Chris M. Dorn'eich

Chris M. Dorn’eich
張騫
Zhang Qian
THE SECRET MISSION
OF HAN EMPEROR WU IN SEARCH OF THE RUZHI (YUEZHI)
AND THE FALL OF THE GRÆCO-BACTRIAN KINGDOM
(ANNOTATED COMPILATION OF EASTERN AND WESTERN SOURCES)
Berlin 2008

Chris M. Dorn’eich
張騫
Zhang Qian
THE SECRET MISSION
OF HAN EMPEROR WU IN SEARCH OF THE RUZHI (YUEZHI)
AND THE FALL OF THE GRÆCO-BACTRIAN KINGDOM
(ANNOTATED COMPILATION OF EASTERN AND WESTERN SOURCES)
Berlin 2008

CONTENTS
Summary IV
1 — In what year did Zhang Qian reach the Oxus River ? 1
2 — Are we entitled to equate ›Daxia‹ with Tochara ? 29
3 — How are we to understand the four names in Strabo’s list ? 73
Bibliography 97
Map 107
— V —

S UMMARY
The following study grew out of comments I started to jot down after Professor Falk had
given me a new article by FRANTZ GRENET: ›Nouvelles données sur la localisation des cinq
“ yabghus” des Yuezhi‹, Journal asiatique (Paris) 294/2–2006, published 2007. When the author
was so kind as to send me an off-print a little later, I read it once again with even greater
interest. My reaction was that for my own better understanding I wanted to clarify:
— the chronology of Zhang Qian’s mission;
— the meaning and extent of Chinese 大夏 (Da–xia);
— the correct reading of Chinese 月氏 (“Ru–zhi” in place of the mistaken “Yue–zhi”).
My comments kept growing over the next six or seven months and in time I found out
that the last topic was a very complex one and called for a separate paper. In the end, it was
superceded by a topic which evolved from the others: the number of nomadic nations that
ended Greek rule in Bactria.
(1) Chronology of Zhang Qian.
As far as Zhang Qian’s famous mission was concerned, I found it strange that for the
year of his arrival at the Ruzhi court, then on the north side of the Oxus River, I found so
many different figures. This was odd because the one and only source on this is the oldest
Chinese history book, the ›Shiji‹, mainly chapter 123, where Zhang Qian’s ›Report‹, at least in
part, is reproduced. He tells us therein that the Ruzhi had conquered the Daxia who were,
however, without a king. Many later authors understood this to mean that the Ruzhi had not
really taken over the lands south of the Oxus.
If Zhang Qian had arrived years after the advent of the Ruzhi, this view would be admissible.
But the following study shows that Zhang Qian arrived on the scene within a few
months of the Ruzhi takeover. From this it follows that the Daxia had become subjects of the
Ruzhi who were now fully involved in establishing a new order. They pointedly showed
Zhang Qian the flourishing markets in 藍市 Lanshi, the old capital of Daxia. It was only in
the very beginning that the Ruzhi, coming from Sogdiana, had preferred to establish the
(rather provisional) court of their king on the near side of the Oxus.
(2) Meaning of 大夏 Daxia.
The great problem of the otherwise excellent Chinese sources is the distortion of foreign
names when transcribed into Chinese. This is so to the present day. What unsuspecting
reader would guess that 美國, the State of “Mei,” is in fact (A)me(rica) ? Since high antiquity,
the Chinese transcribed foreign names in cumbersome ways and then abbreviated these
drastically — and not always to the first syllables of such a name.
The present study shows that the very old (impossible) equation Daxia = Bactria has
blocked the correct interpretation of the country, people and language named Daxia. Even
CHAVANNES, undisputed authority in matters Chinese, fell into this trap, printing Ta-hia =
Bactria. Later he did a fine translation of one chapter of the Tangshu and stated: “ Notice sur
le T’ou-ho-lo (Tokharestan). Le T’ou-ho-lo ... c’est l’ancien territoire (du royaume) de Ta-hia.”
Hence, Daxia was the ancient Tochara, the later Tocharistan. Tochara is not an equivalent
of Bactria, it is only its eastern portion: this makes a decisive difference. The second
chapter of the following study is based on the three crucial identifications:
— 大夏 Daxia = Tochara (not Bactria);
— 藍市 Lanshi = Darapsa (not Bactra);
— 濮達 Puta = Bactra (not Pu•kalåvatð).
All other assumptions are consequences of these three equations. They help us to understand
that the Daxia of Zhang Qian are the Tochari of Trogus — which is not at all surprising
as Trogus, too, states that the Asiani (Ruzhi) became the kings of the Tochari (Daxia).
These identifications also help us to realize that the Ruzhi, ruling Daxia from Lanshi in the
times of the Former Han (206 BCE – 25 CE), are still ruling from there at the beginning of the
— V —

Later Han (26 CE), i.e. over a hundred and fifty years later. This means that the Ruzhi had
been confined to Tochara for a long time — held in check by their immediate western
neighbors, the awesome Parthians, suzerains of a vassal Saka state in Bactra. The Parthians
even tried to drive the Ruzhi out of Tochara. Trogus, in the Epitome of Justin, tells us
that Artabanus attacked the Tochari, in about 123 BCE. The Parthian king is killed in action
and the situation remains undecided. About two generations later, in the first century BCE,
the Ruzhi break through the Hindukush rampart and establish themselves in the Kabul
Valley. A full century later still it is the founder of a new dynasty who unites all Ruzhi forces
under his command. With this, he is finally in a position to attack the mighty Parthians and
drive them out of three key positions: Kabul, Bactra and Taxila — in that order.
(3) Strabo’s List of Four.
Zhang Qian clearly describes the Daxia as the indigenous population of Eastern Bactria.
With this, it can be shown that the Daxia, or Tocharians, have never been conquering nomads.
With Zhang Qian we know that the Tochari had dwelled in the land of their name
since at least a few centuries — and under a wide range of foreign invaders: Achaemenid
Persians, Alexander the Great, Bactrian Greeks, Central Asian Sakas and then the Far
Eastern Ruzhi, who all left their mark in the Tocharian language.
It has often been repeated that Strabo lists four, but Trogus just two conquering nomad
nations in connection with the fall of Greek Bactria — and that the Chinese sources know
only one such nation, the Ruzhi. This study establishes the fact that the Chinese historians,
too, speak of two conquering peoples. In the ›Hanshu‹ we are told what had been overlooked
in all translations: the 塞王 Saiwang or “ Royal Sakas” had briefly ruled in Daxia/Tochara
before they were evicted from this part of Bactria by the Ruzhi.
With Trogus corroborated by the ›Shiji‹ and the ›Hanshu‹, Strabo’s vexed list becomes the
main target for the concluding investigations. One name on that list has always been questioned.
It will be shown now that, in fact, two names do not belong on that list: the Pasiani
and the Tochari. Strabo left an unpublished manuscript when he died. It contained hundreds
of marginal notes. With this we are safe to assume that Strabo had added the two names in
question in the margins of his manuscript. The later unknown editor took it for granted that
Strabo wanted to add these two names to his list — which so far included only the Asioi (Ruzhi)
and the Sakaraukai (Saiwang). Strabo in Amaseia had used the very same source as
before him Trogus in Rome: the ›Parthian History‹ of Apollodoros of Artemita.
In the past, the fall of the Greek kingdom in Bactria has always been reconstructed in a
way which remained in contradiction to this or that part of the historical evidence. Based on
a step by step evaluation of both the Western and Eastern sources, quoted verbatim, this study
outlines the complex sequence of historical happenings which lead to the destruction of
Greek power north of the Hindukush.
Thus, new insight is gained in a number of different topics. The more important are:
— The genuine Tocharians have for centuries been firmly settled in Tochara/Tocharistan;
— the conquering Ruzhi were confined to Tochara, or Eastern Bactria, for over 150 years, held
in check by the more powerful Parthians;
— in this long time the Ruzhi become known as the new (or pseudo-) Tocharians;
— the balance of power, in favor of the Parthians so far, is only reversed by the mid-first century
CE when a self-proclaimed Ruzhi king manages to evict the mighty Parthians from the
Kohistan, Western Bactria, and the Panjab as well as the whole of the Indus Valley. With this,
the foundations were laid for a new superpower in Central and South Asia: that of the Ruzhi
under the Kushan dynasty. Ptolemy, in the later 2nd century CE, splashes the name Tochari
(and variants) over all the places where the Ruzhi had been in the past three hundred years,
culminating in his calling the last Far Eastern “ ordos” of the Ruzhi — close to Han China, the
Zhaowu 昭武 of the Chinese sources (modern Zhangye 張掖 ) — Qog£ra (Thogara).
— V —

CHRIS M. DORN’EICH 2004
“ The Bowang marquis, Zhang Qian”
NEW STATUE IN FRONT OF THE ANCIENT GRAVE MOUND OUTSIDE CHENGGU (HANZHONG)
— 1 —

張騫
Zhang Qian
THE SECRET MISSION
OF HAN EMPEROR WU IN SEARCH OF THE RUZHI (YUEZHI)
AND THE FALL OF THE GRÆCO-BACTRIAN KINGDOM
(ANNOTATED COMPILATION OF EASTERN AND WESTERN SOURCES)
1. IN WHAT YEAR DID ZHANG QIAN REACH THE OXUS RIVER ?
Ever since the publication, in 1738, of GOTTLIEB SIEGFRIED BAYER’s Historia Regni
Graecorum Bactriani, St. Petersburg, the Hellenistic kingdom in distant Bactria has
intrigued students and scholars of Asian history. The exact time and circumstances of
the foundation of this ancient kingdom, in about the middle of the third century BCE,
have always been hotly debated. But the collapse of this highly developed culture — a
vibrant blend of Greek, Persian, Indian and local influences — about a century later
has proved even more difficult to elucidate, beyond the fact that it was due, as is well
known and universally accepted, to an onslaught of an uncertain number of nomadic
peoples, bursting forth from the wide steppes in the north-east of Central Asia.
Regarding the violent end of the Græco-Bactrian kingdom, north of the Hindukush
Mountains in present North Afghanistan, we have very short classical Western sources:
the extant Prologi of Pompeius Trogus and a few statements in the Geography of Strabo.
Of the 44 books of Trogus’ World History, published in the time of Augustus, books
41 and 42 primarily contained the history of the Parthians. But they also included remarks
on the history of the latter’s eastern neighbors, the Græco-Bactrians. Trogus’
bulky work has been lost, however, only his just mentioned Prologi and a pitiful Epitome,
done by a later hand and containing hardly more than one tenth of the original
work, have come down to us. Also lost is the original source book for both Trogus and
Strabo, namely the Parthian History by Apollodoros of Artemita. And lost, too, is Strabo’s
other (and earlier) main work, his History, which may have contained a chapter
on the history of the then eastern extremity of the Græco-Roman world.
As far as our written sources are concerned, it is a fortunate fact that we have on
the downfall of the Greeks in Bactria — for the first time in world history —, not only
Western, but also Eastern sources to draw from. These are the Chinese Standard Histories
正史, mainly the first two, the Shiji 史記 and the Hanshu 漢書. These two
Chinese history books reproduce the precious report of our sole eyewitness on the
scene, the Chinese emissary of Han Emperor Wu 漢武帝: Zhang Qian 張騫 (d. 114
BCE) by name — a man of outstanding abilities. To his sharp senses we owe a good
number of first-hand observations which, albeit in an abridged form only, have come
down to us.
The present paper endeavors to extract from the ancient Chinese sources what
Zhang Qian has to tell us about Bactria — and compare it with the knowledge from
our classical Western sources. In this connection it is curious to note that the actual
year in which Zhang Qian arrived at the shores of the Oxus River (modern Amu Darya)
and in Bactria is still very much disputed among modern scholars.
— 1 —

The Chinese sources, however, are unequivocal about this year. Various texts in the
Shiji unmistakably state that Zhang Qian — the first
Chinese envoy who traveled so far
west — was sent out in a secret mission by Emperor Wu, and eventually returned to
the Chinese capital Chang ’an 長安 in the spring
of 126 BCE.
It is narrated in the Shiji that this mission lasted
13 years. And Zhang Qian spent:
— “more than 10 years” 十 餘 歲 in captivity with
the Xiongnu;
— “more than 1 year” 留 歲 餘 with the Ruzhi (Yuezhi)
月氏 in Daxia (i.e. in the eastern
half of Bactria);
— “more than 1 year” 歲 餘 a second time as captive of the Xiongnu.
To this we have to add short periods of time for four journeys:
— starting from Longxi 隴西, the border town, until being arrested by the
Xiongnu;
— escaping from the Xiongnu (near Shule, i.e. Kashgar) until reaching the 月氏;
— returning
from Daxia until being arrested by the Xiongnu again;
— escaping from the ordos of the Xiongnu chanyu
單于 until reaching Chang‘an.
All four journeys together must have lasted less
than 1 year. Of the first we can surmise
that it lasted only days or weeks. The second one across the Pamirs and Sogdiana may
have lasted some 3–4 months. The third one is not so easy to estimate, but cannot have
been shorter than 3 months. The fourth should have been a matter
of weeks as the distance
was short and Zhang Qian this time escaped in the company
of Yudan 於單, the
deposed
Xiongnu crown prince, and the two men were able to help each other effec-
tively: Yudan in the Xiongnu Empire and Zhang Qian in Han China.
With this information, it is clear that the historic mission started in the spring
of 139 BCE — and not in 138, as even some Chinese and Japanese scholars believed
or still believe. It is clear, therefore, that our Chinese Ulysses arrived at the ordos or
court of the 月氏 in the company of just his Xiongnu servant Gan Fu 甘父 “after more
than 10 years” as a captive of the Xiongnu and some three to four months traveling, i.e.
in the summer of 129 — and not 128 as most modern texts erroneously tell us. This
is a particularly important correction.
Zhang Qian left Daxia in the fall of 128 and spent all of 127 with the Xiongnu again,
and then escaped a second time in late winter or early spring of 126 BCE.
In exile, the Xiongnu crown prince Yudan was made a “marquis” by Han Emperor
Wu on May 2, 126 BCE, but soon afterwards he died.
The third year ›yuan–shuo‹, fourth
month, (day) ›bingzi‹, was (the start
of) the first year of Yudan as marquis.
In the fifth month he died.
Shiji 20. 1031
元 朔 三 年 四 月 丙 子 侯 于 單 元
年
五 月 卒
It is surely of particular importance to know the exact time of arrival of Zhang Qian
at his
destination — the court of the Ruzhi (Yuezhi) 月氏, whom he found newly estab-
lished on the north bank of the Oxus River, the modern Amu Darya.
As for the Ruzhi 月氏, a short remark on their name is due here. The reading
“Ruzhi” for Chinese 月氏, which I give in this article, is rather new and still widely unknown
in the West. But as early as 1991: 92, the authoritative “Lexicon to the Shiji,” or
Shiji Cidian 史 記 辭 典, decreed:
月氏, pronounced Ròuzhð —【月氏 (ròu zhð 肉支)】...
n for this is that 月氏 is in fact an ancient 肉氏, to be read accordingly.
The reaso
The
magnificent catalogue to the exposition Ursprünge der Seidenstrasse (“The Origins
of the Silk Road”), which I saw here in Berlin in December 2007 and which is
based on originally Chinese texts, states on page 286:
... die Yuezhi (nach anderer Lesart: Rouzhi) ...
— 2 —

The modern reading of the Chinese character 肉 (meat) is “ròu,” but in ancient
times the reading was “rù” — which I prefer as it is closer to our extant Western
names of the 月氏, namely Rishi(ka), Asioi / Asiani, Arsi and ÅrÝi. For the same reason,
I like to see in ›氏‹, read ›zhð‹ with Shiji commentator Zhang Shoujie 張守節 (8th c.),
the closest-possible Chinese approximation to the sound of ›si‹, thus giving us Ru–si —
so much closer to the above Western names than “Yue–si” can ever be.
There is still more sound evidence for this identification. Whereas there are indications
that the sound of ›月‹ was › i u ɐ t ‹ in Middle Chinese, this sound, with the
help of Uighur-inherited pronunciations of Chinese characters, has been reconstructed
recently as an older, or Tang-time, › u r / a r ‹ which was written ›wr‹ and ›’r‹ in Old Uighur
script (Prof. SHÕGAITO 庄垣內 in a lecture in Berlin, March 2007). This, in all probability,
suggests a perfectly fitting revised reading of 月氏 as Ar–si.
As shown above, the historic date of Zhang Qian’s arrival at the Royal court of the
Ruzhi 肉氏 (later spelled 月氏, and for a long time incorrectly transcribed “Yuè–zhð”
in Pinyin) is: Summer of 129 BCE. In other words: Zhang Qian arrived in Daxia
within a few months of the final fall of the Greek kingdom of Bactria — which, as
can be deduced from numismatic and other evidence, still existed in the year 130 BCE.
To know this, is indeed of importance to clearly understand the Shiji’s description of
Daxia, located directly to the east of the final Greek possessions around the capital
Bactra.
It is interesting to note that the year of Zhang Qian’s arrival at the Oxus River was
correctly calculated by DE GUIGNES in 1759 and by BERNARD in 1973. In the more than
two hundred years between the two eminent French Orientalists we find an astonishing
range of incorrect calculations. 1759: 24, DE GUIGNES writes:
J’ai dit plus haut que Tcham-kiao rentra dans la Chine l’an 126 avant J.C. Il avoit employé
treize ans à faire ce long voyage; il étoit donc parti vers l’an 139 avant J.C. Mais comme
il étoit resté pendant dix ans prisonnier chez les Huns, il n’a pû arriver chez les Yue-chi
que vers l’an 129 ...
I stop quoting this early study here because the author goes on to say that Zhang
Qian 張騫 (Tcham–kiao) stayed with the Ruzhi 月氏 until the year 127 — & peut-être
une partie de 126. This, of course, is clearly impossible. 1973: 111, BERNARD writes:
Il est incontestable qu’en 129 av. J.-C. — la date du voyage de Chang K’ien est fixée de
façon sûre par les annales chinoises — la Bactriane avait perdu son indépendance politique
au profit des Yué-chi, mais elle gardait encore l’identité d’un état vassal ...
Here we see why it is so important to know the exact time of Zhang Qian’s arrival at
the Ruzhi 月氏 court: it is the closest terminus ante quem for the final destruction of
Greek Bactria we know of. Yet, almost nowhere in our modern Western literature — as
far as I can ascertain — are we told that Zhang Qian arrived at the Oxus and the court
of the 月氏 so early. This is all the more surprising as we have, today, as two thousand
years ago, just one primary source to guide us: the Shiji, or magnum opus of
Sima Tan (d. 110) and his son, Sima Qian (145–c.86). In 1825: 115-116, RÉMUSAT writes:
L’empereur … choisit pour son ambassadeur Tchhang-kian, qui partit, accompagné de
quelques autres officiers, pour aller trouver les Youeï-chi dans le lieu où ils s’étoient retirés
… Tchhang-kian avoit à traverser, pour venir dans la Transoxane, des contrées qui
étoient au pouvoir des Hioung-nou. Ceux-ci eurent connoissance de l’objet de son voyage,
et réussirent à lui couper le chemin. Lui et ses compagnons furent arrêtés et retenus dix
ans prisonniers …
Ils parvinrent à s’échapper, et vinrent d’abord dans le Ta-wan … En voyant Tchhangkian,
ils eurent beaucoup de joie … ils s’empressèrent de lui donner toute sorte de facilités
pour aller dans la Sogdiane. Ce fut là qu’il apprit que les Youeï-chi … s’étoient rendus maîtres
de Ta-hia. L’ambassadeur les suivit jusque dans ce dernier pays, au midi de l’Oxus;
mais il ne put obtenir d’eux de quitter une contrée fertile, riche, abondante en toute sorte
— 3 —

de productions, pour revenir dans les déserts de la Tartarie faire la guerre aux Hioung-nou.
Tchang-kian, fort mécontent du mauvais succès de sa négociation, et ayant encore perdu
une année chez les Youeï-chi … il prit sa route à travers les montagnes du Tibet: mais cela
ne lui servit de rien; les Hioung-nou, dont les courses s’étendoient jusque là, le prirent encore
une fois, et le retinrent assez long-temps. Il parvint enfin à s’échapper, à la faveur des
troubles qui suivirent la mort du Tchhen-iu régnant, et revint en Chine après treize ans
d’absence,
accompagné d’un seul de ses collègues, le reste de l’ambassade.
Leaving aside a few minor flaws in this rendering of the story as told in Shiji 123,
RÉMUSAT does not give his readers any idea about the absolute chronology of Zhang
Qian’s historic mission. To do so, he would have had to state the name of the Xiongnu
chanyu 單于 (emperor) who had died when Zhang Qian finally escaped in the company
of that
chanyu’s son and crown prince. To find out, RÉMUSAT would have had to
read
Shiji 110. We do not know whether he did. From this early translation, it is impossible
to know in what year Zhang Qian arrived at the Oxus River.
One year later, 1826: 57, KLAPROTH told the story this way:
La nation de Yue tchi habitait alors entre l’extrémité occidentale de la province de Chen
si, les Montagnes célestes et le Kuen lun, c’est-à-dire dans le pays que nous appelons à
présent le Tangout, où elle avait formé un royaume puissant. En 165, les Hioung nous l’attaquèrent,
la chassèrent à l’occident, ou elle se fixa en Transoxiane.
L’empereur Wou ti rechercha l’alliance des Yue tchi, parcequ’il espérait qu’ils se réuniraient
avec lui contre les Hioung nou. Le Tchhen yu ayant pénétré ce dessein chercha tous
les moyens pour le faire échouer.
Tchang khian s’était offert à l’empereur pour entreprendre le voyage en Transoxiane, et
il avait demandé à être accompagné d’environ cent hommes; mais, en passant par le pays
des
Hioung nou, il fut arrêté avec sa suite et retenu prisonnier pendant dix ans; au bout de
ce temps il trouva l’occasion de s’évader, et marcha du côté de l’ouest. Il trouva les Yue tchi
dans leur nouveau pays. L’envoyé chinois y séjourna pendant plus d’un an, au bout duquel,
repassant chez les Hioung
nou, il fut fait de nouveau prisonnier; mais il s’échappa, et revint
en Chine après treize ans d’absence.
In the margin of his text, next to the line Tchang khian s’était…, KLAPROTH gives
“126 av. J.-C.” This way it is left to the imagination of the reader whether this absolute
year
applies to the departure from Chang’an, the arrival at the Oxus, or the return to
China
of Zhang Qian. A few pages later KLAPROTH adds:
Le voyage que le général chinois Tchang khian entreprit, en 126 avant notre ère, dans
les pays occidentaux, avait pour but de susciter des ennemis aux Hioung nou.
From this sentence, readers were led to believe that the year stated was that of the
departure of Zhang Qian. We may note here that we have to combine the texts of the
two translators to get close to what is actually said in Shiji 123. And it is interesting to
see that from now on Zhang Qian will always be a general in this story — as if he had
been undertaking a military mission. In reality, this secret mission was purely
political. Zhang Qian was only made a general a few years after his return to China as
a reward
for his merits as an ambassador.
In 1836: 37-38, RÉMUSAT writes in a foot note to his splendid translation, published
posthumously,
of the Foguoji 佛國記, or “Memoirs of the Buddhist Kingdoms,” by the
Chinese
Buddhist monk and pilgrim to India in the years 399–414, Fa Xian 法顯,
edited
by KLAPROTH, who also died before the final publication:
Tchang khian, que
DEGUIGNES, par erreur, a nommé Tchang kiao, est un général chinois
qui,
sous le règne de Wou ti de la dynastie des Han, l’an 122 avant J. C., fit la première expédition
mémorable dans l’Asie centrale. On l’avait envoyé en ambassade chez les Yue ti,
mais il avait été retenu par les Hioung nou, et gardé dix ans chez ces peuples. Il s’y était
même marié et avait eu des enfants. Durant ce séjour, il avait acquis une connaissance
étendue des contrées situées à l’occident de la Chine. Il finit par s’échapper et s’enfuit à
— 4 —

plusieurs dizaines de journées du côté de l’ouest, jusque dans le Ta wan (Farghana). De là
il passa dans le Khang kiu (la Sogdiane), le pays des Yue ti et celui des Dahæ [Daxia].
Pour éviter à son retour les obstacles qui l’avaient arrêté, il voulut passer au milieu des
montagnes, par le pays des Khiang (le Tibet), mais il ne put éviter d’être encore pris par
les Hioung nou … Il parvint à s’échapper de nouveau et revint en Chine après treize ans,
n’ayant plus que deux compagnons, sur cent qui avaient formé sa suite à son départ. Les
contrées qu’il avait visitées en personne étaient le Ta wan, le pays des grands Yue ti, celui
des
Ta hia (Dahæ) et le Khang kiu ou la Sogdiane.
Comparing these texts with the Chinese original one realizes that the translators
mixed their own comments into their renditions. What, then, did the Chinese text of
Shiji 123 really say?
To be sure, as early as 1828 one of the students of RÉMUSAT published a full and pioneering
translation of this important chapter of the Shiji. He had done it under the
close guidance of his teacher RÉMUSA T.
His name was given as Brosset
jeune (“Brosset
jun ior”) — he was Monsieur Marie-Félicité Brosset who soon abandoned his sinological
studies in favor of other Oriental languages. One reason may have been that his
struggles
with the Chinese language went largely unnoticed by the scholarly community
o f Western Europe. Unfortunately, young Brosset’s French translation was reproduced
without the original text. I include it here for the sake of easy comparison.
( BROSSET 1828: 418–421)
Les
traces des Ta ouan (Fergana) sont con-
nues
depuis Tchang–kien,
capitaine
des Han, en l’année ›kien–youen‹
( 140 ans avant J.-C.).
A cette époque, le fils du Ciel interrogeant
des
Hiong–nou qui s’étaient soumis, apprit
que
les Hiong–nou avaient battu les Youe–
chi,
et fait une coupe du crâne de leur roi;
qu’enfin les Youe–chi s’étaient dispersés, la
rage dans le cœur contre les Hiong–nou,
sans vouloir faire la paix avec eux.
A ce récit, l’empereur des Han, qui souhaitait
détruire les barbares des environs, et
pour
réaliser ses projets de communica-
t
le pays des Hiong–nou, fit chercher des
gens capables de cette commission.
Kien, capitaine de la caravane des Youe–
chi, et Tchang–y–chi kou–hou nou–kan–fou
sortirent ensemble par Long–si, se portant
vers les Hiong–nou;
ceux-ci les arrêtèrent et les livrèrent au
Tchen–yu (c’était alors Lao–chang).
Le Tchen–yu les retint …
Il les garda dix ans et leur donna des femmes.
Mais Tchang kien, qui avait ses instructions
des Han et ne les perdait pas de vue;
se
trouvant tous les jours plus libre au mi-
lieu
des Hiong–nou, s’échappa avec ses
compagnons,
se dirigeant vers les Youe–chi
( ils émigrèrent vers la grande Bucharie, en
l’an
139 avant Jésus-Christ);
Shiji 123. 3157–3159
大 宛 之 跡 見 自 張 騫
張 騫 漢 中 人
建 元 中 為 郎
是 時 天 子 問 匈 奴 降 者 皆
言 匈 奴 破 月 氏 王 以 其 頭
為 飲 器
月 氏 遁 逃 而 常 怨 仇 匈 奴
無 與 共 擊 之
ions par des caravanes qui traverseraient 漢 方 欲 事 滅 胡 聞 此 言 因
欲 通 使 道 必 更 匈 奴 中 乃
募 能 使 者
騫 以 郎 應 募 使 月 氏 與 堂
邑 氏 ( 故 ) 胡 奴 甘 父 俱
出 隴 西
經 匈 奴 匈 奴 得 之 傳 詣 單
于 單 于 留 之 …
留 騫 十 餘 歲 與 妻 有 子 然
騫 持 漢 節 不 失
居 匈 奴 中 益 寬 騫 因 與 其
— 5 —

et
après quelques dixaines de jours de mar-
che,
il arriva à Ta ouan.
Les gens du pays avaient entendu parler
de
la fertilité et des richesses des Han;
mais,
malgré tous leurs désirs, ils n’avaient
pu nouer de communications. Ils virent
Kien
avec plaisir …
Sur
sa parole, le roi de Ta ouan lui donna
des guides et des chevaux de poste, qui le
menèrent à Kang–kiu (Samarkande). De là
il fut remis à Ta–youe–chi.
Le roi des Youe–chi avait été tué par les
Hiong–nou, et son fils était sur le trône.
Vainqueurs des Ta–hia (habitans du Candahar)
les Youe–chi s’étaient fixés dans
leur pays, gras et fertile, peu infesté de voleurs,
et dont la population était paisible.
En outre, depuis leur éloignement des Han,
ils ne voulaient absolument plus obéir aux
barbares.
Kien pénétra, à travers les Youe–chi,
à Ta–
hia, et ne put obtenir des Youe–chi une lettre
de soumission.
Après un an de délai, revenant au mont
Ping–nan, il voulut traverser le pays de
Kiang; mais il fut repris par les Hiong–nou.
Au bout d’un an, le Tchen–yu mourut. Le
Ko–li–vang de la gauche battit l’héritier de
la couronne, et se mit en sa place; l’intérieur
du pays était en combustion.
Kien, conjointement avec Hou–tsi et
Tchang–y–fou, s’échappa et revint chez les
Han (en l’année 127 avant J.-C.) ...
屬 亡 鄉 月 氏 西 走 數 十 日
至 大 宛
大 宛 聞 漢 之 饒 財 欲 通 不
得 見 騫 喜 …
大 宛 以 為 然 遣 騫 為 發 導
繹 抵 康 居 康 居 傳 致 大 月
氏
大 月 氏 王 已 為 胡 所 殺 立
其 太 子 為 王
既 臣 大 夏 而 居 地 肥 饒 少
寇 志 安 樂 又 自 以 遠 漢 殊
無 報 胡 之 心
騫 從 月 氏 至 大 夏 竟 不 能
得 月 氏 要 領
留 歲 餘 還 並 南 山 欲 從 羌
中 歸 復 為 匈 奴 所 得
留 歲 餘 單 于 死 左 谷 蠡 王
攻 其 太 子 自 立 國 內 亂
騫 與 胡 妻 及 堂 邑 父 俱 亡
歸 漢 …
This then is what the two reputed Sinologists
and one of their most ambitious stu-
dents translate for those many Western Orientalists,
Historians, Geographers etc.
who — in this and over the next few generations
— are unable to read Chinese them-
selves. What do the latter make out of the translations and narratives
?
RITTER, 2 1837: 545; 547, writes:
Einfluß des chinesischen Reiches auf West-Asien
unter der Dynastie der Han (163 vor bis
196 nach Chr. Geburt).
Tschangkians Entdeckung
von Ferghana, Sogdiana, Bactrien und
der Handelsstraße nach Indien, um das J. 122
vor Chr.G. … Hier ist der Ort, unter diesem
Kaiser seines chinesischen Generals,
Tschangkian, dessen wir schon früher einmal gedachten
(Asien I, S. 201, 195),
genauer zu erwähnen, als des Entdeckers
Sogdianas, des Cas-
pischen Meeres und Indiens, nicht als Eroberer,
sondern als politischer Missionar, um das
Jahr 122
vor Chr. Geb. …
It is not altogether clear, but one may guess that RITTER took the year
122 BCE as
the time of discovery, i.e. the year of Zhang Qian’s
arrival in the Far West.
LASSEN in 1838: 250 writes:
In diesen Szu hat man längst die Saker er kannt und es stimmt damit,
dass die Saker
sich schon vor dem Falle des Baktrischen Reiches
eines Theils Sogdianas bemächtigt hatten
… Die Yuetchi stossen die
Szu weiter und nehmen die von ihnen besetzten Gebiete ein;
— 6 —

die Szu nach Süden gedrängt finden Gelegenheit,
sich des Landes Kipin zu bemächtigen,
die nachrückenden Yuetschi
nehmen das Land
der Tahia. Ein Chinesischer General
Tchamkiao war auf diesem Zuge bei den Yuetschi
und das wohlbegründete
Ereignis fällt
in die Zeit unmittelbar vor 126 vor Chr. Geburt.
In 1829 and in St. Petersburg, the first gr
eat Russian Sinologist BICHURIN published
a translation of Hanshu 96, which does not
contain Zhang Qian’ s biography nor his
mission to the 月氏 — these went into Hanshu
61 —, but it does mention Zhang Qian’s
name a few times and includes an updated
description of the people of the 月氏 and
its early history. This translation into a We
stern language went almost unnoticed by
Western scholars. An exception is SCHOTT w ho published a book review of it, here in
Berlin. In 1841: 164-165; 169, SCHOTT states:
… gab der Pater Jakinph (Hyacinth) Bitschurinskij,
früher eine Zeitlang Archimandrit
an dem Griechischen Kloster in Peking … bereits
vor zwölf Jahren vorliegendes Werk her-
aus … aber seine Arbeit ist gleichwohl sehr verdienstlich, besonders … da der Verfasser
hier aus einer Quelle geschöpft hat, die bis jetzt keinem Europäischen Sinologen zugäng-
lich gewesen … Diese Beschreibung, im Originale
Si-yü-tschuan (Kunde von den Si-yü,
westliche Grenz-Regionen) betitelt, bildet einen
integrierenden Theil der Annalen jenes
Kaiserhauses, welches die Pariser Bibliothek schwerlich
besitzen dürfte; denn Abel-Remu-
sat hat seine
Beiträge zur alten Geschichte Mittelasiens nur aus den Resumé’s entlehnt,
die sich in Ma-tuan-lin’s kritischer Encyklopäd
ie vorfinden … In seiner 18 Seiten starken
Vorrede macht Pater Hyacinth folgende Bemerkung[en]
:
… Aber zwei Jahrhunderte
vor u. Z. stiftete ein nördliches Barbarenvolk,
von den Chinesen
Hiong-nu genannt, eine ungeheure Steppen-Monarchie
in Central- Asien, die das Reich
der “Himmelssöhne” in langwierigen Kämpfen
demüthigte, und der Chinesische Hof muss-
te endlich auf ausserordentliche Maassregeln
denken, um diesen gefährlichen Feind un-
schädlich zu machen. Gefangene Hiong-nu sagten aus, auf der Landstrecke von der
Grossen Mauer bis Chamul (Ha–mi) habe vor
nicht gar langer Zeit ein mächtiges Volk —
die Yue-tschi oder Yue-ti (Geten) — gewohnt,
das
aber, von den Hiong-nu verdrängt, ins fer-
ne Abendland ausgewandert sei.
Da schickte Kaiser Wu-ti (140 bis 85 vor Chr.),
in der Hoffnung dieses Volk gegen die
Hiong-nu aufzureizen, seinen General Tschang-kian
als Bevollmächtigten an sie ab. Die
Hiong-nu lauerten diesem Magnaten auf, und hielten ihn zehn Jahre lang in gefänglichem
Gewahrsam, bis er endlich Gelegenheit fand zu entfliehen, und nun durch Fergana und
Sogdiana zu den Yue-ti gelangte. Allein der Fürst dieser Nation, welcher die Ta-hia (Dacier)
unterworfen
und in ihrem Lande sich niedergelassen hatte, dachte in seinen schönen Besitzungen
nicht mehr daran, sich an den Hiong-nu zu rächen. Tschang-kian verweilte hier
einige Jahre, kehrte dann unverrichteter Sache zurück und fiel ein zweites Mal den Hiongnu
in die Hände, aber Unruhen im Hiong-nu-Reiche verschafften ihm Gelegenheit,
ein
zweites Mal zu entrinnen; und so erreichte
er (126 v.Ch.) endlich wieder seine Heimat …
For the year of Zhang Qian’s return, BICHURIN’S calculation, 126 BCE, was the best
so
far. I have Bichurin’s Russian translation here before me, but regrettably not his
preface.
Hence I am unable to say, whether or not he had also calculated a definite year
f or the arrival of the “general” at the court of the “Geten” (the Massagètes of RÉMUSAT
1829:
220). Anyway, beyond KLAPROTH and SCHOTT, few scholars in the West read BI-
CHURIN’S
translation of Hanshu 96. Among those who did not read it is the famous
French geographer, VIVIEN DE SAINT-MARTIN. In 1850: 261–262, 267 (foot notes); 265, 292–
293 (main text), he writes:
Cet officier se nommait Tchang-Khian. Parti de la cour impériale en l’année 126,
il fut arrêté
en chemin par les Hioung-nou, qui pénétrèrent l’objet de sa mission, et qui le retinrent
parmi
eux. Tchang-Khian, parvenu enfin à s’évader après dix années de captivité, ne put
conséquemment arriver chez les Yué-tchi qu’en l’année 116, et en effet il les trouva bien établis
dans la Transoxane, qu’ils possédaient depuis dix ans …
— 7 —

Mais ce qu’il nous est surtout important de connaître plus en détail, c’est la nation même
des Yué-tchi … Le Pline chinois, Ma-touan-lin, a réuni au XIII e siècle ces anciennes notions,
encore augmentées de notions plus récentes, et en a formé un article spécial parmi
ceux qu’il consacre aux nations de l’intérieur de l’Asie. Nous insérons ici la traduction de ce
morceau,
qu’a bien voulu nous fournir M. Stanislas Julien; elle complète et rectifie en
beaucoup de passages essentiels celle qu’Abel Rémusat en a donnée …
Abel Rémusat et Klaproth identifient constamment le Ta-hia des relations chinoises
avec la Bactriane, c’est-à-dire avec la partie orientale du Khoraçân actuel. Ce rapprochement
ne nous paraît pas exact. Nous ne voyons nulle raison de nous éloigner ici de la synonymie
naturelle que nous fournit la situation des Dahæ dans l’ancienne géographie classique,
sur la côte S.-E. de la mer Caspienne, au midi de l’ancienne embouchure de
l’Oxus …
Ce que nous voyons quant à présent avec certitude, c’est … qu’après avoir séjourné pendant
trente ans environ dans les pâturages de la Dzoûngarie, les Yué-tchi furent contraints
par un nouveau refoulement de pousser plus loin leur émigration; qu’ils descendirent alors,
vers les années 130 à 126 avant notre ère, dans les steppes du nord du Jaxartès, et que
bientôt après, franchissant ce grand fleuve, ils vinrent s’emparer, en l’année 126, des riches
provinces qui avaient appartenu peu avant aux rois grecs de la Bactriane, entre le Jaxartès
et l’Oxus; qu’ils y établirent dès lors leur domination exclusive …
It was a disaster of sorts that the Western translations of the “Chinese sources”
should start with the late “Encyclopedia” 文獻通考 of MA D UANLIN 馬端臨 instead of
w ith the Chinese Standard Histories 正史, which MA DUANLIN had reworked in a very
superficial,
confused, or at least confusing, manner. It took a long time to repair the
damage.
Later authors strongly warned against using MA DUANLIN indiscriminately.
Once again I must quote LASSEN who, in 2 1874: 370-371, writes:
Die Zeit dieses Ereignisses lässt sich mit ziemlicher Genauigkeit nach den Berichten
über die Sendung des Chinesischen Generals Tchangkian zu den Jueïtchi feststellen. Der
Kaiser Wuti aus der Familie der Han, welcher von 140—80 vor Chr. G. regierte, in der Absicht,
die Hiungnu zu nöthigen, ihre
Waffen gegen Westen zu richten und dadurch sein
Reich
von ihren fortwährenden räuberischen Einfällen zu befreien, beschloss, ein Bündnis
mit ihren Feinden, den Jueïtchi, zu schliessen und sie zu einem Kriege gegen sie zu bewegen;
er beauftragte den oben genannten General mit der Unterhandlung. Als dieser die
Jueïtchi erreichte, fand er sie schon im Besitze von Tahia und nicht geneigt, sich an den
Hiungnu zu rächen … Da sie ausserdem zu entfernt von den Chinesen wohnten, konnten
sie sich nicht entschliessen, dem Tchangkian den Oberbefehl über ein Heer zu geben und
in die raue und wüste Gegend ihrer früheren Wohnsitze zurückzukehren. Der Gesandte
des Chinesischen Kaisers kehrte daher unverrichteter Sache in sein Vaterland zurück.
Das Jahr seiner Rückkehr wird nicht übereinstimmend angegeben. Nach einer Angabe
kehrte er im Jahre 126 vor Chr. G. zurück, nach einer andern 122. Der älteste Chinesische
Geschichtsschreiber,
bei welchem eine Bestimmung hierüber sich findet, Ssémathsien,
lässt die Abreise zwischen den Jahren 140 und 134 vor Chr. G. stattfinden (in seinem Sséki,
§ 123). Es bleibt daher zweifelhaft, ob die zwei Jahre, welche er bei den Jueïtchi zubrachte,
von 130 oder 124 an zu zählen sind ... Da die Angabe, dass Tchangkian im Jahre 122 zurückkehrte,
sich in einem aus Chinesischen Quellen geschöpften Werke findet, möchte sie
als die richte betrachtet werden.
LASSEN shows great respect for RÉMUSAT’s translation of the first of the famous
Chinese Buddhist pilgrims who came
to the holy land of India and wrote detailed repor
ts: primary sources of the highest importance. In 1874 LASSEN copies RÉMUSAT’s
mistake
of 1836. But he also remarks that the year 122 is in clear contradiction to an-
other
of RÉMUSAT’s notes, namely that Zhang Qian, after his return, was made a mili-
t ary commander in 123 BCE. LASSEN had not been told that Shiji 123 states in simple,
u nmistakable terms Zhang Qian’s year of return (at least as far as the authors were
concerned — how should they know that later readers would no longer
be familiar
— 8 —

with
the Chinese calendar ?). LASSEN was caught between doubt and praise. One solu-
t ion to his dilemma could be that the figure 122, in fact, was a printer’s mistake for
127
— the year of return that “BROSSET jeune” published in 1828, worked out with his
t eacher RÉMUSAT. With all its shortcomings BROSSET’s early translation remained the
main
entry point to the Chinese sources for the next author.
In 1877: 448–452, VON RICHTHOFEN writes:
Entdeckung der Länder am Oxus und Yaxartes durch Tshang-kiën (~128 v.Chr.). Als
Hsia[o]-wu-ti (140 bis 86), der glücklichste der Han-Kaiser, zur Regierung kam, begannen
die Hiungnu, die sich seit 160 ruhig verhalten hatten, abermals Einfälle in das Reich. Ein
einsichtsvoller und kräftiger Regent, beschloss er, ihre Macht zu brechen und die Carawanenwege
durch das von ihnen beherrschte Land für sich zu öffnen. Die Hiungnu hatten
sich durch räuberische Einfälle eine Schreckensherrschaft über die Völker des Tarym-
Beckens gesichert. Alle diese hatten ein Interesse an ihrer Niederwerfung; aber kein Volk
konnte, wie man glaubte, in gleichem Maass Rache gegen sie brüten, wie die Yue-tshî;
denn aus dem Schädel ihres im Jahre 157 erschlagenen Königs war ein Trinkgefäss gemacht
worden. Sie mussten als Bundesgenossen gewonnen werden.
Ein General Namens Tschang-kiën wurde beauftragt, sie in ihren neuen Wohnsitzen
aufzusuchen. Seine Reise ist von hohem Interesse, denn sie ist die erste chinesische Expedition
nach fernen Gegenden im Westen, von der wir Kunde haben. Wahrscheinlich
war es
in der That die erste; denn der Bericht hat die Färbung einer abenteuerlichen Entdeckungsreise
nach ganz unbekannten Ländern (ich folge der Erzählung im 123sten Buch des
Sse-ki von Sz’ma-tsiën nach der dankenswerthen Uebersetzung von Brosset ... 1828, p. 418–
450, da dieser Bericht nur 40 Jahre nach der Aussendung von Tschang-kiën geschrieben
wurde und in hohem Grade das Gepräge der ungeschminkten Wahrhaftigkeit trägt; eben-
so benutze ich die von Brosset berechneten Jahreszahlen, nach welchen
die Gesandtschaft
im Jahre 127 zurückkehrte, also 139 auszog, während sie gewöhnlich, nach Ma-twan-lin, in
die Jahre 136 bis 123 verlegt wird).
Um das Jahr 139 verliess Tshang-kiën seine Heimath mit einem Uiguren Namens
Tshung-i, welcher wahrscheinlich mit manchen Wegen in Central-Asien bekannt war, und
einer Begleitung von 100 Mann. Nach zehnjähriger Gefangenschaft bei den Hiungnu entkamen
sie und setzten ihre Reise nach dem Reich Ta-wan am Yaxartes fort, wo sie die Yuetshî
vermutheten. Sie hörten, dass diese weiter, nach dem Oxus, in das Land der Ta-hiâ,
gezogen seien ... Dort, berichtet er, fand er die Yue-tschî nördlich vom Fluss Wei (Oxus)
wohnend ... Sie empfingen ihn gut, erklärten aber, dass ihr Land fruchtbar sei, und sie
darin glücklich, friedlich und der Plünderung wenig ergeben lebten; sie konnten sich nicht
entschliessen, in ihre früheren rauhen und öden Wohnsitze zurückzukehren, um die alten
Feinde zu bekriegen. Das Nomadenleben hatten sie noch nicht abgelegt.
Auf dem Rückweg kam Tschang-kiën nach dem Gebirge Ping-shan und wollte von da
durch das Land der Kiang gehen, wurde jedoch von den Hiungnu gefangen genommen
und entkam nach einem Jahr. Erst im Jahre 127 kehrte er mit Einem aus seinen 100 Begleitern
an den kaiserlichen Hof zurück. Sein Hauptzweck war verfehlt. Er hatte die gewünschten
Bundestruppen nicht mitgebracht. Aber er hatte Wichtigeres erreicht. Denn er
konnte seinem Kaiser über die Existenz grosser Völker im fernen Westen berichten ...
Nach Feststellung der Lage von Ta-wan lassen sich die Positionen der anderen Völker
und Reiche annähernd bestimmen. Die Khang-kiu und Yen-tsai breiteten sich am Yaxartes
abwärts aus. Die ersteren nomadisierten wahrscheinlich
in den Gegenden von Taschkent,
Tschemkent
und Turkestan, während die Yen-tsai den Unterlauf des Stromgebietes bis
zum Aralsee einnahmen. Die Khang-kiu hatten im Nordosten die Usun zu Nachbarn. Mit
der Residenz am Issyk-kul, breiteten sich diese wahrscheinlich am Nordfuss des Alexandergebirges
und des Karatau über Talas hinaus aus. Südwestlich von den drei grossen
Reichen am mittleren und unteren Yaxartes folgten einige kleine Reiche, deren Namen uns
nicht aufbewahrt sind.
In dem Thal von Samarkand begann das ehemalige Gebiet der Ta-hiâ, von dessen
nördlichem Theil nun die Yue-tshî Besitz genommen hatten. Die letzteren scheinen sich
— 9 —

ebenso nach Westen, gegen das jetzige Bokhara, als nach Südwesten bis zum Oxus ausgebreitet
zu haben, während das unkriegerische, verweichlichte Volk der Ta-hiâ die reichen
Handelsplätze im Süden des Oxus nebst grossen Strecken auf dem rechten Ufer desselben
inne hatte ... Die Yue-tshî breiteten sich aus und mögen die Ta-hiâ nach Westen gedrängt
haben, da die Dahae oder Daoi der griechischen Schriftsteller am Kaspischen Meer wohnten
...
With so many contradictory explanations of one and the same source text, it was
about
time for another — closer — look at Shiji 123 by those who read Chinese.
SPECHT does, and, in 1883: 348, explains:
Les Yué-tchi, ou Indo-Scythes, qui habitaient primitivement entre le pays des Thun-
Hoang et le mont Ki-lian (les monts Célestes), furent vaincus, en 201 et en 165 avant notre
ère, par les Hioung-nou. Ils s’enfuirent au-delà des Ta-Ouan, battirent les Ta-hia de la Bactriane
dans l’ouest, et les subjuguèrent. Leur roi fixa sa résidence au nord de l’Oxus; c’est
dans cette contrée que Tchang-kian, ambassadeur chinois, les trouva en 126 avant notre
ère. Après le départ de ce dernier, la ville de Lan-chi, capitale des Ta-hia, tomba au pouvoir
des Grands Yué-tschi qui s’établirent définitivement dans la Bactriane …
Here the Ruzhi 月氏 are termed “Indo-Scythians” — an epithet which shall reap-
p ear regularly from now on. The mistaken appellation “Skythai” for the 月氏 dates
b ack to Strabo, for whom nine tenth of the Asian Continent were yet unknown. In his
t ime, the 月氏 were known to have come from regions just beyond the Jaxartes. The
G ræco-Roman historian, therefore, took it for granted that the Ruzhi 月氏 were just
another
branch of the Sakas — called Scythians by the earliest Greek historians like
H erodotos. When the easternmost Saka tribe, the Sakaraukai/Sacaraucae, finally
r eached India in the first century BCE, it was natural to name these genuine Scythians
“ Indo-Scythians.”
The Ruzhi 月氏, however, have
never been Scythians — let alone Indo-Scythians.
Two
thousand years after Strabo we know that the 月氏 originated, not from regions
near
the Jaxartes, but thousands of kilometers further east from regions north and
w est of the Yellow River where they were neighboring the proto-Huns and the archaic
Chinese.
The Ruzhi 月氏 came, not from Central Asia, but from the Far East and ori-
ginally
were, not of Indo-European, but of Mongoloid stock (see below, p. 71). They
surely
looked a great deal different from any of the Scythian tribes of our classical
sources
with whom the 月氏 only shared the pastoral way of life.
The appellation “Indo-Scythians” for the Ruzhi 月氏 is a gross misnomer. It can be
traced
back to our classical Western and Eastern sources and the painfully difficult
and time-consuming process towards their correct interpretation in modern
times.
In the Periplus, composed around the middle of the first century CE, the Indus Val-
ley,
from the Kabul River down to the Erythræan Sea, is still simply called Skythia. In
t he early first century CE this part of India was in the hands of the foreign Parthians
w ho had inherited it from the equally foreign Sakas or Scythians. The name “Skythia,”
then,
for a country formerly occupied by the Sakaraukai, a branch of the nomadic Scy-
thians,
makes good sense.
(CASSON
1989: 73–74; 77) Periplus 38–39; 41
After this region ... there next comes the Met¦ d taÚthn t¾n cèran ... kdšcetai
seaboard
of Skythia, which lies directly to paraqal£ssia mšrh tÁj Skuq…aj par' aÙtÕn
the
north; it is very flat and through it keimšnhj tÕn boršan, tapein¦ l…an, x ïn
flows the Sinthos River, mightiest of the potamÕj S…nqoj, mšgistoj tîn kat¦ t¾n
rivers
along the Erythraean Sea ...
'Eruqr¦n q£lassan potamîn ...
The
river has seven mouths, narrow and `Ept¦ d oátoj Ð potamÕj œcei stÒmata, lept¦
full of shallows; none are navigable except d taàta kaˆ tenagèdh, kaˆ t¦ m n ¥lla di£ -
the
one in the middle.
ploun oÙk œcei, mÒnon d tÕ mšson, f' oá kaˆ
At
it, on the coast, stands the port of trade tÕ paraqal£ssion mpÒriÒn stin Barbari-
— 10 —

of
Barbarikon.
There
is a small islet in front of it; and be-
hind
it, inland, is the metropolis of Skythia
itself,
Minnagar.
The
throne is in the hands of Parthians,
w ho are constantly chasing each other off
it.
Vessels moor at Barbarikon, but all the
cargoes
are taken up the river to the king
at the metropolis ...
The part inland, which borders on Skythia,
is
called Abêria, the part along the coast
Syrastrênê.
kÒn.
PrÒkeitai d aÙtoà nhs…on mikrÒn, kaˆ kat¦
nètou mesÒgeioj ¹ mhtrÒpolij aÙtÁj tÁj Sku-
q…aj Minnag£r:
basileÚetai d ØpÕ P£rqwn, sunecîj ¢ll»louj
kdiwkÒntwn.
T¦ m n oân plo‹a kat¦ t¾n Barbarik¾n diorm…zontai,
t¦ d fort…a p£nta e„j t¾n mhtrÒ-
polin
¢nafšretai di¦ toà potamoà tù basile‹
...
TaÚthj t¦ m n mesÒgeia tÍ Skuq…v sunor…
zonta 'Abhr…a kale‹tai, t¦ d paraqal£ssia
Su[n]rastr»nh ...
More than a century after the unknown author of the Periplus, but writing in the
s ame Alexandria in Egypt, it is the erudite Klaudios Ptolemaios who, in his Geography
of about 170 CE, introduces the appellation “Indoskythia.” He uses the name
for the
very
same region — the lands on both banks of the Indus River from where the latter
receives the waters of the Kabul River down to the ocean. Up north, Ptolemaios had
named two other geographic regions “Skythia”: the “Skythia this side of the Imaon
Mountains” and the “Skythia beyond the Imaon Mountains.” This may have been the
simple reason why he wanted to give the Skythia in India a more dictinct name and so
change the name in the Periplus, Skythia, to “Indoskythia.” As far as these classical
writers were concerned, the name Skythia/Indoskythia had a lot to do with the Sakas
or Scythians — and nothing with the Ruzhi 月氏. The latter arrived on the scene some
time after the Sakas: in any case after the name “Skythia” had already been applied
to the Panjab and the lower reaches of the Indus River.
(MCCRINDLE 1885: 136)
India within the (river) Ganges ...
And furhter, all the country along the rest of the
course of the Indus is called by the general name
of Indo-Skythia.
Of this the insular portion formed by the bifurcation
of the river towards its mouth is Patalênê, and
and the region above this is Abiria, and the region
about the mouths of the Indus and Gulf of Kanthi is
Syrastrênê ...
Geographia 7.1.55
TÁj ntÕj G£ggou 'IndikÁj qšsij ...
P£lin ¹ m n par¦ tÕ loipÕn mšroj
toà 'Indoà p©sa kale‹tai koinîj m n
'Indoskuq…a,
taÚthj d ¹ m n par¦ tÕn diamerismÕn
tîn stom£twn Patalhn»,
kaˆ ¹ Øper-
keimšnh aÙtÁj 'Abir…a, ¹ d perˆ t¦
stÒmata toà 'Indoà kaˆ ¹ perˆ tÕn
K£nqi kÒlpon Surastrhn» ...
MCCRINDLE, in his translation of Ptolemaios’ Indian chapters, 1885: 136–139, writes a
short comment on the name “Indoskythia”: it shows that the greatest misunderstandings
started in modern times:
Indo-Scythia, a vast region which comprised all the countries traversed by the Indus,
from where it is joined by the river
of Kâbul onward to the ocean ...
The period at which the Skythians first appeared in the valley
which was destined to
bear their name for several
centuries has been
ascertained with
precision from the Chi-
nese sources. We thence gather that a wandering
horde of Tibetan extraction called Yuei-
chi or Ye-tha in the 2nd century B.C. left Tangut,
their native country, and, advancing west-
ward found for themselves a new home amid
the pasture-lands of Zungaria. Here they
had been settled for about thirty years when
the invasion of a new horde compelled them
to migrate to the Steppes which lay
to the north
of the Jaxartes. In these new seats they
halted for only two years, and in the year 128
B.C. they crossed over to the southern bank
of the Jaxartes where they made themselves
masters of the rich provinces between that
river and the Oxus, which
had lately before belonged to the Grecian kings of Baktriana.
This new conquest did not long satisfy their
ambition, and they continued to advance
— 11 —

