You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
<strong>Chris</strong> M. Dorn’eich<br />
張騫<br />
Zhang Qian<br />
THE SECRET MISSION<br />
OF HAN EMPEROR WU IN SEARCH OF THE RUZHI (YUEZHI)<br />
AND THE FALL OF THE GRÆCO-BACTRIAN KINGDOM<br />
(ANNOTATED COMPILATION OF EASTERN AND WESTERN SOURCES)<br />
Berlin 2008
<strong>Chris</strong> M. Dorn’eich<br />
張騫<br />
Zhang Qian<br />
THE SECRET MISSION<br />
OF HAN EMPEROR WU IN SEARCH OF THE RUZHI (YUEZHI)<br />
AND THE FALL OF THE GRÆCO-BACTRIAN KINGDOM<br />
(ANNOTATED COMPILATION OF EASTERN AND WESTERN SOURCES)<br />
Berlin 2008
CONTENTS<br />
Summary IV<br />
1 — In what year did Zhang Qian reach the Oxus River ? 1<br />
2 — Are we entitled to equate ›Daxia‹ with Tochara ? 29<br />
3 — How are we to understand the four names in Strabo’s list ? 73<br />
Bibliography 97<br />
Map 107<br />
— V —
S UMMARY<br />
The following study grew out of comments I started to jot down after Professor Falk had<br />
given me a new article by FRANTZ GRENET: ›Nouvelles données sur la localisation des cinq<br />
“ yabghus” des Yuezhi‹, Journal asiatique (Paris) 294/2–2006, published 2007. When the author<br />
was so kind as to send me an off-print a little later, I read it once again with even greater<br />
interest. My reaction was that for my own better understanding I wanted to clarify:<br />
— the chronology of Zhang Qian’s mission;<br />
— the meaning and extent of Chinese 大夏 (Da–xia);<br />
— the correct reading of Chinese 月氏 (“Ru–zhi” in place of the mistaken “Yue–zhi”).<br />
My comments kept growing over the next six or seven months and in time I found out<br />
that the last topic was a very complex one and called for a separate paper. In the end, it was<br />
superceded by a topic which evolved from the others: the number of nomadic nations that<br />
ended Greek rule in Bactria.<br />
(1) Chronology of Zhang Qian.<br />
As far as Zhang Qian’s famous mission was concerned, I found it strange that for the<br />
year of his arrival at the Ruzhi court, then on the north side of the Oxus River, I found so<br />
many different figures. This was odd because the one and only source on this is the oldest<br />
Chinese history book, the ›Shiji‹, mainly chapter 123, where Zhang Qian’s ›Report‹, at least in<br />
part, is reproduced. He tells us therein that the Ruzhi had conquered the Daxia who were,<br />
however, without a king. Many later authors understood this to mean that the Ruzhi had not<br />
really taken over the lands south of the Oxus.<br />
If Zhang Qian had arrived years after the advent of the Ruzhi, this view would be admissible.<br />
But the following study shows that Zhang Qian arrived on the scene within a few<br />
months of the Ruzhi takeover. From this it follows that the Daxia had become subjects of the<br />
Ruzhi who were now fully involved in establishing a new order. They pointedly showed<br />
Zhang Qian the flourishing markets in 藍市 Lanshi, the old capital of Daxia. It was only in<br />
the very beginning that the Ruzhi, coming from Sogdiana, had preferred to establish the<br />
(rather provisional) court of their king on the near side of the Oxus.<br />
(2) Meaning of 大夏 Daxia.<br />
The great problem of the otherwise excellent Chinese sources is the distortion of foreign<br />
names when transcribed into Chinese. This is so to the present day. What unsuspecting<br />
reader would guess that 美國, the State of “Mei,” is in fact (A)me(rica) ? Since high antiquity,<br />
the Chinese transcribed foreign names in cumbersome ways and then abbreviated these<br />
drastically — and not always to the first syllables of such a name.<br />
The present study shows that the very old (impossible) equation Daxia = Bactria has<br />
blocked the correct interpretation of the country, people and language named Daxia. Even<br />
CHAVANNES, undisputed authority in matters Chinese, fell into this trap, printing Ta-hia =<br />
Bactria. Later he did a fine translation of one chapter of the Tangshu and stated: “ Notice sur<br />
le T’ou-ho-lo (Tokharestan). Le T’ou-ho-lo ... c’est l’ancien territoire (du royaume) de Ta-hia.”<br />
Hence, Daxia was the ancient Tochara, the later Tocharistan. Tochara is not an equivalent<br />
of Bactria, it is only its eastern portion: this makes a decisive difference. The second<br />
chapter of the following study is based on the three crucial identifications:<br />
— 大夏 Daxia = Tochara (not Bactria);<br />
— 藍市 Lanshi = Darapsa (not Bactra);<br />
— 濮達 Puta = Bactra (not Pu•kalåvatð).<br />
All other assumptions are consequences of these three equations. They help us to understand<br />
that the Daxia of Zhang Qian are the Tochari of Trogus — which is not at all surprising<br />
as Trogus, too, states that the Asiani (Ruzhi) became the kings of the Tochari (Daxia).<br />
These identifications also help us to realize that the Ruzhi, ruling Daxia from Lanshi in the<br />
times of the Former Han (206 BCE – 25 CE), are still ruling from there at the beginning of the<br />
— V —
Later Han (26 CE), i.e. over a hundred and fifty years later. This means that the Ruzhi had<br />
been confined to Tochara for a long time — held in check by their immediate western<br />
neighbors, the awesome Parthians, suzerains of a vassal Saka state in Bactra. The Parthians<br />
even tried to drive the Ruzhi out of Tochara. Trogus, in the Epitome of Justin, tells us<br />
that Artabanus attacked the Tochari, in about 123 BCE. The Parthian king is killed in action<br />
and the situation remains undecided. About two generations later, in the first century BCE,<br />
the Ruzhi break through the Hindukush rampart and establish themselves in the Kabul<br />
Valley. A full century later still it is the founder of a new dynasty who unites all Ruzhi forces<br />
under his command. With this, he is finally in a position to attack the mighty Parthians and<br />
drive them out of three key positions: Kabul, Bactra and Taxila — in that order.<br />
(3) Strabo’s List of Four.<br />
Zhang Qian clearly describes the Daxia as the indigenous population of Eastern Bactria.<br />
With this, it can be shown that the Daxia, or Tocharians, have never been conquering nomads.<br />
With Zhang Qian we know that the Tochari had dwelled in the land of their name<br />
since at least a few centuries — and under a wide range of foreign invaders: Achaemenid<br />
Persians, Alexander the Great, Bactrian Greeks, Central Asian Sakas and then the Far<br />
Eastern Ruzhi, who all left their mark in the Tocharian language.<br />
It has often been repeated that Strabo lists four, but Trogus just two conquering nomad<br />
nations in connection with the fall of Greek Bactria — and that the Chinese sources know<br />
only one such nation, the Ruzhi. This study establishes the fact that the Chinese historians,<br />
too, speak of two conquering peoples. In the ›Hanshu‹ we are told what had been overlooked<br />
in all translations: the 塞王 Saiwang or “ Royal Sakas” had briefly ruled in Daxia/Tochara<br />
before they were evicted from this part of Bactria by the Ruzhi.<br />
With Trogus corroborated by the ›Shiji‹ and the ›Hanshu‹, Strabo’s vexed list becomes the<br />
main target for the concluding investigations. One name on that list has always been questioned.<br />
It will be shown now that, in fact, two names do not belong on that list: the Pasiani<br />
and the Tochari. Strabo left an unpublished manuscript when he died. It contained hundreds<br />
of marginal notes. With this we are safe to assume that Strabo had added the two names in<br />
question in the margins of his manuscript. The later unknown editor took it for granted that<br />
Strabo wanted to add these two names to his list — which so far included only the Asioi (Ruzhi)<br />
and the Sakaraukai (Saiwang). Strabo in Amaseia had used the very same source as<br />
before him Trogus in Rome: the ›Parthian History‹ of Apollodoros of Artemita.<br />
In the past, the fall of the Greek kingdom in Bactria has always been reconstructed in a<br />
way which remained in contradiction to this or that part of the historical evidence. Based on<br />
a step by step evaluation of both the Western and Eastern sources, quoted verbatim, this study<br />
outlines the complex sequence of historical happenings which lead to the destruction of<br />
Greek power north of the Hindukush.<br />
Thus, new insight is gained in a number of different topics. The more important are:<br />
— The genuine Tocharians have for centuries been firmly settled in Tochara/Tocharistan;<br />
— the conquering Ruzhi were confined to Tochara, or Eastern Bactria, for over 150 years, held<br />
in check by the more powerful Parthians;<br />
— in this long time the Ruzhi become known as the new (or pseudo-) Tocharians;<br />
— the balance of power, in favor of the Parthians so far, is only reversed by the mid-first century<br />
CE when a self-proclaimed Ruzhi king manages to evict the mighty Parthians from the<br />
Kohistan, Western Bactria, and the Panjab as well as the whole of the Indus Valley. With this,<br />
the foundations were laid for a new superpower in Central and South Asia: that of the Ruzhi<br />
under the Kushan dynasty. Ptolemy, in the later 2nd century CE, splashes the name Tochari<br />
(and variants) over all the places where the Ruzhi had been in the past three hundred years,<br />
culminating in his calling the last Far Eastern “ ordos” of the Ruzhi — close to Han China, the<br />
Zhaowu 昭武 of the Chinese sources (modern Zhangye 張掖 ) — Qog£ra (Thogara).<br />
— V —
CHRIS M. DORN’EICH 2004<br />
“ The Bowang marquis, Zhang Qian”<br />
NEW STATUE IN FRONT OF THE ANCIENT GRAVE MOUND OUTSIDE CHENGGU (HANZHONG)<br />
— 1 —
張騫<br />
Zhang Qian<br />
THE SECRET MISSION<br />
OF HAN EMPEROR WU IN SEARCH OF THE RUZHI (YUEZHI)<br />
AND THE FALL OF THE GRÆCO-BACTRIAN KINGDOM<br />
(ANNOTATED COMPILATION OF EASTERN AND WESTERN SOURCES)<br />
1. IN WHAT YEAR DID ZHANG QIAN REACH THE OXUS RIVER ?<br />
Ever since the publication, in 1738, of GOTTLIEB SIEGFRIED BAYER’s Historia Regni<br />
Graecorum Bactriani, St. Petersburg, the Hellenistic kingdom in distant Bactria has<br />
intrigued students and scholars of Asian history. The exact time and circumstances of<br />
the foundation of this ancient kingdom, in about the middle of the third century BCE,<br />
have always been hotly debated. But the collapse of this highly developed culture — a<br />
vibrant blend of Greek, Persian, Indian and local influences — about a century later<br />
has proved even more difficult to elucidate, beyond the fact that it was due, as is well<br />
known and universally accepted, to an onslaught of an uncertain number of nomadic<br />
peoples, bursting forth from the wide steppes in the north-east of Central Asia.<br />
Regarding the violent end of the Græco-Bactrian kingdom, north of the Hindukush<br />
Mountains in present North Afghanistan, we have very short classical Western sources:<br />
the extant Prologi of Pompeius Trogus and a few statements in the Geography of Strabo.<br />
Of the 44 books of Trogus’ World History, published in the time of Augustus, books<br />
41 and 42 primarily contained the history of the Parthians. But they also included remarks<br />
on the history of the latter’s eastern neighbors, the Græco-Bactrians. Trogus’<br />
bulky work has been lost, however, only his just mentioned Prologi and a pitiful Epitome,<br />
done by a later hand and containing hardly more than one tenth of the original<br />
work, have come down to us. Also lost is the original source book for both Trogus and<br />
Strabo, namely the Parthian History by Apollodoros of Artemita. And lost, too, is Strabo’s<br />
other (and earlier) main work, his History, which may have contained a chapter<br />
on the history of the then eastern extremity of the Græco-Roman world.<br />
As far as our written sources are concerned, it is a fortunate fact that we have on<br />
the downfall of the Greeks in Bactria — for the first time in world history —, not only<br />
Western, but also Eastern sources to draw from. These are the Chinese Standard Histories<br />
正史, mainly the first two, the Shiji 史記 and the Hanshu 漢書. These two<br />
Chinese history books reproduce the precious report of our sole eyewitness on the<br />
scene, the Chinese emissary of Han Emperor Wu 漢武帝: Zhang Qian 張騫 (d. 114<br />
BCE) by name — a man of outstanding abilities. To his sharp senses we owe a good<br />
number of first-hand observations which, albeit in an abridged form only, have come<br />
down to us.<br />
The present paper endeavors to extract from the ancient Chinese sources what<br />
Zhang Qian has to tell us about Bactria — and compare it with the knowledge from<br />
our classical Western sources. In this connection it is curious to note that the actual<br />
year in which Zhang Qian arrived at the shores of the Oxus River (modern Amu Darya)<br />
and in Bactria is still very much disputed among modern scholars.<br />
— 1 —
The Chinese sources, however, are unequivocal about this year. Various texts in the<br />
Shiji unmistakably state that Zhang Qian — the first<br />
Chinese envoy who traveled so far<br />
west — was sent out in a secret mission by Emperor Wu, and eventually returned to<br />
the Chinese capital Chang ’an 長安 in the spring<br />
of 126 BCE.<br />
It is narrated in the Shiji that this mission lasted<br />
13 years. And Zhang Qian spent:<br />
— “more than 10 years” 十 餘 歲 in captivity with<br />
the Xiongnu;<br />
— “more than 1 year” 留 歲 餘 with the Ruzhi (Yuezhi)<br />
月氏 in Daxia (i.e. in the eastern<br />
half of Bactria);<br />
— “more than 1 year” 歲 餘 a second time as captive of the Xiongnu.<br />
To this we have to add short periods of time for four journeys:<br />
— starting from Longxi 隴西, the border town, until being arrested by the<br />
Xiongnu;<br />
— escaping from the Xiongnu (near Shule, i.e. Kashgar) until reaching the 月氏;<br />
— returning<br />
from Daxia until being arrested by the Xiongnu again;<br />
— escaping from the ordos of the Xiongnu chanyu<br />
單于 until reaching Chang‘an.<br />
All four journeys together must have lasted less<br />
than 1 year. Of the first we can surmise<br />
that it lasted only days or weeks. The second one across the Pamirs and Sogdiana may<br />
have lasted some 3–4 months. The third one is not so easy to estimate, but cannot have<br />
been shorter than 3 months. The fourth should have been a matter<br />
of weeks as the distance<br />
was short and Zhang Qian this time escaped in the company<br />
of Yudan 於單, the<br />
deposed<br />
Xiongnu crown prince, and the two men were able to help each other effec-<br />
tively: Yudan in the Xiongnu Empire and Zhang Qian in Han China.<br />
With this information, it is clear that the historic mission started in the spring<br />
of 139 BCE — and not in 138, as even some Chinese and Japanese scholars believed<br />
or still believe. It is clear, therefore, that our Chinese Ulysses arrived at the ordos or<br />
court of the 月氏 in the company of just his Xiongnu servant Gan Fu 甘父 “after more<br />
than 10 years” as a captive of the Xiongnu and some three to four months traveling, i.e.<br />
in the summer of 129 — and not 128 as most modern texts erroneously tell us. This<br />
is a particularly important correction.<br />
Zhang Qian left Daxia in the fall of 128 and spent all of 127 with the Xiongnu again,<br />
and then escaped a second time in late winter or early spring of 126 BCE.<br />
In exile, the Xiongnu crown prince Yudan was made a “marquis” by Han Emperor<br />
Wu on May 2, 126 BCE, but soon afterwards he died.<br />
The third year ›yuan–shuo‹, fourth<br />
month, (day) ›bingzi‹, was (the start<br />
of) the first year of Yudan as marquis.<br />
In the fifth month he died.<br />
Shiji 20. 1031<br />
元 朔 三 年 四 月 丙 子 侯 于 單 元<br />
年<br />
五 月 卒<br />
It is surely of particular importance to know the exact time of arrival of Zhang Qian<br />
at his<br />
destination — the court of the Ruzhi (Yuezhi) 月氏, whom he found newly estab-<br />
lished on the north bank of the Oxus River, the modern Amu Darya.<br />
As for the Ruzhi 月氏, a short remark on their name is due here. The reading<br />
“Ruzhi” for Chinese 月氏, which I give in this article, is rather new and still widely unknown<br />
in the West. But as early as 1991: 92, the authoritative “Lexicon to the Shiji,” or<br />
Shiji Cidian 史 記 辭 典, decreed:<br />
月氏, pronounced Ròuzhð —【月氏 (ròu zhð 肉支)】...<br />
n for this is that 月氏 is in fact an ancient 肉氏, to be read accordingly.<br />
The reaso<br />
The<br />
magnificent catalogue to the exposition Ursprünge der Seidenstrasse (“The Origins<br />
of the Silk Road”), which I saw here in Berlin in December 2007 and which is<br />
based on originally Chinese texts, states on page 286:<br />
... die Yuezhi (nach anderer Lesart: Rouzhi) ...<br />
— 2 —
The modern reading of the Chinese character 肉 (meat) is “ròu,” but in ancient<br />
times the reading was “rù” — which I prefer as it is closer to our extant Western<br />
names of the 月氏, namely Rishi(ka), Asioi / Asiani, Arsi and ÅrÝi. For the same reason,<br />
I like to see in ›氏‹, read ›zhð‹ with Shiji commentator Zhang Shoujie 張守節 (8th c.),<br />
the closest-possible Chinese approximation to the sound of ›si‹, thus giving us Ru–si —<br />
so much closer to the above Western names than “Yue–si” can ever be.<br />
There is still more sound evidence for this identification. Whereas there are indications<br />
that the sound of ›月‹ was › i u ɐ t ‹ in Middle Chinese, this sound, with the<br />
help of Uighur-inherited pronunciations of Chinese characters, has been reconstructed<br />
recently as an older, or Tang-time, › u r / a r ‹ which was written ›wr‹ and ›’r‹ in Old Uighur<br />
script (Prof. SHÕGAITO 庄垣內 in a lecture in Berlin, March 2007). This, in all probability,<br />
suggests a perfectly fitting revised reading of 月氏 as Ar–si.<br />
As shown above, the historic date of Zhang Qian’s arrival at the Royal court of the<br />
Ruzhi 肉氏 (later spelled 月氏, and for a long time incorrectly transcribed “Yuè–zhð”<br />
in Pinyin) is: Summer of 129 BCE. In other words: Zhang Qian arrived in Daxia<br />
within a few months of the final fall of the Greek kingdom of Bactria — which, as<br />
can be deduced from numismatic and other evidence, still existed in the year 130 BCE.<br />
To know this, is indeed of importance to clearly understand the Shiji’s description of<br />
Daxia, located directly to the east of the final Greek possessions around the capital<br />
Bactra.<br />
It is interesting to note that the year of Zhang Qian’s arrival at the Oxus River was<br />
correctly calculated by DE GUIGNES in 1759 and by BERNARD in 1973. In the more than<br />
two hundred years between the two eminent French Orientalists we find an astonishing<br />
range of incorrect calculations. 1759: 24, DE GUIGNES writes:<br />
J’ai dit plus haut que Tcham-kiao rentra dans la Chine l’an 126 avant J.C. Il avoit employé<br />
treize ans à faire ce long voyage; il étoit donc parti vers l’an 139 avant J.C. Mais comme<br />
il étoit resté pendant dix ans prisonnier chez les Huns, il n’a pû arriver chez les Yue-chi<br />
que vers l’an 129 ...<br />
I stop quoting this early study here because the author goes on to say that Zhang<br />
Qian 張騫 (Tcham–kiao) stayed with the Ruzhi 月氏 until the year 127 — & peut-être<br />
une partie de 126. This, of course, is clearly impossible. 1973: 111, BERNARD writes:<br />
Il est incontestable qu’en 129 av. J.-C. — la date du voyage de Chang K’ien est fixée de<br />
façon sûre par les annales chinoises — la Bactriane avait perdu son indépendance politique<br />
au profit des Yué-chi, mais elle gardait encore l’identité d’un état vassal ...<br />
Here we see why it is so important to know the exact time of Zhang Qian’s arrival at<br />
the Ruzhi 月氏 court: it is the closest terminus ante quem for the final destruction of<br />
Greek Bactria we know of. Yet, almost nowhere in our modern Western literature — as<br />
far as I can ascertain — are we told that Zhang Qian arrived at the Oxus and the court<br />
of the 月氏 so early. This is all the more surprising as we have, today, as two thousand<br />
years ago, just one primary source to guide us: the Shiji, or magnum opus of<br />
Sima Tan (d. 110) and his son, Sima Qian (145–c.86). In 1825: 115-116, RÉMUSAT writes:<br />
L’empereur … choisit pour son ambassadeur Tchhang-kian, qui partit, accompagné de<br />
quelques autres officiers, pour aller trouver les Youeï-chi dans le lieu où ils s’étoient retirés<br />
… Tchhang-kian avoit à traverser, pour venir dans la Transoxane, des contrées qui<br />
étoient au pouvoir des Hioung-nou. Ceux-ci eurent connoissance de l’objet de son voyage,<br />
et réussirent à lui couper le chemin. Lui et ses compagnons furent arrêtés et retenus dix<br />
ans prisonniers …<br />
Ils parvinrent à s’échapper, et vinrent d’abord dans le Ta-wan … En voyant Tchhangkian,<br />
ils eurent beaucoup de joie … ils s’empressèrent de lui donner toute sorte de facilités<br />
pour aller dans la Sogdiane. Ce fut là qu’il apprit que les Youeï-chi … s’étoient rendus maîtres<br />
de Ta-hia. L’ambassadeur les suivit jusque dans ce dernier pays, au midi de l’Oxus;<br />
mais il ne put obtenir d’eux de quitter une contrée fertile, riche, abondante en toute sorte<br />
— 3 —
de productions, pour revenir dans les déserts de la Tartarie faire la guerre aux Hioung-nou.<br />
Tchang-kian, fort mécontent du mauvais succès de sa négociation, et ayant encore perdu<br />
une année chez les Youeï-chi … il prit sa route à travers les montagnes du Tibet: mais cela<br />
ne lui servit de rien; les Hioung-nou, dont les courses s’étendoient jusque là, le prirent encore<br />
une fois, et le retinrent assez long-temps. Il parvint enfin à s’échapper, à la faveur des<br />
troubles qui suivirent la mort du Tchhen-iu régnant, et revint en Chine après treize ans<br />
d’absence,<br />
accompagné d’un seul de ses collègues, le reste de l’ambassade.<br />
Leaving aside a few minor flaws in this rendering of the story as told in Shiji 123,<br />
RÉMUSAT does not give his readers any idea about the absolute chronology of Zhang<br />
Qian’s historic mission. To do so, he would have had to state the name of the Xiongnu<br />
chanyu 單于 (emperor) who had died when Zhang Qian finally escaped in the company<br />
of that<br />
chanyu’s son and crown prince. To find out, RÉMUSAT would have had to<br />
read<br />
Shiji 110. We do not know whether he did. From this early translation, it is impossible<br />
to know in what year Zhang Qian arrived at the Oxus River.<br />
One year later, 1826: 57, KLAPROTH told the story this way:<br />
La nation de Yue tchi habitait alors entre l’extrémité occidentale de la province de Chen<br />
si, les Montagnes célestes et le Kuen lun, c’est-à-dire dans le pays que nous appelons à<br />
présent le Tangout, où elle avait formé un royaume puissant. En 165, les Hioung nous l’attaquèrent,<br />
la chassèrent à l’occident, ou elle se fixa en Transoxiane.<br />
L’empereur Wou ti rechercha l’alliance des Yue tchi, parcequ’il espérait qu’ils se réuniraient<br />
avec lui contre les Hioung nou. Le Tchhen yu ayant pénétré ce dessein chercha tous<br />
les moyens pour le faire échouer.<br />
Tchang khian s’était offert à l’empereur pour entreprendre le voyage en Transoxiane, et<br />
il avait demandé à être accompagné d’environ cent hommes; mais, en passant par le pays<br />
des<br />
Hioung nou, il fut arrêté avec sa suite et retenu prisonnier pendant dix ans; au bout de<br />
ce temps il trouva l’occasion de s’évader, et marcha du côté de l’ouest. Il trouva les Yue tchi<br />
dans leur nouveau pays. L’envoyé chinois y séjourna pendant plus d’un an, au bout duquel,<br />
repassant chez les Hioung<br />
nou, il fut fait de nouveau prisonnier; mais il s’échappa, et revint<br />
en Chine après treize ans d’absence.<br />
In the margin of his text, next to the line Tchang khian s’était…, KLAPROTH gives<br />
“126 av. J.-C.” This way it is left to the imagination of the reader whether this absolute<br />
year<br />
applies to the departure from Chang’an, the arrival at the Oxus, or the return to<br />
China<br />
of Zhang Qian. A few pages later KLAPROTH adds:<br />
Le voyage que le général chinois Tchang khian entreprit, en 126 avant notre ère, dans<br />
les pays occidentaux, avait pour but de susciter des ennemis aux Hioung nou.<br />
From this sentence, readers were led to believe that the year stated was that of the<br />
departure of Zhang Qian. We may note here that we have to combine the texts of the<br />
two translators to get close to what is actually said in Shiji 123. And it is interesting to<br />
see that from now on Zhang Qian will always be a general in this story — as if he had<br />
been undertaking a military mission. In reality, this secret mission was purely<br />
political. Zhang Qian was only made a general a few years after his return to China as<br />
a reward<br />
for his merits as an ambassador.<br />
In 1836: 37-38, RÉMUSAT writes in a foot note to his splendid translation, published<br />
posthumously,<br />
of the Foguoji 佛國記, or “Memoirs of the Buddhist Kingdoms,” by the<br />
Chinese<br />
Buddhist monk and pilgrim to India in the years 399–414, Fa Xian 法顯,<br />
edited<br />
by KLAPROTH, who also died before the final publication:<br />
Tchang khian, que<br />
DEGUIGNES, par erreur, a nommé Tchang kiao, est un général chinois<br />
qui,<br />
sous le règne de Wou ti de la dynastie des Han, l’an 122 avant J. C., fit la première expédition<br />
mémorable dans l’Asie centrale. On l’avait envoyé en ambassade chez les Yue ti,<br />
mais il avait été retenu par les Hioung nou, et gardé dix ans chez ces peuples. Il s’y était<br />
même marié et avait eu des enfants. Durant ce séjour, il avait acquis une connaissance<br />
étendue des contrées situées à l’occident de la Chine. Il finit par s’échapper et s’enfuit à<br />
— 4 —
plusieurs dizaines de journées du côté de l’ouest, jusque dans le Ta wan (Farghana). De là<br />
il passa dans le Khang kiu (la Sogdiane), le pays des Yue ti et celui des Dahæ [Daxia].<br />
Pour éviter à son retour les obstacles qui l’avaient arrêté, il voulut passer au milieu des<br />
montagnes, par le pays des Khiang (le Tibet), mais il ne put éviter d’être encore pris par<br />
les Hioung nou … Il parvint à s’échapper de nouveau et revint en Chine après treize ans,<br />
n’ayant plus que deux compagnons, sur cent qui avaient formé sa suite à son départ. Les<br />
contrées qu’il avait visitées en personne étaient le Ta wan, le pays des grands Yue ti, celui<br />
des<br />
Ta hia (Dahæ) et le Khang kiu ou la Sogdiane.<br />
Comparing these texts with the Chinese original one realizes that the translators<br />
mixed their own comments into their renditions. What, then, did the Chinese text of<br />
Shiji 123 really say?<br />
To be sure, as early as 1828 one of the students of RÉMUSAT published a full and pioneering<br />
translation of this important chapter of the Shiji. He had done it under the<br />
close guidance of his teacher RÉMUSA T.<br />
His name was given as Brosset<br />
jeune (“Brosset<br />
jun ior”) — he was Monsieur Marie-Félicité Brosset who soon abandoned his sinological<br />
studies in favor of other Oriental languages. One reason may have been that his<br />
struggles<br />
with the Chinese language went largely unnoticed by the scholarly community<br />
o f Western Europe. Unfortunately, young Brosset’s French translation was reproduced<br />
without the original text. I include it here for the sake of easy comparison.<br />
( BROSSET 1828: 418–421)<br />
Les<br />
traces des Ta ouan (Fergana) sont con-<br />
nues<br />
depuis Tchang–kien,<br />
capitaine<br />
des Han, en l’année ›kien–youen‹<br />
( 140 ans avant J.-C.).<br />
A cette époque, le fils du Ciel interrogeant<br />
des<br />
Hiong–nou qui s’étaient soumis, apprit<br />
que<br />
les Hiong–nou avaient battu les Youe–<br />
chi,<br />
et fait une coupe du crâne de leur roi;<br />
qu’enfin les Youe–chi s’étaient dispersés, la<br />
rage dans le cœur contre les Hiong–nou,<br />
sans vouloir faire la paix avec eux.<br />
A ce récit, l’empereur des Han, qui souhaitait<br />
détruire les barbares des environs, et<br />
pour<br />
réaliser ses projets de communica-<br />
t<br />
le pays des Hiong–nou, fit chercher des<br />
gens capables de cette commission.<br />
Kien, capitaine de la caravane des Youe–<br />
chi, et Tchang–y–chi kou–hou nou–kan–fou<br />
sortirent ensemble par Long–si, se portant<br />
vers les Hiong–nou;<br />
ceux-ci les arrêtèrent et les livrèrent au<br />
Tchen–yu (c’était alors Lao–chang).<br />
Le Tchen–yu les retint …<br />
Il les garda dix ans et leur donna des femmes.<br />
Mais Tchang kien, qui avait ses instructions<br />
des Han et ne les perdait pas de vue;<br />
se<br />
trouvant tous les jours plus libre au mi-<br />
lieu<br />
des Hiong–nou, s’échappa avec ses<br />
compagnons,<br />
se dirigeant vers les Youe–chi<br />
( ils émigrèrent vers la grande Bucharie, en<br />
l’an<br />
139 avant Jésus-<strong>Chris</strong>t);<br />
Shiji 123. 3157–3159<br />
大 宛 之 跡 見 自 張 騫<br />
張 騫 漢 中 人<br />
建 元 中 為 郎<br />
是 時 天 子 問 匈 奴 降 者 皆<br />
言 匈 奴 破 月 氏 王 以 其 頭<br />
為 飲 器<br />
月 氏 遁 逃 而 常 怨 仇 匈 奴<br />
無 與 共 擊 之<br />
ions par des caravanes qui traverseraient 漢 方 欲 事 滅 胡 聞 此 言 因<br />
欲 通 使 道 必 更 匈 奴 中 乃<br />
募 能 使 者<br />
騫 以 郎 應 募 使 月 氏 與 堂<br />
邑 氏 ( 故 ) 胡 奴 甘 父 俱<br />
出 隴 西<br />
經 匈 奴 匈 奴 得 之 傳 詣 單<br />
于 單 于 留 之 …<br />
留 騫 十 餘 歲 與 妻 有 子 然<br />
騫 持 漢 節 不 失<br />
居 匈 奴 中 益 寬 騫 因 與 其<br />
— 5 —
et<br />
après quelques dixaines de jours de mar-<br />
che,<br />
il arriva à Ta ouan.<br />
Les gens du pays avaient entendu parler<br />
de<br />
la fertilité et des richesses des Han;<br />
mais,<br />
malgré tous leurs désirs, ils n’avaient<br />
pu nouer de communications. Ils virent<br />
Kien<br />
avec plaisir …<br />
Sur<br />
sa parole, le roi de Ta ouan lui donna<br />
des guides et des chevaux de poste, qui le<br />
menèrent à Kang–kiu (Samarkande). De là<br />
il fut remis à Ta–youe–chi.<br />
Le roi des Youe–chi avait été tué par les<br />
Hiong–nou, et son fils était sur le trône.<br />
Vainqueurs des Ta–hia (habitans du Candahar)<br />
les Youe–chi s’étaient fixés dans<br />
leur pays, gras et fertile, peu infesté de voleurs,<br />
et dont la population était paisible.<br />
En outre, depuis leur éloignement des Han,<br />
ils ne voulaient absolument plus obéir aux<br />
barbares.<br />
Kien pénétra, à travers les Youe–chi,<br />
à Ta–<br />
hia, et ne put obtenir des Youe–chi une lettre<br />
de soumission.<br />
Après un an de délai, revenant au mont<br />
Ping–nan, il voulut traverser le pays de<br />
Kiang; mais il fut repris par les Hiong–nou.<br />
Au bout d’un an, le Tchen–yu mourut. Le<br />
Ko–li–vang de la gauche battit l’héritier de<br />
la couronne, et se mit en sa place; l’intérieur<br />
du pays était en combustion.<br />
Kien, conjointement avec Hou–tsi et<br />
Tchang–y–fou, s’échappa et revint chez les<br />
Han (en l’année 127 avant J.-C.) ...<br />
屬 亡 鄉 月 氏 西 走 數 十 日<br />
至 大 宛<br />
大 宛 聞 漢 之 饒 財 欲 通 不<br />
得 見 騫 喜 …<br />
大 宛 以 為 然 遣 騫 為 發 導<br />
繹 抵 康 居 康 居 傳 致 大 月<br />
氏<br />
大 月 氏 王 已 為 胡 所 殺 立<br />
其 太 子 為 王<br />
既 臣 大 夏 而 居 地 肥 饒 少<br />
寇 志 安 樂 又 自 以 遠 漢 殊<br />
無 報 胡 之 心<br />
騫 從 月 氏 至 大 夏 竟 不 能<br />
得 月 氏 要 領<br />
留 歲 餘 還 並 南 山 欲 從 羌<br />
中 歸 復 為 匈 奴 所 得<br />
留 歲 餘 單 于 死 左 谷 蠡 王<br />
攻 其 太 子 自 立 國 內 亂<br />
騫 與 胡 妻 及 堂 邑 父 俱 亡<br />
歸 漢 …<br />
This then is what the two reputed Sinologists<br />
and one of their most ambitious stu-<br />
dents translate for those many Western Orientalists,<br />
Historians, Geographers etc.<br />
who — in this and over the next few generations<br />
— are unable to read Chinese them-<br />
selves. What do the latter make out of the translations and narratives<br />
?<br />
RITTER, 2 1837: 545; 547, writes:<br />
Einfluß des chinesischen Reiches auf West-Asien<br />
unter der Dynastie der Han (163 vor bis<br />
196 nach Chr. Geburt).<br />
Tschangkians Entdeckung<br />
von Ferghana, Sogdiana, Bactrien und<br />
der Handelsstraße nach Indien, um das J. 122<br />
vor Chr.G. … Hier ist der Ort, unter diesem<br />
Kaiser seines chinesischen Generals,<br />
Tschangkian, dessen wir schon früher einmal gedachten<br />
(Asien I, S. 201, 195),<br />
genauer zu erwähnen, als des Entdeckers<br />
Sogdianas, des Cas-<br />
pischen Meeres und Indiens, nicht als Eroberer,<br />
sondern als politischer Missionar, um das<br />
Jahr 122<br />
vor Chr. Geb. …<br />
It is not altogether clear, but one may guess that RITTER took the year<br />
122 BCE as<br />
the time of discovery, i.e. the year of Zhang Qian’s<br />
arrival in the Far West.<br />
LASSEN in 1838: 250 writes:<br />
In diesen Szu hat man längst die Saker er kannt und es stimmt damit,<br />
dass die Saker<br />
sich schon vor dem Falle des Baktrischen Reiches<br />
eines Theils Sogdianas bemächtigt hatten<br />
… Die Yuetchi stossen die<br />
Szu weiter und nehmen die von ihnen besetzten Gebiete ein;<br />
— 6 —
die Szu nach Süden gedrängt finden Gelegenheit,<br />
sich des Landes Kipin zu bemächtigen,<br />
die nachrückenden Yuetschi<br />
nehmen das Land<br />
der Tahia. Ein Chinesischer General<br />
Tchamkiao war auf diesem Zuge bei den Yuetschi<br />
und das wohlbegründete<br />
Ereignis fällt<br />
in die Zeit unmittelbar vor 126 vor Chr. Geburt.<br />
In 1829 and in St. Petersburg, the first gr<br />
eat Russian Sinologist BICHURIN published<br />
a translation of Hanshu 96, which does not<br />
contain Zhang Qian’ s biography nor his<br />
mission to the 月氏 — these went into Hanshu<br />
61 —, but it does mention Zhang Qian’s<br />
name a few times and includes an updated<br />
description of the people of the 月氏 and<br />
its early history. This translation into a We<br />
stern language went almost unnoticed by<br />
Western scholars. An exception is SCHOTT w ho published a book review of it, here in<br />
Berlin. In 1841: 164-165; 169, SCHOTT states:<br />
… gab der Pater Jakinph (Hyacinth) Bitschurinskij,<br />
früher eine Zeitlang Archimandrit<br />
an dem Griechischen Kloster in Peking … bereits<br />
vor zwölf Jahren vorliegendes Werk her-<br />
aus … aber seine Arbeit ist gleichwohl sehr verdienstlich, besonders … da der Verfasser<br />
hier aus einer Quelle geschöpft hat, die bis jetzt keinem Europäischen Sinologen zugäng-<br />
lich gewesen … Diese Beschreibung, im Originale<br />
Si-yü-tschuan (Kunde von den Si-yü,<br />
westliche Grenz-Regionen) betitelt, bildet einen<br />
integrierenden Theil der Annalen jenes<br />
Kaiserhauses, welches die Pariser Bibliothek schwerlich<br />
besitzen dürfte; denn Abel-Remu-<br />
sat hat seine<br />
Beiträge zur alten Geschichte Mittelasiens nur aus den Resumé’s entlehnt,<br />
die sich in Ma-tuan-lin’s kritischer Encyklopäd<br />
ie vorfinden … In seiner 18 Seiten starken<br />
Vorrede macht Pater Hyacinth folgende Bemerkung[en]<br />
:<br />
… Aber zwei Jahrhunderte<br />
vor u. Z. stiftete ein nördliches Barbarenvolk,<br />
von den Chinesen<br />
Hiong-nu genannt, eine ungeheure Steppen-Monarchie<br />
in Central- Asien, die das Reich<br />
der “Himmelssöhne” in langwierigen Kämpfen<br />
demüthigte, und der Chinesische Hof muss-<br />
te endlich auf ausserordentliche Maassregeln<br />
denken, um diesen gefährlichen Feind un-<br />
schädlich zu machen. Gefangene Hiong-nu sagten aus, auf der Landstrecke von der<br />
Grossen Mauer bis Chamul (Ha–mi) habe vor<br />
nicht gar langer Zeit ein mächtiges Volk —<br />
die Yue-tschi oder Yue-ti (Geten) — gewohnt,<br />
das<br />
aber, von den Hiong-nu verdrängt, ins fer-<br />
ne Abendland ausgewandert sei.<br />
Da schickte Kaiser Wu-ti (140 bis 85 vor Chr.),<br />
in der Hoffnung dieses Volk gegen die<br />
Hiong-nu aufzureizen, seinen General Tschang-kian<br />
als Bevollmächtigten an sie ab. Die<br />
Hiong-nu lauerten diesem Magnaten auf, und hielten ihn zehn Jahre lang in gefänglichem<br />
Gewahrsam, bis er endlich Gelegenheit fand zu entfliehen, und nun durch Fergana und<br />
Sogdiana zu den Yue-ti gelangte. Allein der Fürst dieser Nation, welcher die Ta-hia (Dacier)<br />
unterworfen<br />
und in ihrem Lande sich niedergelassen hatte, dachte in seinen schönen Besitzungen<br />
nicht mehr daran, sich an den Hiong-nu zu rächen. Tschang-kian verweilte hier<br />
einige Jahre, kehrte dann unverrichteter Sache zurück und fiel ein zweites Mal den Hiongnu<br />
in die Hände, aber Unruhen im Hiong-nu-Reiche verschafften ihm Gelegenheit,<br />
ein<br />
zweites Mal zu entrinnen; und so erreichte<br />
er (126 v.Ch.) endlich wieder seine Heimat …<br />
For the year of Zhang Qian’s return, BICHURIN’S calculation, 126 BCE, was the best<br />
so<br />
far. I have Bichurin’s Russian translation here before me, but regrettably not his<br />
preface.<br />
Hence I am unable to say, whether or not he had also calculated a definite year<br />
f or the arrival of the “general” at the court of the “Geten” (the Massagètes of RÉMUSAT<br />
1829:<br />
220). Anyway, beyond KLAPROTH and SCHOTT, few scholars in the West read BI-<br />
CHURIN’S<br />
translation of Hanshu 96. Among those who did not read it is the famous<br />
French geographer, VIVIEN DE SAINT-MARTIN. In 1850: 261–262, 267 (foot notes); 265, 292–<br />
293 (main text), he writes:<br />
Cet officier se nommait Tchang-Khian. Parti de la cour impériale en l’année 126,<br />
il fut arrêté<br />
en chemin par les Hioung-nou, qui pénétrèrent l’objet de sa mission, et qui le retinrent<br />
parmi<br />
eux. Tchang-Khian, parvenu enfin à s’évader après dix années de captivité, ne put<br />
conséquemment arriver chez les Yué-tchi qu’en l’année 116, et en effet il les trouva bien établis<br />
dans la Transoxane, qu’ils possédaient depuis dix ans …<br />
— 7 —
Mais ce qu’il nous est surtout important de connaître plus en détail, c’est la nation même<br />
des Yué-tchi … Le Pline chinois, Ma-touan-lin, a réuni au XIII e siècle ces anciennes notions,<br />
encore augmentées de notions plus récentes, et en a formé un article spécial parmi<br />
ceux qu’il consacre aux nations de l’intérieur de l’Asie. Nous insérons ici la traduction de ce<br />
morceau,<br />
qu’a bien voulu nous fournir M. Stanislas Julien; elle complète et rectifie en<br />
beaucoup de passages essentiels celle qu’Abel Rémusat en a donnée …<br />
Abel Rémusat et Klaproth identifient constamment le Ta-hia des relations chinoises<br />
avec la Bactriane, c’est-à-dire avec la partie orientale du Khoraçân actuel. Ce rapprochement<br />
ne nous paraît pas exact. Nous ne voyons nulle raison de nous éloigner ici de la synonymie<br />
naturelle que nous fournit la situation des Dahæ dans l’ancienne géographie classique,<br />
sur la côte S.-E. de la mer Caspienne, au midi de l’ancienne embouchure de<br />
l’Oxus …<br />
Ce que nous voyons quant à présent avec certitude, c’est … qu’après avoir séjourné pendant<br />
trente ans environ dans les pâturages de la Dzoûngarie, les Yué-tchi furent contraints<br />
par un nouveau refoulement de pousser plus loin leur émigration; qu’ils descendirent alors,<br />
vers les années 130 à 126 avant notre ère, dans les steppes du nord du Jaxartès, et que<br />
bientôt après, franchissant ce grand fleuve, ils vinrent s’emparer, en l’année 126, des riches<br />
provinces qui avaient appartenu peu avant aux rois grecs de la Bactriane, entre le Jaxartès<br />
et l’Oxus; qu’ils y établirent dès lors leur domination exclusive …<br />
It was a disaster of sorts that the Western translations of the “Chinese sources”<br />
should start with the late “Encyclopedia” 文獻通考 of MA D UANLIN 馬端臨 instead of<br />
w ith the Chinese Standard Histories 正史, which MA DUANLIN had reworked in a very<br />
superficial,<br />
confused, or at least confusing, manner. It took a long time to repair the<br />
damage.<br />
Later authors strongly warned against using MA DUANLIN indiscriminately.<br />
Once again I must quote LASSEN who, in 2 1874: 370-371, writes:<br />
Die Zeit dieses Ereignisses lässt sich mit ziemlicher Genauigkeit nach den Berichten<br />
über die Sendung des Chinesischen Generals Tchangkian zu den Jueïtchi feststellen. Der<br />
Kaiser Wuti aus der Familie der Han, welcher von 140—80 vor Chr. G. regierte, in der Absicht,<br />
die Hiungnu zu nöthigen, ihre<br />
Waffen gegen Westen zu richten und dadurch sein<br />
Reich<br />
von ihren fortwährenden räuberischen Einfällen zu befreien, beschloss, ein Bündnis<br />
mit ihren Feinden, den Jueïtchi, zu schliessen und sie zu einem Kriege gegen sie zu bewegen;<br />
er beauftragte den oben genannten General mit der Unterhandlung. Als dieser die<br />
Jueïtchi erreichte, fand er sie schon im Besitze von Tahia und nicht geneigt, sich an den<br />
Hiungnu zu rächen … Da sie ausserdem zu entfernt von den Chinesen wohnten, konnten<br />
sie sich nicht entschliessen, dem Tchangkian den Oberbefehl über ein Heer zu geben und<br />
in die raue und wüste Gegend ihrer früheren Wohnsitze zurückzukehren. Der Gesandte<br />
des Chinesischen Kaisers kehrte daher unverrichteter Sache in sein Vaterland zurück.<br />
Das Jahr seiner Rückkehr wird nicht übereinstimmend angegeben. Nach einer Angabe<br />
kehrte er im Jahre 126 vor Chr. G. zurück, nach einer andern 122. Der älteste Chinesische<br />
Geschichtsschreiber,<br />
bei welchem eine Bestimmung hierüber sich findet, Ssémathsien,<br />
lässt die Abreise zwischen den Jahren 140 und 134 vor Chr. G. stattfinden (in seinem Sséki,<br />
§ 123). Es bleibt daher zweifelhaft, ob die zwei Jahre, welche er bei den Jueïtchi zubrachte,<br />
von 130 oder 124 an zu zählen sind ... Da die Angabe, dass Tchangkian im Jahre 122 zurückkehrte,<br />
sich in einem aus Chinesischen Quellen geschöpften Werke findet, möchte sie<br />
als die richte betrachtet werden.<br />
LASSEN shows great respect for RÉMUSAT’s translation of the first of the famous<br />
Chinese Buddhist pilgrims who came<br />
to the holy land of India and wrote detailed repor<br />
ts: primary sources of the highest importance. In 1874 LASSEN copies RÉMUSAT’s<br />
mistake<br />
of 1836. But he also remarks that the year 122 is in clear contradiction to an-<br />
other<br />
of RÉMUSAT’s notes, namely that Zhang Qian, after his return, was made a mili-<br />
t ary commander in 123 BCE. LASSEN had not been told that Shiji 123 states in simple,<br />
u nmistakable terms Zhang Qian’s year of return (at least as far as the authors were<br />
concerned — how should they know that later readers would no longer<br />
be familiar<br />
— 8 —
with<br />
the Chinese calendar ?). LASSEN was caught between doubt and praise. One solu-<br />
t ion to his dilemma could be that the figure 122, in fact, was a printer’s mistake for<br />
127<br />
— the year of return that “BROSSET jeune” published in 1828, worked out with his<br />
t eacher RÉMUSAT. With all its shortcomings BROSSET’s early translation remained the<br />
main<br />
entry point to the Chinese sources for the next author.<br />
In 1877: 448–452, VON RICHTHOFEN writes:<br />
Entdeckung der Länder am Oxus und Yaxartes durch Tshang-kiën (~128 v.Chr.). Als<br />
Hsia[o]-wu-ti (140 bis 86), der glücklichste der Han-Kaiser, zur Regierung kam, begannen<br />
die Hiungnu, die sich seit 160 ruhig verhalten hatten, abermals Einfälle in das Reich. Ein<br />
einsichtsvoller und kräftiger Regent, beschloss er, ihre Macht zu brechen und die Carawanenwege<br />
durch das von ihnen beherrschte Land für sich zu öffnen. Die Hiungnu hatten<br />
sich durch räuberische Einfälle eine Schreckensherrschaft über die Völker des Tarym-<br />
Beckens gesichert. Alle diese hatten ein Interesse an ihrer Niederwerfung; aber kein Volk<br />
konnte, wie man glaubte, in gleichem Maass Rache gegen sie brüten, wie die Yue-tshî;<br />
denn aus dem Schädel ihres im Jahre 157 erschlagenen Königs war ein Trinkgefäss gemacht<br />
worden. Sie mussten als Bundesgenossen gewonnen werden.<br />
Ein General Namens Tschang-kiën wurde beauftragt, sie in ihren neuen Wohnsitzen<br />
aufzusuchen. Seine Reise ist von hohem Interesse, denn sie ist die erste chinesische Expedition<br />
nach fernen Gegenden im Westen, von der wir Kunde haben. Wahrscheinlich<br />
war es<br />
in der That die erste; denn der Bericht hat die Färbung einer abenteuerlichen Entdeckungsreise<br />
nach ganz unbekannten Ländern (ich folge der Erzählung im 123sten Buch des<br />
Sse-ki von Sz’ma-tsiën nach der dankenswerthen Uebersetzung von Brosset ... 1828, p. 418–<br />
450, da dieser Bericht nur 40 Jahre nach der Aussendung von Tschang-kiën geschrieben<br />
wurde und in hohem Grade das Gepräge der ungeschminkten Wahrhaftigkeit trägt; eben-<br />
so benutze ich die von Brosset berechneten Jahreszahlen, nach welchen<br />
die Gesandtschaft<br />
im Jahre 127 zurückkehrte, also 139 auszog, während sie gewöhnlich, nach Ma-twan-lin, in<br />
die Jahre 136 bis 123 verlegt wird).<br />
Um das Jahr 139 verliess Tshang-kiën seine Heimath mit einem Uiguren Namens<br />
Tshung-i, welcher wahrscheinlich mit manchen Wegen in Central-Asien bekannt war, und<br />
einer Begleitung von 100 Mann. Nach zehnjähriger Gefangenschaft bei den Hiungnu entkamen<br />
sie und setzten ihre Reise nach dem Reich Ta-wan am Yaxartes fort, wo sie die Yuetshî<br />
vermutheten. Sie hörten, dass diese weiter, nach dem Oxus, in das Land der Ta-hiâ,<br />
gezogen seien ... Dort, berichtet er, fand er die Yue-tschî nördlich vom Fluss Wei (Oxus)<br />
wohnend ... Sie empfingen ihn gut, erklärten aber, dass ihr Land fruchtbar sei, und sie<br />
darin glücklich, friedlich und der Plünderung wenig ergeben lebten; sie konnten sich nicht<br />
entschliessen, in ihre früheren rauhen und öden Wohnsitze zurückzukehren, um die alten<br />
Feinde zu bekriegen. Das Nomadenleben hatten sie noch nicht abgelegt.<br />
Auf dem Rückweg kam Tschang-kiën nach dem Gebirge Ping-shan und wollte von da<br />
durch das Land der Kiang gehen, wurde jedoch von den Hiungnu gefangen genommen<br />
und entkam nach einem Jahr. Erst im Jahre 127 kehrte er mit Einem aus seinen 100 Begleitern<br />
an den kaiserlichen Hof zurück. Sein Hauptzweck war verfehlt. Er hatte die gewünschten<br />
Bundestruppen nicht mitgebracht. Aber er hatte Wichtigeres erreicht. Denn er<br />
konnte seinem Kaiser über die Existenz grosser Völker im fernen Westen berichten ...<br />
Nach Feststellung der Lage von Ta-wan lassen sich die Positionen der anderen Völker<br />
und Reiche annähernd bestimmen. Die Khang-kiu und Yen-tsai breiteten sich am Yaxartes<br />
abwärts aus. Die ersteren nomadisierten wahrscheinlich<br />
in den Gegenden von Taschkent,<br />
Tschemkent<br />
und Turkestan, während die Yen-tsai den Unterlauf des Stromgebietes bis<br />
zum Aralsee einnahmen. Die Khang-kiu hatten im Nordosten die Usun zu Nachbarn. Mit<br />
der Residenz am Issyk-kul, breiteten sich diese wahrscheinlich am Nordfuss des Alexandergebirges<br />
und des Karatau über Talas hinaus aus. Südwestlich von den drei grossen<br />
Reichen am mittleren und unteren Yaxartes folgten einige kleine Reiche, deren Namen uns<br />
nicht aufbewahrt sind.<br />
In dem Thal von Samarkand begann das ehemalige Gebiet der Ta-hiâ, von dessen<br />
nördlichem Theil nun die Yue-tshî Besitz genommen hatten. Die letzteren scheinen sich<br />
— 9 —
ebenso nach Westen, gegen das jetzige Bokhara, als nach Südwesten bis zum Oxus ausgebreitet<br />
zu haben, während das unkriegerische, verweichlichte Volk der Ta-hiâ die reichen<br />
Handelsplätze im Süden des Oxus nebst grossen Strecken auf dem rechten Ufer desselben<br />
inne hatte ... Die Yue-tshî breiteten sich aus und mögen die Ta-hiâ nach Westen gedrängt<br />
haben, da die Dahae oder Daoi der griechischen Schriftsteller am Kaspischen Meer wohnten<br />
...<br />
With so many contradictory explanations of one and the same source text, it was<br />
about<br />
time for another — closer — look at Shiji 123 by those who read Chinese.<br />
SPECHT does, and, in 1883: 348, explains:<br />
Les Yué-tchi, ou Indo-Scythes, qui habitaient primitivement entre le pays des Thun-<br />
Hoang et le mont Ki-lian (les monts Célestes), furent vaincus, en 201 et en 165 avant notre<br />
ère, par les Hioung-nou. Ils s’enfuirent au-delà des Ta-Ouan, battirent les Ta-hia de la Bactriane<br />
dans l’ouest, et les subjuguèrent. Leur roi fixa sa résidence au nord de l’Oxus; c’est<br />
dans cette contrée que Tchang-kian, ambassadeur chinois, les trouva en 126 avant notre<br />
ère. Après le départ de ce dernier, la ville de Lan-chi, capitale des Ta-hia, tomba au pouvoir<br />
des Grands Yué-tschi qui s’établirent définitivement dans la Bactriane …<br />
Here the Ruzhi 月氏 are termed “Indo-Scythians” — an epithet which shall reap-<br />
p ear regularly from now on. The mistaken appellation “Skythai” for the 月氏 dates<br />
b ack to Strabo, for whom nine tenth of the Asian Continent were yet unknown. In his<br />
t ime, the 月氏 were known to have come from regions just beyond the Jaxartes. The<br />
G ræco-Roman historian, therefore, took it for granted that the Ruzhi 月氏 were just<br />
another<br />
branch of the Sakas — called Scythians by the earliest Greek historians like<br />
H erodotos. When the easternmost Saka tribe, the Sakaraukai/Sacaraucae, finally<br />
r eached India in the first century BCE, it was natural to name these genuine Scythians<br />
“ Indo-Scythians.”<br />
The Ruzhi 月氏, however, have<br />
never been Scythians — let alone Indo-Scythians.<br />
Two<br />
thousand years after Strabo we know that the 月氏 originated, not from regions<br />
near<br />
the Jaxartes, but thousands of kilometers further east from regions north and<br />
w est of the Yellow River where they were neighboring the proto-Huns and the archaic<br />
Chinese.<br />
The Ruzhi 月氏 came, not from Central Asia, but from the Far East and ori-<br />
ginally<br />
were, not of Indo-European, but of Mongoloid stock (see below, p. 71). They<br />
surely<br />
looked a great deal different from any of the Scythian tribes of our classical<br />
sources<br />
with whom the 月氏 only shared the pastoral way of life.<br />
The appellation “Indo-Scythians” for the Ruzhi 月氏 is a gross misnomer. It can be<br />
traced<br />
back to our classical Western and Eastern sources and the painfully difficult<br />
and time-consuming process towards their correct interpretation in modern<br />
times.<br />
In the Periplus, composed around the middle of the first century CE, the Indus Val-<br />
ley,<br />
from the Kabul River down to the Erythræan Sea, is still simply called Skythia. In<br />
t he early first century CE this part of India was in the hands of the foreign Parthians<br />
w ho had inherited it from the equally foreign Sakas or Scythians. The name “Skythia,”<br />
then,<br />
for a country formerly occupied by the Sakaraukai, a branch of the nomadic Scy-<br />
thians,<br />
makes good sense.<br />
(CASSON<br />
1989: 73–74; 77) Periplus 38–39; 41<br />
After this region ... there next comes the Met¦ d taÚthn t¾n cèran ... kdšcetai <br />
seaboard<br />
of Skythia, which lies directly to paraqal£ssia mšrh tÁj Skuq…aj par' aÙtÕn<br />
the<br />
north; it is very flat and through it keimšnhj tÕn boršan, tapein¦ l…an, x ïn<br />
flows the Sinthos River, mightiest of the potamÕj S…nqoj, mšgistoj tîn kat¦ t¾n<br />
rivers<br />
along the Erythraean Sea ...<br />
'Eruqr¦n q£lassan potamîn ...<br />
The<br />
river has seven mouths, narrow and `Ept¦ d oátoj Ð potamÕj œcei stÒmata, lept¦<br />
full of shallows; none are navigable except d taàta kaˆ tenagèdh, kaˆ t¦ m n ¥lla di£ -<br />
the<br />
one in the middle.<br />
ploun oÙk œcei, mÒnon d tÕ mšson, f' oá kaˆ<br />
At<br />
it, on the coast, stands the port of trade tÕ paraqal£ssion mpÒriÒn stin Barbari-<br />
— 10 —
of<br />
Barbarikon.<br />
There<br />
is a small islet in front of it; and be-<br />
hind<br />
it, inland, is the metropolis of Skythia<br />
itself,<br />
Minnagar.<br />
The<br />
throne is in the hands of Parthians,<br />
w ho are constantly chasing each other off<br />
it.<br />
Vessels moor at Barbarikon, but all the<br />
cargoes<br />
are taken up the river to the king<br />
at the metropolis ...<br />
The part inland, which borders on Skythia,<br />
is<br />
called Abêria, the part along the coast<br />
Syrastrênê.<br />
kÒn.<br />
PrÒkeitai d aÙtoà nhs…on mikrÒn, kaˆ kat¦<br />
nètou mesÒgeioj ¹ mhtrÒpolij aÙtÁj tÁj Sku-<br />
q…aj Minnag£r:<br />
basileÚetai d ØpÕ P£rqwn, sunecîj ¢ll»louj<br />
kdiwkÒntwn.<br />
T¦ m n oân plo‹a kat¦ t¾n Barbarik¾n diorm…zontai,<br />
t¦ d fort…a p£nta e„j t¾n mhtrÒ-<br />
polin<br />
¢nafšretai di¦ toà potamoà tù basile‹<br />
...<br />
TaÚthj t¦ m n mesÒgeia tÍ Skuq…v sunor…<br />
zonta 'Abhr…a kale‹tai, t¦ d paraqal£ssia<br />
Su[n]rastr»nh ...<br />
More than a century after the unknown author of the Periplus, but writing in the<br />
s ame Alexandria in Egypt, it is the erudite Klaudios Ptolemaios who, in his Geography<br />
of about 170 CE, introduces the appellation “Indoskythia.” He uses the name<br />
for the<br />
very<br />
same region — the lands on both banks of the Indus River from where the latter<br />
receives the waters of the Kabul River down to the ocean. Up north, Ptolemaios had<br />
named two other geographic regions “Skythia”: the “Skythia this side of the Imaon<br />
Mountains” and the “Skythia beyond the Imaon Mountains.” This may have been the<br />
simple reason why he wanted to give the Skythia in India a more dictinct name and so<br />
change the name in the Periplus, Skythia, to “Indoskythia.” As far as these classical<br />
writers were concerned, the name Skythia/Indoskythia had a lot to do with the Sakas<br />
or Scythians — and nothing with the Ruzhi 月氏. The latter arrived on the scene some<br />
time after the Sakas: in any case after the name “Skythia” had already been applied<br />
to the Panjab and the lower reaches of the Indus River.<br />
(MCCRINDLE 1885: 136)<br />
India within the (river) Ganges ...<br />
And furhter, all the country along the rest of the<br />
course of the Indus is called by the general name<br />
of Indo-Skythia.<br />
Of this the insular portion formed by the bifurcation<br />
of the river towards its mouth is Patalênê, and<br />
and the region above this is Abiria, and the region<br />
about the mouths of the Indus and Gulf of Kanthi is<br />
Syrastrênê ...<br />
Geographia 7.1.55<br />
TÁj ntÕj G£ggou 'IndikÁj qšsij ...<br />
P£lin ¹ m n par¦ tÕ loipÕn mšroj<br />
toà 'Indoà p©sa kale‹tai koinîj m n<br />
'Indoskuq…a,<br />
taÚthj d ¹ m n par¦ tÕn diamerismÕn<br />
tîn stom£twn Patalhn»,<br />
kaˆ ¹ Øper-<br />
keimšnh aÙtÁj 'Abir…a, ¹ d perˆ t¦<br />
stÒmata toà 'Indoà kaˆ ¹ perˆ tÕn<br />
K£nqi kÒlpon Surastrhn» ...<br />
MCCRINDLE, in his translation of Ptolemaios’ Indian chapters, 1885: 136–139, writes a<br />
short comment on the name “Indoskythia”: it shows that the greatest misunderstandings<br />
started in modern times:<br />
Indo-Scythia, a vast region which comprised all the countries traversed by the Indus,<br />
from where it is joined by the river<br />
of Kâbul onward to the ocean ...<br />
The period at which the Skythians first appeared in the valley<br />
which was destined to<br />
bear their name for several<br />
centuries has been<br />
ascertained with<br />
precision from the Chi-<br />
nese sources. We thence gather that a wandering<br />
horde of Tibetan extraction called Yuei-<br />
chi or Ye-tha in the 2nd century B.C. left Tangut,<br />
their native country, and, advancing west-<br />
ward found for themselves a new home amid<br />
the pasture-lands of Zungaria. Here they<br />
had been settled for about thirty years when<br />
the invasion of a new horde compelled them<br />
to migrate to the Steppes which lay<br />
to the north<br />
of the Jaxartes. In these new seats they<br />
halted for only two years, and in the year 128<br />
B.C. they crossed over to the southern bank<br />
of the Jaxartes where they made themselves<br />
masters of the rich provinces between that<br />
river and the Oxus, which<br />
had lately before belonged to the Grecian kings of Baktriana.<br />
This new conquest did not long satisfy their<br />
ambition, and they continued to advance<br />
— 11 —
southwards till they had overrun in succession Eastern<br />
Baktriana, the basin of the Kôphês,<br />
the basin of the Etymander with Arakhôsia,<br />
and<br />
finally the valley of the Indus and Syras-<br />
trênê. This great horde of the Yetha was divided<br />
into several tribes, whereof the most pow-<br />
erful was that called<br />
in the Chinese annals Kwei-shwang. It acquired<br />
the supremacy over<br />
the other tribes, and gave its name to the kingdom<br />
of the Kushâns ... These Kushâns of the<br />
Panjâb and the Indus are no others than the<br />
Indo-Skythians of the Greeks. In the ›Râjatara„gi‡î‹<br />
they are called Sâka and Turushka ( Turks) ...<br />
This is one example of how the early translations<br />
of Shiji 123 — at that time avail-<br />
able in French and Russian only — reached<br />
the desk of an English scholar: the broad<br />
outline is there, but the details are in shambles. The<br />
geography in the Chinese narra-<br />
tive is better understood than the chronology.<br />
This is strange because the Chinese his-<br />
torians are extremely careful and efficient<br />
in their methods of dating important facts<br />
and events. But<br />
it is there all given more si nico — that is the greatest barrier. In this<br />
short exposé<br />
the Eastern Ruzhi 月氏 merge with the Central Asian Sakas. In this way<br />
the 月氏 become the conquerors of Sakastana (Arachosia) and later the Indo-Scythians<br />
of the Panjab. It took time to correct these early confused misconceptions.<br />
MCCRINDLE, I like to note here, has one rare observation to offer: he states that the<br />
Ruzhi 月氏 conquered, not Bactria, but Eastern Bactriana — or Ta-hia/Daxia 大夏.<br />
SPECHT’s equation Ta-hia = Bactriana is of course a great improvement over RÉMU-<br />
SAT’s first guess Ta-hia = Massagètes or “Grands Gètes” (Goths). Short two years later<br />
MCCRINDLE comes close to hitting upon a perfect Ta-hia = Eastern Bactriana — if only<br />
he had been able to read Zhang Qian’s report in the Shiji himself. Instead, from now<br />
on Ta-hia = Bactria will be repeated by just about every author. However, in order to<br />
understand the complex story of the Ta-hia (Daxia 大夏) or Tochari properly, the<br />
equation with Bactria is not good enough: indeed it is still misleading. It suggests that<br />
the Ruzhi 月氏 conquered the whole of Bactria which — as this study will show —<br />
they were unable to do for a long time (see below, p. 56).<br />
Ta-hia 大夏 cannot be the<br />
Chinese transcription of the name Bactria. Ta-hia ( Daxia), the Chinese Standard Histo-<br />
ries (e.g. the New Tangshu) tell us, was later called<br />
Tu-ho-lo (Tuhuoluo) 吐火羅 =<br />
Tocharistan.<br />
NEUMANN, 1837: 181, translated:<br />
Tu ho lo … vor Al ters war dies das Land der Ta hia —<br />
in the Chinese original text very clearly given as:<br />
吐火羅 … 古大夏地 or: Tu-ho-lo ... (is) the country<br />
of the old Ta-hia.<br />
Tu-ho-lo, it was soon universally recognized, is the Chinese name for To-cha-ra. It<br />
is not Bactria, but only the easternmost part of it, the country later called Toxårestån<br />
(and<br />
also Taxårestån) by Arab authors. That this very important clarification has constantly<br />
been overlooked has greatly helped to confuse the issue. But what is of interest<br />
for us here, is indeed Specht’s statement<br />
that Zhang Qian arrived at the Oxus River in<br />
the year 126. Coming from a Sinologist, this is disappointing. It is unfounded and not<br />
much<br />
more than a guess.<br />
In another posthumously published work, the Non-sinologist VON G UTSCHMID,<br />
1888:<br />
59– 62, explains his own understanding of the Chinese sources:<br />
Es stünde schlimm um unser Wissen von dem Untergange jenes in ferne Lande versprengten<br />
Bruchtheils des griechischen Volkes, wenn nicht die Politik der chinesischen Regierung<br />
ein sehr lebhaftes Interesse an den Bewegungen der innerasiatischen Nomaden<br />
genommen hätte: diesem Interesse verdanken wir den Bericht eines chinesischen Agenten<br />
… Nach diesen Quellen wohnten die Yue-tshi, ein den Tibetanern verwandtes Nomadenvolk,<br />
ehedem zwischen Tun-hwang (d.h. Sha-tscheu) und dem Ki-lien-shan und wurden<br />
hier, wie alle ihre Nachbarvölker, 177 von dem türkischen Volke der Hiung-nu unterjocht.<br />
Eine Erneuerung des Kampfes zwischen 167–161 bekam ihnen übel: Lao-shang, der<br />
Shen-yu oder Gross-chan der Hiung-nu, erschlug ihren König Tshang-lun [the name of this<br />
— 12 —
king is not known — GUTSCHMID is quoting in the wrong place the mistaken translation of<br />
