On the other hand, a mistaken spelling such as wc'y#ttik, to be found in carelessly
written texts only, is not quite on the same level with $-ywt~ (etc.) attested for all
periods of Sogdian writing. This mode of writing is confined to Sogdian writing proper,
it is not employed in texts written in, e.g., Manichsean characters (cf. Man.S. Swyt',
etc.), a fact which can be explained best by assuming that Sywt-, syM>3-> etc., represent
dialectical forms used in that dialect which was chosen as literary language when
Sogdiaii writing was established; the development: 8uyd- > &uyud- > Buyud (shifting of
accent on anaptyctical vowel) offers no difficulty. Confirmation may be found in
cuneiform sugud, suguud (irregularly used) and in Christian Sogd. yw$r- ~ -yuddr < uyddr-
(uayddr, see Lentz, ST., ii, p. 584), ywr't-= yaghn. yurat- from uyrdt- (< idyrdl-, sec
Beichthuch, p. 84). However, these cases of metathesis, restricted to sonantic u before y
followed by a consonant, offer no strict parallel to *tuxar > t^nar.
"Occasionally, progressive metathesis of u before k can be found,1 e.g. Buddh. S. 'fiz'ykwstr
(Dhyana 41) = d$w%kmta$f from 'ftyzywk " distressed " = dfizdxu/c,2 Chr. S. bz'xwq =
fizaxuk and, through different metathesis, bwz'xq = fiuz&xk (s--e J^entz, ST., ii, p.
580) Closer parallel would be Man. S. ymnkw''tic " devilish '' = sdtiM-ttkud'ttc beside
older smn-wk'nc ~ sd-ittanukdnc (intermediary form Buddh. S. 'tBrmnurkw'nch =
dsmanukiianc), see Beiclitbuch, p. 78. The closest parallel imaginable exists perhaps in
Chin, ^fj fg. pu-x^o, rendering the name of Bu^ara (beside f^ B^ pu-x°, *&uo-ydi,
Karlgren 49 + 295 = buxdr), which possibly represents *6i*^i/dr (*puo-xudt, Karlgren 42 +
57; second sign also in p£ ^ H t'u-xuo-lo, *t'ao-xudi-ld, Karlgren 1129 + 57 + 569).
Even though it cannot be decided with any amount of certainty which of the two forms is
older: txuHr (-jtxuar, tax'idr, toxuar) or toxdr (tuxdr), there cannot be the least doubt
that these two forms only were used as the names of Bactria; of these two forms tx^dr
(etc.) alone was employed in Central Asia. It is, therefore, completely out of the
question to assume that the famous twyry in Uyγur
1 For the opposite cf. Chr. swq-: Buddh., Man. (')skw-t Chr, pcwq'd'r- beside plsqw'd'r-
(see ST., ii, a.v,), Chr. pcwqyr- = pacufeir- < packuir (later > pcuhir- > yaghn. tukir-,
see Beichtbuch, p. 69).
* ~y- = " historical spelling."
<>ju \V. IS. HKNNTNG—
colophons of Buddhist texts referred to Tokharistan. In Uyγur which, as a rule, closely
follows Sogdian in matters of orthography the name of Baetria would be written *"lyw'ry
or *tytv'ry. Moreover, the Sogdian form corresponding to Uyγur twyry is attested in the
Sogdian version of the Karahalgasim inscription, in the identical1 spelling twyr'k: it is
flatly impossible tiiat tγw'r'k and Iwyfk represented one and the same name.
if, however, Tokharistan is excluded, it is necessary to take up the problem afresh: which country, which nation, which language is meant by twyry 'I It is better to leave
aside, for the present, the Uyγur colophons, which have proved to be anything but
unambiguous. The most important passage is the Sogdian Karabalgasun inscription, line 19
(ed. 0. Hansen, p. "20); the Uyγur king is said to have annihilated:—
yfn Iwpwitfmj '-$7/3 m'ywny ZY ctfi'r twyfkciiy ZY yrp 'ny ...
'" the powerful Tibetan army completely as well as the Four-Twyry (army) and many other
Near the end of the same line (ID) Qarluq and Tibetans are mentioned. The preceding line
(18) deals with the destruction of the Qi'rqi'z, corresponding to xiii, 61-xiv, 38, of
the Chinese version (ed. G. Schlegel, MSFO., ix). After the annihilation of the Qi'rqi'z
the Chinese inscription describes at length the war against the Qarluq and the Tibetans
(corr. to Sogd., 1. 19) which was waged near Pei-t'ing (Chin, xv — Bisbaliq) and Kuca
(Chin, xvi); farther on a campaign is mentioned, presumably against the Qarluq, in the
course of which the Qayan reaches the Pearl River (= Sirdarya). The comparison of the two
versions tends 4x> prove that the country (or nation) ctfi'r iwyfk " Four Twyry " is to
be looked for near (or between) Bisbaliq and Kuca.-
1 For th<3 Sogdian ending -k (also written -'w, -'//, -k, -y) was pronounced as -e. * It
is my conviction that the site of " Four Twyry " is to be determined solely by comparing
both versions of the inscription. The identity of (.lie Qayun, e.g., does not matter much
for our purpose: it was, according to Chavannes and Pelliot (Trails Maniche&n, pp. 203,
22; f), At tangridti qut bulin'is alp bilga u'iyiir qityaii (808-821; he set up the
inscription), according to Schlegel Tamjridd uliiij bidmis alp qutluy 'nitty bilga qaya/i,
(795-805); the Sogdian version supports, I think, Sehlegel'a view. Even the true date of
the campaigns carried out, ace. to Schlegel, before the Qayan acceded to the throne, is
only of secondary import: the war against the Qirqi'z is identified (by Schlegel, p. 8(3)
with their defeat in 758 (hardly credible), whilst the expeditions against Qarluq and
Tibetans refer (ace. to Hchlegcl, p. £7) to the great battle near Pei-t'ing in 791; as
to the siege of Kuca, cf. Chavannes-PeJliot, Traitc, p. 202, n. 1.
ARGI AND THE " TOKHARIANS "
The final ~y of twyry, corresponding to Sogdian -'&, is a Sogdian ending; the real name,
therefore, was Iwyr. From twyr, Middle Persian twyryst'n = twyr-istdn is derived, i.e.
the country where the Twyr are living, twyryst'n, written in Manichaean script, proves
that y in twyry was pronounced as y (i.e. voiced guttural fricative), not as % (in
Sogdian characters y and ^ are written with the same sign). It occurs in a Manichsean
hyinn (Miiller, Handschri/tenreste, i, p. 351) which praises:—
. m . mry wh[m]n xwrxsyd hmwc'g ['y] hwr's'n p'ygw[s]. . n . rimgyn s'r'[r] ['y] ch'r
" Mar Wahman-^war^seS, ' Teacher ' of the archbishopric ' East',
Famous (religious) head of Four-Twyr-country." It has been shown elsewhere that hwarasdn
pdygos is the official designation of the easternmost Manichaean archbishopric,
comprising all Manichsean communities east of the Pamirs (Beichtbuch, p. 10); the
archbishop's (" teacher's ") see was Kao-c'ang (Qoco), during the reign of the northern
Uygurs, probably even before that time (see ZDMG., 90, pp. 14 sqq.). It is noteworthy
that in the above passage besides the usual designation hamozdy i hwarasdn pdygos the
archbishop (or, perhaps better, patriarch) is given the additional title " Head of Four-Twyr-country
". One might conclude that " Four-Twyr-country " was the original name of the
patriarchate before the conversion of the Uyγurs which led to the acceptance of a more
ambitious title, " head of the patriarchate ' East' "; later on, of course, the older
and more modest title was dropped. Tlie older name of the patriarchate was probably
taken, from the name of the country where the hierarch was residing: consequently, Qoco
was a town in the " Four-Twyr-country ".