southwards till they had overrun in succession Eastern
Baktriana, the basin of the Kôphês,
the basin of the Etymander with Arakhôsia,
and
finally the valley of the Indus and Syras-
trênê. This great horde of the Yetha was divided
into several tribes, whereof the most pow-
erful was that called
in the Chinese annals Kwei-shwang. It acquired
the supremacy over
the other tribes, and gave its name to the kingdom
of the Kushâns ... These Kushâns of the
Panjâb and the Indus are no others than the
Indo-Skythians of the Greeks. In the ›Râjatara„gi‡î‹
they are called Sâka and Turushka ( Turks) ...
This is one example of how the early translations
of Shiji 123 — at that time avail-
able in French and Russian only — reached
the desk of an English scholar: the broad
outline is there, but the details are in shambles. The
geography in the Chinese narra-
tive is better understood than the chronology.
This is strange because the Chinese his-
torians are extremely careful and efficient
in their methods of dating important facts
and events. But
it is there all given more si nico — that is the greatest barrier. In this
short exposé
the Eastern Ruzhi 月氏 merge with the Central Asian Sakas. In this way
the 月氏 become the conquerors of Sakastana (Arachosia) and later the Indo-Scythians
of the Panjab. It took time to correct these early confused misconceptions.
MCCRINDLE, I like to note here, has one rare observation to offer: he states that the
Ruzhi 月氏 conquered, not Bactria, but Eastern Bactriana — or Ta-hia/Daxia 大夏.
SPECHT’s equation Ta-hia = Bactriana is of course a great improvement over RÉMU-
SAT’s first guess Ta-hia = Massagètes or “Grands Gètes” (Goths). Short two years later
MCCRINDLE comes close to hitting upon a perfect Ta-hia = Eastern Bactriana — if only
he had been able to read Zhang Qian’s report in the Shiji himself. Instead, from now
on Ta-hia = Bactria will be repeated by just about every author. However, in order to
understand the complex story of the Ta-hia (Daxia 大夏) or Tochari properly, the
equation with Bactria is not good enough: indeed it is still misleading. It suggests that
the Ruzhi 月氏 conquered the whole of Bactria which — as this study will show —
they were unable to do for a long time (see below, p. 56).
Ta-hia 大夏 cannot be the
Chinese transcription of the name Bactria. Ta-hia ( Daxia), the Chinese Standard Histo-
ries (e.g. the New Tangshu) tell us, was later called
Tu-ho-lo (Tuhuoluo) 吐火羅 =
Tocharistan.
NEUMANN, 1837: 181, translated:
Tu ho lo … vor Al ters war dies das Land der Ta hia —
in the Chinese original text very clearly given as:
吐火羅 … 古大夏地 or: Tu-ho-lo ... (is) the country
of the old Ta-hia.
Tu-ho-lo, it was soon universally recognized, is the Chinese name for To-cha-ra. It
is not Bactria, but only the easternmost part of it, the country later called Toxårestån
(and
also Taxårestån) by Arab authors. That this very important clarification has constantly
been overlooked has greatly helped to confuse the issue. But what is of interest
for us here, is indeed Specht’s statement
that Zhang Qian arrived at the Oxus River in
the year 126. Coming from a Sinologist, this is disappointing. It is unfounded and not
much
more than a guess.
In another posthumously published work, the Non-sinologist VON G UTSCHMID,
1888:
59– 62, explains his own understanding of the Chinese sources:
Es stünde schlimm um unser Wissen von dem Untergange jenes in ferne Lande versprengten
Bruchtheils des griechischen Volkes, wenn nicht die Politik der chinesischen Regierung
ein sehr lebhaftes Interesse an den Bewegungen der innerasiatischen Nomaden
genommen hätte: diesem Interesse verdanken wir den Bericht eines chinesischen Agenten
… Nach diesen Quellen wohnten die Yue-tshi, ein den Tibetanern verwandtes Nomadenvolk,
ehedem zwischen Tun-hwang (d.h. Sha-tscheu) und dem Ki-lien-shan und wurden
hier, wie alle ihre Nachbarvölker, 177 von dem türkischen Volke der Hiung-nu unterjocht.
Eine Erneuerung des Kampfes zwischen 167–161 bekam ihnen übel: Lao-shang, der
Shen-yu oder Gross-chan der Hiung-nu, erschlug ihren König Tshang-lun [the name of this
— 12 —

king is not known — GUTSCHMID is quoting in the wrong place the mistaken translation of
BROSSET 1828: 424 for the name of the chanyu Mo-du] und machte sich aus seinem
Hirnschädel eine Trinkschale; sein Volk aber trat die Wanderung nach Westen an …
Die sogenannten Grossen Yue-tshi zogen in das später von den Usun benannte Land
(das Land am See Issyk-kul). Hier trafen sie ein anderes Nomadenvolk, die Sse, und schlugen
ihren König, der mit seinem Volk zur Flucht nach Süden genöthigt ward …
Die Grossen Yue-tshi liessen sich darauf im Lande der Sse nieder, erfreuten sich aber
des
Besitzes nur kurze Zeit: der Kun-mo oder König der Usun, eines Volkes, das westlich
von den Hiung-nu gewohnt hatte, schlug die Grossen Yue-tshi und nöthigte sie, weiter nach
Westen zu wandern.
Die Zeit der Vertreibung der Yue-tshi aus dem Lande am Issyk-kul lässt sich genau datieren;
dem chinesischen Agenten wurde während seiner Internierung bei den Hiung-nu
(138–129) die Geschichte des Gründers des Reichs der Usun mitgetheilt: derselbe sei beim
Tode des Shen-yu der Hiung-nu in ein fernes Land gegangen, habe sich in diesem niedergelassen
und von da an dem Shen-yu den Gehorsam aufgesagt (Sse-ma-tsien im Nouv.
Journ. Asiat. II, 429). Der einzige Shen-yu aber, der in dieser Zeit gestorben ist, war Laoshang,
der 160 starb (WYLIE im Journ. of the Anthrop. Inst. III, 421), so dass also die Vertreibung
der Grossen Yue-tshi in dieses oder das folgende Jahr zu setzen ist. War der Aufent-
halt
derselben am Issyk-kul ein so kurzer, so begreift es sich, wie er dem ältesten Berichterstatter
ganz verborgen hat bleiben können …
Die Grossen Yue-tshi, sagt der jüngere Bericht, wandten sich nun nach Westen, wo sie
sich Ta-hia (d.i. Baktrien) unterwarfen; auch aus den Worten der älteren Quelle “geschlagen
von den Hiung-nu hätten sie sich über Gross-Wan (Ferghana) hinaus entfernt, das
Volk von Ta-hia geschlagen und sich unterworfen und alsbald ihr königliches Lager nördlich
vom Flusse Wei (d.i. Oxus) aufgeschlagen,” folgt durchaus nicht nothwendig, dass der
Einbruch über Gross-Wan erfolgt ist (noch weniger ein langer Aufenthalt daselbst, wie er
angenommen zu werden pflegt). Vielmehr scheinen die chinesischen Berichte darauf zu
führen, dass die Grossen Yue-tshi schon 159 direct in Sogdiana eingedrungen sind, also gerade
in der Zeit der inneren Kriege, welche die Macht des Eukratides untergruben. Vielleicht
ist die Eroberung
eine allmähliche gewesen, da ja Baktrien im Jahre 140 noch als
unabhängig
vorkommt.
Als die Yue-tshi schon in ihrer neuen Heimath sich niedergelassen
hatten, schickte der
Kai ser von China einen Agenten in der Person des Tshang-kien zu ihnen, in der Absicht, sie
zur Rückkehr in ihre alte Heimath zu bewegen … Tshang-kien fiel den Hiung-nu in die
Hände, entkam aber 129 nach Gross-Wan und ward von da durch das Land
Khang-kiu (am
mittleren
Sir-Darja) zu den Yue-tshi geleitet. Diese aber fühlten sich in dem fruchtbaren,
räuberischen Einfällen wenig ausgesetzten, von einer friedlichen Bevölkerung bewohnten
Lande, das sie in Besitz genommen hatten, zu wohl, als dass sie auf die chinesischen Anträge
eingegangen wären. Vergeblich begab sich Tshang-kien nach Ta-hia; er musste nach
1-jährigem Aufenthalt (128–127) unverrichteter Sache heimkehren und hatte auf der Rückreise
noch das Missgeschick, den Hiung-nu ein zweites Mal in die Hände zu fallen; erst 126
langte er wieder in China an.
Auf diesen Mann gehen fast ausschliesslich die lehrreichen Schilderungen von Land und
Leuten zurück, welche die chinesischen Historiker uns liefern. Die Schilderungen sind so
charakteristisch, dass sie die empfindliche Schwäche der chinesischen
Berichterstattung,
die
aus ihrer Unfähigkeit, die Laute fremder Sprachen gehörig wiederzugeben, entspringende
Willkür in ihrer geographischen Nomenclatur — die damals noch viel schlimmer
war als in späteren Zeiten —, fast völlig wieder gut machen ... Namensanklänge haben
hier mehr geschadet als genützt; selbst richtige Gleichungen hat man oft aus falschen
Gründen gemacht, wie “Ta-hia = Baktrien” von den Dahen (die nie in Baktrien gewohnt
haben) ...
Here we have an Orientalist who had to read the Chinese sources in translation. Yet,
he
shows a clear understanding of their contents. The only really important informa-
tion
VON GUTSCHMID was lacking is that “Ta-hia” was not simply Bactria, but only its
— 13 —

e astern part — the country later called Tocharestan. With this in mind he would have
grasped
that in the year 140 BCE not necessarily all of Bactria was still independent
u nder Greek kings, but only the country around the capital Bactra in the West.
The
eastern
part of Bactria had already fallen into the hands of those nomads who now —
v ery shortly before Zhang Qian reached Daxia-Tochara — had lost this part of fertile,
civilized, well populated Bactria, i.e. Tocharestan, to the superior 月氏. These first
nomad
conquerors cannot have been the Tocharians — for the Tocharians were still
there:
they are described as well settled on the land and as good traders, but weak
fighters
— the first wave of nomad conquerors, of which the Shiji knows nothing be-
c ause Zhang Qian had missed these early invaders by a very short period of time, had
alr eady swept across Daxia. In this first déluge the Greek armies and the last Greek
sovereigns
had disappeared from Tocharestan. Terrified by the reappearance of the
Ruzhi
月氏, the faster and hardier horseback archers from an unknown world — the
F ar Eastern Oikumene — the first-wave conquerors had disappeared, too, and had left
behind
a country which was now without a king.
The victorious 月氏 quickly filled that vacuum. But it was all still very new. The
R uzhi 月氏 had barely erected their provisional seat of government as a tent city on
t he near side of the Oxus River when the envoy of Han emperor Wu appeared before
t heir leader — who was the son of that unfortunate king whom the Xiongnu had slain
more than thirty years previously. The mysterious
first nomad conquerors of Tochara
can hardly have been any other people than the one which the 月氏 had carried before
them
ever since the lands on the upper Ili River: that particular tribe of the Saka con-
f ederacy which has been variously called Sakarauloi / Sakaraukai, Sarancae / Saraucae,
[ Saka-] Aigloi / [Saka-] Augaloi, Sagarauloi, Sacaraucae, or Sakaurakai Skythai in the
W estern, and simply Sai-wang (older Sak-wang) 塞王 in the Eastern historical sources.
Chinese 塞王 has in the past often been misunderstood to mean “the king (s) of the
Sai/Sak”
— with consequences that turned out to be very misleading. This reading and
translation
was a capital blunder (see below, pp. 42, 43).
FRANKE, 1904: 54–55, explains:
Die verschiedenen Varianten für den Namen des Volkes, die sich bei den westlichen Autoren
finden ... legen den Gedanken nahe, daß ›wang‹ einen Bestandteil des Namens bildete,
also ›Saka-wang‹, und daß dadurch ein besonderer Stamm der Saka bezeichnet werden
sollte.
2
F.W.K. MÜLLER, 1918: 577 , strongly underlines this reasoning:
塞, jetzt zwar im Norden ›Sai‹ gesprochen, lautet aber noch in Canton ›sak‹. ›Sak‹ war
die ältere Aussprache, wie die buddhistische Transkription für Upâsaka lehrt: U-pa-sakka
優婆塞迦. Dass ›Sai-wang‹ ein Name sein müsse, hat FRANKE mit Recht hervorgehoben.
Seine Darlegung wäre noch schlagender gewesen, wenn er den Originaltext hinzugefügt
hätte:
昔
大 月氏西君大夏
而 塞王南君罽賓
匈奴破大月氏 In alter Zeit besiegten die Hiung-nu die großen Yüe-tšï,
die großen Yüe-tšï machten sich im Westen zu Herren von Tai-Hia,
und die Sak-wang machten sich im Süden zu Herren von Ki-pin.
Da in den beiden ersten Sätzen keine Rede von Königen ist, wird auch im dritten Satze
王 nicht König bedeuten, sondern zum Namen gehören ...
“Le grand déchiffreur berlinois” (MEILLET on MÜLLER) makes an intelligent state-
m ent here. Of the Chinese name Saiwang/Sakwang 塞王 the first part, 塞, is clearly a
transcription of Sak(a-), whereas the second part, 王, meaning “king” and read wang,
is rather
strange in at least two respects. It does not recall the second part of the Western
name –raukai (*rawaka, “swift”) and it is a very common character in Chinese —
— 14 —

whereas in transcribing foreign names the Chinese show a marked tendency to use
rare or even obsolete characters. The 王 in 塞王 might therefore be a scribal error
which happened early and was not corrected by later scribes because they had no way
to check in all the many cases of little-known foreign names. I find that De Groot, 1926:
25, has discussed the problem at greater length:
Das Zeichen 塞 lautet sowohl ›sik‹ wie ›sak‹, und daß dies lange vorher der Fall war,
zeigt uns die Behauptung des Jen Ši-ku (HS 61, Bl. 4), daß es nur eine andere Schreibung
für 釋 ›Sik‹ ist, Buddhas Stammname Sakja, der in der Tat in China immer durch dieses
Zeichen oder durch 釋伽 ›Sak(Sik)-kia‹ wiedergegeben worden ist. Was haben wir uns nun
bei dem Zeichen 王 ›ong‹ zu denken? Zunächst befremdet es, daß für die Transkription
eines ausländischen Volksnamens gerade ein so alltägliches Zeichen, das einfach “König”
bedeutet, gewählt und dadurch die Tür für Mißverständnisse weit geöffnet wurde; denn
ein jeder mußte seitdem aus Sak-ong ohne Bedenken “König der Sak” lesen, was der Textschreiber
gewiß nicht gewollt haben kann. Man ahnt somit, daß hier ein Schreibfehler vorliegt
und ursprünglich das ähnliche 圭 ›ke‹ gestanden haben kann, das dann später durch
kluge Gelehrte, die in dem Text das betreffende Volk auch bloß als ›Sak‹ erwähnt fanden,
für einen Fehler für ›Sak-ong‹, “König der Sak” gehalten und dementsprechend “verbessert”
wurde. Die Zeichen 圭 sowie 跬, 閨 und 奎, worin es als phonetisches Element steht,
lauten ›ke‹; 佳 aber lautet ›ka‹, und 罣, 卦 und 挂 werden ›koa‹ ausgesprochen. Der chinesischen
Transkription zufolge kann also das in Frage stehende Volk ›Sak-ke‹ oder ›Sik-ke‹,
›Sak-ka‹ oder ›Sik-ka, ›Sak-koa‹ oder ›Sik-koa‹ geheißen haben.
De Groot makes it certain here that the translation “the kings of the Sai” for Saiwang
塞王 must be a mistake — as explained in 1904 by Franke and 1918 by F.W.K.
Müller. But when he goes on to suggest that we should read 塞王 simply as Sak–ka we
cannot
follow him. For in the Hanshu we find both Sai 塞 and Saiwang 塞王 (below,
pp. 42, 43). These two hanzi 漢字, or Chinese characters, stand for the general designation
“Saka” 塞 on the one hand and for the more specific
tribal name “Sakaraukai”
塞王 on the other. Chinese Saiwang
塞王 is the equivalent of Latin Sacaraucae
and Greek Sakaraàkai (Sakaraukai) — and must be explained accordingly.
In 1979: 207, BAILEY adduces a brilliant solution to this problem:
›Khotanese Texts‹ 2.77.6 ... Here in a dyadic phrase, ›bðrøka-‹ is the Turkish ›buiruq‹ “officer,
commandant”
from the verb ›buyur-‹ “to command,” hence supporting a similar
source “command” for the parallel Saka ›røka-‹ from older *›rauka-‹. This word
›rauka-‹ is
attested in the Saka title Latin ›Sacaraucae‹, ›Sa(ca)raucae‹, with the Greek *›Sakaraukoi‹
[sic]
... corresponding to the Chinese phrase ›sai uang‹ ...
In 1994: 409, HARMATTA, without naming BAILEY, elaborated:
The Sakas who invaded Bactria appear in the sources under different names, namely,
Indian ›³aka-muru‡Ÿa- ‹, Chinese ›Sai-wang‹, Greek *›Sakaraukai‹, Latin *›Saraucae‹.
Of these both Indian ›³aka-muru‡Ÿa-‹ and Chinese ›Sai-wang‹ mean “Saka king” and “Saka
kings,” respectively, in so far as ›muru‡Ÿa-‹ can be regarded as the Saka title
for “lord,
king” and Chinese ›wang‹
as the translation of it. As both the Chinese and the Graeco-La-
tin sources mention the same peoples as conquerors of Bactria, we have to regard the ›Sa-
karaukai‹ as identical with
the ›³aka-muru‡Ÿa-‹ and the ›Sai-wang‹ respectively. Accord-
ingly, the element ›-rauk-‹
in the name ›Sakaraukai‹ must have the same meaning as Saka
›muru‡Ÿa-‹
and Chinese ›wang‹. In fact, the word can be compared to Khotanese Saka
›røkya-‹ “commander, lord,” going back to *›raukya-‹. Saka ›muru‡Ÿa-‹, too, has an equivalent
in Khotanese Saka: ›rrund-‹ “possessing power, lo rd, king.” As it is proved by Saka
›muru‡Ÿa-‹, both Khotanese terms ›rrund-‹ and ›røkya-‹ derive from the root *›mrav-/*›mru‹
“to declare, to order” as *›mrav-ant-‹ and *›mrav-aka-‹/*›mrau-ka-‹ respectively. Old Iranian
*›mr-‹ was reduced to ›r-‹ in Khotanese Saka, while in the language of the Sakas of
Gandhåra the initial ›mr-‹ was preserved.
— 15 —

With these scholarly explanations we understand from our context that the meaning
of the ethnic name Sacaraucae/Sakaraukai is not “Saka Kings,” but rather “King
Sakas,” i.e. the easternmost ancient nomads from beyond the Jaxartes were, in fact,
called the “Royal Sakas” — of which Chinese Sai–wang 塞王 is the exact translation:
the “Kingly Sakas.” We will see (below, pp. 42, 43) that HULSEWÉ/LOEWE, in the year
1979
translating important phrases on the Saiwang in Hanshu 96, did not grasp this in-
trinsic,
genuine meaning of Saiwang 塞王 — to the correct interpretation of which
BAILEY,
in the same year, shows us the way.
In the next text, however, the Saka-raukai or Sak–wang nomads do not figure at all.
In
1895: LXX–LXXII, CHAVANNES offered a fresh interpretation — but exclusively on the
basis
of the Shiji where the Saiwang/Sakwang 塞王 are not yet mentioned:
Ce n’était pas seulement par des colonnes militaires envoyées en pays ennemi que
l’empereur Ou avait cherché à détruire la puissance des Hiong-nou; il eut recours aussi
aux moyens diplomatiques et tenta de nouer des alliances avec les peuples qui pouvaient
être disposés à faire cause commune avec lui.
Parmi ces nations étrangères, aucune ne devait être plus hostile aux Hiong-nou que les
Ta Yue-tche; battus une première fois par le chen-yu Mo-tou vers l’année 176 avant notre
ère, ils avaient été complètement défaits par le chen-yu Lao-chang en l’an 165 avant J.-C.;
leur roi avait été tué et, de son crâne, suivant la coutume barbare, le chef turk s’était fait
une coupe à boire ...
Après ce désastre, les Ta Yue-tche cherchèrent leur salut dans
la fuite; ils se retirèrent
d’abord
dans la vallée de l’Ili, mais ils ne tardèrent pas à en être délogés par les Ou-suen
et, recommençant un nouvel exode, ils se portèrent vers l’ouest; puis ils tournèrent au sud,
franchirent l’Iaxartes et envahirent la Sogdiane qui appartenait alors au royaume grécobactrien;
cet état, connu des Chinois sous le nom de Ta-hia, se trouvait déjà affaibli par les
attaques du roi parthe Mithridate I
qu’en
Sogdiane e contracter
un
avait succédé en 161 avant J.-C.
à de bonne grâce sa déten
er (174–136 av. J.-C.): il fut incapable de résister aux envahisseurs;
les Ta Yue-tche purent refouler la population Ta-hia au sud de l’Oxus et s’établir
eux-mêmes au nord de ce fleuve; ils ne devaient pas tarder à le traverser pour pénétrer
en Bactriane ...
L’empereur Ou ne savait sans doute pas que les Ta Yue-tche avaient
dû fuir jus
et il les croyait encore établis dans la vallée de l’Ili lorsqu’il projeta d
e alliance avec eux contre l’ennemi commun. Il chargea de cette mission, prédestinée à
l’insuccès, un certain Tchang K’ien.
Tchang K’ien partit en l’an 138 avant J.-C., avec une escorte d’une centaine de personnes;
il sortit de Chine par la frontière du nord-ouest et fut presque aussitôt arrêté par
les Hiong-nou qui l’envoyèrent au chen-yu Kiun-tch’en (qui
son père, le chen-yu Lao-chang). Tchang K’ien feignit d’accepter
tion; il se maria, eut des enfants et resta une dizaine d’années chez les barbares; on
cessa de le surveiller de près; il en profita pour s’enfuir un beau jour avec ses compagnons.
Se dirigeant vers l’ouest, il arriva d’abord dans le Ferganah, siège du royaume de Tayuan;
il y fut bien accueilli et le roi lui donna des guides qui le menèrent dans le pays de
K’ang-kiu, au nord du Syr-daria; aller de Ta-yuan dans le K’ang-kiu serait aujourd’hui passer
de Kokand à Tachkend. Les gens de K’ang-kiu conduisirent Tchang K’ien dans le pays
des Ta Yue-tche; il dut donc franchir de nouveau le Syr-daria pour arriver dans les contrées
situées entre ce fleuve et l’Amou-daria, à l’ouest du Ferganah.
Parvenu au terme de son voyage, Tchang K’ien ne tarda pas à reconnaître qu’il n’en tirerait
aucun avantage diplomatique; les Ta Yue-tche se trouvaient bien dans leur nouvelle
patrie; ils avaient oublié leur haine mortelle contre les Hiong-nou; ils ne se souciaient
guère des Chinois, trop éloignés maintenant pour qu’une alliance avec eux fût profitable.
Tchang K’ien passa un an (probablement l’année 128) chez les Ta Yue-tche et les suivit,
peut-être dans une campagne qu’ils faisaient contre l’état de Ta-hia, jusqu’aux confins de
ce royaume; mais il ne put rien obtenir et dut partir après s’être heurté à une fin de nonrecevoir
absolue.
— 16 —

Dans son voyage de retour, il fut de nouveau fait prisonnier par les Hiong-nou et resta
dans leur pays plus d’une année; mais en 126 avant notre ère, le chen-yu Kiun-tch’en mourut;
son frère cadet, I-tché-sié, et son fils se disputèrent le pouvoir; I-tché-sié finit par l’emporter
et prit le titre de chen-yu; Tchang K’ien profita de ces troubles pour s’évader; il rentra
en Chine avec sa femme turke et un seul de ces cent compagnons. Si le but particulier
que s’était proposé Tchang K’ien n’avait pas été atteint, son expédition eut cependant des
résultats considérables en ouvrant aux Chinois tout un monde nouveau.
There are a good number of new points of view here. Some can be fully welcomed,
others must be questioned as they served to mislead later authors. CHAVANNES leaves
out the Saiwang completely; and he, too, equates Ta-hia squarely with the kingdom of
the Græco-Bactrians. Yet, to repeat myself: “Ta-hia” cannot be the Chinese transcription
of “Bactria” — as CHAVANNES would have readily admitted, I trust. In 1903, the
g reat Sinologist published an excellent translation of the (New) Tangshu’s chapter 221B.
One
paragraph of it starts with the statement:
Notice sur le T’ou-ho-lo (Tokharestan). Le T’ou-ho-lo ... c’est l’ancien territoire du (royaume
de) Ta-hia.
And in a footnote CHAVANNES adds:
Lors de la mission de Tchang K’ien en 128 av. J.-C., le royaume de Ta-hia se trouvait au
sud de l’Oxus.
This may well be taken as a late correction of what he had said about Ta-hia in
1895. With this important new information before him, how would he have rewritten
his above exposé ? In any case, in 1907: 187, CHAVANNES stated in a footnote and without
any further discussion:
‹Ta-hia› (= Tokharestan).
With better insight into what was to be found in the Chinese Standard Histories,
the
French Sinologist quietly corrected himself in time.
The year in which the Ruzhi 月氏 finally decided to migrate west — a date of great
historical
importance, of course — CHAVANNES gives as 165 BCE. This date will be
copied
by many later authors. However, I have been unable to find a convincing discus-
sion
of this date. The Shiji and Hanshu are rather vague in their descriptions of the
decisive fourth and last clash between
the Xiongnu and the 月氏. Following Shiji 110,
the first one is the incident when Modu, the crown prince of the Xiongnu, was sent as a
hostage
to the 月氏 and his father, chanyu Touman, suddenly attacked the latter some
t ime before 209 BCE; the second clash occurred a short time after 209 BCE (in which
y ear Modu killed his father and became the new chanyu of the Xiongnu) when Modu
started
military campaigns to greatly enlarge his Empire of the Steppe by falling upon
his
neighboring nomad peoples, first the Dong Hu 東胡 in the East and then the 月氏
in the West; the third is that bloody war in which the Xiongnu subdued the 月氏, the
Wusun
and the whole of the oasis states in the Tarim Basin. After this great victory
M odu wrote his historic letter to the Han court announcing boldly that all the peoples
t hat draw the bow have now become one family. We are told in Shiji 110 that the
e nvoy bearing the letter arrived at (the Han border town?) Xinwang 薪望 in July 176
BCE. Far too often, this date has erroneously been given by later authors
as the start of
the great 月氏 exodus. For the dating of the last clash, however — in which the king of
the
月氏 was killed by the Xiongnu, now under the command of Modu’s son, the Lao-
shang
chanyu (r. 174–161), and after which the 月氏 finally resolved to escape from
Xiongnu
domination — we have only indirect clues, as far as I know.
But CHAVANNES, 1907: 189, has this footnote:
C’est en 165 av. J.-C. que les Ta Yue-tche, vaincus par les Hiong-nou, commencèrent vers
l’Occident le grand exode qui devait les amener du Kan-su dans la vallée de l’Ili, et, de là,
jusque sur les bords de l’Oxus. Par suite d’une inadvertance que je déplore, j’ai indiqué
— 17 —

l’année
140 av. J.-C., au lieu de l’année 165, dans une note de mes «Documents sur les Toukiue
occidentaux» (1903, p. 134, n. 1).
He provides no discussion of this dating, neither 1903 nor 1907. But 165 BCE, as the
c rucial year in which the 月氏 started to migrate west, should not be too far off as
S hiji 110 tells us that one year before, in 166 BCE, the Xiongnu chanyu in person led an
army
of some 140,000 horsemen deep into Chinese territory burning the Huizhong pal-
a ce 回中宮 and sending out advance parties which came as close to Chang’an as the
palace
of Sweet Springs 甘泉 at Yong 雍. Laoshang ante portas. It was the worst irruption
the Han Chinese suffered at the hands of the vastly superior Xiongnu. The victorious,
seemingly irresistible Xiongnu armies may well have topped there military
exploit by also invading the territory of the 月氏 kingdom, in this or the following year.
(WATSON 1993: 145)
The Chan-yu remained within the borders of the
empire [literally: within the border defences] for a
littl
(forces) pursued him beyond the border defences
but returned without having been able to kill
(any of the enemy).
The
Xiong-nu grew more arrogant day by day,
crossing the border
every year, killing many of
the inhabitants, and stealing a great number of
their
animals ...
Shiji 110. 2901
單 于 留 塞 內 月 餘 乃 去
e over a month and then withdrew. The Han 漢 逐 出 塞 即 還 不 能 有
所 殺
匈 奴 日 已 驕 歲 入 邊 殺
略 人 民 畜 產 甚 多 …
From these accounts we may
guess that chanyu Laoshang had thus prepared the
way for the Xiongnu to invade the 月氏 next. In the Hexi 河西 (modern Gansu) Cor-
ridor, where their ordos or royal
camp was to be found near modern Zhangye 張掖 —
originally
called Zhaowu 昭武 by the Chinese, as we know from Weishu 102 and later
Standard Histories —, and with Longxi 隴西 near the Western
end of the Great Wall
as the border town, the 月氏 were the immediate Western neighbors of Han China. In
the north they had a long common border with the Xiongnu. Under these geographic
conditions, it must have been rather easy for the latter to invade the wide-open homelands
of the 月氏 in a similarly grand style in this or the next year. The 月氏, obviously
ill-prepared and thus taken by surprise, were beaten once again. This time their
king was killed. And adding insult to injury, the Xiongnu chanyu had a ceremonial
drinking cup made out of the skull of the 月氏 king. This was too much to bear for the
once so proud nomads who had despised the Xiongnu. Deeply shocked by this defeat,
the 月氏 reached the decision to dodge Xiongnu domination by escape.
The only route open to them was the vacant country of their old western neighbors,
the Wusun, between Dunhuang and the Lake Lopnor. When this small nation of nomads
had been beaten by the 月氏 and when their king had been killed, the Wusun
had decamped and fled to the Xiongnu. From what we read in the Shiji and Hanshu,
we may infer that this happened in the time of the Xiongnu chanyu Modu, in any case
before 176 BCE as the terminus ante quem. More than a decade later, presumably in
about 165 BCE, the 月氏 commenced their historic trek from the Hexi Corridor in a
northwesterly direction, past Lake Barkol between the Tianshan and Bogdashan mountain
ranges, along the northern foothills of the Tianshan into the basin of Dzungaria
and finally across the Borohoroshan into the upper Ili River valley. It was an exodus
fateful for the history of Central and South Asia over the next few centuries. It was —
eine Sternstunde der Menschheit.
As for the chronology of Zhang Qian’s mission,
which is the first topic of this compila
tion of relevant primary and secondary sources: whereas later discussions are
often
far off the mark, CHAVANNES is coming very close to the truth here. A small cor-
rection
of his text would have sufficed to make it perfect: he should, in fact, have
— 18 —

written
“très tôt en 126” instead of simply “en 126.” For Shiji 110, the chapter on the
Xiongnu, also informs us that Chanyu
Junchen died in the winter following the second
year “yuan-shuo” (one of the reign periods of Han Emperor Wu) 元朔二年其
後冬.
We know that during the first century of the Former Han dynasty, down to the year
104 BCE, the Chinese civil year began with the three winter months. The above information,
therefore, translates into the Western calendar as: between 31 October 127 and
26 January 126 BCE (Julian). This means that the Xiongnu Emperor Junchen died in
the last two months of 127 or in the first four weeks of 126. Hence, Zhang Qian returned
to Changan very early in 126. Had his journey lasted one year, he would have started
in 127; if it had lasted three years, he would have left in 129; since his journey in fact
lasted thirteen years, it becomes clear that Zhang Qian left China in 139 BCE — probably
also early in that year. However, in the next text this topic becomes confused
again, although the author is a close friend of CHAVANNES’.
In 1897: 12–13 LÉVI writes:
Seu-ma Ts’ien, qui composait ses Mémoires historiques
environ cent ans avant l’ère
chrétienne, y a inséré, au chapitre CXXIII, une longue
relation des
voyages de Tchang-k’ien;
ses informations sur les Yue-tchi et les Ta-hia concordent
presque
littéralement avec la no-
tion de l’Histoire des Han et attestent une origine
identique; les deux historiens ont fidèle-
ment reproduit le récit de Tchang-k’ien.
“Les Ta-hia,” dit Seu-ma Ts’ien, “n’avaient pas
de souverain; chaque cité, chaque ville
élisait son chef. Les soldats étaient faibles et làches
à la bataille, bons seulement à faire
du commerce. Les
Yue-tchi vinrent de l’ouest, les attaquèrent, les défirent et établirent leur
souveraineté.”
La soumission des Ta-hia était donc un fait accompli dès le voyage de Tchang-k’ien,
vers 125 avant J.-C. La biographie de Tchang-k’ien contenue dans l’Histoire des premiers
Han confirme ces données et les précise davantage ... Le rapport de Tchan-k’ien à l’empereur
marque encore plus clairement l’enchaînement des faits. Expulsés de leur territoire
par les Hioung-nou (165 av. J.-C.), les Yue-tchi avaient envahi le pays des Ou-suenn, leurs
voisins de l’ouest, et tué leur roi Nan-teou-mi; puis, continuant leur marche vers l’ouest, ils
avaient attaqué le roi des Se (Çakas), et les Se s’étaient enfuis bien loin au sud, abandonnant
leurs terres aux Yue-tchi. Mais le fils de Nan-teou-mi, Koenn-mouo, resté orphelin dès
le berceau, avait été nourri miraculeusement par une louve, puis recueilli par le roi des
Hioung-nou; devenu grand, Koenn-mouo attaqua les Yue-tchi, qui s’enfuirent vers l’Ouest et
allèrent s’établir sur le territoire des Ta-hia. L’intervention de Koenn-mouo exige au moins
vingt ans d’intervalle entre la défaite des Ou-suenn et la soumission des Ta-hia; le premier
événement se passe peu de temps après l’an 165; le second tombe donc vers l’an
140 et précède
d’assez longtemps l’arrivée de Tchang-k’ien chez les Yue-tchi ...
LÉVI got the story of the young prince of the Wusun (Usun; Ou-suenn) all confused
which GUTSCHMID before him had understood so much better. The 月氏 had attacked
their Western neighbors, the Wusun, in the time of Xiongnu Chanyu Modu (r. 209–174).
It was he and his son Laoshang chanyu (r. 174–161) who had reared the young prince.
At the time Laoshang died in late 161 BCE, the Wusun prince was old enough to attack
the 月氏 and avenge his father. The same prince was an “old man” when Zhang Qian
went on his second mission to the West, c. 118–115 BCE, to negotiate a treaty with the
Wusun. With LÉVI the Kunmo (Koenn-mouo) would have been just over forty at that
time — still very far from being “an old man.”
In 1900: 533–534 BOYER writes:
Les données à examiner avant tout sont naturellement celles contenues dans le 123 e
chapitre du Sse-ki. On ne saurait, en effet, contester aux informations de Seu-ma Ts’ien la
plus haute valeur, puisque, né vers le milieu du second siècle avant J.-C., il fut contemporain
de Tchang-k’ien, dont il utilisa du reste la relation, qu’il cite dans ce même chapitre.
— 19 —

En l’an 165 avant J.-C., les Yue-tchi habitent entre le pays de Toenn-hoang et les monts
K’i-lien (la chaîne du T’ien-chan) dans le Turkestan chinois. A cette époque, vaincus par les
Hioung-nou, qui tuent leur roi, ils émigrent pour la pluspart vers l’ouest, s’emparent du territoire
des Se qui fuient au sud, sont de là chassés encore par le Ou-suenn Koenn-mouo, et,
marchant
toujours à l’ouest, arrivent au pays des Ta-hia (Bactriane), qu’ils soumettent. La
question est justement de savoir tout d’abord ce que fut cette conquête, et nous allons y venir.
Vers 125 avant J.-C., Tchang-k’ien visite les Ta Yue-tchi, installés dans leur nouvelle
patrie. Le lecteur se souvient qu’il était chargé par l’empereur Ou-ti (140–86 avant J.-C.)
d’amener ce peuple à servir d’appui à la Chine contre les Hioung-nou. Parti vers 135 avant
J.-C., il avait d’abord été retenu dix ans captif chez ces derniers, lors de son passage sur
leur territoire, et à son retour, ayant subi une autre année de captivité chez le même peuple,
il rentra en Chine après treize ans d’absence, vers 122 avant J.-C.
The thirteen years of absence of Zhang Qian are correctly reproduced by most authors.
But to anchor this span of time firmly within the reign of Han Emperor Wu
seems to be beyond the capabilities
of quite a few. One wonders why. The Chinese text,
as we have seen above from BROSSET’s translation, ties the return of Zhang Qian to the
death
of one particular Xiongnu chanyu — whose name Sima Qian neglects to men-
t ion in this particular place, Shiji 123. But he had given a full account of the Xiongnu
history,
down to his own time, in Shiji 110: From this we know that it was Chanyu Jun-
chen. He died, as stated above, in the winter
which followed year 2 (of Han Emperor
Wu’s
reign period) “yuan-shuo” 元朔. Evidently, the intricacies of the Chinese reign
periods
(a practice still in use in Japan which country I reached a first time in year 46
“ showa” 昭和 or 1971) and the somewhat complicated Chinese calendar are the main
stumbling block: a careful
year by year concordance book between the Chinese and
the Western calendars was still wanting. Before the great calendar reform of 104 BCE
— in which Sima Qian participated — the civil Chinese year started with the three win-
t er months (lunar months 10–12); after that date, it started with the three months of
spring
(lunar months 1–3). The old (now unofficial) Chinese calendar still does.
In 1903: 18–19, V. A. SMITH published a first English summary of these events:
The early Chinese historians derived their knowledge of the migrations of the Yueh-chi
chiefly from the reports of Chang-k’ien (Tchang-k’ien), who visited the Yueh-chi territory in
or about B.C. 125. This officer was despatched in or about B.C. 135 by the emperor Wu-ti
(Ou-ti, flor. B.C. 140–86) on a mission to the Yueh-chi, in order to obtain their assistance
against the Hiung-nu, who constantly harried the Chinese frontiers.
The envoy was intercepted by the Hiung-nu, who detained him for ten years, so that he
did not arrive at the Yueh-chi chieftain’s camp until about B.C. 125. Returning from his mission,
Chang-k’ien was unlucky enough to be again intercepted by the Hiung-nu, who detained
him yet another year. When at length he returned to China in about B.C. 122, he had
been
absent from his native land for thirteen years, and was thus well qualified to bring
back accurate information about the foreign nations whom he visited.
The story of the travels of Chang-k’ien was recorded by his contemporary Ssu-ma-
Ch’ien, the Chinese “Father of History” (born c. B.C. 145), in chapter 123 of his classical work
the Sse-ki, or “Historical Record” ...
As far as the chronology of Zhang Qian’s mission was concerned, RÉMUSAT’S authority
was still unbroken — more than sixty years after the publication of his 佛國記.
However, one grave geographical misunderstanding in the Western translations
goes back to the original text: the historians of the Ban family had been able to follow
the migrations of the 月氏 as far as
the lands of the Saiwang 塞王 or Sakaraukai —
after
which they lost track and then rediscovered their former Western neighbors, firm-
ly
established in Daxia 大夏 or Tochara. In Hanshu 96, Ban Gu then simply connect-
ed
the two points with a straight line and let the 月氏 hit upon and subjugate the Da-
xia more or less directly after leaving the Ili River region, glossing over the fact that
there was a wide gap between the two regions in space and between the two events in
— 20 —

time.
Before him, Sima Qian, in Shiji 123, had known even less. He had the 月氏 mi-
g
rate from the Hexi 河西 Corridor directly to Daxia 大夏:
. .. they then moved far away, beyond (Da)
Yuan,
and in the west attacked and subju-
gated
Daxia.
乃 遠 去 過 宛 西 擊 大 夏 而
臣 之
The final encounter between the two nomadic nations, the Xiongnu 匈奴 and the
Ruzhi
月氏, arch rivals in East Asia, occurred sometime around 165 BCE. In the sum-
mer
of the year 129 Zhang Qian found the 月氏 newly established in Central Asia. He
was
their guest, in their make-shift royal camp of tents north of the Oxus River (mo-
dern Amu Darya), for more than a year. We must realize here that Sima Qian com-
pressed a wide stretch of space and time into one short sentence. What
really happened
during this generation and a half and during this migration over a distance of some
3.500 km (as the crow flies), the Chinese historians were only able to find out and reconstruct
very, very slowly.
On the chronology of Zhang Qian’s mission FRANKE, 1930: 337–338, writes:
Dafür stellte sich jetzt ein anderes Moment ein, das ... schicksalbestimmend für die
nächsten Jahrhunderte werden sollte. Die Gesandtschaft, die im Jahre 138 abgesandt war,
um mit den Yüe-tschi ein Bündnis gegen die Hiung-nu zu schließen, und die man, da
nichts mehr von ihr verlautete, aus dem Gedächtnis verloren hatte, kehrte im Winter 126 zu
125 nach Tsch’ang-ngan zurück. Und was hatte sie nicht erlebt und erfahren!
Zwar ein Bündnis mit den Yüe-tschi hatte sie nicht erreichen können, aber sie hatte
neue Welten entdeckt, Welten, die bis dahin unfaßbar gewesen waren und die nun das verblüffte
Staunen der Zeitgenossen daheim erregten. An der Spitze der Gesandtschaft stand
ein einfacher Mann aus Han-tschung (im südwestlichen Schen-si), der einen kleinen Posten
im Palaste bekleidete. Er führte den Namen Tschang K’ien, der seitdem zu den berühmtesten
der ganzen chinesischen Geschichte gehört.
Dem Auftrage des Kaisers folgend, machte er sich zusammen mit einem Manne der Hu-
Völ ker Namens Kan-fu und einer Begleitung von etwa hundert Mann auf den Weg nach
dem
Lande der Yüe-tschi. Da Tschang K’ien durch Kan-su zog, muß man annehmen, daß
er das gesuchte Volk noch in seinen alten Wohnsitzen am Nan-schan wähnte. Bei den
Hiung-nu aber, durch deren Gebiet die Gesandtschaft in jedem Falle hindurch mußte, wurde
sie festgehalten und zum Schan-yü (vermutlich im Norden) geführt. Hier erfuhr
Tschang, daß die Yüe-tschi “im Norden von den Hiung-nu” wohnten ( was tatsächlich nicht
richtig
war), und daß seine Weiterreise nicht gestattet werden könnte. Über zehn Jahre
blieben die Chinesen in Gefangenschaft bei den Hunnen, dann gelang es ihnen zu entfliehen.
Tschang K’ien ging, vermutlich am Südhang des T’ien-schan entlang, den Spuren der
Yüe-tschi nach, und fand sie schließlich, nachdem ihm Leute von Ta-yuan (Ferghana) und
K’ang-kü (die Kirgisen-Steppen nördlich vom Syr darja oder Jaxartes) das Geleit gegeben,
in den Ländern am oberen Oxus (Amu darja) ...
Tschang K’ien blieb ein Jahr im Lande, dann trat er, ohne seinen Zweck erreicht zu haben,
die Rückreise an, allem Anschein nach auf der Südseite des Tarim-Beckens, um hier
das Land der Tibeter oder Tanguten
(K’iang) zu erreichen. Er geriet jedoch abermals in
die
Gefangenschaft der Hiung-nu, und erst nachdem er über ein Jahr festgehalten war,
konnte er sich die beim Tode des Schan-yü ausgebrochenen Unruhen zu Nutze machen
und
fliehen. Nach dreizehnjähriger Abwesenheit langte er in Tsch’ang-ngan wieder an.
Von seinen Begleitern war ihm nur sein treuer Kan-fu noch geblieben, alle anderen hatte
er verloren.
Tschang K’iens Reise ist eine Leistung, der in der Geschichte wenig Gleichartiges an die
Seite zu stellen ist, nicht zum wenigsten was die Wirkung angeht. Er hatte nicht nur die
Oasen-Staaten am Rande des Tarim-Beckens durchreist, sondern er hatte auch jenseits
der Wüsten andere große Staaten mit zahlreicher Bevölkerung, mit großen, blühenden
Städten, mit lebhaftem Handelsverkehr, mit verfeinerter Kultur und einer eigenen Schrift
— 21 —

und Literatur angetroffen, von anderen großen und mächtigen Reichen, wie Indien, Parthien,
Babylonien, dem Lande der Alanen u.a. hatte er gehört, kurzum Tschang K’ien hatte
eine fremde Welt aufgefunden, er war in den Bannkreis
der griechisch-indisch-persischen
Kultur geraten.
This is an exceptionally clear-sighted and eloquent
presentation of Zhang Qian’s
mission in search of the 月氏. The imperial envoy is not
called a general here, but the
low-ranking
palace employee (›lang‹ 郎) he really was at the time.
A few minor errors in FRANKE’s exposé may be noted here. It should be clear that
the Han Chinese did not expect the Ruzhi 月氏 to live in their old seats still. They had
been told, strangely late in fact, that the 月氏 had decided to move far to the West —
not for better grazing grounds, as stated by a number of later authors, but to be safe
from further attacks by the Xiongnu. To search for the 月氏, however, Zhang Qian and
his men with their large baggage train had to pass the Hexi (Gansu) Corridor: this was
the traditional and only line of communication from China to all countries further
West. It was Zhang Qian’s bad
luck that the Hexi Corridor, the former lands of the
Ru zhi 月氏, had been annexed by the Xiongnu in the decades between c. 165 and 139
BCE. Wh en the mission passed Longxi 隴西 — the last Chinese town near the end of
the
Great Wall —, they entered enemy land and were quickly spotted and stopped.
Another point is that Zhang Qian, living more than ten years among the Xiongnu,
had
more than enough time to find out where in fact the Ruzhi 月氏 were living now.
N ot north of the Xiongnu, as the Chanyu had told him; not in the region between the Ili,
C hu and Naryn rivers (any more) — where Zhang Qian might have been told to search
for them; but much further West still, somewhere on the age-old caravan route which
passed
Shule 疏勒 (Kashgar) and the Congling 蔥嶺 mountains (the Pamirs).
In Shiji 123 we are told that Zhang Qian lived a full decade or more amongst the
X iongnu 匈奴中; this could be misunderstood to mean that he was living in the center
o f the Xiongnu empire. So Hanshu 61 (see above, sentence (14) of the original text)
pointedly
tells us that he was living in the West of the Xiongnu realm 匈奴西. With
t his we may assume that Zhang Qian found excuses to roam about in the region of the
Tarim
Basin which he may have entered via the northern route skirting the southern
slopes
of the Tian shan 天山 mountain ranges. But the 月氏 had not passed this way.
Their
trek must have passed to the north of the Tian shan, i.e. the 月氏 must have
trekked
across the empty lands of what is called Dzungaria today — the western-most
end
of the Gobi desert — before they reached the upper Ili river and there came into
conflict
with the Sakaraukai or Saiwang 塞王, the easternmost branch of the large Sa-
ka
Federation.
This people led a nomad way of life just like the Ruzhi 月氏. But they were Skythai
and
thus belonged to the Indo-European world of Central Asia. When the Far Eastern
and
thus mongoloid 月氏 clashed with these Sakaraukai/Saiwang and drove them
w est, they opened the door to the Western Oikumene, to themselves as well as to
Z hang Qian who, otherwise, would not have crossed this decisive — and until then
nearly
insurmountable — dividing line between two separate worlds.
With this it should be clear that — after his escape — Zhang Qian was not traveling
with
his original one hundred men strong delegation across the Tarim Basin to get
himself
familiar with the area. He would not have gone far at that time, just as ten
years
before. Instead, he must have pretended to do something useful for the Xiongnu.
And
only when he was close enough to where he wanted to go, i.e. when he had
reached
the southwestern-most corner of the Tarim Basin, i.e. the area of Shule/Kash-
g ar, did he finally drop his disguise to make his escape from the Xiongnu — in just the
c ompany of his trustworthy Xiongnu servant Gan-fu 甘父 with whom he crossed the
Congling
蔥嶺 (Pamirs) and via the Terek pass (3870 m) reached Da Yuan 大苑
( Ferghana) within one month or so. His large mission must in fact have disappeared
early
in those ten years amongst the Xiongnu, not at a later time.
— 22 —

The last but most important point to be discussed here concerns the chronology of
Z hang Qian’s mission. FRANKE states that Zhang Qian returned to Chang’an “in the
winter
of 126 to 125.” As reproduced above, Shiji 123 says that Zhang Qian was able to
e scape a second time from Xiongnu captivity and finally return to Han China after
troubles
had broken out at the Xiongnu court following the death of the chanyu 單于.
And from Shiji 110, also briefly quoted above, we know that the chanyu in question was
Junchen 軍臣 :
(WATSON
1993: 150)
This (took place in) the second year of the
Han (era) ›yuan–shuo‹ (127 B.C.).
The following winter the Xiong–nu Shan–yu
Jun–chen died.
Shiji 110. 2906–2907
是 歲 漢 之 元 朔 二 年 也
其 後 冬 匈 奴 軍 臣 單 于 死
For FRANKE to translate this date into the Western calendar as “winter 126/125” is
disappointing because it shows that FRANKE was not familiar with the (admittedly complex)
Chinese calendar. As a Sinologist he had no excuse for this mistake, because in
1910 the Chinese Jesuit, Father PIERRE HOANG 黃伯祿 (d. 1909), had published his
Concordance des Chronologies Néoméniques Chinoise et Européenne (basing him
self
on an older work in Chinese: the Li dai chang shu ji yao 歷代長術輯要 by
WANG YUEZHEN 汪曰楨, prepared 1836–1862 and published 1877). Now, from Shiji 123
and Shiji 110 it is clear that Chanyu Junchen died in the winter of the third year yuanshuo
元朔 — or in the winter of 127/126 BCE — which is given in HOANG’s Concordance
in the following way:
Cycle de
la lune
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
*
Lune
1er jour
10
11
12
j.7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
9
126
Av.J.-C.
西漢
Si Han
武帝
Ou Ti
元朔
Yuen-chouo
3
乙卯
Y-mao
Mois
Solaire
10
11
12
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
384
— 23 —
Jour du
mois
28
26
26
1
24
23
24
23
23
21
21
19
18
17
Cycle du
jour
10
39
9
15
38
8
37
7
37
6
36
5
35
4

This chart is a translation and elaboration of what WANG YUEZHEN had written on
the same year Han Wu Di ›yuan-shuo‹ 3 in an extremely abbreviated way, giving only
the essentials of columns 2 and 5 of HOANG :
乙 卯[漢 武 帝 元 朔]三 殷[歷]十 癸 酉[10]十 一 壬 寅[39]正 辛 丑
[38]三 庚 子[37]六 己 巳[6]八 戊 辰[5]後 九 丁 卯[4]朔 .
HOANG tells us that the third year of the reign period ›yuan- shuo‹ 元朔 of Han Em-
peror Wu consisted
of 13 lunar months: 12 regular lunar months
plus on e intercalary lunar month added to the end; seven of these
thirteen months were long months of 30
days and six were short months
of 29 day
s; thus this year contained 384 days. But
what is really important for our context is the
fact that this Chinese civil year started
with a tenth lunar
month. This is the first month of the winter season. The Chinese
calendar
knowing four season of exactly three months each, the winter season consists
of the three lunar months ten to twelve, the spring season of the three months one to
three, the summer season of the three months four to six, and the autumn season of
the three months seven to nine. Intercalary months, to be added every second or third
year, are regarded as a duplicate of the month preceding it. In our year the intercalary
month is a second ninth month.
To translate this year into the Western calendar, it suffices to know that the first
day of this Chinese year corresponds to October 28, 127 BCE (given in columns 3 and 4
in HOANG’s chart: 10/28). The first month of spring, HOANG’s chart gives as January 24,
126 BCE. With this we know that the crucial “winter which followed year 2 ›yuanshu
o‹,”
as given in Shiji 110, lasted from October 28, 127 to January 23, 126 BCE.
However, for reasons not altogether clear to me, HOANG gives all Western dates BCE
in the Gregorian calendar. Hence, to express the above dates in the Julian calendar we
have to add three days in each case. The year ›yuan-shuo‹
3 thus began October 31, 127
BCE (Julian) or on JD 1675340. It is likely, then,
that chanyu Junchen died in late 127,
and it is clear that Zhang Qian returned to Chang’an
(very early) in 126 BCE.
Interpreting the Chinese calendar correctly, FRANKE should have written: ... kehrte
im Winter 127 zu 126 nach Tsch’ang-ngan zurück;
or better still: im Frühjahr 126. To
give the great scholar due credit here, I like to add that he corrected himself this way
in a later paper (1934: 269).
When most, if not all, of Zhang Qian’s mission
seemed well established, HALOUN
1937: 246–252 succeeds in casting grave doubts over
the whole topic again:
Die beiden Abschnitte der Üe-tṣï–Wanderung genau
zu datieren, ist recht schwierig. Unsere
hauptsächlichen chinesischen Que llen , die Tṣa ṅ Tś’ien–Biographie und die Westländer-
Monographie des Xan-ṣu (= Hans hu 61 + 96) bie ten nur ungenaue, z.T. widerspruchsvolle
Angaben und scheinen verschiedene Kombinationen mit den sonst zur Verfügung stehenden
Stellen zuzulassen. Der gesa mte Quellen stoff ist zuletzt von
japanischen Forschern
untersucht worden ...
In seinem an neuen Fragestellungen und eigenständigen Ergebnissen
so fruchtbaren
Aufsatz über die Expedition des Tṣaṅ Tś’ien stellt Kuwabara die These auf, die Wanderung
der Üe-tṣï von Kansu nach dem Ili s ei zwischen 172 und 161, ihre Abwanderung von da nach
dem Âmû-daryâ-Gebiet erst zwisch en 139 und 129 erfolgt ... Eine mehr als ungefähre Zeitangabe
für den ersten Wanderzug läßt sich m. E. den Quellen
nicht abzwingen ...
Es muß demnach bei dem etwa s rohen Datum 1 74–160 verbleiben, ja selbst eine kurze
Spanne danach scheint u.U. nicht ausgeschlo
ssen. In Hinsicht auf den zweiten Wanderungsabschnitt,
den Zug vom T’ien- ṣa n nach Baktrien, ist die n eue,
von Kuwabara und Yasuma
vorgeschlagene Datierung 139 b is 129, durch die vo n Tṣaṅ Tś’ien
in hunnischer Gefangenschaft
verbrachte Zeit be grenzt , m.E. überzeuge nd, und l äßt sich, wie ich glaube, bei
gleicher Begründung auf die Jahre zwischen
135 und 129 einengen. Diese ausschließlich
durch sorgfältige Interpretation der chinesischen
Quellen gewonnenen Zahlen fügen sich
vollkommen den aus den westlichen Quellen ableitbaren
ein.
— 24 —

Der Vorstoß der Nomaden erfolgte in einer einzigen auf Baktrien geradezu gerichteten
Welle; die Annahme, daß die Üe-tṣï den Griechen bereits um 160 Sogdiana entrissen hätten,
ist aufzugeben.
Tṣaṅ Tś’ien, ausgesandt, um ein Bündnis zwischen den Chinesen und den Üe-tṣï abzuschließen,
soll sich, nach den Angaben seiner Biographie, 129 bis Anfang 128 bei ihnen auf-
gehalten haben (wenn wir als Rückkehrjahr 126 annehmen; auch 125 könnte mit guten
Gründen in Erwägung gezogen werden, und der Aufenthalt in Baktrien läge dann entsprechend
je ein Jahr später). Die Daten sind nicht völlig gewiß, können aber wohl nur in geringen
Grenzen schwanken.
In a footnote HALOUN adds:
In den Bericht sind z.T. sagenhafte Züge eingedrungen; kaum historisch kann das für
die Entsendung des Tṣaṅ angegebene Jahr 139 — bzw. 138 — sein, vielmehr gehört die gerade
dreizehnjährige Irrfahrt in der Fremde mehr als wahrscheinlich einem wohlbekannten
Ausstattungsstück der Legende an; die allgemeine politische Lage spricht gegen die
Einleitung der Mission vor frühestens 133; vor einer Überschätzung und kritiklosen Auswertung
von Ṣï-tśi Kap.123 (Ferghâna) muß grundsätzlich gewarnt werden. Er bezeichnet die
den Üe-tṣï unterworfene Landschaft Baktrien mit besonderem Namen, Ta-śia 大夏, der nun
zu den übrigen zu identifizierenden zuwächst.
Über einen der vier Völkernamen ist man sich seit langem einig. Die Sai (Sǝ), mittelchinesisch
und altchinesisch Sǝk, sind fraglos die Saken. Dürfen wir die “Sakarauken”, zumindest
in der Sache, als einen ihrer Stämme auffassen, so geht es nach Zeit und Wanderungsrichtung
doch wohl nicht an, sie mit den von den Üe-tṣï um 170–60 aus dem alten
Sakenland vertriebenen Sai-uaṅ zu verselbigen, wie immer dieser bis jetzt ebenfalls noch
unklare
Name auszudeuten ist ...
If we did not know better, we might indeed feel greatly disturbed by such seemingly
convincing statements. When HALOUN decreed die allgemeine politische Lage spricht
gegen die Einleitung der Mission vor frühestens 133, he sounded like a great authority
on the subject — but he was utterly wrong as we know today. As it is, we realize
here
how dangerous forceful, but unproven, reasoning may be. Better than just naming
sources it is to really go down ad fontes and quote verbatim the most important ones
we have. I am trying to do just that in the present compilation.
With the next author we return to the profoundly researched arguments of a great
authority
on the history of the Greeks. In 1938: 279–280, TARN writes:
We must now turn to Chang-k’ien. He was sent in 138 by the Han emperor, Wu-ti, as his
envoy
to the Yueh-chi to solicit their alliance against the common enemy, the Hiung-nu.
Where the Yueh-chi were at the time, and what route Chang-k’ien took, are not recorded,
but it is generally supposed that he followed the northern route through Chinese Turkestan
to Kashgar; thence he would have taken the route by Irkishtam and the Terek pass to Ferghana,
which probably shows that he expected to find the Yueh-chi still north of the Jaxartes.
On his way through
Chinese Turkestan he was captured by the Hiung-nu and kept in
more
or less honourable captivity for some ten years; finally he escaped with his attendants
and proceeded on his mission as though nothing had happened, a fact which illustrates
the man’s force of character. He reached Ta-yuan (Ferghana); the Saca government
passed him through to the K’ang-kiu and they in turn to the Yueh-chi, then camped between
Samarcand and the Oxus ...
Chang-k’ien says that the K’ang-kiu to the south of the river were “under the political influence
of” (i.e. subject to) the Yueh-chi as those north of the river were to the Hiung-nu.
They may possibly have extended to the Samarkand country, though if they did it was probably
later. But the reason that the Ta-yuan entrusted Chang-k’ien to their safe-conduct,
which would mean for him a considerable détour to the westward, more probably was, not
merely that they were vassals of the Yueh-chi, but that Samarkand was still maintaining
itself in some sort of quasi-independence and blocking the direct road ...
— 25 —