BROSSET 1828: 424 for the name of the chanyu Mo-du] und machte sich aus seinem<br />
Hirnschädel eine Trinkschale; sein Volk aber trat die Wanderung nach Westen an …<br />
Die sogenannten Grossen Yue-tshi zogen in das später von den Usun benannte Land<br />
(das Land am See Issyk-kul). Hier trafen sie ein anderes Nomadenvolk, die Sse, und schlugen<br />
ihren König, der mit seinem Volk zur Flucht nach Süden genöthigt ward …<br />
Die Grossen Yue-tshi liessen sich darauf im Lande der Sse nieder, erfreuten sich aber<br />
des<br />
Besitzes nur kurze Zeit: der Kun-mo oder König der Usun, eines Volkes, das westlich<br />
von den Hiung-nu gewohnt hatte, schlug die Grossen Yue-tshi und nöthigte sie, weiter nach<br />
Westen zu wandern.<br />
Die Zeit der Vertreibung der Yue-tshi aus dem Lande am Issyk-kul lässt sich genau datieren;<br />
dem chinesischen Agenten wurde während seiner Internierung bei den Hiung-nu<br />
(138–129) die Geschichte des Gründers des Reichs der Usun mitgetheilt: derselbe sei beim<br />
Tode des Shen-yu der Hiung-nu in ein fernes Land gegangen, habe sich in diesem niedergelassen<br />
und von da an dem Shen-yu den Gehorsam aufgesagt (Sse-ma-tsien im Nouv.<br />
Journ. Asiat. II, 429). Der einzige Shen-yu aber, der in dieser Zeit gestorben ist, war Laoshang,<br />
der 160 starb (WYLIE im Journ. of the Anthrop. Inst. III, 421), so dass also die Vertreibung<br />
der Grossen Yue-tshi in dieses oder das folgende Jahr zu setzen ist. War der Aufent-<br />
halt<br />
derselben am Issyk-kul ein so kurzer, so begreift es sich, wie er dem ältesten Berichterstatter<br />
ganz verborgen hat bleiben können …<br />
Die Grossen Yue-tshi, sagt der jüngere Bericht, wandten sich nun nach Westen, wo sie<br />
sich Ta-hia (d.i. Baktrien) unterwarfen; auch aus den Worten der älteren Quelle “geschlagen<br />
von den Hiung-nu hätten sie sich über Gross-Wan (Ferghana) hinaus entfernt, das<br />
Volk von Ta-hia geschlagen und sich unterworfen und alsbald ihr königliches Lager nördlich<br />
vom Flusse Wei (d.i. Oxus) aufgeschlagen,” folgt durchaus nicht nothwendig, dass der<br />
Einbruch über Gross-Wan erfolgt ist (noch weniger ein langer Aufenthalt daselbst, wie er<br />
angenommen zu werden pflegt). Vielmehr scheinen die chinesischen Berichte darauf zu<br />
führen, dass die Grossen Yue-tshi schon 159 direct in Sogdiana eingedrungen sind, also gerade<br />
in der Zeit der inneren Kriege, welche die Macht des Eukratides untergruben. Vielleicht<br />
ist die Eroberung<br />
eine allmähliche gewesen, da ja Baktrien im Jahre 140 noch als<br />
unabhängig<br />
vorkommt.<br />
Als die Yue-tshi schon in ihrer neuen Heimath sich niedergelassen<br />
hatten, schickte der<br />
Kai ser von China einen Agenten in der Person des Tshang-kien zu ihnen, in der Absicht, sie<br />
zur Rückkehr in ihre alte Heimath zu bewegen … Tshang-kien fiel den Hiung-nu in die<br />
Hände, entkam aber 129 nach Gross-Wan und ward von da durch das Land<br />
Khang-kiu (am<br />
mittleren<br />
Sir-Darja) zu den Yue-tshi geleitet. Diese aber fühlten sich in dem fruchtbaren,<br />
räuberischen Einfällen wenig ausgesetzten, von einer friedlichen Bevölkerung bewohnten<br />
Lande, das sie in Besitz genommen hatten, zu wohl, als dass sie auf die chinesischen Anträge<br />
eingegangen wären. Vergeblich begab sich Tshang-kien nach Ta-hia; er musste nach<br />
1-jährigem Aufenthalt (128–127) unverrichteter Sache heimkehren und hatte auf der Rückreise<br />
noch das Missgeschick, den Hiung-nu ein zweites Mal in die Hände zu fallen; erst 126<br />
langte er wieder in China an.<br />
Auf diesen Mann gehen fast ausschliesslich die lehrreichen Schilderungen von Land und<br />
Leuten zurück, welche die chinesischen Historiker uns liefern. Die Schilderungen sind so<br />
charakteristisch, dass sie die empfindliche Schwäche der chinesischen<br />
Berichterstattung,<br />
die<br />
aus ihrer Unfähigkeit, die Laute fremder Sprachen gehörig wiederzugeben, entspringende<br />
Willkür in ihrer geographischen Nomenclatur — die damals noch viel schlimmer<br />
war als in späteren Zeiten —, fast völlig wieder gut machen ... Namensanklänge haben<br />
hier mehr geschadet als genützt; selbst richtige Gleichungen hat man oft aus falschen<br />
Gründen gemacht, wie “Ta-hia = Baktrien” von den Dahen (die nie in Baktrien gewohnt<br />
haben) ...<br />
Here we have an Orientalist who had to read the Chinese sources in translation. Yet,<br />
he<br />
shows a clear understanding of their contents. The only really important informa-<br />
tion<br />
VON GUTSCHMID was lacking is that “Ta-hia” was not simply Bactria, but only its<br />
— 13 —
e astern part — the country later called Tocharestan. With this in mind he would have<br />
grasped<br />
that in the year 140 BCE not necessarily all of Bactria was still independent<br />
u nder Greek kings, but only the country around the capital Bactra in the West.<br />
The<br />
eastern<br />
part of Bactria had already fallen into the hands of those nomads who now —<br />
v ery shortly before Zhang Qian reached Daxia-Tochara — had lost this part of fertile,<br />
civilized, well populated Bactria, i.e. Tocharestan, to the superior 月氏. These first<br />
nomad<br />
conquerors cannot have been the Tocharians — for the Tocharians were still<br />
there:<br />
they are described as well settled on the land and as good traders, but weak<br />
fighters<br />
— the first wave of nomad conquerors, of which the Shiji knows nothing be-<br />
c ause Zhang Qian had missed these early invaders by a very short period of time, had<br />
alr eady swept across Daxia. In this first déluge the Greek armies and the last Greek<br />
sovereigns<br />
had disappeared from Tocharestan. Terrified by the reappearance of the<br />
Ruzhi<br />
月氏, the faster and hardier horseback archers from an unknown world — the<br />
F ar Eastern Oikumene — the first-wave conquerors had disappeared, too, and had left<br />
behind<br />
a country which was now without a king.<br />
The victorious 月氏 quickly filled that vacuum. But it was all still very new. The<br />
R uzhi 月氏 had barely erected their provisional seat of government as a tent city on<br />
t he near side of the Oxus River when the envoy of Han emperor Wu appeared before<br />
t heir leader — who was the son of that unfortunate king whom the Xiongnu had slain<br />
more than thirty years previously. The mysterious<br />
first nomad conquerors of Tochara<br />
can hardly have been any other people than the one which the 月氏 had carried before<br />
them<br />
ever since the lands on the upper Ili River: that particular tribe of the Saka con-<br />
f ederacy which has been variously called Sakarauloi / Sakaraukai, Sarancae / Saraucae,<br />
[ Saka-] Aigloi / [Saka-] Augaloi, Sagarauloi, Sacaraucae, or Sakaurakai Skythai in the<br />
W estern, and simply Sai-wang (older Sak-wang) 塞王 in the Eastern historical sources.<br />
Chinese 塞王 has in the past often been misunderstood to mean “the king (s) of the<br />
Sai/Sak”<br />
— with consequences that turned out to be very misleading. This reading and<br />
translation<br />
was a capital blunder (see below, pp. 42, 43).<br />
FRANKE, 1904: 54–55, explains:<br />
Die verschiedenen Varianten für den Namen des Volkes, die sich bei den westlichen Autoren<br />
finden ... legen den Gedanken nahe, daß ›wang‹ einen Bestandteil des Namens bildete,<br />
also ›Saka-wang‹, und daß dadurch ein besonderer Stamm der Saka bezeichnet werden<br />
sollte.<br />
2<br />
F.W.K. MÜLLER, 1918: 577 , strongly underlines this reasoning:<br />
塞, jetzt zwar im Norden ›Sai‹ gesprochen, lautet aber noch in Canton ›sak‹. ›Sak‹ war<br />
die ältere Aussprache, wie die buddhistische Transkription für Upâsaka lehrt: U-pa-sakka<br />
優婆塞迦. Dass ›Sai-wang‹ ein Name sein müsse, hat FRANKE mit Recht hervorgehoben.<br />
Seine Darlegung wäre noch schlagender gewesen, wenn er den Originaltext hinzugefügt<br />
hätte:<br />
昔<br />
大 月氏西君大夏<br />
而 塞王南君罽賓<br />
匈奴破大月氏 In alter Zeit besiegten die Hiung-nu die großen Yüe-tšï,<br />
die großen Yüe-tšï machten sich im Westen zu Herren von Tai-Hia,<br />
und die Sak-wang machten sich im Süden zu Herren von Ki-pin.<br />
Da in den beiden ersten Sätzen keine Rede von Königen ist, wird auch im dritten Satze<br />
王 nicht König bedeuten, sondern zum Namen gehören ...<br />
“Le grand déchiffreur berlinois” (MEILLET on MÜLLER) makes an intelligent state-<br />
m ent here. Of the Chinese name Saiwang/Sakwang 塞王 the first part, 塞, is clearly a<br />
transcription of Sak(a-), whereas the second part, 王, meaning “king” and read wang,<br />
is rather<br />
strange in at least two respects. It does not recall the second part of the Western<br />
name –raukai (*rawaka, “swift”) and it is a very common character in Chinese —<br />
— 14 —
whereas in transcribing foreign names the Chinese show a marked tendency to use<br />
rare or even obsolete characters. The 王 in 塞王 might therefore be a scribal error<br />
which happened early and was not corrected by later scribes because they had no way<br />
to check in all the many cases of little-known foreign names. I find that De Groot, 1926:<br />
25, has discussed the problem at greater length:<br />
Das Zeichen 塞 lautet sowohl ›sik‹ wie ›sak‹, und daß dies lange vorher der Fall war,<br />
zeigt uns die Behauptung des Jen Ši-ku (HS 61, Bl. 4), daß es nur eine andere Schreibung<br />
für 釋 ›Sik‹ ist, Buddhas Stammname Sakja, der in der Tat in China immer durch dieses<br />
Zeichen oder durch 釋伽 ›Sak(Sik)-kia‹ wiedergegeben worden ist. Was haben wir uns nun<br />
bei dem Zeichen 王 ›ong‹ zu denken? Zunächst befremdet es, daß für die Transkription<br />
eines ausländischen Volksnamens gerade ein so alltägliches Zeichen, das einfach “König”<br />
bedeutet, gewählt und dadurch die Tür für Mißverständnisse weit geöffnet wurde; denn<br />
ein jeder mußte seitdem aus Sak-ong ohne Bedenken “König der Sak” lesen, was der Textschreiber<br />
gewiß nicht gewollt haben kann. Man ahnt somit, daß hier ein Schreibfehler vorliegt<br />
und ursprünglich das ähnliche 圭 ›ke‹ gestanden haben kann, das dann später durch<br />
kluge Gelehrte, die in dem Text das betreffende Volk auch bloß als ›Sak‹ erwähnt fanden,<br />
für einen Fehler für ›Sak-ong‹, “König der Sak” gehalten und dementsprechend “verbessert”<br />
wurde. Die Zeichen 圭 sowie 跬, 閨 und 奎, worin es als phonetisches Element steht,<br />
lauten ›ke‹; 佳 aber lautet ›ka‹, und 罣, 卦 und 挂 werden ›koa‹ ausgesprochen. Der chinesischen<br />
Transkription zufolge kann also das in Frage stehende Volk ›Sak-ke‹ oder ›Sik-ke‹,<br />
›Sak-ka‹ oder ›Sik-ka, ›Sak-koa‹ oder ›Sik-koa‹ geheißen haben.<br />
De Groot makes it certain here that the translation “the kings of the Sai” for Saiwang<br />
塞王 must be a mistake — as explained in 1904 by Franke and 1918 by F.W.K.<br />
Müller. But when he goes on to suggest that we should read 塞王 simply as Sak–ka we<br />
cannot<br />
follow him. For in the Hanshu we find both Sai 塞 and Saiwang 塞王 (below,<br />
pp. 42, 43). These two hanzi 漢字, or Chinese characters, stand for the general designation<br />
“Saka” 塞 on the one hand and for the more specific<br />
tribal name “Sakaraukai”<br />
塞王 on the other. Chinese Saiwang<br />
塞王 is the equivalent of Latin Sacaraucae<br />
and Greek Sakaraàkai (Sakaraukai) — and must be explained accordingly.<br />
In 1979: 207, BAILEY adduces a brilliant solution to this problem:<br />
›Khotanese Texts‹ 2.77.6 ... Here in a dyadic phrase, ›bðrøka-‹ is the Turkish ›buiruq‹ “officer,<br />
commandant”<br />
from the verb ›buyur-‹ “to command,” hence supporting a similar<br />
source “command” for the parallel Saka ›røka-‹ from older *›rauka-‹. This word<br />
›rauka-‹ is<br />
attested in the Saka title Latin ›Sacaraucae‹, ›Sa(ca)raucae‹, with the Greek *›Sakaraukoi‹<br />
[sic]<br />
... corresponding to the Chinese phrase ›sai uang‹ ...<br />
In 1994: 409, HARMATTA, without naming BAILEY, elaborated:<br />
The Sakas who invaded Bactria appear in the sources under different names, namely,<br />
Indian ›³aka-muru‡Ÿa- ‹, Chinese ›Sai-wang‹, Greek *›Sakaraukai‹, Latin *›Saraucae‹.<br />
Of these both Indian ›³aka-muru‡Ÿa-‹ and Chinese ›Sai-wang‹ mean “Saka king” and “Saka<br />
kings,” respectively, in so far as ›muru‡Ÿa-‹ can be regarded as the Saka title<br />
for “lord,<br />
king” and Chinese ›wang‹<br />
as the translation of it. As both the Chinese and the Graeco-La-<br />
tin sources mention the same peoples as conquerors of Bactria, we have to regard the ›Sa-<br />
karaukai‹ as identical with<br />
the ›³aka-muru‡Ÿa-‹ and the ›Sai-wang‹ respectively. Accord-<br />
ingly, the element ›-rauk-‹<br />
in the name ›Sakaraukai‹ must have the same meaning as Saka<br />
›muru‡Ÿa-‹<br />
and Chinese ›wang‹. In fact, the word can be compared to Khotanese Saka<br />
›røkya-‹ “commander, lord,” going back to *›raukya-‹. Saka ›muru‡Ÿa-‹, too, has an equivalent<br />
in Khotanese Saka: ›rrund-‹ “possessing power, lo rd, king.” As it is proved by Saka<br />
›muru‡Ÿa-‹, both Khotanese terms ›rrund-‹ and ›røkya-‹ derive from the root *›mrav-/*›mru‹<br />
“to declare, to order” as *›mrav-ant-‹ and *›mrav-aka-‹/*›mrau-ka-‹ respectively. Old Iranian<br />
*›mr-‹ was reduced to ›r-‹ in Khotanese Saka, while in the language of the Sakas of<br />
Gandhåra the initial ›mr-‹ was preserved.<br />
— 15 —
With these scholarly explanations we understand from our context that the meaning<br />
of the ethnic name Sacaraucae/Sakaraukai is not “Saka Kings,” but rather “King<br />
Sakas,” i.e. the easternmost ancient nomads from beyond the Jaxartes were, in fact,<br />
called the “Royal Sakas” — of which Chinese Sai–wang 塞王 is the exact translation:<br />
the “Kingly Sakas.” We will see (below, pp. 42, 43) that HULSEWÉ/LOEWE, in the year<br />
1979<br />
translating important phrases on the Saiwang in Hanshu 96, did not grasp this in-<br />
trinsic,<br />
genuine meaning of Saiwang 塞王 — to the correct interpretation of which<br />
BAILEY,<br />
in the same year, shows us the way.<br />
In the next text, however, the Saka-raukai or Sak–wang nomads do not figure at all.<br />
In<br />
1895: LXX–LXXII, CHAVANNES offered a fresh interpretation — but exclusively on the<br />
basis<br />
of the Shiji where the Saiwang/Sakwang 塞王 are not yet mentioned:<br />
Ce n’était pas seulement par des colonnes militaires envoyées en pays ennemi que<br />
l’empereur Ou avait cherché à détruire la puissance des Hiong-nou; il eut recours aussi<br />
aux moyens diplomatiques et tenta de nouer des alliances avec les peuples qui pouvaient<br />
être disposés à faire cause commune avec lui.<br />
Parmi ces nations étrangères, aucune ne devait être plus hostile aux Hiong-nou que les<br />
Ta Yue-tche; battus une première fois par le chen-yu Mo-tou vers l’année 176 avant notre<br />
ère, ils avaient été complètement défaits par le chen-yu Lao-chang en l’an 165 avant J.-C.;<br />
leur roi avait été tué et, de son crâne, suivant la coutume barbare, le chef turk s’était fait<br />
une coupe à boire ...<br />
Après ce désastre, les Ta Yue-tche cherchèrent leur salut dans<br />
la fuite; ils se retirèrent<br />
d’abord<br />
dans la vallée de l’Ili, mais ils ne tardèrent pas à en être délogés par les Ou-suen<br />
et, recommençant un nouvel exode, ils se portèrent vers l’ouest; puis ils tournèrent au sud,<br />
franchirent l’Iaxartes et envahirent la Sogdiane qui appartenait alors au royaume grécobactrien;<br />
cet état, connu des Chinois sous le nom de Ta-hia, se trouvait déjà affaibli par les<br />
attaques du roi parthe Mithridate I<br />
qu’en<br />
Sogdiane e contracter<br />
un<br />
avait succédé en 161 avant J.-C.<br />
à de bonne grâce sa déten<br />
er (174–136 av. J.-C.): il fut incapable de résister aux envahisseurs;<br />
les Ta Yue-tche purent refouler la population Ta-hia au sud de l’Oxus et s’établir<br />
eux-mêmes au nord de ce fleuve; ils ne devaient pas tarder à le traverser pour pénétrer<br />
en Bactriane ...<br />
L’empereur Ou ne savait sans doute pas que les Ta Yue-tche avaient<br />
dû fuir jus<br />
et il les croyait encore établis dans la vallée de l’Ili lorsqu’il projeta d<br />
e alliance avec eux contre l’ennemi commun. Il chargea de cette mission, prédestinée à<br />
l’insuccès, un certain Tchang K’ien.<br />
Tchang K’ien partit en l’an 138 avant J.-C., avec une escorte d’une centaine de personnes;<br />
il sortit de Chine par la frontière du nord-ouest et fut presque aussitôt arrêté par<br />
les Hiong-nou qui l’envoyèrent au chen-yu Kiun-tch’en (qui<br />
son père, le chen-yu Lao-chang). Tchang K’ien feignit d’accepter<br />
tion; il se maria, eut des enfants et resta une dizaine d’années chez les barbares; on<br />
cessa de le surveiller de près; il en profita pour s’enfuir un beau jour avec ses compagnons.<br />
Se dirigeant vers l’ouest, il arriva d’abord dans le Ferganah, siège du royaume de Tayuan;<br />
il y fut bien accueilli et le roi lui donna des guides qui le menèrent dans le pays de<br />
K’ang-kiu, au nord du Syr-daria; aller de Ta-yuan dans le K’ang-kiu serait aujourd’hui passer<br />
de Kokand à Tachkend. Les gens de K’ang-kiu conduisirent Tchang K’ien dans le pays<br />
des Ta Yue-tche; il dut donc franchir de nouveau le Syr-daria pour arriver dans les contrées<br />
situées entre ce fleuve et l’Amou-daria, à l’ouest du Ferganah.<br />
Parvenu au terme de son voyage, Tchang K’ien ne tarda pas à reconnaître qu’il n’en tirerait<br />
aucun avantage diplomatique; les Ta Yue-tche se trouvaient bien dans leur nouvelle<br />
patrie; ils avaient oublié leur haine mortelle contre les Hiong-nou; ils ne se souciaient<br />
guère des Chinois, trop éloignés maintenant pour qu’une alliance avec eux fût profitable.<br />
Tchang K’ien passa un an (probablement l’année 128) chez les Ta Yue-tche et les suivit,<br />
peut-être dans une campagne qu’ils faisaient contre l’état de Ta-hia, jusqu’aux confins de<br />
ce royaume; mais il ne put rien obtenir et dut partir après s’être heurté à une fin de nonrecevoir<br />
absolue.<br />
— 16 —
Dans son voyage de retour, il fut de nouveau fait prisonnier par les Hiong-nou et resta<br />
dans leur pays plus d’une année; mais en 126 avant notre ère, le chen-yu Kiun-tch’en mourut;<br />
son frère cadet, I-tché-sié, et son fils se disputèrent le pouvoir; I-tché-sié finit par l’emporter<br />
et prit le titre de chen-yu; Tchang K’ien profita de ces troubles pour s’évader; il rentra<br />
en Chine avec sa femme turke et un seul de ces cent compagnons. Si le but particulier<br />
que s’était proposé Tchang K’ien n’avait pas été atteint, son expédition eut cependant des<br />
résultats considérables en ouvrant aux Chinois tout un monde nouveau.<br />
There are a good number of new points of view here. Some can be fully welcomed,<br />
others must be questioned as they served to mislead later authors. CHAVANNES leaves<br />
out the Saiwang completely; and he, too, equates Ta-hia squarely with the kingdom of<br />
the Græco-Bactrians. Yet, to repeat myself: “Ta-hia” cannot be the Chinese transcription<br />
of “Bactria” — as CHAVANNES would have readily admitted, I trust. In 1903, the<br />
g reat Sinologist published an excellent translation of the (New) Tangshu’s chapter 221B.<br />
One<br />
paragraph of it starts with the statement:<br />
Notice sur le T’ou-ho-lo (Tokharestan). Le T’ou-ho-lo ... c’est l’ancien territoire du (royaume<br />
de) Ta-hia.<br />
And in a footnote CHAVANNES adds:<br />
Lors de la mission de Tchang K’ien en 128 av. J.-C., le royaume de Ta-hia se trouvait au<br />
sud de l’Oxus.<br />
This may well be taken as a late correction of what he had said about Ta-hia in<br />
1895. With this important new information before him, how would he have rewritten<br />
his above exposé ? In any case, in 1907: 187, CHAVANNES stated in a footnote and without<br />
any further discussion:<br />
‹Ta-hia› (= Tokharestan).<br />
With better insight into what was to be found in the Chinese Standard Histories,<br />
the<br />
French Sinologist quietly corrected himself in time.<br />
The year in which the Ruzhi 月氏 finally decided to migrate west — a date of great<br />
historical<br />
importance, of course — CHAVANNES gives as 165 BCE. This date will be<br />
copied<br />
by many later authors. However, I have been unable to find a convincing discus-<br />
sion<br />
of this date. The Shiji and Hanshu are rather vague in their descriptions of the<br />
decisive fourth and last clash between<br />
the Xiongnu and the 月氏. Following Shiji 110,<br />
the first one is the incident when Modu, the crown prince of the Xiongnu, was sent as a<br />
hostage<br />
to the 月氏 and his father, chanyu Touman, suddenly attacked the latter some<br />
t ime before 209 BCE; the second clash occurred a short time after 209 BCE (in which<br />
y ear Modu killed his father and became the new chanyu of the Xiongnu) when Modu<br />
started<br />
military campaigns to greatly enlarge his Empire of the Steppe by falling upon<br />
his<br />
neighboring nomad peoples, first the Dong Hu 東胡 in the East and then the 月氏<br />
in the West; the third is that bloody war in which the Xiongnu subdued the 月氏, the<br />
Wusun<br />
and the whole of the oasis states in the Tarim Basin. After this great victory<br />
M odu wrote his historic letter to the Han court announcing boldly that all the peoples<br />
t hat draw the bow have now become one family. We are told in Shiji 110 that the<br />
e nvoy bearing the letter arrived at (the Han border town?) Xinwang 薪望 in July 176<br />
BCE. Far too often, this date has erroneously been given by later authors<br />
as the start of<br />
the great 月氏 exodus. For the dating of the last clash, however — in which the king of<br />
the<br />
月氏 was killed by the Xiongnu, now under the command of Modu’s son, the Lao-<br />
shang<br />
chanyu (r. 174–161), and after which the 月氏 finally resolved to escape from<br />
Xiongnu<br />
domination — we have only indirect clues, as far as I know.<br />
But CHAVANNES, 1907: 189, has this footnote:<br />
C’est en 165 av. J.-C. que les Ta Yue-tche, vaincus par les Hiong-nou, commencèrent vers<br />
l’Occident le grand exode qui devait les amener du Kan-su dans la vallée de l’Ili, et, de là,<br />
jusque sur les bords de l’Oxus. Par suite d’une inadvertance que je déplore, j’ai indiqué<br />
— 17 —
l’année<br />
140 av. J.-C., au lieu de l’année 165, dans une note de mes «Documents sur les Toukiue<br />
occidentaux» (1903, p. 134, n. 1).<br />
He provides no discussion of this dating, neither 1903 nor 1907. But 165 BCE, as the<br />
c rucial year in which the 月氏 started to migrate west, should not be too far off as<br />
S hiji 110 tells us that one year before, in 166 BCE, the Xiongnu chanyu in person led an<br />
army<br />
of some 140,000 horsemen deep into Chinese territory burning the Huizhong pal-<br />
a ce 回中宮 and sending out advance parties which came as close to Chang’an as the<br />
palace<br />
of Sweet Springs 甘泉 at Yong 雍. Laoshang ante portas. It was the worst irruption<br />
the Han Chinese suffered at the hands of the vastly superior Xiongnu. The victorious,<br />
seemingly irresistible Xiongnu armies may well have topped there military<br />
exploit by also invading the territory of the 月氏 kingdom, in this or the following year.<br />
(WATSON 1993: 145)<br />
The Chan-yu remained within the borders of the<br />
empire [literally: within the border defences] for a<br />
littl<br />
(forces) pursued him beyond the border defences<br />
but returned without having been able to kill<br />
(any of the enemy).<br />
The<br />
Xiong-nu grew more arrogant day by day,<br />
crossing the border<br />
every year, killing many of<br />
the inhabitants, and stealing a great number of<br />
their<br />
animals ...<br />
Shiji 110. 2901<br />
單 于 留 塞 內 月 餘 乃 去<br />
e over a month and then withdrew. The Han 漢 逐 出 塞 即 還 不 能 有<br />
所 殺<br />
匈 奴 日 已 驕 歲 入 邊 殺<br />
略 人 民 畜 產 甚 多 …<br />
From these accounts we may<br />
guess that chanyu Laoshang had thus prepared the<br />
way for the Xiongnu to invade the 月氏 next. In the Hexi 河西 (modern Gansu) Cor-<br />
ridor, where their ordos or royal<br />
camp was to be found near modern Zhangye 張掖 —<br />
originally<br />
called Zhaowu 昭武 by the Chinese, as we know from Weishu 102 and later<br />
Standard Histories —, and with Longxi 隴西 near the Western<br />
end of the Great Wall<br />
as the border town, the 月氏 were the immediate Western neighbors of Han China. In<br />
the north they had a long common border with the Xiongnu. Under these geographic<br />
conditions, it must have been rather easy for the latter to invade the wide-open homelands<br />
of the 月氏 in a similarly grand style in this or the next year. The 月氏, obviously<br />
ill-prepared and thus taken by surprise, were beaten once again. This time their<br />
king was killed. And adding insult to injury, the Xiongnu chanyu had a ceremonial<br />
drinking cup made out of the skull of the 月氏 king. This was too much to bear for the<br />
once so proud nomads who had despised the Xiongnu. Deeply shocked by this defeat,<br />
the 月氏 reached the decision to dodge Xiongnu domination by escape.<br />
The only route open to them was the vacant country of their old western neighbors,<br />
the Wusun, between Dunhuang and the Lake Lopnor. When this small nation of nomads<br />
had been beaten by the 月氏 and when their king had been killed, the Wusun<br />
had decamped and fled to the Xiongnu. From what we read in the Shiji and Hanshu,<br />
we may infer that this happened in the time of the Xiongnu chanyu Modu, in any case<br />
before 176 BCE as the terminus ante quem. More than a decade later, presumably in<br />
about 165 BCE, the 月氏 commenced their historic trek from the Hexi Corridor in a<br />
northwesterly direction, past Lake Barkol between the Tianshan and Bogdashan mountain<br />
ranges, along the northern foothills of the Tianshan into the basin of Dzungaria<br />
and finally across the Borohoroshan into the upper Ili River valley. It was an exodus<br />
fateful for the history of Central and South Asia over the next few centuries. It was —<br />
eine Sternstunde der Menschheit.<br />
As for the chronology of Zhang Qian’s mission,<br />
which is the first topic of this compila<br />
tion of relevant primary and secondary sources: whereas later discussions are<br />
often<br />
far off the mark, CHAVANNES is coming very close to the truth here. A small cor-<br />
rection<br />
of his text would have sufficed to make it perfect: he should, in fact, have<br />
— 18 —
written<br />
“très tôt en 126” instead of simply “en 126.” For Shiji 110, the chapter on the<br />
Xiongnu, also informs us that Chanyu<br />
Junchen died in the winter following the second<br />
year “yuan-shuo” (one of the reign periods of Han Emperor Wu) 元朔二年其<br />
後冬.<br />
We know that during the first century of the Former Han dynasty, down to the year<br />
104 BCE, the Chinese civil year began with the three winter months. The above information,<br />
therefore, translates into the Western calendar as: between 31 October 127 and<br />
26 January 126 BCE (Julian). This means that the Xiongnu Emperor Junchen died in<br />
the last two months of 127 or in the first four weeks of 126. Hence, Zhang Qian returned<br />
to Changan very early in 126. Had his journey lasted one year, he would have started<br />
in 127; if it had lasted three years, he would have left in 129; since his journey in fact<br />
lasted thirteen years, it becomes clear that Zhang Qian left China in 139 BCE — probably<br />
also early in that year. However, in the next text this topic becomes confused<br />
again, although the author is a close friend of CHAVANNES’.<br />
In 1897: 12–13 LÉVI writes:<br />
Seu-ma Ts’ien, qui composait ses Mémoires historiques<br />
environ cent ans avant l’ère<br />
chrétienne, y a inséré, au chapitre CXXIII, une longue<br />
relation des<br />
voyages de Tchang-k’ien;<br />
ses informations sur les Yue-tchi et les Ta-hia concordent<br />
presque<br />
littéralement avec la no-<br />
tion de l’Histoire des Han et attestent une origine<br />
identique; les deux historiens ont fidèle-<br />
ment reproduit le récit de Tchang-k’ien.<br />
“Les Ta-hia,” dit Seu-ma Ts’ien, “n’avaient pas<br />
de souverain; chaque cité, chaque ville<br />
élisait son chef. Les soldats étaient faibles et làches<br />
à la bataille, bons seulement à faire<br />
du commerce. Les<br />
Yue-tchi vinrent de l’ouest, les attaquèrent, les défirent et établirent leur<br />
souveraineté.”<br />
La soumission des Ta-hia était donc un fait accompli dès le voyage de Tchang-k’ien,<br />
vers 125 avant J.-C. La biographie de Tchang-k’ien contenue dans l’Histoire des premiers<br />
Han confirme ces données et les précise davantage ... Le rapport de Tchan-k’ien à l’empereur<br />
marque encore plus clairement l’enchaînement des faits. Expulsés de leur territoire<br />
par les Hioung-nou (165 av. J.-C.), les Yue-tchi avaient envahi le pays des Ou-suenn, leurs<br />
voisins de l’ouest, et tué leur roi Nan-teou-mi; puis, continuant leur marche vers l’ouest, ils<br />
avaient attaqué le roi des Se (Çakas), et les Se s’étaient enfuis bien loin au sud, abandonnant<br />
leurs terres aux Yue-tchi. Mais le fils de Nan-teou-mi, Koenn-mouo, resté orphelin dès<br />
le berceau, avait été nourri miraculeusement par une louve, puis recueilli par le roi des<br />
Hioung-nou; devenu grand, Koenn-mouo attaqua les Yue-tchi, qui s’enfuirent vers l’Ouest et<br />
allèrent s’établir sur le territoire des Ta-hia. L’intervention de Koenn-mouo exige au moins<br />
vingt ans d’intervalle entre la défaite des Ou-suenn et la soumission des Ta-hia; le premier<br />
événement se passe peu de temps après l’an 165; le second tombe donc vers l’an<br />
140 et précède<br />
d’assez longtemps l’arrivée de Tchang-k’ien chez les Yue-tchi ...<br />
LÉVI got the story of the young prince of the Wusun (Usun; Ou-suenn) all confused<br />
which GUTSCHMID before him had understood so much better. The 月氏 had attacked<br />
their Western neighbors, the Wusun, in the time of Xiongnu Chanyu Modu (r. 209–174).<br />
It was he and his son Laoshang chanyu (r. 174–161) who had reared the young prince.<br />
At the time Laoshang died in late 161 BCE, the Wusun prince was old enough to attack<br />
the 月氏 and avenge his father. The same prince was an “old man” when Zhang Qian<br />
went on his second mission to the West, c. 118–115 BCE, to negotiate a treaty with the<br />
Wusun. With LÉVI the Kunmo (Koenn-mouo) would have been just over forty at that<br />
time — still very far from being “an old man.”<br />
In 1900: 533–534 BOYER writes:<br />
Les données à examiner avant tout sont naturellement celles contenues dans le 123 e<br />
chapitre du Sse-ki. On ne saurait, en effet, contester aux informations de Seu-ma Ts’ien la<br />
plus haute valeur, puisque, né vers le milieu du second siècle avant J.-C., il fut contemporain<br />
de Tchang-k’ien, dont il utilisa du reste la relation, qu’il cite dans ce même chapitre.<br />
— 19 —
En l’an 165 avant J.-C., les Yue-tchi habitent entre le pays de Toenn-hoang et les monts<br />
K’i-lien (la chaîne du T’ien-chan) dans le Turkestan chinois. A cette époque, vaincus par les<br />
Hioung-nou, qui tuent leur roi, ils émigrent pour la pluspart vers l’ouest, s’emparent du territoire<br />
des Se qui fuient au sud, sont de là chassés encore par le Ou-suenn Koenn-mouo, et,<br />
marchant<br />
toujours à l’ouest, arrivent au pays des Ta-hia (Bactriane), qu’ils soumettent. La<br />
question est justement de savoir tout d’abord ce que fut cette conquête, et nous allons y venir.<br />
Vers 125 avant J.-C., Tchang-k’ien visite les Ta Yue-tchi, installés dans leur nouvelle<br />
patrie. Le lecteur se souvient qu’il était chargé par l’empereur Ou-ti (140–86 avant J.-C.)<br />
d’amener ce peuple à servir d’appui à la Chine contre les Hioung-nou. Parti vers 135 avant<br />
J.-C., il avait d’abord été retenu dix ans captif chez ces derniers, lors de son passage sur<br />
leur territoire, et à son retour, ayant subi une autre année de captivité chez le même peuple,<br />
il rentra en Chine après treize ans d’absence, vers 122 avant J.-C.<br />
The thirteen years of absence of Zhang Qian are correctly reproduced by most authors.<br />
But to anchor this span of time firmly within the reign of Han Emperor Wu<br />
seems to be beyond the capabilities<br />
of quite a few. One wonders why. The Chinese text,<br />
as we have seen above from BROSSET’s translation, ties the return of Zhang Qian to the<br />
death<br />
of one particular Xiongnu chanyu — whose name Sima Qian neglects to men-<br />
t ion in this particular place, Shiji 123. But he had given a full account of the Xiongnu<br />
history,<br />
down to his own time, in Shiji 110: From this we know that it was Chanyu Jun-<br />
chen. He died, as stated above, in the winter<br />
which followed year 2 (of Han Emperor<br />
Wu’s<br />
reign period) “yuan-shuo” 元朔. Evidently, the intricacies of the Chinese reign<br />
periods<br />
(a practice still in use in Japan which country I reached a first time in year 46<br />
“ showa” 昭和 or 1971) and the somewhat complicated Chinese calendar are the main<br />
stumbling block: a careful<br />
year by year concordance book between the Chinese and<br />
the Western calendars was still wanting. Before the great calendar reform of 104 BCE<br />
— in which Sima Qian participated — the civil Chinese year started with the three win-<br />
t er months (lunar months 10–12); after that date, it started with the three months of<br />
spring<br />
(lunar months 1–3). The old (now unofficial) Chinese calendar still does.<br />
In 1903: 18–19, V. A. SMITH published a first English summary of these events:<br />
The early Chinese historians derived their knowledge of the migrations of the Yueh-chi<br />
chiefly from the reports of Chang-k’ien (Tchang-k’ien), who visited the Yueh-chi territory in<br />
or about B.C. 125. This officer was despatched in or about B.C. 135 by the emperor Wu-ti<br />
(Ou-ti, flor. B.C. 140–86) on a mission to the Yueh-chi, in order to obtain their assistance<br />
against the Hiung-nu, who constantly harried the Chinese frontiers.<br />
The envoy was intercepted by the Hiung-nu, who detained him for ten years, so that he<br />
did not arrive at the Yueh-chi chieftain’s camp until about B.C. 125. Returning from his mission,<br />
Chang-k’ien was unlucky enough to be again intercepted by the Hiung-nu, who detained<br />
him yet another year. When at length he returned to China in about B.C. 122, he had<br />
been<br />
absent from his native land for thirteen years, and was thus well qualified to bring<br />
back accurate information about the foreign nations whom he visited.<br />
The story of the travels of Chang-k’ien was recorded by his contemporary Ssu-ma-<br />
Ch’ien, the Chinese “Father of History” (born c. B.C. 145), in chapter 123 of his classical work<br />
the Sse-ki, or “Historical Record” ...<br />
As far as the chronology of Zhang Qian’s mission was concerned, RÉMUSAT’S authority<br />
was still unbroken — more than sixty years after the publication of his 佛國記.<br />
However, one grave geographical misunderstanding in the Western translations<br />
goes back to the original text: the historians of the Ban family had been able to follow<br />
the migrations of the 月氏 as far as<br />
the lands of the Saiwang 塞王 or Sakaraukai —<br />
after<br />
which they lost track and then rediscovered their former Western neighbors, firm-<br />
ly<br />
established in Daxia 大夏 or Tochara. In Hanshu 96, Ban Gu then simply connect-<br />
ed<br />
the two points with a straight line and let the 月氏 hit upon and subjugate the Da-<br />
xia more or less directly after leaving the Ili River region, glossing over the fact that<br />
there was a wide gap between the two regions in space and between the two events in<br />
— 20 —
time.<br />
Before him, Sima Qian, in Shiji 123, had known even less. He had the 月氏 mi-<br />
g<br />
rate from the Hexi 河西 Corridor directly to Daxia 大夏:<br />
. .. they then moved far away, beyond (Da)<br />
Yuan,<br />
and in the west attacked and subju-<br />
gated<br />
Daxia.<br />
乃 遠 去 過 宛 西 擊 大 夏 而<br />
臣 之<br />
The final encounter between the two nomadic nations, the Xiongnu 匈奴 and the<br />
Ruzhi<br />
月氏, arch rivals in East Asia, occurred sometime around 165 BCE. In the sum-<br />
mer<br />
of the year 129 Zhang Qian found the 月氏 newly established in Central Asia. He<br />
was<br />
their guest, in their make-shift royal camp of tents north of the Oxus River (mo-<br />
dern Amu Darya), for more than a year. We must realize here that Sima Qian com-<br />
pressed a wide stretch of space and time into one short sentence. What<br />
really happened<br />
during this generation and a half and during this migration over a distance of some<br />
3.500 km (as the crow flies), the Chinese historians were only able to find out and reconstruct<br />
very, very slowly.<br />
On the chronology of Zhang Qian’s mission FRANKE, 1930: 337–338, writes:<br />
Dafür stellte sich jetzt ein anderes Moment ein, das ... schicksalbestimmend für die<br />
nächsten Jahrhunderte werden sollte. Die Gesandtschaft, die im Jahre 138 abgesandt war,<br />
um mit den Yüe-tschi ein Bündnis gegen die Hiung-nu zu schließen, und die man, da<br />
nichts mehr von ihr verlautete, aus dem Gedächtnis verloren hatte, kehrte im Winter 126 zu<br />
125 nach Tsch’ang-ngan zurück. Und was hatte sie nicht erlebt und erfahren!<br />
Zwar ein Bündnis mit den Yüe-tschi hatte sie nicht erreichen können, aber sie hatte<br />
neue Welten entdeckt, Welten, die bis dahin unfaßbar gewesen waren und die nun das verblüffte<br />
Staunen der Zeitgenossen daheim erregten. An der Spitze der Gesandtschaft stand<br />
ein einfacher Mann aus Han-tschung (im südwestlichen Schen-si), der einen kleinen Posten<br />
im Palaste bekleidete. Er führte den Namen Tschang K’ien, der seitdem zu den berühmtesten<br />
der ganzen chinesischen Geschichte gehört.<br />
Dem Auftrage des Kaisers folgend, machte er sich zusammen mit einem Manne der Hu-<br />
Völ ker Namens Kan-fu und einer Begleitung von etwa hundert Mann auf den Weg nach<br />
dem<br />
Lande der Yüe-tschi. Da Tschang K’ien durch Kan-su zog, muß man annehmen, daß<br />
er das gesuchte Volk noch in seinen alten Wohnsitzen am Nan-schan wähnte. Bei den<br />
Hiung-nu aber, durch deren Gebiet die Gesandtschaft in jedem Falle hindurch mußte, wurde<br />
sie festgehalten und zum Schan-yü (vermutlich im Norden) geführt. Hier erfuhr<br />
Tschang, daß die Yüe-tschi “im Norden von den Hiung-nu” wohnten ( was tatsächlich nicht<br />
richtig<br />
war), und daß seine Weiterreise nicht gestattet werden könnte. Über zehn Jahre<br />
blieben die Chinesen in Gefangenschaft bei den Hunnen, dann gelang es ihnen zu entfliehen.<br />
Tschang K’ien ging, vermutlich am Südhang des T’ien-schan entlang, den Spuren der<br />
Yüe-tschi nach, und fand sie schließlich, nachdem ihm Leute von Ta-yuan (Ferghana) und<br />
K’ang-kü (die Kirgisen-Steppen nördlich vom Syr darja oder Jaxartes) das Geleit gegeben,<br />
in den Ländern am oberen Oxus (Amu darja) ...<br />
Tschang K’ien blieb ein Jahr im Lande, dann trat er, ohne seinen Zweck erreicht zu haben,<br />
die Rückreise an, allem Anschein nach auf der Südseite des Tarim-Beckens, um hier<br />
das Land der Tibeter oder Tanguten<br />
(K’iang) zu erreichen. Er geriet jedoch abermals in<br />
die<br />
Gefangenschaft der Hiung-nu, und erst nachdem er über ein Jahr festgehalten war,<br />
konnte er sich die beim Tode des Schan-yü ausgebrochenen Unruhen zu Nutze machen<br />
und<br />
fliehen. Nach dreizehnjähriger Abwesenheit langte er in Tsch’ang-ngan wieder an.<br />
Von seinen Begleitern war ihm nur sein treuer Kan-fu noch geblieben, alle anderen hatte<br />
er verloren.<br />
Tschang K’iens Reise ist eine Leistung, der in der Geschichte wenig Gleichartiges an die<br />
Seite zu stellen ist, nicht zum wenigsten was die Wirkung angeht. Er hatte nicht nur die<br />
Oasen-Staaten am Rande des Tarim-Beckens durchreist, sondern er hatte auch jenseits<br />
der Wüsten andere große Staaten mit zahlreicher Bevölkerung, mit großen, blühenden<br />
Städten, mit lebhaftem Handelsverkehr, mit verfeinerter Kultur und einer eigenen Schrift<br />
— 21 —
und Literatur angetroffen, von anderen großen und mächtigen Reichen, wie Indien, Parthien,<br />
Babylonien, dem Lande der Alanen u.a. hatte er gehört, kurzum Tschang K’ien hatte<br />
eine fremde Welt aufgefunden, er war in den Bannkreis<br />
der griechisch-indisch-persischen<br />
Kultur geraten.<br />
This is an exceptionally clear-sighted and eloquent<br />
presentation of Zhang Qian’s<br />
mission in search of the 月氏. The imperial envoy is not<br />
called a general here, but the<br />
low-ranking<br />
palace employee (›lang‹ 郎) he really was at the time.<br />
A few minor errors in FRANKE’s exposé may be noted here. It should be clear that<br />
the Han Chinese did not expect the Ruzhi 月氏 to live in their old seats still. They had<br />
been told, strangely late in fact, that the 月氏 had decided to move far to the West —<br />
not for better grazing grounds, as stated by a number of later authors, but to be safe<br />
from further attacks by the Xiongnu. To search for the 月氏, however, Zhang Qian and<br />
his men with their large baggage train had to pass the Hexi (Gansu) Corridor: this was<br />
the traditional and only line of communication from China to all countries further<br />
West. It was Zhang Qian’s bad<br />
luck that the Hexi Corridor, the former lands of the<br />
Ru zhi 月氏, had been annexed by the Xiongnu in the decades between c. 165 and 139<br />
BCE. Wh en the mission passed Longxi 隴西 — the last Chinese town near the end of<br />
the<br />
Great Wall —, they entered enemy land and were quickly spotted and stopped.<br />
Another point is that Zhang Qian, living more than ten years among the Xiongnu,<br />
had<br />
more than enough time to find out where in fact the Ruzhi 月氏 were living now.<br />
N ot north of the Xiongnu, as the Chanyu had told him; not in the region between the Ili,<br />
C hu and Naryn rivers (any more) — where Zhang Qian might have been told to search<br />
for them; but much further West still, somewhere on the age-old caravan route which<br />
passed<br />
Shule 疏勒 (Kashgar) and the Congling 蔥嶺 mountains (the Pamirs).<br />
In Shiji 123 we are told that Zhang Qian lived a full decade or more amongst the<br />
X iongnu 匈奴中; this could be misunderstood to mean that he was living in the center<br />
o f the Xiongnu empire. So Hanshu 61 (see above, sentence (14) of the original text)<br />
pointedly<br />
tells us that he was living in the West of the Xiongnu realm 匈奴西. With<br />
t his we may assume that Zhang Qian found excuses to roam about in the region of the<br />
Tarim<br />
Basin which he may have entered via the northern route skirting the southern<br />
slopes<br />
of the Tian shan 天山 mountain ranges. But the 月氏 had not passed this way.<br />
Their<br />
trek must have passed to the north of the Tian shan, i.e. the 月氏 must have<br />
trekked<br />
across the empty lands of what is called Dzungaria today — the western-most<br />
end<br />
of the Gobi desert — before they reached the upper Ili river and there came into<br />
conflict<br />
with the Sakaraukai or Saiwang 塞王, the easternmost branch of the large Sa-<br />
ka<br />
Federation.<br />
This people led a nomad way of life just like the Ruzhi 月氏. But they were Skythai<br />
and<br />
thus belonged to the Indo-European world of Central Asia. When the Far Eastern<br />
and<br />
thus mongoloid 月氏 clashed with these Sakaraukai/Saiwang and drove them<br />
w est, they opened the door to the Western Oikumene, to themselves as well as to<br />
Z hang Qian who, otherwise, would not have crossed this decisive — and until then<br />
nearly<br />
insurmountable — dividing line between two separate worlds.<br />
With this it should be clear that — after his escape — Zhang Qian was not traveling<br />
with<br />
his original one hundred men strong delegation across the Tarim Basin to get<br />
himself<br />
familiar with the area. He would not have gone far at that time, just as ten<br />
years<br />
before. Instead, he must have pretended to do something useful for the Xiongnu.<br />
And<br />
only when he was close enough to where he wanted to go, i.e. when he had<br />
reached<br />
the southwestern-most corner of the Tarim Basin, i.e. the area of Shule/Kash-<br />
g ar, did he finally drop his disguise to make his escape from the Xiongnu — in just the<br />
c ompany of his trustworthy Xiongnu servant Gan-fu 甘父 with whom he crossed the<br />
Congling<br />
蔥嶺 (Pamirs) and via the Terek pass (3870 m) reached Da Yuan 大苑<br />
( Ferghana) within one month or so. His large mission must in fact have disappeared<br />
early<br />
in those ten years amongst the Xiongnu, not at a later time.<br />
— 22 —
The last but most important point to be discussed here concerns the chronology of<br />
Z hang Qian’s mission. FRANKE states that Zhang Qian returned to Chang’an “in the<br />
winter<br />
of 126 to 125.” As reproduced above, Shiji 123 says that Zhang Qian was able to<br />
e scape a second time from Xiongnu captivity and finally return to Han China after<br />
troubles<br />
had broken out at the Xiongnu court following the death of the chanyu 單于.<br />
And from Shiji 110, also briefly quoted above, we know that the chanyu in question was<br />
Junchen 軍臣 :<br />
(WATSON<br />
1993: 150)<br />
This (took place in) the second year of the<br />
Han (era) ›yuan–shuo‹ (127 B.C.).<br />
The following winter the Xiong–nu Shan–yu<br />
Jun–chen died.<br />
Shiji 110. 2906–2907<br />
是 歲 漢 之 元 朔 二 年 也<br />
其 後 冬 匈 奴 軍 臣 單 于 死<br />
For FRANKE to translate this date into the Western calendar as “winter 126/125” is<br />
disappointing because it shows that FRANKE was not familiar with the (admittedly complex)<br />
Chinese calendar. As a Sinologist he had no excuse for this mistake, because in<br />
1910 the Chinese Jesuit, Father PIERRE HOANG 黃伯祿 (d. 1909), had published his<br />
Concordance des Chronologies Néoméniques Chinoise et Européenne (basing him<br />
self<br />
on an older work in Chinese: the Li dai chang shu ji yao 歷代長術輯要 by<br />
WANG YUEZHEN 汪曰楨, prepared 1836–1862 and published 1877). Now, from Shiji 123<br />
and Shiji 110 it is clear that Chanyu Junchen died in the winter of the third year yuanshuo<br />
元朔 — or in the winter of 127/126 BCE — which is given in HOANG’s Concordance<br />
in the following way:<br />
Cycle de<br />
la lune<br />
12<br />
13<br />
14<br />
15<br />
16<br />
17<br />
18<br />
19<br />
20<br />
21<br />
22<br />
23<br />
*<br />
Lune<br />
1er jour<br />
10<br />
11<br />
12<br />
j.7<br />
1<br />
2<br />
3<br />
4<br />
5<br />
6<br />
7<br />
8<br />
9<br />
9<br />
126<br />
Av.J.-C.<br />
西漢<br />
Si Han<br />
武帝<br />
Ou Ti<br />
元朔<br />
Yuen-chouo<br />
3<br />
乙卯<br />
Y-mao<br />
Mois<br />
Solaire<br />
10<br />
11<br />
12<br />
1<br />
1<br />
2<br />
3<br />
4<br />
5<br />
6<br />
7<br />
8<br />
9<br />
10<br />
384<br />
— 23 —<br />
Jour du<br />
mois<br />
28<br />
26<br />
26<br />
1<br />
24<br />
23<br />
24<br />
23<br />
23<br />
21<br />
21<br />
19<br />
18<br />
17<br />
Cycle du<br />
jour<br />
10<br />
39<br />
9<br />
15<br />
38<br />
8<br />
37<br />
7<br />
37<br />
6<br />
36<br />
5<br />
35<br />
4
This chart is a translation and elaboration of what WANG YUEZHEN had written on<br />
the same year Han Wu Di ›yuan-shuo‹ 3 in an extremely abbreviated way, giving only<br />
the essentials of columns 2 and 5 of HOANG :<br />
乙 卯[漢 武 帝 元 朔]三 殷[歷]十 癸 酉[10]十 一 壬 寅[39]正 辛 丑<br />
[38]三 庚 子[37]六 己 巳[6]八 戊 辰[5]後 九 丁 卯[4]朔 .<br />
HOANG tells us that the third year of the reign period ›yuan- shuo‹ 元朔 of Han Em-<br />
peror Wu consisted<br />
of 13 lunar months: 12 regular lunar months<br />
plus on e intercalary lunar month added to the end; seven of these<br />
thirteen months were long months of 30<br />
days and six were short months<br />
of 29 day<br />
s; thus this year contained 384 days. But<br />
what is really important for our context is the<br />
fact that this Chinese civil year started<br />
with a tenth lunar<br />
month. This is the first month of the winter season. The Chinese<br />
calendar<br />
knowing four season of exactly three months each, the winter season consists<br />
of the three lunar months ten to twelve, the spring season of the three months one to<br />
three, the summer season of the three months four to six, and the autumn season of<br />
the three months seven to nine. Intercalary months, to be added every second or third<br />
year, are regarded as a duplicate of the month preceding it. In our year the intercalary<br />
month is a second ninth month.<br />
To translate this year into the Western calendar, it suffices to know that the first<br />
day of this Chinese year corresponds to October 28, 127 BCE (given in columns 3 and 4<br />
in HOANG’s chart: 10/28). The first month of spring, HOANG’s chart gives as January 24,<br />
126 BCE. With this we know that the crucial “winter which followed year 2 ›yuanshu<br />
o‹,”<br />
as given in Shiji 110, lasted from October 28, 127 to January 23, 126 BCE.<br />
However, for reasons not altogether clear to me, HOANG gives all Western dates BCE<br />
in the Gregorian calendar. Hence, to express the above dates in the Julian calendar we<br />
have to add three days in each case. The year ›yuan-shuo‹<br />
3 thus began October 31, 127<br />
BCE (Julian) or on JD 1675340. It is likely, then,<br />
that chanyu Junchen died in late 127,<br />
and it is clear that Zhang Qian returned to Chang’an<br />
(very early) in 126 BCE.<br />
Interpreting the Chinese calendar correctly, FRANKE should have written: ... kehrte<br />
im Winter 127 zu 126 nach Tsch’ang-ngan zurück;<br />
or better still: im Frühjahr 126. To<br />
give the great scholar due credit here, I like to add that he corrected himself this way<br />
in a later paper (1934: 269).<br />
When most, if not all, of Zhang Qian’s mission<br />
seemed well established, HALOUN<br />
1937: 246–252 succeeds in casting grave doubts over<br />
the whole topic again:<br />
Die beiden Abschnitte der Üe-tṣï–Wanderung genau<br />
zu datieren, ist recht schwierig. Unsere<br />
hauptsächlichen chinesischen Que llen , die Tṣa ṅ Tś’ien–Biographie und die Westländer-<br />
Monographie des Xan-ṣu (= Hans hu 61 + 96) bie ten nur ungenaue, z.T. widerspruchsvolle<br />
Angaben und scheinen verschiedene Kombinationen mit den sonst zur Verfügung stehenden<br />
Stellen zuzulassen. Der gesa mte Quellen stoff ist zuletzt von<br />
japanischen Forschern<br />
untersucht worden ...<br />
In seinem an neuen Fragestellungen und eigenständigen Ergebnissen<br />
so fruchtbaren<br />
Aufsatz über die Expedition des Tṣaṅ Tś’ien stellt Kuwabara die These auf, die Wanderung<br />
der Üe-tṣï von Kansu nach dem Ili s ei zwischen 172 und 161, ihre Abwanderung von da nach<br />
dem Âmû-daryâ-Gebiet erst zwisch en 139 und 129 erfolgt ... Eine mehr als ungefähre Zeitangabe<br />
für den ersten Wanderzug läßt sich m. E. den Quellen<br />
nicht abzwingen ...<br />
Es muß demnach bei dem etwa s rohen Datum 1 74–160 verbleiben, ja selbst eine kurze<br />
Spanne danach scheint u.U. nicht ausgeschlo<br />
ssen. In Hinsicht auf den zweiten Wanderungsabschnitt,<br />
den Zug vom T’ien- ṣa n nach Baktrien, ist die n eue,<br />
von Kuwabara und Yasuma<br />
vorgeschlagene Datierung 139 b is 129, durch die vo n Tṣaṅ Tś’ien<br />
in hunnischer Gefangenschaft<br />
verbrachte Zeit be grenzt , m.E. überzeuge nd, und l äßt sich, wie ich glaube, bei<br />
gleicher Begründung auf die Jahre zwischen<br />
135 und 129 einengen. Diese ausschließlich<br />
durch sorgfältige Interpretation der chinesischen<br />
Quellen gewonnenen Zahlen fügen sich<br />
vollkommen den aus den westlichen Quellen ableitbaren<br />
ein.<br />
— 24 —
Der Vorstoß der Nomaden erfolgte in einer einzigen auf Baktrien geradezu gerichteten<br />
Welle; die Annahme, daß die Üe-tṣï den Griechen bereits um 160 Sogdiana entrissen hätten,<br />
ist aufzugeben.<br />
Tṣaṅ Tś’ien, ausgesandt, um ein Bündnis zwischen den Chinesen und den Üe-tṣï abzuschließen,<br />
soll sich, nach den Angaben seiner Biographie, 129 bis Anfang 128 bei ihnen auf-<br />
gehalten haben (wenn wir als Rückkehrjahr 126 annehmen; auch 125 könnte mit guten<br />
Gründen in Erwägung gezogen werden, und der Aufenthalt in Baktrien läge dann entsprechend<br />
je ein Jahr später). Die Daten sind nicht völlig gewiß, können aber wohl nur in geringen<br />
Grenzen schwanken.<br />
In a footnote HALOUN adds:<br />
In den Bericht sind z.T. sagenhafte Züge eingedrungen; kaum historisch kann das für<br />
die Entsendung des Tṣaṅ angegebene Jahr 139 — bzw. 138 — sein, vielmehr gehört die gerade<br />
dreizehnjährige Irrfahrt in der Fremde mehr als wahrscheinlich einem wohlbekannten<br />
Ausstattungsstück der Legende an; die allgemeine politische Lage spricht gegen die<br />
Einleitung der Mission vor frühestens 133; vor einer Überschätzung und kritiklosen Auswertung<br />
von Ṣï-tśi Kap.123 (Ferghâna) muß grundsätzlich gewarnt werden. Er bezeichnet die<br />
den Üe-tṣï unterworfene Landschaft Baktrien mit besonderem Namen, Ta-śia 大夏, der nun<br />
zu den übrigen zu identifizierenden zuwächst.<br />
Über einen der vier Völkernamen ist man sich seit langem einig. Die Sai (Sǝ), mittelchinesisch<br />
und altchinesisch Sǝk, sind fraglos die Saken. Dürfen wir die “Sakarauken”, zumindest<br />
in der Sache, als einen ihrer Stämme auffassen, so geht es nach Zeit und Wanderungsrichtung<br />
doch wohl nicht an, sie mit den von den Üe-tṣï um 170–60 aus dem alten<br />
Sakenland vertriebenen Sai-uaṅ zu verselbigen, wie immer dieser bis jetzt ebenfalls noch<br />
unklare<br />
Name auszudeuten ist ...<br />
If we did not know better, we might indeed feel greatly disturbed by such seemingly<br />
convincing statements. When HALOUN decreed die allgemeine politische Lage spricht<br />
gegen die Einleitung der Mission vor frühestens 133, he sounded like a great authority<br />
on the subject — but he was utterly wrong as we know today. As it is, we realize<br />
here<br />
how dangerous forceful, but unproven, reasoning may be. Better than just naming<br />
sources it is to really go down ad fontes and quote verbatim the most important ones<br />
we have. I am trying to do just that in the present compilation.<br />
With the next author we return to the profoundly researched arguments of a great<br />
authority<br />
on the history of the Greeks. In 1938: 279–280, TARN writes:<br />
We must now turn to Chang-k’ien. He was sent in 138 by the Han emperor, Wu-ti, as his<br />
envoy<br />
to the Yueh-chi to solicit their alliance against the common enemy, the Hiung-nu.<br />
Where the Yueh-chi were at the time, and what route Chang-k’ien took, are not recorded,<br />
but it is generally supposed that he followed the northern route through Chinese Turkestan<br />
to Kashgar; thence he would have taken the route by Irkishtam and the Terek pass to Ferghana,<br />
which probably shows that he expected to find the Yueh-chi still north of the Jaxartes.<br />
On his way through<br />
Chinese Turkestan he was captured by the Hiung-nu and kept in<br />
more<br />
or less honourable captivity for some ten years; finally he escaped with his attendants<br />
and proceeded on his mission as though nothing had happened, a fact which illustrates<br />
the man’s force of character. He reached Ta-yuan (Ferghana); the Saca government<br />
passed him through to the K’ang-kiu and they in turn to the Yueh-chi, then camped between<br />
Samarcand and the Oxus ...<br />
Chang-k’ien says that the K’ang-kiu to the south of the river were “under the political influence<br />
of” (i.e. subject to) the Yueh-chi as those north of the river were to the Hiung-nu.<br />
They may possibly have extended to the Samarkand country, though if they did it was probably<br />
later. But the reason that the Ta-yuan entrusted Chang-k’ien to their safe-conduct,<br />
which would mean for him a considerable détour to the westward, more probably was, not<br />
merely that they were vassals of the Yueh-chi, but that Samarkand was still maintaining<br />
itself in some sort of quasi-independence and blocking the direct road ...<br />
— 25 —
Chang-k’ien failed to obtain the alliance of the Yueh-chi, who told him that they were<br />
tired of fighting and trekking and only wanted a peaceful life in the rich country which<br />
they had at last secured, and returned to China by the more difficult southern route from<br />
Badakshan<br />
over the Pamirs and so through Chinese Turkestan; he was again captured by<br />
the Hiung-nu, but after a year’s captivity he reached China in 126. In 115 he was sent on a<br />
mission to the Wu-sun, then apparently about Lake Issyk Kul and from there sent out subordinate<br />
envoys to visit the Western Countries up to and including Parthia, a country he<br />
himself never saw. He died in 114, a year after his return to China ...<br />
TARN’s chronology of Zhang<br />
Qian is correct for the year of return, but off one year<br />
for the departure from Chang’an.<br />
He does not state the year in which, according to his<br />
reckoning,<br />
the Chinese ambassador reached the Ruzhi 月氏 ordos on the north side of<br />
t he Oxus, but further down he says: 128. As for the onward route of Zhang Qian, TARN’s<br />
e xplanations are immaculate except that Zhang Qian was not able to gather his 100<br />
men<br />
mission together again after more than ten years with the Xiongnu. As discussed<br />
a bove, his escape could only work because he was in the company of no one but his<br />
trusted<br />
Xiongnu servant Gan Fu: just these two men continued the mission, not really<br />
“ as if nothing had happened.” As for the return journey: it is very unlikely that Zhang<br />
Qian<br />
took the direct, extremely difficult route by crossing the Pamirs from Badakh-<br />
s han to Yarkand. He had no knowledge of this route whatsoever, and it would not have<br />
h elped him to evade the Xiongnu. More likely it is that Zhang Qian returned the way he<br />
h ad come, i.e. via Samarkand and Ferghana — here he may have picked up the seeds<br />
of<br />
the grape which we know he imported into China — and along the age-old caravan<br />
route<br />
over the Pamirs back to Kashgar. From there he must have traveled the Sou-<br />
t hern route around the Taklamakan, close to the mountain ranges there, inhabited by<br />
the proto-Tibetans, to avoid the Xiongnu. That he was captured all the same shows<br />
how<br />
well the Xiongnu were in control of the whole region of the Tarim Basin at the<br />
time.<br />
One final point to discuss would be the position of Kangju 康居. This was at first<br />
just a small kingdom “some two thousand li (800 km) northwest of Da Yuan” according<br />
to Zhang Qian’s Report. The Chinese envoy was searching for the Ruzhi 月氏, not the<br />
Kangju. When the king of the Da Yuan 大苑 sent him to the Kangju, this then is a first<br />
hint at the fact that the 月氏, established in the lands around Samarkand,<br />
had become<br />
the new Kangju after they had subjugated this small kingdom and in the process had<br />
extended the borders of it a considerable distance to the southwest,<br />
i.e. across the<br />
Jax artes into Sogdiana. What sounds like a mere guess is corroborated in some of the<br />
later<br />
Chinese Standard Histories: the Weishu 魏書, Beishi 北史, Suishu 隨書, and<br />
Tangshu<br />
唐書 (see below, pp. 27–29).<br />
As will become clearer later on in their history, one very curious fact about the Ru-<br />
z hi 月氏 is that they were always trying to hide behind the Western, i.e. Central Asian,<br />
p eoples they conquered. In the Hanshu of Ban Gu, completed more than two hundred<br />
years<br />
after Zhang Qian’s Report, the Kangju 康居 are suddenly a much bigger and<br />
m uch more powerful country, now extending across the Jaxartes as far as the Oxus<br />
a nd thus including all of former Greek Sogdiana with its capital in the area of<br />
S amarkand as described in Tangshu 221B (see below, pp. 28–29). This first Ruzhi<br />
p owerbase had hardly more than the name in common with the Kangju in the Shiji,<br />
w here Sima Qian is quoting Zhang Qian. But in the same Shiji 123 we are told — now<br />
bas ed on later sources — that in the year 101 BCE Kanjgu forces were lurking in the<br />
background,<br />
ready to spring on the Chinese armies of Li Guangli 李廣利, the “Ershi<br />
g eneral” 貳師將軍, who at that time was besieging the capital of the Da Yuan 大苑 in<br />
order<br />
to obtain the coveted “heavenly horses” 天馬. Those “Kangju” were already the<br />