In Turkish texts, apart from Buddhist colophons, twyry occurs once only, namely in the
colophon of a Manicheeau book, published by von Le Coq, Turk. Man., \, p. 27. The passage
is badly mutilated, as can be seen from the photograph (plate iii, top of left-hand
side). The word standing immediately before twyry (end of line 3) has been read by von Le
Coq: \t]oi-n (? ?); instead of this not quite satisfactory reading I should like to
propose: t&rt, i.e. twyrt (r drawled to fill the line, t at its end; minute traces of
initial t are still perceivable). The text runs as follows:—
(3) mr wyinnyy'ryzd twyrt
(4) twyry $qy 'wlwy mwz'k
MA W. B. HENNING—
" Mar "Wahman-hayar-yazd, the great patriarch (archbishop, teacher) residing in Four-Twyry."
The country where the book was written to which the colophon is attached was, therefore,
part of the Manichsean patriarchate " Four-Twyr-country ". This country is
determined by the following names: Aryu (district between IsbTgab and Balasayun, KasyarT, i, 31; between Taraz and Balasayun, KasyarT, i, 114), Tolas (Taraz, Aulie-ata), Yk'nknt ( = o^-XJLX-s
i.e. ^-X->Lx_j_ between Taraz and Mirki, Hudud al-'Alam, transl. Minorsky, p. 119 [§"25,
93J; £^-> L£J in Isbwjab, Maqdisi, ed. de Goeje, p. 48, 1. H; 263, 1. 2; 274, 1. 9), Qasu (unknown), Ciyil-baliq (the second Cigil, a town near Taraz, mentioned by Kasyarf, i?
330, and by MaqdisT, p. 48, 1. 15, etc.; see Minorsky, Hudud, pp. 298 sq.), and Ordukdnt
(probably = Ordu, Kdsyan, i, 112, a qasabah^near Balasayun; usually Ordukant is = KaSyar; it cannot possibly be intended here, though there were villages called Cigil also in the
neighbourhood of Kasyar, see Kasyari, i, 330). The two last names are joined (Ordu-Ciyil-kant)
in the title of the king in whose honour the book was written. His name, Cigil arslan il
tirgiig alp buryucan alp tarqan bag, has been compared, by von Le Coq (p. 44), with
Arslan Tarqan, name of a king of Faryana, who in 739, 745, 751 sent embassies to the
Chinese Court (Chavannes, Doc., pp. 147, 149, 295). This identification, however, can
hardly be accepted; for Arslan Tarqan was a powerful king of Faryana, whilst the king
mentioned in the colophon was ruling over a comparatively small district round aboui
Talas and Balasayun, over Aryu. Otherwise, the more modest title given to the patriarch
suggests that the book was written before the conversion of the Uyγurs (762), i.e. about
the time of Arslan Tarqan's reign. Howsoever that be, the main point is that the
Manichsean communities of Aryu formed part of the patriarchate the head of which was
residing in far-away " Four-Twyry ". I should like to add that there is no ground
whatever for the usual assertion that Mar Wahman-hayar-yazd was " teacher " of
Tokharistan, which is based solely upon the fact that, in 719, Tes, king of Cayaniyan and
Tokharistan, sent a Manichaaan "teacher" as ambassador to the Chinese emperor (cf.
Chavannes-Pelliot, Traite, pp. 220 sq.). On the other hand, it is admissible to state
that Wahman-hayar-yazd was a predecessor or a successor ta the mu-sa mentioned in the
Chinese Karabalgasun inscription (x, 62-3); he may have been even the same holder of
AKGl AN'D THE " TOKHARIANS " 553
The only occurrence of the name " Twyr " which has not yet been mentioned in the course
of the present article seems to be Saka ttaugara: its main value, I think, lies in that
it has provoked Professor Bailey's ingenious contribution. It occurs in the Saka part of
the Stael Holstein scroll, published along with the Tibetan document by Professor F. W.
Thomas and Professor Sten Konow (Two medieval documents from Tun-huang, Oslo, 1929), in a
list of names (27-31) that follows another list containing place-names (10-26). In the
course of the last years, it has become increasingly clear * that this list of
place-names, undoubtedly one of the most valuable documents for the history of Central
Asia, enumerates at first places between (about) Khotan and Liang-tsou 2 and then the
towns of Si-tsou,3 from Q.omul in the east to Urunici and Camilbali'q in the west.
Several names mentioned separately at the end of the list are possibly to be placed to
the south of Tun-^uang.4
The second list, however, in which ttaugara stands, contains names of nations. Professor
Bailey, comparing a document from Sa-tsou which offers similar names in an enumeration of
the tribes that constituted the population of Kan-tsou, drew the inference that the
nations mentioned in the Stael Holsteiii scroll were to be looked for also in Kansu. On
the other hand, the names which are common to both lists are comparatively few, namely
(1) Tolls (tullsi <—- Uudlsa, 5), (2) Turk Bayirqu,6 (3) imju, ijuva, imjuva. The
alternative possibility that the list of nations refers to the territory described before
cannot, perhaps, be discarded. As there was no need for the envoys of the Khotanese king
to describe the population of the Khotan region the list probably relates to the
inhabitants of Kan-su (with Sa-tsou) and Si-tsou.
The list of nations is divided into two sections, the first of which (27-8) ends with tti
tullsi stare " these are Tolis ". The summarization of the second section (29 sqq.) to be
found in the words tti ttari
1 Besides the edition, cf. Clauson, JJtAX,, 1031, pp. 207-809; F. W. BSOS., viii, pp.
793 sq., ZDMG., 91, pp. J3-15, 47 sq.; Minorsky, Hudud pp. 271 sq., 292.
2 Gakimamni (14), between Kua-tsou and Wu-tsou, is probably ^ P (* lujiMol-mutn, Karlgrtm
1318 -f- 609).
3 Secu (17, 20), see Bailey and Minorsky, B8OH., viii, p. 120.
* Anittumga may be the same name as later Handling (s. Hretsohneider, lies., ii, pp. 218
6 Cf. twlys ~ Tolls, in Manichtcan script (as part of a name, Mabrnamag H See Minorsky,
BSOS., viii, p. 918.
Medieval , line (17).
W. B. HENNINO-
ttrusahula is less clear. Professor Bailey, with whom I had the pleasure of discussing
the passage, believes that du is to be read instead of ttru; he further suggests taking ttaridusa- for one word and comparing Tardus, the well-known name of a federation of
Turkish tribes, written ttardasa in unpublished Saka documents. In that case I should
like to propose to take -hula for an irregular spelling of classical Saka kvata, and to
translate "these are called Tardus". Three further names constitute the end of the list.
The two federations, Tolis and Tardus, were, according to V. Thomson (Inscriptions, pp.
146 s.), the main constituents of the Eastern Turks.1 It is the natural course,
therefore, to pay attention to the names of Eastern Turkish tribes in attempting to
identify the names offered by the Saka list. The Chinese lists of fifteen. Tolis tribes
and of nine proper Uyγur tribes, will prove helpful (enumerated by Chavannes, Doc., pp.
87 sq., 94; by Schlegel, Karabalgasun, pp. 1, 8 sq,; Schlegel has earned the gratitude
of non-Sinologists by indicating the contemporary Chinese pronunciation which alone, even
though sometimes not quite correct, renders identifications possible). The various names
of the Saka list are to be examined separately:—-
(1) Both sections begin with the same word, or with two similar words, namely (a) ijuva,
probably misspelt for imjuva, and (b) imju. Professor Minorsky compares Turk, incii "
appanage " (BSOS., viii, p. 918) or inju " the tribe belonging to the chief's household "
(ffudud, p. 292). It is indeed very likely that the word is a term for a tribal division
if it is not the name of a tribe. It occurs in the Uyγur fragment published by Haneda
(Mem. Res. Dep. Toyo Bunko, Nr. 6, pp. 1-21), A 10 sq.: incu urungu sangun apa cur oo
incii ... As the names of the Uyγur Manichaeans enumerated in the fragment are usually
preceded by an indication of their origin, either a geographical term (e.g. k'dsanliy) or
the name of a tribe (e.g. k'nc'k, see Bailey, Ttauf/ara, p. 913, n. 1), it is probable
that incii has a similar meaning; Haneda's interpretation2 of the word as "pearl" (p. 7)
is hardly admissible: in Uyγur " pearl " is yineii, not 'yncw.—Qf. also lei iinjuva,
surely the name of a tribe, in the Satsou document published
1 It is not felt necessary to enter into a discussion of the iSie-ien-to (supposedly Sir
2 In the same fragment, B 2, nyws'kl'[r] " auditores " is to be read instead of the
mysterious H'^iwikla[r]; the cigsi Myr "y&y (Mif-tiyaBe] is a Sogdian (" Sunday-wish ").