Chang-k’ien failed to obtain the alliance of the Yueh-chi, who told him that they were
tired of fighting and trekking and only wanted a peaceful life in the rich country which
they had at last secured, and returned to China by the more difficult southern route from
Badakshan
over the Pamirs and so through Chinese Turkestan; he was again captured by
the Hiung-nu, but after a year’s captivity he reached China in 126. In 115 he was sent on a
mission to the Wu-sun, then apparently about Lake Issyk Kul and from there sent out subordinate
envoys to visit the Western Countries up to and including Parthia, a country he
himself never saw. He died in 114, a year after his return to China ...
TARN’s chronology of Zhang
Qian is correct for the year of return, but off one year
for the departure from Chang’an.
He does not state the year in which, according to his
reckoning,
the Chinese ambassador reached the Ruzhi 月氏 ordos on the north side of
t he Oxus, but further down he says: 128. As for the onward route of Zhang Qian, TARN’s
e xplanations are immaculate except that Zhang Qian was not able to gather his 100
men
mission together again after more than ten years with the Xiongnu. As discussed
a bove, his escape could only work because he was in the company of no one but his
trusted
Xiongnu servant Gan Fu: just these two men continued the mission, not really
“ as if nothing had happened.” As for the return journey: it is very unlikely that Zhang
Qian
took the direct, extremely difficult route by crossing the Pamirs from Badakh-
s han to Yarkand. He had no knowledge of this route whatsoever, and it would not have
h elped him to evade the Xiongnu. More likely it is that Zhang Qian returned the way he
h ad come, i.e. via Samarkand and Ferghana — here he may have picked up the seeds
of
the grape which we know he imported into China — and along the age-old caravan
route
over the Pamirs back to Kashgar. From there he must have traveled the Sou-
t hern route around the Taklamakan, close to the mountain ranges there, inhabited by
the proto-Tibetans, to avoid the Xiongnu. That he was captured all the same shows
how
well the Xiongnu were in control of the whole region of the Tarim Basin at the
time.
One final point to discuss would be the position of Kangju 康居. This was at first
just a small kingdom “some two thousand li (800 km) northwest of Da Yuan” according
to Zhang Qian’s Report. The Chinese envoy was searching for the Ruzhi 月氏, not the
Kangju. When the king of the Da Yuan 大苑 sent him to the Kangju, this then is a first
hint at the fact that the 月氏, established in the lands around Samarkand,
had become
the new Kangju after they had subjugated this small kingdom and in the process had
extended the borders of it a considerable distance to the southwest,
i.e. across the
Jax artes into Sogdiana. What sounds like a mere guess is corroborated in some of the
later
Chinese Standard Histories: the Weishu 魏書, Beishi 北史, Suishu 隨書, and
Tangshu
唐書 (see below, pp. 27–29).
As will become clearer later on in their history, one very curious fact about the Ru-
z hi 月氏 is that they were always trying to hide behind the Western, i.e. Central Asian,
p eoples they conquered. In the Hanshu of Ban Gu, completed more than two hundred
years
after Zhang Qian’s Report, the Kangju 康居 are suddenly a much bigger and
m uch more powerful country, now extending across the Jaxartes as far as the Oxus
a nd thus including all of former Greek Sogdiana with its capital in the area of
S amarkand as described in Tangshu 221B (see below, pp. 28–29). This first Ruzhi
p owerbase had hardly more than the name in common with the Kangju in the Shiji,
w here Sima Qian is quoting Zhang Qian. But in the same Shiji 123 we are told — now
bas ed on later sources — that in the year 101 BCE Kanjgu forces were lurking in the
background,
ready to spring on the Chinese armies of Li Guangli 李廣利, the “Ershi
g eneral” 貳師將軍, who at that time was besieging the capital of the Da Yuan 大苑 in
order
to obtain the coveted “heavenly horses” 天馬. Those “Kangju” were already the
R uzhi 月氏 hiding behind this Central Asian name. The Shiji has a vague notion of
these
two different Kangju by stating in chapter 123 :
— 26 —

In the south it is controlled by the Ruzhi, in
the east it is controlled by the Xiongnu.
南羈事月氏東羈事匈奴
This can hardly apply to the original small Kangju kingdom, but reflects the fact
that
the 月氏, after chasing the Sakaraukai/Saiwang 塞王 from the region, had found-
e d a strong kingdom in Sogdiana and, for reasons we can only guess, became known
there,
not as (new) Sogdians, but as (new) Kangju: the Ruzhi 月氏 must have brought
this
name with them from across the Jaxartes.
(WATSON 1993: 249)
» If the Han (soldiers) do not kill us,
we will promptly bring out (all) the fine horses
so that you may take (as many) as you please,
and will (supply) food for the Han army.
(But) if you refuse to accept (these terms) we
will slaughter (all) the fine horses.
Moreover, rescue (troops) will soon be coming
(to aid us) from Kang–ju.
And when they arrive the Han army will have
to fight (both) us within (the city) and the
Kang–ju on the outside.
The Han army (had better) consider the matter
well (and decide) which course to take! «
At this time scouts from the Kang–ju were keeping
a watch on the Han troops, but since the
Han troops were still in good condition, (the
Kang–ju forces) did not dare to advance
(against them).
Shiji 123. 3177
漢 毋 攻 我
我 盡 出 善 馬 恣 所 取 而 給
漢 軍 食
即 不 聽 我 盡 殺 善 馬 而 康
居 之 救 且 至
至 我 居 內 康 居 居 外 與 漢
軍 戰
漢 軍 熟 計 之 何 從
是 時 康 居 候 視 漢 兵 漢 兵
尚 盛 不 敢 進
Centuries later we will be told in the Chinese Standard Histories, i.e. for the first
time in the Weishu, that the kingdom of the Kangju 康居 had been ruled by certain Ruzhi
月氏 kings since the time of the Han. This seems to indicate that the 月氏 — after
being evicted by the Wusun 烏 孫 from the former homelands of the Sakaraukai/Saiwang
塞王, the region between the upper Ili and Chu Rivers and around Lake
Issyk Köl —, had continued their migration westward and in the process had subjugated
the small nomad state of the genuine Kangju and had extended it across the
Jaxartes into Sogdiana.
The kingdom of the Kang 康 is the former
(kingdom
of the) Kangju. 康居.
(The people) move about and have no land of their
own.
Ever since the advent of the Han (dynasty), generation
followed upon generation without break.
Their king’s original family name is ›Wen‹.
He is a Ruzhi 月氏.
Anciently, (the Ruzhi) resided north of the Qilian
mountain range in the town (i.e. ›ordos‹ = royal
camp) of Zhaowu 昭武 (modern Zhangye).
When they were beaten by the Xiongnu, they
crossed the Congling mountains to the West and
soon took possession of this land (of the Kang).
They divided it amongst a number of individual
members of the king’s (family) and that is why left
and right (east and west) of the (main) state of
Kang
there are several (lesser) states and all
— 27 —
Weishu 102. 2281
康 國 者 康 居 之 後 也
遷 徙 無 常 不 恒 故 地
自 漢 以 來 相 承 不 絕
其 王 本 姓 溫
月 氏 人 也
舊 居 祁 連 山 北 昭 武 城
因 被 匈 奴 所 破 西 踰 蔥
嶺
遂 有 其 國
枝 庶 各 分 王 故 康 國 左

右 諸 國 並 以 昭 武 為 姓
gin) ... 示 不 忘 本 也 …
(these rulers’) family name is Zhaowu to demon
strate
(that they all do) not forget their roots (land
of ori
The Weishu contains Chinese history from the late fourth to the mid-sixth century.
The new facts on the migration of the 月氏 are therefore reported some four to five
centuries after the last piece of information contained in Ban Gu’s Hanshu. As we can
see here, the Chinese historians needed much time to find out what really had been
happening in the Far West — reflecting the fact that in the intervening
centuries com-
munications with the West were cut off and reestablished a couple
of times.
At long last we read that the 月氏 did not at all migrate directly
from the region be-
tween the Ili and Chu all the way to the upper
reaches of the Oxus and into Daxia —
as the Hanshu wanted us to believe. The
月氏 were driven from the lands between the
rivers Ili and Chu by the Wusun 烏孫 shortly
before Laoshang
chanyu of the Xiongnu
匈奴 had died in late 161 BCE and they arrived at the
Oxus River only months before
Zhang Qian reached the region in the summer
of 129. The Hanshu had kept us won-
dering what had happened to the 月氏 in this
long span of one full
generation. With
the additional information contained in the Weishu, we are finally able
to fill out this
blank in their history.
The Ruzhi 月氏 subjugated the Kangju 康 居, established themselves as their kings
and extended (or moved) this Kangju kingdom southwestward
as far as Samarkand
(Sogdiana). There, i.e. in Sogdiana, the 月氏 must have collided a second time
with the
Sakaraukai/Saiwang 塞王, who were now dri
ven south — as to the west, i.e.
west of
the middle reaches of the Oxus, the mighty empire
of the Parthians 安息 was already
blocking the way.
And here, in former Greek Sogdiana, the 月 氏 — for the first time
as far as we can
tell — established lesser principalities or viceroy-ships around their central or main
kingdom.
All these viceroys were members of the king’s family. After the Weishu 魏書,
or “Book of the Wei (Dynasty),” had reported this important new information for the
first time, the next in the long line of Chinese Standard Histories, the Beishi 北史 (in
chapter 97) and the Suishu 隨書 (in chapter 83), simply repeated the new facts. We
have to wait another two hundred years to be told how many sub-kings or viceroys
there had been in the realm of the new Kangju — and what their names were. The
(New) Tangshu 唐書 finally has this additional information.
(CHAVANNES 1903: 132–134)
(Le
pays de) K’ang 康 est appelé aussi Sa–mo–kien 薩
末鞬, ou encore Sa–mo–kien 颯秣建 (Samarkand) ;
c’est le pays qu’on appelait
Si–wan–kin 悉萬斤 sous
les Yuen Wei 元魏.
Du côté du sud il est à cent cinquante ›li‹ de Che 史
(Kesch);
i‹ du Ts’a
曹 occidental (Ischtîkhan);
au sud-est, il est à cent ›li‹ de Mi 米 (Mâïmargh);
au nord, à cinquante li du Ts’ao central (Kaboûdhan);
il est au sud de la rivière Na–mi 那密 (Zarafchan).
Il a trente grandes villes et trois cents petites places.
Le nom de famille du prince est ›Wen‹ 溫.
C’étaient à l’origine des Yue–tche 月氏 qui résidaient
autrefois dans la ville de Tchao–ou 昭武 , au nord de
(monts) K’i–lien 祁連. Ayant été battus par les Tou–
kiue (ici: les Hiong–nou), ils se retirèrent graduelle-
(Xin) Tangshu 221B. 6243
du côté du nord-ouest, il est à plus de cent ›l o
康 者 曰 薩 末 鞬 曰
颯 秣 建
元 魏 所 謂 悉 萬 斤 者
其 南 距 史 百 五 十 里
西 北 距 西 曹 百 餘 里
東 南 屬 米 百 里
北 中 曹 五 十 里
在 那 密 水 南 城
大 城 三 十 小 堡 三 百
s 君 姓 溫 月 氏 人
始 居 祁 連 北 昭 武 城
— 28 —

ment vers le sud en s’appuyant sur les (monts) Ts’ong
ling 蔥嶺
et entrèrent ainsi en possession
de ce territoire.
Les principautés qui sont détachées comme des rameaux
s’appellent
— Ngan 安 (Boukhârâ),
— Ts’ao 曹 (Kaboûdhan),
— Che 石 (Taschkend),
— Mi 米 (Mâïmargh),
— Ho 何 (Koschânyah),
— Ho–siun 火尋 (Khârizm),
— Meou–ti 戊地 (le Fa–ti 伐地 de Hiuen–tsang, à l’ouest
de Boukhârâ),
— Che 史 (Kesch).
On les nomme communément les neuf familles (les
huit plus Samarkand, la métropole des autres).
Tous sont de la famille ›Tchao–ou‹.
– 為 突 厥 所 破 稍 南 依
蔥 嶺
即 有 其 地
枝 庶 分 王
曰 安 曰 曹
曰 石 曰 米
曰 何 曰 火 尋
曰 戊 地 曰 史
世 謂 九 姓
皆 氏 昭 武
With this late information we may safely assume: When the Da Yuan 大苑 sent
Zhang Qian on to the “Kangju” they did not usher him north to the former small
Kangju kingdom 康居國 — under Xiongnu 匈奴 domination already —, but due west
to Samarkand were the Da Yuan knew the ›ordos‹ of the Ruzhi 月氏 to be. That it just
had been moved south of the Hissar Mountains to the Oxus and thereby into the lands
of the Daxia 大夏 was apparently not yet known in Ferghana. In the summer of 129
BCE, these were very new developments.
2. ARE WE ENTITLED TO EQUATE ›DAXIA‹ WITH TOCHARA ?
At this junction of Western studies of the relevant Chinese sources, two improved
translations of Shiji 123 were published in New York and Berlin. Below, I reproduce
the beginning of these new translations, i.e. as far as the mission of Zhang Qian is narrated
in this important chapter of the Shiji. For easy comparison I quote the translations
once more together with the Chinese original. It will be clear from the first
sen-
tences that these are vastly improved renditions.
(H IRTH 1917: 93–94)
(DE G ROOT 1926: 9–10)
Our first knowledge of Ta- Die Spur von Ta Wan ist durch
yüan (Ferghana) dates
from Tšang K’i¥n entdeckt worden.
Chang K’ien.
Tšang K’i¥n war ein Mann aus
Chang K’ien
was a native of Han-tšung.
Han-chung (Shen-si prov.). In der Periode Ki¥n-juan (140–
During the period of K’ién-
134) war er Palastbeamter.
yüan (140–134 B.C.) he was a In diesem Zeitraum verhörte
der
›lang‹. Sohn des Himmels Leute, die
At that time the Son of Heasich Hung-no unterworfen
hat-
ven made inquiries among ten. Sie teilten ihm alle
mit,
those Hiung-nu who had sur- daß Hung-no den Kön
rendered (as prisoners) and Goat-si geschlagen und
aus
they all reported that the dessen Schädel ein Trinkgefäß
Hiung-nu had overcome the gemacht habe;
king of the Yüé-chï and made die Goat-si seien dann geflohen
a drinking-vessel out of his und hegten eine da
— 29 —
Shiji
123. 3157–3159
大 宛 之 跡 見
自 張 騫
張 騫 漢 中 人
建 元 中 為 郎
是 時 天 子 問
匈 奴 降 者 皆
ig von 言 匈 奴 破 月
氏 王 以 其 頭
為 飲 器 月 氏
uernde 遁 逃 而 常 怨

skull.
The Yüé-chï had decamped
and were hiding somewhere,
all the time scheming how to
take revenge on the
Hiung-
nu, but had no ally to join
them in striking a blow.
The Chinese, wishing to de
clare war on and wipe out
the Tartars, upon hearing
this
report, desired to communi
cate with the Yüé-chï.
But, the road having to pass
through the territory of the
Hiung-nu, the Emperor
sought
out men whom he could send.
Chang K’ién, being a ›lang‹,
responded to the call and en-
listed in a mission to the
Yüé–
chï; he took with him one Kan
Fu, a Tartar, formerly a slave
of the T’ang–i family, and set
out from Lung–si (Kan–su).
Crossing the territory of the
Hiung–nu, the Hiung–nu
made him a prisoner and
sent him to the ›Shan–yü‹
who detained him, saying:
»The Yüé–chï are to the north
of us; how can China send
ambassadors
to them?
If I wished to send ambassadors
to Yüé (Kiang–si and
Ch’ö–kiang), would China be
willing to submit to us?«
He held Chang K’ién for more
than ten years and gave him
a wife, by whom he
had a
son.
All this time Chang K’ien had
kept possession of the Emperor’s
token of authority.
And, when in the course of
time he was allowed greater
liberty, he, watching his opportunity,
succeeded in making
his escape with his men
in the direction of the Yüé-chï.
Having marched several tens
of days to the west, he arrived
in Ta-yüan.
The people of this country,
having heard of the wealth
and fertility of China, had
Rachgier gegen Hung-no, hät-
ten aber niemand, mit dem
sie
sich verbinden könnten,
um es
anzugreifen.
Han war damals gerade im Be-
griff, sich mit der Vernichtung
der Hu zu beschäftigen,
und
faßte auf Grund dieser Mittei-
lungen den Entschluß, zur Anknüpfung
von Beziehungen
eine
Gesandtschaft (nach Goatsi)
zu entsenden.
Der Weg dorthin mußte
quer
durch Hung-no führen. Es wurden
nun für eine Aussendung
dahin geeignete Personen
auf-
gerufen,
und K’i¥n, der als Palastbeam-
ter sich meldete, wurde nach
Goat-si geschickt. Zusammen
mit einem Manne aus T’ang-ji’,
einem ehemaligen Hu’schen
Sklaven Kam-hu (Kan-fu)verließ
er Lung-si
und zog durch Hung-no. Aber
die Hung-no faßten
sie und
führten sie zum Tan-hu. Dieser
behielt sie bei sich und sprach:
»Zu Goat-si liegen wir im Nor den; dürfte Han also dorthin
reisen?
Falls ich eine Gesandtschaft
nach Ju¥’ schicken wollte (zu
dem Han im Norden liegt), würde
mir dann Han das erlauben?«
Mehr als zehn Jahre hielt er
K’ien bei sich; er gab ihm eine
Frau, und er hatte Söhne von
ihr.
Das Diplom von Han, welches
er führte, ließ er nicht verloren-
gehen.
Während er so im Zentrum von
Hung-no verweilte, erwarb er
sich mehr und mehr Freiheit
und benutzte diese, um mit seinen
Angehörigen die Flucht zu
ergreifen. Der Richtung nach
Goat-si folgend, floh er westwärts
und erreichte nach mehrmals
zehn Tagen Ta-wan.
In Ta-wan hatte man schon von
den Reichtümern und Schätzen
— 30 —
仇 匈 奴 無 與
共 擊 之
漢 方 欲 事 滅
胡 聞 此 言 因
欲 通 使
道 必 更 匈 奴
中 乃 募 能 使
者
騫 以 郎 應 募
使 月 氏 與 堂
邑 氏 ( 故 )
胡 奴 甘 父 俱
出 隴 西
經 匈 奴 匈 奴
得 之 傳 詣 單
于
單 于 留 之 曰
月 氏 在 吾 北
漢 何 以 得 往
使 吾 欲 使 越
漢 肯 聽 我 乎
留 騫 十 餘 歲
與 妻 有 子
然 騫 持 漢 節
不 失
居 匈 奴 中 益
寬 騫 因 與 其
屬 亡 鄉 月 氏
西 走 數 十 日
至 大 宛
大 宛 聞 漢 之
饒 財 欲 通 不
得 見 騫 喜 問

tried in vain to communicate
with it.
When, therefore, they saw
Chang K’ién, they asked joyfully:
»Where do you wish to
go?«
Chang K’ién replied:
»I was sent by (the Emperor
of) China to the Yüé-chï, and
was made prisoner by the
Hiung-nu.
I have now escaped them and
would ask that your king
have some one conduct me to
the country of the Yüé-chï.
And if I should succeed in
reaching that country, on my
return to China, my king will
reward yours with untold
treasures.«
The Ta-yüan believed his account
and gave him safe-conduct
on postal roads to K’angkü
(Soghdiana);
and K’ang-kü sent him on to
the Ta-yüé-chï.
The king of the Ta-yüé-chï
having been killed by the Hu,
the people set up the crown
prince in his stead.
They had since conquered
Ta-hia (Bactria) and occupied
that country.
The latter being rich and fertile
and little troubled with
robbers, they had determined
to enjoy a peaceful life;
moreover, since they considered
themselves too far
away from China, they had
no longer the intention to
take revenge on the Hu
(Hiung-nu).
Chang K’ien went through the
country of the Yüé-chï to Tahia
(Bactria), yet, after all, he
did not carry his point with
the Yüé-chï.
After having remained there
fully a year, he returned,
skirting the Nan-shan.
He wished to return through
the country of the K’iang
(Tangutans), but was again
von Han gehört und Beziehungen
anknüpfen wollen, jedoch
war es nicht dazu gekommen.
Als man nun K’i¥n erblickte,
freute man sich und fragte ihn:
»Wo willst du hin?«
Die Antwort lautete:
»Ich wurde von Han nach Goatsi
entsandt, jedoch durch Hungno
wurde mir der Weg verlegt.
Jetzt bin ich auf der Flucht, o
König, laß mich von Deinen
Leuten begleiten, auf daß ich
wirklich mein Ziel erreichen
kann.
Sobald ich dann wieder in Han
zurück bin,
werden die Schätze,
welche es Dir, König, schenkt,
alle Beschreibung übertreffen.«
Ta-wan war einverstanden; es
ließ (Tšang) K’ien weiterreisen
und bot Leute auf, die ihm von
der einen Station nach der anderen
bis nach K’ang-ki
das Ge-
leit gaben.
Und dann ließ ihn K’ang-ki
nach Groß-Goat-si bringen.
Als der König von Groß-Goat-si
durch die Hu umgebracht war,
hatte es seinen ältesten Sohn
zum König erhoben;
dann hatte es Ta-ha (Tochara)
unterworfen und sich dort ansässig
gemacht.
Dieses Land war fruchtbar und
reich; man wurde da selten von
Feinden angegriffen und suchte
nur ein ruhiges und freudiges
Dasein zu führen;
man betrachtete Han als weit
entlegen und hegte gegen die
Hu fast keine Rachsucht mehr.
Von Goat-si reiste (Tšang) K’ien
nach Ta-ha, ohne daß es ihm
gelungen war, eine Entscheidung
von Goat-si zu bekommen.
Nachdem er länger als ein Jahr
sich da aufgehalten hatte, trat
er den Rückweg an. Er reiste
den Nan-šan (Südgebirge) entlang,
mit der Absicht, über
K’iong (D{a-k’iong} heimzureisen;
aber zum zweiten Male
— 31 —
曰
若 欲 何 之
騫 曰
為 漢 使 月 氏
而 為 匈 奴 所
閉 道
今 亡 唯 王 使
人 導 送 我
誠 得 至 反 漢
漢 之 賂 遺 王
財 物 不 可 勝
言
大 宛 以 為 然
遣 騫 為 發 導
繹 抵 康 居
康 居 傳 致 大
月 氏
大 月 氏 王 已
為 胡 所 殺 立
其 太 子 為 王
既 臣 大 夏 而
居
地 肥 饒 少 寇
志 安 樂 又 自
以 遠 漢 殊 無
報 胡 之 心
騫 從 月 氏 至
大 夏 竟 不 能
得 月 氏 要 領
留 歲 餘 還 並
南 山 欲 從 羌
中 歸 復 為 匈
奴 所 得

made a prisoner by the
Hiung-nu,
who detained him for more
than a year, when the Shanyü
died and the “left” Luk-li
prince attacked the rightful
heir and usurped the throne,
thus throwing the country
into a state of confusion.
At this time Chang K’ien, with
his Tartar wife and T’ang-i
Fu (Kan Fu), escaped and returned
to China.
(The Emperor of) China appointed
Chang K’ién a ›T’ai-
chung-ta-fu‹ and gave T’ang-i
Fu the title ›Föng-shï-kün‹.
wurde er von Hung-no entdeckt
und länger als ein Jahr festgehalten.
Da starb der Tan-hu; der linke
Kok-li-König erschlug dessen ältesten
Sohn und setzte
sich
selbst auf den Thron;
Wirren herrschten im Reich;
(Tšang) K’ien wandte sich mit
seiner Hu-Frau und mit T’ang-
ji’ (Kam-)hu zur Flucht und
kam nach Han zurück.
Han ernannte darauf (Tšang)
K’i¥n zum ›Wesir des innersten
Palastes‹, und T’ang-ji’ (Kam-)
hu wurde ›Fürst, der vom Kaiser
eine Sendung empfing‹.
留 歲 餘 單 于
死 左 谷 蠡 王
攻 其 太 子 自
立 國 內 亂 騫
與 胡 妻 及 堂
邑 父 俱 亡 歸
漢
漢 拜 騫 為 太
中 大 夫 堂 邑
父 為 奉 使 君
By now, there were translations
of Shiji 123 into four European
languages:
into
French by B ROSSET (1828); into Russian by BICHURIN (1851); into
E nglish by HIRTH (1917);
and into German by DE GROOT
(1926). Within the span of about
one hundred years, Si-
nology in Europe in general and the study of the Chinese Standard
Histories in par-
ticular had made great strides
forward. Yet the problems of the Chinese language, the
Chinese script and the cumbersome
Chinese ways to transribe
foreign names proved
formidable obstacles. It seemed
that a century of intensive research was not enough
to
overcome the difficulties invo lved. One example is that HIRTH,
who came from Ger-
many and taught at Columbia University in New York, still equated
Daxia
大夏 with
Bactria, thus copying the mist
ake of many of his forerunners.
The mistaken
and mis-
leading identification, in fact, can be traced back to RÉMUSAT 1825:
116:
Les contrées que Tchhang-kian avoit visitées par lui-même étoient
— le Ta-wan ou pays de Schasch,
— le pays des Ta-youeï-chi ou la Transoxane,
— le Ta-hia ou la Bactriane,
— et Kang-kiu ou la Sogdiane.
Mais il rapporta des relations détaillées
au sujet de cinq ou six autres
états
voisins.
1846: 231, JULIEN, the successor
of RÉMUSAT at the Collège de
France,
confirms:
Je donnerai des notices historiques
sur divers peuples de l’Asie
qui
ont joué un rôle im-
portant dans cette partie du monde,
et pour la connaissance
desqu els les auteurs chinois
nous offrent seuls des renseignements
solides et étendus. Je me co ntenterai de citer, pour
le moment,
— les Ta-hia ou Bactriens,
— les ‘Asi ou Parthes,
— les habitants du Khang-khiu ou Sogdiens,
— les Yen-tsai ou Gètes,
— les Youeï-tchi, de race indo-scythe,
qui ont occupé successivem ent la Transoxiane, la
Bactriane et le Caboul;
— les Ou-sun,
race blonde aux yeux bleus, appelée par quelques aut eurs, indo-germanique,
etc. ...
It proved to be very unfortunate,
that after RÉMUSAT and
JULIEN, the erroneous
identification Ta-hia = Bactria continued to be copied and recopied
by five to six gen-
erations of scholars down to our
own times (Vaissière 2002: 31).
One year after HIRTH’s translation,
in 1918: 572, F.W.K. MÜLLER
quoted one
short
paragraph of Shiji 123 in translation
and the original text which
contained the line:
— 32 —

西擊大夏 Im Westen schlugen
sie die Tai-Hia (*Dai-Ha = Baktrer).
He thus gave the false equation
a semi-scientific touch.
In contrast to MÜLLER, the famous Dutch Sinologist DE GROO
T, who had come from
Leiden to Berlin, introduces here the new and much improved
equation Daxia = To-
chara in his translation of Shiji
123. With this, he confirms what MARQUART 1901: 204
had written:
Aus dieser historischen Gegenüberstellung
der griechisch-römis
chen und chinesischen
Berichte ergibt sich mit logischer
Notwendigkeit die Gleichung: Ta -hia = Tochari. Ich
treffe also in dieser Identifikatio
n zufällig mit Kingsmill (1882: 74–79)
zusammen; man wird
aber hoffentlich zugeben, dass meine auf historisch-kritischem Wege
gewonnenen
Erklä-
rungen nichts mit den wilden,
lediglich auf scheinbare Namensanklänge hin gemachten
Identifikationen j enes Sinologen gemein haben ...
Shortly before DE GROOT,
in 1920: 1617, the well-known Geographer
HERRMANN, writ-
ing on the Sacaraucae, included
the crucial equation in the following
explanations:
Schon Chang-k’ien nennt uns
im eigentlichen Baktrien das Volk
der Ta-ha; es sind dies
die Tocharer, die dort kürzlich die griechische Herrschaft abgelöst
hatten. Und wie wir aus
den
Han-Annalen schließen können, folgten den Sacaraucae nach einer Reihe von Jahren
die Kurschi (Guát-si), als sie von den Å-sun aus ihren neuen Sitzen verjagt wurden. Wenn
wir dabei die griechischen Nachrichten über die letzten Könige von Baktrien in Betracht
ziehen, so gehen wir wohl kaum fehl in der Annahme, daß die Sacaraucae zwischen 160
und 150, die Tocharer um 135, endlich die Kurschi um 130 v.Chr. eingewandert sind. Mit diesen
Kenntnissen ausgerüstet, sind wir endlich in der Lage, die abendländischen Berichte
kritisch zu verwerten. Trogus Pompeius hat den Einbruch der Sacaraucae im 41. Buch behandelt:
»Deinde quo regnante Scythicae gentes Saraucae et Asiani Bactra occupavere et Sogdianos.«
Leider hat der jämmerliche Auszug bei Iustin. über dieses Ereignis keine Silbe
aufbewahrt.
Daß, wie Marquart (1901: 205) behauptet, die Sacaraucae mit Bactra,
die Asiani mit
Sogdiani inhaltlich zusammengehören,
darf man aus dem Text nicht ohne weiteres her-
auslesen. Wesentlich ist hier nur, daß neben den Sacaraucae allein die Asiani genannt
werden. Über beide Völker handelt
auch das nächste
Buch:
»Additae his res Scythicae. Reges
Thocarorum Asiani interitusque Saraucarum.«
Hier lernen wir also noch ein drittes Skythenvolk kennen, die Thocari, die bei Iustin.
XLII 2, 2 als ›Tochari‹ vorkommen; v. Gutschmid (1888: 70) und Marquart haben wohl Recht,
wenn sie die letztere Notiz in dem Sinne auslegen, daß die Könige der Tocharer Asiani
schen
Stammes seien. Denn hierzu stimmt genau die Angabe der Han-Annalen, daß die
Guát-si, die Chang-k’ien noch im Norden des Oxus antraf, sich bald darauf des Landes der
Ta-ha (Tocharer) bemächtigten. Somit können die Asiani nur die Kurschi (Guát-si) sein.
HERRMANN’s
Å-sun are the Wusun and the Kurschi (Guát-si) our Ruzhi 月氏. His
last statement is of importance
because it is the result of straightforward logical reasoning.
It is also important
to notice here that HERRMANN identifies the Ta-ha 大夏 of
Z hang Qian and the Tochari of Trogus and says that they migrated into Bactria from
somewhere else, sometime
between the Sakaraukai and the Ruzhi 月氏. Below, we will
see that HERRMANN soon changed his mind on this point revealing a curious
dilemma — which will be of great help for
solving the whole question of who really
t ook Bactria from the Bactrian Greeks. Sometimes the solution of complex problems
can be found
by asking the right questions.
HERRMANN continues:
Während Trogus nur von dem Einbruch zweier Skythenstämme spricht und erst bei
späterer Gelegenheit mit ihnen zusammen die Thocari erwähnt, zählt
Strabon insgesamt
vier
Völker auf, welche, vom Sakenland jenseits des Iaxartes ausgehend, den Hellenen
Baktrien entrissen haben sollen ...
— 33 —

In welcher Weise läßt sich nun diese Darstellung mit der des Trogus vereinigen ? ...
Warum erwähnt Trogus die Tocharer nicht von vornherein
bei Gelegenheit des Einbruchs
in Baktrien ?
Two years later, in 1922: 459 and more in passing, RAPSON provides us with a new
and crucial observation on the Daxia:
The report of Chang-kien,
a Chinese envoy who visited the Yueh-chi in 126 B.C., is still
extant.
These nomads were then settled in Sogdiana, and the report speaks in somewhat
contemptuous terms of their southern neighbours, the Ta-hia, by whom are apparently
meant the native population of Bactria: they were a nation of shopkeepers, living in towns
each governed by its magistrate, and caring nothing for the delight or the glory of battle ...
This simple observation is also taken up by HERRMANN who adduces two more ar-
guments and plenty of evidence for reversing his
earlier statements on the Daxia. In
the same year, 1922: 209–211 and now contra MARQUART, he writes:
In diesen Zusammenhang gehört auch die Beurteilung des Völkernamens Ta-hsia. Wir
haben
gesehen, daß ein Volksstamm dieses Namens in der Geschichte Chinas nur einmal,
nämlich im Jahre 1084 v.Chr. unter den westlichen Grenzvölkern aufgetreten ist, um dann
für immer zu verschwinden. Nur durch die chinesischen Karten und Legenden hat sich der
Name, wie wir an einigen Beispielen darlegen konnten, bin in die Han-Zeit fortgepflanzt ...
Es ist daher gar nicht verwunderlich, daß schließlich CHANG CH’IEN genau denselben Namen
auf das größte Kulturvolk des Westens, die Baktrer, übertragen hat, in der offenbaren
Meinung, hier das uralte Westvolk endlich wiedergefunden zu haben. Wenn also, wie es in
der Tat scheint, lediglich eine Namensübertragung vorliegt, dann haben wir keine Veranlassung
mehr, zwischen den beiden Ta-hsia von den Jahren 1084 und 127 v.Chr. einen ethnographischen
Zusammenhang zu konstruieren, wie es O. FRANKE in einer besonderen Abhandlung
getan hat (OZ 1919–20, S. 125 ff.), so daß wir gegen seine Ergebnisse schon oben
schwere Bedenken äußern mußten. Ebenso ist es ein Verstoß gegen die Methoden der historischen
Geographie, daß man den Namen Ta-hsia in das vielerörterte Problem der Tocharer
und Yüeh-chih hineingezogen hat. Während auf der einen Seite Tocharer und Yüehchih
miteinander identifiziert werden, machen andere Gelehrte, namentlich J. MARQUART
(1901), O. FRANKE (1920) und STEN KONOW (1920) die Ta-hsia zu Vorfahren der Tocharer, da diese
schon vor den Yüeh-chih in Baktrien eingewandert und dann
von den letzteren unterworfen
sein sollen. Ausschlaggebend ist für sie der Namensanklang des rekonstruierten
Lautes
Ta-ha an Tocharoi.
Aber war denn, wie SCHLEGEL, Marquarts Gewährsmann, behauptet hat, die alte Aussprache
wirklich Ta-ha ? Neuerdings haben F.W.K. MÜLLER und unabhängig von ihm B.
KARLGREN festgestellt, daß der alte Laut eher Tai-ha gewesen sein müsse (nach einer per-
sönlichen Mitteilung KARLGRENs ist für 大 der alte Laut ›d’âi‹ das Normale, während ›d’â‹
nur bisweilen in der Poesie vorkommt). Wenn auch eine sichere Entscheidung in dieser
phonetischen
Frage vorläufig nicht möglich ist, die etymologische Verbindung mit Tocharoi
ist mindestens sehr anfechtbar. Sie wird geradezu illusorisch, wenn wir drei Momente in
Betracht ziehen, über die man bisher achtlos hinweggegangen ist.
Das erste Moment besteht darin, daß die Chinesen, obgleich ihnen die Namen Ta-hsia
und Tu-ho-lo (für Tocharoi und Tokhåra) durchaus geläufig waren, selber niemals auf den
Gedanken gekommen sind, sie miteinander zu identifizieren. Dieser Fall wiegt um so
schwerer, weil sie bei ihren nur selten unterbrochenen Beziehungen zu Baktrien immer
wieder auf den alten Namen Ta-hsia zurückgekommen sind. Besonders bezeichnend ist
hierfür die von CHAVANNES übersetzte Angabe der Tang-Annalen (618–906 n.Chr.):
Le T’ou-ho-lo est appelé parfois T’ou-ho-lo ou Tou-ho-lo. C’est l’ancien territoire du (royaume
de) Ta-hia.
Hier werden also alle möglichen Transkriptionen für Tokhåra, Tukhåra geliefert; dagegen
wird Ta-hsia nur aus rein geographischen Gründen hinzugefügt; an eine lautliche
Übereinstimmung haben also die Chinesen niemals gedacht.
— 34 —

Wenn auch diese Tatsache an sich nicht beweiskräftig ist, so gewinnt sie doch an Tragweite,
sobald wir die beiden anderen Momente sprechen lassen. Das eine ergibt sich aus
dem Bericht des Entdeckers
CHANG CH’IEN. Während er von den Yüeh-chih hervorhebt, daß
sie als Nomadenvolk von Osten her in das Oxusland eingedrungen seien, um sich an dessen
Nordufer festzusetzen, betrachtet er die Ta-hsia als die seßhafte Bevölkerung Baktriens,
die kriegerisch schwach, aber im Handel und Gewerbe äußerst tüchtig sei. Es ist ohne
weiteres
klar, daß ein solches Urteil nicht einem Volke gelten kann, das erst vor kurzem
eingewandert ist, um das griechisch-baktrische Reich zu stürzen. Mit den Ta-hsia sind also
zweifellos die alteingesessenen Bewohner gemeint.
Dann können aber die Tocharer nicht mit den Ta-hsia, sondern nur mit den Yüeh-chih
identisch sein, die, wie wir wissen, bald nach CHANG CH’IENs Expedition die Ta-hsia voll-
ständig
unterwarfen und damit Herren von ganz Baktrien wurden. Daß diese Lösung die
einzig mögliche ist, wird uns durch die Nachricht bewiesen, die sich auf die frühere Heimat
der Yüeh-chih bzw. Tocharer beziehen.
Über die ältesten Sitze der Yüeh-chih sind die Angaben der chinesischen Annalen so
klar gefaßt, daß die europäische Forschung zu einem völlig gesicherten Ergebnis gekommen
ist: Die Yüeh-chih wohnten, als sie den Chinesen zuerst bekannt wurden, zwischen
Tun-huang und Kan-chou, und als die Hauptmasse nach Westen auswanderte (um 160
v.Chr.), behaupteten sich die Kleinen Yüeh-chih im Gebirge südlich davon; einige werden
besonders in Huang-chung, dem heutigen Hsi-ning-fu, bezeugt. Was anderseits die Herkunft
der Tocharer betrifft, die im Chinesischen erst seit dem 4. Jahrh. n.Chr. als Tou-ch’ialo
und bald darauf als Tu-ho-lo bezeugt werden, so enthalten sich die offiziellen Annalen
jeder weiteren Äußerung ...
No doubt, Zhang Qian’s Chinese transcription Daxia 大夏 for the foreign name To-
cha(ra)
had been an unfortunate choice because this was the Chinese name for a total-
ly
different foreign people, first north and later west of China. This fact is also alluded
t o by PELLIOT below (p. 37). In preparation of his mission to search for the Ruzhi 月氏 ,
Z hang Qian, a literate man, may have gone through what written sources on the 月氏
t here were in his time. Sima Tan, the father of Sima Qian, had just been appointed
court
astronomer / astrologer by Han Emperor Wu (in 140 BCE). In charge of all mat-
t ers of the calendar and in consequence of the imperial archives, Sima Tan with Zhang
Qian
may have gone through such old books as the Yizhoushu 逸周書 where in chap-
ter
59 a number of foreign nations are mentioned bringing “tribute” (gifts) to the Chi-
nese court: from due north
正北, there were, among others, the Daxia 大夏, the
Xiongnu
匈奴, and the Ruzhi 月氏.
With this chapter in the back of his mind, Zhang Qian may have believed for a mo-
m ent that he had the Far Eastern Daxia before him in Eastern Bactria. He was, of
course,
badly mistaken, and so the compilers of later Chinese Standard Histories
changed
the two-character transcription 大夏 into a variety of better-fitting three-char-
a cter transcriptions (see below, pp. 37–38) to end the confusion which Zhang Qian’s
mistake
had created. But it was too late: East Asian and Western authors in our times
jumped on the coincidence and thus helped proliferate and worsen
the confusion.
HERRMANN’s main and only valid reason for his about-face was his new and brilli-
ant
observation, hinted at by RAPSON: Zhang Qian’s Daxia 大夏 were die alteingeses-
sene
Bevölkerung Baktriens — the autochthonous population of Bactria which, by the
t ime of Zhang Qian, had become a melting pot of races, cultures and languages. After
the
Iranians and the Greeks it was the Sakas who left their traces in this local popula-
tion. This was of paramount importance. It proved that the Daxia = Tocharians
had
not come from anywhere else. With this shrewd new insight into Zhang Qian’s text,
HERRMANN was obliged
to believe that the Daxia 大夏 could no longer be equated with
the Tochari of Trogus and especially not with the TÒcaroi (Tochari) of Strabo’s list
because
the latter were said to be Scythian nomads and recent invaders of Bactria.
This
was HERRMANN’S dilemma.
FRANKE, in 1930: 338, a text quoted above already, just confirms his earlier findings:
— 35 —

Tschang K’ien ging, vermutlich am Südhang des T’ien-schan entlang, den Spuren der
Yüe-tschi nach, und fand sie schließlich, nachdem ihm Leute von Ta-yuan (Ferghana) und
K’ang-kü (die Kirgisen-Steppen nördlich vom Syr darja oder Jaxartes) das Geleit gegeben,
in den Ländern am oberen Oxus (Amu darja). Hier waren sie gemeinsam mit anderen Völkerstämmen
in das griechische Diadochen-Reich Baktrien eingefallen und hatten sich ihre
gegenwärtigen Wohnsitze erobert. Sie führten in dem fruchtbaren und hochkultivierten
Lande zusammen mit den Tocharern (Ta-hia) ein behagliches Dasein und waren zu großer
Blüte gelangt. Es ist leicht zu verstehen, daß die Yüe-tschi unter diesen Umständen
keine Neigung mehr hatten, gegen die Hiung-nu einen Rachekrieg zu beginnen und mit
dem
weit entfernten Reiche der Han ein Bündnis zu schließen.
The early German Sinologist is one of the few who, unwaveringly, equate Ta-hia or
Daxia
大夏 with the Tocharians — not the Bactrians.
However, the complex issue of the identity of the Tochari kept vexing and torment-
ing
the greatest minds. KONOW is another example. In 1920: 231–233, he writes:
Ich habe im vorhergehenden die Entdeckung meines Freundes SIEG, SbAW, 1918, S. 560
ff., absichtlich nicht erwähnt, obgleich sie anscheinend alles, was ich bis jetzt über diese
Fragen geschrieben habe, über den Haufen wirft. SIEG hat bekanntlich nachgewiesen, daß
die indogermanische Sprache des nordöstlichen Turkistan, welche die Uiguren als tocri,
d.h. doch wohl sicher tocharisch, bezeichnen, in den Texten selbst årši genannt wird, und
daß dies Wort årši auch das Reich und dessen Bewohner bezeichnet. Man wird wohl ohne
weiteres F.W.K. MÜLLER beistimmen, wenn er, idem, S. 566 ff., dies årši mit dem 'Asioi des
Strabo und dem Asiani des Trogus
zusammenbringt, indem ja die Asiani nach Trogus die
Könige der
Tochari waren oder wurden. Wir würden somit mit MÜLLER zu dem Ergebnis
kommen, daß das Volk selbst tocri, Tocharer, die Herrscherschicht årši Asii, genannt wurde.
Wenn weiter MÜLLER’s Annahme, die auch FRANKE, OZ 6, S. 83 ff., für wahrscheinlich hält,
daß das chinesische Yüe-tschi eine Wiedergabe eben des Wortes årši ist, das Richtige treffen
sollte, wäre somit die Frage gelöst ...
Die Frage nach dem Verhältnis zwischen Årši und tocri hängt selbstverständlich mit
einer anderen zusammen: wie steht es mit der allgemein angenommenen Gleichsetzung
der Yüe-tschi mit den Tocharern ?
In seinem ›×rånšahr‹, S. 200 ff., hat MARQUART aus einer Prüfung der chinesischen und
klassischen Nachrichten den Schluß gezogen, daß es sich um zwei verschiedene Völker
handelt. Auf den Inhalt der chinesischen Nachrichten habe ich schon oben hingewiesen.
Auf ihrer Wanderung gegen Westen schlugen die Yüe-tschi die Ta-hia und unterjochten
sie ... Nach dem Schi-ki waren sie mehr ein Handels- als ein Kriegervolk, weshalb sie von
den Ta Yüe-tschi unterjocht wurden. Ähnlich ist die Darstellung im Ts’ien Han-schu ...
Damit hat MARQUART, wie ich glaube mit Recht, die Bemerkung des Trogus reges Tocharorum
Asiani zusammengestellt, und den Schluß gezogen, daß die Ta-hia mit den Tocharern,
die Yüe-tschi mit den Asiani identisch sein müssen. Daraus folgt aber mit Notwendigkeit,
daß die Yüeh-tschi und die Tocharer von Haus aus verschiedene Völker waren. Dazu
stimmen auch die anderen Nachrichten, die uns zugänglich sind. Nach den chinesischen
Berichten saßen die Ta-hia schon in Baktrien, als die Yüeh-tschi im 2. Jahrhundert v.Chr.
das Land eroberten ...
Thirteen years later, now also reversing his own earlier convictions, KONOW writes,
1933: 463:
Marquart hat auch nachzuweisen versucht, daß die beiden Formen denselben Namen
wiedergeben ...
Heute werden wohl wenige Gelehrte dieser Ansicht sein. Nach freundlicher Mitteilung
Karlgrens wurde Ta-hia im 2. Jahrh. v.Chr. d’ât-g’â gesprochen, und eine solche Form kann
unmöglich dem klassischen Tochari zugrunde liegen. Dagegen ist es wohl möglich, daß sich
die beiden Bezeichnungen sachlich decken.
To this PELLIOT answers one year later, 1934: 27–40:
— 36 —

M. Sten Konow écarte le rapprochement fait par Marquart entre le nom de 大夏 Ta-hia
et celui du Tokharestan, d’autant que M. Karlgren lui a donné *D’ât-g’å pour la prononciation
de Ta-hia au second siècle avant notre ère, mais admet que les deux noms se recouvrent
néanmoins en fait et sont synonymes ...
Géographiquement, le Ta-Hia répond au Tokharestan, le pays des Tukhâras, et Marquart,
on l’a vu, a proposé d’identifier phonétiquement Ta-Hia et Tukhâra ... je crois volon-
e tiers que les Chinois de la fin du II siècle avant notre ère ont utilisé, pour transcrire le nom
des Tukhâras, le nom de Ta-Hia ou «Grand Hia» déjà connu dans le domaine chinois.
With this, KONOW soon reverses his opinion once again, and, in 1934: 6, states what
he
had written initially, namely in 1920:
It seems to be generally admitted that the Saraucae, for which other texts have Sakaraukae,
Sakarauloi, etc., correspond to the Saiwang, the Asiani or Asioi, as they are also
called, to the Yüe-chi, and the Tocharians to the Ta-hia. There cannot well be any question
about identifying the name Ta-hia, which according to Professor Karlgren was pronounced
›d’ât-g’a‹
in the second century B.C., with Tochara, or Yüe-chi, old ›gwat-ti‹ or ›gat-ti‹, with
Asioi.
Here, all problems seemed well solved. HERRMANN — who, like KONOW, had sub-
s cribed to the equation Ta-ha = Tocharer in 1920 — had just two years later been
forced
to reconsider the evidence and in consequence had changed his mind, too. But
unlike
KONOW he repeated his objections in 1937: 1633–1634:
Als eine Umschreibung von Tokhâra hat man vielfach das chines. ›Ta-hsia‹ (›Ta-hia‹) in
Baktrien ansehen wollen, vgl. Marquart (1901: 204), O. Franke (1920: 125ff.), Sten Konow (1920:
233). Das ist aber ein Irrtum. Denn abgesehen davon, daß die alte Aussprache etwa ›tai-ha‹
war und sich somit von Tokhâra noch mehr entfernte als der heutige Laut, hat unser Gewährsmann
Tschang K’ien (um 127 v.Chr.) mit Ta-hsia nicht ein Eroberervolk, sondern die
alteingesessene Bevölkerung Baktriens bezeichnen
wollen; er beging nur den Fehler, daß
er hierauf den Namen eines ganz anderen Volkes Ta-hsia übertrug, das ihm in der Literatur
als kulturell hochstehendes Fremdvolk angegeben war.
TARN, in his famous book of 1938, observes the same important fact (see below,
p. 67).
With that we may go on to discuss the logical implications of this crucial obser-
vation
and suggest a solution to the dilemma: to accept that the Daxia 大夏 were the
town-dwelling,
autochthonous population of Eastern Bactria and still stick to the
equation
Daxia = Tochara.
In China proper, WANG GUOWEI 王國維, in his Study on the Western Hu 西胡考,
contained in chapter 13 of his famous collection Guantang jilin 觀堂集林 of 1923,
named
Marquart (馬括德) as his main authority when he explained, p. 15 b:
My
investigations show that the name Du–huo–
luo
[Tochara] originally derives from Da–xia.
考 睹 貨 邏 之 名 源 出 大 夏
With this statement the great Chinese scholar joined the rather few enlightened au-
thors
who got the crucial equation Daxia = Tocha(ra) right. And with this clarification
firmly established, we are
in a position to rectify what BAILEY, 1947: 151, had written:
Since the Chinese equated Buddhist Sanskrit Tuḫkhāra with their own name Üe-ṭṣï ... the
equation of Τόχαροι and Üe-ṭṣï seems certain enough.
BAILEY’s identification is based on a fallacious assumption. In Weishu 102 and in
Beishi 97, the Chinese, in fact, transliterate “Buddhist Sanskrit Tuḫkhāra,” not with Üe-
ṭṣï 月氏, but with —
吐呼羅 (T’u–hu–lo, in Wade-Giles, Tuhuluo, in pinyin), and with
吐火羅 (T’u–ho–lo; Tuhuoluo) in Suishu 83 and in Tangshu 221; the latter also gives
吐豁羅 (T’u–ho–lo; Tuhuoluo),
睹貨 邏 (Tu–ho–lo; Duhuoluo), and
— 37 —

吐呼 羅 (T’u–hu–lo; Tuhuluo) as variants. In the last of these four Chinese Standard
Histories,
the (New) Tangshu, it is said — as I have quoted above:
Tuh
(Xin) Tangshu 221B. 6252
uoluo ... is the old Daxia territory. 吐 火 羅 … 古 大 夏 地
Hence, the Chinese equate Buddhist Sanskrit Tuḫkhāra, not with Üe-ṭṣï 月氏, but —
in
the time of Sima Qian — with the name Daxia 大夏.
From the Shiji and the Hanshu we know that the Daxia 大夏 were subjugated by
the Ruzhi 月氏 and hence cannot be identical with the latter. BAILEY’s informant on
the Chinese sources is HALOUN (see above,
pp. 24–25). The above erroneous equation
Τόχαροι
= Üe-ṭṣï must thus be his. BAILEY knew his limitations and frankly admitted:
Indeed, it is evident that no scholar is equipped to control all the sources. We find scholars
who have done admirable work in one branch stand helpless before essential documents
in another. One scholar may know to the full Indian materials but be unable to
handle the Chinese, or another may know the Chinese sources but have slight knowledge
of Iranian.
Admitting then in advance, as an excuse for the present excursus, that we are
all
inadequately equipped in some respect of Central Asiatic studies ...
In 1985: 126, BAILEY corrects himself, or rather, he corrects his informant HALOUN:
The Chinese writings of Bud. Skt. tukhåra- are 吐火羅 K 1129, 117, 569 t’u-xuo-lo
< t’uo-xuâ-lâ
and 兜佉羅 K 1017, 491, 569 tou-k’ie-lo < tÿu-k’ia-lâ. Hüan Tsang (A.D. 644)
mentioned an old country of this people at a ruined site 都貨羅故國 tu-huo-lo ku kuo
“old city of the T’u-huo-lo” at ancient Så¾a, modern Endere, west of ²er¾en (CHAVANNES 1903:
155, 221) ...
In our own times, the topic of Tochara has finally witnessed substantial progress.
In
1994: 173–178, ENOKI / KOSHELENKO / HAIDARY write:
As ›Ta-hsia‹ is an exact transcription of ›Tochara‹ (which was the central part of the
Bactrian kingdom), if the Yüeh-chih were the Tocharians, the
conquest of Ta-hsia by the
Yüeh-chih
means the conquest of the country of Tochara by the Tocharians, which seems
rather strange. The evidence of Sz°-ma Ch’ien shows that Ta-hsia cannot be the Bactrian
kingdom, but was the country of Tochara divided into several small political units at the
time of the Yüeh-chih invasion. In other words the Græco-Bactrian kingdom had already
been destroyed or divided when
the Yüeh-chih arrived. Therefore, there is no need to accept
the identification of the Tocharas with the Yüeh-chih ...
If the explanation given above is correct, the country of Ta-hsia, which was conquered
by the Yüeh-chih, cannot have been the Bactrian kingdom, which had already been destroyed
before the arrival of the Yüeh-chih ...
According to W. W. TARN, 1938: 272–73, Bactria
was up to about 141 B.C. under the control
of Heliocles, who is believed to be the last king
of the Bactr ian kingdom. S o the invasion may
have taken place in that year or some time later and must have been before the coming
of the Yüeh-chih who occupied the Sogdiana-Bactria region between 136 and 129 (or 128)
B.C. Strabo tells us that the Bactrian kingdom was destroyed by the Tocharians and three
other peoples, and, according to Sz°-ma Ch’ien, the country which the Yüeh-chih conquered
was
Ta-hsia. As ›Ta-hsia‹ is believed to be a transcription of ›Tochara‹, and if these two
statements are accepted, it cannot have been the Yüeh-chih
who conquered the Bactrian
kingdom.
To these clear and logical statements one only needs to add some minor corrections
or comments. For
one: Ta-hsia/Daxia 大夏 was not the central, but the eastern
part of Bactria. And when the 月氏 arrived on the scene, the Græco-Bactrian
kingdom
was already divided into two separate parts: Tochara, or eastern Bactria, which was
ruled by the Sakaraukai or Saiwang
塞王, and western Bactria, around the capital
Bactra, which was still ruled by the last
Græco-Bactrian kings. When the Ruzhi 月氏
— 38 —

then evicted the Sakaraukai/Saiwang from Tochara, the latter put an end to Greek rule
in the city of Bactra (modern Balkh).
With this, it was only the Sakas (S akaraukai) who took Bactria from the Greeks —
in two distinct stages. The Ruzhi 月 氏, it seems, never clashed
with the Bactrian
Greeks directly. Instead, they always fought it out with their arch enemy,
the Sakaraukai/Saiwang
塞王: in the plains of the Ili River, in Sogdiana, in Daxia.
It is, therefore, of the utmost importance to realize that the Ruzhi 月氏 conquered
and occupied, not the old Greek kingdom of Bactria, but
only Daxia 大夏, the lands
which
in later times were called Tokharestan (\ukhåristån in TABARÐ; it included
provinces on both shores of the Amu Darya). This will greatly help to understand that
the Græco-Bactrian kings lost Bactria proper in two stages and in two irruptions, but
to just one nomadic people: the Sakaraukai/Saiwang. The Bactrian Greeks may have
felt that these Sakas were being pushed by a still more powerful nomadic nation — but
t hey themselves were fighting against, and loosing their kingdom to, this particular
tribe
of the Sakas, the Sakaraukai. When it becomes apparent that the Ruzhi 月氏, in
the
time of Zhang Qian’s visit, had occupied only Tochara/Daxia 大夏, we begin to
wonder
whether the 月氏 conquered the whole of Bactria in two successive stages as
well — as I have been inclined to believe so far —, and in both stages
not from the
Bactrian
Greeks, but from the Sakaraukai/Saiwang 塞王. At first sight, this is corrobo-
rated
by our Western sources where Trogus first says that the Asiani occupied Sogdi-
ana and the Sa(ca)raucae Bactra — taken by some writers to mean Bactria, but it is
the
city of Bactra where the Sacaraucae/Sakaraukai will maintain themselves for a long
time
to come (sse below).
Prolog 41 (Stage One):
Scythicae
gentes, Saraucae et Asiani, Bactra occupavere et Sogdianos.
So Trogus. He then goes on to say: Following this, the Asiani became the kings of the
Tochari (in Eastern Bactria) — because the Daxia, as
Zhang Qian had noticed and
written
down, had no overlords any more.
Prolog 42 (Stage Two):
Reges Tocharorum Asiani ...
The
development indicated here by Trogus — i.e. the foreign Asiani becoming the
kings
of the local Tochari —, finally proved to be fatal for the Sa(ca)raucae.
Prolog 42 (Stage Three):
... interitusque Saraucarum.
The ultimate destruction if the Sa(ca)raucae, we are by now inclined to assume,
must
have happened in the Western part of Bactria.
In the first stage, Bactria became divided between the Græco-Bactrians and the Sa-
caraucae,
in about 145 BCE. In the second stage — which Zhang Qian witnessed in
129–128
BCE and wrote about —, Bactria became divided between the Sacaraucae/Sai-
w ang 塞王 and the Asiani/Ruzhi 月氏. The third and final stage, we are now tempted
t o think, witnessed the final occupation of all of former Greek Bactria by the 月氏, a
f ew years after the Chinese diplomat had returned to Han China. In this last stage, the
Bactrian
Greeks played no active part any more. We envision this final stage as a fierce
showdown
between two decidedly aggressive nomadic peoples of two greatly different
worlds — and the lightly armed, very fast mounted archers of the Far East prevail over
the heavily armed and
slower riders of Central Asia.
BERNARD, 1987: 758–767, is the first to recognize this final showdown in the wall friezes
of a royal summer palace of the Ruzhi 月氏 at Khalchayan, in the valley of the
Surkhan Darya, a short distance north from Termez on the Oxus:
C’est dans le troisième quart du II e siècle av. n.è. que le royaume gréco-bactrien, c’està-dire
l’État grec qui contrôlait depuis l’expédition d’Alexandre la vallée du moyen Oxus,
— 39 —

entre l’Hindukush au sud et les monts du Hissar au nord, disparaît, submergé par des invasions
nomades. Cette conquête, commencée par la rive droite et l’extrémité orientale de
la
Han Shou et le
Ho
e fragments importants recueillis sur le sol, Mme rive gauche, où la ville grecque d’Aï Khanoum tombe vers 145 av. n.è., s’achève vers 130
av. n.è. avec le règne d’Hélioclès, le dernier roi grec de la Bactriane proprement dite ...
Ces nomades nous ont d’abord été connus par quelques allusions des textes classiques,
principalement une phrase de Strabon ... Les sources chinoises, le Si-Ki, le
u Han Shou parlent, elles, du peuple des Yüeh-chih, à l’exclusion de toute autre ...
En 129 l’ambassadeur chinois Chang K’ien les trouva installés sur la rive droite de
l’Oxus, mais ayant déjà visiblement imposé leur autorité sur la Bactriane méridionale ...
Quelque temps après le passage de Chang K’ien ils avaient donc mis un point final à la
conquête de la Bactriane grecque ...
Il est cependant possible d’y voir maintenant un peu plus clair grâce à deux découvertes
faites, l’une à Xal¾ajan sur la rive droite de l’Oxus, dans la vallée du Surkhan-darya, il y
aura bientôt trente ans ... Ces trouvailles nous offrent aujourd’hui, chacune à sa manière,
une vision incomparablement plus riche et plus diversifiée de la culture des deux peuples
que nous considérons avoir été les acteurs principaux de la conquête de la Bactriane grecque,
les Yüeh-chih au centre et à l’est, les Saces ou Sacarauques à l’ouest ...
Nous partirons du décor figuré ornant un pavillon royal à Xal¾ajan ... dont la construction,
aux alentours de notre ère, est attribuée à un chef nomade des tribus yüeh-chih. Cette
attribution repose sur la ressemblance que présente le type physique très particulier, mongoloïde,
des principaux acteurs des scènes représentées à Xal¾ajan avec l’effigie monétaire
d’un certain Héraos, qui régna à cette époque dans la région ...
A partir d’une vingtaine d
Puga¾enkova,
qui a fouillé et publié ce monument,
a restitué une troupe de cavaliers passant au galop
ve rs la droite. Elle y voit le retour victorieux d’une troupe d’archers montés yüeh-chih accompagnés
d’un escadron allié de cavaliers bactriens. L’identification des premiers ne fait
aucun doute. Ils appartiennent bien à la même ethnie que la famille princière; ils présentent
les mêmes traits mongoloïdes avec les yeux étirés et obliques, les sourcils remontants
vers les tempes, le front fuyant, le crâne
aplati à l’arrière, les longs cheveux raides
re jetés vers l’arrière et serrés dans un bandeau, la pilosité du visage limitée à de longs favoris
et à des moustaches ... L’identification
des seconds pose en revanche un problème.
me
M Puga¾enkova a proposé d’y voir des représentants de la noblesse bactrienne pour
deux raisons: d’abord parce qu’ils sont d’un type physique tout à fait différent, de caractèr
e nettement europoïde, avec,
en plus des moustaches, une barbe très fournie; en second
lieu parce qu’ils portent un lourd
armement de cataphractaire ...
Les études menées ces dernières années
par un chercheur soviétique, M. V. Gorelik,
tendent
à montrer que l’armement cataphractaire aurait été mis au point chez des peuples
nomades entre la mer d’Aral, les Tien-shan et le Pamir
... Diverses indications ... incitent
également à reconnaître dans les cataphractaires de Xal¾ajan d’autres nomades
auxquels les Yüeh-chih se seraient heurtés dans leur conquête de la Bactriane ... et qui se
rattachent à cette nébuleuse de tribus nomades qui se jetèrent sur les provinces occidentales
du royaume gréco-bactrien dès la deuxième moitié du II
artir de 130 av. n.è., à savoir les
Sa
g nomadic hordes
wh
C
e siècle av. n.è. ... à cheval
revêtus d’une armure de cataphractaire; celle-ci est identique à l’équipement des adversaires
des Yüeh-chih à Xal¾ajan : cuirasse à longue jupe bardée de grands plaques métalliques
quadrangulaires, haut protège-cou à bord évasé, casque moulant le crâne et couvrant
la nuque et les oreilles ... Les peuples nomades qui jouèrent un rôle prépondérant,
d’après ce que nous en disent les sources classiques, dans les événements qu’on voit se dérouler
sur la frontière orientale de l’empire parthe à p
ces et les Sacarauques ...
BERNARD is speaking here about the Western classical sources in which the Sakas-
Sakaraukai are mentioned prominently amongst those conquerin
o took Bactria from the Bactrian Greeks. The same nomads are mentioned in the
hinese classical sources and are there named Saiwang. We have seen (above, pp. 15–
— 40 —