R uzhi 月氏 hiding behind this Central Asian name. The Shiji has a vague notion of<br />
these<br />
two different Kangju by stating in chapter 123 :<br />
— 26 —
In the south it is controlled by the Ruzhi, in<br />
the east it is controlled by the Xiongnu.<br />
南羈事月氏東羈事匈奴<br />
This can hardly apply to the original small Kangju kingdom, but reflects the fact<br />
that<br />
the 月氏, after chasing the Sakaraukai/Saiwang 塞王 from the region, had found-<br />
e d a strong kingdom in Sogdiana and, for reasons we can only guess, became known<br />
there,<br />
not as (new) Sogdians, but as (new) Kangju: the Ruzhi 月氏 must have brought<br />
this<br />
name with them from across the Jaxartes.<br />
(WATSON 1993: 249)<br />
» If the Han (soldiers) do not kill us,<br />
we will promptly bring out (all) the fine horses<br />
so that you may take (as many) as you please,<br />
and will (supply) food for the Han army.<br />
(But) if you refuse to accept (these terms) we<br />
will slaughter (all) the fine horses.<br />
Moreover, rescue (troops) will soon be coming<br />
(to aid us) from Kang–ju.<br />
And when they arrive the Han army will have<br />
to fight (both) us within (the city) and the<br />
Kang–ju on the outside.<br />
The Han army (had better) consider the matter<br />
well (and decide) which course to take! «<br />
At this time scouts from the Kang–ju were keeping<br />
a watch on the Han troops, but since the<br />
Han troops were still in good condition, (the<br />
Kang–ju forces) did not dare to advance<br />
(against them).<br />
Shiji 123. 3177<br />
漢 毋 攻 我<br />
我 盡 出 善 馬 恣 所 取 而 給<br />
漢 軍 食<br />
即 不 聽 我 盡 殺 善 馬 而 康<br />
居 之 救 且 至<br />
至 我 居 內 康 居 居 外 與 漢<br />
軍 戰<br />
漢 軍 熟 計 之 何 從<br />
是 時 康 居 候 視 漢 兵 漢 兵<br />
尚 盛 不 敢 進<br />
Centuries later we will be told in the Chinese Standard Histories, i.e. for the first<br />
time in the Weishu, that the kingdom of the Kangju 康居 had been ruled by certain Ruzhi<br />
月氏 kings since the time of the Han. This seems to indicate that the 月氏 — after<br />
being evicted by the Wusun 烏 孫 from the former homelands of the Sakaraukai/Saiwang<br />
塞王, the region between the upper Ili and Chu Rivers and around Lake<br />
Issyk Köl —, had continued their migration westward and in the process had subjugated<br />
the small nomad state of the genuine Kangju and had extended it across the<br />
Jaxartes into Sogdiana.<br />
The kingdom of the Kang 康 is the former<br />
(kingdom<br />
of the) Kangju. 康居.<br />
(The people) move about and have no land of their<br />
own.<br />
Ever since the advent of the Han (dynasty), generation<br />
followed upon generation without break.<br />
Their king’s original family name is ›Wen‹.<br />
He is a Ruzhi 月氏.<br />
Anciently, (the Ruzhi) resided north of the Qilian<br />
mountain range in the town (i.e. ›ordos‹ = royal<br />
camp) of Zhaowu 昭武 (modern Zhangye).<br />
When they were beaten by the Xiongnu, they<br />
crossed the Congling mountains to the West and<br />
soon took possession of this land (of the Kang).<br />
They divided it amongst a number of individual<br />
members of the king’s (family) and that is why left<br />
and right (east and west) of the (main) state of<br />
Kang<br />
there are several (lesser) states and all<br />
— 27 —<br />
Weishu 102. 2281<br />
康 國 者 康 居 之 後 也<br />
遷 徙 無 常 不 恒 故 地<br />
自 漢 以 來 相 承 不 絕<br />
其 王 本 姓 溫<br />
月 氏 人 也<br />
舊 居 祁 連 山 北 昭 武 城<br />
因 被 匈 奴 所 破 西 踰 蔥<br />
嶺<br />
遂 有 其 國<br />
枝 庶 各 分 王 故 康 國 左
右 諸 國 並 以 昭 武 為 姓<br />
gin) ... 示 不 忘 本 也 …<br />
(these rulers’) family name is Zhaowu to demon<br />
strate<br />
(that they all do) not forget their roots (land<br />
of ori<br />
The Weishu contains Chinese history from the late fourth to the mid-sixth century.<br />
The new facts on the migration of the 月氏 are therefore reported some four to five<br />
centuries after the last piece of information contained in Ban Gu’s Hanshu. As we can<br />
see here, the Chinese historians needed much time to find out what really had been<br />
happening in the Far West — reflecting the fact that in the intervening<br />
centuries com-<br />
munications with the West were cut off and reestablished a couple<br />
of times.<br />
At long last we read that the 月氏 did not at all migrate directly<br />
from the region be-<br />
tween the Ili and Chu all the way to the upper<br />
reaches of the Oxus and into Daxia —<br />
as the Hanshu wanted us to believe. The<br />
月氏 were driven from the lands between the<br />
rivers Ili and Chu by the Wusun 烏孫 shortly<br />
before Laoshang<br />
chanyu of the Xiongnu<br />
匈奴 had died in late 161 BCE and they arrived at the<br />
Oxus River only months before<br />
Zhang Qian reached the region in the summer<br />
of 129. The Hanshu had kept us won-<br />
dering what had happened to the 月氏 in this<br />
long span of one full<br />
generation. With<br />
the additional information contained in the Weishu, we are finally able<br />
to fill out this<br />
blank in their history.<br />
The Ruzhi 月氏 subjugated the Kangju 康 居, established themselves as their kings<br />
and extended (or moved) this Kangju kingdom southwestward<br />
as far as Samarkand<br />
(Sogdiana). There, i.e. in Sogdiana, the 月氏 must have collided a second time<br />
with the<br />
Sakaraukai/Saiwang 塞王, who were now dri<br />
ven south — as to the west, i.e.<br />
west of<br />
the middle reaches of the Oxus, the mighty empire<br />
of the Parthians 安息 was already<br />
blocking the way.<br />
And here, in former Greek Sogdiana, the 月 氏 — for the first time<br />
as far as we can<br />
tell — established lesser principalities or viceroy-ships around their central or main<br />
kingdom.<br />
All these viceroys were members of the king’s family. After the Weishu 魏書,<br />
or “Book of the Wei (Dynasty),” had reported this important new information for the<br />
first time, the next in the long line of Chinese Standard Histories, the Beishi 北史 (in<br />
chapter 97) and the Suishu 隨書 (in chapter 83), simply repeated the new facts. We<br />
have to wait another two hundred years to be told how many sub-kings or viceroys<br />
there had been in the realm of the new Kangju — and what their names were. The<br />
(New) Tangshu 唐書 finally has this additional information.<br />
(CHAVANNES 1903: 132–134)<br />
(Le<br />
pays de) K’ang 康 est appelé aussi Sa–mo–kien 薩<br />
末鞬, ou encore Sa–mo–kien 颯秣建 (Samarkand) ;<br />
c’est le pays qu’on appelait<br />
Si–wan–kin 悉萬斤 sous<br />
les Yuen Wei 元魏.<br />
Du côté du sud il est à cent cinquante ›li‹ de Che 史<br />
(Kesch);<br />
i‹ du Ts’a<br />
曹 occidental (Ischtîkhan);<br />
au sud-est, il est à cent ›li‹ de Mi 米 (Mâïmargh);<br />
au nord, à cinquante li du Ts’ao central (Kaboûdhan);<br />
il est au sud de la rivière Na–mi 那密 (Zarafchan).<br />
Il a trente grandes villes et trois cents petites places.<br />
Le nom de famille du prince est ›Wen‹ 溫.<br />
C’étaient à l’origine des Yue–tche 月氏 qui résidaient<br />
autrefois dans la ville de Tchao–ou 昭武 , au nord de<br />
(monts) K’i–lien 祁連. Ayant été battus par les Tou–<br />
kiue (ici: les Hiong–nou), ils se retirèrent graduelle-<br />
(Xin) Tangshu 221B. 6243<br />
du côté du nord-ouest, il est à plus de cent ›l o<br />
康 者 曰 薩 末 鞬 曰<br />
颯 秣 建<br />
元 魏 所 謂 悉 萬 斤 者<br />
其 南 距 史 百 五 十 里<br />
西 北 距 西 曹 百 餘 里<br />
東 南 屬 米 百 里<br />
北 中 曹 五 十 里<br />
在 那 密 水 南 城<br />
大 城 三 十 小 堡 三 百<br />
s 君 姓 溫 月 氏 人<br />
始 居 祁 連 北 昭 武 城<br />
— 28 —
ment vers le sud en s’appuyant sur les (monts) Ts’ong<br />
ling 蔥嶺<br />
et entrèrent ainsi en possession<br />
de ce territoire.<br />
Les principautés qui sont détachées comme des rameaux<br />
s’appellent<br />
— Ngan 安 (Boukhârâ),<br />
— Ts’ao 曹 (Kaboûdhan),<br />
— Che 石 (Taschkend),<br />
— Mi 米 (Mâïmargh),<br />
— Ho 何 (Koschânyah),<br />
— Ho–siun 火尋 (Khârizm),<br />
— Meou–ti 戊地 (le Fa–ti 伐地 de Hiuen–tsang, à l’ouest<br />
de Boukhârâ),<br />
— Che 史 (Kesch).<br />
On les nomme communément les neuf familles (les<br />
huit plus Samarkand, la métropole des autres).<br />
Tous sont de la famille ›Tchao–ou‹.<br />
– 為 突 厥 所 破 稍 南 依<br />
蔥 嶺<br />
即 有 其 地<br />
枝 庶 分 王<br />
曰 安 曰 曹<br />
曰 石 曰 米<br />
曰 何 曰 火 尋<br />
曰 戊 地 曰 史<br />
世 謂 九 姓<br />
皆 氏 昭 武<br />
With this late information we may safely assume: When the Da Yuan 大苑 sent<br />
Zhang Qian on to the “Kangju” they did not usher him north to the former small<br />
Kangju kingdom 康居國 — under Xiongnu 匈奴 domination already —, but due west<br />
to Samarkand were the Da Yuan knew the ›ordos‹ of the Ruzhi 月氏 to be. That it just<br />
had been moved south of the Hissar Mountains to the Oxus and thereby into the lands<br />
of the Daxia 大夏 was apparently not yet known in Ferghana. In the summer of 129<br />
BCE, these were very new developments.<br />
2. ARE WE ENTITLED TO EQUATE ›DAXIA‹ WITH TOCHARA ?<br />
At this junction of Western studies of the relevant Chinese sources, two improved<br />
translations of Shiji 123 were published in New York and Berlin. Below, I reproduce<br />
the beginning of these new translations, i.e. as far as the mission of Zhang Qian is narrated<br />
in this important chapter of the Shiji. For easy comparison I quote the translations<br />
once more together with the Chinese original. It will be clear from the first<br />
sen-<br />
tences that these are vastly improved renditions.<br />
(H IRTH 1917: 93–94)<br />
(DE G ROOT 1926: 9–10)<br />
Our first knowledge of Ta- Die Spur von Ta Wan ist durch<br />
yüan (Ferghana) dates<br />
from Tšang K’i¥n entdeckt worden.<br />
Chang K’ien.<br />
Tšang K’i¥n war ein Mann aus<br />
Chang K’ien<br />
was a native of Han-tšung.<br />
Han-chung (Shen-si prov.). In der Periode Ki¥n-juan (140–<br />
During the period of K’ién-<br />
134) war er Palastbeamter.<br />
yüan (140–134 B.C.) he was a In diesem Zeitraum verhörte<br />
der<br />
›lang‹. Sohn des Himmels Leute, die<br />
At that time the Son of Heasich Hung-no unterworfen<br />
hat-<br />
ven made inquiries among ten. Sie teilten ihm alle<br />
mit,<br />
those Hiung-nu who had sur- daß Hung-no den Kön<br />
rendered (as prisoners) and Goat-si geschlagen und<br />
aus<br />
they all reported that the dessen Schädel ein Trinkgefäß<br />
Hiung-nu had overcome the gemacht habe;<br />
king of the Yüé-chï and made die Goat-si seien dann geflohen<br />
a drinking-vessel out of his und hegten eine da<br />
— 29 —<br />
Shiji<br />
123. 3157–3159<br />
大 宛 之 跡 見<br />
自 張 騫<br />
張 騫 漢 中 人<br />
建 元 中 為 郎<br />
是 時 天 子 問<br />
匈 奴 降 者 皆<br />
ig von 言 匈 奴 破 月<br />
氏 王 以 其 頭<br />
為 飲 器 月 氏<br />
uernde 遁 逃 而 常 怨
skull.<br />
The Yüé-chï had decamped<br />
and were hiding somewhere,<br />
all the time scheming how to<br />
take revenge on the<br />
Hiung-<br />
nu, but had no ally to join<br />
them in striking a blow.<br />
The Chinese, wishing to de<br />
clare war on and wipe out<br />
the Tartars, upon hearing<br />
this<br />
report, desired to communi<br />
cate with the Yüé-chï.<br />
But, the road having to pass<br />
through the territory of the<br />
Hiung-nu, the Emperor<br />
sought<br />
out men whom he could send.<br />
Chang K’ién, being a ›lang‹,<br />
responded to the call and en-<br />
listed in a mission to the<br />
Yüé–<br />
chï; he took with him one Kan<br />
Fu, a Tartar, formerly a slave<br />
of the T’ang–i family, and set<br />
out from Lung–si (Kan–su).<br />
Crossing the territory of the<br />
Hiung–nu, the Hiung–nu<br />
made him a prisoner and<br />
sent him to the ›Shan–yü‹<br />
who detained him, saying:<br />
»The Yüé–chï are to the north<br />
of us; how can China send<br />
ambassadors<br />
to them?<br />
If I wished to send ambassadors<br />
to Yüé (Kiang–si and<br />
Ch’ö–kiang), would China be<br />
willing to submit to us?«<br />
He held Chang K’ién for more<br />
than ten years and gave him<br />
a wife, by whom he<br />
had a<br />
son.<br />
All this time Chang K’ien had<br />
kept possession of the Emperor’s<br />
token of authority.<br />
And, when in the course of<br />
time he was allowed greater<br />
liberty, he, watching his opportunity,<br />
succeeded in making<br />
his escape with his men<br />
in the direction of the Yüé-chï.<br />
Having marched several tens<br />
of days to the west, he arrived<br />
in Ta-yüan.<br />
The people of this country,<br />
having heard of the wealth<br />
and fertility of China, had<br />
Rachgier gegen Hung-no, hät-<br />
ten aber niemand, mit dem<br />
sie<br />
sich verbinden könnten,<br />
um es<br />
anzugreifen.<br />
Han war damals gerade im Be-<br />
griff, sich mit der Vernichtung<br />
der Hu zu beschäftigen,<br />
und<br />
faßte auf Grund dieser Mittei-<br />
lungen den Entschluß, zur Anknüpfung<br />
von Beziehungen<br />
eine<br />
Gesandtschaft (nach Goatsi)<br />
zu entsenden.<br />
Der Weg dorthin mußte<br />
quer<br />
durch Hung-no führen. Es wurden<br />
nun für eine Aussendung<br />
dahin geeignete Personen<br />
auf-<br />
gerufen,<br />
und K’i¥n, der als Palastbeam-<br />
ter sich meldete, wurde nach<br />
Goat-si geschickt. Zusammen<br />
mit einem Manne aus T’ang-ji’,<br />
einem ehemaligen Hu’schen<br />
Sklaven Kam-hu (Kan-fu)verließ<br />
er Lung-si<br />
und zog durch Hung-no. Aber<br />
die Hung-no faßten<br />
sie und<br />
führten sie zum Tan-hu. Dieser<br />
behielt sie bei sich und sprach:<br />
»Zu Goat-si liegen wir im Nor den; dürfte Han also dorthin<br />
reisen?<br />
Falls ich eine Gesandtschaft<br />
nach Ju¥’ schicken wollte (zu<br />
dem Han im Norden liegt), würde<br />
mir dann Han das erlauben?«<br />
Mehr als zehn Jahre hielt er<br />
K’ien bei sich; er gab ihm eine<br />
Frau, und er hatte Söhne von<br />
ihr.<br />
Das Diplom von Han, welches<br />
er führte, ließ er nicht verloren-<br />
gehen.<br />
Während er so im Zentrum von<br />
Hung-no verweilte, erwarb er<br />
sich mehr und mehr Freiheit<br />
und benutzte diese, um mit seinen<br />
Angehörigen die Flucht zu<br />
ergreifen. Der Richtung nach<br />
Goat-si folgend, floh er westwärts<br />
und erreichte nach mehrmals<br />
zehn Tagen Ta-wan.<br />
In Ta-wan hatte man schon von<br />
den Reichtümern und Schätzen<br />
— 30 —<br />
仇 匈 奴 無 與<br />
共 擊 之<br />
漢 方 欲 事 滅<br />
胡 聞 此 言 因<br />
欲 通 使<br />
道 必 更 匈 奴<br />
中 乃 募 能 使<br />
者<br />
騫 以 郎 應 募<br />
使 月 氏 與 堂<br />
邑 氏 ( 故 )<br />
胡 奴 甘 父 俱<br />
出 隴 西<br />
經 匈 奴 匈 奴<br />
得 之 傳 詣 單<br />
于<br />
單 于 留 之 曰<br />
月 氏 在 吾 北<br />
漢 何 以 得 往<br />
使 吾 欲 使 越<br />
漢 肯 聽 我 乎<br />
留 騫 十 餘 歲<br />
與 妻 有 子<br />
然 騫 持 漢 節<br />
不 失<br />
居 匈 奴 中 益<br />
寬 騫 因 與 其<br />
屬 亡 鄉 月 氏<br />
西 走 數 十 日<br />
至 大 宛<br />
大 宛 聞 漢 之<br />
饒 財 欲 通 不<br />
得 見 騫 喜 問
tried in vain to communicate<br />
with it.<br />
When, therefore, they saw<br />
Chang K’ién, they asked joyfully:<br />
»Where do you wish to<br />
go?«<br />
Chang K’ién replied:<br />
»I was sent by (the Emperor<br />
of) China to the Yüé-chï, and<br />
was made prisoner by the<br />
Hiung-nu.<br />
I have now escaped them and<br />
would ask that your king<br />
have some one conduct me to<br />
the country of the Yüé-chï.<br />
And if I should succeed in<br />
reaching that country, on my<br />
return to China, my king will<br />
reward yours with untold<br />
treasures.«<br />
The Ta-yüan believed his account<br />
and gave him safe-conduct<br />
on postal roads to K’angkü<br />
(Soghdiana);<br />
and K’ang-kü sent him on to<br />
the Ta-yüé-chï.<br />
The king of the Ta-yüé-chï<br />
having been killed by the Hu,<br />
the people set up the crown<br />
prince in his stead.<br />
They had since conquered<br />
Ta-hia (Bactria) and occupied<br />
that country.<br />
The latter being rich and fertile<br />
and little troubled with<br />
robbers, they had determined<br />
to enjoy a peaceful life;<br />
moreover, since they considered<br />
themselves too far<br />
away from China, they had<br />
no longer the intention to<br />
take revenge on the Hu<br />
(Hiung-nu).<br />
Chang K’ien went through the<br />
country of the Yüé-chï to Tahia<br />
(Bactria), yet, after all, he<br />
did not carry his point with<br />
the Yüé-chï.<br />
After having remained there<br />
fully a year, he returned,<br />
skirting the Nan-shan.<br />
He wished to return through<br />
the country of the K’iang<br />
(Tangutans), but was again<br />
von Han gehört und Beziehungen<br />
anknüpfen wollen, jedoch<br />
war es nicht dazu gekommen.<br />
Als man nun K’i¥n erblickte,<br />
freute man sich und fragte ihn:<br />
»Wo willst du hin?«<br />
Die Antwort lautete:<br />
»Ich wurde von Han nach Goatsi<br />
entsandt, jedoch durch Hungno<br />
wurde mir der Weg verlegt.<br />
Jetzt bin ich auf der Flucht, o<br />
König, laß mich von Deinen<br />
Leuten begleiten, auf daß ich<br />
wirklich mein Ziel erreichen<br />
kann.<br />
Sobald ich dann wieder in Han<br />
zurück bin,<br />
werden die Schätze,<br />
welche es Dir, König, schenkt,<br />
alle Beschreibung übertreffen.«<br />
Ta-wan war einverstanden; es<br />
ließ (Tšang) K’ien weiterreisen<br />
und bot Leute auf, die ihm von<br />
der einen Station nach der anderen<br />
bis nach K’ang-ki<br />
das Ge-<br />
leit gaben.<br />
Und dann ließ ihn K’ang-ki<br />
nach Groß-Goat-si bringen.<br />
Als der König von Groß-Goat-si<br />
durch die Hu umgebracht war,<br />
hatte es seinen ältesten Sohn<br />
zum König erhoben;<br />
dann hatte es Ta-ha (Tochara)<br />
unterworfen und sich dort ansässig<br />
gemacht.<br />
Dieses Land war fruchtbar und<br />
reich; man wurde da selten von<br />
Feinden angegriffen und suchte<br />
nur ein ruhiges und freudiges<br />
Dasein zu führen;<br />
man betrachtete Han als weit<br />
entlegen und hegte gegen die<br />
Hu fast keine Rachsucht mehr.<br />
Von Goat-si reiste (Tšang) K’ien<br />
nach Ta-ha, ohne daß es ihm<br />
gelungen war, eine Entscheidung<br />
von Goat-si zu bekommen.<br />
Nachdem er länger als ein Jahr<br />
sich da aufgehalten hatte, trat<br />
er den Rückweg an. Er reiste<br />
den Nan-šan (Südgebirge) entlang,<br />
mit der Absicht, über<br />
K’iong (D{a-k’iong} heimzureisen;<br />
aber zum zweiten Male<br />
— 31 —<br />
曰<br />
若 欲 何 之<br />
騫 曰<br />
為 漢 使 月 氏<br />
而 為 匈 奴 所<br />
閉 道<br />
今 亡 唯 王 使<br />
人 導 送 我<br />
誠 得 至 反 漢<br />
漢 之 賂 遺 王<br />
財 物 不 可 勝<br />
言<br />
大 宛 以 為 然<br />
遣 騫 為 發 導<br />
繹 抵 康 居<br />
康 居 傳 致 大<br />
月 氏<br />
大 月 氏 王 已<br />
為 胡 所 殺 立<br />
其 太 子 為 王<br />
既 臣 大 夏 而<br />
居<br />
地 肥 饒 少 寇<br />
志 安 樂 又 自<br />
以 遠 漢 殊 無<br />
報 胡 之 心<br />
騫 從 月 氏 至<br />
大 夏 竟 不 能<br />
得 月 氏 要 領<br />
留 歲 餘 還 並<br />
南 山 欲 從 羌<br />
中 歸 復 為 匈<br />
奴 所 得
made a prisoner by the<br />
Hiung-nu,<br />
who detained him for more<br />
than a year, when the Shanyü<br />
died and the “left” Luk-li<br />
prince attacked the rightful<br />
heir and usurped the throne,<br />
thus throwing the country<br />
into a state of confusion.<br />
At this time Chang K’ien, with<br />
his Tartar wife and T’ang-i<br />
Fu (Kan Fu), escaped and returned<br />
to China.<br />
(The Emperor of) China appointed<br />
Chang K’ién a ›T’ai-<br />
chung-ta-fu‹ and gave T’ang-i<br />
Fu the title ›Föng-shï-kün‹.<br />
wurde er von Hung-no entdeckt<br />
und länger als ein Jahr festgehalten.<br />
Da starb der Tan-hu; der linke<br />
Kok-li-König erschlug dessen ältesten<br />
Sohn und setzte<br />
sich<br />
selbst auf den Thron;<br />
Wirren herrschten im Reich;<br />
(Tšang) K’ien wandte sich mit<br />
seiner Hu-Frau und mit T’ang-<br />
ji’ (Kam-)hu zur Flucht und<br />
kam nach Han zurück.<br />
Han ernannte darauf (Tšang)<br />
K’i¥n zum ›Wesir des innersten<br />
Palastes‹, und T’ang-ji’ (Kam-)<br />
hu wurde ›Fürst, der vom Kaiser<br />
eine Sendung empfing‹.<br />
留 歲 餘 單 于<br />
死 左 谷 蠡 王<br />
攻 其 太 子 自<br />
立 國 內 亂 騫<br />
與 胡 妻 及 堂<br />
邑 父 俱 亡 歸<br />
漢<br />
漢 拜 騫 為 太<br />
中 大 夫 堂 邑<br />
父 為 奉 使 君<br />
By now, there were translations<br />
of Shiji 123 into four European<br />
languages:<br />
into<br />
French by B ROSSET (1828); into Russian by BICHURIN (1851); into<br />
E nglish by HIRTH (1917);<br />
and into German by DE GROOT<br />
(1926). Within the span of about<br />
one hundred years, Si-<br />
nology in Europe in general and the study of the Chinese Standard<br />
Histories in par-<br />
ticular had made great strides<br />
forward. Yet the problems of the Chinese language, the<br />
Chinese script and the cumbersome<br />
Chinese ways to transribe<br />
foreign names proved<br />
formidable obstacles. It seemed<br />
that a century of intensive research was not enough<br />
to<br />
overcome the difficulties invo lved. One example is that HIRTH,<br />
who came from Ger-<br />
many and taught at Columbia University in New York, still equated<br />
Daxia<br />
大夏 with<br />
Bactria, thus copying the mist<br />
ake of many of his forerunners.<br />
The mistaken<br />
and mis-<br />
leading identification, in fact, can be traced back to RÉMUSAT 1825:<br />
116:<br />
Les contrées que Tchhang-kian avoit visitées par lui-même étoient<br />
— le Ta-wan ou pays de Schasch,<br />
— le pays des Ta-youeï-chi ou la Transoxane,<br />
— le Ta-hia ou la Bactriane,<br />
— et Kang-kiu ou la Sogdiane.<br />
Mais il rapporta des relations détaillées<br />
au sujet de cinq ou six autres<br />
états<br />
voisins.<br />
1846: 231, JULIEN, the successor<br />
of RÉMUSAT at the Collège de<br />
France,<br />
confirms:<br />
Je donnerai des notices historiques<br />
sur divers peuples de l’Asie<br />
qui<br />
ont joué un rôle im-<br />
portant dans cette partie du monde,<br />
et pour la connaissance<br />
desqu els les auteurs chinois<br />
nous offrent seuls des renseignements<br />
solides et étendus. Je me co ntenterai de citer, pour<br />
le moment,<br />
— les Ta-hia ou Bactriens,<br />
— les ‘Asi ou Parthes,<br />
— les habitants du Khang-khiu ou Sogdiens,<br />
— les Yen-tsai ou Gètes,<br />
— les Youeï-tchi, de race indo-scythe,<br />
qui ont occupé successivem ent la Transoxiane, la<br />
Bactriane et le Caboul;<br />
— les Ou-sun,<br />
race blonde aux yeux bleus, appelée par quelques aut eurs, indo-germanique,<br />
etc. ...<br />
It proved to be very unfortunate,<br />
that after RÉMUSAT and<br />
JULIEN, the erroneous<br />
identification Ta-hia = Bactria continued to be copied and recopied<br />
by five to six gen-<br />
erations of scholars down to our<br />
own times (Vaissière 2002: 31).<br />
One year after HIRTH’s translation,<br />
in 1918: 572, F.W.K. MÜLLER<br />
quoted one<br />
short<br />
paragraph of Shiji 123 in translation<br />
and the original text which<br />
contained the line:<br />
— 32 —
西擊大夏 Im Westen schlugen<br />
sie die Tai-Hia (*Dai-Ha = Baktrer).<br />
He thus gave the false equation<br />
a semi-scientific touch.<br />
In contrast to MÜLLER, the famous Dutch Sinologist DE GROO<br />
T, who had come from<br />
Leiden to Berlin, introduces here the new and much improved<br />
equation Daxia = To-<br />
chara in his translation of Shiji<br />
123. With this, he confirms what MARQUART 1901: 204<br />
had written:<br />
Aus dieser historischen Gegenüberstellung<br />
der griechisch-römis<br />
chen und chinesischen<br />
Berichte ergibt sich mit logischer<br />
Notwendigkeit die Gleichung: Ta -hia = Tochari. Ich<br />
treffe also in dieser Identifikatio<br />
n zufällig mit Kingsmill (1882: 74–79)<br />
zusammen; man wird<br />
aber hoffentlich zugeben, dass meine auf historisch-kritischem Wege<br />
gewonnenen<br />
Erklä-<br />
rungen nichts mit den wilden,<br />
lediglich auf scheinbare Namensanklänge hin gemachten<br />
Identifikationen j enes Sinologen gemein haben ...<br />
Shortly before DE GROOT,<br />
in 1920: 1617, the well-known Geographer<br />
HERRMANN, writ-<br />
ing on the Sacaraucae, included<br />
the crucial equation in the following<br />
explanations:<br />
Schon Chang-k’ien nennt uns<br />
im eigentlichen Baktrien das Volk<br />
der Ta-ha; es sind dies<br />
die Tocharer, die dort kürzlich die griechische Herrschaft abgelöst<br />
hatten. Und wie wir aus<br />
den<br />
Han-Annalen schließen können, folgten den Sacaraucae nach einer Reihe von Jahren<br />
die Kurschi (Guát-si), als sie von den Å-sun aus ihren neuen Sitzen verjagt wurden. Wenn<br />
wir dabei die griechischen Nachrichten über die letzten Könige von Baktrien in Betracht<br />
ziehen, so gehen wir wohl kaum fehl in der Annahme, daß die Sacaraucae zwischen 160<br />
und 150, die Tocharer um 135, endlich die Kurschi um 130 v.Chr. eingewandert sind. Mit diesen<br />
Kenntnissen ausgerüstet, sind wir endlich in der Lage, die abendländischen Berichte<br />
kritisch zu verwerten. Trogus Pompeius hat den Einbruch der Sacaraucae im 41. Buch behandelt:<br />
»Deinde quo regnante Scythicae gentes Saraucae et Asiani Bactra occupavere et Sogdianos.«<br />
Leider hat der jämmerliche Auszug bei Iustin. über dieses Ereignis keine Silbe<br />
aufbewahrt.<br />
Daß, wie Marquart (1901: 205) behauptet, die Sacaraucae mit Bactra,<br />
die Asiani mit<br />
Sogdiani inhaltlich zusammengehören,<br />
darf man aus dem Text nicht ohne weiteres her-<br />
auslesen. Wesentlich ist hier nur, daß neben den Sacaraucae allein die Asiani genannt<br />
werden. Über beide Völker handelt<br />
auch das nächste<br />
Buch:<br />
»Additae his res Scythicae. Reges<br />
Thocarorum Asiani interitusque Saraucarum.«<br />
Hier lernen wir also noch ein drittes Skythenvolk kennen, die Thocari, die bei Iustin.<br />
XLII 2, 2 als ›Tochari‹ vorkommen; v. Gutschmid (1888: 70) und Marquart haben wohl Recht,<br />
wenn sie die letztere Notiz in dem Sinne auslegen, daß die Könige der Tocharer Asiani<br />
schen<br />
Stammes seien. Denn hierzu stimmt genau die Angabe der Han-Annalen, daß die<br />
Guát-si, die Chang-k’ien noch im Norden des Oxus antraf, sich bald darauf des Landes der<br />
Ta-ha (Tocharer) bemächtigten. Somit können die Asiani nur die Kurschi (Guát-si) sein.<br />
HERRMANN’s<br />
Å-sun are the Wusun and the Kurschi (Guát-si) our Ruzhi 月氏. His<br />
last statement is of importance<br />
because it is the result of straightforward logical reasoning.<br />
It is also important<br />
to notice here that HERRMANN identifies the Ta-ha 大夏 of<br />
Z hang Qian and the Tochari of Trogus and says that they migrated into Bactria from<br />
somewhere else, sometime<br />
between the Sakaraukai and the Ruzhi 月氏. Below, we will<br />
see that HERRMANN soon changed his mind on this point revealing a curious<br />
dilemma — which will be of great help for<br />
solving the whole question of who really<br />
t ook Bactria from the Bactrian Greeks. Sometimes the solution of complex problems<br />
can be found<br />
by asking the right questions.<br />
HERRMANN continues:<br />
Während Trogus nur von dem Einbruch zweier Skythenstämme spricht und erst bei<br />
späterer Gelegenheit mit ihnen zusammen die Thocari erwähnt, zählt<br />
Strabon insgesamt<br />
vier<br />
Völker auf, welche, vom Sakenland jenseits des Iaxartes ausgehend, den Hellenen<br />
Baktrien entrissen haben sollen ...<br />
— 33 —
In welcher Weise läßt sich nun diese Darstellung mit der des Trogus vereinigen ? ...<br />
Warum erwähnt Trogus die Tocharer nicht von vornherein<br />
bei Gelegenheit des Einbruchs<br />
in Baktrien ?<br />
Two years later, in 1922: 459 and more in passing, RAPSON provides us with a new<br />
and crucial observation on the Daxia:<br />
The report of Chang-kien,<br />
a Chinese envoy who visited the Yueh-chi in 126 B.C., is still<br />
extant.<br />
These nomads were then settled in Sogdiana, and the report speaks in somewhat<br />
contemptuous terms of their southern neighbours, the Ta-hia, by whom are apparently<br />
meant the native population of Bactria: they were a nation of shopkeepers, living in towns<br />
each governed by its magistrate, and caring nothing for the delight or the glory of battle ...<br />
This simple observation is also taken up by HERRMANN who adduces two more ar-<br />
guments and plenty of evidence for reversing his<br />
earlier statements on the Daxia. In<br />
the same year, 1922: 209–211 and now contra MARQUART, he writes:<br />
In diesen Zusammenhang gehört auch die Beurteilung des Völkernamens Ta-hsia. Wir<br />
haben<br />
gesehen, daß ein Volksstamm dieses Namens in der Geschichte Chinas nur einmal,<br />
nämlich im Jahre 1084 v.Chr. unter den westlichen Grenzvölkern aufgetreten ist, um dann<br />
für immer zu verschwinden. Nur durch die chinesischen Karten und Legenden hat sich der<br />
Name, wie wir an einigen Beispielen darlegen konnten, bin in die Han-Zeit fortgepflanzt ...<br />
Es ist daher gar nicht verwunderlich, daß schließlich CHANG CH’IEN genau denselben Namen<br />
auf das größte Kulturvolk des Westens, die Baktrer, übertragen hat, in der offenbaren<br />
Meinung, hier das uralte Westvolk endlich wiedergefunden zu haben. Wenn also, wie es in<br />
der Tat scheint, lediglich eine Namensübertragung vorliegt, dann haben wir keine Veranlassung<br />
mehr, zwischen den beiden Ta-hsia von den Jahren 1084 und 127 v.Chr. einen ethnographischen<br />
Zusammenhang zu konstruieren, wie es O. FRANKE in einer besonderen Abhandlung<br />
getan hat (OZ 1919–20, S. 125 ff.), so daß wir gegen seine Ergebnisse schon oben<br />
schwere Bedenken äußern mußten. Ebenso ist es ein Verstoß gegen die Methoden der historischen<br />
Geographie, daß man den Namen Ta-hsia in das vielerörterte Problem der Tocharer<br />
und Yüeh-chih hineingezogen hat. Während auf der einen Seite Tocharer und Yüehchih<br />
miteinander identifiziert werden, machen andere Gelehrte, namentlich J. MARQUART<br />
(1901), O. FRANKE (1920) und STEN KONOW (1920) die Ta-hsia zu Vorfahren der Tocharer, da diese<br />
schon vor den Yüeh-chih in Baktrien eingewandert und dann<br />
von den letzteren unterworfen<br />
sein sollen. Ausschlaggebend ist für sie der Namensanklang des rekonstruierten<br />
Lautes<br />
Ta-ha an Tocharoi.<br />
Aber war denn, wie SCHLEGEL, Marquarts Gewährsmann, behauptet hat, die alte Aussprache<br />
wirklich Ta-ha ? Neuerdings haben F.W.K. MÜLLER und unabhängig von ihm B.<br />
KARLGREN festgestellt, daß der alte Laut eher Tai-ha gewesen sein müsse (nach einer per-<br />
sönlichen Mitteilung KARLGRENs ist für 大 der alte Laut ›d’âi‹ das Normale, während ›d’â‹<br />
nur bisweilen in der Poesie vorkommt). Wenn auch eine sichere Entscheidung in dieser<br />
phonetischen<br />
Frage vorläufig nicht möglich ist, die etymologische Verbindung mit Tocharoi<br />
ist mindestens sehr anfechtbar. Sie wird geradezu illusorisch, wenn wir drei Momente in<br />
Betracht ziehen, über die man bisher achtlos hinweggegangen ist.<br />
Das erste Moment besteht darin, daß die Chinesen, obgleich ihnen die Namen Ta-hsia<br />
und Tu-ho-lo (für Tocharoi und Tokhåra) durchaus geläufig waren, selber niemals auf den<br />
Gedanken gekommen sind, sie miteinander zu identifizieren. Dieser Fall wiegt um so<br />
schwerer, weil sie bei ihren nur selten unterbrochenen Beziehungen zu Baktrien immer<br />
wieder auf den alten Namen Ta-hsia zurückgekommen sind. Besonders bezeichnend ist<br />
hierfür die von CHAVANNES übersetzte Angabe der Tang-Annalen (618–906 n.Chr.):<br />
Le T’ou-ho-lo est appelé parfois T’ou-ho-lo ou Tou-ho-lo. C’est l’ancien territoire du (royaume<br />
de) Ta-hia.<br />
Hier werden also alle möglichen Transkriptionen für Tokhåra, Tukhåra geliefert; dagegen<br />
wird Ta-hsia nur aus rein geographischen Gründen hinzugefügt; an eine lautliche<br />
Übereinstimmung haben also die Chinesen niemals gedacht.<br />
— 34 —
Wenn auch diese Tatsache an sich nicht beweiskräftig ist, so gewinnt sie doch an Tragweite,<br />
sobald wir die beiden anderen Momente sprechen lassen. Das eine ergibt sich aus<br />
dem Bericht des Entdeckers<br />
CHANG CH’IEN. Während er von den Yüeh-chih hervorhebt, daß<br />
sie als Nomadenvolk von Osten her in das Oxusland eingedrungen seien, um sich an dessen<br />
Nordufer festzusetzen, betrachtet er die Ta-hsia als die seßhafte Bevölkerung Baktriens,<br />
die kriegerisch schwach, aber im Handel und Gewerbe äußerst tüchtig sei. Es ist ohne<br />
weiteres<br />
klar, daß ein solches Urteil nicht einem Volke gelten kann, das erst vor kurzem<br />
eingewandert ist, um das griechisch-baktrische Reich zu stürzen. Mit den Ta-hsia sind also<br />
zweifellos die alteingesessenen Bewohner gemeint.<br />
Dann können aber die Tocharer nicht mit den Ta-hsia, sondern nur mit den Yüeh-chih<br />
identisch sein, die, wie wir wissen, bald nach CHANG CH’IENs Expedition die Ta-hsia voll-<br />
ständig<br />
unterwarfen und damit Herren von ganz Baktrien wurden. Daß diese Lösung die<br />
einzig mögliche ist, wird uns durch die Nachricht bewiesen, die sich auf die frühere Heimat<br />
der Yüeh-chih bzw. Tocharer beziehen.<br />
Über die ältesten Sitze der Yüeh-chih sind die Angaben der chinesischen Annalen so<br />
klar gefaßt, daß die europäische Forschung zu einem völlig gesicherten Ergebnis gekommen<br />
ist: Die Yüeh-chih wohnten, als sie den Chinesen zuerst bekannt wurden, zwischen<br />
Tun-huang und Kan-chou, und als die Hauptmasse nach Westen auswanderte (um 160<br />
v.Chr.), behaupteten sich die Kleinen Yüeh-chih im Gebirge südlich davon; einige werden<br />
besonders in Huang-chung, dem heutigen Hsi-ning-fu, bezeugt. Was anderseits die Herkunft<br />
der Tocharer betrifft, die im Chinesischen erst seit dem 4. Jahrh. n.Chr. als Tou-ch’ialo<br />
und bald darauf als Tu-ho-lo bezeugt werden, so enthalten sich die offiziellen Annalen<br />
jeder weiteren Äußerung ...<br />
No doubt, Zhang Qian’s Chinese transcription Daxia 大夏 for the foreign name To-<br />
cha(ra)<br />
had been an unfortunate choice because this was the Chinese name for a total-<br />
ly<br />
different foreign people, first north and later west of China. This fact is also alluded<br />
t o by PELLIOT below (p. 37). In preparation of his mission to search for the Ruzhi 月氏 ,<br />
Z hang Qian, a literate man, may have gone through what written sources on the 月氏<br />
t here were in his time. Sima Tan, the father of Sima Qian, had just been appointed<br />
court<br />
astronomer / astrologer by Han Emperor Wu (in 140 BCE). In charge of all mat-<br />
t ers of the calendar and in consequence of the imperial archives, Sima Tan with Zhang<br />
Qian<br />
may have gone through such old books as the Yizhoushu 逸周書 where in chap-<br />
ter<br />
59 a number of foreign nations are mentioned bringing “tribute” (gifts) to the Chi-<br />
nese court: from due north<br />
正北, there were, among others, the Daxia 大夏, the<br />
Xiongnu<br />
匈奴, and the Ruzhi 月氏.<br />
With this chapter in the back of his mind, Zhang Qian may have believed for a mo-<br />
m ent that he had the Far Eastern Daxia before him in Eastern Bactria. He was, of<br />
course,<br />
badly mistaken, and so the compilers of later Chinese Standard Histories<br />
changed<br />
the two-character transcription 大夏 into a variety of better-fitting three-char-<br />
a cter transcriptions (see below, pp. 37–38) to end the confusion which Zhang Qian’s<br />
mistake<br />
had created. But it was too late: East Asian and Western authors in our times<br />
jumped on the coincidence and thus helped proliferate and worsen<br />
the confusion.<br />
HERRMANN’s main and only valid reason for his about-face was his new and brilli-<br />
ant<br />
observation, hinted at by RAPSON: Zhang Qian’s Daxia 大夏 were die alteingeses-<br />
sene<br />
Bevölkerung Baktriens — the autochthonous population of Bactria which, by the<br />
t ime of Zhang Qian, had become a melting pot of races, cultures and languages. After<br />
the<br />
Iranians and the Greeks it was the Sakas who left their traces in this local popula-<br />
tion. This was of paramount importance. It proved that the Daxia = Tocharians<br />
had<br />
not come from anywhere else. With this shrewd new insight into Zhang Qian’s text,<br />
HERRMANN was obliged<br />
to believe that the Daxia 大夏 could no longer be equated with<br />
the Tochari of Trogus and especially not with the TÒcaroi (Tochari) of Strabo’s list<br />
because<br />
the latter were said to be Scythian nomads and recent invaders of Bactria.<br />
This<br />
was HERRMANN’S dilemma.<br />
FRANKE, in 1930: 338, a text quoted above already, just confirms his earlier findings:<br />
— 35 —
Tschang K’ien ging, vermutlich am Südhang des T’ien-schan entlang, den Spuren der<br />
Yüe-tschi nach, und fand sie schließlich, nachdem ihm Leute von Ta-yuan (Ferghana) und<br />
K’ang-kü (die Kirgisen-Steppen nördlich vom Syr darja oder Jaxartes) das Geleit gegeben,<br />
in den Ländern am oberen Oxus (Amu darja). Hier waren sie gemeinsam mit anderen Völkerstämmen<br />
in das griechische Diadochen-Reich Baktrien eingefallen und hatten sich ihre<br />
gegenwärtigen Wohnsitze erobert. Sie führten in dem fruchtbaren und hochkultivierten<br />
Lande zusammen mit den Tocharern (Ta-hia) ein behagliches Dasein und waren zu großer<br />
Blüte gelangt. Es ist leicht zu verstehen, daß die Yüe-tschi unter diesen Umständen<br />
keine Neigung mehr hatten, gegen die Hiung-nu einen Rachekrieg zu beginnen und mit<br />
dem<br />
weit entfernten Reiche der Han ein Bündnis zu schließen.<br />
The early German Sinologist is one of the few who, unwaveringly, equate Ta-hia or<br />
Daxia<br />
大夏 with the Tocharians — not the Bactrians.<br />
However, the complex issue of the identity of the Tochari kept vexing and torment-<br />
ing<br />
the greatest minds. KONOW is another example. In 1920: 231–233, he writes:<br />
Ich habe im vorhergehenden die Entdeckung meines Freundes SIEG, SbAW, 1918, S. 560<br />
ff., absichtlich nicht erwähnt, obgleich sie anscheinend alles, was ich bis jetzt über diese<br />
Fragen geschrieben habe, über den Haufen wirft. SIEG hat bekanntlich nachgewiesen, daß<br />
die indogermanische Sprache des nordöstlichen Turkistan, welche die Uiguren als tocri,<br />
d.h. doch wohl sicher tocharisch, bezeichnen, in den Texten selbst årši genannt wird, und<br />
daß dies Wort årši auch das Reich und dessen Bewohner bezeichnet. Man wird wohl ohne<br />
weiteres F.W.K. MÜLLER beistimmen, wenn er, idem, S. 566 ff., dies årši mit dem 'Asioi des<br />
Strabo und dem Asiani des Trogus<br />
zusammenbringt, indem ja die Asiani nach Trogus die<br />
Könige der<br />
Tochari waren oder wurden. Wir würden somit mit MÜLLER zu dem Ergebnis<br />
kommen, daß das Volk selbst tocri, Tocharer, die Herrscherschicht årši Asii, genannt wurde.<br />
Wenn weiter MÜLLER’s Annahme, die auch FRANKE, OZ 6, S. 83 ff., für wahrscheinlich hält,<br />
daß das chinesische Yüe-tschi eine Wiedergabe eben des Wortes årši ist, das Richtige treffen<br />
sollte, wäre somit die Frage gelöst ...<br />
Die Frage nach dem Verhältnis zwischen Årši und tocri hängt selbstverständlich mit<br />
einer anderen zusammen: wie steht es mit der allgemein angenommenen Gleichsetzung<br />
der Yüe-tschi mit den Tocharern ?<br />
In seinem ›×rånšahr‹, S. 200 ff., hat MARQUART aus einer Prüfung der chinesischen und<br />
klassischen Nachrichten den Schluß gezogen, daß es sich um zwei verschiedene Völker<br />
handelt. Auf den Inhalt der chinesischen Nachrichten habe ich schon oben hingewiesen.<br />
Auf ihrer Wanderung gegen Westen schlugen die Yüe-tschi die Ta-hia und unterjochten<br />
sie ... Nach dem Schi-ki waren sie mehr ein Handels- als ein Kriegervolk, weshalb sie von<br />
den Ta Yüe-tschi unterjocht wurden. Ähnlich ist die Darstellung im Ts’ien Han-schu ...<br />
Damit hat MARQUART, wie ich glaube mit Recht, die Bemerkung des Trogus reges Tocharorum<br />
Asiani zusammengestellt, und den Schluß gezogen, daß die Ta-hia mit den Tocharern,<br />
die Yüe-tschi mit den Asiani identisch sein müssen. Daraus folgt aber mit Notwendigkeit,<br />
daß die Yüeh-tschi und die Tocharer von Haus aus verschiedene Völker waren. Dazu<br />
stimmen auch die anderen Nachrichten, die uns zugänglich sind. Nach den chinesischen<br />
Berichten saßen die Ta-hia schon in Baktrien, als die Yüeh-tschi im 2. Jahrhundert v.Chr.<br />
das Land eroberten ...<br />
Thirteen years later, now also reversing his own earlier convictions, KONOW writes,<br />
1933: 463:<br />
Marquart hat auch nachzuweisen versucht, daß die beiden Formen denselben Namen<br />
wiedergeben ...<br />
Heute werden wohl wenige Gelehrte dieser Ansicht sein. Nach freundlicher Mitteilung<br />
Karlgrens wurde Ta-hia im 2. Jahrh. v.Chr. d’ât-g’â gesprochen, und eine solche Form kann<br />
unmöglich dem klassischen Tochari zugrunde liegen. Dagegen ist es wohl möglich, daß sich<br />
die beiden Bezeichnungen sachlich decken.<br />
To this PELLIOT answers one year later, 1934: 27–40:<br />
— 36 —
M. Sten Konow écarte le rapprochement fait par Marquart entre le nom de 大夏 Ta-hia<br />
et celui du Tokharestan, d’autant que M. Karlgren lui a donné *D’ât-g’å pour la prononciation<br />
de Ta-hia au second siècle avant notre ère, mais admet que les deux noms se recouvrent<br />
néanmoins en fait et sont synonymes ...<br />
Géographiquement, le Ta-Hia répond au Tokharestan, le pays des Tukhâras, et Marquart,<br />
on l’a vu, a proposé d’identifier phonétiquement Ta-Hia et Tukhâra ... je crois volon-<br />
e tiers que les Chinois de la fin du II siècle avant notre ère ont utilisé, pour transcrire le nom<br />
des Tukhâras, le nom de Ta-Hia ou «Grand Hia» déjà connu dans le domaine chinois.<br />
With this, KONOW soon reverses his opinion once again, and, in 1934: 6, states what<br />
he<br />
had written initially, namely in 1920:<br />
It seems to be generally admitted that the Saraucae, for which other texts have Sakaraukae,<br />
Sakarauloi, etc., correspond to the Saiwang, the Asiani or Asioi, as they are also<br />
called, to the Yüe-chi, and the Tocharians to the Ta-hia. There cannot well be any question<br />
about identifying the name Ta-hia, which according to Professor Karlgren was pronounced<br />
›d’ât-g’a‹<br />
in the second century B.C., with Tochara, or Yüe-chi, old ›gwat-ti‹ or ›gat-ti‹, with<br />
Asioi.<br />
Here, all problems seemed well solved. HERRMANN — who, like KONOW, had sub-<br />
s cribed to the equation Ta-ha = Tocharer in 1920 — had just two years later been<br />
forced<br />
to reconsider the evidence and in consequence had changed his mind, too. But<br />
unlike<br />
KONOW he repeated his objections in 1937: 1633–1634:<br />
Als eine Umschreibung von Tokhâra hat man vielfach das chines. ›Ta-hsia‹ (›Ta-hia‹) in<br />
Baktrien ansehen wollen, vgl. Marquart (1901: 204), O. Franke (1920: 125ff.), Sten Konow (1920:<br />
233). Das ist aber ein Irrtum. Denn abgesehen davon, daß die alte Aussprache etwa ›tai-ha‹<br />
war und sich somit von Tokhâra noch mehr entfernte als der heutige Laut, hat unser Gewährsmann<br />
Tschang K’ien (um 127 v.Chr.) mit Ta-hsia nicht ein Eroberervolk, sondern die<br />
alteingesessene Bevölkerung Baktriens bezeichnen<br />
wollen; er beging nur den Fehler, daß<br />
er hierauf den Namen eines ganz anderen Volkes Ta-hsia übertrug, das ihm in der Literatur<br />
als kulturell hochstehendes Fremdvolk angegeben war.<br />
TARN, in his famous book of 1938, observes the same important fact (see below,<br />
p. 67).<br />
With that we may go on to discuss the logical implications of this crucial obser-<br />
vation<br />
and suggest a solution to the dilemma: to accept that the Daxia 大夏 were the<br />
town-dwelling,<br />
autochthonous population of Eastern Bactria and still stick to the<br />
equation<br />
Daxia = Tochara.<br />
In China proper, WANG GUOWEI 王國維, in his Study on the Western Hu 西胡考,<br />
contained in chapter 13 of his famous collection Guantang jilin 觀堂集林 of 1923,<br />
named<br />
Marquart (馬括德) as his main authority when he explained, p. 15 b:<br />
My<br />
investigations show that the name Du–huo–<br />
luo<br />
[Tochara] originally derives from Da–xia.<br />
考 睹 貨 邏 之 名 源 出 大 夏<br />
With this statement the great Chinese scholar joined the rather few enlightened au-<br />
thors<br />
who got the crucial equation Daxia = Tocha(ra) right. And with this clarification<br />
firmly established, we are<br />
in a position to rectify what BAILEY, 1947: 151, had written:<br />
Since the Chinese equated Buddhist Sanskrit Tuḫkhāra with their own name Üe-ṭṣï ... the<br />
equation of Τόχαροι and Üe-ṭṣï seems certain enough.<br />
BAILEY’s identification is based on a fallacious assumption. In Weishu 102 and in<br />
Beishi 97, the Chinese, in fact, transliterate “Buddhist Sanskrit Tuḫkhāra,” not with Üe-<br />
ṭṣï 月氏, but with —<br />
吐呼羅 (T’u–hu–lo, in Wade-Giles, Tuhuluo, in pinyin), and with<br />
吐火羅 (T’u–ho–lo; Tuhuoluo) in Suishu 83 and in Tangshu 221; the latter also gives<br />
吐豁羅 (T’u–ho–lo; Tuhuoluo),<br />
睹貨 邏 (Tu–ho–lo; Duhuoluo), and<br />
— 37 —
吐呼 羅 (T’u–hu–lo; Tuhuluo) as variants. In the last of these four Chinese Standard<br />
Histories,<br />
the (New) Tangshu, it is said — as I have quoted above:<br />
Tuh<br />
(Xin) Tangshu 221B. 6252<br />
uoluo ... is the old Daxia territory. 吐 火 羅 … 古 大 夏 地<br />
Hence, the Chinese equate Buddhist Sanskrit Tuḫkhāra, not with Üe-ṭṣï 月氏, but —<br />
in<br />
the time of Sima Qian — with the name Daxia 大夏.<br />
From the Shiji and the Hanshu we know that the Daxia 大夏 were subjugated by<br />
the Ruzhi 月氏 and hence cannot be identical with the latter. BAILEY’s informant on<br />
the Chinese sources is HALOUN (see above,<br />
pp. 24–25). The above erroneous equation<br />
Τόχαροι<br />
= Üe-ṭṣï must thus be his. BAILEY knew his limitations and frankly admitted:<br />
Indeed, it is evident that no scholar is equipped to control all the sources. We find scholars<br />
who have done admirable work in one branch stand helpless before essential documents<br />
in another. One scholar may know to the full Indian materials but be unable to<br />
handle the Chinese, or another may know the Chinese sources but have slight knowledge<br />
of Iranian.<br />
Admitting then in advance, as an excuse for the present excursus, that we are<br />
all<br />
inadequately equipped in some respect of Central Asiatic studies ...<br />
In 1985: 126, BAILEY corrects himself, or rather, he corrects his informant HALOUN:<br />
The Chinese writings of Bud. Skt. tukhåra- are 吐火羅 K 1129, 117, 569 t’u-xuo-lo<br />
< t’uo-xuâ-lâ<br />
and 兜佉羅 K 1017, 491, 569 tou-k’ie-lo < tÿu-k’ia-lâ. Hüan Tsang (A.D. 644)<br />
mentioned an old country of this people at a ruined site 都貨羅故國 tu-huo-lo ku kuo<br />
“old city of the T’u-huo-lo” at ancient Så¾a, modern Endere, west of ²er¾en (CHAVANNES 1903:<br />
155, 221) ...<br />
In our own times, the topic of Tochara has finally witnessed substantial progress.<br />
In<br />
1994: 173–178, ENOKI / KOSHELENKO / HAIDARY write:<br />
As ›Ta-hsia‹ is an exact transcription of ›Tochara‹ (which was the central part of the<br />
Bactrian kingdom), if the Yüeh-chih were the Tocharians, the<br />
conquest of Ta-hsia by the<br />
Yüeh-chih<br />
means the conquest of the country of Tochara by the Tocharians, which seems<br />
rather strange. The evidence of Sz°-ma Ch’ien shows that Ta-hsia cannot be the Bactrian<br />
kingdom, but was the country of Tochara divided into several small political units at the<br />
time of the Yüeh-chih invasion. In other words the Græco-Bactrian kingdom had already<br />
been destroyed or divided when<br />
the Yüeh-chih arrived. Therefore, there is no need to accept<br />
the identification of the Tocharas with the Yüeh-chih ...<br />
If the explanation given above is correct, the country of Ta-hsia, which was conquered<br />
by the Yüeh-chih, cannot have been the Bactrian kingdom, which had already been destroyed<br />
before the arrival of the Yüeh-chih ...<br />
According to W. W. TARN, 1938: 272–73, Bactria<br />
was up to about 141 B.C. under the control<br />
of Heliocles, who is believed to be the last king<br />
of the Bactr ian kingdom. S o the invasion may<br />
have taken place in that year or some time later and must have been before the coming<br />
of the Yüeh-chih who occupied the Sogdiana-Bactria region between 136 and 129 (or 128)<br />
B.C. Strabo tells us that the Bactrian kingdom was destroyed by the Tocharians and three<br />
other peoples, and, according to Sz°-ma Ch’ien, the country which the Yüeh-chih conquered<br />
was<br />
Ta-hsia. As ›Ta-hsia‹ is believed to be a transcription of ›Tochara‹, and if these two<br />
statements are accepted, it cannot have been the Yüeh-chih<br />
who conquered the Bactrian<br />
kingdom.<br />
To these clear and logical statements one only needs to add some minor corrections<br />
or comments. For<br />
one: Ta-hsia/Daxia 大夏 was not the central, but the eastern<br />
part of Bactria. And when the 月氏 arrived on the scene, the Græco-Bactrian<br />
kingdom<br />
was already divided into two separate parts: Tochara, or eastern Bactria, which was<br />
ruled by the Sakaraukai or Saiwang<br />
塞王, and western Bactria, around the capital<br />
Bactra, which was still ruled by the last<br />
Græco-Bactrian kings. When the Ruzhi 月氏<br />
— 38 —
then evicted the Sakaraukai/Saiwang from Tochara, the latter put an end to Greek rule<br />
in the city of Bactra (modern Balkh).<br />
With this, it was only the Sakas (S akaraukai) who took Bactria from the Greeks —<br />
in two distinct stages. The Ruzhi 月 氏, it seems, never clashed<br />
with the Bactrian<br />
Greeks directly. Instead, they always fought it out with their arch enemy,<br />
the Sakaraukai/Saiwang<br />
塞王: in the plains of the Ili River, in Sogdiana, in Daxia.<br />
It is, therefore, of the utmost importance to realize that the Ruzhi 月氏 conquered<br />
and occupied, not the old Greek kingdom of Bactria, but<br />
only Daxia 大夏, the lands<br />
which<br />
in later times were called Tokharestan (\ukhåristån in TABARÐ; it included<br />
provinces on both shores of the Amu Darya). This will greatly help to understand that<br />
the Græco-Bactrian kings lost Bactria proper in two stages and in two irruptions, but<br />
to just one nomadic people: the Sakaraukai/Saiwang. The Bactrian Greeks may have<br />
felt that these Sakas were being pushed by a still more powerful nomadic nation — but<br />
t hey themselves were fighting against, and loosing their kingdom to, this particular<br />
tribe<br />
of the Sakas, the Sakaraukai. When it becomes apparent that the Ruzhi 月氏, in<br />
the<br />
time of Zhang Qian’s visit, had occupied only Tochara/Daxia 大夏, we begin to<br />
wonder<br />
whether the 月氏 conquered the whole of Bactria in two successive stages as<br />
well — as I have been inclined to believe so far —, and in both stages<br />
not from the<br />
Bactrian<br />
Greeks, but from the Sakaraukai/Saiwang 塞王. At first sight, this is corrobo-<br />
rated<br />
by our Western sources where Trogus first says that the Asiani occupied Sogdi-<br />
ana and the Sa(ca)raucae Bactra — taken by some writers to mean Bactria, but it is<br />
the<br />
city of Bactra where the Sacaraucae/Sakaraukai will maintain themselves for a long<br />
time<br />
to come (sse below).<br />
Prolog 41 (Stage One):<br />
Scythicae<br />
gentes, Saraucae et Asiani, Bactra occupavere et Sogdianos.<br />
So Trogus. He then goes on to say: Following this, the Asiani became the kings of the<br />
Tochari (in Eastern Bactria) — because the Daxia, as<br />
Zhang Qian had noticed and<br />
written<br />
down, had no overlords any more.<br />
Prolog 42 (Stage Two):<br />
Reges Tocharorum Asiani ...<br />
The<br />
development indicated here by Trogus — i.e. the foreign Asiani becoming the<br />
kings<br />
of the local Tochari —, finally proved to be fatal for the Sa(ca)raucae.<br />
Prolog 42 (Stage Three):<br />
... interitusque Saraucarum.<br />
The ultimate destruction if the Sa(ca)raucae, we are by now inclined to assume,<br />
must<br />
have happened in the Western part of Bactria.<br />
In the first stage, Bactria became divided between the Græco-Bactrians and the Sa-<br />
caraucae,<br />
in about 145 BCE. In the second stage — which Zhang Qian witnessed in<br />
129–128<br />
BCE and wrote about —, Bactria became divided between the Sacaraucae/Sai-<br />
w ang 塞王 and the Asiani/Ruzhi 月氏. The third and final stage, we are now tempted<br />
t o think, witnessed the final occupation of all of former Greek Bactria by the 月氏, a<br />
f ew years after the Chinese diplomat had returned to Han China. In this last stage, the<br />
Bactrian<br />
Greeks played no active part any more. We envision this final stage as a fierce<br />
showdown<br />
between two decidedly aggressive nomadic peoples of two greatly different<br />
worlds — and the lightly armed, very fast mounted archers of the Far East prevail over<br />
the heavily armed and<br />
slower riders of Central Asia.<br />
BERNARD, 1987: 758–767, is the first to recognize this final showdown in the wall friezes<br />
of a royal summer palace of the Ruzhi 月氏 at Khalchayan, in the valley of the<br />
Surkhan Darya, a short distance north from Termez on the Oxus:<br />
C’est dans le troisième quart du II e siècle av. n.è. que le royaume gréco-bactrien, c’està-dire<br />
l’État grec qui contrôlait depuis l’expédition d’Alexandre la vallée du moyen Oxus,<br />
— 39 —
entre l’Hindukush au sud et les monts du Hissar au nord, disparaît, submergé par des invasions<br />
nomades. Cette conquête, commencée par la rive droite et l’extrémité orientale de<br />
la<br />
Han Shou et le<br />
Ho<br />
e fragments importants recueillis sur le sol, Mme rive gauche, où la ville grecque d’Aï Khanoum tombe vers 145 av. n.è., s’achève vers 130<br />
av. n.è. avec le règne d’Hélioclès, le dernier roi grec de la Bactriane proprement dite ...<br />
Ces nomades nous ont d’abord été connus par quelques allusions des textes classiques,<br />
principalement une phrase de Strabon ... Les sources chinoises, le Si-Ki, le<br />
u Han Shou parlent, elles, du peuple des Yüeh-chih, à l’exclusion de toute autre ...<br />
En 129 l’ambassadeur chinois Chang K’ien les trouva installés sur la rive droite de<br />
l’Oxus, mais ayant déjà visiblement imposé leur autorité sur la Bactriane méridionale ...<br />
Quelque temps après le passage de Chang K’ien ils avaient donc mis un point final à la<br />
conquête de la Bactriane grecque ...<br />
Il est cependant possible d’y voir maintenant un peu plus clair grâce à deux découvertes<br />
faites, l’une à Xal¾ajan sur la rive droite de l’Oxus, dans la vallée du Surkhan-darya, il y<br />
aura bientôt trente ans ... Ces trouvailles nous offrent aujourd’hui, chacune à sa manière,<br />
une vision incomparablement plus riche et plus diversifiée de la culture des deux peuples<br />
que nous considérons avoir été les acteurs principaux de la conquête de la Bactriane grecque,<br />
les Yüeh-chih au centre et à l’est, les Saces ou Sacarauques à l’ouest ...<br />
Nous partirons du décor figuré ornant un pavillon royal à Xal¾ajan ... dont la construction,<br />
aux alentours de notre ère, est attribuée à un chef nomade des tribus yüeh-chih. Cette<br />
attribution repose sur la ressemblance que présente le type physique très particulier, mongoloïde,<br />
des principaux acteurs des scènes représentées à Xal¾ajan avec l’effigie monétaire<br />
d’un certain Héraos, qui régna à cette époque dans la région ...<br />
A partir d’une vingtaine d<br />
Puga¾enkova,<br />
qui a fouillé et publié ce monument,<br />
a restitué une troupe de cavaliers passant au galop<br />
ve rs la droite. Elle y voit le retour victorieux d’une troupe d’archers montés yüeh-chih accompagnés<br />
d’un escadron allié de cavaliers bactriens. L’identification des premiers ne fait<br />
aucun doute. Ils appartiennent bien à la même ethnie que la famille princière; ils présentent<br />
les mêmes traits mongoloïdes avec les yeux étirés et obliques, les sourcils remontants<br />
vers les tempes, le front fuyant, le crâne<br />
aplati à l’arrière, les longs cheveux raides<br />
re jetés vers l’arrière et serrés dans un bandeau, la pilosité du visage limitée à de longs favoris<br />
et à des moustaches ... L’identification<br />
des seconds pose en revanche un problème.<br />
me<br />
M Puga¾enkova a proposé d’y voir des représentants de la noblesse bactrienne pour<br />
deux raisons: d’abord parce qu’ils sont d’un type physique tout à fait différent, de caractèr<br />
e nettement europoïde, avec,<br />
en plus des moustaches, une barbe très fournie; en second<br />
lieu parce qu’ils portent un lourd<br />
armement de cataphractaire ...<br />
Les études menées ces dernières années<br />
par un chercheur soviétique, M. V. Gorelik,<br />
tendent<br />
à montrer que l’armement cataphractaire aurait été mis au point chez des peuples<br />
nomades entre la mer d’Aral, les Tien-shan et le Pamir<br />
... Diverses indications ... incitent<br />
également à reconnaître dans les cataphractaires de Xal¾ajan d’autres nomades<br />
auxquels les Yüeh-chih se seraient heurtés dans leur conquête de la Bactriane ... et qui se<br />
rattachent à cette nébuleuse de tribus nomades qui se jetèrent sur les provinces occidentales<br />
du royaume gréco-bactrien dès la deuxième moitié du II<br />
artir de 130 av. n.è., à savoir les<br />
Sa<br />
g nomadic hordes<br />
wh<br />
C<br />
e siècle av. n.è. ... à cheval<br />
revêtus d’une armure de cataphractaire; celle-ci est identique à l’équipement des adversaires<br />
des Yüeh-chih à Xal¾ajan : cuirasse à longue jupe bardée de grands plaques métalliques<br />
quadrangulaires, haut protège-cou à bord évasé, casque moulant le crâne et couvrant<br />
la nuque et les oreilles ... Les peuples nomades qui jouèrent un rôle prépondérant,<br />
d’après ce que nous en disent les sources classiques, dans les événements qu’on voit se dérouler<br />
sur la frontière orientale de l’empire parthe à p<br />
ces et les Sacarauques ...<br />
BERNARD is speaking here about the Western classical sources in which the Sakas-<br />
Sakaraukai are mentioned prominently amongst those conquerin<br />
o took Bactria from the Bactrian Greeks. The same nomads are mentioned in the<br />
hinese classical sources and are there named Saiwang. We have seen (above, pp. 15–<br />
— 40 —
1 6), that these easternmost Scythians were thus called the “Royal Sakas” — the exact<br />
translation<br />
of Chinese Sak–wang 塞王.<br />
Zhang Qian, however, seems to have heard absolutely nothing of any Sakas or Sa-<br />
karaukai.<br />
And so the Shiji does not mention this nomadic people at all. Only the later<br />
Hanshu<br />
does: in chapter 96 we read the ethnic names Sai 塞 and Saiwang 塞王. In<br />
this<br />
we have the Chinese transcriptions of the general name Saka and the more speci-<br />
fic name Sakaraukai. Now, the Hanshu is partially an edition, and partially a continu<br />
ation,<br />
of the Shiji: In some places the Hanshu account parallels the Shiji and, in other<br />
places,<br />
the Hanshu contains additional materials. This is so because the Hanshu was<br />
not<br />
completely rewritten. At first it was meant to be a simple continuation of the Shiji.<br />
T hen Ban Biao — or more likely his son Ban Gu — decided to incorporate all those<br />
par ts of the Shiji, which covered the first half of the Former Han Dynasty, before he<br />
himself<br />
continued with the second half — so that their final work would include the<br />
full<br />
period of the Former Han. Hence, Ban Gu called his family’s grandiose master-<br />
piece<br />
simply Hanshu 漢書 or “Book of the (Former) Han.”<br />
Obviously out of respect for the admired work of Sima Qian, the parts included<br />
f rom the Shiji into the Hanshu were carefully edited and corrected, but otherwise as<br />
litt le changed as possible. For this reason, the Hanshu is sometimes Sima Qian and<br />
sometimes<br />
Ban Gu. In other words, the Hanshu combines, or is composed of, two he-<br />
terogeneous<br />
parts — at times the two diverging parts may lead to contradictions or in-<br />
c onsistencies. This is clearly so when we want to piece together what the Hanshu<br />
contains about the fall of the Greek kingdom of Bactria and the conquering nomadic<br />
peo ples involved in it. In Hanshu 96 we read in the sections on the Ruzhi 月氏, the<br />
Wusun<br />
烏孫, and the Jibin 罽賓 :<br />
HULSEWÉ/LOEWE<br />
1979: 119–121<br />
The<br />
state of the Ta Yüeh–chih.<br />
The<br />
seat of (the king’s) government is at the<br />
town<br />
of Chien–chih.<br />
And it is distant by 11,600›li‹ from Ch’ang–an.<br />
It<br />
is not subject to the Protector General.<br />
...<br />
Originally<br />
(the people) dwelt between Tun–<br />
huang<br />
and Ch’i–lien.<br />
Then<br />
the time came when the ›Shan–yü‹ Mao<br />
Tun<br />
[Moduk, 209–174] attacked and defeated<br />
the<br />
Yüeh–chih, and the ›Shan–yü‹ Lao–shang<br />
[ Kiyuk, 174–161] killed (the king of) the Yüeh–<br />
chih,<br />
making his skull into a drinking vessel.<br />
The<br />
Yüeh–chih thereupon went far<br />
away,<br />
passing Ta Yüan and proceeding<br />
west<br />
to attack and subjugate Ta Hsia.<br />
The<br />
