July, 1913. Notes on Turquois. 35 



Li Shi-chen, the author of the great work on natural history, Pen 

 ts'ao kang mu, makes one brief allusion to it (Section on Mineralogy, 

 kin shi, Ch. 8, p. 17 b) in the chapter on Precious Stones {pao ski). 

 Enumerating the different kinds of jewels mentioned in earlier texts, 

 he says: "As regards the blue-green {pi) ones, the people of the T'ang 

 dynasty called them se-se; as regards the red ones, the Sung people 

 called them mo-ho ; nowadays the general term is simply precious stones 

 which are used for inlaying head-ornaments and utensils." This pas- 

 sage shows that Li Shi-ch6n considers the se-sB as a gem peculiar to the 

 T'ang period, and that he regards it as a precious stone, not as an 

 ordinary stone. ^ The lack of any description on his part bears out the 

 fact that he did not know the stone from personal acquaintance, and 

 that he merely speaks of it on the ground of meagre traditions. 



It is thus manifest that at various periods and with reference to 

 different localities the Chinese have linked different ideas with the word 

 se-se, that the later accounts are of no value in its determination as 

 regards the earlier periods of the Leu-ch'ao and T'ang, and that even for 

 the T'ang epoch a clear distinction must be made between the se-se 

 of the countries outside of China and those within the Chinese dominion. 



The various texts of the Pei shi, Sui shu and T'ang shu relating to 

 foreign countries go to prove that the se-se of those times were valuable 

 jewels, and that for this reason the word can hardly denote the turquois. 

 It is not known to rne on what authority von Krem:er 's statement of 

 turquois mines in Ferghana rests (his book is unfortunately not accessi- 

 ble to me), but I should think that he could not be regarded as an 



assertion would be valueless, as he simply reproduces literary reminiscences, but does 

 not show any actual knowledge of the stones of which he is spekking. We might 

 well make bold to say that Li Shi-ch6n (as most of his countrymen during the Ming 

 period) had never seen a turquois. In the official Statutes of the Ming Dynasty 

 (Ta Ming hui tien) jade, agate, coral, amber, pearls, and ivory are frequently men- 

 tioned in connection with state paraphernalia and court costume, but turquois is 

 conspicuous by its absence. 



^ Also in the great cyclopaedia T^u shu tsi ch'^ng, si-se are classified among pre- 

 cious stones (pao shi), likewise in the T'ien kung k'ai wu, a work on technology by 

 Sung Ying-sing, of 1637 (Ch. 18, p. 58 b). Prof. Hirth, in his above note, alludes 

 to this book after an extract in the T'u shu tsi ch'ing. As an edition of this very 

 scarce and valuable work printed 1771 in Japan is in my possession (despite diligent 

 search I could not find any in China), I may say that it contains nothing to elucidate 

 the subject; it simply says that of green stones there are si-si beads, emeralds {tsie- 

 mu-lu), rubies (ya-ku) and the various kinds of k'ung ts'ing (on the latter see F. de 

 M6ly, Les lapidaires chinois, p. 112, Paris, 1896). The author, accordingly, repeats 

 bookish reminiscences but had no actual knowledge of, or experience with these stones 

 which are to him mere names. It is certainly essential to determine in investigations 

 of this kind, whether a Chinese author speaks of an object from direct knowledge of 

 it, or merely reproduces the statements of his predecessors. In other words, we must 

 adopt sound and critical philological methods before venturing any conclusions. It 

 is manifest that the statements of the Ming and Ts'ing authors concerning si-sS are 

 ■of a purely bookish character and weak echoes of the past, but have no value what- 

 ever for the study of the question as to what the si-sS of the past really were. 