1 6), that these easternmost Scythians were thus called the “Royal Sakas” — the exact
translation
of Chinese Sak–wang 塞王.
Zhang Qian, however, seems to have heard absolutely nothing of any Sakas or Sa-
karaukai.
And so the Shiji does not mention this nomadic people at all. Only the later
Hanshu
does: in chapter 96 we read the ethnic names Sai 塞 and Saiwang 塞王. In
this
we have the Chinese transcriptions of the general name Saka and the more speci-
fic name Sakaraukai. Now, the Hanshu is partially an edition, and partially a continu
ation,
of the Shiji: In some places the Hanshu account parallels the Shiji and, in other
places,
the Hanshu contains additional materials. This is so because the Hanshu was
not
completely rewritten. At first it was meant to be a simple continuation of the Shiji.
T hen Ban Biao — or more likely his son Ban Gu — decided to incorporate all those
par ts of the Shiji, which covered the first half of the Former Han Dynasty, before he
himself
continued with the second half — so that their final work would include the
full
period of the Former Han. Hence, Ban Gu called his family’s grandiose master-
piece
simply Hanshu 漢書 or “Book of the (Former) Han.”
Obviously out of respect for the admired work of Sima Qian, the parts included
f rom the Shiji into the Hanshu were carefully edited and corrected, but otherwise as
litt le changed as possible. For this reason, the Hanshu is sometimes Sima Qian and
sometimes
Ban Gu. In other words, the Hanshu combines, or is composed of, two he-
terogeneous
parts — at times the two diverging parts may lead to contradictions or in-
c onsistencies. This is clearly so when we want to piece together what the Hanshu
contains about the fall of the Greek kingdom of Bactria and the conquering nomadic
peo ples involved in it. In Hanshu 96 we read in the sections on the Ruzhi 月氏, the
Wusun
烏孫, and the Jibin 罽賓 :
HULSEWÉ/LOEWE
1979: 119–121
The
state of the Ta Yüeh–chih.
The
seat of (the king’s) government is at the
town
of Chien–chih.
And it is distant by 11,600›li‹ from Ch’ang–an.
It
is not subject to the Protector General.
...
Originally
(the people) dwelt between Tun–
huang
and Ch’i–lien.
Then
the time came when the ›Shan–yü‹ Mao
Tun
[Moduk, 209–174] attacked and defeated
the
Yüeh–chih, and the ›Shan–yü‹ Lao–shang
[ Kiyuk, 174–161] killed (the king of) the Yüeh–
chih,
making his skull into a drinking vessel.
The
Yüeh–chih thereupon went far
away,
passing Ta Yüan and proceeding
west
to attack and subjugate Ta Hsia.
The
principal city was established north of the
Kuei
River (or Oxus) to form the king’s court.
The
remaining small group (of the Yüeh-chih)
who
were unable to leave sought protection
among
the Ch’iang tribes of the Southern Moun-
tains
and were termed the Hsiao Yüeh-chih ...
Hanshu 96A. 3890–3891
大 月 氏 國
治 監 氏 城
去 長 安 萬 一 千 六 百 里
不 屬 都 護 …
本 居 敦 煌 祁 連 間
至 冒 頓 單 于 攻 破 月 氏
而 老 上 單 于 殺 月 氏 以
其 頭 為 飲 器
月 氏 乃 遠 去 過 大 宛 西
擊 大 夏 而 臣 之
都 媯 水 北 為 王 庭
其 餘 小 眾 不 能 去 者 保
南 山 羌 號 小 月 氏 …
To this passage we have a parallel text in Shiji 123. So what we read here is, in fact,
Sima
Qian quoting Zhang Qian’s Report, later copied and edited by Ban Gu for his Xi-
yu zhuan 西域傳, the Hanshu chapter on the foreign peoples of the ›xiyu‹ 西域 or
“Western Regions.“ We are told here that the Ruzhi 月氏, beaten (a fourth time) by the
Xiongnu, in one great trek went from the Hexi Corridor to the lands of the Daxia 大夏
on the upper Oxus River (modern Amu Darya), beyond the kingdom of the Da Yuan 大
— 41 —

宛 (Ferghana). For us to understand the full meaning of “The principal (= capital) city
was established north of the Kuei River,” I have to quote XU SONG here, a Chinese
scholar
of the 19th century who wrote a commentary on the whole of Hanshu 96 (more
will be said about him further down, p. 44). His interpretation — hinted at, but rejected
by HULSEWÉ/ LOEWE, 1979: 121 — of the new principal city, established by the 月氏, is
of prime importance in our context. It proves that the new Royal camp or ordos of the
still nomadic 月氏, north of the Oxus, Gui Shui 媯水 in Chinese, replaced the old capital
of Daxia 大夏, located somewhere south of that river, in this way becoming the
new capital. Hence, this new capital was of course located inside Daxia which — at
least from now on — extended clearly from the Hindukush in the south to the Hissar
Mountains in the north. In the past, too many scholars have speculated that this new
ordos of the 月氏 had been outside the boundaries of Daxia, which induced them to
greatly mistaken conclusions.
(Xu Song’s) Supplementary comment:
The Shiji says: “ Daxia is located over two
thousand ›li‹ southwest of Da Yuan, south
of the Gui River ” — consequently the capital
of (earlier) Daxia times (was located)
south of the river.
(But) the Greater Ruzhi moved the seat of
government to the north of the river.
It becomes evident here that the Ruzhi 月氏, by the time of Zhang Qian’s arrival at
their court, 129 BCE, had decided to moved their principal seat of government
from Sa-
markand in Sogdiana — where it had been for about a generation (see below)
—, not
to the old capital of Daxia, but to a convenient place on the near, or
northern, bank of
the Oxus River, possibly close to modern Termez (Termed, Tarmita,
Dami 呾蜜) — at
all times the most strategic point for crossing
the
river.
HULSEWÉ/LOEWE 1979: 143–145
The state of Wu–sun.
The ›Greater K’un–mi‹’s seat of government is
at the town of Ch’ih–ku.
And it is distant by 8,900 ›li‹ from Ch’ang–an.
...
Originally it was the land of the Sai.
When the Ta Yüeh–chih turned west, defeated
and expelled the king of the Sai [recte: the Sai-
wang], the latter moved south and crossed over
the Suspended Crossing and the Ta Yüeh–chih
took up residence in his [their] lands.
Later, when the ›K’un–mo‹ [or king] of
Wu–sun attacked and defeated the Ta
Yüeh–chih, the Ta Yüeh–chih migrated
to the west and subjugated the Ta
Hsia, and the ›K’un–mo‹ of Wu–sun took
up his residence here.
It is said: » For this reason, among the people of
the Wu–sun there are (elements of) the Sai race
and the Ta Yüeh–chih race« ...
Hanshu Xiyuzhuan Buzhu, 27a
補 曰
史 記 云 大 夏 在 大 苑 西 南 二
千 餘 里 媯 水 南 蓋 大 夏 時 都
水 南
大 月 氏 徙 治 水 北 也
Hanshu 96B. 3901
烏 孫 國
大 昆 彌 治 赤 谷 城
去 長 安 八 千 九 百 里 …
本 塞 地 也
大 月 氏 西 破 走 塞 王 塞
王 南 越 縣 度 大 月 氏 居
其 地
後 烏 孫 昆 莫 擊 破 大 月
氏 大 月 氏 徙 西 臣 大 夏
而 烏 孫 昆 莫 居 之
故 烏 孫 民 有 塞 種 大 月
氏 種 云 …
Zhang Qian’s Report contained a description of the Wusun kingdom, which we
know was located between the Ili and Chu Rivers and in the region around Lake Issyk
— 42 —

Köl (Ïssïγ Köl = “Hot Lake” — so named because it does not freeze over in winter), after
at the latest 161 BCE. We find it in Shiji 123. But Ban Gu has not copied the above text
from Sima Qian. He has written his own, much longer and greatly improved, i.e.
updated, account of the Wusun — the small nomadic nation which had once been the
Western neighbor of the Ruzhi 月氏, in the half-dessert between Dunhuang and the
Salt Lake 鹽澤 or Lop Nor. We are told here that the new lands of the Wusun were the
old lands of the Sai 塞, more specific: the Saiwang 塞王 or “Royal Sakas.” In this text
we hear about the Sakaraukai from the Chinese side for the first time.
At least a century and a half after Sima Qian, Ban Gu has been able to collect plenty
of new information and at long last provides us with one new and very valuable
detail on the trek of the 月氏: on the lush grasslands of the upper Ili River valley,
parts of modern Kazakhstan and Chinese Xinjiang, the 月氏 had clashed with the
Saiwang, had driven them away from their excellent pasture grounds and had settled
there themselves. With this, the first trek o f the 月氏 had come to an end on the upper
Ili and around Lake Issyk Köl — so we realize from this text.
Shortly after this, however, the Ruzhi
月氏 were
in turn attacked by the Wusun.
They themselves were now beaten and driven
away. Thus, the 月氏 started a second
trek, this time seemingly all the way to the
Oxus River and the lands of the Daxia 大
夏, or Tochari, whom they were able to subjugate.
And the Wusun settled in the old lands of the Saiwang
— without penetrating any
further west. The Saiwang, we learn from
the Chinese
sources, had in the meantime
escaped south, crossing a strange and very difficult mountain passage, i.e. a narrow
gorge in the Himalayas (not the Hindukush, as WYLIE had thought).
HULSEWÉ/LOEWE 1979: 104
The state of Chi–pin.
The king’s seat of government is at the town
of Hsün–hsien.
And it is distant by 12,200 ›li‹ from Ch’ang–an.
It is not subject to the Protector General ...
When, formerly, the Hsiung–nu
con-
qu ered the Ta Yüeh–chih,
the latter
moved west and established themselves
as master of Ta Hsia.
(It was in these circumstances
that)
the king of the Sai [recte: the Saiwang]
moved
south and established himself
[themselves] as master of Chi–pin.
The Sai tribes split and separated and repeatedly
formed several states ...
Hanshu 96A. 3884
罽 賓 國
王 治 循 鮮 城
去 長 安 萬 二 千 二 百 里
不 屬 都 護 …
昔 匈 奴 破 大 月 氏 大 月 氏
西 君 大 夏
而 塞 王 南 君 罽 賓
塞 種 分 散 往 往 為 數 國 …
Jibin (Chi–pin) 罽賓 is also a name not mentioned
in the Shiji. From the lay of the
land, southeast of the Ruzhi 月氏 in Daxia, it could be close to a land called
Shendu
身毒 in Shiji 123 which is also described as being situated
southeast of the Daxia.
Hence, we have to look for the kingdom of Jibin
in Northwestern India. Zhang Qian
and the Shiji know nothing about Jibin and ve
ry little about Shendu: not much more
than just the name — and the fact that trade is
going on between Daxia and Shendu.
Ban Gu, however, has a long story to tell about Jibin. For the purpose of our context, I
have quoted the above few sentences from the section on Jibin because they are
of im-
portance here. Seemingly, there is just one new
bit of information for us here: the
Saiwang went south to establish themselves in Jibin, i.e. somewhere in Northwestern
India. And one wonders why the Ruzhi 月氏 are mentioned here.
Their east-west
trek has nothing to do with the
north-south trek of the Saiwang — so we think. Yet, the
two sentences about the 月氏 on the one hand and on the Saiwang on the other are
clearly coupled with the simple connector “and” 而. As this connection made no sense
to them, the Translators were at a loss and eloquently tried to evade the problem by
— 43 —

stating: “It was under these circumstances that...” But that is not what the Chinese
text says — and it makes still no more sense than a simple “and ...”.
In the previous paragraph on the Wusun, the Ruzhi 月氏 and the Saiwang 塞王
were also brought together in two cause-and-effect sentences. Here, however, the logical
connection is clear: the 月氏 arrive and the Saiwang are driven away. The 月氏 then
occupy the evacuated land. Concerning the two similar sentences in the paragraph on
the Jibin, is there a way to bring the Ruzhi 月氏 and the Saiwang 塞王 together in a
way which is logical and makes sense? There is a very clear one when we take the
crucial
sentences in the paragraph on the Wusun as a model.
This ingenious answer to the question has been provided by a nineteenth century
Chinese scholar, quoted briefly above: XU SONG 徐松 (1781–1848). A man of letters, he
was exiled for some offence and spent six years in Xinjiang (Sinkiang) 新疆 and used
his time there for intensive studies of the history and topography of the region. One
outcome was a new edition of Ban Gu’s Hanshu 96 to which XU SONG added his own
and new comments. These proved to be of great value. We must
be grateful that his
work
was published, if only posthumously, in 光緒癸巳, or 1893. The title of the
booklet in two parts is Hanshu Xiyuzhuan Buzhu 漢書西域傳補注. Some eight
years ago, I looked it up in the Berlin State Library and had copies made of some
pages. I noticed that XU SONG’s comments to Hanshu
96 were later incorporated into
the famous edition of the Hanshu by WANG XIANQIAN 王先謙 (1842–1918), the Hanshu
with Supplementary Notes 漢書補注, published 1900 (reprint 1983).
Hanshu 96A.3884
Previously, when the
Xiongnu had demol-
ished the Ruzhi, the
Ruzhi (going) west
(established them-
selves as) the rulers
of the Daxia.
In consequence
to
this the Saiwang
(going) south (estab-
lished themselves
as) the rulers of the
Jibin.
Supplementary
note:
(by Xu Song [1781–1848],
Hanshu Xiyuzhuan Buzhu,
1893: 20 b; reprinted in
Wang Xianqian [1842–1918],
Hanshu Buzhu, 1900: 96A.
23 b)
The Saiwang had
been the kings of
the Daxia.
— 44 —
昔 匈 奴
破 大 月
氏 大 月
氏 西 君
大 夏
而 塞 王
南 君 罽
賓
補 曰
塞 王 大
夏 之 王
也

HULSEWÉ/LOEWE, whose English translation I have quoted a few pages further up,
do not list the monograph of Xu Song in their extensive bibliography, 1979: 240–256,
but in the innumerous notes to their translation, Xu Song figures prominently. XU’s
brilliant and simple remark, which he inserted after the two sentences connected by
“and” 而, escaped HULSEWÉ and LOEWE. Or rather, the eminent Sinologists must have
read it, but did not grasp the paramount importance of the small note which can be
found 1893: 20b in XU SONG’s, and 1900: 23b in WANG XIANQIAN’s edition of Hanshu
chapter 96.
KONOW, 1934: 9–10, published a short discussion of this at first
sight so difficult Chinese
text and its intelligent interpretation by XU SONG. It was unfortunate, however,
that his paper saw the light of day, not in Europe, but in India. KONOW explained that
he had asked his friend KARLGREN for a translation of some important Chinese texts,
including the one on Jibin (Ki-pin). I quote it here with KONOW’s remarks:
»The Ki-pin kingdom, its king rules in the city of Sün-sien. It is distant from Ch’ang-an
12,200 li ... Anciently, when the Hiung-nu beat the Ta Yüe-chi, the Ta Yüe-chi went west and
›chiefed‹ (became rulers of) the Ta-hia, and the Sai-wang went south and ›chiefed‹ Ki-pin.
The Sai tribes were scattered and constituted several kingdoms in various directions ...«
Professor Karlgren here adds an important explanatory note:
“Two interpretations of this passage are possible. The first is that at the time when the
Yüe-chi went to capture Ta-hia, the Sai, from a more easterly region, went south to capture
Ki-pin. But then we fail to see the logical connection. Why should the Ts’ien
Han-shu here,
under Ki-pin, mention the Yüe-chi movement? A movement from the north of the Oxus to
the Ta-hia south of the river could not have caused a movement of the Saiwang from some
more easterly country to Ki-pin. It would only be a coincidence in time which would
explain the entry about the
Yüe-chi movement in this place.
The other explanation is more reasonable. The Sai had already spread in various
directions, and the Sai-w ang were chieftain s in Ta-hia, when the Yüe-chi movement
into the Ta-hia country came on. Hence the logical
exposé: »When
the Hiung-nu beat the
Ta Yüe-chi, the Ta Yüe-chi went west and became
rulers of the
Ta-hia, and (the former
rulers of the Ta-hia, who were now expe lled, i.e) the Sai-Wang,
the Sai kings, went
south and became rulers over Ki-pin.« It is then
but logical
that the narrator adds: »The
Sai tribes were already m uch scattered. « This explains why the Sai-wang sat as
chieftains in Ta-hia. This latter explanation has
been proposed
by the learned Sü Song
(about A.D. 1800), who in his commentary says: »The
Sai-wang were the kings of Ta-hia.«”
This was a very important revelation by KARLGREN
and KONOW which went almost
unnoticed. With the emendation by XU SONG, the two seemingly unrelated sentences
suddenly make sense in a very unexpected,
though definitely convincing way. With this
emendation, the translati on of the Chinese text can be corrected accordingly:
(HULSEWÉ/LOEWE 1979: 104)
The state of Chi–pin.
The king’s seat of government
is at the town
of Hsün–hsien.
And it is distant by 12.200 › li‹ from Ch’ang–an.
It is not subject to the Protector General ...
When, formerly, the Hsiung–nu
conquered the
Ta Yüeh–chih, the latter moved
west and es-
tablished themselves as masters of Ta Hsia.
And consequently the Saiwang (who had
been the kings of the Daxia and were now expelled)
moved south and established
themselves as masters of Chi–pin.
The Sai tribes split and separated and re-
peatedly formed several states ...
— 45 —
Hanshu 96A. 3884
罽 賓 國
王 治 循 鮮 城
去 長 安 萬 二 千 二 百 里
不 屬 都 護 …
昔 匈 奴 破 大 月 氏 大 月 氏
西 君 大 夏
而 塞 王 南 君 罽 賓
塞 種 分 散 往 往 為 數 國 …

The Sakaraukai/Saiwang 塞王, evicted by the Ruzhi 月氏 from their traditional pasture
grounds in the upper Ili Valley some time after 165 BCE, established themselves
west of the Jaxartes in Sogdiana — briefly hinted at by Strabo who calls them simply
Sakai there (see further down, p. 79). Until that time, Sogdiana may still have been in
the hands of the Bactrian Greeks. But soon afterwards, i.e. some time after 163 BCE,
the Ruzhi 月氏, evicted from the Ili River regions by the Wusun 烏孫, now subjugated
the Kangju 康居 further west and soon spilled across the Jaxartes themselves. There
they ran into the Sakaraukai/Saiwang 塞王 once again and drove them south and out
of Sogdiana.
The Saiwang, forced to cross the Hissar Mountains, conquered the Daxia
(Tochari) on the upper Oxus River and became their rulers for half a generation. They
were the elusive nomads who stormed and burnt down Ai Khanum which at that time
was called Eucratidia. With the fall of this major Greek citadel, the road was open for
them to occupy the whole of Tochara, the eastern part of Bactria. Archaeological
evidence
from the careful excavations of the old city of Alexandria / Eucratidia / Ai Khanum
tells
us that this stronghold fell in about the year 145 BCE.
1985: 97–102, BERNARD writes :
Le dernier règne attesté dans le monnayage d’argent et de bronze recueilli dans la fou-
ille d’Aï Khanoum est celui d’Eucratide I ... On peut supposer que
l’assassinat d’Eucratide
par
l’un de ses fils (Hélioclès ou Platon) aurait été suivi d’une période d’incertitudes et de
troubles dont auraient profité les envahisseurs nomades à qui nous attribuons l’incendie
qui détruisit le palais et qui marque l’abandon de la ville par sa population grecque. Par
une chance rare un document épigraphique découvert dans la fouille nous permet de dater
assez exactement cet événement ... Dans la couche de destruction de la trésorerie du palais
ont été découverts plusieurs fragments d’un gobelet en céramique à fond pointu qui,
comme nous l’apprennent les deux inscriptions à l’encre qu’il
porte, avait servi de bouchons
à un vase contenant de l’huile d’olive. L’une d’entre elles était ainsi rédigée:
”Etouj kd'. [- - -] ...
L’opération est datée à la première ligne: œtouj kd' = année 24. L’ordre des chiffres, dizaines
d’abord, unités ensuite, exclut qu’il manque à droite un chiffre de centaines ... La
date est ainsi bien assurée: 24 et non 124.
A quel roi rapporter cette année régnale ou cette ère ? ... Étant donné le contexte archéologique
du bol inscrit, tout proche de la chute de la ville grecque, nous ne pouvons rapporter
la date de 24 ni à l’ère séleucide (312 av. J.-C.), ni même à une ère supposée de Diodote
(vers 250–240 av. J.-C.), laquelle serait encore trop haute. L’absence de monnaies d’Hélio-
clès
dans la fouille nous assure, d’autre part, que l’abandon de la ville par ces colons grecs
se produisit sous le règne d’Eucratide ou immédiatement après ... L’année régnale ou l’ère
à laquelle se rapporte la date de 24 ne peut donc être que celle d’Eucratide I qui avait, lui,
les meilleures raisons du monde de marquer par un nouveau comput le caractère exceptionnel
de son règne. Sa réputation de grand souverain et de grand capitaine était suffisam-
ment connue des anciens pour que Trogue Pompée traçât un parallèle
entre sa carrière et
celle de Mithridate I. Apollodore d’Artémita le fait régner sur mille
villes et, au dire de Strabon
(XI, 11, 2), il avait donné son nom à l’une d’elles
...
La date communément admise pour le début du règne d’Eucratide est
170 environ, d’a-
près la concomitance attestée par Justin avec l’ accession au trône de Mithridate I. La date
de 24 sur le tesson inscrit de la trésorerie d’Aï Khanoum se place ainsi en 146 au plus tôt,
en 142 au plus tard, si nous acceptons une marge
maximale de 5 ans. On
peut adopter une
date moyenne de 145 av. J.-C. Le règne d’Eucratide
auquel on attribuait
généralement jus-
qu’ici une quinzaine d’années aurait donc été sensiblement
plus long qu’on ne l’avait pensé,
puisqu’il aurait duré quelque 25 ans.
At the time, the French scholars based their
reconstruction of the fall of the Græco-
Bactrian kingdom mainly on BURTON WATSON’s
translation of Shiji 123 (first published
1961: 264–289) — where Sima Qian, excerpting
Zhang Qian’s Report, knows nothing as
yet of any Saka involvement in the
nomadic incursions
into Bactria.
— 46 —

1990: 96–97, BOPEARACHCHI writes:
The Chinese imperial annals (the ›Shih-chi‹ and the ›Han Shu‹) provide us with texts
based on a report allegedly made by a certain Chang K’ien, an envoy of the Han emperor
Wu Ti, to the western provinces between 138 and 126 BC. He tells us about the arrival in
Central Asia of the Yüeh-chi in the second half of the second century BC. One could derive
from this Chinese source a picture of a thrust which took place progressively in two stages.
The numismatic data provided by the Qunduz and Ai Khanum hoards would thus corroborate
this picture.
In the first stage the Yüeh-chi nomads must have taken the territories situated north of
the Oxus, i.e. Sogdiana, [together with] the region of Ai Khanum at the eastern extremity of
the plain of Bactria, on the left bank of the river, and the second stage of this move must
have already been completed at the time of the visit by the Chinese ambassador Chang
K’ien in these regions in 129–128 BC. P. Bernard was able to date exactly the catastrophe
which brought the existence of the Greek city of Ai Khanum to an end (or in other words
the first invasion of Sogdiana by the Yüeh-chi), thanks to an inscription, found in a destruction
stratum, giving a clear ›terminus
post quem‹, the twenty-forth year in the reign of Eucratides
(= 148–7 BC). It is likely that the destruction of the Greek city of Ai Khanum and
the first stage of the Yüeh-chi invasion and also the death of Eucratides I took place more
or less at the same time, that is around 145 BC.
The assured dating of c. 145 BCE for the destruction of Eucratidia (Ai Khanum) by
the
Sakaraukai/Saiwang 塞王 is a most fortunate outcome of the French excavations
i n Afghanistan (at that time the kingdom of Zahir Shah where I myself participated in a
study
and work program in the summer of 1965). After this date, Græco-Bactrian kings
still
maintained themselves in Western Bactria, i.e. in the capital Bactra and environs.
This
was Stage One of the Fall of Greek Bactria.
The Ruzhi 月氏, or Asiani, now consolidated their position in Sogdiana — as Trogus
indicates in his Prolog to chapter 41. This done, they, too, crossed the Hissar
M ountains to the south and conquered the land north of the Oxus River. After this, the
Ruzhi
月氏 attacked, not the Bactrian Greeks in Western, but their arch enemy, the
S aiwang, in Eastern Bactria, i.e. in Daxia/Tochara. As there was simply no other route
o f escape left open for them, the Sakaraukai/Saiwang 塞王 then fell upon the Bactrian
Greeks
in the remaining part of Bactria, around the capital Bactra. The last Græco-
B actrian king was unable to withstand the Saka onslaught: he either was killed in the
d esperate fights to save Bactra, or in the end resolved to evacuate all of Bactriana and
w ith his armies withdrew beyond the Hindukush barrier into the Kabul Valley. He was
H eliocles, the eldest son of Eucratides. He killed his father in such a cruel, abominable
way
that we cannot understand his motives unless it all happened, not before, but im-
m ediately after the fall of Eucratidia and all of Eastern Bactria — which Eucratides
had
failed to save by returning in time from his ambitious Indian campaigns.
When in the west the Sakaraukai/Saiwang 塞王 stormed Bactra, the Ruzhi 月氏 in
t he east occupied the lands, which the Sakaraukai had possessed for a rather short
t ime: Tochara, or Daxia 大夏. The Asiani, or Ruzhi 月氏 , became the new kings of
t he Tochari and their make-shift royal camp on the near, or north, side of the Oxus —
p ossibly not far from modern Termez — became their new political center and for
some
time replaced the old capital of Tochara, where the evicted Saka kings had
r esided. In his superb Catalogue Raisonné, 1991: 74, BOPEARACHCHI gives the reign of
H eliocles I as c. 145–130 BCE. He lost Bactra to the Sakas. This was Stage Two of the
Fall
of Greek Bactria.
When Zhang Qian, with only his faithful
Xiongnu servant left of his once large party,
finally
reached Central Asia, the king of Ferghana sent him to Samarkand. That was
where he knew the king of the Ruzhi 月氏 to reside. But the war against the Sakarau-
kai/Saiwang 塞王 in Daxia 大夏 just over, the 月氏 king’s court had been moved from
Samarkand in Sogdiana to the newly conquered lands south of the
famous “Iron
— 47 —

Gates” 鐵門 in the Hissar Mountains. The court was established provisionally on the
near
side of the Oxus and there became the new capital of Daxia — as Xu Song has
helped
us to understand the crucial sentence in the chapter on the Greater Ruzhi 大月
氏 , Hanshu 96 A. 3891. Here, Zhang Qian was received by the new king of the 月氏 —
h is name is not mentioned in the Chinese sources, but he was the son of the king slain
b y the Xiongnu in about 165 BCE — and the Chinese envoy was later shown around
t he old capital of Tochara and its flourishing markets. In this context it is of particular
i mportance to know that Zhang Qian arrived on the shores of the Oxus River in the
summer
of 129 BCE — and not one to three full years later.
The final destruction of the Sakaraukai in Western Bactria by the Ruzhi 月氏 — we
are
inclined to believe — could now only be a matter of years. It should have happened
some
time after Zhang Qian had returned to Han China. The Shiji knows nothing
about
it. But it seems only too logic that the 月氏 were now in a position to take the
whole
of Greek Bactria and in that way extinguish the Sakas who would then vanish
f rom view, i.e. become 月氏 subjects like shortly before them the Tochari further to
t he east. Pompeius Trogus had the story in his Historiae Philippicae, for in the Prolog
to
chapter 42 he promises to tell us the full story. Junianus Justinus’ Epitome of Tro-
g us, however, left us not a single syllable of it. This, I imagined, was Stage Three of the
Fall
of Greek Bactria.
However, there are strong indications that the actual historical developments in
this final stage were more complicated than the straight-forward scenario sketched
above. The first objections come from Zhang Qian himself. The Chinese envoy of Han
Emperor Wu spent more than one full year in Daxia — summer 129 to late summer or
early fall 128. However, he knows nothing of a recently-established kingdom of the
Saiwang in neighboring Western Bactria. In his Report, and consequently in Shiji 123,
the very name Saiwang 塞王 is not mentioned at all. For Zhang Qian the western
neighbors
of the Ruzhi 月氏 are the Parthians: their mighty kingdom is the largest far
and wide. He calls it Anxi 安息 — the Chinese transcription of the name Ar(sa)cids.
(WATSON 1993: 233–235)
(27) (Zhang) Qian in person visited the lands of the
Da Yuan, the Great Yue–zhi, the Da–xia, and the
Kang–ju, and in addition he gathered reports on five
or six (other) large states in their neighborhood.
All of this information he related to the Son of Heaven
(on his return). (The substance of) his report
was (as follows): ...
(59) (The capital of the) An–xi (Parthians) is located
some several thousand ›li‹ west of (the capital of)
the Great Yue–zhi.
(60) Their people is settled on the land, cultivating
the fields and planting rice and wheat.
(They also make) wine out of grapes.
(61) (They have) walled cities like the Da Yuan.
(62) To them belong several hundred cities, small
and big.
In area (this country measures) several thousand ›li‹
square which makes it an extremely large kingdom.
(63) It borders the Gui (Oxus)
River.
It has bazars and the inhabitants (who are) merchants
use carts and boats to travel to neighboring
countries, sometimes (journeying) several thousand
›li‹.
(64) With silver they make coins and the coins bear
— 48 —
Shiji 123. 3160–3163
騫 身 所 至 者 大 宛 大 月
氏 大 夏 康 居 而 傳 聞 其
旁 大 國 五 六
具 為 天 子 言 之 曰 …
安 息 在 大 月 氏 西 可 數
千 里
其 俗 土 著 耕 田 田 稻 麥
蒲 陶 酒
城 邑 如 大 宛
其 屬 小 大 數 百 城 地 方
數 千 里 最 為 大 國
臨 媯 水
有 市 民 商 賈 用 車 及 船
行 旁 國 或 數 千 里

the face of their king.
(When) the king dies, (the coins are) invariably
changed and (new) coins (issued) with the face of
his successor.
(65) (The people) write horizontally on (strips of)
leather and this way keep records.
以 銀 為 錢 錢 如 其 王 面
王 死 輒 更 錢 效 王 面 焉
畫 革 旁 行 以 為 書 記
What a surprising wealth of detailed information on a country which Zhang Qian
did not see in person. One likely explanation should be that the Chinese explorer met,
not only Indo-Greek merchants in the marketplace of Lanshi 藍市, the old capital of
Daxia 大夏 (Tochara), but also those from Parthia whom he interviewed at length. And
it is interesting to note that directly after Anxi 安息 (Parthia), Zhang Qian’s Report in
Shiji 123 goes on to speak of Daxia/Tochara in a chapter which I shall quote further
down (pp. 72–73). The absence of any information on a Saiwang state 塞王國, now expected
to be found between Parthia and Tochara, is telling. In all probability, no such
independent Saka kingdom existed in Zhang Qian’s time, 129–128 BCE.
In addition to the Chinese sources, we have two classical Western texts which help
us to understand what happened to the remnants of Bactria just before it was evacuated
by the last Greek kings. One is found in Justinus’ Epitome of Trogus’ History, and
the other in Strabo’s Geography.
(WATSON 1886: 276)
Almost at the same time that
Mithridates ascended the
throne among the Parthians,
Eucratides began to reign
among the Bactrians; both of
them being great men.
But the fortune of the Parthians,
being the more successful,
raised them, under this
prince, to the highest degree
of power;
while the Bactrians, harassed
with various wars, lost not
only their dominions, but
their liberty; for having suffered
from contentions with
the Sogdians, the Drangians,
and the Indians, they were at
last overcome, as if exhausted,
by the weaker Parthians.
(SEEL 1972: 443–444)
Ungefähr zur gleichen Zeit wie
im Partherland Mithridates
kommt in Baktrien Eukratides
zur Regierung – beides bedeutende
Männer.
Aber das Glück, das den Parthern
mehr gewogen war, brachte
sie unter diesem
auf den Gipfel ihrer Macht.
Die Baktrianer dagegen,
in man-
cherlei Kriegen hin- undherge- worfen, verloren nicht
allein ihre
Herrschaft, sondern auch ihre
Freiheit, denn sie erschöpften
sich durch Kriege mit den Sogdi-
anern und Arachosiern,
mit Dran-
gern, Areern und Indern
und wur-
den zuletzt, gleichsam ausgeblu
tet, von den an sich schwächeren
Parthern überwältigt.
Herrscher duce i
Hist. Phil. Epit. 41.6.1–3
Eodem ferme tempore,
sicut in Parthis Mithridates,
ita in Bactris Eucratides,
magni uterque viri,
regna ineunt.
Sed Parthorum fortuna
felicior ad summum hoc
mperii fastigium
eos perduxit.
Bactriani autem per varia
bella iactati non regnum
tantum, verum etiam
libertatem amiserunt,
siquidem Sogdianorum
et Arachotorum et Dran
garum et Areorum Indorumque
bellis fatigati ad
postremum ab invalidioribus
Parthis velut exsan-
gues oppressi sunt.
Here we are told that the Bactrian
Greeks had fought too many wars in too many
directions. Finally bled out, they became victims of the actually inferior
Parthians.
After Eastern Bactria (Tochara) had been lost to the
Sakaraukai/Saiwang 塞王 — who
are obvio usly called Sogdiani in Justinus’ text — what exactly happened in Western
Bactria in the crucial years 145–130 BCE ? If, indeed,
the Parthians won the ultimate
victory over the last Greek kings in Bactria, what was the fate of the Sakas after
they
were expelled for good from Daxia 大夏 (Tochara) by th e Ruzhi 月氏 — around the year
130 BCE ? Have we been mistaken to believe that they went west
and made an end to
the Græco-Bactrian kings in their last stronghold,
Bactra ? The next text, by Strabo,
may indicate an answer to these questions.
— 49 —

(JONES 1928: 275)
Now at the outset Arsaces was
weak, being continually at
war with those who had been
deprived by him of their territory,
both he himself and his
successors.
But later they grew so strong,
always taking the neighbouring
territory, through successes
in warfare, that finally
they established themselves
as lords of the whole of the
country inside the Euphrates.
And they also took a part of
Bactriana, having forced the
Scythians, and still earlier
Eucratides and his followers,
to yield to them; and at the
present time they rule over so
much land and so many
tribes that in the size of their
empire they have become, in a
way, rivals of the Romans ...
(RADT 2004: 353)
Anfänglich waren er (Arsakes)
selber sowohl als seine
Nachfolger
schwach wegen der
Krie-
ge, die sie ständig gegen
die
ihres Landes Beraubten zu füh-
ren hatten.
Dann aber wurden sie dadurch,
dass sie dank ihrer Erfolge in
den Kriegen sich das jeweils
benachbarte Land nahmen, so
stark, dass sie schließlich Herr
über das ganze Gebiet diesseits
des Euphrates wurden.
Sie nahmen sich auch einen
Teil der Baktriane, indem sie
die Skythen – und vorher schon
Eukratides und die Seinen –
überwältigten; und haben jetzt
die Herrschaft
über soviel Land
und soviele Völker, dass
sie es,
was die Größe ihres Reiches betrifft,
in gewissem Sinne mit den
Römern aufnehmen können ...
Geographika, 11.9.2
Kat' ¢rc¦j m n oân ¢sqen¾j
Ãn diapolemîn prÕj
toÝj ¢faireqšntaj t¾n cè
ran kaˆ ¢utÕj kaˆ oƒ diade
x£menoi ke‹non:
œpeiq' oÛtwj ‡scusan ¢fairoÚmenoi
t¾n plhs…on ¢eˆ
di¦ t¦j n to‹j polšmoij
katorqèseij, éste teleutîntej
¡p£shj tÁj ntÕj
EÙfr£tou kÚrioi katšsthsan.
'Afe…lonto d kaˆ tÁj
BaktrianÁj mšroj bias£-
menoi toÝj SkÚqaj kaˆ œti
prÒteron toÝj perˆ EÙkrat…dan,
kaˆ nàn p£rcousi
tosaÚthj tÁj gÁj
kaˆ tosoÚtwn qnîn, éste
¢ nt…paloi to‹j `Rwma…oij
trÒpon
tin¦ gegÒnasi ka-
t¦ tÕ mšgeqoj tÁj ¢rcÁj
...
From these statements, we are inclined to assume that the Sakas
or Scythians have
not been as successful in Wes
tern Bactria as they had, before,
in Tochara/Dax
ia.
They
may have been able to take Bactra and oust the last Greek sovereigns
from there, only
to be soon overcome by the powerful
Parthians who took a part
of Bactriana, having
forced the Scythians. Or, I thought
for a while, they voluntarily enlisted Parthian help
to withstand yet another attack
by the dreadful Ruzhi 月氏 . Bu
t Strabo’s text is rather
clear here: the Sakas are crushed
between two great powers.
VON GUTSCHMID,
cited abo
ve a first time, comes very close to the truth when, 1888:
70–71, he writes:
Die Identität der Tocharer und
der Grossen Yue–tshi unterliegt keinem
Zweifel ... Wäh-
rend aber die classischen Berichte
zwei Hauptvölker kennen, mehr
östlich die Tocharer,
mehr westlich die Sakarauken,
kennen die chinesischen auf dem
Boden des ehemaligen
Hellenenreiches nur ein einziges,
die Tocharer, und neben ihnen in
Margiana die Parther.
Sollen also die Ersteren nicht Lügen gestraft werden, so bleibt nichts
übrig als anzuneh-
men, dass vor dem Jahre 128,
in
welches die Anwesenheit des Tshang–kien
fällt, die Occu-
pation eines Theiles des Hellenenreiches
durch die Sakarauken
und jene Thatsache liegt,
für die wir ein Zeugniss des Strabo (XI, p.515) besitzen, nämlich die Wegnahme eines
Theils
Baktriens durch die Parther nach Bewältigung der Scythen. Wir wissen nunmehr,
dass dieses Volk die Sakarauken, das ihnen entrissene Land Margiana war; eine Drachme
des Phraates II. mit der Aufschrift Margian» (GARDNER, 1877: 33) gibt für das Letztere eine
urkundliche Bestätigung. Dass den sorgfältigen chinesischen Berichterstattern ein so namhaftes
Volk wie die Sakarauken unbekannt geblieben sein sollte, ist undenkbar.
VON GUTSCHMID believes in an ethnic identity of the Ruzhi 月氏 and the Tochari
which is untenable as this study strives to show. Also, he does not know XU SONG’s
crucial comment which was published five years after his own book. But his reasoning,
that the Chinese writers — Zhang Qian himself and his epitomator Sima Qian —
would have mentioned the Sakaraukai, if they
had been the sovereign rulers of Western
Bactria
in the time of Zhang Qian’s visit as they had reigned in Daxia/Tochara
shortly before for some time, is of importance and very valid: with the exception that
— 50 —

the part of Bactria, which the Parthians took over from the Sakaraukai before Zhang
Qian’s arrival on the Oxus, was not Margiana. This region
had been lost to the
Parthians earlier, i.e. in the time
of Eucratides, as the following
passage in Strabo’s account
of Bactria shows.
(JONES 1928: 281)
Their cities were Bactra (al-
so called Zariaspa, through
which flows a river bearing
the same name and emptying
into the Oxus), and Darapsa,
and several others;
among these was Eucratidia,
which was named after
its ruler.
The Greeks took possession
of it and divided it into satrapies,
of which the satrapy
of Turiva and that of Aspionus
were taken away from
Eucratides by the Parthians.
And they also held Sogdiana,
situated above Bactriana
towards the east between
the Oxus River, which forms
the boundary between the
Bactrians and the Sogdians,
and the Iaxartes River;
and the Iaxartes forms also
the boundary between the
Sogdians and the nomads.
(RADT 2004: 357) Geographika, 11.11.2
An Städten hatten sie Baktra, PÒleij d' e con t£ te B£k-
das
auch Zariaspa genannt wird tra, ¼nper kaˆ Zari£span
( hindurch strömt ein gleichnami- kaloàsin, ¿n diarre‹ Ðm-
ger
Fluss, der in den Oxos münènumoj potamÕj mb£ldet),
Darapsa und mehrere anlwn e„j tÕn ’Wxon, kaˆ D£-
dere;
raya kaˆ ¥llaj ple…ouj :
dazu
gehört auch das nach dem toÚtwn d' Ãn kaˆ ¹ EÙ-
einstigen
Herrscher benannte Eukrat…deia, toà ¥rxantoj
kratideia.
pènumoj.
Die
Griechen, die das Land in Oƒ d' katascÒntej aÙt¾n
Besitz
nahmen, haben es auch “Ellhnej kaˆ e„j satra-
in
Satrapien eingeteilt (von depe…aj diVr»kasin, ïn t»n
nen
die des Aspiones und Turi- te 'Aspiènou kaˆ t¾n Tou-
ua
dem Eukratides von den ParrioÚan ¢fÇrhnto EÙkra-
thern
entrissen wurde).
t…dhn oƒ Parqua‹oi.
Sie
setzten sich auch in den Be- ”Escon d kaˆ t¾n Sog-
sitz
von Sogdiane, das nach Osdian¾n Øperkeimšnhn prÕj
ten
über Baktriane hinaus liegt, ›w tÁj BaktrianÁj metaxÝ
zwischen dem Oxos-Fluss – der toà te ”Wxou potamoà,
Öj
das Land der Baktrier und das Ðr…zei t»n te tîn Baktr…-
der Sogdier voneinander trennt – wn kaˆ t¾n tîn Sogd…wn,
und dem Iaxartes;
kaˆ toà 'Iax£rtou:
dieser bildet die Grenze zwi- oátoj d kaˆ toÝj Sogschen
den Sogdiern und den Nod…ouj Ðr…zei kaˆ toÝj nomaden.m£daj.
The Satrapies of Aspiones and Turiva are otherwise completely unknown. GROS-
KURD, 1831: 410, following DU THEIL, suggests amending Turiua or Turiva into Tapuria.
This is a region, ment ioned by Polybios (10. 46: ...Tapour…an...), which had been fought
ove r by Antiochos and the Bactrian king Euthydemos near the Areios River, i.e. in the
area
between Parthia, Bactria and Aria — in other words: in Margiana. Bactria in
those
times extended as far west as the Areios or Ochos River (Herî Rûd), a short dis-
tance
west of the Margos (Murghâb) River which flows through Margianê (Merv). The
Ochos
had been the border to Parthia. With this geographic situation in mind, VON GUT-
S CHMID suggests that the Sakas, when evicted a second time by the Ruzhi 月氏, now
from
Sogdiana, continue their exodus straight on in a westerly direction, i.e. by crossing
the
Oxus. But Zhang Qian, in Shiji 123, says that Parthia in his time in the east borders
on
the Oxus River 臨媯水 (see above, p. 48). This must have been so after the Bactrian
G reeks had lost the two satrapies mentioned by Strabo. And this, then, is the reason
why
the Sakas/Sakaraukai/Saiwang turn south when chased out of Sogdiana by the
Ruzhi
月氏. Hence, the part of Bactria, which the Parthians take over from the Saka-
raukai, is definitely not Margiana. Instead, it is the very heart of Bactria: the
capital
Bactra
itself. In an preemptive strike the Parthians effectively prevent the Ruzhi 月氏
from subjugating the Sakas in Bactra — and thus the two greatest powers in the area
now become the main contenders for hegemony in Central Asia.
And this is how the Sakaraukai/Sacaraucae meet their destruction — the interitus
Sa(ca)raucarum of Trogus’ Prolog 42. Hence, it are the awe-inspiring Parthians who
prevent the Ruzhi 月氏 from conquering the whole of former Greek Bactria. It goes
— 51 —

without saying that the Parthians and the Ruzhi 月氏 become bitter foes — as many
centuries later the Græco-Roman historian Ammianus will tell us (below, p. 65).
That the Sakaraukai/Saiwang 塞王 maintained themselves in the capital Bactra
and Western Bactria for some time as Parthian vassals, is amply proved by a recent
find, also not yet known
to VON G UTSCHMID : the small, but rich Saka necropolis on
Tillya-tepe, about
100 km west of Bactra. The tombs contained
mainly Part
hian
coins — and one gold coin of
the Roman Emperor Tiberius, minted
in Lugdunum (modern
Lyon) 16–21 CE. This late
date shows that the Ruzhi 月 氏 were unable to con-
quer the whole of Bactria before
30 CE as the earliest possible
date, or for more than
a century and a half after they
had subjugated Daxia 大夏 (Tochara).
The tombs of Sa-
ka nobles near Bactra disprove
the seemingly convincing assertions
of NARAIN who, in
1957: 140, writes:
The prominence which is given
to the Ta–hsia in the Shih–chi
is not found in the Ch’ien
Han Shu. It therefore seems evident that Bactria
proper south of the Oxus river
must have
come under the complete political
subjugation of the Yüeh–chih either after the Shih–chi
was written or at a time quite
near its completion, when the news
had not reached Ssu–
ma–ch’ien, but definitely long before the composition of the Ch’ ien
Han Shu. Shih–chi was
completed in 99 B.C., and therefore,
in round numbers, we may
say that the occupation
took place about 100 B.C.
NARAIN’s is the same old mistake we had to deal with above and which dies hard.
Implicitly, he believes that Ta–hsia
(Daxia) stands for Bactria
proper — which it does
not. Instead, the Chinese transcription
stands, not for Bactria,
but for the Western
name Tochara = Eastern Bactria,
later known under the name
Tocharistan. A comparison
of Shiji 123 with Hanshu
96 simply proves that Daxia 大夏 was in the hands of
the Ruzhi 月氏 about 100 BCE.
Above, we have seen that a correct interpretation of
Shiji 123 shows that this wa
s already the case at the time of Zhang Qian’s visit to
Daxia/Tochara, i.e. a full
gen eration before 100 BCE. We do not have to wait for
the
much later Hanshu — for it h as nothing new to tell us in this respect. Saka Tillya-tepe,
however, proves that Western Bactria cannot have been subjugated
by the 月氏 before
the times of the Later Han (2 6–220 CE),
and so we have to turn to the Later Hanshu to
check,
i.e. to the Hou Hanshu 後漢書. There, we are told that Bactra had been finally
conquered . The feat was accomplished by one of the five well-known Ruzhi viceroys or
xihou 翎侯. In Weishu 102 they are said to have all belonged to the Zhaowu 昭武 family
of the reigning monarch (see above, p. 28). He overthrew the other four viceroys, proclaimed
himself king — in clear rebellion against the legitimate Ruzhi 月氏 king —
and went on to oust the latter, we may assume.
(DE GROOT 1926: 101)
...
Als ›Goat–si‹ von ›Hung–nª‹
vernichtet war, wanderte es
nach ›Ta–ha‹ (Tochara) aus
(PULLEYBLANK 1968: 247-248)
The Great Yüeh–chih country
has its capital at the
city of Lan–shih (Khulm).
To the west it is 49 days’
march to An–hsi (Arsak
Parthia).
To the east it is 6,537 ›li‹
to the seat of the Senior
Administrator (Chang–
shih) and 16,370 ›li‹ to Lo–
yang.
It has 100,000 households,
400,000 mouths and over
100,000 trained soldiers.
Formerly the (Great)
Yüeh–chih, on being overthrown
by the Hsiung–nu,
— 52 —
Hou Hanshu 88. 2920–2921
大 月 氏 國 居 藍 氏 城
西 接 安 息 四 十 九 日
行
東 去 長 史 所 居 六 千
五 百 三 十 七 里 去 洛
陽 萬 六 千 三 百 七 十
里
戶 十 萬 口 四 十 萬 勝
兵 十 餘 萬人

und teilte dort sein Reich in migrated to Ta–hsia (Bac-
fünf Jabgu, nämlich tria). They divided the
›Hiu–bit‹,
›Šang–bi‹, country among five ›hsi–
›Kui–song‹, ›It–tok‹
und 都密 ›Tª–bit‹.
hou‹ (›yabgu‹) —
Hsiu–mi, Shuang–mi,
Mehr als ein Jahrhundert Kuei–shuang (Kushan),
später bekriegte und vernichtete
丘就卻 ›K'u–tsiu–
Hsi–tun and
(Tarmita).
Tu–mi
k'iok‹ (Kud{øla Kadphises), Over one hundred years
der Jabgu von ›Kui–song‹, later the Kuei–shuang
die vier anderen Jabgu und ›hsi–hou‹, Ch’iu–chiu–chü
erhob sich selbst zum Kö- (Kujøla Kadphises), atnig.
tacked and overthrew the
Sein
Reich nannte ihn Kö- (other) four ›hsi–hou‹ and
nig
von ›Kui–song‹.
set himself up as king.
Er
griff ›An–sik‹ an, nahm The country was named
vom
Lande ›Ko–hu‹ Besitz, Kuei–shuang.
vernichtete
濮達 ›P 'ak–tat‹ The king attacked An–hsi
( Baktar, Baktra, Baktria) (Parthia) and took the ter-
und
›Ke–pin‹ und setzte sich ritory of Kao–fu (Kabul).
in den vollständigen Besitz He also overthrew P ’u–ta
aller dieser
Reiche.
(Pu•kalåvatð) and Chi–pin
Als ›K'u–tsiu–k'iok‹ über (Kashmir) and completely
achtzig Jahre alt war und annexed these countries.
starb, trat sein Sohn 閻膏 Ch’iu–chiu–chü died when
珍 ›J¥m–ko–tin‹ (Wima Kad- over eighty years of age.
phises) an seiner Stelle als His son Yen–kao–chen (Vi-
König auf; dieser vernichtete
auch noch 天竺 ›T'i¥n–
ma Kadphises) succeeded
him as king.
tok‹ (Indien) und setzte dort He went on to overthrow
als Verwalter und Befehls- T’ien–chu (India) and sent
haber einen Heerführer ein. a general to rule over it.
Seither befand sich Groß- From this time on the
Goat–si im allerhöchsten Yüeh–chih were extremely
Stadium von Reichtum und wealthy and prosperous.
Blüte. Die Reiche nannten All the nations call them
es allgemein das König- the Kuei–shuang (Kushan)
reich ›Kui–song‹.
kings.
Aber ›Han‹ nannte es bei But Han, keeping to the
seinem ursprünglichen al- original name, calls th
ten Namen Groß-Goat–si. the Great Yüeh–chih.
初 月 氏 為 匈 奴 所 滅
遂 遷 於 大 夏 分 其 國
為
休 密 雙 靡 貴 霜 漈盻
頓 都 密
凡 五 部 漈翎 侯
後 百 餘 歲 貴 霜 翎 侯
丘 就 卻 攻 滅 四 翎 侯
自 立 為 王
國 號 貴 霜 (王)
侵 安 息 取 高 附 地
又 滅 濮 達 罽 賓 悉 有
其 國
丘 就 卻 年 八 十 餘 死
子 閻 膏 珍 代 為 王
復 滅 天 竺 置 將 一 人
監 領 之
月 氏 自 此 之 後 最 為
富 盛
諸 國 稱 之 皆 曰 貴 霜
王
em 漢 本 其 故 號 言 大 月
氏 云
This text has extraordin arily important facts to teach us. At the outset of the Later
Han, i.e. after the year 26 C E, the capital of the Ruzhi is still in Tochara: the “Lan–shi
city”
藍氏城 of the Hou H anshu is obviously identical with
the “Lan–shi city” 藍市城
of
the Shiji, there called the capital of
Daxia (see bel ow, p.
72) — whether it is to be
identified
with modern Khulm
(Tashqurghan), as PULLEYBLANK
thinks, or modern Kun-
duz
(i.e. Darapsa, mention ed by Strabo as one of only three prominent Bactrian cities),
as
I believe, is of secondary importance. Of prime imp
ortance is, that the Ruzhi 月氏
of
this time in the west border on Parthia, (the capi
tal of which is) 49 days journey
from
Lanshi. There is no mention of any independent Saka kingdom in that direction.
The Hou Hanshu goes on to report the establishment
of
the five ›xihou‹ (still read
yap–hau
in modern Cantonese, this is the Chinese transcription
of the title ›yabgu‹) —
a historic event which happened,
no t in La ter Han, bu
t in Former Han times. Strictly
speaking, this report does not
belong into the Hou Hanshu.
But it is obvious
here that
Fan Ye 范嘩 (398–446), the compiler of the third Chinese
Standard History,
the Hou
— 53 —