principal city was established north of the<br />
Kuei<br />
River (or Oxus) to form the king’s court.<br />
The<br />
remaining small group (of the Yüeh-chih)<br />
who<br />
were unable to leave sought protection<br />
among<br />
the Ch’iang tribes of the Southern Moun-<br />
tains<br />
and were termed the Hsiao Yüeh-chih ...<br />
Hanshu 96A. 3890–3891<br />
大 月 氏 國<br />
治 監 氏 城<br />
去 長 安 萬 一 千 六 百 里<br />
不 屬 都 護 …<br />
本 居 敦 煌 祁 連 間<br />
至 冒 頓 單 于 攻 破 月 氏<br />
而 老 上 單 于 殺 月 氏 以<br />
其 頭 為 飲 器<br />
月 氏 乃 遠 去 過 大 宛 西<br />
擊 大 夏 而 臣 之<br />
都 媯 水 北 為 王 庭<br />
其 餘 小 眾 不 能 去 者 保<br />
南 山 羌 號 小 月 氏 …<br />
To this passage we have a parallel text in Shiji 123. So what we read here is, in fact,<br />
Sima<br />
Qian quoting Zhang Qian’s Report, later copied and edited by Ban Gu for his Xi-<br />
yu zhuan 西域傳, the Hanshu chapter on the foreign peoples of the ›xiyu‹ 西域 or<br />
“Western Regions.“ We are told here that the Ruzhi 月氏, beaten (a fourth time) by the<br />
Xiongnu, in one great trek went from the Hexi Corridor to the lands of the Daxia 大夏<br />
on the upper Oxus River (modern Amu Darya), beyond the kingdom of the Da Yuan 大<br />
— 41 —
宛 (Ferghana). For us to understand the full meaning of “The principal (= capital) city<br />
was established north of the Kuei River,” I have to quote XU SONG here, a Chinese<br />
scholar<br />
of the 19th century who wrote a commentary on the whole of Hanshu 96 (more<br />
will be said about him further down, p. 44). His interpretation — hinted at, but rejected<br />
by HULSEWÉ/ LOEWE, 1979: 121 — of the new principal city, established by the 月氏, is<br />
of prime importance in our context. It proves that the new Royal camp or ordos of the<br />
still nomadic 月氏, north of the Oxus, Gui Shui 媯水 in Chinese, replaced the old capital<br />
of Daxia 大夏, located somewhere south of that river, in this way becoming the<br />
new capital. Hence, this new capital was of course located inside Daxia which — at<br />
least from now on — extended clearly from the Hindukush in the south to the Hissar<br />
Mountains in the north. In the past, too many scholars have speculated that this new<br />
ordos of the 月氏 had been outside the boundaries of Daxia, which induced them to<br />
greatly mistaken conclusions.<br />
(Xu Song’s) Supplementary comment:<br />
The Shiji says: “ Daxia is located over two<br />
thousand ›li‹ southwest of Da Yuan, south<br />
of the Gui River ” — consequently the capital<br />
of (earlier) Daxia times (was located)<br />
south of the river.<br />
(But) the Greater Ruzhi moved the seat of<br />
government to the north of the river.<br />
It becomes evident here that the Ruzhi 月氏, by the time of Zhang Qian’s arrival at<br />
their court, 129 BCE, had decided to moved their principal seat of government<br />
from Sa-<br />
markand in Sogdiana — where it had been for about a generation (see below)<br />
—, not<br />
to the old capital of Daxia, but to a convenient place on the near, or<br />
northern, bank of<br />
the Oxus River, possibly close to modern Termez (Termed, Tarmita,<br />
Dami 呾蜜) — at<br />
all times the most strategic point for crossing<br />
the<br />
river.<br />
HULSEWÉ/LOEWE 1979: 143–145<br />
The state of Wu–sun.<br />
The ›Greater K’un–mi‹’s seat of government is<br />
at the town of Ch’ih–ku.<br />
And it is distant by 8,900 ›li‹ from Ch’ang–an.<br />
...<br />
Originally it was the land of the Sai.<br />
When the Ta Yüeh–chih turned west, defeated<br />
and expelled the king of the Sai [recte: the Sai-<br />
wang], the latter moved south and crossed over<br />
the Suspended Crossing and the Ta Yüeh–chih<br />
took up residence in his [their] lands.<br />
Later, when the ›K’un–mo‹ [or king] of<br />
Wu–sun attacked and defeated the Ta<br />
Yüeh–chih, the Ta Yüeh–chih migrated<br />
to the west and subjugated the Ta<br />
Hsia, and the ›K’un–mo‹ of Wu–sun took<br />
up his residence here.<br />
It is said: » For this reason, among the people of<br />
the Wu–sun there are (elements of) the Sai race<br />
and the Ta Yüeh–chih race« ...<br />
Hanshu Xiyuzhuan Buzhu, 27a<br />
補 曰<br />
史 記 云 大 夏 在 大 苑 西 南 二<br />
千 餘 里 媯 水 南 蓋 大 夏 時 都<br />
水 南<br />
大 月 氏 徙 治 水 北 也<br />
Hanshu 96B. 3901<br />
烏 孫 國<br />
大 昆 彌 治 赤 谷 城<br />
去 長 安 八 千 九 百 里 …<br />
本 塞 地 也<br />
大 月 氏 西 破 走 塞 王 塞<br />
王 南 越 縣 度 大 月 氏 居<br />
其 地<br />
後 烏 孫 昆 莫 擊 破 大 月<br />
氏 大 月 氏 徙 西 臣 大 夏<br />
而 烏 孫 昆 莫 居 之<br />
故 烏 孫 民 有 塞 種 大 月<br />
氏 種 云 …<br />
Zhang Qian’s Report contained a description of the Wusun kingdom, which we<br />
know was located between the Ili and Chu Rivers and in the region around Lake Issyk<br />
— 42 —
Köl (Ïssïγ Köl = “Hot Lake” — so named because it does not freeze over in winter), after<br />
at the latest 161 BCE. We find it in Shiji 123. But Ban Gu has not copied the above text<br />
from Sima Qian. He has written his own, much longer and greatly improved, i.e.<br />
updated, account of the Wusun — the small nomadic nation which had once been the<br />
Western neighbor of the Ruzhi 月氏, in the half-dessert between Dunhuang and the<br />
Salt Lake 鹽澤 or Lop Nor. We are told here that the new lands of the Wusun were the<br />
old lands of the Sai 塞, more specific: the Saiwang 塞王 or “Royal Sakas.” In this text<br />
we hear about the Sakaraukai from the Chinese side for the first time.<br />
At least a century and a half after Sima Qian, Ban Gu has been able to collect plenty<br />
of new information and at long last provides us with one new and very valuable<br />
detail on the trek of the 月氏: on the lush grasslands of the upper Ili River valley,<br />
parts of modern Kazakhstan and Chinese Xinjiang, the 月氏 had clashed with the<br />
Saiwang, had driven them away from their excellent pasture grounds and had settled<br />
there themselves. With this, the first trek o f the 月氏 had come to an end on the upper<br />
Ili and around Lake Issyk Köl — so we realize from this text.<br />
Shortly after this, however, the Ruzhi<br />
月氏 were<br />
in turn attacked by the Wusun.<br />
They themselves were now beaten and driven<br />
away. Thus, the 月氏 started a second<br />
trek, this time seemingly all the way to the<br />
Oxus River and the lands of the Daxia 大<br />
夏, or Tochari, whom they were able to subjugate.<br />
And the Wusun settled in the old lands of the Saiwang<br />
— without penetrating any<br />
further west. The Saiwang, we learn from<br />
the Chinese<br />
sources, had in the meantime<br />
escaped south, crossing a strange and very difficult mountain passage, i.e. a narrow<br />
gorge in the Himalayas (not the Hindukush, as WYLIE had thought).<br />
HULSEWÉ/LOEWE 1979: 104<br />
The state of Chi–pin.<br />
The king’s seat of government is at the town<br />
of Hsün–hsien.<br />
And it is distant by 12,200 ›li‹ from Ch’ang–an.<br />
It is not subject to the Protector General ...<br />
When, formerly, the Hsiung–nu<br />
con-<br />
qu ered the Ta Yüeh–chih,<br />
the latter<br />
moved west and established themselves<br />
as master of Ta Hsia.<br />
(It was in these circumstances<br />
that)<br />
the king of the Sai [recte: the Saiwang]<br />
moved<br />
south and established himself<br />
[themselves] as master of Chi–pin.<br />
The Sai tribes split and separated and repeatedly<br />
formed several states ...<br />
Hanshu 96A. 3884<br />
罽 賓 國<br />
王 治 循 鮮 城<br />
去 長 安 萬 二 千 二 百 里<br />
不 屬 都 護 …<br />
昔 匈 奴 破 大 月 氏 大 月 氏<br />
西 君 大 夏<br />
而 塞 王 南 君 罽 賓<br />
塞 種 分 散 往 往 為 數 國 …<br />
Jibin (Chi–pin) 罽賓 is also a name not mentioned<br />
in the Shiji. From the lay of the<br />
land, southeast of the Ruzhi 月氏 in Daxia, it could be close to a land called<br />
Shendu<br />
身毒 in Shiji 123 which is also described as being situated<br />
southeast of the Daxia.<br />
Hence, we have to look for the kingdom of Jibin<br />
in Northwestern India. Zhang Qian<br />
and the Shiji know nothing about Jibin and ve<br />
ry little about Shendu: not much more<br />
than just the name — and the fact that trade is<br />
going on between Daxia and Shendu.<br />
Ban Gu, however, has a long story to tell about Jibin. For the purpose of our context, I<br />
have quoted the above few sentences from the section on Jibin because they are<br />
of im-<br />
portance here. Seemingly, there is just one new<br />
bit of information for us here: the<br />
Saiwang went south to establish themselves in Jibin, i.e. somewhere in Northwestern<br />
India. And one wonders why the Ruzhi 月氏 are mentioned here.<br />
Their east-west<br />
trek has nothing to do with the<br />
north-south trek of the Saiwang — so we think. Yet, the<br />
two sentences about the 月氏 on the one hand and on the Saiwang on the other are<br />
clearly coupled with the simple connector “and” 而. As this connection made no sense<br />
to them, the Translators were at a loss and eloquently tried to evade the problem by<br />
— 43 —
stating: “It was under these circumstances that...” But that is not what the Chinese<br />
text says — and it makes still no more sense than a simple “and ...”.<br />
In the previous paragraph on the Wusun, the Ruzhi 月氏 and the Saiwang 塞王<br />
were also brought together in two cause-and-effect sentences. Here, however, the logical<br />
connection is clear: the 月氏 arrive and the Saiwang are driven away. The 月氏 then<br />
occupy the evacuated land. Concerning the two similar sentences in the paragraph on<br />
the Jibin, is there a way to bring the Ruzhi 月氏 and the Saiwang 塞王 together in a<br />
way which is logical and makes sense? There is a very clear one when we take the<br />
crucial<br />
sentences in the paragraph on the Wusun as a model.<br />
This ingenious answer to the question has been provided by a nineteenth century<br />
Chinese scholar, quoted briefly above: XU SONG 徐松 (1781–1848). A man of letters, he<br />
was exiled for some offence and spent six years in Xinjiang (Sinkiang) 新疆 and used<br />
his time there for intensive studies of the history and topography of the region. One<br />
outcome was a new edition of Ban Gu’s Hanshu 96 to which XU SONG added his own<br />
and new comments. These proved to be of great value. We must<br />
be grateful that his<br />
work<br />
was published, if only posthumously, in 光緒癸巳, or 1893. The title of the<br />
booklet in two parts is Hanshu Xiyuzhuan Buzhu 漢書西域傳補注. Some eight<br />
years ago, I looked it up in the Berlin State Library and had copies made of some<br />
pages. I noticed that XU SONG’s comments to Hanshu<br />
96 were later incorporated into<br />
the famous edition of the Hanshu by WANG XIANQIAN 王先謙 (1842–1918), the Hanshu<br />
with Supplementary Notes 漢書補注, published 1900 (reprint 1983).<br />
Hanshu 96A.3884<br />
Previously, when the<br />
Xiongnu had demol-<br />
ished the Ruzhi, the<br />
Ruzhi (going) west<br />
(established them-<br />
selves as) the rulers<br />
of the Daxia.<br />
In consequence<br />
to<br />
this the Saiwang<br />
(going) south (estab-<br />
lished themselves<br />
as) the rulers of the<br />
Jibin.<br />
Supplementary<br />
note:<br />
(by Xu Song [1781–1848],<br />
Hanshu Xiyuzhuan Buzhu,<br />
1893: 20 b; reprinted in<br />
Wang Xianqian [1842–1918],<br />
Hanshu Buzhu, 1900: 96A.<br />
23 b)<br />
The Saiwang had<br />
been the kings of<br />
the Daxia.<br />
— 44 —<br />
昔 匈 奴<br />
破 大 月<br />
氏 大 月<br />
氏 西 君<br />
大 夏<br />
而 塞 王<br />
南 君 罽<br />
賓<br />
補 曰<br />
塞 王 大<br />
夏 之 王<br />
也
HULSEWÉ/LOEWE, whose English translation I have quoted a few pages further up,<br />
do not list the monograph of Xu Song in their extensive bibliography, 1979: 240–256,<br />
but in the innumerous notes to their translation, Xu Song figures prominently. XU’s<br />
brilliant and simple remark, which he inserted after the two sentences connected by<br />
“and” 而, escaped HULSEWÉ and LOEWE. Or rather, the eminent Sinologists must have<br />
read it, but did not grasp the paramount importance of the small note which can be<br />
found 1893: 20b in XU SONG’s, and 1900: 23b in WANG XIANQIAN’s edition of Hanshu<br />
chapter 96.<br />
KONOW, 1934: 9–10, published a short discussion of this at first<br />
sight so difficult Chinese<br />
text and its intelligent interpretation by XU SONG. It was unfortunate, however,<br />
that his paper saw the light of day, not in Europe, but in India. KONOW explained that<br />
he had asked his friend KARLGREN for a translation of some important Chinese texts,<br />
including the one on Jibin (Ki-pin). I quote it here with KONOW’s remarks:<br />
»The Ki-pin kingdom, its king rules in the city of Sün-sien. It is distant from Ch’ang-an<br />
12,200 li ... Anciently, when the Hiung-nu beat the Ta Yüe-chi, the Ta Yüe-chi went west and<br />
›chiefed‹ (became rulers of) the Ta-hia, and the Sai-wang went south and ›chiefed‹ Ki-pin.<br />
The Sai tribes were scattered and constituted several kingdoms in various directions ...«<br />
Professor Karlgren here adds an important explanatory note:<br />
“Two interpretations of this passage are possible. The first is that at the time when the<br />
Yüe-chi went to capture Ta-hia, the Sai, from a more easterly region, went south to capture<br />
Ki-pin. But then we fail to see the logical connection. Why should the Ts’ien<br />
Han-shu here,<br />
under Ki-pin, mention the Yüe-chi movement? A movement from the north of the Oxus to<br />
the Ta-hia south of the river could not have caused a movement of the Saiwang from some<br />
more easterly country to Ki-pin. It would only be a coincidence in time which would<br />
explain the entry about the<br />
Yüe-chi movement in this place.<br />
The other explanation is more reasonable. The Sai had already spread in various<br />
directions, and the Sai-w ang were chieftain s in Ta-hia, when the Yüe-chi movement<br />
into the Ta-hia country came on. Hence the logical<br />
exposé: »When<br />
the Hiung-nu beat the<br />
Ta Yüe-chi, the Ta Yüe-chi went west and became<br />
rulers of the<br />
Ta-hia, and (the former<br />
rulers of the Ta-hia, who were now expe lled, i.e) the Sai-Wang,<br />
the Sai kings, went<br />
south and became rulers over Ki-pin.« It is then<br />
but logical<br />
that the narrator adds: »The<br />
Sai tribes were already m uch scattered. « This explains why the Sai-wang sat as<br />
chieftains in Ta-hia. This latter explanation has<br />
been proposed<br />
by the learned Sü Song<br />
(about A.D. 1800), who in his commentary says: »The<br />
Sai-wang were the kings of Ta-hia.«”<br />
This was a very important revelation by KARLGREN<br />
and KONOW which went almost<br />
unnoticed. With the emendation by XU SONG, the two seemingly unrelated sentences<br />
suddenly make sense in a very unexpected,<br />
though definitely convincing way. With this<br />
emendation, the translati on of the Chinese text can be corrected accordingly:<br />
(HULSEWÉ/LOEWE 1979: 104)<br />
The state of Chi–pin.<br />
The king’s seat of government<br />
is at the town<br />
of Hsün–hsien.<br />
And it is distant by 12.200 › li‹ from Ch’ang–an.<br />
It is not subject to the Protector General ...<br />
When, formerly, the Hsiung–nu<br />
conquered the<br />
Ta Yüeh–chih, the latter moved<br />
west and es-<br />
tablished themselves as masters of Ta Hsia.<br />
And consequently the Saiwang (who had<br />
been the kings of the Daxia and were now expelled)<br />
moved south and established<br />
themselves as masters of Chi–pin.<br />
The Sai tribes split and separated and re-<br />
peatedly formed several states ...<br />
— 45 —<br />
Hanshu 96A. 3884<br />
罽 賓 國<br />
王 治 循 鮮 城<br />
去 長 安 萬 二 千 二 百 里<br />
不 屬 都 護 …<br />
昔 匈 奴 破 大 月 氏 大 月 氏<br />
西 君 大 夏<br />
而 塞 王 南 君 罽 賓<br />
塞 種 分 散 往 往 為 數 國 …
The Sakaraukai/Saiwang 塞王, evicted by the Ruzhi 月氏 from their traditional pasture<br />
grounds in the upper Ili Valley some time after 165 BCE, established themselves<br />
west of the Jaxartes in Sogdiana — briefly hinted at by Strabo who calls them simply<br />
Sakai there (see further down, p. 79). Until that time, Sogdiana may still have been in<br />
the hands of the Bactrian Greeks. But soon afterwards, i.e. some time after 163 BCE,<br />
the Ruzhi 月氏, evicted from the Ili River regions by the Wusun 烏孫, now subjugated<br />
the Kangju 康居 further west and soon spilled across the Jaxartes themselves. There<br />
they ran into the Sakaraukai/Saiwang 塞王 once again and drove them south and out<br />
of Sogdiana.<br />
The Saiwang, forced to cross the Hissar Mountains, conquered the Daxia<br />
(Tochari) on the upper Oxus River and became their rulers for half a generation. They<br />
were the elusive nomads who stormed and burnt down Ai Khanum which at that time<br />
was called Eucratidia. With the fall of this major Greek citadel, the road was open for<br />
them to occupy the whole of Tochara, the eastern part of Bactria. Archaeological<br />
evidence<br />
from the careful excavations of the old city of Alexandria / Eucratidia / Ai Khanum<br />
tells<br />
us that this stronghold fell in about the year 145 BCE.<br />
1985: 97–102, BERNARD writes :<br />
Le dernier règne attesté dans le monnayage d’argent et de bronze recueilli dans la fou-<br />
ille d’Aï Khanoum est celui d’Eucratide I ... On peut supposer que<br />
l’assassinat d’Eucratide<br />
par<br />
l’un de ses fils (Hélioclès ou Platon) aurait été suivi d’une période d’incertitudes et de<br />
troubles dont auraient profité les envahisseurs nomades à qui nous attribuons l’incendie<br />
qui détruisit le palais et qui marque l’abandon de la ville par sa population grecque. Par<br />
une chance rare un document épigraphique découvert dans la fouille nous permet de dater<br />
assez exactement cet événement ... Dans la couche de destruction de la trésorerie du palais<br />
ont été découverts plusieurs fragments d’un gobelet en céramique à fond pointu qui,<br />
comme nous l’apprennent les deux inscriptions à l’encre qu’il<br />
porte, avait servi de bouchons<br />
à un vase contenant de l’huile d’olive. L’une d’entre elles était ainsi rédigée:<br />
”Etouj kd'. [- - -] ...<br />
L’opération est datée à la première ligne: œtouj kd' = année 24. L’ordre des chiffres, dizaines<br />
d’abord, unités ensuite, exclut qu’il manque à droite un chiffre de centaines ... La<br />
date est ainsi bien assurée: 24 et non 124.<br />
A quel roi rapporter cette année régnale ou cette ère ? ... Étant donné le contexte archéologique<br />
du bol inscrit, tout proche de la chute de la ville grecque, nous ne pouvons rapporter<br />
la date de 24 ni à l’ère séleucide (312 av. J.-C.), ni même à une ère supposée de Diodote<br />
(vers 250–240 av. J.-C.), laquelle serait encore trop haute. L’absence de monnaies d’Hélio-<br />
clès<br />
dans la fouille nous assure, d’autre part, que l’abandon de la ville par ces colons grecs<br />
se produisit sous le règne d’Eucratide ou immédiatement après ... L’année régnale ou l’ère<br />
à laquelle se rapporte la date de 24 ne peut donc être que celle d’Eucratide I qui avait, lui,<br />
les meilleures raisons du monde de marquer par un nouveau comput le caractère exceptionnel<br />
de son règne. Sa réputation de grand souverain et de grand capitaine était suffisam-<br />
ment connue des anciens pour que Trogue Pompée traçât un parallèle<br />
entre sa carrière et<br />
celle de Mithridate I. Apollodore d’Artémita le fait régner sur mille<br />
villes et, au dire de Strabon<br />
(XI, 11, 2), il avait donné son nom à l’une d’elles<br />
...<br />
La date communément admise pour le début du règne d’Eucratide est<br />
170 environ, d’a-<br />
près la concomitance attestée par Justin avec l’ accession au trône de Mithridate I. La date<br />
de 24 sur le tesson inscrit de la trésorerie d’Aï Khanoum se place ainsi en 146 au plus tôt,<br />
en 142 au plus tard, si nous acceptons une marge<br />
maximale de 5 ans. On<br />
peut adopter une<br />
date moyenne de 145 av. J.-C. Le règne d’Eucratide<br />
auquel on attribuait<br />
généralement jus-<br />
qu’ici une quinzaine d’années aurait donc été sensiblement<br />
plus long qu’on ne l’avait pensé,<br />
puisqu’il aurait duré quelque 25 ans.<br />
At the time, the French scholars based their<br />
reconstruction of the fall of the Græco-<br />
Bactrian kingdom mainly on BURTON WATSON’s<br />
translation of Shiji 123 (first published<br />
1961: 264–289) — where Sima Qian, excerpting<br />
Zhang Qian’s Report, knows nothing as<br />
yet of any Saka involvement in the<br />
nomadic incursions<br />
into Bactria.<br />
— 46 —
1990: 96–97, BOPEARACHCHI writes:<br />
The Chinese imperial annals (the ›Shih-chi‹ and the ›Han Shu‹) provide us with texts<br />
based on a report allegedly made by a certain Chang K’ien, an envoy of the Han emperor<br />
Wu Ti, to the western provinces between 138 and 126 BC. He tells us about the arrival in<br />
Central Asia of the Yüeh-chi in the second half of the second century BC. One could derive<br />
from this Chinese source a picture of a thrust which took place progressively in two stages.<br />
The numismatic data provided by the Qunduz and Ai Khanum hoards would thus corroborate<br />
this picture.<br />
In the first stage the Yüeh-chi nomads must have taken the territories situated north of<br />
the Oxus, i.e. Sogdiana, [together with] the region of Ai Khanum at the eastern extremity of<br />
the plain of Bactria, on the left bank of the river, and the second stage of this move must<br />
have already been completed at the time of the visit by the Chinese ambassador Chang<br />
K’ien in these regions in 129–128 BC. P. Bernard was able to date exactly the catastrophe<br />
which brought the existence of the Greek city of Ai Khanum to an end (or in other words<br />
the first invasion of Sogdiana by the Yüeh-chi), thanks to an inscription, found in a destruction<br />
stratum, giving a clear ›terminus<br />
post quem‹, the twenty-forth year in the reign of Eucratides<br />
(= 148–7 BC). It is likely that the destruction of the Greek city of Ai Khanum and<br />
the first stage of the Yüeh-chi invasion and also the death of Eucratides I took place more<br />
or less at the same time, that is around 145 BC.<br />
The assured dating of c. 145 BCE for the destruction of Eucratidia (Ai Khanum) by<br />
the<br />
Sakaraukai/Saiwang 塞王 is a most fortunate outcome of the French excavations<br />
i n Afghanistan (at that time the kingdom of Zahir Shah where I myself participated in a<br />
study<br />
and work program in the summer of 1965). After this date, Græco-Bactrian kings<br />
still<br />
maintained themselves in Western Bactria, i.e. in the capital Bactra and environs.<br />
This<br />
was Stage One of the Fall of Greek Bactria.<br />
The Ruzhi 月氏, or Asiani, now consolidated their position in Sogdiana — as Trogus<br />
indicates in his Prolog to chapter 41. This done, they, too, crossed the Hissar<br />
M ountains to the south and conquered the land north of the Oxus River. After this, the<br />
Ruzhi<br />
月氏 attacked, not the Bactrian Greeks in Western, but their arch enemy, the<br />
S aiwang, in Eastern Bactria, i.e. in Daxia/Tochara. As there was simply no other route<br />
o f escape left open for them, the Sakaraukai/Saiwang 塞王 then fell upon the Bactrian<br />
Greeks<br />
in the remaining part of Bactria, around the capital Bactra. The last Græco-<br />
B actrian king was unable to withstand the Saka onslaught: he either was killed in the<br />
d esperate fights to save Bactra, or in the end resolved to evacuate all of Bactriana and<br />
w ith his armies withdrew beyond the Hindukush barrier into the Kabul Valley. He was<br />
H eliocles, the eldest son of Eucratides. He killed his father in such a cruel, abominable<br />
way<br />
that we cannot understand his motives unless it all happened, not before, but im-<br />
m ediately after the fall of Eucratidia and all of Eastern Bactria — which Eucratides<br />
had<br />
failed to save by returning in time from his ambitious Indian campaigns.<br />
When in the west the Sakaraukai/Saiwang 塞王 stormed Bactra, the Ruzhi 月氏 in<br />
t he east occupied the lands, which the Sakaraukai had possessed for a rather short<br />
t ime: Tochara, or Daxia 大夏. The Asiani, or Ruzhi 月氏 , became the new kings of<br />
t he Tochari and their make-shift royal camp on the near, or north, side of the Oxus —<br />
p ossibly not far from modern Termez — became their new political center and for<br />
some<br />
time replaced the old capital of Tochara, where the evicted Saka kings had<br />
r esided. In his superb Catalogue Raisonné, 1991: 74, BOPEARACHCHI gives the reign of<br />
H eliocles I as c. 145–130 BCE. He lost Bactra to the Sakas. This was Stage Two of the<br />
Fall<br />
of Greek Bactria.<br />
When Zhang Qian, with only his faithful<br />
Xiongnu servant left of his once large party,<br />
finally<br />
reached Central Asia, the king of Ferghana sent him to Samarkand. That was<br />
where he knew the king of the Ruzhi 月氏 to reside. But the war against the Sakarau-<br />
kai/Saiwang 塞王 in Daxia 大夏 just over, the 月氏 king’s court had been moved from<br />
Samarkand in Sogdiana to the newly conquered lands south of the<br />
famous “Iron<br />
— 47 —
Gates” 鐵門 in the Hissar Mountains. The court was established provisionally on the<br />
near<br />
side of the Oxus and there became the new capital of Daxia — as Xu Song has<br />
helped<br />
us to understand the crucial sentence in the chapter on the Greater Ruzhi 大月<br />
氏 , Hanshu 96 A. 3891. Here, Zhang Qian was received by the new king of the 月氏 —<br />
h is name is not mentioned in the Chinese sources, but he was the son of the king slain<br />
b y the Xiongnu in about 165 BCE — and the Chinese envoy was later shown around<br />
t he old capital of Tochara and its flourishing markets. In this context it is of particular<br />
i mportance to know that Zhang Qian arrived on the shores of the Oxus River in the<br />
summer<br />
of 129 BCE — and not one to three full years later.<br />
The final destruction of the Sakaraukai in Western Bactria by the Ruzhi 月氏 — we<br />
are<br />
inclined to believe — could now only be a matter of years. It should have happened<br />
some<br />
time after Zhang Qian had returned to Han China. The Shiji knows nothing<br />
about<br />
it. But it seems only too logic that the 月氏 were now in a position to take the<br />
whole<br />
of Greek Bactria and in that way extinguish the Sakas who would then vanish<br />
f rom view, i.e. become 月氏 subjects like shortly before them the Tochari further to<br />
t he east. Pompeius Trogus had the story in his Historiae Philippicae, for in the Prolog<br />
to<br />
chapter 42 he promises to tell us the full story. Junianus Justinus’ Epitome of Tro-<br />
g us, however, left us not a single syllable of it. This, I imagined, was Stage Three of the<br />
Fall<br />
of Greek Bactria.<br />
However, there are strong indications that the actual historical developments in<br />
this final stage were more complicated than the straight-forward scenario sketched<br />
above. The first objections come from Zhang Qian himself. The Chinese envoy of Han<br />
Emperor Wu spent more than one full year in Daxia — summer 129 to late summer or<br />
early fall 128. However, he knows nothing of a recently-established kingdom of the<br />
Saiwang in neighboring Western Bactria. In his Report, and consequently in Shiji 123,<br />
the very name Saiwang 塞王 is not mentioned at all. For Zhang Qian the western<br />
neighbors<br />
of the Ruzhi 月氏 are the Parthians: their mighty kingdom is the largest far<br />
and wide. He calls it Anxi 安息 — the Chinese transcription of the name Ar(sa)cids.<br />
(WATSON 1993: 233–235)<br />
(27) (Zhang) Qian in person visited the lands of the<br />
Da Yuan, the Great Yue–zhi, the Da–xia, and the<br />
Kang–ju, and in addition he gathered reports on five<br />
or six (other) large states in their neighborhood.<br />
All of this information he related to the Son of Heaven<br />
(on his return). (The substance of) his report<br />
was (as follows): ...<br />
(59) (The capital of the) An–xi (Parthians) is located<br />
some several thousand ›li‹ west of (the capital of)<br />
the Great Yue–zhi.<br />
(60) Their people is settled on the land, cultivating<br />
the fields and planting rice and wheat.<br />
(They also make) wine out of grapes.<br />
(61) (They have) walled cities like the Da Yuan.<br />
(62) To them belong several hundred cities, small<br />
and big.<br />
In area (this country measures) several thousand ›li‹<br />
square which makes it an extremely large kingdom.<br />
(63) It borders the Gui (Oxus)<br />
River.<br />
It has bazars and the inhabitants (who are) merchants<br />
use carts and boats to travel to neighboring<br />
countries, sometimes (journeying) several thousand<br />
›li‹.<br />
(64) With silver they make coins and the coins bear<br />
— 48 —<br />
Shiji 123. 3160–3163<br />
騫 身 所 至 者 大 宛 大 月<br />
氏 大 夏 康 居 而 傳 聞 其<br />
旁 大 國 五 六<br />
具 為 天 子 言 之 曰 …<br />
安 息 在 大 月 氏 西 可 數<br />
千 里<br />
其 俗 土 著 耕 田 田 稻 麥<br />
蒲 陶 酒<br />
城 邑 如 大 宛<br />
其 屬 小 大 數 百 城 地 方<br />
數 千 里 最 為 大 國<br />
臨 媯 水<br />
有 市 民 商 賈 用 車 及 船<br />
行 旁 國 或 數 千 里
the face of their king.<br />
(When) the king dies, (the coins are) invariably<br />
changed and (new) coins (issued) with the face of<br />
his successor.<br />
(65) (The people) write horizontally on (strips of)<br />
leather and this way keep records.<br />
以 銀 為 錢 錢 如 其 王 面<br />
王 死 輒 更 錢 效 王 面 焉<br />
畫 革 旁 行 以 為 書 記<br />
What a surprising wealth of detailed information on a country which Zhang Qian<br />
did not see in person. One likely explanation should be that the Chinese explorer met,<br />
not only Indo-Greek merchants in the marketplace of Lanshi 藍市, the old capital of<br />
Daxia 大夏 (Tochara), but also those from Parthia whom he interviewed at length. And<br />
it is interesting to note that directly after Anxi 安息 (Parthia), Zhang Qian’s Report in<br />
Shiji 123 goes on to speak of Daxia/Tochara in a chapter which I shall quote further<br />
down (pp. 72–73). The absence of any information on a Saiwang state 塞王國, now expected<br />
to be found between Parthia and Tochara, is telling. In all probability, no such<br />
independent Saka kingdom existed in Zhang Qian’s time, 129–128 BCE.<br />
In addition to the Chinese sources, we have two classical Western texts which help<br />
us to understand what happened to the remnants of Bactria just before it was evacuated<br />
by the last Greek kings. One is found in Justinus’ Epitome of Trogus’ History, and<br />
the other in Strabo’s Geography.<br />
(WATSON 1886: 276)<br />
Almost at the same time that<br />
Mithridates ascended the<br />
throne among the Parthians,<br />
Eucratides began to reign<br />
among the Bactrians; both of<br />
them being great men.<br />
But the fortune of the Parthians,<br />
being the more successful,<br />
raised them, under this<br />
prince, to the highest degree<br />
of power;<br />
while the Bactrians, harassed<br />
with various wars, lost not<br />
only their dominions, but<br />
their liberty; for having suffered<br />
from contentions with<br />
the Sogdians, the Drangians,<br />
and the Indians, they were at<br />
last overcome, as if exhausted,<br />
by the weaker Parthians.<br />
(SEEL 1972: 443–444)<br />
Ungefähr zur gleichen Zeit wie<br />
im Partherland Mithridates<br />
kommt in Baktrien Eukratides<br />
zur Regierung – beides bedeutende<br />
Männer.<br />
Aber das Glück, das den Parthern<br />
mehr gewogen war, brachte<br />
sie unter diesem<br />
auf den Gipfel ihrer Macht.<br />
Die Baktrianer dagegen,<br />
in man-<br />
cherlei Kriegen hin- undherge- worfen, verloren nicht<br />
allein ihre<br />
Herrschaft, sondern auch ihre<br />
Freiheit, denn sie erschöpften<br />
sich durch Kriege mit den Sogdi-<br />
anern und Arachosiern,<br />
mit Dran-<br />
gern, Areern und Indern<br />
und wur-<br />
den zuletzt, gleichsam ausgeblu<br />
tet, von den an sich schwächeren<br />
Parthern überwältigt.<br />
Herrscher duce i<br />
Hist. Phil. Epit. 41.6.1–3<br />
Eodem ferme tempore,<br />
sicut in Parthis Mithridates,<br />
ita in Bactris Eucratides,<br />
magni uterque viri,<br />
regna ineunt.<br />
Sed Parthorum fortuna<br />
felicior ad summum hoc<br />
mperii fastigium<br />
eos perduxit.<br />
Bactriani autem per varia<br />
bella iactati non regnum<br />
tantum, verum etiam<br />
libertatem amiserunt,<br />
siquidem Sogdianorum<br />
et Arachotorum et Dran<br />
garum et Areorum Indorumque<br />
bellis fatigati ad<br />
postremum ab invalidioribus<br />
Parthis velut exsan-<br />
gues oppressi sunt.<br />
Here we are told that the Bactrian<br />
Greeks had fought too many wars in too many<br />
directions. Finally bled out, they became victims of the actually inferior<br />
Parthians.<br />
After Eastern Bactria (Tochara) had been lost to the<br />
Sakaraukai/Saiwang 塞王 — who<br />
are obvio usly called Sogdiani in Justinus’ text — what exactly happened in Western<br />
Bactria in the crucial years 145–130 BCE ? If, indeed,<br />
the Parthians won the ultimate<br />
victory over the last Greek kings in Bactria, what was the fate of the Sakas after<br />
they<br />
were expelled for good from Daxia 大夏 (Tochara) by th e Ruzhi 月氏 — around the year<br />
130 BCE ? Have we been mistaken to believe that they went west<br />
and made an end to<br />
the Græco-Bactrian kings in their last stronghold,<br />
Bactra ? The next text, by Strabo,<br />
may indicate an answer to these questions.<br />
— 49 —
(JONES 1928: 275)<br />
Now at the outset Arsaces was<br />
weak, being continually at<br />
war with those who had been<br />
deprived by him of their territory,<br />
both he himself and his<br />
successors.<br />
But later they grew so strong,<br />
always taking the neighbouring<br />
territory, through successes<br />
in warfare, that finally<br />
they established themselves<br />
as lords of the whole of the<br />
country inside the Euphrates.<br />
And they also took a part of<br />
Bactriana, having forced the<br />
Scythians, and still earlier<br />
Eucratides and his followers,<br />
to yield to them; and at the<br />
present time they rule over so<br />
much land and so many<br />
tribes that in the size of their<br />
empire they have become, in a<br />
way, rivals of the Romans ...<br />
(RADT 2004: 353)<br />
Anfänglich waren er (Arsakes)<br />
selber sowohl als seine<br />
Nachfolger<br />
schwach wegen der<br />
Krie-<br />
ge, die sie ständig gegen<br />
die<br />
ihres Landes Beraubten zu füh-<br />
ren hatten.<br />
Dann aber wurden sie dadurch,<br />
dass sie dank ihrer Erfolge in<br />
den Kriegen sich das jeweils<br />
benachbarte Land nahmen, so<br />
stark, dass sie schließlich Herr<br />
über das ganze Gebiet diesseits<br />
des Euphrates wurden.<br />
Sie nahmen sich auch einen<br />
Teil der Baktriane, indem sie<br />
die Skythen – und vorher schon<br />
Eukratides und die Seinen –<br />
überwältigten; und haben jetzt<br />
die Herrschaft<br />
über soviel Land<br />
und soviele Völker, dass<br />
sie es,<br />
was die Größe ihres Reiches betrifft,<br />
in gewissem Sinne mit den<br />
Römern aufnehmen können ...<br />
Geographika, 11.9.2<br />
Kat' ¢rc¦j m n oân ¢sqen¾j<br />
Ãn diapolemîn prÕj<br />
toÝj ¢faireqšntaj t¾n cè<br />
ran kaˆ ¢utÕj kaˆ oƒ diade<br />
x£menoi ke‹non:<br />
œpeiq' oÛtwj ‡scusan ¢fairoÚmenoi<br />
t¾n plhs…on ¢eˆ<br />
di¦ t¦j n to‹j polšmoij<br />
katorqèseij, éste teleutîntej<br />
¡p£shj tÁj ntÕj<br />
EÙfr£tou kÚrioi katšsthsan.<br />
'Afe…lonto d kaˆ tÁj<br />
BaktrianÁj mšroj bias£-<br />
menoi toÝj SkÚqaj kaˆ œti<br />
prÒteron toÝj perˆ EÙkrat…dan,<br />
kaˆ nàn p£rcousi<br />
tosaÚthj tÁj gÁj<br />
kaˆ tosoÚtwn qnîn, éste<br />
¢ nt…paloi to‹j `Rwma…oij<br />
trÒpon<br />
tin¦ gegÒnasi ka-<br />
t¦ tÕ mšgeqoj tÁj ¢rcÁj<br />
...<br />
From these statements, we are inclined to assume that the Sakas<br />
or Scythians have<br />
not been as successful in Wes<br />
tern Bactria as they had, before,<br />
in Tochara/Dax<br />
ia.<br />
They<br />
may have been able to take Bactra and oust the last Greek sovereigns<br />
from there, only<br />
to be soon overcome by the powerful<br />
Parthians who took a part<br />
of Bactriana, having<br />
forced the Scythians. Or, I thought<br />
for a while, they voluntarily enlisted Parthian help<br />
to withstand yet another attack<br />
by the dreadful Ruzhi 月氏 . Bu<br />
t Strabo’s text is rather<br />
clear here: the Sakas are crushed<br />
between two great powers.<br />
VON GUTSCHMID,<br />
cited abo<br />
ve a first time, comes very close to the truth when, 1888:<br />
70–71, he writes:<br />
Die Identität der Tocharer und<br />
der Grossen Yue–tshi unterliegt keinem<br />
Zweifel ... Wäh-<br />
rend aber die classischen Berichte<br />
zwei Hauptvölker kennen, mehr<br />
östlich die Tocharer,<br />
mehr westlich die Sakarauken,<br />
kennen die chinesischen auf dem<br />
Boden des ehemaligen<br />
Hellenenreiches nur ein einziges,<br />
die Tocharer, und neben ihnen in<br />
Margiana die Parther.<br />
Sollen also die Ersteren nicht Lügen gestraft werden, so bleibt nichts<br />
übrig als anzuneh-<br />
men, dass vor dem Jahre 128,<br />
in<br />
welches die Anwesenheit des Tshang–kien<br />
fällt, die Occu-<br />
pation eines Theiles des Hellenenreiches<br />
durch die Sakarauken<br />
und jene Thatsache liegt,<br />
für die wir ein Zeugniss des Strabo (XI, p.515) besitzen, nämlich die Wegnahme eines<br />
Theils<br />
Baktriens durch die Parther nach Bewältigung der Scythen. Wir wissen nunmehr,<br />
dass dieses Volk die Sakarauken, das ihnen entrissene Land Margiana war; eine Drachme<br />
des Phraates II. mit der Aufschrift Margian» (GARDNER, 1877: 33) gibt für das Letztere eine<br />
urkundliche Bestätigung. Dass den sorgfältigen chinesischen Berichterstattern ein so namhaftes<br />
Volk wie die Sakarauken unbekannt geblieben sein sollte, ist undenkbar.<br />
VON GUTSCHMID believes in an ethnic identity of the Ruzhi 月氏 and the Tochari<br />
which is untenable as this study strives to show. Also, he does not know XU SONG’s<br />
crucial comment which was published five years after his own book. But his reasoning,<br />
that the Chinese writers — Zhang Qian himself and his epitomator Sima Qian —<br />
would have mentioned the Sakaraukai, if they<br />
had been the sovereign rulers of Western<br />
Bactria<br />
in the time of Zhang Qian’s visit as they had reigned in Daxia/Tochara<br />
shortly before for some time, is of importance and very valid: with the exception that<br />
— 50 —
the part of Bactria, which the Parthians took over from the Sakaraukai before Zhang<br />
Qian’s arrival on the Oxus, was not Margiana. This region<br />
had been lost to the<br />
Parthians earlier, i.e. in the time<br />
of Eucratides, as the following<br />
passage in Strabo’s account<br />
of Bactria shows.<br />
(JONES 1928: 281)<br />
Their cities were Bactra (al-<br />
so called Zariaspa, through<br />
which flows a river bearing<br />
the same name and emptying<br />
into the Oxus), and Darapsa,<br />
and several others;<br />
among these was Eucratidia,<br />
which was named after<br />
its ruler.<br />
The Greeks took possession<br />
of it and divided it into satrapies,<br />
of which the satrapy<br />
of Turiva and that of Aspionus<br />
were taken away from<br />
Eucratides by the Parthians.<br />
And they also held Sogdiana,<br />
situated above Bactriana<br />
towards the east between<br />
the Oxus River, which forms<br />
the boundary between the<br />
Bactrians and the Sogdians,<br />
and the Iaxartes River;<br />
and the Iaxartes forms also<br />
the boundary between the<br />
Sogdians and the nomads.<br />
(RADT 2004: 357) Geographika, 11.11.2<br />
An Städten hatten sie Baktra, PÒleij d' e con t£ te B£k-<br />
das<br />
auch Zariaspa genannt wird tra, ¼nper kaˆ Zari£span<br />
( hindurch strömt ein gleichnami- kaloàsin, ¿n diarre‹ Ðm-<br />
ger<br />
Fluss, der in den Oxos münènumoj potamÕj mb£ldet),<br />
Darapsa und mehrere anlwn e„j tÕn ’Wxon, kaˆ D£-<br />
dere;<br />
raya kaˆ ¥llaj ple…ouj :<br />
dazu<br />
gehört auch das nach dem toÚtwn d' Ãn kaˆ ¹ EÙ-<br />
einstigen<br />
Herrscher benannte Eukrat…deia, toà ¥rxantoj<br />
kratideia.<br />
pènumoj.<br />
Die<br />
Griechen, die das Land in Oƒ d' katascÒntej aÙt¾n<br />
Besitz<br />
nahmen, haben es auch “Ellhnej kaˆ e„j satra-<br />
in<br />
Satrapien eingeteilt (von depe…aj diVr»kasin, ïn t»n<br />
nen<br />
die des Aspiones und Turi- te 'Aspiènou kaˆ t¾n Tou-<br />
ua<br />
dem Eukratides von den ParrioÚan ¢fÇrhnto EÙkra-<br />
thern<br />
entrissen wurde).<br />
t…dhn oƒ Parqua‹oi.<br />
Sie<br />
setzten sich auch in den Be- ”Escon d kaˆ t¾n Sog-<br />
sitz<br />
von Sogdiane, das nach Osdian¾n Øperkeimšnhn prÕj<br />
ten<br />
über Baktriane hinaus liegt, ›w tÁj BaktrianÁj metaxÝ<br />
zwischen dem Oxos-Fluss – der toà te ”Wxou potamoà,<br />
Öj<br />
das Land der Baktrier und das Ðr…zei t»n te tîn Baktr…-<br />
der Sogdier voneinander trennt – wn kaˆ t¾n tîn Sogd…wn,<br />
und dem Iaxartes;<br />
kaˆ toà 'Iax£rtou:<br />
dieser bildet die Grenze zwi- oátoj d kaˆ toÝj Sogschen<br />
den Sogdiern und den Nod…ouj Ðr…zei kaˆ toÝj nomaden.m£daj.<br />
The Satrapies of Aspiones and Turiva are otherwise completely unknown. GROS-<br />
KURD, 1831: 410, following DU THEIL, suggests amending Turiua or Turiva into Tapuria.<br />
This is a region, ment ioned by Polybios (10. 46: ...Tapour…an...), which had been fought<br />
ove r by Antiochos and the Bactrian king Euthydemos near the Areios River, i.e. in the<br />
area<br />
between Parthia, Bactria and Aria — in other words: in Margiana. Bactria in<br />
those<br />
times extended as far west as the Areios or Ochos River (Herî Rûd), a short dis-<br />
tance<br />
west of the Margos (Murghâb) River which flows through Margianê (Merv). The<br />
Ochos<br />
had been the border to Parthia. With this geographic situation in mind, VON GUT-<br />
S CHMID suggests that the Sakas, when evicted a second time by the Ruzhi 月氏, now<br />
from<br />
Sogdiana, continue their exodus straight on in a westerly direction, i.e. by crossing<br />
the<br />
Oxus. But Zhang Qian, in Shiji 123, says that Parthia in his time in the east borders<br />
on<br />
the Oxus River 臨媯水 (see above, p. 48). This must have been so after the Bactrian<br />
G reeks had lost the two satrapies mentioned by Strabo. And this, then, is the reason<br />
why<br />
the Sakas/Sakaraukai/Saiwang turn south when chased out of Sogdiana by the<br />
Ruzhi<br />
月氏. Hence, the part of Bactria, which the Parthians take over from the Saka-<br />
raukai, is definitely not Margiana. Instead, it is the very heart of Bactria: the<br />
capital<br />
Bactra<br />
itself. In an preemptive strike the Parthians effectively prevent the Ruzhi 月氏<br />
from subjugating the Sakas in Bactra — and thus the two greatest powers in the area<br />
now become the main contenders for hegemony in Central Asia.<br />
And this is how the Sakaraukai/Sacaraucae meet their destruction — the interitus<br />
Sa(ca)raucarum of Trogus’ Prolog 42. Hence, it are the awe-inspiring Parthians who<br />
prevent the Ruzhi 月氏 from conquering the whole of former Greek Bactria. It goes<br />
— 51 —
without saying that the Parthians and the Ruzhi 月氏 become bitter foes — as many<br />
centuries later the Græco-Roman historian Ammianus will tell us (below, p. 65).<br />
That the Sakaraukai/Saiwang 塞王 maintained themselves in the capital Bactra<br />
and Western Bactria for some time as Parthian vassals, is amply proved by a recent<br />
find, also not yet known<br />
to VON G UTSCHMID : the small, but rich Saka necropolis on<br />
Tillya-tepe, about<br />
100 km west of Bactra. The tombs contained<br />
mainly Part<br />
hian<br />
coins — and one gold coin of<br />
the Roman Emperor Tiberius, minted<br />
in Lugdunum (modern<br />
Lyon) 16–21 CE. This late<br />
date shows that the Ruzhi 月 氏 were unable to con-<br />
quer the whole of Bactria before<br />
30 CE as the earliest possible<br />
date, or for more than<br />
a century and a half after they<br />
had subjugated Daxia 大夏 (Tochara).<br />
The tombs of Sa-<br />
ka nobles near Bactra disprove<br />
the seemingly convincing assertions<br />
of NARAIN who, in<br />
1957: 140, writes:<br />
The prominence which is given<br />
to the Ta–hsia in the Shih–chi<br />
is not found in the Ch’ien<br />
Han Shu. It therefore seems evident that Bactria<br />
proper south of the Oxus river<br />
must have<br />
come under the complete political<br />
subjugation of the Yüeh–chih either after the Shih–chi<br />
was written or at a time quite<br />
near its completion, when the news<br />
had not reached Ssu–<br />
ma–ch’ien, but definitely long before the composition of the Ch’ ien<br />
Han Shu. Shih–chi was<br />
completed in 99 B.C., and therefore,<br />
in round numbers, we may<br />
say that the occupation<br />
took place about 100 B.C.<br />
NARAIN’s is the same old mistake we had to deal with above and which dies hard.<br />
Implicitly, he believes that Ta–hsia<br />
(Daxia) stands for Bactria<br />
proper — which it does<br />
not. Instead, the Chinese transcription<br />
stands, not for Bactria,<br />
but for the Western<br />
name Tochara = Eastern Bactria,<br />
later known under the name<br />
Tocharistan. A comparison<br />
of Shiji 123 with Hanshu<br />
96 simply proves that Daxia 大夏 was in the hands of<br />
the Ruzhi 月氏 about 100 BCE.<br />
Above, we have seen that a correct interpretation of<br />
Shiji 123 shows that this wa<br />
s already the case at the time of Zhang Qian’s visit to<br />
Daxia/Tochara, i.e. a full<br />
gen eration before 100 BCE. We do not have to wait for<br />
the<br />
much later Hanshu — for it h as nothing new to tell us in this respect. Saka Tillya-tepe,<br />
however, proves that Western Bactria cannot have been subjugated<br />
by the 月氏 before<br />
the times of the Later Han (2 6–220 CE),<br />
and so we have to turn to the Later Hanshu to<br />
check,<br />
i.e. to the Hou Hanshu 後漢書. There, we are told that Bactra had been finally<br />
conquered . The feat was accomplished by one of the five well-known Ruzhi viceroys or<br />
xihou 翎侯. In Weishu 102 they are said to have all belonged to the Zhaowu 昭武 family<br />
of the reigning monarch (see above, p. 28). He overthrew the other four viceroys, proclaimed<br />
himself king — in clear rebellion against the legitimate Ruzhi 月氏 king —<br />
and went on to oust the latter, we may assume.<br />
(DE GROOT 1926: 101)<br />
...<br />
Als ›Goat–si‹ von ›Hung–nª‹<br />
vernichtet war, wanderte es<br />
nach ›Ta–ha‹ (Tochara) aus<br />
(PULLEYBLANK 1968: 247-248)<br />
The Great Yüeh–chih country<br />
has its capital at the<br />
city of Lan–shih (Khulm).<br />
To the west it is 49 days’<br />
march to An–hsi (Arsak<br />
Parthia).<br />
To the east it is 6,537 ›li‹<br />
to the seat of the Senior<br />
Administrator (Chang–<br />
shih) and 16,370 ›li‹ to Lo–<br />
yang.<br />
It has 100,000 households,<br />
400,000 mouths and over<br />
100,000 trained soldiers.<br />
Formerly the (Great)<br />
Yüeh–chih, on being overthrown<br />
by the Hsiung–nu,<br />
— 52 —<br />
Hou Hanshu 88. 2920–2921<br />
大 月 氏 國 居 藍 氏 城<br />
西 接 安 息 四 十 九 日<br />
行<br />
東 去 長 史 所 居 六 千<br />
五 百 三 十 七 里 去 洛<br />
陽 萬 六 千 三 百 七 十<br />
里<br />
戶 十 萬 口 四 十 萬 勝<br />
兵 十 餘 萬人
und teilte dort sein Reich in migrated to Ta–hsia (Bac-<br />
fünf Jabgu, nämlich tria). They divided the<br />
›Hiu–bit‹,<br />
›Šang–bi‹, country among five ›hsi–<br />
›Kui–song‹, ›It–tok‹<br />
und 都密 ›Tª–bit‹.<br />
hou‹ (›yabgu‹) —<br />
Hsiu–mi, Shuang–mi,<br />
Mehr als ein Jahrhundert Kuei–shuang (Kushan),<br />
später bekriegte und vernichtete<br />
丘就卻 ›K'u–tsiu–<br />
Hsi–tun and<br />
(Tarmita).<br />
Tu–mi<br />
k'iok‹ (Kud{øla Kadphises), Over one hundred years<br />
der Jabgu von ›Kui–song‹, later the Kuei–shuang<br />
die vier anderen Jabgu und ›hsi–hou‹, Ch’iu–chiu–chü<br />
erhob sich selbst zum Kö- (Kujøla Kadphises), atnig.<br />
tacked and overthrew the<br />
Sein<br />
Reich nannte ihn Kö- (other) four ›hsi–hou‹ and<br />
nig<br />
von ›Kui–song‹.<br />
set himself up as king.<br />
Er<br />
griff ›An–sik‹ an, nahm The country was named<br />
vom<br />
Lande ›Ko–hu‹ Besitz, Kuei–shuang.<br />
vernichtete<br />
濮達 ›P 'ak–tat‹ The king attacked An–hsi<br />
( Baktar, Baktra, Baktria) (Parthia) and took the ter-<br />
und<br />
›Ke–pin‹ und setzte sich ritory of Kao–fu (Kabul).<br />
in den vollständigen Besitz He also overthrew P ’u–ta<br />
aller dieser<br />
Reiche.<br />
(Pu•kalåvatð) and Chi–pin<br />
Als ›K'u–tsiu–k'iok‹ über (Kashmir) and completely<br />
achtzig Jahre alt war und annexed these countries.<br />
starb, trat sein Sohn 閻膏 Ch’iu–chiu–chü died when<br />
珍 ›J¥m–ko–tin‹ (Wima Kad- over eighty years of age.<br />
phises) an seiner Stelle als His son Yen–kao–chen (Vi-<br />
König auf; dieser vernichtete<br />
auch noch 天竺 ›T'i¥n–<br />
ma Kadphises) succeeded<br />
him as king.<br />
tok‹ (Indien) und setzte dort He went on to overthrow<br />
als Verwalter und Befehls- T’ien–chu (India) and sent<br />
haber einen Heerführer ein. a general to rule over it.<br />
Seither befand sich Groß- From this time on the<br />
Goat–si im allerhöchsten Yüeh–chih were extremely<br />
Stadium von Reichtum und wealthy and prosperous.<br />
Blüte. Die Reiche nannten All the nations call them<br />
es allgemein das König- the Kuei–shuang (Kushan)<br />
reich ›Kui–song‹.<br />
kings.<br />
Aber ›Han‹ nannte es bei But Han, keeping to the<br />
seinem ursprünglichen al- original name, calls th<br />
ten Namen Groß-Goat–si. the Great Yüeh–chih.<br />
初 月 氏 為 匈 奴 所 滅<br />
遂 遷 於 大 夏 分 其 國<br />
為<br />
休 密 雙 靡 貴 霜 漈盻<br />
頓 都 密<br />
凡 五 部 漈翎 侯<br />
後 百 餘 歲 貴 霜 翎 侯<br />
丘 就 卻 攻 滅 四 翎 侯<br />
自 立 為 王<br />
國 號 貴 霜 (王)<br />
侵 安 息 取 高 附 地<br />
又 滅 濮 達 罽 賓 悉 有<br />
其 國<br />
丘 就 卻 年 八 十 餘 死<br />
子 閻 膏 珍 代 為 王<br />
復 滅 天 竺 置 將 一 人<br />
監 領 之<br />
月 氏 自 此 之 後 最 為<br />
富 盛<br />
諸 國 稱 之 皆 曰 貴 霜<br />
王<br />
em 漢 本 其 故 號 言 大 月<br />
氏 云<br />
This text has extraordin arily important facts to teach us. At the outset of the Later<br />
Han, i.e. after the year 26 C E, the capital of the Ruzhi is still in Tochara: the “Lan–shi<br />
city”<br />
藍氏城 of the Hou H anshu is obviously identical with<br />
the “Lan–shi city” 藍市城<br />
of<br />
the Shiji, there called the capital of<br />
Daxia (see bel ow, p.<br />
72) — whether it is to be<br />
identified<br />
with modern Khulm<br />
(Tashqurghan), as PULLEYBLANK<br />
thinks, or modern Kun-<br />
duz<br />
(i.e. Darapsa, mention ed by Strabo as one of only three prominent Bactrian cities),<br />
as<br />
I believe, is of secondary importance. Of prime imp<br />
ortance is, that the Ruzhi 月氏<br />
of<br />
this time in the west border on Parthia, (the capi<br />
tal of which is) 49 days journey<br />
from<br />
Lanshi. There is no mention of any independent Saka kingdom in that direction.<br />
The Hou Hanshu goes on to report the establishment<br />
of<br />
the five ›xihou‹ (still read<br />
yap–hau<br />
in modern Cantonese, this is the Chinese transcription<br />
of the title ›yabgu‹) —<br />
a historic event which happened,<br />
no t in La ter Han, bu<br />
t in Former Han times. Strictly<br />
speaking, this report does not<br />
belong into the Hou Hanshu.<br />
But it is obvious<br />
here that<br />
Fan Ye 范嘩 (398–446), the compiler of the third Chinese<br />
Standard History,<br />
the Hou<br />
— 53 —
Hanshu, wants to correct Ban<br />
Gu’s Hanshu where the<br />
story is told in a different way.<br />
He then continues the<br />
story to its climax. This, in fact,<br />
is a highly controversial topic.<br />
What interests us here,<br />
is the fact that more than a hundred years later — we are<br />
back in Later Han times now — king Kujula Kadphises<br />
finally<br />
dares to attack Parthia,<br />
i.e. he conquers three Parthian<br />
possessions: Gaofu 高 附, Puta<br />
濮達, and Jibin 罽賓.<br />
We may assume, in this order.<br />
Puta is Bactra, as only DE GROOT correctly states in his translation of the passage.<br />
He reads the two Chinese characters<br />
濮達 as ›P ’ak–tat‹<br />
= Baktar. As<br />
far as I can tell,<br />
this is the first time the name<br />
Bac tra is mentioned in the Chinese Standard Histories.<br />
This is a strong argument in<br />
favor of a very late conquest<br />
of Saka / Parthian-occupied<br />
Bactra by the Ruzhi 月氏 — which conquest, in fa ct, we find depicted in the wall<br />
friezes<br />
of Khalchayan, the 月氏 summer palace, up t he Surkhan River valley a short<br />
distance from modern Termez<br />
(see above, p. 39–40). One large figure there, with the<br />
well-known face of the<br />
Heraios coins, represents the<br />
founder<br />
of the Kushan Dynasty —<br />
and the trophy of a dead Saka<br />
warrior’s heavy plated armor at his feet is telling (see<br />
Puga¾enkova 1971: fig. 61).<br />
Whether the Ruzhi 月氏 usurper Kadphises I origin<br />
ally started his conquests south<br />
of the Hindukush Mountains,<br />
as BOPEARACHCHI has shown<br />
from strictly numismatic<br />
evidence (1997: 208), or else from north of the Hindukush<br />
— even north of the Oxus Ri<br />
ver —, as GRENET has shown<br />
in a very recent article on<br />
the grounds of much new evi-<br />
dence (2007: passim), is part<br />
of the same hot and complex<br />
topic just<br />
mentioned. It is in<br />
any case too big for the modest<br />
scope of this paper and calls for<br />
a lengthy discussion<br />
in a separate study.<br />
But why did Zhang Qian<br />
not describe the Sakarau kai or Saiwang 塞王 as reigning<br />
in Bactra ? This city was just<br />
a few dozen miles away<br />
from the provisional Daxia/To-<br />
chara capital on the banks of the Oxus where he discussed<br />
politics with the new Ruzhi<br />
月氏 king in the latter’s royal<br />
tent. As VON<br />
G UTSCHMID has pointed out correctly: it is<br />
impossible that Zhang Qian overlooked the Sakaraukai/Saiwang<br />
塞王 . Hence, I think<br />
he did, in fact, mention the Saiwang — but in a more indirect way. Zhang Qian’s de-<br />
tailed Report on the Parthians,<br />
in Shiji 123, also contains<br />
the following paragraph —<br />
(WATSON 1993: 235)<br />
(71) The people are very numerous<br />
and of-<br />
ten have (are ruled by) petty princes.<br />
Although the (ruler of) An–xi gives orders to<br />
these dependent states, he regards them as<br />
foreign countries.<br />
Shiji 123. 3163<br />
人 眾 甚 多 往 往 有 小 君 長<br />
而 安 息 役 屬 之 以 為 外 國<br />
Zhang Qian could have<br />
heard of such Parthian<br />
vassal states as Characene, Elymais,<br />
or Persis. But more likely it is that he is speaking here of the state<br />
of affairs in close-by<br />
Bactra,<br />
ruled by petty Saka princes — whose descendents, five or six generations later,<br />
were burried on Tillya-tepe. For Zhang Qian, the Saiwang thus were local princes within<br />
the mighty Parthian kingdom 最大(安息)國 — which could rival the Roman Empire<br />
— and thus the Saiwang were just not worth mentioning by name.<br />
In this context, VON GUTSCHMID writes, 1888: 56–57:<br />
Diesen kleinen Königreichen gegenüber begnügten sich die Parther mit der Anerkennung<br />
ihrer Suprematie ... Waren die Parther in guter Verfassung, so zogen sie die Zügel<br />
straffer an, waren sie aber durch innere Unruhen geschwächt, so war ihre Suprematie ein<br />
leerer Name, und Alles gieng darunter und darüber; das Verhältnis blieb immer ein sehr<br />
prekäres,<br />
und die auf einer derartigen Basis beruhende Machtstellung der Parther war<br />
entfernt nicht die gleiche wie später die des Sassanidenreiches.<br />
When in the first century BCE, or in the later time of the Former Han, the one-time<br />
petty princes of Western Bactria had become great rulers in their own right in Northwestern<br />
India or Jibin 罽賓, their historic status had changed dramatically. And so the<br />
— 54 —
Chinese, politically deeply involved in India, reported on the Saiwang 塞王 for the first<br />
time and recapitulated their earlier history in Hanshu 96 — to all historians’ delight.<br />
Without this historical source, we would not know of the short spell of Saka rule over<br />
the Tochari. However, on the role of the Sakas in Bactra — and Sakastana — the Chinese<br />
historians of later times remain practically silent. I presume that it escaped their<br />
attention because it was outside their geographic horizon. We find only very vague<br />
hints on the Saiwang of Sakastana in the Hanshu.<br />
One more quote from Trogus in Justinus’ Epitome, less puzzling in the light of the<br />
present findings and thus open for new interpretations, I like to reproduce here.<br />
(WATSON 1886: 277–278)<br />
After the death of Mithridates,<br />
king of the Parthians, Phraates<br />
his son was made king,<br />
who, having proceeded to make<br />
war upon Syria, in revenge for<br />
the attempts of Antiochus on<br />
the Parthian dominions, was<br />
recalled, by hostilities on the<br />
part of the Scythians, to defend<br />
his own country.<br />
For the Scythians, having been<br />
induced, by the offer of pay, to<br />
assist the Parthians against<br />
Antiochus, king of Syria, and<br />
not having arrived till the war<br />
was ended, were disappointed<br />
of the expected remuneration,<br />
and reproached with having<br />
brought their aid too late ...<br />
being offended at the haughty<br />
reply which they received,<br />
they began to ravage the<br />
country of the Parthians.<br />
Phraates, in consequence,<br />
marching against them ...<br />
took with him to the<br />
war a body<br />
of Greeks,<br />
who had been<br />
made prisoners in the war<br />
against Antiochus, and whom<br />
he had treated with great pride<br />
and severity ...<br />
As soon therefore as they saw<br />
the Persians giving ground,<br />
the<br />
and executed that revenge for<br />
their<br />
captivity, which they had<br />
long<br />
desired, by a sanguinary<br />
destruction<br />
of the Parthian ar-<br />
my<br />
and of king Phraates him-<br />
self.<br />
In his stead Artabanus, his<br />
uncle, was made king.<br />
The Scythians, content with<br />
Hist. Phil. Epit.42.1.1-2.5<br />
Post necem Mithridatis,<br />
Parthorum regis, Phrahates<br />
filius rex statuitur,<br />
qui cum inferre bellum<br />
in ultionem temptati ab<br />
Antiocho Parthici regni<br />
Syriae statuisse, Scytharum<br />
motibus ad<br />
sua defendenda revocatur.<br />
Namque Scythae in auxilium<br />
Parthorum adversus<br />
Antiochum, Syriae<br />
regem, mercede<br />
r Parther selbst zu<br />
sollicitati cum confecto<br />
iam bello supervenissent<br />
et calumnia tardius<br />
lati auxilii mercede<br />
fraudarentur ...<br />
Superbo responso of-<br />
fensi fines Parthorum<br />
vastare coeperunt.<br />
Igitur Phrahates, cum<br />
(SEEL 1972: 445–446)<br />
Nach dem Tode des Mithridates,<br />
des Partherkönigs, wird sein<br />
Sohn Phrahates zum König eingesetzt;<br />
als dieser zur Rache für den von<br />
Antiochos versuchten Angriff auf<br />
das Partherreich einen Krieg gegen<br />
Syrien zu unternehmen beschlossen<br />
hatte, wird er durch<br />
Unruhen bei den Skythen zurückgerufen,<br />
um dort seine eigenen<br />
Interessen zu wahren.<br />
Die Skythen nämlich waren zur<br />
Unterstützung der Parther gegen<br />
den Syrerkönig Antiochos um<br />
Lohn aufgeboten worden, trafen<br />
aber erst ein, als der Krieg bereits<br />
zu Ende war, und sollten<br />
unter dem Vorwurf, sie seien bei<br />
der Hilfeleistung allzu saumselig<br />
gewesen, um ihren Lohn geprellt<br />
werden ...<br />
Darüber beleidigt,<br />
fingen sie an,<br />
das Gebiet de<br />
verheeren.<br />
Als nun Phrahates gegen diese<br />
aufbrach ...<br />
führte (er) ein Heer von Griechen,<br />
das er im Kriege des Antiochos<br />
gefangen und inzwischen so hoffärtig<br />
wie grausam behandelt<br />
hatte, mit sich in den Kampf ...<br />
Als sie daher sahen, daß die<br />
anken<br />
geriet, gingen sie mit ihren Waffen<br />
zum Feinde über und vollstreckten<br />
die langersehnte Rache<br />
für ihre Gefangenschaft<br />
durch ein Blutbad am Partherheer<br />
und am König Phrahates<br />
selbst.<br />
An seiner Stelle wird Artabanus,<br />
ein Onkel väterlicherseits, als<br />
y went over to the enemy, Front der Parther ins W<br />
— 55 —<br />
adversus eos proficisceretur<br />
...<br />
exercitum Graecorum,<br />
quem bello Antiochi<br />
captum superbe crudeliterque<br />
tractaverat, in<br />
bellum secum ducit ...<br />
Itaque cum inclinatam<br />
Parthorum<br />
aciem vidissent,<br />
arma ad hostes<br />
transtulere et diu cupitam<br />
captivitatis ultionem<br />
exercitus Parthici<br />
et ipsius Phrahatis regis<br />
cruenta caede exse-<br />
cuti sunt.<br />
In huius locum Artabanus,<br />
patruus eius, rex<br />
substituitur.
