71dad457-01d5-4d4b-90a5-5a0422470d52

Great Journeys across the Pamir Mountains
Brill’s Inner Asian Library
Edited by
Michael R. Drompp
Devin DeWeese
Mark C. Elliott
Volume 37
The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/bial

Professor Zhang Guangda
Great Journeys across the
Pamir Mountains
A Festschrift in Honor of Zhang Guangda on his
Eighty-Fifth Birthday
Edited by
Huaiyu Chen
Xinjiang Rong
LEIDEN | BOSTON
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Chen, Huaiyu, 1974– editor. | Rong, Xinjiang, 1960– editor. | Zhang,
Guangda, 1931– honouree.
Title: Great journeys across the Pamir Mountains : a festschrift in honor of
Zhang Guangda on his eighty-fifth birthday / edited by Huaiyu Chen,
Xinjiang Rong.
Other titles: Festschrift in honor of Zhang Guangda on his eighty-fifth
birthday
Description: Leiden ; Boston : Brill, [2018] | Series: Brill’s inner Asian
library ; volume 37 | Series: Gilson studies | Includes bibliographical
references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2017057948 (print) | LCCN 2018016467 (ebook) | ISBN
9789004362253 (E-book) | ISBN 9789004362222 (hardback : alk. paper)
Subjects: LCSH: Asia, Central—Civilization. | Silk Road—History. |
Manuscripts—China. | Asia, Central—History.
Classification: LCC DS329.4 (ebook) | LCC DS329.4 .G74 2018 (print) | DDC
958—dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2017057948
Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill”. See and download: brill.com/brill-typeface.
issn 1566-7162
isbn 978-90-04-36222-2 (hardback)
isbn 978-90-04-36225-3 (e-book)
Copyright 2018 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Hes & De Graaf, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Rodopi,
Brill Sense and Hotei Publishing.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise,
without prior written permission from the publisher.
Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided
that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive,
Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change.
This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

Contents
A Note from the Editors vii

List of Illustrations viii
Abbreviations ix
List of Editors and Contributors xii
A Chronological Bibliography of Professor Zhang Guangda xiv
1 On the Word ṣau Found in the Kuchean Secular Documents 1

Ching Chao-jung
2 Dunhuang and Two Revolutions in the History of the Chinese Book 20

Jean-Pierre Drège
3 Two Fragments of Tocharian B laissez-passers Kept in the Berlin

Collection 33
Ogihara Hirotoshi
4 Possible Adaptation of the Book of the Giants in the Manichaean

Traité 46
Ma Xiaohe
5 The Rouran Qaghanate and the Western Regions during the Second Half
of the Fifth Century based on a Chinese Document Newly Found in
Turfan 59
Rong Xinjiang
6 A Sogdian Fragment from Niya 83

Nicholas Sims-Williams and Bi Bo
7 On the Chinese Name for the Syr Darya in Xuanzang’s Account of Western
Regions 105
Takata Tokio
8 A New Study on Mouyu Qaghan’s Conversion to Manichaeism 111

Wang Xiaofu
vi Contents
9 Beyond Deciphering: An Overview of Tocharian Studies over the Past

Thirty Years 128
Xu Wenkan
10 Historical Background of the Sevrey Inscription in Mongolia 140

Yoshida Yutaka
11 “The Annals of the Noble Land Khotan”: A New Translation of a

Chapter of rGya bod yig tshang chen mo 146
Zhu Lishuang
12 Kaniṣka in the Old Turkic Tradition 176

Peter Zieme
Bibliography 187
Index 215
A Note from the Editors
Professor Zhang is one of the most distinguished Chinese scholars who have
witnessed the history of China in more than half a century. Papers gathered in
this volume come from Professor Zhang Guangda’s students, friends, and col-
leagues across the world in honor of his eighty-fifth birthday. Professor Zhang
was born to an intellectual family in 1931 when China faced civil and interna-
tional challenges. His father Zhang Xitong taught at Yenching University. He
went to Yenching University and then Peking University for college education
in 1949–1953. Along with numerous intellectuals, his intellectual life suffered
a number of political campaigns since 1957. He endured incredible hardship
and continued his study of history and various languages in turbulent 1960s
and 1970s.
After the Cultural Revolution, Professor Zhang enjoyed a normal intellectu-
al life and started publishing a series of articles on Chinese and Central Asian
history. He also worked with several leading Chinese scholars to train a new
generation of Chinese scholars for the study of manuscripts from Dunhuang
and Central Asia. Since then his publications have appeared in both domes-
tic and international venues in Chinese, English, French, and Japanese. In ten
years, he not only published a number of crucial contributions but also con-
tributed to international collaborations between Chinese scholars and their
international colleagues. In June, 1989 for his support of Chinese democracy
movement, he had to leave Beijing for Paris. He has taught and trained numer-
ous students at many academic institutions in France, the United States, Hong
Kong and Taiwan. He was elected by the Société Asiatique as an honorary
member in 1989. In 2003, he received honorary doctorate from École Pratique
des Hautes Études in Paris. And in 2008, he was elected as an Academician of
Academia Sinica in Taipei.
For various reasons and difficulties, this volume has been delayed. We would
like to extend our sincere apology to Professor Zhang Guangda and our con-
tributors. We want to also extend our gratitude to our contributors for their im-
mediate response to our invitation and their patience for waiting such a long
time for the publication of this volume. Many individuals have contributed to
the final completion of this volume. Paul Amato, Mike Ashby, Jenny Liu, and
Clippard Seth have helped improve the style. Cynthia Col’s meticulous copy-
editing is tremendously helpful. Patricia Radder from Brill has patiently and
kindly helped us go through each step for producing this volume. We would
like to thank them for their invaluable help.
The editors
List of Illustrations
1.1 Tocharian B fragment THT2852_seite1 2

5.1 Map for Rong Xinjiang’s paper 82
6.1 Paper pouch when found, courtesy of the Xinjiang Institute of Cultural
Relics and Archaeology 84
6.2 Sogdian fragment, courtesy of the Xinjiang Institute of Cultural Relics
and Archaeology 84
6.3 Floor plan of site 93A27 (N.XXXVII), Niya Report II
(Chinese version), 69 88
9.1 A Japanese manuscript of Xuanzang’s biography in 1210 108
12.1 The joined fragments Ch/U 6090 + Ch/U 6859 182
Abbreviations
AM Asia Major
AOH Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae
APAW Abhandlungen der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften
BEFEO Bulletin de l’École française d’Extrême-Orient
BSOAS Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies
BSOS Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies
BT XIII P. Zieme, Buddhistische Stabreimdichtungen der Uiguren. Berlin 1985
(Berliner Turfantexte XIII)
BT XX P. Zieme, Vimalakīrtinirdeśasūtra. Edition alttürkischer Übersetzungen
nach Handschriftfragmenten von Berlin und Kyoto. Turnhout 2000
(Berliner Turfantexte XX)
BT XXI J. Wilkens, Die drei Körper des Buddha (trikāya). Das dritte Kapitel
der uigurischen Fassung des Goldglanz-Sūtras (Altun Yaruk Sudur).
Turnhout 2001 (Berliner Turfantexte XXI)
CAJ Central Asiatic Journal
CEDTT Beijing daxue Zhongguo zhonggu shi yanjiu zhongxin 北京大學中國
中古史研究中心 ed. Dunhuang Tulufan wenxian yanjiu lunji 敦煌吐
魯番文獻研究論集 [Collected Essays on Dunhuang and Turfan Texts].
Beijing: Zhonghua shuju
DMT Dictionary of Manichaean Texts. Turnhout: Brepols; NSW, Australia:
Ancient History Documentary Research Centre, Macquarie University,
c1998–<c2006> (Corpus fontium manichaeorum, Subsidia 2) vol. 1.
Texts from the Roman Empire: Texts in Syriac, Greek, Coptic, and Latin /
compiled by Sarah Clackson, Erica Hunter, and Samuel N. C. Lieu; in
association with Mark Vermes—vol. 2. Texts from Iraq and Iran: Texts
in Syriac, Arabic, Persian and Zoroastrian Middle Persian / edited by
François de Blois and Nicholas Sims-Williams; compiled by François
de Blois, Erica C. D. Hunter, Dieter Taillieu—vol. 3. Texts from Central
Asia and China / edited by Nicholas Sims-Williams. pt. 1. Dictionary
of Manichaean Middle Persian and Parthian / by Desmond Durkin-
Meisterernst—pt. 4. Dictionary of Manichaean Texts in Chinese / by
Gunner B. Mikkelsen
ECHC I–III Zhongguo dabaike quanshu zong bianji weiyuanhui Zhongguo lishi bi-
anji weiyuanhui 中國大百科全書總編輯委員會《中國歷史》編輯委
員會 ed., Zhongguo dabaike quanshu. Zhongguo lishi I–III 中國大百科
全書·中國歷史 I–III. Beijing: ECPH, 1992
x Abbreviations
ECSTW Tang Zhangru 唐長孺 ed., Zhongguo dabaike quanshu. Zhongguo

lishi: Sui Tang Wudai shi 中國大百科全書·中國歷史·隋唐五代史.
Beijing: ECPH, 1988
ED G. Clauson, An Etymological Dictionary of Pre-Thirteenth-Century
Turkish. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972
ETŞ R. R. Arat, Eski Türk Şiiri. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi,
1965
GOT M. Erdal, A Grammar of Old Turkic, Leiden/Boston 2004
HTON Ş. Tekin, Buddhistische Uigurica aus der Yüan-Zeit, Budapest 1980
IIJ Indo-Iranian Journal
JA Journal asiatique
JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society
JASB Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal
JDTS Dunhuang Tulufan yanjiu 敦煌吐魯番研究
JIAAA Journal of Inner Asian Art and Archaeology
JRAS Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society
JTS Tang yanjiu 唐研究
KB Kutadgu Bilig
Maitr.Hami I–IV Geng Shimin, H.-J. Klimkeit, Das Zusammentreffen mit Maitreya, Die
ersten fünf Kapitel der Hami-Version der Maitrisimit, I–II, Wiesbaden,
1988
MRDTB Memoirs of the Research Department of the Toyo Bunko
NIYA REPORT Zhongri gongtong Niya yiji xueshu diaocha baogaoshu 中日·日中共同
尼雅遺跡学術調査報告書. Vols. II–III, (Chinese and Japanese ver-
sions), Kyoto: Bukkyō Daigaku Niya Iseki Gakujutsu Kenkyū Kikō;
Xinjiang: Weiwuer Zizhiqu wen wu ju 維吾爾自治區文物局
SFF Sitanyin disanci Zhongya kaogu suohuo Hanwen wenxian ( fei fojing
bufen) 斯坦因第三次中亞考古所獲漢文文獻(非佛經部份), edited
by 沙知 Sha Zhi and 吳芳思 Wu Fangsi. Shanghai: Shanghai cishu
chubanshe, 2005
SH W. E. Soothill and L. Hodous, A Dictionary of Chinese Buddhist Terms,
London, 1937
SPAW Sitzungsberichte der Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften
StII Studien zur Indologie und Iranistik
TCW Tulufan chutu wenshu 吐魯番出土文書 (4 vols.), edited by 中國文
物研究所 Zhongguo wenwu yanjiusuo, 新疆維吾爾自治區博物館
Xinjiang Weiwuer Zizhiqu bowuguan and 武漢大學歷史系 History
Department of Wuhan University. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe,
1992–1996
Abbreviations xi
TITUS Thesaurus Indogermanischer Text- und Sprachmaterialien, Tocharian

Manuscripts from the Berlin Turfan Collection, digitized images and texts.
See http://titus.fkidg1.uni-frankfurt.de/texte/tocharic/tht.htm
THT Catalogue numbers of the Tocharische Handschriften der Turfansammlung,
see TITUS
TTD Tunhuang and Turfan Documents Concerning Social and Economic History
(4 vol. + supplement). Tokyo: Toyo Bunko, 1980–2001
UW Klaus Röhrborn, Uigurisches Wörterbuch: Sprachmaterial der vorislamisch-
en türkischen Texte aus Zentralasien, Lief. 1–6, Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner
Verlag, 1977–1998
ZDMG Zeitschriften der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft
List of Editors and Contributors
Bi Bo
Associate Professor, Remin University of China, Beijing, China.
Chen Huaiyu
Associate Professor, Arizona State University, Tempe, USA.
Ching Chao-jung
Postdoctoral research fellow, Centre de recherche sur les civilisations de l’Asie
orientale, UMR-8155, CNRS.
Jean-Pierre Drège
Directeur d’études, École pratique des Hautes Études, Paris, France.
Ogihara Hirotoshi
Associate Professor, The Hakubi Center for Advanced Research, Kyoto
University.
Ma Xiaohe
Chinese Librarian, Harvard-Yenching Library, Harvard University, Cambridge,
USA.
Nicholas Sims-Williams
Research Professor, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of
London, London, England.
Rong Xinjiang
Professor, Center for the Study of Ancient Chinese History, Peking University,
Beijing, China.
Takata Tokio
Professor Emeritus, Institute for Research in Humanities, Kyoto University,
Kyoto, Japan.
Wang Xiaofu
Professor, Center for the Study of Ancient Chinese History, Peking University,
Beijing, China.
List of Editors and Contributors xiii
Xu Wenkan
Senior Editor Emeritus, Hanyu Da Cidian editorial offices, Shanghai, China.
Yoshida Yutaka
Professor, Faculty of Letters, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan.
Zhu Lishuang
Librarian, International Academy for China Studies, Peking University, Beijing,
China.
Peter Zieme
Professor Emeritus, Berlin-Brandenburg Academy, Berlin, Germany.
A Chronological Bibliography of Professor Zhang
Guangda
Note: The articles marked with A, B, C, and D have been reprinted in following
books.
A Wenshu, dianji yu Xiyu shidi 文書、典籍與西域史地 [Manuscripts,
Documents, and the History and Geography of the Western Regions].
B Wenben, tuxiang yu wenhua liuchuan 文本、圖像與文化流傳 [Texts,
Iconographis and Cultural Transmission].
C Shijia, shixue yu xiandai xueshu 史家、史學與現代學術 [Historians,
Historiography and Modern Humanities].
D Yutian shi congkao 于闐史叢考 [Collected Papers on the History of Khotan].
1955
Co-trans. with Zhang Xitong 張錫彤. Yuanshi wenhua shigang 原始文化史綱,

by M. O. Kosven. Beijing: Renmin chubanshe.
1956
Trans. Kaoguxue tonglun 考古學通論, by A. V. Artsikhovsky, chapters 11 & 12.

Beijing: Kexue chubanshe, 197–241.
1957
Co-trans. Lun Xihan shidai (gongyuan qian san shiji dao yi shiji) Zhongguo de
shehui jingji zhidu 論西漢時代（公元前三世紀到一世紀）中國的社會經
濟制度, by L. I. Duman. Beijing: Gaodeng jiaoyu chubanshe.
1963
Trans. Falanxi neizhan 法蘭西內戰 (草稿、初稿、二稿及片斷), by Karl Marx.

In: Zhonggong zhongyang Makesi Engesi Lienin Sidalin zhuzuo bianyiju
中共中央馬克思恩格斯列寧斯大林著作編譯局 compiled, Makesi Engesi
quanji馬克思恩格斯全集, vol. 17. Beijing: Renmin chubanshe, 533–662.
A Chronological Bibliography of Professor Zhang Guangda xv
Trans. “Gei Wei Yi Chasuliqi (Vera Ivanovna Zasulich) de fuxin caogao 給維·伊·
查蘇利奇的復信草稿 (初稿、二稿、三稿),” by Karl Marx. In: Makesi Engesi
quanji, vol. 19. Beijing: Renmin chubanshe, 430–452.
1973
Trans. Sate Alabo 沙特阿拉伯 (Saudi Arabia), by N. I. Proshin. Beijing: Renmin

chubanshe.
1978
Co-trans. with Xu Tingyun 徐庭雲. “Sha’e zhengfu Zhongya shi pianduan

沙俄征服中亞史片斷,” by A. Popov. In: Jilin shifan daxue lishixi fanyizu
吉林師範大學歷史系翻譯組 compiled, Eluosi diguozhuyi: cong Yifan dadi
dao geming qian 俄羅斯帝國主義：從伊凡大帝到革命前. Beijing: Sanlian
shudian, 425–504.
“Sha’e qin Zang kaolüe 沙俄侵藏考略.” Zhongyang minzu xueyuan xuebao
中央民族學院學報, 1: 21–50.
“Guanyu Mahemu Kashigeli (Maḥmūd al-Kashgharī) de Tuqueyu cihui (Diwān
al-lugāt al-turk) yu jianyu cishu de yuanxing ditu 關於馬合木·喀什噶里的
《突厥語詞匯》與見於此書的圓形地圖.” Zhongyang minzu xueyuan xue-
bao, 2: 29–42 + 1 plate inside back cover. (A: 46–66).
“Cong ‘Pulisangqian’ qiao tanqi 從「普里桑乾」橋談起.” Renmin ribao
人民日報, Sep. 4: 6.
1979
“Ping Daiwei Maikenqi zhu Tashigan zhi shi: Mi Ge Qie’erniyayefu (1828–1898)

jiangjun de shengping” 評戴维·麥肯齊著《塔什干之獅：米·格·切爾尼亞
耶夫(1828–1898)將軍的生平 [Review of Lion of Tashkent: The Career of
General M. G. Cherniaev (1828–1898), by David MacKenzie], Zhong’e guanxi
yanjiuhui tongxun 中俄關係研究會通訊, 3: 1–5.
“Suiye cheng jindi kao 碎葉城今地考 [Where is Sūyāb, the Site of an Ancient
City in Central Asia?].” Beijing daxue xuebao 北京大學學報, 5: 70–82.
(A: 1–22).
“Taiwansheng jinnian de Songshi yanjiu qingkuang 臺灣省近年的宋史研究
情況.” Zhongguoshi yanjiu dongtai 中國史研究動態, 10: 9–11.
xvi A Chronological Bibliography of Professor Zhang Guangda
“Oumei jinnian yanjiu Songshi jiankuang 歐美近年研究宋史簡況.” Zhong

guoshi yanjiu dongtai, 10: 12–16.
“Fuhebo (Herbert Franke) zhuchi de ‘Jinshi jihua’ jinzhang qingkuang 福赫伯
主持的「金史計畫」進展情況.” Zhongguoshi yanjiu dongtai, 10: 32.
“Guanyu Yuanren zhuanji suoyin de bianzuan qingkuang 關於元人傳記資料
索引的編纂情況.” Zhongguoshi yanjiu dongtai, 11: 33–34.
“Guowai jinnian dui Dunhuang xieben de bianmu gongzuo 國外近年對敦煌寫
本的編目工作.” Zhongguoshi yanjiu dongtai, 12: 12–19.
“Yibu zhide zhuyi de xinbian Mengguxue shumu 一部值得注意的新編蒙古
學書目.” Zhongguoshi yanjiu dongtai, 12: 33.
Shahuang Eguo qinlüe kuozhang shi (shang) 沙皇俄國侵略擴張史 (上).
Chapter 2. Beijing: Renmin chubanshe, 36–57.
1980
Shahuang Eguo qinlüe kuozhang shi (xia) 沙皇俄國侵略擴張史 (下). Chapters

18, 19 and 28. Beijing: Renmin chubanshe, 97–128, 129–150, 404–425.
Co-authored with Chen Jiarong 陳佳榮. “Cong shijie dindaishi kan fanfengjian
douzheng de changqixing he jianjuxing 從世界近代史看反封建鬥爭的長
期性和艱巨性.” Tantao 探討, Trial Issue 1: 56–64.
Co-authored with Geng Shimin 耿世民. “Suolimi kao” 唆里迷考 [Where is
Sulmida, the Site of an Ancient City in Xinjiang?], Lishi yanjiu 歷史研究, 2:
147–159. (A: 25–41).
1981
Co-authored with Zhang Xintong. “Shilun Eguo Dongfang xuejia Wa Fo

Batuo’erde dui Menggushi de yanjiu jiqi Tuquesitan yishu 試論俄國東
方學家瓦 · 弗 · 巴托爾德對蒙古史的研究及其《突厥斯坦》一書 .” Minzu
yanjiu tongxun 民族研究通訊 [Newsletter for Ethnic Research] 1981.2: 1–12.
(C: 176–195).
“Tangdai chanzong de chuanru Tubo jiqi youguan de Dunhuang wenshu 唐代
禪宗的傳入吐蕃及有關的敦煌文書.” In: Zhonghua shuju bianjibu 中華書
局編輯部 ed. Xuelin manlu 學林漫錄, 3. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 5: 36–58.
(A: 242–262).
A Chronological Bibliography of Professor Zhang Guangda xvii
1982
“Tubo feiniaoshi yu Tubo yichuan zhidu: jianlun Dunhuang xingren buluo

吐蕃飛鳥使與吐蕃驛傳制度: 兼論敦煌行人部落 [mChi’i byi’u pha and
the Postal System in Tibetan Empire with Reference to Nyan rna’s sde in
Dunhuang].” In: CEDIT, 167–178. (A: 215–225).
Co-authored with Rong Xinjiang 榮新江. “Guanyu Tangmo Songchu Yutianguo
de guohao nianhao jiqi wangjia shixi wenti 關於唐末宋初于闐國的國號年
號及其王家世系問題.” In: CEDIT, 179–209. (D: 15–37).
1983
“Yanjiu Zhongya shidi de rumenshu he cankaoshu (shang, xia) 研究中亞史

地的入門書和參考書 (上，下).” Xinjiang daxue xuebao, 3: 76–88; and 4:
78–86.
Co-authored with Huang Zhenhua 黃振華. “Sulian de Wusun kaogu qingkuang
jianshu 蘇聯的烏孫考古情況簡述.” In: Wang Mingzhe 王明哲 and Wang
Binghua 王炳華 ed. Wusun Yanjiu 烏孫研究. Urumqi: Xinjiang renmin chu-
banshe, 185–200.
Co-authored with Rong Xinjiang. “Hetian, Duhuang faxian de zhonggu Yutian
shiliao gaishu 和田、敦煌發現的中古于闐史料概述.” Xinjiang shehui kexue
新疆社會科學, 4: 78–88. (D: 1–14).
1984
“Chutu wenxian yu Musilin dili zhuzuo duiyu yanjiu Zhongya lishi dili de yiyi
(shang, xia)” 出土文獻與穆斯林地理著作對於研究中亞歷史地理的意義
(上，下).” Xinjiang daxue xuebao, 1: 57–64; and 2: 55–63.
“Jinnian Xifang xuezhe dui Zhongguo zhongshiji shijia dazu de yanjiu 近年
西方學者對中國中世紀世家大族的研究.” Zhongguoshi yanjiu dongtai, 12:
29–31. (C: 263–266).
Co-authored with Rong Xinjiang. “Les noms du royaume de Khotan: Les noms
d’ère et la lignée royale de la fin des Tang au début des Song.” Contributions
aux études de Touen-houang III, sous la direction de Michel Soymié. Paris:
Ecole française d’Extrême-Orient, 23–46 + plates I–IV.
Co-authored with Wang Xiaofu 王小甫. “Zhongya lishi yanjiu shumu jie-
shao (zhiyi, zhi’er, zhisan) 中亞歷史研究書目介紹 (之一，之二，之三).”
Zhongya yanjiu ziliao 中亞研究資料, 3: 70–73; 4: 76–81; and 1985, 1: 64–68.
xviii A Chronological Bibliography of Professor Zhang Guangda
1985
Collaborated with Ji Xianlin 季羡林 et al. Datang Xiyuji jiaozhu 大唐西域記校

注. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju.
Collaborated with Ji Xianlin et al. Datang Xiyuji jinyi 大唐西域記今譯. Xi’an:
Shaanxi renmin chubanshe.
“Lun Sui Tang shiqi Zhongyuan yu Xiyu wenhua jiaoliu de jige wenti 論隋唐時
期中原與西域文化交流的幾個問題.” Beijing daxue xuebao, 4: 1–13. (B: 1–22).
“Gudai Ouya de neilu jiaotong: jianlun shanmai, shamo, lüzhou dui dongxi
wenhua jiaoliu de yingxiang 古代歐亞的內陸交通: 兼論山脈、沙漠、綠洲
對東西文化交流的影響.” In: Zhongguo shixuehui 中國史學會 ed. Di shiliu
jie guoji lishi kexue dahui Zhongguo xuezhe lunwenji 第十六屆國際歷史科學
大會中國學者論文集. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 253–270. (B: 117–130).
“Zhongguo shi 中國史.” In: Guojia jiaoyu weiyuanhui gaojiao yisi 國家教育委
員會高教一司 ed. Zhexue shehui kexue yanjiu xianzhuang he fazhan: gaox-
iao “qiwu” keyan guihua zixun baogao 哲學社會科學研究現狀和發展: 高校
“七五” 科研規劃諮詢報告. Beijing: Beijing daxue chubanshe, 319–330.
“Bijiao he duizhao: Xifang xuezhe yanjiu Zhongguo de changyong fangfa 比較
和對照: 西方學者研究中國的常用方法.” Wenshi zhishi 文史知識, 10: 86–92.
“Zhenhai 鎮海 [Čingqai].” In: Han rulin 韓儒林 ed. Zhongguo dabaike quanshi.
Zhongguo lishi: Yuanshi 中國大百科全書·中國歷史·元史. Beijing: Zhongguo
dabaike quanshu chubanshe, 1985, pp. 157–158. Reprinted in Zhongguo
dabaike quanshu. Zhongguo lishi III, 1521–1522.
1986
“Tangdai Liuhuzhou dengdi de Zhaowu jiuxing 唐代六胡州等地的昭武九姓.”

Beijing daxue xuebao, 2: 71–82, 128. (B: 75–96).
“Dangdai shixue yanjiu de qushi: canjia di shiliu jie guoji lishi kexue dahui de
guanggan 當代史學研究的趨勢: 參加第十六屆國際歷史科學大會的觀感.”
Beijing shehui kexue 北京社會科學, 2: 153–156.
Co-authored with Rong Xinjiang. “Dunhuang ‘ruixiangji’, ruixiangtu jiqi fany-
ing de Yutian 敦煌 ‘瑞像記’、瑞像圖及其反映的于闐.” In: CEDTT, III, 69–
147 + plates 20–34. (D: 166–223).
“Tangdai de Zhongwai wenhua huiju he Wanqing de Zhongxi wenhua chongtu
唐代的中外文化彙聚和晚清的中西文化衝突.” Zhongguo shehui kexue 中國
社會科學, 3: 37–51. (B: 97–116).
Co-authored with Rong Xinjiang. “Yutian fosi zhi 于闐佛寺志.” Shijie zongjiao
yanjiu 世界宗教研究, 3: 140–149. (D: 224–239).
A Chronological Bibliography of Professor Zhang Guangda xix
“Afulaxi’abu cheng 阿夫拉西阿卜城 [Afrasiab],” “Akebieximu chengzhi 阿克別

希姆城址 [Ak-Beshim] (A: 23–24),” “Ayi’ertamu chengzhi 阿伊爾塔姆城址
[Airtam],” “Ayihanumu chengzhi 阿伊哈努姆城址 [Ai-Khanum],” “Annuo
wenhua 安諾文化 [Anau Culture],” “Balaleike chengbao yizhi 巴拉雷克城
堡遺址 [Balalyk-Tepe],” “Balihei chengzhi 巴里黑城址 [Balkh],” “Bamiyang
Fojiao yiji 巴米揚佛教遺跡 [Buddhist Ruins in Bamiyan],” “Beigelamu
chengzhi 貝格拉姆城址 [Begram],” “Boxihe伯希和 [Paul Pelliot, 1878–
1945],” “Buhala gucheng 布哈拉古城 [Bukhara],” “Fengdujisitan Fosi yizhi
豐杜基斯坦佛寺遺址 [Buddhist Ruins in Fondukistan],” “Hada Fosi yizhi
哈達佛寺遺址 [Buddhist Ruins in Haḍḍa],” “Ha’erqiayang chengzhi 哈爾
恰揚城址 [Khalchayan],” “Ke’erjiemina’er wenhua 克爾捷米納爾文化
[Kelteminar Culture],” “Lekeke 勒科克 [Albert von Le Coq, 1860–1930],”
“Mulu chengzhi 木鹿城址 [Merv],” “Namazijia IV–VI qi wenhua 納馬茲加
IV–VI 期文化 [Namazqa IV–VI Culture],” “Nisa chengzhi 尼薩城址 [Nisa],”
“Pianzhikente chengzhi 片治肯特城址 [Pyanjikent],” “Shaotuo’er Fosi yizhi
紹托爾佛寺遺址 [Buddhist Ruins in Shotor-Tepe],” “Shaotuolake Fosi yizhi
紹托拉克佛寺遺址 [Buddhist Ruins in Shotorak],” “Sitanyin 斯坦因 [Aurel
Stein, 1862–1943],” “Siwen Heding 斯文赫定 [Sven A. Hedin, 1865–1952],”
“Su’erhe keta’er yizhi 蘇爾赫科塔爾遺址 [Surkh Kotal Site],” “Tie’ermeizi
chengzhi 鐵爾梅茲城址 [Termez],” “Tuopulakekala chengzhi 托普拉克卡
拉城址 [Tonpak-Kala],” “Walahesha chengzhi 瓦拉赫沙城址 [Varakhsha],”
“Wuhushui jiaocang 烏滸水窖藏 [Oxus Treasure],” “Zhetong wenhua 哲通
文化 [Dzheytun Culture],” “Zhongya gudai he zhongshiji qianbi 中亞古代
和中世紀錢幣[Coins from Ancient and Medieval Central Asia],” “Zhongya
tuzhong muqun 中亞土塚墓群 [Central Asian Barrows],” “Zhangya zhong-
shiqi shidai wenhua 中亞中石器時代文化 [Mesolithic Cultures in Central
Asia],” “Zhongya zhongshiji zaoqi Sute bihua 中亞中世紀早期粟特壁畫
[Sogdian Murals in Early Medieval Central Asia] (above with Chen Junmou
陳俊謀),” “Mugeshan chengbao yizhi 穆格山城堡遺址 [the Castle Ruins on
Mount Mug] (with Wang Xiaofu).” In: Zhongguo dabaike quanshu chuban-
she bianjibu 中國大百科全書出版社編輯部 ed. Zhongguo dabaike quanshu.
Kaogu xue 中國大百科全書·考古學[Encyclopedia of China. Archaeology].
Beijing: Zhongguo dabaike quanshu chubanshe, 3, 3–4, 9, 9–10, 17–18, 28, 28,
28–29, 46, 53, 56, 125–126, 153, 153, 257, 268, 341, 343, 352, 364–365, 469, 469,
484, 485, 493–494, 527, 537, 538–539, 545–546, 647, 722–723, 724–725, 725,
725, 341–342.
“Tujue 突厥 [Türk].” In: Zhongguo dabaike quanshu zong bianji weiyuanhui
Minzu bianji weiyuanhui 中國大百科全書總編輯委員會《民族》編輯委
員會 ed. Zhongguo dabaike quanshu. Minzu 中國大百科全書·民族. Beijing:
Zhongguo dabaike quanshu chubanshe, 424–426.
xx A Chronological Bibliography of Professor Zhang Guangda
“Guishuang 貴霜 [Kushan].” In: Sun Yutang 孫毓棠 ed. Zhongguo dabaike

quanshu. Zhongguo lishi: Qin Han shi 中國大百科全書·中國歷史·秦漢史
[Encyclopedia of China. History of China: History of Qin and Han]. Beijing:
Zhongguo dabaike quanshu chubanshe, 53–54. Reprinted in Zhongguo
dabaike quanshu. Zhongguo lishi I, 277. (A: 42–43).
1987
“Zhongguo chuantong wenhua zai Xifang: lüelun Xifang dui Zhongguo

chuantong wenhua renshi de bianhua (shang, zhong, xia) 中國傳統文化在
西方: 略論西方對中國傳統文化認識的變化 (上，中，下).” Wenshi zhishi,
1: 65–7; 1987, 2: 109–113; 1987, 3: 84–90.
Co-authored with Rong Xinjiang. “Dunhuang wenshu P.3510 (Yutian wen)
‘Congde Taizi fayuanwen’ (ni) jiqi niandai 敦煌文書 P.3510 (于闐文)《從德
太子發願文(擬)》及其年代.” In: Dunhuang wenwu yanjiusuo 敦煌文物研
究所 ed. 1983 nian quanguo Dunhuang xueshu taolunhui wenji (shang) 1983
年全國敦煌學術討論會文集文史·遺書編 (上). Lanzhou: Gansu renmin
chubanshe, 163–175. (D: 38–47).
“Haipo lai Tianfang, Silu tong Dashi: Zhongguo yu Alabo shijie de lishi lianxi de
huigu 海舶來天方，絲路通大食: 中國與阿拉伯世界的歷史聯繫的回顧.”
In: Zhou Yiliang 周一良 ed. Zhongwai wenhua jiaoliu shi中外文化交流史.
Zhengzhou: Henan renmin chubanshe, 743–802. (B: 133–180).
“Xiang Da xiansheng wenshi yanjiu de gongxian 向達先生文史研究的貢獻.”
In: Huo Songlin 霍松林 and Fu Xuancong 傅璇琮 eds. Tangdai wenxue yan-
jiu nianjian (1985) 唐代文學研究年鑒 (1985). Xi’an: Shaanxi renmin chuban-
she, 470–482. (C: 196–205).
Co-authored with Rong Xinjiang. “Sur un manuscrit chinois découvert à Cira
près de Khotan.” Cahiers d’Extrême-Asie 3: 77–92.
Co-authored with Rong Xinjiang. “Bali guoli tushuguan suocang Dunhuang
Yutianyu xiejuan mulu chugao 巴黎國立圖書館所藏敦煌于闐語寫卷目錄
初稿.” In: CEDTT, IV: 90–127. (D: 118–148).
1988
“Ashina She’er 阿史那社爾,” “Pei Xingjian 裴行儉,” “Qibi Heli 契苾何力.” In:
ECSTW, 111–112, 265–266, 270.
“Bolü 勃律 [Gilgit] (with Rong Xinjiang) (A: 90–91),” “Dashi 大食 [Arabs]
(B: 181–184),” “Fulin guo 拂菻國 (B: 131–132).” In: ECSTW, 118, 130–132, 159.
Reprinted in ECHC I, 52, 144–145, 233–234.
A Chronological Bibliography of Professor Zhang Guangda xxi
“Li Xun 李珣,” “Lianhuasheng 蓮花生 [Padmasambhava] (A: 265–266),” “Pei Ju

裴矩 (with Rong Xinjiang) (A: 86–87),” “Qisongdezang 棄松德贊 [Khri srong
lde bstan] (A: 263–264),” “Sashanchao Bosi 薩珊朝波斯 [Sassanid Persia]
(B: 69–71),” “Sute 粟特 [Sogdiana] (B: 66–68),” “Suitang Xiyu 隋唐西域
(A: 80–85),” “Tuhuoluo 吐火羅 [Tukhāristān] (A: 44–45).” In: ECSTW, 230,
230–231, 264–265, 269, 283–284, 327–328, 341–345, 390–391. Reprinted in
ECHC II, 566, 573, 750, 766–767, 863–864, 1030, 1054–1056, 1165.
“Wang Xuance 王玄策 (with Rong Xinjiang) (A: 88–89),” “Yijing 義淨,” “Zhaowu
jiuxing 昭武九姓 (B: 72–74).” In: ECSTW, 400, 432, 445–446. Reprinted in
ECHC III, 1200–1201, 1399, 1514.
“Huihu 回鶻 [Uighur].” In: Deng Guangming 鄧廣銘 ed. Zhongguo dabaike
quanshu. Zhongguo lishi: Liao Song Xixia, Jin shi 中國大百科全書·中國歷
史·遼宋西夏金史 [Encyclopedia of China. History of China: History of Liao,
Song, Tangut and Juchen]. Beijing: Zhongguo dabaike quanshu chubanshe,
198–201. (A: 177–182).
“Heihan wangchao 黑汗王朝 [Qara Khanids].” In: Deng Guangming ed.,
Zhongguo dabaike quanshu. Zhongguo lishi: Liao Song Xixia, Jin shi, 192–194.
Reprinted in ECHC I, 364–365. (A: 67–70).
Co-authored with Rong Xinjiang. “‘Tang Dali sannian sanyue dian Chengxian
die ba” 《唐大曆三年三月典成銑牒》跋.” Xinjiang shehui kexue 新疆社會
科學, 1: 60–69. (D: 106–117).
Co-authored with Rong Xinjiang. “Guanyu Hetian chutu Yutian wenxian de ni-
andai jiqi xiangguan wenti 關於和田出土于闐文獻的年代及其相關問題.”
Tōyō gakuhō 東洋學報 69. 1/2: 59–86. (D: 48–69).
“Tang mie Gaochangguo hou de Xizhou xingshi 唐滅高昌國後的西州形勢.”
Tōyō bunka 東洋文化 68: 69–107. (A: 114–152).
Co-authored with Wang Xiaofu. Tianya ruo bilin: Zhongwai wenhua jiaoliu
shilüe 天涯若比鄰: 中外文化交流史略. Hong Kong: Zhonghua shuju.
1989
“Tangdai de li 唐代的吏.” Beijing daxue xuebao, 2: 1–10.

Co-authored with Rong Xinjiang. “Youguan Xizhou Huihu de yipian Dunhuang
Hanwen wenxian: S.6551 jiangjingwen de lishixue yanjiu 有關西州回鶻的
一篇敦煌漢文文獻: S.6551 講經文的歷史學研究.” Beijing daxue xuebao 2:
24–36. (A: 153–176).
Co-authored with Rong Xinjiang. “Shanggu Yutian de Saizhong jumin 上古于
闐的塞種居民.” Xibei minzu yanjiu 西北民族研究, 1: 172–183. (D: 149–165).
xxii A Chronological Bibliography of Professor Zhang Guangda
Co-authored with Rong Xinjiang. “Youguan Dunhuang chutu Yutian wenxian

de niandai jiqi xiangguan wenti 關於敦煌出土于闐文獻的年代及其相關
問題.” In: Beijing daxue Zhongguo zhonggushi yanjiu zhongxin 北京大學中
國中古史研究中心 ed. Jinian Chen Yinque xiansheng danchen bainian xue-
shu lunwenji 紀念陳寅恪先生誕辰百年學術論文集. Beijing: Beijing daxue
chubanshe, 284–306. (D: 70–105).
Co-authored with Wang Xiaofu. “Zhongwai wenhua jiaoliu 中外文化交流.”
In: Ding Shouhe 丁守和 ed. Zhonghua wenhua cidian 中華文化辭典.
Guangzhou: Guangdong renmin chubanshe, 931–947.
1990
Co-authored with Wang Xiaofu. “Liu Yu Xishi ji buming dili kao 劉郁《西使
記》不明地理考.” Zhongya xuekan 中亞學刊, 3: 199–213. (B: 204–223).
“Shiyi shiji de yuanxing ditu 十一世紀的圓形地圖.” In: Cao Wanru 曹婉如
et al. eds. Zhongguo gudai ditu ji: from Zhanguo to Yuan 中國古代地圖集·
戰國至元代. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 19–22, and the Plates on 3 and the
Plates on 20.
1991
“Sulian chuban de jibu minzushi zhuzuo 蘇聯出版的幾部民族史著作.”

Hanxue yanjiu tongxun 漢學研究通訊 10.1: 22–25. (C: 277–284).
“Meiguo taolun Sijianya de quyu xitongguan de jipian pinglun 美國討論
施堅雅的區域系統觀的幾篇評論.” Hanxue yanjiu tongxun 10. 1: 25–29.
(C: 267–276).
“Xueren zhuanjie: Weitefu (Wittfogel) yu Aiboha (Eberhard) jiaoshou 學人專
介: 魏特夫與艾伯華教授.” Hanxue yanjiu tongxun 10. 1: 30–33. (C: 206–213).
“Oumei Hanxue lunzhu xuanjie 歐美漢學論著選介.” Hanxue yanjiu tongxun
10. 2: 102–108, including:
1. Denis Sinor ed. Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia. 102–104.

(B: 349–353).
2. Luciano Petech. Selected Papers on Asian History. 104.
3. Thomas T. Allsen. Mongol Imperialism: The Policies of the Grand Qan
Monke in China, Russia and the Islamic Lands, 1251–1259. 104–106.
(C: 302–305).
A Chronological Bibliography of Professor Zhang Guangda xxiii
4. Peter Zieme ed. Buddhistische Stabreimdichtungen Der Uiguren. 106.

5. Peter Zieme. Die Stabreimtexte der Uiguren von Turfan und Dunhuang:
Studien zur Alttürkischen Dichtung. 106.
6. S. L. Tikhvinsky and B. A. Litvinsky eds. Vostochnyj Turkestan v drevnosti i
rannem srednevekov’e—Ocherki Istorii. 106–108. (A: 291–295).
“Tangmo Wudai Songchu xibei difang de banci he shici 唐末五代宋初西北

地方的般次和使次.” In: Li Zheng 李錚 and Jiang Zhongxin 蔣忠新 eds. Ji
Xianlin jiaoshou bashi huadan jinian lunwenji (xia) 季羨林教授八十華誕紀
念論文集 (下). Nanchang: Jiangxi renmin chubanshe, 969–974. (A: 183–191).
“Oumei Hanxue lunzhu xuanjie 歐美漢學論著選介.” Hanxue yanjiu tongxun
10. 3: 184–188, including:
1. L. S. Savitsky ed. Opisanie Tibetskikh Svitkov iz Dun’khuana Sobranii

Instituta Vostokovedeniya AN SSSR. 184–187. (C: 312–318).
2. David McMullen. State and Scholars in T’ang China. 187–188.
(C: 298–301).
Preface to Song Xian 宋峴, trans. Ibn Khordādhbeh, Kitāb al-Masālik wa’l-
Mamālik 伊本·胡爾達茲比赫《道里邦國志》中譯本. Beijing: Zhonghua
shuju, 1–22. (B: 185–203).
“Oumei Hanxue lunzhu pingjie ji tiyao 歐美漢學論著評介及提要.” Hanxue
yanjiu tongxun 10. 4: 302–309, including:
1. Catalogue des manuscrits chinois de Touen-houang, Fonds Pelliot chinois

de la Bibliothèque Nationale, Volume IV, nos 3501–4000. 302–304.
(C: 306–311).
2. Review of Derk Bodde, Chinese Thought, Society, and Science: The
Intellectual and Social Background of Science and Technology in Pre-
modern China. 304–307. (C: 285–292).
3. Ernst Steinkellner ed. Tibetan History and Language: Studies Dedicated to
Uray Géza on His Seventieth Birthday. 307–309. (A: 267–271).
1992
“Oumei Hanxue lunzhu pingjie ji tiyao 歐美漢學論著評介及提要.” Hanxue yan-

jiu tongxun 11. 3: 206–208; Review of Yuzo Mizoguchi et Léon Vandermeersch
eds. Confucianisme et Sociélés Asiatiques. (C: 293–297).
xxiv A Chronological Bibliography of Professor Zhang Guangda
Preface to Wang Xiaofu, Tang Tubo Dashi zhengzhi guanxi shi 《唐吐蕃大食政
治關係史》序. Beijing: Beijing daxue chubanshe, 4–7. (C: 250–253).
“Huihu 回鶻 [Uighur]” (with Guo Pingliang 郭平梁). In: ECHC I, 412–415.
1993
“Jiushiji Tubo de Chiban fanyi mingyiji sanzhong: bKas bcad rnam pa gsum
九世紀吐蕃的《敕頒翻譯名義集三種》.” In: Zhou Shaoliang 周紹良 et al.
eds. Zhou Yiliang xiansheng bashi shengri jinian lunwenji 周一良先生八十
生日紀念論文集. Beijing: Zhongguo shehui kexue chubanshe, 146–165.
(A: 226–241).
“Mengyuan shiqi dahan de Wo’erduo 蒙元時期大汗的斡耳朵.” In: Zhang
Jiqian 張寄謙 ed. Suxin ji: Jinian Shao Xunzheng xiansheng xueshu lunwenji
素馨集: 紀念邵循正先生學術論文集. Beijing: Beijing daxue chubanshe,
16–35. (A: 272–290).
Co-authored with Rong Xinjiang. Yutian shi congkao 于闐史叢考. Shanghai:
Shanghai shudian.
1994
“Trois exemples d’influences mazdéennes dans la Chine des Tang.” Études chi-
noises 8. 1/2: 203–219.
La chine et les civilisations de l’Asie centrale du VII e au XI e siècle. Paris: Collège
de France. Chaire internationale, leçon inaugurale faite le 14 janvier 1994.
1995
Xiyu shidi congkao chubian 西域史地叢考初編. Shanghai: Shanghai guji

chubanshe.
1996
Co-ed. With B. A. Litvinsky and R. Shabani Samghabadi) History of Civilizations

of Central Asia, vol. III, The Crossroads of Civilizations: A.D. 250–750. Paris:
UNESCO Publishing.
A Chronological Bibliography of Professor Zhang Guangda xxv
Chapters in History of Civilizations of Central Asia, vol. III, The Crossroads of

Civilizations: A.D. 250–750. Paris: UNESCO Publishing:
“Historical Introduction” (with B. A. Litvinsky). 19–33.

Chapter 2: “The City-states of the Tarim Basin.” 281–301.
Chapter 12: “Kocho (Kao-Ch’ang).” 303–314.
“Central Asia, the Crossroads of Civilizations” (with B. A. Litvinsky).
473–490.
“Xianjiao dui Tangdai Zhongguo zhi yingxiang sanli 祆教對唐代中國之影響

三例.” In Denys Lombard 龍巴爾 and Li Xueqin 李學勤 eds. Faguo Hanxue
法國漢學 [Sinologie Française]. Vol. 1. Beijing: Qinghua daxue chubanshe,
143–154. (B: 240–249).
Co-authored with Franze Grenet. “The Last Refuge of the Sogdian Religion:
Dunhuang in the Ninth and Tenth Centuries.” Bulletin of the Asia Institute,
new series, no. 10, Studies in Honor of Vladimir A. Livshits. 175–186.
“Les pièces officielles dans les manuscrits de Dunhuang et Turfan. Genre et
structure: quelques clefs de lecture.” In: De Dunhuang au Japon. études chi-
noises et bouddhiques offertes à Michel Soymié, textes réunis par Jean Pierre
Drège. Genève: Droz, 179–201.
1997
“Tanfo yu tanzhai: guanyu Dunhuang wenshu zhong de ‘Zhaiwan wen’ de jige

wenti ‘歎佛’ 與 ‘歎齋’ : 關於敦煌文書中的《齋琬文》的幾個問題.” In: Tian
Yuqing 田余慶 et al. eds. Qingzhu Deng Guangming jiaoshou jiushi huadan
lunwenji 慶祝鄧廣銘教授九十華誕論文集. Shijiazhuang: Hebei jiaoyu chu-
banshe, 60–73. (A: 192–210).
“Tangdai Xianjiao tusiang zaikao 唐代祆教圖像再考.” JTS 3: 1–17. (B: 274–289).
Co-authored with Rong Xinjiang. “Bashiji xiaban yu jiushiji chu de Yutian” 八世
紀下半與九世紀初的于闐.” JTS 3: 339–361. (D: 240–263).
1998
Review of Vostochny Turkestan v drevnosti i rannem srednevetov’e (East Turkistan

in Antiquity and Early Mediaeval Times), I–III. JDTS 3: 339–370. (A: 296–331).
Co-authored with Rong Xinjiang. “A Concise History of the Turfan Oasis and
Its Exploration.” Asia Major, third series, 11. 2: 13–36. (Chinese translation in
A: 92–113).
xxvi A Chronological Bibliography of Professor Zhang Guangda
1999
“Tulufan chutu Hanyu wenshu suojian Yilanyu diqu zongjiao de zongji 吐魯番
出土漢語文書所見伊朗語地區宗教的蹤跡.” JDTS 4: 1–16. (B: 224–239).
Co-authored with Rong Xinjiang. “Shishiji Yutianguo de Tianshou nianhao jiqi
xiangguan wenti 十世紀于闐國的天壽年號及其相關問題.” Ouya xuekan
歐亞學刊 1: 181–192. (D: 289–302).
“Shi’en nanwang: mianhuai Deng shi Gongsan xiansheng 師恩難忘: 緬懷鄧師
恭三先生.” In: Yangzhi ji: jinian Deng Guangming xiansheng. Shijiazhuang:
Hebei jiaoyu chubanshe, 200–207. (C: 214–220).
“Wo he Suitang, Zhongya shi yanjiu 我和隋唐、中亞史研究.” In: Zhang Shilin
張世林 ed. Xuelin chunqiu sanbian (shang) 學林春秋三編 (上). Beijing:
Zhaohua chubanshe, 59–76. (C: 319–334).
2000
“Rongshe neiwai wenhua chengguo, yingjie ‘da shijian’ de tiaozhan 融攝內外

文化成果, 迎接 ‘大時間’ 的挑戰.” Zhonghua dushubao 中華讀書報, July 19,
2000.
“Une représentation iconographique de la Daēnā et de la Daēva? Quelques
pistes de réflexion sur les religions venues d’Asie centrale en Chine.” In:
La Sérinde, terre d’échanges: art, religion, commerce du Ier au Xe siècle: actes
du colloque international, Galeries nationales du Grand Palais, 13–14–15
février 1996 (XIVes Rencontres de l’Ecole du Louvre), direction scientifuque
Monique Cohen, Jean-Pierre Drège, Jacques Giès. Paris: Documentation
française, 191–202. (Chinese translation in B: 274–289).
“Iranian Religious Evidence in Turfan Chinese Texts.” China Archaeology and
Art Digest 4. 1, Zoroastrianism in China, 193–206.
“L’irrigation dans la region de Koutcha.” In: Les manuscrits chinois de Koutcha:
Fonds Pelliot de la Bibliothèque Nationale de France, par É. Trombert avec
la collaboration de Ikeda On et Zhang Guangda. Paris: Institut des Hautes
études chinoises du Collège de France, 143–150. (Chinese translation in A:
71–79).
“Lüse shenghuo 綠色生活.” Dushu 讀書 5: 27–30.
“The State and the Law in East Asia.” In: M. A. Al-Bakhit, L. Bazin and
S. M. Cissoko eds. History of Humanity: Scientific and Cultural Development,
Vol. IV, From the Seventh to the Sixteenth Century, Chapter 3, Sec.5. London
and New York: Routledge; Paris: UNESCO, 60–62.
A Chronological Bibliography of Professor Zhang Guangda xxvii
“China.” In: M. A. Al-Bakhit, L. Bazin and S. M. Cissoko eds. History of

Humanity: Scientific and Cultural Development, Vol. IV, From the Seventh to
the Sixteenth Century, chapter 27. London and New York: Routledge; Paris:
UNESCO, 421–446.
2001
“Dao Kelimukaite jiaoshou 悼克里姆凱特教授 [In Memoriam: Prof.

H.-J. Klimkeit].” JDTS 5: 287–293. (C: 221–228).
“Guanyu Tangshi yanjiu quxiang de jidian qianjian 關於唐史研究趨向的幾點
淺見.” Zhongguo xueshu 中國學術 4: 279–297. Reprinted in Hu Ji 胡戟 et al.
ed. Ershi shiji Tang yanjiu 二十世紀唐研究. Beijing: Zhongguo shehui kexue
chubanshe, 2002, 1–10. (C: 229–249).
“Tangdai de Baolie: wenhua chuanbo de yige shili 唐代的豹獵: 文化傳播的一
個實例.” JTS 7: 177–204 + plates 1–6. (B: 23–50).
Preface to Rong Xinjiang, Zhonggu Zhongguo yu wailai wenming《中古中國與
外來文明》序. In: Zhonggu Zhongguo yu wailai wenming 中古中國與外來
文明 by Rong Xinjiang. Beijing: Sanlian shudian, 1–6. (C: 254–258).
“Section of Faju Jing (Dhammapada Sutra) before 368 CE.” In: Annette L.
Juliano and Judith A. Lerner eds. Monks and Merchants: Silk Road Treasures
from Northern China. New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., with the Asia Society,
148–149. (Chinese translation in A: 211–214).
2002
Co-authored with Rong Xinjiang. “Sheng Bidebao cang Hetian chutu Hanwen
wenshu kaoshi 聖彼得堡藏和田出土漢文文書考釋.” JDTS 4: 221–241.
(D: 267–288).
“Sogdian Settlements and Tang Material Culture.” Paper presented at an
Internatioanl Conference on “New Perspectives on the Tang.” April 18–20,
2002. Princeton University, NJ.
Co-tr. with Valerie Hansen. “‘Hu’ Non-Chinese as They Appear in the Materials
from the Astana Graveyard at Turfan.” By Wu Zhen 吳震. Sino-Platonic
Papers 119, July 2002.
Preface to Deng Wenkuan 鄧文寬, Dunhuang Tulufan tianwen lifa yanjiu 《敦煌
吐魯番天文曆法研究》序. Lanzhou: Gansu jiaoyu chubanshe, 1–6.
(C: 259–262).
xxviii A Chronological Bibliography of Professor Zhang Guangda
“Zaidu Wantang Suliang qi Mashi shuangyu muzhi 再讀晚唐蘇諒妻馬氏雙語

墓誌.” Guoxue yanjiu 國學研究 10: 1–22. (B: 250–273).
“Zhonghua shuju yu Faguo Hanxue 中華書局與法國漢學 [La Zhonghua shuju
et la sinologie française].” In: Zhonghua shuju yu Faguo Hanxue 中華書局與
法國漢學 [La Zhonghua shuju et la sinologie française]. Beijing: Zhonghua
shuju, 13–26.
“The Role of the Sogdians as Translators of Buddhist Texts.” In: Annette L.
Juliano and Judith A. Lerner eds. Nomads, Travels and Holy Men along China’s
Silk Road. Papers presented at a Symposium Held at the Asia Society in New
York, November 9–10, 2001, Silk Road Studies VII. Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols,
75–78. (Chinese translation in B: 290–294).
2003
“Tangdai Chang’an de Bosiren he Suteren: Tamen gefangmian de huodong

唐代長安的波斯人和粟特人: 他們各方面的活動.” Todaishi kenkyū 唐代史
研究 6: 3–16. (B: 51–65).
“Wang Guowei de xixue he guoxue 王國維的西學與國學.” Zhongguo xueshu 4:
100–139. (C: 1–41).
2005
Trans. Marianne Bastid-Bruguière, “Liang Qichao yijiuyijiu nian de lüju Faguo

yu wannian shehui wenhua sixiang shang dui Ouzhou de biandi 梁啟超 1919
年的旅居法國與晚年社會文化思想上對歐洲的貶低.” In: Li Xisuo 李喜所
ed. Liang Qichao yu jindai Zhongguo shehui wenhua 梁啟超與近代中國社會
文化. Tianjin: Tianjin guji chubanshe, 218–237.
“Tangdai Hanyi Monijiao canjuan: xinwang, xiang, sanchang, sichu, zhongzi
deng yuci shishi 唐代漢譯摩尼教殘卷: 心王、相、三常、四處、種子等語
詞試釋.” Tōhō gakuhō 東方學報 77: 376–336 [65–105]. (B: 295–348).
“Neiteng Hunan de Tangsong biange shuo jiqi yingxiang 內藤湖南的唐宋變革
說及其影響.” JTS 11: 5–71. (C: 57–133).
2006
Book Review of Les Sogdiens en Chine, sous la direction d’Étienne de la Vaissière

et Éric Trombert, Études chinoises 25: 276–289. (Chinese translation in B:
354–364).
A Chronological Bibliography of Professor Zhang Guangda xxix
“Wang Guowei (1877–1927) zai Qingmo Minchu Zhongguo xueshu zhuanxi-

nag zhong de gongxian 王國維 (1877–1927) 在清末民初中國學術轉型中的
貢獻.” Renwen Zhongguo xuebao 人文中國學報 12: 99–114. (C: 42–56).
2007
Co-trans. with Zhang Xitong. Turkstan down to the Mongol Invasion, by

V. V. Barthold. Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe.
2008
Wenshu, dianji yu Xiyu shidi 文書、典籍與西域史地 [Manuscripts, Documents,

and the History and Geography of the Western Regions] (Collected works of
Zhang Guangda, vol. 1.). Guilin: Guangxi shifan daxue chubanshe. (A)
Wenben, tuxiang yu wenhua liuchuan 文本、圖像與文化流傳 [Texts,
Iconographis and Cultural Transmission] (Collected works of Zhang
Guangda, vol. 2.). Guilin: Guangxi shifan daxue chubanshe. (B)
Shijia, shixue yu xiandai xueshu 史家、史學與現代學術 [Historians, History
and Modern Scholarship] (Collected works of Zhang Guangda, vol. 3.).
Guilin: Guangxi shifan daxue chubanshe. (C)
“Cong ‘An Shi zhiluan’ dao ‘Chanyuan zhimeng’: Tangsong biange zhiji de
zhongyuan he beifang 從 ‘安史之亂’ 到 ‘澶淵之盟’: 唐宋變革之際的中原
與北方.” In: Huang Kuan Chung 黃寬重 ed. Jidiao yu bianzou: 7–20 shiji de
Zhongguo 基調與變奏：七至二十世紀的中國, vol. 3. Taipei: Guoli zheng-
zhi daxue lishixi, pp. 1–20.
Co-authored with Rong Xinjiang. Yutian shi congkao 于闐史叢考. Expanded
edition. Beijing: Zhongguo renmin daxue chubanshe. (D)
Co-authored with Chen Jiarong 陳佳榮 and Qian Jiang 錢江. Lidai Zhongwai
xingji 歷代中外行紀. Shanghai: Shanghai cishu chubanshe.
“Rethinking Chinese Studies in an Age of Reflexive Modernization: China and
Global Society.” In: “Quanqiuhua shidai Dongya yanjiu de xinquxiang” guoji
xueshu yantaohui lunwenji 全球化時代東亞研究的新取向國際學術研討會
論文集. Taipei: Taiwan daxue Gaodeng renwen yanjiuyuan, 13–21.
xxx A Chronological Bibliography of Professor Zhang Guangda
2009
“Zhongguo yu linbang jian sixiang yu xingxiang de youjiujiaoliu de zai tansuo

中國與鄰邦間思想與形象的悠久交流的再探索.” Keynote speech. In: Huiju:
Jiaoliuzhong suo xingsu de Yazhou guoji xueshu yantaohui lunwenji “匯聚: 交
流中所形塑的亞洲” 3(14 Age of Reflexive Modernization: China and Global
Society 國際學術研討會論文集. Taipei: The Palace Museum, pp. 1–24.
Preface to Zhang Hongyang 張紅揚 ed., Beijing daxue tushuguan cang xiwen
hanxue zhenben tiyao 北京大學圖書館藏西文漢學珍本提要. Guilin:
Guangxi shifan daxue chubanshe, 1–3.
Preface to Li Songtao 李松濤, Tangdai qianqi zhengzhi wenhua yanjiu 唐代前
期政治文化研究. Taipei: Taiwan xuesheng shuju, i–ii.
Co-authored with Rong Xinjiang. “On the Dating of the Khotanese Documents
from the Area of Khotan.” In: Judith A. Lerner and Lilla Russell-Smith eds.,
Journal of Inner Asian Art and Archaeology 3: 149–156.
Chapter 1
On the Word ṣau Found in the Kuchean Secular

Documents
Ching Chao-jung
Introduction
As far as can be seen, official documents are not abundant among the manu-
scripts written in Tocharian B (i.e., Kuchean). Apart from the wooden laissez-
passers found by Paul Pelliot, the great majority of Kuchean secular documents
are accounts and letters discovered in the ruins of Buddhist monasteries.
Therefore, most of these materials are not “secular” in the strict sense but of
strong monastic character.
Under the circumstances, the political and military aspects of the Kucha
kingdom that can be observed among the Kuchean secular documents are
comparatively limited by comparison with the ones written in Niya-Prākrit,
Khotanese, Chinese, Old Tibetan, and Old Uyghur. In addition to analyzing the
Kuchean official documents already known to us and searching for undiscov-
ered ones, it is also important to look for direct and indirect evidence in the
monastic records about governmental and military activities.
In this article, the traces of “receipts” (Chin. chao 抄) in three Kuchean mo-
nastic documents will be discussed. The topic was initially raised from the
question of a difficult passage found in a Kuchean monastic account in the
Otani Collection.
An Obscure Word pau Found in Ot. 12
The monastic account mentioned above was published in Saiiki kōko zufu
西域考古圖譜 (Kagawa 1915) as Plate 1.1, with an initial transliteration given at
the bottom of the photograph, in the section of saiiki go monjo 西域語文書. It
is now kept in Ryukoku University (Kyoto) as reported by Inokuchi (1961: 347),
who then gave a new transliteration and Japanese translation with the advice
of W. Couvreur and W. Thomas. Nowadays, in the circle of Tocharologists, the
© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi 10.1163/9789004362253_002

2 Ching
Plate 1.1 Tocharian B fragment THT2852_seite1.
document is usually referred to as Ot.12.1 The most difficult phrase in the text
occurs in lines 11–12, for which Inokuchi was unable to provide a translation.
Here I quote his transliteration:
Ot.12.11–12
simākurriṅkāteṃtse yaitkosa ywārś̱\ ṣmañe pauśyenta aṣkār sasākauwa
ṣeyeṃ yāywyeṃ ykuweś̱\ recye cāsāmtse ysāre wsam̱ \ śak ṯa̱ rya cakaṃnma
piś tom̱ \ pau nes̱a̱ṃ
Probably due to a printer’s mistake, the r in yaitkorsa (perl. sg. of yaitkor “order,
commandment”) is missing in the above reading, since the cluster rs is eas-
ily readable in its photograph. The construction “someone (gen.) + yaitkorsa,”
literally “by order of someone,” is generally used to indicate that the action is
conducted according to some royal or official order, such as the phrase yapkon-
tse yaitkorsa (SI B Toch./13.3, 11.10) “by the Yapko’s order.”2 I therefore indicated
in 2007 that the strange word simā at the beginning of Ot.12.11–12 is very likely
1 Schmidt 1986: 638, Pinault 1994b: 88, Malzahn 2007a: 93–94. My rereading and discussion of
Ot. 12 have been provided in Ching 2010: 86, 142, 338–341 and recently published as Ching and
Ogihara 2012.
2 Pinault 1998: 4, 6.
On the Word ṣau Found in the Kuchean Secular Documents 3
a rendering of the Chinese official title Sima 司馬.3 Hence, a temporary tran-
scription can be given as follows:4
Ot.12.11–12
Simā Kurriṅkāteṃtse yaitkorsa, ywārś-ṣmañe pauśyenta aṣkār sasākauwa
ṣeyeṃ. yāywyeṃ ykuweś recye Cāsāmtse ysāre wsam: śak-tärya cakaṃnma
piś tom. pau nesäṃ.
As indicated by Pinault, ṣmañe is the adjective derived from the Tocharian

word for “summer” (Toch. A sme “summer,” Toch. B ṣmāye* adj. “pertaining
to summer”).5 Consequently, the term ywārś-ṣmañe pauśyenta, literally “(the)
midsummer pauśyes,”6 probably refers to some levies imposed in the middle of
a year. According to Ogihara,7 recye is an adjective derived from Toch. B retke
m. “army, military” with the productive suffix -(i)ye. It is known that the adverb
aṣkār means “back, in the opposite direction; on the reverse,” but it is difficult to
properly understand the phrase pauśyenta aṣkār sasākauwa ṣeyeṃ. In Adams’s
dictionary, the verb sāk- (pret. part. sasākau*, nom./obl. pl. sasākauwa)8 in
the phrase is explained as “remain (behind).” Following Thomas, he translates
3 Ching and Ogihara 2012: 83, 104–105. It is noteworthy that according to Geng (2005: 109), an
obscure word simä found in the Old Turkic inscription of Tonyuquq is probably a transcrip-
tion of the same Chinese term.
4 The convention of transliteration basically follows the one in Sieg and Siegling (1949, 1953).
The convention of transcription virtually follows the tradition of Krause and Thomas (1960).
/// damaged document edge.
[ ] partly damaged akṣara(s).
( ) seriously damaged akṣara(s) of which the passage is restored.
‒ an indeterminable akṣara.
· indeterminable part of an akṣara.
The convention of translation parallels the one of transcription:
/// damaged document edge.
[ ] damaged text of which the uncertainty in the reading cannot be ignored.
( ) seriously damaged text to be restored, or interpretation of passage to be added.
… indeterminable content.
5 See the entry of ṣmāye* in Dict.: 668. The etymology of ṣmañe was once indicated in Pinault’s
reading class, 12 June 2007.
6 The word pauśye usually means “tax, levy” in Kuchean secular documents. But on a few occa-
sions it seems to be taken as a general term indicating both taxation and labor service. More
discussion is provided in Ching 2010: 441–445.
7 Personal communication, August 2007.
8 The asterisk following a Kuchean word: If the nominative singular (masculine) is not actually
attested, its probable form is reconstructed and given with a following asterisk (Dict.: ii–iii).
4 Ching
it as “the tribute-payments were in arrears[?]”9 But another solution is pos-

sible: the levies somehow “back” to the people may signify the redistribution
of taxes down to commoners when local officials were imposed by the Chinese
authorities.10 Accordingly, sāk- in this text may virtually mean “fix (something)
up,” “arrange” or “regulate.” In this case, a provisional translation can be given
as follows:
By order of Kurriṅkāte* the Sīmǎ (司馬), the midsummer levies have been
apportioned back (to us)(?). (Thus) we have given wheat to Cāsām*,
(a man) pertaining to an army on the way to yāywyeṃ*: thirteen piculs,
five pecks.11
Yet the last sentence pau nesäṃ “there is/are pau” remains incomprehensible.
The word nesäṃ is the prs. 3sg./3pl. form of Toch. B nes- “be, exist,” but pau is
not found elsewhere.
One may think of several possibilities to seek the meaning of pau. One hy-
pothesis is that pau is a mistake or an abbreviation of pauśye. But this idea be-
comes problematic when we take the passages in lines 11–12 as a whole. Given
that the pauśyes (pl. pauśyenta) had just been specified previously (i.e., the
midsummer ones), why should the writer reiterate this fact at the end? To see
pau standing for pautke “farming rental”12 is not very satisfactory. If the writer
had used pau as an abbreviation of pautke, which could create confusion be-
cause pau is also the first syllable of pauśye. On the other hand, if pau is just
a careless mistake for pautke (i.e., if its second akṣara was forgotten), we need
more evidence to establish that the wheat given to the army, counted as the tax
payment, should immediately be emphasized as farming rental, not to men-
tion that it would be preferable to use the preterite or imperfect tense for the
9 Thomas 1957: 306; Dict.: 679.

10 One may refer to the redistribution of levies among Khotanese prefectures after their of-
ficials received the commands from Chinese authorities. See Yoshida 2006: 21–26, 117–141,
esp. 127–129 and my discussion in Ching and Ogihara 2012: 107–109.
11 The two proper names Cāsām* and yāywyeṃ* do not look like Tocharian. Possibly they
are both rendered from unknown Chinese words; see infra.
12 The meaning of pautke was supposed by Sieg 1950: 219 as “Abgabe, Tribute” in German,
which was then adopted in Adams’ dictionary as “± share, tribute” (Dict.: 406), since it is
very probably a noun derived from putk- “divide, share, separate.” After analyzing various
Kuchean documents, I think that its meaning is more probably “farming rental” (Ching
2010: 410–413). If this view is correct, the etymology implies that some kind of share-
cropping was once widespread in ancient Kucha.
last sentence to denote that the wheat was originally the rental income of the
monastery. Finally, to take pau as a variant of or as a scribal error for Toch. B
po “all” is hardly satisfactory. In fact, I do not know of any attestation for the
phrase po nesäṃ elsewhere in the Tocharian materials that are so far available
to me.
Therefore, to see pau in Inokuchi’s reading as a foreign word seems to be a
more preferable idea. Accordingly, the candidates for its etymon may include
Chin. bu 布 “cloth” (EMC pɔh, LMC puə̆ ˋ), Khot. pau “onion,”13 etc. Yet I fail to
establish firm links between the imposed wheat and any of these candidates.
The Discovery of ṣau
The problem of “pau” continued until the beginning of the year 2010, when I
was checking the reading of the monastic documents found in the Kizil grot-
toes. A small set of documents14 consisting of THT2692 and 2852 drew my
attention. Their unique running number T III MQ17 implies that they were
possibly discovered together in the Kizil grottoes by the third German expedi-
tion in the spring of 1906. Although they cannot be joined to each other, their
formal features are highly similar.15 Probably they are two separate parts of
the same document, or at least fragments of documents written by the same
person and then kept together. The small set of THT2692 and 2852 are distinct
from the largest group of the Kuchean monastic documents found in the same
district by the German expedition16 in various aspects such as paper condition
and ductus.
Taking notice of a strange syllable ṣau in both fragments, I found that the
left part in THT2852.1 is comparable with the right part of THT2692.6. A re-
observation of the photographs provided on the website of the TITUS project
confirms this view. Therefore, a raw transliteration can be given as follows:
13 Bailey 1979: 250.

14 This set is referred to as “Assemblage V” in Ching 2010.
15 The paper of the two pieces are both severely crumpled, stained, and thus have an un-
usual dark color (10YR6/2 “light brownish gray”~10YR5/2 “grayish brown” in the Munsell
soil color chart). Since they are now stuck on backing paper, it is difficult to observe the
thickness and the texture of the paper. Their ductus is unusually large compared with
other Kuchean monastic accounts.
16 The largest group is referred to as “the main group” in Ching and Ogihara 2010. It corre-
sponds to the “Assemblage III” in Ching 2010.
6 Ching
THT2852.1
/// · [u]—nm · ṣau n · s · ‒ ‒ ///
THT2692.6
/// ‒ n · cāneṃ wsāwa kante na[su]cinme[ṃ] ṣau n[e] ///
As shown in Plate 1.1,17 the mutilated writing · [u]—nm · in THT2852.1 is very

likely the remnants of Nasucinmeṃ “from Nasuci*,” which is quite readable in
THT2692.6 (Plate 1.2). The left part of THT2852.1 seems to be the end of an
account item, since there is an obvious blank between it and the two broken
akṣaras in the right corner.18 In Kuchean, the verb is generally placed at the
end of a phrase, but so far there is no verbal root or stem beginning with ṣauno.
Given that the rightmost akṣara in THT2692.6 is surely a ne, the most straight-
forward way to solve this comparable pair of passages is to restore the common
verbal form nesäṃ (prs. 3sg./3pl. of nes- “be, exist”). Consequently, a new word
ṣau evolved, as adopted in the following transcription:
THT2852.1
/// (Nas)[u](ci)nm(eṃ) ṣau n(e)s(äṃ). ‒ ‒ ///
‘/// [There is/are] ṣau [from Nasuci*]. … ///’
THT2692.6
/// n · cāneṃ wsāwa: kante. Na[su]cinme[ṃ] ṣau n[e](säṃ). ///
‘/// I gave coins … : one hundred. [There is/are] ṣau [from Nasuci*]. /// ’
Being placed at the end of account items, the expression ṣau nesäṃ easily
makes one recall the unsolved phrase “pau nesäṃ” mentioned above. In fact,
the scripts <p> and <ṣ> are often hardly distinguishable in more cursively writ-
ten texts. Nevertheless, although the so-read pau is somehow blurred in the
photograph,19 I think that it is better to read ṣau, after examining all the speci-
mens of <p> and <ṣ> in Ot.12. It is possible to perceive the subtle difference
17 Many heartfelt thanks are due to Dr. Simone-Christiane Raschmann for arranging the
high-resolution photographs of the two fragments.
18 The two broken akṣaras may be either the notion for specifying the responsible person of
the account item (e.g. the Moko in THT2692.3) or the beginning of the next item.
19 In addition to the original plate in Kagawa 1915, more photographs can be found at
http://idp.afc.ryukoku.ac.jp/database/oo_scroll_h.a4d?uid=-20683421056; recnum=80141;
index=1 and http://www.afc.ryukoku.ac.jp/otani/category.html, both of which can verify
my reading.
between <p> and <ṣ> in the document, where the tail of <p> is either ex-
tended slightly to the right or written at a more horizontally inclined angle.
Henceforth, our focus is turned into the meaning of ṣau, the newly found word
in THT2852 and 2692.
The Meaning of ṣau
At first glance, several words in other languages may be taken into consider-
ation, such as Khot. ṣṣau (frequently written as ṣau)20 and others in Chinese
of similar sound (e.g., shao 筲 “pail, bucket,” EMC ʂaɨw/ʂɛːw, LMC ʂaːw; etc.).
To resolve this question, a return to the full text is indispensable. Here is
the transcription of THT2692 and 2852 with my restoration and provisional
translation:21
20 Bailey 1979: 412–413. Recent discussions include Yoshida 2006: 83–86, Wen 2008: 58–64,
2009: 127–133, Rong and Wen 2009a: 64, 2009b: 64, etc.
21 The translation here improves upon the one given in Ching 2010: 293–294.
8 Ching
THT269222
1 /// – k preke Mokoṃ Artatewentse ///
2 neṃ [w]sā(wa): wi [kä]nte piśāka ///
3 Mokoṃ Artatewentse ka(p)c(i). ///
4 ṣuktañce meṃne. twā[n]kerräṣṣe keśsa yapoy-rine [Y](u)-
5 rpāṣkaṣṣes ṣe śomo klyinaṣṣi-me. śomo rine mā masa. ś[o]///
6 /// ‒ n · cāneṃ wsāwa: kante. Na[su]cinme[ṃ] ṣau n[e](säṃ). ///
7 /// · ā – – l·· i—[i]—l· ///
1 (In that) time, … of Artatewe* the Moko ///

2 [I have given the coins … :] two hundred and fifty ///
3 Artatewe* the Moko’s finger-measure. ///
4–5 In the 7th month. By the count of twā[n]kerrä*, in the city of the
prefecture, one man belonging to the people of Yurpāṣka was nec-
essary for them. (But the) man did not go to the city. [The man] ///
6 /// I have given coins to …: one hundred. From the side of Na[su]ci*,
[there is] ṣau. ///
7 [untranslatable]
Notes on the Transcription

1 /// – k preke: Thanks to Ogihara’s indication (p.c. August 2010), the
remnants in the left edge may be read and restored as (ce)[w]ak or
(ca)[w]ak. Both cewak and cawak are the obl. sg. of su provided with
the strengthening particle k(ä). Consequently, the meaning of this
phrase can be restored as “in that very time.”
2 neṃ: Given the similar passage in line 6, the beginning of this line
can be restored as (cā)neṃ (obl. pl. of cāne “coin”) with the end of
the previous line.
[kä]nte: Sic! The normal form is kante, but here the first syllable is
safely to be transliterated as a broken <ḵa̱> instead of a broken <ka>.
The normal form kante can be seen in line 6 of this manuscript.
5 klyinaṣṣi: a little akṣara na was added below klyiṣṣi in order to cor-
rect it as klyinaṣṣi (impf. 3sg. of klin- “be necessary”, Malzahn 2010:
625–626).
ś[o] /// : we may restore it as ś[o](mo) “man, person.”
22 The maximum length: 25.0cm; the maximum width: 27.5cm (data observed on 2 April
2008). There is a fragment in the size of 6.2 × 5.0cm wrongly joined to the upper-left cor-
ner of this document.
Notes on the translation

1–3 Moko: In Kuchean monastic documents, Moko usually refers to the
leader of laymen serving in monasteries (kapyāres moko “the Moko
of kapyāres”).23 Here Artatewe (< Skt. Artha-deva-) very possibly oc-
cupied the same kind of position, since he was responsible for the
expense and his finger-measure was to be left. Although no trace of
finger drawing can be seen alongside the remaining passage, the
drawing strokes could be placed in the broken right part of this doc-
ument. Nevertheless, if he were a higher-ranking officer (i.e. Ypoy-
moko “± Prefect”24), the formula indicating his signature (i.e.
Artatewentse ṣotri “Artatewe’s sign”) or his official recognition (i.e.
Artatewe śarsa “Artatewe has known/recognized (it)”) should have
been used.
Consequently, although in this fragment and in THT2852 there is
no passage revealing monastic color, we may still consider them as
fragments of monastic documents.
4 twā[n]kerräṣṣe: A hapax, being an adjective with suffix -ṣṣe derived
from an unknown word *Twānkerr(ä). Although <n> and <t> look
usually similar in cursive writing and the ligature nk is extremely
rare (if it is found at all) in Kuchean, it is remarkable that the conso-
nantal part before k in this word is written quite distinct from all the
<t> attested in this fragment. I think it may be the transposition of
Chin. tuanjie 團結 for tuanjie( fan)bing 團結(蕃)兵.25
4–5 [Y](u)rpāṣkaṣṣes: This word is the gen. pl. of Yurpāṣkaṣṣe, an adjec-
tive derived from a toponym Yurpāṣka, which was rendered in Chin.
Yeposeji 耶婆瑟雞 as Lévi (1913: 372) has indicated. Yurpāṣka seems to
be located in the region of today’s Kizil grottoes.26 The adjective
Yurpāṣkaṣṣe “pertaining to Yurpāṣka” may indicate the local district
or even the local monastic community. From the context of this
fragment, it is now impossible to judge which solution is better
here.
23 Ching 2010: 470, 477–478, 484; Ching and Ogihara 2010 [2012]: 107, 112 and Ching 2013: 346.
24 Ching 2010: 418–423, Ching and Ogihara 2010: 106; Ching and Ogihara 2010 [2012]: 106–107.
25 On this military system in the Tang period, noticed since the 1950s by Hino Kaisaburō
日野開三郎 and other scholars, see the recent review and discussion in Meng 2012 on
a newly acquired fragment from Khotan, presently shelf number BH1–10 in the National
Library (China).
26 See my argumentation in Ching and Ogihara 2010 [2012]: 106–107.
10 Ching
5
klyinaṣṣi-me: Generally the enclitic pronoun -me refers to first, second
or third persons plural. Accordingly, the phrase … ṣe śomo klyinaṣṣi-me
can be understood in various ways, such as “one (of) our/their men is
necessary …,” “one man is necessary for us/them …,” and so on. The
translation adopted above is only a provisional one. In any case, it is
evident that a man was required to be present in a city.
THT285227
1 /// (Nas)[u](ci)nm(eṃ) ṣau n(e)s(äṃ). ‒ ‒ ///
2 /// · m(e)ñantse wi milārcce śamaśkas ///
3 /// · ā /// /// · i · ā ///
1 [From the side of Nasuci*, there is] ṣau. … ///

2 (On … day) of the month, … of two wounded [boys] ///
3 [untranslatable]
Notes on the Transcription

2 m(e)ñantse: The writer forgot to write ne “on (… day)” after this word.
milārcce: Instead of taking this word as the obl. m. sg. of *milārtstse
“wounded” (cf. mil- vt. “± wound, damage,” Dict. 462; Toch. A milārts
adj. “beschädigt”), we must count it as an error for milārcceṃ (obl. m.
pl.), since it follows the numeral wi “two.”
śamaśkas: At first glance, this is apparently a colloquial form of
śamaskaṃts (gen. pl. of śamaśka “girl”), but actually it is more likely an
error for śamaśkes (coll. of śamaśkeṃts, gen. pl. of śamaśke “boy”), be-
cause it should agree with milārcceṃ (obl. m. pl.) both in number and
gender.
In THT2852, the first line seems to be an account item distinct from the fol-
lowing lines, because the date of an item is generally placed at the beginning
in Kuchean accounts. There is thus hardly any information about ṣau in this
fragment. On the other hand, the broken passage in THT2692.4–6 implies that
ṣau is relevant to some kind of levy. This larger fragment appears to be a muti-
lated document for accounting cash expenses. The phrase in line 5 śomo rine
mā masa “the man did not go to the city (of the prefecture)” infers that one
hundred coins were required because of his absence. After giving the money, a
ṣau was given by a person called Nasuci*, whose name is thus far only attested
27 The maximum length: 9.8cm; the maximum width: 20.3cm (data observed on 26 June
2008).
in these two documents, but possibly is a Sogdian one (see infra). Although it
is difficult to say whether the payment was counted as the price for exemption
from some duty work or simply as a penalty for absence, the condition can be
compared to the one in Ot. 12. In the latter, people paid wheat to Cāsāṃ, a man
pertaining to an army, and then a ṣau was acquired. In this sense, Chin. chao 抄
(EMC tʂhaɨw/tʂhɛːw, LMC tʂhaːw) becomes a workable solution.
The chao Documents of the Tang Period
Briefly speaking, the term chao in the Tang era usually referred to receipts that
were issued officially. An adequate review of the relevant studies would require
much more space than can reasonably be allotted to them here. Thus, only a
very quick sketch is drawn in this article. The character chao 抄 in Chinese
basically means “(to make a) note, copy.”28 In general, a document of this kind
records the payment of levies from commoners (or their representatives) or
the giving of resources (weapons, salaries, etc.) from an office in the Tang pe-
riod. In the terminology employed by The Silk Road Project: Reuniting Turfan’s
Scattered Treasures, chao is translated as “receipt.”29
As early as 1960, Sutō Yoshiyuki treated a series of chao documents in the
Otani Collection as tax receipts belonging to a local family in 8th-century
Turfan.30 The majority of these are characterized by an ending phrase “some-
one + chao,” namely “someone (issues this) chao document” or “the content
is noted by someone.”31 It is noteworthy that in the classical compilations of
28 It is perhaps for this reason that in TTD, vol. 3, the document titles given by the editors
with chao are translated as “note” in English (e.g., TTD, vol. 3, No. 476 and Add. 25, both
to be dated to the 10th century). The chao documents, as reflected in the content of TTD,
were then not counted as a major category of documents. The whole series of chao treat-
ed by Sutō is not selected there. In fact, the term used in TTD, vol. 3 for indicating the
category of receipts is effectively ping 憑, mostly sorted out from the Dunhuang findings.
However, two receipts probably from the Turfan region given as pings by the editors, Add.
6 (671 CE) and Add. 7 (743 CE), are effectively to be identified as chao following current
scholarly usage. The document Add. 7 is especially interesting in that it imitates the for-
mat of contemporary official receipts and is seemingly a receipt made between a layman
and a local monastery.
29 http://eastasianstudies.research.yale.edu/turfan//types.html.
30 Sutō 1960 and Ikeda 1979: 437–444.
31 According to Sekio’s statistics from 1991, there are fifty-three pieces of receipts in this se-
ries, and the ending formula “someone (issues this) chao” can be found in thirty-two of
them. The same formula was found earlier in Mazar Tagh (= Mr. tagh. 0634, 790 CE. See
12 Ching
administrative statutes such as TLD, chao is not indicated as a variety of of-

ficial document. Nevertheless, the publication of Tulufan chutu wenshu (TCW)
reveals that chao was conceived as a category of official documents in Turfan
under Tang rule. The phrase kong ren wu xin, hua chao wei yan 恐人無信,
畫抄為驗 “Worrying about the honesty of other parties, this chao is drawn up
as verification,” which well parallels certain typical ending formulae in con-
tracts of the same period,32 was even once written at the end of a duplicate of
a receipt because the holder had lost the original.33
Sekio Shiro has since been widely investigating the chao documents and
analyzing their varieties and purposes, especially those made for certificat-
ing payment of taxes. Until 1993, more than eighty of the unearthed Turfan
Chinese documents have been identified by him as ryōshō monjo,34 in addition
to another three dozen sorted out of the Chinese manuscripts found in Kucha
and Khotan.35 To give an immediate impression, the literal translation of two
specimens is provided, although they are not meant to be the most representa-
tive ones:36
64TAM35: 28 (TCW III: 517)37

1 史玄政付長行馬價銀錢貳文, 准銅
2 錢陸拾肆文. 如意元年八月十六日里正
3 李黑抄. 其錢是戶內眾備馬價. 李黑記.
Arakawa 1994: 32–33; Chen 1997: 507; Sekio 1997: 183–186, etc.) is translated by Maspero
(1953: 188) as “inscrit par ….”
32 For example, kong ren wu xin, gu li ci qi wei ji 恐人無信，故立此契為記 “Worrying
about the honesty of other parties, (we) make this contract as a record” in the contract
73TAM506: 04/16(a) (= TTD, vol. 3, No. 179; TCW IV: 581).
33 I.e., 64TAM35: 30, dated to 674 CE (TCW III: 486).
34 I.e., lingchao wenshu 領抄文書 (in Japanese ryōshō monjo), see note 40. It is noteworthy
that in 1990, Moriyasu Takao noted the importance of this kind of document and its trans-
position in Old Uyghur as čuv, see Kämbiri, Umemura, and Moriyasu 1990.
35 See the inventory lists given in Sekio 1991 and 1993. However, see notes 42 and 43. On the
other hand, Wang Yongxing (1994: 323–330) also has provided a brief discussion on the
chao documents. According to him, the second part of the kongmusi document (Otani
8058, presently kept in the Lüshun Museum) could also be counted as a chao.
36 These two documents have been briefly discussed by Wang (1994: 325–326).
37 The important document has been indicated in various works including Lu (1992: 248)
and Skaff (1998: 101, 109).
(The person) Shi Xuanzheng has given the fee for the long-distance (post)
horses in: two pieces of silver coins, equivalent to sixty-four pieces of
copper coins. On the 16th day of the 8th month of the 1st year of Ruyi
(= 692 CE), Li Hei the village head38 (issues this) chao. These coins are the
fee for horse preparation (imposed on) the people in (Shi’s) household.
Recorded by Li Hei.”
72TAM223: 25–1 (TCW IV: 118)

1 張感德先去神龍二年十月內買長運死驢
2 壹頭, 皮壹張, 給抄訖. 今稱失卻, 更給抄.
3 舊抄在, 不在用限. 景龍二年四月
4 廿日胡基抄. 會納歷同. 典 [signum]
(The person) Zhang Gande had previously bought, in the 10th month of
the 2nd year of Shenlong (= 706 CE), one dead donkey (and?) one skin.
The chao was given to him. Now he claims that the chao has been lost,
so a chao (as duplicate) is issued again. If the original chao appears, … if
not … On the 20th day of the 4th month of the 2nd year of Jinglong (= 708
CE). Hu Gi (issues this) chao. It has been checked with the accounts of
accepted items. Clerk: [signum].
On the other hand, the existence of bilingual Chinese-Khotanese receipts

caught scholars’ attention almost at the same time. In 1961, H. W. Bailey sup-
posed the Khotanese word kṣau (pl. kṣauva) to be a transposition of Chinese
chao 鈔 and chao 抄 “voucher” and thus translated it as “voucher, receipt.”39
In fact, the word “voucher” is invariably used for translating Khot. kṣau
and Chinese chao in his publication of the associated documents Hedin 15,
Hedin 16, Damaqu C and Damaqu D.40 Subsequently, when R. E. Emmerick
38 Literally the “head” of li 里 “village.” Here the translation “village head” is given according
to the usage by Kumamoto (1996: 53). See also Rong and Wen 2009a: 107.
39 Bailey 1961: 55.
40 Hedin 15 and 16 are published in Bailey (1961: 29–31, 173–176), and Dumaqu C and D in
Bailey (1967: plate 96, 1968: 123). Hedin 16 is a long scroll made by joining a series of of-
ficial receipts written either bilingually or only in Khotanese (i.e., the two passages at the
beginning of Hedin 16). On the origin and the finding spot of these texts, see especially
Zhang and Rong 1993 [1988]: 84 and Wang 1998: 268–272. The Chinese part of it, counted
as 12 pieces of ryōshō monjo 領抄文書 by Sekio (1991: 4), is indicated by Saito Tatsuya as
“tax receipts” to express the same term (Note 34. See Kumamoto 1996: 50–52, 59 n. 62).
Although the dating of these four documents is not yet definitively solved, here the
14 Ching
and M. I. Vorob’ëva-Desjatovskaya edited the bilingual SI P 103.48 kept in St.