Hanshu, wants to correct Ban
Gu’s Hanshu where the
story is told in a different way.
He then continues the
story to its climax. This, in fact,
is a highly controversial topic.
What interests us here,
is the fact that more than a hundred years later — we are
back in Later Han times now — king Kujula Kadphises
finally
dares to attack Parthia,
i.e. he conquers three Parthian
possessions: Gaofu 高 附, Puta
濮達, and Jibin 罽賓.
We may assume, in this order.
Puta is Bactra, as only DE GROOT correctly states in his translation of the passage.
He reads the two Chinese characters
濮達 as ›P ’ak–tat‹
= Baktar. As
far as I can tell,
this is the first time the name
Bac tra is mentioned in the Chinese Standard Histories.
This is a strong argument in
favor of a very late conquest
of Saka / Parthian-occupied
Bactra by the Ruzhi 月氏 — which conquest, in fa ct, we find depicted in the wall
friezes
of Khalchayan, the 月氏 summer palace, up t he Surkhan River valley a short
distance from modern Termez
(see above, p. 39–40). One large figure there, with the
well-known face of the
Heraios coins, represents the
founder
of the Kushan Dynasty —
and the trophy of a dead Saka
warrior’s heavy plated armor at his feet is telling (see
Puga¾enkova 1971: fig. 61).
Whether the Ruzhi 月氏 usurper Kadphises I origin
ally started his conquests south
of the Hindukush Mountains,
as BOPEARACHCHI has shown
from strictly numismatic
evidence (1997: 208), or else from north of the Hindukush
— even north of the Oxus Ri
ver —, as GRENET has shown
in a very recent article on
the grounds of much new evi-
dence (2007: passim), is part
of the same hot and complex
topic just
mentioned. It is in
any case too big for the modest
scope of this paper and calls for
a lengthy discussion
in a separate study.
But why did Zhang Qian
not describe the Sakarau kai or Saiwang 塞王 as reigning
in Bactra ? This city was just
a few dozen miles away
from the provisional Daxia/To-
chara capital on the banks of the Oxus where he discussed
politics with the new Ruzhi
月氏 king in the latter’s royal
tent. As VON
G UTSCHMID has pointed out correctly: it is
impossible that Zhang Qian overlooked the Sakaraukai/Saiwang
塞王 . Hence, I think
he did, in fact, mention the Saiwang — but in a more indirect way. Zhang Qian’s de-
tailed Report on the Parthians,
in Shiji 123, also contains
the following paragraph —
(WATSON 1993: 235)
(71) The people are very numerous
and of-
ten have (are ruled by) petty princes.
Although the (ruler of) An–xi gives orders to
these dependent states, he regards them as
foreign countries.
Shiji 123. 3163
人 眾 甚 多 往 往 有 小 君 長
而 安 息 役 屬 之 以 為 外 國
Zhang Qian could have
heard of such Parthian
vassal states as Characene, Elymais,
or Persis. But more likely it is that he is speaking here of the state
of affairs in close-by
Bactra,
ruled by petty Saka princes — whose descendents, five or six generations later,
were burried on Tillya-tepe. For Zhang Qian, the Saiwang thus were local princes within
the mighty Parthian kingdom 最大(安息)國 — which could rival the Roman Empire
— and thus the Saiwang were just not worth mentioning by name.
In this context, VON GUTSCHMID writes, 1888: 56–57:
Diesen kleinen Königreichen gegenüber begnügten sich die Parther mit der Anerkennung
ihrer Suprematie ... Waren die Parther in guter Verfassung, so zogen sie die Zügel
straffer an, waren sie aber durch innere Unruhen geschwächt, so war ihre Suprematie ein
leerer Name, und Alles gieng darunter und darüber; das Verhältnis blieb immer ein sehr
prekäres,
und die auf einer derartigen Basis beruhende Machtstellung der Parther war
entfernt nicht die gleiche wie später die des Sassanidenreiches.
When in the first century BCE, or in the later time of the Former Han, the one-time
petty princes of Western Bactria had become great rulers in their own right in Northwestern
India or Jibin 罽賓, their historic status had changed dramatically. And so the
— 54 —

Chinese, politically deeply involved in India, reported on the Saiwang 塞王 for the first
time and recapitulated their earlier history in Hanshu 96 — to all historians’ delight.
Without this historical source, we would not know of the short spell of Saka rule over
the Tochari. However, on the role of the Sakas in Bactra — and Sakastana — the Chinese
historians of later times remain practically silent. I presume that it escaped their
attention because it was outside their geographic horizon. We find only very vague
hints on the Saiwang of Sakastana in the Hanshu.
One more quote from Trogus in Justinus’ Epitome, less puzzling in the light of the
present findings and thus open for new interpretations, I like to reproduce here.
(WATSON 1886: 277–278)
After the death of Mithridates,
king of the Parthians, Phraates
his son was made king,
who, having proceeded to make
war upon Syria, in revenge for
the attempts of Antiochus on
the Parthian dominions, was
recalled, by hostilities on the
part of the Scythians, to defend
his own country.
For the Scythians, having been
induced, by the offer of pay, to
assist the Parthians against
Antiochus, king of Syria, and
not having arrived till the war
was ended, were disappointed
of the expected remuneration,
and reproached with having
brought their aid too late ...
being offended at the haughty
reply which they received,
they began to ravage the
country of the Parthians.
Phraates, in consequence,
marching against them ...
took with him to the
war a body
of Greeks,
who had been
made prisoners in the war
against Antiochus, and whom
he had treated with great pride
and severity ...
As soon therefore as they saw
the Persians giving ground,
the
and executed that revenge for
their
captivity, which they had
long
desired, by a sanguinary
destruction
of the Parthian ar-
my
and of king Phraates him-
self.
In his stead Artabanus, his
uncle, was made king.
The Scythians, content with
Hist. Phil. Epit.42.1.1-2.5
Post necem Mithridatis,
Parthorum regis, Phrahates
filius rex statuitur,
qui cum inferre bellum
in ultionem temptati ab
Antiocho Parthici regni
Syriae statuisse, Scytharum
motibus ad
sua defendenda revocatur.
Namque Scythae in auxilium
Parthorum adversus
Antiochum, Syriae
regem, mercede
r Parther selbst zu
sollicitati cum confecto
iam bello supervenissent
et calumnia tardius
lati auxilii mercede
fraudarentur ...
Superbo responso of-
fensi fines Parthorum
vastare coeperunt.
Igitur Phrahates, cum
(SEEL 1972: 445–446)
Nach dem Tode des Mithridates,
des Partherkönigs, wird sein
Sohn Phrahates zum König eingesetzt;
als dieser zur Rache für den von
Antiochos versuchten Angriff auf
das Partherreich einen Krieg gegen
Syrien zu unternehmen beschlossen
hatte, wird er durch
Unruhen bei den Skythen zurückgerufen,
um dort seine eigenen
Interessen zu wahren.
Die Skythen nämlich waren zur
Unterstützung der Parther gegen
den Syrerkönig Antiochos um
Lohn aufgeboten worden, trafen
aber erst ein, als der Krieg bereits
zu Ende war, und sollten
unter dem Vorwurf, sie seien bei
der Hilfeleistung allzu saumselig
gewesen, um ihren Lohn geprellt
werden ...
Darüber beleidigt,
fingen sie an,
das Gebiet de
verheeren.
Als nun Phrahates gegen diese
aufbrach ...
führte (er) ein Heer von Griechen,
das er im Kriege des Antiochos
gefangen und inzwischen so hoffärtig
wie grausam behandelt
hatte, mit sich in den Kampf ...
Als sie daher sahen, daß die
anken
geriet, gingen sie mit ihren Waffen
zum Feinde über und vollstreckten
die langersehnte Rache
für ihre Gefangenschaft
durch ein Blutbad am Partherheer
und am König Phrahates
selbst.
An seiner Stelle wird Artabanus,
ein Onkel väterlicherseits, als
y went over to the enemy, Front der Parther ins W
— 55 —
adversus eos proficisceretur
...
exercitum Graecorum,
quem bello Antiochi
captum superbe crudeliterque
tractaverat, in
bellum secum ducit ...
Itaque cum inclinatam
Parthorum
aciem vidissent,
arma ad hostes
transtulere et diu cupitam
captivitatis ultionem
exercitus Parthici
et ipsius Phrahatis regis
cruenta caede exse-
cuti sunt.
In huius locum Artabanus,
patruus eius, rex
substituitur.

their victory, and with having
laid waste Parthia, returned
home.
Artabanus, making war upon
the Thogarii, received a wound
in the arm, of which he immediately
died.
He was succeeded by his son
Mithridates, to whom his
achievements procured the
surname of Great ...
He fought successfully, too, several
times, against the Scythians,
and avenged the injuries
received from them by his forefathers
...
König eingesetzt,
Die Skythen jedoch kehrten zufrieden
mit ihrem Sieg und nach
Verwüstung des Partherlandes
in ihre Heimat zurück.
Aber auch Artabanus, der bei einem
Krieg gegen die
Tocharer
am Arm verwundet wurde, starb
sogleich.
Ihm folgte sein Sohn Mithridates,
dem seine Taten den Beinamen
› der Große‹ verschafften ...
Aber auch mit den Skythen focht
er einige Male mit Glück und
wurde so zum Rächer des den
Ahnen angetanen Schadens ...
Scythae autem contenti
victoria depopulata Parthia
in patriam revertuntur.
Sed et Artabanus bello
Tocharis inlato in brac-
chio vulneratus statim
decedit.
Huic Mithridates filius
succedit, cui res gestae
Magni cognomen dedere
...
Sed et cum Scythis
prospere aliquotiens dimicavit
ultorque iniuriae
parentum fuit ...
Here we read about developments
which take place soon after
Zhang Qian’s depar-
ture. The Sakaraukai/Saiwang 塞王, Sakas or Scythians for short,
conquered by the
Parthians to prevent the Ruzhi
月氏 from doing the same, had thus
been forced to ac-
knowledge Parthian suzerainty.
They are soon enlisted by king Phraates
II, the Arsakes
Theopator Euergetes of the coi
ns, as mercenaries in the latter’s crucial war against the
Seleucids of Syria. The Sakas,
still unsettled and restless
in the
narrow confines of
their new “patria,” or fatherland,
gladly jump to the chance to
venture beyond it —
but create grave problems for their Parthian overlords when the
latter try to cheat
them. With the help of Greek arms, they defeat the Parthians and king Phraates is
slain in battle, about 127 BCE.
In the end, the Sakas will in turn
be defeated by king
Mithridates II, ultor iniuriae p arentum, who decides to solve the Saka problem by
settling the nomads for good in Drangiana — the country which eventually
will become
known by the name Sakastana (modern Sistan).
All this we understand so much
better when we realize that the later Saka-Parthian
pell-mell evolved from Bactra. After 130 BCE, the Sakaraukai/Saiwang
塞王, we may
note down now, reigned in Western
Bactria
as petty princes and Parthian vassals for
150 years and more.
In between all of this, we are astonished to read in Justinus’ Epitome
that Phraates’
successor, king Artabanos,
the Arsakes Theopator
Nikator of the coins, resolves to de-
stroy the dangerous newcomers
and attacks the “Tochari.” Obviously,
this
would have
been impossible had an independent
Saka state separated the two
nations. Of course,
these Tochari are no longer the
timid people of Daxia 大夏 (Tochara)
Zhang Qian in
his Report had so described an
d stated that he had found them with
no king nor good
soldiers. These new Tochari are now firmly governed by an East
Asian nomad aristo-
cracy and are boasting
a fearful
army. The Parthians are in for a second shock. Arta-
banos, too, is killed in battle — wounded by a poisonous arrow,
he dies on the spot.
This occurred in about 124 BCE.
The incident proves that the
Parthians had a direct common border with the Asia-
ni/Tochari 月氏 — which ran right across former Greek Bactria
from north to south.
Both sides, it seems, were unable
to dislodge the other for another
century and a half
or more. In this long time the new Ruzhi 月氏 kingdom, north
of the Hindukush, is
confined to Daxia/Tochara. It is in this century and a half that
the 月氏 become
known by the name Tochari — it is the Far Eastern Ruzhi 月 氏 who make this
Central
Asian name great and famous : as the designation of a country,
of a people, of
a language.
When we can prove that the Tochari of Trogus are the Daxia 大 夏 of Zhang Qian, it
then becomes apparent that these
Tochari were the indigenous population
of Tochara,
— 56 —

well settled on the land since centuries. They spoke their own language, Tocharian.
But as the Tochari were constantly
ruled by foreign invaders ever since the Achae-
menids,
these foreigners — Persians, Macedonians, Greeks, Sakas,
and finally the Ru-
zhi 月氏 — necessarily left their
mark on the local language to varying degrees.
Such
new insights suggest new answers
to question we find in the
following
text.
In 1995: 439–441, RINGE writes:
Fragmentary
manuscripts, found
at various sites along the northern
arm of the silk road
in the Tarim basin and dating from perhaps the 7th through the 10th
centuries of the com-
mon era, preserve documents written in two Tocharian languages,
called “A” and “B.”
Though it is clear that Tocharian A and B are separate languages (not
dialects of a single
language), it is also clear that t hey are very closely related; and it follows
that they must
still have been a single language
(called “Proto-Tocharian”) until
about a millennium or so
before the date of our earliest documents. Historical and comparative
analysis of the To-
charian language reveals the rough
outlines of their prehistory, but
many details remain
unrecoverable ...
The earlier
Iranian loanwords in Tocharian seem to have been
borrowed from lan-
guages
at an “Old Iranian” stage of development, but it is not easy to specify which Iranian
language they were borrowed from; they resemble Avestan words, but that may be
simply because Avestan is the most archaic Iranian language of which we have any record.
The loanwords of the next oldest stratum are startlingly similar to Ossetic, the Iranian
language now spoken in the Caucasus. That is especially intriguing because it is reasonably
clear that Ossetic is descended from one of the Iranian languages, collectively called
“Scythian,” that were spoken by nomads north of the Black Sea and in the steppes to the
east during the last few centuries BCE. This suggests that the Tocharians could have been
affiliated with one or another of the steppe confederations dominated by Iranian tribes at
a relatively early period of their prehistory. Unfortunately that is all that can be said; neither
the nature of such an affiliation nor the time and place at which it may have existed
can be specified with any certainty.
We are on firmer ground with the next clearly identifiable
stratum of Iranian loanwords,
which
were borrowed from Bactrian. Bactrian was the Iranian language of the Kushåna
kingdom, which flourished in Afghanistan and neighboring areas beginning in the first
century of the common era. But while the fact of a relationship between the Kushåna kingdom
and the Tocharians
is tolerably clear, the nature of that relationship is (again) unrecoverable.
If the Tocharians were Kushåna subjects, they must then have been living well
to the southwest of where we find them historically; but it seems much more likely that
they were outlying allies, or even trading partners, and in that case they could well have
borrowed elements of Kushåna language and culture from a considerable distance. Later
strata of loanwords — Sogdian, Khotanese and Sanskrit — can easily have entered the Tocharian
languages after the Tocharians reached their historical home ...
One year later, in 1996: 633, SIMS-WILLIAMS writes on the Kushan language :
Durant les premiers siècles de notre ère, le bactrien aurait pu légitimement être compté
au rang des langues les plus importantes du monde. En tant que langue des rois kouchans,
il était certainement largement compris sur tout le territoire d’un vaste empire incluant
l’Afghanistan actuel, le Nord de l’Inde et une partie de l’Asie centrale. Même après la chute
de l’empire kouchan, le bactrien continua d’être écrit pendant au moins six siècles, comme
en témoignent les inscriptions du IX
iant remarks teach us that the language of the Kushans, or, more generally
e siècle trouvées dans la vallée de Tochi au Pakistan,
ainsi que des fragments de manuscrits bouddhistes et manichéens trouvés dans la lointaine
oasis de Turfan située à l’ouest de la Chine. Ainsi, sa carrière comme langue de culture
a duré près de mille ans.
These brill
speaking, of the Ruzhi 月氏, played a paramount role in the spread of Buddhism
— similar, in fact, to the importance of the language of the Romans in the spread
— 57 —

of Christianity. After the initial Sanskrit, the imperial language of the Ruzhi 月氏 apparently
became the Vulgata of Buddhism in the centuries and regions outlined by
SIMS-WILLIAMS. The only amendment, I would venture to make here, is to the name of
this language : with the above new findings of the Ruzhi 月氏 being confined to Tocha-
ra/Tachara/Daxia 大夏 for a decisive one century and a half, the correct name is, not
Bactrian, but Tocharian. Under this
name, we find this language mentioned in faraway
Turfan texts — long after the last Kushan emperors had vanished.
In this study, special emphasis is laid on bringing together both Eastern and Wes-
tern
classical sources for comparison. These sources complement each other greatly
and
together they help us to reconstruct the end of the Greek kingdom of Bactriana,
tÁj
sump£shj 'ArianÁj prÒschma, or the pride of all of Ariana, as Apollodoros of Ar-
t emita calls it. His lost Partik£, or Parthian History, must have been the source for
b oth Strabo and Trogus — contra Tarn (see below, p. 74). If this assumption is correct,
we
get the following important equation from the texts of Trogus 42 and Shiji 123:
Trogus’ Reges Toc
harorum Asiani = 月 氏 既 臣 大 夏 而 居 of Sima Qian.
(The kings of the Tochari were of the tribe of the Asii = the Ruzhi had since subjugated the
Daxia
and were then living there).
The parallel text in Hanshu 61 has the same sentence a bit more to the point:
Trogus’ Reges Tocharorum Asiani = 月 氏 既 臣 大 夏 而 君 之 of Ban Gu.
(The kings of the Tochari were of the tribe of the Asii = the Ruzhi had since subjugated the
Daxia
and were then ruling them).
In fact, the closest parallel to the three-word-phrase by Trogus I find in six charac-
ters
of Hanshu 96A. 3884 by Ban Gu (quoted above already):
ASIANI reges TOCHARORUM
RUZHI (in the West) rulers of DAXIA
月 氏
( 西 ) 君 大 夏
When, as I have been at pains to show, the Daxia 大夏 of the Chinese sources are
the
Tochari / TÒcaroi of the Western sources, and when Trogus and Strabo in the West
a s well as Sima Qian and Ban Gu in the East are writing about the same historical
e vents, which took place at the same time and in the same geographical area, then it
follows
that the rulers of the Daxia/Tochari were :
the ASIANI (Trogus) = the ACIOI (Strabo) = the 月氏 (Zhang Qian).
In 1922, the well-known Russian Orientalist BARTHOLD is the first Western scholar
to
state, originally in his mother tongue, later translated into English:
( MINORSKIJ 1956: 4) BARTHOLD 1922: 5
In the
middle of the second century B.C. the В середине II в. до Р.Х. произошло завоева-
northern, and later the southern provinces ние северных, впоследствии и южных,
обла-
of the
Graeco-Bactrian kingdom were con- стей греко-бактрийского царства средне-ази-
quered
by Central Asian nomads, who in атскими кочевниками, завоевавшими потом
due
course subdued several Indian provin- также некоторые области Индии и известны-
ces
and became known in Greek literature ми в греческой литературе под общим назва-
under
the general appellation of Scythians. нием скифов.
In
the same century relations between Cen- В том же II веке начались сношения между
tral
Asia and China were established for Средней Азией и Kитаем; падение греко-бак-
the
first time. The fall of the Graeco-Bacтрийского царства – первое событие мировой
trian kingdom is the first event
of world истории, о котором говорят как западные
history
recorded both in Western (Greek) (греческие), так и дальневосточные (китай-
and Far-Eastern (Chinese) sources.
ские) источники.
— 58 —

Well said. It is, however, not a Greek, but a Roman source which we have to combine
with the Chinese texts: Trogus with Sima Qian / Ban Gu. The fact that Greek and
Latin as well as Chinese historians had recorded the fall of the Greek kingdom in Bactria
has been known in the West since two generations or longer. It is therefore a
curious fact that no one so far ever tried to combine the statement by Trogus with that
by Ban Gu in order to get the very simple and very obvious equation Asiani = 月氏.
Actually, I gladly correct myself: there is one who did. HERZFELD, 1931: 26–27, writes:
Die beiden abendländischen Nachrichten über das Ende des graeco-bactrischen Reichs
sind 1. Justin, Trog. Pomp. prol. XLI:
qua re pugnantes [recte: quo regnante] Scythicae gentes Saraucae et Asiani Bactra
occupavere et Sogdianos.
Dazu prol. XLII:
res Scythicae: reges Thocarorum Asiani interitusque Saraucarum.
Dies Scythae bedeutet natürlich nicht sak-Sakå, sondern asiatische Nomaden. Nach
de m Parallelismus der Stelle besetzen die Saraucae Bactra, die Asiani Sogdiana.
Sogdiana
haben aber in eben jenen Jahren nach ²ang-k’ien die ýuÿt-šï besetzt.
Danach würden Asiani und ýuÿt- šï gleich sein.
Die 2. Stelle ist Strabon XI, C 511:
malista de gnwrimoi gegonasi twn nomadwn oƒ touj `Ellhnaj afelomenoi thn Baktrianhn,
Asioi kai Pasianoi kai Tocaroi kai Sakarau tou Iaxartou
th
tsprechen bei Ptolemaios VII, 12 die Paskai, Iatioi, Toca
, das eine Aussprache wie
uår-śi zuläßt, die Selbstbe SIEG, 1918: 560 ff. Auf
jeden Fall machen diese Z er von den ýuÿt-šï unmöglich.
Justin’s “reges Königsgeschlecht der
Asiani-Asioi-Iatioi-ýuÿt-šï an sich streng an den
Wor
oi. This name
“år emselves: “die
Sel
and the Eastern
transcription of the second: a(r)si i årÝi (a)ruzhi 月氏. In this, the original årÝi
ii and ruzhi 月氏 — than
a
an
le
b
, b
12
er them;
ia
FE
a
W
the Chine le exception, I hasten to
add: HIRTH, in 1917, added a handwritten edition of Shiji 123 to his pioneering transla-
kai / loi,
Ðrmhqentej apo thj peraiaj
j kat¦ Sakaj kai Sogdianouj, ¹n kateicon Sakai.
Dieser Gruppe von Nomaden en
roi und Augaloi ... Diese Zusammenhänge erheben die von F.W.K. MÜLLER 1918: 566 ff.
angedeutete Vermutung zur Wahrscheinlichkeit, daß chin. ýuÿt-šï
zeichnung der Tocrï: årÝi wiedergibt, vgl.
usammenh änge eine Trennung der Tochar
Thocarorum Asiani“ besagt, daß das
über die Tocharer herrschte ... Hält m
tlaut der kurzen griechischen und chinesischen Nachrichten, so ist der Sachverhalt
ganz klar. Noch vor 160 müssen die ýuÿt-šï-årÝi-Asioi vor den wu-sun aus Farghåna
weichen, aus dem sie zuvor die sak vertrieben haben. Sie besetzen das südliche Sogdiana,
wo ²ang-k’ien sie i. J. 127 trifft. Die mitgewanderten Saraucae sitzen in dem unterworfenen
Bactria = tai-hia. Das bedeutet das Ende des graeco-bactrischen Reichs ...
As early as 1931, HERZFELD has the equation ýuÿt–šï = årÝi = Asi
Ýi” seems to come closest to how the Ruzhi 月氏 may have called th
bstbezeichnung der Tocrï” (here to be understood as: the self-appellation of the
kings of the Tochari). The first and the third name are the Western
is closer to both as
asii is to ruzhi 月氏.
Why was this ingenious equation not ccepted ? One raison may be that HERZ-
FELD’s intelligent discovery is lost in too m y gross mistakes:
— the Asiani are not a dynasty, but a peop ;
— they were not displaced from Ferghana, ut from the Ili River;
— they did not occupy southern Sogdiana ut the whole of Sogdiana;
— Zhang Qian did not reach the Asiani in 7, but in 129 BCE;
— the Sa(ca)raucae did not migrate togeth with the Asiani,
but always ahead of
— and finally: ›tai-hia‹ (Daxia) is not Bactr , but Tochara.
Another reason surely was that HERZ LD is unable to substantiate the Chinese
sources by quoting the relevant passages verbatim
— original text with translations —,
i.e. as emphatically as he does quote the L tin and Greek sources. And this, of course,
was so because, from BROSSET in 1828 to ATSON in 1993, all Western translations of
Shiji 123 were publisheed without se text. With one so
— 59 —

tion.
The whole would have been perfect had he arranged translation and text in parallel
columns — and the hanzi, or Chinese characters, two times larger. Any Chinese
text should be given as much space as is allotted to the translation: this usually means
that a Chinese character, representing a full word, should be printed about twice as
large as a letter of the Western alphabet.
Just like in HERZFELD’s long article, we can find innumerous instances in other
Western
literature where Greek and Latin historical sources are very carefully com-
pared
— resulting for instance in the equation Asiani = ”Asioi. But amongst this good
number
of authors, there is not one who includes the Chinese historical sources ad-
equately,
i.e. Sima Qian and Ban Gu as prominently as Trogus and Strabo.
BAILEY, 1936: 912, inserts the following telling note in his text:
Speculations on these ”Asioi Asiani are at present of little use. We cannot be sure from
the Greek and Latin texts whether the Asiani were kings of the Tochari
before or after their
settlement
in Tokhåristån.
Here BAILEY subscribes to the equation Asiani = ”Asioi; he also knows that the
Asiani
settled in Tocharistan — and not in Bactria: so one is inclined to infer from
h is simple statement. But a few pages before, 1936:
887, the author writes:
Tokhåristån ... the capital was Balkh ... It was therefore the old Bactria. The evidence is
furnished by Arabic, Armenian, Tibetan and Chinese sources. It is now not disputed.
If BAILEY had known the Chinese sources as well as he did the Greek and Latin
tex ts, he would have been assured by Zhang Qian apud Sima Qian that the Ruzhi 月氏
no
doubt became the rulers of the Daxia 大夏 after they had settled in the country of
t hese Daxia, and surely not before. And if the same eminent Iranist had been familiar
w ith the intricacies of the ways in which the ancient Chinese transcribed foreign names,
h e quickly would have jumped to the conclusion that the Ruzhi 月氏 were the Asiani,
or
”Asioi, and the country of the Daxia 大夏 Tochara, the later Tocharistan. He might
then
have pondered the question whether Lanshi city 藍市城, said to be the capital of
Daxia,
could really be Bactra, or Balkh, as the latter was clearly located outside Tocha-
ra/Tokhåristån.
Phonetically it is in any case closer to (Da)rapsa, mentioned by Strabo
to
be one of the three largest and best-known cities of Bactriana (see below, p. 78).
The earliest Histories of Han China, the Shiji and the Hanshu, exist since about two
thousand years. They have been translated into Western languages since close to two
hundred
years. To make proper use of these texts from a Western point of view —
does this still involve bridging a gap too wide for a single individual ?
With the above clarifications, the next important step will be to understand that it
was the policy of the Ruzhi 月氏 = Asii / Asiani to hide behind the peoples they conquered
— or should I say: it was there policy to identify themselves with the peoples
they conquered. As these subjugated nations, one after the other, were superior not
only
in numbers, but first and foremost in the sophistication of their culture, the 月氏
were shrewd enough not to enforce their own coarse cultural background
upon their
subjects. In the contrary: they chose to amalgamate
with them and take over what sophistication
they encountered in the West. In one word: the Far Eastern 月氏, who
had been neighbors of ancient China from times immemorial, in Central
Asia quickly
became the new, or pseudo-, Tochari. This was their rather intelligent
way to slip into
a Western identity. This transformation has not only baffled and confused modern research
on the Ruzhi 月氏 for a long time, this ingenious policy
has in fact mislead peoples
of their own times as well.
After their long, intermittent stop-and-go migration, at the beginning of which the
Ruzhi 月氏 had no clear notion where it would end, this mongoloid nation of cattle
and horse breeders — as well as accomplished traders — finally showed up in a totally
new world. They had crossed from one self-centered Oikumenê into another. Before
the 月氏, no nation in antiquity has done this. To be sure, no nation has achieved this
— 60 —

in such an abrupt way. In the Western Oikumenê the 月氏 surely looked different, if
not downright odd, and they spoke a language unintelligible for anyone — except maybe
Zhang Qian who must have been fluent, not only in Chinese, but also in the
language of the Xiongnu 匈奴, the one-time close neighbors of the 月氏. The language
of the Xiongnu may have been close enough to that of the 月氏 for the two peoples to
understand
each other fairly well. The original language of the 月氏, then, was everything
but Indo-European.
When in 1971, at age 31, I stepped from a Soviet ship onto Japanese soil in Yokohama
横浜, I became a six-year-old illiterate boy on the spot: it was a weird experience
which I shall never forget. For the Ruzhi 月氏, their culture shock first in Sogdiana,
then in Bactria, must have been immensely greater. But they liked
very much what
they
saw in civilized Central Asia in general, and south of the Hissar Mountains in par-
t icular — as Zhang Qian noticed to his great chagrin. And of course, the 月氏 liked the
fact
that they were now the masters of all these developed regions in this New World.
When they had finally conquered
Daxia 大夏 (Tochara) in 130/129 BCE and were about
to settle in that land, they considered it greatly superior to any place of the various
lands they had lived in since evacuating their old pasture grounds in the Hexi Corridor
(modern Gansu) around 165 BCE. Daxia/Tochara was populous, well developed,
had
ple nty of land under the plough; it also had great cities with markets supplying the
most luxurious goods. In the upheavals of the past decades, the Daxia/Tochari had
lost
the last two of their former rulers: first the Greeks, their colonial masters since Alexander’s
conquests (some two hundred years previous), and after them the Sakaraukai/Saiwang,
who had been their kings for less than the span of a generation.
The Ruzhi 月氏 were now quickly filling the regal void in Daxia/Tochara. It is the
月氏 who made the name Tochari great and famous — deliberately becoming Tochari
after the conquest of Tochara. The strangers from the Far East were wise enough to
adopt the local language — they could hardly do anything else —, and this local
language was not Greek, but the language of the Tochari. Hence, the proper name for
that language is Tocharian. Together with the Græco-Bactrian kingdom the name Bactria
had disappeared. Only later Greek authors like Ammianus Marcellinus (or before
him the unknown author of the Periplus), out of habit, go on to call the people of Tochara
under their Asiani/Ruzhi 月氏 kings Bactrians. As a matter of fact, these authors
were perfectly correct, for when the unnamed Greek merchant wrote down his
trader’s guidebook in the Alexandria of Egypt, c. 50 CE, the Ruzhi 月氏 had just recently
— finally — conquered all of former Greek Bactria — and the feat had earned
them the epithet “warlike.” A good one hundred years later, however, and in the same
Alexandria, Ptolemy splashes the name TÒcaroi in a number of variants all over his
Northwest Indian and Central Asian map. The Asiani/ÅrÝi/Ruzhi have become Tochari/TÒcaroi/Tuchåra;
they are called wealthy and powerful by any author in East and
West from now on.
The implications of this should be clear. It shows that HENNING, for one, is mistaken
when in 1960: 47 he writes:
... the genuine TÒcaroi, who, coming from Kan-su, conquered Bactria in the second
century B.C. and caused that country to be renamed. The invaders, as is often the case,
adopted the native language in the course of time.
With his second statement, HENNING is clearly contradicting his first. Either the Ruzhi
月氏 were the true TÒcaroi and brought their Tocharian language with them
which they then enforced upon the people they conquered north and south of the
upper
Oxus. Or they adopted the native language, i.e. the language of the people they
conquered, but then they themselves cannot have been the genuine TÒcaroi. For our
lone trusted eyewitness, the Chinese ambassador Zhang Qian, tells us in his Report,
epitomized by Sima Tan and Sima Qian in Shiji 123, that the Ruzhi 月氏 conquered
Daxia 大夏 — which is the Chinese transcription, not of Bactria, but of Tochara. This
— 61 —

all-important correction of a long-standing mistake is the result of this careful study of
all relevant texts in the Chinese Standard Histories. Had HENNING been aware of this
correction, he would have grasped himself that something was essentially wrong with
his above statements.
Incidently: as we will see below (p. 91), the oldest extant codex of Strabo’s Geography
has, not TÒcaroi, but TACAROI. This seems to be the older version of this ethnicon.
It is closely paralleled by the Chinese transcription Daxia 大夏. The later name
TÒcaroi
is given in the Chinese texts as Tuhuoluo (Tu-ho-lo) 吐火羅 and a number
of variants. I wonder: do we hear about the Tachari/Tochari from any classical writers
before 129 BCE ? Such early sources would be of great help to clarify who the genuine
Tochari were and where they lived in the third and second century BCE. Before 129
BCE, the Tochari must not be confounded with the Ruzhi 月氏.
Above, I have quoted one important difference in one particular paragraph of Hanshu
61 when compared with the parallel, i.e. the original, sentence in Shiji 123. It may
be helpful, therefore, to reproduce the opening paragraphs of both chapters here,
marking the instances where they differ by blank spaces or bold characters.
Shiji 123. 3157–3159
(1) 大 宛 之 跡 見 自 張 騫
(2) 張 騫 漢 中 人
(3) 建 元 中 為 郎
(4)
是 時 天 子 問 匈 奴 降 者
皆 言 匈 奴 破 月 氏 王 以
其 頭 為 飲 器
(5) 月 氏 遁 逃 而 常 怨 仇 匈
奴 無 與 共 擊 之
(6) 漢 方 欲 事 滅 胡 聞 此 言
因 欲 通 使
(7) 道 必 更 匈 奴 中 乃 募 能
使 者
(8) 騫 以 郎 應 募 使 月 氏 與
堂 邑 氏 ( 故 ) 胡 奴 甘
父 俱 出 隴 西
(9) 經 匈 奴 匈 奴 得 之 傳 詣
單 于
(10)
單 于 留 之 曰
(11) 月 氏 在 吾 北 漢 何 以 得
往 使 吾 欲 使 越 漢 肯 聽
我 乎
(12) 留 騫 十 餘 歲 與 妻 有 子
Hanshu 61. 2687–2689
(1)
— 62 —
(2) 張 騫 漢 中 人 也
(3) 建 元 中 為 郎
(4) 時 匈 奴 降 者
言 匈 奴 破 月 氏 王 以
其 頭 為 飲 器
(5) 月 氏 遁 而 怨 匈
奴 無 與 共 擊 之
(6) 漢 方 欲 事 滅 胡 聞 此 言
欲 通 使
(7) 道 必 更 匈 奴 中 乃 募 能
使 者
(8) 騫 以 郎 應 募 使 月 氏 與
堂 邑 氏 奴 甘
父 俱 出 隴 西
(9) 徑 匈 奴 匈 奴 得 之 傳 詣
單 于
(10) 單 于 曰
(11) 月 氏 在 吾 北 漢 何 以 得
往 使 吾 欲 使 越 漢 肯 聽
我 乎
(12) 留 騫 十 餘 歲 予 妻 有 子

(13) 然 騫 持 漢 節 不 失
(14) 居 匈 奴 中 益 寬 騫 因 與
其 屬 亡 鄉 月 氏 西 走 數
十 日 至 大 宛
(15) 大 宛 聞 漢 之 饒 財 欲 通
不 得 見 騫 喜 問 曰
(16) 若 欲 何 之
(17)
騫 曰
(18) 為 漢 使 月 氏 而 為 匈 奴
所 閉 道
(19) 今 亡 唯 王 使 人 導 送 我
(20) 誠 得 至 反 漢 漢 之 賂 遺
王 財 物 不 可 勝 言
(21) 大 宛 以 為 然 遣 騫 為 發
導 繹 抵 康 居
(22) 康 居 傳 致 大 月 氏
(23) 大 月 氏 王 已 為 胡 所 殺
立 其 太 子 為 王 既 臣 大
夏 而 居
(24) 地 肥 饒 少 寇 志 安 樂 又
自 以 遠 漢 殊 無 報 胡
之 心
(25) 騫 從 月 氏 至 大 夏 竟 不
能 得 月 氏 要 領
(26) 留 歲 餘 還 並 南 山 欲 從
羌 中 歸 復 為 匈 奴 所 得
(27) 留 歲 餘 單 于 死 左 谷 蠡
王 攻 其 太 子 自 立 國 內
亂 騫 與 胡 妻 及 堂 邑 父
俱 亡 歸 漢
(28) 漢 拜 騫 為 太 中 大 夫 堂
邑 父 為 奉 使 君
(13) 然 騫 持 漢 節 不 失
(14) 居 匈 奴 西 騫 因 與
其 屬 亡 鄉 月 氏 西 走 數
十 日 至 大 宛
(15) 大 宛 聞 漢 之 饒 財 欲 通
不 得 見 騫 喜 問
(16) 欲 何 之
(17) 騫 曰
(18) 為 漢 使 月 氏 而 為 匈 奴
所 閉 道
(19) 今 亡 唯 王 使 人 道 送 我
(20) 誠 得 至 反 漢 漢 之 賂 遺
王 財 物 不 可 勝 言
(21) 大 宛 以 為 然 遣 騫 為 發
譯 道 抵 康 居
(2 2) 康 居 傳 致 大 月 氏
(23) 大 月 氏 王 已 為 胡 所 殺
立 其 夫 人 為 王 既 臣 大
夏 而 君 之
(24) 地 肥 饒 少 寇 志 安 樂 又
自 以 遠 遠 漢 殊 無 報 胡
之 心
(25) 騫 從 月 氏 至 大 夏 竟 不
能 得 月 氏 要 領
(26) 留 歲 餘 還 並 南 山 欲 從
羌 中 歸 復 為 匈 奴 所 得
(27) 留 歲 餘 單 于 死
(28)
— 63 —
國 內
堂 邑 父
亂 騫 與 胡 妻 及
俱 亡 歸 漢
拜 騫 太 中 大 夫 堂
邑 父 為 奉 使 君

Ban Gu is showing great respect
for his a dmired predecessor. However, he is far
from copying the older text verbatim
as has often been claimed. Instead, Ban Gu is
carefully editing Sima Qian — or Sima Tan
who originally may have written this im-
porta nt chapter, later to be extended by his son. In the quoted text Ban Gu :
— deletes 12 words (Chinese characters) which
he considers unnecessary;
— replaces 5 words by similar
ones;
— adds 2 words which do not change the meaning;
— drops data in four instances (considered irrelevant,
but of value to us);
— and provides us in three instances
with valuable
emendations.
The correction in phrase (14) has been
discussed above (p. 22); the one in (21)
is of little
importance; the first one
in (23) is only half the truth as Ban Gu says that, when the
king of the Ruzhi 月氏 had been slain by the Xiongnu, his widow the queen took
over — whereas Sima Qian had said that the crown prince followed his father. The full
truth is likely to be that the queen took over
in 165 BCE from her dead husband and
that her son, the crown prince, had become king some time before the 月氏 subjugat-
ed th e Daxia in 130/129
BCE — a full generation later.
The second correction in phrase (23) is the im portant one which I have cited above
( p. 58). Here Ban Gu replaces the one word 居 by the two words 君之 and thereby
is at pains here to clarify what Sima Qian ha d written. This clarification is important.
For Sima Qian’s text translates
.. . and (the 月氏 then) lived there (i.e. in Daxia) 居,
whereas Ban Gu gives us a valuable interpre
tation of this somewhat vague statement
by Sima Qian in that his text
pointedly reads:
... and (the 月氏 then) ruled over them 君之 .
In other words, after they had conquered Daxia 大夏 (Tochara), the 月氏 were not
s imply living amongst the Tochari (Shiji), bu t in fact ruled over them (Hanshu). This
is ex actly what in imperial Rome Trogus — writ ing after Sima Qian, but long before
Ban Gu — had formulated in just three terse words:
... reges Tocharorum Asiani. The (Far Eastern) Asiani ( = 月氏 became)
the kings of the
(Central Asian)
Tochari.
This is how Trogus explained in his “Summa
ry” (prologus) what he was going to
tell his readers at greater length in chapter
42 o f his History — but the Epitome of
Justinus has left
us not one word of it. That of Trogus’ great
work only his Prologi
have come down to us is a tremendous loss,
inde ed. As I have said already, it may just
have been out of habit that the unknown Gree
k author of the Periplus gives preference
to the appellation Bactria, the time-honored nam e for the region between the Hissar
and the Hindukush, when speaking of the Asiani/Ruzhi
月氏. Towards the end of his
l ifetime, in about the mid-first century CE,
th is author writes down what he had seen,
heard and experienced in a long life as a merchan t in a profitable, ocean-going trade in
luxury goods — an invaluable source of first-hand
information for us:
( FABRICIUS 1883: 89)
Es wohnen
aber bei Barygaza
in dem
Binnenlande mehrere
Völker
— das der Arattier, der
Arachusier, Gandaräer und
das von Poklais, in welchem
Bukephalos
Alexandreia liegt.
Und oberhalb dieser ist das
sehr kriegerische Volk der Bak-
trianen, die unter einem eigenen
Könige stehen.
(CASSON 1989:
81)
Periplus 47
Inland behind
Barygaza 'Ep…keitai d kat¦ [nè]tou
there are numerous
peo- tÁj Barug£zhj mesoge aj
ples: the Aratrioi,
Arachusi
ple…ona œqnh, tÒ te tîn 'Ara-
oi, Gandaraioi, and thepeotr…wn kaˆ ['A]racous[…]wn kaˆ
ples of Proklais, in whose
Gandara…wn kaˆ tÁj Proarea
Bukephalos
Alexankl[a] doj, n oŒj ¹ Boukšfa-
dreia is located.
loj 'Alex£ndreia.
And beyond these is
a very Kaˆ toÚtwn p£nw
macimè-
warlike people, the Bactritaton œqnoj Baktrianîn, ØpÕ
ans, under a king ... basilša Ôntwn ‡dion (tÒpon).
— 64 —

Here, we seem to be getting a fleeting glimpse of the later 月氏 viceroy-ships —
now reduced from eight to five — which had just been united by one of these five viceroys.
He had subsequently established himself as king and had thus founded the sec-
ond known Ruzhi 月氏 dynasty, that of the Kushan 貴霜: Kujula Kadphises 丘就卻.
For this event, the terminus post quem is the end of the Former Han Dynasty,
or the
year 26 CE. This must be so, because the Hanshu knows much about these five
viceroys, there called xihou 翎侯, but nothing about
their unification into one. The
story of this unification — culminating in the epoqual creation of a new Ruzhi 月氏
kingdom — is first narrated in the Hou Hanshu and thus happened (rather early) in
the time of the Later Han.
Writing in Latin, the Greek historian Ammianus Marcellinus, in looking back,
reports on the ancient Græco-Bactrians and the more recent Ruzhi 月氏 :
(ROLFE 1940: 379–381)
The lands next to these the
Bactriani possess, a nation
formerly warlike and very
powerful, and always at odds
with the Persians, until they
reduced all the peoples about
them to submission and incorporated
them under their
own name.
In ancient times they were
ruled by kings who were for-
midable
even to Arsaces.
Many parts of this land, like
Margiana, are widely separated
from the coast, but rich
in vegetation; and the herds
which graze on their plains
and mountains are thickset,
with strong
limbs, as appears
from the camels brought from
there by Mithridates and
seen for the first time by the
Romans at the siege of Cyzicus
[74 BCE].
Several peoples are subject
to these same Bactrians, notably
the Tochari.
(VEH 1974: 415–416)
Die angrenzenden Gebiete besitzen
die Baktrianer, früher eine
kriegerische und sehr mächtige
Nation, dabei immer mit
den Persern verfeindet, bevor
diese [Baktrianer] alle umliegenden
Völkerschaften
unter ihre
Herrschaft brachten und ihrem
Namen einverleibten.
In alten Zeiten wurde
Baktrien
von Königen regiert, die
sogar
einem Arsakes Furcht einjagten.
Der Hauptteil des Gebietes ist
ebenso wie Margiana weit von
den Küsten entfernt, der Boden
jedoch reich an Ertrag, und
das
Vieh,
das dort auf Ebenen und in
Bergen weidet, besitzt stattliche
und kräftige Glieder, wie die Kamele
bestätigen, welche Mithridates
von hier kommen ließ und
die Römer bei der Belagerung
von Kyzikos zum ersten Male zu
sehen erhielten.
Eben diesen Baktrianern sind
zahlreiche Völkerschaften untertan,
insbesondere die Tocharer.
Res Gestae 23. 6. 55–57
Proximos his limites possident
Bactriani, natio an-
tehac bellatrix et potentissima.
Persisque semper
infesta, antequam circumsitos
populos omnes ad
dicionem gentilitatemque
traheret nominis sui,
Quam rexere veteribus
saeculis etiam Arsaci formidabiles
reges.
Eius pleraeque partes ita
ut Margiana procul a litoribus
sunt disparatae, sed
humi gignentium fertiles,
et pecus, quod illic per
campestria loca vescitur
et montana, membris est
magnis compactum et validis,
ut indicio sunt cameli
a Mithridate exinde
perducti et primitus in obsidione
Cyzicena visi Romanis.
Gentes isdem Bactrianis
oboediunt plures, quas exsuperant
Tochari.
Here, we see the Asii/Asiani = 月氏, who had so long been a nation of nomads, well
settled in their new lands, old Bactria. They are called Bactrians, warlike and very
powerful. In the fourth centur y CE, Ammianus reminds us that in a ncient times —
outside the scope of his History
— the (Græco-) Bactrian kings
had been feared by the
neighboring Parthian Arsacids and that now, much closer
to his own times, the Ruzhi
月氏, or new Bactrians, had for
centuries been the kings of
the Tocharians.
Less than a century before the advent of the 月氏, the
description warlike and
powerful would have been appropriate
for the Bactrian Greeks
under a Euthydemos,
Demetrios, Eucratides, called “wicked but valiant Yavanas”
in the Indian Yugapurå‡a
(22–23) — or even under a Menandros,
called “a good kin g of the Bactrians”
by Plu-
tarchos (Moralia 281 D–E). But
these valiant, forlorn, far-away
Bactrian Greeks had
been deprived of their great and prosperous kingdom by
nomadic hordes, storming
into their civilized world from the wide steppes of the no rth. In the last years of the
— 65 —

third
century BCE, Euthydemos had warned Antiochos III, the Great, that these nomadic
peoples, called Skythai by the Greeks and Sakai by the Achaemenids according
to Herodotos, were a real danger to his kingdom (Polybios 11.34. 4–5). But when these
feared Sakai nomads finally fell upon the Bactrian Greeks, in the time of Eucratides, it
was so because they were pushed by a still more powerful nomadic people that had
appeared out of nowhere and had carried all before them. Without the Chinese
sources we would be at a total loss as to where this nation of nomads had come from.
In another, to the Western classic historians as yet unknown world, they had been the
neighbors of archaic Chinese kingdoms from times immemorial. Inside the Eastern Oikumenê
the Ruzhi 月氏, under
a number of names, had always been well known.
In the West, the once odd-looking strangers from another world had been at great
pains to assimilate — but also to dominate. They had become the rulers of a good num-
ber of Central and South
Asian peoples. In the intervening
cen turies, the Asii/As iani =
月氏 had not just conquered,
first Tochara and much
later the
rest of Bactria, but also
the Kabul and Indus Valleys and had eventually extended their
empire far beyond
these limits to the Gangetic Plains
and the Erythraean Sea. Now,
in the fourth century
CE and by the Greek historian
Ammianus, they are not called either by their original
Eastern name Asii/ÅrÝi/Ruzhi,
nor are they named new Tocharians,
nor new Indo-
Scythians. Instead, they are here
called the new Bactrians. When
at long last they had
conquered the whole of Bactria,
the 月氏, for the first time, had felt at home in the
West. Uprooted from the Hexi,
evicted from the Ili, establishing themselves on the river
Polytimetos (modern Zarafshan)
or the wider region of Samarkand
in Sogdiana, the
Ruzhi 月氏 had finally settled
down and become civilized
Westerners
in the famous
lands between the Hissar Mountains
and the Hindukush. Here
they became the new
Bactrians, worthy successors to the old Bactrians, the Greeks.
Later still, in the seventh
or eighth century, we get another
faint echo, now of the
original ethnonyms Asii/Asiani
= 月氏 and Tochari = 大夏 — in the same, already fa-
miliar, relationship of rulers to
ruled. In the Old-Uighur texts we are told that the ÅrÝi
had been the kings of the Toχrϊ.
As these Toχrϊ had readily been
equated with the To-
chari, their kings, the ÅrÝi, were
to be identified with the Asii/Asiani.
F.W.K. MÜLLER, 1918: 579, was
among the first to do so:
Zu diesem Erklärungsversuch
des Namens årÝi durch ”ACIOI, Asiani
würde auch die No-
tiz des Trogus »reges Thocarorum
Asiani« gut passen, denn sie würde
bedeuten, daß das
Volk »Tocharer«, die Herrscherschicht
»årÝi« hieß.
KONOW, 1932: 2–3, assisted:
We know now that another Indo-European, but not Iranian, language was called Tokharian
by the Uigurs ... It is true that that language is not called Tokharian
in the published
texts, but ÅrÝi, and the late F.W.K.
MÜLLER was certainly right in maintaining that ÅrÝi
must be the same name as ”Asioi
and Asiani, the »reges Thocarorum«
according to Trogus.
It might therefore be maintained ... that the Uigur designation is due
to the fact that the
texts
written in the language had come from the country of the Tokharians. The ÅrÝi may
have come as conquerors from elsewhere.
And again, in 1934: 7:
It therefore seems probable that ÅrÝi-Toχri was the language of the Asioi-Yüe–chi who
conquered the Tocharians-Ta–hia in the second century B.C.
In his epoch-making book, 1938: 283–296, TARN has yet more to say about Zhang
Qian and some of his findings are well worth quoting and discussing here:
I have said that Chang-k’ien is quite clear that the conquest of the Ta-hia (Bactria proper)
was the work of the Yueh-chi. But almost every modern writer known to me attributes
that conquest to “Sacas” driven southward by the Yueh-chi, who are supposed to have
— 66 —

occupied the country until the Yue-chi expelled or subdued them. Chang-k’ien, who was
there, knows nothing about this ...
Certainly Strabo says that the Sacas occupied Bactria (XI, 511), but the most cursory perusal
of the context shows that throughout the whole section he is talking, not of the second
century B.C., but of ... the seventh century ...
An attempt has indeed been made since the theory was started to found the supposed
Saca conquest of Greek Bactria a little more plausible by citing a passage in Trogus, but
as a matter of Latin Trogus’ text will not bear the interpretation put upon it (prol. XLI: “Saraucae
et Asiani Bactra occupavere et Sogdianos” ... to mean that the Saraucae occupied
Bactria and the Asiani Sogdiana: a Latin writer who meant this would have said so, Trogus’
sentence, from its form, can only be a perfectly general statement). There is in fact no
reason of any kind for thinking that Chang-k’ien was mistaken (the movements of the Saiwang
have been already dealt with); and whatever happened to outlying parts of the Bactrian
kingdom, the supposed Saca conquest of Greek Bactria proper is a myth.
It is time to consider the Greek writers. Apollodorus attributes the conquest of the Bactrian
kingdom to four nomad peoples, Asii, Pasiani, Tochari, and Sacarauli; “Trogus’
source” formally attributes it to two, Asiani and Saraucae (Saraucae for MSS Sarancae is
certain), though subsequently he mentions the Tochari. Taking “Trogus’ source” first, one
of his two names must represent Chang-k’ien’s Yueh-chi; and as the Saraucae (Sacaraucae),
of whom something is known, are out of the question, the Yueh-chi are the Asiani. The
form Asiani is an (Iranian) adjectival form of Apollodorus’ Asii, which is the substantial
form; the Asii therefore are the Yueh-chi, whether (as some have supposed) the two words
be identical, or not. From 1918 to 1936 it was further believed that a Central Asian text gave
the name of a people Arsi who spoke toχrï (Tocharian) and who were the Greek Asii; the
Arsi were accordingly supposed to be the Yueh-chi and much has been
written about them.
It has now been argued, with an impressive wealth of evidence, that Central Asian texts
know no such people as the Arsi (Bailey 1936: 883, 905 sqq.) ...
One must now turn to Chang-k’ien’s description of the country just after the conquest.
First, what is the meaning of his name for Bactria proper, Ta-hia ? Before coming to what
I think is the true view, two older explanations, which will die hard, must be noticed.
The
one most widely spread is that the Tocharoi were not the Yueh-chi
at all, but were the Tahia,
a theory which has worked utter confusion in the story ... There is not, and never has
been, one scrap of evidence for the identification Tochari = Ta-hia except this alleged phonetic
equivalence, and, even were that plausible, all it would prove would be, not that the
Ta-hia were the Tochari, but that philology, though a good servant to the historian, can be
a bad master. The matter is simple.
The conquest of Bactria, we have seen, lies between
141 and 128, and was almost certainly c. 130. The well-informed Apollodorus, in whose lifetime
the event took place, said that the Tochari at the time were nomads. Chang-k’ien,
who saw the Ta-hia in 128, said that the Ta-hia were communities of unwarlike traders living
in walled towns. A conquering horde of nomads does not, in two or three years time,
turn into communities of unwarlike traders living in walled towns; there is nothing else
which need be said, except to regret the waste of labour and learning lavished on erecting
theories upon such a basis ...
To these bold statements
by TARN, my personal first comment is: this contradiction
— between the Tochari
as conquering nomads in Strabo, and as timid town dwel-
lers
in Zhang Qian — is a valid and valuable observation. However, it does not exclude
the equation Tochari = Daxia. It only means: the Tochari do
not belong into the list of
Strabo.
An early critic of TARN’s book was BACHHOFER who, in 1941: 242–246, in a longer article,
had one chapter, entitled “The Saka Conquest of Bactra.” With this, it is imme-
d iately clear in what important point BACHHOFER is going to contradict his esteemed
colleague
when he writes:
— 67 —