ARGl AXU THE ' TUKliARIANS
by Bailey, Ttaugara, p. 883, mentioned along with Tolis, Turk Bayirqu, and hdltibara.1
(2) yah:idakari, i,e. yaylaqar, is ^ |§ ^ itt't.i~lo-ko, *iak-ld-Mt (Karlgren 568 -j- 569
+ 73), clan of the Uyγur kings. Professor Bailey has kindly drawn my attention to
Yaγlaqar qart ata, an Uyγur chief, whose epitaph has been published by llamstedt ('' Zwei
uigurische runeninschriften," JSFO., xxx, 3, p. 4); furthermore, he told me that
Professor Miuorsky had cominuuicated to him his discovery of the same name in the
Mahrnamag, line 62: yy^x? ( — yaylaqar) 'inal.
(3) adapahutti, i.e. alpayut " the men bound to pay a tribute or .to take service" (Minorsky,
Hmlud, p. 292); cf. Uyγur alpayut as
title (Muller, Pfahlinsckri/ten, p. 23, line 14), Orkhon inscr. alpayu, etc. (Thomsen, p.
(4) bdku, i.e. *boqu or bttqu, and (5) baslkalti, i.e. *bosqot, busqut, are unknown to
me. Besides the name of the famous Uyγur Qayan Bogii (Buyuy), *buqu recalls |^ ^ pu-ku, a
Tolid tribe (*b'uok-ku3t, Karlgren 760+427: i-plural?). There is some likeness between
bdsikdUi and fg Uffc ,g, f£ wo-ko-si-ki ^muk-kd-sidk-ki'Jt, Karlgren 686 + 413 + 780 +
332, might be *boqs$qU), an Uyγur tribe; it would be necessary to assume a mistake in
the Chinese rendering.
(6) kumbwi 2 (different from karibari), i.e. *kurabir, *kurabor, is exactly (J=L j£ >S$
ku-lo-po (*kiu-ld-b'u2t, Karlgren 488 + 569 + 748), an Uyγur tribe, mentioned in the
Kiu-T'ang-su along with a long list of Tolis tribes. Ku-lo-po also occurs as the name of
an Qyyur chief (ace. to Chavannes, chief of the tribe Ku-lo-po) who plays an important
role in the internal Uyγur quarrels in 648, v. Chavannes, Doc., pp. 91 sq., 338. I have
not been able to find any other mention of the Ku-lo-po; I should like, however, to
propose that Kii-lo-po is to be regarded as the same name as P[iJ H ^j or [ijg; , i.e.
the third Uyγur tribe. The Chinese signs (tu-lo-u) indicate *tu3t-ld~miudt and *~xudt-ld-miu&t
(missing 3 -f 569 -f 1278); -ld-miudt is an exact rendering of -rablri; #/ miudt = Saka
biri is to be found elsewhere; cf. also ^
1 Ace. to Minorsky, BSOS., viii, 918, |q]" Pg xo-tie (*xd-d'iet), a Tolis tribe. The
Chinese rendering would be unusually imperfect; other transcriptions, e.g. [JpJ jj^
o-tie (*-d-d'iet, Karlgren 414 + 880) cf.
o-pa (* -d-b'uut and -d-(
I -WT. * - | itn * .
750) indicate a vowel as initial; ace. to Chavannes, DOG., p. 88 n., = Adiz.
2 karabiri (BSOS., viii, p. 884) is a misprint; so also is inijuva.
3 Dr. W. Simon kindly communicated to me T'ang values (in keeping with Karlgren's system)
for the characters in question, missing in the Analytical Dictionary.
W. B. HJSNtflNG—
*miet («**', Karlgren 617) transcribed by bin (F. W. Thomas, ZDMG., 91, p. 33). The
difficulty, therefore, lies with the first sign: P$ *tuat and pJ3t *%U3t side by side
suggest a mistake. The original spelling may have been JJ3j *k'iudt (k'u, Karlgren 493); hence, *kciudt-ld-
and kiu-'lu-b'udt = Saka kurabiri.
(7) karibari, i.e. *qorbaf, *qurbar, probably the Tolis tribe ^g; & 3£ K'i-pi, *kidl-piet
(Karlgren 334 -f 717) and kidt-b'iet* It is true that there is also a trisyllabic
spelling, %% (u, *jju, 1320), further, that for the first sign the alternative
pronunciation *k(iei is admissible 2; consideration of these points may account for
Schlegel's *Kibyi. The vowels do not disagree with the proposed equation; kidt-piet
appears to be a correct rendering of *qorbar if, e.g., ^ *wiet is considered wlu'ch
corresponds to inn as well as to mola (inuda), see farther on.
(8) sikari, preceded by imju, is the first name of the second section.
There can be no doubt about the identity of sikari with ^ $j si-kie,
*si-kiet (813 + 325), a Tolis tribe; for the first sign, si, cf. F. W.
Thomas, ZDMG., 91, p. 38. As far as I know, it is not mentioned
elsewhere that the Si-kie were the royal clan of the Tardus 3; this
inference is to be drawn from our text if imju is indeed the same
word as i[m]juva and if the meaning " royal clan ", as proposed by
Professor Minorsky, is to be admitted; it suits very well in connection
with Yaγlaqar who were the '"' royal clan " of the Uyγurs, therefore
of the Tolis too. Its does not matter in the least that the Si-kie (and
other tribes mentioned in our list as Tardus) are called Tolis elsewhere
as the composition of the great federations was subject to constant
(9) Uaugara is followed by (10) ayabmf written ayamri in unpublished Saka documents,
according to Professor Bailey. This is, I think, the last of the nine Uyγur tribes, ^ !flj
fy hi-ie-u, *yiei-ia-miudt (126 -f 791 -f- 1278), i.e. *eyabor or ei/afiir (Schlegel: Eyamur); £rj = inn has been found in kurabiri (see above); ~ya- in Brahmi
1 Here again, I owe the T'ang pronunciation of the last sign (not in Karlgren's book) to
the kindness of Dr. Simon.
2 I am not aware if there is any means of deciding which pronunciation is the correct one
in a given case; if i'l'ei should prove correct one might think of qyftyr in the Fragment
Haneda (in that case, of course, the above explanation of kdribari had to be abandoned).
3 No connection can be traced between the Si-kie and the (Sie-)ien-to, apart from the
fact that the Si-kie " occupaient 1'ancien campement des Yen-t'o (Tardouch) ", Chavannes,
Doc., p. 88 n.; the name of toe royal clan of the (Sie-)yen-to was •—- ^i] PJ i-U-tie
(t^et-lji-d'iet, *Elitir], Chavannes, Doc., p. 94.
ABGl AND THE TQ^HAKIANS
script = " Ancient Chinese " ia is attested, e.g. for Jfo (223) and 31$ (226), see F. W.
Thomas, ZDMG., 91, p. 41. It is perhaps to be considered if this explanation is to be
preferred to Professor Thomas's combination with Emit, Emin (ibid., p. 48), written in
Chinese P(§ H ien-mie (*'ien-wiet, 273 + 622) and
5 ^en-mlen (*m'ien-'tman, 624), i.e. exactly Emit, Emin L (also tribal name, Chavannes,
Doc., p. 123 n.).
