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)

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:
Tuhuoluo ... is the old Daxia territory.
(Xin) Tangshu 221B. 6252
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 la
st Græco-Bactrian kings. When the Ruzhi 月 氏
— 38 —