their victory, and with having<br />
laid waste Parthia, returned<br />
home.<br />
Artabanus, making war upon<br />
the Thogarii, received a wound<br />
in the arm, of which he immediately<br />
died.<br />
He was succeeded by his son<br />
Mithridates, to whom his<br />
achievements procured the<br />
surname of Great ...<br />
He fought successfully, too, several<br />
times, against the Scythians,<br />
and avenged the injuries<br />
received from them by his forefathers<br />
...<br />
König eingesetzt,<br />
Die Skythen jedoch kehrten zufrieden<br />
mit ihrem Sieg und nach<br />
Verwüstung des Partherlandes<br />
in ihre Heimat zurück.<br />
Aber auch Artabanus, der bei einem<br />
Krieg gegen die<br />
Tocharer<br />
am Arm verwundet wurde, starb<br />
sogleich.<br />
Ihm folgte sein Sohn Mithridates,<br />
dem seine Taten den Beinamen<br />
› der Große‹ verschafften ...<br />
Aber auch mit den Skythen focht<br />
er einige Male mit Glück und<br />
wurde so zum Rächer des den<br />
Ahnen angetanen Schadens ...<br />
Scythae autem contenti<br />
victoria depopulata Parthia<br />
in patriam revertuntur.<br />
Sed et Artabanus bello<br />
Tocharis inlato in brac-<br />
chio vulneratus statim<br />
decedit.<br />
Huic Mithridates filius<br />
succedit, cui res gestae<br />
Magni cognomen dedere<br />
...<br />
Sed et cum Scythis<br />
prospere aliquotiens dimicavit<br />
ultorque iniuriae<br />
parentum fuit ...<br />
Here we read about developments<br />
which take place soon after<br />
Zhang Qian’s depar-<br />
ture. The Sakaraukai/Saiwang 塞王, Sakas or Scythians for short,<br />
conquered by the<br />
Parthians to prevent the Ruzhi<br />
月氏 from doing the same, had thus<br />
been forced to ac-<br />
knowledge Parthian suzerainty.<br />
They are soon enlisted by king Phraates<br />
II, the Arsakes<br />
Theopator Euergetes of the coi<br />
ns, as mercenaries in the latter’s crucial war against the<br />
Seleucids of Syria. The Sakas,<br />
still unsettled and restless<br />
in the<br />
narrow confines of<br />
their new “patria,” or fatherland,<br />
gladly jump to the chance to<br />
venture beyond it —<br />
but create grave problems for their Parthian overlords when the<br />
latter try to cheat<br />
them. With the help of Greek arms, they defeat the Parthians and king Phraates is<br />
slain in battle, about 127 BCE.<br />
In the end, the Sakas will in turn<br />
be defeated by king<br />
Mithridates II, ultor iniuriae p arentum, who decides to solve the Saka problem by<br />
settling the nomads for good in Drangiana — the country which eventually<br />
will become<br />
known by the name Sakastana (modern Sistan).<br />
All this we understand so much<br />
better when we realize that the later Saka-Parthian<br />
pell-mell evolved from Bactra. After 130 BCE, the Sakaraukai/Saiwang<br />
塞王, we may<br />
note down now, reigned in Western<br />
Bactria<br />
as petty princes and Parthian vassals for<br />
150 years and more.<br />
In between all of this, we are astonished to read in Justinus’ Epitome<br />
that Phraates’<br />
successor, king Artabanos,<br />
the Arsakes Theopator<br />
Nikator of the coins, resolves to de-<br />
stroy the dangerous newcomers<br />
and attacks the “Tochari.” Obviously,<br />
this<br />
would have<br />
been impossible had an independent<br />
Saka state separated the two<br />
nations. Of course,<br />
these Tochari are no longer the<br />
timid people of Daxia 大夏 (Tochara)<br />
Zhang Qian in<br />
his Report had so described an<br />
d stated that he had found them with<br />
no king nor good<br />
soldiers. These new Tochari are now firmly governed by an East<br />
Asian nomad aristo-<br />
cracy and are boasting<br />
a fearful<br />
army. The Parthians are in for a second shock. Arta-<br />
banos, too, is killed in battle — wounded by a poisonous arrow,<br />
he dies on the spot.<br />
This occurred in about 124 BCE.<br />
The incident proves that the<br />
Parthians had a direct common border with the Asia-<br />
ni/Tochari 月氏 — which ran right across former Greek Bactria<br />
from north to south.<br />
Both sides, it seems, were unable<br />
to dislodge the other for another<br />
century and a half<br />
or more. In this long time the new Ruzhi 月氏 kingdom, north<br />
of the Hindukush, is<br />
confined to Daxia/Tochara. It is in this century and a half that<br />
the 月氏 become<br />
known by the name Tochari — it is the Far Eastern Ruzhi 月 氏 who make this<br />
Central<br />
Asian name great and famous : as the designation of a country,<br />
of a people, of<br />
a language.<br />
When we can prove that the Tochari of Trogus are the Daxia 大 夏 of Zhang Qian, it<br />
then becomes apparent that these<br />
Tochari were the indigenous population<br />
of Tochara,<br />
— 56 —
well settled on the land since centuries. They spoke their own language, Tocharian.<br />
But as the Tochari were constantly<br />
ruled by foreign invaders ever since the Achae-<br />
menids,<br />
these foreigners — Persians, Macedonians, Greeks, Sakas,<br />
and finally the Ru-<br />
zhi 月氏 — necessarily left their<br />
mark on the local language to varying degrees.<br />
Such<br />
new insights suggest new answers<br />
to question we find in the<br />
following<br />
text.<br />
In 1995: 439–441, RINGE writes:<br />
Fragmentary<br />
manuscripts, found<br />
at various sites along the northern<br />
arm of the silk road<br />
in the Tarim basin and dating from perhaps the 7th through the 10th<br />
centuries of the com-<br />
mon era, preserve documents written in two Tocharian languages,<br />
called “A” and “B.”<br />
Though it is clear that Tocharian A and B are separate languages (not<br />
dialects of a single<br />
language), it is also clear that t hey are very closely related; and it follows<br />
that they must<br />
still have been a single language<br />
(called “Proto-Tocharian”) until<br />
about a millennium or so<br />
before the date of our earliest documents. Historical and comparative<br />
analysis of the To-<br />
charian language reveals the rough<br />
outlines of their prehistory, but<br />
many details remain<br />
unrecoverable ...<br />
The earlier<br />
Iranian loanwords in Tocharian seem to have been<br />
borrowed from lan-<br />
guages<br />
at an “Old Iranian” stage of development, but it is not easy to specify which Iranian<br />
language they were borrowed from; they resemble Avestan words, but that may be<br />
simply because Avestan is the most archaic Iranian language of which we have any record.<br />
The loanwords of the next oldest stratum are startlingly similar to Ossetic, the Iranian<br />
language now spoken in the Caucasus. That is especially intriguing because it is reasonably<br />
clear that Ossetic is descended from one of the Iranian languages, collectively called<br />
“Scythian,” that were spoken by nomads north of the Black Sea and in the steppes to the<br />
east during the last few centuries BCE. This suggests that the Tocharians could have been<br />
affiliated with one or another of the steppe confederations dominated by Iranian tribes at<br />
a relatively early period of their prehistory. Unfortunately that is all that can be said; neither<br />
the nature of such an affiliation nor the time and place at which it may have existed<br />
can be specified with any certainty.<br />
We are on firmer ground with the next clearly identifiable<br />
stratum of Iranian loanwords,<br />
which<br />
were borrowed from Bactrian. Bactrian was the Iranian language of the Kushåna<br />
kingdom, which flourished in Afghanistan and neighboring areas beginning in the first<br />
century of the common era. But while the fact of a relationship between the Kushåna kingdom<br />
and the Tocharians<br />
is tolerably clear, the nature of that relationship is (again) unrecoverable.<br />
If the Tocharians were Kushåna subjects, they must then have been living well<br />
to the southwest of where we find them historically; but it seems much more likely that<br />
they were outlying allies, or even trading partners, and in that case they could well have<br />
borrowed elements of Kushåna language and culture from a considerable distance. Later<br />
strata of loanwords — Sogdian, Khotanese and Sanskrit — can easily have entered the Tocharian<br />
languages after the Tocharians reached their historical home ...<br />
One year later, in 1996: 633, SIMS-WILLIAMS writes on the Kushan language :<br />
Durant les premiers siècles de notre ère, le bactrien aurait pu légitimement être compté<br />
au rang des langues les plus importantes du monde. En tant que langue des rois kouchans,<br />
il était certainement largement compris sur tout le territoire d’un vaste empire incluant<br />
l’Afghanistan actuel, le Nord de l’Inde et une partie de l’Asie centrale. Même après la chute<br />
de l’empire kouchan, le bactrien continua d’être écrit pendant au moins six siècles, comme<br />
en témoignent les inscriptions du IX<br />
iant remarks teach us that the language of the Kushans, or, more generally<br />
e siècle trouvées dans la vallée de Tochi au Pakistan,<br />
ainsi que des fragments de manuscrits bouddhistes et manichéens trouvés dans la lointaine<br />
oasis de Turfan située à l’ouest de la Chine. Ainsi, sa carrière comme langue de culture<br />
a duré près de mille ans.<br />
These brill<br />
speaking, of the Ruzhi 月氏, played a paramount role in the spread of Buddhism<br />
— similar, in fact, to the importance of the language of the Romans in the spread<br />
— 57 —
of <strong>Chris</strong>tianity. After the initial Sanskrit, the imperial language of the Ruzhi 月氏 apparently<br />
became the Vulgata of Buddhism in the centuries and regions outlined by<br />
SIMS-WILLIAMS. The only amendment, I would venture to make here, is to the name of<br />
this language : with the above new findings of the Ruzhi 月氏 being confined to Tocha-<br />
ra/Tachara/Daxia 大夏 for a decisive one century and a half, the correct name is, not<br />
Bactrian, but Tocharian. Under this<br />
name, we find this language mentioned in faraway<br />
Turfan texts — long after the last Kushan emperors had vanished.<br />
In this study, special emphasis is laid on bringing together both Eastern and Wes-<br />
tern<br />
classical sources for comparison. These sources complement each other greatly<br />
and<br />
together they help us to reconstruct the end of the Greek kingdom of Bactriana,<br />
tÁj<br />
sump£shj 'ArianÁj prÒschma, or the pride of all of Ariana, as Apollodoros of Ar-<br />
t emita calls it. His lost Partik£, or Parthian History, must have been the source for<br />
b oth Strabo and Trogus — contra Tarn (see below, p. 74). If this assumption is correct,<br />
we<br />
get the following important equation from the texts of Trogus 42 and Shiji 123:<br />
Trogus’ Reges Toc<br />
harorum Asiani = 月 氏 既 臣 大 夏 而 居 of Sima Qian.<br />
(The kings of the Tochari were of the tribe of the Asii = the Ruzhi had since subjugated the<br />
Daxia<br />
and were then living there).<br />
The parallel text in Hanshu 61 has the same sentence a bit more to the point:<br />
Trogus’ Reges Tocharorum Asiani = 月 氏 既 臣 大 夏 而 君 之 of Ban Gu.<br />
(The kings of the Tochari were of the tribe of the Asii = the Ruzhi had since subjugated the<br />
Daxia<br />
and were then ruling them).<br />
In fact, the closest parallel to the three-word-phrase by Trogus I find in six charac-<br />
ters<br />
of Hanshu 96A. 3884 by Ban Gu (quoted above already):<br />
ASIANI reges TOCHARORUM<br />
RUZHI (in the West) rulers of DAXIA<br />
月 氏<br />
( 西 ) 君 大 夏<br />
When, as I have been at pains to show, the Daxia 大夏 of the Chinese sources are<br />
the<br />
Tochari / TÒcaroi of the Western sources, and when Trogus and Strabo in the West<br />
a s well as Sima Qian and Ban Gu in the East are writing about the same historical<br />
e vents, which took place at the same time and in the same geographical area, then it<br />
follows<br />
that the rulers of the Daxia/Tochari were :<br />
the ASIANI (Trogus) = the ACIOI (Strabo) = the 月氏 (Zhang Qian).<br />
In 1922, the well-known Russian Orientalist BARTHOLD is the first Western scholar<br />
to<br />
state, originally in his mother tongue, later translated into English:<br />
( MINORSKIJ 1956: 4) BARTHOLD 1922: 5<br />
In the<br />
middle of the second century B.C. the В середине II в. до Р.Х. произошло завоева-<br />
northern, and later the southern provinces ние северных, впоследствии и южных,<br />
обла-<br />
of the<br />
Graeco-Bactrian kingdom were con- стей греко-бактрийского царства средне-ази-<br />
quered<br />
by Central Asian nomads, who in атскими кочевниками, завоевавшими потом<br />
due<br />
course subdued several Indian provin- также некоторые области Индии и известны-<br />
ces<br />
and became known in Greek literature ми в греческой литературе под общим назва-<br />
under<br />
the general appellation of Scythians. нием скифов.<br />
In<br />
the same century relations between Cen- В том же II веке начались сношения между<br />
tral<br />
Asia and China were established for Средней Азией и Kитаем; падение греко-бак-<br />
the<br />
first time. The fall of the Graeco-Bacтрийского царства – первое событие мировой<br />
trian kingdom is the first event<br />
of world истории, о котором говорят как западные<br />
history<br />
recorded both in Western (Greek) (греческие), так и дальневосточные (китай-<br />
and Far-Eastern (Chinese) sources.<br />
ские) источники.<br />
— 58 —
Well said. It is, however, not a Greek, but a Roman source which we have to combine<br />
with the Chinese texts: Trogus with Sima Qian / Ban Gu. The fact that Greek and<br />
Latin as well as Chinese historians had recorded the fall of the Greek kingdom in Bactria<br />
has been known in the West since two generations or longer. It is therefore a<br />
curious fact that no one so far ever tried to combine the statement by Trogus with that<br />
by Ban Gu in order to get the very simple and very obvious equation Asiani = 月氏.<br />
Actually, I gladly correct myself: there is one who did. HERZFELD, 1931: 26–27, writes:<br />
Die beiden abendländischen Nachrichten über das Ende des graeco-bactrischen Reichs<br />
sind 1. Justin, Trog. Pomp. prol. XLI:<br />
qua re pugnantes [recte: quo regnante] Scythicae gentes Saraucae et Asiani Bactra<br />
occupavere et Sogdianos.<br />
Dazu prol. XLII:<br />
res Scythicae: reges Thocarorum Asiani interitusque Saraucarum.<br />
Dies Scythae bedeutet natürlich nicht sak-Sakå, sondern asiatische Nomaden. Nach<br />
de m Parallelismus der Stelle besetzen die Saraucae Bactra, die Asiani Sogdiana.<br />
Sogdiana<br />
haben aber in eben jenen Jahren nach ²ang-k’ien die ýuÿt-šï besetzt.<br />
Danach würden Asiani und ýuÿt- šï gleich sein.<br />
Die 2. Stelle ist Strabon XI, C 511:<br />
malista de gnwrimoi gegonasi twn nomadwn oƒ touj `Ellhnaj afelomenoi thn Baktrianhn,<br />
Asioi kai Pasianoi kai Tocaroi kai Sakarau tou Iaxartou<br />
th<br />
tsprechen bei Ptolemaios VII, 12 die Paskai, Iatioi, Toca<br />
, das eine Aussprache wie<br />
uår-śi zuläßt, die Selbstbe SIEG, 1918: 560 ff. Auf<br />
jeden Fall machen diese Z er von den ýuÿt-šï unmöglich.<br />
Justin’s “reges Königsgeschlecht der<br />
Asiani-Asioi-Iatioi-ýuÿt-šï an sich streng an den<br />
Wor<br />
oi. This name<br />
“år emselves: “die<br />
Sel<br />
and the Eastern<br />
transcription of the second: a(r)si i årÝi (a)ruzhi 月氏. In this, the original årÝi<br />
ii and ruzhi 月氏 — than<br />
a<br />
an<br />
le<br />
b<br />
, b<br />
12<br />
er them;<br />
ia<br />
FE<br />
a<br />
W<br />
the Chine le exception, I hasten to<br />
add: HIRTH, in 1917, added a handwritten edition of Shiji 123 to his pioneering transla-<br />
kai / loi,<br />
Ðrmhqentej apo thj peraiaj<br />
j kat¦ Sakaj kai Sogdianouj, ¹n kateicon Sakai.<br />
Dieser Gruppe von Nomaden en<br />
roi und Augaloi ... Diese Zusammenhänge erheben die von F.W.K. MÜLLER 1918: 566 ff.<br />
angedeutete Vermutung zur Wahrscheinlichkeit, daß chin. ýuÿt-šï<br />
zeichnung der Tocrï: årÝi wiedergibt, vgl.<br />
usammenh änge eine Trennung der Tochar<br />
Thocarorum Asiani“ besagt, daß das<br />
über die Tocharer herrschte ... Hält m<br />
tlaut der kurzen griechischen und chinesischen Nachrichten, so ist der Sachverhalt<br />
ganz klar. Noch vor 160 müssen die ýuÿt-šï-årÝi-Asioi vor den wu-sun aus Farghåna<br />
weichen, aus dem sie zuvor die sak vertrieben haben. Sie besetzen das südliche Sogdiana,<br />
wo ²ang-k’ien sie i. J. 127 trifft. Die mitgewanderten Saraucae sitzen in dem unterworfenen<br />
Bactria = tai-hia. Das bedeutet das Ende des graeco-bactrischen Reichs ...<br />
As early as 1931, HERZFELD has the equation ýuÿt–šï = årÝi = Asi<br />
Ýi” seems to come closest to how the Ruzhi 月氏 may have called th<br />
bstbezeichnung der Tocrï” (here to be understood as: the self-appellation of the<br />
kings of the Tochari). The first and the third name are the Western<br />
is closer to both as<br />
asii is to ruzhi 月氏.<br />
Why was this ingenious equation not ccepted ? One raison may be that HERZ-<br />
FELD’s intelligent discovery is lost in too m y gross mistakes:<br />
— the Asiani are not a dynasty, but a peop ;<br />
— they were not displaced from Ferghana, ut from the Ili River;<br />
— they did not occupy southern Sogdiana ut the whole of Sogdiana;<br />
— Zhang Qian did not reach the Asiani in 7, but in 129 BCE;<br />
— the Sa(ca)raucae did not migrate togeth with the Asiani,<br />
but always ahead of<br />
— and finally: ›tai-hia‹ (Daxia) is not Bactr , but Tochara.<br />
Another reason surely was that HERZ LD is unable to substantiate the Chinese<br />
sources by quoting the relevant passages verbatim<br />
— original text with translations —,<br />
i.e. as emphatically as he does quote the L tin and Greek sources. And this, of course,<br />
was so because, from BROSSET in 1828 to ATSON in 1993, all Western translations of<br />
Shiji 123 were publisheed without se text. With one so<br />
— 59 —
tion.<br />
The whole would have been perfect had he arranged translation and text in parallel<br />
columns — and the hanzi, or Chinese characters, two times larger. Any Chinese<br />
text should be given as much space as is allotted to the translation: this usually means<br />
that a Chinese character, representing a full word, should be printed about twice as<br />
large as a letter of the Western alphabet.<br />
Just like in HERZFELD’s long article, we can find innumerous instances in other<br />
Western<br />
literature where Greek and Latin historical sources are very carefully com-<br />
pared<br />
— resulting for instance in the equation Asiani = ”Asioi. But amongst this good<br />
number<br />
of authors, there is not one who includes the Chinese historical sources ad-<br />
equately,<br />
i.e. Sima Qian and Ban Gu as prominently as Trogus and Strabo.<br />
BAILEY, 1936: 912, inserts the following telling note in his text:<br />
Speculations on these ”Asioi Asiani are at present of little use. We cannot be sure from<br />
the Greek and Latin texts whether the Asiani were kings of the Tochari<br />
before or after their<br />
settlement<br />
in Tokhåristån.<br />
Here BAILEY subscribes to the equation Asiani = ”Asioi; he also knows that the<br />
Asiani<br />
settled in Tocharistan — and not in Bactria: so one is inclined to infer from<br />
h is simple statement. But a few pages before, 1936:<br />
887, the author writes:<br />
Tokhåristån ... the capital was Balkh ... It was therefore the old Bactria. The evidence is<br />
furnished by Arabic, Armenian, Tibetan and Chinese sources. It is now not disputed.<br />
If BAILEY had known the Chinese sources as well as he did the Greek and Latin<br />
tex ts, he would have been assured by Zhang Qian apud Sima Qian that the Ruzhi 月氏<br />
no<br />
doubt became the rulers of the Daxia 大夏 after they had settled in the country of<br />
t hese Daxia, and surely not before. And if the same eminent Iranist had been familiar<br />
w ith the intricacies of the ways in which the ancient Chinese transcribed foreign names,<br />
h e quickly would have jumped to the conclusion that the Ruzhi 月氏 were the Asiani,<br />
or<br />
”Asioi, and the country of the Daxia 大夏 Tochara, the later Tocharistan. He might<br />
then<br />
have pondered the question whether Lanshi city 藍市城, said to be the capital of<br />
Daxia,<br />
could really be Bactra, or Balkh, as the latter was clearly located outside Tocha-<br />
ra/Tokhåristån.<br />
Phonetically it is in any case closer to (Da)rapsa, mentioned by Strabo<br />
to<br />
be one of the three largest and best-known cities of Bactriana (see below, p. 78).<br />
The earliest Histories of Han China, the Shiji and the Hanshu, exist since about two<br />
thousand years. They have been translated into Western languages since close to two<br />
hundred<br />
years. To make proper use of these texts from a Western point of view —<br />
does this still involve bridging a gap too wide for a single individual ?<br />
With the above clarifications, the next important step will be to understand that it<br />
was the policy of the Ruzhi 月氏 = Asii / Asiani to hide behind the peoples they conquered<br />
— or should I say: it was there policy to identify themselves with the peoples<br />
they conquered. As these subjugated nations, one after the other, were superior not<br />
only<br />
in numbers, but first and foremost in the sophistication of their culture, the 月氏<br />
were shrewd enough not to enforce their own coarse cultural background<br />
upon their<br />
subjects. In the contrary: they chose to amalgamate<br />
with them and take over what sophistication<br />
they encountered in the West. In one word: the Far Eastern 月氏, who<br />
had been neighbors of ancient China from times immemorial, in Central<br />
Asia quickly<br />
became the new, or pseudo-, Tochari. This was their rather intelligent<br />
way to slip into<br />
a Western identity. This transformation has not only baffled and confused modern research<br />
on the Ruzhi 月氏 for a long time, this ingenious policy<br />
has in fact mislead peoples<br />
of their own times as well.<br />
After their long, intermittent stop-and-go migration, at the beginning of which the<br />
Ruzhi 月氏 had no clear notion where it would end, this mongoloid nation of cattle<br />
and horse breeders — as well as accomplished traders — finally showed up in a totally<br />
new world. They had crossed from one self-centered Oikumenê into another. Before<br />
the 月氏, no nation in antiquity has done this. To be sure, no nation has achieved this<br />
— 60 —
in such an abrupt way. In the Western Oikumenê the 月氏 surely looked different, if<br />
not downright odd, and they spoke a language unintelligible for anyone — except maybe<br />
Zhang Qian who must have been fluent, not only in Chinese, but also in the<br />
language of the Xiongnu 匈奴, the one-time close neighbors of the 月氏. The language<br />
of the Xiongnu may have been close enough to that of the 月氏 for the two peoples to<br />
understand<br />
each other fairly well. The original language of the 月氏, then, was everything<br />
but Indo-European.<br />
When in 1971, at age 31, I stepped from a Soviet ship onto Japanese soil in Yokohama<br />
横浜, I became a six-year-old illiterate boy on the spot: it was a weird experience<br />
which I shall never forget. For the Ruzhi 月氏, their culture shock first in Sogdiana,<br />
then in Bactria, must have been immensely greater. But they liked<br />
very much what<br />
they<br />
saw in civilized Central Asia in general, and south of the Hissar Mountains in par-<br />
t icular — as Zhang Qian noticed to his great chagrin. And of course, the 月氏 liked the<br />
fact<br />
that they were now the masters of all these developed regions in this New World.<br />
When they had finally conquered<br />
Daxia 大夏 (Tochara) in 130/129 BCE and were about<br />
to settle in that land, they considered it greatly superior to any place of the various<br />
lands they had lived in since evacuating their old pasture grounds in the Hexi Corridor<br />
(modern Gansu) around 165 BCE. Daxia/Tochara was populous, well developed,<br />
had<br />
ple nty of land under the plough; it also had great cities with markets supplying the<br />
most luxurious goods. In the upheavals of the past decades, the Daxia/Tochari had<br />
lost<br />
the last two of their former rulers: first the Greeks, their colonial masters since Alexander’s<br />
conquests (some two hundred years previous), and after them the Sakaraukai/Saiwang,<br />
who had been their kings for less than the span of a generation.<br />
The Ruzhi 月氏 were now quickly filling the regal void in Daxia/Tochara. It is the<br />
月氏 who made the name Tochari great and famous — deliberately becoming Tochari<br />
after the conquest of Tochara. The strangers from the Far East were wise enough to<br />
adopt the local language — they could hardly do anything else —, and this local<br />
language was not Greek, but the language of the Tochari. Hence, the proper name for<br />
that language is Tocharian. Together with the Græco-Bactrian kingdom the name Bactria<br />
had disappeared. Only later Greek authors like Ammianus Marcellinus (or before<br />
him the unknown author of the Periplus), out of habit, go on to call the people of Tochara<br />
under their Asiani/Ruzhi 月氏 kings Bactrians. As a matter of fact, these authors<br />
were perfectly correct, for when the unnamed Greek merchant wrote down his<br />
trader’s guidebook in the Alexandria of Egypt, c. 50 CE, the Ruzhi 月氏 had just recently<br />
— finally — conquered all of former Greek Bactria — and the feat had earned<br />
them the epithet “warlike.” A good one hundred years later, however, and in the same<br />
Alexandria, Ptolemy splashes the name TÒcaroi in a number of variants all over his<br />
Northwest Indian and Central Asian map. The Asiani/ÅrÝi/Ruzhi have become Tochari/TÒcaroi/Tuchåra;<br />
they are called wealthy and powerful by any author in East and<br />
West from now on.<br />
The implications of this should be clear. It shows that HENNING, for one, is mistaken<br />
when in 1960: 47 he writes:<br />
... the genuine TÒcaroi, who, coming from Kan-su, conquered Bactria in the second<br />
century B.C. and caused that country to be renamed. The invaders, as is often the case,<br />
adopted the native language in the course of time.<br />
With his second statement, HENNING is clearly contradicting his first. Either the Ruzhi<br />
月氏 were the true TÒcaroi and brought their Tocharian language with them<br />
which they then enforced upon the people they conquered north and south of the<br />
upper<br />
Oxus. Or they adopted the native language, i.e. the language of the people they<br />
conquered, but then they themselves cannot have been the genuine TÒcaroi. For our<br />
lone trusted eyewitness, the Chinese ambassador Zhang Qian, tells us in his Report,<br />
epitomized by Sima Tan and Sima Qian in Shiji 123, that the Ruzhi 月氏 conquered<br />
Daxia 大夏 — which is the Chinese transcription, not of Bactria, but of Tochara. This<br />
— 61 —
all-important correction of a long-standing mistake is the result of this careful study of<br />
all relevant texts in the Chinese Standard Histories. Had HENNING been aware of this<br />
correction, he would have grasped himself that something was essentially wrong with<br />
his above statements.<br />
Incidently: as we will see below (p. 91), the oldest extant codex of Strabo’s Geography<br />
has, not TÒcaroi, but TACAROI. This seems to be the older version of this ethnicon.<br />
It is closely paralleled by the Chinese transcription Daxia 大夏. The later name<br />
TÒcaroi<br />
is given in the Chinese texts as Tuhuoluo (Tu-ho-lo) 吐火羅 and a number<br />
of variants. I wonder: do we hear about the Tachari/Tochari from any classical writers<br />
before 129 BCE ? Such early sources would be of great help to clarify who the genuine<br />
Tochari were and where they lived in the third and second century BCE. Before 129<br />
BCE, the Tochari must not be confounded with the Ruzhi 月氏.<br />
Above, I have quoted one important difference in one particular paragraph of Hanshu<br />
61 when compared with the parallel, i.e. the original, sentence in Shiji 123. It may<br />
be helpful, therefore, to reproduce the opening paragraphs of both chapters here,<br />
marking the instances where they differ by blank spaces or bold characters.<br />
Shiji 123. 3157–3159<br />
(1) 大 宛 之 跡 見 自 張 騫<br />
(2) 張 騫 漢 中 人<br />
(3) 建 元 中 為 郎<br />
(4)<br />
是 時 天 子 問 匈 奴 降 者<br />
皆 言 匈 奴 破 月 氏 王 以<br />
其 頭 為 飲 器<br />
(5) 月 氏 遁 逃 而 常 怨 仇 匈<br />
奴 無 與 共 擊 之<br />
(6) 漢 方 欲 事 滅 胡 聞 此 言<br />
因 欲 通 使<br />
(7) 道 必 更 匈 奴 中 乃 募 能<br />
使 者<br />
(8) 騫 以 郎 應 募 使 月 氏 與<br />
堂 邑 氏 ( 故 ) 胡 奴 甘<br />
父 俱 出 隴 西<br />
(9) 經 匈 奴 匈 奴 得 之 傳 詣<br />
單 于<br />
(10)<br />
單 于 留 之 曰<br />
(11) 月 氏 在 吾 北 漢 何 以 得<br />
往 使 吾 欲 使 越 漢 肯 聽<br />
我 乎<br />
(12) 留 騫 十 餘 歲 與 妻 有 子<br />
Hanshu 61. 2687–2689<br />
(1)<br />
— 62 —<br />
(2) 張 騫 漢 中 人 也<br />
(3) 建 元 中 為 郎<br />
(4) 時 匈 奴 降 者<br />
言 匈 奴 破 月 氏 王 以<br />
其 頭 為 飲 器<br />
(5) 月 氏 遁 而 怨 匈<br />
奴 無 與 共 擊 之<br />
(6) 漢 方 欲 事 滅 胡 聞 此 言<br />
欲 通 使<br />
(7) 道 必 更 匈 奴 中 乃 募 能<br />
使 者<br />
(8) 騫 以 郎 應 募 使 月 氏 與<br />
堂 邑 氏 奴 甘<br />
父 俱 出 隴 西<br />
(9) 徑 匈 奴 匈 奴 得 之 傳 詣<br />
單 于<br />
(10) 單 于 曰<br />
(11) 月 氏 在 吾 北 漢 何 以 得<br />
往 使 吾 欲 使 越 漢 肯 聽<br />
我 乎<br />
(12) 留 騫 十 餘 歲 予 妻 有 子
(13) 然 騫 持 漢 節 不 失<br />
(14) 居 匈 奴 中 益 寬 騫 因 與<br />
其 屬 亡 鄉 月 氏 西 走 數<br />
十 日 至 大 宛<br />
(15) 大 宛 聞 漢 之 饒 財 欲 通<br />
不 得 見 騫 喜 問 曰<br />
(16) 若 欲 何 之<br />
(17)<br />
騫 曰<br />
(18) 為 漢 使 月 氏 而 為 匈 奴<br />
所 閉 道<br />
(19) 今 亡 唯 王 使 人 導 送 我<br />
(20) 誠 得 至 反 漢 漢 之 賂 遺<br />
王 財 物 不 可 勝 言<br />
(21) 大 宛 以 為 然 遣 騫 為 發<br />
導 繹 抵 康 居<br />
(22) 康 居 傳 致 大 月 氏<br />
(23) 大 月 氏 王 已 為 胡 所 殺<br />
立 其 太 子 為 王 既 臣 大<br />
夏 而 居<br />
(24) 地 肥 饒 少 寇 志 安 樂 又<br />
自 以 遠 漢 殊 無 報 胡<br />
之 心<br />
(25) 騫 從 月 氏 至 大 夏 竟 不<br />
能 得 月 氏 要 領<br />
(26) 留 歲 餘 還 並 南 山 欲 從<br />
羌 中 歸 復 為 匈 奴 所 得<br />
(27) 留 歲 餘 單 于 死 左 谷 蠡<br />
王 攻 其 太 子 自 立 國 內<br />
亂 騫 與 胡 妻 及 堂 邑 父<br />
俱 亡 歸 漢<br />
(28) 漢 拜 騫 為 太 中 大 夫 堂<br />
邑 父 為 奉 使 君<br />
(13) 然 騫 持 漢 節 不 失<br />
(14) 居 匈 奴 西 騫 因 與<br />
其 屬 亡 鄉 月 氏 西 走 數<br />
十 日 至 大 宛<br />
(15) 大 宛 聞 漢 之 饒 財 欲 通<br />
不 得 見 騫 喜 問<br />
(16) 欲 何 之<br />
(17) 騫 曰<br />
(18) 為 漢 使 月 氏 而 為 匈 奴<br />
所 閉 道<br />
(19) 今 亡 唯 王 使 人 道 送 我<br />
(20) 誠 得 至 反 漢 漢 之 賂 遺<br />
王 財 物 不 可 勝 言<br />
(21) 大 宛 以 為 然 遣 騫 為 發<br />
譯 道 抵 康 居<br />
(2 2) 康 居 傳 致 大 月 氏<br />
(23) 大 月 氏 王 已 為 胡 所 殺<br />
立 其 夫 人 為 王 既 臣 大<br />
夏 而 君 之<br />
(24) 地 肥 饒 少 寇 志 安 樂 又<br />
自 以 遠 遠 漢 殊 無 報 胡<br />
之 心<br />
(25) 騫 從 月 氏 至 大 夏 竟 不<br />
能 得 月 氏 要 領<br />
(26) 留 歲 餘 還 並 南 山 欲 從<br />
羌 中 歸 復 為 匈 奴 所 得<br />
(27) 留 歲 餘 單 于 死<br />
(28)<br />
— 63 —<br />
國 內<br />
堂 邑 父<br />
亂 騫 與 胡 妻 及<br />
俱 亡 歸 漢<br />
拜 騫 太 中 大 夫 堂<br />
邑 父 為 奉 使 君
Ban Gu is showing great respect<br />
for his a dmired predecessor. However, he is far<br />
from copying the older text verbatim<br />
as has often been claimed. Instead, Ban Gu is<br />
carefully editing Sima Qian — or Sima Tan<br />
who originally may have written this im-<br />
porta nt chapter, later to be extended by his son. In the quoted text Ban Gu :<br />
— deletes 12 words (Chinese characters) which<br />
he considers unnecessary;<br />
— replaces 5 words by similar<br />
ones;<br />
— adds 2 words which do not change the meaning;<br />
— drops data in four instances (considered irrelevant,<br />
but of value to us);<br />
— and provides us in three instances<br />
with valuable<br />
emendations.<br />
The correction in phrase (14) has been<br />
discussed above (p. 22); the one in (21)<br />
is of little<br />
importance; the first one<br />
in (23) is only half the truth as Ban Gu says that, when the<br />
king of the Ruzhi 月氏 had been slain by the Xiongnu, his widow the queen took<br />
over — whereas Sima Qian had said that the crown prince followed his father. The full<br />
truth is likely to be that the queen took over<br />
in 165 BCE from her dead husband and<br />
that her son, the crown prince, had become king some time before the 月氏 subjugat-<br />
ed th e Daxia in 130/129<br />
BCE — a full generation later.<br />
The second correction in phrase (23) is the im portant one which I have cited above<br />
( p. 58). Here Ban Gu replaces the one word 居 by the two words 君之 and thereby<br />
is at pains here to clarify what Sima Qian ha d written. This clarification is important.<br />
For Sima Qian’s text translates<br />
.. . and (the 月氏 then) lived there (i.e. in Daxia) 居,<br />
whereas Ban Gu gives us a valuable interpre<br />
tation of this somewhat vague statement<br />
by Sima Qian in that his text<br />
pointedly reads:<br />
... and (the 月氏 then) ruled over them 君之 .<br />
In other words, after they had conquered Daxia 大夏 (Tochara), the 月氏 were not<br />
s imply living amongst the Tochari (Shiji), bu t in fact ruled over them (Hanshu). This<br />
is ex actly what in imperial Rome Trogus — writ ing after Sima Qian, but long before<br />
Ban Gu — had formulated in just three terse words:<br />
... reges Tocharorum Asiani. The (Far Eastern) Asiani ( = 月氏 became)<br />
the kings of the<br />
(Central Asian)<br />
Tochari.<br />
This is how Trogus explained in his “Summa<br />
ry” (prologus) what he was going to<br />
tell his readers at greater length in chapter<br />
42 o f his History — but the Epitome of<br />
Justinus has left<br />
us not one word of it. That of Trogus’ great<br />
work only his Prologi<br />
have come down to us is a tremendous loss,<br />
inde ed. As I have said already, it may just<br />
have been out of habit that the unknown Gree<br />
k author of the Periplus gives preference<br />
to the appellation Bactria, the time-honored nam e for the region between the Hissar<br />
and the Hindukush, when speaking of the Asiani/Ruzhi<br />
月氏. Towards the end of his<br />
l ifetime, in about the mid-first century CE,<br />
th is author writes down what he had seen,<br />
heard and experienced in a long life as a merchan t in a profitable, ocean-going trade in<br />
luxury goods — an invaluable source of first-hand<br />
information for us:<br />
( FABRICIUS 1883: 89)<br />
Es wohnen<br />
aber bei Barygaza<br />
in dem<br />
Binnenlande mehrere<br />
Völker<br />
— das der Arattier, der<br />
Arachusier, Gandaräer und<br />
das von Poklais, in welchem<br />
Bukephalos<br />
Alexandreia liegt.<br />
Und oberhalb dieser ist das<br />
sehr kriegerische Volk der Bak-<br />
trianen, die unter einem eigenen<br />
Könige stehen.<br />
(CASSON 1989:<br />
81)<br />
Periplus 47<br />
Inland behind<br />
Barygaza 'Ep…keitai d kat¦ [nè]tou<br />
there are numerous<br />
peo- tÁj Barug£zhj mesoge aj<br />
ples: the Aratrioi,<br />
Arachusi<br />
ple…ona œqnh, tÒ te tîn 'Ara-<br />
oi, Gandaraioi, and thepeotr…wn kaˆ ['A]racous[…]wn kaˆ<br />
ples of Proklais, in whose<br />
Gandara…wn kaˆ tÁj Proarea<br />
Bukephalos<br />
Alexankl[a] doj, n oŒj ¹ Boukšfa-<br />
dreia is located.<br />
loj 'Alex£ndreia.<br />
And beyond these is<br />
a very Kaˆ toÚtwn p£nw<br />
macimè-<br />
warlike people, the Bactritaton œqnoj Baktrianîn, ØpÕ<br />
ans, under a king ... basilša Ôntwn ‡dion (tÒpon).<br />
— 64 —
Here, we seem to be getting a fleeting glimpse of the later 月氏 viceroy-ships —<br />
now reduced from eight to five — which had just been united by one of these five viceroys.<br />
He had subsequently established himself as king and had thus founded the sec-<br />
ond known Ruzhi 月氏 dynasty, that of the Kushan 貴霜: Kujula Kadphises 丘就卻.<br />
For this event, the terminus post quem is the end of the Former Han Dynasty,<br />
or the<br />
year 26 CE. This must be so, because the Hanshu knows much about these five<br />
viceroys, there called xihou 翎侯, but nothing about<br />
their unification into one. The<br />
story of this unification — culminating in the epoqual creation of a new Ruzhi 月氏<br />
kingdom — is first narrated in the Hou Hanshu and thus happened (rather early) in<br />
the time of the Later Han.<br />
Writing in Latin, the Greek historian Ammianus Marcellinus, in looking back,<br />
reports on the ancient Græco-Bactrians and the more recent Ruzhi 月氏 :<br />
(ROLFE 1940: 379–381)<br />
The lands next to these the<br />
Bactriani possess, a nation<br />
formerly warlike and very<br />
powerful, and always at odds<br />
with the Persians, until they<br />
reduced all the peoples about<br />
them to submission and incorporated<br />
them under their<br />
own name.<br />
In ancient times they were<br />
ruled by kings who were for-<br />
midable<br />
even to Arsaces.<br />
Many parts of this land, like<br />
Margiana, are widely separated<br />
from the coast, but rich<br />
in vegetation; and the herds<br />
which graze on their plains<br />
and mountains are thickset,<br />
with strong<br />
limbs, as appears<br />
from the camels brought from<br />
there by Mithridates and<br />
seen for the first time by the<br />
Romans at the siege of Cyzicus<br />
[74 BCE].<br />
Several peoples are subject<br />
to these same Bactrians, notably<br />
the Tochari.<br />
(VEH 1974: 415–416)<br />
Die angrenzenden Gebiete besitzen<br />
die Baktrianer, früher eine<br />
kriegerische und sehr mächtige<br />
Nation, dabei immer mit<br />
den Persern verfeindet, bevor<br />
diese [Baktrianer] alle umliegenden<br />
Völkerschaften<br />
unter ihre<br />
Herrschaft brachten und ihrem<br />
Namen einverleibten.<br />
In alten Zeiten wurde<br />
Baktrien<br />
von Königen regiert, die<br />
sogar<br />
einem Arsakes Furcht einjagten.<br />
Der Hauptteil des Gebietes ist<br />
ebenso wie Margiana weit von<br />
den Küsten entfernt, der Boden<br />
jedoch reich an Ertrag, und<br />
das<br />
Vieh,<br />
das dort auf Ebenen und in<br />
Bergen weidet, besitzt stattliche<br />
und kräftige Glieder, wie die Kamele<br />
bestätigen, welche Mithridates<br />
von hier kommen ließ und<br />
die Römer bei der Belagerung<br />
von Kyzikos zum ersten Male zu<br />
sehen erhielten.<br />
Eben diesen Baktrianern sind<br />
zahlreiche Völkerschaften untertan,<br />
insbesondere die Tocharer.<br />
Res Gestae 23. 6. 55–57<br />
Proximos his limites possident<br />
Bactriani, natio an-<br />
tehac bellatrix et potentissima.<br />
Persisque semper<br />
infesta, antequam circumsitos<br />
populos omnes ad<br />
dicionem gentilitatemque<br />
traheret nominis sui,<br />
Quam rexere veteribus<br />
saeculis etiam Arsaci formidabiles<br />
reges.<br />
Eius pleraeque partes ita<br />
ut Margiana procul a litoribus<br />
sunt disparatae, sed<br />
humi gignentium fertiles,<br />
et pecus, quod illic per<br />
campestria loca vescitur<br />
et montana, membris est<br />
magnis compactum et validis,<br />
ut indicio sunt cameli<br />
a Mithridate exinde<br />
perducti et primitus in obsidione<br />
Cyzicena visi Romanis.<br />
Gentes isdem Bactrianis<br />
oboediunt plures, quas exsuperant<br />
Tochari.<br />
Here, we see the Asii/Asiani = 月氏, who had so long been a nation of nomads, well<br />
settled in their new lands, old Bactria. They are called Bactrians, warlike and very<br />
powerful. In the fourth centur y CE, Ammianus reminds us that in a ncient times —<br />
outside the scope of his History<br />
— the (Græco-) Bactrian kings<br />
had been feared by the<br />
neighboring Parthian Arsacids and that now, much closer<br />
to his own times, the Ruzhi<br />
月氏, or new Bactrians, had for<br />
centuries been the kings of<br />
the Tocharians.<br />
Less than a century before the advent of the 月氏, the<br />
description warlike and<br />
powerful would have been appropriate<br />
for the Bactrian Greeks<br />
under a Euthydemos,<br />
Demetrios, Eucratides, called “wicked but valiant Yavanas”<br />
in the Indian Yugapurå‡a<br />
(22–23) — or even under a Menandros,<br />
called “a good kin g of the Bactrians”<br />
by Plu-<br />
tarchos (Moralia 281 D–E). But<br />
these valiant, forlorn, far-away<br />
Bactrian Greeks had<br />
been deprived of their great and prosperous kingdom by<br />
nomadic hordes, storming<br />
into their civilized world from the wide steppes of the no rth. In the last years of the<br />
— 65 —
third<br />
century BCE, Euthydemos had warned Antiochos III, the Great, that these nomadic<br />
peoples, called Skythai by the Greeks and Sakai by the Achaemenids according<br />
to Herodotos, were a real danger to his kingdom (Polybios 11.34. 4–5). But when these<br />
feared Sakai nomads finally fell upon the Bactrian Greeks, in the time of Eucratides, it<br />
was so because they were pushed by a still more powerful nomadic people that had<br />
appeared out of nowhere and had carried all before them. Without the Chinese<br />
sources we would be at a total loss as to where this nation of nomads had come from.<br />
In another, to the Western classic historians as yet unknown world, they had been the<br />
neighbors of archaic Chinese kingdoms from times immemorial. Inside the Eastern Oikumenê<br />
the Ruzhi 月氏, under<br />
a number of names, had always been well known.<br />
In the West, the once odd-looking strangers from another world had been at great<br />
pains to assimilate — but also to dominate. They had become the rulers of a good num-<br />
ber of Central and South<br />
Asian peoples. In the intervening<br />
cen turies, the Asii/As iani =<br />
月氏 had not just conquered,<br />
first Tochara and much<br />
later the<br />
rest of Bactria, but also<br />
the Kabul and Indus Valleys and had eventually extended their<br />
empire far beyond<br />
these limits to the Gangetic Plains<br />
and the Erythraean Sea. Now,<br />
in the fourth century<br />
CE and by the Greek historian<br />
Ammianus, they are not called either by their original<br />
Eastern name Asii/ÅrÝi/Ruzhi,<br />
nor are they named new Tocharians,<br />
nor new Indo-<br />
Scythians. Instead, they are here<br />
called the new Bactrians. When<br />
at long last they had<br />
conquered the whole of Bactria,<br />
the 月氏, for the first time, had felt at home in the<br />
West. Uprooted from the Hexi,<br />
evicted from the Ili, establishing themselves on the river<br />
Polytimetos (modern Zarafshan)<br />
or the wider region of Samarkand<br />
in Sogdiana, the<br />
Ruzhi 月氏 had finally settled<br />
down and become civilized<br />
Westerners<br />
in the famous<br />
lands between the Hissar Mountains<br />
and the Hindukush. Here<br />
they became the new<br />
Bactrians, worthy successors to the old Bactrians, the Greeks.<br />
Later still, in the seventh<br />
or eighth century, we get another<br />
faint echo, now of the<br />
original ethnonyms Asii/Asiani<br />
= 月氏 and Tochari = 大夏 — in the same, already fa-<br />
miliar, relationship of rulers to<br />
ruled. In the Old-Uighur texts we are told that the ÅrÝi<br />
had been the kings of the Toχrϊ.<br />
As these Toχrϊ had readily been<br />
equated with the To-<br />
chari, their kings, the ÅrÝi, were<br />
to be identified with the Asii/Asiani.<br />
F.W.K. MÜLLER, 1918: 579, was<br />
among the first to do so:<br />
Zu diesem Erklärungsversuch<br />
des Namens årÝi durch ”ACIOI, Asiani<br />
würde auch die No-<br />
tiz des Trogus »reges Thocarorum<br />
Asiani« gut passen, denn sie würde<br />
bedeuten, daß das<br />
Volk »Tocharer«, die Herrscherschicht<br />
»årÝi« hieß.<br />
KONOW, 1932: 2–3, assisted:<br />
We know now that another Indo-European, but not Iranian, language was called Tokharian<br />
by the Uigurs ... It is true that that language is not called Tokharian<br />
in the published<br />
texts, but ÅrÝi, and the late F.W.K.<br />
MÜLLER was certainly right in maintaining that ÅrÝi<br />
must be the same name as ”Asioi<br />
and Asiani, the »reges Thocarorum«<br />
according to Trogus.<br />
It might therefore be maintained ... that the Uigur designation is due<br />
to the fact that the<br />
texts<br />
written in the language had come from the country of the Tokharians. The ÅrÝi may<br />
have come as conquerors from elsewhere.<br />
And again, in 1934: 7:<br />
It therefore seems probable that ÅrÝi-Toχri was the language of the Asioi-Yüe–chi who<br />
conquered the Tocharians-Ta–hia in the second century B.C.<br />
In his epoch-making book, 1938: 283–296, TARN has yet more to say about Zhang<br />
Qian and some of his findings are well worth quoting and discussing here:<br />
I have said that Chang-k’ien is quite clear that the conquest of the Ta-hia (Bactria proper)<br />
was the work of the Yueh-chi. But almost every modern writer known to me attributes<br />
that conquest to “Sacas” driven southward by the Yueh-chi, who are supposed to have<br />
— 66 —
occupied the country until the Yue-chi expelled or subdued them. Chang-k’ien, who was<br />
there, knows nothing about this ...<br />
Certainly Strabo says that the Sacas occupied Bactria (XI, 511), but the most cursory perusal<br />
of the context shows that throughout the whole section he is talking, not of the second<br />
century B.C., but of ... the seventh century ...<br />
An attempt has indeed been made since the theory was started to found the supposed<br />
Saca conquest of Greek Bactria a little more plausible by citing a passage in Trogus, but<br />
as a matter of Latin Trogus’ text will not bear the interpretation put upon it (prol. XLI: “Saraucae<br />
et Asiani Bactra occupavere et Sogdianos” ... to mean that the Saraucae occupied<br />
Bactria and the Asiani Sogdiana: a Latin writer who meant this would have said so, Trogus’<br />
sentence, from its form, can only be a perfectly general statement). There is in fact no<br />
reason of any kind for thinking that Chang-k’ien was mistaken (the movements of the Saiwang<br />
have been already dealt with); and whatever happened to outlying parts of the Bactrian<br />
kingdom, the supposed Saca conquest of Greek Bactria proper is a myth.<br />
It is time to consider the Greek writers. Apollodorus attributes the conquest of the Bactrian<br />
kingdom to four nomad peoples, Asii, Pasiani, Tochari, and Sacarauli; “Trogus’<br />
source” formally attributes it to two, Asiani and Saraucae (Saraucae for MSS Sarancae is<br />
certain), though subsequently he mentions the Tochari. Taking “Trogus’ source” first, one<br />
of his two names must represent Chang-k’ien’s Yueh-chi; and as the Saraucae (Sacaraucae),<br />
of whom something is known, are out of the question, the Yueh-chi are the Asiani. The<br />
form Asiani is an (Iranian) adjectival form of Apollodorus’ Asii, which is the substantial<br />
form; the Asii therefore are the Yueh-chi, whether (as some have supposed) the two words<br />
be identical, or not. From 1918 to 1936 it was further believed that a Central Asian text gave<br />
the name of a people Arsi who spoke toχrï (Tocharian) and who were the Greek Asii; the<br />
Arsi were accordingly supposed to be the Yueh-chi and much has been<br />
written about them.<br />
It has now been argued, with an impressive wealth of evidence, that Central Asian texts<br />
know no such people as the Arsi (Bailey 1936: 883, 905 sqq.) ...<br />
One must now turn to Chang-k’ien’s description of the country just after the conquest.<br />
First, what is the meaning of his name for Bactria proper, Ta-hia ? Before coming to what<br />
I think is the true view, two older explanations, which will die hard, must be noticed.<br />
The<br />
one most widely spread is that the Tocharoi were not the Yueh-chi<br />
at all, but were the Tahia,<br />
a theory which has worked utter confusion in the story ... There is not, and never has<br />
been, one scrap of evidence for the identification Tochari = Ta-hia except this alleged phonetic<br />
equivalence, and, even were that plausible, all it would prove would be, not that the<br />
Ta-hia were the Tochari, but that philology, though a good servant to the historian, can be<br />
a bad master. The matter is simple.<br />
The conquest of Bactria, we have seen, lies between<br />
141 and 128, and was almost certainly c. 130. The well-informed Apollodorus, in whose lifetime<br />
the event took place, said that the Tochari at the time were nomads. Chang-k’ien,<br />
who saw the Ta-hia in 128, said that the Ta-hia were communities of unwarlike traders living<br />
in walled towns. A conquering horde of nomads does not, in two or three years time,<br />
turn into communities of unwarlike traders living in walled towns; there is nothing else<br />
which need be said, except to regret the waste of labour and learning lavished on erecting<br />
theories upon such a basis ...<br />
To these bold statements<br />
by TARN, my personal first comment is: this contradiction<br />
— between the Tochari<br />
as conquering nomads in Strabo, and as timid town dwel-<br />
lers<br />
in Zhang Qian — is a valid and valuable observation. However, it does not exclude<br />
the equation Tochari = Daxia. It only means: the Tochari do<br />
not belong into the list of<br />
Strabo.<br />
An early critic of TARN’s book was BACHHOFER who, in 1941: 242–246, in a longer article,<br />
had one chapter, entitled “The Saka Conquest of Bactra.” With this, it is imme-<br />
d iately clear in what important point BACHHOFER is going to contradict his esteemed<br />
colleague<br />
when he writes:<br />
— 67 —
Though they have often been published and constantly quoted, it will be best for the following<br />
discussion to have the records on the conquest of Bactria and the subsequent<br />
events<br />
at hand. They come from four sources, two of them Western and the others Chinese.<br />
The Chinese reports were recently translated anew by Karlgren and I am using his<br />
versions.<br />
BACHHOFER then quotes KARLGREN’s translations of the relevant passages in Shiji<br />
123<br />
and Hanshu 96A which I have cited above. Of Strabo, he gives the passage which<br />
i ncludes our famous list with the names of four nomadic peoples. After these quotes<br />
BACHHOFER<br />
continues:<br />
Of Trogus original work only the prologues to the various books are left. Trogus wrote at<br />
the time of Augustus. His informant about the conquest of Bactria had written a history of<br />
events in the east at about the time of Apollodoros, shortly after 87 B.C. (Tarn 1938: 48). It is<br />
necessary to give the pertinent prologues in full, and not the usual excerpts (ed.<br />
O. Seel,<br />
Leipzig<br />
1935).<br />
Prologus Libri XLI: Uno et quadragesimo volumine continentur res Parthicae et Bactrianae.<br />
In Parthicis ut est constitutum imperium per Arsacem regem. Successores deinde eius<br />
Artabanus et Tigranes cognomine Deus, a quo subacta est Media et Mesopotamia. Dictusque<br />
in excessu Arabicae situs. In Bactrianis autem rebus, ut a Diodoto rege consitutum est:<br />
deinde quo regnante Scythicae gentes Saraucae et Asiani Bactra occupavere et Sogdianos.<br />
Indicae quoque res additae, gestae per Apollodotum et Menandrum, reges eorum.<br />
Prologus Libri XLII: Secundo et quadragesimo volumine continentur Parthicae res. Ut<br />
praefectus Parthis a Phrate Himerus Mesenis bellum intulit et in Babylonios et Seleucenses<br />
saeviit: utque Phrati successit Mithridates cognomine magnus, qui Armeniis bellum intulit.<br />
Ut varia complurium regum in Parthis successione imperium accepit Orodes, qui<br />
Crassum delevit, et Syriam per filium Pacorem occupavit. Illi succedit Phrates, qui cum Antonio<br />
bellum habuit, et cum Tiridate. Additae his res Scythicae.<br />
Reges Thocarorum Asiani,<br />
interitusque<br />
Sacaraucarum.<br />
Thus the Chinese records credit the Yüeh-chi with the conquest of Bactria; Strabo four<br />
nomadic peoples, the Asii, Pasiani, Tochari and Sacarauli; Trogus two such peoples, the<br />
Asiani and the Sacaraucae. It was seen long ago that the Asii and Asiani, and the Sacarauli<br />
and Sacaraucae were identical. It might be possible to reduce Strabo’s list further, for<br />
there is much to recommend Haloun’s suggestion (1937: 244) to read h asianoi instead of<br />
pasianoi.<br />
Any attempt to correlate the western and Chinese accounts depends, of course, on the<br />
possibility of identifying the Yüeh-chi with one of those three, or possibly four, peoples<br />
mentioned by Apollodorus and Trogus’ source. The Sacaraucae (³aka Rawaka) were the<br />
³akas beyond Sogd (para Sugdam) of the trilingual gold tablet of Darius I. (Tarn, p. 291).<br />
They were probably identical with the Sai Wang of the Chinese sources, as proposed by A.<br />
Herrmann (Reallexikon, s.v. Sacaraucae). In any case, they cannot have been the Yüeh-chi.<br />
I need not recount the war of theories waged for decades over whether or not the Yüeh-chi<br />
were the Tocharians. This was done by Haloun ... it can be no longer doubted that the<br />
Yüeh-chi of the Chinese were the Tocharians of the western records. There is still the<br />
puzzling fact that<br />
Chang Ch’ien whose report is the source of all Chinese informations, credits<br />
the Tocharians alone with the conquest of Bactria, whereas Strabo, i.e. Apollodoros,<br />
makes them share this feat with two, or possibly three, other peoples, and Trogus’ source<br />
does not mention them at all in this connection.<br />
To evaluate these accounts properly, the circumstances under which their authors received<br />
their information must b e considered. Chang Ch’ien<br />
came from the east and north;<br />
he had, in fact, travelled in the wake of the Tocharians from China to Bactria. He came up<br />
in the rear, i.e. in the direction from which the attack on Bactria was launched, and, more<br />
important still, he arrived when everything was over. Of what had happened at the front<br />
he remained totally ignorant.<br />
He had not heard that the Greeks had been the rulers of<br />
Bactria. The only hint that the Tocharians did not succeed the Greeks immediately is the<br />
— 68 —
passage<br />
in the section about Ki-pin in the Ch’ien Han Shu, which cannot possibly be interpreted<br />
otherwise than in terms of cause and effect: the Tocharians drove the Sai Wang<br />
from Bactria to Ki-pin — see Karlgren’s discussion of the problem (in KONOW 1934: 10).<br />
With the help of his friend, the Sinologist KARLGREN, KONOW has been the first Wes-<br />
tern scholar<br />
to offer us this greatly improved understanding of the crucial two phrases<br />
in Hanshu<br />
96A, section on Jibin. As I have found out, the same KONOW, some 18 years<br />
previous, or in 1916: 811, had written something very different on the same Chinese text:<br />
Ich glaube es im vorhergehenden wahrscheinlich gemacht zu haben ... daß die Ku•anas,<br />
d.h. die Yüe-tschi in Indien<br />
nicht im Gegensatz zu den ³akas auftraten, sondern sich vielmehr<br />
als ihre Erben benahmen. Der Schluß liegt jedenfalls sehr nahe, daß die beiden<br />
Stämme verwandt waren, und daß wir die ³aka-Eroberungen und die der Ku•anas als einen<br />
zusammenhängenden Fortgang ansehen müssen. Die Berichte über frühere feindliche<br />
Beziehungen zwischen den beiden haben auch keine allzu gute Grundlage. In den Han-<br />
Annalen heißt es<br />
einfach:<br />
»Vor alters, da die Hiung-nu die Ta Yüeh-tschi besiegt hatten, gingen die Ta Yüeh-tschi<br />
nach Westen und machten sich zu Herren von Ta-hia, die Sai-wang aber gingen nach<br />
Süden und machten sich zu Herren von Ki-pin.«<br />
KONOW then states in a footnote that he is quoting FRANKE 1904: 46. In this way he<br />
actually<br />
puts the blame on FRANKE: the accomplished German Sinologist had failed to<br />
understand<br />
that these two or rather three sentences only make sense when one grasps<br />