Though they have often been published and constantly quoted, it will be best for the following
discussion to have the records on the conquest of Bactria and the subsequent
events
at hand. They come from four sources, two of them Western and the others Chinese.
The Chinese reports were recently translated anew by Karlgren and I am using his
versions.
BACHHOFER then quotes KARLGREN’s translations of the relevant passages in Shiji
123
and Hanshu 96A which I have cited above. Of Strabo, he gives the passage which
i ncludes our famous list with the names of four nomadic peoples. After these quotes
BACHHOFER
continues:
Of Trogus original work only the prologues to the various books are left. Trogus wrote at
the time of Augustus. His informant about the conquest of Bactria had written a history of
events in the east at about the time of Apollodoros, shortly after 87 B.C. (Tarn 1938: 48). It is
necessary to give the pertinent prologues in full, and not the usual excerpts (ed.
O. Seel,
Leipzig
1935).
Prologus Libri XLI: Uno et quadragesimo volumine continentur res Parthicae et Bactrianae.
In Parthicis ut est constitutum imperium per Arsacem regem. Successores deinde eius
Artabanus et Tigranes cognomine Deus, a quo subacta est Media et Mesopotamia. Dictusque
in excessu Arabicae situs. In Bactrianis autem rebus, ut a Diodoto rege consitutum est:
deinde quo regnante Scythicae gentes Saraucae et Asiani Bactra occupavere et Sogdianos.
Indicae quoque res additae, gestae per Apollodotum et Menandrum, reges eorum.
Prologus Libri XLII: Secundo et quadragesimo volumine continentur Parthicae res. Ut
praefectus Parthis a Phrate Himerus Mesenis bellum intulit et in Babylonios et Seleucenses
saeviit: utque Phrati successit Mithridates cognomine magnus, qui Armeniis bellum intulit.
Ut varia complurium regum in Parthis successione imperium accepit Orodes, qui
Crassum delevit, et Syriam per filium Pacorem occupavit. Illi succedit Phrates, qui cum Antonio
bellum habuit, et cum Tiridate. Additae his res Scythicae.
Reges Thocarorum Asiani,
interitusque
Sacaraucarum.
Thus the Chinese records credit the Yüeh-chi with the conquest of Bactria; Strabo four
nomadic peoples, the Asii, Pasiani, Tochari and Sacarauli; Trogus two such peoples, the
Asiani and the Sacaraucae. It was seen long ago that the Asii and Asiani, and the Sacarauli
and Sacaraucae were identical. It might be possible to reduce Strabo’s list further, for
there is much to recommend Haloun’s suggestion (1937: 244) to read h asianoi instead of
pasianoi.
Any attempt to correlate the western and Chinese accounts depends, of course, on the
possibility of identifying the Yüeh-chi with one of those three, or possibly four, peoples
mentioned by Apollodorus and Trogus’ source. The Sacaraucae (³aka Rawaka) were the
³akas beyond Sogd (para Sugdam) of the trilingual gold tablet of Darius I. (Tarn, p. 291).
They were probably identical with the Sai Wang of the Chinese sources, as proposed by A.
Herrmann (Reallexikon, s.v. Sacaraucae). In any case, they cannot have been the Yüeh-chi.
I need not recount the war of theories waged for decades over whether or not the Yüeh-chi
were the Tocharians. This was done by Haloun ... it can be no longer doubted that the
Yüeh-chi of the Chinese were the Tocharians of the western records. There is still the
puzzling fact that
Chang Ch’ien whose report is the source of all Chinese informations, credits
the Tocharians alone with the conquest of Bactria, whereas Strabo, i.e. Apollodoros,
makes them share this feat with two, or possibly three, other peoples, and Trogus’ source
does not mention them at all in this connection.
To evaluate these accounts properly, the circumstances under which their authors received
their information must b e considered. Chang Ch’ien
came from the east and north;
he had, in fact, travelled in the wake of the Tocharians from China to Bactria. He came up
in the rear, i.e. in the direction from which the attack on Bactria was launched, and, more
important still, he arrived when everything was over. Of what had happened at the front
he remained totally ignorant.
He had not heard that the Greeks had been the rulers of
Bactria. The only hint that the Tocharians did not succeed the Greeks immediately is the
— 68 —

passage
in the section about Ki-pin in the Ch’ien Han Shu, which cannot possibly be interpreted
otherwise than in terms of cause and effect: the Tocharians drove the Sai Wang
from Bactria to Ki-pin — see Karlgren’s discussion of the problem (in KONOW 1934: 10).
With the help of his friend, the Sinologist KARLGREN, KONOW has been the first Wes-
tern scholar
to offer us this greatly improved understanding of the crucial two phrases
in Hanshu
96A, section on Jibin. As I have found out, the same KONOW, some 18 years
previous, or in 1916: 811, had written something very different on the same Chinese text:
Ich glaube es im vorhergehenden wahrscheinlich gemacht zu haben ... daß die Ku•anas,
d.h. die Yüe-tschi in Indien
nicht im Gegensatz zu den ³akas auftraten, sondern sich vielmehr
als ihre Erben benahmen. Der Schluß liegt jedenfalls sehr nahe, daß die beiden
Stämme verwandt waren, und daß wir die ³aka-Eroberungen und die der Ku•anas als einen
zusammenhängenden Fortgang ansehen müssen. Die Berichte über frühere feindliche
Beziehungen zwischen den beiden haben auch keine allzu gute Grundlage. In den Han-
Annalen heißt es
einfach:
»Vor alters, da die Hiung-nu die Ta Yüeh-tschi besiegt hatten, gingen die Ta Yüeh-tschi
nach Westen und machten sich zu Herren von Ta-hia, die Sai-wang aber gingen nach
Süden und machten sich zu Herren von Ki-pin.«
KONOW then states in a footnote that he is quoting FRANKE 1904: 46. In this way he
actually
puts the blame on FRANKE: the accomplished German Sinologist had failed to
understand
that these two or rather three sentences only make sense when one grasps
their
logical connection. This connection is provided by the fact that the first phrase is
t he cause for the second, and the second the cause for the third. FRANKE, however, had
t ranslated “but ...” and in this way he had ruined the logical sequence of cause and
effect.
The third phrase thus became disconnected and meaningless. Only when we
g rasp that we must combine all three sentences into one grand logical statement do we
get
a chance to understand the meaning of this typically terse ancient Chinese prose. It
is
condensing Eastern, Central and South Asian history of the second and first
centuries
BCE into just three short, interconnected phrases — to say the same in
modern
Chinese would require twice as many words. FRANKE’s translation, mea-
ningfully
corrected, would run like this:
( FRANKE 1904: 46)
( Das Königreich
Ki-pin)
...
Vor
alters, als die Hiung-nu 匈奴 die Ta
Yüe-chi
besiegt hatten,
( da entflohen) die Ta Yüe-chi 月氏 nach
Westen
und machten sich zu Herren von Ta-
hia
(Tochara),
woraufhin
die Sai-wang 塞王 nach Sü-
den
(entflohen) und sich zu Herren von Kipin
(Taxila) machten.
Hanshu 96A. 3884
罽 賓 國
…
昔 匈 奴 破 大 月 氏
大 月 氏 西 君 大 夏
而 塞 王 南 君 罽 賓
Before the above short quote from Hanshu 96A, FRANKE, in his much-quoted book
of
1904, translates an equally short quote from another Hanshu chapter. To under-
stand
the story of the Saiwang as told in the early Chinese sources, it is of importance
to read these two closely related excerpts of two different Hanshu chapters side by side.
I r eproduce FRANKE’s translation of the three or four sentences in Hanshu 61, adding
the
Chinese original.
( FRANKE 1904: 46)
Die
Yüe-chi waren von den Hiung-nu besiegt
worden
(und) hatten im Westen die 塞王 Sai-
wang
angegriffen.
— 69 —
Hanshu 61. 2692
時 月 氏 已 為 匈 奴 所 破
西 擊 塞 王

Die
Sai-wang gingen nach Süden und wander-
ten
weit fort.
Die
Yüe-chi (aber) wohnten in ihrem Lande ...
塞 王 南 走 遠 徙
月 氏 居 其 地 …
Here the Hanshu remains rather vague in one important point: when attacked and
beaten by the Ruzhi 月氏, the Saiwang 塞王 preferred to migrate “... to the south, far
away...” 南走遠徙. This shows that the Chinese were clearly at a loss as far as some
parts of Saiwang history were concerned. The Chinese historians had caught short
glimpses
of that history and in one way or another had to piece in the missing periods.
R ead together with the imperfectly translated passage from Hansu 96A/Kipin, the
impression
for a few generations of scholars has been that the Saiwang moved in one
l ong, uninterrupted trek from their original pasture grounds in the upper Ili River
v alley all the way to the Northwest of India, independent of what the Ruzhi 月氏 had
done after their initial clash with the Saiwang 塞王. As today we know a good deal
more of Saka history, we are
safe to assume that these Scythian nomads must have left
the valley of the upper Ili River sometime around 160 BCE, to arrive in the Panjab not
before
60 BCE. Thus the trek would have lasted an impossible one hundred years. We
have a great blank space here. What had really
happened in this long time of at least
three
generations ? The clue to this was not to be found in new discoveries. It was sole-
ly to be found in a better understanding of what we have had before us all the time in
the Chinese historical sources.
KARLGREN’S closer look at Shiji 123 (paralleled in Hanshu 61) and Hanshu 96A on
Jibin (Ki-pin), in what these books had to say about the migrations of the Ruzhi 月氏
and the Saiwang 塞王, led him to an intelligent re-appraisal and a careful new translation
of one crucial sentence in the Hanshu chapter on Jibin. When combined with Xu
Song’s short, but crucial 19th century comment —
“The Saiwang had been the kings of the Daxia” 塞 王 大 夏 之 王 也
the hidden meaning of that sentence suddenly jumps to the eye. The Ruzhi 月氏 —
who had evicted the Saiwang 塞王 first out of the upper Ili River valley, later out of
Sogdiana, i.e. the region of Samarkand — now chase the Saiwang also out of the
country of the Da xia 大夏 where the Saiwang had ruled for some
time (less than a gen-
eration, as we know today).
In our context, we are now in a position to note down an important fact: The Chi-
nese sources, i.e. Ban Gu and later compilers
of the
Standard Histories, also knew, not
just one sole people — as VON GUTSCHMID, TARN and
many later writers erroneously
believed —, but two different peoples involved
in wresting Bactria from the Greeks.
The Central Asian Saiwang 塞王 took Eastern
Bactria from the Greeks, and
the East
Asian Ruzhi 月 氏 then took Daxia 大夏 (Eastern Bactria) from the Saiwang.
The
latter were forced to occupy Western Bactria
, the area around the capital Bactra.
And
soon afterwards we expect the 月氏 to have
taken the rest of Bactriana in one last
great sweep — annihilating
the Saiwang, as pronounced by Trogus. However, I believe
that this was not so.
When in the summer of 129 Zhang Qian arrived in Daxia 大夏, or Tochara, from
the north and the rear, the fighting there was over since possibly just a few months.
The Ruzhi 月氏 had finally and firmly taken possession of Daxia by moving their
ordos from Samarkand to the northern, or right, bank of the Oxus River. The Saiwang
塞王 had disappeared — maybe without putting up much of a fight. They had left behind
a Daxia without an army and without a king. A few months later, Zhang Qian
heard nothing of the Greeks and, more surprisingly, he heard nothing
of the Saiwang.
Hence, the Shiji, too, knows nothing of the Saiwang.
Zhang Qian heard, and saw, that
the Daxia were good traders, but bad soldiers.
From this alone we should have been
able to deduce that
the Ruzhi 月氏 did not conquer their new possessions
from the
gs of the Daxia —
Daxia 大夏, but from those who had been the kin the Saiwang 塞王.
— 70 —

Most of this we could have learned from KONOW’S
elucidating Indian paper
as early
as 1934. In it, he quietly revoked his earlier utterances of 1916. Yet, too few
European
scholars read his new article. BACHHOFER, however, had studied it carefully and had
fully grasped the important new facts coming from the new interpretation of a crucial
passage
in Hanshu 96A — the one on the kingdom of Jibin (Northwest India). BACH-
HOFER’s reasoning is valuable and very much to the point when he declares :
The situation, and the outlook were radically different for a Greek historian. To him this
loss of Bactria was a catastrophe of the first rank, and his main interest must have been to
find out to whom it was lost. The informants of Strabo and Trogus agree that the conquerors
were the Scythian tribes of the Asiani and the Sacaraucae. They disagree only insofar,
as the one mentions also the Tocharians and the other does not. But about the rôle of
those two peoples they are both very definite, and there is no ground to doubt the correctness
of their statement (as Tarn does, who says emphatically that “the supposed Saca conquest
of Greek Bactria is a myth” — p. 284). It can be assumed that these writers, unlike
Chang Ch’ien, were best advised about the first wave of assault which broke over Bactria.
But even then there was room for being better or worse informed: when Trogus’ source
does not count the Tocharians among those who wrested Bactria from the Greeks, this
proves only that Trogus’ source was better apprised than Apollodoros with his sweeping
statement ...
BACHHOFER still believes in TARN’s
fictitious “ Trogus’ source.” We see here that he,
like so many before him, fails to understand that the Asiani and the Sacaraucae were
not both Scythians, but belonged to two totally separate worlds which shortly before
had known nothing about each other. Strabo had expressed himself to the fact that
both peoples were Scythian tribes, but the Greek geographer was absolutely ignorant
of the Far Eastern Oikumenê and Han China — except
that he mentions, without further
comment, the mšcri Shrîn kaˆ FrÚnwn (below,
p. 78) which I take to mean the
Tar im Basin beyond the Pamirs: to Strabo, then, the eastern end of the world was peo
pled by the Silk Traders and their Xiongnu overlords. When the Bactrian Greeks ex-
tended their kingdom to Ferghana, as Strabo seems to indicate, the Sêres and Phrynoi
had become their neighbors — for a brief period of time. These peoples had thus constituted
the eastern end of the Hellenistic Oikumenê.
But from the westernmost Tarim Basin the original homelands of the Asii/Asiani =
月氏 in the Hexi 河西 Corridor
(modern Gansu 甘肅 province) — around their old
ordos
of Zhaowu 昭武 (modern Zhangye 張掖), the Qog£ra (Thogara) of Ptolemaios
6.16.8 — were still thousands of kilometers further east. In some of the oldest Chinese
books such as the Guanzi 管子, the Mu Tianzi zhuan 穆天子傳 or the Yizhoushu
逸周書, and under a number of different names such as Yuzhi 禺氏, Niuzhi 牛氏,
Wuzhi 烏氏, the ancestors of the Ruzhi 月氏 constituted one of the eight different
tribes of the Xi Rong 西戎 or “Western Barbarians.” In the late seventh century BCE
they finally moved into the Hexi 河西, or area “West of the (Yellow) River,” — coming
from the north and from still further east. The early Ruzhi 月氏 never had anything to
do with the Western Oikumenê prior to the start of their migrations towards Central
Asia in 165 BCE.
Trogus, following Apollodoros’ book, had strictly separated the Asiani (Ruzhi 月氏)
from the Sa(ca)raucae (Saiwang 塞王). But Strabo, with the same second hand information,
had lumped the Far Eastern Asioi (Ruzhi 月氏) together with the easternmost
Scythian tribes he knew: the Sakai/Sakaraukai of Central Asia (Saiwang 塞王). Thus,
Strabo started the erroneous belief that the Asioi/Ruzhi 月氏 were just one more tribe
of the Skythai/Sakai. This unfortunate confusion was carried over into modern studies
on these nomadic peoples by SPECHT and LÉVI — and is still felt in our own time.
With BACHHOFER we go back one step in the identification of the Ruzhi 月氏. As a
people from East Asia and of mongoloid stock, they were radically different from the
Tocharians: first of all in their looks, and then in their language; and in a great num-
— 71 —

er of other respects, too. To be sure, Zhang Qian would not have confounded the two
peoples for one minute. His descriptions are clear.
The great confusion only began some time after Zhang Qian had departed. The Ruzhi
月氏 made every effort to became (the new) Tocharians. Above (p. 56) we have
seen that Justinus 42.2.2 speaks of the Tochari who are attacked by the Parthian king
3
Artabanos I. Of these AMANTINI, 1981: 547 , comments:
Verso il 123 a.C. I Tocarii sono gli Yue-Tchi.
The Ruzhi 月氏 strove to present themselves as worthy rulers of a people with a
v astly superior culture which, for better or worse, had become their subjects. That the
月 氏 were different from every other people in Central Asia is clear from the fact that
they
alone — their close cousins, the Wusun, had remained behind in the region of the
u pper Ili and Chu Rivers and around Lake Issyk Köl and in fact never crossed the
Jaxartes
— had arrived from a totally different, hitherto utterly unknown Oikumenê,
or
Inhabited World. In other words, before 160 BCE their is no way of mistaking the
R uzhi 月氏 for a Central Asian people. Whereas, in the generations that followed, it
b ecame soon nearly impossible to tell the two apart: first, the true and the new Kangju,
and
soon afterwards, the true and the new Daxia (Tochari). Here is the place to insert
Zhang
Qian’s description of the Daxia 大夏 or Tochari, as found it in Shiji 123; again in
English and Chinese.
(WATSON 1993: 235–236)
(The capital of) the Da–xia (Bactria) is located
over two thousand ›li‹ south-west
of (the capital of) the Da Yuan, south of
the Gui River (Oxus).
Their people are settled on the land; they
have cities and houses and they resemble
the Da Yuan in their customs.
(They have) no great ruler (but only) a
good number of petty chiefs established
in the cities and villages.
Their soldiers are poor in the use of arms
and afraid of battle.
(But they are) clever at commerce.
When the Great Yue–zhi had moved west
attacking and conquering them, they
completely subjugated and dominated
the Da–xia.
The Da–xia population is large, (numbering)
some million or more (persons).
Their capital is called the city of Lan–shi
(Bactra) and it has a market where all
sorts of goods are bought and sold.
To their southeast is the kingdom of
Shen–du (India).
(Zhang) Qian reported:
“ When
( I ) your servant was in Da–xia
I saw bamboo canes from Qiong and
cloth (made in the province) of Shu.
I asked (the people):
›Where did you get these (articles) ?‹
The people of the kingdom of the Da–xia
replied:
›Our merchants go (to buy them) in the
markets of Shen–du.‹
Shen–du (they told me) lies southeast of
the Da–xia (at a distance of) some sever-
Shiji 123. 3164–3166
大 夏 在 大 宛 西 南 二 千 餘 里
媯 水 南
其 俗 土 著 有 城 屋 與 大 宛 同
俗
無 大 ( 王 ) [ 君 ] 長 往 往
城 邑 置 小 長
其 兵 弱 畏 戰
善 賈 市
及 大 月 氏 西 徙 攻 敗 之 皆 臣
畜 大 夏
大 夏 民 多 可 百 餘 萬
其 都 曰 藍 市 城 有 市 販 賈 諸
物
其 東 南 有 身 毒 國
騫 曰
臣 在 大 夏 時 見 邛 竹 杖 蜀 布
問 曰
安 得 此
大 夏 國 人 曰
— 72 —

al thousand ›li‹.
Its people are settled on the land and
greatly
resemble the Da–xia.
But (the region) is said to be flat, damp
and extremely hot.
Its inhabitants ride elephants (when they
go) into battle.
Their
kingdom (is located) on a great
river.
According to (your servant Zhang) Qian’s
calculations (the distance from the capital
of) the Da–xia to the Han (capital
Chang–an) is twelve thousand ›li‹, and
its location is southwest of the Han (capital)
...”
吾 賈 人 往 市 之 身 毒
身 毒 在 大 夏 東 南 可 數 千 里
其 俗 土 著 大 與 大 夏 同 而 卑
溼 暑 熱 云
其 人 民 乘 象 以 戰
其 國 臨 大 水 焉
以 騫 度 之 大 夏 去 漢 萬 二 千
里 居 漢 西 南 …
This is a good deal of information about the Daxia 大夏, a people whose very name
was well-nigh unknown until then. There is precise data on the location, the size and
the political constitution of this country, as well as a rough description of the manners
of its inhabitants, said to be similar to those of the people of Da Yuan 大苑 (Ferghana)
and Shendu 身毒 (Northwest India).
Hence the Daxia 大 夏 = Tochari are everything but nomads. They are settled,
good merchants and not at all warlike lik e the Saiwang 塞王 or the still more fearful
Ruzhi 月氏. With a population of about
o ne million or more we know that we have to
do here with the indigenous population of
Eastern Bactria. Zhang Qian tells us that the
月氏 attacked and conquered the Daxia.
This is, in fact,
not a really correct view of
what had happened. He
should have stated
that the 月氏 attacked the Saiwang, the fo-
reign rulers of the peaceful local Tocharians.
The Saiwang then fled and left the coun-
try to the 月氏 to occupy. We may infer
from Zhang Qian’s description that the Sai-
wang did not put up much resistance when
the
月氏 crossed the Hissar Mountains
and (for a third time) attacked the Saiwang,
now in Eastern Bactria, which these no-
mads had wrested from the Bactrian
Greeks
some fifteen years previous. This was the
span of time the 月氏 had needed to consolidate
their position up north in Samarkand
and the whole of Sog diana, becoming the new, or pseudo-, Kangju
康居 after evicting
the Saiwang from the region. Out of that power base they broke through the mountain
barrier north of the Oxus and continued chasing their only
and favorite enemy, the Saiwang
塞王, or “Royal Sakas.” The conquest
of Daxia 大夏 by the Ruzhi 月氏 must
have been what in Japanese would be ca
lled asameshi mae 朝飯前 — an easy job.
When Zhang Qian is shown around an unspecified
town
in Daxia — which I take to be
the old capital, i.e. Lanshi 藍市 (the Darapsa
of Strabo;
see above, p. 51), a short dis-
tance beyond the Oxus —, it is all business
as usual: the markets are bristling
with life
and even the long-distance trade in luxury
goods is working admirably well.
3. HOW ARE WE TO UNDERSTAND THE FOUR
NAMES IN STRABO’S LIST ?
With KARLGREN, KONOW, and BACHHOFER
we know
now that the Chinese sources,
too, speak of two nomadic
peoples taking
part in the
conquest of Bactria. This is
paralleled by what Trogus tells us: that, at first, the Asiani conquered Sogdiana and
the Sa(ca)raucae Bactra (not Bactria); that
following this
the Asiani subjugated the To-
chari and became their kings; and that, f inally, the Sa(ca)raucae were destroyed, pre-
sumably in Bactria.
Hence, it is only Strabo’s list which has, not two, but
four names: the additional
two names being those of the Pasianoi and
the Tocharoi. Strabo
names the Greek his-
torian Apollodoros as his source. If we are able to show that the same Apollodoros and
— 73 —

his Parthian History also was the main source for Trogus — and not a separate
and
very shadowy “ Trogus’ source” — then we
shall be able to solve the enigma of Strabo’s
longer list. In this context I must quote TARN’s
famous book once more. In his Appen-
dix 21 on “The Greek names of the Tochari”
(1938: 515), he writes:
Apollodorus, c. 100 B.C., has TÒcaroi (Tocharoi);
this form was popularized by Strabo
and has passed into common use as this people’s name. Ptolemy,
VI.11.6, has this form in
connection with Bactria, and also, VI.12.4, a form T£coroi (Tachoroi), with metathesis
of
the vowels,
in connection with Sogdiana. In this form the aspirate comes in the second syl-
lable, not the first. This placing of the aspirate
is also found in the Sanscrit
Tukhåra, and
again in the name of Bactria (in various la nguages) from the fourth to the eighth century
A.D., Tocharistan (presumably taken from TÒcaroi), and in forms derived from Tochari-
stan, like tocrï (tocarï or togarï) which is found later in Central Asian documents as the
name of
the Saca speech of the Kushans of Tocharistan, and Hsüan Tsiang’s Tu-ho-lo
(Tuocuâlâ, Bailey) in the seventh century A.D.
What form was used by the other Greek historian, “ Trogus’ source,” c. 85 B.C., can only
be deduced, but certainly it was not TÒcaroi. The MSS of Trogus Prol. XLII give Thocarorum,
Thodarorum, Thoclarorum, Toclarorum, to which the best MSS add, in Justin XLII.2.2,
the form Thogariis. It is possible therefore, but by no means certain, that this Greek historian’s
form had ›th‹ and was Thocaroi or Thagoroi; that is, that the aspirate came in the
first
syllable, not the second. This position of the aspirate is found later in the much-quoted
forms Qagoàroi (Thagouroi) and Qog£ra (Thogara) in Ptolemy for a people and town in
Kan-su on the way to Sera Metropolis, forms derived from agents of Maes Titianus and
therefore second century A.D.
This is an impressive array of names for one and the same — obviously rather suddenly
famous and important — people and country. Yet TARN had overlooked NÖLDEKE
who, 1879: 118, comments:
›Tochåristån‹ ist das Land östlich von Balch. TÒcaroi hat Dionysius Per. 752 und Ptol. 6,
11; so ist (nach einer freundlichen Mittheilung Rühls) bei Justin 42, 2, 2 die beste Lesart ›Tochariis‹;
vrgl. Plin. 6, 17 § 55 (wo ›Focari‹ überliefert ist).
Dagegen hat Strabo 511 T£caroi und Ptol. 6, 12 T£coroi, wie das Monument von Singanfu
(T[a]cvr[i]st[å]n) schreibt. Jaq. III, 518 verlangt ›Tachåristån‹; auch ›Tach±ristån‹
kommt vor (eb.). Die genaue Aussprache dieses Volksnamens bleibt also unsicher.
Thus, the oldest extant form of this crucial name is not included in TARN’s elaborate
list: since 1956 we know it for sure that our codex antiquissimus of Strabo has
the form TAXAPOI (Tachari) — immaculately legible (see below, p. 91).
Here is the place to quote the one author who became the greatest critic of TARN’s
greatest work: ALTHEIM. In 1947: 10–12, he writes:
Wer war der hellenistische Geschichtsschreiber, der Trogus als Quelle diente ? Als Name
bietet sich Apollodoros von Artemita an (einer griechischen Stadt östlich des Tigris, bei der
sich die von Seleukeia kommende Straße nach Egbatana und Susa gabelte). Er schrieb in
mindestens vier Büchern parthische Geschichte, memnhmšnoj kaˆ tîn Baktrian¾n ¢posths£
ntwn `Ell»nwn, wie Strabon sagt (XV, p. 686). Ein Grieche, wohnhaft im
Partherreiche;
Verfasser einer parthischen Geschichte, die daneben noch die baktrische umfaßte ...
Dennoch hat man Apollodoros von dem gleichzeitigen Geschichtsschreiber, den Trogus
benutzte, trennen wollen. Man hat diesen als “ Trogus’ source” verselbständigen und so
zwei gleichzeitige Autoren, die über den gleichen Gegenstand schrieben, erhalten. Und
man hat dafür einen, wie man glaubte, durchschlagenden Grund angeführt.
Strabon hat Apollodoros im großen Maßstab benutzt: auch dort, wo er ihn nicht ausdrücklich
nennt. Die Erzählung, die er im 11. Buche gibt, geht zu einem Teil auf diesen Geschichtsschreiber
zurück. Nach ihm hatten vier nomadische Stämme das baktrische Königreich
erobert: die Asier, die Pasianer, die Tocharer und die Sakarauler. Dagegen kennt der
Trogusprolog zum 41. Buch nur zwei Stämme: die Asianer und die Sarauker. Auf diese Ver-
— 74 —

schiedenheit und auf sie allein gründet sich die Trennung von Apollodoros und von “ Trogus’
source.”
Bei genauerem Zusehen ändert sich das Bild. Die Tocharer nennt zwar der Trogusprolog
nicht, aber sie erscheinen in Justinus’ Auszug, waren also im vollständigen Werk mitenthalten.
Weiter ist sowohl die Form Sak£rauloi bei Strabon wie ›Saraucae‹ bei Trogus
korrupt. Zugrunde liegt ein ›Saka Ravaka‹ (*ravaka- “rasch beweglich”), das nur ›Sacaraucae‹
nom.pl. ergeben konnte und in den ›Sacaraucae‹ des Orosius (1.2.43) bewahrt ist. Also
hat Strabon den Namen im ersten Teil richtig erhalten (vermutlich gibt überliefertes Sak£rauloi
kaˆ den Versuch einer Verbesserung in Sak£raukai), Trogus dagegen den zweiten
(mit Haplographie von ›Sacaraucae‹ zu ›Saraucae‹). Es liegt auf der Hand, daß beide
Fassungen sich nicht ausschließen, sondern sich ergänzen und zusammen das Richtige ergeben
...
Ein Unterschied zwischen Apollodoros und “ Trogus’ source” besteht also nicht. Beider
Überlieferung über den Nomadeneinbruch läßt sich auf den gleichen Bestand zurückführen.
Damit fällt der einzige Grund, der sich gegen die Gleichsetzung von Apollodoros und
“ Trogus’ source” hat anführen lassen. Die ›Partik£‹ des Mannes von Artemita lagen Trogus
bei der Abfassung seines 41. und 42. Buches vor.
To this criticism TARN, in 1951: 522, replied:
Altheim’s book is based on a belief that my “ Trogus’ source” i s Apollodorus, which I
consider impossible, if only for the simple fact that Apollodorus calls a certain people Tocaro…,
while the MSS. of Trogus-Justin give five different versions of the name but never
Tochari.
TARN’s last argument in defense of a separate “ Trogus’ source” is not valid. Our repeatedly
quoted Reges Tocharorum Asiani (SEEL 1956: 180; 1972: 324) confirms that
Trogus, too, had the variant Tochari.
In 1952: 2304–2308, KLOTZ
warns:
Auch Trogus selbst hatte bereits Irrtümer in den Eigennamen, die sich aus Lesefehlern
nach griechischen Vorlagen erklären: ›Vesosis‹ Iustinus I, I, 6 wird durch Iordanes 6, 27 als
Irrtum des Trogus erwiesen: CECΩCIC ist OE- verlesen, ebenso statt IANΔΥCIC I, 1, 6 ›Tanausis‹
... Die Benutzung des aus Strabo bekannten Apollodorus von Artemita hat Altheim
Weltgeschichte Asiens I 1947, 2 erwiesen.
ALTHEIM’s great contribution is to show that the source for both Strabo and Tr ogus
was the lost book by the Greek historian Apollodoros of Artemita. There existed no
other work on Parthian history to quote from at the time of the two classic historians,
Trogus and Strabo, i.e. in the time of Augustus. It is surprising, therefore, that ALT-
HEIM, with his intelligent insight into the real meaning of “ Trogus’ source,” did not proceed
to the logical conclusion that not only the otherwise
completely unknown “Pasianoi”
ought to be deleted from Strabo’s list, but also the “ Tocharoi.”
If it can be shown — as I believe ALTHEIM did — that for the same historic events
o ccurring in the same geographic regions in both Strabo’s and Trogus’ work the one
a nd only source is Apollodoros, then TARN’S whole argument for a separate and very
mysterious
“ Trogus’ source” falls to the ground. If this is so, we then know that Trogus
and Strabo should inform us, not in a contradictory, but in a corresponding way
on
what
happened to Greek Bactria in the second half of the second century BCE.
Whereas Strabo lists four conquering nations, Trogus only lists two. In the name
“ Pasianoi” was quickly discover a hidden “Asianoi” and a number of authors were in-
c lined to suspect a scribal error in one way or another; ALTHEIM, as we will see presen
tly, mentions the very earliest of these, the French scholar VAILLANT. The greater
p roblem is Strabo’s second additional name: the “ Tocharoi.” Trogus does not have
t his name in his list of conquering nations. Instead, he has the name “Tochari” as a
n ation conquered. Who, then, is correct ? Many experts would not take it upon them to
decide.
Instead, they preferred to leave the contradiction as it was.
— 75 —

ALTHEIM — in a book on the same subject, but published some twenty years after
h is first work — is more precise and seemingly conclusive when in 1970: 369 he writes:
Es bleiben die ”Asioi und Pasiano… auf der einen Seite, die ›Asiani‹ auf der anderen.
VAILLANT’s Änderung von Pasiano… in À 'Asiano… ist auf den ersten Blick bestechend. Aber in
dem Zusammenhang ”Asioi kaˆ Pasiano…, angesichts der Änderung des letzten Namens in
À 'Asiano…, bleibt ka… unberücksichtigt. Man müßte denn eine zweite Korruptel annehmen,
indem nach der Fehlschreibung Pasiano… die Hinzufügung der Kopula [ka…] unvermeidlich
wurde ...
›Asianus‹ ist also eine regelrechte Weiterbildung von ”Asianoj, die sich bezeichnenderweise
bei Trogus findet. Er hat Apollodoros selbst nicht eingesehen, sondern vermutlich
über Timagenes benutzt, während Strabo’s ”Asioi auf unmittelbare Kenntnis Apollodoros’
zurückgehen. Auch Ptolemaeus (Geogr. 6, 14, 10) kennt eine jüngere, durch ein Suffix weitergebildete
Form: 'Asiîtai.
Damit hat sich, was Apollodoros und “ Trogus’ source” zu trennen schien, verflüchtigt.
Die Trogusprologi und Iustinus haben ungenau ausgezogen, offenkundige Korrupteln und
eine ebenso offenkundig jüngere Form an die Stelle der ursprünglichen treten lassen. Alles
sind Ergebnisse, die sich bei einer mehrfach gebrochenen
Überlieferung zwangsläufig einstellen
mußten. Die volle Angabe hat Strabon bewahrt,
der als einziger Apollodoros selbst
eingesehen
hat.
One page before, 1970: 368, ALTHEIM rewrites and extends his earlier statement of
1947:
11, quoted above (p. 75), in an important way:
Die Tocharer nennt zwar der Trogusprolog
des 41. Buches nicht, sie erscheinen jedoch
bei
Iustinus (42, 2, 2) und im Prolog des 42. Buches, waren also im vollständigen Werk mitgenannt.
Man lernt, daß ebenso die Trogusprologe wie Iustinus die Namen der nomadischen
Stämme, obwohl sie vollständig in ihrer Vorlage enthalten waren, nur teilweise weitergegeben
haben.
ALTHEIM resolves the discrepancy between Trogus and Strabo — our main problem
here
— by the assumption that the four names in Strabo’s list of conquering nomad
peoples
are correct, whereas Trogus, and after him Justinus, for reasons not altoge-
ther
clear, skipped two of these names: the “Pasianoi” and the “Tocharoi.”
Fortunately, besides Strabo and Trogus,
we have a third and completely independent
historical source on the same events — as BARTHOLD was the first Western author
to state: the Chinese Standard Histories. For a long time it was believed (and some
modern writers still do: see above, p. 40) that the Chinese sources present us a third
variation, namely just one nomadic nation conquering Bactria: the Ruzhi 月氏.
Above, I have endeavored to show that this believe is mistaken. The Hanshu, compiled
in the later first century CE by Ban Biao 班彪 and Ban Gu 班固, father and son,
confirms, not the four names of Strabo, but the two of Trogus. With the elucidating
comment by XU SONG 徐松, published posthumously in 1893, and the subsequent
translation and publication of his intelligent discovery — of what the Chinese
historians really meant to say — by KARLGREN and KONOW in 1934, or some forty years
later, we finally realize:
The Chinese say what Trogus says. The Saiwang 塞王 = Sa(ca)raucae and the Ruzhi
月氏 = Asiani were the only two nomadic peoples who fell upon Bactria and destroyed
the Græco-Bactrian kingdom there — in that order. And both Zhang Qian and
Trogus, the former edited and published by Sima Tan 司馬談 and Sima Qian 司馬遷,
tell us that in the process the Daxia 大夏 = Tochari were subjugated by the Ruzhi 月氏
= Asiani. Zhang Qian, moreover, provides us with the unique and valuable information
that the Daxia 大夏 = Tochari were, in fact, no other people but the autochthonous,
local population of Eastern Bactria — left behind after first the Bactrian Greeks and
then the Saiwang 塞王 = Sacaraucae had been annihilated there.
— 76 —

Strabo’s list with the four ethnic names, then, can be singled out as the one which
must have become corrupt in the process of transmission. The “Pasianoi” and the “Tocharoi”
should not be on that list. The important question, still to be solved here, is:
By
what mistaken way did the two names get into Strabo’s list ? So far as the “Tocha-
r oi” are concerned, this question has not yet been asked by any author. In other words:
the
“Tocharoi” in Strabo’s list have always been taken for granted.
First HERRMANN’s and then TARN’S observation — that Strabo’s conquering Tocha-
roi nomads could not be the settled Daxia 大夏 — has been a very intel ligent one. It
p rovided us with a clear point of departure: the problem definition. Both authors took
Strabo’s
authority for granted and hence could not accept the equation Daxia 大夏 =
Tochari.
However, with the above closer look at the Chinese historical sources, I hope-
f ully showed that the equation Daxia 大夏 = Tochari is valid. If Trogus’ Tochari are
Zhang
Qian’s Daxia 大夏, we know at long last that this hitherto unknown ethnic
name
belonged to a people firmly settled on the upper Oxus River since a good number
of
centuries at the time of Zhang Qian’s visit. The envoy of Chinese Emperor Wu is our
o nly Zeitzeuge, or eyewitness. The authenticity of his Report can be trusted. How, then,
d id the name “Tocharoi” get into Strabo’s list — and thereby cause such havoc with all
related
research ?
Zhang Qian’s Daxia 大夏 and Trogus’ Tochari appear to be the lowest strata, the
autochthonous, or indigenous, inhabitants of Eastern Bactria. They are well settled in
that
region and must have been there since a long time: first under the Persians; then,
for a full century, under the Bactrian Greeks; thereafter
briefly under the kings of the
Saiwang
塞王. Finally they fall under the sway of the fearful kings of the 月氏 — who
a re shrewd enough to adopt the name and language of the Tochari. Together with the
administration
and armies of the last Græco-Bactrian kings, the names “Baktriana”
and
“Baktrioi” disappear and rather suddenly there is this new name: Daxia = Tocha-
ra. It will now be quoted
by every author in East and West (in that order), writing on
the history of Central Asia. I wonder: are the Tochari mentioned prominently any-
where before 129 BCE ?
My impression is that the Ruzhi 月氏 picked up a local, little-known name to make
it their own. Only thereafter it became great and famous. It seems that the 月氏, Far
Eastern strangers that they were, deliberately decided to use a Central Asian — for
them: Western — name for their newly founded empire on the Oxus River, an empire
which already included Sogdiana between the Hissar Mountains in the south, the Oxus
in the west, and the Jaxartes in the east. It was to include much more in the future.
But for an initial one century and a half, it did not include the whole of former Greek
Bactria — especially not the age-old capital Bactra. The Ruzhi 月氏, in search for a
suitable name, must have referred to their new acquisition as “Tochara” when talking
to Zhang Qian. He is the first author to reduce the new name to writing — one or two
generations before Apollodoros of Artemita.
Of course, it was bound to create confusion when the conqueror decided to use the
name of the people conquered. But the 月氏 exceedingly liked what they had inherited
from the Bactrian Greeks. It must have been a kind of paradise for them, a Schlaraffenland.
And so they decided to become Tocharians — but also to become their new
kings: reges Tocharorum Asiani.
Apollodoros, too, had been enthusiastic about Bactria in Greek times. He even had
a few remarks on the Baktrians as they appeared before the conquest of Alexander.
But nowhere do I find the name of the Tochari. Strabo, quoting Apollodoros, writes:
(JONES 1928: 279–281)
And much of it produces everything
except oil.
The Greeks who caused
(Radt 2004: 356–358)
Es ist ein ausgedehntes Land,
das alles außer Öl erzeugt, und
die Griechen, die es selb-
Bactria to revolt grew so ständig gemacht haben, sind
— 77 —
Geographika XI. 11. 1–3
Poll¾ d/ stˆ kaˆ p£mforoj
pl¾n la…ou, tosoàton
d' ‡scusan oƒ ¢post» santej
“Ellhnej aÙt¾n di¦

powerful on account of the
fertility of the country that
they became masters, not
only of Ariana, but also of
India, as Apollodorus of Artemita
says; and more tribes
were
subdued by them than
by Alexander ...
In short, Apollodorus says
that Bactriana is the ornament
of Ariana as a whole;
and, more than that, they
extended their empire even
as far as the Seres and the
Phryni.
Their cities were Bactra (also
called Zariaspa, through
which flows a river bearing
the same name and emptying
into the Oxus), and Darapsa,
and several others.
Among these was Eucratidia,
which was named after
its ruler ...
Now in early times the Sogdians
and Bactrians did not
differ much from the nomads
in their modes of life
and customs, although the
trians were a little more
civilised ...
durch die Trefflichkeit des Landes
so stark geworden, dass
sie die Herrschaft über Ariane
und die Inder besaßen, wie
Apollodor von Artemita sagt
(FGrHist 779F7), und mehr Völ-
ker unterworfen haben als
Alexander ...
Er sagt, Baktriane sei überhaupt
das Prachtstück der
ganzen Ariane;
so haben sie ihre Herrschaft
sogar bis zu den Serern und
den Phaunern (Phrynern) ausgedehnt.
An Städten hatten sie Baktra,
das auch Zariaspa genannt
wird (hindurch strömt ein
gleichnamiger Fluss, der in den
Oxos mündet), Darapsa und
mehrere andere;
dazu gehört auch das nach
dem einstigen Herrscher benannte
Eukratideia ...
In alter Zeit unterschieden die
Sogdianer und die Baktrianer
sich in ihrer Lebensweise und
ihren Sitten nicht sehr von den
Nomaden; doch waren die Sit-
Bac ten der Baktrianer etwas zivilisierter
...
t¾n ¢ret¾n tÁj cèraj
éste tÁj te ’ArianÁj pekr£toun
kaˆ tîn ’Indîn,
éj fhsin ’ApollÒdwroj
Ð ’ArtamithnÒj, kaˆ ple…w
œqnh katestršyanto
½per ’Alšxandroj ...
Kaq' Ólou dš fhsin ke‹noj
tÁj sump£shj 'ArianÁj
prÒschma e nai t¾n
Baktrian»n :
kaˆ d¾ kaˆ mšcri Shrîn
kaˆ FaÚnwn (FrÚnwn) xšteinon
t¾n ¢rc»n.
PÒleij d/ e con t£ te
B£ktra, ¼nper kaˆ Zari-
£span kaloàsin ¼n dia-
rre‹ Ðmènumoj potamÕj
mb£llwn e„j tÕn ’Wxon,
kaˆ D£raya kaˆ ¥llaj
ple…ouj :
toÚtwn d' Ãn kaˆ ¹ EÙkrat…deia
toà ¥rxantoj
pènumoj ...
TÕ m n oân palaiÕn oÙ
polÝ dišferon to‹j b…oij
kaˆ to‹j œqesi tîn nom£dwn
o† te Sogdianoˆ
kaˆ oƒ Baktriano…: mikrÕn
d' Ómwj ¹merètera Ãn t¦
tîn Baktrianîn ...
Here, the inhabitants of the regions on the upper Oxus River, between the Hissar
and the Hindukush Mountains, are called Baktriano… (Bactriani), their capital is
named B£ktra (Bactra) and the province Baktrian» (Bactriana = Bactria). These are
the names we are so very familiar with. The name TÒcaroi (Tochari) is mentioned nowhere.
There is a good chance that Strabo has this name only once: in his ominous
list. But later classical authors from Pliny to Ptolemy have this name everywhere, especially
Ptolemy. In MANNERT, 1820: 455–467, we read:
In Sogdiana sitzen nach Ptolemaeus die Paesikae
(Paisika…) an den Oxianischen Bergen,
also
nördlich von Samarkand. An dem nördlichen Laufe des Jaxartes die Jatii (Plin. VI.16
und 17 nennt auch Dacii und Parsicae) und Tachori ('I£tioi kaˆ T£coroi); also westlich und
östlich um Kodgend. Die Tochari hatte Ptolemaeus schon in Bactriana als ein großes Volk
angegeben; vermutlich sind beide nicht verschieden, und in Sogdiana ist der eigentliche
Ursitz des Volkes zu suchen ...
Baktrien, Hyrkanien und dem größten Theile nach auch Sogdiana erkannten von jener
Zeit die Oberherrschaft der Persischen, vielleicht auch schon der Assyrischen Monarchen.
Alexander fand bey seinem Eintritt in diese Gegenden eine Menge ansehnlicher, gut bevöl-
kerter S tädte, welche in der Nachbarschaft roher Völker
sich erhielten
und blüheten; und
die gleichzeitigen Schriftsteller
rühmen den reichen Anbau der glücklichern Striche. Bey-
des scheint ein hohes Alter von
Kultur bey den Einwohnern voraus
zu setzten, von welcher
sich aber beym Mangel
aller Nachrichten nichts Weiteres sagen
läßt ... Diese Völker theil-
ten die Schriftsteller nach der Lage in zwey Stämme: in die westlichern
am Nieder-Oxus ...
— 78 —

zu den Erstern rechneten sie außer mehrern kleinern Völkern vorzüglich
die Parnae ... zu
den östlichern die Asii, Pasiani
etc., und vorzüglich die Tachari, Tachori,
oder Tochari ...
Auch die nördlichen Provinzen
Baktriana, Sogdiana gehörten
nicht den Parthern; diesen
brachten die Einfälle der nördlichen
Barbaren, der Asii, Pasiani
und Tachari, Zweige der
Sakae, den Untergang (Strabo
XI.511). Sie fielen ein, drängten die ältern Bewohner des
Landes gegen das südöstliche
Gebirge, und blieben von nun
an i n dem Besitze des
größern Theils. Von dieser Periode
werden erst die Angaben des
Ptolemaeus richtig, der
das beträchtliche Volk der To chari durch die ganze nördliche Länge
von Baktria setzt, zu-
gleich aber durch die nochmalige
Anführung derselben am Jaxartes
(auch Dionys. Perieg.
v. 752 stellt die Toc£roi über
den Jaxartes) auf die ältesten Sitze
hinweiset, aus welchen
sie gegen Süden wanderten.
In the time of Ptolemy, when
the Ruzhi 月氏 had created a powerful Empire under
the dynasty of the Kushana, they appear in the classical (Western)
sources under their
new (Western) name TÒcaroi
(Tocharoi), and this name is
now applied to all the
re-
gions through
which they had
passed on
their way to Bactria
and India. The 月氏 have
become Westerners in name,
language and appearance. Their
Far Eastern origin now
seems to be a faint memory even
to themselves. Their oldest habitat
is now considered
to have been just beyond the
Jaxartes. With that they had to
be Scythians — like all
the other nomadic peoples from these northerly regions — as
Strabo tells us. Here is
the place to reproduce Strabo’s
crucial passage in full.
(JONES 1928: 259–261) (LASSERRE
1975: 83)
On the left and oppo- A l’opposé de ces peusite
these peoples
are ples, à main gauche,
situated the Scythian on a les
peuples scy-
or nomadic tribes, thes et
les nomades,
which cover the whole qui couvrent
tout le
of the northern side. côté septentrional.
Now the greater part La plus
grande partie
of the Scythians, be- des Scythes,
en comginning
at the
Caspi- mença nt à la Mer Casan
Sea, are called Dä- pienne, sont connus
ae, but those who are sous le nom de Dahae,
situated more to the tandis qu’on appelle
east than these are Massagètes et Saces
named Massagetae ceux qui vivent plus à
and Sacae, whereas l’est et qu’on désigne
all the rest are given tous les autres sous le
the general name of nom général de Scy-
Scythians,
though thes, bien qu’ils aient
each
people is given a chacun des noms par-
separate
name of its ticuliers.
own.
Ils ont tous une popu-
They
are all for the lation en grande ma-
most
part nomads. jorité nomade.
But the best known of Les plus connus d’en-
the
nomads are those tre eux sont ceux qui
who
took away Bactri- enlevèrent aux Grecs
ana
from the Greeks, I la Bactriane, à savoir
mean
the Asii, Pasia- les Asiens, les Pasiens,
ni,
Tochari, and Saca- les Tokhariens et les
rauli,
who originally Sacarauques, qui
came
from the coun- étaient partis des tertry
on the other side ritoires situés au delà
— 79 —
(RADT 2004: 341–343)
Zur Linken ziehen
sich diesen gegen
über skythische
und
nomadische Völker
hin, die die ganze
nördliche Seite bevöl
kern.
Die meisten Skythen
werden, angefangen
beim Kaspischen
Meer, Daer genannt,
die weiter östlich als
diese wohnenden
nennt man Massageten
und Saken, die
übrigen bezeichnet
man allgemein
als
Skythen und einzelne
mit ihrem besonderen
Namen.
Alle sind größtenteils
Nomaden.
Am bekanntesten sind
von den Nomaden diejenigen
geworden, die
den Griechen Baktrien
entrissen haben:
die Asier, die Pasianer,
die Tocharer und
die Sakarauker, die
von dem anderen
Ufer des Iaxartes her
Geographika IX.8.2
'En ¢rister´ d
toÚtoij ¢ntipar£keitai
Skuqik¦ œqnh
kaˆ nomadik£,
¤pasan kplhroàntai
t¾n bÒreion
pleur£n.
Oƒ m n d¾ ple…ouj
tîn Skuqîn ¢pÕ
t¾j Kasp…aj qal£tthj
¢rx£menoi
D£ai prosagoreÚontai,
toÝj d
proseóouj toÚtwn
m©llon Massagštaj
kaˆ S£kaj Ñnom£zousi,
toÝj d'
¥llouj koinù m n
SkÚqaj ÑnÒmati
kaloàsin, „d…v d'
æj ˜k£stouj :
¤pantej d' æj pˆ
tÕ polÝ nom£dej.
M£lista d gnèrimoi
gegÒnasi tîn
nom£dwn oƒ toÝj
“Ellhnaj ¢felÒmenoi
t¾n Baktrian»n,
”Asioi kaˆ
Pasianoˆ kaˆ TÒcaroi
kaˆ Sakaraàkai,
Ðrmhqšn-

of
the Iaxartes River de l’Iaxarte, à la hau- kamen, das den Sa-
that
adjoins that of teur des Saces et des ken und Sogdianern
the Sacae and the Sog- Sogdiens, et relevant gegenüber liegt und
diani
and was oc- alors de l’autorité des im Besitz der Saken
cupied
by the Sacae. Saces.
gewesen war.
tej ¢pÕ tÁj pera…aj
toà 'Iax£rtou
tÁj kat¦ S£kaj
kaˆ SogdianoÚj, ¿n
kate‹con S£kai.
It is revealing to compare the three translations. The English rendering, being the
o ldest, does not yet know the improved reading Sakaraàkai (Sakaraukai) in place of
the
older and corrupt Sak£rauloi (Sakarauloi). The French “... les Asiens, les Pasi-
ens...”
does not reflect the difference between ”Asioi and Pasiano…, i.e. between Asii
a nd Asiani, which is of importance as we shall see later. And all three translations —
together with the Greek original which I copy here from the edition of R ADT 2004 —
ignore
the fact that our oldest codex has TAXAPOI (Tacharoi) were later manuscripts
have TÒcaroi (Tocharoi), under which form this all-important ethnonym is best
known today. It is interesting to note here that MANNERT 1820 does in fact know the
variant Tachari, as well as NÖLDEKE 1879 (T£caroi) and VON GUTSCHMID 1888 (Tacharer),
whereas TARN 1938 (also 1951, 1984 and 1997) does not.
LASSERRE, 1975: 83, adds a footnote to his edition and translation of this passage,
which is of interest for us:
La conquète de la Bactriane par les nomades eut lieu en 130 environs selon Tarn, 277 et
294 (entre 133 et 129 selon P. Daffinà, ›L’immigrazione dei Sakå nella Drangiana‹, Rome,
1967, 45), qui a reconn u dans ce passage le premier d’une série d’extr aits d’Apollodore d’Artémita.
Traduisant ka
te‹con par ›innegehabt hatten‹, Altheim-Stiehl, 609, confirment la
thèse de Daffinà, 45–82,
selon laquelle l’invasion aurait comporté deux vagues
successives,
bien distinguées, par le chroniqueur chinois [du]
Ts’ien Han-Chou: celle
des Saces, partis
de l’actuel Ouzbékistan pour s’établir
finalement
dans l’actuel Sðstån, et
celle des quatre
autres peuples nommés
ici, partis du même endroit
pour enlever la Bactriane
à Phraatès II.
1970: 609 ALTHEIM writes:
Die Sai [塞], mittelc
hinesisch sәk , sind die Saken. Die Yüe-chi wohnten,
als die Sai vor
ihnen gewichen waren,
im alten Sakenlande; dies fiel in eine Zeit, die
dem Einbruch der
Yüe-chi in Ta-hia voranging.
Man hat nicht bemerkt,
daß Apollodoros von Artemita das-
selbe berichtet. Er sagt
von den skythischen Nomadenstämmen,
die das
griechische Bak-
trien eroberten:
Ðrmhqšntej ¢pÕ tÁj pera…aj toà 'Iax£rtou tÁj
kat¦ S£kaj kaˆ SogdianoÚj,
¿n kate‹con S£kai.
Das Imperfekt kate‹con
bezeichnet die vorvergangene
Handlung als dauernd: “aufbrechend
von dem jenseitigen
(nördlichen) Ufer des Iaxartes, das in der Gegend der Saken
und Sogdianer (liegt), das die Saken (für längere
Zeit) innegehabt hatten.”
Demzufolge
hatten auf dem Nordufer
des Iaxartes Saken gesessen,
deren Gebiet dann,
vor dem Über-
schreiten des Flusses, durch jene Nomadenstämme
eingenommen wurde.
Damit bestätigt
sich, daß die Sai den Yüe-chi
vorangezogen
waren.
That
much is correct: Apollodoros knows
of two nomadic waves.
The nomads who
took Bactria from the Greeks came from somewhere
beyond,
i.e. east
of, the Jaxartes.
In those regions — of modern Kirgizstan
and Kazakhstan, not Uzbek
istan — the Sakas
had lived a long time. They are now found living
amongst the Sogdians:
their crossing
the Jaxartes from East
to West, therefore, constituted
the first wave
of nomadic irrup-
tion, obviously into Greek
Sogdiana only. Then,
more nomadic peoples
burst forth
from those regions beyond
the Jaxartes where
the Sakas had long used to live: this
constitutes the second
wave of nomadic irruption,
now into Sogdiana
and later into
Bactria.
Strabo, excerpting Apollodoros, relates that
in the second wave came
four nomadic
peoples: the Asioi, Pasianoi,
Tocharoi and Sakaraukai.
With this it seemed an intelli-
gent conclusion that the
Sakai of the first wave
had to be strictly told
apart from the
— 80 —

Sakaraukai of the second
wave — as above
LASSERRE suggests in his footnote. We
know, however, that the
Sakaraukai are one tribe
of the great Saka Federation:
they are
called Saka + *rauk-,
or “Royal Sakas” — the exact translation into
Chinese being
Saiwang 塞王. With this
we have to interpret Strabo in a slightly different
way: that in
the first wave had come
a Saka
tribe, namely the Sakaraukai,
and in the second wave
then came the remaining three nomad nations, the Asioi, Pasianoi and Tocharoi.
Trogus, also excerpting Apollodoros as we know by now, simply relates — in the
surviving “Table of Contents” to his lost book — that the Sa[ca]raucae and the Asiani
broke into Bactra and Sogdiana, respectively. This, too, seems to indicate that the Sacaraucae/Sakaraukai
came in a first wave, but that in a second wave there appeared on
the scene, not three, but only one more nomadic people, the Asiani/Asioi. With Trogus
we see that the Sacaraucae have advanced from Sogdiana into Bactra (as he pointedly
writes, not into Bactria — which for some time broke apart into Tochara and Bactra):
this is the state of affairs somewhat later in time than the one Strabo presents us.
This much — or rather this little — we can deduce from our (Western) classical
sources. They bequeath us a discrepancy or a problem which, as we have seen above,
has been left unsolved for a long time. L ASSERRE, in his footnote
1975: 83–84 following
ALTHEIM, goes on to explain that Trogus, and after him Justinus, by negligence left out
one or two names in the list of conquering nomads.
Trogue Pompée ap. Justin., Prol. XLII, compte seulement deux nations dans la seconde
vague, les ›Sacaraucae‹ et les ›Asiani‹, qu’il appelle pourtant ›reges Tocharorum‹. Si les
›Asiani‹ sont les ”Asioi (Daffinà, Altheim-Stiehl), les Pasiano… manquent, probablement par
omission de l’épitomateur, et pourraient n’avoir été qu’une fraction ethnique de l’un des
deux prédominants, ce qui expliquerait la divergence entre les témoins grec et latin d’Apollodore.
Rarely has an effort been made to compare the Western with the Eastern sources in
extenso. The main reason surely
is that this requires a working knowledge of a dozen
living, or dead, languages and their
different scripts. One way around the problem is to
assemble
and collate here, word by word, the best expertises from both worlds: East
and
West.
It has always been claimed that the bloody clashes between the Xiongnu 匈奴 and
t he Ruzhi 月氏, deep in East Asia and in the second century BCE, have been decisive
f or the history of Central and South Asia in the next five hundred years or so. This is
tru e, but it is not the complete truth. It has been overlooked that a third nomadic
nat ion played a crucial part in shaping this chapter of Asian history. For when the Ruzhi
月氏, after their last crushing defeat at the hands of the Xiongnu, decided to escape
Xiongnu
domination, their trek to the West ended somewhere in the regions of the up-
per
Ili River — where they dislodged the Sakaraukai/Sakwang 塞王. As far as the Ru-
z hi 月氏 were concerned, they would have remained in those regions east of the
Jaxartes
and would have continued roaming about the region with their flocks and
trading their horses for Chinese silk and other luxury
goods for a good profit. Central
Asia
would have experienced only one nomadic irruption — that of the Sakaraukai —
which would have overrun Sogdiana to end Greek domination there. But the Greek
kingdom in Bactria proper might have survived for several centuries longer.
That this was not the course of history in Central Asia in the second century BCE is
due to a small nomadic people of whom Zhang Qian has left us the very first precious
accounts: the Wusun 烏孫 or “Grandsons of the Raven.”
(WATSON 1993: 237–238)
This same year (122 B.C.)
the Han sent
the swift cavalry
(of General Huo Qu–
bing who succeeded in) defeating
several ten thou-
Shiji 123. 3167–68
是 歲 漢 遣
驃 騎 破 匈
奴 西 ( 城 )
— 81 —
(HULSEWÉ 1979: 213–217)
In this year [121 B.C.]
the general of cavalry
on the alert (P’iao–ch’i)
defeated the Hsiung–
nu on their west side,
Hanshu 61. 2691-2
是 歲 驃 騎
將 軍 破 匈
奴 西 邊 殺

sand men of the Xiong–nu
in the Western Regions
(penetrating) as far as the
Qi–lian Mountains.
The following year (121
B.C.) the Hun–ye king led
his people and surrendered
to the Han (Chinese).
And (in the whole region)
from Jin-cheng and He-xi
west along the Southern
Mountains all the way to
the Salt Swamp the Xiong–
nu completely disappeared.
The Xinong–nu occasionally
had scouts appear (in
the region), but even they
were
rare.
Two
years after this (119
B.C.)
the Han (armies)
attacked
the Shan–yu and
( sent him) running to the
north of the desert.
After this the Son of Heaven
a number of times
questioned (Zhang) Qian
about Da–xia and the
other states (of the west).
(Zhang) Qian,
who had lost
his marquisate, availed
himself (of this chance)
and replied with this report:
“ When your servant
(Zhang Qian) was living
among the Xiong–nu he
heard about the king of the
Wu–sun (people), whose
title was Kun–mo.
The Kun–mo’s father was
(the ruler) of a small state
on the western border of
the Xiong–nu (territory),
THE
XIONG–NU attacked
and killed his father, and
the Kun–mo, who had just
been born, was cast out
in
the wilderness (to die).
(But) the ravens, bearing
meat in their beaks, flew
over the place (where he
was), and the wolves came
[ 域 ] 數 萬
人 至 祁 連
山
其 明 年 渾
邪 王 率 其
民 降 漢
而 金 城 河
西 西 並 南
山 至 鹽 澤
空 無 匈 奴
匈 奴 時 有
候 者 到 而
希 矣
其 後 二 年
漢 擊 走 單
于 於 幕 北
是 後 天 子
數 問 騫 大
夏 之 屬
騫 既 失 侯
因 言 曰
臣 居 匈 奴
中 聞 烏 孫
王 號 昆 莫
昆 莫 之 父
匈 奴 西 邊
小 國 也
匈 奴 攻 殺
其 父 而 昆
莫 生 棄 於
野
烏 嗛 肉 蜚
— 82 —
killing men by the ten
thousand and reaching
the Ch’i–lien Mountain.
That autumn the K’un–
yeh king surrendered
to the Han with his
community.
(The area) west of
Chin–ch’eng (commandery)
and the (Yellow)
River and along
the southern hills as
far as the Salt Marsh
was empty and without
Hsiung–nu;
occasional patrols of
the Hsiung–nu went
there, but only rarely.
Two years later Han
attacked and drove
the Shan–yü to the
north of the desert (119
B.C.).
The Son of Heaven frequently
asked (Chang)
Ch’ien about the states
such as Ta Hsia.
Since he had already
lost his noble rank,
(Chang) Ch’ien took
the opportunity to report
as follows:
“ When I was living
among the Hsiung–nu
I heard of Wu–sun;
the king was entitled
K’un–mo, and the
K’un–mo’s father (was
named) Nan–tou–mi;
originally (Wu–sun)
had lived with the Ta
Yüeh–chih between
Ch’i–lien (mountains)
and Tun–huang;
and they had been a
small state.
THE TA YÜEH–CHIH
attacked and killed
Nan–tou–mi, seizing
his lands; and his
people fled to the
Hsiung–nu.
An infant K’un–mo had
數 萬 人 至
祁 連 山
其 秋 渾 邪
王 率 眾 降
漢
而 金 城 河
西 ( 西 ) 並
南 山 至 鹽
澤 空 無 匈
奴
匈 奴 時 有
候 者 到 而
希 矣
後 二 年 漢
擊 走 單 于
於 幕 北
天 子 數 問
騫 大 夏 之
屬
騫 既 失 侯
因 曰
臣 居 匈 奴
中 聞 烏 孫
王 號 昆 莫
昆 莫 父 難
兜 靡
本 與 大 月
氏 俱 在 祁
連 焞 煌 間
小 國 也
大 月 氏 攻
殺 難 兜 靡

and suckled him (so that
he was able to survive).
(When) the Shan–yu
(heard of this he) was
filled with wonder and,
believing that (the Kun–
mo) was a god, he took
him in and reared him.
When he had grown to
manhood, (the Shan–yu)
sent (the Kun–mo) to command
a band of troops and
he several times won merit
(in battle).
The Shan–yu gathered his
father’s people together
again, restored them to the
Kun–mo and ordered him
to be the senior guard in
the Western Regions.
The Kun–mo took over and
looked after his people and
led them in attacks on the
small settlements in the
neighborhood.
(Soon) his skilled archers
其 上 狼 往
乳 之
單 于 怪 以
為 神 而 收
長 之
及 壯 使 將
兵 數 有 功
單 于 復 以
其 父 之 民
予 昆 莫 令
長 守 於 西
( 城 )[域]
昆 莫 收 養
其 民 攻 旁
小 邑
— 83 —
recently been born,
and the Pu–chiu Hsihou,
who was his
guardian,
took him in
his arms and ran
away.
He laid him in the
grass and searched
for
food for him; and on
coming back he saw a
wolf suckling the child;
furthermore there were
ravens holding meat in
their beaks and hovering
at (the child’s) side.
Believing this to be su-
pernatural, he then
carried (the child)
back to the Hsiung–nu,
and the Shan–yü loved
and reared him.
When he had come of
age, (the Shan–yü) deliveredto
the K’un–mo
his father’s people;
He had him lead
troops, and on several
occasions he did so meritoriously.
At the time the Yüehchih
had already been
defeated by the
Hsiung–nu;
Making for the west
they attacked the Saiwang.
The Saiwang moved a
considerable distance
to the South and the
Yüeh–chih then occu-
pied their lands.
Once the K’un–mo had
grown to adulthood, he
asked permission of
the Shan–yü to avenge
his father’s wrongs.
Going west he at-
tacked and defeated
the Ta Yüeh–chih, who
again fled west, moving
into the lands of
Ta Hsia.
The K’un–mo despoiled
the population of
奪 其 地 人
民 亡 走 匈
奴
子 昆 莫 新
生 傅 父 布
就 翎 侯 抱
亡 置 草 中
為 求 食 還
見 狼 乳 之
又 烏 銜 肉
翔 其 旁 以
為 神 遂 持
歸 匈 奴 單
于 愛 養 之
及 壯 以 其
父 民 眾 與
昆 莫 使 將
兵 數 有 功
時 月 氏 已
為 匈 奴 所
破 西 擊 塞
王
塞 王 南 走
遠 徙 月 氏
居 其 地
昆 莫 既 健
自 請 單 于
報 父 怨 遂
西 攻 破 大
月 氏
大 月 氏 復
西 走 徙 大

