We are told that Tului, the son of Chinghiz, when directing his march against Ho-nan in 1231 by this very line from Paoki, had to make a road with great difficulty; but, as we shall see presently, this can only mean that the ancient road had fallen into decay, and had to be repaired.  The same route was followed by Okkodai’s son Kutan, in marching to attack the Sung Empire in 1235, and again by Mangku Kaan on his last campaign in 1258.  These circumstances show that the road from Paoki was in that age the usual route into Han-chung and Sze-ch’wan; indeed there is no other road in that direction that is more than a mere jungle-track, and we may be certain that this was Polo’s route.

This remarkable road was traversed by Baron v.  Richthofen in 1872.  To my questions, he replies:  “The entire route is a work of tremendous engineering, and all of this was done by Liu Pei, who first ordered the construction.  The hardest work consisted in cutting out long portions of the road from solid rock, chiefly where ledges project on the verge of a river, as is frequently the case on the He-lung Kiang....  It had been done so thoroughly from the first, that scarcely any additions had to be made in after days.  Another kind of work which generally strikes tourists like Father Martini, or Chinese travellers, is the poling up of the road on the sides of steep cliffs....[2] Extensive cliffs are frequently rounded in this way, and imagination is much struck with the perils of walking on the side of a precipice, with the foaming river below.  When the timbers rot, such passages of course become obstructed, and thus the road is said to have been periodically in complete disuse.  The repairs, which were chiefly made in the time of the Ming, concerned especially passages of this sort.”  Richthofen also notices the abundance of game; but inhabited places appear to be rarer than in Polo’s time. (See Martini in Blaeu; Chine Ancienne, p. 234; Ritter, IV. 520; D’Ohsson, II. 22, 80, 328; Lecomte, II. 95; Chin.  Rep. XIX. 225; Richthofen, Letter VII. p. 42, and MS. Notes).

[1] The last is also stated by Klaproth.  Ritter has overlooked the
    discrepancy of the dates (B.C. and A.D.) and has supposed Liu Pei and
    Liu Pang to be the same.  The resemblance of the names, and the fact
    that both princes were founders of Han Dynasties, give ample room for
    confusion.

[2] See cut from Mr. Cooper’s book at p. 51 below.  This so exactly
    illustrates Baron R.’s description that I may omit the latter.

CHAPTER XLIII.

CONCERNING THE PROVINCE OF ACBALEC MANZI.