Petersburg,41 the Khotanese text pāstāṃ hīvī kṣau was translated as “Voucher
for (sheep)skins.” Another bilingual fragment, with the ending formula
“… (issues this) chao” in the Chinese part, was then reported by Kumamoto
Hiroshi in 1996.42 Later, yet another three pieces of chao kept in St. Petersburg
were edited by Zhang Guangda and Rong Xinjiang.43 It is noteworthy that
the translation “voucher” has continued to be used by Western scholars until
very recently,44 but after Yoshida’s discussion of the Chinese and Khotanese
receipts,45 now it seems quite safe to see them as “receipts” rather than
“vouchers.”
The newly published The Newly Discovered Turfan Documents (Rong et al.
2008) presents more chao documents recently found or collected in Xinjiang,
especially from Turfan.46 Thus now it is known that the making of such re-
ceipts was widespread in the oases surrounding the Tarim Basin. The abun-
dant findings from Khotan are particularly valuable for our topic here, since
their existence implies that the issue of such official receipts was practiced not
only in ordinary Chinese prefectures (e.g., Xizhou, today’s Turfan), but also in
Yutian (Khotan), one of the four outer garrisons in the west of the Tang empire.
opinion of Zhang and Rong 1997 is followed to date them to 801–802 CE (see also Zhang
and Rong 2009: 152–153).
41 Emmerick and Vorob’ëva-Desjatovskaya 1993: Plate 124(a); 1995: 155–156, where the read-
ing of the Chinese part is given by Kumamoto. See also Sekio 1997: 188–189; Yoshida 2006:
25, 138.
42 Namely Дx 18930. See Kumamoto 1996: 57 n. 29; Zhang and Rong 2002: 235; Kumamoto
2007: 154.
43 I.e., The manuscript numbers Дx 18919 (Zhang and Rong 2002: 227–228), 18920 (ibid.: 228),
and 18927 (ibid.: 234). On the last one, both Chinese and Khotanese texts are observable,
but their dates and the association between them cannot be definitively determined
at present. Recent discussions of Дx 18927 include Yoshida 2006: 25–26, 69–70, 137–138;
Kumamoto 2007: 151–153; Yoshida 2007: 465; Kumamoto 2009: 77 and Skjærvø 2009: 128.
To be noted, there may be other Chinese-Khotanese receipts; for example, the Hoernle
document H.4 (= Or. 6408 (G.1), SFF: 334), being a specimen of chao, is said to have been
bought in Kucha but with Khotanese words on it. It was counted by Sekio (1991: 4) as a
specimen of chao in Kucha, but I think the finding spot should be located in Khotan. See
Ching and Ogihara 2010: 109 n. 80.
44 For example Skjærvø 2002: lxxviii and Wang 2004: 97.
45 Yoshida 2006: 21–26 (esp. 22–23, 43 n. 29), 55–56, 69–70, 136–140 (esp. 138, 140, 160 n. 68);
Yoshida 2007: 465, 469 and Yoshida 2008: 113.
46 Namely the documents 2004TAM395: 4–6 + 398: 4–1 + 395: 2 (Rong et al. 2008: 2),
2004TAM102: 5 (665 CE, ibid.: 113), 2001SYMX1: 1–8 (669 CE, ibid.: 362) and 2001SYMX1: 3–9
(685 CE, ibid.: 363).
In fact, in addition to a severely mutilated fragment,47 a larger piece of chao

was discovered by Huang Wenbi in Tonguz-bash, a Tang fortification ruins in
the southern area of the Kucha region. Here the reading is provided:48
1 將軍姚閏奴丙午年烽子錢伍佰文,支付 □ □ □
2 大鋪. 丙午年三月十一日典惠抄. □
 □□
Yao Runnu the General … five hundred pieces as the coins for the
beacon-men of bingwu year, … paid … ///
… Dapu (a beacon or a toponym?). On the 11th day of the 3rd month of
bingwu year, Hui[yuan(?)] the clerk … (issues this) chao ///
Although the bingwu year waits to be identified (between the possible solutions
of 706 and 766 CE), this document at any rate verifies the usage of Chinese of-
ficial receipts in Kucha. In addition, the issuer of the receipt Дx 18920 (note 43)
mentioned above, whose personal name is written awkwardly in Chinese but
preceded by Bai 白 (the characteristic marker of Kuchean ethnicity), has been
noted by Zhang and Rong as a Kuchean person serving in a Chinese army in
Khotan around 779–780 CE.49 In addition to the famous Kongmusi document
(see note 35), these findings imply that at least in the late 8th century, some
Kuchean people were used to dealing with such receipts.
The Transposition of chāo in Kuchean
There is still one problem: theoretically Chin. chao 抄 would be rendered

in Kuchean as *kṣau. Although the phonological correspondence between
Kuchean kṣ and EMC or LMC /tʂh/ is not yet established, the transposition of
Sanskrit in Kuchean and in Middle Chinese (e.g. Skt. mokṣa- > Toch. B mokṣ,
Chin. 木叉 mucha EMC məwk-tʂhaɨ/tʂhɛː, LMC məwk-tʂhaː) implies that in the
Kuchean language, *kṣau would be more ideal than ṣau as the transposition
of Chin. chao. Given that this Chinese term is rendered as kṣau in Khotanese,
47 Namely the tiny piece of paper Pelliot Chinois Douldour-âqour 157.6, which is identified
by Sekio (1991, 4) as a chao fragment.
48 See Plate 71(4) in Huang 1958. The reading of yao 姚 instead of the old reading bi 妣, with
other improvements upon the reading provided in Huang 1958: 95, was kindly suggested
by Prof. Rong Xinjiang and Prof. Zhu Yuqi.
49 Zhang and Rong 2002: 228.
16 Ching
one may doubt if Kuchean ṣau really denotes the official receipts of Chinese
tradition.
Actually, the initial ṣ instead of kṣ does not cause problems. Pinault indi-
cated that in a Kuchean caption of a wall painting found in the Kumtura Cave
No. 34, a Sanskrit proper name Kṣemaṅkara- was given as Ṣemaṅkar in place of
*Kṣemaṅkar.50 Ogihara also indicated that ṣuraṃnma found in SI B Toch./10 is
effectively a colloquial and/or late form of kṣuranma “knives” (nom. pl. of kṣur*
“knife”).51 In addition, a Kuchean proper name Ṣematate (< Skt. kṣema-datta-)
is found on a tablet unearthed in the Kizil grottoes.52 Although the above
materials cannot be dated precisely, they reveal a phonological change kṣ > ṣ
or an orthographical practice of using the script <ṣ> to express the sound of kṣ
by some Kuchean people. Therefore, Kuchean ṣau is in all probability a trans-
formation of Chin. chao 抄.
The phonological change kṣ > ṣ (or an orthographical practice of using <ṣ>
for expressing kṣ) seems not very pervasive; one should note that the script
<kṣ> widely occurs in Kuchean manuscripts at all stages.53 It is common in
secular documents written on paper, namely those secular documents to be
dated in principle to after the Tang conquest. In these documents, words bear-
ing the initial kṣ are frequently attested, especially kṣuntsa “in the regnal year”
(perl. sg. of kṣuṃ)54 and kṣudrä/kṣutträ “small, miscellaneous” (< Buddhist Skt.
kṣudra-55). Although its circumstances remain to be determined, this pho-
nological or orthographical phenomenon should be distinguished from the
change kṣ > k which reflects the Middle Indic development kṣ > kkh.56
50 Pinault 1994a: 175–177, especially 176–177 n. 4.

51 See Ching 2010: 344–346 and Ching forthc. for the full transcription and translation of SI
B Toch./10.
52 The wooden tablet was published by the Xinjiang Kucha Grottoes Institution (2000: 10)
together with five wooden tallies. See Ching 2010: 294–295 and Xinjiang Kucha Research
Academy et al. 2013: 42–43 for my full reading.
53 See Peyrot 2008 for the most recent classification of Kuchean manuscripts in the linguis-
tic (especially the phonological) aspect.
54 Bactrian xþονο, Khot. kṣuṇa-, Niya Prakrit kṣuṇa-, etc. See more discussions in Pinault
1994b: 94, Sims-Williams 2002: 233 and Pinault 2008: 365.
55 Sieg 1950: 221.
56 On the change kṣ > k, see Peyrot 2008: 72. But among the examples of kṣ > k collected
there, the king Kemārcune (THT486a1) is more possibly a scribal error for Kṣemārcune
(Ching and Ogihara 2010: 104).
The Implication
In addition to the identification of Toch. B simā as the Chinese official title

sima, the discovery of Toch. B ṣau again speaks for dating the Ot.12 to the pe-
riod of Tang rule. As a result, the hapax yāywyeṃ in Ot.12.11 can be suggested as
the transposition of Chin. yayun 押運 “protect(ing) the conveyance” of an of-
ficial mission that was often taken for long-distance transportation in the Tang
era.57 Thus the difficult passage Ot.12.11–12 can now be translated as follows:
By the order of Kurriṅkāte* the Sima (司馬), the levies of midsummer

have been apportioned back (to us) (?). (So) we have given wheat to
Cāsām, a man in a troop on (its) way to a convoy: (in the amount of) thir-
teen piculs, five pecks. There is an official receipt.
Furthermore, after observing Sogdian Buddhists’ activities in Kucha in the un-

earthed documents,58 it is possible to identify Nasuci* as a Sogdian (< Sogd.
*nazučī, cf. Sogd. nāzuk “delicate”59) or alternatively a local inhabitant who
had a Sogdian given name. In other words, the set of THT2692 and THT2852
is also valuable in the sense of showing the social importance of the Sogdians
in Kucha.
Conclusion
The Kuchean word ṣau is very likely rendered from Chin. chao 抄, which usu-
ally referred to receipts issued by Tang officials as attested by many specimens
discovered in Turfan, Khotan, and Kucha. If this solution is correct, then the
borrowing of chao into Kuchean may be taken as evidence for the penetration
of Chinese practice and possibly even reflects the efficacy of Tang rule in the
local society.
Moreover, if both THT2692 and 2852 are fragments of monastic accounts as
suggested above, one may recall the Chinese monastic account found in Mazar
Tagh, Or.969–972, in which the monastery paid coins to local village heads as
the taxes imposed on its lay population.60 Yet many questions remain open.
57 See my discussion in Ching and Ogihara 2012: 94, 104 and Ogihara and Ching 2012: 31–32.
58 Ching 2012a and Ching 2013.
59 Tremblay 2005: 430; Ching 2012b: 139; Ching 2012c: 107.
60 There have been many discussions of this account since Chavannes 1913. See Chen 1997:
489–499; Ikeda 1996.
18 Ching
Due to the paucity of Kuchean materials, the exact purposes and tax base of
the impositions recorded in Ot.12.1, THT2692 and 2852 cannot be predicted,
not to mention the precise dates of these three documents. However, if my
suggestion to read the hapax in THT2692.4 as Twānkerräṣṣe and identify it as a
loanword denoting tuanjiebing 團結兵 is acceptable, it will be very interesting
to discuss whether this Chinese military system, which is known to be applied
to the Four Garrisons in the 8th century as discussed by Meng, also enlisted lay
Buddhists who were legally belonging or affiliating to local monasteries when
the Tang authorities conscripted local inhabitants in Kucha. We await more
firsthand Kuchean records to solve this historical question.
Glossaries of THT2692 and THT2852
(In the following glossary, the exclamation mark indicates the restored form. The un-
solvable forms are not included.)
Artatewentse gen. sg. of Artatewe (a proper name). THT2692.1,3

kapci nom. sg. of kapci “finger-measure.” THT2692.3!
kante num. “100.” THT2692.6
känte num. “100.” THT2692.2!
keśsa perl. sg. of keś “number, count.” THT2692.4
klyinaṣṣi-me impf. 3sg. of klin- “be necessary” with the enclitic pronoun -me refer-
ring to first, second, or third person plural. THT2692.5
cāneṃ obl. pl. of cāne “coin.” THT2692.1–2!,6
twā[n]kerräṣṣe obl. sg. of twā[n]kerräṣṣe*, adj. “of *twānkerr(ä),” THT2692.4
Nasucinmeṃ abl. sg. of Nasuci* (a proper name, possibly from Sogdian).
THT2692.6!; 2852.1!
nesäṃ pres. 3sg. of nes- “be, exist.” THT2692.6!; 2852.1!
piśāka num. “fifty.” THT2692.2
preke nom. sg. of preke, m. “time, occasion.” THT2692.1
masa pret. 3sg. of i- “go.” THT2592.5
mā particle “not, no.” THT2692.5
milārcceṃ obl. pl. of milārtstse* adj. “wounded.” THT2852.2!
meñantse gen. sg. of meñe m. “month.” THT2852.2!
meṃne loc. sg of meñe m. “month.” THT2692.4
Mokoṃ obl. sg. of Moko “the head (of the men serving in a Buddhist monas-
tery).” THT2692.1,3
yapoy-rine loc. sg. of yapoy-rīye*, f. “the city of a prefecture.” THT2692.4
Yurpāṣkaṣṣes coll. of *Yurpāṣkaṣṣeṃts, gen. pl. of *Yurpāṣkaṣṣe “of/pertaining to

Yurpāṣka.” THT2692.4–5!
wi num. “two.” THT2692.2; 2852.2
wsāwa pret. 1sg. of ai- “give.” THT2692.2!,6
śamaśkes coll. of śamaśkeṃts, gen. pl. of śamaśke “boy.” THT2852.2!
śomo coll. of śaumo, nom. sg. of śaumo, m. “person, man.” THT 2692.5,5,5!
ṣuktañce obl. sg. of ṣuktante, adj. “seventh.” THT2692.4
ṣe nom. sg. m. of ṣe, num. “one.” THT2692.5
ṣau nom. sg. of ṣau, “receipt.” THT2692.6; 2852.1
Abbreviations
adj. adjective loc. locative

Chin. Chinese m. masculine
coll. colloquial nom. nominative
Dict. = Adams 1999 num. numeral
EMC Early Middle Chinese, obl. oblique
see Pulleyblank 1991 perl. perlative
f. feminine pl. plural
gen. genitive prs. present
impf. imperfect pret. part. preterit participle
Khot. Khotanese sg. singular
LMC Late Middle Chinese, Skt. Sanskrit
see Pulleyblank 1991 Toch. Tocharian
Chapter 2
Dunhuang and Two Revolutions in the History of

the Chinese Book
Jean-Pierre Drège
The history of books is a recent field of research and has only truly made its
way into Chinese studies in the last twenty years or so. It should therefore not
come as a surprise that the first studies on the manuscripts and prints from
cave 17 at Mogao in Dunhuang following their discovery did not treat this field.
Questions could be raised however as to why there was an almost total lack
of interest in anything that touched on the materiality of the Chinese manu-
scripts that were preserved from the scrutiny of what were formally called “the
auxiliary historical sciences,” fields such as palaeography, diplomacy, or sigil-
lography, not to mention the more recent codicology. Palaeographic study of
medieval manuscripts has remained embryonic more than a hundred years
after the discovery of the documents from Dunhuang.
Paul Pelliot and Aurel Stein were the first to make substantial observations
concerning the manuscripts; the former, while still on the site, in his well-
known letter to Emile Senart dated the 26th of March 1908, mentions leaves
of pothi written in Brāhmī or in Uighur, tens of thousands of scrolls in Chinese
and other languages as well as two booklets. He also mentions large Tibetan
pothi made of thick uncoated paper that were rolled so as to be sewed in bun-
dles.1 Pelliot explains what the scrolls and pothi are and touches, though only
briefly, on the transformations that the Chinese book underwent—the exact
equivalent of our passage from the volumen to the codex.
“These Buddhistic manuscripts—the sutra usually being written on coated
paper and the other categories of text on diverse ordinary papers—are in prin-
ciple made up of sheets that are wider than high and that are glued end to end
into a long scroll; it is the classic kiuan-tseu-pen (juanziben 卷子本), which was
rendered obsolescent in bookmaking by printing technology but which is still
used today for paintings. From time to time, however, the unquestioning piety
of the Chinese made them want to imitate the sheets of Hindu pothi. Thus,
a certain number of “Chinese pothi” found in the cave are written from the
top to the bottom of a sheet with its longest side placed up or, in other cases,
1 See Pelliot 1908: 507–508.

Dunhuang and Two Revolutions 21
positioned lengthwise and sometimes even written horizontally across the

sheet from left to right just as Chinese is printed in European books. The man-
uscripts were either bound as they were in India by a thread running through
the sheets, or, at other times, they were sewed along the edge. The very diver-
sity of the treatment reveals that it was an exotic procedure not wholly assimi-
lated. You are well aware that these Chinese pothi, other examples of which are
not yet known, gave birth to a special type of oblong book that opened like an
accordion. This format would have only been used for the Chinese edition of
the Tripitaka if the Taoists had not been in such a hurry, here as elsewhere, to
ape their Buddhist rivals.”2
Further on in his letter, Pelliot discusses the prints that he found and makes
reference to the invention of printing—that other great revolution in Chinese
books.
“… Woodblock printing, invented in China during the Tang dynasty, was
diffused little by little. It would seem that the new skill’s difficulty and price
made manuscript copies preferable for yet some time, but, if almost everyone
could copy, those who could draw well were rare; for the abundant and faithful
reproduction of images, the superiority of printing was quickly recognized….
I have gathered here a complete little collection of Chinese prints from the
tenth century, which already show very skilful workmanship and which seem
to me solely attributable to local artisans…. There is a chance therefore that the
prints from Tunhuang are the oldest that we shall ever possess.”3
Finally Pelliot briefly mentions another important aspect concerning the
history of books—the illustrated works: “Along with these paintings, the illu-
minated manuscripts must be mentioned; I have brought back two of them
which reproduce scenes of hell; the variety of drawings and of scenes in one of
them is truly interesting.”4
Even though he does not go into the details of the issue surrounding the
books’ illustration, Pelliot did see the two major changes in the history of books
from the start—in their form, their fabrication, and their diffusion.
Sir Aurel Stein also takes into consideration the characteristics of the
Mogao cave manuscripts, initially in his report on his three first expeditions:
“The first bundles which emerged from that ‘black hole’ consisted of thick
rolls of paper about one foot high, evidently containing portions of canoni-
cal Buddhist texts in Chinese translations. All were in excellent preservation
and yet showed in paper, arrangement, and other details, unmistakable signs
2 Ibid.: 508–509.
3 Ibid.: 525–526.
4 Ibid.: 527.
22 Drège
of great age. The jointed strips of strongly made and remarkably tough and
smooth yellowish paper, often ten yards or more long, were neatly rolled up,
after the fashion of Greek papyri, over small sticks of hard wood sometimes
having carved or inlaid end knobs.”5
Stein returns to them much later in his comprehensive work but is clearly
more interested in the manuscripts written in other languages than Chinese:
Sanskrit, Khotanese, Kuchean, Sogdian, Runic Turkish and Uighur, and
Tibetan.6 This is due to the fact that Chinese was incomprehensible to him and
because the Chinese manuscripts had not really been exploited to the same
degree as those of the other writings and languages when he was producing
his work, more than ten years after his first passage at Dunhuang. It must be
said that Stein’s Chinese assistant, Jiang Xiaowan 蔣孝琬, was only interested
in identifying the most accessible texts. The inventory of the London manu-
scripts was first given to Pelliot in 1910. However, the results of his work, which
lasted until 1914 when the war made him abandon it, is limited to a brief mem-
orandum indicating the necessity to do an inventory along with some advice:
“To be useful, the inventory must indicate, be it briefly, the nature of the text
when the title can’t be determined. All the colophons should be used and
in their absence the approximate date at which the manuscript was written
should be indicated. This task, for the whole of the documents, will certainly
take a year.”7
Pelliot’s relative lack of interest in the Stein collection may be due to the
large number of Buddhist sutras that it contained, which led him to believe
that one year would suffice to complete the inventory. It took Lionel Giles
much longer to compile a truly suitable catalogue. Pelliot definitely under-
estimated how difficult it would be to identify fragments of repetitive texts
at a time prior to the digitalization of the Buddhist canon—not to mention
the non-canonical texts.8 As for Aurel Stein, he concentrated on the pothi in
5 Stein 1912, vol. 2: 175.

6 Stein 1921, vol. 2: 913–925. In vol. 4, the Chinese manuscripts replicated account for only four
plates out of twenty-two; the remaining are dedicated to manuscripts in other languages.
7 Stein 1921: 917. Regarding the relations between Pelliot and Stein and Pelliot’s attitude to the
British Museum Dunhuang collection, see Wood 2013: 121–136.
8 Stein 1921: 916. Stein remarks that when Serindia went to press, in 1919 or 1920, two thousand
manuscripts had already been catalogued. The catalogue of nearly seven thousand manu-
scripts was finished just before the 1939–1945 war. Even though the British Library catalogue
of Chinese manuscripts was published later, in 1957, and though it is unfortunately succinct,
it was published much before that of the Pelliot Collection (much more detailed, however).
The first volume of the Pelliot Collection came out only in 1970; the second (and final) vol-
ume remains unpublished.
Sanskrit or Tibetan and took an interest in the paper of the Tibetan manu-
scripts as well as the Tibetan manuscripts with folded leaves that Louis de la
Vallée-Poussin had named “concertinas.” As for the documents in Chinese, he
barely mentions anything—other than the famous Diamond Sutra printed
in 868, which he dubs “the oldest specimen of printing so far known to exist,
apart from charms”9 along with the illustrated manuscripts whose contents
were his sole interest.
The two explorers cannot be blamed for having not seen that the revolu-
tion in Chinese history brought about by the manuscripts from Dunhuang con-
cerned not only religion, economy, society, art, and local history but also the
history of books at a time prior to the true founding of the discipline. Many
years went by before the material characteristics of the manuscripts were
more than simply taken down as if they were curios, if recorded at all, rather
than being used to determine what medieval Chinese books had once been:
manuscripts before being prints.
The Support
The books’ support can be handled using two distinct approaches: the materi-
als and their formats.
The Paper
During the period which corresponds to the Dunhuang manuscripts, between
the fifth and tenth centuries, the only material the Chinese used for their
books was paper. Though the paper of these manuscripts has aroused some
interest, this has been within the domain of identifying the fibers that make up
the paste. Aurel Stein had noticed perceptible differences between two groups
of manuscripts with visibly distinct paper, one with paper similar to that of
the ninth-century Chinese manuscripts, the other closer to Daphne fiber paper
that was still produced in Nepal at the beginning of the twentieth century.10
The first scientific analyses were carried out by Robert H. Clapperton. More im-
portantly however—as it was impossible to ignore the roots of this marvelous
invention—access to ancient Chinese paper allowed Clapperton to insert China
into his history of paper based on this firsthand evidence.11 Unfortunately,
Clapperton lacked the written Chinese sources that would have allowed him to
9 Stein 1921, vol. 2, p. 918.

10 Stein 1921, vol. 2, p. 919.
11 Clapperton 1934: 17–26.
24 Drège
draw on more substantial elements than he could garner from the sixty paper
fragments at his disposal along with Abraham Rees’s (1743–1825) encyclopedia
written in 1781. Nevertheless, an important point must be emphasized, more
precisely the absence of paper made in a wove mold using a fabric stretched
over a frame that leaves no imprint on the sheets of paper, or only traces of
the interlacing of the threads of the weft and the warp of the cloth; the only
papers present at Dunhuang have visible laid-lines and chain-lines, and this is
the case with the first papers from the Han dynasty, a few examples of which
A. Stein had brought back from his discovery at the base of a watchtower near
Dunhuang. This is an important remark when it comes to the debate—which
would later take place—over the very origin of paper, over the changes in the
different types of molds, and over the methods of producing the sheets. The ac-
tual moment at which the first molds, probably consisting of a screen made of
cloth stretched over a frame, gave way to more evolved molds made of bamboo
stems or other plants strapped tightly together with silk or horse hair is a ques-
tion not yet solved. The primitive molds continued to be used even though
the paper made with this early technique was not often used for writing and
was confined to underdeveloped regions of China and to mountain-dwelling
populations for their local use.
One of the first to successfully consider these technical evolutions was the
American paper historian and papermaker Dard Hunter.12 However, it was pri-
marily the Chinese specialist Pan Jixing 潘吉星 who established the newest
viewpoints, based as much on written sources as on the information acquired
from the documents themselves, more precisely the Dunhuang manuscripts.
In order to study how paper in ancient China was made in the past while
establishing with precision the different stages in its manufacture, he iden-
tified fibers in the raw materials used to make the paper for the Dunhuang
manuscripts.13 Others attempted similar tests using the manuscripts from
the Pelliot and Stein collections; first M. Harders-Steinhaüser in 1969,14 then
T. J. Collings and W. D. Milner in 1978–79,15 and finally F. Leclerc and J. Chiaverina
in 1985. These tests made on the same manuscripts or on manuscripts having
the same date and same origin—that is to say manuscripts written in the same
place, by the same scribe and at the same moment—provided varied results:
the fibers used in the composition seem to be either simple or mixed, either
12 Hunter 1943.
13 Pan 1966: 39–47; reprinted in 1979.
14 Harders-Steinhäuser 1969, no. 4 and 5: 210–212, 272–276.
15 Collings and Milner 1978: 51–79; 1979: 129–151.
hemp (cannabis sativa) or paper mulberry (broussonetia papyrifera).16 In addi-

tion to the identification of the fibers, the analysis of the other components,
such as the dyes or the ink, has its own value in the history of the techniques
for making books. This is the task tackled by researchers from the United
Kingdom, most especially K. R. Seddon, whose work on berberine, a substance
used for dying the sheets of paper yellow, is quite notable.17
Studies of the paper are still used to date manuscripts and to detect fakes.
These studies are carried out using non-destructive tests, more rudimentary in
their implementation, yet indispensable if responses are to be given to these
important issues that are of primary interest to those who use the manuscripts.
The matter of fake manuscripts, brought up in Central Asia even before the
discovery of the manuscripts at the Mogao cave, is far from being resolved. It
entails a whole set of diverse judgmental criteria that concern the conditions
of the discovery and its conservation as well as comparative morphological
and physicochemical analyses. The important symposium organized in 1997 at
the British Library by Susan Whitfield gave the occasion for animated debate,
but the issue was certainly not settled.18 The manuscripts suspected of being
fakes—that is to say all the manuscripts found at Dunhuang after 1910 from
A. Fujieda’s 藤枝晃 point of view—represent such a large number that it is
difficult to imagine that multiple forgers at Dunhuang could have had the tech-
nical means and the necessary skills to imitate so exactly hundreds, even thou-
sands, of manuscripts. Moreover, some of these so-called fakes kept in China
or elsewhere are indeed fragments of manuscripts brought to London and
Paris as early as 1908 or 1909. They remained unknown to specialists, as well
as to the inhabitants of Dunhuang, for several years, even decades. Even so,
fakes have certainly multiplied among the antique dealers in Beijing, Tianjin,
or Shanghai since the 1920’s.
The Formats
Since Ye Dehui 葉德輝, Shimada Kan 島田翰, and Edouard Chavannes at the
beginning of the twentieth century,19 the great majority of researchers, with
the notable exceptions of Ma Heng 馬衡, Yu Jiaxi 余嘉錫, Chang Bide 昌彼得,
and Su Yinghui 蘇瑩輝, have shown little interest in the books’ formats, and
16 For a comparison of the different results, see Drège 1986: 403–415.

17 Gibbs and Seddon 1996: 59–69; Brenner, Gibbs, and Seddon, 1996: 70–82. The studies con-
ducted by J. Guineau on orpiment, a pigment used in particular to cover errors in the
characters just like today’s “whiteout,” must be added.
18 Whitfield 2002.
19 Ye 1920; Shimada 1905; Chavannes 1905.
26 Drège
more particularly in the manuscript books’ formats.20 As they had no true ac-
cess to the Dunhuang manuscripts, the latter contented themselves with the
information gathered in the printed sources to describe the diverse forms of
paper, scrolls, or folded-leaf book manuscripts. As for the Dunhuang manu-
script cataloguers, L. Giles in London and L. Menshikov in Leningrad/Saint
Petersburg,21 they paid rather little attention to the unusual formats that went
through their hands. A. Fujieda laid the foundations in his 1966 seminal article
in English on the Dunhuang manuscripts. In this article, he inventoried for the
first time the different characteristics of the Chinese manuscript books. He
separated them into standard formats, that is to say scrolls, and irregular for-
mats that can be broken down into scrolls in small characters, informal scrolls,
concertina books, booklets, and pothi.22 At last the manuscripts were not sim-
ply seen as texts; rather, they were considered equally as written objects.
Taking into account the diverse formats has most especially given the impe-
tus to tackle anew the question concerning the evolution of the books’ formats:
in short, the passage from the scroll to the folded-leaf book that was an issue
that could formerly not be answered. It may be easily understood that the tran-
sition from the scroll to the concertina is due to the imitation of Indian palm
tree leaves. This was done by using sheets of paper in that oasis of Chinese
culture, just as Pelliot imagined while he was on site in Dunhuang. When the
sheets of a scroll were folded at regular intervals to make a concertina, a book
was obtained that was similar to a pothi when it was closed and similar to a
scroll when opened. However, two particular formats raise even more complex
issues. The first issue concerns those manuscripts with long leaves the size of a
full sheet of paper (or even two successive sheets) bound at one end and rolled
up in a way that is not unlike the Kanmiu buque qieyun 刊謬補闕切韻 manu-
script, a calligraphic dictionary of rhymes by the immortal Wu Cailuan 吳彩鸞
that is conserved at the Ancient Palace in Beijing and which is described as
a “whirlwind” binding, xuanfeng zhuang 旋風裝. Li Zhizhong 李致忠 called
this Beijing manuscript “with dragon scales” the “whirlwind book,” its name
being practically the only knowledge we had of it. For many years, the whirl-
wind binding was thought to be a kind of concertina with the two extremities
20 Ma 1926: 199–213; Yu 1963: 539–559; Chang 1964: 1–8 ; Su 1965: 22–33.
21 Lionel Giles barely broaches this question, either in his catalogue or his series of articles
on the dated manuscripts; see Giles 1935–1943. The late L. N. Men’sikov, following Giles,
considers the dated manuscripts at the end of volume two of his catalogue of the Saint-
Petersburg manuscripts but not their formats.
22 Fujieda 1966: 16–27.
attached, but no sample of it was known.23 It became possible to confirm this

idea soon after using a few more or less similar specimens found among the
manuscripts of the Pelliot Collection.24
The second issue concerns another specific format, the booklet, more du-
rable than the “whirlwind” binding. The Dunhuang booklets are true codices
that have a passing similarity with the “butterfly” binding popular for printed
books during the Song dynasty. Contrary to the whirlwind books, booklets are
rather numerous (more than a hundred) in the Stein and Pelliot collections.
They have sometimes been called “butterfly bound” as it has been thought that
they could be a stage in the transition from the scroll to the printed “butterfly”
book. The latter binding is made up of a series of sheets of paper folded in
two and put together one after the other just as an occidental codex would be.
Having said that, the butterfly format, which only concerns printed books and
not manuscripts, is never made of sewn quires. The leaves of the books that
have come down to us from the Song dynasty are most often detached one
from another, even though it is known that they were often glued to each other
by their reverse side. This is on account of the custom that the sheets should
be printed on only one side, which resulted in two blank pages once folded in
two. When turning the pages, the reader came across two printed pages fol-
lowed by two blank ones; for this reason they were glued together so as to hide
them and remove this disagreeable interruption from the text. Seeing as the
manuscript booklets disappeared with the invention of printing, it is possible
to wonder whether these booklets might not have been the precursors of the
butterfly binding that was merely a degenerate format. Some doubts however
do remain. While we can understand the passage from the scroll to the con-
certina, it is difficult to understand, in truth, the passage from the concertina
to the codex. How did the technique evolve from a sheet being roughly folded
at regular intervals to a complex system in which a sheet is cut into pages that
are then folded in two and put into a quire, several quires being finally sewn
together in a booklet? As with occidental codices, it can be noted that each
full-size sheet of paper produced in most cases only a single quire, having more
pages as its format got smaller. One quire can be made of one double sheet, two
sheets folded in two, three sheets folded in two, four sheets folded in two, etc.25
We have in this case a technically sophisticated process the origin of which, in
China, cannot be clearly identified. One of the hypotheses advanced is that its
23 Li 1981: 75–78.

24 Drège 1984: 196–198. These initial observations were developed in Drège 1996: 172–175.
They were shared by Du 1997: 181–189.
25 Drège 1979: 17–28.
28 Drège
origin may be occidental. It seems that the codices in Chinese were only present
in the “occidental regions of China” and spread no further than to the Chinese-
influenced Tangut empire; this is in view of the fact that no trace of them has
been found in central China.26 On the other hand, this method of fabrication
is known to have been used for the Turfan Manichaean manuscripts.27 Even
though these Manichaean manuscripts are of a later date, it is not impossible
that the spread of books carried by the occidental religions, Nestorianism or
Manichaeism, may have had an influence on the Chinese book. The believ-
ers of these religions, who were used to parchment codices, had to adapt to
local conditions and naturally had to replace skin with paper. Did the Chinese
and Sino-Tibetan Buddhists in Dunhuang borrow this type of binding for their
more personal writing? This is a question that should be asked.28
The Illustrated Book
The illustration of manuscripts is another facet in the history of books to

which the Dunhuang manuscripts may contribute. This is a domain which was
neglected for quite a long time while the history of the illustrated printed book
began sparking more and more interest, notably after a collection of reproduc-
tions of plates was published by Zheng Zhenduo 鄭振鐸 in the 1940’s.29 The
paintings at Dunhuang—not only murals but also the portable paintings on
silk, hemp, or paper—had nevertheless caught the attention of such informed
specialists as Arthur Waley, Matsumoto Eiichi 松本榮一, to a lesser degree
26 Drège 2006: 343–371.

27 See particularly Gulácsi 2001.
28 I chose this term on the basis of the apparent similarity with the books whose pages open
like butterfly wings. However, I am now more hesitant to do so insofar as the continuity
between the manuscript booklets at Dunhuang and the later printed ones from central
China is far from being a proven fact, as I have said here. In a recent article, “Dunhuang
yishu zhong de zhuangzhen xingshi yu shushi yanjiu zhong de zhuangzhen xingshi,” Li
Zhizhong (2004) keeps this term without giving thought to the problem of transmission
of this format from Dunhuang to central China and from the manuscript to the printed
book. He even uses, unjustifiably in my opinion, the term xianzhuang 綫裝 (sewn bind-
ing), which corresponds to the books after the Yuan dynasty (double-leaves folded in two
and bound together one after the other by the edges), to describe the Dunhuang codices
that are made up of quires with inset pages.
29 Zheng 1940–1947.
Raphael Petrucci and Paul Pelliot, and later Rao Zongyi 饒宗頤.30 However
these pictures, polychromes as well as monochromes, were treated as an end in
themselves, as independent works. This happened even when it came to works
on paper: minor works, too minor for art historians compared to the grand
silk-banner compositions.31 Until very recently, no one had taken into account
the images that accompanied the texts, and yet they are practically the only
examples of illustrated Chinese manuscripts. However, it must be said that for
many years no reproduction was made of a large number of the hundred or
so illustrated manuscripts that have come down to us. While the images from
the Stein collection, no matter their support, had been all given to the British
Museum, the Pelliot documents in France, with only a few exceptions, were
dispatched according to their support: the works on fabric to the Louvre and
then to the Guimet Museum, those on paper to the National Library whether
they had images or not.
The three major categories of illustrations in woodblock-printed books that
are known to have existed during the Song dynasty are already present among
the manuscript books at Dunhuang. The frontispieces from the manuscript pe-
riod show rather more variety than the prints. This is because very simple fron-
tispieces can be found with only one figure as well as frontispieces with several
successive images. On the other hand, the images from Dunhuang show less
complexity in their composition than certain printed frontispieces that il-
lustrate narrative sutras, such as the Lotus Sutra, or even non-narrative ones.
The illustrations “within the text” already show the distinction between the
illustrations in strips according to the system called “image above, text below,”
shangtu xiawen 上圖下文, and those with alternate illustrations, a system that
was used to divide the text by placing the images before or after each separate
section. The layout is an issue that several manuscripts from Dunhuang raise,
in particular the difficulty in matching portions of text with certain images.
This gives an idea of the complexity of the work that went into laying out the
pages of illustrated manuscript books when they were not simply copied from
an existing work.
30 Waley 1931; Matsumoto 1937; Jao 1978. Unfortunately, Petrucci only left us one conference.
From Pelliot, except for his notes describing the cartouches in the murals, we only have
his slips describing the transportable paintings that he brought back (I refer here only to
the oldest works).
31 On this point, see Drège 2003: 61–64.
30 Drège
The Beginnings of Printing
Without a doubt, it has been the prints from Dunhuang that have caused the
most interest and passion in the field of the history of Chinese books. One
of the treasures from the manuscript cave is of course the printed Diamond
Sutra, the woodblocks for which were carved in 868. A. Stein immediately saw
that this was the oldest example of printing with the exception of Buddhist
charms. He believed that: “Here was a conclusive proof that the art of print-
ing books from wooden blocks was practiced long before the Song period to
which the earliest previously known specimens belong, and also that the tech-
nical execution had already reached a level practically as high as the process
permitted.”32
The Dunhuang printed Diamond Sutra is the oldest printed, dated Chinese
book that had been preserved; moreover, it is the oldest illustrated printed book
to be dated. The Buddhist charms dated from 764 to 770—made in Chinese by
order of the Japanese Empress Shotoku and which were discovered in Japan—
are too short to be considered true books. As for the short scroll containing
the Dharani Sutra of the Pure Light discovered in Korea in 1966, though it was
probably made in the eighth century, its dating is solely based on the date ac-
cepted for the completion of the stupa in which it was found, that is to say 751.
The small fragment of an almanac from 834 kept in Saint Petersburg, a
date recently accepted, has now become the oldest print from Dunhuang,
supplanting the Diamond Sutra kept in London. But more especially, along
with the Diamond Sutra, several dozen woodblock-printed sheets discovered
at Dunhuang—images meant to be posted or fragments of works—have re-
launched yet again the history of the printed book at its origins. Thomas F.
Carter used them as the basis for his famous book that studied the genesis of
printing and the possible spread of woodblock printing and even typography
to Europe, in the same manner as that of the techniques of paper making.33
Though unpublished during his lifetime, Pelliot wrote a long review of this
work made up of notes that were put together into a posthumous book that
discredited, with Pelliot’s habitual resoluteness and efficiency, a good many
precise arguments in favor of pushing back the beginnings of woodblock
printing.34 These works did not put an end to the debate concerning the ori-
gins and early stages of woodblock printing. It is regretful that Pelliot’s work
32 Stein 1921, vol. 2: 822.

33 Carter 1925. On the idea of a direct or indirect transmission and the debate it has aroused,
see Drège 2005: 15–21.
34 Pelliot 1954.
should not be better known by those who participate in this debate; it would
stop some arguments, which were legitimately debunked over fifty years ago,
from still being upheld.
The prints from Dunhuang have their place in the emerging history of print-
ing. The only evidence whose date is based on the documents themselves situ-
ates them between the 834 AD almanac and the bodhisattva Mahapratisara’s
mandala dated 980 AD. At first glance, the works discovered at Dunhuang can-
not be placed in the prehistoric period of woodblock printing, a little-known
period that the specialists have a tendency to blank out, or at the very least
abridge, by pushing back the earliest concrete evidence of woodblock printing
to the seventh century. Timothy Barrett and Zhang Zhiqing 張志清 have put
forward arguments concerning the role of religion in the emergence of print-
ing while insisting on the importance of Taoism and the charms whose power
became all the greater as the printed images were multiplied. They compel us
to admit that undated documents discovered at Dunhuang or in central China
go back to the seventh century, thus pushing back the prehistory of printing to
an earlier period.35 Nothing, however, indicates that prints of Buddhist stamps
that are so numerous among the documents found at Dunhuang—undated
with the exception of those from the tenth century—could date from before
the ninth or tenth century. As for the dharanis and mandalas of Mahapratisara,
from Dunhuang and from central China, the arguments put forward in favor
of an early dating remain tenuous because the only dated pieces are from the
tenth or the beginning of the eleventh century. Finally, if we can have faith
in the manuscript notes found in a few Dunhuang manuscripts that refer to
works printed in Chang’an and Luoyang, they probably do not concern works
printed before the ninth century. The supposition put forward by Su Bai that
the Diamond Sutra, recopied in a manuscript from Dunhuang (Pelliot, Chinese
2184), could have been printed (or even reprinted) in Luoyang before 713 by a
disciple from Luozhou does not appear grounded to me. The manuscript sen-
tence is actually vague, if one takes the time to read the whole of it.36
The issue of the origins of printing has really no end in sight. The interfer-
ence of ulterior motives, clearly bent on suppressing any tentative efforts to
deny the Chinese supremacy in this field, is a fact that greatly complicates its
resolution.
The history of Chinese books has evolved considerably in the last few years,
in a large part thanks to the work of American Sinologists, but they have con-
centrated on the later printed books from the Ming (1368–1644) and Qing
35 Barrett 2001: 1–40. Zhang 2007: 23–41.

36 Su 1999: 9.
32 Drège
(1644–1911) dynasties. The early eras of printing, from the Tang (618–907) to
the Yuan (1279–1369) dynasty, are undoubtedly more difficult to analyze from a
social standpoint. The situation is slowly changing and should undergo further
evolutions. It is possible to study books without disregarding any of their as-
pects, manuscripts as well as prints, respecting their continuity. We must take
into account the fact that manuscript books maintained an important role
even during the triumph of printed books. In this context, there are two es-
sential issues: the changing formats with their repercussions on how writings
were used and the transformations in the means of the books’ production and
diffusion. They are not simply turning points but are of paramount concern.
And for conducting this research, the books discovered in Dunhuang remain
indispensable.
Chapter 3
Two Fragments of Tocharian B laissez-passers Kept

in the Berlin Collection*
Ogihara Hirotoshi
Introduction
It is well known that writing on wooden tablets1 now kept in the Bibliothèque
Nationale in Paris, France include a group of Tocharian B laissez-passers. They
were found near Kucha by Paul Pelliot in January 1907. Sylvain Lévi first studied
these laissez-passers in 1913. By giving initial treatments of a few of them (i.e.,
today’s LP 2, 5, 26, 32, 41 and possibly LP51), he discussed the identity of the
Tocharian B language and identified it with the language of the Kucha kingdom.
Since then, the language has become known as Kuchean among scholars.2 In
the late 1980s, Georges-Jean Pinault sorted 128 pieces of wooden laissez-passers
out of two series of wooden findings of the Fonds Pelliot, namely Pelliot Bois
série A and B, in addition to two entire tablets kept in a special reserve.3 These
were then newly enumerated by LP (i.e., the abbreviation of laissez-passer)
and published by Pinault in 1987 with comprehensive transliterations and brief
analyses. On the basis of the historical sources provided by Lévi (1913) and
* It is my great honor to present my research on this celebratory occasion. I would like to

express my sincere gratitude to Prof. Rong Xinjiang for his comments. In addition, many
heartfelt thanks are due to Prof. Desmond Durkin-Meinsternst and Dr. Simone-Christiane
Raschmann for their support and the arrangement of photographs of the THT manuscripts.
1 The French term laissez-passer (sometimes laissez-passer de caravanes) has been widely
used to indicate the texts of this genre in the field of Tocharian studies since Lévi 1913. It is
rendered in German as Karawanepäss/-päβ (e.g., TEB(I): 38; Couvreur 1953: 81), but the cor-
responding English term is not yet established. For instance, it was sometimes rendered as
“caravan-pass” (Krause 1948: 49; Pinault 1998: 3), “caravan passport” (Winter 1955: 216), and
recently “caravan travel passports” (Malzahn 2010: xxiii), etc. In this article, in order not to
increase the diversity of the English terms, as well as to reflect the characteristic passage …
(p)tārka “let … go!” in the texts of this genre, the French term laissez-passer will be employed.
2 For example, see the introduction on the diversity of the Berlin Tocharian B manuscripts
given by Krause 1948.
3 Namely PK réserve 1517 B III. I and II = LP 1 and LP 2.

34 Ogihara
Lüders (1940[1922], 1940[1930]), Pinault established that the majority of the

tablets were written during the reign of Swarnatepe (Skt. Suvarṇadeva, Chin.
Sufadie 蘇伐疊, 624–646 CE). Therefore, most of these wooden laissez-passers
were probably written before the Tang Conquest of Kucha in 648 CE.4
So far no other laissez-passer has been pointed out in the circle of Tocharian
studies.5 In fact, apart from Pelliot’s findings, the paucity of the administra-
tive documents written in the Tocharian languages has continued for many
decades. The exceptional cases are the St. Petersburg documents SI P/117 and
SI B Toch./12 published by Pinault (1998), both of which have the undoubted
character of government administrative documents.
Recently, I found two laissez-passer fragments, namely THT1555 (Plate 3.1)
and 1586 (Plate 3.2), in the course of research on the THT manuscripts kept in
the Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin.6 In Ching’s general studies of the Kuchean secu-
lar documents my discovery is noted; in particular, the transcription and trans-
lation of THT1555 and 1586 are given on the basis of my initial transliteration.7
In July 2010, we consulted the original in the Staatsbibliothek in order to check
the reading again. In this article, a detailed treatment of the two fragments will
be provided with a closer comparison with the Paris laissez-passers, together
with discussions of the linguistic, paleographical, and textual aspects to a fuller
extent. Although THT1555 and 1586 are both severely mutilated, their most dis-
tinct characteristics lie on the facts that they were written on paper instead of
wood and that they were both discovered in the Kizil grottoes.
4 See Pinault 1987: 85. This article will refer to these laissez-passers will as “the Paris laissez-
passers”; see the usage in German Pariser Karawanepäβ in Couvreur 1953: 81. Three of them,
i.e., LP 1, LP 2 and LP 11, are treated with further notes and translation in Pinault (2008: 351–
358). New comments on the addressees and issuers of the Paris laissez-passers are provided
by Ching 2010: 114–116.
5 For example, no laissez-passer other than the ones found by Pelliot were mentioned in
Krause 1948; Inokuchi 1961: 346–347; Schmidt 1986: 637–638; Pinault 1987, 1994: 87–89; and
Malzahn 2007a: 79–84.
6 In this article, THT1555 and 1586 will be generally referred to as “the Berlin laissez-passers” for
the sake of convenience. But at present the possibility cannot be denied that there might be
other fragments of the same genre in the Berlin collection.
7 Cf. Ching 2010: 128, 303–304.
Two Fragments of Tocharian B laissez-passers 35
Plate 3.1
Tocharian B fragment THT1555_
seite1.

36 Ogihara
Text of the Fragments8
THT1555
[Transliteration]
1 ṣletaś̠ \ piṅ(k̠a̠ṃ) ///
2 tve ‒ ñi leś̠ \ krai ni ///
3 rra yaneṃ śāmna piś̠ \ ///
4 ksai ♦ ṣeme kerccawai ♦ [ṣe](me) ///
5 rso yaitkor̠ \ lā – cai ///
6 tārka ñī ///
7 mā ya – ///
[Commentary]
1 ṣletaś piṅ(käṃ) ///: this formula is used at the beginning of the Paris
laissez-passers, see below.
2 ñi leś krai ni ///: it is impossible to analyze this part with certainty
3 rra: should be restored as (pa)rra
4 ksai: we can restore this as (ṣeme o)ksai
4 kerccawai: obl. sg. of kercapo* “donkey.” It should be noted that -w-
can be seen here instead of -p(p)- which is usually used.
5 rso: (pka)rso, impv. 2.sg. of the verb kärs- “know, understand, recog-
nize” or (pa)rso “letter” may be restored here.
7 ya: it is uncertain if one can restore ya(neṃ), prs. 3.pl. of the verb
i- “go.”
[Translation]
1 Ṣletaś [writes] …
2 You, … my (?) …
3 They go [out]. Five men …
4 (one cow) ♦ one donkey ♦ [one] …
5 [Understand (or letter)] … order …
8 Basically I follow the system of the transliteration used in TochSprR(A) and (B).
///: lacuna of unknown length.
( ): restored akṣara(s).
[ ]: damaged akṣara(s).
‒: lacuna of one akṣara.
Except for the reading provided in the “Text of the fragments,” the quotation of Tocharian
B passages and forms in this article is given in their transcription (cf. Ching’s article, this
volume).
6 … let … go …. my …
7 not …
THT1586
[Transliteration]
1 [t]w(e) ñi [y](ait)[k](o)[r]sa mant̠ \ ///
2 [c]ek ñi śāmna stare i[k̠a̠ṃ] ///
3 ‒ ma [ṣ]e tu parra tā(rka) ///
4 tarkanat̠ \ ///
[Commentary]
1 mant ///: following the formula of wooden laissez-passers, mant
(pyām) should be restored (see infra).
2 cek: this would be the colloquial form of kuce provided with the
strengthening particle k(ä). Toch. B kuce is usually used in the wood-
en laissez-passers.9
3 ‒ma: this may be an ending of nom. sg. m. of a noun that cannot be
restored.10
3 tā ///: following the formula of wooden laissez-passers, it is possible
to restore tā(rka … mā).
(see infra).
4 tarkanat: sic! Toch. B tärkanat is the expected form in comparison
with other attestations.
Concerning the respective formula, see infra.
[Translation]
1 You, (do) [by my order]!
2 (Now) that I have (the following) people [twenty] …
3 one … Let the (abovementioned men, etc.) go. (If there is anything
more than it, do not)
4 let (them) go.
9 See LP1.2, 3.2, 4.3, 7.3, 10.3, 16.3, 21.2, 22.3, 33.1, 39.2, 43.3, 44.1, 55.1, 56.2, 62.2, 74.3, 112.1, 120.2,
123.2.
10 Toch.B [ṣ]e would be nom. sg. m. of the numeral “one.”
38 Ogihara
Find-spot
The site signature T III MQ found on both THT manuscripts indicates that they
were found in the Kizil grottoes (Ming-öi Qizil) by the third German expedi-
tion. This information is very interesting, because the Paris laissez-passers were
reported by Pelliot as findings at Schaldïrang (also Chalderang in his term),
the ruins of an ancient station in the valley of a mountainous road (nowadays
called “the gorge of salty water” in Chinese, i.e., yanshuigou 鹽水溝) about fif-
teen kilometers northwest of the city of Kucha.11 The reason why the paper
fragments of laissez-passers were found in the Kizil grottoes remains unclear.
Some scenarios are conceivable to explain this situation. For instance, there
might have been an institutional pass or post station in the vicinity of Kizil. Or
the passengers who had carried these documents could have discarded them
there. More studies from the views of history and geography are needed to
pursue this interesting issue.
Formal Description12
The maximum length of the fragment THT1555 is 12.5 cm, and the maximum
width of it is 6.2 cm. It is stuck on backing paper, therefore the formal features
such as paper thickness, paper texture, and wire lines are not easily observable.
However, it is evident that the fabric is noticeably longer than the paper usu-
ally used to write Kuchean secular documents. Because of this special texture,
the shape of this fragment is a little distorted and prolonged in the upright
direction. The upper and left margins are very possibly the original top and left
edges of the document, but the right and lower parts of it were significantly
damaged. In addition, the color of paper is noticeably grayish (10YR7/2 “light
gray” ~ 10YR6/2 “light brownish gray”).
The maximum length and width of THT1586 are both 7.2 cm. Now the frag-
ment is also stuck on backing paper, so most of the features of the paper can-
not be easily observed. Remarkably, the fiber of the paper seems to be filled by
11 To speak more precisely, on 26 January 1907 one of his guides in Kucha showed Pelliot half
a dozen wooden tablets of this genre taken from a villager. After seeing these discover-
ies and asking their find-spot, Pelliot immediately went there and saved another thirty
pieces. It is not sure whether Pelliot then bought or received the half dozen tablets from
his guide; see Pinault 1987: 67–68; Pelliot 2008: 380; Ching 2010: 93.
12 Personal data provided by Ching. The observations of THT1555 and 1586 were made on
7 April 2008 and 21 July 2010 respectively.
starch or some kind of white substance, while the ground color of the paper
is quite ordinary (10YR7/4 “very pale brown”) compared with the majority of
the Kizil monastic accounts.13 All four margins of paper are damaged, so it is
difficult to estimate the original size of this document. However, in the center
of this fragment, radial folding lines looking like ✳ are observable, which imply
that the fragment is in the center of the document and that it was folded into a
smaller piece when it was carried by its user.
Script
Although the Berlin laissez-passers are damaged, one can see that they would
have been written down more cautiously than most other secular documents
such as the Kizil monastic accounts (e.g., THT433 published in Sieg 1950). The
Brāhmī script in which they were written seemingly belongs to the standard
stage established by Malzahn (2007b).14 The Paris laissez-passers can be clas-
sified to the same type of script as well. In other words, the paleographical dif-
ferences between those kept in Paris and those kept in Berlin are not obvious.
Comparison with the laissez-passers kept in the Paris Collection
Although the two fragments presented here are very fragmentary, it is still
possible to compare them with those in Paris. In order to give an immediate
impression of the Kuchean laissez-passers fragments kept in Paris, a piece
of them, LP15, is given below with my translation. I classify the text into four
parts, which are marked as a.-d., according to content.15
13 See Ching and Ogihara 2012: 75–112.

14 See <ma> and <ya> used there. The akṣara <ta> is more easily differentiated from <na>
there than in secular documents.
15 Only the parts comparable to the THT fragments are cited here. In principle, after these
formulae there is further content in a wooden laissez-passer, especially the dating for-
mula, which can be observed or restored in LP1.6, 2.2–3, 5.5, 6.1–2, 8.1, 9.1–3, 11.2, 12.2–3,
14.1–2, 23.2, 26.1–2, 27.1, 28.2–3, 31.2, 32.1–2, 41.1–2, 42.2, 46.1–2, 48.1, 51.1, 58.1–2, 59.2, 68.2,
69.2, 73.1–2, 104.2, 105.1–2, 106.1–2, 114.1–2, 129.1–2, 130.4–5. In LP 15, no further content is
observable after the phrase teṃ parra ptār[k]a ṣap mā tärkanat, very probably because it
was written on another tablet to be bound with it. See Pinault 1987: 71–83 for his detailed
study of the format of the Paris laissez-passers.
40 Ogihara
LP 15:
a. Ṣletaś piṅkäṃ Sknata(t)[t](eṃśco.
(Line 1)
b. t)[w](e) ñi yaitkorsa mant pyām.
(Lines 1–2)
c. Tarmaw[i]rñe Iskil parra iyaṃ [tu] [c]eṃmpa yakwi trai stareme.
(Lines 2–4)
d. teṃ parra ptār[k]a ṣap mā tärkanat.
(Lines 4–5)
[Translation]
a. Ṣletaś writes to Sknatatte (= Skt. Saṅghadatta).
b. [You], do by my order!
c. Iskil16 belonging to Tarmawire (= Skt. Dharmavīra) goes out. Their
horses (accompanying) him are three.
d. Let this go. More (than this) do not allow.
The parts a., b. and d. are known to be characteristic formulae of the wooden
laissez-passers. Those indicated c. give the name of the passenger and the
count of his followers and animals.
In principle, the components from a. to d. can be observed in the two newly
found specimens. Here I shall indicate the composition of each fragment:
THT1555:17
a. Ṣletaś piṅ(käṃ) /// (Line 1)
c. rra yaneṃ śāmna piś̠ \ ///
(ṣeme o)ksai ♦ ṣeme kerccawai ♦ [ṣe](me) /// (Lines 3–4)
[Translation]
a. Ṣletaś [writes] …
c. They go [out]. Five people …
(one cow) ♦ one donkey ♦ [one] …
THT1586:
b. [t]w(e) ñi [y](ait)[k](o)[r]sa mant /// (Line 1)
c. [c]ek ñi śāmna stare i[k̠a̠ṃ] /// /// ‒ ma [ṣ]e (Lines 2–3)
d. tu parra tā(rka) /// /// tarkanat /// (Lines 3–4)
16 According to Ching 2010: 432, Iskil may be related to a proper name Izgil in Old Turkic,
which is explained by Geng 2005: 3, 133 as an ethnic/tribal name, Sijie 思結 in Chinese.
17 Other phrases are not cited, because they are difficult to treat.
[Translation]
b. You, (do) [by my order]!
c. (Now) that I have these (following) people: [twenty] … one …
d. Let the (abovementioned people) go. (If there is anything/anyone
more, do not) let (it/them) go.
Now, the textual comparison between the THT manuscripts and the Paris
laissez-passers, as well as the restoration of the former on the basis of the latter,
can be articulated in a more rigorous way:
Part a. THT1555.1: Ṣletaś piṅkäṃ “Ṣletaś writes (…)”
This broken phrase at the beginning of the document is comparable to the

initial phrases in the Paris laissez-passers. For example:
LP Ṣletaś piṅkäm Yuṣaiśco ♦

Ṣletaś writes: to Yuṣo/a.
LP Ṣletaś piṅkäṃ Yuṣaiśco
Ṣletaś writes to Yuṣo/a.
LP Ṣl(e)t(a)ś p[i]ṅkä(ṃ) salyitsai yoñiyaine Sknatatteṃśco
Ṣletaś writes to Sknatatte in the salty region (?)18
Although the right part of THT1555.1 is damaged, we may expect the addressee
or his location in the right part of the broken edge of this line.
Toch. B ṣletaś often appears in the Paris laissez-passers.19 While the data
in Tocharian B manuscripts do not permit us to reconstruct the function of
this official title,20 it is noteworthy that ṣletaś appears also in THT1555, a
laissez-passer fragment discovered in the Kizil grottoes. An attestation of
ṣletaś has been found in a Tocharian B sale contract written on a wooden
tablet(THT4001 = MIK III 7592) found in the same area.21
18 The word yoñiya is used to be understood either as “path, way, course” as given in Adams’
dictionary (1999: 511) or as douane in French according to Lévi 1913: 312. But recent studies
of Maue (2009: 21) and my own (2009: 287, 385) imply that its meaning is probably closer
to a kind of rural area or domain. See the review of the various interpretations of this
word to a fuller extent in Ching 2010: 114, 415.
19 See LP1.1, 3.1, 7.1, 10.1, 13.1, 15.1, 16.1, 20.1, 22.1, 39.1, 43.1, 70.1, 88.1, 89.1, 118.1. Besides, Toch.B
ywārttaś (LP3.1, 5.1, 29.1) and kleṅkarako (LP4.1) also appear in this formula by substituting
the place of ṣletaś in the sentence. See Pinault 1987: 76; Ching 2010: 115–116, Table 4.2.
20 Adams (1996: 668) translates this noun as “commander of the mountain region,
mountain-commander” on the basis of etymological analysis.
42 Ogihara
Part b. THT1586.2: twe ñi yaitkorsa mant ///
My restoration twe ñi yaitkorsa mant (pyām) “You, (do) by my order!” is given

on the numerous examples of the formula found in LP1.1–2, 3.2, 4.2, 5.2, 10.2,
15.1–2, 21.1–2, 22.2–3, 29.2–3, 64.1, 65.2, 70.2, 74.2, 75.3, 88.2, 89.2, 90.2, 91.2, 94.2,
119.2, 120.2, 121.1. In the Paris laissez-passers, this formula appears immediately
after an addressee was mentioned.22 It is termed by Pinault (1987: 76) as the
protocole d’introduction which indicated the administrative authority of the
issuers.
Part d. THT1586.3–4: tu parra tā(rka … mā) tarkanat “Let it go. (If there is
anything more than it, do not) let (it) go.”
The restoration of the above broken passages are based on the comparison of
similar phrases found in the Paris laissez-passers, where the verb tärk- means
“let go, let, allow; emit, utter,” etc. (Adams 1999: 293). Several typical examples
of the phrases are provided as follows:23
LP1.4–6: te parra tārka. tentsa auṣap mā tärkanat.

Let this go. More than this do not allow.
LP11.1: ptārka. se tesa ṣap tākaṃ, tu mā tärkanat.24
Let … go. If there is anyone/anything more than this, do not
allow it.
LP15.4–5: teṃ parra ptārka. ṣap mā tärkanat.
Let this go. More (than this) do not allow.
In the Paris laissez-passers, this part is preceded by a count of the passengers

and animals, which seem to be led by a representing passenger in each docu-
ment. Unfortunately, due to severe deterioration, only a part of the count is
preserved in each of the two Berlin fragments.
The comparison given above shows that the Berlin laissez-passers bears
a strong resemblance to the Paris ones, not only in the aspect of the word-
ing of formulae, but also in the aspect of the entire format (i.e., the order of
formulae). Conceivably, the laissez-passers of this kind were once widely in use
by officials of the kingdom of Kucha.
22 In LP13.1–2, the formula is twe ñi rekisa ma(ṃ)t pyām: “You, do according to my word!”.
23 See also LP2.1, 5.4–5, 9.1, 12.1–2, 14.1, 19.1, 21.4, 23.1, 25.3, 28.1–2, 30.3, 31.1–2, 35.3, 37.2–3, 42.1,
52.1, 57.1, 61.1, 67.1, 68a1–2, 99.1, 100.1, 101.1, 102.1, 103.2, 111.3, 116.1, 125.1, 126.1, 128.1.
24 In contrast to other attestations, this phrase uses the relative clause; se [relative pronoun]
~, tu [correlative] …, where Toch. B se is the vulgar form of kuse.
Dating
As mentioned in the introduction, the Paris laissez-passers are generally to be

dated before the Tang conquest (648 CE). Unfortunately, it is impossible to date
those kept in Berlin. It is even uncertain whether both of them were issued at
approximately the same time. In the preceding sections, I have indicated that
from the linguistic and paleographic points of view, the texts of these paper
fragments cannot be distinguished from the wooden ones. However, it is nec-
essary to emphasize again that the laissez-passers kept in Berlin are written on
paper, while those kept in Paris are written on wooden tablets. This distinction
may allude to their different dates.25 On the other hand, since the dating of the
abandonment of the Kizil caves is still an open issue, the timing of the deposi-
tion of these official documents cannot be easily determined. Nevertheless,
given that the Tocharian B monastic accounts written on paper discovered in
the Kizil grottoes can mostly be dated to the Tang period,26 these paper laissez-
passers probably were written in the same era.
Conclusion
In this article, I have treated two paper fragments of Tocharian B laissez-passer

in the Berlin collection. The contents of both are highly comparable with the
wooden laissez-passers in Paris. Yet whether the documents of this genre are
specific to the Kuchean administration is an open question. We cannot deny
the possibility that similar practices under the influence of Chinese civiliza-
tion and those in the West, as attested in the pre-Tang Chinese and Prākrit
sources, may once have been introduced into ancient Kucha. Moreover, if it
is correct to see the paper laissez-passers as documents composed after the
Tang conquest, further comparison must be made between these specimens
and Chinese official documents of similar purposes such as guosuo 過所 and
xingdie 行牒 of the Tang era. Unfortunately, because of the paucity of material,
an intensive comparison of the Tocharian B official documents with those in
other languages must be suspended for the moment.
25 On the conceivable different dates between the Kuchean texts written on wooden tablets
and the ones written on paper, see Ching 2010: 124–129; Ching and Ogihara, 2012: 75–112.
44 Ogihara
In conclusion, although the dating of the fragments THT1555 and 1586 is

left undetermined, they are undoubtedly very valuable for the study of the his-
torical geography of the Kizil grottoes and their surrounding region, in addi-
tion to the enrichment of our knowledge of the diversity of the Tocharian B
manuscripts.
Glossary of THT1555 and 1586
(In the following glossary, the exclamation mark indicates the restored form. The un-
solvable forms are not included.)
ikäṃ: numeral “twenty.” THT1586.2!.

oksai: obl. sg. of okso “cow.” THT1555.4!.
kerccawai: obl. sg. of kercapo* “donkey.” THT1555.4.
cek: vulgar form of obl. of the relative pronoun kuse provided with the strengthening
particle k(ä). THT1586.2!.
ñi: gen. sg. of 1st personal pronoun. THT1586.1, 2.
ñī: gen. sg. of 1st personal pronoun. THT1555.6.
tarkanat: prs. 2 sg. of the verb tärk- “to let go.” THT1586.4.
tārka: impv. 2 sg. of the verb tärk- “to let go.” THT1555.6, THT1586.3!.
tu: obl. n. of the demonstrative pronoun su. THT1586.3.
tve: nom. sg. of 2nd personal pronoun. THT1555.2.
twe: nom. sg. of 2nd personal pronoun. THT1586.1!.
parra: vulgar form of the adverb parna “outside.” THT1555.3!, THT1586.3.
piṅkäṃ: prs. 3. sg. of the verb pik- “to write.” THT1555.1.
piś: numeral “five.” THT1555.3.
mant: adverb “in this way.” THT1586.1.
mā: particle “not, no.” THT1555.7.
yaneṃ: prs. 3. pl.of the verb i- “to go.” THT1555.3.
yaitkor: sg. of yaitkor “order.” THT1555.5.
yaitkorsa: perl. sg. of yaitkor “order.” THT1586.1!.
śāmna: nom. pl. of śaumo “person, man.” THT1555.3, THT1586.2.
ṣe: nom. sg. m. of the numeral ṣe “one.” THT1586.3!.
ṣeme: obl. sg. m. of the numeral ṣe “one.” THT1555.4, 4!.
ṣletaś: nom. sg. of ṣletaś “commander of the mountain region (?)’.” THT1555.1.
stare: pl. of the copula. THT1586.2.
Abbreviations
Chin. Chinese obl. oblique

gen. genitive perl. perlative
impv. imperative pl. plural
LP laissez-passer prs. present
m. masculine sg. singular
n. neuter Skt. Sanskrit
nom. nominative Toch. Tocharian
Abbreviations in this Article
TEB (I) Tocharisches Elementarbuch, Band I = Krause & Thomas 1960.

THT Tocharische Handschriften aus den Turfanfunden. Most of the texts are avail-
able on the website of the Frankfurt TITUS project (cf. infra).
TochSprR(A) = Sieg, Emil and Wilhelm Siegling (1921).
TochSprR(B) = Sieg, Emil and Wilhelm Siegling (1949 and 1953).
Chapter 4
Possible Adaptation of the Book of the Giants in the

Manichaean Traité
Ma Xiaohe
In his study on the Chinese Manichaean texts of the Tang dynasty, Zhang
Guangda makes the following observation:
While perusing the Manichaean scriptures restored and reconstructed

by Mr. W. Sundermann, readers would be made to wonder whether
there were Chinese translations of Mani’s seven canons in the Tang dy-
nasty. This query remains unanswerable as, even if there were Chinese
translations, they did not survive. Obviously, the 殘經/Traité and 下部讚/
Hymnscroll were not authored by Mani himself. However, many Iranian
manuscript copies of these two scriptures did exist as is evidenced by the
large number of fragmentary scriptures and pieces available today.1
While it is true that Chinese translations of the seven canons of Mani have not
yet been discovered, is it possible that the Traité was adapted from one of the
canons? Over twenty years ago, Lin Wushu asked, “Which canon of Mani is
the prototype of the Traité?”2 On the other hand, both Samuel N. C. Lieu and
W. Sundermann have published articles on this topic. Samuel N. C. Lieu argues
that, “More recently Sundermann published a fragment in Middle Persian
of Mani’s Book of the Giants among the texts now housed in Leningrad and
on the second sheet is a text which is strongly reminiscent of the Traité. Since
the Coptic ‘Sermon on the Light-Nous’ contains a significant number of quo-
tations and literary allusions to Mani’s Book of the Giants, it is only logical to
surmise that the Sermon of the Light-Nous, of which the Traité is a Chinese
version, is either a section or a midrash of the canonical Book of the Giants.”3
W. Sundermann published a Sogdian fragment labeled M7800/I/ in 1994. There
he contends that “The vexing experience that the powers of darkness keep
1 Zhang 2005: 75.

2 Lin 1983.
3 Lieu 1998: 61–62. Lieu believes that S I 0/120 II corresponds to lines 158–75 of the Traité (Lieu
1998, p.66). I believe that it is an outline of lines 58–61, 71–74, 158–175, and 185–196 of the
Traité.

Possible Adaptation of the Book of the Giants 47
rebelling against the New Man must have been of great concern for every-
day life in Manichaean communities. It is also discussed at great length in
the Parthian ‘Sermon on the Light Nous’ and its Central Asian reproductions.
That it place in Mani’s ‘Book of the Giants’ itself is made very likely by the
second half of the St. Petersburg fragment.”4 The opinions of both Lieu and
Sundermann are enlightening.
Inspired by their comments and propositions as elucidated above, the pres-
ent article puts forward a hypothesis and argues that the Traité, its Parthian
original text “The Sermon of the Light-Nous” (hereafter SLN), as well as chap-
ters 38 and 70 of the Coptic Kephalaia are all adaptations of the Book of the
Giants (hereafter BG) with different details.
Discussions
According to W. B. Henning, Mani transformed the fallen angels and their

giant sons into “demons,” a reference to those demons that had been impris-
oned in the skies when the world was being constructed.5 BG should have
a description of the creation of the macrocosm before giving an account of
the giants. Although the BG fragments about the creation of the macrocosm
have not been mapped out yet, we might be able to reconstruct it by synthe-
sizing other sources such as the Traité. For instance, the Traité tells us that
“… the Pure Wind Envoy of Light (淨風明使 = the Living Spirit) erected the ten
heavens and the eight earths of the cosmos, by means of the five kinds of
demons and the five Light-Bodies (五明身) by combining the power of these
two. Thus the cosmos is the hall of healing for the light-bodies, but it is at the
same time the prison where the dark demons are chained.”6
Absent from the Traité is any explicit discussion of how it is that the
cosmos corresponds to the human body. Nevertheless, the 38th chapter of
the Kephalaia does illustrate such a connection.7 After the description of the
4 Sundermann 1994: 48; Sundermann 2001, Band 2: 705.