(11) caraik.i, i.e. *cany, *6arix> perhaps even *car'iq (on h and h: see Bailey, BSOS.,
ix, pp. 297 sqq., esp. p. 300 n.). This tribe, uS^-r" = Car'iq, Caruq, is to be found
later on in Barcuq (Maralbasi), as stated by Kasyari (i, 318) who, furthermore, indicates
that at his time (second half of eleventh century) the <J,^f" were living between Yayma
(in Kasyar) and Cuinul (near Manass), i, 28.2
(12) yabuttilcari, i.e. *ydbuiqar or *yabiitkdr, probably the eighth Uyγur tribe, ijjjg
^j ^ lau-u-ko, *iak-miudt-kdt (568 + 1278 + 73), Schlegel's Yamukar. The first and the
third sign are employed also for yay-la-qar; it is, however, rather strange to find the
same character used in rendering both ya and yay; no doubt need be felt about ^j as
equivalent of butti (but) as well as bin (bor).
(13) anak.idi'pabkiitti is a puzzle (-bh- is also unusual). Possibly two words: ana "
other " yilpabut ? Another (equally unsatisfactory) explanation has been proposed above,
p. 557, n. 1.
(14) karattakapata, Professor Bailey explains karattaha as Turkish Qara-tay. This is
surely right 3 and could be supported by ylpikim-nittah'.i (in the Sa-tsou document,
Bailey, Ttaugara, p. 883) which can be explained only as Turk, yipkin tay " brown
(violet) mountains ". -paia (Bailey, Ttaugara, p. 884 n. 3: = pati " lord ") is rather
curious here; one might expect a post-position " in " ( = classical Saka paid11.).
(15) saditmya, struck out in the manuscript, follows upon tti ttaridusa kuta. Professor
Bailey has recognized Sulmi (Solmi), cf.
1 The combination of ayablri and emil would require the presupposition of (erroneous)
re-transcription from Chinese (confusion of m and b); the mysterious ailuhiuJipabkuMi
may have to be explained in that way; this could be re-transcribed from Chinese, say,
*-^J- ^ j£ •fyj *1dti-iak-li3p-mj,-it3tl representing Turkish *anyaylibu,t or the like. A
Chinese intermediate form alone explains Saka hvaifiiura = uiyur, containing hvai = [D]
yudi (xuei), s. Bailey, Ttaugara, p. 883, n. 2.
2 I disregard the iyraq, u-yraq, living between Yayma and Cariq.
3 The alternative explanation as name of a nation, suggesting *qara-taypat with the name
of the Wei (t(o-po, *t'dk-b'udt, 1159 -f- 750; cf. t'-u-fa, *t'uk-piu>ot, 1131 -f 750,
s. Haloun, ZUMG., 91, p. 275), is certainly to be rejected.
W. B, HENNING—
Haiieda's above-mentioned article, pp. 10 sqq.; Pelliot, T'oung Pao)
1931, 493 sq.; JA., 1934, i, p. 58; Minorsky, Hudud, p. 272. It
occurs in a. Sogdian letter published by Reichelt, Soghdische JHandschriftenreste, ii, p. 61, line 3, where swrin'y ywfiw "king of Sohni"
should be read (instead of sw'mny).1 It does not appear to be known
which country is meant by Sulmi: it is somewhere " near " Bisbali'q (in Mongol
time), it is one of the five important places in the Uyγur
country (Kasyarl), situated much nearer to Qoco than to Bisbaliq
(Kasyari's map); it was not always dependent upon the Uyγurs
(suhm yivfiw side by side with " the Uyγur king " in the Sogdian letter);
called Uc-Sulrm "three Sulnn ", it is mentioned on the same level
with Kuca (tort kiisan) as a country of importance for the propagation
of Buddhism. It is tempting to think of Qara-sahr.
(16) Tlirk Bayirqu is followed by (17) cunuda, the last name on the list; the employment
of n suggests a mistake on the side of the scribe: probably cumuda was intended. This is
obviously a later form of cimola in the Niya documents, written cimudct and, as Professor
Bailey has told me, cumuda in unpublished Saka documents. The identity of this people
with Kasyari's Cumul (cf. Minorsky, Hudud, p. 275) has been stated by Bailey, Ttaugara,
p. 917, n. 1. They were known to the Chinese as ^ ^ or ^ ts'u-mi, *t's''iwo-miet (1256 -f
617), living in exactly the same region as the Cumul were according to Kasyarl, i.e. near
Manass (cf. Chavannes, Doc., register s.v. Tch'ou-mi); the Chinese transcription points
to cvmul rather than cumul.z On 3^ wiet see above, pp. 555 sq.
Accordingly, the Saka list of nations may be translated: " The royal clan Yaγlaqar, the
fief tribes *Buqu, *Busqut, Kiirabdr, Qorbar: these are Tolis. The royal clan Sikar (the
fief tribes) Itauyava, Eyabo'r, Cany, Yabtitkar, (and) *other *yilpabut in the Black
Mountains: these are called Tardus. [In (?) Sulmi] the Tiirk Bayi'rqu and the Cumul."
If the main points of the interpretation as proposed here are admitted it seems necessary
to reconsider the import of ttaugara, mentioned as they are in a long list of purely
Turkish tribes, perhaps actually designated as a Tardus tribe; a reference to the "Tokharians "
1 The tm'ryws -ysy& (line 5, verso line I) is noteworthy. tm'rywSis to be looked for in
Faryana as is proved by the title y^eS; hence, tm'ryw^, tamarxus = yamu^ui near Isfara (Barthold,
Turkestan, p. 160).
a 1'rofes.sor Bailey kindly told me that the equation te'tt-mt = cumul has been found
before by Pelliot, T'oumj Puo, xxxia, p. 363.
AN]) THE TOKHARIANS
or dayovpoi or " Little Ue-tsi " appears to be impossible. If, therefore, the ttaugara
are a Turkish tribe, as seems practically certain, only an Anusvdra need be added to the
first aksara to obtain *ttaumgara = totigra, the name of a Tolis tribe, recorded in the
Orkhon inscriptions (Thomson, p. 163); they were known to the Chinese as [p] Jf t'uiig-lo
(*d'ung-ld, 1150 -f 569).1
ttaugara being eliminated, the only genuine mentions of the Twyr-country are one Sogdiau,
one Uyγur, and one Middle-Persian
passage. It is noteworthy that the name occurs only in connection with " Four ", as "
Four Twyr ". Nevertheless, it can be regarded as certain that the " language of twyry ",
twyry till, is the language of the country " Four Twyr(y) ". In his latest contribution,
Professor Sieg has maintained, rightly I think, that twyry tili refers to the language
IA, which was the language of Qarasahr, as established by Bailey, or of Qarasahr and
Turfan, as suggested by S. Levi (JA., 1933, i, p. 29). As has been proposed above, " Four
Twyr(y) " relates to the territory between Bisbaliq and Kuca, or a part of it: the
1 The Oyuz tribe jTy tnkdr (KaSyari, i, p. 57), living far awii^ in the west, is ruled
out; tiikdr would be written *U-uka,ri; the spelling ltau[m)gara leaves no doubt that
the word ended in a, not in r. The presence of such a, great number of Turkish tribes in
Kansu, Sa-tsou, and Si-fc(jou is hard to explain if the date proposed bj the learned
editors for the Saka document and the Tibetan document attached to it (second half of
eighth century) is adopted. Though, of course, the infiltration of Turkish, mainly Tolis,
tribes into this region began at ail early date, one would not expect so many of them
there before the destruction of the Northern Uyγur empire (840), which led to the
foundation of Uyγur principalities in the territory in question by emigrant Uyγur tribes.