their<br />
logical connection. This connection is provided by the fact that the first phrase is<br />
t he cause for the second, and the second the cause for the third. FRANKE, however, had<br />
t ranslated “but ...” and in this way he had ruined the logical sequence of cause and<br />
effect.<br />
The third phrase thus became disconnected and meaningless. Only when we<br />
g rasp that we must combine all three sentences into one grand logical statement do we<br />
get<br />
a chance to understand the meaning of this typically terse ancient Chinese prose. It<br />
is<br />
condensing Eastern, Central and South Asian history of the second and first<br />
centuries<br />
BCE into just three short, interconnected phrases — to say the same in<br />
modern<br />
Chinese would require twice as many words. FRANKE’s translation, mea-<br />
ningfully<br />
corrected, would run like this:<br />
( FRANKE 1904: 46)<br />
( Das Königreich<br />
Ki-pin)<br />
...<br />
Vor<br />
alters, als die Hiung-nu 匈奴 die Ta<br />
Yüe-chi<br />
besiegt hatten,<br />
( da entflohen) die Ta Yüe-chi 月氏 nach<br />
Westen<br />
und machten sich zu Herren von Ta-<br />
hia<br />
(Tochara),<br />
woraufhin<br />
die Sai-wang 塞王 nach Sü-<br />
den<br />
(entflohen) und sich zu Herren von Kipin<br />
(Taxila) machten.<br />
Hanshu 96A. 3884<br />
罽 賓 國<br />
…<br />
昔 匈 奴 破 大 月 氏<br />
大 月 氏 西 君 大 夏<br />
而 塞 王 南 君 罽 賓<br />
Before the above short quote from Hanshu 96A, FRANKE, in his much-quoted book<br />
of<br />
1904, translates an equally short quote from another Hanshu chapter. To under-<br />
stand<br />
the story of the Saiwang as told in the early Chinese sources, it is of importance<br />
to read these two closely related excerpts of two different Hanshu chapters side by side.<br />
I r eproduce FRANKE’s translation of the three or four sentences in Hanshu 61, adding<br />
the<br />
Chinese original.<br />
( FRANKE 1904: 46)<br />
Die<br />
Yüe-chi waren von den Hiung-nu besiegt<br />
worden<br />
(und) hatten im Westen die 塞王 Sai-<br />
wang<br />
angegriffen.<br />
— 69 —<br />
Hanshu 61. 2692<br />
時 月 氏 已 為 匈 奴 所 破<br />
西 擊 塞 王
Die<br />
Sai-wang gingen nach Süden und wander-<br />
ten<br />
weit fort.<br />
Die<br />
Yüe-chi (aber) wohnten in ihrem Lande ...<br />
塞 王 南 走 遠 徙<br />
月 氏 居 其 地 …<br />
Here the Hanshu remains rather vague in one important point: when attacked and<br />
beaten by the Ruzhi 月氏, the Saiwang 塞王 preferred to migrate “... to the south, far<br />
away...” 南走遠徙. This shows that the Chinese were clearly at a loss as far as some<br />
parts of Saiwang history were concerned. The Chinese historians had caught short<br />
glimpses<br />
of that history and in one way or another had to piece in the missing periods.<br />
R ead together with the imperfectly translated passage from Hansu 96A/Kipin, the<br />
impression<br />
for a few generations of scholars has been that the Saiwang moved in one<br />
l ong, uninterrupted trek from their original pasture grounds in the upper Ili River<br />
v alley all the way to the Northwest of India, independent of what the Ruzhi 月氏 had<br />
done after their initial clash with the Saiwang 塞王. As today we know a good deal<br />
more of Saka history, we are<br />
safe to assume that these Scythian nomads must have left<br />
the valley of the upper Ili River sometime around 160 BCE, to arrive in the Panjab not<br />
before<br />
60 BCE. Thus the trek would have lasted an impossible one hundred years. We<br />
have a great blank space here. What had really<br />
happened in this long time of at least<br />
three<br />
generations ? The clue to this was not to be found in new discoveries. It was sole-<br />
ly to be found in a better understanding of what we have had before us all the time in<br />
the Chinese historical sources.<br />
KARLGREN’S closer look at Shiji 123 (paralleled in Hanshu 61) and Hanshu 96A on<br />
Jibin (Ki-pin), in what these books had to say about the migrations of the Ruzhi 月氏<br />
and the Saiwang 塞王, led him to an intelligent re-appraisal and a careful new translation<br />
of one crucial sentence in the Hanshu chapter on Jibin. When combined with Xu<br />
Song’s short, but crucial 19th century comment —<br />
“The Saiwang had been the kings of the Daxia” 塞 王 大 夏 之 王 也<br />
the hidden meaning of that sentence suddenly jumps to the eye. The Ruzhi 月氏 —<br />
who had evicted the Saiwang 塞王 first out of the upper Ili River valley, later out of<br />
Sogdiana, i.e. the region of Samarkand — now chase the Saiwang also out of the<br />
country of the Da xia 大夏 where the Saiwang had ruled for some<br />
time (less than a gen-<br />
eration, as we know today).<br />
In our context, we are now in a position to note down an important fact: The Chi-<br />
nese sources, i.e. Ban Gu and later compilers<br />
of the<br />
Standard Histories, also knew, not<br />
just one sole people — as VON GUTSCHMID, TARN and<br />
many later writers erroneously<br />
believed —, but two different peoples involved<br />
in wresting Bactria from the Greeks.<br />
The Central Asian Saiwang 塞王 took Eastern<br />
Bactria from the Greeks, and<br />
the East<br />
Asian Ruzhi 月 氏 then took Daxia 大夏 (Eastern Bactria) from the Saiwang.<br />
The<br />
latter were forced to occupy Western Bactria<br />
, the area around the capital Bactra.<br />
And<br />
soon afterwards we expect the 月氏 to have<br />
taken the rest of Bactriana in one last<br />
great sweep — annihilating<br />
the Saiwang, as pronounced by Trogus. However, I believe<br />
that this was not so.<br />
When in the summer of 129 Zhang Qian arrived in Daxia 大夏, or Tochara, from<br />
the north and the rear, the fighting there was over since possibly just a few months.<br />
The Ruzhi 月氏 had finally and firmly taken possession of Daxia by moving their<br />
ordos from Samarkand to the northern, or right, bank of the Oxus River. The Saiwang<br />
塞王 had disappeared — maybe without putting up much of a fight. They had left behind<br />
a Daxia without an army and without a king. A few months later, Zhang Qian<br />
heard nothing of the Greeks and, more surprisingly, he heard nothing<br />
of the Saiwang.<br />
Hence, the Shiji, too, knows nothing of the Saiwang.<br />
Zhang Qian heard, and saw, that<br />
the Daxia were good traders, but bad soldiers.<br />
From this alone we should have been<br />
able to deduce that<br />
the Ruzhi 月氏 did not conquer their new possessions<br />
from the<br />
gs of the Daxia —<br />
Daxia 大夏, but from those who had been the kin the Saiwang 塞王.<br />
— 70 —
Most of this we could have learned from KONOW’S<br />
elucidating Indian paper<br />
as early<br />
as 1934. In it, he quietly revoked his earlier utterances of 1916. Yet, too few<br />
European<br />
scholars read his new article. BACHHOFER, however, had studied it carefully and had<br />
fully grasped the important new facts coming from the new interpretation of a crucial<br />
passage<br />
in Hanshu 96A — the one on the kingdom of Jibin (Northwest India). BACH-<br />
HOFER’s reasoning is valuable and very much to the point when he declares :<br />
The situation, and the outlook were radically different for a Greek historian. To him this<br />
loss of Bactria was a catastrophe of the first rank, and his main interest must have been to<br />
find out to whom it was lost. The informants of Strabo and Trogus agree that the conquerors<br />
were the Scythian tribes of the Asiani and the Sacaraucae. They disagree only insofar,<br />
as the one mentions also the Tocharians and the other does not. But about the rôle of<br />
those two peoples they are both very definite, and there is no ground to doubt the correctness<br />
of their statement (as Tarn does, who says emphatically that “the supposed Saca conquest<br />
of Greek Bactria is a myth” — p. 284). It can be assumed that these writers, unlike<br />
Chang Ch’ien, were best advised about the first wave of assault which broke over Bactria.<br />
But even then there was room for being better or worse informed: when Trogus’ source<br />
does not count the Tocharians among those who wrested Bactria from the Greeks, this<br />
proves only that Trogus’ source was better apprised than Apollodoros with his sweeping<br />
statement ...<br />
BACHHOFER still believes in TARN’s<br />
fictitious “ Trogus’ source.” We see here that he,<br />
like so many before him, fails to understand that the Asiani and the Sacaraucae were<br />
not both Scythians, but belonged to two totally separate worlds which shortly before<br />
had known nothing about each other. Strabo had expressed himself to the fact that<br />
both peoples were Scythian tribes, but the Greek geographer was absolutely ignorant<br />
of the Far Eastern Oikumenê and Han China — except<br />
that he mentions, without further<br />
comment, the mšcri Shrîn kaˆ FrÚnwn (below,<br />
p. 78) which I take to mean the<br />
Tar im Basin beyond the Pamirs: to Strabo, then, the eastern end of the world was peo<br />
pled by the Silk Traders and their Xiongnu overlords. When the Bactrian Greeks ex-<br />
tended their kingdom to Ferghana, as Strabo seems to indicate, the Sêres and Phrynoi<br />
had become their neighbors — for a brief period of time. These peoples had thus constituted<br />
the eastern end of the Hellenistic Oikumenê.<br />
But from the westernmost Tarim Basin the original homelands of the Asii/Asiani =<br />
月氏 in the Hexi 河西 Corridor<br />
(modern Gansu 甘肅 province) — around their old<br />
ordos<br />
of Zhaowu 昭武 (modern Zhangye 張掖), the Qog£ra (Thogara) of Ptolemaios<br />
6.16.8 — were still thousands of kilometers further east. In some of the oldest Chinese<br />
books such as the Guanzi 管子, the Mu Tianzi zhuan 穆天子傳 or the Yizhoushu<br />
逸周書, and under a number of different names such as Yuzhi 禺氏, Niuzhi 牛氏,<br />
Wuzhi 烏氏, the ancestors of the Ruzhi 月氏 constituted one of the eight different<br />
tribes of the Xi Rong 西戎 or “Western Barbarians.” In the late seventh century BCE<br />
they finally moved into the Hexi 河西, or area “West of the (Yellow) River,” — coming<br />
from the north and from still further east. The early Ruzhi 月氏 never had anything to<br />
do with the Western Oikumenê prior to the start of their migrations towards Central<br />
Asia in 165 BCE.<br />
Trogus, following Apollodoros’ book, had strictly separated the Asiani (Ruzhi 月氏)<br />
from the Sa(ca)raucae (Saiwang 塞王). But Strabo, with the same second hand information,<br />
had lumped the Far Eastern Asioi (Ruzhi 月氏) together with the easternmost<br />
Scythian tribes he knew: the Sakai/Sakaraukai of Central Asia (Saiwang 塞王). Thus,<br />
Strabo started the erroneous belief that the Asioi/Ruzhi 月氏 were just one more tribe<br />
of the Skythai/Sakai. This unfortunate confusion was carried over into modern studies<br />
on these nomadic peoples by SPECHT and LÉVI — and is still felt in our own time.<br />
With BACHHOFER we go back one step in the identification of the Ruzhi 月氏. As a<br />
people from East Asia and of mongoloid stock, they were radically different from the<br />
Tocharians: first of all in their looks, and then in their language; and in a great num-<br />
— 71 —
er of other respects, too. To be sure, Zhang Qian would not have confounded the two<br />
peoples for one minute. His descriptions are clear.<br />
The great confusion only began some time after Zhang Qian had departed. The Ruzhi<br />
月氏 made every effort to became (the new) Tocharians. Above (p. 56) we have<br />
seen that Justinus 42.2.2 speaks of the Tochari who are attacked by the Parthian king<br />
3<br />
Artabanos I. Of these AMANTINI, 1981: 547 , comments:<br />
Verso il 123 a.C. I Tocarii sono gli Yue-Tchi.<br />
The Ruzhi 月氏 strove to present themselves as worthy rulers of a people with a<br />
v astly superior culture which, for better or worse, had become their subjects. That the<br />
月 氏 were different from every other people in Central Asia is clear from the fact that<br />
they<br />
alone — their close cousins, the Wusun, had remained behind in the region of the<br />
u pper Ili and Chu Rivers and around Lake Issyk Köl and in fact never crossed the<br />
Jaxartes<br />
— had arrived from a totally different, hitherto utterly unknown Oikumenê,<br />
or<br />
Inhabited World. In other words, before 160 BCE their is no way of mistaking the<br />
R uzhi 月氏 for a Central Asian people. Whereas, in the generations that followed, it<br />
b ecame soon nearly impossible to tell the two apart: first, the true and the new Kangju,<br />
and<br />
soon afterwards, the true and the new Daxia (Tochari). Here is the place to insert<br />
Zhang<br />
Qian’s description of the Daxia 大夏 or Tochari, as found it in Shiji 123; again in<br />
English and Chinese.<br />
(WATSON 1993: 235–236)<br />
(The capital of) the Da–xia (Bactria) is located<br />
over two thousand ›li‹ south-west<br />
of (the capital of) the Da Yuan, south of<br />
the Gui River (Oxus).<br />
Their people are settled on the land; they<br />
have cities and houses and they resemble<br />
the Da Yuan in their customs.<br />
(They have) no great ruler (but only) a<br />
good number of petty chiefs established<br />
in the cities and villages.<br />
Their soldiers are poor in the use of arms<br />
and afraid of battle.<br />
(But they are) clever at commerce.<br />
When the Great Yue–zhi had moved west<br />
attacking and conquering them, they<br />
completely subjugated and dominated<br />
the Da–xia.<br />
The Da–xia population is large, (numbering)<br />
some million or more (persons).<br />
Their capital is called the city of Lan–shi<br />
(Bactra) and it has a market where all<br />
sorts of goods are bought and sold.<br />
To their southeast is the kingdom of<br />
Shen–du (India).<br />
(Zhang) Qian reported:<br />
“ When<br />
( I ) your servant was in Da–xia<br />
I saw bamboo canes from Qiong and<br />
cloth (made in the province) of Shu.<br />
I asked (the people):<br />
›Where did you get these (articles) ?‹<br />
The people of the kingdom of the Da–xia<br />
replied:<br />
›Our merchants go (to buy them) in the<br />
markets of Shen–du.‹<br />
Shen–du (they told me) lies southeast of<br />
the Da–xia (at a distance of) some sever-<br />
Shiji 123. 3164–3166<br />
大 夏 在 大 宛 西 南 二 千 餘 里<br />
媯 水 南<br />
其 俗 土 著 有 城 屋 與 大 宛 同<br />
俗<br />
無 大 ( 王 ) [ 君 ] 長 往 往<br />
城 邑 置 小 長<br />
其 兵 弱 畏 戰<br />
善 賈 市<br />
及 大 月 氏 西 徙 攻 敗 之 皆 臣<br />
畜 大 夏<br />
大 夏 民 多 可 百 餘 萬<br />
其 都 曰 藍 市 城 有 市 販 賈 諸<br />
物<br />
其 東 南 有 身 毒 國<br />
騫 曰<br />
臣 在 大 夏 時 見 邛 竹 杖 蜀 布<br />
問 曰<br />
安 得 此<br />
大 夏 國 人 曰<br />
— 72 —
al thousand ›li‹.<br />
Its people are settled on the land and<br />
greatly<br />
resemble the Da–xia.<br />
But (the region) is said to be flat, damp<br />
and extremely hot.<br />
Its inhabitants ride elephants (when they<br />
go) into battle.<br />
Their<br />
kingdom (is located) on a great<br />
river.<br />
According to (your servant Zhang) Qian’s<br />
calculations (the distance from the capital<br />
of) the Da–xia to the Han (capital<br />
Chang–an) is twelve thousand ›li‹, and<br />
its location is southwest of the Han (capital)<br />
...”<br />
吾 賈 人 往 市 之 身 毒<br />
身 毒 在 大 夏 東 南 可 數 千 里<br />
其 俗 土 著 大 與 大 夏 同 而 卑<br />
溼 暑 熱 云<br />
其 人 民 乘 象 以 戰<br />
其 國 臨 大 水 焉<br />
以 騫 度 之 大 夏 去 漢 萬 二 千<br />
里 居 漢 西 南 …<br />
This is a good deal of information about the Daxia 大夏, a people whose very name<br />
was well-nigh unknown until then. There is precise data on the location, the size and<br />
the political constitution of this country, as well as a rough description of the manners<br />
of its inhabitants, said to be similar to those of the people of Da Yuan 大苑 (Ferghana)<br />
and Shendu 身毒 (Northwest India).<br />
Hence the Daxia 大 夏 = Tochari are everything but nomads. They are settled,<br />
good merchants and not at all warlike lik e the Saiwang 塞王 or the still more fearful<br />
Ruzhi 月氏. With a population of about<br />
o ne million or more we know that we have to<br />
do here with the indigenous population of<br />
Eastern Bactria. Zhang Qian tells us that the<br />
月氏 attacked and conquered the Daxia.<br />
This is, in fact,<br />
not a really correct view of<br />
what had happened. He<br />
should have stated<br />
that the 月氏 attacked the Saiwang, the fo-<br />
reign rulers of the peaceful local Tocharians.<br />
The Saiwang then fled and left the coun-<br />
try to the 月氏 to occupy. We may infer<br />
from Zhang Qian’s description that the Sai-<br />
wang did not put up much resistance when<br />
the<br />
月氏 crossed the Hissar Mountains<br />
and (for a third time) attacked the Saiwang,<br />
now in Eastern Bactria, which these no-<br />
mads had wrested from the Bactrian<br />
Greeks<br />
some fifteen years previous. This was the<br />
span of time the 月氏 had needed to consolidate<br />
their position up north in Samarkand<br />
and the whole of Sog diana, becoming the new, or pseudo-, Kangju<br />
康居 after evicting<br />
the Saiwang from the region. Out of that power base they broke through the mountain<br />
barrier north of the Oxus and continued chasing their only<br />
and favorite enemy, the Saiwang<br />
塞王, or “Royal Sakas.” The conquest<br />
of Daxia 大夏 by the Ruzhi 月氏 must<br />
have been what in Japanese would be ca<br />
lled asameshi mae 朝飯前 — an easy job.<br />
When Zhang Qian is shown around an unspecified<br />
town<br />
in Daxia — which I take to be<br />
the old capital, i.e. Lanshi 藍市 (the Darapsa<br />
of Strabo;<br />
see above, p. 51), a short dis-<br />
tance beyond the Oxus —, it is all business<br />
as usual: the markets are bristling<br />
with life<br />
and even the long-distance trade in luxury<br />
goods is working admirably well.<br />
3. HOW ARE WE TO UNDERSTAND THE FOUR<br />
NAMES IN STRABO’S LIST ?<br />
With KARLGREN, KONOW, and BACHHOFER<br />
we know<br />
now that the Chinese sources,<br />
too, speak of two nomadic<br />
peoples taking<br />
part in the<br />
conquest of Bactria. This is<br />
paralleled by what Trogus tells us: that, at first, the Asiani conquered Sogdiana and<br />
the Sa(ca)raucae Bactra (not Bactria); that<br />
following this<br />
the Asiani subjugated the To-<br />
chari and became their kings; and that, f inally, the Sa(ca)raucae were destroyed, pre-<br />
sumably in Bactria.<br />
Hence, it is only Strabo’s list which has, not two, but<br />
four names: the additional<br />
two names being those of the Pasianoi and<br />
the Tocharoi. Strabo<br />
names the Greek his-<br />
torian Apollodoros as his source. If we are able to show that the same Apollodoros and<br />
— 73 —
his Parthian History also was the main source for Trogus — and not a separate<br />
and<br />
very shadowy “ Trogus’ source” — then we<br />
shall be able to solve the enigma of Strabo’s<br />
longer list. In this context I must quote TARN’s<br />
famous book once more. In his Appen-<br />
dix 21 on “The Greek names of the Tochari”<br />
(1938: 515), he writes:<br />
Apollodorus, c. 100 B.C., has TÒcaroi (Tocharoi);<br />
this form was popularized by Strabo<br />
and has passed into common use as this people’s name. Ptolemy,<br />
VI.11.6, has this form in<br />
connection with Bactria, and also, VI.12.4, a form T£coroi (Tachoroi), with metathesis<br />
of<br />
the vowels,<br />
in connection with Sogdiana. In this form the aspirate comes in the second syl-<br />
lable, not the first. This placing of the aspirate<br />
is also found in the Sanscrit<br />
Tukhåra, and<br />
again in the name of Bactria (in various la nguages) from the fourth to the eighth century<br />
A.D., Tocharistan (presumably taken from TÒcaroi), and in forms derived from Tochari-<br />
stan, like tocrï (tocarï or togarï) which is found later in Central Asian documents as the<br />
name of<br />
the Saca speech of the Kushans of Tocharistan, and Hsüan Tsiang’s Tu-ho-lo<br />
(Tuocuâlâ, Bailey) in the seventh century A.D.<br />
What form was used by the other Greek historian, “ Trogus’ source,” c. 85 B.C., can only<br />
be deduced, but certainly it was not TÒcaroi. The MSS of Trogus Prol. XLII give Thocarorum,<br />
Thodarorum, Thoclarorum, Toclarorum, to which the best MSS add, in Justin XLII.2.2,<br />
the form Thogariis. It is possible therefore, but by no means certain, that this Greek historian’s<br />
form had ›th‹ and was Thocaroi or Thagoroi; that is, that the aspirate came in the<br />
first<br />
syllable, not the second. This position of the aspirate is found later in the much-quoted<br />
forms Qagoàroi (Thagouroi) and Qog£ra (Thogara) in Ptolemy for a people and town in<br />
Kan-su on the way to Sera Metropolis, forms derived from agents of Maes Titianus and<br />
therefore second century A.D.<br />
This is an impressive array of names for one and the same — obviously rather suddenly<br />
famous and important — people and country. Yet TARN had overlooked NÖLDEKE<br />
who, 1879: 118, comments:<br />
›Tochåristån‹ ist das Land östlich von Balch. TÒcaroi hat Dionysius Per. 752 und Ptol. 6,<br />
11; so ist (nach einer freundlichen Mittheilung Rühls) bei Justin 42, 2, 2 die beste Lesart ›Tochariis‹;<br />
vrgl. Plin. 6, 17 § 55 (wo ›Focari‹ überliefert ist).<br />
Dagegen hat Strabo 511 T£caroi und Ptol. 6, 12 T£coroi, wie das Monument von Singanfu<br />
(T[a]cvr[i]st[å]n) schreibt. Jaq. III, 518 verlangt ›Tachåristån‹; auch ›Tach±ristån‹<br />
kommt vor (eb.). Die genaue Aussprache dieses Volksnamens bleibt also unsicher.<br />
Thus, the oldest extant form of this crucial name is not included in TARN’s elaborate<br />
list: since 1956 we know it for sure that our codex antiquissimus of Strabo has<br />
the form TAXAPOI (Tachari) — immaculately legible (see below, p. 91).<br />
Here is the place to quote the one author who became the greatest critic of TARN’s<br />
greatest work: ALTHEIM. In 1947: 10–12, he writes:<br />
Wer war der hellenistische Geschichtsschreiber, der Trogus als Quelle diente ? Als Name<br />
bietet sich Apollodoros von Artemita an (einer griechischen Stadt östlich des Tigris, bei der<br />
sich die von Seleukeia kommende Straße nach Egbatana und Susa gabelte). Er schrieb in<br />
mindestens vier Büchern parthische Geschichte, memnhmšnoj kaˆ tîn Baktrian¾n ¢posths£<br />
ntwn `Ell»nwn, wie Strabon sagt (XV, p. 686). Ein Grieche, wohnhaft im<br />
Partherreiche;<br />
Verfasser einer parthischen Geschichte, die daneben noch die baktrische umfaßte ...<br />
Dennoch hat man Apollodoros von dem gleichzeitigen Geschichtsschreiber, den Trogus<br />
benutzte, trennen wollen. Man hat diesen als “ Trogus’ source” verselbständigen und so<br />
zwei gleichzeitige Autoren, die über den gleichen Gegenstand schrieben, erhalten. Und<br />
man hat dafür einen, wie man glaubte, durchschlagenden Grund angeführt.<br />
Strabon hat Apollodoros im großen Maßstab benutzt: auch dort, wo er ihn nicht ausdrücklich<br />
nennt. Die Erzählung, die er im 11. Buche gibt, geht zu einem Teil auf diesen Geschichtsschreiber<br />
zurück. Nach ihm hatten vier nomadische Stämme das baktrische Königreich<br />
erobert: die Asier, die Pasianer, die Tocharer und die Sakarauler. Dagegen kennt der<br />
Trogusprolog zum 41. Buch nur zwei Stämme: die Asianer und die Sarauker. Auf diese Ver-<br />
— 74 —
schiedenheit und auf sie allein gründet sich die Trennung von Apollodoros und von “ Trogus’<br />
source.”<br />
Bei genauerem Zusehen ändert sich das Bild. Die Tocharer nennt zwar der Trogusprolog<br />
nicht, aber sie erscheinen in Justinus’ Auszug, waren also im vollständigen Werk mitenthalten.<br />
Weiter ist sowohl die Form Sak£rauloi bei Strabon wie ›Saraucae‹ bei Trogus<br />
korrupt. Zugrunde liegt ein ›Saka Ravaka‹ (*ravaka- “rasch beweglich”), das nur ›Sacaraucae‹<br />
nom.pl. ergeben konnte und in den ›Sacaraucae‹ des Orosius (1.2.43) bewahrt ist. Also<br />
hat Strabon den Namen im ersten Teil richtig erhalten (vermutlich gibt überliefertes Sak£rauloi<br />
kaˆ den Versuch einer Verbesserung in Sak£raukai), Trogus dagegen den zweiten<br />
(mit Haplographie von ›Sacaraucae‹ zu ›Saraucae‹). Es liegt auf der Hand, daß beide<br />
Fassungen sich nicht ausschließen, sondern sich ergänzen und zusammen das Richtige ergeben<br />
...<br />
Ein Unterschied zwischen Apollodoros und “ Trogus’ source” besteht also nicht. Beider<br />
Überlieferung über den Nomadeneinbruch läßt sich auf den gleichen Bestand zurückführen.<br />
Damit fällt der einzige Grund, der sich gegen die Gleichsetzung von Apollodoros und<br />
“ Trogus’ source” hat anführen lassen. Die ›Partik£‹ des Mannes von Artemita lagen Trogus<br />
bei der Abfassung seines 41. und 42. Buches vor.<br />
To this criticism TARN, in 1951: 522, replied:<br />
Altheim’s book is based on a belief that my “ Trogus’ source” i s Apollodorus, which I<br />
consider impossible, if only for the simple fact that Apollodorus calls a certain people Tocaro…,<br />
while the MSS. of Trogus-Justin give five different versions of the name but never<br />
Tochari.<br />
TARN’s last argument in defense of a separate “ Trogus’ source” is not valid. Our repeatedly<br />
quoted Reges Tocharorum Asiani (SEEL 1956: 180; 1972: 324) confirms that<br />
Trogus, too, had the variant Tochari.<br />
In 1952: 2304–2308, KLOTZ<br />
warns:<br />
Auch Trogus selbst hatte bereits Irrtümer in den Eigennamen, die sich aus Lesefehlern<br />
nach griechischen Vorlagen erklären: ›Vesosis‹ Iustinus I, I, 6 wird durch Iordanes 6, 27 als<br />
Irrtum des Trogus erwiesen: CECΩCIC ist OE- verlesen, ebenso statt IANΔΥCIC I, 1, 6 ›Tanausis‹<br />
... Die Benutzung des aus Strabo bekannten Apollodorus von Artemita hat Altheim<br />
Weltgeschichte Asiens I 1947, 2 erwiesen.<br />
ALTHEIM’s great contribution is to show that the source for both Strabo and Tr ogus<br />
was the lost book by the Greek historian Apollodoros of Artemita. There existed no<br />
other work on Parthian history to quote from at the time of the two classic historians,<br />
Trogus and Strabo, i.e. in the time of Augustus. It is surprising, therefore, that ALT-<br />
HEIM, with his intelligent insight into the real meaning of “ Trogus’ source,” did not proceed<br />
to the logical conclusion that not only the otherwise<br />
completely unknown “Pasianoi”<br />
ought to be deleted from Strabo’s list, but also the “ Tocharoi.”<br />
If it can be shown — as I believe ALTHEIM did — that for the same historic events<br />
o ccurring in the same geographic regions in both Strabo’s and Trogus’ work the one<br />
a nd only source is Apollodoros, then TARN’S whole argument for a separate and very<br />
mysterious<br />
“ Trogus’ source” falls to the ground. If this is so, we then know that Trogus<br />
and Strabo should inform us, not in a contradictory, but in a corresponding way<br />
on<br />
what<br />
happened to Greek Bactria in the second half of the second century BCE.<br />
Whereas Strabo lists four conquering nations, Trogus only lists two. In the name<br />
“ Pasianoi” was quickly discover a hidden “Asianoi” and a number of authors were in-<br />
c lined to suspect a scribal error in one way or another; ALTHEIM, as we will see presen<br />
tly, mentions the very earliest of these, the French scholar VAILLANT. The greater<br />
p roblem is Strabo’s second additional name: the “ Tocharoi.” Trogus does not have<br />
t his name in his list of conquering nations. Instead, he has the name “Tochari” as a<br />
n ation conquered. Who, then, is correct ? Many experts would not take it upon them to<br />
decide.<br />
Instead, they preferred to leave the contradiction as it was.<br />
— 75 —
ALTHEIM — in a book on the same subject, but published some twenty years after<br />
h is first work — is more precise and seemingly conclusive when in 1970: 369 he writes:<br />
Es bleiben die ”Asioi und Pasiano… auf der einen Seite, die ›Asiani‹ auf der anderen.<br />
VAILLANT’s Änderung von Pasiano… in À 'Asiano… ist auf den ersten Blick bestechend. Aber in<br />
dem Zusammenhang ”Asioi kaˆ Pasiano…, angesichts der Änderung des letzten Namens in<br />
À 'Asiano…, bleibt ka… unberücksichtigt. Man müßte denn eine zweite Korruptel annehmen,<br />
indem nach der Fehlschreibung Pasiano… die Hinzufügung der Kopula [ka…] unvermeidlich<br />
wurde ...<br />
›Asianus‹ ist also eine regelrechte Weiterbildung von ”Asianoj, die sich bezeichnenderweise<br />
bei Trogus findet. Er hat Apollodoros selbst nicht eingesehen, sondern vermutlich<br />
über Timagenes benutzt, während Strabo’s ”Asioi auf unmittelbare Kenntnis Apollodoros’<br />
zurückgehen. Auch Ptolemaeus (Geogr. 6, 14, 10) kennt eine jüngere, durch ein Suffix weitergebildete<br />
Form: 'Asiîtai.<br />
Damit hat sich, was Apollodoros und “ Trogus’ source” zu trennen schien, verflüchtigt.<br />
Die Trogusprologi und Iustinus haben ungenau ausgezogen, offenkundige Korrupteln und<br />
eine ebenso offenkundig jüngere Form an die Stelle der ursprünglichen treten lassen. Alles<br />
sind Ergebnisse, die sich bei einer mehrfach gebrochenen<br />
Überlieferung zwangsläufig einstellen<br />
mußten. Die volle Angabe hat Strabon bewahrt,<br />
der als einziger Apollodoros selbst<br />
eingesehen<br />
hat.<br />
One page before, 1970: 368, ALTHEIM rewrites and extends his earlier statement of<br />
1947:<br />
11, quoted above (p. 75), in an important way:<br />
Die Tocharer nennt zwar der Trogusprolog<br />
des 41. Buches nicht, sie erscheinen jedoch<br />
bei<br />
Iustinus (42, 2, 2) und im Prolog des 42. Buches, waren also im vollständigen Werk mitgenannt.<br />
Man lernt, daß ebenso die Trogusprologe wie Iustinus die Namen der nomadischen<br />
Stämme, obwohl sie vollständig in ihrer Vorlage enthalten waren, nur teilweise weitergegeben<br />
haben.<br />
ALTHEIM resolves the discrepancy between Trogus and Strabo — our main problem<br />
here<br />
— by the assumption that the four names in Strabo’s list of conquering nomad<br />
peoples<br />
are correct, whereas Trogus, and after him Justinus, for reasons not altoge-<br />
ther<br />
clear, skipped two of these names: the “Pasianoi” and the “Tocharoi.”<br />
Fortunately, besides Strabo and Trogus,<br />
we have a third and completely independent<br />
historical source on the same events — as BARTHOLD was the first Western author<br />
to state: the Chinese Standard Histories. For a long time it was believed (and some<br />
modern writers still do: see above, p. 40) that the Chinese sources present us a third<br />
variation, namely just one nomadic nation conquering Bactria: the Ruzhi 月氏.<br />
Above, I have endeavored to show that this believe is mistaken. The Hanshu, compiled<br />
in the later first century CE by Ban Biao 班彪 and Ban Gu 班固, father and son,<br />
confirms, not the four names of Strabo, but the two of Trogus. With the elucidating<br />
comment by XU SONG 徐松, published posthumously in 1893, and the subsequent<br />
translation and publication of his intelligent discovery — of what the Chinese<br />
historians really meant to say — by KARLGREN and KONOW in 1934, or some forty years<br />
later, we finally realize:<br />
The Chinese say what Trogus says. The Saiwang 塞王 = Sa(ca)raucae and the Ruzhi<br />
月氏 = Asiani were the only two nomadic peoples who fell upon Bactria and destroyed<br />
the Græco-Bactrian kingdom there — in that order. And both Zhang Qian and<br />
Trogus, the former edited and published by Sima Tan 司馬談 and Sima Qian 司馬遷,<br />
tell us that in the process the Daxia 大夏 = Tochari were subjugated by the Ruzhi 月氏<br />
= Asiani. Zhang Qian, moreover, provides us with the unique and valuable information<br />
that the Daxia 大夏 = Tochari were, in fact, no other people but the autochthonous,<br />
local population of Eastern Bactria — left behind after first the Bactrian Greeks and<br />
then the Saiwang 塞王 = Sacaraucae had been annihilated there.<br />
— 76 —
Strabo’s list with the four ethnic names, then, can be singled out as the one which<br />
must have become corrupt in the process of transmission. The “Pasianoi” and the “Tocharoi”<br />
should not be on that list. The important question, still to be solved here, is:<br />
By<br />
what mistaken way did the two names get into Strabo’s list ? So far as the “Tocha-<br />
r oi” are concerned, this question has not yet been asked by any author. In other words:<br />
the<br />
“Tocharoi” in Strabo’s list have always been taken for granted.<br />
First HERRMANN’s and then TARN’S observation — that Strabo’s conquering Tocha-<br />
roi nomads could not be the settled Daxia 大夏 — has been a very intel ligent one. It<br />
p rovided us with a clear point of departure: the problem definition. Both authors took<br />
Strabo’s<br />
authority for granted and hence could not accept the equation Daxia 大夏 =<br />
Tochari.<br />
However, with the above closer look at the Chinese historical sources, I hope-<br />
f ully showed that the equation Daxia 大夏 = Tochari is valid. If Trogus’ Tochari are<br />
Zhang<br />
Qian’s Daxia 大夏, we know at long last that this hitherto unknown ethnic<br />
name<br />
belonged to a people firmly settled on the upper Oxus River since a good number<br />
of<br />
centuries at the time of Zhang Qian’s visit. The envoy of Chinese Emperor Wu is our<br />
o nly Zeitzeuge, or eyewitness. The authenticity of his Report can be trusted. How, then,<br />
d id the name “Tocharoi” get into Strabo’s list — and thereby cause such havoc with all<br />
related<br />
research ?<br />
Zhang Qian’s Daxia 大夏 and Trogus’ Tochari appear to be the lowest strata, the<br />
autochthonous, or indigenous, inhabitants of Eastern Bactria. They are well settled in<br />
that<br />
region and must have been there since a long time: first under the Persians; then,<br />
for a full century, under the Bactrian Greeks; thereafter<br />
briefly under the kings of the<br />
Saiwang<br />
塞王. Finally they fall under the sway of the fearful kings of the 月氏 — who<br />
a re shrewd enough to adopt the name and language of the Tochari. Together with the<br />
administration<br />
and armies of the last Græco-Bactrian kings, the names “Baktriana”<br />
and<br />
“Baktrioi” disappear and rather suddenly there is this new name: Daxia = Tocha-<br />
ra. It will now be quoted<br />
by every author in East and West (in that order), writing on<br />
the history of Central Asia. I wonder: are the Tochari mentioned prominently any-<br />
where before 129 BCE ?<br />
My impression is that the Ruzhi 月氏 picked up a local, little-known name to make<br />
it their own. Only thereafter it became great and famous. It seems that the 月氏, Far<br />
Eastern strangers that they were, deliberately decided to use a Central Asian — for<br />
them: Western — name for their newly founded empire on the Oxus River, an empire<br />
which already included Sogdiana between the Hissar Mountains in the south, the Oxus<br />
in the west, and the Jaxartes in the east. It was to include much more in the future.<br />
But for an initial one century and a half, it did not include the whole of former Greek<br />
Bactria — especially not the age-old capital Bactra. The Ruzhi 月氏, in search for a<br />
suitable name, must have referred to their new acquisition as “Tochara” when talking<br />
to Zhang Qian. He is the first author to reduce the new name to writing — one or two<br />
generations before Apollodoros of Artemita.<br />
Of course, it was bound to create confusion when the conqueror decided to use the<br />
name of the people conquered. But the 月氏 exceedingly liked what they had inherited<br />
from the Bactrian Greeks. It must have been a kind of paradise for them, a Schlaraffenland.<br />
And so they decided to become Tocharians — but also to become their new<br />
kings: reges Tocharorum Asiani.<br />
Apollodoros, too, had been enthusiastic about Bactria in Greek times. He even had<br />
a few remarks on the Baktrians as they appeared before the conquest of Alexander.<br />
But nowhere do I find the name of the Tochari. Strabo, quoting Apollodoros, writes:<br />
(JONES 1928: 279–281)<br />
And much of it produces everything<br />
except oil.<br />
The Greeks who caused<br />
(Radt 2004: 356–358)<br />
Es ist ein ausgedehntes Land,<br />
das alles außer Öl erzeugt, und<br />
die Griechen, die es selb-<br />
Bactria to revolt grew so ständig gemacht haben, sind<br />
— 77 —<br />
Geographika XI. 11. 1–3<br />
Poll¾ d/ stˆ kaˆ p£mforoj<br />
pl¾n la…ou, tosoàton<br />
d' ‡scusan oƒ ¢post» santej<br />
“Ellhnej aÙt¾n di¦
powerful on account of the<br />
fertility of the country that<br />
they became masters, not<br />
only of Ariana, but also of<br />
India, as Apollodorus of Artemita<br />
says; and more tribes<br />
were<br />
subdued by them than<br />
by Alexander ...<br />
In short, Apollodorus says<br />
that Bactriana is the ornament<br />
of Ariana as a whole;<br />
and, more than that, they<br />
extended their empire even<br />
as far as the Seres and the<br />
Phryni.<br />
Their cities were Bactra (also<br />
called Zariaspa, through<br />
which flows a river bearing<br />
the same name and emptying<br />
into the Oxus), and Darapsa,<br />
and several others.<br />
Among these was Eucratidia,<br />
which was named after<br />
its ruler ...<br />
Now in early times the Sogdians<br />
and Bactrians did not<br />
differ much from the nomads<br />
in their modes of life<br />
and customs, although the<br />
trians were a little more<br />
civilised ...<br />
durch die Trefflichkeit des Landes<br />
so stark geworden, dass<br />
sie die Herrschaft über Ariane<br />
und die Inder besaßen, wie<br />
Apollodor von Artemita sagt<br />
(FGrHist 779F7), und mehr Völ-<br />
ker unterworfen haben als<br />
Alexander ...<br />
Er sagt, Baktriane sei überhaupt<br />
das Prachtstück der<br />
ganzen Ariane;<br />
so haben sie ihre Herrschaft<br />
sogar bis zu den Serern und<br />
den Phaunern (Phrynern) ausgedehnt.<br />
An Städten hatten sie Baktra,<br />
das auch Zariaspa genannt<br />
wird (hindurch strömt ein<br />
gleichnamiger Fluss, der in den<br />
Oxos mündet), Darapsa und<br />
mehrere andere;<br />
dazu gehört auch das nach<br />
dem einstigen Herrscher benannte<br />
Eukratideia ...<br />
In alter Zeit unterschieden die<br />
Sogdianer und die Baktrianer<br />
sich in ihrer Lebensweise und<br />
ihren Sitten nicht sehr von den<br />
Nomaden; doch waren die Sit-<br />
Bac ten der Baktrianer etwas zivilisierter<br />
...<br />
t¾n ¢ret¾n tÁj cèraj<br />
éste tÁj te ’ArianÁj pekr£toun<br />
kaˆ tîn ’Indîn,<br />
éj fhsin ’ApollÒdwroj<br />
Ð ’ArtamithnÒj, kaˆ ple…w<br />
œqnh katestršyanto<br />
½per ’Alšxandroj ...<br />
Kaq' Ólou dš fhsin ke‹noj<br />
tÁj sump£shj 'ArianÁj<br />
prÒschma e nai t¾n<br />
Baktrian»n :<br />
kaˆ d¾ kaˆ mšcri Shrîn<br />
kaˆ FaÚnwn (FrÚnwn) xšteinon<br />
t¾n ¢rc»n.<br />
PÒleij d/ e con t£ te<br />
B£ktra, ¼nper kaˆ Zari-<br />
£span kaloàsin ¼n dia-<br />
rre‹ Ðmènumoj potamÕj<br />
mb£llwn e„j tÕn ’Wxon,<br />
kaˆ D£raya kaˆ ¥llaj<br />
ple…ouj :<br />
toÚtwn d' Ãn kaˆ ¹ EÙkrat…deia<br />
toà ¥rxantoj<br />
pènumoj ...<br />
TÕ m n oân palaiÕn oÙ<br />
polÝ dišferon to‹j b…oij<br />
kaˆ to‹j œqesi tîn nom£dwn<br />
o† te Sogdianoˆ<br />
kaˆ oƒ Baktriano…: mikrÕn<br />
d' Ómwj ¹merètera Ãn t¦<br />
tîn Baktrianîn ...<br />
Here, the inhabitants of the regions on the upper Oxus River, between the Hissar<br />
and the Hindukush Mountains, are called Baktriano… (Bactriani), their capital is<br />
named B£ktra (Bactra) and the province Baktrian» (Bactriana = Bactria). These are<br />
the names we are so very familiar with. The name TÒcaroi (Tochari) is mentioned nowhere.<br />
There is a good chance that Strabo has this name only once: in his ominous<br />
list. But later classical authors from Pliny to Ptolemy have this name everywhere, especially<br />
Ptolemy. In MANNERT, 1820: 455–467, we read:<br />
In Sogdiana sitzen nach Ptolemaeus die Paesikae<br />
(Paisika…) an den Oxianischen Bergen,<br />
also<br />
nördlich von Samarkand. An dem nördlichen Laufe des Jaxartes die Jatii (Plin. VI.16<br />
und 17 nennt auch Dacii und Parsicae) und Tachori ('I£tioi kaˆ T£coroi); also westlich und<br />
östlich um Kodgend. Die Tochari hatte Ptolemaeus schon in Bactriana als ein großes Volk<br />
angegeben; vermutlich sind beide nicht verschieden, und in Sogdiana ist der eigentliche<br />
Ursitz des Volkes zu suchen ...<br />
Baktrien, Hyrkanien und dem größten Theile nach auch Sogdiana erkannten von jener<br />
Zeit die Oberherrschaft der Persischen, vielleicht auch schon der Assyrischen Monarchen.<br />
Alexander fand bey seinem Eintritt in diese Gegenden eine Menge ansehnlicher, gut bevöl-<br />
kerter S tädte, welche in der Nachbarschaft roher Völker<br />
sich erhielten<br />
und blüheten; und<br />
die gleichzeitigen Schriftsteller<br />
rühmen den reichen Anbau der glücklichern Striche. Bey-<br />
des scheint ein hohes Alter von<br />
Kultur bey den Einwohnern voraus<br />
zu setzten, von welcher<br />
sich aber beym Mangel<br />
aller Nachrichten nichts Weiteres sagen<br />
läßt ... Diese Völker theil-<br />
ten die Schriftsteller nach der Lage in zwey Stämme: in die westlichern<br />
am Nieder-Oxus ...<br />
— 78 —
zu den Erstern rechneten sie außer mehrern kleinern Völkern vorzüglich<br />
die Parnae ... zu<br />
den östlichern die Asii, Pasiani<br />
etc., und vorzüglich die Tachari, Tachori,<br />
oder Tochari ...<br />
Auch die nördlichen Provinzen<br />
Baktriana, Sogdiana gehörten<br />
nicht den Parthern; diesen<br />
brachten die Einfälle der nördlichen<br />
Barbaren, der Asii, Pasiani<br />
und Tachari, Zweige der<br />
Sakae, den Untergang (Strabo<br />
XI.511). Sie fielen ein, drängten die ältern Bewohner des<br />
Landes gegen das südöstliche<br />
Gebirge, und blieben von nun<br />
an i n dem Besitze des<br />
größern Theils. Von dieser Periode<br />
werden erst die Angaben des<br />
Ptolemaeus richtig, der<br />
das beträchtliche Volk der To chari durch die ganze nördliche Länge<br />
von Baktria setzt, zu-<br />
gleich aber durch die nochmalige<br />
Anführung derselben am Jaxartes<br />
(auch Dionys. Perieg.<br />
v. 752 stellt die Toc£roi über<br />
den Jaxartes) auf die ältesten Sitze<br />
hinweiset, aus welchen<br />
sie gegen Süden wanderten.<br />
In the time of Ptolemy, when<br />
the Ruzhi 月氏 had created a powerful Empire under<br />
the dynasty of the Kushana, they appear in the classical (Western)<br />
sources under their<br />
new (Western) name TÒcaroi<br />
(Tocharoi), and this name is<br />
now applied to all the<br />
re-<br />
gions through<br />
which they had<br />
passed on<br />
their way to Bactria<br />
and India. The 月氏 have<br />
become Westerners in name,<br />
language and appearance. Their<br />
Far Eastern origin now<br />
seems to be a faint memory even<br />
to themselves. Their oldest habitat<br />
is now considered<br />
to have been just beyond the<br />
Jaxartes. With that they had to<br />
be Scythians — like all<br />
the other nomadic peoples from these northerly regions — as<br />
Strabo tells us. Here is<br />
the place to reproduce Strabo’s<br />
crucial passage in full.<br />
(JONES 1928: 259–261) (LASSERRE<br />
1975: 83)<br />
On the left and oppo- A l’opposé de ces peusite<br />
these peoples<br />
are ples, à main gauche,<br />
situated the Scythian on a les<br />
peuples scy-<br />
or nomadic tribes, thes et<br />
les nomades,<br />
which cover the whole qui couvrent<br />
tout le<br />
of the northern side. côté septentrional.<br />
Now the greater part La plus<br />
grande partie<br />
of the Scythians, be- des Scythes,<br />
en comginning<br />
at the<br />
Caspi- mença nt à la Mer Casan<br />
Sea, are called Dä- pienne, sont connus<br />
ae, but those who are sous le nom de Dahae,<br />
situated more to the tandis qu’on appelle<br />
east than these are Massagètes et Saces<br />
named Massagetae ceux qui vivent plus à<br />
and Sacae, whereas l’est et qu’on désigne<br />
all the rest are given tous les autres sous le<br />
the general name of nom général de Scy-<br />
Scythians,<br />
though thes, bien qu’ils aient<br />
each<br />
people is given a chacun des noms par-<br />
separate<br />
name of its ticuliers.<br />
own.<br />
Ils ont tous une popu-<br />
They<br />
are all for the lation en grande ma-<br />
most<br />
part nomads. jorité nomade.<br />
But the best known of Les plus connus d’en-<br />
the<br />
nomads are those tre eux sont ceux qui<br />
who<br />
took away Bactri- enlevèrent aux Grecs<br />
ana<br />
from the Greeks, I la Bactriane, à savoir<br />
mean<br />
the Asii, Pasia- les Asiens, les Pasiens,<br />
ni,<br />
Tochari, and Saca- les Tokhariens et les<br />
rauli,<br />
who originally Sacarauques, qui<br />
came<br />
from the coun- étaient partis des tertry<br />
on the other side ritoires situés au delà<br />
— 79 —<br />
(RADT 2004: 341–343)<br />
Zur Linken ziehen<br />
sich diesen gegen<br />
über skythische<br />
und<br />
nomadische Völker<br />
hin, die die ganze<br />
nördliche Seite bevöl<br />
kern.<br />
Die meisten Skythen<br />
werden, angefangen<br />
beim Kaspischen<br />
Meer, Daer genannt,<br />
die weiter östlich als<br />
diese wohnenden<br />
nennt man Massageten<br />
und Saken, die<br />
übrigen bezeichnet<br />
man allgemein<br />
als<br />
Skythen und einzelne<br />
mit ihrem besonderen<br />
Namen.<br />
Alle sind größtenteils<br />
Nomaden.<br />
Am bekanntesten sind<br />
von den Nomaden diejenigen<br />
geworden, die<br />
den Griechen Baktrien<br />
entrissen haben:<br />
die Asier, die Pasianer,<br />
die Tocharer und<br />
die Sakarauker, die<br />
von dem anderen<br />
Ufer des Iaxartes her<br />
Geographika IX.8.2<br />
'En ¢rister´ d<br />
toÚtoij ¢ntipar£keitai<br />
Skuqik¦ œqnh<br />
kaˆ nomadik£,<br />
¤pasan kplhroàntai<br />
t¾n bÒreion<br />
pleur£n.<br />
Oƒ m n d¾ ple…ouj<br />
tîn Skuqîn ¢pÕ<br />
t¾j Kasp…aj qal£tthj<br />
¢rx£menoi<br />
D£ai prosagoreÚontai,<br />
toÝj d<br />
proseóouj toÚtwn<br />
m©llon Massagštaj<br />
kaˆ S£kaj Ñnom£zousi,<br />
toÝj d'<br />
¥llouj koinù m n<br />
SkÚqaj ÑnÒmati<br />
kaloàsin, „d…v d'<br />
æj ˜k£stouj :<br />
¤pantej d' æj pˆ<br />
tÕ polÝ nom£dej.<br />
M£lista d gnèrimoi<br />
gegÒnasi tîn<br />
nom£dwn oƒ toÝj<br />
“Ellhnaj ¢felÒmenoi<br />
t¾n Baktrian»n,<br />
”Asioi kaˆ<br />
Pasianoˆ kaˆ TÒcaroi<br />
kaˆ Sakaraàkai,<br />
Ðrmhqšn-
of<br />
the Iaxartes River de l’Iaxarte, à la hau- kamen, das den Sa-<br />
that<br />
adjoins that of teur des Saces et des ken und Sogdianern<br />
the Sacae and the Sog- Sogdiens, et relevant gegenüber liegt und<br />
diani<br />
and was oc- alors de l’autorité des im Besitz der Saken<br />
cupied<br />
by the Sacae. Saces.<br />
gewesen war.<br />
tej ¢pÕ tÁj pera…aj<br />
toà 'Iax£rtou<br />
tÁj kat¦ S£kaj<br />
kaˆ SogdianoÚj, ¿n<br />
kate‹con S£kai.<br />
It is revealing to compare the three translations. The English rendering, being the<br />
o ldest, does not yet know the improved reading Sakaraàkai (Sakaraukai) in place of<br />
the<br />
older and corrupt Sak£rauloi (Sakarauloi). The French “... les Asiens, les Pasi-<br />
ens...”<br />
does not reflect the difference between ”Asioi and Pasiano…, i.e. between Asii<br />
a nd Asiani, which is of importance as we shall see later. And all three translations —<br />
together with the Greek original which I copy here from the edition of R ADT 2004 —<br />
ignore<br />
the fact that our oldest codex has TAXAPOI (Tacharoi) were later manuscripts<br />
have TÒcaroi (Tocharoi), under which form this all-important ethnonym is best<br />
known today. It is interesting to note here that MANNERT 1820 does in fact know the<br />
variant Tachari, as well as NÖLDEKE 1879 (T£caroi) and VON GUTSCHMID 1888 (Tacharer),<br />
whereas TARN 1938 (also 1951, 1984 and 1997) does not.<br />
LASSERRE, 1975: 83, adds a footnote to his edition and translation of this passage,<br />
which is of interest for us:<br />
La conquète de la Bactriane par les nomades eut lieu en 130 environs selon Tarn, 277 et<br />
294 (entre 133 et 129 selon P. Daffinà, ›L’immigrazione dei Sakå nella Drangiana‹, Rome,<br />
1967, 45), qui a reconn u dans ce passage le premier d’une série d’extr aits d’Apollodore d’Artémita.<br />
Traduisant ka<br />
te‹con par ›innegehabt hatten‹, Altheim-Stiehl, 609, confirment la<br />
thèse de Daffinà, 45–82,<br />
selon laquelle l’invasion aurait comporté deux vagues<br />
successives,<br />
bien distinguées, par le chroniqueur chinois [du]<br />
Ts’ien Han-Chou: celle<br />
des Saces, partis<br />
de l’actuel Ouzbékistan pour s’établir<br />
finalement<br />
dans l’actuel Sðstån, et<br />
celle des quatre<br />
autres peuples nommés<br />
ici, partis du même endroit<br />
pour enlever la Bactriane<br />
à Phraatès II.<br />
1970: 609 ALTHEIM writes:<br />
Die Sai [塞], mittelc<br />
hinesisch sәk , sind die Saken. Die Yüe-chi wohnten,<br />
als die Sai vor<br />
ihnen gewichen waren,<br />
im alten Sakenlande; dies fiel in eine Zeit, die<br />
dem Einbruch der<br />
Yüe-chi in Ta-hia voranging.<br />
Man hat nicht bemerkt,<br />
daß Apollodoros von Artemita das-<br />
selbe berichtet. Er sagt<br />
von den skythischen Nomadenstämmen,<br />
die das<br />
griechische Bak-<br />
trien eroberten:<br />
Ðrmhqšntej ¢pÕ tÁj pera…aj toà 'Iax£rtou tÁj<br />
kat¦ S£kaj kaˆ SogdianoÚj,<br />
¿n kate‹con S£kai.<br />
Das Imperfekt kate‹con<br />
bezeichnet die vorvergangene<br />
Handlung als dauernd: “aufbrechend<br />
von dem jenseitigen<br />
(nördlichen) Ufer des Iaxartes, das in der Gegend der Saken<br />
und Sogdianer (liegt), das die Saken (für längere<br />
Zeit) innegehabt hatten.”<br />
Demzufolge<br />
hatten auf dem Nordufer<br />
des Iaxartes Saken gesessen,<br />
deren Gebiet dann,<br />
vor dem Über-<br />
schreiten des Flusses, durch jene Nomadenstämme<br />
eingenommen wurde.<br />
Damit bestätigt<br />
sich, daß die Sai den Yüe-chi<br />
vorangezogen<br />
waren.<br />
That<br />
much is correct: Apollodoros knows<br />
of two nomadic waves.<br />
The nomads who<br />
took Bactria from the Greeks came from somewhere<br />
beyond,<br />
i.e. east<br />
of, the Jaxartes.<br />
In those regions — of modern Kirgizstan<br />
and Kazakhstan, not Uzbek<br />
istan — the Sakas<br />
had lived a long time. They are now found living<br />
amongst the Sogdians:<br />
their crossing<br />
the Jaxartes from East<br />
to West, therefore, constituted<br />
the first wave<br />
of nomadic irrup-<br />
tion, obviously into Greek<br />
Sogdiana only. Then,<br />
more nomadic peoples<br />
burst forth<br />
from those regions beyond<br />
the Jaxartes where<br />
the Sakas had long used to live: this<br />
constitutes the second<br />
wave of nomadic irruption,<br />
now into Sogdiana<br />
and later into<br />
Bactria.<br />
Strabo, excerpting Apollodoros, relates that<br />
in the second wave came<br />
four nomadic<br />
peoples: the Asioi, Pasianoi,<br />
Tocharoi and Sakaraukai.<br />
With this it seemed an intelli-<br />
gent conclusion that the<br />
Sakai of the first wave<br />
had to be strictly told<br />
apart from the<br />
— 80 —
Sakaraukai of the second<br />
wave — as above<br />
LASSERRE suggests in his footnote. We<br />
know, however, that the<br />
Sakaraukai are one tribe<br />
of the great Saka Federation:<br />
they are<br />
called Saka + *rauk-,<br />
or “Royal Sakas” — the exact translation into<br />
Chinese being<br />
Saiwang 塞王. With this<br />
we have to interpret Strabo in a slightly different<br />
way: that in<br />
the first wave had come<br />
a Saka<br />
tribe, namely the Sakaraukai,<br />
and in the second wave<br />
then came the remaining three nomad nations, the Asioi, Pasianoi and Tocharoi.<br />
Trogus, also excerpting Apollodoros as we know by now, simply relates — in the<br />
surviving “Table of Contents” to his lost book — that the Sa[ca]raucae and the Asiani<br />
broke into Bactra and Sogdiana, respectively. This, too, seems to indicate that the Sacaraucae/Sakaraukai<br />
came in a first wave, but that in a second wave there appeared on<br />
the scene, not three, but only one more nomadic people, the Asiani/Asioi. With Trogus<br />
we see that the Sacaraucae have advanced from Sogdiana into Bactra (as he pointedly<br />
writes, not into Bactria — which for some time broke apart into Tochara and Bactra):<br />
this is the state of affairs somewhat later in time than the one Strabo presents us.<br />
This much — or rather this little — we can deduce from our (Western) classical<br />
sources. They bequeath us a discrepancy or a problem which, as we have seen above,<br />
has been left unsolved for a long time. L ASSERRE, in his footnote<br />
1975: 83–84 following<br />
ALTHEIM, goes on to explain that Trogus, and after him Justinus, by negligence left out<br />
one or two names in the list of conquering nomads.<br />
Trogue Pompée ap. Justin., Prol. XLII, compte seulement deux nations dans la seconde<br />
vague, les ›Sacaraucae‹ et les ›Asiani‹, qu’il appelle pourtant ›reges Tocharorum‹. Si les<br />
›Asiani‹ sont les ”Asioi (Daffinà, Altheim-Stiehl), les Pasiano… manquent, probablement par<br />
omission de l’épitomateur, et pourraient n’avoir été qu’une fraction ethnique de l’un des<br />
deux prédominants, ce qui expliquerait la divergence entre les témoins grec et latin d’Apollodore.<br />
Rarely has an effort been made to compare the Western with the Eastern sources in<br />
extenso. The main reason surely<br />
is that this requires a working knowledge of a dozen<br />
living, or dead, languages and their<br />
different scripts. One way around the problem is to<br />
assemble<br />
and collate here, word by word, the best expertises from both worlds: East<br />
and<br />
West.<br />
It has always been claimed that the bloody clashes between the Xiongnu 匈奴 and<br />
t he Ruzhi 月氏, deep in East Asia and in the second century BCE, have been decisive<br />
f or the history of Central and South Asia in the next five hundred years or so. This is<br />
tru e, but it is not the complete truth. It has been overlooked that a third nomadic<br />
nat ion played a crucial part in shaping this chapter of Asian history. For when the Ruzhi<br />
月氏, after their last crushing defeat at the hands of the Xiongnu, decided to escape<br />
Xiongnu<br />
domination, their trek to the West ended somewhere in the regions of the up-<br />
per<br />
Ili River — where they dislodged the Sakaraukai/Sakwang 塞王. As far as the Ru-<br />
z hi 月氏 were concerned, they would have remained in those regions east of the<br />
Jaxartes<br />
and would have continued roaming about the region with their flocks and<br />
trading their horses for Chinese silk and other luxury<br />
goods for a good profit. Central<br />
Asia<br />
would have experienced only one nomadic irruption — that of the Sakaraukai —<br />
which would have overrun Sogdiana to end Greek domination there. But the Greek<br />
kingdom in Bactria proper might have survived for several centuries longer.<br />
That this was not the course of history in Central Asia in the second century BCE is<br />
due to a small nomadic people of whom Zhang Qian has left us the very first precious<br />
accounts: the Wusun 烏孫 or “Grandsons of the Raven.”<br />
(WATSON 1993: 237–238)<br />
This same year (122 B.C.)<br />
the Han sent<br />
the swift cavalry<br />
(of General Huo Qu–<br />
bing who succeeded in) defeating<br />
several ten thou-<br />
Shiji 123. 3167–68<br />
是 歲 漢 遣<br />
驃 騎 破 匈<br />
奴 西 ( 城 )<br />
— 81 —<br />
(HULSEWÉ 1979: 213–217)<br />
In this year [121 B.C.]<br />
the general of cavalry<br />
on the alert (P’iao–ch’i)<br />
defeated the Hsiung–<br />
nu on their west side,<br />
Hanshu 61. 2691-2<br />
是 歲 驃 騎<br />
將 軍 破 匈<br />
奴 西 邊 殺
sand men of the Xiong–nu<br />