5 Henning 1943: 53; Sel.Papers, V. II: 116.
6 T. line 11–13, trans. Traité, 514–15 [18–19]. See Lieu 1998: 73; SLN, §3 (62–63, 79).
7 K. 90, 25–33; Gardner 1995: 95–96. Chapter 70 has a similar description, K. 170, 2–14; Gardner
1995: 180. But the shortness of the 38th and 70th Kephalaions suggests that the descriptions
of the creation of the macrocosm by the gods with the creation of humanity by the demons
is merged, which in turn creates some confusion. The 38th Kephalaion tells us: “All the error,
when the enemy of the lights constructed it (the macrocosm), he constructed after the like-
ness of a man.” This is a mistake. In the Manichaean system, the creator of the world clearly
stands on the side of the good principle.
48 Ma
creation of the cosmos, the Traité tells us that the five kinds of demons were
imprisoned by thirteen great powers of light. The thirteen kinds of great cou-
rageous powers include the five light-sons of First Thought (先意 = the Primal
Man), the five light-sons of Pure Wind (淨風 = the Living Spirit), Hu-lu-se-de
(呼嚧瑟德 = xrwštg, the Call), Bo-lou-huo-de (𠷺嘍德 = pdw’xtg, the
Answer), and Su-lu-sha-luo-yi (窣路沙羅夷 = srwš’hr’y, the Column of Glory).
The five light-bodies are akin to a prison while the five kinds of demons are like
their prisoners. The five sons of Pure Wind are the prison-warders. Shou-ting
(說聼 = the Call) and Huan-ying (喚應 = the Answer) are something like night
watchmen. The thirteenth (of the great powers of light) Su-lu-sha-luo-yi is like
the king who judges cases.8
The 38th Kephalaion has much more detail about the prison where the dark
demons are chained. Besides the thirteen deities there are two additional ones:
the Ambassador and Jesus the Youth—both help to imprison the demons. The
38th Kephalaion also contains detailed descriptions on the Living Spirit’s five
sons. A table of the five sons of the Living Spirit can thus be produced based on
the information gleaned from 38th Kephalaion and other sources as follows:9
Five Sons of the Living Spirit
The Keeper The Great Adamant of The Great The Porter

of Splendor King of Honor Light King of Glory
Five Mind Thought Insight Counsel Consideration

Intellectuals
Five Cardinal (Love) (Faith) Fulfillment Patience Wisdom
Virtues
Location The 10th The 7th Between the Upper 3 The 5th Earth
Heaven Heaven Heavens and Earths
the Earths
8 T. line 16–21; trans. Traité, 515–523 [19–27]. Cf. SLN, §5–6 (pp.62–63, 80–81). I believe that the
story of the Giants should occur in this period, but Lieu argues that it occurred sometime
after the creation of humankind. For details, see Lieu 1985: 17–18.
9 K. 91–94, 170–172; Gardner 1995: 96–99, 180–182; The locations and authorities of Adamant,
the King of Glory and the Porter are based on Jackson 1932: 32–74 and differ from Van Lindt
1992: 100–108.
Five Sons of the Living Spirit
The Keeper The Great Adamant of The Great The Porter

of Splendor King of Honor Light King of Glory
Authority 3 Upper 7 Heavens Between the Upper 3 The 5th Earth

Heavens beneath Heavens and Earths
Him the Earths
Treachery The Sin The Watchers The A Fastenings
and Uprising Aborted (ἐγρηγόρος Abortions Disturbance underneath
(nabe egrhgoros) (xouxe) and an Were
Rxouxe) Affliction Loosened
Helper(s) The Column The 4 angels Jesus Jesus Jesus
of Glory
Henning believed that two paragraphs about the rebellion of the watchers
(ἐγρηγόρος) that occurred in the watch-post of the Great King of Honor re-
corded in 38th of Kephalaion belong to “Quotations and Allusions” of BG:
Now attend and behold how the Great King of Honor, who is ἔννοια,
is in the third Heaven. When malice and wrath arose in his camp, the
Egrēgoroi of Heaven rebelled in his watch-district and descended to
the earth. They did all manner of malicious deeds. They revealed the arts
in the world, and the mysteries of Heaven to the men. On their account
the four angels received their orders: they bound the Egrēgoroi with eter-
nal fetters in the prison of the Dark (?), their sons were destroyed upon
the Earth.10
What is quoted above looks quite similar to the brief account contained in the
relevant fragments of BG. Four examples selected from the fragments of BG
will be given here to demonstrate its content. The first example is found in the
Middle Persian documents M101 a. to n, and M911, which Henning published
as his text A. The extant part of this story goes as below: The giants (sons of
10 Henning 1943: 71–72; Sel.Papers, v. II: 134–135. The Great King of Honor should be in the
seventh firmament. Gr. ἔννοια, Copt. meue, thought, the second of the five intellectuals
(of light). Cf. K. 92.24–31, 93.23–28.
50 Ma
the watchers) began to kill each other and to abduct their wives. The crea-
tures, too, began to kill each other. Enoch, the apostle, gave a message to the
demons (i.e., the watchers) and their children (i.e., the giants): The judgment
is that you should be bound for the sins you have committed. You shall see
the destruction of your children. Some watchers and giants expressed defiance
to the command of God and prepared to battle. At last the archangels over-
came the giants.11
The second example is found in the Uygur document Mainz 317 (TM 423d).
Henning translated it into English as his text B. This is a story about the journey
of the giant Mahaway (son of watcher Virōgdād) to Enoch.12
The third example concerns the first half of the double sheet of the Middle
Persian document SI 0 /120 published by Sundermann in 1984. This document
tells us that the giant Mahaway returned from Enoch with two tablets that
contain the message of Enoch to the giants. Mahaway first brought the mes-
sage to the giant Narīmān. The tablet from Enoch about the demons was read
by Mahaway in front of the giants. The giant Sām expressed his defiance of the
message from Enoch, but other giants were sorrowful; they did not eat or sleep.
Sām had a dream in which fever broke out across the earth, the waters were
swallowed up, and a wrath went out from the waters.13
The fourth example is related to the first half of the double sheet of the
Sogdian document M7800 (T ii Ξ), which was published in Henning’s article as
text G. This document tells us that the angels themselves descended from the
heavens to earth. And (when) the two hundred demons saw the angels, they
were greatly vexed and fearful. As a result, the two hundred demons fought
a hard battle with the four angels until the angels used fire, naphtha, and
brimstone.14
11 Henning 1943: 56–62, Sel.Papers, V. II: 119–125. Henning arranged the sequence of the six
fragments (c-j-l-k-g-i) in accordance with their content. Other scholars may have different
arrangements. Cf. Reeves 1992: 109, 76, 94, 117, 121, 83, 75–76, 123; and Stuckenbruck 1997:
199–200, 50, 72, 59, 64–66, 57, 123, etc.
12 Le Coq 1922: 23; Henning 1943: 65, Sel.Papers, V. II: 128; Reeves 1992: 106; Stuckenbruck
1997: 132–133. Klimkeit translated TM423 c and b into English in Klimkeit 1992: 334–335,
but gave erroneous information about the source in Klimkeit 1993: 404 as “TM 423b and
d.” This mistake may have misled Samuel N. C. Lieu who, in his “Working Catalogue of
Published Manichaean Texts,” doubted that it came from BG and did not cite Henning
1943: 65: “Mainz 317 (TM 423d)(from the Bk. of the Giants?), … {tr. Klimkeit 1993: 334–335
with U43}” (Lieu 1998: 244). There is similar doubt expressed in Rong 2007: 712.
13 Sundermann 1984: 495–498, Sundermann 2001, Band 2: 619–622. Sundermann 1989: 71–72.
Cf. Reeves 1992: 109, 117, 121; and Stuckenbruck 1997: 73, 85, 137, 200.
14 Henning 1943: 68–69, Sel.Papers, V. 2: 131–132. Cf. Reeves 1992: 122–123.
If the final battle between the giants and archangels is the end of BG, the
relevant paragraphs of 38th Kephalaion are only its brief summary and lines
16–21 of the Traité could be seen as its basic outline. It would be difficult to
argue that the Traité is an adaptation of BG, although Henning believes that
this is the end of BG. He excluded the other half of the double sheet of docu-
ment T ii Ξ from his edition because he seems to have believed that the sub-
ject and content of the text do not properly belong to the Giants’ story. The
main content of the other half of the double sheet of the document T ii Ξ,
the “Discourse on the Abortion Demons,” thus needs to be examined carefully.
The content of that text may be summarized as follows: They (the abortion
demons) remembered the beauty of the sun god. They began to look for him.
Thereupon the Enthymesis of Death (mrcync šm’r’) and Greed (”z) dressed as
the two abortion demons, Šaqlūn (šqlwn) and Pēsūs (pysws). And in Šaqlūn’s
voice she commanded the other abortions to give birth to children and bring
her their abortions. The abortions brought 80,000 abortions before Šaqlūn
and Pēsūs. Šaqlūn devoured 40,000 abortions, and Pēsūs also devoured 40,000.
They copulated with each other, and said, “The intentional thought, we have it
towards the sun-god, so that what will be born from us will resemble the gods
of the sun and moon.”15
Such an account can be compared with the narrative of the 38th Kephalaion.
According to the 38th Kephalaion, the abortions descended in the watch of the
Adamant and formed Adam and Eve. They begat them so as to reign through
them in the world. Jesus was sent, and he bound them.16
The Traité not only mentions the names of Greed, Šaqlūn, and Pēsūs, but
also describes the human being as a microcosm, having the same nature as the
macrocosm. In other words, when the Demoness of Greed (Tanmo 貪魔, i.e.,
Parthian ”z) observed this matter (i.e., the five kinds of demons were impris-
oned by thirteen great powers of light), she in her poisoned mind conceived
a malicious plan once again. She commanded Lu-yi 路㑥 (i.e., Parthian šqlwn)
and Ye-luo-yang 業羅泱 (i.e., Nebroel, Parthian pysws) to imitate the Pure
Wind and Good Mother (善母 = Mother of the Living), in producing a human
body by transforming and imitating the macrocosm in order to imprison light-
nature (明性 i.e., light-soul). Although such an evil and lustful carnal body is
small, it imitates the cosmos of heaven and earth at all points…. Like a gold-
smith who copies the shape of a white elephant and inscribes it inside a ring
15 Sundermann 1994: 45–46, Sundermann 2001, Band 2: 702–703.

16 K. 92 32–93 5, 29–34; Gardner 1995: 97–98. Cf. K. 171 19–20, Gardner 1995: 181.
52 Ma
without adding or subtracting anything from its exact appearance, so also is

the human world.17
Without a doubt the story of the creation of human beings is one of the
more important pieces of evidence that might be employed to prove that
the Traité is an adaptation of BG. Apart from that, further evidence can be ad-
vanced. Both in the Kephalaia and the Traité, the story does not end with the
creation of humankind. The 38th Kephalaion tells us that sin bound the soul
in the five members of the body. It bound the mind in bone; the thought in
sinew; the insight in vein; the counsel in flesh; and the consideration in skin.18
On the other hand, the Traité includes a similar story but with a more de-
tailed description and additional details such as the Demoness’s observations
of this matter. She conceives covetous and poisonous thoughts, and impris-
ons the five light-natures in the microcosmic carnal body…. The Demoness
of Greed imprisons the Pure Air in the City of Bones, establishes Dark Mind,
and plants a tree of death; [she] imprisons the Wonderful Wind in the City
of Sinew, establishes dark Thought, and plants a tree of death; imprisons the
Light-Power in the City of Veins, establishes dark Insight, and plants a tree of
death; imprisons the Wonderful Water in the City of Flesh, establishes dark
Counsel, and plants a tree of death; imprisons the Wonderful Fire in the City
of Skin, establishes Dark Consideration, and plants a tree of death…. The Pure
Wind creates two light-ships to ferry righteous sons across the sea of birth and
death to the original world and makes the light-nature peaceful and happy for-
ever. The Demoness of Hatred (怨魔), Mistress of Greed (貪主) observes this
situation, conceives feelings of spite and jealousy, creates the shapes of the
two sexualities, male and female, in imitation of the two great light-ships that
are the sun and the moon. She deludes and confuses the light-nature and
makes the light-nature embark on the vessels of darkness, enter into hell, con-
tinue the five forms of rebirth, suffer all manner of pain, and ultimately be-
come difficult to deliver from evil. If the envoys of light appear in the world,
they will instruct and convert living beings and deliver them from pain.19
Three successive details can be observed here. First, demonic greed and con-
cupiscence incarcerates the five limbs of the soul (living air, wind, etc.) into the
five parts of the body (bone, sinew, etc.); second, the Living Spirit uses the sun
and moon as powerful machinery for the liberation of the light-soul; third, the
17 T. line 21–27; trans. in Chavannes and Pelliot 1912: 27–31. Cf. SLN, §7–8 (62–63, 81–83).
18 K. 95 17–19; Gardner 1995 100. Cf. Heuser 1998: 46.
19 T. line 30–34, 48–53, trans. Chavannes and Pelliot 1912: 32–39. Cf. SLN, §9–14 (62–65,
83–88).
envoys of light appear in the world and instruct and convert living beings. All
three of these details, I believe, can be seen in fragment b of Henning’s Text A.20
Frg.b) … If from the Five Elements. As if (it were) a means not to die,
they fill themselves with food and drink. Their (140) garment is … this
corpse (ns’ẖ) … and not firm … its ground is not firm … Like … (146) …
imprisoned [in this corpse], in bones, nerves, [flesh], veins, and skin, and
entered herself [=Āz] into it. Then he (=Man) cries out, over (?) sun
and moon, the Just God’s (yzd r’stygr) (150) two flames …?, over the ele-
ments, the trees and the animals. But God [Zrwān?], in each epoch, sends
apostles: Šīt[ī (šytyl), Zarathustra, ] Buddha, Christ, …
Consequently, comparative data derived from the 38th Kephalaion, the Traité,
SLN and fragment b of text A are produced in the table below:
38th Kephalaion Traité (Chinese) SLN (Parthian) Frg.b of Text A

(Coptic) (Middle Persian)
Five Elements 五明性 pnj rwšn pnz mhr’spnd

(Five Lights)
Corpse (body) σῶμα swma 肉身 tnb’r ns’ẖ
Bones kes 骨 ’stg ’stg
Nerves, Sinews mout 筋 pdyg py
Flesh σάρξ sar3 肉 pyd pyt
Veins, Arteries mome 脈 rhg rg
Skin <aare 皮 crm crm
Sun 日 myhr hwrxšyd
Moon 月 m’ẖ m’ẖ
Apostle (of light) 明使 fryštgrwšn prystg’n
According to Henning, the a to n of M101 and M911 constitute fifteen fragments

of a book. Aside from the Kawān, the book should have one or two treatises,
namely: (1) parables referring to the Hearers, and possibly (2) a discourse on
the Five Elements (here (1) = lines 160 to the end, and (2) = lines 112–159).21
20 Henning 1943: 58, 63; Sel.Papers, V. II: 121, 126.

21 Henning 1943: 56; Sel.Papers, V. II: 119.
54 Ma
Fragments e, b and h were considered by Henning as the discourse on the Five

Elements. Nevertheless, the present discussion has demonstrated that frag-
ment b (perhaps with e and h) is very likely part of BG. If this is the case, then
these fragments serve as important evidence to demonstrate that the Traité is
indeed an adaptation of BG.
We have another document to support this hypothesis; the second half of
the double sheet of the Middle Persian St. Petersburg fragment (S I 0/120 II)
publicized by Sundermann in German in 1984 and in Russian in 1989 respec-
tively. Its title is wc’ryšn or “explanation.” Sundermann believes that there is
some reason to believe that, similar to the other half of the double sheet, it
belongs to Mani’s BG. In the fragmented text, the story of BG proceeds in a
simpler and more coherent way than is the case in all the later versions.22 The
second half of the double sheet gives the following account:23
And he (Light-Noῦς) stripped the Mind (b’m) of Hate (qynw’ryy) (?), grief,
sinfulness, envy and unconsciousness. He bound (them) to the bones.
Then he erected the Mind. He created out of his own creation Love, joy,
grace, *wideness and *quietness in such a manner that Love itself should
be a watchful guardian between the pure ones and the mixed ones. Love
is comparable to the sun, the son of the kings,….…. And Faith can be com-
pared to a well-prepared meal, a sealed letter, a *veiled bride from a rul-
ing house. Again he purified and took the Thought from the Thought of
the soul. And he stripped it of Lust (’wrzwg), division (bxtgyẖ), stealing
(?), ?-death, and deceit (?). He bound (them) to the flesh. [And he created
out] of his own [creation]
While the fragment quoted above does not preserve the whole text, we could
still compare it with the relevant record in the Traité. As recorded in the Traité,
22 Sundermann 1995: 260; Sundermann 2001, Band 1: 32.

23 Sundermann 1984: 491ff.; Sundermann 2001, Band 2: 615ff; Sundermann 1989: 67ff.;
Klimkeit 1998: 137. Middle Persian b’m: Sundermann translates it as “Glanz,” “блеск”;
Klimkeit translates it as “nous.” I translate it as “Mind,” which is consistent with the
English translation of the Kephalaia. Lieu thinks that this document is parallel to line
158–75 of the translation of Chavannes and Pelliot 1912, Cf. Lieu 1998: 66. I believe that
it is the core of the content of line 57–61, 71–75, 158–175, 185–196 of the translation of
Chavannes and Pelliot 1912. The translation of Chavannes and Pelliot 1912 uses bright sun
(朗日), king (王), whitewash that coats anything with fresh white (石灰,所塗之處無不
鮮白), common salt that gives flavor to all the well-prepared meal (素鹽,能與一切上妙
餚饌而作滋味), seal of a king (國王印璽) and wife of the king (王妃) as metaphors for
Love and Faith.
the Wise Light Envoy (惠明使, i.e., Light-Noῦς)…… begins by subduing Hate,
and he imprisons it in the City of Bones so that the Pure Air can be delivered
entirely from its bonds. Next he subdues Irritation and imprisons it in the City
of Sinews so that the Pure and Wonderful Wind might be released immedi-
ately. Then he subdues Lust and imprisons it in the City of Veins so that the
*Light-Power (?; ms.: “Wonderful Water”) might then throw off its bonds. Then
he subdues Anger and imprisons it in the City of Flesh so that the Wonderful
Water might be released immediately. Next he subdues Foolishness; he impris-
ons it in the City of Skin so that the Wonderful Fire might be released imme-
diately……. the great knowledge of the Wise Light (惠明大智)…… first from
Light-Mind lets Compassion emerge by transformation, and clothes the Pure
Air with it; then from Light-Thought [lets *Faith emerge by transformation
and clothes the *Wonderful Wind with it; from *Light-Insight] lets Perfection
emerge by transformation, and clothes the Light-Power with it; from Light-
Counsel lets Patience emerge by transformation, and clothes the Pure Water
with it; from Light-Consideration lets Wisdom emerge by transformation, and
clothes the Pure Fire with it.24
The following table, based on what is recorded in the 38th Kephalaion, the
Traité, SLN and S I 0/120 II on the Five Intellectuals and Five Cardinal Virtues,
allows for a comparison of the texts:
38th Traité SLN S I 0/120 II

Kephalaion (Chinese) (Parthian) (Middle
(Coptic) Persian)
Five Intellectuals Mind νοῦς nous 相(想) b’m b’m

(of Light) Thought meue 心 mnwhmyd mnwhmyd
Insight sbw 念 ’wš [’wx]
Counsel sajne 思 ’ndyšyšn [hndyšyšn]
Consideration makmek 意 prm’ng [prm’ng]
Five Love ἀγάπη agaph 憐憫 frhyfṯ pryẖ
Cardinal Virtues Faith naxte 誠信 w’wryft wrwyšn
Fulfillment jwk abal 具足 ʽspwryft [ʽspwrg’ryẖ]
Patience mntxar¥xht 忍辱 drgmnyft [bwrdyẖ]
Wisdom σοφία sovia 智慧 jyryft [whyẖ]
24 T. line 57–61, 71–74; trans. Chavannes and Pelliot 1912: 40–41, 45–46. Cf. SLN, §15 (64–65,
88–89); Lieu 1998: 63–64.
56 Ma
The fourth piece of evidence consists of a group of Uygur fragments (i.e.,

Mainz 460d, U 44, U 43, U 42, and U 40), which immediately calls to mind
SLN, thought they are usually categorized into SLN.25 A number of interest-
ing stories are told in SLN, such as pearls stuck in dirt (= a symbol of the soul
in the corpse), the Third Day of Light, the two Dark Nights, the Days of Light
vanquished the Dark Nights, the twelve Dominions; the person who sows and
plants the twelve Dominions in his own heart (= the New Man) has many signs;
the five signs of the person who plants Dominion (= 1st Dominion) in his own
heart and the five signs of the person who plants Light (= 12th Dominion) in
his heart. All these fragments and the aforementioned BG fragment Mainz 317
(Henning’s text B, a story centered on the giant Mahaway) belong to the same
manuscript. It is very likely that all of these records are from the same source
and belong to the same book. As a result, it would be logical to surmise that
SLN (The Traité is its Chinese version) is in fact an adapted version of BG.
Although it is not complete, Document S I 0/120 II does include the core
of the stories in the 38th Kephalaion, SLN and the Traité, such as that in which
the Light-Noῦς places the five cardinal virtues (love, faith, etc.) in the new man.
I have already mentioned the corresponding relationship between the five
sons of the Living Spirit and the five cardinal virtues in the 38th Kephalaion.
Moreover, lines 108–114 of the Traité tell us of another group of similar links
that inform us that these five kinds of forces that the new man relies on to
protect himself against the hateful enemy are like the signs of the holy ones of
the macrocosm: Compassion symbolizes the Envoy of Light who upholds the
world, Faith symbolizes the Great King of the ten heavens, Fulfillment sym-
bolizes the Victorious Envoy who conquers the demons, Patience symbolizes
the Envoy of Light who is in the womb of the earth, and Wisdom symbolizes the
Envoy of Light who urges enlightenment. It is for this reason that the holy ones
of the past and the teaching of the present preach the following: persons who
leave their families (i.e., the Elect) do not struggle against their limited carnal
bodies; rather, they struggle against the poisonous natures of unlimited de-
mons. Such pure masters who observe the prohibitions are similar to the holy
ones. Why? (Because) in subduing the hatred of the demons, they are not un-
like the holy ones.26
As such, a comparison on the five sons of the Living Spirit, five kinds of de-
mons, the New Man, and five kinds of vices recorded in the 38th Kephalaion,
the Traité, and SLN can be seen in the following table:
25 Le Coq 1922: 18–22; Klimkeit 1993: 333–335, 347–348; Wilkens 2001/2002: 99–100; Rong
2007: 722, 482. We could compare these fragments with T. lines 141–142, 209–236, 300–317.
26 T. line 108–114; trans. Chavannes and Pelliot 1912: 548–551.
38th Kephalaion (Coptic) Traité (Chinese) SLN (Parthian)

(S.=Sogdian)
The Keeper of Envoy of Light Who

Splendor (φεγγοκατοχος Upholds the World
veggokatoyos) (持世明使)
The Great King of Great King of the 10 Five Sons of the Living
Five Sons Honor (naq nrro nte Heavens (十天大王) Spirit (pnj w’d jywndg
of the ptai”o) pwhr’n)
Living Adamant of Light Victorious Envoy Who
Spirit (adamas mpouaine) Conquers the Demons
(降魔勝使)
The Great King of Glory Envoy of Light Who
(naq Nrro nte peau) Is in the Womb of the
Earth (地藏明使)
The Porter (ωμοφορος Envoy of Light Who
wmovoros) Urges Enlightenment
(催光明使)
Demons The Sin Aborted Five Kinds of Demons Five Devilish Armies
(nabe Rxouxe) (五類魔，五類諸魔) (pnj k’rw’n
The Watchers (ἐγρηγόρος ’hrmyng’n)
egrhgoros)
The Abortions (xouxe) Demoness of Greed Greed (”z)
(貪魔) Šaklūn (šqlwn)
A Disturbance and an Luyi (路㑥) Pēsūs (pysws)
Affliction Yeluoyang (業羅泱) Demon (dyw, Pl. dyw’n,
Fastenings underneath Demon (魔) S. cyt’ykt)
Were Loosened
New Man New Man (rMnbrre) New Man (新人) New Man (nw’g
mrdwhm)
Five Sins Hatred (maste) Hatred (怨憎，怨) Vengeance (xyn)
Wrath (blke) Irascibility (嗔恚，嗔) Wrath (dybhr)
Lust (epicumia) Lust (婬慾，婬) Lust (’wrjwg)
Narrow-mindednessa Anger (忿怒，忿) Tyranny (ʽstftyft)
(mNtkoui” nxht)
Foolishness (mntseqe) Stupidity (愚痴，痴) Stupidity (wdyšn’sgyft)
a K. 98 6, it is translated as “Kleinmut”; Gardner 1995: 102, it is translated as “faint-heartedness”;

Clarkson et al., 1998, V.1: 102, mNtkoui” is translated as “littleness”; ibid.: 169, xht is translated
as “heart.”
58 Ma
Concluding Remarks
A closer examination of BG, the 38th Kephalaion and the Traité would reveal
that all these documents follow the same line of thought, including the con-
quest of the watchers, giants and abortions by the five sons of the Living Spirit
corresponding to the conquest of the five sins (hatred, lust, etc.) by the New
Man with five cardinal virtues (Love, Faith, etc.). We are only able to explain
and justify why so many similarities are observable between these three works
on the basis of the supposition that both the Traité and the 38th Kephalaion
are adaptations of the Book of the Giants.
Chapter 5
The Rouran Qaghanate and the Western Regions

during the Second Half of the Fifth Century based
on a Chinese Document Newly Found in Turfan
Rong Xinjiang
The latter half of the fifth century was one of the most chaotic periods
in the history of Central Asia, and adjacent powers all tried to lay hands on
this loosely ruled region. After eliminating the Northern Liang in the Hexi
Corridor, the Northern Wei temporarily controlled Karashahr and Kucha in
the Western Regions. Simultaneously, the Rouran (Juan-juan) Qaghanate re-
duced Gaochang, then under the Kan family, into a puppet kingdom and then
marched further westward beyond the Tianshan Mountains to Karashahr and
Khotan.1
To the west of the Pamir Mountains, another great power, the Hephthalites,
defeated the Sassanid Persian Empire and occupied Kidāra in Bactria. In the
beginning of the fifth century the Hephthalites occupied Sogdiana and, by at-
tacking Khotan and Karashahr, extended their influence to the Tarim Basin. Yet
the Hephthalite expansion was not unresisted; Peros (r. 459–484) of Sassanid
Persia and Skandha (r. 454–467) of the Gupta kingdom in India both battled
the Hephthalites for dominance in Central Asia but were defeated.2 Faced
with the Hephthalite threat, the minor kingdoms of Central Asia turned to the
Rouran Qaghanate and the Northern Wei for help. Records of Central Asian en-
voys to the Northern Wei can be found in the annals of Weishu. In addition, the
discovery of Chinese documents in Turfan, which is the subject of the present
paper, allows us to ascertain that the envoys of many Central Asian kingdoms
* This article is based on two published Chinese papers: “Kanshi Gaochang wangguo yu
Rouran, Xiyu de guanxi 闞氏高昌王國與柔然、西域的關係,” Lishi yanjiu, no. 2 (2007a):
4–14; and “Tulufan xinchu songshi wenshu yu Kanshi Gaochang wangguo de junxian cheng-
zhen 吐魯番新出送使文書與闞氏高昌王國的郡縣城鎮,” Dunhuang Tulufan yanjiu 10
(2007b): 21–41. I would like to thank Wen Xin for translating this paper and Yoko Nishimura
for drawing the map.
1 For a brief description of the Rouran entry into the Western Regions, see Sinor 1990: 291–294.
2 On the Hephthalites’ expansion in Central Asia, see Litvinsky 1996: 135–162; Callieri 1999:
277–291; Grenet 2002: 203–224.

60 Rong
went via Gaochang and “the Northern Mountain” (Tianshan) to the Rouran
in order to plead for help. This highlights the role of the Rouran Qaghanate in
Central Asian politics in the latter half of the fifth century.
1 The Date and Nature of the New Turfan Document
1.1 Transcription of the Document

In 1997, a Chinese document was discovered in Tomb No. 1 of the Yanghai cem-
etery in Turfan. This document (97TSYM1:13–5 + 97TSYM1:13–4), consisting of
two joined sheets, has writing on both sheets. The recto side is an omen text,
whereas the verso side constitutes the official document that is the subject of
this paper. This document, twenty lines long, is a register of labor and horses
provided for foreign envoys; it is dated to the 9th and 10th years of an unknown
reign period (see below).3
What follows is a punctuated line-by-line transcription of the document
coupled with an English translation.
1 九年十月八日送處羅幹无根，高寧九十人、摩訶演十人；[每人]出馬
2 一疋。
On the 8th day, 10th month of the 9th year, to escort Chuluogan Wugen,
90 people from Gaoning, 10 people from Moheyan; [each person] sent
one horse.
3 九年十月廿日送鄭阿卯，高寧八十五人、白艻卅六人、万度廿六人、
4 其養十五人；[每人]出馬一疋。
On the 20th day, 10th month of the 9th year, to escort Zheng Amao,
85 people from Gaoning, 36 people from Baiji, 26 people from Wandu,
15 people from Qiyang; [each person] sent one horse.
5 九年十二月二日送烏萇使向鄢耆，百一十八人；[每人]出馬一疋。高寧
6 八十五人、万度廿六人、乾養七人。
3 For details of excavations, see Tulufan diqu wenwuju 2007: 1–9. For a study of the omen book,
see Yu and Chen 2007: 57–84.
The Rouran Qaghanate and the Western Regions 61
On the 2nd day, 12th month of the 9th year, to escort envoys of Wuchang
[Udyāna] to Yanqi [Karashahr], 118 people [and each person] sent one
horse, 85 people from Gaoning, 26 people from Wandu, 7 people from
Qianyang [Qiyang].
7 十年閏月五日送鄢耆王北山，高寧八十四人、橫截卌六人、白
8 艻卅六人、万度廿六人、其養十五人、威神二人、柳婆
9 卌七人，合二百五十六人; [每人]出馬一疋。
On the 5th day, intercalary month of the 10th year, to escort the king of
Yanqi [Karashahr] to the Northern Mountain, 84 people from Gaoning,
46 people from Hengjie, 36 people from Baiji, 26 people from Wandu,
15 people from Qiyang, 2 people from Weishen, 47 people from Liupo, in
total 256 people; [each person] sent one horse.
10 十年三月十四日，送婆羅門使向鄢耆，高寧八十四人、
11
橫截卌六人、白艻卅六人、田地十六人，合百八十二人；[每人出馬]一
疋。
On the 14th day, 3rd month of the 10th year, to escort envoys of Poluomen
[Brāhman, India], 84 people from Gaoning, 46 people from Hengjie,
36 people from Baiji, 16 people from Tiandi, in total 182 people; [each
person sent] one horse.
12 十年三月八日送吳客并子合使北山，高寧八十三人、白艻
13 廿五人，合百八人；[每人]出馬一疋。
On the 8th day, 3rd month of the 10th year, to escort the guests of Wu
[envoys from the south] and envoys of Zihe [Karghalik], 83 people from
Gaoning, 25 people from Baiji, in total 108 people; [each person] sent one
horse.
14 九年七月廿三日送若久向鄢耆，高寧六十八人、橫截卌人、
15 白艻卅二人、威神□□、万度廿三人、乾養十四人、柳
16 婆卅人、阿虎十二人、磨訶演十六人、喙進十八人、
17 高昌七人。
On the 23rd day, 7th month of the 9th year, to escort Ruojiu to Yanqi
[Karashahr], 68 people from Gaoning, 40 people from [Heng]jie, 32 people
62 Rong
from Baiji, […] people from Weishen, 23 people from Wandu, 14 people
from Qianyang, 30 people from Liupo, 12 people from Ahu, 16 people from
Moheyan, 18 people from Zhuojin [Dujin], 7 people from Gaochang.
18 九年六月十二日送婆羅幹北山，高寧六十八人、威神五人、
19 万度廿三人、其養十二人、柳婆卅人、阿虎十五人、
20 磨訶演十三人、喙進十人、橫截卌人；[每人]出馬一疋。
On the 12th day, 6th month of the 9th year, to escort Poluogan to the
Northern Mountain, 68 people from Gaoning, 5 people from Weishen,
23 people from Wandu, 12 people from Qiyang, 30 people from Liupo,
15 people from Ahu, 13 people from Moheyan, 10 people from Zhuojin,
40 people from Hengjie; [each person] sent one horse.
1.2 The Date of the Document

This document is a record of people and horses sent by the Gaochang gov-
ernment to escort envoys in the ninth and tenth years of an unknown reign
period. The only dated document from Tomb No. 1 of the Yanghai cemetery
is a contract for buying a Sogdian slave signed by a certain Zhang Zu 張祖
in the twelfth year of the Yongkang 永康 era (97TSYM1:5), the verso side of
which is an unnamed tomb inventory that is of a later date than the contract.4
The Yongkang reign period refers to the year name used by Shouluobuzhen
受羅部真, khan of the Rouran, then the suzerain of the Gaochang kingdom.
According to the chapter on the Ruru (i.e., Rouran) in Weishu, the first year
of the Yongkang era corresponds to the fifth year of the Heping era of the
Northern Wei (i.e., 464 CE).5 However, researchers usually consider the evi-
dence in a colophon of Miaofa lianhua jing discovered in Turfan, which reads
“the fifth year of Yongkang is the year of Gengxu [i.e., 470 CE],” as more reliable
and have accordingly fixed the start of the Yongkang reign to the year 466 CE.6
The twelfth year on the slave contract refers, accordingly, to 477 CE. Since
our document was found in the same tomb as the slave contract and should
therefore be more or less contemporary to it, there is reason to believe that
the ninth and tenth years belong to the same Yongkang era and should thus
refer to 474 and 475 CE. Our document also contains reference to the fifth day,
intercalary month of the tenth year, which corresponds to the third interca-
lary month in the contemporary calendar of the Southern Song. Among other
4 Ibid., 125–26. See also Rong 2007c: 29–31.

5 Weishu 魏書, chap. 103, 1974: 2295.
6 Wang Shunan, 1918, fol. 23; Ikeda 1990: 88.
published Turfan documents, those from Tomb No. 90 in the Karakhoja cem-
etery have the closest connections with our document. The dated document
from that tomb was written in the seventeenth year of the Yongkang era, which
also supports my date for the present document.7
1.3 The Nature of the Document

From the transcriptions above, it is apparent that most entries in this docu-
ment follow the basic formula of (1) the date; (2) the name of the envoy to be
escorted; (3) the distribution of personnel in a variety of locations; (4) the total
number of envoys; and (5) the phrase “[each person] sent one horse.” The fifth
point implies that each person involved was to offer a horse in tribute. Each
entry begins with a date written on the very edge of the paper, and if the entry
could not be finished in one line, the lines below were indented with a two-
character space. In this way, the year of each entry stands out. Also, a mark was
made at the beginning of every entry to indicate that the transaction in ques-
tion had already been completed.
Despite its strict format and neat calligraphy, we have reason to believe that
this document was not of official origin. First, entries in this document are not
chronologically sequenced. The first three are records of the tenth and twelfth
months of the ninth year. These are followed by records of intercalary months
and the third month of the tenth year. The last two records date to the seventh,
then the sixth month of the ninth year. Such disarray contradicts the usual
practice of formal official documents. Second, as summarized above, each
entry consists of the name of the envoy, the geographical distribution of per-
sonnel in service, the total number of people, and finally mentions one horse.
But individual entries do not always follow a strictly prescribed sequence. For
instance, entry 3 (lines 5–6) gives the total number of people first, then makes
mention of one horse, and finally gives the numbers of people and their place
of origin. The total number of persons is missing in entries 1, 2, 7, and 8. It is
unlikely that such important information would be omitted from an official
document. Finally, no official seals are found on this document. This docu-
ment should therefore be regarded as a draft for making the final and official
document.
The phrase “one horse was sent” at the end of each entry poses some confu-
sion. Common sense tells us that it is hardly possible that only one horse was
sent out in every envoy-escorting operation with varying numbers of people.
A much more probable interpretation would be that this phrase actually
means every man involved in the mission was to “send one horse.” Therefore
7 For a detailed demonstration of this point, see Chen Hao 2007: 11–20.
64 Rong
the total number of horses sent should equal the number of people. The case
of Xuanzang, the Chinese Buddhist pilgrim to India, may prove this point.
Xuanzang visited Gaochang late in the rule of the Qü family in Gaochang in
order to obtain Buddhist sutras. According to Xuanzang’s biography, “after the
sermon he [the king of Gaochang] begged the Master of the Law [Xuanzang] to
arrange for four Śrâmaneras to wait upon him and to make thirty priests’ vest-
ments…. He also gave him thirty horses and twenty-five servants. Moreover,
he commissioned Huanxin [歡信], one of the imperial censors belonging to
his court, to escort him to the Yehu khan.”8 The number of people sent by the
king of Gaochang to accompany Xuanzang, including the leader Huanxin,9
four Śrâmaneras, and twenty-five servants, amounts to thirty. This is also the
exact number of horses sent along with them. The accompanying personnel
are of differing social status, so this may merely be a coincidence. Nevertheless,
the evidence supports our assumption that the number of people sent by the
Gaochang kingdom to accompany envoys is usually equal to the number
of horses. The case of Xuanzang is later in time than our document, which
implies that in spite of the change of ruling families from Kan to Qü, certain
official practices persisted in the Gaochang kingdom.
In summary, the document under scrutiny deals, in the main, with the
people and horses sent by the local government to escort foreign envoys. So
one may give it the tentative title “Document of People and Horses Sent to
Escort Envoys in the Ninth and Tenth Years of the Yongkang Era (474, 475 CE)
of Gaochang under the Kan Family” or, more briefly, “Envoy Document.”
2 Envoys Traveling between the Western Regions and the Rouran by

Way of Gaochang and Interstate Relations in Central Asia in the
Second Half of the Fifth Century
In this section, I would like to focus on the appearance of various envoys in

this document and discuss the complicated relations between Gaochang, the
Rouran, the Western Regions, and South China in the latter half of the fifth
century as revealed by the activities of these envoys.
The following table is a rearrangement of the contents (envoys, their desti-
nations, numbers of accompanying people, and horses) in all entries listed in
chronological order. This table may help to clarify the nature of this document.
8 Huili and Yancong, chap. 1, 1983: 21; Beal 1911: 30.

9 Recently, M. Arakawa read 殿中侍御史歡信 here as 殿中侍御 (title) plus 史歡信
(personal name); see Arakawa 2008: 72–74.
Time Envoy sent Direction Number Number

of people of horses
12th day, 6th month of the Poluogan Northern 216 216

9th year/474 CE Mountain
23rd day, 7th month of the Ruojiu Yanqi 260+? 260+?
9th year/474 CE
8th day, 10th month of the Chuluogan Wugen [Northern 100 100
9th year/474 CE Mountain]
20th day, 10th month of the Zheng Amao [Northern 162 162
9th year/474 CE Mountain]
2nd day, 12th month of the Envoy of Wuchang Yanqi 118 118
9th year/474 CE
8th day, 3rd month of the Wuke (guest from Wu) Northern 108 108
10th year/475 CE and envoy of Zihe Mountain
14th day, 3rd month of the Envoy of Poluomen Yanqi 182 182
10th year/475 CE
5th day, [3rd] intercalary King of Yanqi Northern 256 256
month of the 10th year/ Mountain
475 CE
The envoys mentioned in this document can be roughly classified into two
groups. The names in the first group, such as Poluogan, Ruojiu, Chuluogan
Wugen, and Zheng Amao, appear without the title shi (envoy) and the country
from which they came. This may imply that they were familiar to the Gaochang
officials personally so that no such titles were necessary. Since Gaochang was
a vassal of the Rouran at the time, and the names in this group exhibit traces
of Altaic languages,10 it is reasonable to presume that the envoys in this group
were from the Rouran. Other than Ruojiu, who was headed for Yanqi, all three
10 Luo Xin has discussed Chuluogan Wugen and Poluogan and concluded that both were
titles found in the Rouran Qaghanate. Chuluogan is derived from the Turkish qarïqan/
kurıgan, which has the variant Chinese transcription of guligan 骨利幹 and kuligan
苦力幹. Wugan may be connected to Mugen Mountain木根山, and Poluogan is another
variant form of Poliuhan 破六韓, Poluogan 破落幹, Poliuhan 破六汗, and Buliuhan
步六汗, which were all names used in the Northern Dynasties for the descendants of the
Xiongnu. See Luo 2008: 38–41.
66 Rong
envoys presumably went in the same direction. Poluogan was going to the
Northern Mountain, which leads to the homeland of the Rouran. The desti-
nations of Chuluogan, Wugeng, and Zheng Amao are not recorded, but since
they were from the Rouran, it is only logical that they returned there. This may
account for the absence of a stated destination; the scribe was familiar enough
with the routine and felt no need to specify the destination. Therefore, they
may also have been headed for the Northern Mountain.
The names in the other group, such as Wuchang shi, Wu ke, Zihe shi,
Poluomen shi, and Yanqi wang all include titles such as shi (envoy), wang
(king) and ke (guest), which were used to identify the respective home country
and social status of each person.
2.1 Envoys of the Rouran in Gaochang

Our document records the following information on Rouran envoys in
Gaochang: “Sent Poluogan to the Northern Mountain on the 12th day, 6th
month of the 9th year”; “sent Ruojiu to Yanqi on the 23rd day, 7th month of the
9th year”; “sent Chuluogan Wugen on the 8th day, 10th month of the 9th year”;
and “sent Zheng Amao on the 20th day, 10th month of the 9th year.”
As a newly dominant qaghanate, the Rouran succeeded the Xiongnu and
Xianbi. It was called Ruru 蠕蠕 in the Northern Wei and Ruirui 芮芮 in the
Southern Dynasties. By the beginning of the fifth century, when their leader
Shelun proclaimed himself khan and increased the qaghanate’s influence, the
Rouran had been in rivalry with the Northern Wei and expanded their terri-
tory to the Western Regions. In 421, Tang He and his brother Tang Qi led the
remnants of the Western Liang (which was decimated by the Northern Liang)
to Yiwu (Hami) and “succumbed to the Ruru.”11 In the first year of the Taiyan
era (435 CE), the Northern Wei “sent the senior recorder Wang Ensheng to
Gaochang, where he was taken hostage by the Ruru.”12 This incident indicates
that the Rouran may have already controlled Gaochang at that time, and it
was perhaps at this time that the Rouran helped Kan Shuang to become the
governor of Gaochang.
11
Weishu, chap. 43, “Biography of Tang He 唐和,” 962.
12
Weishu, chap. 101, “Biography of Gaochang,” 2243; Beishi 北史, chap. 97, 1974: 3212. For the
date of this event, the text has “in the Taiyan era,” but with reference to the chapters on
Jushi in Weishu and Beishi, it is clear that this happened in the first year of the Taiyan era.
For a detailed study on this matter, see Yu Taishan 2003: 152.
In 439, after the Northern Wei had eliminated the Northern Liang, Juqu
Wuhui and Juqu Anzhou, two brothers from the royal house of the Northern
Liang, fled from Dunhuang to Shanshan and then went northward and
conquered Gaochang in 442. Kan Shuang, who had been driven away by them,
fled to the Rouran Qaghanate in Mongolia. The Juqu brothers built the king-
dom of Daliang in Gaochang. The new authority, however, still counted on
Rouran support. In 450, with the help of Rouran soldiers, Juqu Anzhou’s army
conquered Jiaohe (Yar-khoto), the stronghold of the Jushi kingdom, which was
a political ally of the Northern Wei; this conquest unified the Turfan Basin.
Afterward, for reasons lost to history, Juqu Anzhou turned against the Rouran,
which triggered the latter to attack Gaochang and led to the destruction of the
Daliang kingdom in 460.13
According to the Beishi chapter on the Western Regions, Gaochang “was
annexed by the Ruru in the first year of the Heping era [460 CE] and the Ruru
appointed Kan Bozhou as the king of Gaochang.”14 The Beishi’s emphasis on
the fact that Gaochang was annexed by the Rouran indicates that, though the
kingdom under Kan was the first to actually use the name Gaochang, it was
nonetheless a puppet state controlled by the Rouran.15 Kan Bozhou, though
himself the king of Gaochang, adopted the year name of the Rouran, a clear
sign of political affiliation. Kan Bozhou died around 477 and was succeeded by
his son Kan Yicheng. In the following year, however, Kan Yicheng was killed
by his brother Kan Shougui, who then became the king of Gaochang. In 487,
the Fufuluo tribe of Gaoju rebelled against its former suzerain the Rouran
and migrated from Mongolia westward to the north of Gaochang. Over the
course of the following years, the Fufuluo tribe usurped the Rouran as suzerain
of Gaochang, and Afuzhiluo, the king of Gaoju, killed Kan Shougui and his
brother and chose Zhang Mengming, who was from Dunhuang, as the king
13 For the history of Turfan between 439 and 460, see Rong 2004: 268–275, pls. 1–3, figs. 1–2.
14 Beishi, chap. 97, 3213.
15 For people in the Northern Wei, Gaochang was probably regarded as a part of the Rouran
Qaghanate. In the epitaph of Lü Bosheng 閭伯升, who was buried in the 10th month of
the 2nd year of the Xinghe era of the Eastern Wei, it is recorded that “his grandfather was
the second son of the ruler of Ruru, who after surrendering, succeeded to the rank of king
of Gaochang, and his office in government reached as high as the Duke of the Minister
of Education.” See Zhao 1956: pl. 591; Zhongguo kexueyuan lishi yanjiusuo 1962: 54. The
fact that the court of the Northern Wei gave the title of king of Gaochang to the son of a
Rouran ruler demonstrates this point.
68 Rong
of Gaochang.16 From that point forward, Gaochang swayed between the two
great powers of the Rouran and Gaoju.17
From this historical sketch it is clear that in the 9th and 10th years of the
Yongkang era, when the events chronicled in our document took place,
Gaochang under the Kan family was a puppet kingdom of the Rouran. So it
is understandable that there were a considerable number of Rouran envoys
traveling between the abode of the Rouran khan in Mongolia and the capi-
tal city of Gaochang. The duties of these envoys may have included collecting
taxes and making arrangements for other envoys from points in China further
to the west or south to come to the Rouran. I have mentioned that Poluogan,
Ruojiu, Chuluogan Wugen, and Zheng Amao were all probably envoys of the
Rouran, and the fact that they were all accompanied by more than a hundred
people shows that they were perhaps envoys of great importance. Among
them, Ruojiu, who was escorted by as many as 260 people, must have been of
especially lofty social status. Unfortunately, we cannot find any trace of these
four people elsewhere in the historical records.18
An account book kept by Zhang Wan, the recorder of Gaochang, was discov-
ered in Tomb No. 90 of the Karakhoja cemetery. Since another document dated
to the 17th year of the Yongkang era was discovered in the same tomb, one
may assume that this account book also belongs to roughly the same period.
The account book contains records of various goods provided to envoys under
the orders of Zhang Wan and others and thus includes information on some
Rouran envoys in Gaochang. Relevant sentences are excerpted as follows:
3 ]出行緤卌疋，主簿張綰傳令，與道人曇訓。
… gave out 40 pi of xingdie by order of Zhang Wan, the recorder, for
the monk Tanxun.
4 ]出行緤五疋，付左首興，與若湣提懃。
… gave out 5 pi of xingdie to Zuo Shouxing for Ruomin Tiqin.
16 Zhang and Rong 1998: 16–17. Consensus has not been reached among scholars on the time
of the end of the Kan family’s rule in Gaochang and the westward migration of Afuzhiluo
of Gaoju. Our materials conflict with each other on these matters. Here, the most widely
accepted date for the migration of Gaoju is adopted, and for the end of Gaochang under
the Kan family, the conclusion of Wang Su 王素 is accepted. See Wang Su 1998: 270–275.
17 For relations between the Rouran and Gaochang, see Yu Taishan 1986: 194–196; Qian
Boquan 1990: 102–108; Wang Su 2000: 364–388. For this obscure period of history, different
scholars rarely agree on every issue, so instead of confining ourselves to the studies of any
single scholar, the narration here selectively follows various arguments.
18 No Rouran names or titles can be directly identified with Ruojiu, but we know that the
ruler of Rouran had the surname Yüjiulü 郁久閭, and the leader of one Rouran tribe was
named Aruo 阿若, both of which contain elements found in the name Ruojiu.
5 ]出赤違（韋）一枚，付愛宗，與烏胡慎。
… gave out a piece of red wei to Aizong for Wuhushen.
7 ]疋，付得錢，與吳兒折胡真。
… pi to Deqian for Zhehuzhen from Wu [Southern dynasty].
8 ]赤違（韋）一枚，付得錢，與作都施摩何勃
… a piece of red wei to Deqian for Zuodushi Mohebo.
9 ]緤一疋，赤違（韋）一枚，與禿地提懃無根。
… one pi of [xing]die and one piece of red wei to Tudi Tiqin Wugen
14 ]行緤三疋，赤違（韋）三枚，付隗已隆，與阿祝至火下。
… gave out three bolts of die and three pieces of red wei to Wei
Yilong for Azhuzhihuoxia.
15 ]張綰傳令，出疏勒錦一張，與處論無根。
… by order of Zhang Wan, one piece of Shule jin brocade was given
out for Chulun Wugen.
16 ]摩何□□
… Mohe …
17 ]緤一疋，毯五張，赤違（韋）□枚，各付已隆，供鍮頭[發]。19
… one pi of [xing]die, five carpets, (?) pieces of red wei, each given
to [Wei] Yilong for Toutou[fa].
Two personal names, Zuo Shouxing and Deqian, also appear in another ac-
count book of taxes and labor in the Yongkang era discovered in the same
tomb as our envoy document.20 This shows that the account book cited above
may be approximately contemporary with the envoy document. And it is pos-
sible that some of the persons for whom various goods were given out in this
account book are envoys from the Rouran and some other countries.21 Among
them, the monk Tanxun, who enjoyed the greatest number of provisions, might
have been a royal monk or similar figure in the Rouran Qaghanate.22 And tiqin
is clearly the Chinese equivalent of Turkish tegin, meaning “prince.” The name
Wugen is also seen in the envoy document, which shows the connection be-
tween people in the two documents and suggests that Wugen might also have
been an official title in the language of the Rouran. The similarity between the
names Chulun Wugen in this document and Chuluogan Wugen in the envoy
19 Tang et al. 1992, vol. 1: 122–123.

20 Rong Xinjiang et al., 2008, for Zuo “Shouxing,” see 130 and 139; for “Deqian,” 130, 140.
21 Qian Boquan 1990: 97–100, regards all of them as envoys of Rouran, but Jiang Boqin be-
lieved that Teqin was a prince of Gaojü; see Jiang Boqin 1990: 33 and 1994: 85; The present
author is inclined to agree with the former argument; see Rong 2000a: 74.
22 Qian Boquan, 1990: 100–101.
70 Rong
document is certainly noteworthy. But rather than enter into speculation, I will
refrain from positing any further connections between them at this time.23
From the two documents discussed above, it is evident that during the
Kans’ rule of Gaochang, many Rouran envoys traveled between Rouran and
Gaochang and that some of them even lived in Gaochang and received various
provisions from the kingdom. When Rouran envoys needed to travel back to
the Rouran or somewhere else, the kingdom of Gaochang was compelled
to provide people and horses to accompany them.
2.2 Envoy from the Kingdom of Wuchang (Udyāna) in Northern India

The envoy document has “on the 2nd day, 12th month of the 9th year, to escort
the envoy of Wuchang [Udyāna] to Yanqi [Karashahr] …”
The kingdom of Udyāna was located in the Swat area in the upper Indus
River basin in northern India. The Chinese name of the kingdom is first attest-
ed in the record of Faxian. He, along with his company, traveled westward from
Jiecha (present-day Tash-Kurghan), crossed the Congling (Pamir) mountains,
and then reached Tuoli (Darel). Further to the southwest, after fifteen days,
they crossed the Xintou River (Sindhu, Indus) and arrived at the kingdom of
Wuchang 烏萇 (variation 烏長, Sanskrit form, Udyāna), where they spent their
summer retreat. This happened around the year 402.24
According to chapter 5 of Luoyang qielanji, Song Yun and Huisheng from the
Northern Wei traveled westward through Zhujubo, Han(/Ke)pantuo, Congling,
Bohe (Wakhan), Shemi (Tchitral, Chitral), and Bolule (Bolor), and arrived at
the kingdom of Wuchang 烏場 in the 12th month of the 2nd year of the Shengui
era (519 CE).25 The latter half of the chapter on the Western Regions in Weishu
was composed on the basis of the record of Song Yun, and the name of the
kingdom was recorded as Wuchang 烏萇.26 So the original version of Luoyang
qielanji should also have recorded Wuchang 烏萇. Xuanzang, who visited this
kingdom in early Tang times, calls it Wuzhangna 烏仗那 in his Datang Xiyuji.27
In chapter 2 of Da Ci’ensi sanzang fashi zhuan by Huili and Yancong, the place-
name Wuzhangna 烏仗那 is recorded; in another version of the same work,
Wuzhangna 烏長那 is used.28 Datang Xiyu qiufa gaoseng zhuan and Nanhai
23 Luo Xin 2007: 35–41.

24 Zhang Xun 1985: 20–35, esp. 33; Legge 1886: 21–29.
25 Fan 1978: 277–317, esp. 298–301.
26 Weishu, chap. 102, 2280.
27 Ji Xianlin 季羨林 et al. 1985: 270.
28 Huili and Yancong, 40.
jigui neifa zhuan, both written by Yijing, list Wuzhangna 烏長那.29 Wang
wutianzhuguo zhuan by Huichao has Wuzhang 烏長, and a note in that text
explains that the local people called it Yudiyinna 鬱地引那.30 It is evident that
all these variant forms were derived from the Sanskrit Udyāna. Our envoy’s
document is dated from 474 to 475 and is therefore roughly contemporary to
Faxian and Song Yun. All three sources use the same form of Wuchang 烏萇,
perhaps the most accepted one at their time.
Northern India was undergoing extreme political turmoil in the latter half
of the fifth century. The powerful Hephthalites gradually penetrated from
the north and contended with Persia, Kidāra, and the Gupta kingdom of
India for dominance in this area. But according to the envoy document, en-
voys from Udyāna passed through Gaochang on their way to Karashahr in
474. Since the connection between the Gaochang kingdom under the Kan
family and the Northern Wei was nonexistent at that point, the envoys
from Udyāna would most probably have been going back from the Rouran.
The Udyāna envoys in the Rouran Qaghanate may have been negotiating on
behalf of the Hephthalites; given the political pressures on Udyāna then, the
envoys would more probably have been seeking assistance from the Rouran.
According to chapter 8 of Weishu, Udyāna dispatched envoys to the court of
the Northern Wei in the years of 502, 510, 511, 518, and 521.31 Evidently, Udyāna
had established connections with the Northern Wei soon after the beginning
of the sixth century.
2.3 Wuke from Southern China

The envoy document states that “on the 8th day, 3rd month of the 10th year, to
escort guests of Wu and envoys of Zihe [Karghalik] …”
The “guests of Wu” are in fact envoys from South China. This turn of phrase
also appears in another Turfan manuscript, chapter one of Chishi jing 持世經,
which was discovered in Tuyuk in Shanshan County of Turfan and is now pre-
served in the Museum of Calligraphy, Tokyo. The colophon of this manuscript
reads as follows:
In the year of Jichou, donated by the king of Liang, the great Juqu Anzhou,
copied by Zhang Xiuzu [張烋祖], guest of Wu from Danyang Prefecture
[丹楊郡]. Twenty-six pieces of paper were used.32
29 Wang Bangwei 1988: 99, 134; Wang Bangwei 1995: 28.

30 Kuwayama 1992: 22 (text), 126–27 (notes).
31 Weishu, chap. 8, 195, 209, 210.
32 Ikeda 1990: 86, pl. 11.
72 Rong
The year of Jichou would be 449 CE, when Gaochang was still under the rule
of Juqu Anzhou, the king of Liang. A guest of Wu from Danyang Prefecture
(present-day Nanjing in Jiangsu Province) copied this sutra, which was donat-
ed by Juqu Anzhou himself. Tang Zhangru’s meticulous study has highlighted
the importance of this small piece of evidence to the nature of the relations
between Gaochang and South China. However, he interpreted the term wuke
as simply a “traveling guest” from South China and treated it as evidence of the
presence of civilians (in addition to envoys and monks) from South China in
Gaochang.33
Now that we have the second piece of material on wuke in the early Gaochang
kingdom, we may be able to give this term a better interpretation. According to
the envoy document, this wuke was accompanied by a large number of people
and horses, all of which were sent by the Gaochang government. Along with
the envoys of the Zihe kingdom, the wuke went forth to the Northern Mountain
on the 8th day, 3rd month of the 10th year of the Yongkang era (475). Clearly,
the wuke here is the official envoy sent by the Liu-Song court in South China
to the Rouran. Therefore, in documents from the early period of the Gaochang
kingdom, the term wuke should be understood to have the specific meaning of
“envoy from South China”—rather than denoting generally any civilian who
traveled from South China to Gaochang. Likewise, the other appearance of the
term wuke in the colophon cited above should not be taken to mean “a civil-
ian.” Considering the fact that he copied a sutra for the king of Gaochang, this
Zhang Xiuzu must have held a certain social standing. So it is reasonable that
one should regard him also as an envoy dispatched by the Emperor Wendi of
the Liu-Song to Gaochang.
The 10th year of the Yongkang era corresponds to the 3rd year of the Yuanhui
era (475) in the reign of Houfeidi (the second dethroned emperor) of the Liu-
Song. The envoys that were traveling to the Rouran on the 8th day of the 3rd
month must be the official envoys of the Liu-Song. To travel from Jiankang,
the capital of the Liu-Song, to Gaochang, the envoys had to pass through Yi
Prefecture (Chengdu) and Tuyuhun in Qinghai. To travel such a great distance
required a significant amount of time, so the envoys were not necessarily sent
by Houfeidi but may have been dispatched in the time of the Emperor Mingdi.
The envoys from the Liu-Song were sent to the Rouran along with envoys from
Zihe. They may have met in Gaochang. However, since Zihe was a kingdom in
the southwestern area of the Tarim Basin and its envoys would have had to first
go eastward to the Tuyuhun territory in Shanshan (south of Lop Nur) in order
to reach Gaochang, it is also possible that the envoys from two places may have
33 Tang Zhangru 1983: 189–190.

encountered each other in the Shanshan area and then traveled together to
Gaochang and then Rouran.
Only three years later, in the 2nd year of the Shengming era (478), the Liu-
Song court sent the general of the Imperial Guard Wang Honggui 王洪軌 (or
-fan 範) to the Rouran to plot a combined military action against the Northern
Wei. In the 8th month of the next year, a Rouran army numbering 300,000
troops marched southward to attack the Northern Wei.34 But South China suf-
fered another change of ruling house at that time, and the new emperor, Xiao
Daocheng (later the Emperor Gaodi), was unable to offer cooperation. Wang
Honggui returned in 483 and was said to have “traveled more than 30,000 li.”35
On his way to the Rouran, Wang Honggui passed through Tuyuhun territory
(the Henan kingdom), where he received support from the Tuyuhun khan.36
Based on the route he took, we can be certain that he must have passed through
Gaochang as well. Tang Zhangru has made the insightful observation that the
two Buddhist sutras found in Turfan that were donated by Xiao Daocheng,
the dynasty-founding duke of Jingling Prefecture 竟陵郡, and dated to the 8th
and 9th months of the 1st year of the Shengming era (477) must have been
brought there by Wang Honggui.37 Information gleaned from piecemeal his-
torical records and archaeological finds all testify to the great significance of
the mission of Wang Honggui. Indeed, the mission of the wuke on the envoy
document three years earlier than that of Wang Honggui could have been a
normal one, but more probably it could also have been the advance party of
Wang’s mission. In any case, the new envoy document reveals a previously un-
known mission of envoys from the Liu-Song to Gaochang and then the Rouran,
34 On this event, Zizhi tongjian records that “more than 100,000 Rouran cavalry troops in-
vaded Wei but returned upon reaching the borderland.” See Sima Guang, 1956: 4234. In
Weishu, chap. 7 (“Annals of Emperor Gaozu), chap. 103 (“Biography of the Ruanruan”), and
Beishi, this event is not mentioned. Liangshu 梁書, chap. 54 (“Biography of the Ruirui”),
has, “During the Shengming era of the Song, Wang Honggui was sent as an envoy [to the
Rouran] in order to wage war together against the Wei. But it was only in the 1st year of
the Jianyuan era of Qi that Wang Honggui arrived at the Rouran. The king led 300,000
cavalry out of the Yanran Mountains and marched to the southeast for more than 300,000
li. The people of Wei shut down the passes and were afraid to fight back. It became weaker
afterward.” See Yao Silian, 1973: 817. It is difficult to know which record is more accurate.
35 Nanqi shu 南齊書, chap. 59, “Biography of the Ruirui”, 1972: 1023–25; Zizhi tongjian,
chap.135, the 1st year of the Jianyuan era of Qi, 4233–34. See also Tang Zhangru 1983: 179–
80. For gui 軌 Zizhi tongjian has fan 範, about which Hu Sanxing mentioned mentions in
his commentary that Nanqi shu has Wang Honggui. We follow the record in Nanqi shu.
36 Nanqi shu, chap. 59, “Biography of Henan,” 1026.
37 Tang Zhangru 1983: 190–92.
74 Rong
and sheds light on the other wuke, Zhang Xiuzu, who copied sutras for Juqu
Anzhou, king of the Great Liang.
2.4 Envoys from Zihe, a Kingdom in the Mountains South of the Tarim
Basin
Zihe was located along the southern route of the Silk Road around the Tarim
Basin, approximately in the present-day location of Karghalik of Yecheng
County between Khotan and Tashkurgan. Its name is first attested in the chap-
ter on the Western Regions in Hanshu: “The state of Xiye 西夜: The king is
titled King of Zihe 子合; the seat of his government is in the valley of Hujian
呼犍谷, and it is a distance of 10,250 li from Chang’an. To the northeast one
reaches the seat of the protector general [Wulei City, near present-day
Xiaoyeyungou, northeastern Luntai County] after a distance of 5,046 li.”38 For
the same place, Faxian zhuan has the Zihe guo 子合國39 and Luoyan qielanji
has Zhujubo 朱駒波.40
The chapter on the Western Regions in Weishu, which is closest in time to
our envoy document, records the following: “The kingdom of Xijuban 悉居半,
the old kingdom of Xiye, is also called Zihe. Its king is called Zi[hewang], and
its capital is in [the valley of] Hujian. It is situated to the west of Khotan
and is 12,970 li away from Dai [Pingcheng]. In the early years of the Taiyan
era envoys began to come [to Wei] and afterward tributes were paid without
interruption.”41 According to Weishu, Zihe envoys came to the Northern Wei
in the years of 439, 462, 502, 511, and 518.42 The entry for the Hua kingdom
(Hephthalite) in Liangshu, “Chapter on Foreign Countries,” contains the fol-
lowing record: “While the Yuan Wei [or the Tuoba Wei] had their capital at
Sanggan 桑乾 [i.e., 398–494, when the capital was situated at Pingcheng, to the
north of present-day Datong], the Hua were still a small vassal under the Ruirui,
but, waxing more and more powerful in the course of time, they succeeded
in conquering neighboring tribes such as the Bosi [波斯] [Sasanid Persia],
Panpan [盤盤] [Warwâlîz?], Jibin [罽賓] [Kashmir], Yanqi [焉耆] [Karashar],
Qiuci [龜茲] [Kucha], Shule [疏勒] [Kashgar], Gumo [姑墨] [Aksu], Yutian
[于闐] [Khotan], and Jupan [句盤] [Karghalik], and expanded their territory by
more than a thousand li.”43 Accordingly, the Hephthalites were under the rule
38 Hanshu 漢書, 1962: 3882–83. For an English translation, see Hulsewé 1979: 100–101.
39 Zhang Xun 1985: 18.
40 Fan 1978: 277.
41 Weishu, chap. 102, 2264; same in Beishi, chap. 97, 3211.
42 Weishu, 90, 120, 195, 211, 227.
43 Liangshu 梁書, chap. 54, 812. For an English translation see Enoki 1998: 129–130.
of the Rouran from 402 to 437. Afterward, they successively conquered Persia,
Tokharistan, and countries around the Tarim Basin. Their control reached as
far east as Karashahr in the first five or six years of the sixth century.44 Jupan
here is a variant form of Xijuban and is also called Zhouguke 周古柯 in the
same chapter. The entry for Zhouguke says that “the kingdom of Zhouguke is a
small kingdom on the border of the Hua kingdom. Its envoy accompanied the
envoy of Hua to pay tribute in the first year of the Putong era [520].”45
Liang zhigongtu, now preserved in the Nanjing Museum, contains a por-
trait of the envoy of Zhouguke and his letter, which serves as the basis for the
records in Liangshu.46 The historical background mentioned above may help
us understand why the envoys of Zihe accompanied those of South China to
Rouran in 475. Between the years 462 and 502, no record of Zihe envoys to
the Northern Wei is found. This absence can be attributed to the flourishing
of the Rouran at that time. According to the entry for Khotan in the chapter on
the Western Regions in Weishu, “At the end of the reign of Xianzu [i.e., Emperor
Xianwen, Tuoba Hong], the Ruru invaded Khotan. Khotan was worried and
sent an envoy, Sumujia, to submit a letter which said, ‘All of the countries in
the west now belong to the Ruru, and our humble country has honored the
Great Country [i.e., the Northern Wei] for generations without disobedience.
Now when the army of Ruru reached the city of Khotan, we collected our army
to defend ourselves and sent this envoy to pay tribute and to look for help.’”47
However, after discussion, the emperor and officials decided not to send any
military assistance because Khotan was too far away. From this incident we
know that when this envoy from Sumujia came to the Northern Wei, which
happened sometime between the years 466 and 468, the army of the Rouran
had already reached Khotan. Zihe, located to the west of Khotan, was an even
smaller kingdom and thus less likely to withstand an attack by the Rouran.
At that time, the Hephthalites had yet to enter the Tarim Basin. Therefore,
when the envoy document was written, Zihe must have been under the con-
trol of the Rouran and had therefore to send envoys to pay tribute. The same
situation might have held for Khotan, which was unable to get any help from
the Northern Wei.
44 See related chapters in Yu Taishan: 1986.

45 Liangshu, chap. 54, 812.
46 See Enoki, “The Liang chih-kung-t’u [梁職貢圖],” in Enoki 1998: 346–373.
47 Weishu, chap. 102, 2263.
76 Rong
2.5 Envoys of the Kingdom of Poluomen from the Indian Subcontinent

The envoy document includes the statement that “on the 14th day, 3rd month
of the 10th year, to escort envoys of Poluomen …”
The name Poluomen, denoting India, is attested in the chapter on foreign
countries of the northwest in Liangshu.48 According to the “survey of India”
section in chapter 2 of Datang Xiyuji by Xuanzang, “On examination, we find
that the names of Tianzhu 天竺 (India) are various and perplexing as to their
authority. It was anciently called Yuandu 身毒, also Xiandou 賢豆; but now,
according to the right pronunciation, it is called Yindu 印度…. The families
of India are divided into castes; the Brāhmans (Poluomen婆羅門), particu-
larly [are noted] on account of their purity and nobility. Tradition has so hal-
lowed the name of this tribe that there is no question as to difference of place,
but the people generally speak of India as the country of the Brāhmans.”49 The
Poluomen kingdom (Sanskrit, Brāhmanadeśa) thus stands for the entirety of
India. Chapter 3 of Nanhai jigui neifa zhuan by Yijing also says that the land
of the five Tian(zhu) is generally called the Poluomen kingdom.50 Also worth
mentioning here is the fact that Qü Wentai, the king of Gaochang, also referred
to India as the Poluomen kingdom. In a letter to the Yehu khan of the Western
Turks that is recorded in Da Ci’ensi sanzang fashi zhuan, he states, “The Master
of the Law, a brother of your humble servant, desires to search for the law in
the country of the Brāhmans: I beseech the khan to be kind to him, since he
has ever been kind to me, his humble servant.”51 The use of this name for India
in Gaochang can be traced back to when the kingdom was still under the rule
of the Kan family.
Our envoy document gives the specific name of Udyāna, which was in north-
ern India, but refers to another envoy using the general name of Poluomen.
This difference implies that the envoys of Poluomen who left Gaochang for
Karashahr on the 14th day, 3rd month of the 10th year of the Yongkang era
may have been from somewhere in southern India. The most important king-
dom in India then was the Gupta kingdom. Though under a Hephthalite threat
from its north, it was still the most powerful among the Indian kingdoms.52
Therefore, the Poluomen envoys in our document may have been from the
Gupta kingdom; their mission may have been to establish connections with
the Rouran in order to fight the Hephthalites. From records found in China
48 Liangshu, chap. 54, 815.

49 Ji Xianlin et al., 1985: 161–162; Beal 1884: 69.
50 Nanhai jigui neifa zhuan jiaozhu, 141.
51 Huili and Yancong, Da Ci’ensi sanzang fashi zhuan, 21; Beal 1911: 30–31.
52 See Chakrabarti 1996: 185–189.
proper, the kingdom of Western Tianzhu sent an envoy to the Northern Wei
in the 9th month of the 1st year of the Taihe era (477),53 whereas between 502
and 514 envoys from Southern Tianzhu visited the Northern Wei five times.54
The Poluomen envoys in Gaochang in our document may have traveled
from the Rouran to Gaochang, Karashahr, and then back to India, which is the
same route taken by the envoy of Udyāna, and the Poluomen envoys may have
come from the Gupta kingdom.
2.6 Envoys Accompanying the King of the Yanqi Kingdom on the

Northern Tarim Basin
The envoy document states that “on the 5th day, intercalary month of the
10th year, to escort the king of Yanqi to the Northern Mountain …”
Yanqi 鄢耆, which is more commonly written in the form焉耆 (modern
Karashahr), was a large kingdom along the northern route of the Silk Road
around the Tarim Basin between Kucha and Gaochang in an important, stra-
tegic location. In 488, Emperor Taiwu of the Northern Wei sent an army led by
Wan Dugui to attack Yanqi. As a result, the capital of Yanqi was annihilated
and many treasures and a large number of livestock were pilfered. The king
of Yanqi, Long Jiushibina, fled to Kucha seeking asylum.55 The Northern Wei
established a military garrison in Yanqi, of which Tang He was the leader. In
451, Tang He left Yanqi and entered the capital of Dai (i.e., Pingcheng),56 and
in the next year Jü Yiluo 車伊洛, the king of Jushi who was living in Yanqi, also
entered the capital of Dai.57 Apparently, in about 452, the Northern Wei forces
retreated from Yanqi, and the former king, Long Jiushibina, may have resumed
his rule.58 However, as mentioned above, the army of the Rouran reached
Khotan sometime between 466 and 468; it is conceivable that the kingdom of
Yanqi, which was located between the Rouran and Khotan, fell into the hands
of the Rouran at that time.59 The long absence of Yanqi envoys in the court of
53 Weishu, chap. 7, 144.

54 Ibid., 195, 196, 204, 205, 214.
55 Weishu, chap. 4b, “Annals of Shizu,” 102–3; chap. 102, “Biography of the Yanqi Kingdom,”
2265–66.
56 Ibid., chap. 43, “Biography of Tang He,” 963.
57 Ibid., chap. 30, “Biography of Jü Yiluo,” 723.
58 Ibid., chap. 102, 2266.
59 According to Weishu, chap. 103, “Biography of the Ruanruan,” 2290–91, or Beishi, chap. 98,
“Biography of the Ruanruan,” 3250–51, during the reign of Shelun, Rouran prospered again
and gained control of lands as far west as Yanqi. But it is hard to believe that the Rouran
could have reached south of Tianshan. So some believe that the “land of Yanqi” should
actually be “north of Yanqi”; see Yu Taishan 1986: 193.
78 Rong
the Northern Wei, as is also the case for Gaochang, may be an indication of
Rouran control. From our envoy document we know that on the 5th day, (3rd)
intercalary month of the 10th year of the Yongkang era (475), the king of Yanqi
himself went to the Rouran. This may be viewed as another sign of Yanqi’s
submission.
As mentioned above, in the same tomb as the envoy document a group of
account books of taxes and labor for the Yongkang era was discovered. In that
document it is repeatedly mentioned that the king of Yanqi stayed at Gaochang
and received provisions there. In as many as twenty-six places in that group of
documents, the officials and common people of Gaochang are said to have
offered firewood for the use of the king of Yanqi.60 A phrase used in these re-
cords, runei (entering the interior), may indicate that the king of Yanqi then
lived at the court of Gaochang. We have no way of knowing the relationship
between Yanqi and Gaochang at the time. However, judging from this group of
documents, the two kingdoms must have been close allies, as is indicated by
the offering of taxed firewood to the king of Yanqi. These account books are
not specifically dated, but it is safe to regard them as also from the Yongkang
era. The king of Yanqi may have been the same one that appears in the envoy
document, and both documents might even be connected to the same event.
When the king of Yanqi stayed in Gaochang on his way to the Rouran, he re-
ceived firewood from the Gaochang government. Indeed, this great amount
of firewood supplied to the king of Yanqi suggests that he may have stayed
in Gaochang to pass the winter. When spring came, he left Gaochang for the
Rouran Qaghanate on the 5th day, 3rd intercalary month of 475.
The name of this king of Yanqi is not mentioned. He appears in our docu-
ment twenty-six years later than the appearance of Long Jiushibina; so the pos-
sibility of their being the same person cannot be excluded. It is more likely that
the king in the envoy document is also from the Long family of Yanqi and was
completely unknown in traditional historical records.61 Therefore, the infor-
mation about this king in Turfan documents also contributes to our knowledge
on the history of Yanqi.
60 Rong Xinjiang et al. 2008: 130, 132, 133, 135, 136, 141, 144, 145. The scribe of the account books
was apparently not very familiar with the name Yanqi and sometimes wrote Qiyan, mis-
takenly reversing the two characters.
61 No record of a Yanqi king is to be found between Long Jiushibina (488) and Long Tuqizhi
(?611–644). See Rong 1995: 145.
3 Routes Taken by Envoys Passing through Gaochang
In the envoy document, there are two major destinations: the Northern
Mountain and Yanqi. As discussed above, there are two envoys whose desti-
nations are not specified. Judging from their names, they are most probably
Rouran envoys returning to their home country. They were most likely travel-
ing toward the Northern Mountain.
3.1 The Northern Mountain

This Northern Mountain clearly means the Tianshan Mountains lying to the
north of the Turfan Basin. There were several roads in the Tianshan Mountains
that led to the great steppe of the nomads to the north. Specifically in the time
of our document (that is, Gaochang under the Kan family), the road from
Gaochang to the Northern Mountain led to the Rouran. People taking this road
would leave Gaochang and head north; crossing the Tianshan Mountains along
either of the several routes, they would reach the area of present-day Jimusa’er,
which was the Jushi Hind kingdom in the Han dynasty or Ting Prefecture under
the Tang.62 As for roads further to the north, no contemporary record is avail-
able, though one may suppose that it should not have been too far off from the
road from Ting Prefecture to the Uyghur Qaghanate that is well documented
in chapter 40 of Yuanhe junxian tuzhi: 80 li to the east of Ting Prefecture is
Pulei County, from where further to the northeast one may reach successively
Haozhe Garrison, Yanquan Town, Teluo Fort and, after 3,000 li in the same di-
rection, the tents of the khan of the Uyghurs.63 The tents of the Rouran khan
were located to the north of Zhangye and Dunhuang and would not have been
very distant from those of the Uyghur khan. So the road taken by envoys be-
tween the Rouran and Gaochang is practically the same as that which would,
in later times, be called “the route of the Uyghurs.” Of course, the specific route
taken by an envoy may have varied slightly due to reasons of climate.
3.2 Yanqi (Karashahr)

Yanqi was the other direction envoys in our document traveled in. The route
from Gaochang to Yanqi did not change much between the Han and the
Tang, or even to the present day. The chapter on geography in Xintang shu has
62 Concerning the road from Gaochang to Ting Prefecture, see Yan 1985: 582–602, map 9,
“Helong qixi qu” 河隴磧西區.
63 Li Jifu, Yuanhe junxian tuzhi, ch. 40, 1983: 1033–34.
80 Rong
precise descriptions of this route that can be used as a reference concerning

the route taken by envoys in the time of our document. The following is a sur-
vey of the relevant passages. The toponyms used in Gaochang under the Kan
family appear in parentheses.
“From the prefecture (Gaochang City) to the southwest are the cities
of Nanping (Liupo) and Anchang, and after a distance of 120 li one reaches
Tianshan (Dujin); to the southwest into the valley, one will pass through Leishi
Garrison, and after 220 li, the Yinshan Desert. Another 40 li takes one to the
post station of Lüguang, which is already in the domain of Yanqi. Then after
100 li of a rocky road, there is Zhangsancheng Shouzhuo, and 45 li further to the
southwest, after passing through the post station of Xincheng and the Danhe
River, one reaches Yanqi Garrison.”64
The envoys in the time of Gaochang under the Kan family must have taken
this same road to Yanqi. As for the routes back to Karghalik, Udyāna, and
Poluomen from Gaochang, one starts from Yanqi and then passes through
Kucha, Kashgar, the Pamir mountains, and finally turns southward to India.
The other route diverges from Kucha westward to Aksu and then leads south-
ward to Khotan (Hetian) and westward to Karghalik. From there one can
enter northwestern India by passing through the Kara-Kunlun mountains in
the southwest or by going westward to Kashgar and then crossing the Pamirs.
These are well-known and major routes on the Silk Road and have been the
subject of many studies, eliminating the need for further comment here.
The wuke from South China, as mentioned above, embarked from Jiankang
(Nanjing) and went on along the Yangzi River to Yi Prefecture (Chengdu) and
then turned north to reach the domain of Tuyuhun, which in its prime covered
the area from Qinghai to Cherchen, and then Gaochang. The latter half of this
route is usually called the Tuyuhun Route (or Henan Route or Qinghai Route)
and has been studied meticulously.65 One point worth mentioning is that at
the time when Gaochang was under the Kan family, envoys taking the route
from the Tuyuhun to Gaochang had to avoid the Hexi Corridor, which was
occupied by the Northern Wei army. Instead they went by way of Mangya
on the boundary of present-day Qinghai and Xinjiang to reach Shanshan
(present-day Ruoqiang), from where they would turn northward to the ancient
64 Xin Tangshu, 1975: 1046. For more details, see Yan 1985: 463–470.
65 More detailed studies include Matsuda 1937/1939: 49–85; 48, no. 12: 37–71; Xia Nai 1958:
105–10, 40–50; Molè 1970; Chen Liangwei 2002.
city of Loulan at Lop Nur and, after crossing the Kuruk-tagh mountains, they
would reach the Turfan Basin.66
Conclusion
This recently discovered document from Turfan provides new information on

Central Asian history, especially on the relations between the Rouran and the
Western Regions. On the 12th day, 6th month of the 9th year of the Yongkang
era (474), the Rouran envoy Poluogan Wugen traveled from Gaochang by way
of the Northern Mountain back to Rouran. On the 23rd day of the 7th month,
the Gaochang government arranged escorts for Ruojiu, another Rouran envoy,
to Karashahr. On the 8th day of the 10th month, Chuluogan Wugen, yet another
Rouran envoy, went back to Rouran from Gaochang. Only twelve days later, on
the 20th day of the same month, Zheng Amao, perhaps also a Rouran official,
returned to the Rouran.
Evidently, in this year, Rouran envoys shuttled between the Rouran
Qaghanate and Gaochang and used Gaochang as a springboard to make con-
nections further westward with countries in the Western Regions. The minor
countries there, perhaps feeling the threat of the Hephthalites, sent envoys to
the Rouran for help. Consequently, this same document also bears witness
to such activities. On the 2nd day, 12th month of 474, an envoy of Udyāna
passed through Gaochang on his way back from the Rouran and traveled fur-
ther to Karashahr and then perhaps to northwestern India. On the 8th day of
the 3rd month the next year, the Gaochang government sent people and horses
to escort envoys from the Liu-Song in South China and Karghalik in the south-
west of the Tarim Basin to cross the Northern Mountain in order to visit the
tents of the Rouran khan. On the 14th day of that month, another envoy—this
one from the Brāhman kingdom of India—was sent to Karashahr. On the 5th
day of the (3rd) intercalary month, the king of Karashahr was sent across the
Northern Mountain to Rouran. These valuable records bear testimony to the in-
creasing power of the Rouran Qaghanate: this power was able to make the king
of Karashahr come to Rouran to pay homage; it even crossed the Taklimakan
Desert and secured control over oasis kingdoms in the southwest of the Tarim
66 Starting from Milan in Ruoqian and ending at the ancient city of Loulan, we traveled
along this difficult route in September and October 2005. On the route through Lop Nur
to Gaochang and its history, see the elaborate study by Luo Xin 1998: 483–518.
82 Rong
Plate 5.1 Map for Rong Xinjiang’s paper.
Basin such as Khotan and Karghalik, and it subsequently influenced Udyāna in

northern India and Brāhman further southward.
This small document links a number of places, including Gaochang, the
Rouran, Karashahr, Karghalik, the Liu-Song, Udyāna, and Brāhman, which al-
together cover a vast swath of East Asia, Northern Asia, Central Asia, and South
Asia. In combination and envisioned on a map, we arrive at a sense of interstate
connections on the Silk Road in the second half of the fifth century (for this
map, see Plate 5.1). Finally, Gaochang, where the document originates, proves
to be a key spot geographically in the international relations of the time. As a
vassal of the Rouran Qaghanate under the Kan family, Gaochang had a unique
role in the Rouran endeavor to control the Western Regions and to connect the
south with the north.
Chapter 6
A Sogdian Fragment from Niya

Nicholas Sims-Williams and Bi Bo
Introduction
In 1994, the Sino-Japanese Niya Expedition Team excavated an artifact

(93A27F1:3, Plate 6.1) at Niya. It is a small brown package or pouch made
from a piece of paper (originally mistaken for parchment) fastened by a
woolen string. Traces of writing were visible, so the artifact was provisional-
ly referred to as “A Kharoṣṭhī text written on parchment” in the preliminary
report of its discovery.1 In 2007, when the Xinjiang Institute of Archaeology’s
research group on Niya was editing the third volume of the Report on the Sino-
Japanese Joint Expedition in Niya,2 they carefully examined this “parchment
text.” After the string was untied, it was found that the paper had been used to
wrap up a powder of vegetable origin, perhaps spices or medicine. When the
powder was removed, a text written in black ink in a clear script was visible
(Plate 6.2). Noting that the writing appeared to be the same as that of the
Sogdian “Ancient Letters” found near Dunhuang, which were written in the early
fourth century,3 and other Sogdian fragments of similar date found at Loulan,4
the local archaeologists were able to determine that this new fragment was
also written in early Sogdian script.5 The present authors were allowed to
study this fragment by the kind permission of Mr. Yu Zhiyong of the Xinjiang
1 Niya Report II, 75.