The Khotanese king Visasambhata may have been a namesake of Vijayasambhava, not the same
person. Preservation of Tibetan as official language at the beginning of the Uyγur reign
would not be surprising. The name of the Sa-tsou king The-po, The-bo, otherwise unknown
(according to Professor Thomas, p. 129), recalls the name of the leader uf the Uyγur
immigrants, P*ang-t'd-h (BretMchneider, lies., i, p. 241; Minorsky, Hudud, p. 226 n. 2,
264 n. ,r»); this name, suggesting (if jjfe is the correct reading) P'aiuj ley in, a
wholly unsatisfactory name for an Uyγur, ia apparently distorted (so as to obtain the
well-known title t'a-li "~ tegin). It is, I tliink, the same name as T's-p'ang-h (another
Turkish chief, Chavannes, Doc., p. 86); alternatively, the possibility that the correct
form of the name was *T'd-p'ang-t<s-h = T'y-p'ang teyin should be considered. In any
case, The-po, T he-bo might be a shortening of this name, thus rendering t'a-p'ang (it ia
probable that plang, *b'dng, Karlgren 585, would correspond to *bo or the like in Central
Asia; ^p t's is employed also in (j$= ^ t's-h, to-Us), If the documents were written
shortly after the Uyγur invasion the interest displayed by the Khotanese envoys in the
population of the neighbouring country would be comprehensible. I do not know if any
chronological inference can be drawn from 11. 41-2 of the Saka text: "Cam tt&ttu ordered
to build the st it-pa (Bailey, BSO8., viii, p. 119) of gu,tnatt.iri," i.e. "the great
stupa of ff gum-stir " (F. W. Thomas, Tibetan Literary Texts ami Documents, i, p. 108).
W. B. HENNING—
geographical or political term coincides regionally with the name of the language.
According to the Uyγur colophons, carefully examined by Pelliot, JA., 1934, i, pp. 54 sqq.,
translations were made not only from Indian into " the language of Twyry ", thence into
Turkish, but also from " the language of 'wkw kusa-n " into Twyry and finally into
Turkish (of. Miiller-Gabain, " TJigurica iv," Sb.P.A.W., 1931, pp. 678 sq.); 'wkw = Oqu
is possibly equivalent to Tibetan '0-sku, name of a country (see F. W. Thomas, Tib,
Literary Texts and Doc., i, pp. 132 sq., 135); as k-Usdn unquestionably = Kuca, that
region is excluded from " i'our Twyry ". Consequently, " Four Twyry " comprises Bisbaliq,
Qoco, and Qarasahr. A further limitation (viz. to Qarasahr alone) is hardly possible,
though at a later date the use of the language of Twyry was restricted to Qarasahr after
having become extinct in Bisbaliq and Qoco, where Turkish speech became predominant (for
the series: oku kOsan till > twyry tili > turk, equals: Kuchean > Twyry of Qarasahr >
Uyγur of Qoco). This limitation seems to be excluded by the importance attached to the
"Four Twyry" in the Karabalgasun inscription, where they are mentioned nearly on the same
level with the powerful Tibetans.
At the beginning of the ninth century the Uyγurs were fighting with the Tibetans and "
Four Twyry "; about a century before that date the Northern T'u-kiie, predecessors of
the Uyγurs, were waging war against the Toquz Arsin (rzaznz) "the Nine Arsin", next-door
neighbours of the Tibetans. Professor Schaeder's ingenious identification of arsin with
am', the designation used by the speakers of IA for themselves and their language
(according to Professor Sieg), will certainly be accepted. Toquz Arsin, therefore, is
about the same as " Four Twyry ": the existence of a two-fold designation for the
country, the nation, and the language, drsi and twyry, is warranted by the inscriptions
set up by the rulers of Mongolia.1
As to the pronunciation of twyry, the following points are certain: initial t, u or o
(preferably a short vowel), y (not x)> 'r> finally the Sogdian
1 It is, as a rule, seldom possible to give any historical reason for the numerals which
farm part of tribal designations in Central Asia: toq-itz arsin. recalls " the nine
cities " of fen-k'i mentioned in the Wei-su (>S. Levi, JA., 1933, i, p. JO); it is,
however, improbable that tvquz arsin was confined to len-k'i. I leave aside twyrk in the
Mahrnamag (line 109; part of a personal name); the ending (-k in Manichasan writing is
wholly different from -(')& in Hogdian script) is not very well in accord with the other
examples; possibly Turkish toy-rag " poplar "; as the person of whose name twyrk forms
part was living in Arg (see farther on) it would not contradict our conclusions even if
it should be proved to contain twyr-.
ARGI AND THE TOKHARIANS
ending -e 1 < -ok which, of course, did not belong to the original form of the name.
Assumption of a vowel (a) between y and r is not supported (though not completely
excluded) by the spelling; if the name were *toyar one would expect at least one example
of *twyr, especially in Uyγur. If twyr is considered with unbiased mind, by far the most
probable pronunciation appears to be Tuyr.
The country " Four Tuyr " covers roughly the same area as the Tibetan " Brugu-country ",
a name of Bisbaliq, Turfan, and Qarasahr, as has been shown by Professor Thomas's
researches (see JRAS., 1931, pp. 807-827, esp. p. 826). It may be worth considering if
dru-gu (durgu) can be regarded as transcription of tuyr; even if originally dru-gu had
been meant for t'u-kue, the choice of this term for the region in question was probably
influenced by the indigenous name tuyr.
It is necessary to touch on the question (though a full review of the problem cannot be
given here) if an original connection between txuar, the name of Tokharistan, and tuyr,
the name of Bisbaliq-Qarasahr, is conceivable. It is hardly justifiable to take the
presence of such a connection for granted as is usually done; on the contrary,-its
existence very much needs proving. Until this proof (or disproof) is forthcoming a
considerable element of uncertainty will necessarily be inherent in all theories on the
origin of the "Tokharians ".
As unknown languages, however, are involved, it will be found impossible to disprove any
proposal to unite all the different forms notwithstanding their indubitable disparity at
the time when the Central Asian documents were written. The scheme shown on the following
page, e.g., would cover all the forms.
Professor Haloun, in his excellent contribution " Zur Ue-tsi-Frage ", maintains that the
"Tokharians " were Ue-tsi everywhere, in Bactria as well as in the Nan-san..2 He
refrains, however, from
1 Quantity undecided. Sogdian loanwords in New Persian suggest e rather than e (might be,
however, influenced by the ordinary Persian ending -a). Chinese transcriptions may be
helpful in solving the problem, cf., e.g., H^, JgJ, pj|£, Parthian /msemty
(Waldschmidt-Lentz, Stdlung Jexu, pp. 83, 85 sqq.); ^o-ai'-wa?ij/, * ydt-si-iwng
presupposes sogdianized pronunciation as yusme (yasim); on the Central Asian
pronunciation of Chin, -ng, see Pelliot, JA., 1912, i, pp. 588 sqq., and particularly F.
W. Thomas, ZDMG., 91, pp. 10 sq, (where, however, fg is rendered by ditfiiii, i.e. ding).
2 The second part, at least, of this assertion is open to further investigation. Apart
from Bayovpoi in Ptolemy (b. vi, ch. 16), Saka tta^ara and Tibetan Phod-kar (etc.),
Professor Haloun's demonstration is based mainly on the fact that Kumarajlva explains
Tou-k'ii-lo, i.e. transcribed Skt. Tukhara, by /]•* ft f£ siau iie-tsi " Little
inverting this sentence and assuming tfiat the Ue-tsi were "Tokharians ". Finding it
impossible to reconcile the name of the "Tokharians " with ^ jfc, ^J fc Ue-tsi and other
Chinese spellings of the name of this nation adduced by him, which according to him
suggest " Archaic Chinese" pronunciations such as *zngiwdt-t'ia (ngltvdt-t'ial),
*nyiu-t'ia (znyo-tia), he proposes to take Ue-tsi' for *zgu'ja(l-a) as the name of the
Scythians. On the other hand, the general trend of his survey of the problem tends to
demonstrate against his will not only that the "Tokhariaus" were tle-tsi, but also that
the (Je-tsi were the "Tokharians ". Professor Bailey was, I believe, right in his
attempt to liud in (Taj Ue-tsi the name of the
ta-\Ue-tgi", In Professor Maloun's opinion, this gloss proves that Kumarajiva knew that the
"Little Ue-tsii" of the Nan-san region called themselves "Tokharians" (p. 280). It will
hardly be admitted that this interpretation (contemplated before by S. Levi, rejected by
Pelliot) is the only one possible. Kumarajiva in explaining Tou-k'u-lo should have
written (Great) Ue-tsi; instead, he wrote " Little Ue-tsi ", thus misinterpreting the
text he was commenting upon in a singular and ridiculous fashion. It is as well to assume
that Knmarajiva, bearing in mind the usual equation Tukhara = (Great) t)«-tsi,
contemplated at first writing simply " Ue-tsi", but substituted " Little Ue-tsi" because
those were the only Ue-tsJ that he knew of by his own experience and expected his readers
to have heard of. On the Phod-kar (Thod-kar, Thod-gnr), living in north-eastern Tibet,
and mentioned many centuries after the last occurrence of the " Little Ue-tsi", see F. W.