(numbered) several ten
thousand, trained in a ggressive
warfare.
When the (›Lao–Shang‹)
Shan–yu died (161 B.C.), the
Kun–mo in fact led his people
in a trek far away (declaring
himself an) independent
(ruler), he refused
(any longer to journey to)
the court meetings of the
Xiong–nu ...
控 弦 數 萬
習 攻 戰
單 于 死 昆
莫 乃 率 其
眾 遠 徙 中
立 不 肯 朝
會 匈 奴
Ta Hsia [of the Ta
Yüeh-chih], and then
remained there in occupation.
His forces gradually
grew stronger
and at the death of the
Shan–yü he was no
longer willing to attend
at the court of the
Hsiung–nu and serve
them ...
夏 地
昆 莫 略 其
眾 因 留 居
兵 稍 彊
會 單 于 死
不 肯 復 朝
事 匈 奴
It may well be the first time that these two “ parallel” texts, excerpts of Zhang Qian’s
biography in the Shiji and the Hanshu, are re produced side by side — together with
their English translations — in Western literature.
We have an excellent
example here
how the Hanshu is not copying,
but carefully
editing the nearly two hundred years
older Shiji with corrections and additions which
are of the greatest importance
(I have
made it clear where the two Chinese texts differ).
A seemingly minor correction
is that the Hanshu
has “West of the He
(= Yellow Ri-
ver)” 河西 where the Shiji writes “West of Hexi”
河西西. The full sentence
tells us that
an area, formerly occupied by the Ruzhi 月氏 , then annexed by the Xiongnu
匈奴, is
now empty. The ancient nam
e of this area is Hexi 河西 (“West of the River”).
Hence, it
cannot be located west to itself. Instead, the
Hanshu wants to tell us
here that the
former homelands of the Ruzhi
月氏 had a common border with Han China at (the
city
of) Jincheng 金城 — where the Great
Wall
長城 ended at that time
— and at the
(Yellow)
River 河. In fact, we are told elsewhere
that the old territory of
the 月氏 extended
even a little beyond that
river. Above, we have seen that Longxi隴西
was still
the border town at the start of Zhang
Qian’s m ission, even after the 月 氏 had since
long
left their old lands.
HULSEWÉ/LOEWE misunderstood the correction in the Hanshu text
and, 1979: 213,
translated 金城河西( 西 ) as “ (The area west of) Chin-ch’eng and Ho- hsi (command-
eries)
...” The Translators ignore the fact that
there has never been a Chinese com-
m andery by the name of Hexi (Ho-hsi). Instead,
Hexi 河西 has been the
ancient name
of
the whole of modern Gansu Corridor. The c orrect translation of the four characters
金 城河西 should be “ West of Jincheng (city) and the (Y ellow) River ... ” This gives us
the crucial eastern limit of the former homelands of the Ruzhi 月氏 — which
is miss-
ing
in the often repeated, but unfortunately very abbreviated formula “... between the
Qilian (Mountains) and Dunhuang ...” 祁連焞煌 間 (also appearing in our above Han-
shu
text) — which just gives us the southern and western limits of the
former Ruzhi
月 氏 country. The northern limit is always left out: in that direction
the 月氏 had a
common border with the Xiongnu which was not too well defined, it seems.
In other words, when the Shiji and the Hanshu report that the oblong
corridor of
la nd between the Yellow River and the Salt Swamp
鹽澤 or Lopnor was empty because
the
Xiongnu had first annexed this corridor and
later evacuated it again,
then we may
realize
that we have here the clearest definition of the former lands of
the Ruzhi 月氏
a nd their western neighbors, t he Wusun 烏孫 — the latter, therefore, should
have lived
between
Dunhuang 焞煌 and the Lopnor.
The Wusun are the main topic of the above
two excerpts from the
Shiji and the
Hanshu. These two books provide
us with the earliest known bits of
history of this
small
nomadic nation. As far as I know, the Wusun are not mentioned in any Chinese
text older than the Shiji. It is curious that the Shiji
and the Hanshu tell us the genesis
of the Wusun in two sharply different versions. In the Shiji Zhang Qian
says that the
Wusun, at an unspecified time,
had been attacked
and routed by the Xiongnu.
But in
— 84 —

the Hanshu the same Zhang
Qian tells us that
it had been the Ruzhi 月氏 who
fell
upon the Wusun and killed
their king. In the
older book, the Wusun live west of
the
Xiongnu, but in the
later one, they lived amongst
the 月氏. Which book
is reporting the
true facts ? All told, the Hanshu
is much better
informed
about the Wusun than the
Shiji. With this, we should be safe to assume that
the Hanshu is not correcting
the Shi-
ji here, but Zhang Qian — who had told his story
in a way whic h suited his aims. If the
Wusun had been maltreated
by the Xiongnu,
they should bear the Xiongnu
a grudge,
and the Han should be able
to win the Wusun
as allies against the Xiongnu.
Zhang
Qian, in about 119 BCE, wished
to be sent out
again as envoy, now to
the Wusun. He
told his story accordingly — and it worked. Some two hundred years
later, the Han-
shu, for the sake of historical
truth, lets Zhang Qian report the true story:
it quietly
overwrites the
Shiji without any discussion.
In every respect,
the later story makes bet
ter sense.
It is in the Hanshu that we first hear of the Saiwang 塞王, the Sakaraukai or Sacaraucae
of our Western sources. The Ruzhi 月氏, trekking west, somewhere out there in
the west clash with the Saiwang, and the Saiwang were forced to move “far to the
south.” But what is more important: the Hanshu goes on to tell us why, where and
when the Wusun 烏孫 — the “Grandsons of the Raven” — now attacked the 月氏.
This is the decisive piece of information. The 月氏, newly settled in the old lands of the
Saiwang, are not permitted to remain where their first trek had ended. Beaten by the
Wusun — who were commanded by the young kunmo 昆莫, or king, Lie–jiao–mi 獵驕
靡 , a great leader —, it is now the 月氏 who are forced to move, and this time we are
told where to: namely into the country of the Daxia 大夏, or far to the southeast. And
it is the Wusun who now settle for good in the old lands of the Saiwang, freshly evacuated
by the 月氏. When soon afterwards the Xiongnu chanyu dies (Laoshang, in late
161 BCE), the young Wusun kunmo feels well settled in his new lands and, in consequence,
strong and powerful enough to shun the Xiongnu court meetings — usually
taken as a sign of submission.
The Wusun never crossed the Jaxartes. It was, therefore, a most irritating blunder
when HULSE WÉ, 1979: 217, translated 昆莫略其眾因留居 as “The K’un–mo despoil-
ed the population of Ta Hsia, and then remained there in occupation” — the literal
meaning being “The Kunmo worsted their population and remained to settle there for
good.” This “their” 其 refers back to the last sentence: “The Ta Yüeh–chih again fled
west, moving into the lands of Ta Hsia” 大月氏復西走徙大夏地. Grammar as well
as common sense tell us here that the main two antagonists are the Ruzhi 月氏 and
the Wusun 烏孫; so that “their” must refer, not to the far-away Daxia 大夏, but to the
Ruzhi 月氏, newly settled in the old lands of the Saiwang. The printed wrong translation
made one or two generations of Non-sinologists believe that the Wusun went west
as far as the Daxia and remained in their lands. They did not. Instead, the Wusun
never crossed the Jaxartes.
The Chinese sources, in extenso reproduced and discussed here, thus prove: the
only nomadic peoples crossing the Jaxartes from east to west in the second century
BCE are the Saiwang 塞王 and the Ruzhi 月氏 — one after the other, in this order and
within a few years time. It all happens in the lifetime of Chanyu Laoshang (174–161), or
to be more precise: the successive two nomadic irruptions from east of the Jaxartes
into Sogdiana happen after 165 and before 160 BCE, i.e. within less than five years. For
the next half generation, the fights between the different invaders are confined to Sogdiana.
Then, another two waves of nomadic irruptions inundate Bactria: in the first, of
c. 145, the Græco-Bactrian kings are forced to give up the eastern parts of their kingdom,
called Daxia 大夏 (Tochara) by Zhang Qian, and in the second, of c. 130 BCE, the
Greeks, bled out, are finally annihilated in the capital Bactra itself.
With this amount of historical facts well established by the Chinese sources, we
may return to the Western classical counterparts. For Trogus, the starting point of his
narrative on the fall of the Græco-Bactrian kingdom is the conquest of Sogdiana by the
— 85 —

Ruzhi 月氏, and of Bactra by the Sacaraucae. Trogus reports nothing of the short-time
occupation of the 月氏 in the upper Ili region and of the Sacaraucae-Saiwang in Sogdiana.
In consequence, the origins of these two nomadic nations are unknown to him.
But we have only his prologi, a kind of “ Table of Contents.” His full text on the
subject — where he may have explained the historical facts in great detail — unfortunately
is lost.
Of Strabo we have the main text of his book in beautiful preservation, and so it is
not surprising that he seems to know more. He tells us that the center of nomadic unrest
must be looked for beyond the Jaxartes River (modern Syr Darya). From that region
at the eastern end of the world — originally the homelands of the Sakai, now
established in Sogdiana — four different nomadic peoples burst forth: the Asioi, the
Pasianoi, the Tocharoi and the Sakaraukai. The last-mentioned Sakaraukai are one of
those specific tribes which are also called by their general name Skythai or Sakai, as
Strabo
tells us. Hence, they are the Sakai who are now found living amongst the Sogdians.
This means, they crossed the Jaxartes first and thus constituted the first wave of
nomadic irruptions into Sogdiana and later Bactria. In the second wave, therefore, only
three different peoples crossed the Jaxartes at once: the Asioi, the Pasianoi and the
Tocharoi.
Compared with Trogus, Strabo’s starting point takes us one step further back in
time and space: the Sakaraukai are found in Sogdiana and the other three peoples are
still located beyond the Jaxartes. Interpreting just Strabo’s text, we would be safe to
assume, that the Asioi, Pasianoi, and Tocharoi had come from somewhere else and had
pushed the Sakaraukai out of their original homes and across the Jaxartes. If so, it
would be logic to assume that the three peoples had not come from the west, but from
somewhere further north; or further east — for Strabo the latter was terra incognita.
In 1852: 352, LASSEN reminds us:
Den Chinesischen Geschichtschreibern, die nicht nur die Geschichte ihres eigenen Landes
vollständiger und genauer geschrieben haben, als es von irgend einem andern Asiatischen
Volke geschehen ist, sondern auch die Verhandlungen der fremden Völker mit ihren
Herrschern und ihre Geschichte, wenn diese eine Beziehung zu der ihres eigenen Volkes
hatte, treu und sorgfältig aufgezeichnet haben, verdankt es die Nachwelt allein, noch eine
Kunde von der Völkerwanderung zu besitzen, deren Hauptereignisse hier dargelegt werden
müssen, weil ihre gewaltige Strömung zuletzt auch Indien erreichte.
It is a fortunate fact that our terse Western sources on this fateful migration of a
number of nomad nations — two short prologi by Trogus, four consecutive phrases by
Strabo — are replenished by our Eastern sources. Here, we have to compile a wide
range of relevant passages from at least seven of the first seventeen Chinese Standard
Histories 正史, or from the Shiji 史記, the Hanshu 漢書, the Hou Hanshu 後漢書, the
Weishu 魏書, the Beishi 北史 , the Suishu 隨書, and the Tangshu 唐書. Here, first-
class
information is sometimes found in the most unexpected chapters of these bulky
books. Scattered bits and pieces must be collated, exploited, evaluated. In this paper, I
am trying to do just this in a more comprehensive way than has been done so far.
The final result here is: the Chinese sources, in particular Shiji 123, Hanshu 61,
and Hanshu 96 greatly extend and confirm what we gather from Trogus and Strabo.
But at times, these Eastern sources may also contain crucial corrections. The most important
correction in our context may well be that those nomadic nations which destroyed
the Græco-Bactrian kingdom north of the Hindukush in the second century
BCE were, not four, but only two in number: the Sakaraukai or Saiwang 塞王 and the
A[r]sii or Ruzhi (Yuezhi) 月氏. This, in fact, is also confirmed by Trogus.
Strabo’s Pasianoi are a phantom people, not mentioned in Trogus
and thus not in
the lost book of Apollodoros — they are also unknown in the Chinese sources.
Whereas Strabo’s Tocharoi are mentioned by Trogus and well known by the Shiji,
Hanshu etc. — but not as a conquering people of nomads, but as a people conquered
— 86 —

and well settled. With this, we are back to the above question: how did the two names
Pasianoi and Tocharoi get onto Strabo’s list ?
Since the very beginning of modern Strabo studies, it has been seen that in the unknown
name Pasianoi we have the well-known name p-ASIANOI. At a time when Latin
was still the lingua franca of all learned men in Europe, the French scholar VAILLANT
speculated that the ethnic name Pasianoi should be amended in such a way that it
could
be understood as the Greek version of Trogus’ Asiani.
In 1725: 61, VAILLANT writes:
ARSACES VIII. Artabanus hujus nominis secundus, in avi sui Artabani memoriam ita
nuncupatus videtur. Hic Arsacis Mithridatis frater minor, & Arsacis Phriapatii filius fuit ultimus.
Post mortem Phrahatis II, ex fratre Mithridate filii, a Scythis in prælio interempti,
Rex a Parthis, qui in veram & antiquam Parthiam se receperant, in hoc turbido Parthici
Imperii statu constituitur; anno ante Chr. 126. V. C. 628. Seleucid. 186. Arsac. 130.
(Ann. 131.) Scythæ, post insignem victoriam de Parthis relatam, ea contenti, provinciis
illorum depopulatis, in patriam revertuntur. Justin. lib. 42 cap. 1.
Interim alii Scythæ, dicti Nomades, Græcos Bactrianæ, quibus jam libertas oblata fuerat
a Parthis, internecione delent. Strabo lib. 11. pag. 511. De his Scythis Nomadibus maxime innotuerunt,
qui Græcis Bactrianam ademerunt — Asii PasianÒi, emenda ¾ AsianÒi, vel Asiani,
& Tochari, ac Sacarauli, vel Sacauraci.
In “De (his Scythis) Nomadibus maxime innotuerunt ...” we have the Latin translation
of Strabo’s crucial phrase: M£lista d gnèrimoi gegÒnasi tîn nom£dwn ... And
we notice in passing that VAILLANT has a Strabo edition before him with the defective
Sacarauli (Sak£rauloi) in place of the correct Sacaraucae (Sakaraàkai), confirmed by
the Vatican palimpsest, discovered a century or so later.
VAILLANT is suggesting that in times,
when the Strabo text was being copied in lower-case
or minuscular
script, an original ¾ AsianÒi had become corrupted into PasianÒi.
The meaning of Greek À 'Asiao…, Latin “vel Asiani,” would be in English: “or (else
c alled) the Asiani.” With this, the ominous Pasianoi would disappear. Strabo’s list
would
include only three names: the Asioi (or Asianoi), the Tocharoi and the Sakarau-
kai.
However, a corruption ¾ P seemed somewhat far-fetched. In upper-case Greek
letters
(majuscular script), the same scribal error would become more plausible. And
so
the French Abbé LONGUERUE, in 1732: 14, rewrites his compatriot in this way:
Anno A.C. 127. V.C. 627. Seleuc. 185. Arsac. 129. Scythæ contenti victoria depopulata Parthia
(provinciis Parthorum imperio subditis) in patriam revertuntur. Interim alii Scythæ
Græcos Bactrianæ, quibus jam libertas adempta fuerat a Parthis, internecione delent.
Strabo lib. XI. pag, 511. de Scythis Nomadibus maxime innotuerunt, qui Græcis Bactrianam
ademerunt Asii Græce Pas…anoi (emenda —H 'Asianoˆ vel Asiani) & Tochari & Sacarauli
(vel Sacauraci).
With this, the corruption H P would be much easier to accept; and it would have
occurred earlier: in the first few centuries of transmission when such Greek manuscripts
were written in capital letters and in the scriptio continua, i.e. wíthout extra
spacing
between the words. The scholarly Abbé could have explained the corruption actually
as ΗΑCΙΑΝΟΙ becoming misspelled as ΠΑCΙΑΝΟΙ — in this way, the scribal error
would have made a tiny difference in writing, but a fearful one in meaning, indeed.
This would be an elegant way to reduce Straho’s list from four to three names. But
would it be typical for Strabo to mention one name in two different versions ? One authority
on the subject, LASSEN, does not think so. In 1852: 360, he comments in a note:
Longuerue in seinen Annal. Arsac. p. 14, und Vaillant, de Arsacid. imper. I, p.
61, haben À
'Asianoˆ
als Emendation vorgeschlagen; s. die Notiz zu der Stelle in der Ausgabe von
Tzschucke IV, p. 474. Dieser Vorschlag scheint jedoch nicht annehmbar, da Strabon kaum
die Verschiedenheit der Namen erwähnt haben wird.
On the same page, LASSEN proposes his own ingenious way to solve the problem:
— 87 —

Den umständlichsten Bericht über den Skytheneinbruch hat uns Strabon aufbewahrt.
Nach ihm waren unter den Nomaden in N. Sogdiana’s diejenigen die berühmtesten geworden,
welche den Hellenen Baktrien weggenommen hatten, nämlich die Asier, die Pasianer,
die Tocharer und Sakarauler. Sie waren ausgezogen aus dem Lande jenseits des Jaxartes
und dem Theile Sogdiana’s, welchen die Saker besassen. Ausser dieser Stelle finden sich
nur zwei kurze Notizen aus dem Werke des Trogus Pompeius ... Die Verschiedenheit dieser
Angaben betreffen theils die Zahl der Völker, theils ihre Namen.
Strabon führt vier auf,
Trogus Pompeius dagegen nur drei; seine Sarancae müssen die Sakarauler des erstern
seyn.
Da die Pasianer sonst nirgends vorkommen, möchte es kaum zweifelhaft seyn, dass
in seinen Text dieser Name aus einer Randglosse, in welcher bemerkt worden war, dass
die Asier von andern Asianer genannt wurden, durch die Abschreiber eingedrungen ist.
LASSEN understands Strabo’s text clearly in that way that the nomadic nations who
took
Bactria from the Greeks had come:
(1) from beyond the Jaxartes (east and north of the river);
(2) from that part of Sogdiana which was occupied by the Sakas
(west of the river).
Strabo, surely basing himself on Apollodoros, then adds the information that the
o riginal homes of the Sakai — or, more specific, the Sakaraukai — had been beyond,
or
east and north of, the Jaxartes. With this we know that the first stage of this migra-
tion of nations had been the displacement of the Sakai/Sakaraukai from their original
seats
beyond the Jaxartes into Sogdiana, i.e. to west of the river. And we know that
those peoples — who had pushed the Sakaraukai west across the river and were now
living beyond the Jaxartes in the old seats of the Sakaraukai — must originally have
come from somewhere else. This was an important realization. For shortly before
LASSEN, GROSKURD, a great interpreter of Strabo, still finds the half-sentence ... ¿n
kate‹con S£kai difficult and “dark” when, in 1831: 397, he translates the whole sentence
this way:
Von diesen Wanderhirten sind besonders jene bekannt geworden, welche den Hellenen
Baktrien entrissen, die Asier, Pasianer, Tocharer und Sakarauler, ausgezogen vom jenseitigen
Ufer des Iaxartes neben den Saken und Sogdianern, wo [gleichfalls] Saken sassen.
In a note GROSKURD adds:
Im Text steht blos: neben den Saken und Sogdianern, wo Saken sassen; ein sehr unver
ständiger
und dunkler Ausdruck. Zwar wohnten allerdings auch jenseits des Iaxartes Saken.
Dieses muss aber bestimmter und als Gegensatz ausgedrückt werden. Wahrscheinlich
fehlt vor kate‹con nur kaˆ aÙt¾n, gleichfalls.
In 1967: 52, DAFFINÀ, still uncertain how to understand Strabo here, writes:
Strabone, attingendo probabilmente ad Apollodoro di Artemita, dice che la Battriana fu
sottratta ai Greci
da quattro popoli nomadi: gli ”Asoi, i Pasiano…, i TÒcaroi, e i
Sakaraàkai,
partiti dall’ opposta sponda dello Iaxart±s. Il testo in questo punto è confuso e
non si capisce bene a quale lato del fiume Strabone intenda riferirsi; probabilmente al lato
destro, cioè settentrionale, ma è ovvio, in ogni caso, che i quattro invasori non si diedero
convegno in uno stesso luogo alla stessa ora e che quella di Apollodoro-Strabone è soltanto
una notizia semplificata e succinta dei loro movimento.
DAFFINÀ, beyond his problems to understand Strabo forthwith, makes one impor-
tant
statement: “Obviously the four invaders did not converge in the same place at the
same time.” This means that the last-mentioned Sakaraukai crossed the Jaxartes first,
while the other three peoples occupied the old seats of the Sakaraukai on the far side
of the river. This is what Strabo says. With LASSEN 1852, and more recently ALT-
HEIM/STIEHL
1970 (see above, p. 80), we know how this “dark” half-sentence must be un-
derstood:
. .. where the Sakai had lived a long time (be- ... ¿n kate‹con
S£kai.
fore they were driven west into Sogdiana).
— 88 —

Now, what we have to deduce so painfully from a bare minimum of words in our
Western
sources, we find fully and unmistakably explained in the Chinese Histories.
Originally, the Sai 塞 or Saiwang 塞王 had their traditional pasture grounds in the
u pper Ili River valley and environs. The East Asian, or mongoloid, Ruzhi 月氏, a final
time
bloodily beaten by the Xiongnu 匈奴 in about 165 BCE, decide to escape Xiongnu
d omination and start to migrate west. Somewhere out there, obviously in the valleys of
the
upper Ili and its tributaries, they clash with the Central Asian, or Indo-European,
Saiwang,
forcing them to escape across the Jaxartes. Meanwhile the new Kunmo 昆莫,
or
king, of the Wusun 烏孫 — who had been a new-born child when the 月氏 had at-
tacked
and beaten the Wusun, killing their old king Nan-tou-mi 難兜靡 — has grown
up and now asks the chanyu or emperor of the Xiongnu, Laoshang 老上, the permis
sion
to avenge his father. Before the death of this chanyu, occurring late in 161 BCE, he
attacks the 月氏, triumphs over them, and it is now the turn of the 月氏 to cross the
Jaxartes into Sogdiana. There, they clash a second time with the Saiwang. A second
time
the Saiwang have to move, this time to the south.
It all fits well enough with what Trogus and Strabo tell us of the Sacaraucae/Sakaraukai
and the Asiani/Asioi. In the more coherent story of the Chinese sources, however,
there is nowhere any mention of the Pasianoi — or of the Tocharoi as an invading
nomad nation. This makes it certain that these phantom or real peoples have no
place in the incursions of nomadic nations which eventually destroyed Greek Bactria.
Strabo should have told us: First the Sakaraukai crossed the Jaxartes from East
to West and shortly thereafter the Asioi. For Trogus has only these two invading peoples.
Our two Western authors of Augustean time copy from the same lost book of
Apollodoros of Artemita. With this, the last vexing question to solve here is: How did
the superfluous two ethnic names Pasianoi and Tocharoi get onto Strabo’s list ? By logical
deduction, we can be sure now that they have not been there when Strabo wrote
his Geography.
We have seen that LASSEN considers it unlikely that Strabo should have bothered to
m ention a particular name in two different versions. He prefers to think that the name
Pasianoi
was originally just a marginal note — explaining that the Asioi were else-
wh ere called Asianoi: h asianoi — and this note later slipped into the main text as pasianoi.
Thev erysame could have happened to the name Tocharoi in Strabo’s list. GROS-
KURD’s
careful Index to Strabo’s Geography shows, 1834: 439, that this name, too, ap-
pears
in the whole huge work only once, i.e. on this page 511 (the pagination of Casau-
b onus’ edition of 1620), and so may also have been just a note in the margins — to the
e ffect that in another work this name was found mentioned in connection with the fall
of Greek Bactria — which a later copyist adopted into the main text, together with the
corrupt
Pasianoi. This sounds all very convincing. However, our oldest Strabo codex,
the
Vatican palimpsest, squarely disproves such reasoning.
Daffinà, 1967: 52–53, remarks already :
Nella prima metà del Settecento il Vaillant congetturò, difatti, che ”Asioi kaˆ Pasianoˆ
fosse corrompimento di un originario ¥sioi À ¢siano…. Lasciando stare che la lettura tradizionale
viene ora confermata dal palinsesto vaticano e perciò ha il consenso dei codici tutti,
il restauro consigliato dal Vaillant, ancorché accettato e difeso fino a non molti anni fa,
non
è tanto paleograficamente impossibile, quanto intrinsecamente ingiustificato. In effetto
esso è stato sostenuto soprattutto perché dei Pasianoi non si sapeva bene che fare.
The Vatican palimpsest, very fragmentary though it is, shows Strabo’s most important
phrase on Casaubonus’ page 511 in an immaculate state of preservation. The list of
conquering nomad nations has all four traditional names. On the discovery of the palimpsest’s
69 (of once 462) folia, ALY writes, 1929: 3–5 :
In dem Kasten,
in dem bislang die Überreste des Vat. Gr. 2306 aufbewahrt wurden, befin-
det sich ein Zettel von der Hand Angelo Mais, daß er diese Handschrift am
16. März 1844 im
römischen Kunsthandel erworben hat. Sie
enthält von zweiter Hand Stücke des Penta-
— 89 —

teuch;
darunter standen von einer Hand des 6. Jahrh. “o piu antica” Teile von Strabons
Geographie. Des außerordentlichen Wertes dieses Fundes wurde man sich jedoch erst be-
wußt,
als der Basilianer Pater Cozza-Luzi in der Bibliothek des griechischen Klosters Grotta
Ferrata in den Albaner Bergen unter Pergamentresten von Handschriftenkustoden drei
ebenfalls doppelt beschriebene Blätter fand, die offensichtlich aus derselben Strabonhandschrift
stammten und nach der oberen Schrift zu urteilen entweder derselben Handschrift
angehörten, die Mai erworben hatte, oder einer sehr ähnlichen. Seit dem Jahre 1875 hat
sich (Guiseppe) Cozza-Luzi eingehend mit der Entzifferung der Strabonreste beschäftigt
und nach einer kürzeren Voranzeige von 1875 seine Ergebnisse in sieben Teilen von 1884–
1898 veröffentlicht ... Schon die Anordnung der Schrift in drei Kolumnen beweist, daß wir
es mit einer Handschrift von beträchtlichem Alter zu tun haben ...
Alle diese Merkmale zusammengenommen empfehlen als Datierung den Anfang des 6.
Jahrhunderts, wenn nicht gar die zweite Hälfte des 5. Jahrhunderts. Die Schrift ist außerordentlich
regelmäßig und fest. In Verbindung mit dem sehr feinen Pergament zeigt sie an,
daß wir keine übliche Handelsware vor uns haben, sondern
eine gute sorgfältige Abschrift.
Sie
hat einst den ganzen Strabon enthalten. Außer einem Blatte des 1. Buches stammen
alle Blätter aus dem 8.–17. Buche ...
Nachdem ein paar Blätter des Strabon in Grotta Ferrata gefunden sind, kann man mit
einiger Wahrscheinlichkeit sagen, daß auch V
Gr
er die Tatsachen soweit sinnvoll zusammen, so dürfte es unzweifelhaft
se
1 und V 2 dort gewesen sind. Man begreift wenigstens
dann, wie V 2 in den römischen Kunsthandel gekommen ist. Die Bibliothek von
otta Ferrata stammt zum großen Teil aus Süditalien ...
Andererseits beweist die wesentlich spätere Hand von V 2 , daß nicht etwa V 1 von fern
her importiert sein kann, sondern daß der Strabon dort irgendwo in Kalabrien aufgelöst
wurde und sein Pergament zu mehreren anderen Handschriften verwendet wurde. Da
liegt es nahe, an das Bistum Rossano zu denken, in dessen unmittelbarer Nachbarschaft
im Laufe des 6. Jahrhunderts die ersten Eremitenzellen entstanden waren ...
Ordnen sich ab
in, daß auch der etwas ältere Strabonkodex nicht in Rossano geschrieben ist. Ich möchte
auf seine Schrift ein Wort Mercatis anwenden, das er bei einer anderen Gelegenheit gesagt
hat: “non si scrive cosi bene nella provinzia.” Und das Konstantinopel Justinians ist es,
das uns die ersten Zeugnisse einer Bekanntschaft mit Strabon in dem Lexikon des Stephanos
liefert.
ALY published the Strabon palimpsest — in transcription and facsimile — 1956 in
Rome, and in the language which had been spoken in the eternal city for a thousand
years. From his book’s introduction, p. V–IX, we get a few additional details:
In 69 foliis membranaceis duorum Bibliothecae Apostolicae Vaticanae codicum, quos antiquo
more palimpsestos vel rescriptos vocamus, sub scriptura mediaevali vetustissima
scriptura Graeca uncialibus litteris composita latet, qua commentarios
geographicos Strabonis
tradi iam dudum cognitum est ...
1
Is nunc in Bibliotheca Vaticana sub nº 2306 asservatur (V ). Eum antea in conventu ordi-
nis S. Basilii Cryptensi, qui hodie Grottaferrata audit, fuisse tribus foliis comprobatur,
quae ad hunc diem vitreis munita in Bibliotheca conventus in memoriam antiquae possessionis
spectantur (V
um,
ni
est, nam lineolae, quibus in finibu
c ). Jam Cardinalis Pentateuchum quidem inesse, Strabonis autem
›Geographica‹ litteris unicialibus conscripta subesse vidit ...
Numeri versum non variantur. Scriptura aequalis et elegantissima. Spatia litterarum
praeter terminationes versuum locis diversissimis operis non mutantur; in finibus vers
si litterae abundantes modulo minore exarantur, interdum paulo angustiores scribuntur.
Quamquam linea subsidiaria ad capita litterarum finienda nusquam conspicitur, tamen
altitudinis litterarum summa est aequalitas, quasi pertica emensa esset. Attamen, qui
scripsit, munere suo non tarde aut nimis curiose functus
s versuum littera N significatur ...
— 90 —

ALY 1956: 69
Vat. Gr. 2061 A, fol. 281, r. I, lin. 12–25 (V 1 40.54)
In his chapter De contextus virtutibus vitiisque palimpsesti, ALY, 1956: 196, adds
the following commentarius criticus to the famous sentence of Strabo (11.8.2; Cas.511).
The
meaning of “L” is: all later codices.
281
r I 19/20 = 8,2 p. 462,11 C A K A P A Υ Κ Α Ι : L sak£rauloi kaˆ; kaˆ del. Groskurd.
T A X A P O I
L quoque exhibent.
22 = 8,2 p. 462,12 T O Υ T Ι Α Ξ A P T O Υ : L toà „ax£rtou.
24 = 8,2 p. 462,13 C O Γ Δ O A N O Y C : L sogdianoÚj.
1
We see here that the Strabo Palimpsest Vat. Gr. 2061 A (V ) — folio 281, recto, column
I, lines 12–25 — very clearly shows the much-quoted sentence we are concerned
with
in this paper:
Vat.Gr.
2061 A (V
/
NA
M£lista / d gnèrimoi gegÒ- /
N
A
K
A
tou / tÁj kat¦ S£kaj kaˆ /
CO
1 ), 281, r I, 12–25:
Transcription:
MAΛICTA / ΔEΓNωPIMOIΓEΓO
CINTωNNOMA / ΔωNOITOΥCEΛΛH / nasin tîn nom£- / dwn oƒ toÝj “Ellh- /
ACAΦEΛOMENOI / THNBAKTPIANHN / naj ¢felÒmenoi / t¾n Baktrian»n /
CIOIKAIΠACIANOI / KAITAXAPOIKAICA / ”Asioi kaˆ Pasianoˆ / kaˆ T£caroi kaˆ Sa- /
APAΥKAIOPMHΘEN / TECAΠOTHCΠEPAI / karaàkai, Ðrmhqšn- / tej ¢pÕ tÁj pera…- /
CTOΥTIAΞAPTOΥ / THCKATACAKACKAI / aj toà Tiax£r
ΓΔOANOΥCHN / KATEIΧONCAKAI / SogdoanoÚj, ¿n / kate‹con S£kai.
When we consider the fact that Strabo’s Geography remained practically unknown
in
the first few centuries of its existence, we may well have here, in this palimpsest of
the
fifth century CE, the well-preserved text of the editio princeps of the first century
C E. If this assumption is correct, Strabo himself wrote Tiaxartes in place of Iaxartes
and Sogdoanoi in place of Sogdianoi — mistakes which
were corrected in later codices.
We
also see here that the correct Western name of the one tribe of the great Saka
Federation, located originally beyond the Jaxartes, was Sakaraukai < *saka rauka-.
— 91 —

Later Strabo codices had shown Sakarauloi
kai, constituting an effort to correct a de-
fective Sakarauloi back to Sakaraukai. A few modern authors understood this correctly.
But GROSKURD in the 19th century mistakenly deleted kai and kept Sakarauloi
— in fact, he should have deleted -loi instead, to get Sakaraukai. Trogus originally
must have had Sacaraucae — which name later copyists corrupted into Sarancae.
The Chinese equivalent to Saka is Sai 塞 (ancient pronunciation sak) and for Saka-raukai
it is Sai–wang (Sak–wang) 塞王.
But of the greatest interest in the palimpsest’s rendering of our terse, desperately
important sentence is that Strabo originally wrote, not Tocharoi,
but Tacharoi. This,
apparently, was no mistake, for all later codices invariably also show Tacharoi, as ALY
states in his commentarius criticus, quoted above. It is very curious, therefore, that all
modern editions (and all translations) of Strabo’s Geography just as unanimously
seem to have Tocharoi: MEINEKE 1877: 718; JONES 1928: 260; LASSERRE 1975: 83; RADT
2004: 340 are the ones I have before me here. The only explanation for this “falsification”
I can think of is that the accepted name of later times was Tocharoi and Tocharistan.
Today, therefore, we must take note again of the fact that the earliest Western representation
of this important ethnic name was Greek TAXAPOI (Tachari). In this way,
as the newly published Vatican Palimpsest shows, Strabo copied the name from Apollodoros’
book. If so, the lost book of the Roman historian Trogus, too, should have
shown an original Reges Tacharorum Asiani. Only later on, this name changed to Tochari/TOXAPOI.
How very helpful it should be if Trogus’ magnum opus would surface
somewhere — or at least the opusculum of Apollodoros.
Under these circumstances, it is of particular interest to note that this change of the
first
vowel from –a– to –o– is closely paralleled in the Chinese sources. The Shiji and
Hanshu (i.e. Zhang Qian’s Report) have Ta–hia/Daxia (Wade-Giles/Pinyin) 大夏. In the
later
Weishu, Beishi, Suishu and Tangshu, this name is changed to T’u–ho–lo/Tuhuoluo
吐火羅 and a few close variants: Tangshu 221 introduces the spellings Tu-ho-lo/
Duhuoluo 吐豁羅, 睹貨邏, and T’u-hu-lo/Tuhuluo
吐呼羅.
In this, we have a firm additional proof that Daxia 大夏 is the Chinese transcription
of Tacha( ra); and the la t er Tuhuoluo 吐 火羅 is the (improved) Chinese tran-
scriptio n of Tochara. The Chinese sources even give us a terminus ante
quem for the
distinct change of the initial vowel in this nam e: the Weishu, first
of the Chinese
Standard Histories to introduce the new transcription T’u–ho–lo/ Tuhuoluo 吐火羅,
narrates the history of the Wei Dynasty, i.e. history of the late fourth to the mid-sixth
century CE.
And in lines 18–20 of column I, recto of folio 281, we have Strabo’s ominous list of
four names: ACIOIKAIΠACIANOI
/ KAITAXAPOIKAICA / KAPAΥKAI — ”Asioi kaˆ Pasianoˆ
kaˆ T£caroi kaˆ Sakaraàkai ... All four are said to be the names of those no-
madic peoples who took Bakt riana from the Greeks: tîn nom£dwn oƒ toÝj “Ellhnaj
¢felÒmenoi t¾n Baktrian»n. And they all
are said to have broken loose, like an ava-
lanche, from the far side of the Jaxartes: Ðrmhqšntej ¢pÕ tÁj pera…aj toà Tiax£rtou.
With only this one sentence by Strabo
and the summaries of two of his
books
(chapters) by Trogus, we would be convinced that the Asii, Pasiani, Tachari, and Saca-
raucae had stormed forth from beyond the
Jaxartes, had inundated Sogdiana and
Bactria like a tidal wave, and had flushed the Greeks out in one great sweep. In the
end, the Asii would rule over the Tachari, and the Sacaraucae would be utterly
annihilated.
Not the slightest shadow of doubt would be cast over this scenario.
The one remaining question would be: what had happened to the Pasiani ?
Fortunately, we have no less then seventeen bulky Chinese history books to sift
through to find out what really happened. The information thus gathered is a hundred
times that collected from our meager Western sources — in quantity and quality.
Those history books were composed by men of letters mostly in Chang’an and Luo-
yang,
two great capitals near the Yellow River and thus very far away from Central Asia.
But these far-away historians — Sima Tan, Sima Qian, Ban Biao, Ban Gu and many
— 92 —

others — could boast to have had an eyewitness on the scene, the great first Chinese
explorer to reach the Oxus River, in the summer of 129 BCE: their man in Daxia (Tachara),
Zhang Qian.
Yet, even with Zhang Qian’s Report to start from, it took the Chinese some seven to
eight centuries to piece the full story together on the Nomadensturm or nomadic irruption
which swept away the Greek kingdom of Sogdiana and Bactria, north of the Hindukush
Mountains. The first detailed information
we collect from chapters 110 and 123
of the
Shiji and chapters 61, 94, and 96 of the Hanshu; the last additions and amend-
ments we find in Tangshu 221. We are told that four nomadic peoples were involved to
set this early historic Völkerwanderung into motion:
— the Xiongnu 匈奴 ;
— the Ruzhi (Yuezhi) 月氏 ;
— the Wusun 烏孫 ;
— the Saiwang 塞王 .
The Xiongnu and the Wusun never crossed the Jaxartes. They remained practically
unknown to classic Western historians like Trogus and Strabo. And the Ruzhi 月氏
would have roamed around the lush pasture grounds of the upper Ili Valley forever, if
the Wusun kunmo or king had not developed an ardent desire to avenge his father —
who had been killed by the 月氏 — and in the process had driven the 月氏 across the
Jaxartes, shortly after the Saiwang 塞王, evicted from the Ili by the Ruzhi 月氏.
Thus, the Chinese historians tell us that only two nomadic peoples broke loose
like an avalanche from the far side of the Jaxartes — and
not together, but in two
distinct
waves:
— the Sacaraucae/Sakaraukai/Saiwang 塞王 (pushed by the Ruzhi 月氏)
— and the Asiani/Asioi/Ruzhi 月氏 (pushed by the Wusun 烏孫).
These clarifications we owe to the Chinese history books. They contradict Strabo in
two crucial points: in the number of peoples involved in wresting Bactria from the
Greeks, and in the number of stages it took to drive the Greeks south across the Hindukush.
Why, then, did Strabo include the Pasiani and the Tachari in his list ? They do not
belong there. The Vatican Palimpsest, quoted above, suggests that the list in question
included the four names from the very beginning. But we know that both Trogus and
Strabo copied the Bactrian matters from Apollodoros of Artemita. Since Trogus names
just the Sacaraucae and the Asiani as conquerors of Sogdiana and Bactria, Strabo
after him must
have named just these two peoples as well.
There is one solution to this dilemma. Strabo, when he died, left his Geography in
an unpublished manuscript form. It was published some time after his death by an
unknown editor who was at great pains to get the manuscript ready for publication.
ALY, who studied Strabo’s live and work with exceptional care, writes in PAULY’s RE,
1931: 76–154:
Strabon von Amaseia, stoischer Philosoph, Historiker und Geograph ...
Das Werk des Apollodoros, das hauptsächlich das östliche Asien nördlich des Tauros behandelt
hatte und vor 36 v.Chr. entstanden sein wird, scheint Strabon selbständig benutzt
zu haben ... Diese vielen und umfangreichen Entlehnungen aus Autoren der verschiedenen
Zeitalter müßten bei Strabon den Eindruck einer einheitlichen Komposition seines
Werkes empfindlich stören, wenn diese nicht ohnehin fehlte ... Diese Unausgeglichenheit
und die häufigen losen und unzusammenhängenden Anfügungen kurzer Notizen an das
Ende
besser ausgearbeiteter Abschnitte hat man dadurch zu erklären gesucht, daß Strabon
sein Werk nicht endgültig überarbeitet habe. Daß letzteres tatsächlich nicht der Fall
war, pflegt man wohl zutreffend aus der Nichterwähnung Strabons bei Plinius u. a. zu
schließen ...
Während die ƒstorik¦ Øpomn»mata (Strabo’s earlier work) im 1. Jahrhundert gelegentlich
benutzt werden (sicher von Josephus und Plutarch) beginnt die Überlieferungsgeschichte
der Geographie mit einer großen Lücke. Sie ist nachweislich nicht von Ptolemaios
— 93 —

enutzt ... Das Bild ändert sich erst, und zwar vollständig, als im 6. Jahrhundert Stephanos
von Byzanz sein Lexikon Iustinian widmet, in dem er Strabon reichlich benutzt ...
Aus spätestens der gleichen Zeit stammt der vatikanische Palimpsest, der sich über
Grotta
Ferrata nach Unteritalien, wahrscheinlich nach Rossano in Kalabrien zurückverfolgen
läßt ... Von der von A. Mai 1844 entdeckten und seit 1875 von Cozza-Luzi und dem Verfasser
zum großen Teil entzifferten Hs., die einstmals aus ca. 460 Folien bestanden hat
und in 3 Kolumnen geschrieben ist, sind bisher 68 Folien bekannt geworden, jetzt Vat. Gr.
2061 A (V
t ist nicht fehlerlos. Seine Fehler
jedoch lassene Zeilen und oberflächliche Unzialverlesungen,
n E en ...
1 ) und 2306 (V 2 ); 3 Blätter noch in Grotta Ferrata (V c ). Abgeschrieben ist Strabon
in Unteritalien nicht. V dürfte mit der Eroberung Italiens dorthin gekommen sein ...
Allgemeiner Zustand des Textes: Schon der Palimpses
beschränken sich auf ausge
zumal in den zahlreiche igennam
And again in 1957: 17–21:
Wenn man daran geht, Irrtümer aufzudecken, dann ist die Einsicht, wie sie entstanden
sind, der erste Schritt zu ihrer Widerlegung ...
Was hat Strabon gewollt und was hat er auf Grund der sein Schaffen bedingenden Voraussetzungen
ausführen können ? Dazu gehört natürlich die Frage nach der Vollendung
und Publikation seines Alterswerkes ...
Wie oft ist ihm eingefallen, in einen fertigen Zusammenhang Dinge hineinzufügen,
die
er anderswo nicht unterbringen konnte. Dann werden die Rückbeziehungen der Pronomina
zweideutig. Zusammenfassend kann man von dem Werke wie von dem Imperium, das
es darstellte, sagen,
dass es ›laborat mole sua‹. Der Verfasser war hochbetagt. Veröffent-
licht ist das Werk wahrscheinlich erst nach seinem Tode, und der Herausgeber wird oft in
Verzweiflung über Nachträge letzter Hand gewesen sein, die sich in den
Text nicht einfügen
liessen. Alles das muss, soweit es beweisbar ist, dem Leser bei der Deutung und Beurteilung
des Textes gegenwärtig sein.
We see here that, in thirty years of Strabo studies, ALY developed the firm conviction
that the
old gentleman left an unpublished manuscript at his late death. His earlier
work, the `Istorik¦ Øpomn»mata or “Historical Memoirs” — curiously, this title is
a literal translation of Sima Qian’s book title Shiji 史記 — in 47 books, narrating history
mainly between 144 and 27 BCE, had been published possibly soon after the latter
date, in any case in his life time. But his later work, the Gewgrafik£ or “Geographical
Matters,” became his Alterswerk. When Strabo died high in his eighties, he left a
manuscript which was finished, but to which the author had continued adding notes in
the margins until close to his death. If this was so, it becomes easy to see what
happened in the context of Geography 11.8.2. When Strabo at first had read Apollodoros
of Artemita’s book, his “list” of conquering nomadic nations contained the same
two names which before him Trogus had copied from Apollodoros. But some time
later, when Strabo
got hold of a copy of Trogus’ work — likely, this happened shortly
before his death — he wrote down in the margins, next to 11.8.2, two names not found
in his
own text:
— ACIANOI (Asiani) as a Latin variant to his own Greek ACIOI (Asii),
— TAXAPOI (Tachari) as a name wholly new to him — it is mentioned nowhere else in
his
Geography. His manuscript in this particular place may have looked like this:
MAΛICTAΔEΓNωPIMOIΓEΓONACIN
TωNNOMAΔωNOITOΥCEΛΛHNAC
AΦEΛOMENOITHNBAKTPIANHN
HACIANOI ACIOIKAICAKAPAΥKAI
TAXAPOI OPMHΘENTECAΠOTHCΠEPAIAC
TOΥTIAΞAPTOΥTHCKATACAKAC
KAICOΓΔOANOΥCHNKATEIΧONCAKAI
— 94 —

These were just two of an untold number of similar additions or corrections found
in the margins of his manuscript when Strabo died — before he himself found the
time
to write the final draft for publication. This tough and time-consuming work was
d one by a later editor who must have been an educated man. All the same, he must
have
had a hard time to decipher the handwriting of the more than octogenarian philo-
sopher,
especially when it came to the many unfamiliar names. This editor, we see,
misread
HACIANOI (“or Asiani”) as ΠACIANOI and, unsure what to do with this and
t he other strange name, finally resolved to include them in Strabo’s “list” of conquering
nomads. Are we going to blame him for the disastrous effects of his bona fide blunder
?
I should like to note here that something similar happened to the Hanshu. In the
capital
of the Later Han, Luoyang, the book’s main author, Ban Gu 班固, died in pris-
o n in the sixty-first year of his age (92 CE) before his great work had been finished. The
Chinese emperor then ordered
his widowed younger sister Ban Zhao 班昭 by edict to
continue and complete the work (see Hou Hanshu 114). This outstanding woman did
this for the rest of her life, or for some 20 years. SWANN 1932: 69: It is even possible
that she revised and reedited the entire work.
Strabo’s Geography was less fortunate than Ban Gu’s Hanshu in that it was nei-
ther
composed nor finished in the capital — let alone under imperial patronage — as
the “Book of the Han” was. The Geography
saw the light of day far from Rome and
without
any higher assistance. The exact time and circumstances of its publication we
c an only guess from the contents of the work itself — as ALY did. Pliny in Rome did
n ot excerpt from it in the first century CE, Ptolemy in Alexandria did not make use of it
i n the second. The first to quote extensively from Strabo’s Geography was Stephanos
i n Constantinopolis in the sixth century CE. The exceptionally early Strabo codex, now
c alled the Vatican Palimpsest, had already been written by that time and probably in
t hat same city. Its European sections, extensively used, subsequently perished. But the
I nner Asian chapters, arousing little interest, survived and were later erased — the
well-prepared
folios were actually written over twice. The regained lowest text, in an
elegant oblique uncial handwriting and an early arrangement in three narrow columns,
should be very close to that of the original publication, early in the first century CE.
In our context, this means that an obvious corruption in sentence 11.8.2 of Strabo’s
Geography can be traced back to the editio princeps where an unknown editor was
faced with the problem of working an abundance of marginal notes into the main
text — most of the time succeeding rather smoothly, we may assume, but in a number
of instances committing smaller or greater mistakes.
That in Strabo’s “list” of four conquering nomadic peoples the name ΠACIANOI
(Pasiani) was a corruption of HACIANOI (À 'Asiano…: “or Asiani”) — and thus could be
deleted from the list — was recognized early in the 18th century by VAILLANT and LON-
GUERUE. That the TOCAROI (Tochari), the earliest version of this name being TACA-
ROI (Tachari), did not belong onto that list either, was half guessed by ALTHEIM in the
20th century, but he was unable or unwilling to substantiate this line of thinking (see
above, p. 76).
Our firm Gewährsmann or informant here, and sole eyewitness known
by name, is
Zhang Qian. In his lost first-hand Report, epitomized by Sima Qian in Shiji 123, he describes
the Daxia 大夏 as the native population of a country of the same name, well
settled there since long — and he describes them as recently subjugated by the Ruzhi
月氏. To this, Ban G u adds in Hanshu 96A that, just before, the Daxia had been ruled
briefly by the Saiwa ng 塞王 — as early as 18 93 pointed out by XU SONG
徐松, reprinted
in 1900 by WANG XIANQIAN 王 先謙, but overlooked by HULSEWÉ/
LOEWE in 1979.
With this, the wh ole problem centers around the decisive question
whether or not
we are entitled to eq uate Chinese D axia 大夏 with Western Tacha(ra),
i.e. the Daxia
of Zhang Qian with the TACAROI
(Tachari) of Strabo, the Tochari of Trogus, and the
provincial name Tachar in present-day northeastern Afghanistan. If this question can
be answered in the positive, the Tachari / Tochari have been the inhabitants
of Tachara /
— 95 —

Tochara
or Eastern Bactria and they have been well settled there since long. They have
never been nomads and they have not come from beyond the Jaxartes a short time
before. Like the phantom Pasiani, they can be deleted from Strabo’s “list” of conquering
nomads. This leaves just two names on Strabo’s vexed list: the Sacaraucae/Sakaraukai/Saiwang
塞王 and the Asiani/Asioi/Ruzhi 月氏 — confirmed by Trogus, following
Apollodoros, and also confirmed by the Shiji / Hanshu. The second of these nomadic
nations kept chasing the first — intermittently, i.e. in a number of stages — from
the Ili River in the second century BCE to the Indus in the first century CE. In this pro-
cess, a first climax is the final subjugation of the Sakas in Bactra by the self-styled
Ruzhi
月氏 king Kujula Kadphises 丘就卻, a good time after the Lugdunum aurei of
Tiberius went on circulation (see above, p. 52), and before the publication of the Periplus
(above, p. 64), i.e. some time between 30 and 60 CE.
PAUL BERNARD, first to recognize the historic showdown between the Sakas and the
Ruzhi 月氏 in the wall friezes of Khalchayan — unearthed and pieced together by the
renowned Russian archaeologist GALINA PUGACHENKOVA a short distance north of the
Oxus River and published by her 1965–1971 —, writes
as quoted above (p. 40):
Ces nomades nous ont d’abord été connus par quelques allusions des textes classiques,
principalement une phrase de Strabon ... Les sources chinoises, le Si-Ki, le Han Shou et le
Hou Han Shou parlent, elles, du peuple des Yüeh-chih, à l’exclusion de toute autre.
The second statement, we have seen above, is now to be modified. But the famous
French Archaeologist — who excavated Ai Khanum, located in modern Afghan Tachar
province, which thus preserves the ancient name Tachara / Daxia 大夏 to the present
day — continues :
Ces trouvailles nous offrent aujourd’hui une vision incomparablement plus riche et plus
diversifiée de la culture des deux peuples que nous considérons avoir été les acteurs principaux
de la conquête de la Bactriane grecque, les Yüeh-chih au centre et à l’est, les Saces
ou Sacarauques à l’ouest.
Here, BERNARD is intuitively stating a historic fact of importance: as established in
this study, our age-old Eastern and Western sources unanimously confirm that only
two nomadic nations were involved in ending Greek rule north of the Hindukush —
the Royal Sakas/Saiwang 塞王 and the A(r)sii/ÅrÝi/(A)ruzhi 月氏.
— 96 —
Berlin, May 2008
Chris M. Dorn’eich