2 Niya Report III.
3 The eight Ancient Letters (= AL I–VIII) were first edited by Reichelt 1931. Modern editions
are so far available only for AL I (Sims-Williams 2005), AL II (Sims-Williams 2001), and
AL V (Grenet, Sims-Williams and de la Vaissière 2001). Regarding their date see Henning 1948;
Grenet and Sims-Williams 1987.
4 The Sogdian fragments from Loulan, which are much less well-known than the Ancient
Letters, are listed in Sims-Williams 1976: 43, n.10. They are: L.M.II.ii.09 (Or. 8212/1823),
see Innermost Asia (Stein 1928) (= I.A.), III, Pl. CXXIV; L.A.II.x.01 (Or. 8212/1368), I.A., III,
Pl. CXXIV; L.A.II.x.02 (Or. 8212/1368), I.A., III, Pl. CXXIV; L.A.IV.v.028 (Or. 8212/1365); L.A.VI.
ii.0104 (Or. 8212/102), Serindia (Stein 1921), IV, Pl. CLIII, and Reichelt 1931, Pl. VIII; and L.L.018
(Or. 8212/1735). At least the first two of these are certainly fragments of letters (cf. Sims-
Williams 1991).
5 Zhang Tienan 2007: 307.

84 Sims-Williams and Bi
Plate 6.1 Paper pouch when found, courtesy of the Xinjiang Institute of Cultural Relics and
Archaeology.
Plate 6.2 Sogdian fragment, courtesy of the Xinjiang Institute of Cultural Relics and
Archaeology.
A Sogdian Fragment from Niya 85
Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology. We are honored to present this

article to Prof. Zhang Guangda, who has done so much for Sogdian studies. We
hope that this small addition to the evidence for Sogdians in the Tarim Basin
can complement his masterly work on Sogdian culture and religion in China.
This is the first Sogdian document to be discovered at Niya; previously,
Sogdian was not known from the southern branch of the Silk Road, except at
Loulan and from fragments of much later date found at Mazar Tagh and other
sites near Khotan.6 Thus, irrespective of its content, the mere fact of its discov-
ery is of great importance for Sogdian studies. The surviving fragment, which
measures 7.5 × 10.5 cm and is inscribed on one side only with parts of nine lines
of writing, is a small piece torn from the bottom of a sheet. From its contents,
particularly from the fact that the text ends with a date formula similar to that
of the Ancient Letters, it seems likely that the document was a letter.7
Part I. Text, Translation, and Linguistic Notes
1 ]•wy•[ …
2 ]•s t’ywk ZK[ … child the …
3 ] ’ḤY pysp yrγ’m[c … brother Payasp (sons of?) Irghām[ch …
4 ](k)[ ](β)rtyh δwy kwc’nyy(h!) [ … two Kuchean (women)(?)…
5 ] msmyw ’(P)ZY nnyδt [ … Mas-mēw and Nanai-dhat …
6 ](δβrn)k ks’w(r)k ’sx’t ’(s)[ …
7 ](βz)ktyk ’rwmyw iii myδ[ … Aru-mēw (for) 3 days …
8 ] (s)wpykt(y)y ny’t’nt ’Ḥ[RZY … the Supi people took them. Then …
9 ] iiii iii sγt blank [ … on the 7th day.
Line 2, t’ywk. There is a similar word in AL II.50, but it has a clear initial s- and
should therefore be read s’ywk “orphan”; see Sims-Williams 2001, 277, rather
than t’ywk “child” with Reichelt 1931, 16–17. Here, on the other hand, the initial
is clearly t-, apparently attesting the very form which Reichelt had postulated
on the basis of later spellings such as t’yw’kk, t’yw’k, t’yw’’k in the Vessantara
Jātaka (Benveniste 1946). If so, the relationship between the forms with final
-ăk and -āk parallels that between Christian Sogdian ryncq and rync’q “child”
6 Yoshida 1997a: 568–569. See also Rong 2009: 405–407.

7 Part I by Nicholas Sims-Williams, Part II by Bi Bo. The authors are grateful to Prof. Rong
Xinjiang and Prof. Yutaka Yoshida, who kindly read a draft of this article and made a number
of valuable suggestions.
(Gershevitch 1954, §983). Possibly the variants with the long ā have borrowed it
from z’k [zāk] (= Parthian and Middle Persian zahag (Gershevitch 1954, §399),
yet another word for “child.”
Line 3. ’ḤY “brother” is attested in the Upper Indus inscriptions, while the
plural ’ḤYN occurs in AL III.22.
pysp is perhaps a personal name. It cannot be read pysk (a very common
personal name attested in this spelling in AL II.42 as well as in the Upper Indus
inscriptions and elsewhere) or wysp “all” (attested in this spelling in AL II.38).
yrγ’m[c]: cf. the personal name or ethnic adjective yrγ’mc beside wyrγ’mc
in the Upper Indus inscriptions (Sims-Williams 1992, 78). Here it might be used
as an ethnic or as a patronymic: cf. the juxtaposition of two personal names
in examples such as pysk δrw’spβntk “Pēsakk (son of) Dhruwasp-vandak”
(AL II.42).
Line 4. The lower tip of a k (or perhaps p) can be seen at the right edge
of the fragment (just before the m- of msmyw in line 5). It is not clear whether
the following ](β)rtyh is a complete word. The final -yh probably indicates a
feminine oblique form of a noun or adjective, which may be derived from the
past participle of βr- “to bear” or of one of its compounds (e.g. , δβr- “to give”).
The spelling δwy “two” is attested in SCE 561 (MacKenzie 1970, 32), while the
variant ’δwy is common in the Mug documents. Though the usage of this form
may have been generalized in some varieties of Sogdian, in origin it is exclu-
sively neuter and feminine (as opposed to masculine ’δw’) (cf. Sims-Williams
1985, 53). Here it is probably to be interpreted as a feminine like the preceding
and following words.
kwc’nyy(h!): the last letter is intermediate in form between -γ and -h. The
reading -γ is perhaps preferable from a paleographic point of view, but -h gives
a more plausible form. If -yh is a grammatical ending as in the case of ](β)
rtyh, one may interpret kwc’ny as an adjective meaning “Kuchean”( cf. ’kwc’n’y,
Henning 1940, 61, line 24). As Yutaka Yoshida has kindly pointed out to me,
the regular feminine form of this adjective would be kwc’nch, oblique case
kwc’ncyh; and since the difference between the letters y and c is quite small it
may be that the latter form was in fact intended here.
Line 5. A personal name msmyw “great tiger” is not attested elsewhere, but
myw “tiger” is a common element in personal names (Sims-Williams 1992, 58,
cf. also ’rwmyw here in line 7), while *ms “great” (cf. Sogdian ms “also,” msy’tr
“greater”) would correspond to Middle Persian meh “id.” as a name-component
(cf. Meh-būd, Meh-wispūr, Gignoux 2003, 48; Mihr-meh, Nikitin 1994).
The personal name nnyδt “given by Nanai” is attested in AL I and AL III as
that of a man who has abandoned his wife and daughter in Dunhuang for three
years (see Sims-Williams 2005). Although the name is not attested elsewhere,
there is no reason to think that the present letter refers to the same person.
Line 6. It is not clear whether ](δβrn)k or ](δβrz)k is a complete word. The

reading is rather doubtful, especially the δ, of which the only trace is a small
slanting stroke high above the line of writing.
ks’w(r)k (or ks’wnk? ks’wzk?) ’sx’t: unknown words.
Line 7. ](βz)ktyk (or ]xktyk?) seems to be another unknown word, perhaps
an ethnic adjective with suffix -yk [-īk] from a place-name ending in -kt “house.”
The personal name ’rwmyw “swift/brave tiger” is attested in the Upper Indus
inscriptions, though not in the Ancient Letters.
Line 8. (s)wpykt(y)y: the initial could be s- or t-, less likely y-. The pen-
ultimate letter is also unclear, since it is intersected by the tail of -k from ]
(βz)ktyk in the line above, but y is much more likely than m or s. As was first
noted by Bi Bo, this word might represent the name of the people referred to
in the Kharoṣṭhī texts as Supiya, Chinese Supi 蘇毗, Khotanese Supīya, who
inhabited the southern mountains between Khotan and Shanshan. They are
mentioned in around twenty Kharoṣṭhī documents, which record that the
Shanshan Kingdom was often threatened by the Supiya. At least two texts from
Niya (Kh.183, 351) mention their presence in Caḍ’ota. In that case, as Yutaka
Yoshida has suggested to me, swpyktyy may be the oblique plural of *swpyk,
another Sogdian ethnic adjective in -yk [-īk] (cf. above on line 7). Admittedly,
the writing of the oblique case ending [-ī] with a double -yy is unexplained,
but a similar irregular spelling seems to be attested by the verbal form β’ymnyy
(AL II.29, see Gershevitch 1954, §7211).
Line 9. iiii iii sγt “on the 7th day (of the month).” Several of the Ancient
Letters end by giving the month and the day on which the letter was written
(see Sims-Williams 1991, 180, 185–186). In Ancient Letters III, IV, VI and VII the
last word is sγth, of which sγt here is a variant. Cf. the non-writing of the final
vowel in cases such as MN δβz “from famine” (AL II.38) beside MN δβz’ (AL II.11).
Part II. Historical Commentary
1 The Date of the Niya Fragment

The site of Niya is located at the tail end of the Niya River drainage, about
150 km from the heart of the Taklamakan Desert, in north Minfeng County,
Xinjiang. The dwelling 93A27, from which this Sogdian fragment was recov-
ered, is the same as the N.XXXVII excavated by Aurel Stein in December 1906
during his second expedition.8 It is a roughly rectangular wooden-framed
house, about 190m2 in area (Plate 6.3), with a central corridor on the east-west
axis; the northern and southern halves of the building are both divided into
8 Serindia, I, 239.
Plate 6.3 Floor plan of site 93A27 (N.XXXVII), Niya Report II (Chinese version), 69.
two rooms.9 The fragment was found in Room F1 which is in the southeast
quarter, adjoining Room F2 in the southwest.
The text of the fragment contains no reference to any datable event, and
the similarity of the writing to that of the Sogdian Ancient Letters of the early
fourth century gives only a very rough indication of its likely date. Nor has the
dwelling 93A27 yielded any other precisely datable materials.10 In 1991, four
Kharoṣṭhī wooden slips were discovered in Room F4.11 Lin Meicun studied one
of these slips (91NS:9), pointing out that the King Toṃgraka mentioned in this
text is the earliest known ruler in the royal lineage of the Shanshan Kingdom,
and that the slip may thus be dated to the end of the second century.12 Based

10 We asked Mr. Yu, who attended the excavation, whether it was possible to determine the
date of the site on the basis of other finds in wood, iron or other materials. He replied that
this was difficult; as such, we must rely on the little evidence that is available.
12 Lin 1998: 196–216. It is generally agreed that five kings of Shanshan are named in the
Kharoṣṭhī documents from Niya; Lin believes that there are seven, pointing out that one
on his conclusions, some archaeologists put the construction and use of house
93A27 at the end of the second century and the beginning of the third.13
The dwelling site 93A27 is situated in the southern part of the Niya complex,
7.2 km to the north of a stūpa which is considered as the center of southern
Niya. Around the house one can find dense clumps of red willows and toghrak.
An ancient bridge and the dwellings 93A23(N.XLI) and 93A24 (N.XLIV) are
1.4km to the south, while the dwelling 93A26(N.XLV) is 150m to its south-
west and 93A29 (N.XXXVI) 100m to its northwest. The area surrounding the
“Ancient Bridge” is of great local importance, since it is a key access route to
the Niya site, and also lies on the main road from Loulan to Khotan.14 Wang
Binghua points out that there is a cemetery (N3S) not far from 93A27, about
300m to the south of N.III, which yielded some ancient black pottery dating
to sometime before the Eastern Han dynasty. He believes that 93A27 may have
been inhabited from the very beginning of settlement of the whole Niya site.15
Even if we accept Lin’s opinion on the date of the Kharoṣṭhī slip of Toṃgraka,
this does not necessarily enable us to identify the date of the house itself, or of
the Sogdian fragment, not least because the house also yielded other Kharoṣṭhī
tablets as well as 91NS:9. Therefore, we need to consider all the available evi-
dence before we can reach any conclusions about the date and character of the
Sogdian fragment.
1.1 The Seal of “Shan-shan tu-wei” and the Other Kharoṣṭhī Materials
In addition to the wooden slip of Toṃgraka, the dwelling 93A27/N.XXXVII
also yielded another important object. In Room F2, adjacent to F1, Stein found
a Kharoṣṭhī rectangular tablet (N.XXXVII.i.2, Kh.640) with a Chinese clay seal.16
The same seal impression appears on two other Kharoṣṭhī tablets from building
N.XXIV (N.XXIV.viii.74, 93, Kh.571, 590).17 There has been disagreement over
the Chinese inscription on the seal ever since it was published. E. Chavannes
read it as the “seal of [chief official of the] Command of Shan-shan” 鄯善郡印,18
while J. Brough rendered it as the seal of “The (Chinese) High Commissioner
Kharoṣṭhī document (Kh.549) mentions a king named Toṃgraka. He puts Toṃgraka be-
fore Tajaka, and another King Sulica after Vaṣmana. See Lin 1991: 39–50.
14 Niya Report II, 198, also personal communication with Wang Binghua and Yu Zhiyong.
15 Personal communication with Wang Binghua.
16 Serindia, I, 239, 266; IV, Pl. XXIII. In the present article “Kh.” refers to the number of the
document as transcribed in Kharoṣṭhī Inscriptions and as translated in Burrow 1940.
17 Serindia, I, 230, 260, 262; IV, Pl. XX; Burrow 1940: 114, 125–126.
18 Serindia, I, 230.
for Shan-shan” (Shan-shan chün-wei 鄯善郡尉).19 M. Loewe thought that it

should be Shan-shan tu-wei 鄯善都尉, since there is no evidence that the cen-
tral government of the Han and Jin Dynasties founded a commandery (jun/
chün 郡) there; from 148 B.C. onwards the title junwei/chün-wei was replaced
by duwei/tu-wei, and the term chün-wei does not appear again.20 K. Enoki ac-
cepted the reading wei 尉, but was not sure what the third character should
be, considering both chün 郡 and tu 都 as possibilities.21 Ma Yong accepted
the reading Shan-shan chün-wei, and even speculated that a chün was set
up in Loulan (Kroraina) from the end of the Wei period to the sixth year of
the Taishi/T’ai-shih 泰始 era of the Western Jin.22 However, his conclusions
were questioned by Meng Fanren, who thought that the chün mentioned in
the documents from Loulan refers to Dunhuang rather than Loulan itself.
For the Chinese seal impression, Meng accepted the reading Shanshan duwei,
and proposed that the duwei (“Chief Commandant”) on the seal is an abbre-
viation of the “Great Commander-in-Chief” (da duwei 大都尉) on one of the
wooden slips (N.XV.93.a.b +N.XV.73),23 which bears the following inscription:
“On behalf of the Jin Emperor, and exercising our authority as shizhong/shih-
chung 侍中, da duwei and dahou (“Great Marquess” 大侯), we allies of the
Chin, (the rulers) of Shanshan, Karashahr, Kucha, Kashgar and Khotan, made
copies of the imperial edict which we respectfully received, and distributed
these copies. 晉守侍中大都尉奉晉大侯親晉鄯善焉耆龜茲疏勒于窴王寫下詔
書到奉.”24
Judging from the seal impression itself25 and the historical context, we prefer
the reading Shanshan duwei. As is well known, Niya was the capital of the king-
dom of Jingjue (Ching-chüeh 精絕, Kharoṣṭhī caḍ’ota).26 It became a subject
state (raja) of Shanshan only after it was annexed by the Shanshan Kingdom
at the end of the Eastern Han period. Therefore, the seal of Shanshan duwei
can hardly be dated as early as the Eastern Han era (first to third centuries).
Since it is stamped on Kharoṣṭhī tablets, it must belong to the same period
19 Brough 1965: 590–1; Brough 1970: 41–42.

20 Loewe 1969: 98–99.
21 Enoki 1963: 152–153.
22 Ma Yong 1979: 73–95, esp. 86–95.
23 Ancient Khotan (Stein 1907), I, 537–538, Pl. CXII, CXIII; Wang Guowei 1934/1993: 256–260.
24 Brough 1965, 600–1; Brough 1970, 43–44; Meng 1995: 386.
25 Email exchanges (June 07, 2009) with Zhu Yuqi, an expert in seals and their interpreta-
tion. He prefers the reading tu to chün based on the shape of the character and the histori-
cal context.
26 For the identification of Jingjue as the region around Niya see Serindia, 219.
as the use of Kharoṣṭhī.27 Generally speaking, Kharoṣṭhī was employed

during the mid-third to the mid-fourth century.28 Tablets Kh.571 and 590 both
bear the date of the seventeenth regnal year of King Aṃgoka; Kh.640 bears
no clear dating information, but mentions the kitsaitsa magistrate Varpa, the
kāla magistrate Karaṃtsa and the revenue-man Lyipatga, individuals who
also appear on Kh.571. As such, it should be dated to around the same time
as these other tablets.29 Brough discovered that in year seventeen of the reign
of Aṃgoka the royal titles change, by adding jiṭugha, a transliteration of the
Chinese title shizhong (“Attendant within the Palace”).30 The year involved is
the fifth or sixth year of the Taishi era of the Western Jin (269/270).31 Meng
believes that these titles shizhong and da duwei were conferred by the Western
Jin, and suggests that they presented the king of Shanshan with the seal of
Shanshan duwei at the same time that they granted this title.32 The other
Kharoṣṭhī documents (Kh.641–645) excavated from 93A27/N.XXXVII together
with Kh.640 cover the reigns of the kings Aṃgoka, Mahiri and Vaṣmana,33 dat-
ing from the last part of the third to the first part of the fourth century. During
the excavation work of 1991 and 1993, the Sino-Japanese Niya Expedition Team
discovered ten Kharoṣṭhī wooden slips, two of which have been published: one
bears no date information, and the other dates to year 14 of the reign of Mahiri,
which is within the period spanned by the other Kharoṣṭhī documents from
this site.34
These slips, along with the other documents and finds from this site, suggest
that the period of habitation of this dwelling was not limited to the second
and third centuries, but may well have stretched from the latter half of the sec-
ond century to the first half of the fourth century, with an end date of around
27 Meng Fanren 1995: 447.

28 Brough 1965: 509–605; Atwood 1991: 164; Meng Fanren 1990: 185–188.
29 Burrow 1940: 133; Meng 1995: 447.
30 Brough 1965: 600–602.
31 Here we follow Meng’s opinion on the dating of the regnal year Aṃgoka 17 (Meng 1995:
377–379). Brough took it as AD 263: see Brough 1965, 598–605; Brough 1970, 43–45. Enoki
pointed out the errors in Brough’s chronological calculations, and suggested that Aṃgoka
17 corresponds to year 4 of the Taikang 太康 Era of the Western Jin (AD 283): see Enoki
1967/1992: 121–126. K. Nagasawa identified it with the fourth year of the Taihe 太和 Era of
the Wei Emperor Ming (AD 230): see Nagasawa 1976/1996, 336, while Ma thought it should
be dated within years 7 to10 of the Taishi Era (AD 271–274): see Ma 1979, 89.
32 Meng 1995: 378.
33 Burrow 1940: 133–134. For a detailed treatment of each text, see Meng Fanren 1995: 346–
347, 350, 357, 361–362.
34 Niya Report II, 75, 146–147.
330 AD. This is the chronological framework that we should have in mind
when considering the date of the Sogdian fragment.
1.2 The Use of Paper

The earliest known Sogdian documents found in China are the Ancient Letters
from the Dunhuang region and the fragments from Loulan, all of which prob-
ably belong to around the beginning of the fourth century. One significant as-
pect of the Niya fragment is the material used (i.e., paper) is the same as that
used for texts from the Dunhuang and Loulan areas. The use of paper in Central
Asia generally indicates a relatively late date: it is well known that in earlier
times, people in these regions did not use or produce paper, so the paper used
for these Sogdian documents was probably obtained inside China. Paper is
lighter than wooden tablets and much cheaper than silk; it was destined to re-
place both of these as the most common writing material. However, although
paper was invented during the Western Han, its replacement of other writing
materials took place over a long transition period, lasting until the Jin Dynasty
(ca. third to-fourth centuries).35 In remote areas like the Western Regions, ear-
lier documents are mainly written on wooden tablets, with only a very few
on parchment or silk. There are isolated examples of the use of paper in the
Wei Dynasty among the corpus of Chinese and Kharoṣṭhī texts from Loulan,
but throughout the Western Regions paper documents remain rare even in the
Western Jin period, and wooden tablets are still the norm.36 Paper documents
do not become predominant until the Former Liang period (ca. the first part
of the fourth century).37 Thus, before the fourth century, paper was still a very
precious writing material in the Tarim Basin.38
In marked contrast to Loulan, Niya has not previously yielded any paper
documents, only about twenty-four parchment documents along with large
numbers of Kharoṣṭhī and Chinese wooden tablets.39 Stein took the lack of
paper at Niya to indicate that the abandonment of Niya was earlier than that
of Lop-Nor (Loulan), before the spread of paper to the Western Regions.40 This
was a reasonable hypothesis, but it may no longer be tenable: Stein put Niya’s
last days in the third century, but it is now thought that the Niya site lasted at
35 Tsien 2006: 102; Tomiya 2003/2007: 108.

36 For a wider analysis of the use of paper at Loulan, see Rischel 2001.
37 Ma 1979, 82; Meng 1995: 398.
38 Liu 2004: 410.
39 In Liu 2002, 120 the figure is given as 25, because at that time it was mistakenly believed
that the Niya Sogdian fragment was written on parchment, not paper (Liu 2007: 48).
40 Serindia, I, 242.
least as late as the end of the Western Jin period. The Chinese and Kharoṣṭhī
documents from Niya are roughly contemporary with the ones from Loulan.41
During this period, paper was widely used in central China, while in the re-
mote Western Regions people were only just beginning to use it as a writing
material. Even in Loulan, which had many Han settlers and was home to the
governmental office of the “Secretary-General for the Western Regions” (xiyu
zhangshi/hsi-yü chang-shih 西域長史) from the Wei-Jin era to the Former Liang
period, paper was still not easy to obtain and was in short supply compared to
central China.42 But the situation at Niya was even more pronounced: it was
only a subject state of Shanshan, located to the west of Loulan, much further
from the paper-producing area. The lack of paper at Niya may be also have
been caused by other factors, such as the fact that the technique of making
paper, like that of making silk, was secret and strictly monopolized by the Han
government.43 Animal skin too was rarely used as a writing material at Niya;
the small group of documents on parchment recorded special instructions or
orders from the king, such as the alert against Khema and Khotan. These docu-
ments mainly date to the reign of King Mahiri (ca. the end of the second cen-
tury to the beginning of the third).44
Like the Sogdian Ancient Letters, the Niya fragment was originally a let-
ter. At least some of the Ancient Letters were sent from cities along the Hexi
Corridor, and their destinations lay in the Western Regions or even as far away
as Samarkand. The advantage of using paper for long-distance communica-
tion goes without saying. Paper was widely used in Dunhuang and Guzang/
Ku-tsang (Wuwei) at the beginning of the fourth century, and Sogdians
engaged in commerce in these cities would have had easy access to paper for
day-to-day uses such as keeping accounts or writing letters to their families,
friends, and commercial partners far away.45 The Niya fragment too may well
have been sent from somewhere along the Hexi Corridor or inside China.
A close examination of the Niya fragment revealed that the paper used is of
rather good quality—thick, and with evenly-distributed fibers—and was
surely made in China. The quality of the paper confirms the impression that
the Niya fragment is probably roughly contemporary with the Ancient Letters.
41 Liu 2004: 406–409.

42 This can be seen from the use of both wooden tablets and paper as writing materials (Liu
2004: 409).
43 Liu 2004: 409–410.
44 Liu 2007: 50–51; Akamatsu 2001, 393–394.
45 Ji Xianlin has discussed why the Sogdians tended to give up their previous writing materi-
als in favour of Chinese paper. See Ji 1954/1996: 64.
2 The Find-Spot of the Niya Fragment

The next point to consider is the question why this fragment, which is the only
Sogdian text in all of Niya, and the very important Kharoṣṭhī tablet with the
Chinese clay seal both come from this specific site 93A27. Based on the over-
all picture of the site, archaeologists originally took it as a private residential
house, including a storeroom, kitchen, bedroom, and guest room, as well as a
separate livestock shed (93A28), which would reflect the self-sufficient econ-
omy of the family unit.46 But if this were true, it would be difficult to explain
why a Sogdian text and a Chinese-sealed Kharoṣṭhī tablet were left here: one
relates to a mobile population of foreign individuals engaged in commerce,
while the other is an official document. The presence of a storeroom or kitchen
in a building does not prove that it is a private house; it could equally be an of-
ficial building. The location of 93A27 may help to identify the likely character
of this dwelling. It is very close to the strategically important Ancient Bridge,
and is located not only on the entrance route to Niya, but also near the main
route of the southern Silk Road. What is more, the adjacent site 93A26 (N.XLV)
has yielded documents relating to Khotan. It is said to be an official building
of the cojhbo or local governor, and probably served as a post house, based
on the distance from here to the center of Niya and on the presence of wood-
en tablets.47 Taking all the evidence together, we think that 93A27 may well
be a public building rather than a private house as previously claimed; to be
precise, it is probably a subsidiary building of a postal relay station or a guest
house.48 The Kharoṣṭhī tablet with Chinese clay seal was probably intended to
be sent on to some location, while the paper pouch with Sogdian text may have
been left behind by a Sogdian merchant who was passing through Niya and
had lodged here; we should keep in mind that Niya held an important position
on the southern route of the Silk Road, which was used by the Sogdians travel-
ing around the region.
3 Sogdians in Loulan and Niya and their Commercial Activities

Perhaps not long after the increased traffic on the Silk Road which followed
Zhang Qian’s westward diplomatic journey, Sogdian emissaries and mer-
chants came to China.49 With the research of scholars such as Y. Yoshida, Rong

47 Hasuike 2007: 254–257.
48 We have discussed this with Wang Binghua, who gave his full support to our conjecture.
49 Going on the evidence from the records of the Hanshu 漢書 and wooden slips from
Xuanquan (Dunhuang) from the Han Dynasty, emissaries from Kangju/K’ang-chü 康居
came to China at this time. Cf. Zhang Defang 2004; Wang Su 2004.
Xinjiang, É. de la Vaissière and Zhang Guangda, our knowledge about the mi-
gration routes of the Sogdians and their settlements in China has increased
greatly in recent years.50 Since the Sogdians were one of the most active mer-
cantile peoples along the ancient Silk Road, their presence in a Silk Road oasis
like Niya is a fair assumption, but as no relevant artifacts had yet been found,
cautious scholars made no mention of Niya in their discussions about the
Sogdians in China. With this new fragment, we can confirm that Niya was a
stage on the previously identified migration routes.
Niya was the capital of the small kingdom of Jingjue during the Han dynasty,
and after being annexed by Shanshan became subject to it. It was abandoned
in the last part of the fourth century, or perhaps the beginning of the fifth
century.51 Located on the key route of the southern branch of the Silk Road,
Niya is over 100 km from both the oasis of the Keriya River to the west and
the oasis of the Endere River to the east. Travelers would have stopped here to
re-stock with water, food, and fodder for their camels.52 Although the territory
of Niya was small, its crucial location gave it a vital role as a staging-post on
the southern Silk Road from the Han Dynasty onward. The numerous ancient
archaeological artifacts uncovered here demonstrate its importance for Silk
Road trade and cultural exchange. The cemetery 95MN1, found and excavated
in 1995 and considered to be the royal graveyard of Jingjue, is especially illus-
trative of this, with its impressive and exquisite tomb items.53 Jingjue was the
smallest city-state kingdom, on the edge of the desert, but the king of this tiny
land had access to a wide range of luxury items from different areas. In some
ways, we can say that the prolonged flourishing and ultimate abandonment of
Niya are both closely related to the Silk Road.
Sogdian and Chinese documents uncovered from the regions around Loulan
and Dunhuang at the beginning of the twentieth century indicate that there
were already many Sogdians in Loulan as early as the Former Liang period (ca.
the beginning of the fourth century).54 Like Guzang and Dunhuang in the Hexi
Corridor, Loulan can be regarded as a key location for Sogdians on the south-
ern edge of the Tarim Basin. As the official residence of the “Secretary-General
50 Zhang Guangda 1986: 77–79; Yoshida 1996: 69–70; Rong 2006: 513–524; Rong 2009: 399–
416; de la Vaissière 2002/2005: 119–147.
51 Yu Zhiyong 1998: 62. There is no general agreement about the reason for the abandon-
ment of Niya; suggestions include environmental deterioration, invasion by the Supis, etc.
52 Niya Report II, 107; Wang Binghua 2008: 477–478.
53 These tomb items include Chinese silk, lacquer work, bronze mirrors, glass beads, glass
vessels, and a knife with an ivory hilt: see the Niya Report II, 88–110.
54 Rong 2006: 518–519.
for the Western Regions,” the city of Loulan had booming “markets” (shi 市)
and officials like the “Commissioner of Markets” (shimai shi 市買使) to super-
vise commercial transactions, as the excavated documents describe.55 Since
Niya was a subject state of Shanshan, commercial activity there may not have
been on the same scale as that in Loulan, but with its extremely important
location on the southern Silk Road, it is not too risky to regard Niya as a com-
mercial center of the period, host to an endless stream of traveling merchants.
At site N.XV, Stein found a wooden slip concerning an official passport
(guosuo 過所), which reads: “… pass]port for conducting business … [ (上殘)
過所行治生囗(下殘)” (N.XV.82),56 indicating that the individual in question
had applied for a permit to travel for commercial reasons. The phrase “con-
duct business” (zhisheng 治生) should have the same meaning as “xingsheng
興生” that is known from historical records and excavated texts from the Tang
period (i.e., “make a living by engaging in commercial activities”). Since the
person involved has to apply for a passport, we can be sure that he/she is not a
local resident of Niya, but a traveling merchant. It is unfortunate that the first
part of the slip is broken, so that we do not have any information about the
identity of the applicant, but we may consider the possibility that it was a for-
eign merchant. During the Tang period Sogdian merchants were sometimes
called xingshenghu 興生胡 “hu (barbarian) traders,” or in abbreviated form
xinghu 興胡.57 If we take into account the fact that the bearers of several other
passport slips excavated at the same time from the same site are identified
as “barbarians” (hu 胡) from Yuezhi/Yüeh-chih 月支,58 it is possible that the
55 Meng 1990: 162–165; Atwood 1991: 190–192.

56 Ancient Khotan, II, Pl. CXII.
57 Wang Qitao 2004: 629.
58 Among these passport slips, there is one which explicitly states that its bearer is a man
from Yuezhi: “The hu Zhi Zhu (is) from Yuezhi, forty-nine years old, medium height, black,
having [… 月支國胡支柱，年卌九，中人，黑色，有(下殘),” and another one
where the initial part is missing: “…] thirty years old, medium height, black, big eyes, hav-
ing a beard (上殘)卅，中人，黑色，大目，有髭鬚” (N.XV.53, 152, Ancient Khotan, I,
540; II, Pl. CXIII). If we compare the two slips, it is clear that the contents are exactly the
same, apart from the name and age, so the bearer of the second slip was probably from
Yuezhi too. Only the top part of another slip is preserved: it reads “The hu Zhi […] (is)
from Yuezhi […” 月支國胡支(下殘) (N.XV.191, Ancient Khotan, I, 540; II, Pl. CXII), and is
clearly also a passport slip. It is interesting to note the “black” complexion of the Yuezhi
hu, which recalls the “blacks” in Sogdian Ancient Letter V (Line 13, 27). It is still a vexed
question who these people are. Grenet et al. 2001, 100, suggest that “blacks” could be a gen-
eral term for Sogdian farmer colonists (cf. the Chinese phrase “black head” 苍頭), but it
seems possible that this term specifically denotes people from Yuezhi. The documentary
bearer of this slip was a Sogdian or Yuezhi merchant. These passport slips bear
no clear date information, but among the Chinese wooden slips accompany-
ing them we find the shizhong slip (N.XV.93, a, b) discussed above,59 as well as
a slip (N.XV.326) bearing the date of year 5 of the Taishi era (AD 269),60 so we
can infer that these passport slips date to around the beginning of the Western
Jin period.
There are no records about what kind of goods were traded by the Sogdian
merchants in Dunhuang, Loulan, and Niya. However, the Sogdian Ancient
Letters list many goods, including musk, gold, pepper, camphor, and various
kinds of textiles.61 Given their involvement in trade in small, light and expen-
sive goods such as musk and pepper, we would expect the Sogdians also to
have traded in silk, since this was one of the most important goods in east-
west trade. In fact, we find a probable reference to silk in Ancient Letter VI,62
and Ancient Letter II was found wrapped in brownish silk inside an envelope
of coarse fabric.63 The Chinese documents from Loulan indicate that it was
a commercial center and transport hub for the silk trade, sometimes involv-
ing transactions of very large amounts (e.g., Hedin No.46) receive 319 rolls
(pi 匹) (of silk), and buy 4326 pi of colored silk for the residents 囗入三百一
十九匹，今爲住人买綵四千三百廿六匹.”64 In the Kharoṣṭhī documents from
Niya there are frequent references to silk, which is often treated as a medium
of exchange or currency;65 for instance, it could be used to pay a fine (Kh.489).
Most of the Kharoṣṭhī tablets concerning silk date to the reigns of Mahiri (e.g.,
Kh.3, 566, 728) and Vaṣmana (Kh.318),66 from the end of the third century to
the beginning of the fourth century.
Although mulberry trees were found in the Niya ruins, and clay silkworms
have also been excavated, there was apparently no silk manufacture here.67
The silk at Niya was exported from the interior of China, as one Kharoṣṭhī text
evidence from the third to fourth centuries indicates that the Sogdians had a very close
relationship with the Yuezhi.
59 Ancient Khotan, I, 371, Pl. CXIII.
60 Ancient Khotan, I, 370, Pl. CXII.
61 Sims-Williams 1996, 47–48; de la Vaissière 2002/2005, 51–55.
62 The term used for ‘silk’ is pyrcyk (AL VI, lines 4–6), see Sims-Williams 2005: 182.
63 Serindia, II, 671.
64 Conrady 1920: 124, No.46; Meng 1990: 163–164; Itō 1995: 5.
65 A person named Sugita paid forty-one rolls of silk to purchase a woman called Sugisae
(Kh.3).
66 Meng 1990: 391; Burrow 1940: 1, 112, 59.
67 Wei 2007: 317; for a more detailed analysis see http://www.eurasianhistory.com/data/
articles/k01/1521.html.
(Kh.35) confirms: “At present there are no merchants from China, so the debt of
silk is not to be settled now…. When the merchants arrive from China, the debt
of silk is to be settled.”68 Here the text only mentions that the merchants will
come from China, but gives no details about their origin. It has been assumed
as a matter of course that they were Chinese merchants,69 but in fact there
is no concrete evidence to support this. At this time many Sogdians traveled
along the Hexi Corridor to the interior of China, and maintained close com-
mercial contacts with the Sogdians around the Tarim Basin and in Samarkand.
The predominant role that Sogdians played in the silk trade is confirmed by
historical records that mention the large amount of silk traded by Sogdians,
and by the images of bundles of silk from the tombs of Sogdian leaders in
China at the end of the Northern Dynasties. As such, we cannot exclude the
possibility that the merchants who are mentioned in text Kh.35 were Sogdians.
As well as valuable items such as musk, pepper and silk, it is possible that
Sogdians also dealt in other goods such as foodstuffs. A Chinese wooden slip
(L.A.I.iii.1) from Loulan concerns an expense account, and it reads: “on the 17th
of the 3rd month in year 18 of the Jianxing Era (AD 330), the Sogdian Hu in
Loulan […] 10000 dan 石 and 200 Chinese coins”(建興十八年三月十七日粟
特胡樓蘭[ ]一萬石錢二百).70 This slip, together with four Sogdian fragments,
was excavated from the same Site L.A; they seem to be roughly contempo-
rary with the Sogdian Ancient Letters (the beginning of the fourth century).
Dan 石 is a Chinese unit of dry measure, and here it refers to a quantity of some
type of foodstuff; Hu Pingsheng suggests that the food and money listed on the
slip were levied upon Sogdians by the local garrison of the Former Liang gov-
ernment.71 It is worth noting that the Ancient Letters also mention foodstuffs,
such as wheat (AL VII, line 3).72 Dealing in foodstuffs was especially profitable
at that time; Ancient Letter II twice refers to a famine, and some Sogdians in
Luoyang even starved to death. In the “Biography of Zhang Jun 張駿” from the
Jinshu 晉書 it states that there was a severe famine in Liangzhou at the end of
the reign of Zhang Mao 張茂 and the start of that of Zhang Jun (AD 323–324),
and that “the price of cereal was very expensive,” and “many people lacked
68 Burrow 1940: 9.
69 Yin 1989: 144; Hansen 2001: 278–279.
70 Chavannes 1913: 182, No. 886, Pl. XXVII; Hu Pingsheng 1991: 41–42.
71 Hu Pingsheng 1991, 42. It is usually said that the document is an official receipt of some
kind, recording the payment, delivery, receipt or rightful ownership of the foodstuffs and
money in question; see TTD III, 2, Itō 1995: 17.
72 Sims-Williams 1996: 48, n.17.
clothes and food.”73 Famine was clearly a grave danger at this place and time.
Merchants able to import food would be able to make a substantial profit, and
we can assume that the Sogdians took advantage of this opportunity. It seems
that Sogdians in Loulan also engaged in the trade of foodstuffs. However, the
long distances and difficult environment made it very difficult to transport
foodstuffs from inside China, so it is perhaps more likely that they acquired
supplies locally and merely sold them on to the local garrison of the Former
Liang.
4 Sogdians and the Southern Route of the Silk Road

If we mark on the map the earliest confirmed Sogdian sites around the Tarim
Basin, we find that without exception they are all on the southern route of the
Silk Road. De la Vaissière has pointed out that there is a special relationship
between Sogdians and the southern Silk Road, but he did not elaborate very
much on this point.74 The Niya Sogdian fragment not only fills in a blank on
the map, but also enables us to investigate more about the Sogdians in the
Western Regions.
Archaeological evidence has revealed the presence of Sogdians in Loulan,
Endere, Niya and Khotan before the mid-fourth century. The Kharoṣṭhī text
Kh.661 found in Endere even provides us with a good example of their mov-
ing from one place to another along the southern route.75 Along the northern
route there is no sign of a Sogdian presence from such an early stage. A pos-
sible exception may be at Yanqi (Karashahr), where a silver bowl with Sogdian
inscription was discovered that is almost as old as the Sogdian of the Ancient
Letters and the inscriptions of the Upper Indus.76 The presence of Sogdians
along the northern route is mainly attested from the end of the Northern
Dynasties to the Sui and Tang periods, especially under the Tang dynasty.77
Taking Qiuci (Kucha), the largest kingdom along the northern route, as an
example, historical records do not provide any useful information about
when the earliest Sogdians arrived here, although iconographical evidence
from the caves offers some clues. Sogdian merchants were depicted on the wall
73 Meng Fanren 2000: 94–95.

74 He lists only Khotan, Endere and Loulan, while adding that “Niya and Cadota are here
only for information”; see de la Vaissière 2002/2005: 59, Map 3.
75 Kharoṣṭhī Inscriptions, 249; Burrow 1934: 514–515; Burrow 1940: 137.
76 Yoshida 1997: 231. However, B. I. Marshak dated the bowl to the fifth or sixth century, see
Watt 2004, 187. Cf. Rong 2009: 412–413.
77 Rong 2000b: 123–128; Rong 2006: 519–524; Rong 2009: 399–416; de la Vaissière 2002/2005:
125–127.
paintings only during the development phase of the caves (ca. mid-fourth to
end of the fifth century), while during the initiating period, no images of mer-
chants appear.78 This suggests that there were no Sogdians here before the mid-
fourth century. Similarly in Turfan, the earliest known evidence for a Sogdian
presence dates to the first half of the fifth century, with Sogdian names emerg-
ing in large numbers only from the sixth century onwards.79 Thus it seems that
in earlier times Sogdians mainly used the southern route to enter China. We
can consider the possible reasons why this should have been the case.
From Ancient Letters II and V, we can easily see how severely the politi-
cal situation affected foreign merchants in China such as the Sogdians. They
were forced to confront extremely arduous conditions, but tried their best to
avoid war and turmoil. The Sogdians’ preference for the southern route may
well have been closely connected with the political climate and trade routes in
the Western Regions during the Han-Jin period.
From the time of the Western Han, when trade on the Silk Road entered
its classic period, the route linking the interior of China with Central Asia
was divided into two branches: the southern and northern routes, for which
Loulan and Yiwu (modern Hami) respectively served as the main transit
points. During the Western Han period the road from Dunhuang to Yiwu was
not accessible, because the eastern part of the Tianshan Mountains was occu-
pied by the Huns (Xiongnu/Hsiung-nu); as a result, the road passing through
Loulan became the main route to the Western Regions. Although this route
had many difficulties and obstacles, such as salt flats, the yardang (yadan)
landscape of wind-eroded terraces, strong winds, drifting sands, etc., it was
still the most convenient and easiest route, as well as being traversable for
more of the year.80 Subsequently, under the Eastern Han, war with the Huns
continued to make the Yiwu-Dunhuang road a dangerous route, so the central
government attempted to make it secure; nevertheless, travel along the Loulan
route continued, although on a smaller scale than in the time of the Western
Han. During the Wei and Jin periods, the Yiwu route was blocked by the hostile
people known as the Xianbei/Hsien-pi 鮮卑. Therefore, to keep in contact with
the Western areas, China was again forced to use the traditional Loulan route,
as well as the route through the Moshan Kingdom 墨山國 linking Loulan and
78 Huo 1994: 44–45; Rong 2005: 207–230. As Yutaka Yoshida reminds us, ’kwc(’)yk, literally
“Kuchean,” occurs as a personal name in some of the Sogdian inscriptions of the Upper
Indus (Sims-Williams 1992: 40–41), but these inscriptions cannot be dated precisely.
79 Rong 2000b: 123–124; Rong 2007c: 28–35; Skaff 2003.
80 Meng Fanren 2000: 344.
Gaochang (Turfan).81 From the Wei to Former Liang dynasties Loulan acted as
the official base of the “Secretary-General for the Western Regions,” the cen-
tral government’s chief governor of the Western Regions, and as such became
the hub of east-west communication. When the Former Liang were defeated
by the Former Qin in AD 376 and the institution of the “Secretary-General for
the Western Regions” was discontinued, Loulan was abandoned.82 Its decline
affected the entire southern route, and as such, its key role in Silk Road trade
was taken over by the power-centers in control of the northern route. The
switch from the southern to the northern route explains why in the earlier
period we find Sogdians in Khotan, Niya and Loulan on the southern edge
of the desert, while later on they show up along the northern route. Previously,
the southern route was safer and more convenient than the northern one, and
was the main route connecting east and west from the opening of the Silk
Road to the second half of the fourth century. Emissaries, merchant and monks
typically entered China by this route, but later on they appear more and more
in the oasis states along the northern route.
Since we can only go on the little evidence that has survived, we cannot
exclude the possibility that some Sogdians traveled along the northern route
at an early stage. The occurrence of the adjective “Kuchean” in the newly dis-
covered Niya Sogdian fragment is a possible indication that Sogdians along
the southern route were in contact with people from sites on the northern
route. Although the two routes are divided by the famously hostile Taklamakan
Desert, direct communication between the cities and oases of the southern
and northern routes is not as unlikely as was once thought. There is evidence
for such contacts at a relatively early stage;83 moreover, Kucha, which lies
to the north of Niya, with about 400 km of desert in between, is mentioned
more than once in the Kharoṣṭhī84 and Chinese85 texts from Niya and Loulan;
Kharoṣṭhī inscriptions, paper documents and wooden tablets have been
81 Luo Xin 1998: 499–504.

82 Meng Fanren 2000: 344–346.
83 The “Monograph on the Western Regions” from the Hanshu records that Wumi on the
southern route was oppressed by Kucha, the biggest kingdom on the northern edge of
the desert. As Yu Taishan has pointed out, this seems to indicate the existence of a direct
route between them: see Yu Taishan 2003: 495. The desert road across the Taklamakan has
always been passable, and the main traffic lines have been along the south-north flowing
rivers, most notably the Khotan River and Keriya River. Modern explorers and archaeolo-
gists such as N. M. Przhevalsky, Sven Hedin and Huang Wenbi 黃文弼 have walked across
the desert following these rivers; see Yin 1987: 87–90.
84 Burrow 1940: 129, 130, 131 (Kh.621, 629, 632).
85 Conrady 1920: 100, Pl. XXIV, No.21.5.
discovered in Kucha;86 and more than one person is recorded as having escaped
from Niya to Kucha, which indicates that it was indeed possible to cross the
desert dividing the northern and southern routes.87 Nevertheless, these cross-
ings were considerably more difficult and dangerous than normal journeys.88
The journey of the eminent Monk Faxian (Fa-Hsien 法顯) of the Eastern Jin is
an important piece of firsthand testimony. In 399, he left Chang’an heading for
India, and arrived at Karashahr via the kingdom of Shanshan, then “managed
to go straight forward in a south-west direction.” His account is too vague to re-
construct his exact steps after leaving Karashahr, but he apparently crossed the
Taklamakan Desert, and after one month and five days succeeded in reaching
Khotan. He records as follows: “They found the country uninhabited as they
went along. The difficulties which they encountered in crossing the streams
and on their route, and the sufferings which they endured, were unparalleled
in human experience.”89 It is clear that he traveled from Karashahr to Khotan
across the Taklamakan Desert, using a direct route connecting the two places.
But this journey was very harsh and difficult,90 which is why this desert road
never became the main route for east-west communication, even though it was
shorter and more direct than the two highways. For safety and convenience,
86 Lin Xin 1996: 196–199.

87 However, some scholars think that these escapees may have walked along the Niya River
to Karadong and then travelled northward to Kucha (Meng Fanren 2000: 359).
88 Among the people mentioned as escaping from Niya to Kucha are an eloping couple; it is
possible that they chose Kucha specifically because it was not one of the main destina-
tions from Niya.
89 Legge 1886: 8–16; Zhang Xun 1985: 12.
90 For a detailed investigation of Faxian’s possible route, see Feng 1994: 291–298. When
Stein paused in Kashgar (Kashi) to prepare for his fourth expedition, he telegraphed the
Governor of Xinjiang to request permission to travel from Khotan to Karashahr: “I am
planning to travel to Khotan via Yarkand, then travel on to Jingjue (Niya), then northward
across the Taklamakan, to reach the River Tarim. From there I will go westward [in fact,
eastward] to Tapan [Yingpan], then to the ancient Loulan, to explore the ancient route
heading out from the Jade Barrier under the reign of Wang Mang 王莽. After that I will
surmount the Northern Mountain, to reach Hami and Turfan and eventually Urumqi.”
(Xinjiang Archive Museum et al. 2007: 14) Although his plan failed, the route he was plan-
ning was feasible. It is significant that he intended to go to Jingjue via Khotan, and then
traverse the desert to reach the northern route. His intention to travel via Niya may have
been motivated by his previous successes at this site, or perhaps because he was aware
that historical records mention a route linking Niya to the north, and wanted to confirm
it by himself. This route is much shorter than the one from Karashahr to Khotan, and a bit
easier.
among other factors, Sogdian merchants mainly used the southern route, at
least until political stabilization led to safer travel on the northern route in the
mid-fourth century.
Although the southern route was superseded by the northern one, it did
not fall out of use altogether. Indeed, there was still traffic on the southern
route after the abandonment of Niya and Loulan,91 and many of these travel-
ers may have been Sogdians. A document from Dunhuang mentions that dur-
ing the Zhenguan 貞觀 Era (AD 627–629) of the early Tang, “a great notable of
Samarkand,” Kang Yandian / K’ang Yen-tien 康艷典, led some Sogdians east-
ward to the town Shicheng 石城 in the region of Lop-Nor and set up a colony
there. Subsequently, several other new towns were established on the south-
ern edge of the Taklamakan.92 Judging from the locations of these towns as
recorded by the Dunhuang text and the Tang annals, Kang Yandian and his
followers seem to have reached Lop-Nor by the traditional southern route.
Several hundred years after the decline of this route and the abandonment of
Niya and Loulan, the Sogdians still used it to reach this area and set up large-
scale colonies, because the route was still usable until the Sui-Tang period, and
the area was still of great significance for Sogdian commercial and colonial ac-
tivities. By controlling this area, the Sogdians could link up the Qinghai Route
(sometimes referred to as the Tuyuhun 吐谷渾 Route)93 with the main north-
ern and southern routes. At around the same time, there were other large-scale
Sogdian colonies led by another Sogdian leader Shi Wannian 石萬年 around
Yizhou 伊州 in the north of the Tianshan Mountain range. These sites con-
trolled the Yiwu Road linking China to the Western Regions and the Central
Asian steppe.94 Thus, the Sogdians established a remarkably large and impor-
tant network of trade routes.
91 Brough 1965: 611–2; Meng Fanren 1990: 270–1; de la Vaissière, 2002/2005: 123–124. Xuanzang
took this southern route on his return from India. See Da Tang xiyuji, Vol. 12: Ancient
Khotan, I, 311).
92 Pelliot 1916: 111–123.
93 The Qinghai or Tuyuhun route runs parallel to the Hexi corridor, linking the southern
branch of the Silk Road with Yizhou (Chengdu, Sichuan) and the area further southeast. It
passes through the region around Lake Qinghai (Koko Nur), which was dominated by the
Tuyuhun Kingdom during the Southern and Northern Dynasties (AD 386–589), especially
between the later Northern Wei and Sui Dynasties, when Tuyuhun controlled Shanshan
and Cherchen (Qiemo). The Sogdians played an important role on the Tuyuhun road,
since they had a close collaboration with this powerful nomadic regime.
94 Pulleyblank 1952: 351–352; Rong 2000b: 127–128; Walter 2006: 20.
Conclusion
Although the new fragment is small and only partly comprehensible, it is still
a highly important discovery, not only because it provides the first concrete
evidence for a Sogdian presence in Niya, but also because it highlights the
fact that at this early date, the Sogdians were concentrated on the southern
branch of the Silk Road, to the south of the Taklamakan, perhaps because it
was the safest and easiest route into China at that time, due to the insecurity
of the northern route. This fragment along with other materials provides an
insight into the lives and activities of these merchants, and greatly enriches
our understanding of the Sogdians in China.
Chapter 7
On the Chinese Name for the Syr Darya in

Xuanzang’s Account of Western Regions
Takata Tokio
Historical sources tell us that the Syr Darya has had different names.1 Ancient
Greek and Latin authors called it Yaksartes. The Pahlavi Yakhšārt is without
doubt connected to this expression. The river is also referred to as Yenčü ügüz
in ancient Turkish inscriptions. The river was called Sayhun or Sīhun in Arabic
sources; later, in Arabic and Persian sources, it was more often called some-
thing like Khojend River, after the name of a city on its bank.
It is interesting that Chinese sources of different periods include almost all
of these different forms. Yaosha shui 藥殺水 / Yaksartes appears in the descrip-
tion of Tashkent in Du You’s Tongdian2 and such dynastic histories as Beishi
(History of Northern Dynasties),3 Suishu (History of the Sui Dynasty),4 and Xin
Tangshu (New History of the Tang Dynasty).5 Xin Tangshu also uses the name
Zhenzhu he 眞珠河 (Pearl River) and Zhi he 貭河 (mod.Ch. zhi < anc.Ch. *tśir)
for the upper streams of the Syr Darya. The former, which could be a transla-
tion from the Turkish Yenčü ügüz, probably corresponds to the Narin River, and
the latter to the Syr Darya. This information in the Xin Tangshu owes much to
Du Huan 杜環 who, having been captured at the battle of Talas (751), wandered
about for twelve years in Central and West Asia until he returned to China
by sea. He wrote of his travels in the Jingxingji 經行記, which was lost and is
preserved in fragments in the Tongdian.6 The form Sayhun / Sīhun does not
1 See standard reference works such as A. Hermann, “Iaxartes,” in Pauly-Wissowa, Real-

encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft (Bd. IX), cf. Gärtner 1980: 1181–89; and
W. Barthold-[C.E. Bosworth]), “Sir Darya,” in Encyclopedia of Islam, New Edition (vol. IX),
659–660.
2 Du You, “Shi guo 石國” (Tashkent), in Tongdian, juan 193: 5275.
3 Beishi, juan 97: 3235.
4 Suishu, juan 83: 1850.
5 Xin Tangshu, juan 221: 6246.
6 New editions are available. See, among others, the edition included in Wang Guowei’s
王國維 Gu Xingji jiaolu 古行記校錄 (1928, published as a part of Wang’s Complete Works)
and the edition with commentaries by Zhang Yichun 1963.

106 Takata
seem to appear in Chinese historical sources.7 Lastly, we can find the name
Huozhan 火站being used for the Khojend River in the Mingshi,8 the descrip-
tion of which apparently followed Chen Cheng’s Xiyu Fanguo zhi 西域番國志.
A Mongolian form of the name of the Khojend River, Huochan monian 霍闡
沒輦 (Khojend-muren), appeared in the Xiyouji 西遊記 of the famous Taoist
monk Qiu Chuji 邱處機 (Changchun zhenren 長春眞人), who was invited by
Chinggis Khan to travel to his camp near the Hindu Kush. Chinggis Khan re-
ceived him in an audience there in 1221.
Incidentally, Xuanzang’s 玄奘 Account of Western Regions (Datang xiyuji
大唐西域記, 646 AD) presents a very peculiar variant of Syr Darya, Ye he 葉河.
This is the oldest name for the Syr Darya attested in Chinese historical sources,
but it is written as Yeye he 葉葉河 in the Biography of Xuanzang (Datang Da
Ci’ensi sanzang fashi zhuan 大唐大慈恩寺三藏法師傳),9 a difference that de-
serves careful attention. We need to discover whether Ye he or Yeye he is the cor-
rect form of the original expression for Xuanzang before proceeding to a more
detailed examination of the name. The river is named twice in Xuanzang’s
Account, first in the passage for Tashkent (Zheshiguo 赭時國) and then in the
passage of SuTRSNa (Sudulisenaguo 窣堵利瑟那國); both occurrences appear
as Yehe in the later editions of the Tripiṭaka. We present the relevant passages
below (punctuation marks omitted intentionally)10:
赭時國周千餘里西臨葉河東西狹南北長 …
窣堵利瑟那國周千四五百里東臨葉河葉河出蔥嶺北原西北而流 …
Contrariwise, the Biography offers the following11:
赭時國（唐言石國）西臨葉葉河
窣堵利瑟那國，國東臨葉葉河，河出蔥嶺北原西北而流
7 Chen Cheng 陳誠, who was dispatched in 1412 by the Yongle emperor to the court of
Timur, cites in his itinerary Xiyu xingcheng ji 西域行程記 a certain river called Yihun he
(or a muddy river) 一渾河. The context suggests that it corresponds to the Syr Darya; it
is therefore tempting to find in it a transcription for Sayhun / Sīhun, but one cannot be
certain. See Chen Cheng, 1991: 44.
8 Mingshi, juan 332: 8603.
9 Juan 2. The first five juan of the Biography were compiled by Huili 慧立 in 664, immedi-
ately after the death of Xuanzang.
10 Here, we use the text of the Kyoto University edition, which adopts the Korean Tripitaka
as the original. Daitō seiiki ki, kan ( juan) 1,1911: 20–21.
11 Taisho, vol.50: 227c.
On the Chinese Name for the Syr Darya 107
As mentioned, there is a clear difference between these two books, and it is

difficult to decide which one is correct. Old Japanese manuscripts offer the key
to the question, however. They present the texts differently. Let us consider an
example from one of the texts of the Kōshōji 興聖寺 temple, as it is the oldest
extant manuscript12:
赭時國周千餘里西臨葉ゝ河ゝ東西狹南北長…
窣堵利瑟那國周千四五百里東臨葉ゝ河ゝ出蔥嶺北原西北而流…
Manuscript duplication marks were used much more frequently in ancient

times than they were after the invention of printing. Normally, the above-cited
examples would be read as … 西臨葉河，葉河東西狹 … and … 東臨葉河，
葉河出蔥嶺北原 …, but never as … 西臨葉葉河，河東西狹 … or … 東臨葉葉
河，河出蔥嶺北原…. We have examined seven ancient Japanese manuscript
copies.13 Four of them (the mss. of Kōshōji, Tachibana-dera, Ishiyama-dera,
and Nanatsu-dera) use a duplication mark, so we cannot say with certainty
how the passages were read. The other three manuscripts (mss. of Hōryūji
temple, Kyoto National Museum, and Tokyo National Museum) present the
passages correctly [see the table at the end of the article]. Nevertheless, it was
always easy to be misunderstood when a duplication mark was used for two
characters, as is seen here. Thus, Yeye he 葉葉河 arose instead of Ye he 葉河.
The expression Yeye he, from the Biography of Xuanzang, probably originated
from a misunderstanding of the duplication mark.
An example from a Japanese manuscript of the Biography (Plate 9.1), copied
in the fourth year of Shōgen 承元四年 (1210),14 illustrates the matter. The sec-
ond passage for SuTRSNa reads as follows15:
窣堵利瑟那國，ゝ東臨葉ゝ河，ゝ出蔥嶺北原西北流
There is no punctuation mark, but we can safely read what is given here with
the help of the auxiliary kana put beside the characters (see Plate 9.1). In this
12 Concerning the Kōshōji manuscript text of the Account, see Takata 2008: 10–11.
13 They date from the Heian (794–1192) and the early Kamakura (1192–1333) periods.
Regrettably, space limitations prevent us from reviewing them here.
14 This manuscript was formerly possessed by Prof. Matsumoto Bunzaburō 松本文三郎
and is now kept in the Institute for Research in Humanities, Kyoto University.
15 In the first passage, this manuscript correctly gives Ye he instead of Yeye he for “Tashkent.”
This is quite interesting, but we must put aside this fact for the moment, as we are discuss-
ing issues concerning the duplication mark.
108 Takata
Plate 9.1
A Japanese manuscript of Xuanzang’s biography in 1210.
case, we can read the passage as 窣堵利瑟那國（ニ至ル），國ノ東葉葉河ニ

臨ム，河ハ蔥嶺ノ北ノ原ヨリ出デテ西北流タリ (Arriving in SuTRSNa, the
country faces Yeye he. The river originates from the northern plateau of the
Pamir and flows in the northwestern direction). The four characters 葉ゝ河ゝ
with duplication marks read as 葉葉河河 here, contrary to the normal way of
reading 葉河葉河.
We now turn to the Dunhuang manuscript, of which S.2659Va preserves al-
most the whole text of juan 1 of Xuanzang’s Account. The passages in question
read as follows:
赭時國周千餘里西臨葉葉河東西狹南北長…
窣堵利瑟那國周千四五百餘里東臨葉河葉河出蔥嶺北原西北而流…
The first passage uses the same form16 as the Biography does, perhaps due to
a misunderstanding of the duplication mark in the original text. Therefore, it
seems reasonable to conclude that the original name given to Syr Darya by
Xuanzang himself was Ye he and not Yeye he.
16 Of course, the second he 河 character is omitted but is also irrelevant here.
On the Chinese Name for the Syr Darya 109
What, then, is the original form of Ye he? Discovering the local name that
Xuanzang aimed to reproduce with this transcription is difficult. The character
ye 葉 “leaf” had two pronunciations in the Tang period, *iäp and *śiäp. The
Guangyun 廣韻 rhyme dictionary asserts that the use of the latter pronuncia-
tion was limited to the name of a prefecture in Ruzhou 汝州, Henan province.
The Jiyun 集韻 declares that it was also a surname. At any rate, *śiäp seems
to be a special pronunciation that was reserved for a proper noun. Could this
pronunciation be applicable to our example? Thomas Watters tried to explain
the forms she (*śiäp) and ye (*iäp) as abbreviations for ye-ye or ye-she, which
correspond, he claims, to Jaxartes.17 However, we cannot accept this view, as
Xuanzang’s original is, as mentioned above, not the disyllabic Yeye he but the
monosyllabic Ye he. We should take into consideration both the pronuncia-
tions she (*śiäp) and ye (*iäp), as we have no positive criteria with which to
determine which of these pronunciations is closer to the intent of the tran-
scription. We need to find the original local name, which could then provide a
reasonable explanation for the transcription’s form.
First, let us suppose that it was ye (*iäp) river; the most probable candidate
for the original word would then be the Iranian (Sogdian) āb (“water”). The
element appears also as a part of the toponym Suiyāb, written as Suye 素葉
in Xuanzang’s Account. The general term “the water” or “the river” could have
been adopted by the local people, as the Syr Darya is the biggest river in the re-
gion. The question then would be why Xuanzang used the character ye instead
of a more appropriate character without the initial yodicization. Xuanzang
was quite probably aware that each ye 葉 of Suye and Ye he is etymologically
identical.
What if we adopt the pronunciation she (*śiäp)? We are told that the top-
onym Afrāsiāb, famed ruined site of Samarkand, is a distortion of the Tajik
Parsīāb (Sogdian Paršvāb) “above the black river” (i.e., the Sīāhāb or Siāb18).
The phonetic correspondence is fairly close, leaving aside considerations of
time and place. However, suggesting that this expression was the original name
of Xuanzang’s she (*śiäp) river would be pointless, as the toponym Afrāsiāb be-
gins to appear only from the seventeenth century onwards.
We find no clear-cut solution for the problem of the Syr Darya in Xuanzang’s
Account, but we are inclined to adopt the first hypothesis, that the local people
called the river simply āb, “the River,” which Xuanzang transcribed Ye (*iäp).
17 Watters 1904: 71.

18 The article “AFRĀSĪĀB” by E. Yarshater, in Encyclopaedia Iranica I/6, 1984: 570–576;
Rtveledze, 1999: 188.
110 Takata
Incidentally, the Russian scholar S.G. Kljaštornij pointed out that the
Jaxartes of the ancient authors, which originally designated only the middle
and upper streams of the river, disappeared through a gradual assimilation of
local Iranian and Turkish dialects.19 On the other hand, Syr, an ancient Saka
name for the lower reaches of the river, was expanded to mean the whole river
after the conquest of Central Asia by the Uzbeks in the fifteenth and sixteenth
centuries. Thus, Jaxartes (or a derivation of it) would be a good candidate for
the river name that Xuanzang heard in Tashkent and SuTRSNa, given its geo-
graphical disposition.
Professor Livshits20 has recently theorized that the old name of Syr Darya,
Yaxart, was a Sogdian name and derived from the root xšar with the definite
article ya at the beginning and the feminine suffix tā. Livshits argues that the
meaning of the root xšar is “to flow, to stream.” It is attractive indeed to in-
terpret Xuanzang’s she (*śiäp) river as related to this name, but connecting
the root with our *śiäp might not be feasible, as the terminal consonants dif-
fer. Ultimately, it may be impossible to find the authentic original form for the
Ye (*iäp / *śiäp) river of Xuanzang. As suggested above, Xuanzang may have
recorded only the local term āb “the River” without conducting any further
investigation.
Tashkent SuTRSNa
赭時國窣堵利瑟那國
Korean Tripitaka 葉河葉河葉河

Kōshōji 興聖寺葉ゝ河ゝ葉ゝ河ゝ
Tachibana-dera 橘寺葉ゝ河ゝ葉ゝ河ゝ
Ishiyama-dera 石山寺葉ゝ河ゝ葉ゝ河ゝ
Nanatsu-dera 七寺葉ゝ河ゝ葉ゝ河ゝ
Hōryūji 法隆寺葉河葉河葉河葉河
Kyoto National Museum 葉河葉河葉河葉河
Tokyo National Museum 葉河葉河葉河葉河
Dunhuang Ms. 葉葉河葉河葉河
19 Kljaštornij, 1961: 24–26.

20 Livshits, 2003: 3–10.
Chapter 8
A New Study on Mouyu Qaghan’s Conversion to

Manichaeism
Wang Xiaofu
A considerable number of studies have been written on the topic of the

Uighurs’1 conversion to Manichaeism.2 The general understanding of this con-
version is that it took place in AD 763 during the reign of Mouyu Qaghan Idikän
牟羽可汗移地健, the third ruler of the Uighur khanate (744–840).3 The pres-
ent paper examines the question of why the Uighurs imported a new religion
after the khanate was established and even accepted it as the khanate’s state
religion.
One of the fifteen tribes of the Töliš 铁勒, the Uighur tribe first appears in
Chinese historical records toward the end of the Wei and Jin periods.4 For
more than three and a half centuries it was subordinated to other tribal
powers and did not form its own state or even establish a stable tribal con-
federation until the second quarter of the eighth century, during the reign
era of Tianbao (742–755) of the Tang. In the Zhenguan reign era (627–649),
the Tang government suppressed Xue Yantuo’s revolt and set up six fu
1 I am grateful to Dr. Zhang Ling for her assistance in preparing this article.
Huihe 回纥 and Huihu 回鹘 are both phonetic translations of the name “Uighur.”
According to the “Biography of the Uighurs” in both the Jiu Tangshu (Old Official History of
the Tang) and Xin Tangshu (New Official History of the Tang), when Martial Justice Victorious
Khan 武义成功可汗 of the Uighurs married Princess Xian’an, daughter of Emperor Dezong,
in 788, he requested a change in the Chinese name for Uighur from Huihe to Huihu, because
the latter had the meaning of “whirling and agile like the falcon.”
2 See Lin Wushu, “Huihu feng Monijiao de shehui lishi genyuan,” in Lin Wushu 1997: 83ff;
Moriyasu 2003: 49–62; Yang Fuxue 2007: 143–145.
3 Lin Wushu 1997: 83–85.
4 It is said that “on the jiashen day of the third month of 390, the emperor launched a western
expedition, situated in Luhunhai, attacking the Yuanhe 袁纥/Huihe 回纥 tribe of Gaoche
高车 and plundering more than 200,000 head of men and livestock.” See “Taizu ji,” Weishu,
chap. 2.

112 Wang
府 (governmental districts) and seven zhou 州 (prefectures) as subordinate

areas on the Mongolian steppe. Hanhaifu 瀚海府 for the Uighur tribe was one
of these areas. In the following years the Uighurs appear often in historical
records and remained active with six tribes, the Buqu/Buqut 仆固/仆骨,
Tongra 同罗, Bayarqu 拔野古, Qibi (Che-wei?) 契苾, Sïqïr 思结, and Qun 浑.
These tribes, together with the Täläng/Tälängüt 多览/多览葛, Ädiz 阿跌, and
Avšar(?) 阿布思, were called the Nine Surnamed Töliš, or the Toquz Oghuz.5
In the Tianbao reign era, the Uighurs revolted against the Eastern Turkic
Khanate and established their own khanate. The “two guest tribes,” the Qarluk
葛逻禄 and Basmïl 拔悉密, followed the Uighurs. Their presence suggests the
instability of tribal confederations and power succession on the Mongolian
steppe up to the fall of the Eastern Turkic Khanate.
During the An Lushan Rebellion in the mid-eighth century, some tribes of
the Toquz Oghuz, such as the Tongra and the Buqut, participated in the re-
bellion and opposed the Uighurs, which were at that time allied with Tang
China. The “Biography of Han Yougui” 韩游瓌 in the Xin Tang shu notes that
“An Lushan rebelled and ordered Ashina Congli 阿史那从礼 to command
5,000 Tongra and Turkic cavalrymen to pretend to surrender to the Shuofang
military commander. These troops went out the fortress gate and lured 500,000
tribesmen of the nine Turkic subordinated areas and six Sogdian prefectures
in the Bend of the Yellow River to rebel.” The “Biography of Guo Ziyi” 郭子仪
records as well that “the rebel general Ashina Congli commanded 5,000 Tongra
and Buqut cavalrymen and lured tens of thousands of tribesmen of the nine
subordinated areas and six Sogdian prefectures in the Bend to press upon the
5 Scholars hold different views as to the tribes that the “nine surnames” refer to. I think the
number “nine” is an approximate one. The first six tribes listed above are identical to the
names given in chapter 98 in the Tang huiyao; they are the six tribes sharing equal status with
the Nine Surnamed Uighurs in the “Biography of the Uighurs” in the Xin Tangshu, 6114. Of
the remaining three tribes, the Täläng/Tälängüt was one of the six Töliš subordinated areas
that the Tang set up on the steppe; it was of the same status as the Uighurs, Buquts, Bayarqus,
Tongras, and Sïqïrs; the “Täläng” 多揽 mentioned in the old and new Tangshus should be
understood to refer to this tribe. The Ädiz was one of the fifteen Töliš tribes, for which the
Tang government established the Jitian 鸡田 subordinate prefecture. From the eighth khan,
Huaixin Qaghan (795–805), the khan’s clan of the Uighur khanate was replaced by this Ädiz
clan; see Liu Yitang 1975: 128–129. The Avšar(?), for which the Tang formed the Dailin 蹛林
subordinate prefecture, was said to be the leading clan among the Nine Surnames in both
the “Biography of the Turks” in the Jiu Tangshu and the “Biography of An Lushan” in the Xin
Tangshu. Wang Tingcou 王廷凑 in both the old and new Tangshus was said to come from the
Avšar (?) clan. For further views, see Katayama 1981: 12–20. Oγuz is also called “Ghuzz”; see
Cahen 2003: 1106b.
A New Study on Mouyu Qaghan ’ s Conversion to Manichaeism 113
temporary imperial residence.” Apparently, some of the Toquz Oghuz had not
yet submitted to the Uighur khanate by that time. It was left to Mouyu Qaghan,
the third khan of the Uighur khanate, to accomplish the cultural transforma-
tion and ethnic integration of these tribes.
According to the “Biography of the Uighurs,” when the rebellion of Shi
Chaoyi 史朝义 was waning in 762, Mouyu Qaghan was summoned by Shi. He
moved southward in the company of a small number of soldiers and a large
number of dependents and livestock. His migration might have been due to
political instability inside the Uighur khanate. Six points suggest this political
instability:
1. According to the “Biography of the Uighurs” in the Xin Tangshu, when

Kale (Kürlig?) Qaghan Bayanchur 葛勒可汗磨延啜 died in the fourth
month of 759, “the prior crown prince Yabγu 叶护 had died as the victim
of a crime and therefore the second son, Idikän, took the throne and be-
came Mouyu Qaghan 牟羽可汗.” There is no evidence to explain how
Crown Prince Yabγu had been the victim of a crime, but it is certain that
he was the person that Kale Qaghan dispatched to command the Uighur
army and assist the Tang government in recovering its capitals in 757. The
“second son” in this text is shown to be the “younger son” in the “Biography
of the Uighurs” in the Jiu Tangshu. Some legends about the Uighurs’ ori-
gin in the later periods view Mouyu Qaghan as the youngest son of the
previous khan. This contradiction regarding Mouyu Qaghan’s status indi-
cates a struggle of succession among Kale Qaghan, the crown prince, and
Mouyu Qaghan.
2. The title bögü khan (i.e., Mouyu Qaghan) is used primarily in non-Chi-
nese records, so I suspect that this title was adopted after the khan had
converted to Manichaeism. The “Biography of the Uighurs” in the Jiu
Tangshu remarks that this khan was first called Tengri 登里 Khan upon
ascending the throne. Meanwhile, it also indicates that “the Khan of the
Nine Surnamed Uighurs dispatched Minister Küllüg Baγa Tarqan
俱陆莫达干 and others to the court [of the Tang emperor] on the jichou
己丑 day in the ninth month in 760.” This is the earliest surviving record-
ed mention of the Khan of the Nine Surnamed Uighurs used in reference
to Tengri Khan, who reigned for only one year. The change in titles prob-
ably reflects the new khan’s political commitment.
3. It is very difficult to explain why Mouyu Qaghan was invited to migrate
south by Shi Chaoyi in 762 given that the rebels of An Lushan’s troops,
including a large number of Turks, were the common enemy of the Tang
dynasty and the Uighur khanate and, moreover, that Shi Chaoyi’s defeat
114 Wang
was almost certain. Mouyu’s acceptance of Shi’s invitation seems to have

violated the Uighurs’s long-term stance. Thus, the only plausible explana-
tion for his decision is the internal political struggle in the Uighur khan-
ate. Mouyu Qaghan’s departure from the Uighurs’ persistent resistance to
the Turks proved temporary; he later helped the Tang government sup-
press An Lushan’s rebellion, accepted a title from the Tang, and invited
Manichaean monks rather than Zoroastrian priests (the religion of the
Turks as well as An Lushan’s Sogdian groups) from China proper
to the Mongolian steppe. In so doing he consolidated his significance in
Uighur history. These facts suggest that his inclination toward Shi Chaoyi’s
rebels was very likely due to temporary internal struggles.
4. According to Moriyasu Takao’s statistics based on the restored Chinese
sections of the Qara-Balgasun inscription, there are only twenty-seven
characters related to Bayanchur—nineteen about his enthronement and
eight about his life afterward. In sharp contrast to this brief record of
Bayanchur, more than four hundred characters are used to record the life
of his son, Mouyu Qaghan.6 The reason for this contrast is very likely that,
according to Moriyasu’s explanation, these inscriptions are highly influ-
enced by Manichaean historiography. Yet the neglect of Bayanchur is un-
reasonable given the fact that his merit in maintaining the relationship
between the Uighurs and the Tang and in expanding the territory of the
Uighur khanate was no less than his son’s.7 I suspect that there are other
reasons, aside from the influence of Manichaean historiography, which
might explain the great disparity between Bayanchur and Mouyu in the
memory of their Uighur descendants. Reserving further comment
for the time being, I would like simply to mention here three surviving
Uighur inscriptions found in Mongolia that are attributed to Bayanchur’s
reign era: the Sine-Usu inscription, the Tariat inscription or Terkhin in-
scription, and the Tez inscription.8 Some scholars believe that the last
one is actually for memorializing Mouyu Qaghan, because the inscrip-
tion starts from the death of Bayanchur and the enthronement of Mouyu
Qaghan. It also mentions 757, the Year of the Chicken of the Uighur khan-
ate. At this time, the Uighurs launched their first expedition to assist the
Tang government in suppressing An Lushan’s rebellion and recovering
6 Moriyasu 2002: 151.