Thomas, JRAS., 1931, 834 sq. Their habitat is perhaps not yet sufficiently well denned to
render their identification with the Little Ue-tsii an incontestable certainty. If Tib.
Drv-gu is = Tuyr, the Drug-cun in Western Kan-su, "Little Pru-gu " according to Professor
Thomas (pp. 814 sqq.), might be = " Little Tuyr " = " Little tje-tsl ".
ABG1 AND THE " TOKIIABIANS "
"Tokharians " even though it might prove necessary to modify his proposals in minor
It is not admissible to compare with Ue-tsi a developed form such as to%dr, just as it
would be impossible to use the modern Mandarin pronunciation of ^j J£ for comparative
purposes. The only comparable form is that which was employed by the Uc-tsi themselves at
the date when the Chinese transcription was created. The contemporary form has, of
course, to be reconstructed. It has been surmised above that the attested forms may
derive from *t'yur or a similar form, e.g. *6yur, *t'yudr, *6yu&r, etc. Chinese ^j, in
contemporary pronunciation **zngiwa&,1 could be a rendering of such a form, as perfect as
can be expected in a name containing a group of initial consonants foreign to Chinese
speech.2 The second sign, *t'iat might be regarded as representative of an indigenous
It would be well in accord with Professor Halouu's theories to find the Tuyr-Ue-tsi in
and near Qarasahr. When the main body of the Ue-tsi', pressed hard by the U-sun, was
compelled to leave the T'ien-san region, some tribes may have stayed, as subjects of the
U-sun (see Haloun, p. 246). According to Professor Haloun, the U-sun were " das
urspriingliche ethnische Substrat der die beiden ' tocharischen ' Dialekte sprechenden
Bevolkerung Ostturkestans " (p. 254). It may be permitted to say that the population of
the region between Kasyar and Bisbali'q, at the beginning of our era, consisted mainly of
U-sun and a few De-tsi and Saka tribes (the latter, e.g., in Barcuq). During the
following centuries the remaining Ue-tsi tribes have been absorbed by the more powerful
U-sun; the process of amalgamation probably was completed at the beginning of the T'ang
reign. At that date, nothing remains of the Ue-tsi but their name, which, as Tuyr, is
used indiscriminately for the same country, population, and language as the name of the
1 The initial z- appears to be anything but certain. For the T'ang pronunciation, Saka
kamnuri, name of a tribe (in unpublished Saka documents; Professor Bailey kindly
communicated this name to me), is interesting: apparently = F=j j^ LUIKJ-UC, kungur
(thereby containing ^ = gur).
a It would be interesting to learn from Sinologists how in their opinion the Chinese
could have rendered a word *Qyttr (or the like) in a less ambiguous way.
s One might even go one step farther and assume an internal Ue-tsi sound change: postaonantic 8 7> r (attested in numerous languages); therefore, *t'yur < older
*6yitSi-, the latter being "attested " by Chinese *zngotia, *zn/jiwat-t'ia.
4 It 13 taken for granted that drsi, aryiti., and u-stm represent the same name; the
Chinese had some difficulty in rendering -r at the end of a syllable (on Jjj aee Haloun,
pp. 252, 314); if necessary, -r could be explained as in Arg.
W. E. HENNING-
at least in Qarasahr and tlie adjacent districts. At the beginning of the ninth century,
it was still known in Kuca that the population was composed of Ue-tsi and U-sun,1 though
the use of the terms Tuyr and Arsin/arsi is on the whole confined to Qarasahr (etc.).
Possibly the percentage of Ue-tsi was higher in Qarasahr than elsewhere. As to the
so-called "Tokharian " languages, the odds are heavily on that they are U-sun dialects
and not forms of Ue-tsi (Tuyr) speech; this is apparent as well from the historical
development as from the phonetic features shown by the two Ue-tsi words we know (see
Bailey, Ttauyam, p. 916). As alternative name for the mixed population of Qarasahr
(etc.), tuyr(v) was admissible; it is true that it has been applied to the language, too: from a linguistical point of view, this, however, was decidedly a misnomer; a misnomer,
also, is " tocharisch ", which, in any case, should be replaced by " tuyrisch ".
As stated above, in the Sogdian " List of nations " 2 'rkcyk follows the nations of
Kasyar, Khotan, and Kuci (Kuca). From the relative importance of those districts it is at
once apparent that the fourth partner in a series like this refers to Qarasahr.3
'rkcyk, i.e. arkcik, is an adjective derived from V&, i.e. Ark (suffix elk, see
Gauthiot-Benveniste, Gram-tit,., ii, p. 96). Ark (or Arg) occurs as the name of a country: in a Middle Persian Manichffian hymn 4 homage is paid to the religious leadr -5 'y
n'mwrny frwx' [&]w'b'd shr 'y 'rq i: of the famous, blissful, and prosperous country of
Ark (Arg) is mentioned also by Persian geographers and historians. The Hudud al'Alam
describe Jj! = Ark, a town in the Toquzoyuz (Uyγur) country, as "a small town near the
river Khuiandyfm, possessing plenty of fruit, except grapes. To it belong seven villages,
and Ark and its districts are said to turn out 20,000 men " (tr. Minorsky, p. 94).
Professor Minorsky, commenting upon this passage (pp. 273 sq.), has found that Ark is
embedded in a series of names that formed part of an itinerary leading from (Bars^an via)
1 Attested by Xuci-!m: " Kuca a ete appele aussi Ue-tsi et U-sun," see Pdliut, JA.,
1934, i, p. 90, n. 1.
2 Written in Sogdian script.
a Tin: naiiK-H following 'rkcyk in the list, probably pointing to the Turf an region,
art; not yet sufficiently clear to offer confirmation.
4 Not yet published (M 297); in Manichsean writing.
5 Name and title missing.
ARGI AND THE TOKHARIANS
to Qoco ((Hnanckand). This itinerary, given in full by GardezI, mentioned no more than
three names between Kuca arid Qoco (roughly
300 miles), the first being Ark, the second ^A~-i sekad " Three Towns "/ whilst the
third' name remains rather mysterious. It is true that it is rather strange to find
Qarasahr as the first stage of a journey from Kuca to Qoco; on the other hand, the
itinerary appears to be rather sketchy in any case, and it would be still more curious if
Qarasahr were left out altogether. All the passages in Muslim authors, brought together
by Professor Minorsky, stress the importance of the district Ark; it is, therefore,
preferable, I think, to identify it with Qarasahr instead of Biiglir (as contemplated by
Professor Minorsky, mainly on account of several spellings that rendered it possible to
take <Jji, Jj^, etc. for misspellings of *^X> = jjX*). In any case, the Muslim authors do
not contradict the evidence which can be gained from Central Asian documents; the river
Khulandyun on whose banks Ark is situated can easily be the Khaidu-gol.2
Amongst the towns of Si-tsou, enumerated in the Stael Holstein scroll, Argmvd bisd 3
kantiha " the town amongst the Argma " (22) bears some resemblance to Ark. It is
mentioned after Camilbau'q (see Minorsky, Hudud, p. 272, n. 3), which lies in the extreme
northwest, and before several places near Turfan; the enumeration of the western towns
possibly broke off after Camilbaliq, whereupon the list restarted with a description of
the south-western district; accordingly ? the succession of places permits one to locate
" the town amongst the Argma " in the Qarasahr region. On the other hand, it would be
rather surprising to find Qarasahr regarded as part of Si-tsou. With Argma Bailey has
compared Argtya in the Niya documents (Ttaugara, p. 917, n, 1).
