Sino-Iranica - The Search For Mecca

Irano-Sinica—The Name China 569
stan). 1 The parallelism of initial I and 5 corresponds exactly to the
Greek doublet SZvat and Qlvai ( = Cinai), and the Iranian forms
with c meet their counterpart in Sanskrit Cina (Cina). This state of
affairs renders probable the supposition that the Indian, Iranian, and
Greek designations for China have issued from a common source, and
that this prototype may be sought for in China itself. I am now inclined
to think that there is some degree of probability in the old theory that
the name "China" should be traceable to that of the dynasty Ts'in.
I formerly rejected this theory, simply for the reason that no one had
as yet presented a convincing demonstration of the case; 2 nor did I
become converted by the demonstration in favor of Ts'in then attempted
by Pelliot. 3 Pelliot has cited several examples from which it appears
that even under the Han the Chinese were still designated as "men of
the Ts'in" in Central Asia. This fact in itself is interesting, but does
not go to prove that the foreign names Cina, Cen, etc., are based on
the name Ts'in. It must be shown phonetically that such a derivation
is possible, and this is what Pelliot failed to demonstrate: he does
not even dwell for a moment on the question of the ancient pronunciation
of the character ts'in at?. If in ancient times it should have had the
same articulation as at present, the alleged phonetic coincidence with
the foreign designations would amount to nothing. The ancient phonetic
value of ^ was *din, *dzin, *d2in (jin), *d2'in, with initial dental
or palatal sonant; 4 and it is possible, and in harmony with phonetic
1 R. Gauthiot, T'oung Pao, 1913, p. 428.
:
T'oung Pao, 1 912, pp. 719-726.
3
Ibid., pp. 727-742. The mention of the name Cina in the Arthacastra of
Canakya or Kautilya, and Jacobi's opinion on the question, did not at all prompt me
to my view, as represented by Pelliot. I had held this view for at least ten years
previously, and Jacobi's article simply offered the occasion which led me to express
my view. Pelliot's commotion over the date of the Sanskrit work was superfluous.
I shall point only to the judgment of V. A. Smith (Early History of India, 3d ed.,
1914, p. 153), who says that "the Arthagastra is a genuine ancient work of Maurya
age, and presumably attributed rightly to Canakya or Kautilya; this verdict, of
course, does not exclude the possibility, or probability, that the existing text may
contain minor interpolations of later date, but the bulk of the book certainly dates
from the Maurya period," and to the statement of A. B. Keith (Journal Roy.
As. Soc, 1916, p. 137), "It is perfectly possible that the Arthacastra is an early
work, and that it may be assigned to the first century B.C., while its matter very
probably is older by a good deal than that." The doubts as to the Ts'in etymology
of the name "China" came from many quarters. Thus J. J. Modi (Asiatic Papers.
p. 247), on the supposition that the Farvardin YaSt may have been written prior
to the fourth or fifth century B.C., argued, "If so, the fact that the name of China
as Saini occurs in this old document, throws a doubt on the belief that it was the
Ts'in dynasty of the third century B.C. that gave its name to China. It appears,
therefore, that the name was older than the third century B.C."
4 In the dialect of Shanghai it is still pronounced dzin.