7 Ibid., 150–52.
8 Ibid., 151.
the Tang Western Capital, Chang’an.9 This inscription is of great interest

because it is narrated in the first person, and the narrator seems to have
been a relative of the khan he writes about. In the second line of the in-
scription on the eastern side of the stele, the narrator says, “I heard that
he became the khan. I understood there were two khans. I understood
that [the other khan] is different from him. There is a false khan.”10
5. The “Biography of the Uighurs” in the Xin Tangshu says, “[Mouyu Qaghan]
arrived together with his qatun [queen consort]. The emperor ordered
that [Buqu] Huai’en [怀恩] and the Uighurs should meet one another.
Thereafter [Mouyu Qaghan] sent an envoy to present his petition [to the
emperor], asking permission to assist the Son of Heaven in suppressing
the rebels.” The qatun mentioned above, a daughter of Huai’en, seems to
have held some political power. If this is true, the Tang government and
the Uighurs could have negotiated their cooperation via their envoys,
without any need for the qatun to travel to Taiyuan in person. Why did
the qatun have to exert her influence in Taiyuan? The most likely reason
is that she could hardly show her political strength within the Uighur
khanate on the steppe; therefore, she journeyed with Mouyu Qaghan to
the south in search of the opportunity to recover their political power.11
6. Reportedly, Mouyu Qaghan went southward into China proper in the
eighth month of 762 and returned to the steppe in the second month of
763. It is very rare for a Uighur khan to have stayed in China proper for
such a long time. As was noted above, during the course of remaining in
China proper, Mouyu Qaghan assisted the Tang government in pacifying
the turbulence and afterward brought four Manichaean monks back to
the steppe. These four monks “illuminate the two worships [i.e., the
realms of brightness and darkness] and thoroughly comprehend
the three phases [i.e., the past, the present, and the future]. Furthermore,
the masters are illustrious in the School of Brightness [i.e., Manichaeism]
and have expertise of the seven canons. Their talent is as great as the
9 Geng Shimin 耿世民, “Xiancun zhuyao gudai Tujue wen beaming 現存主要古代突厥
文碑銘,” in Geng 2006: 113.
10 “False khan” was rendered as 移地健 (öd känč) khan by Geng Shimin; see “Huihe Tujue
wen beiming yiwen, 3, Tiezi bei (Mouyu kehan bei),” regarding line 13 of the eastern-
side inscription, in Lin Gan and Gao Zihou 1994: 392. This error ought to be corrected; see
Moriyasu and Ochir 1999: 165.
11 Moriyasu Takao holds that the record mentioned here was a Chinese production in favor
of China, for it was the Tang government and not the Uighurs or Tibet that desired the
marriage. See Moriyasu 2002: 157.
116 Wang
scale of mountains and seas, and their eloquence is as powerful as surg-

ing water; therefore, they must be able to establish zhengjiao 正教 among
the Uighurs” (line 8 of the Chinese section of the Qara-Balgasun
inscription).12 In this record, zhengjiao refers to the orthodox teachings,
in contrast to the “heretical” Chinese. More interestingly, according to the
“Biography of the Uighurs” in the Xin Tangshu, before Mouyu Qaghan re-
turned to the steppe, Emperor Daizong sent special envoys to his en-
campment and invested him with titles. The persons invested at that
time included almost the entire ruling class of the Uighur khanate. The
large scale of the investiture contrasted sharply with the small number of
followers (4,000 male adults and 10,000 old and weak people) who went
south with Mouyu. This investiture took place after the Eastern Capital
Luoyang was recovered and Shi Chaoyi’s rebellion was suppressed; the
timing indicates there was a notable change in the domestic politics
in the Uighur khanate at the time, which was inclined to favor Mouyu.
The investiture took place at the khan’s temporary residence (either in Heyang
or Taiyuan); this suggests that at this time almost all the important figures of
the Uighur ruling classes left the steppe to meet Mouyu or welcome his return.
Apart from the khan and the qatun, “eleven governors were all appointed as
guogong 国公.” Historical sources suggest these persons, the governors of the
Uighurs’ Nine Surnamed clans and the two guest tribes of Basmïl and Qarluk,
eleven dudus (governor-generals), must have been the basis and core of the
ethnic integrity of the Uighur khanate.13 Similar information in the Chinese
sources is also seen in the Tez insciption. According to Geng Shimin, “The final
section (lines 19 to 22) of the inscription seems to follow line 6 and narrate
the enthronement and the early activities of Mouyu Qaghan. It mentions the
attendance of nine biruqs (meilu 梅录) and the situation of ‘my Uighurs’ (at a
ceremony). The inscription seems to have been created in the reign of Mouyu
Qaghan during 761–62.”14
12 For the quotation here, see ibid., 156. The expression “妙达明门” is sometimes written
“妙达名门”; see Cheng Suluo 1994: 104, which might be incorrect. In addition, the expres-
sion “精通七部” is sometimes written “精通七步,” such as in Paul Pelliot and Edouard
Chavannes, “Monijiao liuxing zhongguo kao,” trans. Feng Chengjun, in Xiyu Nanhai shidi
kaozheng yicong babian, 58, or in Xiyu Nanhai shidi kaozheng yicong, vol. 2 (Beijing:
Shangwu yinshuguan, 1995). I suspect this is also incorrect.
13 “Biography of the Uighurs,” Jiu Tangshu, 5198.
14 See Geng 2006: 114, also his “Huihe Tujuewen beiming yiwen, 3, Tiezi bei (Mouyu kehan
bei),” 390.
What is the ceremony after the enthronement that the Tez inscription re-
fers to? Was it an investiture at the khan’s temporary residence? Our sources
do not provide a clue to the answers to these questions. Still, there are two
points worthy of comment: first, An Lushan’s rebellion, which was associated
with Zoroastrianism and included Turkic remnants, was suppressed; second,
Manichaean monks, who were significant in shaping the ethnic integrity of the
Uighur khanate, were invited to the steppe. These two aspects were achieved in
succession within a half year after Mouyu Qaghan’s southern expedition. This
suggests that the cause-and-effect relation between them was inevitable—the
obstacle to the formation of the Uighurs’ ethnic integrity was removed, so the
combination of Mouyu Qaghan and Manichaeism commenced a new history
of the Uighurs’ ethnic cohesion.
From the time of Mouyu Qaghan, most recorded titles of the Uighur khans
are composed of such elements as Ai Tengri, Kün Tengri, or Kün-Ai Tengri, as
shown in the following table.15
Name Respectful title Other titles Reign Sources
Idikän Ai Tängridä Qut

Khan of the Nine 759– Qara-Balgasun
移地健 Bolmiš Il Tutmiš
Surnamed Uighurs, 780 inscription,
Quch Küllüg Bilgä
Heroic, Righteous, “The Biography
Qaghan 爱登里啰汩
and Merit-Achieving of the Uighurs,”
没蜜施颉咄登蜜施合 [英义建功] Khan Jiu Tangshu
俱录毗伽可汗
Ton Baγa Quch Qutluq Bilgä Martial, Righteous, 780– “The Biography
顿莫贺 Qaghan 合骨咄禄毗 and Successful 789 of the Uighurs,”
伽可汗 [武义成功] Khan, Jiu Tangshu, Xin
Longeval and Tangshu
Heavenly Beloved
[长寿天亲] Khan
15 The information in the table comes from relevant primary sources, Feng Jiasheng 1981; Liu
Yitang 1975; Hamilton 1955: 139–143.
118 Wang
(cont.)
Talas Ai Tängridä Qut

Loyal and Faithful 789– “The Annals
多逻斯 Bolmiš Küllüg Bilgä
[忠贞] Khan of the 790 of Emperor
Qaghan 爱登里逻汩
Nine Surnamed Dezong,” Jiu
没蜜施俱录毗伽可汗 Uighurs Tangshu,
“The Biography
of the Uighurs,”
Xin Tangshu
Acor Qutluq Bilgä Qaghan Sincerity-Esteemed 790– Qara-Balgasun
阿啜汩咄禄毗伽可汗 [奉诚] Khan of the 795 inscription,
Nine Surnamed “The Annals
Uighurs of Emperor
Dezong,” Jiu
Tangshu
Qutluq Ai Tängridä Uluq Faith-Esteemed 795– “The Annals
骨咄禄 Bolmiš Quch Küllüg [怀信] Khan of the 805 of Emperor
Bilgä Qaghan 爱滕里 Nine Surnamed Dezong,” Jiu
逻羽录没蜜施合胡禄 Uighurs Tangshu,
毗伽可汗 “The Biography
of the Uighurs,”
Xin Tangshu
Ai Tängridä Qut 805– Cefu yuangui,
Bolmiš Küllüg Bilgä 808 chaps. 965, 967
Qaghan 爱登里逻汩
德没施俱录毗伽可汗
Ai Tängridä Qut Righteousness- 808– Qara-Balgasun
Bolmiš Quch Bilgä Guarded [保义] 821 inscription,
Qaghan 爱登里啰汩 Khan of the Nine Cefu yuangui,
没蜜施合毗伽可汗， Surnamed Uighurs chap. 967,
Kün Tängridä Qut Tang huiyao,
Bolmiš Quch Bilgä chap. 98
Qaghan 君/军登里
罗骨德蜜施合毗伽
可汗a
Kün Tängridä Ulug Virtue-Respected 821– “The Annals

Bolmiš Quch Küčlüg [崇德] Khan of the 825 of Emperor
Bilgä Qaghan 君登里 Nine Surnamed Muzong,” Jiu
逻羽录没密施合句主 Uighurs Tangshu,
录毗伽可汗 Cefu yuangui,
chap. 967
Khazar Kün Tängridä QutRitual-Enlightened 825– Cefu yuangui,
Tegin Bolmiš Quch Bilgä
[昭礼] Khan of the 832 chaps. 965, 967
曷萨特勤 Qaghan 君登里逻汩 Nine Surnamed
没密施合毗伽可汗 Uighurs
Khut Tegin Ai Tängridä Qut Faith-Manifested 832– Cefu yuangui,
胡特勤 Bolmiš Quch Küllüg [彰信] Khan of the 839 chap. 965
Bilgä Qaghan 爱登里 Nine Surnamed
罗汩没密施合俱录毗 Uighurs
伽可汗
a On this title, see Liu Yitang 1975: 133–135.
According to the above records, eight of the ten khans had the names Ai Tengri
or Kün Tengri in their respectful titles. The Turkic term tengri means “heaven”
or “god” and came to be used in names in the Turkic khanate.16 The Uighurs had
been under the rule of the Turks for a long while, so it is understandable that
they were influenced by the Turks and adopted this term. In the “Biography of
the Uighurs” in the Jiu Tang shu, Mouyu Qaghan is also referred to as Tengri
Khan once he has taken the throne. However, it was not until his time that the
terms ai and kün began to be placed in front of the term tengri. In Uighur as
well as in Turkic, ai means “moon” and kün “sun,” thus, combining these two
terms with tengri results in “Moon God” and “Sun God,” respectively. In the
view of Manichaean scholars, “the Moon God and the Sun God are the saviors
that were widely worshipped by the Manichaeans of Central Asia.”17 Hence,
16 At the close of the Eastern Turkic Khanate, there was a Tengri Khan. According to the
“Biography of the Turks” in the Jiu Tangshu, tengri (dengli 登利) means “incarnation” in
Chinese. Tengri Khan’s mother was the daughter of Tonyukuk 暾欲谷. Examination of
various materials shows that “incarnation” here means being born of heaven.
17 Klimkeit (trans. Lin Wushu) 1989: 74.
120 Wang
that these terms were included in the titles of the Uighur khans surely reflects
the cultural influence of Manichaeism.18 The first title listed above, Ai Tängridä
Qut Bolmiš 爱登里啰汩没蜜施, means “receiving the blessing from the Moon
God.”19 It suggests that the khan’s power was legitimized by the god rather than
by election among tribal nobles or by any oath among tribal chiefs—a signifi-
cance that Mouyu Qaghan and his successors sought from Manichaeism.
From Mouyu Qaghan to the final years of the Uighur khanate, seven of
the nine khans bore the title of Khan of the Nine Surnamed Uighurs, and the
khans who bore this title generally also held respectful titles that included
the terms Ai Tengri or Kün Tengri. Therefore, I suspect that there must be a
certain correspondence between the respectful titles Ai Tengri or Kün Tengri
and the title Khan of the Nine Surnamed Uighurs; namely, a khan with the re-
spectful title Ai Tengri or Kün Tengri must also be Khan of the Nine Surnamed
Uighurs and vice-versa. Such a khan must have been crowned, so to put it, by
Manichaeism.20 If so, I would consider that the adoption of the title Khan of
the Nine Surnamed Uighurs must have been related to the Uighurs’ conversion
to Manichaeism. The concept of Nine Surnamed Uighurs apparently derives
from the Nine Surnamed Töliš tribes. The fact that this concept is contained in
the khan’s title must have strengthened the cohesion of various ethnic groups.
Some scholars maintain that after Mouyu Qaghan’s death in a coup his
successor, Ton Baγa (Dunmohe 顿莫贺), suppressed Manichaeism.21 They
further hold that Manichaeism did not revive and become the state religion
again until the reign of Huaixin 怀信 Qaghan.22 But my own research shows
otherwise. The violence brought by Ton Baγa’s coup d’état did not last long;
despite a short-term recession, the activities of Sogdian merchants and the
Manichaean church recovered in short order. Three factors contributed to this
rapid recovery:
First, as Lin Wushu has pointed out, Ton Baγa repelled the Sogdians and
rejected Manichaeism. According to Tazaka Kōdō 田坂興道, all Uighur khans
18 Ibid., 82, 96.

19 Liu Yitang 1975: 120–121.
20 In the above table, there is a Khan of the Nine Surnamed Uighurs (790–795) who does not
bear the title Ai Tengri or Kün Tengri and a khan with the respectful title of Ai Tengri who
does not have the title Khan of the Nine Surnamed Uighurs. I suspect that these are just
errors in the sources, not historical facts. If so, among the ten khans from Mouyu Qaghan
to the fall of the Uighur khanate, there is only one whose title does not include either Ai
Tengri or Kün Tengri or Khan of the Nine Surnamed Uighurs. This is Ton Baγa, who killed
Mouyu as a result of the conflicts with the nine surnamed Sogdians.
21 Tazaka 1940: 223–232.
22 Moriyasu 2002: 152–153.
who believed in Manichaeism were granted titles that included a reference to

the moon and sun gods, gods worshipped by the Manichaeans, as mentioned.
Ton Baγa, however, did not bear such titles. Moreover, Chinese historical re-
cords about his rule do not attest to Manichaean activity among the Uighurs.23
Apparently, Manichaeism became less significant than before. However, the re-
pellence toward the Sogdians would invariably damage the Uighurs’ commer-
cial interests and bring the government financial trouble, a situation in which
“they have no wealth and so cannot govern the masses,” as observed by Zhang
Guangsheng 张光晟 in 780.24 Consequently, soon after Ton Baγa’s death, his
son Talas (Duoluosi 多逻斯) was compelled to restore the old policy of Mouyu
Qaghan, adopt the title Ai Tängridä, and again subscribe to Manichaeism.25
Second, as apparent in the table above, Talas bore the title Loyal and
Faithful Khan of the Nine Surnamed Uighurs. Among the ten khans listed in
the table, there is only one, namely Ton Baγa, who did not have a title that
included Ai Tengri, Kün Tengri, or Khan of the Nine Surnamed Uighurs. The
two khans between Ton Baγa and Huaixin Qaghan both carried the title Khan
of the Nine Surnamed Uighurs, so they both should have had either Ai Tengri
or Kün Tengri in their respectful titles. Both must have been crowned in the
Manichaean church and thus must have believed in Manichaeism.
Third, according to historical records, Ton Baγa’s coup d’état in 780 over-
throwing Mouyu Qaghan came about in part because Mouyu was lured by the
nine surnamed Sogdians to launch a southern invasion. In fact, the insurrec-
tion was no more than an internal struggle for political power among members
of the ruling class; it was not a persecution of Sogdians and Manichaeism. This
can be clarified by considering the following five points:
1. The “Biography of the Uighurs” in the Jiu Tangshu records as follows: “The
khan did not accept advice. Ton Baγa took advantage of people’s desires,
attacking and killing the khan. He also killed 2,000 people, including the
khan’s favorites and the nine surnamed Sogdians who lured the khan.”
The phrase “took advantage of people’s desires” shows that the coup was
not the result of a single factor. The persons killed in the coup were those
who lured the khan to invade the south and not the entire Sogdian
population and the Manichaean churches. According to the “Biography
of the Uighurs” in the Xin Tangshu, the death toll from the insurrection
23 Tazaka 1940: 228–231.

24 Zizhitongjian, on the jiawu day of the eighth month in the first year of the Jianzhong reign
era, chap. 226, p. 7288.
25 Lin Wushu 1997: 92.
122 Wang
amounted to “nearly 2,000 people, including the khan’s followers and

the nine surnamed Sogdians.” This suggests that the entire number
might have been less than 2,000, and a large portion of this number
would have been drawn from the Uighurs. Therefore, the involvement of
Sogdians and the Manichaean churches in this coup ought not to be
overestimated.
2. It is recorded in the Zizhi tongjian (chap. 226) for the jiawu day of the
eighth month in 780 that “the emperor hated the Uighurs because of his
disgrace in Shanzhou. Zhang Guangcheng knew the emperor’s concern
and accordingly presented a memorial, stating that ‘native Uighurs are
not many; it is Sogdian groups that support and strengthen them. Now I
have heard that they fought with one another. Ton Baγa is newly en-
throned, and Idikän has a concubine’s son; together with their ministers
and chancellors they possess thousands of men and attack one another,
so the state is unstable. Without financial support, they cannot mobilize
the masses. Instead of getting rid of them by taking advantage of this,
Your Majesty would return their men and give them wealth; this is what
is called lending soldiers and bestowing food to the bandits. I plead to kill
these persons.’” This record shows that Ton Baγa’s succeeding Mouyu was
a matter of an internal political coup d’état caused by their struggle for
power, not the result of ethnic and cultural conflicts. So it is not appropri-
ate to overestimate the involvement of the nine surnamed Sogdians in
the coup.
3. The “Biography of Yuan Xiu” in the Jiu Tangshu (equivalent to that in the
“Biography of the Uighurs” in the Xin Tangshu) says, “The military com-
mander Zhang Guangsheng has killed the Tudong and the like of the
Uighurs. The emperor commanded Yuan Xiu to return the four corpses of
Tudong, Ilmiš, and the large and small Biruqs. The khan sent his men to
tell Xiu that ‘the 1.8 million bolts of silk that [the Tang] owes me for the
purchase of horses must be paid soon.’ He dispatched a general-at-large,
Kang Chixin 康赤心, to accompany Xiu to give audience to the emperor,
and Xiu finally did not see the khan. Soon afterward [the emperor] sent
Chixin and the others back, together with 100,000 bolts of silk and 100,000
liang of gold and silver in payment for the horses.” Obviously the Uighurs
were involved in the silk and horse trade, so Ton Baγa needed to employ
nine surnamed Sogdian merchants such as Kang Chixin.
4. Most interestingly, according to the “Biography of the Uighurs” in the Xin
Tangshu, Ton Baγa presented a memorial to the Tang court in 788, one
year before his death, requesting “changing the Uighurs’ Chinese name of
Huihe 回纥to Huihu 回鹘.” This change in the name was recognized and
inherited by later generations; it remained even after the ruling clan

changed from Yaγlaqar 药罗葛 to Ädiz 跌/阿跌, as is apparent from the
Chinese text of the Qara-Balgasun inscription. It seems the name
change to Huihu was favored and accepted also by the Manichaean
church. Therefore, I think this shows that Ton Baγa did not break with
Sogdian merchants completely but possibly improved his relations
with the Manichaean church in his later years. Clearly, the new name of
Nine Surnamed Huihu is advantageous for changing people’s memory
of the Uighurs as of the Nine Surnames or the Nine Surnamed Töliš. Not
only would it improve the Uighurs’ subjective consciousness, it would
also strengthen their ethnic integrity. All in all, Ton Baγa’s changing of
the Uighurs’ name to Huihu must have coincided with the will of the
Manichaean church and benefited the application of Manichaean
historiography.
5. Nevertheless, because of his provocation of the coup d’état and assassina-
tion of Mouyu Qaghan, Ton Baγa was not crowned by the Manichaean
church. For this reason, the Qara-Balgasun inscription does not criticize
Ton Baγa’s crime. This choice fully accords with the tradition of “hiding
the vice and praising the virtue” found throughout Manichaean histori-
ography, as Moriyasu discusses.26 Interestingly, the title Khan of the Nine
Surnamed Uighurs is not applied to Ton Baγa in any Chinese historical
sources. Therefore, the parallel between the Uighur khans’ respectful title
and khan title does exist; the nonexistence of the title Khan of the Nine
Surnamed Uighurs for Ton Baγa is not the result of Chinese sources’ re-
cording tradition.
Lin Wushu has a theory as to why Mouyu Qaghan did not subscribe to any
religion other than Manichaeism. He remarks, “After helping the Tang dynasty
suppress the rebellion, the Uighurs relied upon Sogdians to develop commerce
between the East and the West. The commercial economy supplied the bulk
of the income for the khanate. Hence, both the state affairs and the religious
beliefs of the Uighurs were heavily influenced by the Sogdians. Most of the
Sogdians in the Uighurs’ territory were Manichaean, so Manichaeism was se-
lected as the state religion by the Uighur khan. From the historical phenom-
enon of the Uighur conversion to Manichaeism, we may perceive that the
26 Moriyasu 2002: 157.

124 Wang
transmission of any ancient religion has inseparable relations with its contem-
porary social and economic development.”27
As Lin has noted, the Uighur khanate was reliant on the silk and horse
trade.28 However, as was previously mentioned, prior to the Uighur khan-
ate, the steppe was dominated by the Eastern Turkic Khanate, which
adhered to the Zoroastrianism preached by the Sogdians. The rebels in-
volved in the An Lushan Rebellion were mainly Sogdians who believed
in Zoroastrianism. Why did the Uighurs not take advantage of the Sogdian
Zoroastrians but rather introduced Manichaeism from China proper if they
simply wanted to develop commerce? Obviously, the Uighurs did not convert
to Manichaeism only for the sake of the Sogdians but for other reasons. I think
that the Uighurs had several reasons to discard Zoroastrianism and convert to
Manichaeism, even though both were the religions of the Sogdians.
1. Zoroastrianism was the state religion of the Turkic khanate. My research

has shown that the Turkic khanate was an ethnic community including
some Töliš tribes that converted to Zoroastrianism and shared a similar
identity with the Sogdians.29 The rest of the Töliš tribes, including the
Uighurs, faced oppression. They enjoyed few benefits and were not treat-
ed as included tribes. We can find in historical sources that the Uighurs
raised many rebellions to resist the Turks before the Uighur khanate was
established.
2. Zoroastrianism was utilized as a tool for solidifying the Turkic khanate,
thus reinforcing the identity of the ruling classes in the khanate. At that
time the ruled Uighurs and other Töliš tribes could not convert to
Zoroastrianism even if they wished to. They were sworn enemies of the
ruling tribes. The use of the term “nine surnamed Turks” to address
the various Töliš tribes was merely a way of showing the subject relation
of these tribes to the Turkic khanate. Furthermore, Zoroastrianism ag-
gravated the political corruption and Sogdians’ abuses at the close of the
Eastern Turkic Khanate. The Uighur khanate that brought down the
Turkic leadership was not likely to inherit Zoroastrianism.
3. In the Sogdian section of the Qara-Balgasun inscription recovered by
Moriyasu,30 it is stated in the ninth line, “Therefore, words [the letter]
came. It says, ‘Please release [the emperor] from misery. Please give
27 Lin Wushu 1997: 94.

28 Ibid., 87ff.
29 Wang Xiaofu 2007: 33ff.
30 Moriyasu 2002: 154–55.
assistance.’ The holy king heard of this and entered the βγpwrstn [i.e.,
China proper] together with his mighty army. This army …”
The tenth line reads, “They fought no more. All heretics said so to holy
Manichaeism, so they dismissed this ’npt/’δpt. The holy king and his
mighty army attacked and seized the realm of the King of Fire31 … [frag-
ment 6]… to the number of four [Manichaean monks?]…”
Doubtlessly, this record recounts the incident in which Mouyu Qaghan
led the Uighur army to assist the Tang government, defeating Shi Chaoyi
and recovering the Eastern Capital Luoyang in 762. The “heretics” men-
tioned in the above must refer to the rebels of the An-Shi army and their
followers who believed in Zoroastrianism. This shows that the
Zoroastrians and the Manichaeans viewed each other as heretics.
4. As has been clarified by previous research, “Before instigating the war, An
Lushan dispatched Sogdian merchants to trade in various places and in-
vited non-Chinese merchants from those places to introduce foreign pre-
cious goods. The An Lushan shiji reports that An Lushan presented gold
and silver vessels to Emperor Xuanzong many times, and the gifts be-
stowed by Emperor Xuanzong to him were also invaluable. The wealth
earned from commerce and gifts from the Tang court formed the finan-
cial base of An Lushan’s rebellion.”32 The “Biography of An Lushan” in the
Xin Tangshu records clearly, “At the great meeting, Lushan squatted on
the double-layer seat. Incense burned, precious treasures were present-
ed, and hundreds of non-Chinese attendants surrounded him. He met
various merchants, presented sacrifices, and had witches play and dance
in front of him to apotheosize himself.”33 Apparently, An Lushan was also
a religious leader of the Zoroastrian church. The Sogdian merchants
must, by and large, have been Zoroastrians who shared the same religion
with the Turks and, as mentioned, might have been the remnants of the
Turkic khanate. The rise of the Uighur khanate brought with it the need
for a commercial economy, and it could seek help only from other groups
of Sogdians, in particular those Manichaean Sogdians who had long been
31 The Japanese name オチュヶン is equivalent to Ötükän in Turkic; see Moriyasu and
Ochir 1999: 15. Its phonetic translation in Tang China is Yudujin 于都斤, Yudujun 郁督
军, or Wudejian 乌德健. In ancient Turkic, it means “King of Fire,” the “Holy Fire of the
State”; see Wang Xiaofu, “‘Gongyue’ mingyi kao 弓月名義考,” in: Wang Xiaofu 1992: ap-
pendix 1. According to the context of this record, the territory of the King of Fire here
should refer to Luoyang, which was occupied by Shi Chaoyi 史朝義.
32 Rong Xinjiang, “An Lushan de zhongzu yu zongjiao xinyang,” in Rong 2001: 241.
33 Xin Tangshu, 225 shang, 6414.
126 Wang
living in China proper. Seen from another perspective, when finding that
the Uighurs had conquered the Turkic khanate and suppressed An
Lushan’s rebellion, the Manichaean church, which had been depressed
for a long period, must have enjoyed a similar excitement as the Tang
government did and cheered for the chance of its rise. Indeed, subse-
quent facts proved this was true. Hence, the relationship between the
Uighur khanate and the Manichaean church was not only a relationship
between the steppe and commerce but also one between commerce and
religion. Such a relationship links the strengths in the north and the
south as well as the political and the religious, thus mutually benefiting
both sides.
5. Clearly the Uighurs had been ruled by the Turkic khanate for a long time
and their language was close to that of the Turks, so their customs were
also influenced by the latter. As has been noted, words like bögü and ten-
gri were used during the Turkic khanate as part of people’s names.
Moriyasu remarks, “In the age of the Uighur khanate, the Uighurs inher-
ited the literary tradition of the Turks. The three steles memorializing the
second khan, Bayanchur, the Sine-Usu inscription, Tariat inscription, and
the Tez inscription, were composed in this way. These records were cre-
ated before the introduction of Manichaeism; their contents do not bear
the influence of Manichaeism.”34 More than this, I think some words
used in these inscriptions might have been impacted by Turkic
Zoroastrianism, for example the inscription of the fifth line on the west-
ern face of the Tez inscription: “My … Mïš Qaghan was hurt seriously, so
he flew away [died]. His son, namely Yabγu, became the khan.”35
According to my research, use of the expression “fly away” was a Turkic
custom associated with the death of khans or nobles.36 It is precisely the
political and cultural instability at the early stage of the Uighur khanate
that drove Mouyu Qaghan to introduce Manichaeism and change the
contemporary situation. The Chinese section of the Qara-Balgasun in-
scription describes the situation as follows: “Now they regret their past
mistakes and are willing to worship the orthodox teaching. It was de-
clared in the doctrines that this religion is subtle, and it is difficult to
practice. But they beg for mercy again and again: ‘In the past we were ig-
norant and recognized the ghost as the Buddha; now, since realizing our
mistake, we shall not worship it anymore.’ ” “Buddha” here refers to the
34 See Moriyasu and Ochir 1999: 148.

35 See Moriyasu and Ochir 1999: 160–161.
36 Wang Xiaofu 2007: 35, 38.
orthodox religion, namely Manichaeism. According to Lin Wushu, before

entering China in the Tang dynasty, Manichaeism acquired some
Buddhist aspects in Central Asia.37 In chapter 40 of the Tongdian 通典,
the “Decree of Banning Manichaeism” of the 7th month of 732 says,
“Manichaeism is truly a heretical religion, but it falsely calls itself
Buddhism.” The above records indicate that although Sogdians who be-
lieved in Zoroastrianism were also merchants, their religion was the
Turkic khanate’s tool for acquiring a subjective consciousness and was
thus deemed less useful for consolidating the ethnic integrity of the
Uighur khanate. By converting to Manichaeism, therefore, Mouyu
Qaghan intended to effect a complete break with the cultural circum-
stances of the past and thereby realize a consciously Uighur state and
ethnic cohesion of the Nine Surnamed Uighur tribes. It is no exaggera-
tion to say that Mouyu Qaghan’s introducing Manichaeism and establish-
ing it as the Uighurs’ state religion was an important milestone of Uighur
history and vital in establishing the historical significance of the
khanate.
37 Lin Wushu, “Tangdai Monijiao yu Zhongya Moni jiaotuan 唐代摩尼教與中亞摩尼教

團,” in Lin Wushu 1997: 61.
Chapter 9
Beyond Deciphering: An Overview of Tocharian

Studies over the Past Thirty Years
Xu Wenkan
It was in 1892 that the existence of the so-called “Tocharian language,” a branch
of the Indo-European language family, came to be known in the West for
the first time. In that same year, from the collection of Petrovsky, a Russian
consul general to Kashgar, a facsimile manuscript in an unknown language
was published in Zapiski Vostochnago Otdyleniya Imperatorkago Russkago
Archeologicheskago Obshchestva 7 by the Russian scholar S. F. Oldenburg. The
unknown manuscript was written in North Indian Brahmi script. The follow-
ing year, the English scholar A. F. R. Hoernle transcribed and identified several
Sanskrit words in the manuscript.1
From the end of the nineteenth century to the beginning of the twentieth,
expeditions from Britain, Germany, Russia, Japan, Sweden, and other countries
carried out archaeological explorations in Xinjiang, Gansu, and other places in
northwest China, uncovering numerous ancient manuscripts in many languag-
es (mainly discovered in Xinjiang and Dunhuang, Gansu). The most astonishing
findings were manuscripts in previously unknown Indo-European languages;2
this started a wave of interest in these manuscripts among European schol-
ars. In 1900, the German scholar Ernst Leumann published an article entitled
“Über eine von den unbekannten Literatursprachen Mittelasiens” in Mémories
de l’Académie Impériale des Sciences de St.-Pétersbourg, VIIIe série IV/8. He
included in his article the abovementioned facsimile, as well as another fac-
simile drawn from the Russian collection. Leumann’s transcription was fairly
accurate; he identified several Sanskrit words, and his research demonstrated
that the manuscript was a fragment of a translation of a Buddhist sūtra.
The Indo-European language investigated by Hoernle and Leumann had
previously been unknown, so they referred to it as Unbekannte Sprache I,
“Unknown Language I,” and later called it Kaschgarische, “Kashgari,” though
both names have since fallen out of use.
1 Hoernle 1893: 1–40.

2 He Changqun 1932/2003: 54–97.

Beyond Deciphering 129
The German Turcologist F. W. K. Müller and the Sanskritologist Emil Sieg

played the most important role in continuing the research. In 1907, Müller
published a short article entitled “Beitrag zur genaueren Bestimmung der un-
bekannten Sprachen Mittelasiens” in SBAW 958–960. His identification was
based on the colophon of the Uyghur version of Maitreyasamiti (Maitrisimit
nom bitig); he called the language Tocharisch, “Tocharian.” Other scholars, for
example the Estonian Baron Alexander von Staël-Holstein and the Norwegian S.
Konow, argued that the name Tocharian should be applied to the Khotan-Saka
language of the Eastern Iranian branch of the Indo-European language family.
The next year, 1908, Sieg and another scholar named Wilhelm Siegling
published a famous article called “Tokharische,”3 in which agreement was
expressed on the name put forward by Müller. Especially important is that
these two scholars put forth proof that Tocharian comprises an indepen-
dent branch of the Indo-European language family, divided into two dialects:
Tocharian A and Tocharian B, and that though this language was spoken in the
East, it had characteristics of Western Indo-European languages, particularly
Italian and Celtic. For example, this language preserved the postulated palatal
characteristics of hard palatal sounds, such as *k, *ĝ, *ĝh (Tocharian A känte,
Tocharian B kante are similar to Greek hekaton and Latin centum). This marked
the emergence of Tocharology, with 2008 its 100th anniversary.
The discovery and decipherment of Tocharian was one of the seminal
events in twentieth-century Indo-European historical comparative linguistics.
Its significance is comparable to that of the uncovering and decipherment of
Hittite and other Anatolian languages. Tocharian and Hittite have some com-
mon features; for example, in both languages, “r” is a marker of the passive
mood. Generally speaking, the study of Hittite and the Anatolian languages
is more mature than the study of Tocharian. Because the prior achievements of
Assyriology had laid a foundation, the study of Hittite received greater atten-
tion from linguists studying the Indo-European languages. Tocharian studies
were only able to reach this level of maturity after great labor was expended.
However, after 1908, substantial progress was seen in research on Tocharian
as is evident from publications. In 1921, Sieg and Siegling published Tocharische
Sprachreste, a work that includes numerous facsimiles from the Tocharian A
fragments preserved in the Berlin collection. In 1931, in cooperation with
Indo-Europeanist William Schulz, they published Tocharische Grammatik
(Tocharian Grammar), a work more than five hundred pages in length. Still,
the publication of the Tocharian B fragments was postponed until Tocharische
Spracheste and SpracheB were finally published in 1949 and 1953, respectively.
3 Sieg and Siegling 1908: 915–932.

130 Xu
Prior to publication Sieg and Siegling passed away. Their student Werner
Thomas (1923–2008) made an important contribution;4 in his later years, he
also published an important article on the Tocharian A Maitreyasamiti.5
The French Indologist Sylvain Lévi, with the help of the famous linguist
Antoine Meillet, worked on the Tocharian documents in the collection of Paul
Pelliot. In 1933, he published Fragments de Textes Koutchéens, a collection of
texts related to Tocharian B. In 1948 the Indologist Jean Filliozat published
several works on medicine and magic. But generally speaking, although great
advances were made in research on Tocharian language and literature, there
were no extensive reference materials on Tocharian published between 1953
and the 1990’s.
In 1958, the American scholar G. S. Lane published an article summariz-
ing the state of Tocharian studies over the preceding fifty years.6 In addition
to those listed above, important researchers in this period included the
Danish scholar H. Pedersen, the British scholar H. W. Bailey, the German
W. Krause, the Belgian scholars W. Couvreur and A. J. van Windekens,
the Czech P. Poucha, the Soviet scholar Vjacheslav V. Ivanov, and others.
Japanese scholars, including Inokuchi Taijun, published a series of Tocharian
documents from Japanese collections. The Chinese scholar Ji Xianlin
季羡林 (1911–2009), while living in Germany in the 1940’s, studied under Sieg
at Göttingen University, researched the Tocharian language, and made signifi-
cant contributions.
In the winter of 1974, in the Yanqi (Qarašahr) district of Xinjiang, China,
close to a Buddhist temple, some forest workers happened upon forty-four
leaves, i.e., eighty-eight pages of the manuscript remains of a Tocharian A ver-
sion of the Maitreyasamiti-Nātaka. Professor Ji Xianlin, through more than ten
years of hard work beginning in the 1980’s, managed to decipher all of the frag-
ments and published his results in a series of scholarly articles in Chinese and
English. In 1998, with the help of the German scholar Werner Winter and the
French scholar Georges-Jean Pinault, he published an English language study
entitled Fragments of the Tocharian A Maitreyasamiti-Nātaka of the Xinjiang
Museum, China.7 The same year this work was republished in the eleventh vol-
ume of Ji Xianglin’s Collected Papers (Nanchang: Jiangxi Education Press), and
a lengthy Chinese language introduction was added. This was an outstanding
4 Thomas 1983.
5 Thomas 2003: 305–329.
6 Lane 1958: 252–261.
7 Ji Xianlin 1998.
achievement in the history of Tocharian studies, and it was widely recognized

in the international academic community.
It is common knowledge that, according to the colophon of the Uyghur
version of the Maitreyasamiti, that version is a translation of the Tocharian
version which, in turn, was adapted from an Indian original. Unfortunately,
that original has not yet come to light. For these reasons, a comparison of the
parallel Chinese version and the Uyghur version is the most productive means
of gaining a better understanding of the original Tocharian Maitreyasamiti.
In his work, Professor Ji made reference to the important contribu-
tions of Chinese and international scholars on the Uyghur version of the
Maitreyasamiti. It is also worth mentioning that the Chinese scholar Geng
Shimin 耿世民 has been researching the Uyghur version of the Maitreyasamiti
found in Hami, Xinjiang since the 1960’s. Beginning in the late 1970’s, treatises
on the subject were published in Chinese, Uyghur, and German (in collabora-
tion with Prof. Hans-Joachim Klimkeit, J. P. Laut, and Georges-Jean Pinault).
In total, Geng Shimin has produced two books (three volumes) and more than
ten articles. Recently, Geng Shimin’s revised and supplemented Chinese edi-
tion of the Uyghur Maitreyasamiti was republished.8 The work stands on an
equal footing with Ji’s version.
As Professor Ji has repeatedly noted, through careful study of ancient
documents related to the Maitreya, we can discern that they are divided
into two major types: the first type is the Maitreyasamiti and the second is
the Maitreyavyākaraṇa. In the Chinese version, there are more than a few
Buddhist sūtras belonging to the Maitreyavyākaraṇa, but the specimens of
the Maitreyasamiti are from The Sūtra of the Wise and the Foolish (Xianyu Jing
贤愚经, Damamūka (-nidāna-sūtra)). Chapter 57: Bāvarī=Taishō edition of the
Tripitaka, vol. 4, pp. 432b–434a, which was translated by Huijue 慧觉 and oth-
ers in the Northern Wei dynasty.
These two types of manuscripts are found in all Tocharian manuscripts.
Many scholars have not differentiated between the two types. In the final anal-
ysis, however, these two types are closely related and may be considered in tan-
dem for purposes of research. It is also worth pointing out that Liu Zhen 刘震,
who studied in Münich under the guidance of Prof. Jens-Uwe Hartmann, has
recently written a very interesting article entitled “Das Maitreyavyākarana. Ein
Vergleich der verschiedenen Fassungen mit einer Übersetzung des Sanskrit-
Textes,” in which he compares four Sanskrit texts with the Foshuo Mile Xiasheng
Chengfo Jing 佛说弥勒下生经 [Maitreyavyākaraṇa] translated by Yi Jing
义净 and the Persian version of the same work.
8 Geng Shimin 2008.

132 Xu
There are more than 7,600 extant Tocharian manuscripts. The important
parts of perhaps 1,500 Tocharian A manuscripts have already been published,
but at least 640 fragments remain untouched; numerous Tocharian B docu-
ments worthy of attention still await translation and publication. These are
preserved mainly in Berlin, London,9 Paris, and Saint Petersburg; the ones col-
lected by the Otani expedition are preserved at Kyoto Ryukoku University, the
Tokyo National Museum, and elsewhere.10 Collections of a certain size also
exist at the museums and institutions responsible for preserving archaeologi-
cal artifacts in Beijing, Ürümqi, and other places in Xinjiang.
Aside from these fragments, other resources consist of wall inscriptions
(graphites), inscriptions and wooden plates, as well as coins, preserved at the
Kucha Caves Institute in Kizil. The Tocharian materials preserved in China
have already attracted the attention of foreign scholars such as S. Waldschmidt,
Klaus T. Schmidt and G.-J. Pinault; these scholars have all published studies
and translations of various documents. Recently, the Austrian scholar Melanie
Malzahn edited and published a collection of ten articles on the Tocharian
manuscripts by scholars from the U.S., Austria, France, Holland, and other
countries.11 These contributions comprise a significant step forward in our
studies and in our general understanding of the Tocharian documents, and
they deserve special notice.
The process of digitizing Tocharian documents has advanced considerably
in recent years, especially through the London-based “International Dunhuang
Research Project” and the Frankfurt “TITUS Project,” as well as the “Turfan
Studies Project,” Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Already, the majority of Tocharian manuscripts preserved in England,
Germany, and other countries can be accessed through the Internet. This will
considerably facilitate the development of Tocharian studies. The German
scholar J. Gippert, the Germany-based Japanese scholar Tatsushi Tamai, and
the University of Uppsala scholar Christiane Schaefer, have also made consid-
erable contributions to Tocharian cataloguing and digitization.
Based on the Brahmi script used in the Tocharian documents and carbon
14 analysis, it has been established that the earliest of the extant Tocharian B
documents were composed before 400 AD and the most recent between 1178
9 Though a number of scholars have been working on the British Tocharian fragments, no-
tably S. Lévi, E. Sieg and W. Siegling, G. S. Lane, and W. Couvreur, the only systematic treat-
ment, that of J. W. Broomhead, was a Ph.D. thesis, Trinity College, Cambridge [2 vols.],
1962; it remains unpublished and contains only part of the fragments.
10 Rong 1998.
11 Malzahn, 2007a.
and 1255 AD. Extant Tocharian A documents were composed between 700 and
1000 AD. Generally speaking, the documentary trail begins around 400 AD
and ends around 1200 AD.12
In the studies on the origin of the Tocharian variant of the slanting Brahmi
script, L. Sander and D. Maue have made excellent contributions in connection
to Sogdian and Old Turkic parallels.13
In the past thirty years, aside from those mentioned above, the scholars Eric
P. Hamp, Douglas Q. Adams (editor of the 1999, A Dictionary of Tocharian B),
H. C. Melchert and J. H. Jasanoff from America, S. Zimmer and O. Hackstein from
Germany, Frederik Kortlandt and A. M. Lubotsky of the Netherlands, Lambert
Isebaert from Belgium, V. Blažek from the Czech Republic, K. T. Witczak from
Poland, and others have all published significant books and articles on the sub-
ject. The American scholar Donald Ringe and others have used the methods
of computational linguistics to examine the position of Tocharian within the
Indo-European language family. J. Hilmarsson (1946–1992), who sadly passed
away at an early age, established the world’s first journal of Tocharian studies,
Tocharian and Indo-European Studies (TIES) in 1987 at Reykjavík. The journal
continues to be published in Copenhagen (the Danish linguist J. E. Rasmussen
became the new editor-in-chief).
The Russian scholars Svetlana Burlak and Ilya Itkin, the French scholar
Xavier Tremblay, the American scholar Ronald Kim (now in Poland), and oth-
ers have all achieved fascinating results in studies on the Tocharian language
and related subjects.14 Since the beginning of the twenty-first century, a group
of young scholars have also made their mark. For example, the German scholar
M. J. Kümmel, the Swedish scholar Gerd Carling, the Japanese Scholar Saito
Haruyuki, and the Dutch scholar M. Peyrot (Project: The Tocharian subjunc-
tive) have all published specialized works on Tocharian.15 G. Carling, in col-
laboration with Pinault and Winter, are compiling a dictionary of Tocharian A.
They have been working for five years. The first volume, which includes en-
tries for the letters a-j (corresponding approximately to one-third of the com-
plete dictionary), was published in December 2008 (Dictionary and Thesaurus
of Tocharian A, Part 1, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz). From August 25 to 28 2008,
the Conference in Commemoration of the 100th Anniversary of Tocharian
deciphering was held in Moscow and St. Petersburg. The Japanese scholar
12 Adams 2006: 381–389.

13 Sander 1986: 159–192; Maue 2008: 59–73.
14 Kim 2007: 66–104.
15 Carling 2000; Saito 2006; Peyrot 2008.
134 Xu
Hirotoshi Ogihara and the Chinese scholar from Taiwan Ching Chao-jung
庆昭蓉 attended this meeting and presented important papers.
The Publication of the Russian linguist Vjacheslav V. Ivanov’s work entitled
Tocharian: Texts and Reconstruction (in English) also came out in 2008. The
book presents an introduction to the study of Tocharian texts and languages in
a broad cultural context. In that work, parallel Sanskrit, Prakrit, Tibetan, Old
Turkic and Chinese texts are studied in order to understand special features
of Tocharian renderings of the same contents. A reconstruction of a probable
Proto-Tocharian language system in its relation to the other Indo-European
dialects and the Indo-European protolanguage is significant. The stages of mi-
gration of Tocharians from their hypothetical homeland are explained on the
basis of the links to Uralic (Finno-Ugrian), Turkic, Austro-Asiatic, and Chinese
as well as later interdialectal connections to Iranian and various other Indo-
European languages. The book also contains an etymological dictionary with
indices of morphs and phonemic changes described in the text, and it has a
bibliography with annotations.
The debate over what to call the Tocharian language began in the early
twentieth century. Because of its relevance to the ancient history, geography,
and ethnic composition of Xinjiang and other regions in northwest China,
as well as to connections between East and West and various other complex
issues,16 this debate has become the focus of many scholars’ attention. The
word “Tocharian” has been written in Chinese as Tu-huo-luo 吐火罗, Tu-hu-
luo 吐呼罗, Du-huo-luo 覩货逻, and Dou-qu-le 兜佉勒. It was originally the
name of an ethnic group (Greek Tókharoi=Latin Tochari=Sanskrit Tukhara),
and eventually became a toponym, referring to the Oxus (Vaksa) River valley
in the upper reaches of the Amu Darya, and the region of modern northern
Afghanistan of which Qunduz is the center. Müller and Sieg have published
a series of articles in an effort to prove that the twqry in the colophon of the
Uyghur edition refers to the Tocharians.17 Later, Paul Pelliot, Haneda Toru,
H. W. Bailey, W. B. Henning, Wang Jingru 王静如,18 and others showed that the
original reading of Müller and others was erroneous; they also clarified numer-
ous other issues. Now, many scholars have no objection to calling Tocharian
A “Agean” or the “Qarašahr-Turfan Language,” and to calling Tocharian B
“Kuchean.” But the problem has not been completely resolved.
16 Zhang and Geng 1980: 147–159.

17 Müller and Sieg 1916: 395–417; Müller 1918: 566–586.
18 Vorob’ev-Desjatovskij 1958: 280–308.
This fifty-year debate has been carried out on the basis of a bilingual
Sanskrit/Kuchean fragment preserved in St. Petersburg.19 Here the Sanskrit
word tokharika (“a Tocharian woman”) is glossed with the Kuchean word ku-
caññe iṣcake. As for the reading of the word iṣcake there are differing view-
points, but there is no controversy over the meaning of the word kucaññe. So
as far as the Kucheans go, tokharika—that is, the “real” Bactrian Tocharians—
are one and the same with the Kucheans. We have also already found in the
Uyghur version of the Maitreyasamiti the term twqry, which is equivalent to
Qarašahr, and have also found in that document the word Tocharian explained
as Kuchean. This provides us with sufficient evidence to conclude that the peo-
ple of ancient Qarašahr and Kucha both regarded themselves as Tocharians.
The above opinions have been met with opposition from various scholars,
some of whom think that the reading of the term kucaññe as Kucha in bilingual
documents is doubtful. Of greater important, the Sanskrit word clearly means
“a Tocharian woman,” but the corresponding Kuchean word is either mascu-
line or neuter, thus making it baseless to translate this word as “woman.”20 For
these reasons, there is no clear connection between the word twqry in the colo-
phon of the Uyghur edition and the word Tokharoi and Tokhar found in clas-
sical sources; the similarity between these terms is mere coincidence. Other
scholars believe that the term twqry in the colophon of the Uyghur edition re-
fers to an Iranian language, and that the Maitreyasamiti was translated initially
from an Indian language to an Iranian language, and later from that language
into Tocharian A and Turkish.
The related so-called “four twgr” (occurring in the Old Turkic steles, Uyghur,
Middle Persian, and Sogdian documents) refers to a “Tocharianized” name of a
political entity in the Tarim basin. Some scholars believe that the language that
was spoken in these places can be shown to be Tocharian, but other scholars
connect the term “four twgr” to the Tang dynasty’s “Four Garrisons,” including
Kashgar and Khotan, both of which spoke an Iranian rather than a Tocharian
language.
The subject of the autonyms used by the people of Kucha (龟兹) and
Qarašahr has been the cause of considerable debate. The Chinese surname
of the Kuchean royal family was 白 (bai “white”); some philologists believe
that the word Kuci is cognate to the words denoting “white” and “brilliant”
with the Sanskrit śviti- and Avestan spiti-, but this has still not been satisfac-
torily established on the basis of Kuchean documents. The word Suvarṇa
19 Wang Jingru 1944: 81–91; Henning 1949: 158–162.

20 The Tocharian specialist Pinault has another explanation for this; see Pinault 2002:
311–345.
136 Xu
(equivalent to Kuchean Ysāṣṣe) is often seen as a part of the names of

Kuchean kings and means “gold.” It is recorded in Xuanzang’s Datang Xiyuji
[大唐西域记, The Records of the Western Regions in Great Tang] that: “In re-
cent times, there was a king named Gold Flower [ Jinhua, 金花].” Gold Flower
is suvarṇapuṣpa, recorded as Su-fa-bo-shi [苏伐勃驶] in the Jiu Tangshu
[旧唐书, Old History of the Tang Dynasty] and is not related in any way to the
word 白 (bai “white”). As for the term Ārśi in the Qarašahr language, some
scholars believe it is related to the toquz ärsin (nine ärsin) of the Bilgä Khagan
and Köl Tegin steles. Other scholars believe that this word originated from
Buddhist hybrid Sanskrit ārya, and is not a Qarašahr word. The American
scholar D. Q. Adams, on the other hand, suggests that the autonym of the
Qarašahr people is more likely a term that is found in many sources in a form
similar to *ākñi, derived from the Indo-European āke, denoting “end” or “limit,”
that is to say, the Qarašahr are people of the “borders” or “marchers”; similar
names can also be found in Europe. The linguistic origins of Ukraine (“beyond
the borders”) and Old English Mercia (an Anglo-Saxon kingdom located in the
middle and southern part of what is now England), for example, have similar
connotations.
Finally, let us consider the origin of the Tocharians, which is closely tied
to the origins and immigration patterns of the Indo-Europeans. The origins
of the Indo-European language and the Indo-Europeans is a problem that schol-
ars have focused on for many years but remains unsolved to the present day.
The archaeologist Colin Renfrew believes that the Indo-Europeans originated
in the Middle East, Anatolia being their homeland; the earliest agricultural-
ists constantly expanded their territory, bringing the ancient Indo-European
languages to Europe. According to this “Anatolian hypothesis” around 6500
BC, the language of Pre-Proto-Indo-Europeans located in Anatolia split into
Anatolian and Archaic Proto-Indo-European, the language of those Pre-Proto-
Indo-European farmers that migrated into Europe in the initial farming dis-
persal. The Georgian linguist Thomas V. Gamkrelidze and the Russian linguist
Ivanov suggest that Proto-Indo-European was spoken during the fourth mil-
lennium BC in the Armenian Highland, based on the Glottalic theory. On the
other hand, Marija Gimbutas promotes the “Kurgan hypothesis,”21 believing
that the Indo-Europeans originated on the southern Russian steppe on the
shores of the Black Sea.
21 Gimbutas 1985: 185–202. The American scholar David W. Anthony made a thorough analy-
sis of relevant questions from the standpoints of linguistics, archaeology, anthropology,
and other disciplines (Anthony 2007). On the Russian scholar’s theory of the origin of
Tocharians, see Kuzmina 2008: 88–107.
If the common ancestor of the Indo-European languages does not lie in

Europe, this should be expressed in the currents of genetic change in the
mainstream of Indo-European languages. However, recent DNA research has
shown that the earliest agriculturalists had only a very small influence on the
European genetic pool, limited almost entirely to the Mediterranean littoral.
Other genetic research has shown that modern Europeans have almost no an-
cestry that can be traced to the ancient settlers of the Fertile Crescent. It is
very probable that the agriculturalist migrants were replaced by early hunter-
gatherers; likely the hunter-gatherers took up the techniques of the agricultur-
alists, but the agriculturalists’ genes were not passed down. Recent research
has proven that in the area from the Czech Republic to the Altai Mountains,
and southward into Central Asia, the M17 marker occurs at a high rate. The
versatility of microsatellite allele shows that the Indo-Europeans emerged first
in southern Russia and the Ukraine.
All of the genetic data, as well as various archaeological findings, tend to
support the theory that the Indo-Europeans originated in southern Russia and
the Ukraine. Some scholars are now seeking a compromise between these two
theories; they propose that the Indo-European language originated 9,000 years
ago among the agriculturalists of Anatolia, but that due to environmental and
climatic changes, the Yamnaya culture shifted from agriculturalism to pastoral-
ism 6,000 years ago. This caused the migration of the earliest pastoralists from
west of the Urals to the East, and the eastward spread of the Indo-European
languages.
The Iranologist W. B. Henning, in his posthumous work “The First Indo-
Europeans in History,”22 identifies the Guti frequently mentioned in cunei-
form texts as the Tocharians. He postulates that the Tukri and Guti were two
closely related tribes and that, near the end of the third millennium BC, they
left western Iran, wandering all the way to China. Part of the group settled
down and maintained a pastoral lifestyle; they are the Yuezhi 月氏 recorded in
Chinese historical works. Gamkrelidze and Ivanov developed Henning’s idea
(1989); the Polish scholar K. Witczak, the American scholar J. K. Choksy (2003),
and the Russian scholar A. A. Kovalev (2004) expressed agreement with this
theory. Even though we find the above a provocative idea, it is difficult to prove.
Remarkably well-preserved human corpses have been exhumed from graves
all over Xinjiang; the oldest among them date to 2000 BC, and the majority of
22 Henning 1978: 215–230. Indian scholar A. K. Narain believes that the Tocharian-Yuezhi
originated in China; see Narain 2000.
138 Xu
them have clearly identifiable Caucasian features.23 Although there remains

much controversy about the issue, more than a few scholars from China and
from other countries believe that these ancient corpses may have some sort
of connection to the ancestors of the Tocharians. It is conceivable that the
speakers of Proto-Indo-European languages split into different groups around
the fifth millennium BC and that the group speaking the Anatolian languages
were the first to split off. Eight or nine centuries later, the speakers of Proto-
Tocharian gradually moved eastward from the area between the Don and the
Dnieper rivers, eventually mingling with the people of the Afanasevo culture,
reaching the Sayan-Altai region, eventually following the Irtysh River and the
Altai into the Zhungharian Basin. Their route followed criss-crossing rivers and
green mountain ranges. The ancient grave sites in Chemurchiq show that this
was the main route by which the Tocharians entered Xinjiang.24 Linguistics
has shown us that Proto-Tocharian experienced an extended period of contact
with Finno-Ugralic,25 most of this contact must have occurred in the northern
part of Central Asia.
The Great Yuezhi recorded in Chinese historical documents have a close
connection to the Tocharians, as is currently affirmed by most scholars. They
are believed by many to have spoken a Tocharian language. Recently, the
Australian scholar Craig Benjamin published a work on the early history of
the Yuezhi which is well worth our attention.26
Generally speaking, Tocharian studies have made substantial advances
in the last thirty years. In this field, Chinese scholars have shown great dili-
gence and made considerable contributions. Many problems, however, still
await solution. For example, the historical background of the significant
number of Middle Iranian, particularly Bactrian, loanwords in Tocharian re-
mains obscure27 and the subject merits further research. The British scholar
T. Burrow has pointed out28 the presence of Tocharian linguistic elements in
the Kharoṣṭhī documents and an earlier language reflected in the Krorayna
Prakrit borrowings of the beginning of the first millennium AD. Adams and
a few other scholars of Tocharian refer to this as “Tocharian C.” It remains
23 Barber 1999; Mallory and Mair 2000; As for the DNA studies on Xinjiang ancient corps-
es, see Cui 2003. As for DNA research regarding the Uyghurs, see Xu Shuhan et al. 2008:
883–894.
24 Lin Meicun 2006: 12–34; Chen Zhiyong 2007: 92–105.
25 Napol’shikh 2001: 367–383.
26 Benjamin 2007; for a review of this work, see Mair 2008: 1081–1084.
27 Schwartz 1974: 399–411; Tremblay 2005: 421–449.
28 Burrow 1935: 667–675.
unclear whether this terminology will be accepted. Building on the foundation

of earlier research, the position of Tocharian in the Indo-European language
family—and that of linguistic contact between Tocharian and various non-
Indo-European languages (including the Sino-Tibetan29)—still requires fur-
ther attention.
In recent years a number of scholars have made use of advances in statisti-
cal testing and bioinformatics methods in calculating language relationships,
especially with regards to the chronology of the Indo-European languages.30
They are working on methods for inferring phylogenetic trees of languages and
using those trees to measure rates of word evolution over time. In collabora-
tion with computer scientists, bio-anthropologists, and archaeologists, they
have identified some meanings whose words evolve slowly enough to have
time-depths of at least 20,000 years, making them candidates for deep recon-
struction of languages including perhaps Proto-Indo-European or earlier such
as Indo-Uralic, Eurasiatic, or Nostratic.31
Currently, the digitization of Tocharian manuscripts is proceeding rapidly,
but the number of main Tocharian documents remains limited (Tocharian A,
around 500; Tocharian B, around 3,200, including cave inscriptions and wood-
en plates). It would be enormously beneficial to future research if, through in-
ternational cooperation, the important Tocharian documents preserved in all
collections could be edited and printed in one edition of a compendium of
Tocharian manuscripts.
29 Schulze-Thulin 2000.
30 Gray and Atkinson 2003: 435–439; Nakhleh, Ringe and Warnow 2005: 382–420; Ringe and
Warnow 2008: 257–271.
31 Holm 2009: 225–235; Pagel, Atkinson and Meade 2007: 717–720; Wickmann, Stauffer,
Lima, and Schulze 2007: 126–147; Wickmann, Stauffer, Schulze and Holmes 2008: 357–
369; Nichols and Warnow 2008: 760–820; Renfrew 2009: 467–468; Gell-Mann, Peiros and
Starostin 2009: 13–30. On The ASJP (The Automated Similarity Judgment Program) proj-
ect, see Bakker et al. 2009: 167–197. This project aims at achieving a computerized lexico-
statistical analysis of all the world’s languages. It was in a 1903 article that Holger Pederson
(1867–1953) first introduced the term “Nostratic.”
Chapter 10
Historical Background of the Sevrey Inscription

in Mongolia
Yoshida Yutaka
It is my greatest pleasure to contribute this short article to commemorate

Professor Zhang Guangda’s eighty-fifth birthday. I have learnt much from
his illuminating articles on pre-Islamic Central Asian history and have al-
ways admired his scholarship, which is unique in combining Chinese and
Western scholarly traditions. In this paper I am going to publish my edition
of the Sogdian version of the so-called Sevrey Inscription found in the Gobi
desert. I will also discuss the historical background surrounding its establish-
ment. I hope it will interest Professor Zhang Guangda, who once published an
important article on the history of the colonies of Turkicized Sogdians in the
Ordos area.1
The Sevrey Inscription was first noticed by the Russian scientist I. A. Efremov
as early as 1948; he obtained the information from a local school teacher dur-
ing his paleontological survey in Mongolia. The inscription was found some
6 km southeast of Sevrey Somon, of which the location is N 43.34.09 by E
102.15.06. It is reported that originally there were two fragments. But in 1969
when S. Kljaštornyj visited the site, he saw only one stone inscribed in two
languages or scripts.2 The stone looks like a small refrigerator measuring 80 cm
in height, 52 cm in width, and 69 cm in thickness.3 On one face one sees seven
lines each of Sogdian and Runic inscriptions; both are engraved vertically. The
Sogdian occupies the right half, the Runic the left half.
In 1968, B. Rintchen published drawings of some Runic letters and a poor
quality photograph of the epitaph. Soon after that in 1971 Kljaštornyj and
Livšic published their text and translation; this publication also includes a
long discussion of the dating and the historical background of the inscription
both in Russian and French. When Masao Mori reviewed the Russian version
1 His article “Tangdai Liuhu zhou dengdi de Zhaowu jiuxing 唐代六胡州等地的昭武九姓”

is reprinted in Zhang Guangda 1995: 249–279. On the recent important observation of the
Sogdian retainers in the first Turkic empire see Stark 2006/2007: 159–172.
2 Kljaštornyj and Livšic 1971: 12.
3 This is my own measurement; it is slightly different from that of Kljaštornyj and Livšic.

Historical Background of the Sevrey Inscription in Mongolia 141
of their article, he not only summarized it but also pointed out some prob-
lems surrounding the Russian scholars’ theory of the dating and the historical
context in which the inscription was established.
In August 1997 the present author joined the team of a scientific expedi-
tion headed by Professor T. Moriyasu of Osaka University and visited the site.
We examined the inscription in situ and made two sets of rubbings so that we
might check the two Russian scholars’ readings against the original stone and
against our own rubbings.4
Below I present my text and translation in comparison with those of
Kljaštornyj and Livšic.5
TEXT AND TRANSLATION OF SEVREY INSCRIPTION

boldface: Yoshida’s reading and translation
lightface: Kljaštorny and Livšic’s reading and translation
1 ](m) || B L A N K yγ(l)[’]x[r? ]++++++ B L A N K (rt)[y?

……… [We wrote this inscription?] || Yaghlaqar… Then………
…….. s(r)δ (nwkr) [β?γy]…. (’wy)γ(wr) γ’[γ’n]…
….. année. Alors le maître qagan ouïghour(?)…
2 ]++ s(m)wtr z-npw ZY ’wδ rw[ ](t)r’y ZY ∫tδl’+ (pr) ’(wtcw’’n) ++(c)tδ’rt
(ZY) γ+[
……… the coast of the ocean and there Ru*** and Vatdhal*** ***ed and………
(rty pyštr ’kw? ’y)[n’]δ (t)[r](γ’n s’r)…….
et ensuite vers(?) Inal tarqan….
3 ]p’rγrn’kw ’w(t)[ ]y [ ]+t ’’p (β rδ)’rt ZY m’γ nwc +++[

……… *** ***… he brought water and we… new………
(p’r) s’r ’kw ’w(y)[γwr γ’γ’]n (’YK)……
et ensuite (il s’adressa) au qagan ouïghour, parlant….
4 p](r)št[’]t (δ)[’r- ]+++++++[

……… prepared ………
(pyš)trw……………….. wδ(y)……….
après……………….. là……….
4 The digital image of one of the rubbings is now available at the following address: http://
www.museum.osaka-u.ac.jp/jp/index.html.
5 The Japanese version of my edition together with field notes of the site of Sevrey was pub-
lished already in Moriyasu and Ochir 1999: 225–227.
142 Yoshida
5 ](y) L(’)[ ]t s’r (w)’nkw pty++r +++nt[

………not… to… thus………
………. (γ’γ’n s’r) w’nkw ptyš[kwy]….
………. au qaγan il s’adressa ainsi…….
6 ]++[ ]s(’)t δ’r(’y)m (rt)y δ+++t[

……… we ***ed. Then………
……….t d’r(nt) [r](tpy)[štr?]……
………. eux….. Et ensuite (?)……
7 ]+++++[
………
….. pc …..
N.B. In the text [square brackets] indicate restored letters while (round brack-
ets) show places where traces of letters are visible.
If one compares my text and translation with those of Kljaštornyj and Livšic,
one sees that the two differ so much that one may wonder what is happening.
I tried very hard to decipher the text from our rubbings, and I believe Livšic did
the same. As a matter of fact, the surface of the inscription is badly damaged
and, except for several words, no part has yielded a consecutive translation.
Therefore, at least for the time being it is not fitting to elicit any substantial
information from the text itself.
However, there still remain some points that are incontrovertible. First,
the language and the script are Sogdian. The script is similar to that of the
Karabalgasun Inscription, that is to say, carefully executed cursive script in-
scribed vertically. Similarly, it is certain that the other half is in the Uighur
language written in Runic script, again inscribed vertically. Thus far, my obser-
vation agrees with that of the two Russian scholars.6
Secondly, and in this point I differ from them, the inscription is severely
damaged and what has survived is only a small fragment of the original stone
that must have been huge. As one can see from Kljaštornyj and Livšic’s Sogdian
text, they assume that the beginning of lines are preserved, but I suppose that
a substantial portion is lost from the upper part of the inscription. The first
line of the Sogdian version begins with what looks like a long tail of a letter,
such as aleph, nun, tau, etc.; after that, one sees two short horizontal lines that
must have served as a kind of punctuation. After that, follows a blank space,
6 Another member of our expedition, A. Katayama, edited the Runic version, see Moriyasu and
Ochir 1999: 226–227.
and then begins a word or words of considerable length, which is again fol-
lowed by a blank space. The word begins with yγl- and is most likely to be a
part of Yaγlaqar, clan name of the Uighur royal family. Comparison with the
Karabalgasun Inscription leads one to suppose that here the name and title of
the chief composer or editor of the inscription is inscribed. If this assumption
is correct, what is preceding is a title of the inscription; again, comparison with
the Karabalgasun Inscription suggests that the title ends with a verb meaning
either “we have written” (np’xštw δ’rym) or “they have written” (np’xštw δ’r’nt).7
Perhaps the long tail of either final -m or final -t is seen before the punctuation.
When we examined the stone we noticed that the back side of the in-
scription is also flat and an inscription could have been written on it. Again,
if one compares the situation with that of the Karabalgasun Inscription, it
is most likely to have been tri-lingual in Uighur, Sogdian, and Chinese. The
thickness measuring 69 cm is almost the same as that of the Karabalgasun
Inscription (ca 70 cm), of which the main body is now estimated to have
been ca. 400 cm tall.8 If one considers its support looking like a turtle and
having the dragon-shaped ornament placed on the top, the entire structure
could have been about six meters high. That is to say, the Sevrey Inscription
would have been almost as huge as the Karabalgasun Inscription, and what has
survived is just a very small fragment of it. Moreover, the fact that the entire
face was occupied by the Chinese text while the other by Sogdian and Uighur
suggests that the Chinese text constituted the front face.
If my hypothesis is correct, can one determine the date and the objective of
establishing the Sevrey Inscription? So far I can think of two scenarios. First,
Professor Moriyasu and I wondered whether the epitaph could have com-
memorated the peace treaty concluded by the three superpowers at that time,
namely the Uighur Steppe Empire, Tang China, and the Tibetan Empire dur-
ing the years 821–823 CE.9 For this treaty see now the Hungarian scholar János
Szerb’s article. Li Zhengyu published a renewed study based on a recently dis-
covered Dunhuang Chinese manuscript. The Sino-Tibetan treaty inscription
7 The first line of the Karabalgasun Inscription repeats the title inscribed in the shield-shaped
frame upon the main body of the epitaph. The combined text reads as follows:
’yny ’’y tnkryδ’ xwtpwl-mys ’l-pw pyl-k’ β γy ’wyγwr x’γ-’n γw∫ty’kh pts’k np’xštw δ’rym
“We have written this monument in praise of the godlike Uighur qaghan (called) Ay Tängridä
Qutbulmïs Alp Bilgä.”
8 In the meantime Moriyasu and I were able to show that the number of Chinese characters
inscribed in each column is ninety, which makes it possible to infer the original height of the
inscription. For the Chinese text see now (Moriyasu 2007), fig. 2.
9 For our theory see Moriyasu and Yoshida 1998: 162–166. Moriyasu still holds this view, see
Moriyasu 2007: 351–354.
144 Yoshida
was discovered in Lhasa and has been well known in the field of Central Asian
history. There must have been a Sino-Uighur version as well, and we once as-
sumed that the Sevrey Inscription was the Uighur counterpart. However, since
the Sino-Tibetan treaty inscription was discovered in Lhasa, one would expect
that the Uighur counterpart, if it had existed, would have been erected in the
capital city of the Uighur Empire, that is to say on the site of Karabalgasun.
Later I noticed an interesting passage in the Xin Tangshu, chapter 142A (vol.
19, p. 6123 in the Zhonghua shuju edition). There, prime minister Li Mi’s 李泌
advice to Emperor Dezong 徳宗 (779–805) is recorded as an event of the year
787 CE. In his advice Li Mi refers to an inscription built by a Uighur khaghan at
the gate of the Uighur Empire; in the inscription the khaghan instructs his sub-
jects to let the Chinese know of the Uighurs’ great achievements in the past.
I cite the relevant passage and its English translation by Mackerras.
且回鶻可汗，銘石立国門曰，唐使来，当使知我前後功云
Moreover the Uighur khaghan has engraved a stone and set it up on the
gate of his state. It runs, ‘Should a T’ang ambassador come, let him know
that we have in all ways and at all times rendered meritorious service to
the T’ang.’
Sevrey is located on the main route connecting Chang’an 長安, Etsin Gol,
and the Orkhon area and is situated toward the southern frontier of the
Uighur Steppe Empire; thus, it can certainly be called “the gate of his state.”
Concerning the designation of “gate,” Professor Moriyasu drew my attention
to the place name Xuamenshan 花門山, meaning “flower-gate-mountain.” It
is attested in a Chinese source and could refer to the Sevrey area.10 For the
location of Sevrey on the route of invasion by the Uighurs toward China,
see Kljaštorny and Livšic, pp. 14–15. Therefore, it seems to be fitting to iden-
tify the stele mentioned by Li Mi with the Sevrey Inscription. If this identifi-
cation is good, it must have been established by 787 CE, when Li Mi’s advice
was recorded. Although there is no mention in the Chinese source as to who
founded it, the khaghan most likely to have established it is Bögü Qaghan
(r. 759–779), who helped the Tang dynasty to suppress the An Lushan Rebellion.
The inscription seems to have been intended to record Bögü’s great contribu-
tion in subduing the An Lushan Rebellion and to show it off to those Chinese
10 According to the Xin Tangshu, p. 1054, 花門山堡 “stronghold of Xuamenshan” is situated

300 Chinese li (some 150 km) north of Etsingol, which is not very different from 200 km,
the direct distance between Sevrey and Etsingol.
envoys who came to visit the Uighur court in Karabalgasun via the route pass-
ing Sevrey. The huge stele made out of white marble must have been spectacu-
lar and visible from afar in the desert.
Curiously, although they did not refer to the passage in the Xin Tangshu,
Kljaštornyj and Livšic came to a somewhat similar conclusion: The inscription
was established by Bögü Qaghan as a monument of his victory during the An
Lushan Rebellion when he marched back to Mongolia in 763 CE. Their argu-
ment is based on their reading of Bögü’s name ingi yaγlaγar in the Runic ver-
sion, of which the reading of ingi, however, is not supported by our colleague
A. Katayama. Moreover, Katayama prefers to read the vertically inscribed lines
from right to left rather than from left to right as assumed by Kljaštornyj and
Livšic. If Katayama’s assumption is correct we obtain a very plausible arrange-
ment of the Runic and Sogdian versions. That is to say, the Sogdo-Runic face
is arranged in a symmetrical way, where both versions begin from the center
just like the Sino-Sogdian face of the Karabalgasun Inscription. Anyway, I dif-
fer from Kljaštornyj and Livšic in not supposing that it was established when
Bögü Qaghan returned to the Orkhon area in 763 CE after he had subdued the
rebellion. As M. Mori correctly pointed out, on that occasion Bögü did not take
the route connecting Hexi and the Orkhon via Sevrey, because he departed
from Taiyuan 太原 and must have travelled north to cross the eastern part of
the Gobi Desert.11
11 On this route, see also Kljaštornyj and Livšic 1971: 15, n. 8. In his review of Kljaštornyj
and Livšic, Mori Masao 護雅夫 himself considered the possibility that the epitaph was
inscribed in the tenth century by a khaghan of the Ganzhou Uighur Kingdom 甘州回鶻.
However, Mori would not have envisaged that possibility if he had known the original size
of the inscription. It was too huge and splendid to have been built by a king or khaghan of
a petty oasis state.
Chapter 11
“The Annals of the Noble Land Khotan”: A New

Translation of a Chapter of rGya bod yig tshang
chen mo
Zhu Lishuang
Composed in 1434 by sTag tshang rdzong pa dPal ’byor bzang po (alias

Śrībhūtibhadra), rGya bod yig tshang chen mo, or Archives of China and Tibet
(hereafter referred to as GBY), provides a fairly detailed account of the Sa skya-
Mongol Yuan relationship as well as general information on Tibet and the sur-
rounding regions. It was first explored in 1886 by Sarat Chandra Das. Das drew
from the section on Khotan in his article “Buddhist and Other Legends about
Khotan,” though he neither cited the source nor presented the original text
in its literal translation.1 In the same manner in 1904, he also translated the
section dealing with Mongol dominion over Tibet.2 More than half a century
later, the manuscript was thoroughly examined by Ariane Macdonald.3 In 1985,
a typeset version was published in Chengdu, Sichuan, with a brief foreword
by the Tibetan scholar Dung dkar Blo bzang ’phrin las.4 The following year, a
Chinese translation by Chen Qingying was published in Lhasa.5
A number of studies have drawn their treatment of the subject from GBY,
with most of them dealing with Sino-Tibetan relations. Yet the work also
* This article is an extended version of a paper read at the 12th Seminar of International
Association of Tibetan Studies held at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver
on August 15–21, 2010. It is supported by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central
Universities (no. 17LZUJBWZY010). I would like to express my sincere gratitude for the help
I received from Professors Rong Xinjiang, Shen Weirong and Leonard W. J. van der Kuijp in
writing this article. I am also greatly indebted to Chou Wen-shing who read the earlier draft
carefully and improved my English. For three Dunhuang manuscripts, IOL Tib J 597, 598 and
601.2, I thank Dr. Sam van Schaik at the International Dunhuang Project, British Library. Any
remaining faults are, of course, entirely my own.
1 Das 1886: 193–201.
2 Das 1904: 94–102.
3 Macdonald 1963: 53–169.
4 Chengdu: Si khron mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1985.
5 Han Zang shi ji 漢藏史集, Lhasa: Xizang remin chubanshe, 1986.

“ The Annals of the Noble Land Khotan ” 147
contains many other valuable sources that remain unmined, such as the chap-
ter concerning ancient Khotan, or “Li yul [Li country/land]” in Tibetan, the
once-great oasis state on the southern Silk Road.6 Traditionally, Li yul lung
bstan pa or Prophecy of the Khotan Country (hereafter referred to as LL), Li yul
gyi dgra bcom bas lung bstan pa or Prophecy of the Arhat of the Khotan Country
(hereafter referred to as LG) and a number of related works that were incor-
porated into the Tibetan Buddhist canon, together with Tibetan manuscripts
from Dunhuang such as P.t.960 (Li yul chos kyi lo rgyus or Religious Annals of
the Khotan Country, hereafter referred to as LC), have been viewed as the major
corpus for the pre-Islamic history of Khotan.7 The present study provides a
new translation, with detailed annotations, of the chapter on Khotan from
GBY. It also shows that GBY is also an indispensable source for the study of
this famous Buddhist kingdom. Even though English and Chinese translations
exist, as mentioned above, a new translation is deemed necessary upon fur-
ther investigation. While the translations of Das and Chen are among the great
achievements of research on GBY, they have relied exclusively on copies that
go back to a single manuscript in the Densapa library in Gangtok.8 Because Das
and Chen failed to consult other relevant sources on Khotan, there remained
confusion over many proper names and unreadable passages. On the other
hand, while Das’s work may be excused for its early completion, Chen’s work
also failed to utilize the vast achievements in the field of Khotan studies, both
linguistically and historically. Recognizing the importance of linking this body
of materials with GBY, my work examines the chapter in question in light of
the larger corpus of materials on Khotan.
A critical comparison reveals that the chapter on Khotan in the GBY is simi-
lar in content to LL and LG. It seems to be an extract composed of the lat-
ter texts, but not reproduced verbatim. As is generally known, the works in
the existing Tibetan Buddhist canon were mostly produced in the eighteenth
century, although some texts must have been based on earlier manuscripts.
For instance, LL is found in Bu ston chos ’byung or History of Religion,9 which
6 “ ‘Phags yul bal po’i rgyal rabs bzhugs”, in 1) GBY, stod cha, 59b1–70a1; 2) GBY T , 50b1–59a4 = “Bal
po’i (li yul) rgyal rabs”, in GBY Si, pp. 84–98.
7 These works were thoroughly translated and studied by Thomas 1935; See also Emmerick
1967.
8 Martin 1997: 68.
9 Bu ston Rin chen grub, Bu ston chos ’byung gsung rab rin po che’i mdzod, Pe cin: Krung go’i bod
kyi shes rig dpe skrun khang, 1991: 246. see Nishioka 1981: 63, no. 891.
148 Zhu
was composed in 1322,10 and was said to have been translated into Tibetan
by Shākya ’od,11 who was also the translator of Ri glang ru lung bstan pa or
Prophecy of Mount Gośṛṅga.12 Since this later work is registered in the lDan/
Lhan kar ma catalogue13 and the ’Phang thang ma catalogue,14 both of which
were most probably composed in the first half of the ninth century, LL should
be a work of the ninth century. While LL and LG are compiled into one work
in bsTan ’gyur under the common title “li’i/li yul lung bstan pa,” they are evi-
dently distinct works. On one hand, they show obvious differences in pur-
port; on the other, there exists an unrevised LG as a complete text in three
Dunhuang manuscripts.15 It is of interest to note that LG is put before LL in
bsTan ’gyur but after LL in GBY. All of these remind us of the necessity of recon-
sidering the sources of the canonical version of LL and its date of compilation.
Furthermore, unlike LL and LG, GBY provides many different proper names
and divergent narratives about certain events. Are they simply misspellings?
Or were they drawn from sources that are still unknown to us and were inac-
cessible to authors of those other works? Because the Tibetan Empire once
played a strong role in shaping the history of Central Asia, Tibetan records on
the history of Central Asia are one of the most valuable sets of materials con-
cerning this region. Regrettably, long after pioneering works by Thomas and
Emmerick, Tibetan sources regarding Central Asia have not received proper
attention. The present study of the GBY demonstrates that the contribution
of Tibetan historiography to the knowledge of ancient Khotan and greater
Central Asia deserves more attention.
10 Martin 1997: 50.

