張騫 Zhang Qian. The Secret Envoy of Han Emperor Wu in Search of the Arsi (Yuezhi) and the Fall of the Græco-Bactrian Kingdom. (Annotated Compilation of Eastern and Western Sources)

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 menion
in this particular place, Shiji 123. But he had given a full account of the Xiongnu
t
history, down to his own time, in Shiji 110: From this we know that it was Chanyu Jun-
He died, as stated above, in the winter which followed year 2 (of Han Emperor
chen.
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 winer
months (lunar months 10–12); after that date, it started with the three months of
t
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-
established in Daxia 大 夏 or Tochara. In Hanshu 96, Ban Gu then simply connect-
ly
ed the two points with a straight line and let the 月 氏 hit upon and subjugate the Da-
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
xia
in
— 20 —