Chris M. Dorn'eich

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 —