11 Bu ston Rin chen grub, Bu ston chos ’byung gsung rab rin po che’i mdzod, 246.
12 Ibid.: 215.
13 Lalou 1953: 325, no. 281.
14 Bod ljongs rten rdzas bshams mdzod khang ed., dKar chag ’phang thang ma, Pe cin:
Mi rigs dpe skrun kang, 2003: 51. Concerning this catalogue, see Halkias 2004: 46–105;
Kawagoe 2005: 115–131.
15 Cf. TLTD I: 73–87; Zhu 2010: 605–676.
Transcription and Translation16
(59b1) ’phags yul bal po’i17 rgyal rabs bzhugs/ /

The annals of the noble land Khotan
na mo arya me tri ye18/ (59b2) byams dang thugs rjes srid gsum19 ’gro ba yi/ /
mgon gyur sa bcu’i dbang phyug zhabs btud nas/ /de’i sprul pas bstan pa rgyas
mdzad (59b3) cing/ /mi yul chags ’jig khrims gnyis gnas tshul bshad/ /20
Homage to Āryā Maitreya! Venerably bow down to the Lord of the ten bhu-
mis, who protects the beings of the three realms by means of loving kindness and
compassion. The way of his emanation developing the Buddhist teachings and re-
maining in the human land [to promote] the world law is to be told [as follows].
li’i yul/ bal por grags pa ’dir/ sangs rgyas21 kyi bstan pa (59b4) dang/ bstan ’dzin
gyi gang zag rgyal blon ji ltar byon na/
How the Buddha’s teachings, teaching-hold’s masters, kings and ministers
appeared in the Khotan country, known as Bal-po, is as following.
ston pa shākya thub pa/ ’gro ba’i don la sangs rgyas22 nas bzhugs pa’i pho (59b5)
brang nyi shu rtsa gcig yod pa’i rting ma de23/ li yul ’di yin pas/ gzhan las kyang
yon tan lhag par che’o/ /
16 The following transcription and translation are based on GBY, the differences among GBY,
GBY T and GBY Si are to be shown in footnotes. Please be note that 1) differences of the divi-
sion mark “shad” among this three texts will not be indicated in the following transcrip-
tion; and 2) although the GBY T is numbered 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b … 357a, 357b in order, the text has
to be read from “b” to “a,” for example, 50b, 50a, 51b, 51a, etc. In my transcription, I use the fol-
lowing conventions: [ ] = restored letter(s); { }= superfluous letter(s); ( ) = inserted letter(s).
17 bal po: Nepal, native of Nepal (Zhang Yisun 1993: 1825). In this context, however, it refers
to ancient Khotan. The text speaks of “li yul, known as bal po” in line 59b3, and in line
61a1 it says with a note that the stūpa Gomasālagandha of Khotan (Li yul) is the stūpa
Svayambhunāth in Nepal. Apparently, it confuses “li yul” with “bal po”, and identifies
them as the same. See Das 1886: 193–199; Macdonald 1963: 112, n. 32. For the discussion on
“bal po” and “li yul”, see KG, pp. 709–710. Das translates the part on the locality of “li yul”
from ’Dzam gling rgyas bshad (Das 1886: 201–203). See also DK, 20–22 (cf. Macdonald 1963:
114–115); Brough 1948: 333–339; Lamotte 1960: 49–54.
18 arya me tri ye: GBY T a rya mai tri ye (50b1).
19 gsum: GBY T gsuṃ (50b1).
20 The sentences from byams dang to the end are originally written in verse. However, I am
unable to translate the text into poetry. What follows is a literal translation.
21 sangs rgyas: GBY T sangyas (50b3).
23 de: GBY T der (50b4).
150 Zhu
Of the Buddha Śākyamuni, who attained enlightenment for the sake of be-
ings, there are twenty-one mansions of residence, of which the Khotan coun-
try is the last one, though it is greater in virtue than the others.
de’ang sngon dang po/ sangs (59b6) rgyas24 ’od srung25/ ’jig rten du byon dus/ li
yul ’di la rtsa26 dan gyi yul zer/ dam chos shin tu dar ro/ /’od srung mya ngan las
’das (60a1)nas/ de’i sku gdung bzhugs pa’i/ mchod rten go ma sa la gan dha27/
phyi rten du bzhengs cing/ drang srong (60a2) ka ra sha28 las logs pas yun ring
mo zhig li yul gyi ri la gnas nas/ mchod pa’i gnas (60a3) byed pa la/ ma dad pa’i
mi ngan gyis gtses29 pas/ drang srong rnams30 nam mkha’31 la ldings nas/ yul
gzhan du song/ de32 rting/ bstan pa (60a4)nub pas/ li yul/ mtshor gyur to/ /
In ancient times, when Buddha Kāśyapa appeared in the world, this Khotan
country was called the land of rTsa dan and the good religion was well devel-
oped. After Kāśyapa had passed into nirvāṇa, the stūpa Gomasalagandha33 was
created as his external symbol to house his relics. The sage Kharaśva and others
settled for a long time on the mountain of the Khotan country, which served
as a holy place of worship. [Later] because evil unbelievers harmed [them],
the sages soared into the sky and went to other lands. After that, Buddhism
declined and the Khotan country became a lake.
de nas yun ring mo zhig nas/ sangs rgyas34 shākya thub pa rgya gar du byon/
’gro don mdzad nas/ (60a5) mya ngan las ’da’ bar nye ba na/ yul khams35 so so

25 srung: GBY T bsrungs (50b5).
26 rtsa: GBY T tsa (50b5).
27 go ma sa la gan dha: GBY T go mang sa la gan rda (50b6). Originally a note, da lta ’phags pa
shing kun gyi mchod rten zer ro/ / (now known as the exalted stūpa of Shing kun), written
in the next line with smaller words, is connected to mchod rten go ma sa la gan dha by a
dotted line “------”. The author of GBY here identifies the stūpa Gomasalagandha of ancient
Khotan with ’phags pa shing kun gyi mchod rten (i.e., the stūpa Svayambhunāth in Nepal).
This idea, which is also shown in KG (p. 709), however, is not correct. Cf. Macdonald 1963:
113, n. 32.
28 ka ra sha: read kha ra shwa (LL CDGNP ). Ch. 迦羅沙摩 (SG Ch, 294c); see Pelliot 1959: 199–
200; TLTD I: 93, n. 7; TTK: 6–7: 94.
29 gtses: GBY T gtsos (50a2).
30 rnams: GBY T rnaṃs (50a2).
31 nam mkha’: GBY T naṃkha’ (50a2).
32 de: GBY T der (50a2).
33 See TTK: 3.
34 sangs rgyas: GBY T sangyas (50a3).
35 khams: GBY T khaṃs (50a4).
rnams36/ bsrung ma so so la gtod pa’i tshe/ li yul yang/ rnam sras/ gnod (60a6)
spyin yang dag gshed37 la sogs la gtad nas/ ston pa nyid rang kyang/ ’khor mang
po dang bcas te/ nam mkha’38 la ldings nas/ li (60b1) yul mtshor gyur pa der
byon/ da ltar/ chu bo shel chab39 gong ma’i ’gram/ ’ghuṃ tir40 gyi mchod rten
gyi thad/ steng gi nam mkha’41 la/ padma’i (60b2) gdan la bzhugs nas/ byin gyis
rlabs/ ’od zer bkye/ phyogs bcu’i sangs rgyas42 dang byang sems43 kyis/ ’od zer
ston pa’i dbu la (60b3) thim/ dge’o zhes pa’i44 sgra byung ngo/ /
After a long time, the Buddha Śākyamuni appeared in India, working for the
sake of beings. When the time was near for his nirvāṇa, he appointed protec-
tors of the various lands and, at that time, the Khotan country was also en-
trusted to Vaiśravaṇa, Yakṣa Samjñāya, and others. The Buddha himself with
many retinues, soaring into sky, came to the Khotan country, which had turned
into a lake. In the direction where stands the great stūpa of ’Ghuṃ tir, which
is situated on the bank of the upper Jade River, he sat on a lotus-throne, which
was high above the air of the sky, blessing and sending forth rays of light. The
buddhas and bodhisattvas of the ten directions [also] sent forth rays of light,
which dissolved into the head of the Buddha [Śākyamuni] and there arose a
voice of “May it be virtuous!”
de nas/ phyis bstan pa ’byung ba’i rnam sprul45 dang/ lung bstan mang du
mdzad/ bcom ldan (60b4) ’das kyis46/ shā ri’i bu’i seg shang47 gi rtsa ba dang/

37 gshed: read shes (LL CDGNP ; cf. TTK: 8). GBY T (50a4) shed. gNod spyin Yang dag shes, Kh.
Saṃñī, Ch. 散脂夜叉大將 (CG Ch, 368a) or 僧兒耶大夜叉將 (SG Ch: 295a). On this de-
ity’s different names in different texts, see Bailey 1942: 912; Rong and Zhu 2011: 197–198. On
his image in Dunhuang caves, see Rong and Zhu 2011: 209.
39 chu bo shel chab gong ma: literally “upper jake river,” i.e. modern Kara kasha River, Ch.
喀拉喀什河. Cf. Uray 1979: 290–294; Takeuchi 2009: 145–146.
40 ’ghuṃ tir: LC line 7 and LL CD ’gum tir, LL GNP ’gum stir; Kh. Gümattīrä (Bailey 1951: 26) or
Gumattīrai (Duan and Wang 1997: 6–7), Ch. 仇摩置 (TTK: 95), 瞿摩帝 (Faxianzhuan, 12)
or 衢摩帝 (Chusanzang, 551). Cf. Zhu 2013: 424–426.
43 sems: GBY T seṃs (51b1).
44 zhes pa’i: read zhes bya ba’i.
45 sprul: GBY T ’phrul (51b2).
46 kyis: GBY T kyi (51b2).
47 seg shang: read gsheg shang (LL CDGNP ). Cf. TTK: 10; Zhang Yisun 1993: 3019.
152 Zhu
rnam thos kyi bu’i mdung thung gis/ mang pa ba ra na/ pa ra ba ta48 zhes pas49/
ri rnag50 gi kha dog ’dra bar/ mtsho ’di srol51 las/ gyim shang52 rtsang po53 la
pho cig zhes/ bka’ stsal pa bzhin khong gnyis kyis byas pas/ (60b6) ston pa nyid
kyang/ glang mgo ri’i54 stengs55/ sku gzugs chen po bzhugs pa’i/ g.yon log gi56
lha khang na/ da ltar mchod rten chung ngu (61a1) gcig57 yod pa’i sar/ dgung58
zhag bdun gyi bar la bzhugs/
Thereafter the Buddha performed many manifestations and prophecies of
the appearance of Buddhism. [Then] the Lord (Bhagavān) ordered Śāriputra
with the end of his mendicant’s staff and Vaiśravaṇa with his short spear to
block the lake that resembles the color of ink at the mountain of Māṃsa-
varṇa-parvata (flesh-shaped mountain) and pour it into the river of Shing shan
(Holy Hill). The two did as ordered. The Buddha himself remained there for a
week on the top of Gośīrṣa hill, a place where there is now a small stūpa, in a
shrine to the left of a great image.
kun dga’ bos/ sngar gyi rgyu rkyen de rnams59 ci60 (61a2) lags gsol bas/ mtsho
sral ba’i bshul61 skams nas/ nga mya ngan las ’das pa’i ’og tu/ ’dir li yul bya ba
48
mang pa ba ra na/ pa ra ba ta: read maṃ sa bar na parba ta (LL CD ). LL GN sa mang sa ra
ṇa parbata; LL P mangsa barna parbata. Skt. *Māṃsa-varṇa-parvata-, explaining as sha’i ri
(mountain of flesh) in RL (D, 232a4; N, 453a6; Stog, 429a1–2). Cf. TTK: 10–11, 102; MW: 924;
Ogiwara 1979: 765, 1176.
49
zhes pas: read zhes bya ba’i.
50
rnag: read snag (LL CDGNP ). Cf. TTK: 10.
51
srol: read sral. Cf. BGMD: 917.
52
gyim shang: read shing shan (LC lines 19 and 42), Kh. gara; Ch. 神山 “Holy Hill” (i.e., Mazar
Tagh 麻扎塔格). Cf. TLTD IV: 79; KT IV: 93, 136; Rong 1991: 34; Zhang and Rong 1997/2008:
243.
53
rtsang po: read gtsang po.
54
glang mgo ri: elsewhere written as gyi’u [to] shwan, ghe’u to shan, gau to shan, ’ge’u to
shan, ’gi’u te shan and ’ge’u te shan etc., meaning Ox-head hill, Ch. 牛头山. Cf. TLTD I: 5–7;
Pelliot 1959: 413; TTK: 95; Zhu 2013: 425, n. 2.
55
stengs: read steng (GBY T , 51b4).
56
log gi: read logs kyi (GBY T , 51b4).
57
gcig: GBY T cig (51b5).
58
dgung: GBY T rgung (51b5).
59
rnams: GBY T rnaṃs (51b5).
60
ci: GBY Si rtsi (86).
61
bshul: read shul. See Zhang Yisun 1993: 2855.
’byung ste/ ’u (61a3) then gyi mkhar/ lnga ldan62 zhes pa’i63 grong khyer chen
po dang/ de bsrung pa’i/ rwa64 dza gra ma’i {dus/} sangs rgyas65 kyi sku gzugs/
tsandan66 gyi nang du/ (61a4) sku’i dri ma rang la nub pa’i67 zhig rgya gar nas
’byon/ theg chen la spyod pa’i/ dge slong pho mo gnas pa’i/ gtsug lag khang
sum68 brgya (61a5) drug cu rtsa gsum69/ rgyal blon dad pa can rnams70 kyis
bzhengs nas/ sku gdung la mchod pa’i byang sems71/ dge slong pho mo dang/
khyim pa skye bo tsul du gnas pa/ pyed ma’i lnga brgya72 rtag tu73 gnas so/ /
gzhan yang/ phyir mi ldog pa’i byang sems74/ theg chen la sphyod pa (61b1)
phal cher gnas te/ ’di ni dus gsum75 du gshegs pa’i/ sangs rgyas76 kyi zhing khud
pa yin no/ /gsungs77/ bsrung ma rnams78 kyis (61b2) rgyun du bsrungs cig par
bka’ bgos79 te gtad do/ /der mtsho pho ba dang/ sangs rgyas80 ’od srung gi81
phyi rten/ mchod rten go ma sa la gan dha (61b3) dang/ ri glang ru/ mkhar dge
ba’i bshul82 rnams kyang/ mngon par gyur to/ /
Ānanda asked what the causes and conditions were in the past. [The Lord]
said: “After the space of the lake, which had been blocked, has dried up, and
I have passed into nirvāṇa, here [the country] called Khotan will appear. The
62
lnga ldan: read dngar ldan (LC line 6; LL CDGNP ); Skt. *Madhumatī. Cf. TTK.: 4, 96; Zhu
2013: 423, n. 6. John Brough contends that dngar ldan is a scribal corruption of lnga ldan
(Brough 1948: 336). However, the opposite is correct.
63
zhes pa’i: read zhes bya ba’i.
64
rwa: GBY T ra (51a1).
65
sangs rgyas: GBY T sangyas (51a1).
66
tsandan: GBY T tsan dan (51a1).
67
pa’i: read pa (GBY T , 51a2).
68
sum: GBY T gsuṃ (51a2).
69
gsum: GBY T gsuṃ (51a2).
70
rnams: GBY T rnaṃs (51a3).
71
sems: GBY T seṃs (51a3).
72
phyed ma’i lnga brgyu: read lnga brgyu’i phye ma (LL CDGNP ). Cf. TTK.: 12–13.
73
rtag tu: GBY T rtags su (51a4).
74
sems: GBY T seṃs (51a4).
75
76
77
gsungs: GBY T gsung (51a5).
78
rnams: GBY T rnaṃs (51a5).
79
bka’ bgos: read bka’ bkod. Cf. Zhang Yisun 1993: 68.
80
81
srung gi: GBY T bsrungs kyi (51a6).
82
bshul: read shul. Cf. n. 64.
154 Zhu
fortress of ’U then,83 the great city called dNgar ldan [will be built]. An image of
the Buddha, which guards the city of Rājagrāma will come from India; bodily
defilements will disappear inside its sandal. Three hundred and sixty-three
vihāras, inhabited by monks and nuns practicing the Mahāyāna, will be built
by faithful kings and ministers. In the forms of monks and nuns, and laymen,
Bodhisattvas doing worship to the relics will reside there. Half of the five hun-
dred will continually come to live. Furthermore, there will be bodhisattvas of
the Avaivartika, for the most part practicing the Mahāyāna. This is the special
field of the buddhas who come in the three times.” Guardians were ordered
and entrusted to continually protect [the Khotan country]. Then the lake
was poured out and the external symbols of the Buddha Kāśyapa, the stūpa
Gomasalagandha, Gośṛṅga, the space of the fortress dGe ba and others visibly
appeared.
de nas/ sangs rgyas84 mya ngan las ’das nas/ lo nyis (61b4) brgya lnga bcu rtsa
bzhi lon pa’i dus su/ rgya gar gyi rgyal po dharma a sho kas/ sdig chen po byas/
slar bshags sdom phul/ ’dzam bu’i gling du/ (61b5) gtsug lags khang dang/
mchod rten brgyad khri bzhi stong bzhengs par ma bcas pa’i85 tshe/ mtsho
skams/ li yul stong par ’dug pa/ der (61b6) yongs/ da lta/ ’u then gyi sku mkhar
yod par/ nub [mo] gcig86 bzhugs pas/ rgyal po’i btsun mo la/ khyi’u mtshan
dang ldan cig btsal87 (62a1) mtshan mkhan na re/ ’di ni mtshan bzang dbang
che bas/ yab sku tshe ma ’phos88 pa la/ ’dis/ rgyal srid (62a2) bgyid par mchi’o/
/zer bas/ rgyal po khros nas/89 bu ’di ni/ nga la mi dgos kyis/ bor cig90 gsungs91
pa dang/ mas mi (62a3) phod na’ang/ bka’ ma ldog par/ da sa der bor bas/ bu
chung rang gi bsod nams las/ sa la nu ma gcig92 byung pa nu pas skyed cher
(62a4) byung ngo/ /de ni dang po/ rgyal po’i btsun mo des/ skyed mos tshal du
83
’u then, elsewhere written as ’u den, and ’u ten etc., is the term for capital city of the coun-
try of Khotan in this text as well as other Tibetan annals of Khotan, while Li yul indi-
cates Khotan land/country. On these two terms and their relations with Kh. Hvatana,
Skt. Gostana and Ch. 于阗, see Watters 1905: 300; Pelliot 1959: 408–425; Macdonald 1963:
109–110; KT IV.: 1; Skjærvø 2004: 34; bDam chos and Zhu 2007: 87.
84
sangs rgyas: GBY T sangyas (52b1).
85
ma bcas pa: read dam bcas pa (GBY T , 52b2).
86
87
btsal: read btsas (GBY T , 52b4).
88
’phos: GBY T phos (52b4).
89
nas/: GBY T nas (52b5).
90
cig: GBY T gcig (52b5).
91
gsungs: GBY T gsung (52b5).
92
khrus byas pa’i dus/ rnam sras nam mkha’93 la gshegs pa/ (62a5) yar mar gnyis
kas gzigs/ sems94 chags pa las byung pa’i bur byed do/ /
Then, 254 years after the nirvāṇa of the Buddha, there was a king of India
called Dhamāśoka who, having committed great sins, later made a confession
and vowed to refrain; he also promised to build 84,000 vihāras and stūpas in
Jambudvīpa. At that time, the lake was dried up and the Khotan country was
vacant. Going to the spot of the present castle of ’U then, the king spent one
night there and his consort gave birth to a boy possessing good signs. The sign-
reader said, “This child has good marks and his destiny is to be great. Before his
father has departed this life, he will be a king!” The king was angry and said, “I
have no need of this boy; cast him away!” The mother could not bear this, but
the king’s order would not be retracted and the child was directly cast on the
ground. Owing to the merits of the child himself, a breast arose from the earth
and, sucking at it, he grew up. It is said that previously when the consort of
the king entered a grove of the park and was engaged in bathing, Vaiśravaṇa
[happened to] pass through the sky. The two, the upper and the lower, looked
at each other and [the consort], having pondered upon it, became pregnant.
de’i skabs na/ rgya nag po’i rgyal po/ ci’u wang95 zhes pa’i96 byang sems97 kyi
sprul ba/ bu stong la dbang rgyu/ dgu brgya dgu bcu rtsa dgu yod pa gcig98
byung pa/ de’i (62b1) sems pa la/ da nga la bu gcig byung na/ sangs rgyas99 kyi
zhabs kyis bcags100 ba’i li yul zhes bya ba’i [yul] bzang mo gcig101 yod ’dug pa/
de (62b2) ’dzin du ’jug go snyam nas/ rnam sras la gsol ba btab pas/ sa la bu
blang nas/ ’di ni nga’i bu yin pas/ khyod la sbyin par bya’o (62b3) zer nas sbyin/
ming yang/ rgyal po102 sa la nur btags/
93 nam mkha’: GBY T namkha’ (52a1).

94 sems: GBY T seṃs (52a1).
95 ci’u wang: GBY T ci wang (52a2). TN has Ci’u rigs and Ci’u wang (p. 73), corresponding to
China’s Zhou dynasty 周代 and Zhou emperor 周王 (Cf. Roerich 1949, part I: 47; Guo
2003: 28). Chen 1986: 49 translates as Zhou emperor.
96 zhes pa’i: read zhes bya ba’i, which is followed by a sentence, zhing sa cha yang rgyal po,
written in smaller words, with a dotted line connected it to pa’i. Chen 1986: 49 translates
as 咸陽地方之王, king of the Xianyang region.
97 sems: GBY T seṃs (52a2).
98 gcig: GBY T cig (52a3).
100
bcags: GBY T bcag (52a3).
101
bzang mo gcig: GBY T bzang po cig (52a4).
102
rgyal po: read rgyal bu.
156 Zhu
At that time, there was a king of China called Ci’u wang, an incarnate
Bodhisattva, who had 999 sons, though with power for 1,000 sons. He thought,
“Now if I get another son, I would send him to hold the noble land called
Khotan country, which had been touched by the Buddha’s feet.” So thinking, he
besought Vaiśravaṇa. [Vaiśravaṇa] took the boy from the earth, saying, “This is
my son, I give him to you,” and gave the boy to the king. [Later] the boy received
the name Prince Sa la nu (breasted by earth).
de cher skyed103 pa dang/ li yul ’tshol ba/ rgya{r} rjes rdzangs/ dmag (62b4)
stong phrag bcu dang bcas te/ nub phyogs su phyin/ li yul mes skar104 du
[b]slebs pa’i dus su/ rgya gar nas/ rgyal po dharma a (62b5) sho kas/ blon po
yakṣha105 bya ba la nyes pa phab nas/ de spun pha’u106 nye ’khor dang bcas pa/
bdun brgya tsam107 phyugs/ shar phyogs su (62b6) yul ’tshol ba la yongs/ ’u then
gyi shel chab gong ma na yod pa dang/ sa la nu’i ’khor gnyis/ ba sbrum ma bros
pa ’tshol yongs dang (63a1) ’phrad/ rgyu mtshan brnyad108 pas/ nged109 gnyis/
sngar nas/ rgyal blon gyi rgyud du ’dug pas/ da’ang (63a2) rje ’bangs bya bar rigs
la/ ’u then gyi gzhongs ’dir/ yul gsar bzung par bya’o/ /zer nas/ ko nya’i110 ’og yul
hang gu dze111 bya (63a3) bar mjal/ rgyal blon byed par bsham pas/ sngon ma112
yul bgos la ma ’cham[s]/ rnam sras dang/ dpal lha mos gdums byas te/ (63a4)
’u then shel chu ’og ma man chad/ ldol lo mes skar113 dang/ skam sheng114 yan
chad/ sa nu’i ’khor/ rgya nag pa la phye[/]115 shel chung116 gong ma yan (63a5)
103 skyed: GBY T skyes (52a5).

104 mes skar: LC lines 56, 100, 104 myes kar; LL CDGNP me skar. A place in the southeast of
Khotan, cf. Zhu 2012a: 88–89.
105 yakṣha: read yasha (LL CDGNP ; cf. TTK, p. 18). LC lines 29 and 32 yashi.
106 spun pha’u: read spad spun (LL CDGNP ; cf. TTK, p. 18). GBY T dpun pha’u (53b1).
107 tsam: GBY T tsaṃ (53b1).
108 brnyad: read bsnyad (GBY T , 53b2).
109 nged: GBY T de (53b2).
110 ko nya: LL CDGP ’di nya; LL N ’di nye. Cf. TTK.: 18.
111 hang gu dze: LC line 30 hang ’gu ’jo; LL CDGNP hang gu dzo, Kh. Haṃggūj-, “to meet”
(Emmerick 1968: 91).
112 sngon ma: GBY T sngan la (53b4).
113 ldol lo mes skar: read mdo lo mes skar. LG mdo lo mye skar; LC lines 38 and 81 to la, which
is the native name of mdo lo (TLTD I: 100, n. 6). Both mye skar and mdo lo mye skar are
translated into Ch. 奴盧川 (P. 2139 line 28; cf. Zhu 2010: 632; Zhu 2012a: 88–89).
114 skam sheng: elsewhere written as kam sheng, kham sheng etc.; Kh. Phema; Ch. 坎城 or 嫓/
婫摩城, which is located at 300 li east of Khotan. Cf. KT IV: 135–137; TTK: 93; Zhang and
Rong 1986a/2008: 170, 173, 174; Zhu 2012a: 79–80.
115 Cf. GBY T , 53b6.
116 chung: read chu.
chad/ yakṣha’i117 ’khor rgya gar ba la phye/ shel chung118 dbus ni/ rgyal bu rang/
rgya dkar nag gi blon ’bangs/ bstod rim ’dres mas (63a6)bzung ste/ yul btab/
mkhar [b]rtsigs/
Having grown up to be a young man, he was sent by the king to search the
Khotan country with an army of 10,000. Proceeding toward the west, he ar-
rived at Mes skar in the Khotan country. At that time, Yaśa, minister of King
Dharmāśoka, who had been banished because of wrongdoing, came in search
of land in the east with his children, brothers and relatives numbering about
700. When they were in the upper Jade River, two of Sa la nu’s retinue, who had
gone there in search of a runaway pregnant cow, met them. The cause being
related, [Yaśa] said, “We were of royal and minister’s races previously; now it
is also appropriate [for us] to be king and subject, establishing a new country
in this region of ’U then.” They met at a place called Hang gu dze below Ko
nya, setting out to be king and minister. At first they did not agree about the
division of the land. Vaiśravaṇa and Śrī devī interceded [and they agreed]. The
land from the lower Jade River of ’U then to mDo lo mes skar and sKam sheng
was to be given to Sa la nu’s retinue, the Chinese. The land above the upper
Jade River was to be given to Yaśa’s retinue, the Indians. The land between the
[two] Jade River was held by the Prince himself, the ministers and subjects of
the Indians and Chinese, and having intermingled respectively, they founded
the country and built the city.
rgya dkar nag phrad pa’i dbu119 ni yin120 te/ skad ni gnyis ka dang [mi] mthun/
li skad thog ma (63b1)’jam dpal/ dge slong bai ro tsā nar121 sprul nas/ byis pa
la [b]slabs pas/ ’phags pa’i gsung las chad pa’o/ /yi ge dang (63b2)chos lugs ni/
rgya gar ba dang bshad cher122 mthun la/ ’ji rten pa’i lugs ni/ rgya nag pa dang
bshad cher123 mthun no/ /sangs rgyas124 (63b3)’das nas/ rgyal po sa nu lo bcu
dgu pas/ li rjes byas pa yan la/ lo nyis brgya lnga rtsa bzhi song cing/ rgyal po sa
nu dang (63b4)blon o yakṣha125 ni/ li’i rgyal blon gyi thog ma’o/ /
This was the beginning of the contact between the Indians and Chinese. The
[Khotan] language does not agree with the two. Originally Mañjuśī assumed
117
yakṣha: read yasha.
118
chung: read chu.
119
dbu: GBY T bu (53a1).
120
yin: GBY T li yin (53a1).
121
bai ro tsā na: read bai ro tsa na (GBY T , 53a2; LL CDGNP ; cf. TTK: 20). LC line 4 be ro tsa na. Cf.
Zhu forthcoming.
122
bshad cher: read shas cher.
123
bshad cher: read shas cher.
124
125
yakṣha: read yasha.
158 Zhu
the form of monk Vairocana, teaching the Khotan language to children, so it

was introduced by the Ārya’s voice. The letters and religious customs agree
for the most part with the Indians. The customs of the ordinary people agree
for the most part with the Chinese. Two hundred and fifty-four years elapsed
from the nirvāṇa of Buddha to Prince Sa nu becoming king of Khotan in his
nineteenth year. King Sa nu and minister Yaśa were the earliest king and min-
ister of Khotan.
de nas sa nu’i bu/ ye’u las/ lnga ldan126 gyi grong kyer btab bo127/ /li yul byung
(63b5) nas/ lo drug cu rtsa lnga ’das pa’i dus/ rgyal po ye’u la’i bu/ rgyal po byi
dza ya sam128 bha wa byung ba/ rgyal sar bzhugs nas lo (63b6) lnga song pa
dang/ li yul du chos kyi thog ma byung ste/ de’ang/ byams pa/ rgyal po byi dza
ya dang/ ’jam dpal/ ’phags (64a1) pa bai ro tsā129 nar sprul nas/ sngon la130 ph-
yugs rdzi’i byis pa la/ yi ge dang skad [b]slabs/ de nas/ dam chos (64a2) dbu
rnyed/ rim par byung ngo/ /rgyal po des/ tsar ma’i131 gtsug lag khang bzhengs/
’di’i nang na/ klu rgyal hu lor132 gyis/ kha (64a3) che nas nam mkha’133 la spyan
drangs pa’i/ mchod rten byin rlabs can yang bzhugs la/ li yul du gtsug lag khang
dang/ [mchod] rten gyi thog ma (64a4) ’di’o/ /
Then Sa nu’s son, Ye’u la, built the city of dNgar ldan. Sixty-five years after
the origin of the Khotan country, King Ye’u la’s son, King Vijiya Saṃbhava, was
born. When he had held the royal seat for five years, the religion first arose in the
Khotan country. It was because Maitreya emanated as King Vijija [Saṃbhava]
and Mañjuśī emanated as the Ārya Vairocana, who at first taught letters and
language to a shepherd boy; after that the good religion began and gradually
made progress. The king built the vihāra of Tsar ma. There was a blessing stūpa
inside it, which was summoned from Kashmir through the sky by the nāga-
king Hu lor. They were the first vihāra and stūpa in the Khotan country.
126
lnga ldan: read dngar ldan. Cf. n. 65.
127
btab bo: read btab pa.
128
sam: GBY T saṃ (53a6).
129
tsā: read tsa (GBY T , 54b1).
130
sngon la: GBY T sngan ma (54b1).
131
tsar ma: Kh. Tcarma; Ch. 贊摩, 桚摩 or 匝摩. Cf. KT IV: 84, 130; TTK: 103; Zhu 2013: 420–
423. Concerning this monastery, see Zhang and Rong 1986b/2008: 225–228.
132
hu lor: = hu lu ru; Skt. Hulluro; Ch. 戶魯陸/呼婁茶 (Mvy, p. 230, no. 3279). It is a nāga-
king protecting Kashmir 罽賓那 in the CG Ch, written as 睺/侯羅茶 (p. 367b; cf. Lévi 1905:
267). In the SG Tib, it is written as hu ru ru (D, 235b5) or hu ru ra (N, 336a3–4). Kh. Hūlūra.
Cf. TLTD I: 107, n. 1; Bailey 1942: 916; TTK: 107.
133
nam mkha’: GBY T naṃkha’ (54b3).
de nas rgyal rabs bdun gyi bar la/ gtsug lag khang ma brtsigs so/ /yang/ byams134
pas rgyal po byi dza ya birya135 (64a5) zhes par136 sprul nas/ bstan pa’i bya ba
rgya cher byas shing/ ’ghuṃ tir gyi gtsug lag khang bzhengs/ mchod rten go
ma sa la gan dha’i (64a6) bsngags pa brjod pas/ rgyal po dad de/ /glang mgo ri’i
steng na/ gyi’u shwan137 gyi gtsug lag khang bzhengs so/ /
After that, during seven generations of kings no other vihāras were built.
Then again Maitreya manifested as King Vijiya Vīrya and greatly promoted the
teachings of Buddhism. He built the vihāra of ’Ghuṃ tir.138 And having been
indicated the glory of the stūpa Gomasalagandha, the king obtained faith and
built the vihāra of Gautośan on top of the Gośīrṣa.139
de nas rgyal rabs (64b1) gnyis kyi bar ma140 gtsug lag khang ma brtsigs/ de141
rting/ rgyal po byi dza ya dzas142/ po ta rya dang ma zha’i mchod rten dang/
gtsug lag [khang] byin rlabs (64b2) can bzhengs so/ /rgyal po de la sras gsum143
byung pa’i/ che ba ’don ’gros dang/ bar pa/ dar ma nan tir144 gnyis rgya gar la
chos slob pa (64b3) la byon/ /chung ba/ byi dza ya dar mas rgyal srid bzung/
dpa’ rtsal che zhing/ gsod pa la rkyan pas/ sdig che/ pho bo dar ma nan tir145
(64b4) gyis dgra bcom pa thob nas/ thabs kyi[s]146 bskul/ sdig bshags byed du
btsug147 ste/ dro ldir148 gyis149 shongs nas150/ sngon thub pa chen (64b5) po
rgyal po zla ’od du gyur tshe/ bram151 ze la/ dbu byin pa’i sa dang/ sangs rgyas152
134 byams: GBY T byaṃs (54b4).

135 birya: read bīrya (LL CDGNP ). Cf. TTK: 28.
136 zhes par: read zhes bya bar.
137 gyi’u shwan: read gyi’u to shan, = glang mgo ri. GBY T gye’u shwan (54b6). Cf. n. 57.
138 Concerning this monastery, see Zhang and Rong 1986b/2008: 228–230.
139 Concerning this monastery, see Zhang and Rong 1986b/2008: 230–231.
140 ma: read la (GBY T , 54b6).
141 de: GBY T der (54b6).
142 dzas: read dza yas (LL CDGNP ). Cf. TTK: 32.
143 gsum: GBY T gsuṃ (54a2).
144 dar ma nan tir: read dharmānanda (LL CDGNP ; cf. TTK: 34); GBY Si dar mnan tir (p. 91).
145 dar ma nan tir: read dharmānanda.
146 GBY T , 54a3.
147 btsug: read bcug (GBY T , 54a4; GBY Si, p. 91).
148 dro ldir: read ’dro tir (LC lines 36, 38, 54, 99, 100; LL NP ). LL CD ’bro tir. Kh. Drūttīrai. Cf. TTK:
39, 97; Zhang and Rong 1986b/2008: 235–236; Zhu 2013: 438, n. 2.
149 gyis: read gyi (GBY T , 54a4).
150 shongs nas: read gshongs na. Cf. Zhang Yisun 1993: 2878.
151 bram: GBY T braṃ (54a4).
160 Zhu
kyi zhabs kyis bcags pa’i ghe’u to shan dang/ bho bha (64b6) long153 gi tshal
du/ gtsug lag khang dang/ mchod rten chen po154 re bzhengs so/ /de’i gcen/
che ba ’don ’dros/ rgya gar nas phebs/ (65a1) sku mched mjal bar ’ja’ mo ka ko
rong nga’i155 lha khang bzhengs shing156/ nor gtsang mas/ sang ter157 gyi gtsug
(65a2) lag khang bzhengs so/ /
After that, during two generations of kings no other vihāras were built. Then
King Vijiya Jaya built the blessed stūpas and vihāras of Po ta rya and Ma zha.158
The king had three sons. The eldest, ’Don ’dros, and the middle, Dharmānanda,
went to India to learn Buddhist teachings. The youngest, Vijiya Dharma, ruled
the kingdom. Being brave and of great prowess, he committed many evil sins
because of killing. His brother Dharmānanda became an arhat and exhorted
him with skillful means; [therefore Dharma] set out to confess his evil sins and
built one vihāra and one stūpa in the valley of ’Drotir where formerly, when
the great Buddha was King Candraprabha, he offered his head to a brahmin,
in Gautośan, which had been trodden by the feet of the Buddha, and in the
grove of Bhobhalong, respectively. The eldest brother ’Don’dros came back
from India and built a shrine called ’Ja’mokakorongnga in the place where the
brothers met. The vihāra of Sangtir was [also] built with pure wealth.
de nas/ byi dza [ya]159 dar ma’i bu/ rgyal po byi dza ya seng160 has/ som nyi’i161
gtsug lag khang dang/ mchod rten (65a3) bzhengs so/ /de’i ’og tu/ rgyal po byi
dza [ya] kirtis162 sru nyo[’i] gtsug lag khang bzhengs nas/ deng163 sang [gi] bar
153 bho bha long: GBY T bhod bha long (54a5); LL CDNP ’bod bha long (cf. TTK: 38).
154 chen po: GBY T cheno (54a5).
155 ’ja’ mo ka ko rong nga: LL CD mjal mo ka ka ro nga; LL NP ’ja’ mo ka ko ro nga. Cf. TTK: 44.
156 shing: GBY T cing (54a6).
157 sang ter: read sang tir (GBY T , 55b1; LC line 36; LL CDGNP ). Cf. TTK: 42; Zhu 2013: 439, n. 1.
158 Ch. 麻射. Cf. TLTD I: 110, n. 9; KT IV: 9–10; TTK: 102. The building of Ma zha monastery is
related to the queen of King Vijiya Jaya; she was a Chinese princess and introduced silk-
culture into Khotan. A detailed story concerning this may be found in the famous Chinese
monk Xuanzang’s memoirs (cf. Beal 1884, vol. 2: 318–319; XYJ: 1021–1023) and LL (cf. TLTD
I: 110–111; TTK: 33–35; see also Zhang and Rong 1986b/2008: 234).
159 GBY T , 55b1.
160 seng: read sing (GBY T , 55b1). See also LL CDGNP (cf. TTK: 44).
161 som nyi: read som nya. M. Tāgh. a, vi, 0023 so ma nya; LL CD sam nya; LL NP sum nya (cf.
TTK: 46). Kh. Są̄manyāña; Ch. 娑摩若. Cf. TLTD I: 118, n. 3; TLTD II: 183; KT IV: 9; TTK: 106.
Concerning this monastery, see also Zhang and Rong 1986b/ 2008: 232–233.
162 byi dza [ya] kirti: GBY Si byi dza [ya] ki rti (91). Kh. Viśa’ Kīrtta/Viśa’ Kīrttä (TTK: 99).
163 deng: GBY T ding (55b2).
du/ chu’i ’jigs pa klus (65a4) bsrungs pa yod do/ /de’i bu byi dza ya sang164 gra
mas/ dgra bcom pa dznyā na yakṣha’i165 bka’ bzhin du/ dar ma rtir166 gyi gtsug
lag khang bzhengs/ (65a5) ghu zhan167 gyi gtsug lag khang yang bzhengs so/ /
de’i bu rgyal po byi dza ya seng168 has/ byamgs pa’i zhal mthong/ gzha’169 ser
ma’i gtsug lag (65a6) khang bzhengs so170/ /de’i bu/ rgyal po byi dza ya ba la171
man chad/ rgyal rabs drug gi bar la/ gtsug lag khang gzhan ma brtsigs so/ /
After that Vijaya Dhama’s son, King Vijaya Siṃha, built Som nya vihāra and
stūpa. After that King Vijaya Kīrti built the vihāra of Sru nyo. Down to the pres-
ent, being afraid of [a lack of] water, there is a nāga guarding it. The king’s son
Vijaya Sangrāma, in accordance with the instruction of Arhat Jñānayaśa, built
the vihāra of Dharma tir(?). The vihāra of Ghu zhan was also built.172 His son,
King Vijiya Siṃha, having seen the countenance of Maitreya, built the vihāra
of gZha’ ser ma. [Then] for six generations after his son, King Vijaya Bala, no
other vihāras were built.
(65b1) de nas rgyal po byi dza yang sam tri mas173/ sangs rgyas174 kyi sku gzugs/
cu gu san175 nas/ li yul du/ nam mkha’176 la byon byung pa/ bzhugs (65b2) pa’i
[dri]177 gtsang178 khang dang/ bkra shis sil ma’i179 tshal du/ mchod rten chen po
164 sang: GBY Si sang (92).

165 dznyā na yakṣa: read dznyā na yaśa (LL CDGNP ). Cf. TTK: 48.
166 rtir: probably read tir. LL CDGNP kīrti (cf. TTK: 50).
167 ghu zhan: M. Tāgh. b, i, 0070 gu zhan do; LL CD ’gu zhan/ dgu zhan ta; LL GNP ’gu gzhan/’gu
zhan ta. Kh. Gūśa’dau or Guśaṃ’dā. Cf. TLTD I: 122; TLTD II: 183; TTK: 52, 95; KT IV: 9.
Concerning this monastery, see also Zhang and Rong 1986b/2008: 236.
168 seng: read sing (GBY T , 55b4). See also LL CDGNP (cf. TTK: 52).
169 gzha’: GBY T gzhan (55b4); LL CDGNP bzha’ (cf. TTK: 54).
170 bzhengs so: GBY T bzhengso (55b4).
171 ba la: GBY T ba (55b5).
172 According to LL, this vihāra was built by another Khotan king, who is also named Vijaya
Sangrāma and ruled the Khotan country fifteen generations of kings after King Vijaya
Dharma. Cf. TTK: 51–53; Zhu 2012b: 262–263.
173 byi dza yang sam tri mas: read byi dza ya sang gra mas (LL CDGNP ; cf. TTK: 54–55). GBY T saṃ
tri ma (55b5–6).
175 cu gu san: read cu gu pan (LL CDGNP ) = Karghalik. Ch. 子合國, 朱駒波, 斫句迦, 朱俱槃
etc. Cf. TLTD I: 25, 123; TTK: 54–55, 96; XYJ: 998; Faxianzhuan, 16–17.
176 nam mkha’: GBY T naṃkha’ (55b6).
177 Cf. TTK: 54–55.
178 gtsang: GBY T btsang (55b6).
179 bkra shis sil ma: GBY T bkris sil ma (55b6); LL CDGNP bkra shis bsil ba (cf. TTK: 56).
162 Zhu
dang/ dgra bcom pa mu gu dhe180 a ba ya hang181 gi bka’ bzhin du/ (65b3) gzha’
sam ma’i182 gtsug lag khang bzhengs so/ /de’i bu/ rgyal po byi dza ya sha ta183
man chad/ rgyal rabs bzhi’i bar la/ gtsug lag khang (65b4) gsar pa ma brtsigs/
After that, during the reign of King Vijaya Sangrāma, an image of the Buddha
came to the Khotan country from Cu gu pan. The king built a gandhakuṭī to
house it. He [also] built a great stūpa in the grove of bKra shis sil ma and the
vihāra of gZha’ sam ma according to the instructions of Morgudeśi A ba ya
hang. [Then], for four generations of kings from King Sangrāma’s son, King
Vijaya Śāstra, no other new vihāras were built.
de nas rgyal po byi dza ya kirti184 la/ klu’i rgyal pos bskul nas/ bha wa185 nya’i
gtsug lag [khang] bzhengs shing186/ ’di ni (65b5) bod kyi rgyal pos li yul la mnga’
mdzad/ de’i blon pos gar gdong btsan187 li yul du yongs dus bzhengs pa’o/ /rgyal
po de dang/ sras (65b6) byi dza ya [sang] gra ma rbad188 gnyis/ rgyal yul la byon
pa’i ring la/ li’i blon po a ma cha ge189 meg bya bas/ lo bcu gnyis190 rgyal tshab
byas/ de dus (66a1) ma na dhi’i191 mchod rten dang/ gtsug lag khang bzhengs
so/ /de nas rgyal po byi dza ya gra ma192 {rbad} li yul du slab (66a2) nas/ gyi zhi
180
mu gu dhe: read mo rgu de shi (LL GNP ). LC line 15 mor gu bde shil; LL CD mo dgu de shi. LC
explains this title as lam ma nor par ston pa, “unmistaken way-shower”; LL explains it as
lam ston pa, “way-shower”. Skt. *mārgopadeśaka-, Kh. mārgaupadeśai. Cf. TLTD I: 109–110;
TTK: 30–31, 56–57, 102; Zhu 2013: 428, n. 1.
181
hang: LL CD dhang; LL NP rdang. Cf. TTK: 56.
182
gzha’ sam ma’i: GBY T ghza’ saṃ ma (55a1); LL CDGNP gzha’ sang gre re ma’i (cf. TTK: 56).
183
sha ta: read shāstra. Cf. TTK: 56.
184
kirti: GBY Si ki rti (92).
185
wa: LL CDGNP ba. Cf. TTK: 56.
186
shing: GBY T cing (55a3).
187
gar gdong btsan: Das 1886: 198–199 and Chen 1986: 51 contends that this corresponds to
mGar sTong rtsan/噶爾·東贊, the great Tibetan minister during King Khri Srong-bstan/
Srong btsan sgam po’s reign (605?–649). However, according to other sources, this should
be mGar gDong bstan’s son, mGar bTsan nyen gung rton, who acted as governor of Khotan
from the late 680’s to the early 690’s. LL CD has mGar bTsan nyen gung ston, LL GNP has ’Gar
bTsan nyin gung ston. Ch. 勃論/勃論贊/勃論贊刃. Cf. TLTD, I: 125–126, n. 6; TTK: 58;
Moriyasu 1984: 20–21; Beckwith 1987: 56; Wang Xiaofu 1992: 87; Dotson 2009: 98.
188
rbad: read spad (LL CDGNP ). Cf. TTK: 58.
189
ge: LL CDGNP khe. Cf. TTK: 58.
190
bcu gnyis: GBY T bcuis (55a5).
191
dhi’i: LL CDGNP ’di. Cf. TTK: 58.
192
byi dza ya gra ma: read byi dza ya bi kra ma (LL CD ). LL GNP byi zha gra ma (cf. TTK: 58–
59;). Kh. Viśya Vikrraṃ/Viśa Väkrraṃ (Skjærvø 2002: 124; Duan Qing 2008: 12.). Yoshida
rma ba’i193 gtsug lag khang bzhengs so/ /de’i ’og tu/ rgya’i blon po ser thi shis194/
bang195 mkhar gyi/ byams196 pa mi197 tri’i gtsug (66a3) lag khang/ rgya’i blon po
ka thi shis198/ khe gwan rtse’i199 gtsug lag khang bzhengs so/ /sngon ’phags pa
bai ro tsā200 nas/ tsal201 ma’i tshal du/ (66a4) phyug sri202 la skad [b]slab[s] pa’i
sar/ su to nya’i203 mchod rten chen po bzhengs/ rting la de zhig pa dang/ rgyal
po byi dza ya ho han204 dang/ rgya’i (66a5) dge slong ba205 la shis/ sa der gtsug
lag khang gcig206 bshengs so/ /
After that, King Vijaya Kīrti, taking the advice of the nāga king, built the
vihāra of Bhābana. This vihāra was built at the time when the Khotan coun-
try was under the control of the Tibetan king, and the Tibetan minister mGar
bTsan nyen gung rton was in the Khotan country. The king and his son Vijaya
contends this this king corresponds to Ch. 尉遲瑕/璥, reigning 692–706+ (Yoshida 2006:
80; see also Skjærvø 1991: 260; Skjærvø 2004: 35).
193
gyi zhi rma ba: read gyi zhi gre rma ba (GBY T , 55a6). LL CD byi zha gre rma; LL NP byi zha gra
ma (cf. TTK: 58–60).
194
ser thi shi: read ser the shi (LL CDGNP ; cf. TTK: 60). Ch. 謝大使 (i.e., 謝知信) who was Vice
Grand Protector of Anxi 安西副大都護 and Vice Military Governor of Four Garrisons
and Others 四鎮節度等副大使 before 728 (Rong 1992: 60; Rong 1993: 412–413; Rong 2003:
403), the highest Chinese military official in Khotan (Zhang and Rong 1988a/2008: 113; Rong
1991: 31; Rong 1992: 60). The shi, Kh. thaiṣṣī, a title to describe the highest Chinese or Tibetan
military official in Khotan as well as Central Asia (Yoshida 2006: 21–24, 73), not from Ch.
大師 “great teacher” or 太使 “great envoy; ambassador” as proposed by Bailey (KT IV:
163) and Emmerick 1967 (TTK: 93) respectively, but from Ch. 大使 (Yoshida 2006: 23–24).
195
bong: read gong (LL GNP ). Cf. TTK: 60.
196
byams: GBY T byaṃs (56b1).
197
mi: read mai (LL CDGNP ). Cf. TTK: 60.
198
ka thi shi: read ka the shi (LL CDGNP ; cf. TTK: 60). Ch. 高大使 (i.e., 高仙芝) who was Military
Governor of Khotan 于闐鎮守使 during the middle of the Kaiyuan 開元 era (712–741);
not 蓋大使, i.e. 蓋嘉運, as in Rong 1992: 60; Rong 1993: 403, 413; Rong 2003: 403).
199
khe gwan rtse: M.Tagh.b.i., 0045 ke’u ’gan tshe (TLTD II: 183, n. 1); LL CD khe gan rtse; LL GNP :
khe gan tse (Cf. TTK: 60); Ch. 開元寺 (Rong 1993: 413; Rong 2003: 403).
200
tsā: read tsa (GBY T , 56b2).
201
tsal: read tsar.
202
phyug sri: read phyugs sras. GBY T phyugs sri (56b2).
203
su to nya: LL C sum ston nya; LL DGNP su stong nya. Cf. TTK: 60.
204
byi dza ya ho han: read byi dza ya bo han (LL CDGNP ; cf. TTK: 60), Kh. Väśa’ Vāhaṃ (TTK:
100), corresponding to Ch. 尉遲曜, reigning 767–802+ (Zhang and Rong 1988b/2008: 67;
Zhang and Rong 1997/2008: 256–259; Zhang and Rong 2009: 149–153. See also Konow 1914:
349–350; Skjærvø 1991: 263–265; Kumamoto 1996: 33; Skjærvø 2009: 119–128; Kumamoto
2009: 75–79).
205
ba: LL CDGNP ’ba’. Cf. TTK: 60.
206
164 Zhu
Sangrāma the Younger went to China.207 During that period, the minister
Amacha208 of the Khotan [country] Gemeg acted as regent for twelve years
and meanwhile built Ma na dhi stūpa and vihāra. Then King Vijaya Vikrama,
having returned to the Khotan country, built the vihāra of Gyi zhi gre rma ba.
After that, the Chinese minister Ser the shi built the vihāra of Byams pa mai-
tri of the upper city and the Chinese minister Ka the shi built the vihāra of
Khe gwan rtse. On the spot of the grove of Tsar ma where originally the Ārya
Vairocana taught language to the shepherd boy, a great stūpa Su to nya was
built. Afterwards [the stūpa] fell into ruin, and King Vijaya Vāhana and the
Chinese monk Ba la shi built one vihāra there.
gzhan yang rgyal po na rim gyis btsun mos bzhengs pa dang/ btsun (66a6)
mo’i slad du/ gtsug lag khang bzhengs pa ni/ nu bo nya209 zhes bya ba’i gtsug
lag khang dang/ yo zi210 ’jo’i dang/ ze211 ro ’jo’i dang/ so yen ro’i212 dang/ ’dre
(66b1) mo ja’i213 dang/ ka trong ’jo’i214 dang/ ho ron ’jo’i215 dang/ yer216 mo no’i
dang/ ko so no no’i217 dang/ gu te218 re ma’i dang/ o ko no’i219 dang/ kus (66b2)
sri or stong nag220 gi dang/ ci’u no’i221 dang/ kye’o no’i222 dang/ na mo bho
207 According to LL, it was the King after King Vijaya Kīrti, named Vijaya Sangrāma, and his son
King Vijaya Sangrāma the Younger who went to China. Cf. TTK: 58–59; Zhu 2012b: 266–267.
208 Kh. āmāca/āmākya-, from Bud. Skt. āmātya- and amātya-. In Tibetan documents from
Central Asia, it is also written as a mcha, a ma cha’, a ma ca, am cha, a ma cag etc. Ch. 阿摩支.
Originally, āmātya- were the king’s intimates and counsellors. It gradually became an honor-
ary title later in Khotan (TLTD, II: 191–194; KT IV: 62; Zhang and Rong 1988a/2008: 115–116.
209 nu bo nya: GBY T (56b4) and LL D nu’o nya (cf. TTK: 64).
210 zi: GBY T rdzi (56b5); LL CDGNP zo (cf. TTK: 64).
211 ze: LL CDGNP zer. Cf. TTK: 6.
212 so yen ro: LL C po yon do; LL D po yen do; LL GNP po yen to. Cf. TTK: 66.
213 ’dre mo ja: GBY T ’dre mo dza (56b5); LL C dro mo mdzal; LL D dro mo mdza’; LL GNP dro mo
’dza’ (cf. TTK: 66).
214 ka trong ’jo: GBY T ko trong ’dzo (56b5); LL CDGNP tra ke ’jo (cf. TTK: 68).
215 ho ron ’jo: GBY T ho rong ’dzo (56b5).
216 yer mo no: read er mo no (LL GNP ). LL C an mo no; LL D en mo no (Cf. TTK: 68). Kh. ermvā,
probably Tibetan Guzan according to Bailey 1951: 14–15; cf. Emmerick 1967 TTK: 107.
217 ko so no no: LL CDGNP kho mo no no. Cf. TTK: 68.
218 gu te re ma: LL CDGNP gus sde re ma. Cf. TTK: 70.
219 o ko no: LL CD o ska no; LL GNP o ka no. Cf. TTK: 70.
220 kus sri or stong nag: GBY T kus syi or stong nag (56b6); LL CD kus pa’i or myong nag; LL GN kus
phyi or myong nag; LL P kur pyi or myong nag (cf. TTK: 70).
221 ci’u no: LL CDGNP gtso’u no. Cf. TTK: 70.
222 kye’o no: read khye sho no (LL CD . LL GNP khye sho na; cf. TTK: 70), meaning “Kasgharian.”
Cf. Kh. Khyeṣyā which may mean “Kāšɣar,” Ch. 迦師/佉沙 (Bailey 1951: 9, 15; KT IV: 33,
121–122; TTK: 94).
thong223 gi dang/ ’a no yo no’i224 gtsug lag khang bya ba la sogs mang du (66b3)
bzhengs so/ /
As for the vihāras built by the queens and those built for the queens by the
successive kings, there was a vihāra called Nu bo nya, and vihāras called Yo zi
’jo, Ze ro ’jo, So yen do, ’Dre mo ja, Ka trong ’jo, Ho ron ’jo, Er mo no, Ko so no
no, Ge te re ma, O ko no, Kus sri or myong nag, Ci’u no, Khye sho no, Na mo bho
thong, ’A no yo no, and many others were built.
spyir ’u then na/ gtsug lag khang chen por rtsi ba/ sku mkhar gyi byi nang na/
drug cu rtsa brgyad/ ’bring/ dgu cu rtsa lnga/ (66b4) chung ngun225/ brgya
bzhi bcu zhe brgyad/ dgaus kyi lha khang226 chung ngu dang/ yon tan bdag
med pa’i lha [khang] dang/ mchod rten ni/ sum227 stong (66b4) drug brgya
brgyad cu rtsa brgyad bzhugs/ ’u then na/ dge ’dun dgos tsho228 yan [chad]/
byin po/ byi ba lo la rtsig229 pas/ khri {tsho} gcig tsam (66b5) bzhugs so/ /
mdo lo dang/ me skar phyogs na/ gtsug lag khang230 chen po bzhi/ chung
ngun231/ brgya lhag tsam dang/ dge ’dun (67a1) brgya nyi shu rtsa bzhi bzhugs/
kam shang232 dang/ pha nya233 dang/ be rga ’dra234 dang/ o ku235 yan chad/
223
na mo bho thong: LL CDGNP na mo ’bu gdong. Cf. TTK: 72.
224
’a no yo no, LL CD ’da’ no yo na; LL GNP ’da’ no yo no. Cf. TTK: 72.
225
ngun: read ngu (GBY T , 56a2).
226
dgaus kyi lha khang: read sgo sgo’i mchod pa’i lha khang (LL CDGNP ; cf. TTK: 72–73). GBY T
dgos kyi lha khang (56a2). Chen 1986: 51 translates as 荒地小廟, “shrines of deserted
places”.
227
sum: GBY T gsuṃ (56a3).
228
dgos tsho: read sgos ’tsho (LL CDGNP ). Cf. TTK: 72.
229
rtsig: read rtsis.
230
gtsug lag khang: GBY T gtsug lag (56a4).
231
232
kam shang: read kam sheng. GBY T kaṃ shang (56a5).
233
pha nya: LL CD pho nya (cf. TTK: 72). Kh. Phaṃña/Phaṃnā, Ch. 潘野, name of a township
in the “Six Towns” district 六城 located in the eastern part of Khotan. See KT IV: 107, 173,
178; TTK: 99; Zhang and Rong 1988a/2008: 110; Yoshida 2006: 47–48; Wen 2008b: 123–124.
234
be rga ’dra: LL N be rka ’dra (cf. TTK: 72), Kh. Birgaṃdara, Ch. 拔伽, name of a township in
the “Six Towns” district located in the eastern part of Khotan, modern Domoko 達瑪溝.
See KT IV: 56, 71, 74, 107, 175; TTK: 101; Zhang and Rong 1988a/2008: 110–111; Yoshida 2006:
47–48, 51; Wen 2008b: 121–122; Rong and Wen 2009a: 105–106.
235
o ku: read o sku (LL GNP . LL CD o rgu; cf. TTK: 74). Kh. Āskūra, name of a township in the “Six
Towns” district located in the eastern part of Khotan, probably modern Mazar Toghrak
麻札托克拉克. See KT IV: 104–105; TTK: 107; Zhang and Rong 1988a/2008: 110–111; Wen
2008b: 122–123.
166 Zhu
dzi li236 man (67a2) chad sku mkhar phyi nang na gtsug lag khang chen po nyi
shu rtsa gsum237/ ’bring po nyi shu rtsa gcig chung ngun238 nyi shu rtsa gsum239
tsam240 dang/ dgaus241 kyi lha (67a3) khang chung ngun242/ mchod rten [la]
sogs/ spyir brgyad brgya{d} sum243 cu rtsa dgu bzhugs/ dge ’dun sde gnyis ni/
las rkyen [pa] dang/ dgos mtsho244 (67a4) yan chad na/ spyir bzhi brgya sum cu
rtsa brgyad bzhugs/ gyim kyang245 man chad ke sheng246 dang/ durya247 yan
[chad]/ sku mkhar phyi nang / tshar ma248 yan (67a5) la/ gtsug lag khang chen
po bco lnga tsam dang/ lha khang chung ngu dang/ mchod rten yang mang du
bzhugs/ dge ’dun sde gnyis ni/ las rkyen [pa] (67a6) dang/ dgos mtsho249 yan
la/ spyir dgu brgya drug cu rtsa gsum250 bzhugs/ rgyal po sa nu’i tsha bo/ /rgyal
po byi dza ya sam251 bha wa’i dus su252/ (67b1) li yul du chos byung ba’i thog
236
dzi li: read ji la (LL CDGNP ; cf. TTK: 74). GBY T ji li (56a6). Kh. Cira, Ch. 質邏, name of a town-
ship in the “Six Towns” district located in the eastern part of Khotan, probably the region
between modern Chira 策勒 county and Domoko Township. See KT IV: 104–105, 176–177;
TTK: 96; Zhang and Rong 1988a/2008: 109–110; Yoshida 2006: 47–48; Wen 2008b: 121.
237
238
239
240
tsam: GBY T rtsam (56a6).
241
dgaus: GBY T dgos (57b1).
242
ngun: read ngu (GBY T , 57b1).
243
sum: GBY T suṃ (57b1).
244
dgos mtsho: read sgos ’tsho.
245
gyim kyang: read gyil kyang (GBY T , 57b2; LL CDGNP ; cf. TTK: 74). LC lines 111 and 112 gyi yang.
This must be Jiliang 吉良, a town located 390 li west of Khotan capital city as recorded
in XTS (vol. 4: 1151; cf. ZLD: 64). Thomas suggests correctly that it corresponds to modern
Kilian 克里陽 (1925: 259–261; see also TLTD, I: 135, n. 13; TTK: 95), which is in the south-
west of modern Pishan 皮山 county (ZD: 234). Cf. Zhu 2012a: 82–83.
246
ke sheng: read ko sheng (LC lines 82, 111, 112; RL D ko sheng, 226b7). LL CDGNP kong sheng (Cf.
TTK: 74); RL NStog Ku sheng (346a4/422a3). This corresponds to Gucheng 固城 located in
200 li west of Khotan capital city as recorded in XTS (vol. 4: 1151). Cf. Zhu 2012a: 83–85.
247
durya: read dur ya (LC line 111), corresponding to modern Duwa 杜瓦 (Thomas 1925: 260–
261; TLTD I: 135, n. 15; TLTD II: 225, 235; TTK: 96), which located in southwest of modern
Karakash 墨玉 county (ZD: 234). Cf. Zhu 2012a: 83.
248
tshar ma: read tshar (LL CDNG ; cf. TTK: 74). According to Takeuchi 2009: 146, tshar corre-
sponds to Chinese xiang 鄉, Kh. auva, which consisted of about one hundred households
and were the basic subordinate units of a prefecture or zhou 州.
249
dgos mtsho: read sgos ’tsho.
250
gsum: GBY T gsuṃ (57b4).
251
sam: GBY T saṃ (57b4).
252
dus su: GBY T dusu (57b4).
ma yin pa/ de nas rtsis253 pa’i lo shol bor ba’i/ khyi lo ston zla tha chung254 yan
la/ lo grangs ni stong dang nyis (67b2) brgya lnga bcu rtsa gsum255 tsam song
’dug go /dang po/ rgyal po256 sa chus257/ li rje byas nas/ bzang btsan bzang la
bstan258/ li rje bskos pa (67b3) yan la/ li’i rgyal rabs lnga bcu rtsa drug dang/
chab gcig259 byung gda’o/ /
Reckoning the great vihāras in ’U then totally, there are 68 inside and outside
the castle. The medium vihāras are 95, and the small vihāras 148. As for small
shrines for the worship of each household and shrines without donors and
stūpas, there are 3,688. In ’U then, the saṃghas, including those with private
means, totally amounted to 10,000 when a count was made in the Mouse Year.
In the region of mDo lo and Me skar, there are four great vihāras, more than 100
small vihāras, and 124 saṃghas. Down to Kam shang, Pha nya, Be rga ’dra, O sku
from Ji la, there are inside and outside the castle 23 great vihāras, 21 medium
vihāras and 23 small vihāras. Small shrines for the worship of each household,
stūpas and others are 839 in all. The twofold saṃghas, including tenants and
those with private means, amount to 438 in all. From Gyil kyang to Ko sheng
and Du rya, there are inside and outside the fortress, including Tshar, 15 great
vihāras, and the small shrines and stūpas are also built in great number. The
twofold saṃghas, including tenants and those with private means, amount to
963 in all. Reckoning the years from King Vijaya Saṃbhava, grandson of King
Sa nu, when the religion first arose in the Khotan country, down to the last
intercalary autumn month of the Dog Year, there are 1,253 years. From the time
when Prince Sa nu first became king of Khotan to the time when bZang btsan
bzang la bstan was nominated as king of Khotan, there were 56 generations of
kings of Khotan and one regent.
253
rtsis: GBY T brtsis (57b5).
254
de nas rtsis pa’i lo shol bor ba’i/ khyi lo ston zla tha chung: read de nas rtsis pa’i khyi lo’i shol
bor ba’i ston zla tha chung. Cf. LD , 188a5; TTK: 74–75.
255
gsum: GBY T gsuṃ (57b6).
256
po: read bu.
257
chus: read nus.
258
bzang btsan bzang la bstan: LC line 1 btsan legs; LL CDGNP btsan bzang btsan la brtan
(cf. TTK: 22; Zhu 2012b: 245).
259
gcig: GBY T cig (57a1).
168 Zhu
li yul du rgyal rabs bdun pa/ rgyal po byi dza ya kirti zhes pa’i260 (67b4) ring la/
pi ka ya sra ha na’i261 gtsug lag khang dang nye ba’i lung pa/ saṃ ka ya gyi dar262
bya ba na/ saṃ gha ba ta na zhes pa’i263 dgra bcom pa zhig bzhugs (67b5) te/
de’i slob ma baṇdhe264 zhig gis/ ’dul ba [slob pa las/] tsandra gar pa dang/ {’dul
ma} dar ma265/ sangs rgyas266 kyi lung bstan pa mthong nas/ dgra bcom (67b6)
pa la zhes pas/
During the time of king Vijaya Kīrti, the seventh generation of kings in
the Khotan country, there resided an arhat named Saṃghavardhana in a val-
ley called Satkāya-giri near the vihāra of Satkāya-prahāṇa. His disciple, a cer-
tain monk who had studied the Vinaya, having seen the Buddha’s prophecies,
Candragarbha and the Dharma, asked the arhat [about the future develop-
ment of the Budhha’s teachings in the Khotan country and the arhat claimed]:267
thub pa mya ngan las ’das nas/ lo nyis stong gi bar la/ li yul ’dir/ chos kyi gzugs
brnyan dang/ ring (68a1) bsrel gnas par ’gyur te/ de nas nub par ’gyur zhing/
li yul dang/ shu lig268 an se269 gsum kha/ rgya (68a2) dang/ gdong dmar270/
260 zhes pa: read zhes bya ba.

261 pi ka ya sra ha na: read sad ka ya pra ha na, a vihāra blessed by Ākāśagarbha. GBY T saṃ ka
ya pra ha na (57a2); LG AB sar ka pra ha na ya (1a2/1a2); LG E sad ka ya pha ha na ya (3b9);
LG DP sad ka ya pra ha ṇa ya (168b3/444a3); LG N sang ka ya pra ha ṇa ya (420b4); RL DStog
’Jig tshogs spong byed (222b1/415b2–3); RL N ’Jigs tshogs spong byed (329b1); Ch. 薩迦耶般
羅訶郍 (P.2139 line 2–3) and 薩迦耶僊 (Zhang and Rong 1986a, in Zhang and Rong 2008:
175, 206); corresponding to Skt. Satkāya-prahāṇa, not Śaṅkā- prahāṇa as suggested before
(TLTD I; 77). See Zhu 2010: 614–615. Concerning this monastery, see also Zhang and Rong
1988a, in Zhang and Rong 2008: 237–238.
262 saṃ ka ya gyi dar: read sad ka ya ki ri. LG ABE sa ka ya ki ra (1a2/1a2/3b9); LG D sa ka ya byi
ri (168b3); LG N sa ka ya gyi ri (420b4); LG P saṃ ka ya gyi ra (444a3). GG DN ’Jig tshogs kyi
ri (161b6/413a2); Kh. Sakāya gīra (Bailey 1942: 891–892); Ch. 娑迦耶幾郍 (P. 2139 line 3);
corresponding to Skt. Satkāya-giri, not Śaṅkā-giri as suggested before (TLTD I: 77). Cf. Zhu
2010:614–615.
263 zhes pa: read zhes bya ba.
264 bandhe: read bande (GBY T , 57a3).
265 Concerning this sentence, see Zhu 2010: 615–616.
267 Cf. Zhu 2010: 615–616.
268 shu lig: also written as shu leg (i.e., Kashgar; Ch. 疏勒) (P. 2139 line 5). See Pelliot 1959:
196–214; Bailey 1951: 9; TTK: 94; Zhu 2010: 616.
269 an se: Ch. 安息 (P.2139 line 5). Rockhill 1884 contends it is a scribal error for 安西 (240,
n. 3), and Pelliot agrees (1963: 713–714). See also Chen 1986: 53.
270 gdong dmar: literally “the Red-Faces” (i.e., the Tibetans); Ch. 赤面 (P. 2139 line 7). Cf. Zhu
2010: 618.
so byi271/ gru gu272/ hor273 la sogs pas ’jom[s] par byed do/ /de’i rjes la/ byang
sems gcig274 gdong dmar gyi rgyal (68a3) por skye ba blangs nas/ bod khams
su/ dam chos ’byung zhing/ gtsug lag khang dang/ mchod275 rten brtsig dge
’dun sde gnyis (68a4) ’dzugs/ rgyal blon rim gyi[s]276 chos la spyod/ yul khams277
gzhan gyi mkhan po dang/ gsung278 rabs mang po gdan ’dren/ li yul ’di’ang/
(68a5) bod rgyal po de’i mnga’ ris su dbang byed par ’gyur/ de nas/ bod gdong
dmar du/ rgyal rabs bdun gyi bar la/ dam chos la spyod (68a6) par ’gyur ro/ /
“For 2,000 years after the nirvāṇa of the Buddha, the Khotan country will
be an abode of images and relics of Buddhism. Afterwards it will perish. These
three [kingdoms] of Khotan country, Shu lig, and An se will be destroyed by
the Chinese, the Red-Faces, the So byi, the Dru gu, the Hor, and others. Then,
with one Bodhisattva taking birth as the king of the Red-Faces, the good re-
ligion will arise in the land of Tibet, vihāras and stūpas will be built, and the
twofold saṃghas will be established. The kings and ministers will practice the
religion progressively, and many masters and scriptures will be requested from
other countries. This Khotan country will also be governed as the subjects of
that Tibetan king. Thereafter during seven generations of kings, the good reli-
gion will be practiced in the Red-Faces Tibet.
de’i tshe li yul ’dir/ chos nub par279 la nye ba’i skabs su/ de’i rgyal po gzhon
pa cig chos la gnag pas/ (68b1) li yul gyi dge ’dun bskrad pas/ tsar mar dang/
’bong280 dang/ me skar/ rkong nya’i281 lha khang rnams su/ rim bzhin bud nas/
271 So byi: LG E so phyi (4a3); Ch. 蘇毗 (P. 2139 line 7). See Zhu 2010: 618. Concerning “So byi”
and “Sun po,” see Yamaguchi 1970: 97–133.
272 gru gu: read dru gu (LG ABE , 1a6/1b5/4a3). LG DNP drug gu (168b6/420b7/444a7). Ch. 突厥
(P. 2139 line 7). See Zhu 2010: 618.
273 Ch. 迴鶻 (P. 2139 line 7). Cf. Zhu 2010: 618.
274 gcig: GBY T cig (57a6).
275 mchod: GBY Si mchog (p. 96).
276 rim gyi[s]: GBY T rims kyi (58b1).
277 khams: GBY T khaṃs (58b2).
278 gsung: GBY T gsungs (58b2).
279 nub par: GBY T nub (58b3).
280 ’bong: read ’bom (LG ABE , 2b4/3a1/4b9). LG D ’bong (169b6); LG NP bong (422a3/445b2);
Ch. 牟哞寺. Cf. Zhu 2010: 631.
281 me skar/ rkong nya: read me skar gyi song ta rgong nyang (cf. LG AB , 2b6/3a3). song ta rgong
nyang, LG E song thar ko nyang (5a1); LG N stong nya (422a3); LG D rkong nya (169b7); LG P
skong nya (445b3). song ta rgong nyang’i lha khang; Ch. 宋多紇恭娘寺. Cf. Zhu 2010: 632.
170 Zhu
gdong (68b2) dmar gyi yul la kha bltas/ g.yag rgal can282 gyis lam sna byas pa
ltar phyin/ bod yul tshal gyi283 bya bar sleb{s}/ de’i rgan pas284/ (68b3) gdong
dmar rgyal po la rnyad285 pa dang/ btsun mo byang sems sprul pa/ rgya’i ko jo286
gcig287 yod pa des/ li’i dge ’dun rnams gdan drangs (68b4) sbyin bdag byas/ da
dge ’dun e yod dris pas/ de’i mkhan po na re/ an se dang/ shu lig bru zha288/
kha che289 rnams na mang po (68b5) yod zer ba ltar phyin nas/ de rnams kyang
spyan drangs/ gtsug lag khang du bzhugs su bcug lo gsum290 bzhir zhabs tog
legs po (68b6) bsgrubs/ de dus ko jo291 la ’brum nad byung nas ’das/ gzhan
yang mang rab{s} shi bas/ bod blon po rnams292 bgros ’tshams293 par/ (69a1)
lho bal294 gyi dge ’dun ’khyams po/ /’di rnams bos295 pas lan zer/ /de rnams296
rgya’i bandhe297 bos298 pa rnams (69a2) dang bcas pa thams cad299/ nub phogs
su bskrad/ de rnams ghahra ra300 chen por chas nas ’gro ba la/ {li} yul [zhig]
282 rgal can: read sgal can (LG ABE , 3a3/3a5/5a3); Ch. 脊瘡 (P. 2139, line 31). Cf. Zhu
2010: 634–635.
283 tshal gyi: read tshal byi (LG BEDNP , 3b2/5a4/170a3/422a7/445b7). LG A mtshal byi (3a4);
Ch. 薩毗 (P. 2139 line 33). Cf. Zhu 2010: 635.
284 dgan: read dbang po (LG ABEDNP , 3a4/3b2/5a5/170a3/422a7/445b7). Cf. Zhu 2010: 635.
285 rnyad: read snyad.
286 ko jo: read kong jo. Ch. 公主.
287 gcig: GBY T cig (58b6).
288 Ch. 勃律 (P. 2139 line 36). Cf. Zhu 2010: 638.
289 Ch. 加悉蜜國 (P. 2139 lines 36–37). Cf. Zhu 2010: 638.
290 gsum: GBY T gsuṃ (58a3).
291 ko jo: read kong jo.
293 bgros ’tshams: read gros ’chams. GBY T gros ’tshams (58a4).
294 lho bal: Ch. 戎夷 (P. 2139 line 42. Cf. Zhu 2010: 641), that is “barbarians,” not “Nepal” (Das
1886: 200), “Nepalese” (Richardson 1952: 60) or “southern country Nepal” (TLTD I: 83).
Chen 1986: 53 correctly translates as 蠻邦 “barbarian countries.” Concerning “lho bal” and
“bal po”, see Stein 1981: 251, n. 51; Wang Yao 1982: 58; Richardson 1983/1998: 102–105; Li and
Coblin 1987: 472; Chen Jianjian 1994: 95–97; Takeuchi 2004: 986–987.
295 bos: GBY T bod (58a4).
297 bandhe: read bande (GBY T , 58a4).
298 bos: GBY T bod (58a4).
299 thams cad: GBY T thaṃd (58a4).
300 ghahra ra: read gandha ra. GBY T ghandha ra (58a5); LG ABDNP gan dha ra
(4a4/4b3/170b6/423a4/446b6); LG E gha dha ra (5b6); Ch. 乾陀羅國. Ch. Zhu 2010:
644–645.
du301/ klu’i rgyal po e la pa tras302/ (69a3) sbrul du sprul nas/ mtsho la zam
pa byas sgral303/ sbrul shi/ dga’ ldan du skyes/ mtsho yang skams so/ /de dus
bod yul na dge (69a4) ’dun dang/ ring srel304/ gsung305 rab{s}/ mchod pa’i yo
byad thams cad gcig306 kyang ma lus307 par skal308 song ngo/ /der ’dzam [bu’i]
gling gi dge (69a5) ’dun thams cad309 ghandha ra chen por slab310/ de’i rgyal
pos lo gnyis kyi bar la ’tsho ba sbyar/ so sor ci bder bzhag go /de mtshams rgyal
(69a6) po de ’das/ de’i bu gnyis yod pa’i/ chos la dad311 de/ bandhes312 bkum
nas/ bandhes313 rgyal po byas pa/ rgyal blon ’bangs byin pos/ (69b1) bandhe’i314
rgyal po bsad/ dge ’dun byin po ’khyams315 bcug pa/ ke’u sha gyi’i316 rgyal pos
spyan drangs te/ yul der/ ’dzam bu’i gling gyi/ (69b2) dge ’dun ril ’dus par gyur
to/ /zhes gzhungs so/ /
“By that time in this Khotan country, the religion will be nearing decline.
There will be a young man as king of the Khotan country and he, being hostile
to the religion, will drive the saṃghas out of the Khotan country. Being ex-
pelled gradually from the shrines of Tsar ma, ’bom, and Song ta rgong nyang of
Me skar, the saṃghas, facing toward the direction of the land of the Red-Faces,
will be guided by a yak with a bruised back; proceeding thus, they will arrive
in [a place of] the Red-Faces country called Tshal byi. The officer in charge of
that place will report to the king of the Red-Faces. The queen, an incarnate
Bodhisattva, being a Chinese princess, will invite the Khotan saṃghas and, act-
ing as patron, she will inquire, ‘Now where else are there saṃghas?’ The master
of the saṃghas will reply, ‘In An se, Bru zha, and Kashmir, there are many [of
301
li yul du: GBY T li du (58a5).
302
e la pa tra: LG AB e la’i ’dab (4a6/4b4). LG ED e la pa tra (5b8/170b7); LG N e la ba (?) ta (423a6);
LG P e la ba dra (446b7); Kh. élapatta; Ch. 伊羅葉 (P. 2139 line 49), 伊羅缽 (CG Ch, p. 366a).
Cf. Mvy.: 229, no. 3271; Bailey 1942: 892, 893, 915; Zhu 2010: 645.
303
sgral: read sgrol.
304
ring srel: read ring bsrel (GBY T , 58a6; GBY Si, 97).
305
gsung: GBY T gsungs (58a6).
306
307
lus: GBY T las (59b1).
308
skal: read bkal.
309
thams cad: GBY T thaṃd (59b1).
310
slab: GBY T slebs (59b1).
311
dad: read dad pa (GBY T , 59b2).
312
bandhes: read bandes (GBY T , 59b2).
313
bandhes: read bandes (GBY T , 59b3).
314
bandhe: read bande (GBY T , 59b3).
315
’khyams: GBY T ’khyaṃs (59b3).
316
ke’u sha gyi: LG ABE ke’u sha ’byi (5b1/6a2/6b2); LG D gau shāmbī (171b5); LG NP gau shām bī
(424a6/447b8); Ch. 俱閃彌國 (P. 2139 lines 65–66). Cf. Zhu 2010: 644–645.
172 Zhu
them].’ So [she] will dispatch [envoys] and those saṃghas will also be invited
and settled in vihāras. For three or four years, services to [the saṃghas] will be
well practiced. By that time, the princess will have passed away because of the
occurrence of smallpox, and exceedingly many more will also die. Discussing
and getting agreement, the Tibetan ministers will say, ‘This is the result of sum-
moning the wandering saṃghas from the barbarian places.’ These saṃghas,
together with all those monks summoned from China, will be expelled to the
west. They will set off and go in the direction of great Gandhāra. In a place,
the nāga king Elāpatra will take the form of a snake and make a bridge above a
lake. [The saṃghas] passing through, the snake will die and be born in Tuṣita.
The lake will also dry up. By that time, all saṃghas, relics, scriptures, and ap-
purtenances of worship of Tibet will have been taken away. Then all saṃghas
of Jambudvīpa will arrive in great Gandhāra, and provisions will be provided
by the king for two years. They will be settled in comfort respectively. By that
time, the king will have passed away. He will have two sons, of whom the one
believing in Buddhism will be killed by a monk. And the monk, after becoming
king, will be killed by all ministers and subjects. All the saṃghas will be forced
to wander [again]. Invited by the king of Kauśāmbī, all saṃghas of Jambudvīpa
will assemble in that country.”
So [the arhat] claimed.
sangs rgyas zhabs bcugs yul phyogs lung bstan nas/ rgyal po sa nu (69b3) blon
bo yakṣha317 gnyis/ /las kyis ’das nas yul khams318 gsar du bzung/ /sa nu’i tsha
bo byi dza sim319 bha wa/ /byon ring byams dang ’jam (69b4) dpal sprul pa yis/
/li yul dam chos dar ba’i dbu rnyed nas/ /chos rgyal mang pos mchod rten gtsug
lag khang/ /brgya stong dpag med (69b5) bzhengs shing320 bstan pa dar/ /dgra
bcom pho mo lo paṇ mang du byon/ /sangs rgyas gshegs nas nyis brgya lnga
bcu’i skor/ /chos byung the ba’i (69b6) nyis stong lo’i bar/ /yul der thub bstan
dri med ’byung bar bshad/ /de nas da ltar yan la lta spyod rnams/ /phyi nang
’dres ma shas cher phyi (70a1) rol snang/ /rgyal bas bsngags pa’i ’phags yul bal
po yi/ /rgyal rabs bris pa’i rnam dkar dge ba des/ /slar yang ’phags pa’i yul der
chos dar zhing/ /’gro kun byangs pa mgon po’i sa thob shog / //321
317 yakṣha: read yaśa.

318 khams: GBY T khaṃs (59b5).
319 sim: read saṃ.
320 shing: GBY T cing (59a1).
321 This paragraph is originally written in verse. However, I am unable to translate it into
poetry. What follows is a literal translation.
In the land where the Buddha trod and made prophecies, King Sa nu and
the minister Yaśa, the two, assembled due to the karma and held the land as a
new country. During the time of Vijaya Saṃbhava, the grandson of Sa nu, by
way of the emanations of Maitreya and Mañjuśī, so began the development
of the good religion in the Khotan country. Stūpas and vihāras were built by
numerous dharma kings, which were hundreds and thousands, and immea-
surable. So the Buddha’s teachings spread, and arhat, arhantī, translators, and
paṇḍitas appeared in great number. It is said that starting from the time of
250 years after the Buddha’s departing, the pure Buddha’s teachings develop
in that country during the period of two thousand years that appertains to
the history of Buddhism. From then up to now, non-Buddhists and Buddhists
mixed up in regard to doctrines and practices, with the majority appearing
as non-Buddhists. May Buddhism flourish again in that noble land and all
beings arrive at the field of Maitreya, the protector, by the virtuous deed of
recording the annals of the noble land Bal po which have been extolled by
the Buddha.
Abbreviations
C Cone (Co ne) block-print edition of the Tibetan Tripiṭaka.

CG Ch Chinese translation of the Candragarbha: 月藏經, trans. by Narendrayaśas, in
Taishō, vol. 13: 298–381.
D Derge (sDe dge) block-print edition of the Tibetan Tripiṭaka.
G dGa’ ldan (or Golden) bsTan ’gyur.
Mvy Sasaki, Ryōzaburō 榊亮三郎 1962.
N Narthang (sNar thang) block-print edition of the Tibetan Tripiṭaka.
P Suzuki, D. T. 鈴木大拙 ed. Eiin Pekin-ban Chibetto Daizōkyō 影印北京版チ
ベット大藏經 [The Tibetan Tripiṭaka]. Beijing edition, reprinted under the
supervision of Otani University. Kyoto: Tibetan Tripitaka Research Institute,
1955–1961.
Stog The Stog Palace manuscript of bKa’ ’gyul.
SG Ch Chinese translation of the Sūryagarbha-sūtra 日藏經, trans. by Narendrayaśas,
in Taishō, vol. 13, 397: 233–297.
TTK Emmerick 1967.
XTS Ouyang Xiu 歐陽修, Song Qi 宋祁 et al. Xin Tangshu 新唐書 Beijing: Zhonghua
shuju, 1975.
XYJ Ji Xianlin 季羨林 et al. 2008.
ZD Zhongguo ditu chubanshe 中國地圖出版社 2004.
ZLD Tan Qixiang 譚其驤 1982.
174 Zhu
Primary Sources
1 Old Tibetan Manuscripts

IOL Tib J 597. Li yul gyi dgra bcom bas lung bstan pa. (A)
IOL Tib J 598. Li yul gyi dgra bcom bas lung bstan pa. (B)
IOL Tib J 601.2. Li yul gyi dgra bcom bas lung bstan pa. (E)
P. t. 960. Li yul chos kyi lo rgyus. In Spanien, Ariane, and Yoshiro Imaeda eds. Choix
de documents tibétains conservés à la Bibliothèque nationale, Tome II. Paris:
Bibliothèque nationale, 1979, pls. 244–245; a transcription of it can be found in TTK:
78–91. (LC)
2 Published Sources and Their Abbreviations

dGe ’dun chos ’phel. Deb ther dkar po. Pe cin: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 2002. (DK)
dGra bcom pa dge ’dun ’phel gyi lung bstan pa, in bsTan ’gyur, 1) D, spring yig, vol. 173,
nye, ff. 161b4–168b2; 2) N, spring yig gi skor, nge, vol. 182, ff. 412b7–420b2. (GG)
’Gos lo gZhon bu dPal. Deb ther sngon po. 2 vols. Chengdu: Si khron mi rigs dpe skrun
khang, 1984. (TN)
Nyi ma’i snying po’i mdo, in 1) D, bKa’ ’gyur, mdo, vol. 66, za, ff. 91b1–245b1; 2) N, bKa’
’gyur, mdo, vol. 66, wa, ff. 131b5–350b3. Tibetan translation of the Sūryagarbha-
sūtra. (SG Tib)
sTag tshang rdzong pa dPal ’byor bzang po. rGya bod kyi yig tshang mkhas pa dga’ byed
chen mo ’dzam gling gsal ba’i me long. 2 vols. Photocopy of the manuscript from Prof.
Wang Yao’s collection. (GBY)
sTag tshang rdzong pa dPal ’byor bzang po. rGya bod kyi yig tshang mkhas pa dga’ byed
chen mo’i dkar chab gdog go. Manuscript from TBRC. (GBY T )
sTag tshang rdzong pa dPal ’byor bzang po. rGya bod yig tshang chen mo. Chengdu: Si
khron mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1985. (GBY Si)
Nub byang mi rigs slob grwa chen mo’i bod yig slob dpyod tsu’u. Bod rgya ming mdzod.
Lanzhou: Kan su’u mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 2004. (BGMD)
dPa’ bo gtsug lag phreng bas. Dam pa’i chos kyi ’khor lo bsgyur ba rnams kyi byung ba
gsal bar byed pa mkhas pa’i dga’ ston. Pe cin: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 2006. (KG)
Bu ston Rin chen grub. Bu ston chos ’byung gsung rab rin po che’i mdzod. Pe cin: Krung
go’i bod kyi shes rig dpe skrun khang, 1991.
Bod ljongs rten rdzas bshams mdzod khang ed., dKar chag ’phang thang ma, Pe cin: Mi
rigs dpe skrun kang, 2003.
Li yul gyi dgra bcom bas lung bstan pa, in bsTan ’gyur, 1) D, spring yig, vol. 173, nye, ff.
168b2–171b6; 2) N, spring yig gi skor, vol. 182; nge, ff. 420b3–424b1; 3) P, spring yig, vol.
129, nye, ff. 444a2–448a2, 299–301. (LG)
Li yul lung bstan pa, in bsTan ’gyur, 1) C, spring yig, vol. 173, nye, ff. 168a6–188a7; 2) D,
spring yig, vol. 173, nye, ff. 171b6–188a7; 3) G, spring yig gi skor, vol. 182, nge, ff. 540b5–
567a3; 4) N, spring yig gi skor, vol. 182, nge, ff. 424b1–444a4; 5) P, spring yig, vol. 129,
nye, 301–309, ff. 448a3–468a8. (LL)
Ri glang ru lung bstan pa, in bKa’ ’gyul, 1) D, mdo, vol. 76, ah, ff. 220b6–232a7; 2) N, mdo,
vol. 76, ff. 336b6–354b4; 3) Stog, mdo, vol. 63, na, ff. 413a3–429a7. (RL)
Chapter 12
Kaniṣka in the Old Turkic Tradition

Peter Zieme
Kaniṣka, the famous king of the Kuṣāṇa period, is known from a wide range
of Buddhist texts.1 Here I would like to introduce some new texts and to
give a survey. This will show how his name and his memory are preserved in
the literature of the Old Uyghurs, where we find him in three text groups, each
showing another of his several aspects.
Kaniṣka in the Old Turkic Confession Texts
In the Central Asian confession tradition, Kaniṣka was one of the exemplary
kings who repented and gave up their sinfulness and entered the path lead-
ing to Buddhahood.2 I am not aware in which scripture this feature was men-
tioned first, or who counted him among the evil-doing persons. As far as I can
see, there are no antecedents in the pre-Uyghur Buddhist literature of Central
Asia.3
Here, I want to edit a further example, although it is not explicitly stated in
the text itself, but one may think that it is just this aspect for which he is men-
tioned. This hitherto unpublished fragment from Sängim in the Turfan oasis
is insofar very important as it is a unique specimen of a codex book used by
Uyghur Buddhists.4 Each page has eight lines. Thus the number of the lines of
the double sheet is thirty-two.
The script assumedly written horizontally is a peculiar calligraphic type, in
which the letters are very distinct, especially with high-stretching “tails.” But
diacritical marks (two points above the letter) for differentiating /q/ from /γ/
are not consistently given, but the letters -/q/ and -/γ/ are distinct through
their shapes as in some older texts. A further characteristic are the punctua-
tion marks consisting of two red nearly-joined dots. Larger units end in two
groups of two dots.
1 Deeg 2005: 232 sqq. (legends of building stūpas etc.).

