighbourhood numerous remains, including Christian monuments, chiefly at a place called Tatar Toup—Hill of Tatars. Klaproth (Voy. au Caucase et en Géorgie, ii, 161) saw three minarets standing, that greatly resembled others at Joulad; also the ruins of two churches, which he attributes, as does Güldenstadt, to the 16th century, and to the Greek faith, whilst admitting the assertion of the Circassians, that those edifices were constructed by Franks, that is to say, by Europeans from the West, who had taken up their residence among the Tatars. This is confirmed by Barbaro (Ramusio edition, 109). “Caitacchi i quali sono circa il monte Caspio ... parlano idioma separate da gli altri. sono christiani molti di loro: dei quali parte fanno alla Greca, parte all’Armena, et alcuni alla Catholica.” In the face of such evidence, it is not strange that Schiltberger should have met, to the north of the great range of the Caucasus, a Christian bishop and Carmelites who worshipped in the Tatar tongue, although the Carmelites, an order of friars originated at Mount Carmel, were not introduced into Europe by St. Louis until the year 1328; and in alluding to the mountainous country of “Bestan”, in which was the city of Joulad, the Bishtag—Five mountains—where Ibn Batouta (Lee edition, 76) met the Khan Uzbek, Schiltberger must have had in view the environs of Yekaterynograd, still called Beshtamak, because the country is watered by five tributaries to the Terek (Klaproth, i, 327).—Bruun.
[(4.)] “Zegre.”—This “Zegre” or “Zeggra”, was in all probability Tchekre, coins of whose reign, struck in 1414–1416, at casual encampments—at Bolgar, Astrahan, and Saraï, are preserved (Savelieff, Mon. Joud., ii, 337).—Bruun.
[(5.)] “savages, that had been taken in the mountain.”—This couple may have been brought from northern Siberia, where the rigorous nature of the climate compelled the natives to wear, by night and by day, as they do now, clothing made of the skins of animals. Schiltberger somewhat assimilates them to monkeys, which reminds us of Herodotus, who described the Neurians as being transformed into wolves, during six months of the year, because they were in all probability clothed in wolf-skins, so long as winter lasted.—Bruun.
[(6.)] “Ugine.”—One is liable at first sight to identify the “Ugine” with the Ung of Marco Polo (Yule, i, 276), whom he distinguishes from the Mongols proper; “two races of people that existed in that province (Tenduc) 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.” Pauthier (Marco Polo, i, 218) explains, that by Ung are meant the Keraits, or subjects of Prester John, so named because, like them, he was a Nestorian. A descendant of this Prester John, named George, mentioned by Marco Polo, was converted to Catholicism by Giovanni di Montecorvino, who had numerous partisans in China during the stay in that country of Giovanni de Marignolli (Reis. in das Morgenl., 41); Pauthier is therefore of opinion that, in Schiltberger’s time, there were Christian Ung in Northern Asia, who, if not Catholics, were perhaps Nestorians. There could scarcely, however, have been anything in common between the Ung and the “Ugine”, for the author says that, although they worshipped the infant Jesus, they were not Christians; and this he makes more explicit in Chap. 45, where he includes them among the five classes of infidels known to him, being those who confessed the three kings before receiving baptism. None of the three kings became the founder of any religion whatsoever. Neumann’s views may, therefore, be accepted, viz., that Schiltberger alludes to Buddhism, introduced among the Mongols by Jengiz from Thibet. I should consequently prefer to associate the “Ugine”, not with the Keraits, but with the great Turk tribe, the Ung-kut, in whom Colonel Yule (Marco Polo, i, 285) recognises the real Ung of Marco Polo.—Bruun.