ALONSO-NÚÑEZ 1989 ...........
ALTHEIM 1947–48 ................
ALTHEIM / STIEHL 1970 .........
ALY 1968 .............................
ALY 1957 .............................
ALY 1956 .............................
ALY 1933 .............................
ALY
1931 .............................
ALY 1929 ............................
AMANTINI 1981 ....................
AMMIANUS (VEH) ................
AMMIANUS (SEYFAHRT) .......
AMMIANUS (ROLFE) ............
BACHHOFER 1941 ................
BAILEY 1985 .......................
BAILEY 1979 .......................
BAILEY 1952 .......................
BAILEY 1947 .......................
BAILEY 1936 .......................
BANERJI 1908 ....................
BARTHOLD 1956 .................
Bibliography
ALONSO-NÚÑEZ, J. M.: ›The Roman Universal Historian Pompeius Trogus on India,
Parthia, Bactria and Armenia‹, pp. 125–155 in: Persica. Uitgave van het Genootschap
Nederland-Iran / Publication de la Société Néerlando-Iranienne, Nr. XIII, 1988–1989
ALTHEIM, FRANZ: Weltgeschichte Asiens im griechischen Zeitalter. 2 vols.,
Halle (Saale) 1947/1948
ALTHEIM, FRANZ / STIEHL, RUTH (edd.): Geschichte Mittelasiens im Altertum,
Berlin 1970
A LY , W OLFGANG : Strabonis Geographica, recensuit Wolfgang Aly. Volumen primum in
quo continentur: Praemonenda de nova Geographicorum editione quae vivus
impressit WOLFGANG ALY. Libri I–II (Prolegomena Strabonis) quos ab editore prelo datos
iteratis curis perpoliverunt ERNST KIRSTEN et FRIEDRICH LAPP. Praefatiunculam scripsit
HILDEBRAND HOMMEL, Bonn 1968
——— : Strabons Geographika in 17 Büchern. Text, Übersetzung und erläuternde
der Wissenschaften, philosophisch-historische Klasse, Band XXII, Jahrgang 1931/32,
OLF LY
TTO GRADENWITZ, pp. 3–42 in: Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akademie der
ntergang.
rläutert von
GERHARD WIRTH (Die Bibliothek der Alten Welt),
Zürich / München 1974
SEYFAHRT, WOLFGANG: Ammianus Marcellinus. Römische Geschichte (Ammiani
Marcellini Rerum Gestarum). Lateinisch und deutsch und mit einem Kommentar
versehen von WOLFGANG SEYFAHRT, 3. Teil: Buch 22–25 (Schriften und Quellen der Alten
Welt, 21 / 3), Berlin 1970
ROLFE, JOHN C.: Ammianus Marcellinus, with an Eng ROLFE
(Ammiani Marcellini Rerum Gestarum Libri qui super
Vol. II: Book XX–XXVI, Cambridge (Mass.) 1940, 2 Anmerkungen von WOLFGANG ALY. Band 4: Strabon von Amaseia. Untersuchungen
über Text, Aufbau und Quellen der Geographika, (Antiquitas. Reihe 1: Abhandlungen
zur Alten Geschichte, Band 5), Bonn 1957
——— : De Strabonis Codice Rescripto, cuius reliquiae in Codicibus Vaticanis
Vat. Gr. 2306 et 2061 A servatae sunt. Scripsit WOLFGANGUS ALY. Corollarium adiecit
FRANCISCUS SBORDONE. Accedunt Tabulae XXXVI (Studi e Testi 188),
Città del Vaticano 1956
——— : ›Neue Beiträge zur Strabon-Überlieferung‹, von WOLF ALY aus Freiburg i. Br,
vorgelegt von REGENBOGEN, pp. 3–32 in: Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akademie
Heidelberg 1933
——— : ›Strabon von Amaseia, stoischer Philosoph Historiker und Geograph‹,
coll. 76–155 in: Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft,
2. Reihe, 7. Halbband, Stuttgart 1931
——— : ›Der Strabon-Palimpsest Vat. Gr. 2061 A‹, herausgegeben von W A , vorgelegt
von O
Wissenschaften, philosophisch-historische Klasse, Band XIX, Jahrgang 1928/29,
Heidelberg 1929
AMANTINI, LUIGI SANTI: Giustino. Storie Filippiche. Epitome da Pompeo Trogo,
Milano 1981
VEH, OTTO: Ammianus Marcellinus. Das römische Weltreich vor dem U
Sämtliche erhaltene Bücher übersetzt von OTTO VEH, eingeleitet und e
lish Translation by JOHN C.
sunt), 3 vols.,
3 1948, 1956
BACHHOFER, LUDWIG: ›On Greeks and ³akas in India‹, pp. 223–250 in:
Journal of the American Oriental Society (New Haven) 61, 1941
BAILEY, HAROLD W.: Indo-Scythian Studies. Being Khotanese Texts, Volume VII,
Cambridge 1985
——— : ›North Iranian Problems‹, pp. 207–210 in:
Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies (London), XLII/2, 1979
——— : ›Six Indo-Iranian Notes‹, pp. 55–64 in: Transactions of the Philological Society
(Oxford), 1952
——— : ›Recent Work in Tokharian‹, pp. 126–153 in: Transactions of the Philological
Society (Oxford), 1947
——— : ›Ttaugara‹, pp. 883–921 in: Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies (London),
Vol. VIII, Part 4, 1935–1937
BANERJI, R. D.: ›The Scythian Period of Indian History‹, pp. 25–75 in: The Indian
Antiquary (Bombay), Vol. XXXVII, 1908
BARTHOLD, WILHELM (VASILIJ V.): Four Studies on the History of Central Asia. Vol. I.
Translated from the Russian by VLADIMIR FEDOROVIC and TATYANA MINORSKY
(Russian Translation Project Series of the American Council of Learned Societies, 21),
Leiden 1956
— 97 —

BARTHOLD 1928 .................
BARTHOLD
1922 .................
BAYER
1738 .......................
Beishi
...............................
BERNARD
1991 ...................
BERNARD 1987 ...................
BERNARD
1985 ...................
BERNARD 1973 ...................
BI¾URIN
1851 .....................
BIVAR
1983 ........................
BOPEARACHCHI 1997 ..........
BOPEARACHCHI
1992 ..........
BOPEARACHCHI
1991 ..........
BOPEARACHCHI
1990 ..........
BOYER
1900 ......................
BRENTJES
1996 ................
BROSSET
1887 ..................
BROSSET 1828 ..................
CHARPENTIER
1917 ............
CHAVANNES
1907 ..............
CHAVANNES
1905 ..............
CHAVANNES
1903 ..............
CHAVANNES
1895–1905 ......
CURIEL/FUSSMAN
1965 ......
DAFFINÀ
1967 ...................
DE
LA VAISSIÈRE 2002 ......
DE
GROOT 1921 /1926..........
——— : Turkestan down to the Mongol Invasion, by W. BARTHOLD, Second Edition,
translated
from the original Russian and revised by the Author with the assistance of
H . A. R. G IBB,
London 1928
——— : Istoriya Turkestana
(History of Turkestan, in Russian), Tashkent 1922
BAYER,
GOTTLIEB SIEGFRIED: Historia Regni Graecorum Bactriani in qua simul Graeca-
rum
in India Coloniarum vetus memoria explicatur auctore Theophilo Sigefrido
Bayero,
St. Petersburg 1738
L¯
YÁN–SHÒU (LI YEN-SHOU) 李延壽 (7th cent.): B®i–sh¯ (Pei-shih) 北史 (›History of the
Northern Dynasties‹), 100 ch., woodblock edition, 32 vols. in 6 cassettes, Taipei 1956;
punctuated edition, Taipei 1980
BERNARD, PAUL: ›Sarianidi, V. I.: Xram i nekropol' Tilljatepe. Moscou, 1989 (Le sanctu-
aire et la nécropole de Tilljatepe, (en russe)‹. Book review, pp. 160–164 in:
Studia Iranica (Paris) 20/1,
1991
——— : ›Les nomades conquérants de l’empire gréco-bactrien. Réflexions sur leur
identité ethnique
et culturelle‹, pp. 758–768 in:
Comptes rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres (Paris),
Novembre-Décembre 1987
——— : Fouilles d'Aï Khanoum. IV: Les monnaies hors trésors. Questions d'histoire
gréco-bactrienne (Mémoires de la Délégation Archéologique Française en Afghanistan
XXVIII), Paris 1985
——— : Fouilles d'Aï Khanoum. I (Campagnes 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968): Texte et Figures
(Mémoires de la Délégation Archéologique Française en Afghanistan XXI),
Paris 1973
BI¾URIN, NIKITA YAKOVLEVI¾ (“IAKINF”) — Áè÷ óðèí, Í. ß. (Èàêèíô): Collection of
Information on the Peoples who inhabited Central Asia in Ancient Times — Ñîáðàíèå
ñâåäåíèé î íàðîäàõ, îáèòàâøèõ â Ñðåäíåé Àçèè â äðåâíèå âðåìåíà,
3 vols. + map on three large sheets, St. Petersburg 1851.
Republished, with a new introduction by A. N. BERNŠTAM — À. Í. Áåðíøòàì,
in 3 vols., Moscow 1950–1953
BIVAR, ADRIAN DAVID H.: ›The History of Eastern Iran‹, pp. 181–231 in:
EHSAN YARSHATER (ed.): The Cambridge History of Iran. Volume 3.1: The Seleucid,
Parthian and Sasanian
Periods, Cambridge 1983
BOPEARACHCHI, OSMUND: ›The Posthumous Coinage of Hermaios and the Conquest
of
Gandhara by the Kushans‹, pp. 189–213 in: R. ALLCHIN / B. ALLCHIN / N. KREITMAN /
E. ERRINGTON (edd.): Gandharan Art in Context. East-West Exchanges at the
Crossroads of Asia, 1997
——— : ›The Euthydemus' Imitations and the Date of Sogdian Independence‹, pp. 1–21 in:
Silk Road Art and Archaeology (Kamakura, Japan) 2, 1992
——— : Monnaies gréco-bactriennes et indo-grecques. Catalogue raisonné (Biblio-
thèque Nationale), Paris 1991
——— : ›Graeco-Bactrian
Issues of Later Indo-Greek Kings‹, pp.79–103 in:
Numismatic Chronicle (London), Vol. 150, 1990
BOYER, A.-M.: ›L'époque de Kani•ka‹, pp. 526–579 in: Journal Asiatique (Paris) XV/3, Mai
Juin 1900
BRENTJES, BURCHARD: Arms
of the Sakas (and other tribes of the Central Asian
steppes), Varanasi 1996
BROSSET, LAURENT (ed.): Bibliographie analytique des ouvrages de Monsieur Marie-
Félicité Brosset, Membre de l'Académie Impériale des Sciences de Saint-Pétersbourg:
1824–1879, St. Petersburg 1887
BROSSET, MARIE-FÉLICITÉ: ›Relation du pays de “Ta ouan”; traduite du chinois par
M. Brosset jeune‹, pp. 418–450 in: Journal asiatique (Paris), Tome II,
1828
CHARPENTIER, JARL: ›Die ethnographische Stellung der Tocharer‹,
pp. 347–388 in:
Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, 71. Band, Leipzig
1917
CHAVANNES, ÉDOUARD: ›Les pays d'Occident d'après le Heou Han chou‹,
pp. 149–234 in: T'oung Pao (Leiden), série II/VIII, 1907
——— : ›Les pays d’Occident
d’après le Wei lio‹,
pp. 519-571 in: T'oung Pao (Leiden), série II/VI, 1905
——— : Documents sur les Tou–kiue (Turcs) occidentaux (Recueillis et commentés
suivi de ›Notes Additionnelles‹), Paris / St. Petersburg 1903, New York 1969 (reprint)
——— : Les Mémoires
Historiques de SE–MA TS'IEN. Traduits et annotés par Édouard
Chavannes, 5 vols., Paris 1895–1905, 1967 (reprint, with one additional vol.)
CURIEL, RAOUL / FUSSMAN,
GÉRARD: Le trésor monétaire de Qunduz (Mémoires de la Dé-
légation Archéologique Française en Afghanistan XX), Paris 1965
DAFFINÀ, PAOLO: L’immigrazione
dei Sakå nella Drangiana
(Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente, Reports and Memoirs IX), Rom 1967
DE LA VAISSIÈRE, ÉTIENNE: Histoire des Marchands
Sogdiens (Bibliothèque de l’Insitut
des Hautes Études Chinoises, vol. XXXII), Paris 2002
DE GROOT, JOHANN JAKOB MARIA / FRANKE, OTTO: Chinesische Urkunden zur Geschichte
Asiens. Erster Teil: Die Hunnen der vorchristlichen Zeit.
Zweiter Teil: Die
Westlande Chinas in der vorchristlichen Zeit, Berlin 1921 /1926
— 98 —

DEGUIGNES 1759 ..............
DEGUIGNES 1756 ..............
DONG ZUOBIN 1960 ...........
DORN’EICH 2002 ...............
DORN’EICH 2000 ...............
DORN’EICH
1999 ...............
DORN’EICH 1998 ...............
DUBS
1938–55 ..................
ENOKI
1999 ......................
FÃ
XIÃN ...........................
First Four Histories ........
FRANKE
1934 ....................
FRANKE 1930 ....................
FRANKE
1920 ....................
FRANKE
1918 ....................
FRANKE
1904 ....................
FUSSMAN 1991 ...................
FUSSMAN
1980 ..................
GARDNER
1886 .................
GARDNER 1877 .................
GRENET 2007 ...................
GUTSCHMID
1888 ...............
HALOUN 1937 ....................
HALOUN 1926 ....................
Hanshu ............................
HARMATTA
1994 ................
DEGUIGNES, JOSEPH: ›Recherches sur quelques événements qui concernent l'histoire des
Rois Grecs de la Bactriane, et particulièrement la destruction de leur Royaume par les
Scythes ...‹, pp. 17–33 in: Histoire
de l'Académie Royale des inscriptions et belles-lettres
(Paris) XXV/2, 1759
——— : Histoire générale des Huns, des Turcs, des Mogols, et des autres Tartares
Occidentaux ... Ouvrage tiré des Livres Chinois, et des Manuscrits Orientaux de la
Bibliothèque du Roi, 2 vols., Paris
1756
D­NG ZUÒ–BÐN (TUNG TSO–PIN) 董作賓 (1895–1963): Chronological Tables of Chinese
History 中國年歷總譜, 2 vols., Hongkong 1960
DORN’EICH, CHRISTOF MICHAEL: HS
96. Ban Gu ∙ Annalen der Älteren Han ∙ Die Westländer
班固 漢書 卷九十六上下 西域 (Hanshu chapter 96A+B. Original text and
Western translations by BICHURIN / SCHOTT, CHAVANNES, DE GROOT, FRANKE, HULSEWÉ
/
LOEWE, SPECHT, WYLIE), computer typescript, Berlin 2002
——— : Neuzeitliche Quellen zur Geschichte der Griechen und Kuschanas in Zentral
asien und Indien. Auszüge aus der Fachliteratur
1738–1999, computer typescript,
Freiburg / Berlin 2000
——— : Chinesische Quellen
zur Geschichte der Yuè–zhð und Kuschanas (Excerpts
from the Shiji, Hanshu, Hou Hanshu, Sanguozhi, and Beishi. Original text and Western
translations by BROSSET, CHAVANNES. DE GROOT, HIRTH, HULSEWÉ/LOEWE, SPECHT,
WATSON, WYLIE, ZÜRCHER),
computer typescript, Berlin 1999
——— : Orient ‘65. Weltwanderjahre eines Architekten, Band 2: Afghanistan- und
Indientagebuch, computer typescript, Berlin 1998
DUBS, HOMER
HASENPFLUG: The History of the Former Han Dynasty by Pan Ku.
3 vols., Baltimore 1938, 1944, 1955
ENOKI, K. / KOSHELENKO, G. A. / HAIDARY, Z.: ›The Yüeh–chih and their migrations‹,
pp. 171–189 in: History of Civilizations of Central Asia. Vol. II, Paris 1994, Delhi
1999
FÃ XIÃN 法顯 : A Record of Buddhist Countries. By FA–HSIEN.
Translated from the
Chinese by LI YUNG–HSI (San Shih Buddhist Institute),
Peking 1957
Zhonghua Shuju 中華書局 edition of the First Four (Chinese Standard)
Histories
前四史 in 4 vols.: Vol. I: Sh¯–jì 史記; Vol. II: Hàn–shø 漢書; Vol. III: Hòu Hàn–shø
後漢書; Vol. IV: Sån–guó–zhì 三國志 with Index 人名地名索引,
Peking
im
er
isch-Historische Klasse (Berlin), 1934
it. I. Band: Das Altertum
hinesen. Ein Beitrag zur Tocharer-Frage‹,
“Tocrï und Kuišan (Küšän)”‹,
träge aus chinesischen Quellen zur Kenntnis der Türkvölker und Skythen
ften vom Jahre 1904), Berlin 1904
Ýaka: ère d’Eucratide, ère d’Azès, ère vikrama, ère de
dia in the
86,
mismata
ation des cinq “ Yaghus” des Yuezhi.
de Maès Titianos‹,
r
dogermanen
45), woodblock edition, 40 vols. in
a and the Saka kingdoms‹,
9
11997 FRANKE, OTTO: ›Grundsätzliches zur Wiedergabe fremder Länder- und Ortsnamen
Chinesischen‹, pp. 244–280 in: Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie d
Wissenschaften. Philosoph
——— : Geschichte des Chinesischen Reiches. Eine Darstellung seiner Entstehung,
seines Wesens und seiner Entwicklung bis zur neuesten Ze
und das Werden des Konfuzianischen Staates, Berlin / Leipzig 1930
——— : ›Das alte Ta–hia der C
pp. 117–136 in: Ostasiatische Zeitschrift (Berlin), 8. Jahrgang, 1919/1920
——— : ›Einige Bemerkungen zu F.W.K. Müllers
pp. 83–86 in: Ostasiatische Zeitschrift (Berlin), 6. Band, 1918
——— : Bei
Zentralasiens (aus dem Anhang zu den Abhandlungen der Königlich Preussischen
Akademie der Wissenscha
FUSSMAN, GÉRARD: ›Le Périple et l’histoire politique de l’Inde‹, pp. 31–38 in:
Journal asiatique (Paris), Tome CCLXXIX / 1–2, 1991
——— : ›Nouvelles inscriptions
Kani•ka‹, pp. 1–43, pl. I–IV in: BEFEO (Paris), LXVII, 1980
GARDNER, PERCY: The coins of the Greek and Scythic Kings of Bactria and In
British Museum (Catalogue of the Indian coins in the British Museum), London 18
Chicago 1966 (reprint)
——— : The Parthian Coinage. With Eight Plates (The International Nu
Orientalia), London 1877
GRENET, FRANTZ: ›Nouvelles données sur la localis
L’arrière plan politique de l’itinéraire des marchands
pp. 325–341 in: Journal asiatique, Tome 294, Numéro 2, 2006, Paris 2007
GUTSCHMID, ALFRED VON: Geschichte Irans und seiner Nachbarländer von Alexande
dem Grossen bis zum Untergang der Arsaciden, von ALFRED VON GUTSCHMID mit einem
Vorwort von TH. NÖLDEKE, Tübingen 1888
HALOUN, GUSTAV: ›Zur Üe-t•ï-Frage‹, pp. 234–318 in: Zeitschrift der Deutschen
Morgenländischen Gesellschaft (Leipzig) 91/2, 1937
——— : Seit wann kannten die Chinesen die Tocharer oder In
überhaupt?, 1. Teil, Leipzig 1926
BÅN GÙ (PAN KU) 班固 (32–92): Hàn–shø 漢書 (›Annals of the [Former] Han Dynasty‹),
100 ch. (main commentator YAN SHI–GU 顏師古, 581–6
6 cassettes, Taipei 1956; punctuated edition, 20 vols., Peking 11962, 21975 HARMATTA, JÁNOS: ›Languages and scripts in Graeco-Bactri
pp. 397–416 in: History of Civilizations of Central Asia, Vol. II, Paris 1994, Delhi 199
— 99 —

HENNING 1960 ...................
HENNING 1949 ...................
HENNING 1938 ...................
HERRMANN
1937 ................
HERRMANN
1922 ................
HERRMANN
1920 .................
HERZFELD 1931/1932 ...........
HIRTH 1917 ........................
HOANG
1910 .......................
Hou Hanshu......................
HULSEWÉ
1979 ..................
HUMBOLDT
1843 ................
JULIEN
1846 .....................
JUNGE 1939 ......................
JUSTINUS (RUEHL) .............
JUSTINUS (SEEL) ...............
KAHARMAN
2000 ................
KARLGREN
1957 .................
KARLGREN
1940 .................
KARLGREN
1923 .................
KARLGREN
1915–1926 .........
KINGSMILL 1882 ................
KLAPROTH
1826 ................
KLOTZ
1952 ......................
KONOW
1934 .....................
KONOW 1933 ......................
KONOW
1929 ......................
ies), Vol.1, Part I, London 1949
–1641 in: Paulys Realencyclopädie der
graphie‹, pp. 89–386 in
20
,
32
d
éniques
n, 40 vols. in 6 cassettes, Taipei 1956;
f the
LEXANDER VON: Asie Centrale. Recherches sur les chaînes de montagnes
et
ique (Paris), 4e HENNING, WALTER BRUNO: ›The Bactrian Inscription‹, pp. 47–55 in:
Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies (London) XXIII / 1, 1960
——— : ›The Name of the “Tokharian” Language‹, pp. 158–162 in:
Asia Major (New Ser
——— : ›Argi and the “Tokharians”‹, pp. 545–571 in:
Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies (London) IX/3, 1938
HERRMANN, ALBERT: ›Tocharoi‹, coll. 1632
classischen Altertumswissenschaft, 2. Reihe, 12. Halbband, Stuttgart 1937
——— : ›Die Westländer in der chinesischen Karto
SVEN HEDIN: Southern Tibet, vol. VIII, part II,
Stockholm 1922, Delhi 1991 (reprint)
——— : ›Sacaraucae‹, coll. 1611–1620 in: Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen
Altertumswissenschaft, 2. Reihe, 2. Halbband, Stuttgart 19
HERZFELD, ERNST: ›Sakastån. Geschichtliche Untersuchungen zu den Ausgrabungen am
Køh ð Khwådja‹, pp. 1–116 in: Archaeologische Mitteilungen aus Iran (Berlin) IV/1+2
Oktober 1931/Januar 19
HIRTH, FRIEDRICH: ›The Story of Chang K'ién, China's Pioneer in Western Asia. Text an
Translation of Chapter 123 of Ssï–Ma Ts'ién's Shï–Ki‹, pp. 89–152 in: Journal of the
American Oriental Society (New Haven) XXXVII/2, September 1917
HOANG, PIERRE (BÓ–LÙ) 黃伯祿 (d. 1909): Concordance des chronologies néom
chinoise et européenne, par Le Rév. Père P. HOANG, du clergé de Nanking
(Variétés sinologiques No. 29), Chang–hai 1910
FÀN YÈ (FAN YEH) 范嘩 (398–446): Hòu Hàn–shø 後漢書 (›Annals of the Later Han
Dynasty‹), 120 ch., woodblock editio
punctuated edition, 18 vols., Peking 1965
HULSEWÉ, ANTHONY FRANÇOIS PAULUS / LOEWE, MICHAEL A. N.: China in Central Asia.
The early stage: 125 B.C.–A.D. 23. An annotated translation of chapters 61 and 96 o
History of the Former Han Dynasty, Leyden 1979
HUMBOLDT, A
et la climatologie comparée, par A. DE HUMBOLDT, Tome premier, Paris 1843
JULIEN, STANISLAS: ›Notices sur les pays et les peuples étrangers, tirées des géographes
des historiens chinois‹, pp. 228–252 in:
Journal asiat
série, tome VIII, 1846
JUNGE, JULIUS: ›Saka-Studien. Der Ferne Osten im Weltbild der Antike‹, pp. 1–115 in:
Klio. Beiträge zur alten Geschichte, Beiheft 41 (Neue Folge, Heft 28),
Leipzig 1939
RUEHL, FRANZ: JUSTINUS MARCUS JUNIANUS: M. Iuniani Iustini Epitoma Historiarum
Philippicarum Pompei Trogi. Ex recensione FRANCISCI RVEHL. Accedunt prologi in
Pompeium Trogum ab ALFREDO DE GUTSCHMID recensisti, Berlin 1885
SEEL, OTTO: M. IVNIANI IVSTINI Epitoma Historiarum Philippicarum POMPEI
TROGI.
Accedunt Prologi in Pompeium Trogum post FRANCISCUM RVEHL iterum edidit OTTO
SEEL, Stuttgart 1972
KAHARMAN MUHAN 卡哈尔曼 穆汗: ›A Study on the Names of Saka,
Hun, Rouzhi and
Tielei Tribes‹ 塞、匈奴、月氏、铁勒四名称考, pp. 24–30 in:
The Western Regions Studies 西域研究 (Urumqi), No. 4, 2000
KARLGREN, BERNHARD: Grammata Serica Recensa,
Stockholm 1957
——— : Grammata Serica. Script and Phonetics in Chinese
and Sino-Japanese,
Stockholm 1940
——— : Analytical Dictionary of Chinese and Sino-Japanese,
Paris 1923, New York 1974 (reprint)
——— : Études sur la phonologie chinoise (Archives d’Études Orientales, Vol.15, 1–4),
Leiden/Stockholm 1915– 1926
KINGSMILL, THOMAS W.: ›The Intercourse of China with Eastern Turkestan and the Adja-
cent Countries in the Second
Century B.C.‹, pp. 74–104 in: The Journal of the Royal
Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland (London) XIV/1, 1882
KLAPROTH, JULIUS: Tableaux Historiques de l’Asie, depuis la monarchie de
Cyrus
jusqu’à nos jours; accompagnés de recherches historiques et ethnographiques sur
cette partie du monde; ouvrage dédié à MM. Guillaume et Alexandre de Humboldt,
par J. KLAPROTH, Paris 1826
KLOTZ, ALFRED: ›Pompeius Trogus‹, coll. 2300–2313 in: Paulys Realencyclopädie der
classischen Altertumswissenschaften (Stuttgart), 42. Halbband, 1952
KONOW, STEN: ›Notes on Indo-Scythian Chronology‹, pp.
1–46 in:
Journal of Indian History, Vol. XII, Part I, Serial Nr.34, April 1933,
Madras 1934
——— : ›War “Tocharisch” die Sprache der Tocharer?‹, pp. 455–466 in:
Asia Major (Leipzig), IX (Otto-Franke-Festschrift), 1933
——— : Kharoshƒhî Inscriptions. With the Exception of Those of AÝoka
(Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum, vol. II, part 1),
Calcutta 1929
— 100 —

KONOW 1920 ......................
KOSHELENKO/SARIANIDI
1992
KRUGLIKOVA
1977 ..............
KUWABARA
1916 .................
ASSEN 2 L 1867–74 ...............
LASSEN 1847–61 ................
LASSEN
1838 .....................
LEBEDYNSKY
2003 .............
LEUZE
1935 .......................
LÉVI
1896–97 ....................
LIU
2001 ...........................
LONGUERUE
1732 ..............
LULOFS
1929 .....................
LYONNET
1998 ...................
MÃ DUÅN-LÍN ....................
MÄNCHEN-HELFEN
1945 .....
ÄNCHEN-HELFEN 1938 .....
ANNERT 2 M
M 1820 ..................
MARICQ
1958 .....................
MARQUART 1901 .................
MCGOVERN 1939 ................
MITCHINER 1975-76 ............
MÜLLER
1918 .....................
MUKHERJEE 1970 ..............
NARAIN
1957 ......................
NEUMANN
1837 ..................
NEUMANN
1833 ..................
de Tillia-tepe
pp. 21–32 + pl. 1 in:
iéto-afghane sur le site
A‹,
ettres
nsei‹ 張騫の遠征 (›The Expedition of
:
tzifferung der Altkabulischen Legenden auf ihren Münzen,
nes
n 520-320
aft. Geisteswissenschaftliche Klasse,
ue (Paris),
e 1896; pp. 5-42: IX/1, Janvier-Février 1897;
‹, pp. 261–292 in: Journal of World
vr de
ntieke Anthropogeographie
gdiane, d’après
omparée d’Aï Khanoum et de Marakanda au cours des derniers siècles
l
TO: ›The Yüeh-chih Problem Re-examined‹, pp. 71–81 in: Journal of
I /5–6, 1938
s.).
nach China, Nürnberg 1795, 2 ——— : ›Beitrag zur Kenntnis der Indoskythen‹, pp. 220–237 in:
Ostasiatische Zeitschrift (Berlin), 8. Jahrgang, 1919 / 1920
KOSHELENKO, G. A. / SARIANIDI, V. I.: ›Les monnaies de la nécropole
(Afghanistan)‹ (Traduction du texte par P. BERNARD),
Studia Iranica (Paris) 21/1, 1992
KRUGLIKOVA, IRINA: ›Les fouilles de la mission archéologique sov
gréco-kushan de Dilberdjin en Bactriane (Afghanistan), par M
1820
criptions de Surkh-Kotal (Baghlån). La grande inscription de
urnal Asiatique (Paris), CCXLVI/4, 1958
Xorenac'i. Mit histostorischen
und topographischen Excursen (Ab-
-
III/2), Berlin 1901
arolina) 1939
mie der Wissenschaften (Berlin), 1918
L FRIEDRICH: Asiatische Studien. Erster Theil,
nach Indien. Aus dem
en von
114–177 in:
ie historische Theologie, 3. Band, 1. Stück, Leipzig 1833
me IRINA KRUGLIKOV
pp. 407–427 in: Comptes rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-L
(Paris), Avril-Juin 1977
KUWA’BARA JITZU’ZÔ 桑原隲藏: ›Chô Ken no e
Zhang Qian‹, in Japanese), pp. – in
Zoku shiteki kenkyû 續史的研究 (Tokyo), Feb. 1916
LASSEN, CHRISTIAN: Indische Alterthumskunde,
Bonn/Leipzig 1847/1852/1858/1861 (4 vols.); Leipzig 21867/1874 (2 vols.)
——— : Zur Geschichte der Griechischen und Indoskythischen Könige in Baktrien,
Kabul und Indien durch En
Bonn 1838
LEBEDYNSKY, IAROSLAV: Les Nomades. Les peuples nomades de la steppe des origi
aux invasions mongoles (IX e siècle av. J.-C. – XIII e siècle apr. J.-C.),
Paris 2003
LEUZE, OSCAR: Die Satrapieneinteilung in Syrien und im Zweistromlande vo
(Schriften der Königsberger Gelehrten Gesellsch
XI/4), Halle 1935
LÉVI, SYLVAIN: ›Notes sur les Indo-Scythes‹, pp. 444–484 in: Journal Asiatiq
Neuvième Série VIII/3, Novembre-Décembr
›Note additionelle sur les Indo-Scythes‹, pp. 26–531: X/3, Novembre-Décembre 1897
LIU XIN–RU 刘欣如: ›Migration and Settlement of the Yuezhi-Kushan: Interaction and
Interdependence of Nomadic and Sedentary Societies
History (Hawai’i), Vol. 12, Nr. 2, Fall 2001
LONGUERUE, LOUIS DUFOUR DE: Annales Arsacidarum, auctore Lvdovico dv Fo
Longverve, abbate S. Joannis de Jardo ad Melod. et septem fontium in Therascia,
Argentorati 1732
LULOFS, H. J.: Strabo over Scythen. Specimen van a
(Geographische en Geologische Mededeelingen), Utrecht 1929
LYONNET, BERTILLE: ›Les Grecs, les Nomades et l’indépendance de la So
l’occupation c
avant notre ère‹, pp. 141–159 in: Bulletin of the Asia Institute. O. BOPEARACHCHI,
C. ALTMAN BROMBERG, F. GRENET (edd.): Alexander’s Legacy in the East. Studies in
Honor of Paul Bernard. New Series / Vol.12, 1998
MÃ DUÅN-LÍN 馬端臨 : Wén Xiàn Tõng K¬o 文獻通考 (Encyclopedia of Historica
Documents, in Chinese), edited by WÁNG YÚN-W÷ 王雲五 , Shanghai 1936
MÄNCHEN-HELFEN, OT
the American Oriental Society (Baltimore) 65/2, April-June 1945
——— : ›Zur Üe-t•ï-Frage‹, pp. 958–959 in: Anthropos (Wien) XXXII
MANNERT, CONRAD: Geographie der Griechen und Römer (10 vol
Theil IV: Der Norden der Erde von der Weichsel bis
MARICQ, ANDRÉ: ›Ins
Kani•ka et l'étéo-tokharien, l'ancienne langue de la Bactriane‹,
pp. 345–440 in: Jo
MARQUART, JOSEPH: ×rånšahr nach der Geographie des Ps. Moses
risch-kritischem Kommentar und hi
handlungen der königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen. Philologisch
Historische Klasse, Neue Folge
MCGOVERN, WILLIAM MONTGOMERY: The Early Empires of Central Asia. A Study of
the Scythians and the Huns and the part they played in world history.
With special reference to the Chinese Sources, Chapel Hill (North C
MITCHINER, MICHAEL: Indo-Greek and Indo-Scythian Coinage (9 vols.),
London 1975/1976
MÜLLER, F. W. K.: ›Tocrï und Kuišan (Küšän)‹, pp. 566–586 in: Sitzungsberichte der
Königlich Preussischen Akade
MUKHERJEE, BRATÐNDRA NÅTH: ›The Wu–Sun and the Yüeh–Chih‹,
pp. 127–129 in: Journal of the Asiatic Society (Calcutta), XII/1–4, 1970
(published 1972)
NARAIN, ABODH KISHOR: The Indo-Greeks, Oxford 1957
NEUMANN, CAR
Leipzig 1837
——— : ›Pilgerfahrten Buddhistischer Priester von China
Chinesischen übersetzt, mit einer Einleitung und mit Anmerkungen verseh
D. CARL FRIEDRICH NEUMANN, Erste Abtheilung‹, pp.
Zeitschrift für d
— 101 —

NÖLDEKE 1879 ..................
OROSIUS (ZANGEMEISTER)
PELLIOT
1936 ....................
PELLIOT 1934 ....................
Periplus
(CASSON) ............
Periplus
(FABRICIUS) ........
PETITOT/BERNARD
1975 .....
POKORA 1978 ....................
POKORA 1962 ....................
PLINIUS
(BRODERSEN) .......
POSCH
1995 ......................
PTOLEMAIOS (RONCA) .......
PTOLEMAIOS
(MCCRINDLE)
PTOLEMAIOS
(NOBBE) .......
PUGA¾ENKOVA
1971 ...........
PUGA¾ENKOVA
1966 ...........
POUGATCHENKOVA
1965 ....
PULLEYBLANK 1995 ...........
PULLEYBLANK
1991 ...........
PULLEYBLANK
1970 ...........
PULLEYBLANK
1962 ...........
RAPSON
1922 ....................
RASCHKE 1978 ..................
RÉMUSAT
1836 ..................
NÖLDEKE, THEODOR: Geschichte der Perser und Araber zur Zeit der Sasaniden.
Aus der arabischen Chronik des Tabari. Übersetzt und mit
ausführlichen
Erläuterungen und Ergänzungen versehen von TH. NÖLDEKE,
Leyden 1879, Graz 1973 (reprint)
OROSIUS, PAULUS: Pauli Orosii historiarum
adversum paganos libri VII.
Ex recognitione CAROLI ZANGEMEISTER,
Leipzig 1889
PELLIOT, PAUL: ›A propos du “Tokharien”‹, pp. 259–284 in:
T’oung pao (Leiden), Vol.
XXXII, 1936
——— : ›Tokharien et Koutchéen‹, pp. 23–106 in: Journal asiatique, 224/1,
Paris 1934
Periplus Maris Erythraei. Text with Introduction, Translation,
and Commentary by
LIONEL CASSON (Greek Original : reprint from HJALMAR
FRISK: Le Périple de la mer
Érythrée, Göteborg 1927),
Princeton 1989
Periplus des Erythräischen Meeres Per…plouj tÁj 'Eruqr©j Qal£sshj. Von einem
Unbekannten.
Griechisch und deutsch, mit kritischen und erklärenden Anmerkungen
nebst vollständigem Wörterverzeichnis herausgegeben von B. FABRICIUS
(i.e. HEINRICH THEODOR DITTRICH), Leipzig 1883
PETITOT-BIEHLER,
CLAIRE-YVONNE / BERNARD, PAUL: › Trésor de monnaies grecques et
gréco-bacteriennes trouvé à Aï Khanoum (Afghanistan) / Note sur la signification historique
de la trouvaille‹, pp. 23–69 + pl. I–VI in:
Revue Numismatique
(Paris) XVII, 1975
POKORA, TIMOTEUS: ›Pan Ku and Recent Translations from the “Han Shu”‹,
pp. 451–460 in: Journal of the American Oriental Society (New Haven) 98/4,
October-December 1978
——— : ›The Present State of the Translations from the Shih chi‹, pp. 154–173 in:
Oriens Extremus (Wiesbaden) 9 / 2, Dezember 1962
PLINIUS SECUNDUS, GAIUS: Naturalis Historiae
Libri XXXVII.
Liber VI, lateinisch–deutsch. Herausgegeben und übersetzt von KAI BRODERSEN,
Darmstadt 1996
POSCH, WALTER: Baktrien
zwischen Griechen und Kuschan. Untersuchungen zu
kulturellen und historischen Problemen einer Übergangsphase. Mit einem
textkritischen Exkurs zum Shiji 123, Wiesbaden 1995
PTOLEMAIOS, KLAUDIOS: Geographie 6, 9–21. Ostiran und Zentralasien. Teil I.
Gewgrafik¾ `Uf»ghsij — ›Geografische Anleitung‹, griechisch und deutsch,
herausgegeben von ITALO RONCA (Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente,
Centro Studi e Scavi Archeologici in Asia: Reports and Memoirs XV/1), Rom 1971
MCCRINDLE, JOHN WATSON: Ancient India as described
by Ptolemy. Being a translation
of the chapters which describe India and Central and Eastern Asia in the treatise on
geography written by KLAUDIOS PTOLEMAIOS, the celebrated astronomer, with
introduction, commentary and index, London 1885, Amsterdam 1974 (reprint)
NOBBE, CARL FRIEDRICH AUGUST: Claudii Ptolemaei Geographia I– III (Lib. I–VIII). Edidit
C.F.A. NOBBE, Leipzig 1843–45;
Hildesheim 1966 (cum introductione a AUBREY DILLER)
PUGA¾ENKOVA, GALINA ANATOL’EVNA — Ïóãà÷åíêîâà, Ã. À.: The Sculpture of
Khalchayan — Ñêóëüïòóðà Õàë÷àÿíà (in Russian, with English summary),
Moscow 1971
——— : Khalchayan. On the Problem of Early North Bactrian
Culture — Õàë÷àÿí.
Ê ïðîáëåìå õóäîæåñòâåííîé êóëüòóðû Ñåâåðíîé Áàêòðèè,
Tashkent 1966
——— : ›La sculpture de Khaltchayan‹, pp. 116–127 + pl. XXXII–XXXV in:
Iranica Antiqua (Leiden) V/2, 1965
PULLEYBLANK, EDWIN GEORGE: ›Why Tocharians?‹, pp. 415–430 in: The Journal of
Indo-European Studies (Washington, DC), Vol. 23 / 3+4, 1995
——— : Lexicon of Reconstructed Pronunciation in Early Middle Chinese, Late Middle
Chinese, and Early Mandarin, Vancouver 1991
——— : ›The Wu–sun and
Sakas and the Yüeh-chih migration‹, pp. 154-160 in:
Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies (London) XXXIII, 1970
——— : ›The Consonantal System of Old Chinese‹, pp. 58–144; 206–265 in:
Asia Major (London) IX / 1, 1962
RAPSON, E. J.: The Cambridge History of India. Volume I: Ancient India,
Cambridge 1922
RASCHKE, MANFRED G.: ›New Studies in Roman Commerce
with the East‹, pp. 604–681
(Text), 681–1076 (Anm.), 1076–1361 (Biblio., Addendas, Index) in: HILDEGARD TEMPORINI /
WOLFGANG HAASE (edd.) : Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt. Geschichte und
Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung, Vol. II 9,2, Berlin / New York 1978
RÉMUSAT, JEAN PIERRE ABEL: 佛國記 Fo¥ Kou¥ Ki ou Relations des Royaumes Boud
dhiques: Voyage dans la Tartarie, dans l'Afghanistan et dans l'Inde.
Exécuté à la fin
du IV BEL RÉMUSAT,
esiècle, par Chy F£ HIAN. Traduit du Chinois et commenté par M. A
— 102 —

RÉMUSAT 1829 ...................
RÉMUSAT 1825 ...................
RICHTHOFEN
1877 ..............
RINGE
1995 .......................
ITTER 2 R 1837 .....................
RTVELADZE
1994 ...............
SALLET 1880 .....................
Sanguozhi
.......................
SARIANIDI
1985 ..................
SCHIPPMANN 1980 ..............
SCHLEGEL
1900 .................
SCHOTT
1841 .....................
CHWARTZBERG 2 S
1992 .......
SEEL
1956 ........................
Seidenstraße
2007 ..........
SELLWOOD
1983 ................
Shiji
................................
Shiji Lexicon 1991 ............
SHIRATORI
1941-44 ............
SHIRATORI
1902 ................
SIEG
1918 .........................
SIEG / SIEGLING 1908 ..........
SIMS-WILLIAMS 1996 .........
SIMS-WILLIAMS
/ CRIBB 1996
SMITH
1903 ......................
SPECHT 1897 ....................
SPECHT
1890 ....................
SPECHT 1883 ....................
ouvrage posthume recu, complété, et augmenté d'éclairissements nouveaux par
MM. KLAPROTH et LANDRESSE, Paris 1836
——— : Nouveaux Mélanges Asiatiques. Ou Recueil de Morceaux de Critique et de
Mémoires, Vol. 1, Paris 1829
——— : Mémoires sur plusieurs questions relatives à la géographie de l’ Asie Centrale,
par M. ABEL-RÉMUSAT, Paris 1825
RICHTHOFEN, FERDINAND FREIHERR VON: China. Band I,
Berlin 1877, Graz 1971 (reprint)
RINGE, DONALD: ›Tocharians in Xinjiang.
The Linguistic Evidence‹, pp. 439–444 in:
The Journal of Indo-European Studies (Washington, DC), Vol.23 / 3+4, 1995
RITTER, CARL:
Die Erdkunde im Verhältniß zur Natur und zur Geschichte des
Menschen oder allgemeine vergleichende Geographie.
Siebenter Theil. Drittes Buch. West-Asien, Berlin
VICH: ›Coins of the Yuezhi rulers of northern Bactria‹,
Road Art and Archaeology (Kamakura, Japan) 3, 1993 / 94
(San–kuo–chih) 三國志
old. Aus den Ausgrabungen der
istan, Leningrad 1985
, Darmstadt
Secret of the Chinese Method of Transcribing Foreign
r Djungarei und des östlichen
von Russland (Berlin),
OSEPH E. (ed.): A Historical Atlas of South Asia,
aus Xinjiang, China.
D,
riods,
西域史研究 (Studies on the
az ural-altajinép-és nyelvtudomány köréböl (Revue Orientale pour les
zungsberichte der
sischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (Berlin), 1918
. Vorläufige
kannte indogermanische Literatursprache‹,
p. 633–654 in:
the
1995 /1996
or Indo-Scythian, Period of Indian History, B.C. 165 to
ain and
January 1903
ie
21837 RTVELADZE, EDUARD VASILE
pp. 81–96 in: Silk
SALLET, ALFRED VON: ›Die Nachfolger Alexanders des Grossen in Baktrien und Indien‹,
pp. 165-231, 271-411 + pl. IV-X in: Zeitschrift für Numismatik (Berlin) VI, 1879;
pp. 296-307 in: VII, 1880
CHÉN SHÒU (CH'EN SHOU) 陳壽 (233–297): Sån–guó–zhí
(›History of the Three Kingdoms‹, in Chinese), 65 ch., woodblock edition, 20 vols. in
3 cassettes, Taipei 1955; punctuated edition, 5 vols., Peking 11959, 61975 SARIANIDI, VIKTOR IWANOWITSCH: Baktrisches G
Nekropole von Tillya-Tepe in Nordafghan
SCHIPPMANN, KLAUS: Grundzüge der parthischen Geschichte (Grundzüge 39)
1980
SCHLEGEL, GUSTAVE: ›The
Sounds‹, pp. 1–32 in: T'oung Pao (Leiden), Série II/I, 1900
SCHOTT, WILHELM: ›Pater Hyacinth’s Beschreibung de
Turkestan‹, pp. 164–177 in: Archiv der wissenschaftlichen Kunde
1. Band, 1841
SCHWARTZBERG, J
New York 11978, 21992 SEEL, OTTO: Pompei Trogi fragmenta, Leipzig 1956
Ursprünge der Seidenstraße. Sensationelle Neufunde
Ausstellungskatalog, herausgegeben von ALFRIED WIECZOREK und CHRISTOPH LIN
Stuttgart 2007
SELLWOOD, DAVID: ›Parthian Coins‹, pp. 279–298 + pl. 1–9 in: EHSAN YARSHATER (ed.): The
Cambridge History of Iran. Volume 3.1: The Seleucid, Parthian and Sasanian Pe
Cambridge 1983
SÐMÃ QIÅN (SSU-MA CH’IEN) 司馬遷 (145–85): Sh¯jì (Shih-chi) 史記 (Memoirs of the
Historian), 130 ch., woodblock edition, 48 vols. in 6 cassettes, Taipei 1966;
punctuated edition, 6 vols., Peking 1959
CÅNG XIØ–LIÁNG 倉修良 (chief ed.): Shiji Cidian 史記辭典 (Lexicon to the Shiji, in
Chinese), Jinan 1991
SHIRA’TORI, KURA’KICHI 白鳥庫吉: Sai–iki shi ken–kyø
History of the Western Regions, in Japanese), 2 vols., Tokyo 1941/1944
——— : ›Über den Wu–sun-Stamm in Centralasien‹, pp. 103–140 in: Keleti Szemle
közlemények
études ouralo-altaïques), Tome III, Budapest 1902
SIEG, EMIL: ›Ein einheimischer Name für Tocrï‹, pp. 560–565 in: Sit
Königlich Preus
SIEG, EMIL / SIEGLING, WILHELM: ›Tocharisch, die Sprache der Indoskythen
Bemerkungen über eine bisher unbe
pp. 915–934 in: Sitzungsberichte der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften (Berlin), 1908 / 1
SIMS-WILLIAMS, NICHOLAS: ›Nouveaux documents sur l’histoire et la langue de la
Bactriane‹ (Texte traduit par FRANTZ GRENET), p
Comptes rendus, Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres (Paris), 1996
SIMS-WILLIAMS, NICHOLAS / CRIBB, JOE: ›A New Bactrian Inscription of Kanishka
Great‹, pp. 75–142 in: Silk Road Art and Archaeology (Kamakura, Japan) 4,
SMITH, VINCENT A.: ›The Kushån,
A.D. 320‹, pp. 1–64 in: The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Brit
Ireland (London),
SPECHT, ÉDOUARD: ›Les Indo-Scythes et l'époque du règne de Kanichka d'après les
sources chinoises‹, pp. 152–193 in: Journal Asiatique (Paris), Neuvième Série X/1, Juillet-
Août 1897
——— : ›Note sur les Yué-tchi‹, pp. 180-185 in: Journal asiatique (Paris), Huitième Sér
XV/2, Février-Mars 1890
——— : ›Études sur l'Asie Centrale d'après les historiens chinois‹, pp. 317–350 in:
Journal asiatique (Paris), Huitième Série II/3, Oct.-Nov.-Déc. 1883
— 103 —

STAËL-HOLSTEIN 1914 .......
STRABO (RADT) ................
STRABO (LASSERRE) ..........
STRABO (JONES) ...............
STRABO (MEINEKE) ...........
STRABO (GROSKURD) ........
Suishu
............................
Tangshu
.........................
TARN
1938–51 ....................
THIERRY 2005 ...................
THOMAS
1906 ...................
TSCHERIKOWER
1927 .........
VAILLANT
1725 ..................
VAN
WINDEKENS 1941 ........
VASCONCELLOS 1883 .........
VIVIEN
DE SAINT-MARTIN
1850
WANG
GUOWEI 1923 ..........
WANG
XIANQIAN 1900 ........
WANG
YUEZHEN 1877 ........
WATSON
1993 ...................
WATSON
1969 ...................
WATSON 1961 ...................
WATSON
1956 ...................
WATSON
1886 ..................
Weishu
..........................
WYLIE
1881-82 ..................
XU
SONG 1893 ..................
STAËL-HOLSTEIN, A. VON: ›Koþano und Yüeh-shih‹, pp. 643–650 in: Sitzungsberichte der
Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften
(Berlin) XX–XXI, 1914
RADT, STEFAN: Strabons Geographika. Band 3, Buch IX–XIII: Text und Übersetzung,
Göttingen 2004
LASSERRE, FRANÇOIS: Strabon, Géographie. Tome VIII (Livre XI), Texte établi et traduit
par FRANÇOIS LASSERRE (Collection des Universités de France), Paris 1975
JONES, HORACE LEONARD: The Geography of Strabo, with an English translation by
HORACE LEONARD JONES, in 8 vols.,
V: Book X–XII, Cambridge (Mass.) 1928
STRABO: Strabonis Geographica. Recognovit AUGUSTUS MEINEKE, 3 vols.,
Leipzig 1866–1877
GROSKURD, CHRISTOPH GOTTLIEB: Strabons Erdbeschreibung in siebenzehn Büchern.
Nach berichtigtem griechischen Texte unter Begleitung kritischer
erklärender
Anmerkungen verdeutscht von CHRISTOPH GOTTLIEB GROSKURD.
4 vols.,
Berlin 1831–1834
WÈI ZH×NG 魏徵 (580–643): Suíshø 隨書 (›Historty of the Sui-Dynasty‹), 85 ch.,
woodblock edition, 20 vols. In 4 cassettes, Taipei 1956;
punctuated edition, , Peking
OØ–YÁNG XIØ 欧阳修 (1007–1072)
/ SÒNG QÍ 宋祁 (998–1061) : (New) Táng–shø (新) 唐
書 (›New History of the Tang-Dynasty‹), 225 ch., woodblock edition, 40 vols. in 7 cas-
settes, Taipei 1956; punctuated edition, 20 vols., Peking 1975
TARN, WILLIAM WOODTHORPE: The Greeks in Bactria and India,
Cambridge
97 (additional bibl.)
1–539 in BOPEARACHCHI, OSMUND / BOUSSAC, MARIE-FRANÇOISE (edd.): Afghanistan.
par
éologique Henri-Prades-
›Sakastana‹, pp. 181–216 in: The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of
(ABÎGEDÔR): Die hellenistischen Städtegründungen von
logus, Supplementband XIX,
idem
a. Per J. FOY VAILLANT. Tomus primus,
Muséon, 54/1–4, Louvain/Leuven 1941
s
883
Géographie Ancienne et d’Ethnographie
: Guåntáng jílín 觀堂集林 (Collection of a Wealth of Studies,
Hanshu with
), 1877,
ted by BURTON
an of China. Translated from the Shih chi of SSU–
EWITT WATSON.
r of
ssettes, Taipei 1956;
96, Part 1 & 2), pp. 20–73 in: The Journal of the Anthropological Institute
ntary Notes on the Western Regions chapter of the Hanshu
11938, 21951 (reprint, with Addenda),
Chicago 31985 (reprint, with new introduction and bibliography), 419 THIERRY, FRANÇOIS: ›Yuezhi et Kouchans. Pièges et dangers des sources chinoises‹,
pp. 42
Ancien carrefour entre l’Est et l’Ouest. Actes du colloque international, organisé
CHRISTIAN LANDES et OSMUND BOPEARACHCHI au Musée arch
Lattes du 5 au 7 mai 2003, (Indicopleustoi. Archaeologies of the Indian Ocean, 3:
Afghanistan), Turnhout 2005
THOMAS, F. W.:
Great Britain & Ireland (London), January 1906
TSCHERIKOWER, VIKTOR
Alexander dem Grossen bis auf die Römerzeit (Philo
Heft 1), Leipzig 1927, New York 1973 (reprint)
VAILLANT, JEAN FOY: Arsacidarum Imperium, sive Regum Parthorum Historia. Ad f
Numismatum accommodat
Paris 1725
VAN WINDEKENS, A. J.: ›Huns Blancs et Årçi. Essai sur les appellations du “tokharien”‹,
pp. 161–186 in: Le
VASCONCELLOS-ABREU, GUILHERME DE: ›De l'origine probable des Toukhares et de leur
migrations à travers l'Asie‹, pp. 165–188 in: Le Muséon, 2, Louvain/Leuven 1
VIVIEN DE SAINT-MARTIN, LOUIS: Études de
asiatique, par M. VIVIEN DE SAINT-MARTIN, Tome premier, Paris 1850
WÁNG GUÓWÉI 王國維
in Chinese), 4 vols., Shanghai 1923, Peking 1959 (reprint)
WÁNG, XIÅNQIÅN 王先謙 (1842–1918): Hàn–shø b÷–zhù 漢書補注 (The
Supplementary Notes, in Chinese), Changsha 1900, Peking 1983 (reprint)
WÅNG, YU×ZH×N 汪曰楨 : (Lìdài) chángshù jíyào (歷代)長術輯要 (Abrégé de la
chronologie néoménique des dynasties successives
Taipei 1965 (reprint in: Sìbù bèiyào, z¯bù 四部備要 子部 )
WATSON, BURTON: Records of the Grand Historian. By SIMA QIAN, transla
WATSON. Han Dynasty I/II (revised edition), 2 vols., New York/Hongkong 1993
——— : Records of the Historian. Chapters from the Shih chi of SSU–MA CH’IEN,
translated by BURTON WATSON, New York/London 1969
——— : Records of the Grand Histori
MA CH'IEN by BURTON WATSON, 2 vols., New York/London 1961
——— : Ssu–ma Ch’ien: The Historian and His Work. BURTON D
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Docto
Philosophy, in the Faculty of Philosophy, of Columbia University, New York 1956
WATSON, JOHN SELBY: Justin, Cornelius Nepos, and Eutropius, literally translated, with
notes and a general index, London 1853, 1886 (reprint)
WÈI SHÕU 魏收 (507–572): Wèishø 魏書 (›History of the Toba-Wei Dynasty‹), 114 ch.,
woodblock edition, 50 vols. in 7 ca
punctuated edition, , Peking
WYLIE, ALEXANDER: ›Notes on the Western Regions‹ (Translated from the “Tsë¥n Han
Shoo”, Book
of Great Britain and Irland (London) X, 1881; pp. 83–115: XI, 1882
XU SONG 徐松 : Suppleme
(Hanshu, ch. 96) 漢書西域傳補注, in two parts,
no place of publication, Preface dated 光緒癸巳 = 1893
— 104 —

XUÁN ZÀNG (BEAL) ...........
YARDLEY 2003 ..................
YASUMA
1932 ....................
Yizhoushu .......................
YULE
1873 ........................
ZEJMAL'
1992 ...................
ZEJMAL'
1983 ...................
XUÁN ZÀNG (HIUEN TSANG) 玄奘 : Si–yu–ki 西域記. Buddhist records of the Western
World (Translated from the Chinese of HIUEN TSIANG, A.D. 629–644, by SAMUEL BEAL.
2 vols., Trübners Oriental series 45), London 1884, Delhi 1969 (reprint)
YARDLEY, JOHN C.: Justin and Pompeius Trogus: A Study of the Language of Justin’s
Epitome of Trogus (Phoenix. Journal of the Classical Association of Canada/Revue de la
Société canadienne des édudes classiques, Suppl.Vol./Tome suppl. XLI),
Toronto 2003
YASU’MA YA’ICHI’RÕ 安馬彌一郎: ›Gesshi no seihô-idô ni tsuite‹ 月氏の西 方動に
就 いて (›On the Western Migration of the Ruzhi‹, in Japanese), pp. 660–666
in:
Shigaku zasshi 史 学雑誌 (Tokyo) 43, 1932
A Concordance to the Yizhoushu 逸周書逐字索引 (The ICS Ancient Chinese Text
Concordance Series 前秦兩漢古逐字索引叢刊, in Chinese),
Hongkong 1992
YULE, HENRY: ›Notes
on Hwen Thsang's Account of the Principalities of Tokháristán, in
which some Previous Geographical Identifications are Reconsidered‹, pp. 92-120 in:
The
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and
Ireland (London) VI, 1873
ZEJMAL' (ZEIMAL', ZEYMAL'), EVGENIJ
VLADISLAVOVI¾: ›Eastern (Chinese) Turkestan on the
Silk Road, First millennium A.D.: Numismatic evidence‹, pp. 137–177 in:
Silk Road Art and Archaeology (Kamakura, Japan) 2, 1991 / 1992
——— : ›The Political History of Transoxiana‹, pp. 232–262 + pl.
19–24 in
EHSAN YARSHATER (ed.): The Cambridge History of Iran. Volume 3.1: The Seleucid,
Parthian and Sasanian Periods, Cambridge 1983
— 105 —

— 106 —

— 1 —