In Manichjean Middle Persian Ark (Ary) as well as arkclk was
1 In Sogdian (s. Minorsky, p. 273); also attested in a Manichtean fragment, where 'Sn/y
knS- = xe kand (< ndre) is written, s. Beiehtbnch, p. 12 (but drraya seems to be
different). One might think of fjj| ^ ffi tmntj-san-ts'wig (better
than ^ mie), " t?ang-(Aree-ci(tes," between len-k'i (Qaraaahr) and Qoco,
see Chavannes, Doc., p. 6.
3 Khulandyun. looks distinctly Sogdian (cf. Minorsky, p. 206 and n. 4); -yun " kind " ia
rather obvious, but no word *ywS'ni (might be " ""covering ") or *yw(')k'ut is attested; yw'r'rai (" right ", ace. to Rosenberg, Izv., 1918, 831, originally " brilliant glorious,
good ") ia not satisfactory either; the word might have the same meaning as $J tan ("
insipid, tasteless, watery "), in the T'ang-su name of the Khaidu-gol, Chavannea, Doc-.,
s See Bailey, BS03., viii, p. 120.
W. B. HENNING-
already attested, viz. in the Mahrnaniag 1 (ed. F. W. K. Muller,
Abh.P.A.W., 1912). In line 187 it is stated that the Mahrnamag
before its completion was left pa$ mdnistdn i Ark " in the monastery
of Ark ", for many years. Much more important is the other passage*
line 88, 'rkcyq ( = arkclk) xwataw " the Ark-ian king ", i.e. " the
king of Ark". The text enumerates a large number of personalities
who were or were supposed to be friendly towards the Manichiean
church, beginning with the Uyγur king (Ai tangrida qut bulmls alp
bilgii Ui'yur qayan, 825-832, according to Muller 2), his princes and
officers, who are joined by the rulers (and other influential personalities)
of the small states in the T'ien-san region, which, at the date of the
text, may have been more or less dependent upon the Uyγur empire;
on the whole, the text gives a fairly accurate idea of the extent of the
Manichsean patriarchate " East ". Amongst those smaller kingdoms,
five divisions can be recognized:—
(1) panzkanBe ^wa^dy (45)
(2) clndnckande xwaSdy (55)
(3) 'kwcyk sirjusi (72), under him:—
(a) kase xse§ (75)
(ft) parwanc gafi-yu (77)
(4) ark&ik xwataw (88)
(5) 'wcwrcyk xwataw (110). 3
It has long been known that (1) and (2) refer to Bisbali'q and Qoco respectively.
Muller's tentative proposal to find in (3) the name of Kuca can now be supported by the
Sogdian ndfndmak, wherein 'kwcyk precedes 'rkcyk. Despite its peculiar form,, 'kwcyk
corresponds to Skt. kaucya "'Kuchean "; 'kwcyk = dkucik presupposes, as the name of the
country, *dkuci (more likely than *dkuc) 4 = Skt. Kuci.
1 It gives me pleasure to state that years ago Professor behaeder, in the course of »
conversation, proposed to regard V/j ('rk-cyg) as a geographical name, not as an
appellative "castle" (as Muller thought).
2 It is, however, at least equally possible, if not more probable, that his much more
powerful namesake (808-821) is meant.
3 Grammatically, the geographical terms are, all of them, adjectives , the Persian
(^w«5ay) and Sogdian (-^ivataw) titles cannot, naturally, be regarded as official
designations of the rulers in question; only under (3) are genuine titles given.
* It is hard to explain the prothetic vowel which if not articulated would not be written
in Manichasan script though possibly it would in Sogdian script; cf., e.g., Buddh. S.
'kwty as against Man. S. k-wty (kuti), " dog "; *kwty suggests a development: kuti >
kvti > kti > akti (rather dubious). Derivation of 'kwcyk from *'kw — Turkish Oqu (kHsan),
see above, p. 560, is very unlikely.
ARGI AND THE ' TO KHAKI ANS
(3 a) is the " ias-ian king " (not " the king of *KasI "), i.e. " the king of A'oi1 =
Kasyar ", Chin. ££ ^ fcia-?a. (3 ^) refers to Aqsu, and 5) to Uc (see below). All the
important principalities between Kasyar and Bisbaliq are mentioned, only Qarasahr appears
to be missing: it is, in fact, clear from this passage alone that Ark (Arg) is Qarasalm
Accordingly, the enumeration comprises:—
The principalities are not arranged in a purely geographical order, but perhaps according
to their relative political importance; yet it would be rash to come to the conclusion
that, at the date of the text, Kasyar and Aqsu were politically dependent on Kuea whilst
Uc had retained its independence; it is quite likely that more attention was paid to
ecclesiastical than to political divisions.
It seems desirable to study more closely the names of Aqsu and Uc attested in the
Malirnamag. The identity of prw'nc with Aqsu, proposed by Professor Minorsky (Hudud, p.
482), will hardly be contested. The feminine ending of prw'nc suggests a fuller form
*prw'nc kanQ, of which prw'nc is an abbreviation; the masculine form corresponding to
prw'nc is either *parwdnak or *parwak (to be pronounced: *parwdne and *parwe); for the
latter cf. kdse < kasak " kachyarien " beside kasdnc " kachgaricnne " (q's'nc,
Mahrnaniag, line 146, as part of a name); again, *parwdnak derives from *parwan or
*paru, whilst *parwak admits only *paru as name of the country; the initial p~ possibly
expresses b- if the scribe of the Mahrnamag (who changed his orthographical principles
every other line) followed Sogdian orthography when writing this word. No certainty can
be gained either way; Parudn/Barudn and Pant/Bant are equally likely.
The various names of Aqsu have been studied by Pelliot, T'oung Pao, xxii, pp. 128-130,
and by Minorsky, Hudud, pp. 294 sqq. Paru/Baru could be supported by Skt. Bharuka,
Hiian-tsang's Po-lu-kia (see Ltiders, Sb.P.A.W., 1922, p. 258); Pelliot (p. 129) has
adduced; fc jj$£ mo-lu, *mudt-luk (Karlgren 636 + 574). Final -&(a) is due to
U . iS.
ParuanjBaruan is supported by the Chinese form ordinarily '
arployed by T'ang historiographers, or , -
udn (Karlgren 17 .+ 99 or 1294), a perfect rendering of parudn >ar/.ian); on " gha'in
parayoyique", see Chavannes-Pelliot, Traite; anicheen, pp. 190, n. 5, 191, n. "2; particularly |g xuan> *yudn Carlgren 1343), rendering foreign itan (in ke-uan), should be
com-ired. The same name occurs in Tibetan documents, Par-ban, often-nipled with Gyu-mo
(which again, as Professor Thomas has stated, movingly resembles the ancient name of
Acjsu, Ku-mo, *kuo-tndk), lough these places are to be looked for near Cercen (F. W.
Thomas, RAS., 1930, pp. 85, 271, 274 sqq., 281).
With Po-xuan, Pelliot has ingeniously compared Idrisi's jUi-a 3axudn), T'oung Pao, 1906,
pp. 553 sqq.; the identity of the places in hardly be doubted, though it seems to be
impossible to reconcile honetically *baxudn with po-yuan (maintained by Pelliot, T'oung
ao, xxii, pp. 128 sqq.) notwithstanding their apparent likeness if Lodern Chinese
pronunciation is considered. Accordingly, j[^=-L lould be changed in Jijjt'.