in the Western Regions<br />
(penetrating) as far as the<br />
Qi–lian Mountains.<br />
The following year (121<br />
B.C.) the Hun–ye king led<br />
his people and surrendered<br />
to the Han (Chinese).<br />
And (in the whole region)<br />
from Jin-cheng and He-xi<br />
west along the Southern<br />
Mountains all the way to<br />
the Salt Swamp the Xiong–<br />
nu completely disappeared.<br />
The Xinong–nu occasionally<br />
had scouts appear (in<br />
the region), but even they<br />
were<br />
rare.<br />
Two<br />
years after this (119<br />
B.C.)<br />
the Han (armies)<br />
attacked<br />
the Shan–yu and<br />
( sent him) running to the<br />
north of the desert.<br />
After this the Son of Heaven<br />
a number of times<br />
questioned (Zhang) Qian<br />
about Da–xia and the<br />
other states (of the west).<br />
(Zhang) Qian,<br />
who had lost<br />
his marquisate, availed<br />
himself (of this chance)<br />
and replied with this report:<br />
“ When your servant<br />
(Zhang Qian) was living<br />
among the Xiong–nu he<br />
heard about the king of the<br />
Wu–sun (people), whose<br />
title was Kun–mo.<br />
The Kun–mo’s father was<br />
(the ruler) of a small state<br />
on the western border of<br />
the Xiong–nu (territory),<br />
THE<br />
XIONG–NU attacked<br />
and killed his father, and<br />
the Kun–mo, who had just<br />
been born, was cast out<br />
in<br />
the wilderness (to die).<br />
(But) the ravens, bearing<br />
meat in their beaks, flew<br />
over the place (where he<br />
was), and the wolves came<br />
[ 域 ] 數 萬<br />
人 至 祁 連<br />
山<br />
其 明 年 渾<br />
邪 王 率 其<br />
民 降 漢<br />
而 金 城 河<br />
西 西 並 南<br />
山 至 鹽 澤<br />
空 無 匈 奴<br />
匈 奴 時 有<br />
候 者 到 而<br />
希 矣<br />
其 後 二 年<br />
漢 擊 走 單<br />
于 於 幕 北<br />
是 後 天 子<br />
數 問 騫 大<br />
夏 之 屬<br />
騫 既 失 侯<br />
因 言 曰<br />
臣 居 匈 奴<br />
中 聞 烏 孫<br />
王 號 昆 莫<br />
昆 莫 之 父<br />
匈 奴 西 邊<br />
小 國 也<br />
匈 奴 攻 殺<br />
其 父 而 昆<br />
莫 生 棄 於<br />
野<br />
烏 嗛 肉 蜚<br />
— 82 —<br />
killing men by the ten<br />
thousand and reaching<br />
the Ch’i–lien Mountain.<br />
That autumn the K’un–<br />
yeh king surrendered<br />
to the Han with his<br />
community.<br />
(The area) west of<br />
Chin–ch’eng (commandery)<br />
and the (Yellow)<br />
River and along<br />
the southern hills as<br />
far as the Salt Marsh<br />
was empty and without<br />
Hsiung–nu;<br />
occasional patrols of<br />
the Hsiung–nu went<br />
there, but only rarely.<br />
Two years later Han<br />
attacked and drove<br />
the Shan–yü to the<br />
north of the desert (119<br />
B.C.).<br />
The Son of Heaven frequently<br />
asked (Chang)<br />
Ch’ien about the states<br />
such as Ta Hsia.<br />
Since he had already<br />
lost his noble rank,<br />
(Chang) Ch’ien took<br />
the opportunity to report<br />
as follows:<br />
“ When I was living<br />
among the Hsiung–nu<br />
I heard of Wu–sun;<br />
the king was entitled<br />
K’un–mo, and the<br />
K’un–mo’s father (was<br />
named) Nan–tou–mi;<br />
originally (Wu–sun)<br />
had lived with the Ta<br />
Yüeh–chih between<br />
Ch’i–lien (mountains)<br />
and Tun–huang;<br />
and they had been a<br />
small state.<br />
THE TA YÜEH–CHIH<br />
attacked and killed<br />
Nan–tou–mi, seizing<br />
his lands; and his<br />
people fled to the<br />
Hsiung–nu.<br />
An infant K’un–mo had<br />
數 萬 人 至<br />
祁 連 山<br />
其 秋 渾 邪<br />
王 率 眾 降<br />
漢<br />
而 金 城 河<br />
西 ( 西 ) 並<br />
南 山 至 鹽<br />
澤 空 無 匈<br />
奴<br />
匈 奴 時 有<br />
候 者 到 而<br />
希 矣<br />
後 二 年 漢<br />
擊 走 單 于<br />
於 幕 北<br />
天 子 數 問<br />
騫 大 夏 之<br />
屬<br />
騫 既 失 侯<br />
因 曰<br />
臣 居 匈 奴<br />
中 聞 烏 孫<br />
王 號 昆 莫<br />
昆 莫 父 難<br />
兜 靡<br />
本 與 大 月<br />
氏 俱 在 祁<br />
連 焞 煌 間<br />
小 國 也<br />
大 月 氏 攻<br />
殺 難 兜 靡
and suckled him (so that<br />
he was able to survive).<br />
(When) the Shan–yu<br />
(heard of this he) was<br />
filled with wonder and,<br />
believing that (the Kun–<br />
mo) was a god, he took<br />
him in and reared him.<br />
When he had grown to<br />
manhood, (the Shan–yu)<br />
sent (the Kun–mo) to command<br />
a band of troops and<br />
he several times won merit<br />
(in battle).<br />
The Shan–yu gathered his<br />
father’s people together<br />
again, restored them to the<br />
Kun–mo and ordered him<br />
to be the senior guard in<br />
the Western Regions.<br />
The Kun–mo took over and<br />
looked after his people and<br />
led them in attacks on the<br />
small settlements in the<br />
neighborhood.<br />
(Soon) his skilled archers<br />
其 上 狼 往<br />
乳 之<br />
單 于 怪 以<br />
為 神 而 收<br />
長 之<br />
及 壯 使 將<br />
兵 數 有 功<br />
單 于 復 以<br />
其 父 之 民<br />
予 昆 莫 令<br />
長 守 於 西<br />
( 城 )[域]<br />
昆 莫 收 養<br />
其 民 攻 旁<br />
小 邑<br />
— 83 —<br />
recently been born,<br />
and the Pu–chiu Hsihou,<br />
who was his<br />
guardian,<br />
took him in<br />
his arms and ran<br />
away.<br />
He laid him in the<br />
grass and searched<br />
for<br />
food for him; and on<br />
coming back he saw a<br />
wolf suckling the child;<br />
furthermore there were<br />
ravens holding meat in<br />
their beaks and hovering<br />
at (the child’s) side.<br />
Believing this to be su-<br />
pernatural, he then<br />
carried (the child)<br />
back to the Hsiung–nu,<br />
and the Shan–yü loved<br />
and reared him.<br />
When he had come of<br />
age, (the Shan–yü) deliveredto<br />
the K’un–mo<br />
his father’s people;<br />
He had him lead<br />
troops, and on several<br />
occasions he did so meritoriously.<br />
At the time the Yüehchih<br />
had already been<br />
defeated by the<br />
Hsiung–nu;<br />
Making for the west<br />
they attacked the Saiwang.<br />
The Saiwang moved a<br />
considerable distance<br />
to the South and the<br />
Yüeh–chih then occu-<br />
pied their lands.<br />
Once the K’un–mo had<br />
grown to adulthood, he<br />
asked permission of<br />
the Shan–yü to avenge<br />
his father’s wrongs.<br />
Going west he at-<br />
tacked and defeated<br />
the Ta Yüeh–chih, who<br />
again fled west, moving<br />
into the lands of<br />
Ta Hsia.<br />
The K’un–mo despoiled<br />
the population of<br />
奪 其 地 人<br />
民 亡 走 匈<br />
奴<br />
子 昆 莫 新<br />
生 傅 父 布<br />
就 翎 侯 抱<br />
亡 置 草 中<br />
為 求 食 還<br />
見 狼 乳 之<br />
又 烏 銜 肉<br />
翔 其 旁 以<br />
為 神 遂 持<br />
歸 匈 奴 單<br />
于 愛 養 之<br />
及 壯 以 其<br />
父 民 眾 與<br />
昆 莫 使 將<br />
兵 數 有 功<br />
時 月 氏 已<br />
為 匈 奴 所<br />
破 西 擊 塞<br />
王<br />
塞 王 南 走<br />
遠 徙 月 氏<br />
居 其 地<br />
昆 莫 既 健<br />
自 請 單 于<br />
報 父 怨 遂<br />
西 攻 破 大<br />
月 氏<br />
大 月 氏 復<br />
西 走 徙 大
(numbered) several ten<br />
thousand, trained in a ggressive<br />
warfare.<br />
When the (›Lao–Shang‹)<br />
Shan–yu died (161 B.C.), the<br />
Kun–mo in fact led his people<br />
in a trek far away (declaring<br />
himself an) independent<br />
(ruler), he refused<br />
(any longer to journey to)<br />
the court meetings of the<br />
Xiong–nu ...<br />
控 弦 數 萬<br />
習 攻 戰<br />
單 于 死 昆<br />
莫 乃 率 其<br />
眾 遠 徙 中<br />
立 不 肯 朝<br />
會 匈 奴<br />
Ta Hsia [of the Ta<br />
Yüeh-chih], and then<br />
remained there in occupation.<br />
His forces gradually<br />
grew stronger<br />
and at the death of the<br />
Shan–yü he was no<br />
longer willing to attend<br />
at the court of the<br />
Hsiung–nu and serve<br />
them ...<br />
夏 地<br />
昆 莫 略 其<br />
眾 因 留 居<br />
兵 稍 彊<br />
會 單 于 死<br />
不 肯 復 朝<br />
事 匈 奴<br />
It may well be the first time that these two “ parallel” texts, excerpts of Zhang Qian’s<br />
biography in the Shiji and the Hanshu, are re produced side by side — together with<br />
their English translations — in Western literature.<br />
We have an excellent<br />
example here<br />
how the Hanshu is not copying,<br />
but carefully<br />
editing the nearly two hundred years<br />
older Shiji with corrections and additions which<br />
are of the greatest importance<br />
(I have<br />
made it clear where the two Chinese texts differ).<br />
A seemingly minor correction<br />
is that the Hanshu<br />
has “West of the He<br />
(= Yellow Ri-<br />
ver)” 河西 where the Shiji writes “West of Hexi”<br />
河西西. The full sentence<br />
tells us that<br />
an area, formerly occupied by the Ruzhi 月氏 , then annexed by the Xiongnu<br />
匈奴, is<br />
now empty. The ancient nam<br />
e of this area is Hexi 河西 (“West of the River”).<br />
Hence, it<br />
cannot be located west to itself. Instead, the<br />
Hanshu wants to tell us<br />
here that the<br />
former homelands of the Ruzhi<br />
月氏 had a common border with Han China at (the<br />
city<br />
of) Jincheng 金城 — where the Great<br />
Wall<br />
長城 ended at that time<br />
— and at the<br />
(Yellow)<br />
River 河. In fact, we are told elsewhere<br />
that the old territory of<br />
the 月氏 extended<br />
even a little beyond that<br />
river. Above, we have seen that Longxi隴西<br />
was still<br />
the border town at the start of Zhang<br />
Qian’s m ission, even after the 月 氏 had since<br />
long<br />
left their old lands.<br />
HULSEWÉ/LOEWE misunderstood the correction in the Hanshu text<br />
and, 1979: 213,<br />
translated 金城河西( 西 ) as “ (The area west of) Chin-ch’eng and Ho- hsi (command-<br />
eries)<br />
...” The Translators ignore the fact that<br />
there has never been a Chinese com-<br />
m andery by the name of Hexi (Ho-hsi). Instead,<br />
Hexi 河西 has been the<br />
ancient name<br />
of<br />
the whole of modern Gansu Corridor. The c orrect translation of the four characters<br />
金 城河西 should be “ West of Jincheng (city) and the (Y ellow) River ... ” This gives us<br />
the crucial eastern limit of the former homelands of the Ruzhi 月氏 — which<br />
is miss-<br />
ing<br />
in the often repeated, but unfortunately very abbreviated formula “... between the<br />
Qilian (Mountains) and Dunhuang ...” 祁連焞煌 間 (also appearing in our above Han-<br />
shu<br />
text) — which just gives us the southern and western limits of the<br />
former Ruzhi<br />
月 氏 country. The northern limit is always left out: in that direction<br />
the 月氏 had a<br />
common border with the Xiongnu which was not too well defined, it seems.<br />
In other words, when the Shiji and the Hanshu report that the oblong<br />
corridor of<br />
la nd between the Yellow River and the Salt Swamp<br />
鹽澤 or Lopnor was empty because<br />
the<br />
Xiongnu had first annexed this corridor and<br />
later evacuated it again,<br />
then we may<br />
realize<br />
that we have here the clearest definition of the former lands of<br />
the Ruzhi 月氏<br />
a nd their western neighbors, t he Wusun 烏孫 — the latter, therefore, should<br />
have lived<br />
between<br />
Dunhuang 焞煌 and the Lopnor.<br />
The Wusun are the main topic of the above<br />
two excerpts from the<br />
Shiji and the<br />
Hanshu. These two books provide<br />
us with the earliest known bits of<br />
history of this<br />
small<br />
nomadic nation. As far as I know, the Wusun are not mentioned in any Chinese<br />
text older than the Shiji. It is curious that the Shiji<br />
and the Hanshu tell us the genesis<br />
of the Wusun in two sharply different versions. In the Shiji Zhang Qian<br />
says that the<br />
Wusun, at an unspecified time,<br />
had been attacked<br />
and routed by the Xiongnu.<br />
But in<br />
— 84 —
the Hanshu the same Zhang<br />
Qian tells us that<br />
it had been the Ruzhi 月氏 who<br />
fell<br />
upon the Wusun and killed<br />
their king. In the<br />
older book, the Wusun live west of<br />
the<br />
Xiongnu, but in the<br />
later one, they lived amongst<br />
the 月氏. Which book<br />
is reporting the<br />
true facts ? All told, the Hanshu<br />
is much better<br />
informed<br />
about the Wusun than the<br />
Shiji. With this, we should be safe to assume that<br />
the Hanshu is not correcting<br />
the Shi-<br />
ji here, but Zhang Qian — who had told his story<br />
in a way whic h suited his aims. If the<br />
Wusun had been maltreated<br />
by the Xiongnu,<br />
they should bear the Xiongnu<br />
a grudge,<br />
and the Han should be able<br />
to win the Wusun<br />
as allies against the Xiongnu.<br />
Zhang<br />
Qian, in about 119 BCE, wished<br />
to be sent out<br />
again as envoy, now to<br />
the Wusun. He<br />
told his story accordingly — and it worked. Some two hundred years<br />
later, the Han-<br />
shu, for the sake of historical<br />
truth, lets Zhang Qian report the true story:<br />
it quietly<br />
overwrites the<br />
Shiji without any discussion.<br />
In every respect,<br />
the later story makes bet<br />
ter sense.<br />
It is in the Hanshu that we first hear of the Saiwang 塞王, the Sakaraukai or Sacaraucae<br />
of our Western sources. The Ruzhi 月氏, trekking west, somewhere out there in<br />
the west clash with the Saiwang, and the Saiwang were forced to move “far to the<br />
south.” But what is more important: the Hanshu goes on to tell us why, where and<br />
when the Wusun 烏孫 — the “Grandsons of the Raven” — now attacked the 月氏.<br />
This is the decisive piece of information. The 月氏, newly settled in the old lands of the<br />
Saiwang, are not permitted to remain where their first trek had ended. Beaten by the<br />
Wusun — who were commanded by the young kunmo 昆莫, or king, Lie–jiao–mi 獵驕<br />
靡 , a great leader —, it is now the 月氏 who are forced to move, and this time we are<br />
told where to: namely into the country of the Daxia 大夏, or far to the southeast. And<br />
it is the Wusun who now settle for good in the old lands of the Saiwang, freshly evacuated<br />
by the 月氏. When soon afterwards the Xiongnu chanyu dies (Laoshang, in late<br />
161 BCE), the young Wusun kunmo feels well settled in his new lands and, in consequence,<br />
strong and powerful enough to shun the Xiongnu court meetings — usually<br />
taken as a sign of submission.<br />
The Wusun never crossed the Jaxartes. It was, therefore, a most irritating blunder<br />
when HULSE WÉ, 1979: 217, translated 昆莫略其眾因留居 as “The K’un–mo despoil-<br />
ed the population of Ta Hsia, and then remained there in occupation” — the literal<br />
meaning being “The Kunmo worsted their population and remained to settle there for<br />
good.” This “their” 其 refers back to the last sentence: “The Ta Yüeh–chih again fled<br />
west, moving into the lands of Ta Hsia” 大月氏復西走徙大夏地. Grammar as well<br />
as common sense tell us here that the main two antagonists are the Ruzhi 月氏 and<br />
the Wusun 烏孫; so that “their” must refer, not to the far-away Daxia 大夏, but to the<br />
Ruzhi 月氏, newly settled in the old lands of the Saiwang. The printed wrong translation<br />
made one or two generations of Non-sinologists believe that the Wusun went west<br />
as far as the Daxia and remained in their lands. They did not. Instead, the Wusun<br />
never crossed the Jaxartes.<br />
The Chinese sources, in extenso reproduced and discussed here, thus prove: the<br />
only nomadic peoples crossing the Jaxartes from east to west in the second century<br />
BCE are the Saiwang 塞王 and the Ruzhi 月氏 — one after the other, in this order and<br />
within a few years time. It all happens in the lifetime of Chanyu Laoshang (174–161), or<br />
to be more precise: the successive two nomadic irruptions from east of the Jaxartes<br />
into Sogdiana happen after 165 and before 160 BCE, i.e. within less than five years. For<br />
the next half generation, the fights between the different invaders are confined to Sogdiana.<br />
Then, another two waves of nomadic irruptions inundate Bactria: in the first, of<br />
c. 145, the Græco-Bactrian kings are forced to give up the eastern parts of their kingdom,<br />
called Daxia 大夏 (Tochara) by Zhang Qian, and in the second, of c. 130 BCE, the<br />
Greeks, bled out, are finally annihilated in the capital Bactra itself.<br />
With this amount of historical facts well established by the Chinese sources, we<br />
may return to the Western classical counterparts. For Trogus, the starting point of his<br />
narrative on the fall of the Græco-Bactrian kingdom is the conquest of Sogdiana by the<br />
— 85 —
Ruzhi 月氏, and of Bactra by the Sacaraucae. Trogus reports nothing of the short-time<br />
occupation of the 月氏 in the upper Ili region and of the Sacaraucae-Saiwang in Sogdiana.<br />
In consequence, the origins of these two nomadic nations are unknown to him.<br />
But we have only his prologi, a kind of “ Table of Contents.” His full text on the<br />
subject — where he may have explained the historical facts in great detail — unfortunately<br />
is lost.<br />
Of Strabo we have the main text of his book in beautiful preservation, and so it is<br />
not surprising that he seems to know more. He tells us that the center of nomadic unrest<br />
must be looked for beyond the Jaxartes River (modern Syr Darya). From that region<br />
at the eastern end of the world — originally the homelands of the Sakai, now<br />
established in Sogdiana — four different nomadic peoples burst forth: the Asioi, the<br />
Pasianoi, the Tocharoi and the Sakaraukai. The last-mentioned Sakaraukai are one of<br />
those specific tribes which are also called by their general name Skythai or Sakai, as<br />
Strabo<br />
tells us. Hence, they are the Sakai who are now found living amongst the Sogdians.<br />
This means, they crossed the Jaxartes first and thus constituted the first wave of<br />
nomadic irruptions into Sogdiana and later Bactria. In the second wave, therefore, only<br />
three different peoples crossed the Jaxartes at once: the Asioi, the Pasianoi and the<br />
Tocharoi.<br />
Compared with Trogus, Strabo’s starting point takes us one step further back in<br />
time and space: the Sakaraukai are found in Sogdiana and the other three peoples are<br />
still located beyond the Jaxartes. Interpreting just Strabo’s text, we would be safe to<br />
assume, that the Asioi, Pasianoi, and Tocharoi had come from somewhere else and had<br />
pushed the Sakaraukai out of their original homes and across the Jaxartes. If so, it<br />
would be logic to assume that the three peoples had not come from the west, but from<br />
somewhere further north; or further east — for Strabo the latter was terra incognita.<br />
In 1852: 352, LASSEN reminds us:<br />
Den Chinesischen Geschichtschreibern, die nicht nur die Geschichte ihres eigenen Landes<br />
vollständiger und genauer geschrieben haben, als es von irgend einem andern Asiatischen<br />
Volke geschehen ist, sondern auch die Verhandlungen der fremden Völker mit ihren<br />
Herrschern und ihre Geschichte, wenn diese eine Beziehung zu der ihres eigenen Volkes<br />
hatte, treu und sorgfältig aufgezeichnet haben, verdankt es die Nachwelt allein, noch eine<br />
Kunde von der Völkerwanderung zu besitzen, deren Hauptereignisse hier dargelegt werden<br />
müssen, weil ihre gewaltige Strömung zuletzt auch Indien erreichte.<br />
It is a fortunate fact that our terse Western sources on this fateful migration of a<br />
number of nomad nations — two short prologi by Trogus, four consecutive phrases by<br />
Strabo — are replenished by our Eastern sources. Here, we have to compile a wide<br />
range of relevant passages from at least seven of the first seventeen Chinese Standard<br />
Histories 正史, or from the Shiji 史記, the Hanshu 漢書, the Hou Hanshu 後漢書, the<br />
Weishu 魏書, the Beishi 北史 , the Suishu 隨書, and the Tangshu 唐書. Here, first-<br />
class<br />
information is sometimes found in the most unexpected chapters of these bulky<br />
books. Scattered bits and pieces must be collated, exploited, evaluated. In this paper, I<br />
am trying to do just this in a more comprehensive way than has been done so far.<br />
The final result here is: the Chinese sources, in particular Shiji 123, Hanshu 61,<br />
and Hanshu 96 greatly extend and confirm what we gather from Trogus and Strabo.<br />
But at times, these Eastern sources may also contain crucial corrections. The most important<br />
correction in our context may well be that those nomadic nations which destroyed<br />
the Græco-Bactrian kingdom north of the Hindukush in the second century<br />
BCE were, not four, but only two in number: the Sakaraukai or Saiwang 塞王 and the<br />
A[r]sii or Ruzhi (Yuezhi) 月氏. This, in fact, is also confirmed by Trogus.<br />
Strabo’s Pasianoi are a phantom people, not mentioned in Trogus<br />
and thus not in<br />
the lost book of Apollodoros — they are also unknown in the Chinese sources.<br />
Whereas Strabo’s Tocharoi are mentioned by Trogus and well known by the Shiji,<br />
Hanshu etc. — but not as a conquering people of nomads, but as a people conquered<br />
— 86 —
and well settled. With this, we are back to the above question: how did the two names<br />
Pasianoi and Tocharoi get onto Strabo’s list ?<br />
Since the very beginning of modern Strabo studies, it has been seen that in the unknown<br />
name Pasianoi we have the well-known name p-ASIANOI. At a time when Latin<br />
was still the lingua franca of all learned men in Europe, the French scholar VAILLANT<br />
speculated that the ethnic name Pasianoi should be amended in such a way that it<br />
could<br />
be understood as the Greek version of Trogus’ Asiani.<br />
In 1725: 61, VAILLANT writes:<br />
ARSACES VIII. Artabanus hujus nominis secundus, in avi sui Artabani memoriam ita<br />
nuncupatus videtur. Hic Arsacis Mithridatis frater minor, & Arsacis Phriapatii filius fuit ultimus.<br />
Post mortem Phrahatis II, ex fratre Mithridate filii, a Scythis in prælio interempti,<br />
Rex a Parthis, qui in veram & antiquam Parthiam se receperant, in hoc turbido Parthici<br />
Imperii statu constituitur; anno ante Chr. 126. V. C. 628. Seleucid. 186. Arsac. 130.<br />
(Ann. 131.) Scythæ, post insignem victoriam de Parthis relatam, ea contenti, provinciis<br />
illorum depopulatis, in patriam revertuntur. Justin. lib. 42 cap. 1.<br />
Interim alii Scythæ, dicti Nomades, Græcos Bactrianæ, quibus jam libertas oblata fuerat<br />
a Parthis, internecione delent. Strabo lib. 11. pag. 511. De his Scythis Nomadibus maxime innotuerunt,<br />
qui Græcis Bactrianam ademerunt — Asii PasianÒi, emenda ¾ AsianÒi, vel Asiani,<br />
& Tochari, ac Sacarauli, vel Sacauraci.<br />
In “De (his Scythis) Nomadibus maxime innotuerunt ...” we have the Latin translation<br />
of Strabo’s crucial phrase: M£lista d gnèrimoi gegÒnasi tîn nom£dwn ... And<br />
we notice in passing that VAILLANT has a Strabo edition before him with the defective<br />
Sacarauli (Sak£rauloi) in place of the correct Sacaraucae (Sakaraàkai), confirmed by<br />
the Vatican palimpsest, discovered a century or so later.<br />
VAILLANT is suggesting that in times,<br />
when the Strabo text was being copied in lower-case<br />
or minuscular<br />
script, an original ¾ AsianÒi had become corrupted into PasianÒi.<br />
The meaning of Greek À 'Asiao…, Latin “vel Asiani,” would be in English: “or (else<br />
c alled) the Asiani.” With this, the ominous Pasianoi would disappear. Strabo’s list<br />
would<br />
include only three names: the Asioi (or Asianoi), the Tocharoi and the Sakarau-<br />
kai.<br />
However, a corruption ¾ P seemed somewhat far-fetched. In upper-case Greek<br />
letters<br />
(majuscular script), the same scribal error would become more plausible. And<br />
so<br />
the French Abbé LONGUERUE, in 1732: 14, rewrites his compatriot in this way:<br />
Anno A.C. 127. V.C. 627. Seleuc. 185. Arsac. 129. Scythæ contenti victoria depopulata Parthia<br />
(provinciis Parthorum imperio subditis) in patriam revertuntur. Interim alii Scythæ<br />
Græcos Bactrianæ, quibus jam libertas adempta fuerat a Parthis, internecione delent.<br />
Strabo lib. XI. pag, 511. de Scythis Nomadibus maxime innotuerunt, qui Græcis Bactrianam<br />
ademerunt Asii Græce Pas…anoi (emenda —H 'Asianoˆ vel Asiani) & Tochari & Sacarauli<br />
(vel Sacauraci).<br />
With this, the corruption H P would be much easier to accept; and it would have<br />
occurred earlier: in the first few centuries of transmission when such Greek manuscripts<br />
were written in capital letters and in the scriptio continua, i.e. wíthout extra<br />
spacing<br />
between the words. The scholarly Abbé could have explained the corruption actually<br />
as ΗΑCΙΑΝΟΙ becoming misspelled as ΠΑCΙΑΝΟΙ — in this way, the scribal error<br />
would have made a tiny difference in writing, but a fearful one in meaning, indeed.<br />
This would be an elegant way to reduce Straho’s list from four to three names. But<br />
would it be typical for Strabo to mention one name in two different versions ? One authority<br />
on the subject, LASSEN, does not think so. In 1852: 360, he comments in a note:<br />
Longuerue in seinen Annal. Arsac. p. 14, und Vaillant, de Arsacid. imper. I, p.<br />
61, haben À<br />
'Asianoˆ<br />
als Emendation vorgeschlagen; s. die Notiz zu der Stelle in der Ausgabe von<br />
Tzschucke IV, p. 474. Dieser Vorschlag scheint jedoch nicht annehmbar, da Strabon kaum<br />
die Verschiedenheit der Namen erwähnt haben wird.<br />
On the same page, LASSEN proposes his own ingenious way to solve the problem:<br />
— 87 —
Den umständlichsten Bericht über den Skytheneinbruch hat uns Strabon aufbewahrt.<br />
Nach ihm waren unter den Nomaden in N. Sogdiana’s diejenigen die berühmtesten geworden,<br />
welche den Hellenen Baktrien weggenommen hatten, nämlich die Asier, die Pasianer,<br />
die Tocharer und Sakarauler. Sie waren ausgezogen aus dem Lande jenseits des Jaxartes<br />
und dem Theile Sogdiana’s, welchen die Saker besassen. Ausser dieser Stelle finden sich<br />
nur zwei kurze Notizen aus dem Werke des Trogus Pompeius ... Die Verschiedenheit dieser<br />
Angaben betreffen theils die Zahl der Völker, theils ihre Namen.<br />
Strabon führt vier auf,<br />
Trogus Pompeius dagegen nur drei; seine Sarancae müssen die Sakarauler des erstern<br />
seyn.<br />
Da die Pasianer sonst nirgends vorkommen, möchte es kaum zweifelhaft seyn, dass<br />
in seinen Text dieser Name aus einer Randglosse, in welcher bemerkt worden war, dass<br />
die Asier von andern Asianer genannt wurden, durch die Abschreiber eingedrungen ist.<br />
LASSEN understands Strabo’s text clearly in that way that the nomadic nations who<br />
took<br />
Bactria from the Greeks had come:<br />
(1) from beyond the Jaxartes (east and north of the river);<br />
(2) from that part of Sogdiana which was occupied by the Sakas<br />
(west of the river).<br />
Strabo, surely basing himself on Apollodoros, then adds the information that the<br />
o riginal homes of the Sakai — or, more specific, the Sakaraukai — had been beyond,<br />
or<br />
east and north of, the Jaxartes. With this we know that the first stage of this migra-<br />
tion of nations had been the displacement of the Sakai/Sakaraukai from their original<br />
seats<br />
beyond the Jaxartes into Sogdiana, i.e. to west of the river. And we know that<br />
those peoples — who had pushed the Sakaraukai west across the river and were now<br />
living beyond the Jaxartes in the old seats of the Sakaraukai — must originally have<br />
come from somewhere else. This was an important realization. For shortly before<br />
LASSEN, GROSKURD, a great interpreter of Strabo, still finds the half-sentence ... ¿n<br />
kate‹con S£kai difficult and “dark” when, in 1831: 397, he translates the whole sentence<br />
this way:<br />
Von diesen Wanderhirten sind besonders jene bekannt geworden, welche den Hellenen<br />
Baktrien entrissen, die Asier, Pasianer, Tocharer und Sakarauler, ausgezogen vom jenseitigen<br />
Ufer des Iaxartes neben den Saken und Sogdianern, wo [gleichfalls] Saken sassen.<br />
In a note GROSKURD adds:<br />
Im Text steht blos: neben den Saken und Sogdianern, wo Saken sassen; ein sehr unver<br />
ständiger<br />
und dunkler Ausdruck. Zwar wohnten allerdings auch jenseits des Iaxartes Saken.<br />
Dieses muss aber bestimmter und als Gegensatz ausgedrückt werden. Wahrscheinlich<br />
fehlt vor kate‹con nur kaˆ aÙt¾n, gleichfalls.<br />
In 1967: 52, DAFFINÀ, still uncertain how to understand Strabo here, writes:<br />
Strabone, attingendo probabilmente ad Apollodoro di Artemita, dice che la Battriana fu<br />
sottratta ai Greci<br />
da quattro popoli nomadi: gli ”Asoi, i Pasiano…, i TÒcaroi, e i<br />
Sakaraàkai,<br />
partiti dall’ opposta sponda dello Iaxart±s. Il testo in questo punto è confuso e<br />
non si capisce bene a quale lato del fiume Strabone intenda riferirsi; probabilmente al lato<br />
destro, cioè settentrionale, ma è ovvio, in ogni caso, che i quattro invasori non si diedero<br />
convegno in uno stesso luogo alla stessa ora e che quella di Apollodoro-Strabone è soltanto<br />
una notizia semplificata e succinta dei loro movimento.<br />
DAFFINÀ, beyond his problems to understand Strabo forthwith, makes one impor-<br />
tant<br />
statement: “Obviously the four invaders did not converge in the same place at the<br />
same time.” This means that the last-mentioned Sakaraukai crossed the Jaxartes first,<br />
while the other three peoples occupied the old seats of the Sakaraukai on the far side<br />
of the river. This is what Strabo says. With LASSEN 1852, and more recently ALT-<br />
HEIM/STIEHL<br />
1970 (see above, p. 80), we know how this “dark” half-sentence must be un-<br />
derstood:<br />
. .. where the Sakai had lived a long time (be- ... ¿n kate‹con<br />
S£kai.<br />
fore they were driven west into Sogdiana).<br />
— 88 —
Now, what we have to deduce so painfully from a bare minimum of words in our<br />
Western<br />
sources, we find fully and unmistakably explained in the Chinese Histories.<br />
Originally, the Sai 塞 or Saiwang 塞王 had their traditional pasture grounds in the<br />
u pper Ili River valley and environs. The East Asian, or mongoloid, Ruzhi 月氏, a final<br />
time<br />
bloodily beaten by the Xiongnu 匈奴 in about 165 BCE, decide to escape Xiongnu<br />
d omination and start to migrate west. Somewhere out there, obviously in the valleys of<br />
the<br />
upper Ili and its tributaries, they clash with the Central Asian, or Indo-European,<br />
Saiwang,<br />
forcing them to escape across the Jaxartes. Meanwhile the new Kunmo 昆莫,<br />
or<br />
king, of the Wusun 烏孫 — who had been a new-born child when the 月氏 had at-<br />
tacked<br />
and beaten the Wusun, killing their old king Nan-tou-mi 難兜靡 — has grown<br />
up and now asks the chanyu or emperor of the Xiongnu, Laoshang 老上, the permis<br />
sion<br />
to avenge his father. Before the death of this chanyu, occurring late in 161 BCE, he<br />
attacks the 月氏, triumphs over them, and it is now the turn of the 月氏 to cross the<br />
Jaxartes into Sogdiana. There, they clash a second time with the Saiwang. A second<br />
time<br />
the Saiwang have to move, this time to the south.<br />
It all fits well enough with what Trogus and Strabo tell us of the Sacaraucae/Sakaraukai<br />
and the Asiani/Asioi. In the more coherent story of the Chinese sources, however,<br />
there is nowhere any mention of the Pasianoi — or of the Tocharoi as an invading<br />
nomad nation. This makes it certain that these phantom or real peoples have no<br />
place in the incursions of nomadic nations which eventually destroyed Greek Bactria.<br />
Strabo should have told us: First the Sakaraukai crossed the Jaxartes from East<br />
to West and shortly thereafter the Asioi. For Trogus has only these two invading peoples.<br />
Our two Western authors of Augustean time copy from the same lost book of<br />
Apollodoros of Artemita. With this, the last vexing question to solve here is: How did<br />
the superfluous two ethnic names Pasianoi and Tocharoi get onto Strabo’s list ? By logical<br />
deduction, we can be sure now that they have not been there when Strabo wrote<br />
his Geography.<br />
We have seen that LASSEN considers it unlikely that Strabo should have bothered to<br />
m ention a particular name in two different versions. He prefers to think that the name<br />
Pasianoi<br />
was originally just a marginal note — explaining that the Asioi were else-<br />
wh ere called Asianoi: h asianoi — and this note later slipped into the main text as pasianoi.<br />
Thev erysame could have happened to the name Tocharoi in Strabo’s list. GROS-<br />
KURD’s<br />
careful Index to Strabo’s Geography shows, 1834: 439, that this name, too, ap-<br />
pears<br />
in the whole huge work only once, i.e. on this page 511 (the pagination of Casau-<br />
b onus’ edition of 1620), and so may also have been just a note in the margins — to the<br />
e ffect that in another work this name was found mentioned in connection with the fall<br />
of Greek Bactria — which a later copyist adopted into the main text, together with the<br />
corrupt<br />
Pasianoi. This sounds all very convincing. However, our oldest Strabo codex,<br />
the<br />
Vatican palimpsest, squarely disproves such reasoning.<br />
Daffinà, 1967: 52–53, remarks already :<br />
Nella prima metà del Settecento il Vaillant congetturò, difatti, che ”Asioi kaˆ Pasianoˆ<br />
fosse corrompimento di un originario ¥sioi À ¢siano…. Lasciando stare che la lettura tradizionale<br />
viene ora confermata dal palinsesto vaticano e perciò ha il consenso dei codici tutti,<br />
il restauro consigliato dal Vaillant, ancorché accettato e difeso fino a non molti anni fa,<br />
non<br />
è tanto paleograficamente impossibile, quanto intrinsecamente ingiustificato. In effetto<br />
esso è stato sostenuto soprattutto perché dei Pasianoi non si sapeva bene che fare.<br />
The Vatican palimpsest, very fragmentary though it is, shows Strabo’s most important<br />
phrase on Casaubonus’ page 511 in an immaculate state of preservation. The list of<br />
conquering nomad nations has all four traditional names. On the discovery of the palimpsest’s<br />
69 (of once 462) folia, ALY writes, 1929: 3–5 :<br />
In dem Kasten,<br />
in dem bislang die Überreste des Vat. Gr. 2306 aufbewahrt wurden, befin-<br />
det sich ein Zettel von der Hand Angelo Mais, daß er diese Handschrift am<br />
16. März 1844 im<br />
römischen Kunsthandel erworben hat. Sie<br />
enthält von zweiter Hand Stücke des Penta-<br />
— 89 —
teuch;<br />
darunter standen von einer Hand des 6. Jahrh. “o piu antica” Teile von Strabons<br />
Geographie. Des außerordentlichen Wertes dieses Fundes wurde man sich jedoch erst be-<br />
wußt,<br />
als der Basilianer Pater Cozza-Luzi in der Bibliothek des griechischen Klosters Grotta<br />
Ferrata in den Albaner Bergen unter Pergamentresten von Handschriftenkustoden drei<br />
ebenfalls doppelt beschriebene Blätter fand, die offensichtlich aus derselben Strabonhandschrift<br />
stammten und nach der oberen Schrift zu urteilen entweder derselben Handschrift<br />
angehörten, die Mai erworben hatte, oder einer sehr ähnlichen. Seit dem Jahre 1875 hat<br />
sich (Guiseppe) Cozza-Luzi eingehend mit der Entzifferung der Strabonreste beschäftigt<br />
und nach einer kürzeren Voranzeige von 1875 seine Ergebnisse in sieben Teilen von 1884–<br />
1898 veröffentlicht ... Schon die Anordnung der Schrift in drei Kolumnen beweist, daß wir<br />
es mit einer Handschrift von beträchtlichem Alter zu tun haben ...<br />
Alle diese Merkmale zusammengenommen empfehlen als Datierung den Anfang des 6.<br />
Jahrhunderts, wenn nicht gar die zweite Hälfte des 5. Jahrhunderts. Die Schrift ist außerordentlich<br />
regelmäßig und fest. In Verbindung mit dem sehr feinen Pergament zeigt sie an,<br />
daß wir keine übliche Handelsware vor uns haben, sondern<br />
eine gute sorgfältige Abschrift.<br />
Sie<br />
hat einst den ganzen Strabon enthalten. Außer einem Blatte des 1. Buches stammen<br />
alle Blätter aus dem 8.–17. Buche ...<br />
Nachdem ein paar Blätter des Strabon in Grotta Ferrata gefunden sind, kann man mit<br />
einiger Wahrscheinlichkeit sagen, daß auch V<br />
Gr<br />
er die Tatsachen soweit sinnvoll zusammen, so dürfte es unzweifelhaft<br />
se<br />
1 und V 2 dort gewesen sind. Man begreift wenigstens<br />
dann, wie V 2 in den römischen Kunsthandel gekommen ist. Die Bibliothek von<br />
otta Ferrata stammt zum großen Teil aus Süditalien ...<br />
Andererseits beweist die wesentlich spätere Hand von V 2 , daß nicht etwa V 1 von fern<br />
her importiert sein kann, sondern daß der Strabon dort irgendwo in Kalabrien aufgelöst<br />
wurde und sein Pergament zu mehreren anderen Handschriften verwendet wurde. Da<br />
liegt es nahe, an das Bistum Rossano zu denken, in dessen unmittelbarer Nachbarschaft<br />
im Laufe des 6. Jahrhunderts die ersten Eremitenzellen entstanden waren ...<br />
Ordnen sich ab<br />
in, daß auch der etwas ältere Strabonkodex nicht in Rossano geschrieben ist. Ich möchte<br />
auf seine Schrift ein Wort Mercatis anwenden, das er bei einer anderen Gelegenheit gesagt<br />
hat: “non si scrive cosi bene nella provinzia.” Und das Konstantinopel Justinians ist es,<br />
das uns die ersten Zeugnisse einer Bekanntschaft mit Strabon in dem Lexikon des Stephanos<br />
liefert.<br />
ALY published the Strabon palimpsest — in transcription and facsimile — 1956 in<br />
Rome, and in the language which had been spoken in the eternal city for a thousand<br />
years. From his book’s introduction, p. V–IX, we get a few additional details:<br />
In 69 foliis membranaceis duorum Bibliothecae Apostolicae Vaticanae codicum, quos antiquo<br />
more palimpsestos vel rescriptos vocamus, sub scriptura mediaevali vetustissima<br />
scriptura Graeca uncialibus litteris composita latet, qua commentarios<br />
geographicos Strabonis<br />
tradi iam dudum cognitum est ...<br />
1<br />
Is nunc in Bibliotheca Vaticana sub nº 2306 asservatur (V ). Eum antea in conventu ordi-<br />
nis S. Basilii Cryptensi, qui hodie Grottaferrata audit, fuisse tribus foliis comprobatur,<br />
quae ad hunc diem vitreis munita in Bibliotheca conventus in memoriam antiquae possessionis<br />
spectantur (V<br />
um,<br />
ni<br />
est, nam lineolae, quibus in finibu<br />
c ). Jam Cardinalis Pentateuchum quidem inesse, Strabonis autem<br />
›Geographica‹ litteris unicialibus conscripta subesse vidit ...<br />
Numeri versum non variantur. Scriptura aequalis et elegantissima. Spatia litterarum<br />
praeter terminationes versuum locis diversissimis operis non mutantur; in finibus vers<br />
si litterae abundantes modulo minore exarantur, interdum paulo angustiores scribuntur.<br />
Quamquam linea subsidiaria ad capita litterarum finienda nusquam conspicitur, tamen<br />
altitudinis litterarum summa est aequalitas, quasi pertica emensa esset. Attamen, qui<br />
scripsit, munere suo non tarde aut nimis curiose functus<br />
s versuum littera N significatur ...<br />
— 90 —
ALY 1956: 69<br />
Vat. Gr. 2061 A, fol. 281, r. I, lin. 12–25 (V 1 40.54)<br />
In his chapter De contextus virtutibus vitiisque palimpsesti, ALY, 1956: 196, adds<br />
the following commentarius criticus to the famous sentence of Strabo (11.8.2; Cas.511).<br />
The<br />
meaning of “L” is: all later codices.<br />
281<br />
r I 19/20 = 8,2 p. 462,11 C A K A P A Υ Κ Α Ι : L sak£rauloi kaˆ; kaˆ del. Groskurd.<br />
T A X A P O I<br />
L quoque exhibent.<br />
22 = 8,2 p. 462,12 T O Υ T Ι Α Ξ A P T O Υ : L toà „ax£rtou.<br />
24 = 8,2 p. 462,13 C O Γ Δ O A N O Y C : L sogdianoÚj.<br />
1<br />
We see here that the Strabo Palimpsest Vat. Gr. 2061 A (V ) — folio 281, recto, column<br />
I, lines 12–25 — very clearly shows the much-quoted sentence we are concerned<br />
with<br />
in this paper:<br />
Vat.Gr.<br />
2061 A (V<br />
/<br />
NA<br />
M£lista / d gnèrimoi gegÒ- /<br />
N<br />
A<br />
K<br />
A<br />
tou / tÁj kat¦ S£kaj kaˆ /<br />
CO<br />
1 ), 281, r I, 12–25:<br />
Transcription:<br />
MAΛICTA / ΔEΓNωPIMOIΓEΓO<br />
CINTωNNOMA / ΔωNOITOΥCEΛΛH / nasin tîn nom£- / dwn oƒ toÝj “Ellh- /<br />
ACAΦEΛOMENOI / THNBAKTPIANHN / naj ¢felÒmenoi / t¾n Baktrian»n /<br />
CIOIKAIΠACIANOI / KAITAXAPOIKAICA / ”Asioi kaˆ Pasianoˆ / kaˆ T£caroi kaˆ Sa- /<br />
APAΥKAIOPMHΘEN / TECAΠOTHCΠEPAI / karaàkai, Ðrmhqšn- / tej ¢pÕ tÁj pera…- /<br />
CTOΥTIAΞAPTOΥ / THCKATACAKACKAI / aj toà Tiax£r<br />
ΓΔOANOΥCHN / KATEIΧONCAKAI / SogdoanoÚj, ¿n / kate‹con S£kai.<br />
When we consider the fact that Strabo’s Geography remained practically unknown<br />
in<br />
the first few centuries of its existence, we may well have here, in this palimpsest of<br />
the<br />
fifth century CE, the well-preserved text of the editio princeps of the first century<br />
C E. If this assumption is correct, Strabo himself wrote Tiaxartes in place of Iaxartes<br />
and Sogdoanoi in place of Sogdianoi — mistakes which<br />
were corrected in later codices.<br />
We<br />
also see here that the correct Western name of the one tribe of the great Saka<br />
Federation, located originally beyond the Jaxartes, was Sakaraukai < *saka rauka-.<br />
— 91 —
Later Strabo codices had shown Sakarauloi<br />
kai, constituting an effort to correct a de-<br />
fective Sakarauloi back to Sakaraukai. A few modern authors understood this correctly.<br />
But GROSKURD in the 19th century mistakenly deleted kai and kept Sakarauloi<br />
— in fact, he should have deleted -loi instead, to get Sakaraukai. Trogus originally<br />
must have had Sacaraucae — which name later copyists corrupted into Sarancae.<br />
The Chinese equivalent to Saka is Sai 塞 (ancient pronunciation sak) and for Saka-raukai<br />
it is Sai–wang (Sak–wang) 塞王.<br />
But of the greatest interest in the palimpsest’s rendering of our terse, desperately<br />
important sentence is that Strabo originally wrote, not Tocharoi,<br />
but Tacharoi. This,<br />
apparently, was no mistake, for all later codices invariably also show Tacharoi, as ALY<br />
states in his commentarius criticus, quoted above. It is very curious, therefore, that all<br />
modern editions (and all translations) of Strabo’s Geography just as unanimously<br />
seem to have Tocharoi: MEINEKE 1877: 718; JONES 1928: 260; LASSERRE 1975: 83; RADT<br />
2004: 340 are the ones I have before me here. The only explanation for this “falsification”<br />
I can think of is that the accepted name of later times was Tocharoi and Tocharistan.<br />
Today, therefore, we must take note again of the fact that the earliest Western representation<br />
of this important ethnic name was Greek TAXAPOI (Tachari). In this way,<br />
as the newly published Vatican Palimpsest shows, Strabo copied the name from Apollodoros’<br />
book. If so, the lost book of the Roman historian Trogus, too, should have<br />
shown an original Reges Tacharorum Asiani. Only later on, this name changed to Tochari/TOXAPOI.<br />
How very helpful it should be if Trogus’ magnum opus would surface<br />
somewhere — or at least the opusculum of Apollodoros.<br />
Under these circumstances, it is of particular interest to note that this change of the<br />
first<br />
vowel from –a– to –o– is closely paralleled in the Chinese sources. The Shiji and<br />
Hanshu (i.e. Zhang Qian’s Report) have Ta–hia/Daxia (Wade-Giles/Pinyin) 大夏. In the<br />
later<br />
Weishu, Beishi, Suishu and Tangshu, this name is changed to T’u–ho–lo/Tuhuoluo<br />
吐火羅 and a few close variants: Tangshu 221 introduces the spellings Tu-ho-lo/<br />
Duhuoluo 吐豁羅, 睹貨邏, and T’u-hu-lo/Tuhuluo<br />
吐呼羅.<br />
In this, we have a firm additional proof that Daxia 大夏 is the Chinese transcription<br />
of Tacha( ra); and the la t er Tuhuoluo 吐 火羅 is the (improved) Chinese tran-<br />
scriptio n of Tochara. The Chinese sources even give us a terminus ante<br />
quem for the<br />
distinct change of the initial vowel in this nam e: the Weishu, first<br />
of the Chinese<br />
Standard Histories to introduce the new transcription T’u–ho–lo/ Tuhuoluo 吐火羅,<br />
narrates the history of the Wei Dynasty, i.e. history of the late fourth to the mid-sixth<br />
century CE.<br />
And in lines 18–20 of column I, recto of folio 281, we have Strabo’s ominous list of<br />
four names: ACIOIKAIΠACIANOI<br />
/ KAITAXAPOIKAICA / KAPAΥKAI — ”Asioi kaˆ Pasianoˆ<br />
kaˆ T£caroi kaˆ Sakaraàkai ... All four are said to be the names of those no-<br />
madic peoples who took Bakt riana from the Greeks: tîn nom£dwn oƒ toÝj “Ellhnaj<br />
¢felÒmenoi t¾n Baktrian»n. And they all<br />
are said to have broken loose, like an ava-<br />
lanche, from the far side of the Jaxartes: Ðrmhqšntej ¢pÕ tÁj pera…aj toà Tiax£rtou.<br />
With only this one sentence by Strabo<br />
and the summaries of two of his<br />
books<br />
(chapters) by Trogus, we would be convinced that the Asii, Pasiani, Tachari, and Saca-<br />
raucae had stormed forth from beyond the<br />
Jaxartes, had inundated Sogdiana and<br />
Bactria like a tidal wave, and had flushed the Greeks out in one great sweep. In the<br />
end, the Asii would rule over the Tachari, and the Sacaraucae would be utterly<br />
annihilated.<br />
Not the slightest shadow of doubt would be cast over this scenario.<br />
The one remaining question would be: what had happened to the Pasiani ?<br />
Fortunately, we have no less then seventeen bulky Chinese history books to sift<br />
through to find out what really happened. The information thus gathered is a hundred<br />
times that collected from our meager Western sources — in quantity and quality.<br />
Those history books were composed by men of letters mostly in Chang’an and Luo-<br />
yang,<br />
two great capitals near the Yellow River and thus very far away from Central Asia.<br />
But these far-away historians — Sima Tan, Sima Qian, Ban Biao, Ban Gu and many<br />
— 92 —
others — could boast to have had an eyewitness on the scene, the great first Chinese<br />
explorer to reach the Oxus River, in the summer of 129 BCE: their man in Daxia (Tachara),<br />
Zhang Qian.<br />
Yet, even with Zhang Qian’s Report to start from, it took the Chinese some seven to<br />
eight centuries to piece the full story together on the Nomadensturm or nomadic irruption<br />
which swept away the Greek kingdom of Sogdiana and Bactria, north of the Hindukush<br />
Mountains. The first detailed information<br />
we collect from chapters 110 and 123<br />
of the<br />
Shiji and chapters 61, 94, and 96 of the Hanshu; the last additions and amend-<br />
ments we find in Tangshu 221. We are told that four nomadic peoples were involved to<br />
set this early historic Völkerwanderung into motion:<br />
— the Xiongnu 匈奴 ;<br />
— the Ruzhi (Yuezhi) 月氏 ;<br />
— the Wusun 烏孫 ;<br />
— the Saiwang 塞王 .<br />
The Xiongnu and the Wusun never crossed the Jaxartes. They remained practically<br />
unknown to classic Western historians like Trogus and Strabo. And the Ruzhi 月氏<br />
would have roamed around the lush pasture grounds of the upper Ili Valley forever, if<br />
the Wusun kunmo or king had not developed an ardent desire to avenge his father —<br />
who had been killed by the 月氏 — and in the process had driven the 月氏 across the<br />
Jaxartes, shortly after the Saiwang 塞王, evicted from the Ili by the Ruzhi 月氏.<br />
Thus, the Chinese historians tell us that only two nomadic peoples broke loose<br />
like an avalanche from the far side of the Jaxartes — and<br />
not together, but in two<br />
distinct<br />
waves:<br />
— the Sacaraucae/Sakaraukai/Saiwang 塞王 (pushed by the Ruzhi 月氏)<br />
— and the Asiani/Asioi/Ruzhi 月氏 (pushed by the Wusun 烏孫).<br />
These clarifications we owe to the Chinese history books. They contradict Strabo in<br />
two crucial points: in the number of peoples involved in wresting Bactria from the<br />
Greeks, and in the number of stages it took to drive the Greeks south across the Hindukush.<br />
Why, then, did Strabo include the Pasiani and the Tachari in his list ? They do not<br />
belong there. The Vatican Palimpsest, quoted above, suggests that the list in question<br />
included the four names from the very beginning. But we know that both Trogus and<br />
Strabo copied the Bactrian matters from Apollodoros of Artemita. Since Trogus names<br />
just the Sacaraucae and the Asiani as conquerors of Sogdiana and Bactria, Strabo<br />
after him must<br />
have named just these two peoples as well.<br />
There is one solution to this dilemma. Strabo, when he died, left his Geography in<br />
an unpublished manuscript form. It was published some time after his death by an<br />
unknown editor who was at great pains to get the manuscript ready for publication.<br />
ALY, who studied Strabo’s live and work with exceptional care, writes in PAULY’s RE,<br />
1931: 76–154:<br />
Strabon von Amaseia, stoischer Philosoph, Historiker und Geograph ...<br />
Das Werk des Apollodoros, das hauptsächlich das östliche Asien nördlich des Tauros behandelt<br />
hatte und vor 36 v.Chr. entstanden sein wird, scheint Strabon selbständig benutzt<br />
zu haben ... Diese vielen und umfangreichen Entlehnungen aus Autoren der verschiedenen<br />
Zeitalter müßten bei Strabon den Eindruck einer einheitlichen Komposition seines<br />
Werkes empfindlich stören, wenn diese nicht ohnehin fehlte ... Diese Unausgeglichenheit<br />
und die häufigen losen und unzusammenhängenden Anfügungen kurzer Notizen an das<br />
Ende<br />
besser ausgearbeiteter Abschnitte hat man dadurch zu erklären gesucht, daß Strabon<br />
sein Werk nicht endgültig überarbeitet habe. Daß letzteres tatsächlich nicht der Fall<br />
war, pflegt man wohl zutreffend aus der Nichterwähnung Strabons bei Plinius u. a. zu<br />
schließen ...<br />
Während die ƒstorik¦ Øpomn»mata (Strabo’s earlier work) im 1. Jahrhundert gelegentlich<br />
benutzt werden (sicher von Josephus und Plutarch) beginnt die Überlieferungsgeschichte<br />
der Geographie mit einer großen Lücke. Sie ist nachweislich nicht von Ptolemaios<br />
— 93 —
enutzt ... Das Bild ändert sich erst, und zwar vollständig, als im 6. Jahrhundert Stephanos<br />
von Byzanz sein Lexikon Iustinian widmet, in dem er Strabon reichlich benutzt ...<br />
Aus spätestens der gleichen Zeit stammt der vatikanische Palimpsest, der sich über<br />
Grotta<br />
Ferrata nach Unteritalien, wahrscheinlich nach Rossano in Kalabrien zurückverfolgen<br />
läßt ... Von der von A. Mai 1844 entdeckten und seit 1875 von Cozza-Luzi und dem Verfasser<br />
zum großen Teil entzifferten Hs., die einstmals aus ca. 460 Folien bestanden hat<br />
und in 3 Kolumnen geschrieben ist, sind bisher 68 Folien bekannt geworden, jetzt Vat. Gr.<br />
2061 A (V<br />
t ist nicht fehlerlos. Seine Fehler<br />
jedoch lassene Zeilen und oberflächliche Unzialverlesungen,<br />
n E en ...<br />
1 ) und 2306 (V 2 ); 3 Blätter noch in Grotta Ferrata (V c ). Abgeschrieben ist Strabon<br />
in Unteritalien nicht. V dürfte mit der Eroberung Italiens dorthin gekommen sein ...<br />
Allgemeiner Zustand des Textes: Schon der Palimpses<br />
beschränken sich auf ausge<br />
zumal in den zahlreiche igennam<br />
And again in 1957: 17–21:<br />
Wenn man daran geht, Irrtümer aufzudecken, dann ist die Einsicht, wie sie entstanden<br />
sind, der erste Schritt zu ihrer Widerlegung ...<br />
Was hat Strabon gewollt und was hat er auf Grund der sein Schaffen bedingenden Voraussetzungen<br />
ausführen können ? Dazu gehört natürlich die Frage nach der Vollendung<br />
und Publikation seines Alterswerkes ...<br />
Wie oft ist ihm eingefallen, in einen fertigen Zusammenhang Dinge hineinzufügen,<br />
die<br />
er anderswo nicht unterbringen konnte. Dann werden die Rückbeziehungen der Pronomina<br />
zweideutig. Zusammenfassend kann man von dem Werke wie von dem Imperium, das<br />
es darstellte, sagen,<br />
dass es ›laborat mole sua‹. Der Verfasser war hochbetagt. Veröffent-<br />
licht ist das Werk wahrscheinlich erst nach seinem Tode, und der Herausgeber wird oft in<br />
Verzweiflung über Nachträge letzter Hand gewesen sein, die sich in den<br />
Text nicht einfügen<br />
liessen. Alles das muss, soweit es beweisbar ist, dem Leser bei der Deutung und Beurteilung<br />
des Textes gegenwärtig sein.<br />
We see here that, in thirty years of Strabo studies, ALY developed the firm conviction<br />
that the<br />
old gentleman left an unpublished manuscript at his late death. His earlier<br />
work, the `Istorik¦ Øpomn»mata or “Historical Memoirs” — curiously, this title is<br />
a literal translation of Sima Qian’s book title Shiji 史記 — in 47 books, narrating history<br />
mainly between 144 and 27 BCE, had been published possibly soon after the latter<br />
date, in any case in his life time. But his later work, the Gewgrafik£ or “Geographical<br />
Matters,” became his Alterswerk. When Strabo died high in his eighties, he left a<br />
manuscript which was finished, but to which the author had continued adding notes in<br />
the margins until close to his death. If this was so, it becomes easy to see what<br />
happened in the context of Geography 11.8.2. When Strabo at first had read Apollodoros<br />
of Artemita’s book, his “list” of conquering nomadic nations contained the same<br />
two names which before him Trogus had copied from Apollodoros. But some time<br />
later, when Strabo<br />
got hold of a copy of Trogus’ work — likely, this happened shortly<br />
before his death — he wrote down in the margins, next to 11.8.2, two names not found<br />
in his<br />
own text:<br />
— ACIANOI (Asiani) as a Latin variant to his own Greek ACIOI (Asii),<br />
— TAXAPOI (Tachari) as a name wholly new to him — it is mentioned nowhere else in<br />
his<br />
Geography. His manuscript in this particular place may have looked like this:<br />
MAΛICTAΔEΓNωPIMOIΓEΓONACIN<br />
TωNNOMAΔωNOITOΥCEΛΛHNAC<br />
AΦEΛOMENOITHNBAKTPIANHN<br />
HACIANOI ACIOIKAICAKAPAΥKAI<br />
TAXAPOI OPMHΘENTECAΠOTHCΠEPAIAC<br />
TOΥTIAΞAPTOΥTHCKATACAKAC<br />
KAICOΓΔOANOΥCHNKATEIΧONCAKAI<br />
— 94 —
These were just two of an untold number of similar additions or corrections found<br />
in the margins of his manuscript when Strabo died — before he himself found the<br />
time<br />
to write the final draft for publication. This tough and time-consuming work was<br />
d one by a later editor who must have been an educated man. All the same, he must<br />
have<br />
had a hard time to decipher the handwriting of the more than octogenarian philo-<br />
sopher,<br />
especially when it came to the many unfamiliar names. This editor, we see,<br />
misread<br />
HACIANOI (“or Asiani”) as ΠACIANOI and, unsure what to do with this and<br />
t he other strange name, finally resolved to include them in Strabo’s “list” of conquering<br />
nomads. Are we going to blame him for the disastrous effects of his bona fide blunder<br />
?<br />
I should like to note here that something similar happened to the Hanshu. In the<br />
capital<br />
of the Later Han, Luoyang, the book’s main author, Ban Gu 班固, died in pris-<br />
o n in the sixty-first year of his age (92 CE) before his great work had been finished. The<br />
Chinese emperor then ordered<br />
his widowed younger sister Ban Zhao 班昭 by edict to<br />
continue and complete the work (see Hou Hanshu 114). This outstanding woman did<br />
this for the rest of her life, or for some 20 years. SWANN 1932: 69: It is even possible<br />
that she revised and reedited the entire work.<br />
Strabo’s Geography was less fortunate than Ban Gu’s Hanshu in that it was nei-<br />
ther<br />
composed nor finished in the capital — let alone under imperial patronage — as<br />
the “Book of the Han” was. The Geography<br />
saw the light of day far from Rome and<br />
without<br />
any higher assistance. The exact time and circumstances of its publication we<br />
c an only guess from the contents of the work itself — as ALY did. Pliny in Rome did<br />
n ot excerpt from it in the first century CE, Ptolemy in Alexandria did not make use of it<br />
i n the second. The first to quote extensively from Strabo’s Geography was Stephanos<br />
i n Constantinopolis in the sixth century CE. The exceptionally early Strabo codex, now<br />
c alled the Vatican Palimpsest, had already been written by that time and probably in<br />