2 B T XIII (p. 78) note 12.64; Weber 1999: 106.
3 Bailey 1968.
4 Gulácsi 2005: 26.

Kaniṣka in the Old Turkic Tradition 177
1. Transliteration of the text U 2972 (T II S 53)

I recto
01 syqyq tʾ t[ ]rmys lʾrqʾ

02 [ ]w ʾwq symtʾq [ ]5
03 [ ] ʾmkʾ klyk twlqʾq
04 lq cyqʾy lʾrqʾ ʾ[ ]tynkw
05 ʾwm[ ]qswz tynlq lʾr qʾ
06 ʾwmw[ ]qwlwqy pwltwnk ʾwm[ ]
07 ʾynʾq ʾ : ʾwmwq ʾynʾq pwltʾcy
08 qʾ sʾnkʾ y[ ]wrmn ::
I verso
09 ʾʾrtwqrʾq trk tvrʾq

10 ʾʾrt[ ]ʾyw twrwr tynlq lʾ[ ]
11 kwnkwlyntʾ pwrqʾn lʾ[]6
12 ʾysyn pwytwrdwnk ʾwqrʾmys
13 ʾyslyk kʾ sʾnkʾ ywkwncwm
14 pwlzwn : : ʾyʾ ʾʾncʾ
15 [ ]mʾ ʾwlwq kwycwnk : ʾʾncʾ
16 ymʾ yʾrpʾdmʾqynk : ʾʾncʾ
II recto
17 ymʾ pk yrp qʾtyqlʾnmʾqynk :

18 [ ]lmys ʾrwr mn sʾnynk ʾwmw
19 [ ]q ʾwmwg ʾynʾq ʾ : nʾnk
20 mn ʾwmwqswz ʾynʾqsyz z
21 pwlmʾyyn : ʾyncyp ymʾ sn
22 t[ ]mʾ ʾtʾwyzwnk ʾwyzʾ
23 nyr[ ]ʾn lyq ʾwlws qʾ
24 pʾrmys ʾrwr sn : ʾwyr kyc
5 Probably the last letter is repeated.

6 pwrqʾn lʾ[ ] is written in red letters.
178 Zieme
II verso
25 pwlty : ʾmty yʾnʾ ywz

26 ywrʾ tynlq lʾr qʾ nwmlwq
27 ʾtʾwyzwnk ʾwyzʾ ʾwmwq [ ]
28 ʾrwr sn : ʾʾcʾtʾstwrw w
29 mylyntry swdʾswmy kʾnysky
30 d[ ] ʾwlʾty ʾylyk lʾr qʾn
31 [ ] : qwncwy lʾrqʾ pwdwlmys
32 kʾmʾpyry ʾwry ymʾ : pdry
2. Captions in transcription and translation

(01–08) sıkıg-ta t[u]rmıš-larka [ančulay]u ok sımtag-[larka] ämgäklig
tolgak-l(ı)g čıgay-larka ä[r]tiŋü um[u]gsuz tınl(ı)g-lar-ka umu[n]gulukı boltuŋ
um[ug] ınag-a : umug ınag boltačı-ka saŋa y[ükün]ürm(ä)n : :
Oh hope and refuge, you who became what is hoped by those being in con-
striction, by the careless ones, by the distressed and suffering poor, by the ut-
most hopeless beings. I bow before you, oh hope and refuge!
(09–14) artukrak t(ä)rk t(a)vrak art[a]yu turur tınl(ı)g-la[r-ka] köŋülintä
burhan-la[r] išin bütürdüŋ ugramıš išlig-kä saŋa yükünčüm bolzun ::
For the extremely quickly and rapidly deteriorating beings you completed
in (your) heart the Buddhas’ deed(s).7 For you, who have intended deeds, my
inclination is (here)!
(14–21) a-y-a anča [yä]mä ulug küčüŋ : anča y(ä)mä yarpadmakıŋ : anča
y(ä)mä b(ä)k y(a)rp katıglanmakıŋ : [bu]lmıš ärür-m(ä)n säniŋ umu-[ngulu]k
umug ınag-a : näŋ m(ä)n umugsuz ınagsız bolmayın :
Oh! Such8 (is) your large power! Such (is) your firmness! Such (is) your firm
striving! I have [attai]ned (your blessing), oh you hope and refuge, on which
one can hope. In no way I want to be without hope and refuge!
(21–28) inčip y(ä)mä s(ä)n t[ug]ma ätʾözüŋ üzä nir[v]an-lıg uluš-ka barmıš
ärür-s(ä)n : ür keč boltı : amtı yana yüz yörä tınl(ı)g-lar-ka nomlug ätʾözüŋ üzä
umug [ınag] ärür-s(ä)n :
7 Cf. BT XX, l. 0922 burhanlar iši for 佛事 fo shi “Buddha’s affairs, the work of transforming all
beings; or of doing Buddha-work, e.g. prayers and worship” (SH).
8 Cf. GOT, p. 516 (example from the Maitrisimit), UW 134a: ančama “wie sehr, was für ein,
welcher” (as an exclamatory expression).
As you with your b[ir]th body went to the nirvāṇa realm, a long time has
passed. Now again you are for the surrounding9 beings hope [and refuge] with
your dharma body!
(28–32) ačatašturu milintri sutasomi kaniški-d[a] ulatı elig-lär han-[lar] :
kunčuy-larka bodulmıš kamapiri urı y(ä)mä : bdri[…]
Ajātaśatru, Menander, Sutasoma, Kaniṣka,10 and other kings and sovereigns,
(persons like) the youth Kāmapriya entangled in women, Bhadra[…]11
3. Notes
tugma ätʾöz “birth body”: This expression is abnormal, usually we have bäl-
gürtmä ätʾöz = Skt. nirmāṇakāya.12 As this term is not recorded in currently
published literature, I quote here the full text of the fragment U 4830 (T II
Y[arxoto] 6) from a handwritten folded book that is a rare book type among
Uyghur manuscripts.13
(ll. 01–06 in red, thus marking the title of a book)
01 yükünürm(ä)n burhan-ka : yükünürm(ä)n nom 02 -ka : yükünürm(ä)n
bursaŋ kuvrag-ka 03 yükünürm(ä)n alku gaŋ ögüzdäki kum 04 sanınča köni
tüz tuymıš-lar-nıŋ iki 05 [2–3 words …-nı]ŋ tugma ätʾöz 06 -läriŋä : nomlug
ätʾözläriŋä y(ä)mä : :
I venerate the Buddha, I venerate the dharma, I venerate the convent. I ven-
erate the two[fold (?)?] birth bodies and dharma bodies of all Tathāgatas nu-
merous as the number of grains of sand in the river Gaṅgā.
07 tugma ätʾözläri [ö]g kaŋ igidmiš 08 bältürtmiš14 [:] [i]ki kırk ulug ärän-
lär 09 -niŋ lakšan-l[ar] üzä etiglig [:] säkiz 10 on nairagın yaratıglıg : [köŋül
ärkligig] 11 ögirtdürdäči : köz kačıgıg k[utadturdačı]15 12 birär birärintä yüz yüz
9 Usually one expects the compound yüz yügärü “present,” but the remaining letters do not
allow such an emendation. On the other hand the group yüz yörä (yörä “surrounding,” cf.
ED 956a) is not attested so far.
10 The names were discussed in BT XIII 12.64 (notes).
11 One may assume that the text continued with a phrase like in BT XIII 12.71–72: kenintä
yänä bilinip kšanti kıltılar tüzügün “Later on they confessed and repented altogether,” ex-
pressing their willingness to repent their previous evil deeds.
12 Cf. BT XXI, p. 233.
13 Another example is the book Samantabhadrācaryāpraṇidhi edited by R. R. Arat in ETŞ.
14 Very rare synonym to igid- “to feed” elsewhere recorded only in Maitr.Hami I–IV, l. 2626
(same compound).
15 This emendation as well as that of the previous line are taken from the eulogy of
Kusumaśrī, one of the thirty-five confession Buddhas (ETŞ No. 10):
körü kanınčsız lakšan nairaglıg.
közünü turur ätʾöz etigi.
180 Zieme
buyan-l[ar üzä] 13 tutulmıš : [ulug] ärän-lär-niŋ b(ä)lgü-läriŋä 14 tükäl-lig : öŋ

ükmäkdä16 tutulmıš [:] on 15 küč-lär-niŋ : tört türlüg korkınčsız 16 -lar-nıŋ : üč
türlüg y(ä)mä ʾäŋänyük ög 17 turug-lar-nıŋ : üč türlüg küzädgülük 18 sözlär-niŋ
ulug yrlıkančučı köŋül-nüŋ : 19 ulug täŋ köŋül-nüŋ y(ä)mä : idiši bolmıš :17 20
birär birär yüzägü-lärindä aray[… 1 word] 21 tutulmıš : : muntada ulatı kavıra
ädgülüg 22 adrok-ları üzä tükäl-liglär-niŋ : : 23 ančulayu kälmiš-lär-niŋ : ayag-
ka tägimlig 24 -lär-niŋ : köni tüz tuymıš-lar-nıŋ : bo 25 ärür tugma ätʾözläri :
nomlug ätʾözläri
These are the birth bodies and the dharma bodies of those who possess
the—shortly said—good qualities beginning with that their bodies are reared
and cared for by father and mother, adorned with the thirty-two lakṣaṇas of
great men, adorned with the eighty anuvyañjāna, enjoying [the heart organ],
[delighting] the eye organ, having collected in each (organ) hundreds of
puṇyas, accomplished by the marks of [pure] men, held by the eye sense (?),
being the vessel of the ten powers, the four fearlessnesses, the three special
sense states, the three words to be kept, the great compassion, and the great
equal mindfulness; of the Tathāgatas, of the venerable ones, of the true […].
Kaniṣka in Xuanzang’s Biography
In Xuanzang’s biography Kaniṣka is often mentioned,18 but never in the nega-

tive manner as in the confession texts (section 1). Unfortunately the first and
köz kačıglarıg kutad(t)urdačı.

köŋül ärkligig ögirtdürdäči.
küsänčig lenhua kutlug ülüglüg.
küsämiš küsüšüg top kandurtačı.
köpkä asıglıg kusuma širi atl(ı)g.
köni tuyunmıška yükünürmn.
16 The group of senses begins with öŋ, cf. HTON: 217 öŋ ün yıd tatıg böritig nom tegli 102 altı
adgangular “the six sense attractors called colour, voice, smell, taste, touch, dharma.”
17 Maitrisimit (Geng/Klimkeit/Laut 1998: 63, 136, folio C recto 8–15): bo muntag türlüg 09
iki kırk kut buyanın etiglig on 10 küčin tört türlüg korkınčsız 11 bilgä bilig üč türlüg ürüg
12 ornanmıš ög turugı ulug y(a)rlıkančučı 13 biligdä ulatı ädgülärniŋ idiši bol 14 -mıš körü
kanınčsız maitri burhan “Maitreya Buddha who is adorned with such thirty-two happi-
ness marks and who is insatiable to look at, who is a vessel of the good qualities begin-
ning with the ten powers, the four knowledges of fearlessness, the three peacefully settled
sense stages, the great mercy.”
18 Mayer 1992: 98–99.
second books, where reference to him is often found, are existent in Uyghur
translation only very fragmentarily: two times his name is preserved.
Encounter of Kaniṣka with a ṛṣi
Before discussing a possible interpretation, I would like to introduce the frag-

ment itself. On the verso side of a Chinese book scroll containing parts of
the Lotus Sutra the following text in Uyghur cursive script has been written.
The beginning and end of the text are missing, and most lines are not com-
plete. Two fragments without any data concerning their provenience could be
joined: Ch/U 6090 + Ch/U 6859 (Plate 12.1). The subject of the preserved part
is an encounter between king Kaniṣka and a ṛṣi. Kaniṣka expresses his admira-
tion about the good deeds of the latter one.
The script is principally distinct and rather nicely written, but some pecu-
liarities make it sometimes difficult to read: initial q- is similar to initial s-, the
initial forms of the letters alif, r and n are distinct only exceptionally. The dis-
tinction between final -q and -γ is lost, and some spellings reflect the dental
confusion which is typical for the later period (twelfth to fourteenth centuries).
1. Transliteration of Ch/U 6090 + Ch/U 6859
01 [ ]l[ ]l[…
02 lyq qyrtyslyq. qʾvrylmys syqylmys twrmys yʾvrym[…
03 bwykwlmys ʾtwyz ʾytyklyk pyr ʾwlwq qwtlwq ʾržy dynt[…
04 kʾnyšky ʾylyk kwynkwl yntʾ ʾyncʾ sʾqynw yrlyqʾdy. ʾ[…
05 ʾdkw qwtlwq tynlq. ʾwtqwrʾq ʾmty pw ʾdkw nwm lʾr nynk ʾ[…
06 typ. mwncʾ sʾqynw. yʾnkʾ kwylwky lyk ywrwnk pwlyt […
07 [ ]v tʾ yʾqwyw yʾqyn yʾqwq pʾryp. ʾwl ʾrž y dyntʾr nynk ʾ[…
08 ʾyncʾ typ ʾ ʾyytw ʾwytwndy. ʾydwq tynlq cqsʾptlyq ʾdkwlwk […
09 kʾvylmyš kʾksʾk ʾtwyzlwk ʾrwr sn pw mwny tʾk ʾdkw qylync lyq ʾmkʾk
lʾ[…
10 ynk ʾwyzʾ nʾkw ʾlp qylsyq kwyswšwk kwysʾr tylʾr sn ʾny mʾnkʾ ʾʾdyrt l[…
11 kʾnyšky ʾylyk kʾ ʾyncʾ typ tydy. ʾwlwq ʾylyk qʾyw tʾ ʾwylkwswz ʾwykws [ ]l
ʾvyrt[…
12 ʾwykrwncw pwlwlwr ʾrsʾr. qʾyw tʾ ymʾ tʾpčʾ kwysws cʾ yrlyq ywrytyp kyz[
]y-ʾ kwsw[…
13 ʾmkʾk twlqʾq syqyq tʾnkyq kwyrmʾkw ʾrsʾr. ʾwl ʾntʾq qʾmyq twyrlwk mʾnky
nynk ʾwykrwncw nwnk ʾwyky tyrkyny
182 Zieme
Plate 12.1 The joined fragments Ch/U 6090 + Ch/U 6859.

14 ʾwrny ʾwyʾsy pwlmys. ʾyl ʾwrny lyq pwyrwq yrlyq yq pw ʾdkwlwk ʾvrysym
nynk ʾdkw qylyncym nynk twysyn
15 [ ]yn ʾwmwnwr mn [ ] mn.. ʾwytrw kʾnyšky ʾylyk ʾrzy d[ ]
ʾr nynk mwny tʾk swyzlʾmys yn ʾsyd[ ]
16 nʾ ʾrsʾr yʾnqy tymʾk ʾrsʾr y … k … ʾsʾ[ ]wp ʾlqw qʾmyq sww sy cʾryky pyl[…
17 [ ]kwnw ʾyncʾ pyr sʾnkrʾm yrlyqʾdy. ʾwl sʾnkrʾm tʾ yʾnʾ ʾwykws tʾlym
srmyry qyʾ lʾr kwšʾlʾpkš ʾdkwlwk
18 [ ]k tʾ ʾvrylwr lʾr qʾtyqlʾnwr lʾr ʾrty. kwyrty kʾnysky ʾylyk ʾwl sʾpy qy ʾ
lʾr srmyry lkʾr nynk sʾn […
19 [ ] sz ʾdkwlwk twyrw lʾr tʾ qʾtyqlʾnwr lʾr [… ]yn : yʾ[ ] trkyn
tʾvrʾq ʾʾq yʾnkysʾtʾn qwdy ʾyny[…
20 [ ] wnw yl ywryyw yč sʾmʾky [ ] p[ ]p[ ]wk tʾkyp yyncwrw
twypwn ywkwn[…
21 [ ] qʾvswrwp ʾnkyt[ kwynkwl yn ʾyncʾ typ y[ ] wytw[…
22 [ ]y pwrqʾn-n[… ]y ʾ lʾr ʾrwr syzlʾr : tʾnk[…
23 [ ]tyk[ ]lwr s[…
24 [ ] sʾnmw[…
2. Captions in transcription and translation

(01–06) […]l[…]l[… kın]-lıg kırtıšlıg. kavrılmıš sıkılmıš turmıš yavrım[ıš …
7–8 words …] bükülmiš ätöz etiglig bir ulug kutlug ärži dent[ar … 7–8 words …]
kaniški elig köŋül-intä inčä sakınu y(a)rlıkadı. [ol … 7–8 words …] ädgü kutlug
tınl(ı)g. otgurak amtı bo ädgü nom-lar-nıŋ a[… 7–8 words …] tep.
When Kaniṣka [saw] a great, divine ṛṣi prie[st] having a [… skin] and
complexion, [having a] constricted, compressed, emaciated, weaken[ed …],
adorned (with a) […] bent body, […] king Kaniṣka deigned to think in his heart:
“[… this …] good, divine being [preaches (?) …] now convincingly [on the ad-
vantages of] these good dharmas […]”.
(06–10) munča sakınu. yaŋa kölüki-lig ürüŋ bulıt [… 7–8 words …] [..]n-tä
(?) yaguyu yakın yaguk barıp. ol ärži dentar-nıŋ ä[tözin körüp [… 7–8 words …]
inčä tep ayıtu ötündi. ya ıduk tınl(ı)g č(a)hšap(a)tlıg ädgülüg [… 6–7 words …]
kävilmiš kägšäk19 ätözlüg ärür-s(ä)n bo munı täg ädgü kılınč-lıg ämgäk-lär[…
3–4 words …]-iŋ üzä nägü alp kılsık küsüšüg küsär tilär-s(ä)n20 anı maŋa adırt-
l[ıg … 3–4 words …]
19 Cf. ED 691b kävšäk. Clauson writes that Old Osmanlı geŋšek is an error for geyšek spelt
gegšek, but the data from TS do not confirm this idea. This is an example of the sound
change -g- > -v-
20 The aorist forms without -y- after vowel is typical for the KB.
184 Zieme
Thus thinking, the One whose riding animal is the Elephant (= the king?)
while approaching to the [monastery (?) …] White Cloud,21 came near (to it),
[and when he saw the body (?)] of that ṛṣi priest, […] he thus spoke: “Oh holy
being! [Due to (?) your] good [conduct …] following the rules you have […] a
weakened, limp body. What kind of hard-to-do wish do you wish and intend
by your [conducting such a life (?) …] in sufferings of good deeds like these?
[Please, tell] me this in detail! […]
(09–15) [ol ärži dentar] kaniški elig-kä inčä tep tedi. ya ulug elig kayu-ta ül-
güsüz üküš [… köŋü]l ävirt[…] ögrünčü bululur ärsär. kayu-ta ymä tapča küsüš-
čä y(a)rlıg yorıtıp bir ät[öz]22 üzä közü[nür] ämgäk tolgak sıkıg taŋıg körmägü
ärsär. ol antag kamag türlüg mäŋi-niŋ ögrünčü-nüŋ ügi tirgini ornı uyası
bolmıš. el ornı-lıg buyruk23 y(a)rlıgıg bo ädgülüg ävrišim-niŋ ädgü kılınčım-
nıŋ tüšin utlısın umunur-m(ä)n [ınanur]-m(ä)n.
[The ṛṣi] spoke to king Kaniṣka: “Oh great king! Where […] joy [through]
turn[ing the mind to do] measureless and many [good deeds] is found, where
one fulfills the commandments (= dharma) according to wish and will and
where one does not see on a bo[dy] pres[ent] suffering and distress, pain and
constriction, there is the collection and concentration, the place and the nest
of all such kinds of happiness and joy. I hope [and believe] that the command-
ment of state and throne are the fruit and result of my good deeds of turning
to good.”
(15–19) ötrü kaniški elig ärži [denta]r-nıŋ munı täg sözlämiš-in äšidü nä
ärsär yankı temädin s[..]nylač y[..] ak yaŋa-sıŋa … sinip. alku kamag süü-si
čärigi birlä ak (?) […]u yanturu eyin bir säŋräm-k[ä] y(a)rlıkadı. ol säŋräm-tä
yänä üküš tälim š(a)rmiri-k(ı)ya-lar kušalap(a)kš ädgülüg [išlä]r-tä ävrilür-lär
katıglanur-lar ärti. körti kaniški elig ol šabi-k(ı)ya-lar š(a)rmiri-k(ı)ya-lar-nıŋ
san[-sız sakıš]-s(ı)z ädgülüg törü-lär-tä katıglanur-lar-ın.24
As soon as king Kaniṣka heard what the ṛṣi priest had said—what may
be said in return—he was astonished on his […], and with all his troops and
armies he ordered [to build …] a monastery […]. In this monastery now many
21 “White Cloud” is perhaps the name of a monastery. If the preceding compound yaŋa
kölüki-lig belongs to the name, it has to be explained differently.
22 Emendation unsure, the first or second letter is either a -w- or a -t-
23 Here buyruk in conjuncture with yarlıg has the meaning “command” which otherwise is
not known in classical Old Uyghur. Recently, D. Maue has edited a text in Brāhmī script in
which even the verb buyur- “to command” is attested, see Maue 2008: 70.
24 The structure of this sentence with the initial verbal phrase körti “he saw” is typical for
translation texts, but here it may be a sign of special importance.
monks were striving to do kuśalapakṣa (=) good deeds. King Kaniṣka saw that
novices and monks were striving in number-[and measure]less good dharmas.
(19–24)25 yänä ök tärkin tavrak ak yaŋa-sıntın kudı eni[p] […]unu el yorıyu …
(?) š(a)rmiri [… 3–4 words …] barıp yaguk tägip yinčürü töpün yükün[üp]
[ayaların] kavšurup äŋit[ip … 7–8 words …] köŋül-in inčä tep ayıtu ötün[ti]
[šakimun]i burhan-n[ıng … 7–8 words … kı]y-a-lar ärür-sizlär. takı kiri[…]
[… 7–8 words …] ni il[..]är katıglanur-sizlär [… 3 words …] [… 7–8 words …].
sanmu[…]
Further on he dismounted quickly from his white elephant […] went […]
monk […] went, came nearer and fell down with his head, put [his palms] to-
gether, bowed down […] and he ventured to speak: [Śākyamun]i Buddha […]
you are. Then you […] strive for […]
3. Notes
“White Cloud” may refer to “白雲宗 (白雲) Buddhist school formed in the
White Cloud monastery during the Song dynasty; its followers were known as
the 白雲菜 “White Cloud vegetarians.” (SH)
The nearest parallel can be seen in a tale about the encounter of king
Kaniṣka and an arhat Jayanta by name found in the collection of tales which
belongs, according to C. Willemen, to a Chinese Kṣudrakapiṭaka.26 In this
Chinese collection27 the arhat Jayanta appears in stories 91, 92, and 93, but a
close comparison to our Uyghur tale does not reveal a direct relationship.
25 This passage is very difficult, not only because of the large lacunae, but also several words
are partly faded away or are difficult to decipher.
26 Willemen 1992.
27 Lévi 1896: 463–467; Chavannes 1962, vol. III: 82–85.
Bibliography
Adams, Douglas Q. 1999. A Dictionary of Tocharian B. Amsterdam: Rodopi.

Adams, Douglas Q. 2006. “Some Implications of the Carbon-14 Dating of Tocharian
Manuscripts.” Journal of Indo-European Studies 34: 381–389.
Akamatsu, Akihiko 赤松明彦. 2001. “Rōran-Niya shutsudo karoshutei bunsho ni tsuite
楼蘭・ニヤ出土カロュテイー文書について.” In: Itaru Tomiya 冨谷至, ed. Ryūsa
shutsudo no moji shiryō: Rōran, Niya monjo o chūshin ni 流沙出土の文字資料:
楼蘭・尼雅文書を中心に. Kyoto: Kyoto Daigaku shuppankai, 369–425.
Anthony, David W. 2007. The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders
from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World. Princeton: Princeton University
Press.
Arakawa, Masaharu 荒川正晴. 1994. “Tōdai Kōtan Weishu chiiki no ulaγ ni tsuite—
Mazaru-Tāku shutsudo ulaγ kankē monjo no bunseki wo chūshin ni shite—唐代コ
ータン地域のulaγについて－マザル＝ターク出土、ulaγ 関係文書の分析を中心
にして—.” Ryūkoku shidan 龍谷史壇 103/104:17–38.
Arakawa, Masaharu 荒川正晴. 1997. “Kucha shutsudo ‘kōmokushi monjo’ kō クチャ出
土「孔目司文書」攷.” Kōdai bunka 古代文化49.3: 145–162.
Arakawa, Masaharu 荒川正晴. 2008. “Sogdians and the Royal House of Ch’ü in the Kao-
ch’ang Kingdom.” Acta Asiatica 94: 67–93.
Arat, Resid R. 1965. Eski Türk Şiiri. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi.
Atwood, Christopher. 1991. “Life in Third-fourth Century Cadh’ota: A Survey of
Information Gathered from the Prakrit Documents Found North of Minfeng (Niyä).”
CAJ 35: 190–192.
Bailey, Harold Walter. 1942. “Hvatanica IV.” BSOAS 10. 4: 886–924.
Bailey, Harold Walter. 1951. “The Staël-Holstein Miscellany.” AM, n.s., 1.2: 1–45.
Bailey, Harold Walter. 1960. “Kaniṣka.” In: Papers on the Date of Kaniṣka Submitted to
the Conference on the Date of Kaniṣka, London, 20–22 April, 1960. Leiden: Brill, 35–38.
Bailey, Harold Walter. 1961. Khotanese Texts IV. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bailey, Harold Walter. 1963. Khotanese Texts V. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bailey, Harold Walter. 1967. Saka Documents IV. London: Percy Lund, Humphries & Co.
on behalf of Corpus Inscriptionum Iranicarum.
Bailey, Harold Walter. 1968. Saka Documents: Text Volume. London: Percy Lund,
Humphries & Co. on behalf of Corpus Inscriptionum Iranicarum.
Bailey, Harold Walter. 1979. Dictionary of Khotan-Saka. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Bakker, Dik et al. 2009. “Adding Typology to Lexicostatistics: A Combined Approach to
Language Classification.” Linguistic Typology 13: 167–197.
188 Bibliography
Ban, Gu 班固. 1962. Hanshu 漢書. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju.

Barber, Elizabeth W. 1999. The Mummies of Ürümchi. New York and London: Norton.
Barrett, Timothy H. 2001. “The Rise and Spread of Printing: A New Account of Religious
Factors.” In: SOAS Working Papers in the Study of Religions. London: School of
Oriental and African Studies, 1–40.
Beal, Samuel, trans. 1884. Si-yu-ki: Buddhist Records of the Western World. London:
Trübner & Co. Reprinted, London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., Ltd., 1906.
Beal, Samuel, trans. 1911. The Life of Hiuen-Tsiang by Shaman Hwui Li. London: Kegan
Paul, Trench, Trübner.
Benjamin, Craig G. R. 2007. The Yuezhi: Origins, Migration and the Conquest of Northern
Bactria. Turnhout: Brepols.
Benveniste, Émile. 1946. Vessantara Jātaka: Texte Sogdien. Paris: Librairie orientaliste
Paul Geuthner.
Böhlig, Alexander, Hugo, Ibscher and H. J. Polotsky. 1935–1940. Kephalaia: mit einem
Beitrag. Manichaische Hss. d. Staatl. Mus. Berlin, 1. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer.
Reprinted in 1966.
Boyer, Auguste M., E. J. Rapson, and E. Senart, transcribed and edited. 1920–1929.
Kharosti Inscriptions Discovered by Sir Aurel Stein in Chinese Turkestan. Published
under the authority of His Majesty’s Secretary of State for India in Council. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Brenner, Anne-Marie, P. J. Gibbs, and K. R. Seddon. 1996. “The Chemical Constituents
of the huangbo Dye.” In: Susan Whitfield and Frances Wood, ed. Dunhuang and
Turfan: Contents and Conservation of Ancient Documents from Central Asia, London:
The British Library, 70–82.
Brough, John. 1948. “Legends of Khotan and Nepal.” BSOAS 12.2: 333–339.
Brough, John. 1965. “Comments on Third-century Shan-shan and the History of
Buddhism.” BSOAS 28.3: 582–612.
Brough, John. 1970. “Supplementary Notes on Third-Century Shan-shan”, BSOAS, 33/1,
39–45.
bsTan rgya 丹曲 and Zhu Yuemei 朱悅梅. 2007. “Zangwen wenxian zhong ‘li yu’ (Li
yul, Yutian) de butong chengwei 藏文文獻中“李域” (li-yul, 于闐) 的不同稱謂.”
Zhongguo zangxue 中國藏學2: 83–94.
Burrow, Thomas. 1934. “Iranian Words in the Kharoṣṭhī Documents from Chinese
Turkestan.” BSOS 7.3: 509–516.
Burrow, Thomas. 1935. “Tokharian Elements in the Kharoṣṭhī Documents from Chinese
Turkestan.” JRAS 4: 667–675.
Burrow, Thomas. 1940. A Translation of the Kharoṣṭhī Documents from Chinese
Turkestan: London: The Royal Asiatic Society.
Cahen, Claude. 2003. “Ghuzz.” In: The Encyclopaedia of Islam, Leiden: Brill, vol. II: 1106b.
Bibliography 189
Callieri, Pierfrancesco. 1999. “Huns in Afghanistan and the North-West of the Indian
Subcontinent: The Glyptic Evidence.” In: M. Alram and D. E. Klimburg-Salter, eds.
Coins, Art, and Chronology: Essays on the Pre-Islamic History of the Indo-Iranian
Borderlands. Wien: Austrian Academy of Sciences Press, 277–291.
Carling, Gerd. 2000. Die Funktionen der lokalen Kasus im Tocharischen. Berlin and New
York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Carter, Thomas F. 1925. The Invention of Printing in China and Its Spread Westward. New
York: Columbia University Press.
Chakrabarti, Kunal. 1996. “The Gupta Kingdom.” In: A. Litvinsky, Zhang Guangda, and
R. Shabani Samghabadi eds. History of Civilizations of Central Asia, 185–206.
Chang, Bide 昌彼得. 1964. “Tangdai tushu xingzhi de yanbian 唐代圖書形制的演變.”
Tushuguan xuebao 圖書館學報 6:1–8.
Chavannes, Édouard. 1913. Les documents chinois découverts par Aurel Stein dans les
sables du Turkestan Oriental. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Chavannes, Édouard. 1962. Cinq cents contes et apologues extraits du Tripiṭaka chinois.
I–IV. Paris: Maisonneuve; reprinted from 1910–1935.
Chavannes, Édouard and Paul Pelliot. 1905. “Les livres chinois avant l’invention du pa-
pier.” JA, 5–75.
Chavannes, Édouard and Paul Pelliot. 1912. Un traité manichéen retrouvé en Chine. Paris:
Imprimerie nationale, 1912. Reprinted from JA 1911: 499–617; 1913: 99–199, 261–394.
Chen, Cheng 陳誠. 1991. Xiyu cingcheng ji 西域行程記, Xiyu fanguo zhi 西域番國誌.
Beijing: Zhonghua shuju.
Chen, Guocan 陳國燦. 1997. Sitanyin suohuo Tulufan wenshu yanjiu 斯坦因所獲吐魯番
文書研究, revised ed. Wuhan: Wuhan daxue chubanshe.
Chen, Hao 陳昊. 2007. “Tulufan Yanghai 1 hao mu chutu wenshu niandai kaoshi 吐魯番
洋海1號墓出土文書年代考釋,” Dunhuang Tulufan yanjiu 10: 11–20.
Chen, Jianjian 陳踐踐. 1994. “bal-po kao” bal-po 考. Dunhuang yanjiu 敦煌研究4: 95–97.
Chen, Liangwei 陳良偉. 2002. Sichou zhi lu Henandao 絲綢之路河南道. Beijing:
Zhongguo shehuikexue chubanshe.
Chen, Qingying 陳慶英, trans. 1986. Han Zang shi ji 漢藏史集. Lhasa: Xizang remin
chubanshe.
Chen, Zhiyong 陳致勇. 2007. “Zailun Sichou zhi lu gudai zhongzu de qiyuan yu qianxi
再論絲綢之路古代種族的起源與遷徙.” Xiandai renleixue tongxun 現代人類學通
訊，vol. 1: 92–105.
Cheng, Suluo 程溯洛. 1994. Tang Song Huihu shi lunji 唐宋回鶻史論集. Beijing: Renmin
chubanshe.
Ching, Chao-jung 慶昭蓉. 2010. Secular Documents in Tocharian: Buddhist Economy
and Society in the Kucha Region. (Unpublished doctoral thesis, Paris, École Pratique
des Hautes Études).
190 Bibliography
Ching, Chao-jung 慶昭蓉. 2012a. “Kuche chutu wenshu suojian Sute fojiaotu 庫車出土
文書所見粟特佛教徒.” Xiyu yanjiu 西域研究 2: 55–75.
Ching, Chao-jung 慶昭蓉. 2012b. “Tangdai shuichao zai qiuci de faxing: yi xin faxian de
Tuhuoluo B yu cihui ṣau wei zhongxin 唐代税抄在龜茲的發行: 以新發現的吐火羅
B语詞彙ṣau為中心.” Beijing daxue xuebao 北京大學學報 49.4: 137–144.
Ching, Chao-jung 慶昭蓉. 2012c. “Tangdai Anxi zhi bolian: Cong Tuhuoluo B yu shisu
wenshu shang de buming yuci kaum* tanqi 唐代安西之帛練: 從吐火羅 B 語世俗文
書上的不明語詞 kaum* 談起.” Dunhuang yanjiu 敦煌研究 4: 102–109.
Ching, Chao-jung 慶昭蓉. 2013. “The Activities of Sogdian Buddhists in Kucha as
Observed in the Tocharian B Secular Documents.” In: M. De Chiara, M. Maggi
and G. Martini eds. Buddhism among the Iranian peoples of Central Asia. Vienna:
Austrian Academy of Sciences Press, 333–383.
Ching, Chao-jung 慶昭蓉. forthc. “Communication between Russian and French
Scholars in the Early 20th Century about Tocharian B Secular Documents.” To be
published in Irina F. Popova ed., The Proceedings of the International Conference
“Sergey Fedorovich Oldenburg: Scholar and Academic Research Organizer” (26–27
September 2013), under review.
Ching, Chao-jung 慶昭蓉 and Ogihara Hirotoshi 荻原裕敏. 2010. On the Internal
Relationships and the Dating of the Tocharian B Monastic Accounts in the Berlin
Collection.” Nairiku Ajia gengo no kenkyū 內陸アジア言語の研究 25: 75–141.
Ching, Chao-jung 慶昭蓉 and Ogihara Hirotoshi 荻原裕敏. 2010 [2012]. “A Tocharian B
Sale Contract on a Wooden Tablet.” JIAAA 5: 101–127.
Ching, Chao-jung 慶昭蓉 and Ogihara Hirotoshi 荻原裕敏. 2012. “On a Tocharian B mo-
nastic account kept in the Otani Collection.” Tocharian and Indo-European Studies
13: 75–112.
Choksy, Jamsheed. 2003. “The Enigmatic Origins of the Tokharians.” In Carlo G. Cereti
and Farrokh Vajitdar eds., Ātaše Dorun: The Fire Within. San Diego: 1st Books library,
107–119.
Clarkson, Sarah, Erica C. D. Hunter and Samuel N. C. Lieu, eds. 1998. Dictionary of
Manichaean Texts. Vol. 1: Texts from the Roman Empire: Texts in Syriac, Greek,
Coptic, and Latin. Turnhout: Brepols; NSW, Australia: Ancient History Documentary
Research Centre, Macquaire University.
Clapperton, Robert Henderson. 1934. Paper and Its Relationship to Books. London:
J. M. Dent and Sons.
Clauson, Gerard. 1972. An Etymological Dictionary of Pre-Thirteenth-Century Turkish.
Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Collings, Thomas and Derek Milner. 1978. “The Identification of Oriental Paper-making
Fibres.” The Paper Conservator 3: 51–79.
Collings, Thomas and Derek Milner. 1979. “An Examination of Early Chinese Paper.”
Restaurator: International Journal for the Preservation of Library and Archival
Material 3 & 4: 129–151.
Bibliography 191
Conrady, August. 1920. Die chinesischen Handschriften- und sonstigen Kleinfunde Sven
Hedins in Lou-lan. Stockholm: Generalstabens litografiska anstalt.
Couvreur, Walter. 1953. “Tochaarse kloosterrekeningen en karavaanpassen van
de Bibliothèque Nationale te Parijs.” Handelingen van het Twintigste Vlaams
Philologencongres (Antwerpen, 7–9 April 1953): 90–96.
Cui, Yinqiu 崔銀秋. 2003. Xinjiang gudai jumin xianliti DNA yanjiu 新疆古代居民綫
粒體 DNA 研究. Changchun: Jilin daxue chubanshe.
Das, Sarat Chandra. 1886. “Buddhist and Other Legends about Khotan.” JASB 55.1:
193–201.
Das, Sarat Chandra. 1904. “Tibet under the Tartar Emperors of China in the 13th
Century A.D.” JASB 73.1: 94–102.
Deeg, Max. 2005. Das Gaoseng-Faxian-Zhuan als regionsgeschichtliche Quelle. Der
älteste Bericht eines chinesischen buddhistischen Pilgermönchs über seine Reise nach
Indien mit Übersetzung des Textes. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Dotson, Brandon. 2009. The Old Tibetan Annals: An Annotated Translation of Tibet’s
First History. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Drège, Jean-Pierre. 1979. “Les cahiers des manuscrits de Touen-houang.” In: Michel
Soymié, ed. Contributions aux études de Touen-houang. Genève, Droz, 17–28.
Drège, Jean-Pierre. 1984. “Les accordéons de Dunhuang.” In: Michel Soymié, ed.,
Contributions aux études de Touen-houang. Paris: École française d’Extrême-Orient,
volume III: 195–204.
Drège, Jean-Pierre. 1986. “L’analyse fibreuse des papiers et la datation des manuscrits
de Dunhuang.” JA 274: 403–415.
Drège, Jean-Pierre. 1996. “Papillons et tourbillons.” In: Jean-Pierre Drège, ed. De
Dunhuang au Japon: Etudes chinoises et bouddhiques offertes à Michel Soymié.
Genève: Droz, 163–178.
Drège, Jean-Pierre. 2003. “Tonkō no niryū sakuhin: Pelliot korekushon no kamie
(Second-rate Works from Dunhuang: The Pelliot Collection),” Bukkyo geijutsu 佛教
美術 (Ars buddhica) 271: 61–64.
Drège, Jean-Pierre. 2005. “L’imprimerie chinoise s’est-elle transmise en Occident ?”
Histoire, archéologie et société—Conférénces académiques franco-chinoises 8:
15–21.
Drège, Jean-Pierre. 2006. “Le livre sino-tangout.” JA 294.2: 343–371.
Du, Weisheng 杜偉生. 1997. “Cong Dunhuang yishu de zhuangshi tan ‘xuanfeng
zhuang’ 從敦煌遺書的裝飾談旋風裝.” Wenxian 文獻 3: 181–189.
Du, You 杜佑. 1988. Tongdian 通典. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju.
Duan, Qing 段晴. 2008. “Yutian yu gaoseng mai nu qiyue 于闐語高僧買奴契約.”
Dunhuang Tulufan yanjiu 敦煌吐魯番研究 11: 11–27.
Duan, Qing and Wang Binghua 王炳華. 1997. “Xinjinag xin chu Yutian wen mudu wen
shu yanjiu 新疆新出于闐文木牘文書研究.” Dunhuang Tulufan yanjiu 敦煌吐魯番
研究 2: 1–12.
192 Bibliography
Emmerick, Ronald E. 1967. Tibetan Texts concerning Khotan. London: Oxford University
Press.
Emmerick, Ronald E. 1968. “Names from Central Asia.” CAJ 12.2: 88–91.
Emmerick, Ronald E. and Margarita I. Vorob’ëva-Desjatovskaya. 1993. Saka Docu-
ments VII: The St. Petersburg Collections. London: School of Oriental and African
Studies.
Emmerick, Ronald E. and Margarita I. Vorob’ëva-Desjatovskaya. 1995. Saka Documents:
Text Volume III: The St. Petersburg Collections. London: School of Oriental and
African Studies.
Enoki, Kazuo 榎一雄. 1963. “The Location of the Capital of Lou-lan and the Date of
Kharoṣṭhī Inscriptions.” MRDTB 22: 125–171.
Enoki, Kazuo 榎一雄. 1967/1992. “Hokken no tūka shita Zenzenkoku ni tsuite 法顕の
通過した鄯善国について.” Tohogaku 東方学 34, 1967; reprinted in Kazuo Enoki
chosakushū 榎一雄著作集 1, Tokyo: Kyūko Shoin, 1992: 121–126.
Enoki, Kazuo 榎一雄. 1998. Studia Asiatica: The Collected Papers in Western Languages
of the Late Dr. Kazuo Enoki. Tokyo: Kyūko shoin.
Erdal, Marcel. 2004. A Grammar of Old Turkic. Leiden: Brill.
Fan, Xiangyong 范祥雍. 1978. Luoyang qielan ji jiaozhu 洛陽伽藍記校注. Shanghai:
Shanghai guji chubanshe.
Fang, Xuanling 房玄齡. 1973. Suishu 隋書. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju.
Feng, Jiasheng 馮家昇. 1981. Weiwuer shiliao jianbian 維吾爾史料簡編, vol. 1. Beijing:
Minzu chubanshe.
Feng, Xishi 馮錫時. 1994. “Faxian xixing luxian kaobian 法顯西行路綫考辨.” Xiyu kao-
cha yu yanjiu 西域考察與研究 (Explorations and Studies on Central Asia). Ed. by Ma
Dazheng 馬大正 et al. Urumqi: Xinjiang renmin chubanshe, 291–298.
Fujieda, Akira 藤枝晃. 1966. “The Tun-Huang Manuscripts: A General Description.”
Zinbun 9: 16–27.
Gardner, Iain, ed. 1995. The Kephalaia of the Teacher: The Edited Coptic Manichaean
Texts in Translation with Vommentary. Leiden: Brill.
Gärtner, Hans, Albert Wünsch, August Friedrich von Pauly. 1980. Paulys Realencyclo
pädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft. Stuttgart : A. Druckenmüller.
Gell-Mann, Murray, Ilia Peiros and G. Starostin. 2009. “Distant Language Relationship:
The Current Perspective.” Journal of Language Relationship 1: 13–30.
Geng, Shimin 耿世民. 2005. Gudai Tujue beiming yanjiu 古代突厥文碑銘研究. Beijing:
Zhongyang minzu daxue chubashe.
Geng, Shimin 耿世民. 2006. Xinjiang lishi yu wenhua gailun 新疆歷史與文化概論.
Beijing: Zhongyang minzu daxue chubanshe.
Geng, Shimin 耿世民. 2008. Huihuwen Hamiben Milehuijianji yanjiu 回鶻文哈密本彌
勒會見記研究. Beijing: Zhongyang minzu daxue chubanshe.
Bibliography 193
Geng, Shimin and H.-J. Klimkeit. 1988. Das Zusammentreffen mit Maitreya, Die ersten
fünf Kapitel der Hami-Version der Maitrisimit, I–II. Wiesbaden: Harrossowitz.
Geng, Shimin, H.-J. Klimkeit, and J. P. Laut. 1998. Eine buddhistische Apokalypse. Die
Höllenkapitel (20–25), und die Schlußkapitel (26–27) der Hami-Handschrift der alt-
türkischen Maitrisimit. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Gershevitch, Ilya. 1954. A Grammar of Manichean Sogdian, Oxford: Blackwell.
Gibbs, Peter J. and K. R. Seddon. 1996. “The Dunhuang Diamond Sutra: A Challenging
Problem for Scientific Conservation Technique.” In: S. Whitfield and Frances Wood,
ed., Dunhuang and Turfan: Contents and Conservation of Ancient Documents from
Central Asia, London: The British Library, 59–69.
Gignoux, Philippe. 2003. Noms propres sassanides en moyen-perse épigraphique.
Supplément [1986–2001]. Vienna: Verlag der Ö sterreichischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften.
Giles, Lionel. 1935–1943. “Dated Chinese Manuscripts in the Stein Collection.” In: BSOS
7.4: 809–835; 8.1: 1–26; 9.1: 1–25; 9.4: 1023–1046; 10.2: 317–344; 11.1: 148–173.
Gimbutas, Marija. 1985. “Primary and Secondary Homeland of the Indo-Europeans.”
Journal of Indo-European Studies 13: 185–202.
Gray, Russell D. and Q. D. Atkinson. 2003. “Language-tree Divergence Times Support
the Anatolian Theory of Indo-European Origin.” Nature 426: 435–439.
Grenet, Franz. 2002. “Regional Interaction in Central Asia and Northwestern India in
the Kidarite and Hephthalite Periods.” In: Nicholas Sims-Williams, ed., Indo-Iranian
Languages and Peoples. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 203–224.
Grenet, Franz and Nicholas Sims-Williams. 1987. “The Historical Context of the
Sogdian Ancient Letters.” Transition Periods in Iranian history, Actes du Symposium
de Fribourg-en-Brisgau (22–24 Mai 1985). Leuven: Peteers, 101–122.
Grenet, Franz, N. Sims-Williams, É. de la Vaissière. 2001. “The Sogdian Ancient Letter V.”
Bulletin of the Asia Institute, vol. 12, Alexander’s Legacy in the East: Studies in Honor
of Paul Bernard, 1998 [2001]: 91–104.
Gulácsi, Zsuzsanna. 2005. Mediaeval Manichaean Book Art: A Codicological Study of
Iranian and Turkic Illuminated Book Fragments from 8th–11th Century East Central
Asia, Leiden: Brill.
Gulácsi, Zsuzsanna. 2001. Manichean Art in Berlin Collections. Tunrhout: Brepols.
Guo, Heqing 郭和卿, trans. 2003. Qing shi 青史. Lhasa: Xizang renmin chubanshe.
Guojia Tushuguan 國家圖書館, ed. 2005. Guojia tushuguan cang Dunhuang yishu 國家
圖書館藏敦煌遺書. Beijing: Beijing tushuguan chubanshe.
Halkias, Georgios T. 2004. “Tibetan Buddhism Registered: A Catalogue from the
Imperial Court of ’Phang Thang.” Eastern Buddhist 36. 1/2: 46–105.
Hamilton, James. 1995. Les Ouïghours à l’époque des cinq dynasties d’après les
documents chinois. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1955.
194 Bibliography
Hansen, Valerie. 2001. “Niya xue yanjiu de qi shi 尼雅學研究的啟示.” Hantang zhijian
wenhua yishu de hudong yu jiaorong 漢唐之間文化藝術的互動與交融 Ed. by Wu
Hung 巫鴻. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 275–298.
Harders-Steinhäuser, Marianne. 1969. “Mikroskopische Untersuchung einiger früher,
ostasiatisher Tun-huang-Papiere.” Das Papier 4 and 5: 210–212 and 272–276.
Hasuike, Toshitaka 蓮池利隆. 2007. “Kharoṣṭhī moji siryō to ikougun no kanren
カローシュティー文字資料と遺構群の関連.” Niya Report II (Japanese version),
283–300.
He, Changqun 賀昌群 1932/2003. “Jinnian Xibei kaoku de chengji 近年西北的考古成
績.” originally published in Yanjing Xuehao 燕京学报, 12, 1932. republished in: He
Changqun wenji 賀昌群文集, Vol.1, Beijing, Commercial Press, 2003, pp. 54–97.
Henning, Walter B. 1940. Sogdica. London: The Royal Asiatic Society.
Henning, Walter B. 1943. “The Book of Giants.” BSOAS 11: 52–74. Reprinted in his Selected
Papers, vol. 2: 115–137.
Henning, Walter B. 1948. “The Date of the Sogdian Ancient Letters.” BSOAS 12.3: 601–615.
Henning, Walter B. 1949. “The Name of the ‘Tokharian’ Language.” AM 1: 158–162.
Henning, Walter B. 1977. Selected Papers. Téhéran: Bibliothèque Pahlavi; Leiden: Brill.
Henning, Walter B. 1978. “The First Indo-Europeans in History.” In G. L. Ulmen, ed.
Society and History: Essays in Honor of Karl August Wittfogel. The Hague and Berlin:
Mouton De Gruyter, 215–230.
Heuser, Manfred. 1998. “The Manichaean Myth according to the Coptic Sources.” In:
Manfred Heuser and H.-J. Klimkeit, eds. Studies in Manichaean Literature and Art.
Leiden: Brill, 3–108.
Hoernle, Augustus Frederic Rudolf. 1893. “The Weber Manuscript, Another Collection
of Ancient Manuscripts from Central Asia.” JASB 62.1: 1–40.
Holm, Hans. 2009. “Language Subgrouping.” Quantitative Linguistics 62: 225–235.
Hu, Pingsheng 胡平生. 1991. “Loulan chutu wenwu shicong 樓蘭出土文書釋叢 (Textual
Researches and Interpretations of Documents unearthed at Loulan)”, Wenwu
文物 (Cultural Relics) 8: 41–47+61.
Huang, Wenbi 黃文弼. 1958. Talimu pendi kauguji 塔里木盆地考古記. Beijing: Kexue
chubanshe.
Huili 慧立 and Yancong 彥悰. 1983. Da Ciensi sanzang fashi zhuan 大慈恩寺三藏法師
傳. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju.
Hulsewé, A. F. P. 1979. China in Central Asia: The Early Stage, 125 B.C–A.D. 23. Leiden:
Brill.
Hunter, Dard. 1943. Papermaking: The History and Technique of an Ancient Craft. New
York: A. Knopf.
Huo, Xuchu 霍旭初. 1994. “Kezi’er shiku qianqi bihua yishu 克孜爾石窟前期壁畫藝術,
Qiuci yishu yanjiu 龜茲藝術研究. Urumqi: Xinjiang renmin chubanshe, 31–49.
Bibliography 195
Ikeda, On 池田溫. 1979. Chūgoku kodai sekichō kenkyū 中國古代籍帳研究. Tokyo:

Institute of Oriental Culture, University of Tokyo.
Ikeda, On 池田溫. 1990. Chūgoku kodai shahon shikigo shūroku 中國古代寫本識語集
錄. Tokyo: Tokyo daigaku Tōyō bunka kenkyūjo.
Ikeda, On 池田溫. 1996. “Mazhatage chutu shengtang siyuan zhichubu xiaokao
麻札塔格出土盛唐寺院支出簿小考.” In: 段文傑敦煌研究五十年紀念文集 Duan
Wenjie Dunhuang yanjiu wushinian jinian wenji, 207–225. Beijing: Shijie tushu
gongsi.
Inokuchi, Taijun 井ノ口泰淳. 1961. “Ōtani tankentai shōrai Tokarago no nidanpen
大谷探検隊将来トカラ語の二断片.” In: Seiiki Bunka Kenkyūkai 西域文化研究會
(ed.), Chūō Ajia kodaigo bunken 中央アジア古代語文獻 (Seiiki Bunka kenkyū 西域
文化研究 IV), 343–349. Kyoto: Hōzōkan.
Itō, Toshio 伊藤敏雄. 1995. “Gishinki Rouran tonjutsu ni okeru koueki katsudō wo
megutte 魏晉期樓蘭屯戍における交易活動をめぐって.” In: Oda Yoshihisa Sensei
Kanrei Kinen Jigyōkai, eds. Oda Yoshihisa hakuse kanreki kinen Toyoshi ronshu 小田
義久博士還曆記念東洋史論集. Kyoto: Ryūkoku Daigaku Tōyō Shigaku Kenkyūkai,
1–28.
Jackson, A. V. Williams. 1932. Researches in Manichaeism with Special Reference to the
Turfan Fragments. New York: Columbia University Press.
Jao, Tsung-i 饒宗頤. 1978. Peintures monochromes de Dunhuang. French adaptation by
Pierre Ryckmans, preface and appendices by Paul Demiéville. Paris: Ecole française
d’Extrême-Orient.
Ji, Xianlin 季羡林. 1954/1996. “Zhongguozhi he zaozhifa chuanru Yindu de shijian he
didian wenti 中國紙和造紙法輸入印度的時間和地點問題.” Lishi yanjiu 歷史研究
1954.4. Reprinted in Ji Xianlin wenji 季羨林文集, vol. 4: Zhongyin wenhua guanxi 中
印文化關係. Nanchang: Jiangxi renmin chubanshe, 1996: 54–85.
Ji, Xianlin 季羡林. 1998. Fragments of the Tocharian A Maitreyasamiti-Nāṭaka of the
Xinjiang Museum, China. Transliterated, translated and annotated by Ji Xianlin
in collaboration with Werner Winter and Georges-Jean Pinault. Berlin/New York:
Mouton de Gruyter. Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs 113.
Ji, Xianlin et al. 1985. Datang Xiyuji jiaozhu 大唐西域記校注. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju.
Reprinted in 2008.
Jiang, Boqin 姜伯勤. 1990. “Gaochang Qü chao yu Dongxi Tujue 高昌麴朝與東西突
厥.” Dunhuang Tulufan wenxian yanjiu lunji, Beijing: Peking University Press, vol.
5: 33–51.
Jiang, Boqin 姜伯勤. 1994. Dunhuang Tulufan wenshu yu Sichou zhi lu 敦煌吐魯番文書
與絲綢之路. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe.
Kagawa, Mokushiki 香川默識. 1915. Seiiki kōko zufu 西域考古圖譜, 2 vols. Tokyo:
Kokkasha.
196 Bibliography
Katayama, Akio 片山章雄. 1981. “Toquz Oγuz to Kyūsei no shomondai ni tsuite (Toquz
Oγuz と「九姓」の諸問題について).” Shigaku zasshi 史學雑誌 90: 12–20.
Kawagoe, Eishin 川越英真. 2005. “‘Pantan mokuroku’ no kenkyū パンタン目录の研
究.” Nihon Chibetto Gakkai Kaihō 日本西藏学會會报 51: 115–131.
Kämbiri, Dolkun 多魯坤闞白爾, Uemura Hiroshi 梅村坦 and Moriyasu Takao 森安孝
夫. 1990. “Uigurubun bukkyō sonzō juryō mērē monjo kenkyū: USp. No. 64 nado ni
mieru ‘cuv’ no kaishaku wo kanete ウイグル文仏教尊像受領命令文書研究—USp.
No. 64 などにみえる“čuv”の解釈を兼ねて.” Ajia-Afurika gengo bunka kenkyū アジ
ア・アフリカ言語文化研究 40: 13–34.
Kim, Ronald. 2007. “The Duke of York Comes to Xinjiang: Ablaut, Analogy, and
Epenthesis in Tocharian Nasal Presents.” Historische Sprachforschung 120:
66–104.
Klimkeit, Hans-Joachim. 1989. Gudai Monijiao yishu 古代摩尼教藝術. Trans. Lin
Wushu. Guangzhou: Zhongshan daxue chubanshe.
Klimkeit, Hans-Joachim. 1993. Gnosis on the Silk Road: Gnostic Texts from Central Asia.
San Francisco, CA: Harper Collins.
Klimkeit, Hans-Joachim. 1998. “The Manichaean Doctrine of the Old and the New
Man.” In: Manfred Heuser and H.-J. Klimkeit, eds. Studies in Manichaean Literature
and Art. Leiden: Brill, 121–141.
Kljaštornij, S.G. ΙΑΞΑΡΤΗΣ—Sïr-Darja, Central Asiatic Journal 6, no.1 (1961): 24–26
Kljaštornyj, S.G. and V. A. Livšic. 1971. “Une inscription inédite turque et sogdienne: La
stèle de Sevrey (Gobi méridional).” JA 259: 11–20.
Konow, Sten. 1914. “Khotan Studies.” JRAS, 339–353.
Kovalev, A.A. 2004. “Drevneyshaya migraciya iz Zagrosa v Kitay I Problema prarodiny
tokharov.” Arkheolog detektiv I myslitel. St. Petersburg: Sankt-Petersburgs Kogo
Universitet, 249–292.
Krause, Wolfgang. 1948. “Tocharian Studies in Germany.” Word 4.1: 47–52.
Krause, Wolfgang and Werner Thomas. 1960. Tocharisches Elementarbuch, Band i.
Grammatik. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag.
Kumamoto, Hiroshi 熊本裕. 1996. “The Khotanese Documents from the Khotan Area.”
Memoirs of the Research Department of the Toyo Bunko 54: 27–64.
Kumamoto, Hiroshi 熊本裕. 2001. “Sino-Hvatanica Petersburgensia.” Part 1. Manuscripta
Orientalia 7(1): 3–9.
Kumamoto, Hiroshi 熊本裕. 2007. “Sino-Hvatanica Petersburgensia.” Part 2. In: Maria
Macuch, Mauro Maggi, and Werner Sundermann, eds. Iranian Languages and Texts
from Iran and Turan: Ronald E. Emmerick Memorial Volume, 147–159. Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz.
Kumamoto, Hiroshi 熊本裕. 2009. “A St. Petersburg Bilingual Document and Problems
of the Chronology of Khotan.” JIAAA 3: 75–82.
Bibliography 197
Kuwayama, Shoshin 桑山正進, ed. 1992. Echō ōgo Tenjikukoku den kenkyū 慧超往五天
竺國傳研究. Kyoto: Institute for Research in Humanities, Kyoto University.
Kuzmina, Elena E. 2008. The Prehistory of the Silk Road. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press.
Lalou, Marcelle. 1953. “Les textes Bouddhiques au temps du roi Khri-sroṅ-lde-bcan.” JA
241.3: 313–353.
Lamotte, Étienne. 1960. “Mañjuśrī.” T’oung Pao, 2nd series, 48.1/3: 1–96.
Lane, George Sherman. 1958. “The Present State of Tocharian Research.” In: Eva
Sivertsen ed. Proceedings of the 8th International Congress of Linguists (Oslo August
1957). Oslo: Oslo University Press, 252–261.
La Vaissière, Étienne de. 2002/2005. Histoire des marchands sogdiens. Paris: Collège de
France, Institut des hautes études chinoises, 2002; Sogdian Traders: A History. Tr. by
James Ward, Leiden: Brill, 2005.
Le Coq, A. Von. 1922. “Türkische Manichäica aus Chotscho, III.” APAW, Nr. 2: 1–49.
Legge, James. 1886. A Record of Buddhistic Kingdoms, Being an Account by the Chinese
Monk Fa-hien of His Travels in India and Ceylon (A.D. 399–414). Oxford: Clarendon
Press.
Lévi, Sylvain. 1896. “Notes sur les Indo-Scythes.” JA, 444–484.
Lévi, Sylvain. 1905. “Notes chinoises sur l’inde”, V : “Quelques documents sur le
Bouddhisme indien dans l’Asie centrale.” BEFEO 5: 253–305.
Lévi, Sylvain. 1913. “Le «tokharien B», langue de Koutcha.” JA, 11e série, 2: 311–380.
Lévi, Sylvain. 1933. “Le «tokharien».” JA 222: 1–30.
Li, Fang Kuei 李方桂 and W. South Coblin. 1987. A Study of the Old Tibetan Inscriptions.
Taipei: Institute of History and Philology Acamedia Sinica, Special Publicaitons
No. 91.
Li, Jifu 李吉甫. 1983. Yuanhe junxian tuzhi 元和郡縣圖志. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju.
Li, Yanshou 李延壽. 1974. Beishi 北史. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju.
Li, Zhengyu 李正宇. 1997. “Tubo Lundongbozang xiu qielan gongdeji liangjuan de
faxian, zhuihe ji kaozheng 吐蕃論董勃蔵修伽藍功徳記両巻的発現，綴合及考證.”
Dunhuang Tulufan yanjiu 敦煌吐魯番研究, 2: 249–257.
Li, Zhizhong 李致忠. 1981. “Gushu ‘xuanfengzhuang’ kaobian 古書旋風裝考辨.” Wenwu
文物 2: 75–78.
Li, Zhizhong 李致忠. 2004. “Dunhuang yishu zhong de zhuangzhen xingshi yu shushi
yanjiu zhong de zhuangzhen xingshi 敦煌遺書中的裝幀形式與書史中的裝幀形式”
Wenxian 文獻 2: 93–95.
Lieu, Samuel N. C. 劉南強. 1985. Manichaeism in the Later Roman Empire and Medieval
China: A Historical Survey. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Lieu, Samuel N. C. 劉南強. 1998. Manichaeism in Central Asia and China. Leiden:
Brill.
198 Bibliography
Lin, Gan 林幹 and Gao Zihou 高自厚. 1994. Huihe shi 回紇史. Huhhot: Neimenggu ren-
min chubanshe.
Lin, Meicun 林梅村. 1991. “Quluwen shidai Shanshan wangchao de shixi yanjiu 佉盧文
時代鄯善王朝的世系研究.” Xiyu yanjiu 西域研究, 1: 39–50.
Lin, Meicun 林梅村. 1996. “Kharoṣṭhī Bibliography: the Collection from China (1897–
1993).” CAJ, 40. 2: 188–220.
Lin, Meicun 林梅村. 1998. “Niya xin faxian de Shanshan wang tonggeluojia jinian
wenshu kao 尼雅新發現的鄯善王童格羅伽紀年文書考.” Xiyu kaocha yu yanjiu xu-
bian 西域考察與研究續編. Ed. by Ma Dazheng 馬大正 and Yang Lian 楊鐮, Urumqi:
Xinjiang renmin chubanshe, 196–216.
Lin, Meicun 林梅村. 2006. “Tuhuoluo ren de qiyuan yu qianxi 吐火羅人的起源與遷
徙.” In: Sichou zhi lu kaogu shiwu jiang 絲綢之路考古十五講. Beijing: Beijing daxue
chubanshe, 12–34.
Lin, Wushu 林悟殊. 1983. “Monijiao canjing yi yuanming zhi wojian: 《摩尼教殘經
一》原名之我見.” Wenshi 文史 21: 89–99.
Lin, Wushu 林悟殊. 1997. Monijiao jiqi dongjian 摩尼教及其東漸. Taipei: Shuxin
chubanshe.
Litvinsky, Boris A. 1996. “The Hephthalite Empire.” In: B. A. Litvinsky, Zhang Guangda,
and R. Shabani Samghabadi, eds. History of Civilizations of Central Asia, III: The
Crossroads of Civilizations, A.D. 250 to 750. Paris: UNESCO, 135–162.
Liu, Wensuo 劉文鎖. 2002. “Lun Niya yizhi yiwu he jiandu yu jianzhu yiji de guanxi 論
尼雅遺址遺物和簡牘與建築遺迹的關係.” Ouya xuekan 歐亞學刊 3: 116–149.
Liu, Wensuo 劉文鎖. 2004. “Loulan de jianzhi bingyong shidai yu zaozhi jishu zhi ch-
uanbo 樓蘭的簡紙並用時代與造紙技術之傳播.” Bianjiang kaogu yanjiu 邊疆考古
研究 2: 406–413.
Liu, Wensuo 劉文鎖. 2007. Shahai gujuan shigao 沙海古卷釋稿. Beijing: Zhonghua
shuju.
Liu, Yitang 劉義棠. 1975. Weiwuer yanjiu 維吾爾史研究. Taipei: Zhengzhong shuju.
Livshits, В. А. 2003. “Drevnee nazvanie Syrdar’i [Ancient name of Syr Darya].” Vestnik
drevnej istorii (Journal of Ancient History) 1: 3–10.
Loewe, Michael. 1969. “Chinese Relations with Central Asia, 260–290.” BSOAS 32:
91–103.
Lu, Xiangqian 盧向前. 1992. “Gaochang Xizhou sibainian huobi guanxi yanbian
shulüe—Dunhuang Tulufan wenshu jingji guanxi zongshu zhiyi 高昌西州四百
年貨幣關係演變述略—敦煌吐魯番文書經濟關係綜述之一.” In: Lu Xiangqian,
Dunhuang Tulufan wenshu lungao 敦煌吐魯番文書論稿, 217–266. Nanchang:
Jiangxi renmin chubanshe.
Luo, Xin 羅新. 1998. “Moshanguo zhi lu 墨山國之路.” Guoxue yanjiu 國學研究 5:
483–518.
Bibliography 199
Luo, Xin 羅新. 2007. “Rouran guanzhi xukao 柔然官制續考.” Zhonghua wenshi luncong
中華文史論叢1: 35–41.
Luo, Xin 羅新. 2008. “Gaochang wenshu zhong de Rouran zhengzhi minghao 高昌文書
中的柔然政治名號,” Tulufanxue yanjiu 吐魯番學研究1: 38–41.
Lüders, Heinrich. 1940 [1930]. “Weiter Beiträge zur Geschichte und Geographie von
Ostturkestan.” In: Philologica Indica, Festgabe zum siebzigsten Geburtstage am 25.
Juni 1939 dargebracht von Kollegen, Freunden und Schülern, 595–658. Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Originally published in SPAW, Philosophisch-historische
Klasse, 1930, 7–64.
Lüders, Heinrich. 1940 [1922]. “Zur Geschichte und Geographie Ostturkestans.” In:
Philologica Indica, Festgabe zum siebzigsten Geburtstage am 25. Juni 1939 darge-
bracht von Kollegen, Freunden und Schülern, 526–546. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht. Originally published in SPAW, Philosophisch-historische Klasse, 1922,
243–261.
Ma, Heng 馬衡. 1926. Zhongguo shuji zhidu bianqian zhi yanjiu 中國書籍制度變遷之
研究.” Tushuguanxue jikan 圖書館學季刊1 & 2: 199–213.
Ma, Yong 馬雍. 1979. “Xinjiang suochu qulu wenshu de duandai wenti 新疆所出佉盧文
書的斷代問題.” Wenshi 文史7: 73–95.
MacDonald, Ariane. 1963. “Préamble à la lecture d’un rgya-bod yig-chaṅ.” JA 251: 53–159.
Mackenzie, David Neil. 1970. The “Sūtra of the Causes and Effects of Actions” in Sogdian.
London: University of London, School of Oriental and African Studies.
Mackerras, Colin. 1972. The Uighur Empire According to the Tang Dynastic Histories.
Canberra: Australian National University Press.
Mair, Victor H. 2008. Review of Benjamin, The Yuezhi: Origins, Migration and the
Conquest of Northern Bactria. In: Journal of Asian Studies 67.3: 1081–1084.
Mallory, James P. and V. H. Mair. 2000. The Tarim Mummies. London: Thames and
Hudson.
Malzahn, Melanie. 2007a. “Tocharian Texts and Where to Find them.” In: Melanie
Malzahn, ed. Instrumenta Tocharica, 79–112. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter.
Malzahn, Melanie. 2007b. “The Most Archaic Manuscripts of Tocharian B and the
Varieties of the Tocharian B Language.” In: Melanie Malzahn, ed., Instrumenta
Tocharica, 255–297. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter.
Malzahn, Melanie. 2010. The Tocharian Verbal System. Leiden: Brill.
Martin, Dan. 1997. Tibetan Histories: A Bibliography of Tibetan-Language Historical
Works. London: Serindia Publications.
Maspero, Henri. 1953. Les documents chinois de la troisième expédition de Sir Aurel Stein
en Asie Centrale. London: Trustees of the British Museum.
Matsuda, Hisao 松田寿男. 1937/1939. “A Study of the Tuyuhun Embassies 吐谷渾遣使
考.” Shigaku zasshi 48, 11: 49–85 and 48; 12: 37–71.
200 Bibliography
Matsumoto, Eiichi 松本榮一. 1937. Tonkōga no kenkyū 敦煌畫の研究, Tokyo: Tōhō

bunka gaku-in. 2 vols.
Maue, Dieter. 2008. “Three Languages on the One Leaf: On IOL Toch 81 with Special
Regard to the Turkic Part.” BSOAS, 71.1: 59–73.
Maue, Dieter. 2009. “Uigurisches in Brahmī in nicht-uigurischen Brahmī-Hand
schriften.” AOH 62.1: 1–36.
Mayer, Alexander. 1992. Xuanzang. Übersetzer und Heiliger (Xuanzangs Leben und Werk
Teil 1). Wiesbaden: Harrossowitz.
Meng, Fanren 孟凡人. 1990. Loulan xinshi 樓蘭新史. Beijing: Guangming ribao
chubanshe.
Meng, Fanren 孟凡人. 1995. Loulan Shanshan jiandu niandaixue yanjiu 樓蘭鄯善簡牘
年代學研究. Urumqi: Xinjiang renmin chubanshe.
Meng, Fanren 孟凡人. 2000. Xinjiang kaogu yu shidi lunji 新疆考古與史地論集. Beijing:
Kexue chubanshe.
Meng, Xianshi 孟憲實. 2012. “Yutian: Cong zhenshu dao junzhen de yanbian 于闐: 從鎮
戍到軍鎮的演變.” Beijing daxue xuebao 北京大學學報49.4: 120–136.
Molè, Gabriella. 1970. The T’u-yü-hun from the Northern Wei to the Time of the Five
Dynasties. Rome: Istituto italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente.
Monier-Williams, Monier. 2007. A Sanskrit-English Dictionary. Springfield, VA: Nataraj
Books, repint.
Mori, Masao 護雅夫. 1973. Review of S. G. Kljaštornyj and V. A. Livšic, “Sevrejskij
kamen”, Sovetskaja Tjurkologija, 1971, No.3: 106–112. In: Tōyō Gakuhō 東洋學報 55.4:
109–120.
Moriyasu, Takao 森安孝夫. 1984. “Toban no Chūō Ajia shinshutsu 吐蕃の中央アジア
進出.” Kanazawa daigaku bungakubu ronshū, Shigakuka hen 金沢大学文学部論集·
史学科篇 4: 1–85.
Moriyasu, Takao 森安孝夫. 2002. “Waiguru kara mita An Shi no ran ウイガルから见た
安史の乱.” Nairiku ajia gengo no kenkyū 内陸アジア言语の研究17: 117–170.
Moriyasu, Takao 森安孝夫. 2003. “Four Lectures at the Collège de France in May 2003.”
In World History Reconsidered through the Silk Road. Osaka: Osaka University, 23–111.
Moriyasu, Takao 森安孝夫. 2007. Shiruku Rōdo to Tō Teikoku シルクロードと唐帝国.
Tokyo: Kōdansha.
Moriyasu, Takao and A. Ochir eds. 1999. Mongorukoku genson iseki hibun chōsa kenkyū
hōkoku モンゴル国現存遺蹟·碑文調查研究報告. Tokyo: Chūō yūrashia kenkyūkai.
Moriyasu, Takao and Yoshida Yutaka 吉田豐. 1998. “A Preliminary Report on the Recent
Survey of Archaeological Sites and Inscriptions from the Turkic and Uighur Period
in Mongolia.” Studies on the Inner Asian Languages 13: 129–170.
Müller, F. W. K. 1918. “Toxri und Kuišan (Küšän).” SPAW, 566–586.
Müller, F. W. K. and Emil Sieg. 1916. “Maitrisimit und Tocharisch.” SPAW, 395–417.
Bibliography 201
Nagasawa, Kazutoshi 長澤和俊. 1976/1996. “Futatabi Kharoṣṭhī monjyo no nen-

dai ni tsuite 再びカローシュティー文書の年代について.” Waseda daigaku
bungakukenkyūka kiyō 早稻田大学文学研究科紀要, 22, 1976. Reprinted in the au-
thor’s Rōran oukokushi no kenkyū 楼蘭王国史の研究. Tokyo: Yūzankaku Shuppan,
1996: 323–342.
Nakhleh, L., Don Ringe and T. Warnow. 2005. “Perfect Phylogenetic Networks: A New
Methodology for Reconstructing the Evolutionary History and Natural Languages.”
Language 81.2: 382–420.
Napol’shikh, V. 2001. “Tocharisch-uralisch Berührungen: Sprache und Archäeologie.”
Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 242: 367–383.
Narain, A. K. 2000. The Tokharians: A History without Nation-State Boundaries. Shillong:
North-Eastern Hill University Publications.
Nichols, Johanna and Tandy Warnow. 2008. “Tutorial on Computational Linguistic
Phylogeny.” Language and Linguistics Compass 2. 5: 760–820.
Nikitin, A. B. 1994. “The Sasanian šahrab of Balkh.” Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to
Siberia 1: 365–368.
Nishioka, Soshū 西岡祖秀. 1981. “‘Puton bukkyōshi’ mokuroku sakuin 『プトゥン仏
教史』目録部索引 II.” Bunka Kōryū Shisetsu Kenkyū Kiyō 文化交流研究施設研究
紀要 5: 43–95.
Ogihara, Hirotoshi 狄原裕敏. 2009. Researches about Vinaya-texts in Tocharian A and B.
(Unpublished doctoral thesis, Paris: École Pratique des Haute Études.)
Ogihara, Hirotoshi and Ching Chao-jung. 2012. “Ōtani tankentai shōrai Tokarago shiryō
wo megutte (1) 大谷探検隊将来トカラ語資料をめぐって(1).” Ryukoku daigaku
bukkyō bunka kenkyūsho kiyō 龍谷大学佛教文化研究所紀要 50: 25–49.
Ogiwara, Unrai 荻原雲來 ed. 1979. Kanyaku taishō Bon-Wa daijiten 漢譯對照梵和大辭
典. Tokyo: Suzuki gakujutsu zaidan.
Ouyang, Xiu 歐陽脩. 1975. Xin Tang shu 新唐書. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju.
Pagel, Mark, Quentin D. Atkinson and Andrew Meade. 2007. “Frequency of Word-use
Predicts Rates of Lexical Evolution throughout Indo-European history.” Nature 449:
717–720.
Pan, Jixing 潘吉星. 1966. “Dunhuang shishi xiejing zhi yanjiu 敦煌石室寫經之研究.”
Wenwu 文物 3: 39–47; reprinted in Zhongguo zaozhi jishu shigao 中國造紙技術史
稿. Beiing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1979.
Pederson, Holger. 1903. “Türkische Lautgesetze”, ZDMG 57: 535–561.
Pelliot, Paul. 1908. “Une bibliothèque médiévale retrouvée au Kan-sou,” BEFEO 8:
501–529.
Pelliot, Paul. 1916. “Le Cha-tcheou tou-tou-fou t’ou-king et la colonie sogdienne de la
région du Lob Nor.” JA, 11e série, 7: 111–123.
Pelliot, Paul. 1954. Les débuts de l’imprimerie en Chine. Paris: Imprimerie nationale.
202 Bibliography
Pelliot, Paul. 1959–1963. Notes on Marco Polo I–II. Paris: A. Maisonneuve.

