Mu Tianzi Zhuan - Sino-Platonic Papers

YU Taishan, “The Communication Lines between East and West as Seen in the Mu Tianzi Zhuan”
Sino-Platonic Papers, 197 (January, 2010)
Xiongnu"). “Ehu” [at-ha] can be regarded as a transcription of “Wujie” [a-kiat]. Also, the Wujie
can be identified with the Argippaei as seen in Herodotus’ History (IV, 23). 19
3.3 余之人,穆天子歸途所遇。一說應卽卷二去途所遇□之人,亦卽卷四提及
的“珠余氏”。 20 今案:余之人可能就是□之人,而“余”[zjiu-jia]與“珠余”[tjio-jia] 亦
無妨指爲同名異譯。蓋“”卽壽字。 21 但三者未必同處一地。
3.3 “Shouyu people,” who were met by Mu, the Son of Heaven. It is suggested that they
must have been the “Shou… People,” seen in the second chapter, who were met by Mu, the Son
of Heaven, on his westward journey, who also are referred to as just the “Zhuyu tribe” in the
fourth chapter. 20 In my opinion, it is possible that “Shouyu people” is simply “Shou… people,”
and there is no harm in considering that “Shouyu” [zjiu-jia] and “Zhuyu” [tjio-jia] are different
transcriptions of the same name, since “” is an ancient form of “壽.” 21 However, the three may
not have lived in one place.
案:“珠余”與後來出現於《漢書·西域傳》中的“精絕”[dzieng-dziuat]、“鄯善”[zjian-zjian]
得視爲同名異譯。旣然精絕和鄯善人很可能和 Sacaraucae 卽 Sakā Rawaka 同源, 22 珠余之
人或余之人也可能是 Sacaraucae 卽 Sakā Rawaka 之一枝。果然,其人與赤烏之人也同出
一源。
Also, “Zhuyu” and “Jingjue” [dzieng-dziuat], “Shanshan"[zjian-zjian], which appear later
in the Hanshu, ch. 96A, can be regarded as different transcriptions of the same name. Since the
Jingjue and Shanshan people and the Sacaraucae (Sakā Rawaka) may have had the same origin, 22
the Zhuyü people were possibly a branch of the Sacaraucae (Sakā Rawaka). If this is true, they
and the “Chiwu people” also had the same origin.
(以上卷三)
(The above is in the third chapter.)
14