t hat same city. Its European sections, extensively used, subsequently perished. But the<br />
I nner Asian chapters, arousing little interest, survived and were later erased — the<br />
well-prepared<br />
folios were actually written over twice. The regained lowest text, in an<br />
elegant oblique uncial handwriting and an early arrangement in three narrow columns,<br />
should be very close to that of the original publication, early in the first century CE.<br />
In our context, this means that an obvious corruption in sentence 11.8.2 of Strabo’s<br />
Geography can be traced back to the editio princeps where an unknown editor was<br />
faced with the problem of working an abundance of marginal notes into the main<br />
text — most of the time succeeding rather smoothly, we may assume, but in a number<br />
of instances committing smaller or greater mistakes.<br />
That in Strabo’s “list” of four conquering nomadic peoples the name ΠACIANOI<br />
(Pasiani) was a corruption of HACIANOI (À 'Asiano…: “or Asiani”) — and thus could be<br />
deleted from the list — was recognized early in the 18th century by VAILLANT and LON-<br />
GUERUE. That the TOCAROI (Tochari), the earliest version of this name being TACA-<br />
ROI (Tachari), did not belong onto that list either, was half guessed by ALTHEIM in the<br />
20th century, but he was unable or unwilling to substantiate this line of thinking (see<br />
above, p. 76).<br />
Our firm Gewährsmann or informant here, and sole eyewitness known<br />
by name, is<br />
Zhang Qian. In his lost first-hand Report, epitomized by Sima Qian in Shiji 123, he describes<br />
the Daxia 大夏 as the native population of a country of the same name, well<br />
settled there since long — and he describes them as recently subjugated by the Ruzhi<br />
月氏. To this, Ban G u adds in Hanshu 96A that, just before, the Daxia had been ruled<br />
briefly by the Saiwa ng 塞王 — as early as 18 93 pointed out by XU SONG<br />
徐松, reprinted<br />
in 1900 by WANG XIANQIAN 王 先謙, but overlooked by HULSEWÉ/<br />
LOEWE in 1979.<br />
With this, the wh ole problem centers around the decisive question<br />
whether or not<br />
we are entitled to eq uate Chinese D axia 大夏 with Western Tacha(ra),<br />
i.e. the Daxia<br />
of Zhang Qian with the TACAROI<br />
(Tachari) of Strabo, the Tochari of Trogus, and the<br />
provincial name Tachar in present-day northeastern Afghanistan. If this question can<br />
be answered in the positive, the Tachari / Tochari have been the inhabitants<br />
of Tachara /<br />
— 95 —
Tochara<br />
or Eastern Bactria and they have been well settled there since long. They have<br />
never been nomads and they have not come from beyond the Jaxartes a short time<br />
before. Like the phantom Pasiani, they can be deleted from Strabo’s “list” of conquering<br />
nomads. This leaves just two names on Strabo’s vexed list: the Sacaraucae/Sakaraukai/Saiwang<br />
塞王 and the Asiani/Asioi/Ruzhi 月氏 — confirmed by Trogus, following<br />
Apollodoros, and also confirmed by the Shiji / Hanshu. The second of these nomadic<br />
nations kept chasing the first — intermittently, i.e. in a number of stages — from<br />
the Ili River in the second century BCE to the Indus in the first century CE. In this pro-<br />
cess, a first climax is the final subjugation of the Sakas in Bactra by the self-styled<br />
Ruzhi<br />
月氏 king Kujula Kadphises 丘就卻, a good time after the Lugdunum aurei of<br />
Tiberius went on circulation (see above, p. 52), and before the publication of the Periplus<br />
(above, p. 64), i.e. some time between 30 and 60 CE.<br />
PAUL BERNARD, first to recognize the historic showdown between the Sakas and the<br />
Ruzhi 月氏 in the wall friezes of Khalchayan — unearthed and pieced together by the<br />
renowned Russian archaeologist GALINA PUGACHENKOVA a short distance north of the<br />
Oxus River and published by her 1965–1971 —, writes<br />
as quoted above (p. 40):<br />
Ces nomades nous ont d’abord été connus par quelques allusions des textes classiques,<br />
principalement une phrase de Strabon ... Les sources chinoises, le Si-Ki, le Han Shou et le<br />
Hou Han Shou parlent, elles, du peuple des Yüeh-chih, à l’exclusion de toute autre.<br />
The second statement, we have seen above, is now to be modified. But the famous<br />
French Archaeologist — who excavated Ai Khanum, located in modern Afghan Tachar<br />
province, which thus preserves the ancient name Tachara / Daxia 大夏 to the present<br />
day — continues :<br />
Ces trouvailles nous offrent aujourd’hui une vision incomparablement plus riche et plus<br />
diversifiée de la culture des deux peuples que nous considérons avoir été les acteurs principaux<br />
de la conquête de la Bactriane grecque, les Yüeh-chih au centre et à l’est, les Saces<br />
ou Sacarauques à l’ouest.<br />
Here, BERNARD is intuitively stating a historic fact of importance: as established in<br />
this study, our age-old Eastern and Western sources unanimously confirm that only<br />
two nomadic nations were involved in ending Greek rule north of the Hindukush —<br />
the Royal Sakas/Saiwang 塞王 and the A(r)sii/ÅrÝi/(A)ruzhi 月氏.<br />
— 96 —<br />
Berlin, May 2008<br />
<strong>Chris</strong> M. Dorn’eich
ALONSO-NÚÑEZ 1989 ...........<br />
ALTHEIM 1947–48 ................<br />
ALTHEIM / STIEHL 1970 .........<br />
ALY 1968 .............................<br />
ALY 1957 .............................<br />
ALY 1956 .............................<br />
ALY 1933 .............................<br />
ALY<br />
1931 .............................<br />
ALY 1929 ............................<br />
AMANTINI 1981 ....................<br />
AMMIANUS (VEH) ................<br />
AMMIANUS (SEYFAHRT) .......<br />
AMMIANUS (ROLFE) ............<br />
BACHHOFER 1941 ................<br />
BAILEY 1985 .......................<br />
BAILEY 1979 .......................<br />
BAILEY 1952 .......................<br />
BAILEY 1947 .......................<br />
BAILEY 1936 .......................<br />
BANERJI 1908 ....................<br />
BARTHOLD 1956 .................<br />
Bibliography<br />
ALONSO-NÚÑEZ, J. M.: ›The Roman Universal Historian Pompeius Trogus on India,<br />
Parthia, Bactria and Armenia‹, pp. 125–155 in: Persica. Uitgave van het Genootschap<br />
Nederland-Iran / Publication de la Société Néerlando-Iranienne, Nr. XIII, 1988–1989<br />
ALTHEIM, FRANZ: Weltgeschichte Asiens im griechischen Zeitalter. 2 vols.,<br />
Halle (Saale) 1947/1948<br />
ALTHEIM, FRANZ / STIEHL, RUTH (edd.): Geschichte Mittelasiens im Altertum,<br />
Berlin 1970<br />
A LY , W OLFGANG : Strabonis Geographica, recensuit Wolfgang Aly. Volumen primum in<br />
quo continentur: Praemonenda de nova Geographicorum editione quae vivus<br />
impressit WOLFGANG ALY. Libri I–II (Prolegomena Strabonis) quos ab editore prelo datos<br />
iteratis curis perpoliverunt ERNST KIRSTEN et FRIEDRICH LAPP. Praefatiunculam scripsit<br />
HILDEBRAND HOMMEL, Bonn 1968<br />
——— : Strabons Geographika in 17 Büchern. Text, Übersetzung und erläuternde<br />
der Wissenschaften, philosophisch-historische Klasse, Band XXII, Jahrgang 1931/32,<br />
OLF LY<br />
TTO GRADENWITZ, pp. 3–42 in: Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akademie der<br />
ntergang.<br />
rläutert von<br />
GERHARD WIRTH (Die Bibliothek der Alten Welt),<br />
Zürich / München 1974<br />
SEYFAHRT, WOLFGANG: Ammianus Marcellinus. Römische Geschichte (Ammiani<br />
Marcellini Rerum Gestarum). Lateinisch und deutsch und mit einem Kommentar<br />
versehen von WOLFGANG SEYFAHRT, 3. Teil: Buch 22–25 (Schriften und Quellen der Alten<br />
Welt, 21 / 3), Berlin 1970<br />
ROLFE, JOHN C.: Ammianus Marcellinus, with an Eng ROLFE<br />
(Ammiani Marcellini Rerum Gestarum Libri qui super<br />
Vol. II: Book XX–XXVI, Cambridge (Mass.) 1940, 2 Anmerkungen von WOLFGANG ALY. Band 4: Strabon von Amaseia. Untersuchungen<br />
über Text, Aufbau und Quellen der Geographika, (Antiquitas. Reihe 1: Abhandlungen<br />
zur Alten Geschichte, Band 5), Bonn 1957<br />
——— : De Strabonis Codice Rescripto, cuius reliquiae in Codicibus Vaticanis<br />
Vat. Gr. 2306 et 2061 A servatae sunt. Scripsit WOLFGANGUS ALY. Corollarium adiecit<br />
FRANCISCUS SBORDONE. Accedunt Tabulae XXXVI (Studi e Testi 188),<br />
Città del Vaticano 1956<br />
——— : ›Neue Beiträge zur Strabon-Überlieferung‹, von WOLF ALY aus Freiburg i. Br,<br />
vorgelegt von REGENBOGEN, pp. 3–32 in: Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akademie<br />
Heidelberg 1933<br />
——— : ›Strabon von Amaseia, stoischer Philosoph Historiker und Geograph‹,<br />
coll. 76–155 in: Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft,<br />
2. Reihe, 7. Halbband, Stuttgart 1931<br />
——— : ›Der Strabon-Palimpsest Vat. Gr. 2061 A‹, herausgegeben von W A , vorgelegt<br />
von O<br />
Wissenschaften, philosophisch-historische Klasse, Band XIX, Jahrgang 1928/29,<br />
Heidelberg 1929<br />
AMANTINI, LUIGI SANTI: Giustino. Storie Filippiche. Epitome da Pompeo Trogo,<br />
Milano 1981<br />
VEH, OTTO: Ammianus Marcellinus. Das römische Weltreich vor dem U<br />
Sämtliche erhaltene Bücher übersetzt von OTTO VEH, eingeleitet und e<br />
lish Translation by JOHN C.<br />
sunt), 3 vols.,<br />
3 1948, 1956<br />
BACHHOFER, LUDWIG: ›On Greeks and ³akas in India‹, pp. 223–250 in:<br />
Journal of the American Oriental Society (New Haven) 61, 1941<br />
BAILEY, HAROLD W.: Indo-Scythian Studies. Being Khotanese Texts, Volume VII,<br />
Cambridge 1985<br />
——— : ›North Iranian Problems‹, pp. 207–210 in:<br />
Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies (London), XLII/2, 1979<br />
——— : ›Six Indo-Iranian Notes‹, pp. 55–64 in: Transactions of the Philological Society<br />
(Oxford), 1952<br />
——— : ›Recent Work in Tokharian‹, pp. 126–153 in: Transactions of the Philological<br />
Society (Oxford), 1947<br />
——— : ›Ttaugara‹, pp. 883–921 in: Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies (London),<br />
Vol. VIII, Part 4, 1935–1937<br />
BANERJI, R. D.: ›The Scythian Period of Indian History‹, pp. 25–75 in: The Indian<br />
Antiquary (Bombay), Vol. XXXVII, 1908<br />
BARTHOLD, WILHELM (VASILIJ V.): Four Studies on the History of Central Asia. Vol. I.<br />
Translated from the Russian by VLADIMIR FEDOROVIC and TATYANA MINORSKY<br />
(Russian Translation Project Series of the American Council of Learned Societies, 21),<br />
Leiden 1956<br />
— 97 —
BARTHOLD 1928 .................<br />
BARTHOLD<br />
1922 .................<br />
BAYER<br />
1738 .......................<br />
Beishi<br />
...............................<br />
BERNARD<br />
1991 ...................<br />
BERNARD 1987 ...................<br />
BERNARD<br />
1985 ...................<br />
BERNARD 1973 ...................<br />
BI¾URIN<br />
1851 .....................<br />
BIVAR<br />
1983 ........................<br />
BOPEARACHCHI 1997 ..........<br />
BOPEARACHCHI<br />
1992 ..........<br />
BOPEARACHCHI<br />
1991 ..........<br />
BOPEARACHCHI<br />
1990 ..........<br />
BOYER<br />
1900 ......................<br />
BRENTJES<br />
1996 ................<br />
BROSSET<br />
1887 ..................<br />
BROSSET 1828 ..................<br />
CHARPENTIER<br />
1917 ............<br />
CHAVANNES<br />
1907 ..............<br />
CHAVANNES<br />
1905 ..............<br />
CHAVANNES<br />
1903 ..............<br />
CHAVANNES<br />
1895–1905 ......<br />
CURIEL/FUSSMAN<br />
1965 ......<br />
DAFFINÀ<br />
1967 ...................<br />
DE<br />
LA VAISSIÈRE 2002 ......<br />
DE<br />
GROOT 1921 /1926..........<br />
——— : Turkestan down to the Mongol Invasion, by W. BARTHOLD, Second Edition,<br />
translated<br />
from the original Russian and revised by the Author with the assistance of<br />
H . A. R. G IBB,<br />
London 1928<br />
——— : Istoriya Turkestana<br />
(History of Turkestan, in Russian), Tashkent 1922<br />
BAYER,<br />
GOTTLIEB SIEGFRIED: Historia Regni Graecorum Bactriani in qua simul Graeca-<br />
rum<br />
in India Coloniarum vetus memoria explicatur auctore Theophilo Sigefrido<br />
Bayero,<br />
St. Petersburg 1738<br />
L¯<br />
YÁN–SHÒU (LI YEN-SHOU) 李延壽 (7th cent.): B®i–sh¯ (Pei-shih) 北史 (›History of the<br />
Northern Dynasties‹), 100 ch., woodblock edition, 32 vols. in 6 cassettes, Taipei 1956;<br />
punctuated edition, Taipei 1980<br />
BERNARD, PAUL: ›Sarianidi, V. I.: Xram i nekropol' Tilljatepe. Moscou, 1989 (Le sanctu-<br />
aire et la nécropole de Tilljatepe, (en russe)‹. Book review, pp. 160–164 in:<br />
Studia Iranica (Paris) 20/1,<br />
1991<br />
——— : ›Les nomades conquérants de l’empire gréco-bactrien. Réflexions sur leur<br />
identité ethnique<br />
et culturelle‹, pp. 758–768 in:<br />
Comptes rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres (Paris),<br />
Novembre-Décembre 1987<br />
——— : Fouilles d'Aï Khanoum. IV: Les monnaies hors trésors. Questions d'histoire<br />
gréco-bactrienne (Mémoires de la Délégation Archéologique Française en Afghanistan<br />
XXVIII), Paris 1985<br />
——— : Fouilles d'Aï Khanoum. I (Campagnes 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968): Texte et Figures<br />
(Mémoires de la Délégation Archéologique Française en Afghanistan XXI),<br />
Paris 1973<br />
BI¾URIN, NIKITA YAKOVLEVI¾ (“IAKINF”) — Áè÷ óðèí, Í. ß. (Èàêèíô): Collection of<br />
Information on the Peoples who inhabited Central Asia in Ancient Times — Ñîáðàíèå<br />
ñâåäåíèé î íàðîäàõ, îáèòàâøèõ â Ñðåäíåé Àçèè â äðåâíèå âðåìåíà,<br />
3 vols. + map on three large sheets, St. Petersburg 1851.<br />
Republished, with a new introduction by A. N. BERNŠTAM — À. Í. Áåðíøòàì,<br />
in 3 vols., Moscow 1950–1953<br />
BIVAR, ADRIAN DAVID H.: ›The History of Eastern Iran‹, pp. 181–231 in:<br />
EHSAN YARSHATER (ed.): The Cambridge History of Iran. Volume 3.1: The Seleucid,<br />
Parthian and Sasanian<br />
Periods, Cambridge 1983<br />
BOPEARACHCHI, OSMUND: ›The Posthumous Coinage of Hermaios and the Conquest<br />
of<br />
Gandhara by the Kushans‹, pp. 189–213 in: R. ALLCHIN / B. ALLCHIN / N. KREITMAN /<br />
E. ERRINGTON (edd.): Gandharan Art in Context. East-West Exchanges at the<br />
Crossroads of Asia, 1997<br />
——— : ›The Euthydemus' Imitations and the Date of Sogdian Independence‹, pp. 1–21 in:<br />
Silk Road Art and Archaeology (Kamakura, Japan) 2, 1992<br />
——— : Monnaies gréco-bactriennes et indo-grecques. Catalogue raisonné (Biblio-<br />
thèque Nationale), Paris 1991<br />
——— : ›Graeco-Bactrian<br />
Issues of Later Indo-Greek Kings‹, pp.79–103 in:<br />
Numismatic Chronicle (London), Vol. 150, 1990<br />
BOYER, A.-M.: ›L'époque de Kani•ka‹, pp. 526–579 in: Journal Asiatique (Paris) XV/3, Mai<br />
Juin 1900<br />
BRENTJES, BURCHARD: Arms<br />
of the Sakas (and other tribes of the Central Asian<br />
steppes), Varanasi 1996<br />
BROSSET, LAURENT (ed.): Bibliographie analytique des ouvrages de Monsieur Marie-<br />
Félicité Brosset, Membre de l'Académie Impériale des Sciences de Saint-Pétersbourg:<br />
1824–1879, St. Petersburg 1887<br />
BROSSET, MARIE-FÉLICITÉ: ›Relation du pays de “Ta ouan”; traduite du chinois par<br />
M. Brosset jeune‹, pp. 418–450 in: Journal asiatique (Paris), Tome II,<br />
1828<br />
CHARPENTIER, JARL: ›Die ethnographische Stellung der Tocharer‹,<br />
pp. 347–388 in:<br />
Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, 71. Band, Leipzig<br />
1917<br />
CHAVANNES, ÉDOUARD: ›Les pays d'Occident d'après le Heou Han chou‹,<br />
pp. 149–234 in: T'oung Pao (Leiden), série II/VIII, 1907<br />
——— : ›Les pays d’Occident<br />
d’après le Wei lio‹,<br />
pp. 519-571 in: T'oung Pao (Leiden), série II/VI, 1905<br />
——— : Documents sur les Tou–kiue (Turcs) occidentaux (Recueillis et commentés<br />
suivi de ›Notes Additionnelles‹), Paris / St. Petersburg 1903, New York 1969 (reprint)<br />
——— : Les Mémoires<br />
Historiques de SE–MA TS'IEN. Traduits et annotés par Édouard<br />
Chavannes, 5 vols., Paris 1895–1905, 1967 (reprint, with one additional vol.)<br />
CURIEL, RAOUL / FUSSMAN,<br />
GÉRARD: Le trésor monétaire de Qunduz (Mémoires de la Dé-<br />
légation Archéologique Française en Afghanistan XX), Paris 1965<br />
DAFFINÀ, PAOLO: L’immigrazione<br />
dei Sakå nella Drangiana<br />
(Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente, Reports and Memoirs IX), Rom 1967<br />
DE LA VAISSIÈRE, ÉTIENNE: Histoire des Marchands<br />
Sogdiens (Bibliothèque de l’Insitut<br />
des Hautes Études Chinoises, vol. XXXII), Paris 2002<br />
DE GROOT, JOHANN JAKOB MARIA / FRANKE, OTTO: Chinesische Urkunden zur Geschichte<br />
Asiens. Erster Teil: Die Hunnen der vorchristlichen Zeit.<br />
Zweiter Teil: Die<br />
Westlande Chinas in der vorchristlichen Zeit, Berlin 1921 /1926<br />
— 98 —
DEGUIGNES 1759 ..............<br />
DEGUIGNES 1756 ..............<br />
DONG ZUOBIN 1960 ...........<br />
DORN’EICH 2002 ...............<br />
DORN’EICH 2000 ...............<br />
DORN’EICH<br />
1999 ...............<br />
DORN’EICH 1998 ...............<br />
DUBS<br />
1938–55 ..................<br />
ENOKI<br />
1999 ......................<br />
FÃ<br />
XIÃN ...........................<br />
First Four Histories ........<br />
FRANKE<br />
1934 ....................<br />
FRANKE 1930 ....................<br />
FRANKE<br />
1920 ....................<br />
FRANKE<br />
1918 ....................<br />
FRANKE<br />
1904 ....................<br />
FUSSMAN 1991 ...................<br />
FUSSMAN<br />
1980 ..................<br />
GARDNER<br />
1886 .................<br />
GARDNER 1877 .................<br />
GRENET 2007 ...................<br />
GUTSCHMID<br />
1888 ...............<br />
HALOUN 1937 ....................<br />
HALOUN 1926 ....................<br />
Hanshu ............................<br />
HARMATTA<br />
1994 ................<br />
DEGUIGNES, JOSEPH: ›Recherches sur quelques événements qui concernent l'histoire des<br />
Rois Grecs de la Bactriane, et particulièrement la destruction de leur Royaume par les<br />
Scythes ...‹, pp. 17–33 in: Histoire<br />
de l'Académie Royale des inscriptions et belles-lettres<br />
(Paris) XXV/2, 1759<br />
——— : Histoire générale des Huns, des Turcs, des Mogols, et des autres Tartares<br />
Occidentaux ... Ouvrage tiré des Livres Chinois, et des Manuscrits Orientaux de la<br />
Bibliothèque du Roi, 2 vols., Paris<br />
1756<br />
DNG ZUÒ–BÐN (TUNG TSO–PIN) 董作賓 (1895–1963): Chronological Tables of Chinese<br />
History 中國年歷總譜, 2 vols., Hongkong 1960<br />
DORN’EICH, CHRISTOF MICHAEL: HS<br />
96. Ban Gu ∙ Annalen der Älteren Han ∙ Die Westländer<br />
班固 漢書 卷九十六上下 西域 (Hanshu chapter 96A+B. Original text and<br />
Western translations by BICHURIN / SCHOTT, CHAVANNES, DE GROOT, FRANKE, HULSEWÉ<br />
/<br />
LOEWE, SPECHT, WYLIE), computer typescript, Berlin 2002<br />
——— : Neuzeitliche Quellen zur Geschichte der Griechen und Kuschanas in Zentral<br />
asien und Indien. Auszüge aus der Fachliteratur<br />
1738–1999, computer typescript,<br />
Freiburg / Berlin 2000<br />
——— : Chinesische Quellen<br />
zur Geschichte der Yuè–zhð und Kuschanas (Excerpts<br />
from the Shiji, Hanshu, Hou Hanshu, Sanguozhi, and Beishi. Original text and Western<br />
translations by BROSSET, CHAVANNES. DE GROOT, HIRTH, HULSEWÉ/LOEWE, SPECHT,<br />
WATSON, WYLIE, ZÜRCHER),<br />
computer typescript, Berlin 1999<br />
——— : Orient ‘65. Weltwanderjahre eines Architekten, Band 2: Afghanistan- und<br />
Indientagebuch, computer typescript, Berlin 1998<br />
DUBS, HOMER<br />
HASENPFLUG: The History of the Former Han Dynasty by Pan Ku.<br />
3 vols., Baltimore 1938, 1944, 1955<br />
ENOKI, K. / KOSHELENKO, G. A. / HAIDARY, Z.: ›The Yüeh–chih and their migrations‹,<br />
pp. 171–189 in: History of Civilizations of Central Asia. Vol. II, Paris 1994, Delhi<br />
1999<br />
FÃ XIÃN 法顯 : A Record of Buddhist Countries. By FA–HSIEN.<br />
Translated from the<br />
Chinese by LI YUNG–HSI (San Shih Buddhist Institute),<br />
Peking 1957<br />
Zhonghua Shuju 中華書局 edition of the First Four (Chinese Standard)<br />
Histories<br />
前四史 in 4 vols.: Vol. I: Sh¯–jì 史記; Vol. II: Hàn–shø 漢書; Vol. III: Hòu Hàn–shø<br />
後漢書; Vol. IV: Sån–guó–zhì 三國志 with Index 人名地名索引,<br />
Peking<br />
im<br />
er<br />
isch-Historische Klasse (Berlin), 1934<br />
it. I. Band: Das Altertum<br />
hinesen. Ein Beitrag zur Tocharer-Frage‹,<br />
“Tocrï und Kuišan (Küšän)”‹,<br />
träge aus chinesischen Quellen zur Kenntnis der Türkvölker und Skythen<br />
ften vom Jahre 1904), Berlin 1904<br />
Ýaka: ère d’Eucratide, ère d’Azès, ère vikrama, ère de<br />
dia in the<br />
86,<br />
mismata<br />
ation des cinq “ Yaghus” des Yuezhi.<br />
de Maès Titianos‹,<br />
r<br />
dogermanen<br />
45), woodblock edition, 40 vols. in<br />
a and the Saka kingdoms‹,<br />
9<br />
11997 FRANKE, OTTO: ›Grundsätzliches zur Wiedergabe fremder Länder- und Ortsnamen<br />
Chinesischen‹, pp. 244–280 in: Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie d<br />
Wissenschaften. Philosoph<br />
——— : Geschichte des Chinesischen Reiches. Eine Darstellung seiner Entstehung,<br />
seines Wesens und seiner Entwicklung bis zur neuesten Ze<br />
und das Werden des Konfuzianischen Staates, Berlin / Leipzig 1930<br />
——— : ›Das alte Ta–hia der C<br />
pp. 117–136 in: Ostasiatische Zeitschrift (Berlin), 8. Jahrgang, 1919/1920<br />
——— : ›Einige Bemerkungen zu F.W.K. Müllers<br />
pp. 83–86 in: Ostasiatische Zeitschrift (Berlin), 6. Band, 1918<br />
——— : Bei<br />
Zentralasiens (aus dem Anhang zu den Abhandlungen der Königlich Preussischen<br />
Akademie der Wissenscha<br />
FUSSMAN, GÉRARD: ›Le Périple et l’histoire politique de l’Inde‹, pp. 31–38 in:<br />
Journal asiatique (Paris), Tome CCLXXIX / 1–2, 1991<br />
——— : ›Nouvelles inscriptions<br />
Kani•ka‹, pp. 1–43, pl. I–IV in: BEFEO (Paris), LXVII, 1980<br />
GARDNER, PERCY: The coins of the Greek and Scythic Kings of Bactria and In<br />
British Museum (Catalogue of the Indian coins in the British Museum), London 18<br />
Chicago 1966 (reprint)<br />
——— : The Parthian Coinage. With Eight Plates (The International Nu<br />
Orientalia), London 1877<br />
GRENET, FRANTZ: ›Nouvelles données sur la localis<br />
L’arrière plan politique de l’itinéraire des marchands<br />
pp. 325–341 in: Journal asiatique, Tome 294, Numéro 2, 2006, Paris 2007<br />
GUTSCHMID, ALFRED VON: Geschichte Irans und seiner Nachbarländer von Alexande<br />
dem Grossen bis zum Untergang der Arsaciden, von ALFRED VON GUTSCHMID mit einem<br />
Vorwort von TH. NÖLDEKE, Tübingen 1888<br />
HALOUN, GUSTAV: ›Zur Üe-t•ï-Frage‹, pp. 234–318 in: Zeitschrift der Deutschen<br />
Morgenländischen Gesellschaft (Leipzig) 91/2, 1937<br />
——— : Seit wann kannten die Chinesen die Tocharer oder In<br />
überhaupt?, 1. Teil, Leipzig 1926<br />
BÅN GÙ (PAN KU) 班固 (32–92): Hàn–shø 漢書 (›Annals of the [Former] Han Dynasty‹),<br />
100 ch. (main commentator YAN SHI–GU 顏師古, 581–6<br />
6 cassettes, Taipei 1956; punctuated edition, 20 vols., Peking 11962, 21975 HARMATTA, JÁNOS: ›Languages and scripts in Graeco-Bactri<br />
pp. 397–416 in: History of Civilizations of Central Asia, Vol. II, Paris 1994, Delhi 199<br />
— 99 —
HENNING 1960 ...................<br />
HENNING 1949 ...................<br />
HENNING 1938 ...................<br />
HERRMANN<br />
1937 ................<br />
HERRMANN<br />
1922 ................<br />
HERRMANN<br />
1920 .................<br />
HERZFELD 1931/1932 ...........<br />
HIRTH 1917 ........................<br />
HOANG<br />
1910 .......................<br />
Hou Hanshu......................<br />
HULSEWÉ<br />
1979 ..................<br />
HUMBOLDT<br />
1843 ................<br />
JULIEN<br />
1846 .....................<br />
JUNGE 1939 ......................<br />
JUSTINUS (RUEHL) .............<br />
JUSTINUS (SEEL) ...............<br />
KAHARMAN<br />
2000 ................<br />
KARLGREN<br />
1957 .................<br />
KARLGREN<br />
1940 .................<br />
KARLGREN<br />
1923 .................<br />
KARLGREN<br />
1915–1926 .........<br />
KINGSMILL 1882 ................<br />
KLAPROTH<br />
1826 ................<br />
KLOTZ<br />
1952 ......................<br />
KONOW<br />
1934 .....................<br />
KONOW 1933 ......................<br />
KONOW<br />
1929 ......................<br />
ies), Vol.1, Part I, London 1949<br />
–1641 in: Paulys Realencyclopädie der<br />
graphie‹, pp. 89–386 in<br />
20<br />
,<br />
32<br />
d<br />
éniques<br />
n, 40 vols. in 6 cassettes, Taipei 1956;<br />
f the<br />
LEXANDER VON: Asie Centrale. Recherches sur les chaînes de montagnes<br />
et<br />
ique (Paris), 4e HENNING, WALTER BRUNO: ›The Bactrian Inscription‹, pp. 47–55 in:<br />
Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies (London) XXIII / 1, 1960<br />
——— : ›The Name of the “Tokharian” Language‹, pp. 158–162 in:<br />
Asia Major (New Ser<br />
——— : ›Argi and the “Tokharians”‹, pp. 545–571 in:<br />
Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies (London) IX/3, 1938<br />
HERRMANN, ALBERT: ›Tocharoi‹, coll. 1632<br />
classischen Altertumswissenschaft, 2. Reihe, 12. Halbband, Stuttgart 1937<br />
——— : ›Die Westländer in der chinesischen Karto<br />
SVEN HEDIN: Southern Tibet, vol. VIII, part II,<br />
Stockholm 1922, Delhi 1991 (reprint)<br />
——— : ›Sacaraucae‹, coll. 1611–1620 in: Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen<br />
Altertumswissenschaft, 2. Reihe, 2. Halbband, Stuttgart 19<br />
HERZFELD, ERNST: ›Sakastån. Geschichtliche Untersuchungen zu den Ausgrabungen am<br />
Køh ð Khwådja‹, pp. 1–116 in: Archaeologische Mitteilungen aus Iran (Berlin) IV/1+2<br />
Oktober 1931/Januar 19<br />
HIRTH, FRIEDRICH: ›The Story of Chang K'ién, China's Pioneer in Western Asia. Text an<br />
Translation of Chapter 123 of Ssï–Ma Ts'ién's Shï–Ki‹, pp. 89–152 in: Journal of the<br />
American Oriental Society (New Haven) XXXVII/2, September 1917<br />
HOANG, PIERRE (BÓ–LÙ) 黃伯祿 (d. 1909): Concordance des chronologies néom<br />
chinoise et européenne, par Le Rév. Père P. HOANG, du clergé de Nanking<br />
(Variétés sinologiques No. 29), Chang–hai 1910<br />
FÀN YÈ (FAN YEH) 范嘩 (398–446): Hòu Hàn–shø 後漢書 (›Annals of the Later Han<br />
Dynasty‹), 120 ch., woodblock editio<br />
punctuated edition, 18 vols., Peking 1965<br />
HULSEWÉ, ANTHONY FRANÇOIS PAULUS / LOEWE, MICHAEL A. N.: China in Central Asia.<br />
The early stage: 125 B.C.–A.D. 23. An annotated translation of chapters 61 and 96 o<br />
History of the Former Han Dynasty, Leyden 1979<br />
HUMBOLDT, A<br />
et la climatologie comparée, par A. DE HUMBOLDT, Tome premier, Paris 1843<br />
JULIEN, STANISLAS: ›Notices sur les pays et les peuples étrangers, tirées des géographes<br />
des historiens chinois‹, pp. 228–252 in:<br />
Journal asiat<br />
série, tome VIII, 1846<br />
JUNGE, JULIUS: ›Saka-Studien. Der Ferne Osten im Weltbild der Antike‹, pp. 1–115 in:<br />
Klio. Beiträge zur alten Geschichte, Beiheft 41 (Neue Folge, Heft 28),<br />
Leipzig 1939<br />
RUEHL, FRANZ: JUSTINUS MARCUS JUNIANUS: M. Iuniani Iustini Epitoma Historiarum<br />
Philippicarum Pompei Trogi. Ex recensione FRANCISCI RVEHL. Accedunt prologi in<br />
Pompeium Trogum ab ALFREDO DE GUTSCHMID recensisti, Berlin 1885<br />
SEEL, OTTO: M. IVNIANI IVSTINI Epitoma Historiarum Philippicarum POMPEI<br />
TROGI.<br />
Accedunt Prologi in Pompeium Trogum post FRANCISCUM RVEHL iterum edidit OTTO<br />
SEEL, Stuttgart 1972<br />
KAHARMAN MUHAN 卡哈尔曼 穆汗: ›A Study on the Names of Saka,<br />
Hun, Rouzhi and<br />
Tielei Tribes‹ 塞、匈奴、月氏、铁勒四名称考, pp. 24–30 in:<br />
The Western Regions Studies 西域研究 (Urumqi), No. 4, 2000<br />
KARLGREN, BERNHARD: Grammata Serica Recensa,<br />
Stockholm 1957<br />
——— : Grammata Serica. Script and Phonetics in Chinese<br />
and Sino-Japanese,<br />
Stockholm 1940<br />
——— : Analytical Dictionary of Chinese and Sino-Japanese,<br />
Paris 1923, New York 1974 (reprint)<br />
——— : Études sur la phonologie chinoise (Archives d’Études Orientales, Vol.15, 1–4),<br />
Leiden/Stockholm 1915– 1926<br />
KINGSMILL, THOMAS W.: ›The Intercourse of China with Eastern Turkestan and the Adja-<br />
cent Countries in the Second<br />
Century B.C.‹, pp. 74–104 in: The Journal of the Royal<br />
Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland (London) XIV/1, 1882<br />
KLAPROTH, JULIUS: Tableaux Historiques de l’Asie, depuis la monarchie de<br />
Cyrus<br />
jusqu’à nos jours; accompagnés de recherches historiques et ethnographiques sur<br />
cette partie du monde; ouvrage dédié à MM. Guillaume et Alexandre de Humboldt,<br />
par J. KLAPROTH, Paris 1826<br />
KLOTZ, ALFRED: ›Pompeius Trogus‹, coll. 2300–2313 in: Paulys Realencyclopädie der<br />
classischen Altertumswissenschaften (Stuttgart), 42. Halbband, 1952<br />
KONOW, STEN: ›Notes on Indo-Scythian Chronology‹, pp.<br />
1–46 in:<br />
Journal of Indian History, Vol. XII, Part I, Serial Nr.34, April 1933,<br />
Madras 1934<br />
——— : ›War “Tocharisch” die Sprache der Tocharer?‹, pp. 455–466 in:<br />
Asia Major (Leipzig), IX (Otto-Franke-Festschrift), 1933<br />
——— : Kharoshƒhî Inscriptions. With the Exception of Those of AÝoka<br />
(Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum, vol. II, part 1),<br />
Calcutta 1929<br />
— 100 —
KONOW 1920 ......................<br />
KOSHELENKO/SARIANIDI<br />
1992<br />
KRUGLIKOVA<br />
1977 ..............<br />
KUWABARA<br />
1916 .................<br />
ASSEN 2 L 1867–74 ...............<br />
LASSEN 1847–61 ................<br />
LASSEN<br />
1838 .....................<br />
LEBEDYNSKY<br />
2003 .............<br />
LEUZE<br />
1935 .......................<br />
LÉVI<br />
1896–97 ....................<br />
LIU<br />
2001 ...........................<br />
LONGUERUE<br />
1732 ..............<br />
LULOFS<br />
1929 .....................<br />
LYONNET<br />
1998 ...................<br />
MÃ DUÅN-LÍN ....................<br />
MÄNCHEN-HELFEN<br />
1945 .....<br />
ÄNCHEN-HELFEN 1938 .....<br />
ANNERT 2 M<br />
M 1820 ..................<br />
MARICQ<br />
1958 .....................<br />
MARQUART 1901 .................<br />
MCGOVERN 1939 ................<br />
MITCHINER 1975-76 ............<br />
MÜLLER<br />
1918 .....................<br />
MUKHERJEE 1970 ..............<br />
NARAIN<br />
1957 ......................<br />
NEUMANN<br />
1837 ..................<br />
NEUMANN<br />
1833 ..................<br />
de Tillia-tepe<br />
pp. 21–32 + pl. 1 in:<br />
iéto-afghane sur le site<br />
A‹,<br />
ettres<br />
nsei‹ 張騫の遠征 (›The Expedition of<br />
:<br />
tzifferung der Altkabulischen Legenden auf ihren Münzen,<br />
nes<br />
n 520-320<br />
aft. Geisteswissenschaftliche Klasse,<br />
ue (Paris),<br />
e 1896; pp. 5-42: IX/1, Janvier-Février 1897;<br />
‹, pp. 261–292 in: Journal of World<br />
vr de<br />
ntieke Anthropogeographie<br />
gdiane, d’après<br />
omparée d’Aï Khanoum et de Marakanda au cours des derniers siècles<br />
l<br />
TO: ›The Yüeh-chih Problem Re-examined‹, pp. 71–81 in: Journal of<br />
I /5–6, 1938<br />
s.).<br />
nach China, Nürnberg 1795, 2 ——— : ›Beitrag zur Kenntnis der Indoskythen‹, pp. 220–237 in:<br />
Ostasiatische Zeitschrift (Berlin), 8. Jahrgang, 1919 / 1920<br />
KOSHELENKO, G. A. / SARIANIDI, V. I.: ›Les monnaies de la nécropole<br />
(Afghanistan)‹ (Traduction du texte par P. BERNARD),<br />
Studia Iranica (Paris) 21/1, 1992<br />
KRUGLIKOVA, IRINA: ›Les fouilles de la mission archéologique sov<br />
gréco-kushan de Dilberdjin en Bactriane (Afghanistan), par M<br />
1820<br />
criptions de Surkh-Kotal (Baghlån). La grande inscription de<br />
urnal Asiatique (Paris), CCXLVI/4, 1958<br />
Xorenac'i. Mit histostorischen<br />
und topographischen Excursen (Ab-<br />
-<br />
III/2), Berlin 1901<br />
arolina) 1939<br />
mie der Wissenschaften (Berlin), 1918<br />
L FRIEDRICH: Asiatische Studien. Erster Theil,<br />
nach Indien. Aus dem<br />
en von<br />
114–177 in:<br />
ie historische Theologie, 3. Band, 1. Stück, Leipzig 1833<br />
me IRINA KRUGLIKOV<br />
pp. 407–427 in: Comptes rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-L<br />
(Paris), Avril-Juin 1977<br />
KUWA’BARA JITZU’ZÔ 桑原隲藏: ›Chô Ken no e<br />
Zhang Qian‹, in Japanese), pp. – in<br />
Zoku shiteki kenkyû 續史的研究 (Tokyo), Feb. 1916<br />
LASSEN, CHRISTIAN: Indische Alterthumskunde,<br />
Bonn/Leipzig 1847/1852/1858/1861 (4 vols.); Leipzig 21867/1874 (2 vols.)<br />
——— : Zur Geschichte der Griechischen und Indoskythischen Könige in Baktrien,<br />
Kabul und Indien durch En<br />
Bonn 1838<br />
LEBEDYNSKY, IAROSLAV: Les Nomades. Les peuples nomades de la steppe des origi<br />
aux invasions mongoles (IX e siècle av. J.-C. – XIII e siècle apr. J.-C.),<br />
Paris 2003<br />
LEUZE, OSCAR: Die Satrapieneinteilung in Syrien und im Zweistromlande vo<br />
(Schriften der Königsberger Gelehrten Gesellsch<br />
XI/4), Halle 1935<br />
LÉVI, SYLVAIN: ›Notes sur les Indo-Scythes‹, pp. 444–484 in: Journal Asiatiq<br />
Neuvième Série VIII/3, Novembre-Décembr<br />
›Note additionelle sur les Indo-Scythes‹, pp. 26–531: X/3, Novembre-Décembre 1897<br />
LIU XIN–RU 刘欣如: ›Migration and Settlement of the Yuezhi-Kushan: Interaction and<br />
Interdependence of Nomadic and Sedentary Societies<br />
History (Hawai’i), Vol. 12, Nr. 2, Fall 2001<br />
LONGUERUE, LOUIS DUFOUR DE: Annales Arsacidarum, auctore Lvdovico dv Fo<br />
Longverve, abbate S. Joannis de Jardo ad Melod. et septem fontium in Therascia,<br />
Argentorati 1732<br />
LULOFS, H. J.: Strabo over Scythen. Specimen van a<br />
(Geographische en Geologische Mededeelingen), Utrecht 1929<br />
LYONNET, BERTILLE: ›Les Grecs, les Nomades et l’indépendance de la So<br />
l’occupation c<br />
avant notre ère‹, pp. 141–159 in: Bulletin of the Asia Institute. O. BOPEARACHCHI,<br />
C. ALTMAN BROMBERG, F. GRENET (edd.): Alexander’s Legacy in the East. Studies in<br />
Honor of Paul Bernard. New Series / Vol.12, 1998<br />
MÃ DUÅN-LÍN 馬端臨 : Wén Xiàn Tõng K¬o 文獻通考 (Encyclopedia of Historica<br />
Documents, in Chinese), edited by WÁNG YÚN-W÷ 王雲五 , Shanghai 1936<br />
MÄNCHEN-HELFEN, OT<br />
the American Oriental Society (Baltimore) 65/2, April-June 1945<br />
——— : ›Zur Üe-t•ï-Frage‹, pp. 958–959 in: Anthropos (Wien) XXXII<br />
MANNERT, CONRAD: Geographie der Griechen und Römer (10 vol<br />
Theil IV: Der Norden der Erde von der Weichsel bis<br />
MARICQ, ANDRÉ: ›Ins<br />
Kani•ka et l'étéo-tokharien, l'ancienne langue de la Bactriane‹,<br />
pp. 345–440 in: Jo<br />
MARQUART, JOSEPH: ×rånšahr nach der Geographie des Ps. Moses<br />
risch-kritischem Kommentar und hi<br />
handlungen der königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen. Philologisch<br />
Historische Klasse, Neue Folge<br />
MCGOVERN, WILLIAM MONTGOMERY: The Early Empires of Central Asia. A Study of<br />
the Scythians and the Huns and the part they played in world history.<br />
With special reference to the Chinese Sources, Chapel Hill (North C<br />
MITCHINER, MICHAEL: Indo-Greek and Indo-Scythian Coinage (9 vols.),<br />
London 1975/1976<br />
MÜLLER, F. W. K.: ›Tocrï und Kuišan (Küšän)‹, pp. 566–586 in: Sitzungsberichte der<br />
Königlich Preussischen Akade<br />
MUKHERJEE, BRATÐNDRA NÅTH: ›The Wu–Sun and the Yüeh–Chih‹,<br />
pp. 127–129 in: Journal of the Asiatic Society (Calcutta), XII/1–4, 1970<br />
(published 1972)<br />
NARAIN, ABODH KISHOR: The Indo-Greeks, Oxford 1957<br />
NEUMANN, CAR<br />
Leipzig 1837<br />
——— : ›Pilgerfahrten Buddhistischer Priester von China<br />
Chinesischen übersetzt, mit einer Einleitung und mit Anmerkungen verseh<br />
D. CARL FRIEDRICH NEUMANN, Erste Abtheilung‹, pp.<br />
Zeitschrift für d<br />
— 101 —
NÖLDEKE 1879 ..................<br />
OROSIUS (ZANGEMEISTER)<br />
PELLIOT<br />
1936 ....................<br />
PELLIOT 1934 ....................<br />
Periplus<br />
(CASSON) ............<br />
Periplus<br />
(FABRICIUS) ........<br />
PETITOT/BERNARD<br />
1975 .....<br />
POKORA 1978 ....................<br />
POKORA 1962 ....................<br />
PLINIUS<br />
(BRODERSEN) .......<br />
POSCH<br />
1995 ......................<br />
PTOLEMAIOS (RONCA) .......<br />
PTOLEMAIOS<br />
(MCCRINDLE)<br />
PTOLEMAIOS<br />
(NOBBE) .......<br />
PUGA¾ENKOVA<br />
1971 ...........<br />
PUGA¾ENKOVA<br />
1966 ...........<br />
POUGATCHENKOVA<br />
1965 ....<br />
PULLEYBLANK 1995 ...........<br />
PULLEYBLANK<br />
1991 ...........<br />
PULLEYBLANK<br />
1970 ...........<br />
PULLEYBLANK<br />
1962 ...........<br />
RAPSON<br />
1922 ....................<br />
RASCHKE 1978 ..................<br />
RÉMUSAT<br />
1836 ..................<br />
NÖLDEKE, THEODOR: Geschichte der Perser und Araber zur Zeit der Sasaniden.<br />
Aus der arabischen Chronik des Tabari. Übersetzt und mit<br />
ausführlichen<br />
Erläuterungen und Ergänzungen versehen von TH. NÖLDEKE,<br />
Leyden 1879, Graz 1973 (reprint)<br />
OROSIUS, PAULUS: Pauli Orosii historiarum<br />
adversum paganos libri VII.<br />
Ex recognitione CAROLI ZANGEMEISTER,<br />
Leipzig 1889<br />
PELLIOT, PAUL: ›A propos du “Tokharien”‹, pp. 259–284 in:<br />
T’oung pao (Leiden), Vol.<br />
XXXII, 1936<br />
——— : ›Tokharien et Koutchéen‹, pp. 23–106 in: Journal asiatique, 224/1,<br />
Paris 1934<br />
Periplus Maris Erythraei. Text with Introduction, Translation,<br />
and Commentary by<br />
LIONEL CASSON (Greek Original : reprint from HJALMAR<br />
FRISK: Le Périple de la mer<br />
Érythrée, Göteborg 1927),<br />
Princeton 1989<br />
Periplus des Erythräischen Meeres Per…plouj tÁj 'Eruqr©j Qal£sshj. Von einem<br />
Unbekannten.<br />
Griechisch und deutsch, mit kritischen und erklärenden Anmerkungen<br />
nebst vollständigem Wörterverzeichnis herausgegeben von B. FABRICIUS<br />
(i.e. HEINRICH THEODOR DITTRICH), Leipzig 1883<br />
PETITOT-BIEHLER,<br />
CLAIRE-YVONNE / BERNARD, PAUL: › Trésor de monnaies grecques et<br />
gréco-bacteriennes trouvé à Aï Khanoum (Afghanistan) / Note sur la signification historique<br />
de la trouvaille‹, pp. 23–69 + pl. I–VI in:<br />
Revue Numismatique<br />
(Paris) XVII, 1975<br />
POKORA, TIMOTEUS: ›Pan Ku and Recent Translations from the “Han Shu”‹,<br />
pp. 451–460 in: Journal of the American Oriental Society (New Haven) 98/4,<br />
October-December 1978<br />
——— : ›The Present State of the Translations from the Shih chi‹, pp. 154–173 in:<br />
Oriens Extremus (Wiesbaden) 9 / 2, Dezember 1962<br />
PLINIUS SECUNDUS, GAIUS: Naturalis Historiae<br />
Libri XXXVII.<br />
Liber VI, lateinisch–deutsch. Herausgegeben und übersetzt von KAI BRODERSEN,<br />
Darmstadt 1996<br />
POSCH, WALTER: Baktrien<br />
zwischen Griechen und Kuschan. Untersuchungen zu<br />
kulturellen und historischen Problemen einer Übergangsphase. Mit einem<br />
textkritischen Exkurs zum Shiji 123, Wiesbaden 1995<br />
PTOLEMAIOS, KLAUDIOS: Geographie 6, 9–21. Ostiran und Zentralasien. Teil I.<br />
Gewgrafik¾ `Uf»ghsij — ›Geografische Anleitung‹, griechisch und deutsch,<br />
herausgegeben von ITALO RONCA (Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente,<br />
Centro Studi e Scavi Archeologici in Asia: Reports and Memoirs XV/1), Rom 1971<br />
MCCRINDLE, JOHN WATSON: Ancient India as described<br />
by Ptolemy. Being a translation<br />
of the chapters which describe India and Central and Eastern Asia in the treatise on<br />
geography written by KLAUDIOS PTOLEMAIOS, the celebrated astronomer, with<br />
introduction, commentary and index, London 1885, Amsterdam 1974 (reprint)<br />
NOBBE, CARL FRIEDRICH AUGUST: Claudii Ptolemaei Geographia I– III (Lib. I–VIII). Edidit<br />
C.F.A. NOBBE, Leipzig 1843–45;<br />
Hildesheim 1966 (cum introductione a AUBREY DILLER)<br />
PUGA¾ENKOVA, GALINA ANATOL’EVNA — Ïóãà÷åíêîâà, Ã. À.: The Sculpture of<br />
Khalchayan — Ñêóëüïòóðà Õàë÷àÿíà (in Russian, with English summary),<br />
Moscow 1971<br />
——— : Khalchayan. On the Problem of Early North Bactrian<br />
Culture — Õàë÷àÿí.<br />
Ê ïðîáëåìå õóäîæåñòâåííîé êóëüòóðû Ñåâåðíîé Áàêòðèè,<br />
Tashkent 1966<br />
——— : ›La sculpture de Khaltchayan‹, pp. 116–127 + pl. XXXII–XXXV in:<br />
Iranica Antiqua (Leiden) V/2, 1965<br />
PULLEYBLANK, EDWIN GEORGE: ›Why Tocharians?‹, pp. 415–430 in: The Journal of<br />
Indo-European Studies (Washington, DC), Vol. 23 / 3+4, 1995<br />
——— : Lexicon of Reconstructed Pronunciation in Early Middle Chinese, Late Middle<br />
Chinese, and Early Mandarin, Vancouver 1991<br />
——— : ›The Wu–sun and<br />
Sakas and the Yüeh-chih migration‹, pp. 154-160 in:<br />
Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies (London) XXXIII, 1970<br />
——— : ›The Consonantal System of Old Chinese‹, pp. 58–144; 206–265 in:<br />
Asia Major (London) IX / 1, 1962<br />
RAPSON, E. J.: The Cambridge History of India. Volume I: Ancient India,<br />
Cambridge 1922<br />
RASCHKE, MANFRED G.: ›New Studies in Roman Commerce<br />
with the East‹, pp. 604–681<br />
(Text), 681–1076 (Anm.), 1076–1361 (Biblio., Addendas, Index) in: HILDEGARD TEMPORINI /<br />
WOLFGANG HAASE (edd.) : Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt. Geschichte und<br />
Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung, Vol. II 9,2, Berlin / New York 1978<br />
RÉMUSAT, JEAN PIERRE ABEL: 佛國記 Fo¥ Kou¥ Ki ou Relations des Royaumes Boud<br />
dhiques: Voyage dans la Tartarie, dans l'Afghanistan et dans l'Inde.<br />
Exécuté à la fin<br />
du IV BEL RÉMUSAT,<br />
esiècle, par Chy F£ HIAN. Traduit du Chinois et commenté par M. A<br />
— 102 —
RÉMUSAT 1829 ...................<br />
RÉMUSAT 1825 ...................<br />
RICHTHOFEN<br />
1877 ..............<br />
RINGE<br />
1995 .......................<br />
ITTER 2 R 1837 .....................<br />
RTVELADZE<br />
1994 ...............<br />
SALLET 1880 .....................<br />
Sanguozhi<br />
.......................<br />
SARIANIDI<br />
1985 ..................<br />
SCHIPPMANN 1980 ..............<br />
SCHLEGEL<br />
1900 .................<br />
SCHOTT<br />
1841 .....................<br />
CHWARTZBERG 2 S<br />
1992 .......<br />
SEEL<br />
1956 ........................<br />
Seidenstraße<br />
2007 ..........<br />
SELLWOOD<br />
1983 ................<br />
Shiji<br />
................................<br />
Shiji Lexicon 1991 ............<br />
SHIRATORI<br />
1941-44 ............<br />
SHIRATORI<br />
1902 ................<br />
SIEG<br />
1918 .........................<br />
SIEG / SIEGLING 1908 ..........<br />
SIMS-WILLIAMS 1996 .........<br />
SIMS-WILLIAMS<br />
/ CRIBB 1996<br />
SMITH<br />
1903 ......................<br />
SPECHT 1897 ....................<br />
SPECHT<br />
1890 ....................<br />
SPECHT 1883 ....................<br />
ouvrage posthume recu, complété, et augmenté d'éclairissements nouveaux par<br />
MM. KLAPROTH et LANDRESSE, Paris 1836<br />
——— : Nouveaux Mélanges Asiatiques. Ou Recueil de Morceaux de Critique et de<br />
Mémoires, Vol. 1, Paris 1829<br />
——— : Mémoires sur plusieurs questions relatives à la géographie de l’ Asie Centrale,<br />
par M. ABEL-RÉMUSAT, Paris 1825<br />
RICHTHOFEN, FERDINAND FREIHERR VON: China. Band I,<br />
Berlin 1877, Graz 1971 (reprint)<br />
RINGE, DONALD: ›Tocharians in Xinjiang.<br />
The Linguistic Evidence‹, pp. 439–444 in:<br />
The Journal of Indo-European Studies (Washington, DC), Vol.23 / 3+4, 1995<br />
RITTER, CARL:<br />
Die Erdkunde im Verhältniß zur Natur und zur Geschichte des<br />
Menschen oder allgemeine vergleichende Geographie.<br />
Siebenter Theil. Drittes Buch. West-Asien, Berlin<br />
VICH: ›Coins of the Yuezhi rulers of northern Bactria‹,<br />
Road Art and Archaeology (Kamakura, Japan) 3, 1993 / 94<br />
(San–kuo–chih) 三國志<br />
old. Aus den Ausgrabungen der<br />
istan, Leningrad 1985<br />
, Darmstadt<br />
Secret of the Chinese Method of Transcribing Foreign<br />
r Djungarei und des östlichen<br />
von Russland (Berlin),<br />
OSEPH E. (ed.): A Historical Atlas of South Asia,<br />
aus Xinjiang, China.<br />
D,<br />
riods,<br />
西域史研究 (Studies on the<br />
az ural-altajinép-és nyelvtudomány köréböl (Revue Orientale pour les<br />
zungsberichte der<br />
sischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (Berlin), 1918<br />
. Vorläufige<br />
kannte indogermanische Literatursprache‹,<br />
p. 633–654 in:<br />
the<br />
1995 /1996<br />
or Indo-Scythian, Period of Indian History, B.C. 165 to<br />
ain and<br />
January 1903<br />
ie<br />
21837 RTVELADZE, EDUARD VASILE<br />
pp. 81–96 in: Silk<br />
SALLET, ALFRED VON: ›Die Nachfolger Alexanders des Grossen in Baktrien und Indien‹,<br />
pp. 165-231, 271-411 + pl. IV-X in: Zeitschrift für Numismatik (Berlin) VI, 1879;<br />
pp. 296-307 in: VII, 1880<br />
CHÉN SHÒU (CH'EN SHOU) 陳壽 (233–297): Sån–guó–zhí<br />
(›History of the Three Kingdoms‹, in Chinese), 65 ch., woodblock edition, 20 vols. in<br />
3 cassettes, Taipei 1955; punctuated edition, 5 vols., Peking 11959, 61975 SARIANIDI, VIKTOR IWANOWITSCH: Baktrisches G<br />
Nekropole von Tillya-Tepe in Nordafghan<br />
SCHIPPMANN, KLAUS: Grundzüge der parthischen Geschichte (Grundzüge 39)<br />
1980<br />
SCHLEGEL, GUSTAVE: ›The<br />
Sounds‹, pp. 1–32 in: T'oung Pao (Leiden), Série II/I, 1900<br />
SCHOTT, WILHELM: ›Pater Hyacinth’s Beschreibung de<br />
Turkestan‹, pp. 164–177 in: Archiv der wissenschaftlichen Kunde<br />
1. Band, 1841<br />
SCHWARTZBERG, J<br />
New York 11978, 21992 SEEL, OTTO: Pompei Trogi fragmenta, Leipzig 1956<br />
Ursprünge der Seidenstraße. Sensationelle Neufunde<br />
Ausstellungskatalog, herausgegeben von ALFRIED WIECZOREK und CHRISTOPH LIN<br />
Stuttgart 2007<br />
SELLWOOD, DAVID: ›Parthian Coins‹, pp. 279–298 + pl. 1–9 in: EHSAN YARSHATER (ed.): The<br />
Cambridge History of Iran. Volume 3.1: The Seleucid, Parthian and Sasanian Pe<br />
Cambridge 1983<br />
SÐMÃ QIÅN (SSU-MA CH’IEN) 司馬遷 (145–85): Sh¯jì (Shih-chi) 史記 (Memoirs of the<br />
Historian), 130 ch., woodblock edition, 48 vols. in 6 cassettes, Taipei 1966;<br />
punctuated edition, 6 vols., Peking 1959<br />
CÅNG XIØ–LIÁNG 倉修良 (chief ed.): Shiji Cidian 史記辭典 (Lexicon to the Shiji, in<br />
Chinese), Jinan 1991<br />
SHIRA’TORI, KURA’KICHI 白鳥庫吉: Sai–iki shi ken–kyø<br />
History of the Western Regions, in Japanese), 2 vols., Tokyo 1941/1944<br />
——— : ›Über den Wu–sun-Stamm in Centralasien‹, pp. 103–140 in: Keleti Szemle<br />
közlemények<br />
études ouralo-altaïques), Tome III, Budapest 1902<br />
SIEG, EMIL: ›Ein einheimischer Name für Tocrï‹, pp. 560–565 in: Sit<br />
Königlich Preus<br />
SIEG, EMIL / SIEGLING, WILHELM: ›Tocharisch, die Sprache der Indoskythen<br />
Bemerkungen über eine bisher unbe<br />
pp. 915–934 in: Sitzungsberichte der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der<br />
Wissenschaften (Berlin), 1908 / 1<br />
SIMS-WILLIAMS, NICHOLAS: ›Nouveaux documents sur l’histoire et la langue de la<br />
Bactriane‹ (Texte traduit par FRANTZ GRENET), p<br />
Comptes rendus, Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres (Paris), 1996<br />
SIMS-WILLIAMS, NICHOLAS / CRIBB, JOE: ›A New Bactrian Inscription of Kanishka<br />
Great‹, pp. 75–142 in: Silk Road Art and Archaeology (Kamakura, Japan) 4,<br />
SMITH, VINCENT A.: ›The Kushån,<br />
A.D. 320‹, pp. 1–64 in: The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Brit<br />
Ireland (London),<br />
SPECHT, ÉDOUARD: ›Les Indo-Scythes et l'époque du règne de Kanichka d'après les<br />
sources chinoises‹, pp. 152–193 in: Journal Asiatique (Paris), Neuvième Série X/1, Juillet-<br />
Août 1897<br />
——— : ›Note sur les Yué-tchi‹, pp. 180-185 in: Journal asiatique (Paris), Huitième Sér<br />
XV/2, Février-Mars 1890<br />
——— : ›Études sur l'Asie Centrale d'après les historiens chinois‹, pp. 317–350 in:<br />
Journal asiatique (Paris), Huitième Série II/3, Oct.-Nov.-Déc. 1883<br />
— 103 —
STAËL-HOLSTEIN 1914 .......<br />
STRABO (RADT) ................<br />
STRABO (LASSERRE) ..........<br />
STRABO (JONES) ...............<br />
STRABO (MEINEKE) ...........<br />
STRABO (GROSKURD) ........<br />
Suishu<br />
............................<br />
Tangshu<br />
.........................<br />
TARN<br />
1938–51 ....................<br />
THIERRY 2005 ...................<br />
THOMAS<br />
1906 ...................<br />
TSCHERIKOWER<br />
1927 .........<br />
VAILLANT<br />
1725 ..................<br />
VAN<br />
WINDEKENS 1941 ........<br />
VASCONCELLOS 1883 .........<br />
VIVIEN<br />
DE SAINT-MARTIN<br />
1850<br />
WANG<br />
GUOWEI 1923 ..........<br />
WANG<br />
XIANQIAN 1900 ........<br />
WANG<br />
YUEZHEN 1877 ........<br />
WATSON<br />
1993 ...................<br />
WATSON<br />
1969 ...................<br />
WATSON 1961 ...................<br />
WATSON<br />
1956 ...................<br />
WATSON<br />
1886 ..................<br />
Weishu<br />
..........................<br />
WYLIE<br />
1881-82 ..................<br />
XU<br />
SONG 1893 ..................<br />
STAËL-HOLSTEIN, A. VON: ›Koþano und Yüeh-shih‹, pp. 643–650 in: Sitzungsberichte der<br />
Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften<br />
(Berlin) XX–XXI, 1914<br />
RADT, STEFAN: Strabons Geographika. Band 3, Buch IX–XIII: Text und Übersetzung,<br />
Göttingen 2004<br />
LASSERRE, FRANÇOIS: Strabon, Géographie. Tome VIII (Livre XI), Texte établi et traduit<br />
par FRANÇOIS LASSERRE (Collection des Universités de France), Paris 1975<br />
JONES, HORACE LEONARD: The Geography of Strabo, with an English translation by<br />
HORACE LEONARD JONES, in 8 vols.,<br />
V: Book X–XII, Cambridge (Mass.) 1928<br />
STRABO: Strabonis Geographica. Recognovit AUGUSTUS MEINEKE, 3 vols.,<br />
Leipzig 1866–1877<br />
GROSKURD, CHRISTOPH GOTTLIEB: Strabons Erdbeschreibung in siebenzehn Büchern.<br />
Nach berichtigtem griechischen Texte unter Begleitung kritischer<br />
erklärender<br />
Anmerkungen verdeutscht von CHRISTOPH GOTTLIEB GROSKURD.<br />
4 vols.,<br />
Berlin 1831–1834<br />
WÈI ZH×NG 魏徵 (580–643): Suíshø 隨書 (›Historty of the Sui-Dynasty‹), 85 ch.,<br />
woodblock edition, 20 vols. In 4 cassettes, Taipei 1956;<br />
punctuated edition, , Peking<br />
OØ–YÁNG XIØ 欧阳修 (1007–1072)<br />
/ SÒNG QÍ 宋祁 (998–1061) : (New) Táng–shø (新) 唐<br />
書 (›New History of the Tang-Dynasty‹), 225 ch., woodblock edition, 40 vols. in 7 cas-<br />
settes, Taipei 1956; punctuated edition, 20 vols., Peking 1975<br />
TARN, WILLIAM WOODTHORPE: The Greeks in Bactria and India,<br />
Cambridge<br />
97 (additional bibl.)<br />
1–539 in BOPEARACHCHI, OSMUND / BOUSSAC, MARIE-FRANÇOISE (edd.): Afghanistan.<br />
par<br />
éologique Henri-Prades-<br />
›Sakastana‹, pp. 181–216 in: The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of<br />
(ABÎGEDÔR): Die hellenistischen Städtegründungen von<br />
logus, Supplementband XIX,<br />
idem<br />
a. Per J. FOY VAILLANT. Tomus primus,<br />
Muséon, 54/1–4, Louvain/Leuven 1941<br />
s<br />
883<br />
Géographie Ancienne et d’Ethnographie<br />
: Guåntáng jílín 觀堂集林 (Collection of a Wealth of Studies,<br />
Hanshu with<br />
), 1877,<br />
ted by BURTON<br />
an of China. Translated from the Shih chi of SSU–<br />
EWITT WATSON.<br />
r of<br />
ssettes, Taipei 1956;<br />
96, Part 1 & 2), pp. 20–73 in: The Journal of the Anthropological Institute<br />
ntary Notes on the Western Regions chapter of the Hanshu<br />
11938, 21951 (reprint, with Addenda),<br />
Chicago 31985 (reprint, with new introduction and bibliography), 419 THIERRY, FRANÇOIS: ›Yuezhi et Kouchans. Pièges et dangers des sources chinoises‹,<br />
pp. 42<br />
Ancien carrefour entre l’Est et l’Ouest. Actes du colloque international, organisé<br />
CHRISTIAN LANDES et OSMUND BOPEARACHCHI au Musée arch<br />
Lattes du 5 au 7 mai 2003, (Indicopleustoi. Archaeologies of the Indian Ocean, 3:<br />
Afghanistan), Turnhout 2005<br />
THOMAS, F. W.:<br />
Great Britain & Ireland (London), January 1906<br />
TSCHERIKOWER, VIKTOR<br />
Alexander dem Grossen bis auf die Römerzeit (Philo<br />
Heft 1), Leipzig 1927, New York 1973 (reprint)<br />
VAILLANT, JEAN FOY: Arsacidarum Imperium, sive Regum Parthorum Historia. Ad f<br />
Numismatum accommodat<br />
Paris 1725<br />
VAN WINDEKENS, A. J.: ›Huns Blancs et Årçi. Essai sur les appellations du “tokharien”‹,<br />
pp. 161–186 in: Le<br />
VASCONCELLOS-ABREU, GUILHERME DE: ›De l'origine probable des Toukhares et de leur<br />
migrations à travers l'Asie‹, pp. 165–188 in: Le Muséon, 2, Louvain/Leuven 1<br />
VIVIEN DE SAINT-MARTIN, LOUIS: Études de<br />
asiatique, par M. VIVIEN DE SAINT-MARTIN, Tome premier, Paris 1850<br />
WÁNG GUÓWÉI 王國維<br />
in Chinese), 4 vols., Shanghai 1923, Peking 1959 (reprint)<br />
WÁNG, XIÅNQIÅN 王先謙 (1842–1918): Hàn–shø b÷–zhù 漢書補注 (The<br />
Supplementary Notes, in Chinese), Changsha 1900, Peking 1983 (reprint)<br />
WÅNG, YU×ZH×N 汪曰楨 : (Lìdài) chángshù jíyào (歷代)長術輯要 (Abrégé de la<br />
chronologie néoménique des dynasties successives<br />
Taipei 1965 (reprint in: Sìbù bèiyào, z¯bù 四部備要 子部 )<br />
WATSON, BURTON: Records of the Grand Historian. By SIMA QIAN, transla<br />
WATSON. Han Dynasty I/II (revised edition), 2 vols., New York/Hongkong 1993<br />
——— : Records of the Historian. Chapters from the Shih chi of SSU–MA CH’IEN,<br />
translated by BURTON WATSON, New York/London 1969<br />
——— : Records of the Grand Histori<br />
MA CH'IEN by BURTON WATSON, 2 vols., New York/London 1961<br />
——— : Ssu–ma Ch’ien: The Historian and His Work. BURTON D<br />
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Docto<br />
Philosophy, in the Faculty of Philosophy, of Columbia University, New York 1956<br />
WATSON, JOHN SELBY: Justin, Cornelius Nepos, and Eutropius, literally translated, with<br />
notes and a general index, London 1853, 1886 (reprint)<br />
WÈI SHÕU 魏收 (507–572): Wèishø 魏書 (›History of the Toba-Wei Dynasty‹), 114 ch.,<br />
woodblock edition, 50 vols. in 7 ca<br />
punctuated edition, , Peking<br />
WYLIE, ALEXANDER: ›Notes on the Western Regions‹ (Translated from the “Tsë¥n Han<br />
Shoo”, Book<br />
of Great Britain and Irland (London) X, 1881; pp. 83–115: XI, 1882<br />
XU SONG 徐松 : Suppleme<br />
(Hanshu, ch. 96) 漢書西域傳補注, in two parts,<br />
no place of publication, Preface dated 光緒癸巳 = 1893<br />
— 104 —
XUÁN ZÀNG (BEAL) ...........<br />
YARDLEY 2003 ..................<br />
YASUMA<br />
1932 ....................<br />
Yizhoushu .......................<br />
YULE<br />
1873 ........................<br />
ZEJMAL'<br />
1992 ...................<br />
ZEJMAL'<br />
1983 ...................<br />
XUÁN ZÀNG (HIUEN TSANG) 玄奘 : Si–yu–ki 西域記. Buddhist records of the Western<br />
World (Translated from the Chinese of HIUEN TSIANG, A.D. 629–644, by SAMUEL BEAL.<br />
2 vols., Trübners Oriental series 45), London 1884, Delhi 1969 (reprint)<br />
YARDLEY, JOHN C.: Justin and Pompeius Trogus: A Study of the Language of Justin’s<br />
Epitome of Trogus (Phoenix. Journal of the Classical Association of Canada/Revue de la<br />
Société canadienne des édudes classiques, Suppl.Vol./Tome suppl. XLI),<br />
Toronto 2003<br />
YASU’MA YA’ICHI’RÕ 安馬彌一郎: ›Gesshi no seihô-idô ni tsuite‹ 月氏の西 方動に<br />
就 いて (›On the Western Migration of the Ruzhi‹, in Japanese), pp. 660–666<br />
in:<br />
Shigaku zasshi 史 学雑誌 (Tokyo) 43, 1932<br />
A Concordance to the Yizhoushu 逸周書逐字索引 (The ICS Ancient Chinese Text<br />
Concordance Series 前秦兩漢古逐字索引叢刊, in Chinese),<br />
Hongkong 1992<br />
YULE, HENRY: ›Notes<br />
on Hwen Thsang's Account of the Principalities of Tokháristán, in<br />
which some Previous Geographical Identifications are Reconsidered‹, pp. 92-120 in:<br />
The<br />
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and<br />
Ireland (London) VI, 1873<br />
ZEJMAL' (ZEIMAL', ZEYMAL'), EVGENIJ<br />
VLADISLAVOVI¾: ›Eastern (Chinese) Turkestan on the<br />
Silk Road, First millennium A.D.: Numismatic evidence‹, pp. 137–177 in:<br />
Silk Road Art and Archaeology (Kamakura, Japan) 2, 1991 / 1992<br />
——— : ›The Political History of Transoxiana‹, pp. 232–262 + pl.<br />
19–24 in<br />
EHSAN YARSHATER (ed.): The Cambridge History of Iran. Volume 3.1: The Seleucid,<br />
Parthian and Sasanian Periods, Cambridge 1983<br />
— 105 —
— 106 —
— 1 —