Pelliot, Paul. 2008. Carnets de route 1906–1908. Paris: Les Indes savantes.
Peyrot, Michaël. 2008. Variation and Change in Tocharian B. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Pinault, Georges-Jean. 1987. “Épigraphie Koutchéenne, I. Laissez-passer de caravanes,
II. Graffites et inscriptions.” In: Chao Huashan 晁華山, Simone Gaulier, Monique
Mallard, and Georges-Jean Pinault eds., Sites divers de la région de Koutcha (Mission
Paul Pelliot VIII), 59–196, planches 40–96. Paris: Collège de France.
Pinault, Georges-Jean. 1994a. “Une nouvelle inscription koutchéenne de Qumtura.”
Bulletin d’Études Indiennes 11–12: 171–220.
Pinault, Georges-Jean. 1994b. “Aspects du Bouddhisme pratiqué au Nord du désert du
Taklamakan, d’après les documents tokhariens.” In: Fukui Fumimasa 福井文雅 and
Gérard Fussman, eds. Bouddhisme et cultures locales: Quelques cas de réciproques
adaptations. Actes du colloque franco-japonais (Paris, 23–27 Septembre 1991), 85–
113. Paris: École Française d’Extrême-Orient.
Pinault, Georges-Jean. 1998. “Economic and Administrative Documents in Tocharian B
from the Berezovsky and Petrovsky Collections.” Manuscripta Orientalia 4 (4): 3–20.
Pinault, Georges-Jean. 2002. “Tokh. B kucaññe, A kuci et Skr. Tokharika.” IIJ 45: 311–345.
Pinault, Georges-Jean. 2008. Chrestomathie tokharienne: Textes et grammaire. Leuven:
Peeters.
Pulleyblank, Edwin G. 1952. “A Sogdian Colony in Inner Mongolia.” T’oung Pao 41:
317–356.
Pulleyblank, Edwin G. 1991. Lexicon of Reconstructed Pronounciation in Early Middle
Chinese, Late Middle Chinese, and Early Mandarin. Vancouver: University of British
Columbia Press.
Qian, Boquan 錢伯泉. 1990. “Cong ‘Gaochang zhubu Zhangwan deng chuangong-
zhuang’ kan Rouran hanguo zai Gaochang diqu de tongzhi 從〈高昌主簿張綰等傳
供狀〉看柔然汗國在高昌地區的統治.” Tulufanxue yanjiu zhuanji 吐魯番學研究專
輯. Ürümqi: Dunhuang Tulufan xue Xinjiang yanjiu zhongxin, 97–108.
Reeves, John C. 1992. Jewish Lore in Manichaean Cosmogony: Studies in the Book of
Giants Traditions. Cincinnati, OH: Hebrew Union College Press.
Reichelt, Hans. 1931. Die soghdischen Handschriftenreste des Britischen Museums. II.
Heidelberg: Carl Winters Universitätsbuchhandlung.
Renfrew, Colin. 2009. “Where Bacteria and Language Concur.” Science 323: 467–468.
Richardson, Hugh E. 1952. Ancient Historical Edicts at Lhasa and the Mu Tsung/Khri
Gtsug Lde Brtsan Treaty of A.D. 821–822 from the Inscription at Lhasa. London:
Royal Asiatic Society.
Richardson, Hugh E. 1983. “Bal-po and Lha-po.” BSOAS 46.1: 136–138; reprinted in
Richardson 1998: 102–105.
Richardson, Hugh E. 1998. High Peaks, Pure Earth: Collected Writings on Tibetan
History and Culture. London: Serindia Publications.
Bibliography 203
Ringe, D. and T. Warnow. 2008. “Linguistic History and Computational Cladistics.” In:
Bernard Laks ed. Origin and Evolution of Languages: Approaches, Models, Paradigms.
London: Equinox Publishing, 257–271.
Rischel, Anna-Grethe. 2001. “Rōran koshi no kagakuteki bunseki 樓蘭古紙の科學的分
析.” In: Itaru Tomiya, ed. Ryūsa shutsudo no moji shiryō: Rōran, Niya monjo o chūshin
ni 流沙出土の文字資料: 楼蘭・尼雅文書を中心に. Kyoto: Kyoto Daigaku shuppan
kai, 215–249.
Rockhill, W. W. 2005. The Life of the Buddha and the Early History of His Order. 1884.
Reprint. Boston: Adamant Media Corporation.
Roerich, George N., trans. 1979. The Blue Annals. Part I & II. First edition. Calcutta, 1949.
Reprint, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
Röhrborn, Klaus. 1977–1998. Uigurisches Wörterbuch. Sprachmaterial der vorisla-
mischen türkischen Texte aus Zentralasien, Lief. 1–6. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner
Verlag.
Rong, Xinjiang 榮新江. 1991. trans. by Kida Tomoo 木田知生. “Tou So jidai Kōtan
shi gaisetsu” 唐宋時代于闐史概説 [A General history of Khotan during the Tang
and Song Periods], Ryukoku shidan 龍谷史壇 [The Journal of History of Ryukoku
University] 97: 28–38.
Rong, Xinjiang 榮新江. 1992. “Yutian zai Tangchao Anxi sizhen zhong de diwei 于闐在
唐朝安西四鎮中的地位.” Xiyu yanjiu 西域研究 3: 56–64.
Rong, Xinjiang 榮新江. 1993. “Guanyu Tang Song shiqi zhongyuan wenhua dui Yutian
yingxiang de jige wenti 關於唐宋時期中原文化對于闐影響的幾個問題.” Guoxue
yanjiu 國學研究 1: 401–424.
Rong, Xinjiang 榮新江. 1995. “Longjia kao 龍家考.” Zhongya xuekan 中亞學刊 4: 144–161.
Rong, Xinjiang 榮新江. 1998. “Japanese Collections of Dunhuang and Silk Road
Manuscripts.” IDP Newsletters 10, available at: http://idp.bl.uk.
Rong, Xinjiang 榮新江. 2000a. “Gaochang wangguo yu Zhongxi jiaotong 高昌王國與中
西交通.” Ouya xuekan 2: 73–83.
Rong, Xinjiang 榮新江. 2000b. “The Migrations and Settlements of the Sogdians in
the Northern Dynasties, Sui and Tang.” Tr. Bruce Doar. China Archaeology and Art
Digest 4.1: 117–163.
Rong, Xinjiang 榮新江. 2001. Zhonggu Zhongguo yu wailai wenming 中古中國與外來文
明. Beijing: Sanlian shudian.
Rong, Xinjiang 榮新江. 2003. “Huichao suo ji Tangdai Xiyu de Hanhua foshi 慧超所記
唐代西域的漢化佛寺.” In: Wang Sanqing 王三慶 et al. Ran Yunhua xiansheng bazhi
huadan shou qing lunwenji 冉雲華先生八秩華誕壽慶論文集. Taipei: Faguang chu-
banshe, 399–407.
Rong, Xinjiang 榮新江. 2004. “Juqu Anzhou’s Inscription and the Daliang Kingdom
in Turfan.” In: D. Durkin-Meisterernst et al. Turfan Revisited: The First Century of
Research into the Art and Cultures of the Silk Road. Berlin: Reimer, 268–275.
204 Bibliography
Rong, Xinjiang 榮新江. 2005. “Sabao or Sabo: Sogdian Caravan Leaders in the Wall-
Paintings in Buddhist Caves.” In: Eric Trombert and É tienne de La Vaissière, eds. Les
Sogdiens en Chine. Paris: É cole française d’Extrême-Orient, 207–230.
Rong, Xinjiang 榮新江. 2006. “Sogdians around the Ancient Tarim Basin.” In:
M. Compareti, P. Raffetta, and G. Scarcia, eds. Ērān ud Anērān. Studies Presented to
Boris Il’ič Maršak on the Occasion of His 70th Birthday. Venezia: Cafoscarina, 513–524.
Rong, Xinjiang 榮新江. 2007a. “Kanshi Gaochang wangguo yu Rouran, Xiyu de guanxi
闞氏高昌王國與柔然、西域的關係.” Lishi yanjiu 2: 4–14.
Rong, Xinjiang 榮新江. 2007b. “Tulufan xinchu songshi wenshu yu Kanshi Gaochang
wangguo de junxian chengzhen 吐魯番新出送使文書與闞氏高昌王國的郡縣城
鎮.” Dunhuang Tulufan yanjiu 10: 21–41.
Rong, Xinjiang 榮新江. 2007c. “Xinchu Tulufan wenshu suojian de Suteren 新出吐魯番
文書所見的粟特人.” Tulufanxue yanjiu 吐魯番學研究1: 28–35.
Rong, Xinjiang 榮新江. 2009. “Further Remarks on Sogdians in the Western Regions.”
In: W. Sundermann, A. Hintze, and F. de Blois, eds. Exegisti Monumenta. Festschrift
in Honour of Nicholas Sims-Williams. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 399–416.
Rong, Xinjiang et al. 2007. Tulufan wen shu zong mu: Ou Mei shou cang juan 吐魯番文
書總目：歐美收藏卷. Wuchang, Wuhan University Press.
Rong, Xinjiang et al. 2008. Xinhuo Tulufan chutu wenxian 新獲吐魯番出土文獻. Beijing:
Zhonghua shuju.
Rong, Xinjiang and Wen Xin 文欣. 2009a. “Newly Discovered Chinese-Khotanese
Bilingual Tallies.” JIAAA 3: 99–118.
Rong, Xinjiang and Wen Xin 文欣. 2009b. “Hetian xinchu Hanyu—Yutian yu shuangyu
mujian kaoshi 和田新出漢語—于闐語雙語木簡考釋.” Dunhuang Tulufan yanjiu
敦煌吐魯番研究 11: 45–70.
Rong, Xinjiang and Zhu Lishuang 朱麗雙. 2011. “Tu wen huzheng: Yutian ba da
shouhushen xintan 圖文互證: 于闐八大守護神新探.” In: Rong Xinjing, Fan Jinshi,
and Lin Shitian eds. Dunhuang wenxian, kaogu, yishu zonghe yanjiu: Jinian xiang-
da jiaoshou danchen 110 zhounian guoji xueshu yantaohui lunwenji 敦煌文獻、考
古、藝術綜合研究: 紀念向達教授誕辰110周年國際學術研討會. Beijing: Zhonghua
shuju, 190–218.
Rtveladze, Edward Vasilievich. 1999. Velikiĭ shelkovyĭ putʹ: ėnt�siklopedicheskiĭ
spravochnik. Tashkent: Ŭ zbekiston milliĭ ėntsiklopedii�asi.
Saito, Haruyuki. 2006. Das Partizipium Präteriti im Tocharischen. Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz.
Sander, Lore. 1986. “Brāhmī Script on the Eastern Silk Roads.” StII 11 & 12: 159–192.
Sasaki, Ryōzaburō 榊亮三郎, ed. 1962. (Bon-Zō Kan-Wa shiyaku taikō) Honyaku
myōgishū 梵藏漢和四譯對校翻譯名義集. 2 vols. Kyōto: Shingonshū Kyōto Daigaku.
Bibliography 205
Schmidt, Klaus. T. 1986. “Bemerkungen zur westtocharischen Umgangssprache.” In:

Annemarie Etter, ed. o-o-pe-ro-si, Festschrift für Ernst Risch zum 75. Geburtstag, 635–
649. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Schulze-Thulin, Britta. 2000. “Die chinesisch-tocharischen Lehnwortbeziehungen:
Eine Studie zur phonologischen Interferenz.” Paper presented at XI. Fachtagung er
Indogerm. Gesellschaft. Halle, 9/2000.
Schwartz, Martin. 1974. “Irano-Tocharica.” In: Ph. Gignoux and A. Tafazzoli, eds.
Mémorial Jean de Menasce. Louvain: Imprimerie Orientaliste, 399–411.
Sekio, Shiro 関尾史郎. 1991. “Chūō ajia shutsudo tōdai ryōshō monjo ichiran 中央アジ
ア出土唐代領抄文書一覧.” Torufan shutsudo bunbutsu kenkyūkai kaihō 吐魯番出土
文物研究会会報 58: 1–4.
Sekio, Shiro 関尾史郎. 1993. “Chūō ajia shutsudo tōdai ryōshō monjo ichiran (Hoi)
中央アジア出土唐代領抄文書一覧(補遺).” Torufan shutsudo bunbutsu kenkyūkai
kaihō 吐魯番出土文物研究会会報 94: 7–8.
Sekio, Shiro 関尾史郎. 1997. “Kōtan shutsudo tōdai zēsē kankē monjo shōkō—Ryōshō
monjo wo chūshin to shite コータン出土唐代稅制関係文書小考—領抄文書を中
心として.” Hirata Kōji kyōju kanreki kinen ronbunshū—Rekishi ni okeru shiryō no
hakken—atarashii ‘yomi’ he mukete 平田耿二教授還暦記念論文集—歴史におけ
る史料の発見—あたらしい｢読み｣へむけて, 179–204. Tokyo: Jōchi daigaku bun-
gakubu Hirata kenkyūshitsu.
Shimada, Kan 島田翰. 1905. Kobun kyūsho kō: Tsuketari Kokon shokoku. Tokyo:
Minyūsha, 1905.
Shi, Senyou 釋僧佑. 1995. Chusanzang ji ji 出三藏記集. Edited by Su Jinren 蘇普仁 and
Xiao Lianzi 萧鍊子. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju.
Sieg, Emil. 1950. “Geschäftliche Aufzeichnungen in Tocharisch B aus der Berliner
Sammlung.” Miscellanea Academica Berolinensia, II (2): 208–23.
Sieg, Emil and Wilhelm Siegling. 1908. Tocharisch, die Sprache der indoskythen, vorläu-
fige Bemerkungen über eine bisher unbekannte indogermanische Literatursprache.
SPAW. Berlin: Georg Reimer.
Sieg, Emil and Wilhelm Siegling. 1921. Tocharische Sprachreste. I. Band: Die Texte,
A. Transkription; B. Tafeln. Berlin und Leipzig: de Gruyter.
Sieg, Emil and Wilhelm Siegling. 1949. Tocharische Sprachreste. Sprache B. Heft 1. Die
Udānālaṅkāra-Fragmente, Texte, Übersetzung und Glossar. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht.
Sieg, Emil and Wilhelm Siegling. 1953. Tocharische Sprachreste. Sprache B. Heft 2.
Fragmente Nr. 71–633. Aus dem Nachlass hrsg. von Werner Thomas. Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Sima, Guang 司馬光. 1956. Zizhi tongjian 資治通鑑. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju.
206 Bibliography
Sims-Williams, Nicholas. 1976. “The Sogdian Fragments of the British Library.” IIJ 18:
43–82.
Sims-Williams, Nicholas. 1985. The Christian Sogdian Manuscript C2. (Berliner
Turfantexte, XII). Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.
Sims-Williams, Nicholas. 1991. “A Sogdian Greeting.” In: R. E. Emmerick & D. Weber eds.
Corolla Iranica: Papers in honour of Prof. Dr. David Neil MacKenzie. Frankfurt: Peter
Lang, 176–187.
Sims-Williams, Nicholas. 1996. “The Sogdian Merchants in China and India.” In:
A. Cadonna and L. Lanciotti eds. Cina e Iran da Alessandro Magno alla Dinastia
Tang. Firenze: L. S. Olschki, 45–67.
Sims-Williams, Nicholas. 2001. “The Sogdian Ancient Letter II.” In: M. G. Schmidt &
W. Bisang eds. Philologica et Linguistica: Historia, Pluralitas, Universitas. Festschrift für
Helmut Humbach zum 80. Geburtstag am 4. Dezember 2001. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher
Verlag, 267–280.
Sims-Williams, Nicholas. 2002. “Ancient Afghanistan and Its Invaders: Linguistic
Evidence from the Bactrian Documents and Inscriptions.” In: Nicholas Sims-
Williams, ed. Indo-Iranian Languages and Peoples, 225–242. Oxford: Oxford Univ.
Press.
Sims-Williams, Nicholas. 2005. “Towards a New Edition of the Sogdian Ancient Letters:
Ancient Letter 1.” In: Eric Trombert and É tienne de La Vaissière, eds. Les Sogdiens en
Chine. Paris: É cole française d’Extrême-Orient, 181–193.
Sinor, Denis. 1990. “The Establishment and Dissolution of the Türk Empire.” In:
Denis Sinor, ed. The Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 285–316.
Skaff, Jonathan K. 1998. “Sasanian and Arab-Sasanian Silver Coins from Turfan: Their
Relationship to International Trade and the Local Economy.” AM, 3rd. series, 11.2:
67–115.
Skaff, Jonathan K. 2003. “The Sogdian Trade Diaspora in East Turkestan during the
Seventh and Eighth Centuries.” JESHO 46.4: 475–524.
Skjærvø, Prods Oktor. 1991. “Kings of Khotan in the Eighth Century.” In: P. Bernard
and F. Grenet eds., Histoire et cultes de l’Asie Centrale préislamique. Paris: CNRS,
255–278.
Skjærvø, Prods Oktor. 2002. Khotanese Manuscripts from Chinese Turkestan in the
British Library. London: The British Library. (Reprinted with corrections in 2003).
Skjærvø, Prods Oktor. 2004. “Iranians, Indians, Chinese and Tibetans: The Rulers and
Ruled of Khotan in the First Millennium.” In: Susan Whitfield and Ursula Sims-
Williams, eds. The Silk Road: Trade, Travel, War and Faith. London: The British
Library, 34–42.
Skjærvø, Prods Oktor. 2009. “The End of Eighth-Century Khotan in Its Texts.” JIAAA 3:
117–144.
Bibliography 207
Soothill, William E. and Lewis Hodous. 1937. A Dictionary of Chinese Buddhist Terms.
London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co.
Stark, Sören. 2006/2007. “On Oq Bodun. The Western Türk Qaγanate and the Ashina
Clan.” Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi 15: 159–172.
Stein, Aurel. 1907. Ancient Khotan: Detailed Report of Archaeological Explorations in
Chinese Turkestan. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Stein, Aurel. 1912. Ruins of Desert Cathay: Personal Narrative of the Three Expeditions in
Central Asia and Westernmost China, vol. 2. London, MacMillan.
Stein, Aurel. 1921. Serindia: Detailed Report of Explorations in Central Asia and
Westernmost Asia. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1921.
Stein, Aurel. 1928. Innermost Asia: Detailed Report of Explorations in Central Asia, Kan-
su and Eastern Iran. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Stein, Rolf A. 1981. “Saint et Divin, un titre tibétain.” JA 269: 231–275.
Stroumsa, Guy A. G. 1984. Another Seed: Studies in Gnostic Mythology, Leiden: Brill.
Stuckenbruck, Loren T. 1997. The Book of Giants from Qumran. Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck.
Su, Bai 宿白, 1999 Tang Song shiqi de tiaoban yinshua 唐宋時期的彫版印刷. Beijing:
Wenwu chubanshe.
Su, Yinghui 蘇瑩輝. 1965. “Cong zaoqi wenzi liuchuan de gongju tandao Zhongguo
tushu de xingshi 從早期文字流傳的工具談到中國圖書的形式.” Tushuguan xuebao
圖書館學報 7: 22–33.
Sundermann, Werner. 1984. “Ein weiteres Fragment aus Manis Gigantenbuch” in
Orientalia J. Duchesne-Guillemin emerito oblata. Liège: Centre internationale
d’études indo-iraniennes; Leiden: Brill, 491–505.
Sundermann, Werner. 1989. “Еще один фрагмент из « Книги гигантов » Мани.”
Вестник древней истории 190.3: 67–79.
Sundermann, Werner. 1994. “Mani’s ‘Book of the Giants’ and the Jewish Book of Enoch.
A Case of Terminological Difference and What It Implies.” Irano-Judaica III: 40–48.
Sundermann, Werner. 1995. “Who Is the Light-ΝΟΥΣ and What Does He Do?” The
Manichaean ΝΟΥΣ. Proceedings of the International Symposium Organized in Louvain
from 31 July to 3 August 1991, ed. A. van Tongerloo & J. v. Oort, Lovanii, 255–265.
Sundermann, Werner. 2001. Manichaica Iranica: Ausgewählte Schriften. Herausgegeben
von Christiane Reck et al. Roma: Istituto italiano per l’Africa e l’Oriente.
Sutō, Yoshiyuki 周藤吉之. 1960. “Tōdai chūki ni okeru kozē no kenkyū: Shūshi ichizoku
monjo wo chūshin to shite 唐代中期における戶稅の研究: 周氏一族文書を中心と
して.” In: Tonkō Torufan shakai keizai shiryō 敦煌吐魯番社會經濟資料 (下), Seiiki
bunka kenkyū 西域文化研究, vol. III), 225–241. Kyoto: Hōzōkan.
Suzuki, Daisetsu T. 鈴木大拙, ed. 1955–1961. Eiin Pekin-ban Chibetto Daizōkyō 影印北
京版チベット大藏經. Peking edition, reprinted under the supervision of Otani
University. Kyoto: Tibetan Tripitaka Research Institute.
208 Bibliography
Szerb, János. 1983. “A Note on the Tibetan-Uigur Treaty of 822/823 A.D.” Wiener Studien
zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde 10: 375–387.
Takakusu, Junjirō 高楠順次郎 and Watanabe Kaikyoku 渡辺海旭, eds. 1924–1932.
Taishō shinshū daizōkyō 大正新脩大藏經. Tokyo: Taishō issaikyō kankōkai.
Takata, Tokio 高田時雄. 2008. “Genson saiko no Daitō saiikiki shahon 現存最古の大唐
西域記寫本.” Itokura いとくら, 3: 10–11. Chinese version trans. by Gao Qi’an 高啓安,
“Jingdu Xingshengsi xiancun zuizao de Datang xiyuji chaoben京都興聖寺現存最早
的《大唐西域記》抄本.” Dunhuang yanjiu 敦煌研究 2: 47–48.
Takeuchi, Tsuguhito 武内紹人. 1984. “On the Old Tibetan Word Lho-bal.” In: Tatsuro
Yamamoto 山本達郎 ed. Proceedings of the 31st International Congress of Human
Sciences in Asia and North Africa II. Tokyo: Tōhō Gakkai, 986–987.
Takeuchi, Tsuguhito 武内紹人. 2009. “Tshar, srang, and tshan: Administrative Units in
Tibetan-ruled Khotan.” JIAAA 3: 145–147.
Tan, Qixiang 譚其驤 ed. 1982. Zhongguo lishi ditu ji 中國歷史地圖集. Beijing: Zhongguo
ditu chubanshe.
Tang, Zhangru 唐長孺. 1983. Weijin Nanbeichao shilun shiyi 魏晋南北朝史論拾遺.
Tang, Zhangru et al. 1992. Tulufan chutu wenshu 吐魯番出土文書, vol.1. Beijing: Wenwu
chubanshe.
Tazaka, Kōdō 田坂興道. 1940. “Kaikotsu ni okeru Manikyo hakugai undo 回纥に於ける
摩尼教迫害運動.” Toho gakuho 東方学報 11.1: 223–232.
Tekin, Şinasi. 1980. Buddhistische Uigurica aus der Yüan-Zeit. Budapest: Akadémiai
Kiadó.
Thomas, Frederick W. 1925. “The Language of Ancient Khotan.” AM, 1st series, 2: 251–271.
Thomas, Frederick W. 1935–1963. Tibetan Literary Texts and Documents Concerning
Chinese Turkestan, I–IV. London: The Royal Asiatic Society (TLTD).
Thomas, Werner. 1957. Der Gebrauch der Vergangenheitstempora im Tocharischen.
Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Thomas, Werner. 1983. Tocharische Sprachreste, Sprache B. Teil 1: Die Texte. Band 1.
Fragmente Nr. 1–116 der Berliner Sammlung, hg, v. Emil Sieg und Wilhelm Siegling,
neubearbeitet und mit einem Kommentar nebst Register versehen v. Werner
Thomas. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Rupprecht.
Thomas, Werner. 2003. “Bemerkungen zu den Fragments of the Tocharian A
Maitreyasamiti-Nāṭaka.” Indogermanische Forschungen 108: 305–329.
Tomiya, Itaru 冨谷至. 2003/2007. Mokkan, chikukan no kataru Chūgoku kodai: Shoki
no bunkashi 木簡・竹簡の語る中国古代：書記の文化史. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten,
2003. Chinese Version, Mujian zhujian shushuo de gudai Zhongguo: Shuxie cailiao
de wenhua shi 木簡竹簡述說的古代中國: 書寫材料的文化史. Beijing: Renmin chu-
banshe, 2007.
Bibliography 209
Tsien, Tsuen-Hsuin 錢存訓. 2006. Shuyu zhubo: Zhongguo gudai de wenzi jilu 書於竹帛:
中國古代的文字記録. Shanghai: Shanghai shudian chubanshe.
Tremblay, Xavier. 2005. “Irano-Tocharica et Tocharo-Iranica.” BSOAS 68.3: 421–449.
Tulufan Diqu Wenwuju 吐魯番地區文物局. 2007. “Tulufan diqu Shanshan xian Yanghai
mudi xiepo tudongmu qingli jianbao 吐魯番地區鄯善縣洋海墓地斜坡土洞墓清理
簡報.” Dunhuang Tulufan yanjiu 10: 1–9.
Uray, Geza. 1979. “The Old Tibetan Sources of the History of Central Asia up to 751
A. D.: A Survey.” In: J. Harmatta, ed. Prolegomena to the Sources on the History of Pre-
Islamic Central Asia. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 275–304.
Van Lindt, Paul. 1992. The Names of Manichaean Mythological Figures: A Comparative
Study on Terminology in the Coptic Sources. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.
Vorob’ev-Desjatovskij, V. S. 1958. “Pamjatniki central’no-aziatskoj pis’mennosti.” UZLGU
16: 280–308.
Waley, Arthur. 1931. A Catalogue of Paintings Recovered from Tun-huang by Sir Aurel
Stein, Preserved in the British Museum and in the Museum of Asian Antiquities Delhi.
London: The Trustees of the British Museum and Government of India.
Walter, Mariko N. 2006. “Sogdians and Buddhism.” Sino-Platonic Papers 174: 1–66
Wang, Bangwei 王邦維. 1988. Datang Xiyu qiufa gaoseng zhuan jiaozhu 大唐西域求法
高僧傳校注. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju.
Wang, Bangwei 王邦維. 1995. Nanhai jigui neifa zhuan jiaozhu 南海寄歸內法傳校注.
Wang, Binghua 王炳華. 2008. Xiyu kaogu lishi lunji 西域考古歷史論集. Beijing:
Zhongguo renmin daxue chubanshe.
Wang, Guowei 王国维. 1934/1993. “Liusha zhuijian buyi kaoshi 流沙坠简补遗考释.”
In: Wang Guowei and Luo Zhenyu 羅振玉, eds. Liusha zhuijian 流沙墜簡. Beijing:
Zhonghua shuju, 251–275. Originally published in 1934.
Wang, Helen. 2004. Money on the Silk Road: The Evidence from Eastern Central Asia to
c. AD 800. London: The British Museum Press.
Wang, Jingru 王静如. 1944. “Arsi and Yen-ch’i, Tokhri and Yüeh-shih.” Monumenta
Serica 9: 81–91.
Wang, Jiqing 王冀青. 1998. “Sitanyin disici zhongya kaocha suohuo hanwen wenshu
斯坦因第四次中亞考察所獲漢文文書.” Dunhuang Tulufan yanjiu 敦煌吐魯番研究
3: 259–290.
Wang, Juhua 王菊華, et al. 2006. Zhongguo gudai zaozhi gongcheng jishu shi 中國古代
造紙工程技術史. Taiyuan: Shanxi jiaoyu chubanshe.
Wang, Qitao 王啓濤. 2004. Tulufan chutu wenshu ciyu kaoshi 吐魯番出土文書詞語考
釋. : Bashu shushe.
Wang, Shunan 王樹枏. 1918. Xinjiang fanggu lu 新疆訪古錄. Shanghai: Juzhen fangsong
yinshuju.
210 Bibliography
Wang, Su 王素. 1998. Gaochang shigao tongzhibian 高昌史稿·統治編. Beijing: Wenwu

chubanshe.
Wang, Su 王素. 2000. Gaochang shigao jiaotongbian 高昌史稿·交通編. Beijing: Wenwu
chubanshe.
Wang, Su 王素. 2004. “Xuanquan Hanjian suojian Kangju shiliao kaoshi 懸泉漢簡
所見康居史料考釋 .” In: Rong Xinjiang and Li Xiaocong 李孝聰, eds. Zhongwai
guanxishi: Xin shiliao yu xin wenti 中外關系史：新史料與新問題. Beijing: Kexue
chubanshe, 149–161.
Wang, Xiaofu 王小甫. 1992. Tang, Tubo, Dashi zhengzhi guanxi shi 唐、吐蕃、大食政
治關係史. Beijing: Beijing daxue chubanshe.
Wang, Xiaofu 王小甫. 2007. “Baihuojiao yu Tujue xingshuai 拜火教與突厥興衰.” Lishi
yanjiu 1: 24–40.
Wang, Yao 王堯. 1982. Tubo jinshi lu 吐蕃金石錄. Bejing: Wenwu chubanshe.
Wang, Yongxing 王永興. 1994. Dunhuang jingji wenshu daolun 敦煌經濟文書導論.
Taipei: Xinwenfeng.
Watt, James C. Y. et al. 2004. China: Dawn of a Golden Age, 200–750 AD. New York:
Metropolitan Museum of Art. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Watters, Thomas. 1904–1905. On Yuan Chwang’s Travels in India, 629–645 A.D. 2 vols.
London: Royal Asiatic Society.
Weber, Claudia. 1999. Buddhistische Beichten in Indien und bei den Uiguren. Unter be-
sonderer Berücksichtigung der uigurischen Laienbeichte und ihrer Beziehung zum
Manichäismus. Studies in Oriental Religions 46. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Wei, Shou 魏收. 1974. Weishu 魏書. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju.
Wei, Si 衛斯. 2007. “Niya iseki nougyō no kouko tankyū ニヤ遺跡農業の考古探求: 精絕
国農業考古資料の総括 .” In: NIYA REPORT III, 315–325.
Wen, Xin 文欣. 2008a. “Zhonggu shiqi Yutian guo zhengzhi zhidu yanjiu 中古時期
于闐國政治制度研究.” Unpublished master’s thesis. Beijing: Peking University
Department of History.
Wen, Xin 文欣. 2008b. “Yutian guo ‘liucheng’ (kṣa au) xin kao 于闐國“六城” (kṣa au) 新
考.” Xiyu wen shi 西域文史3: 109–126.
Wen, Xin 文欣. 2009. “Yutian guo guanhao kao 于闐國官號考.” Dunhuang Tulufan
yanjiu 敦煌吐魯番研究 11: 121–146.
Whitfield, Susan ed. 2002. Dunhuang Manuscript Forgeries. London: The British Library.
Wickmann, S., D. Stauffer, F. Welington S. Lima, and Christian Schulze. 2007. “Modeling
Linguistic Taxonomic Dynamics.” Transactions of the Philological Society 105. 2:
126–147.
Wickmann, S., D. Stauffer, Christian Schulze, and E. W. Holmes. 2008. “Do Language
Change Rates Depend on Population Size?” Advances in Complex Systems 11. 3:
357–369.
Bibliography 211
Wilkens, Jens. 2001/2002. “Der manichäische Traktat in seiner alttürkischen Fassung–

Neues Material, neues Perspektiven.” Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher. N. F. 17: 78–105.
Willemen, Charles. 1992. “A Chinese Kṣudrakapiṭaka.” In: Asiatische Studien/Etudes
asiatiques 46: 507–515.
Winter, Werner. 1955. “A Linguistic Classification of ‘Tocharian’ B Texts.” JAOS 75:
216–225.
Wood, Frances. 2013. “Aurel Stein and Paul Pelliot.” In J.-P. Drège et M. ZINK éds. Paul
Pelliot: de l’histoire à la légende. Paris: De Boccard, 121–136.
Xia, Nai 夏鼐. 1958. “Qinghai Xining chutu de Bosi Sashanchao yinbi 青海西寧出土
的波斯薩珊朝銀幣.” Kaogu xuebao 考古學報 (Acta Archaeologica Sinica) 1: 105–10,
40–50.
Xiao, Xizian 蕭子顯. 1972. Nan Qi shu 南齊書. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju.
Xinjiang Kucha Grottoes Institution 新疆龜茲石窟研究所. 2000. Kezi’er shiku neirong
zonglu 克孜爾石窟內容總錄—Comprehensive Record of Contents of Kizil Grottoes.
Urumqi: Xinjiang meishu sheying chubanshe, 2000.
Xinjiang Qiuci Yanjiuyuan 新疆龜茲研究院. Beijing daxue zhongguo gudaishi yanjiu
zhongxin 北京大學中國古代史研究中心, and Zhongguo renmin daxue guoxueyu-
an xiyu lishi yuyan yanjiusuo 中國人民大學國學院西域歷史語言研究所.
Xinjiang Qiuci Yanjiuyuan 新疆龜茲研究院. 2013. “Xinjiang Qiuci Yanjiuyuan cang
mujian diaocha yanjiu jianbao 新疆龜兹研究院藏木簡調查研究簡報.” Wenwu 文物
3: 25–52.
Xinjiang Weiwu’er Zizhiqu Dang’anguan 新疆维吾爾自治區檔案館 et al. 2007. Sitanyin
disici Xinjiang tanxian dang’an shiliao 斯坦因第四次新疆探險檔案史料. Urumqi:
Xinjiang meishu sheyin chubanshe.
Xu, Shuhan, Wei Huang, Ji Qian, and Li Jin. 2008. “Analysis of Genomic Admixture in
Uyghur and Its Implication in Mapping Strategy.” The American Journal of Human
Genetics 82: 883–894.
Xuanzang 玄奘. 1911. Daitō seiiki ki 大唐西域記. Tokyo: Dai Nippon tosho kabushiki
kaisha.
Yamaguchi, Zuihō 山口瑞鳳. 1970. “Su-p‘i 蘇毗 and Sun-po 孫波, A Historico-
geographical Study on the Relation between rTsaṅ yul and Yan lag gsum paḥi ru.”
Acta Asiatica 19: 97–133.
Yamamoto, Tatsurō 山本達郎 and Ikeda On 池田溫, eds. 1987. Tun-huang and Turfan
Documents concerning Social and Economic History, III Contracts. (A) Introduction
& Texts. Toyo Bunko.
Yan, Gengwang 嚴耕望. 1985. Tangdai jiaotong tukao 唐代交通圖考. 5 vols. Taipei:
Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica, 1985.
Yang, Fuxue 楊富學. 2007. “Guanyu Huihu Monijiao shi de jige wenti 關於回鶻摩尼教
史的幾個問題.” Shijie zongjiao yanjiu 世界宗教研究 1: 138–146.
212 Bibliography
Yang, Xiaoneng. 2004. New Perspectives on China’s Past: Chinese Archaeology in the
Twentieth Century, vol. 2. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Yao, Silian 姚思廉. 1973. Liangshu 梁書. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju.
Yarshater, Ehsan. 1984. “Afrasiab,” Encyclopædia Iranica, I/6 New York: Encyclopædia
Iranica Foundation, 570–576.
Ye, Dehui 葉德輝. 1920. Shulin qinghua 書林清話. Beijing: Guangu tang.
Yin, Qing 殷晴. 1987. “Hetian shuixi biandong he luzhou xingshuai de lishi kaocha—
Jianshu chuanyue Takelamagan shamo de liangtiao nanbei tongdao 和田水系變
動和綠洲興衰的歷史考察: 兼述穿越塔克拉瑪干沙漠的兩條南北通道.” Xinjiang
shehui kexue 新疆社會科學5: 79–91.
Yin, Qing 殷晴. 1989. “Gudai Xinjiang shangye de fazhan ji shangren de huodong 古代
新疆商業的發展及商人的活動.” Xibei minzu yanjiu 西北民族研究 2: 138–153.
Yoshida, Yutaka 吉田豊. 1996. “Additional Notes on Sims-Williams’ Article on the
Sogdian Merchants in China and India.” In: Cina e Iran: Da Alessandro Magno alla
Dinastia Tang, 69–78.
Yoshida, Yutaka 吉田豊. 1997. “Sogudogo shiryō kara mita Sogudo jin no katsudō
ソグド語資料から見たソグド人の活動.” Iwanami Kōza sekai rekishi 岩波講座世界
歷史, vol.11, Chūō Yūrashia no tōgō (9–16 seiki) 中央アジアの統合 9–16 世紀. Tokyo:
Iwanami Shoten, 227–248.
Yoshida, Yutaka 吉田豊. 1997a. Review of R. E. Emmerick and M. I. Vorob’ëva-
Desjatovskaja, Saka Documents Text, Volume III. BSOAS 60: 567–569.
Yoshida, Yutaka 吉田豊. 2006. Kōtan shutsudo 8–9 seki no kōtango sezoku monjo ni
kansuru oboe gaki コータン出土8–9世紀のコータン語世俗文書に関する覺え
書き. Monograph Series in Foreign Studies, vol. 38. Kobe: Kobe City University of
Foreign Studies.
Yoshida, Yutaka 吉田豊. 2007. “Notes on the Khotanese Secular Documents of the 8th–
9th Centuries.” In: Maria Macuch, Mauro Maggi and Werner Sundermann, eds.,
Iranian Languages and Texts from Iran and Turan: Ronald E. Emmerick Memorial
Volume, 463–472. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Yoshida, Yutaka 吉田豊. 2008. “On the Taxation System of Pre-Islamic Khotan.” Acta
Asiatica 94: 95–126.
Yu, Jiaxi 余嘉錫. 1963. “Shuce zhidu bukao 書冊制度補考.” Yu Jiaxi lunxue zazhu
余嘉錫論學雜著. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 539–559.
Yu, Taishan 余太山. 2003. Lianghan Weijin Nanbeichao zhengshi xiyuzhuan yanjiu
兩漢魏晉南北朝正史西域傳研究. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju.
Yu, Taishan 余太山. 1986. “Rouran yu xiyu guanxi shukao 柔然與西域關係述考.” Yada
shi yanjiu 嚈噠史研究. Jinan: Qilu shushe, 193–196.
Yu, Xin 余欣 and Chen Hao 陳昊. 2007. “Tulufan Yanghai chutu Gaochang zaoqi xieben
Yizazhan kaoshi 吐魯番洋海出土高昌早期寫本《易雜占》考釋.” Dunhuang
Tulufan yanjiu 10: 57–84.
Bibliography 213
Yu, Zhiyong 于志勇. 1998. “Niya yizhi de kaogu faxian yu yanjiu 尼雅遺址的考古發現
與研究.” Xinjiang wenwu 新疆文物 1: 53–68 + 102.
Zhang, Defang 張德芳. 2004. “Xuanquan hanjian zhong ruogan xiyu ziliao kaolun
懸泉漢簡中若干西域資料考論 (An Investigation into some notes on Western
Regions in Han Wooden Slips from Xuanquan, Dunhuang)”, Zhongwai guanxishi:
xin shiliao yu xin wenti (Sino-Foreign Relations: New Historical Materials and New
Issues), Beijing, kexue chubanshe, 129–139.
Zhang, Guangda 張廣達. 1986. “Tangdai liuhuzhou dengdi de zhaowu jiuxing 唐代
六胡州等地的昭武九姓.” Beijing daxue xuebao 北京大學學報. 2: 71–82+128.
Zhang, Guangda 張廣達. 1995. “Tangdai Liuhuzhou dengdi de Zhaowu jiuxing 唐代
六胡州等地的昭武九姓.” In: Zhang Guangda, Xiyu shidi conggao chugao 西域史地
叢稿初編. Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe, 249–279.
Zhang, Guangda 張廣達. 2005. ‘Tang dai Han yi Monijiao ca jing—Xinwang, xiang, san-
chang, sichu, zhongzi deng ciyu shishi’ 唐代漢譯摩尼教殘卷—心王、相、三常、
四處、種子等詞語試釋.” Tōhō gakuhō 東方学報 77: 65–105 [336–76].
Zhang, Guangda and Geng Shimin. 1980. “Suolimi kao 唆里迷考.” Lishi yanjiu 2: 147–
159. Reprinted in: Zhang Guangda Wenji, Wenshu Dianji yu Xiyu Shidi 張廣達文集：
文書典籍與西域史地. Guilin: Guangxi shida chubanshe (2008), 25–41.
Zhang, Guangda and Rong Xinjiang. 1986a. “Dunhuang ‘ruixiang ji’, ruixiang tu ji qi
fanying de Yutian 敦煌“瑞像記”、瑞像圖及其反映的于闐.” Dunhuang Tulufan
wenxian yanjiu lunji 敦煌吐魯番文獻研究論集 3: 69–147. Reprinted in Zhang and
Rong 2008: 166–223.
Zhang, Guangda and Rong Xinjiang. 1986b. “Yutian fosi zhi” 于闐佛寺志 [A Gazetteer
of the Buddhist Monasteries and Temples of Khotan], Shijie zongjiao yanjiu 世界
宗教研究 [Studies in World Religions] 3 (1986): 140–149; reprinted in Zhang-Rong
2008: 224–239.
Zhang, Guangda and Rong Xinjiang. 1993 [1988]. “Guanyu Hetian chutu Yutian wen
xian de niandai jiqi xiangguan wenti 關於和田出土于闐文献的年代及其相関問題.”
In: Yutian shi congkao 于闐史叢考, 71–97. Shanghai: Shanghai shudian. Originally
published in Tōyō gakuhō 東洋學報 69 (1/2): 59–62.
Zhang, Guangda and Rong Xinjiang. 1997. “Ba shiji xiaban zhi jiu shiji chu de Yutian
八世紀下半至九世紀初的于闐.” Tang yanjiu 唐研究3: 339–361.
Zhang, Guangda and Rong Xinjiang. 1998. “A Concise History of the Turfan Oasis and
Its Exploration.” Asia Major, 3rd ser., 11. 2: 13–36.
Zhang, Guangda and Rong Xinjiang. 2002. Sheng Bidebao cang Hetian chutu Hanwen
wenshu kaoshi 聖彼得堡藏和田出土漢文文書考釋.” Dunhuang Tulufan yanjiu 敦煌
吐魯番研究 6: 221–241.
Zhang, Guangda and Rong Xinjiang. 2008. Yutian shi congkao 于闐史叢考. 2nd ed.
Beijing: Zhongguo renmin daxue chubanshe.
214 Bibliography
Zhang, Guangda and Rong Xinjiang. 2009. “On the Dating of the Khotanese Documents
from the Area of Khotan.” JIAAA 3: 149–156.
Zhang, Tienan 張鐵男. 2007. “Sinkyō bunbutsu kouko kenkyūjyo nado sankasyo ni
syozō sareru Niya iseki syutudo kantoku to monjyo 新疆文物考古研究所など3ヶ所
に所蔵されるニヤ遺跡出土簡牘と文書.” In: NIYA REPORT III, 293–308.
Zhang, Tingyu 張廷玉. 1974. Mingshi 明史. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju.
Zhang, Xun 章巽. 1985. Faxian zhuan jiaozhu 法顯傳校注. Shanghai: Shanghai guji
chubanshe.
Zhang, Yichun 張一純. 1963. Jingxingji jianzhu 經行記箋注. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju.
Zhang, Yisun 張怡蓀, ed. 2008. Bod ryga tshig mdzod chen mo. Pe cin: Mi rigs dpe skrun
khang, 1993. Reprinted 2008.
Zhang, Zhiqing 張志清. 2007. “Les sceaux de formules incantatoires imagées du
taoïsme et du bouddhisme et l’origine de l’imprimerie.” Histoire et civilisation du
livre 3: 23–41. (Chinese version), “Fo Daojiao yinshua fuzhou dui diaoban yin
shuashu qiyuan de yingxiang 道教印刷符咒対雕版印刷術起源的影響.” In: Michela
Bussotti et Han Qi, Zhongguo he Ouzhou: Yinshuashu yu shuji shi 中國和歐洲：印刷
術與書籍史 . Beijing: Shangwu yinshuguan, 2008.
Zhao, Wanli 趙萬里. 1956. Hanwei Nanbeichao muzhi jishi 漢魏南北朝墓誌集釋.
Beijing: Kexue chubanshe.
Zheng, Zhenduo 鄭振鐸. 1940–1947. Zhongguo banhuashi tulu 中國版畫史圖錄.
Shanghai: Zhongguo banhuashi she, vol. 20.
Zhongguo Ditu Chubanshe 中國地圖出版社, ed. 2004. Zhongguo dituji 中國地圖集.
Beijing: Zhongguo ditu chubanshe.
Zhongguo Kexueyuan Lishi Yanjiusuo 中國科學院歷史研究所, ed. 1962. Rouran ziliao
jilu 柔然資料輯錄. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju.
Zhongri Rizhong Gongtong Niya Yiji Xueshu Diaocha Dui 中日日中共同尼雅遺跡学術
調查隊. 2007. Zhongri Rizhong gongtong Niya yiji xueshu diaocha baogaoshu 中日·
日中共同尼雅遺跡学術調査報告書, vols. II–III, (Chinese and Japanese versions),
Kyoto: Bukkyō Daigaku Niya Iseki Gakujutsu Kenkyū Kikō; Xinjiang: Weiwuer
Zizhiqu wen wu ju. (NIYA REPORT, II and III).
Zhu, Lishuang 朱麗雙. 2010. “Yutian Aluohan shouji duikan yu yanjiu 《于闐阿羅
漢授記》對勘與研究.” In: Zhu Fengyu 朱鳳玉 and Wang Juan 汪娟, eds. Zhang
Guangdai xiansheng bashi huadan zhushou wenji 張廣達先生八十華誕祝壽文集.
Taipei: Xinwenfeng chuban gongsi, 605–676.
Zhu, Lishuang 朱麗雙. Forthcoming. “Yutian jiaofashi yi zhu” 《于闐教法史》譯注
[Translation and Annotation to Li yul chos kyi lo rgyus].
Index
Page numbers in italic followed by p or pp and the historical geography of the Kizil
refer to plates. grottoes 38, 44
Paris laissez-passers compared with 34,
Adams, Douglas Q. 133, 136, 138 36, 39–42
Dictionary of Tocharian B 3, 3n5, 3n8, text of 36–37
4n12, 41n18, 41n20, 42 and the use of paper laissez-passers 38,
Anatolia 136–38 43
Ancient Letters (AL) Bi Bo 87
discovery near Dunhuang 83, 92–93 Bögü Qaghan. See Mouyu Qaghan Idikän
goods listed in 97, 98–99 (r. 759–779)
Niya Sogdian fragment compared book formats. See manuscript booklets
with 83, 85, 87, 88, 92, 93 Book of Giants (BG)
paper used for 92–93 Kephalaion (Coptic) chapters as
the political situation of foreign adaptations of 47, 51
merchants in China reflected in 100 “Quotations and Allusions” 49–50
An Lushan Rebellion “The Sermon of the Light-Nous” (SLN) as
Mouyu Qaghan invitation to move south an adaptation of 46–47, 55–56, 58
by Shi Chaoyi 113–14 Traité (Chinese) as an adaptation
Mouyu Qaghan’s defeat of the An-Shi of 46–47, 51–56, 58
army 116, 125 Broomhead, J. W. 132n9
and the Sevrey Inscription 144–45 Brough, John 89–90, 91, 91n31, 153n62
and the tribes of the Toquz Oghuz 112–13 Burlak, Svetlana 133
Anthony, David W. 136n21 Burrow, Thomas 138
Arakawa, Masaharu 64n9 Bu ston Rin chen grub, Bu ston chos ‘byung
Archives of China and Tibet. See rGya bod yig (History of Religion) 147–48
tshang chen mo
Carling, Gerd 133
Bai (“white”) Carter, Thomas F. 30
as the marker of Kuchean ethnicity 15 Chang, Bide 25
as the surname of the Kuchean royal chao documents
family 135–36 Hedin 15 and 16 and Dumaqu C and D
Bailey, Harold Walter 130, 134, 163n194, 13, 13n40
164n216 Kongmusi document (Otani 8058) as
Barrett, Timothy H. 31 12n35, 15
Beishi (History of the Northern Dynasties) Tang period types of 11
names for the Syr Darya in 105 chao documents and chao as a term
on Rouran envoys in Gaochang 66n12, in the content of the TTD 11n28
67, 73n34, 77n59 and Khotanese word kṣau (pl. kṣau)
Benjamin, Craig G. R. 138 13–14, 15
Berlin laissez-passers (Tocharian B fragments and the Kuchean word ṣau 15–16, 17
THT1555 and THT1586) 35pp3.1–3.2 Chavannes, Édouard 89
description of 34, 38–39 Chavannes, Édouard and Paul Pelliot
discovery in the Kizil grottoes of 34, 38 54n23
glossary of 44 Chen, Cheng, Xiyu fanguo zhi 106
216 Index
Chen, Qingying, Han Zang shi ji 146, 147, transcript of 60–62

155nn95–96, 162n187, 165n226, 170n294 See also wuke (guests of Wu); Zihe
Ching, Chao-jung 34, 134 (Karghalik)
Clapperton, Robert Henderson 23–24
Collings, Thomas and Derek Milner 24 Faxian 70, 74, 102, 102n90
Couvreru, Walter 1, 130, 132n9 Filliozat, Jean 130
Fujieda, Akira 25, 26
Das, Sarat Chandra 146, 147, 149n17
Dunhuang Gamkrelidze, Thomas V. 136, 137
and the Northern Wei conquest of the Gaochang
Northern Liang 67–68 geographical importance for international
Sogdians in 95, 97, 103 relations 64–68, 79–82, 82p5.1
Yiwu-Dunhuang road 100 Xuanzang’s visit to 64
Dunhuang manuscripts and prints Geng, Shimin 3n3, 40n16, 115n10, 116, 131
name of Syr Darya in a manuscript Giles, Lionel 22, 26, 26n21
from 108, 110table Gimbutas, Marija 136
paper used in 23–25, 92, 93 Gippert, J. 132
wooden slips 94n49 rGya bod yig tshang chen mo (Archives of
See also Ancient Letters; Li yul chos kyi lo China and Tibet) (GBY)
rgyus; Li yul gyi dgra bcom bas lung authorship by sTag tshang rdzong pa dPal
bstan pa ‘byor bzang po (alias
Dunhuang, manuscripts and prints from cave Śrībhūtibhadra) 146
17 at Mogao proper names and divergent narratives
Diamond Sutra printed in 868 from 23, found in 148
30–32 three texts of 149n16
Diamond Sutra recopied in a manuscript in the Tibetan Buddhist canon (bsTan
from 31 ’gyur) 148
formats of 26–28, 28n28 transcription and translation of
fragment of an almanac (dated 834) 149–72
from 30
and the illustration of Hanshu
manuscripts 28–29 on emissaries from Kangju/K’ang-chü
palaeographic study of 20, 31–32 94n49
the paper of 23–25 “Monograph on the Western Regions”
and Pelliot’s remarks on the history of 74, 101n83
books 20–21 Harders-Steinhäuser, Marianne 24
Sir Aurel Stein on 20–23, 22n6, 22n8 Henning, Walter B. 86
and the debate over what to call the
Emmerick, Ronald E. and Margarita I. Tocharian language 134
Vorob’ëva-Desjatovskaya 13–14 Guti identified as Tocharians by 137
Enoki, Kazuo 90, 91n31 text A (Middle Persian documents)
“Envoy Document” from Turfan 49–50, 50n11, 53–54, 53table
(97TSYM1:13–5 + 97TSYM1:13–4) text B (Uygur document Mainz 317) 50,
dating of 62–63, 69 50n12, 56
discovery in Tomb No. 1 of the Yanghai text G (M7800 [TiiΞ]) 50–51
cemetery 60 Hephthalite (Hua kingdom)
and interstate connections on the Silk in the chapter on Western Regions in
Road 64–66, 65table, 81–82 Weishu 74–75
Index 217
expansion in the Tarim Basin 59–60, “Biography of the Uighurs” 111n1, 113, 119,
76–77 121
occupation of Sogdiana 59, 82p5.1 “Biography of Yuan Xiu” 122
Sassanid Persian Empire conquered suvarṇapuṣpa (Su-fa-bo-shi) in 136
by 59, 71, 74–75
and Udyāna 71, 76 Kagawa, Mokushiki 1
Hilmarsson, J. 133 Kaniṣka
Hittite and other Anatolian languages 129 in Old Turkic confession texts 176–80
Hoernle, Augustus Frederic Rudolf 128 Uyghur tale of his encounter with a ṛṣi
Hoernle document H.4 (= Or. 6408 (G.1), 181–85, 182p12.1
SFF: 334) 14n43 Kanmiu buque qieyun of Wu Cailuan 26
Hu, Pingsheng 98 Karabalgasun Inscription 142–43, 143n7, 145
Huang, Wenbi 15, 101n83 Karashahr. See Yanqi
Huili and Yancong, Xuanzang’s Da Ci’ensi Karawanepäss/päß. See laissez-passers; Paris
sanzang fashi zhuan completed by 70, laissez-passers
76, 106n9 Karghalik. See Zihe
Kāśyapa, stupa Gomasalagandha created
India for 150, 150n27, 154, 159
envoys from Tianzhu (India) to the Katayama, Akio 145
Northern Wei 77 Kephalaion (Coptic)
format of palm-leaf manuscripts 21, 26 comparative data derived from the 38th
Gupta kingdom 59, 71, 76–77, 82 chapter of 53table, 55table, 57table
northern routes taken by envoys correspondence between the human body
from 76–77, 80, 81–82, 82 and the cosmos in 38th chapter
Poluomen (country of the Brāhmans) as a of 47–48, 47n7, 48–49table, 52
general name for 76 rebellion of the watchers (έγρηγόρος)
Poluomen envoys in the “Envoy described in 49, 58
Document” from Turfan 61, 65table, 70th chapter of 47, 47n7
76–77 Khotan (Yutian)
See also Udyāna (Kingdom of Wuchang) Das on 146, 147
Indo-European languages and Hua kingdom (Hephthalite)
reconstruction of of Proto-Indo-European conquests 59, 74–75, 82p5.1
134, 136–39 Khotanese Supīya 87
Tocharian Language as a branch Li Yul as a term for 154n83
of 128–29, 138–39 official receipts (chao) from 11, 14,
Indo-Europeans 14n43, 17
Anatolia proposed as the homeland of 136 and political and military aspects of the
Russian theories of their origins 136, Kucha kingdom 1, 9n25
136n21 redistribution of levies among Khotanese
and the Yuezhi 137 prefectures 4n10
Inokuchi, Taijun 1–2, 5, 34n5, 130 “Six Towns” district 165nn233–235,
Itkin, Ilya 133 166n236
Ivanov, Vjacheslav V. 130, 134, 136, 137 Tibetan materials on the pre-Islamic
history of. See Li yul chos kyi lo rgyus; Li
Ji Xianlin 130–31 yul gyi dgra bcom bas lung bstan pa; Li
collaborations with Zhang Guangda xix yul lung bstan pa
Jiu Tangshu (Old Official History of the Tang) ’U then as a term for the capital city
“Biography of the Turks” 112n5, 119n16 of 154, 154n83, 155, 156, 157, 165, 167
218 Index
Khotanese words Kumamoto, Hiroshi 14

āmāca/āmākya-, 164n208 Kümmel, M. J. 133
ermvā 163n194 ’kwc(’)yk (“Kuchean”), as a personal name in
kṣau (pl. kṣau) 13–14, 15 Sogdian inscriptions 100n78
kṣuṇa- 16n54
pau (“onion”) 5 laissez-passers (LP)
ṣṣau (frequently written as ṣau) 7 as a term in Tocharian studies 33n1
thaiṣṣi (the shi) 163n194 formula twe ñi yaitkorsa mant (pyām)
Kim, Ronald 133 “You, (do) by my order!” 42
Kizil grottoes (Ming-öi Qizil) LP 1 (PK réserve 1517 B III.I) 33, 34n4, 42
finds from. See Berlin laissez-passers LP 2 (PK réserve 1517 B III.II) 33, 34n4
(Tocharian B fragments THT1555 and LP 11.1 42
THT1586); THT2692 and THT2852 LP 13.1–2 42n22
(Tocharian B fragments) LP 15 39, 40, 42
problematic dating of its LP 15.4–5 42
abandonment 43 paper fragments found in the Kizil
and the Yurpāṣka toponym on THT2692 grottoes. See Berlin laissez-passers
8, 9, 19 (Tocharian B fragments THT1555 and
Klimkeit, Hans-Joachim 50n12, 54n23, 131 THT1586)
Kljaštornyj, S.G. 110 wooden examples of. See Paris
Kljaštornyj, S.G. and V.A. Livšic 140–42, 144, laissez-passers
145 Lane, George Sherman 130
Kongmusi document (Otani 8058) Laut, J. P. 131
12n35, 15 La Vaissière, Étienne de 95, 99
Korean Tripitaka account of Xuanzang’s Lévi, Sylvain 9, 33, 33n1, 41n18, 130
biography 106n10, 110table Li, Zhengyu 143
Kōshōji manuscript account of Xuanzang’s Li, Zhizhong 26
biography 107, 110table Lieu, Samuel N. C. 46–47, 46n3, 48n8, 50n12,
Krause, Wolfgang 33n1, 34n5, 130 54n23
Kucha (Qiuci) Lin, Meicun 88–89, 88–89n12
and the absence of Sogdians along the Lin, Wushu 46, 120–21, 123–24, 127
northern route 99 Liu-Song court 82p5.1
and Hua kingdom (Hephthalite) envoys sent to the Gaochang and
conquests 74, 82p5.1 Rouran 72–74, 81, 82
official receipts (chao) from 14n43, 17 Liu, Zhen 131
Sogdian Buddhists’ activities in 17 Livshits, B. A. 110
Kucha Caves Institute in Kizil 132 Li yul chos kyi lo rgyus (Religious Annals of the
Kuchean documents Li Country) (LC)
and autonyms used by the people of Archives of China and Tibet compared
Kucha 135 with 151n40, 152n52, 153n62,
Sanskrit/Kuchean fragment preserved in 156nn104–105, 156n111, 156n113,
St. Petersburg 135 157n121, 159n148, 160n157, 162n180,
Kuchean words 166nn245–247, 166n248, 167n258
kucaññe iṣcake 135 in the Tibetan Buddhist canon (bsTan
ṣau 15–16, 17 ’gyur) 147
Kuchean royal family Li yul gyi dgra bcom bas lung bstan pa
Chinese surname bai (“white”) of 135 (Prophecy of the Arhat of the Li
Suvarṇa as part of kings’ names 135–36 Country) (LG)
Index 219
Archives of China and Tibet compared Maitreyasamiti (Maitrisimit nom bitig)

with 147, 148, 156n113, 168n261–262, and the Maitreya 131
169nn271–272, 169nn280–281, Tocharian A version of 130M
170nn282–284, 170n300, 171n302, Uyghur version of 129, 131, 135
171n316 Maitreyasamiti-Nātaka 130
in the Tibetan Buddhist canon (bsTan Malzahn, Melanie 34n5, 39, 132
’gyur) 147, 148 Manichaean manuscripts
Li yul lung bstan pa (Prophecy of the Li influence on the Chinese book 28
Country) (LL) texts. See Book of Giants (BG); Kephalaion
Archives of China and Tibet compared (Coptic); “The Sermon of the
with 147, 148, 150n28, 151n37, 151n40, Light-Nous” (SLN); Traité (Chinese)
151n47, 152n48, 152n50, 153n62, 153n72, Manichaeism
156nn104-106, 156nn110–111, 157n121, Buddhist aspects acquired by 126–27
159n135, 159n142, 159n144, 159n148, Mouyu Qaghan’s conversion to. See Mouyu
160n153, 160n155, 160n158, Qaghan Idikän
160nn160–161, 161n165, 161nn167–169, of the Sogdians 123–26
161n173, 161n175, 161n179, 162nn180–182, Ton Baγa’s attitudes towards 120–21, 122
162n185, 162nn187–189, 162nn191–192, manuscript booklets
163nn193–195, 163n197, 163nn203–205, Dunhuang codices 26–27, 28n28
164nn209–215, 164nn216–222, whirlwind binding (xuanfeng zhuang)
165nn223–224, 165n226, 165n228, 26–27
165nn233–235, 166n248, 166n236, Maue, Dieter 41n18, 133, 184n23
166n245–246, 167n258 Meng, Fanren 18, 90, 91, 91n31
in Bu ston Rin chen grub, Bu ston chos Menshikov, L. 26, 26n21
‘byung (History of Religion) 147–48 Middle Persian documents
on King Vijaya Sangrāma 161n172, “four twgr” found in 135
164n207 M101 and M911 book fragment 49–50,
in the Tibetan Buddhist canon (bsTan 53–54
’gyur) 147, 148 meh as a name-component 86
Loewe, Michael 90 St. Petersburg fragment (S I 0/120 II) 46,
Loulan (Kroraina) at Lop Nur 46n3, 54–55, 55table
Chinese wooden slip from 98 Mingshi 105
chün (commandery) possibly established Mori, Masao 140–41, 145, 145n11
at 90 Moriyasu, Takao 12n34, 114–15, 115n11, 123,
as a commercial hub and transport hub 126, 134–35, 141, 143, 143n8, 144
for the silk trade 96, 97, 100–101 Mouyu Qaghan Idikän (or Bögu Qaghan;
envoy routes through 80–81 r. 759–779)
paper used in 92–93 defeat of the An-Shi army 116, 125
Sogdian fragment from 83, 83n4, 85, 90, invitation to move south by Shi Chaoyi
92 113–14
Sogdians in 95–96, 99 and the Sevrey Inscription 144–45
trade in foodstuffs 99 Mouyu Qaghan Idikän (or Bögu Qaghan;
Luo, Xin 65n10 r. 759–779)–conversion to Manichaeism
and the political and cultural instability of
Ma, Heng 25 the Uighur khanate 126–27
Ma, Yong 90, 91n31 and Uighur commercial interests 121,
Macdonald, Ariane 146 123–24
Mackerras, Colin 144–45 Müller, F. W. K. and Emil Sieg 129, 134
220 Index
Nagasawa, Kazutoshi 91n31 Old Turkic

Narain, A. K. 137n22 “four twgr” on Old Turkic steles 135
93A27. See Niya dwelling site 93A27 and Ivanov’s work on
Niya Proto-Tocharian 134
abandonment of 103 Kaniṣka in Old Turkic confession
as the capital of Jingjue (Kh. Caḍ’ota) texts 176–80
90, 95 and the origin of the Tocharian variant of
Kharoṣṭhī tablets from building N.XXIV the slanting Brahmi script 133
(Kh.571, 590) 89, 91 proper name Izgil 40n16
lack of paper in 92–93 simä found in the Old Turkic inscription
Prākrit sources 1, 16n54 of Tonyuquq 3n3
and the silk trade 97–98 Otani Collection
Niya dwelling site 93A27 (N.XXXVII) 89, 94 chao documents in 11–12
floor plan of 87–88, 88p6.3 Kuchean monastic account. See —Ot.12
Kharoṣṭhī tablet with the seal from 89– Tocharian manuscripts 132
91, 94 Ot.12 (Tocharian B fragment THT2852)
Kharoṣṭhī wooden slips from 88, 2p1.1
88–89n12, 91–92 pau in 1–5
and site excavated by Aurel Stein ṣau in 6–11
identified with 87 translation of lines 11–12 2–4, 17
use of paper at 83, 84p6.1, 92–93 yāwyeṁ (hapax in THT2852.11) 2, 3, 4,
Niya Sogdian fragment 4n11, 17
Ancient Letters compared with 83, 85, See also THT2692 and THT2852
87, 88, 92, 93 (Tocharian B fragments)
dating of 87–89, 93
description of 84p6.2 Pan, Jixing 24
find-spot of 94 Paris laissez-passers
paper pouch of 84p6.1, 94 Lévi’s studies of 33, 33n1, 41n18
paper used for 94–95 Pelliot’s discovery of 33, 38, 38n11
text, translation, and linguistic phrase formulae compared with those of
notes 85–87 Berlin laissez-passers 36, 39–42,
Northern Wei 82p5.1 39n15
control of Karashahr and Kucha 59 Pinault on 33–34, 34nn4–5, 42
envoys from Tianzhu (India) 77 script compared with Berlin
envoys from Zihe to 74 laissez-passers 39
and Gaochang 66–67, 67n15, 80 Parthian texts. See “The Sermon of the
and Hephthalite expansion in Central Light-Nous” (SLN)
Asia 59 pau
Heping era [460 CE] of 62, 67 Inokuchi’s reading of 1–2, 5
Luoyang qielanji written during 70 in Ot. 12.11–12 2–5
military garrison in Yanqi 77–78 Pederson, Holger 130, 139n31
rivalry with Rouran (Ruru) 66–68 Pelliot Bois. See Paris laissez-passers
Pelliot Collection 22n8
Ogihara, Hirotoshi 134 booklets in 27
on recye (“pertaining to the army, distribution of documents in 29
military”) 3 Sylvain Lēvi’s work on Tocharian
on ṣuraṃnma (“knives”) 16 documents in 33, 41n18, 130
Oldenburg, S. F. 128 See also Paris laissez-passers
Index 221
Pelliot, Paul 134 Schmidt, Klaus T. 34n5, 132

manuscripts and prints from cave 17 at Schulz, William 129
Mogao discovered by 20–23, 22n8, Sekio, Shiro 11n31, 12, 13n40, 14n43, 15n47
24, 29n30 “The Sermon of the Light-Nous” (SLN)
on the origins and early stages of comparative data derived from 53table,
woodblock printing 21, 30–31 55table, 57table
on scribal errors 168n269 quotations and literary allusions to The
wooden ĺaissez-passers found near Kucha Book of the Giants in 46–47
by. See Paris laissez-passers stories told in 56
Persia. See Middle Persian documents; Setton, K. R. 25
Sassanid Persian Empire Sevrey Inscription
Peyrot, Michaël 133 finding of 140
Pinault, Georges-Jean 130–31, 132, 133 and the Sino-Tibetan treaty inscription
on initial ṣ instead of kṣ 16 discovered in Lhasa 143–44
on laissez-passers 33–34, 33n1, 34nn4–5, text and translation of 140–43
34n5, 42 Xin Tangshu reference to an inscription
on ṣmañe 3 identified with 144–45
Prākrit sources 1, 16n54, 43, 134, 138 Shanshan (present-day Ruoqiang) 67
chapter one of Chishi jing discovered
Qarašahr. See Yanqi in 71
Qarašahr-Turfan Language and envoys travelling to Gaochang
autonyms of the Qarašahr 72–73, 80–81
people 135–36 Tuyuhun territory in 72, 73, 80, 103,
and Tocharian A 134–35 103n93
Qiu Chuji, Xiyouji 106 Shanshan Kingdom
and Faxian’s route to Karashahr 102
Reichelt, Hans 83n3, 85 and the Khotanese Supīya 87
Renfrew, Colin 136 kings mentioned on a Kharoṣṭhī wooden
Ringe, Donald 133 slip from Niya 88, 88–89n12
Rockhill, W.W. 168n269 Niya as a subject state of 93, 95–96
Rong, Xinjiang, chao edited with Zhang tablet with seal of Shanshan duwei from
Guangda 14 Niya dwelling site 93A27 89–91
Rouran (Juan-juan) Qaghanate 82p5.1 Shimada, Kan 25
envoys from 65–66 Sieg, Emil 4n12
envoys travelling to 72 students. See Ji Xianlin; Thomas, Werner
and Gaochang 59, 66–70, 77–79, 81–82 Sieg, Emil and F. W. K. Müller 129, 134
and Hephthalite expansion in Central Sieg, Emil and Wilhelm Siegling
Asia 59–60, 76–77 TochSprR(A) and (B) 36n8
ryōshō mono (lingchao wenshu) 12, 12n34, Tokharian research 129–30
13n40 Silk Route
Niya as a staging-post on the southern
Saito, Haruyuki 133 route of 95–96
Sander, Lore 133 Sogdian use of the southern route
Sassanid Persian Empire conquered by the 95–96, 99–104
Hephthalites 59, 71, 74–75 switch from the southern to the northern
ṣau (receipts) 15–17 route 100–101
Schaefer, Christiane 132 Yiwu-Dunhuang road 100
222 Index
Sims-Williams, Nicholas 85, 86 Takeuchi, Tsuguhito 166n248

Sogdians Tamai, Tatsushi 132
close relationship with the Yuezhi Tang, Zhangru 72, 73
96–97n58, 96–97, 138 Tazaka, Kōdō 120–21
contract for buying a Sogdian slave from Tengri Khan, as Khan of the Nine Surnamed
Tomb No. 1 of the Yanghai Uighurs 113
cemetery 62 Thomas, Werner 1, 3, 130, 166n245
Loulan as a key location for 95–97, 99 THT1555 and THT1586. See Berlin
Manichaean Sogdians 123–26 laissez-passers
nine surnamed Sogdians 120n120, 121–22 THT2692 and THT2852 (Tocharian B
silk traded by 98 fragments) 2p1.1, 7p1.2
and the Töliš tribes 124 and the Kizil grottoes 5, 8, 9
travel on the Silk Route 95–96, 99–103 Mazar Tagh (Or.969–972) compared
Sogdian texts with 17
“four twgr” in 135 similarity of the features of both
fragments from Loulan 83, 83n4, 85, 90, 92 fragments 5, 5n15
M7800 transcription (of THT2692) 8–10
(I) 46–47 transcription (of THT2852) 10–11
(TiiΞ) 50, 51 uniqueness of 5
Sino-Sogdian text of the Karabalgasun Tocharian words
Inscription 143, 145 glossaries of 18–19
use of paper 83–84, 92–93 Artatewe (a proper name) in 8–9
See also Ancient Letters; Niya Sogdian [kä]nte (num. “100”) 8, 18
fragment; Sevrey Inscription kante (num. “100”) 6, 8, 18
Stein, Aurel klyinaṣṣi (impf. 3sg. of klin- “be
Kharoṣṭhī tablet with Chinese clay seal necessary”) 8, 10, 18
found at Niya 89–91 pau in 1–5
on the lack of paper at Niya 92 ṣau found in 5–11passim
and the manuscripts and prints from cave twā[n]kerräṣṣe (hapax in THT2692.4)
17 at Mogao 20–23, 22n6, 22n8 8, 9, 18
passport found at site N.XV 96 yāwyeṁ (hapax in THT2852.11) 2, 3, 4,
preparations for his fourth 4n11, 17
expedition 102n90 Tibetan materials
on the printed Diamond Sutra from Archives of China and Tibet. See rGya bod
Dunhuang 30 yig tshang chen mo
site N.XXXVII at Niya excavated by 87 and the history of Central Asia 147–48
Stein collection and Ivanov’s work on
booklets in 27 Proto-Tocharian 134
images from 29 pothi from Dunhuang described by Paul
Su Bai 31 Pelliot 20
Suishu (History of the Sui Dynasty), names for Sino-Tibetan treaty inscription 143–44
the Syr Darya in 105 TITUS project 5, 132
Sundermann, Werner 46–47, 50, 54, 54n23 Tocharian and Indo-European Studies (TIES)
Suto, Yoshiyuki 11, 11n28 133
Su, Yinghui 25–26 Tocharian documents
Szerb, János 143 Brahmi script used in 132–33
collections of. See Paris laissez-passers;
Tachibana-dera account of Xuanzang’s Pelliot Collection
biography 107, 110table digitizing of 132, 139
Index 223
in Japanese collections 130, 132 See also Ot.12; pau; ṣau (receipts);
paucity of administrative documents THT2692 and THT2852 (Tocharian
written in 32 B fragments)
in Paul Pelliot’s collection 130 Tocharians
two types related to the Maitreya 131 and the debate over what to call the
Tocharian language Tocharian language 134, 135
discovery and decipherment of 128, Guti identified as 137
129–30 and the origins and immigration patterns
and Hittite 129 of Indo-Europeans 136–39
proto-Tocharian 134, 138 Töliš tribes
Tocharian C 138–39 as the “nine surnamed Turks” 124
two dialects of. See Tocharian A; and the Nine Surnamed Uighurs 111–12,
Tocharian B 112n5, 120, 123
Tocharian A Tomb No. 90 of Karakhoja cemetery
dictionary of 133 account book kept by Zhang Wan
earliest composition of extant (recorder of Gaochang) 68–70
documents written in 132–33 dated documents from 63
fragments in the Berlin collection 129 Ton Baγa
känte (num. “100”) 8, 18, 129 coup d’état overthrowing Mouyu
and the Qarašahr-Turfan Qaghan 111n1, 120–22, 123
Language 134–35 and Manichaeism by 120–21, 122
Tocharian B Uighurs’ Chinese name of Huhe changed
and characteristics of Western to Huihu by 122–23
Indo-European languages 129 Tongdian
Dictionary of Tocharian B 3, 3n5, 3n8, “Decree of Banning Manichaeism” 127
4n12, 41n18, 41n20, 42 names for the Syr Darya in 105
earliest composition of extant Traité (Chinese)
documents written in 132–33 comparative data derived from 53–56,
kante (num. “100”) 6, 8, 18, 129 53table, 55table, 57table
and Kuchean 134 creation of human beings in 47–48,
the language of the Kucha kingdom 51–54
identified with 33 Tremblay, Xavier 133
nes- (“be, exist”) 4, 6, 18 Turfan manuscripts
simā (Chinese official title sima) Chinese document discovered in Tomb
2–3, 17 No. 1 of the Yanghai cemetery. See
See also Berlin laissez-passers “Envoy Document” from Turfan
(Tocharian B fragments THT1555 (97TSYM1:13–5 + 97TSYM1:13–4)
and THT1586); —Ot.12; Paris Chishi jing discovered in 71–72
laissez-passers; contract for buying a Sogdian slave from
THT2692 and THT2852 (Tocharian Tomb No. 1 of the Yanghai
B fragments) cemetery 62
Tocharian words Miaofa lianhua jing 62
glossary of THT1555 and 1586 44 official receipts (chao) discovered in 17
glossary of THT2692 and 2852 18 See also Tomb No. 90 of Karakhoja
recye (pertaining to the army, cemetery
military) 3 Turkic khanate
sāk- (“fix (something) up”) 3–4 tengri in names of khans 119, 119n16
ṣmañe (“pertaining to summer”) 3 Zoroastrianism used as a solidifying tool
twqry (Tocharians) 134–35 by 124, 127
224 Index
Uḍḍyāna 82p5.1 Wang, Yao 170n294

Udyāna (Kingdom of Wuchang) Wang, Yongxing 12n35
Chinese names for 70–71 Watters, Thomas 109
northern routes taken by envoys Weishu
from 76–77, 80 chapter on the Western Regions 70,
and the Northern Wei court 70–71 74–75
Uighur khanate and the dating of the Yongkang era 62
establishment of 112 and envoys of the Rouran in
recorded titles of 113, 117–19table, 120, Gaochang 66n12
120n120 envoys to the court of the Northern Wei
and Ton Baγa 121, 123 recorded in 59, 71
Tengri Khan’s reign as khan of 113 Whitfield, Susan 25
See also Mouyu Qaghan Idikän Willemen, Charles 185
Uighur materials Winter, Werner 33n1, 130–31, 133
codex books used by Uighur Witczak, K. T. 137
Buddhists 176 Wuchang. See Udyāna
fragment U4830 (T11 Y[arxoto] 6) 179 wuke (guests of Wu)
Kaniṣka’s encounter with a ṛṣi 181–85, in the Chishi jing from Turfan 71–72
182p12.1 in the “Envoy Document” 65table, 71, 72,
lingchao wenshu transposed as čuv in Old 73–74, 80–81
Uyghur 12n34
Maitreyasamiti (Maitrisimit nom Xin Tangshu (New Official History of the Tang)
bitig) 129, 131, 135 “Biography of An Lushan” 112n5, 125
and political and military aspects of the “Biography of the Uighurs” 111n1, 112n5,
Kucha kingdom 1 113, 117–19table
“the route of the Uyghurs” 79 on changing the Uighurs’ Chinese
text B (Mainz 317; TM 423d) 50, 50n12, 56 name of Huhe to Huihu 111n1,
Uygur fragments 56 122–23
Uighurs on Mouyu Qaghan 115, 116, 121–22
“Biography of the Uighurs”. See under Xin names for the Syr Darya in 105
Tangshu route from Gaochang to Yanqi described
Chinese name of Huhe changed to in 79–80
Huihu 111n1, 122–23 Sevrey Inscription identified with a
conversion to Manichaeism 111 reference in 144–45
literary tradition of the Turks inherited on Tongra and Buqut participation in the
by 119, 126 An Lushan Rebellion 112–13
Nine Surnamed clans of 112, 112n5, 113, Xuanzang, Datang Da Ci’ensi sanzang fashi
116, 117, 122–23, 127 zhuan (Biography of Xuanzang)
and the Nine Surnamed Töliš tribes duplication marks used in manuscripts
111–12, 112n5, 120, 123 of 107–8, 107n15, 110table
envoys sent by the king of Gaochang to
Wang, Bangwei 71n29 accompany him 64
Wang, Binghua 89 juan completed by Huili and
Wang Honggui (imperial guard of the Yancong 70, 76, 106n9
Liu-Song court) 73, 73n34 Syr Darya referred to as Yeye he in
Wang, Jingru 134 106–10, 110table
Wang, Shunan 62n6 Xuanzang, Datang xiyuji (Account of the
Wang, Su 68n16 Western Regions) 103n91
Index 225
on the building of Ma zha monastery by Yijing, Udyāna referred to as Wuzhangna by

King Vijiya Jaya 160n158 70–71
king named Gold Flower (Jinhua) in 136 Yoshida, Yutaka 14, 86, 87, 94–95, 100n78,
Syr Darya referred to as Ye he in 106–8, 162–63n192
108p9.1 translation of the Severy inscription
Udyāna referred to as Wuzhangna in 70 141–42
Yu, Jiaxi 25
Yanqi (Qarašahr [Karashahr] district of Yuezhi/Yüeh-chi 96n58, 96–97, 137, 137n22,
Xinjiang) 138
in the chapter on the Western Regions in
Weishu 74 Zhang, Guangda, Chinese Manichaean texts
and the “Envoy Document” from studied by 46
Turfan 61–62, 65–66, 65table, 70, Zhang, Zhiqing 31
77–80 Zhen, Liu 131
and Hua kingdom (Hephthalite) Zheng, Zhenduo 28
conquests 74 Zhu, Yuqi 15n15, 90n25
location of 77, 77n59, 82p5.1 Zihe (Karghalik)
and the Northern Wei 79 Cu gu pan as a reference to it 161,
remains of Tocharian A manuscript found 161n175, 162
in 130 envoys from 61, 65table, 66, 71, 72, 80, 81,
silver bowl with Sogdian inscription 82
discovered in 99 and the Hephthalites 74
Ye, Dehui 25 location of 74, 82p5.1

71dad457-01d5-4d4b-90a5-5a0422470d52

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

71dad457-01d5-4d4b-90a5-5a0422470d52

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

71dad457-01d5-4d4b-90a5-5a0422470d52

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Great Journeys across the Pamir Mountains

Brill’s Inner Asian Library

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/bial

Copyright 2018 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.

This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

A Note from the Editors vii

1 On the Word ṣau Found in the Kuchean Secular Documents 1

2 Dunhuang and Two Revolutions in the History of the Chinese Book 20

3 Two Fragments of Tocharian B laissez-passers Kept in the Berlin

4 Possible Adaptation of the Book of the Giants in the Manichaean

6 A Sogdian Fragment from Niya 83

8 A New Study on Mouyu Qaghan’s Conversion to Manichaeism 111

9 Beyond Deciphering: An Overview of Tocharian Studies over the Past

10 Historical Background of the Sevrey Inscription in Mongolia 140

11 “The Annals of the Noble Land Khotan”: A New Translation of a

12 Kaniṣka in the Old Turkic Tradition 176

1.1 Tocharian B fragment THT2852_seite1 2

ECSTW Tang Zhangru 唐長孺 ed., Zhongguo dabaike quanshu. Zhongguo

TITUS Thesaurus Indogermanischer Text- und Sprachmaterialien, Tocharian

Co-trans. with Zhang Xitong 張錫彤. Yuanshi wenhua shigang 原始文化史綱,

Trans. Kaoguxue tonglun 考古學通論, by A. V. Artsikhovsky, chapters 11 & 12.

Trans. Falanxi neizhan 法蘭西內戰 (草稿、初稿、二稿及片斷), by Karl Marx.

Trans. Sate Alabo 沙特阿拉伯 (Saudi Arabia), by N. I. Proshin. Beijing: Renmin

Co-trans. with Xu Tingyun 徐庭雲. “Sha’e zhengfu Zhongya shi pianduan

“Ping Daiwei Maikenqi zhu Tashigan zhi shi: Mi Ge Qie’erniyayefu (1828–1898)

“Oumei jinnian yanjiu Songshi jiankuang 歐美近年研究宋史簡況.” Zhong­

Shahuang Eguo qinlüe kuozhang shi (xia) 沙皇俄國侵略擴張史 (下). Chapters

Co-authored with Zhang Xintong. “Shilun Eguo Dongfang xuejia Wa Fo

“Tubo feiniaoshi yu Tubo yichuan zhidu: jianlun Dunhuang xingren buluo

“Yanjiu Zhongya shidi de rumenshu he cankaoshu (shang, xia) 研究中亞史

Collaborated with Ji Xianlin 季羡林 et al. Datang Xiyuji jiaozhu 大唐西域記校

“Tangdai Liuhuzhou dengdi de Zhaowu jiuxing 唐代六胡州等地的昭武九姓.”

“Afulaxi’abu cheng 阿夫拉西阿卜城 [Afrasiab],” “Akebieximu chengzhi 阿克別

“Guishuang 貴霜 [Kushan].” In: Sun Yutang 孫毓棠 ed. Zhongguo dabaike

“Zhongguo chuantong wenhua zai Xifang: lüelun Xifang dui Zhongguo

“Li Xun 李珣,” “Lianhuasheng 蓮花生 [Padmasambhava] (A: 265–266),” “Pei Ju

“Tangdai de li 唐代的吏.” Beijing daxue xuebao, 2: 1–10.

Co-authored with Rong Xinjiang. “Youguan Dunhuang chutu Yutian wenxian

“Sulian chuban de jibu minzushi zhuzuo 蘇聯出版的幾部民族史著作.”

1. Denis Sinor ed. Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia. 102–104.

4. Peter Zieme ed. Buddhistische Stabreimdichtungen Der Uiguren. 106.

“Tangmo Wudai Songchu xibei difang de banci he shici 唐末五代宋初西北

1. L. S. Savitsky ed. Opisanie Tibetskikh Svitkov iz Dun’khuana Sobranii

1. Catalogue des manuscrits chinois de Touen-houang, Fonds Pelliot chinois

“Oumei Hanxue lunzhu pingjie ji tiyao 歐美漢學論著評介及提要.” Hanxue yan-

Xiyu shidi congkao chubian 西域史地叢考初編. Shanghai: Shanghai guji

Co-ed. With B. A. Litvinsky and R. Shabani Samghabadi) History of Civilizations

Chapters in History of Civilizations of Central Asia, vol. III, The Crossroads of

“Historical Introduction” (with B. A. Litvinsky). 19–33.

“Xianjiao dui Tangdai Zhongguo zhi yingxiang sanli 祆教對唐代中國之影響

“Tanfo yu tanzhai: guanyu Dunhuang wenshu zhong de ‘Zhaiwan wen’ de jige

Review of Vostochny Turkestan v drevnosti i rannem srednevetov’e (East Turkistan

“Rongshe neiwai wenhua chengguo, yingjie ‘da shijian’ de tiaozhan 融攝內外

“China.” In: M. A. Al-Bakhit, L. Bazin and S. M. Cissoko eds. History of

“Dao Kelimukaite jiaoshou 悼克里姆凱特教授 [In Memoriam: Prof.

“Zaidu Wantang Suliang qi Mashi shuangyu muzhi 再讀晚唐蘇諒妻馬氏雙語

“Tangdai Chang’an de Bosiren he Suteren: Tamen gefangmian de huodong

Trans. Marianne Bastid-Bruguière, “Liang Qichao yijiuyijiu nian de lüju Faguo

Book Review of Les Sogdiens en Chine, sous la direction d’Étienne de la Vaissière

“Oumei jinnian yanjiu Songshi jiankuang 歐美近年研究宋史簡況.” Zhong

9 Thomas 1957: 306; Dict.: 679.

13 Bailey 1979: 250.

50 Pinault 1994a: 175–177, especially 176–177 n. 4.

Yurpāṣkaṣṣes coll. of Yurpāṣkaṣṣeṃts, gen. pl. of Yurpāṣkaṣṣe “of/pertaining to

1 See Pelliot 1908: 507–508.

5 Stein 1912, vol. 2: 175.

9 Stein 1921, vol. 2, p. 918.

16 For a comparison of the different results, see Drège 1986: 403–415.

23 Li 1981: 75–78.

26 Drège 2006: 343–371.

32 Stein 1921, vol. 2: 822.

35 Barrett 2001: 1–40. Zhang 2007: 23–41.

13 See Ching and Ogihara 2012: 75–112.