Professor Minorsky was, I believe, right in distrusting Idrisi's ^.Jy b wli ich , for his
part, he corrects in j U j I. Barman . urthermore he has proved that Barman also was
another name of qsu, by referring to jUjl in Kasyarl, iii, p. 272, and in Beruni's anon.
I should like to add jlv. Barman, the only place between c and Kuca on Kasyarf s map, and
A M j£ Pa-li-mang — Barman \ the Chinese map of the early fourteenth century which has
been -udied by Bretschneidcr, Medieval Researches, ii (Ba-li-tnang, p. 45; liinese: Journ. North China Branch R.A.S., x, 1876, opp. p. 75); 2re again, Barman is the only
name between Uo-ts'i (Uc) and Kuca. i unpublished Sogdian documents p'rttin = barman is
Hence, the medieval names of Aqsu were: Baru, B(h)aruka, aman, Barman, all of them
containing the element Bar- (or Par-), hich possibly is to be recognized also in Barcuq,
ancient name of .aralbasi.1
It has been proposed above to refer 'wcwr, contained in 'wcwrcyk, > Uc(-Turfan); Mtiller
connected 'wcwrcyk, perhaps not quite con-incingly, with Sorcuq; it is, however,
necessary to start comparisons •om 'wcwr, not from the enlarged form.
1 A different opinion on the origin of barcuq is expressed by Pelliot, JA., 1934, i, 60.
AKGl AiML) TilJi
On the different names employed for Uc, see Pelliot, T'o-wtg Pao, xxii, pp. 130-2; Minorsky, H'ud'tid., pp. 293 sqq. The present-day name occurs from the end of the tenth
century (viz. in the Hudwl al-'Alam); it is frequently mentioned by Kasyarl; cf. also ^
^ uo-ts('i on Bretschneider's map ( = Uc). This form may be due to turkicization; before
the Turkish immigration the name was *0('u, Ocu, Ucu, or the like: some such name has
yielded 'wcwr = Ocitr, Ocur, Vcur; for the final r cf. Marco Polo's Succiur (Succuir),
i.e. Sukcur < $$ j^ siuk-t'sizu,1 or even modern Kucdr < Kuca. On the other hand, it is
generally assumed that in the T'ang period the name of Uc ended in -k; Skt. h[e]cyuka
(restored by Pelliot) as well as its Chinese transcription ^ J^J $5! hi-t.you-kia
(*-yiei-t'si<)u-ka) render no proof in either direction, as the ending may be
sanskritized. The assumption of filial -k depends wholly on the interpretation to be
given to ^f- j$[ (T'ang historiographers), u-titou (tsu); the contemporary pronunciation,
according to Karlgren (1317 + 163), was jiu-t'siuk or jiu-t'sigu,2 and therefore permits
a sonantic final. Not decisive is the ancient name (Xan period) Uen-su (*'udn-siuk, AD
GOO) even if it should be connected with the other forms; the objections that can be
raised against Barthold's equation of Uan-su with *Jy>cI* (H'lidud and Gardezl] are
It may be permitted to turn back once more to Ark. The present-day name, Qarasahr, seems
to be of fairly recent origin. At the time of Timur, the region was called caMs* and this
name was still employed at the beginning of the seventeenth century (Benedict Goes,
Cialis, see Bretschneider, MeJ. Res., register s.v. Chalish). Ark (Arg] is attested for
the time from about AD 800 to 1050 (Gardezi). There is a gap between GardezT's time and
Timur's: it is hard to believe that for several centuries a district (and town) of the
standing of Qarasahr should never have been mentioned; it is particularly incredible that
Qarasahr should have been omitted by Kasyan;
1 On Su-t§ou, see Pelliot, JA., 1912, i, pp. 591 sqq.
2 j\u-)t'^u -. 'w\cwr = siuk-]i'tij,2U; s-uk]cur.
3 Not only the finals disagree (even *ijyt^, Minorsky, p. 294, would be dubious if the
presence of a final -k can be disproved), but also the initials (that of the Chinese name
being a sonant) as well as the middle consonants (-we- as against -n-s-; moreover a
Chinese final -n in the Xan-period does not necessarily represent foreign -n • in the
present case = r, according to Pelliot); furthermore, only contemporary Chinese names
4 Turkish, ace. to Pelliot, T'oung Pao, xxxii, p. 265 (cf. calls " wrestling" [Kasyari]
W. B. HENNI NO-
US reason alone, the identity of &«///*? 1 with Qarasahr (proposed e, p. 558) should be
he first mention of Ark coincides roughly with the end of the period licli len-k'i
(Qarasahr) though continuously troubled by much
powerful neighbours enjoyed a status of independence; the lame len-k'i, Skt. Agni, has
been studied in full by Pelliot, tg Pao, xxxii, pp. 26t> sqq. It seems probable that Ark
(Arg) rather unexpected form of the same name. Professor Sieg has tly discovered the
indigenous name, Kuchean akene ypoy; ermore, he has assumed that akene, is an adjective
derived from ean akc (A ak) " end ", so that akene ypoy would mean " the; ry situated
towards the end", i.e., "the border country" '.A.W., 1937, pp. 130 sq.). If, therefore,
aketie, which is at the of transcriptions such as A-k'i-ni, at/ni, etc., is to be
regarded ^ase of ellipsis, the possibility that the substantive akjdke from i akene
derives was also employed as the name of the country )t be discarded. This name *ak,
otherwise unattested, could be rented by Ark.
here are two ways of explaining the medial; -. Either it is a later ion, or it belonged
to the original form and has been dropped ichean (and in A). Both explanations would
presuppose indistinct dation of a post-sonantic r up to complete disappearance (as, a
southern English), particularly in ante-consonantic position; iguages with insufficient
orthographical tradition, especially in of oral tradition, wrong forms inevitably follow.
cases of an unetymological r may be mentioned: Ucur, *Sukcur, r (see above); tawarxus: tainaxiiS (see p. 558, n. 1); Kuchean
:ske: (reconstructed) *yavaske, *bagazi: *burgayi (both recon-; ed) 3; Central Asian
karpisaya: kapisa, ko-rttana ~ Khotan 4; an fiarxar: vthd-ra, skofO <skoQ, ^«?-M <
^««.5 These cases lot confined to Turkish languages (Pelliot, JA., 1934, i, --) sq.).
athing, in fact, conflicts with the proposal to regard Ark as an rect form of *Ak. On the
whole, however, the alternative nation is more attractive; for, if Ark (or
urkish ? Cf. sundl-waq iL to gibber " (Kasyaii) ?
•ut cf. Minorsky, Hud&d, pp. 276, 497, on c^3
ee Pelliot, JA., 1934, i, p. 91 n. 2.
i "Fan Yu Tta Ming ": Bagchi, Deux Le.xiyu.es, i, p. 295.
; e BeichtbucJi, pp. 8S sq.— Buddh. S. '/Js'ny, fis'ny (= 9/w>?X' fsaVX> not
; ), mentioned by Pelliot, JA., 1934, i, pp. 30 sq., is different (fra- >fa).
ARGI AND THE " TOKHARIANS
in Sogdian l and Persian) is the original form, the mysterious Chinese spelling; J| ^
which cannot be explained by akene could be accounted for. len-k'i, 'ilin-g'ji might
transcribe Argi or Argi (Pelliot: *Ang$, Toung Pao, xxxii, p. 2GG; as to Chin, -n =
foreign -/ in transcriptions of the X&n period, the best example is £ & Au-si = Ar-sak).
Hence, akene could be a more developed form, instead of older *arkvne, attested by Saka
argma; akene, of course, accounts for Ayni, Hiian-tsang's A-k'i-ni, Maralbasi Saka
Though several points need further elucidation,2 it seems, on the whole, preferable to
derive akene jarywa from the name of the country, Argi (not from ok Jake "end"). Finally,
this name appears to be directly attested by Argiya in the Niya documents, i.e. a man
[W. W. Tarn, The Greeks in Bactria and India, Cambridge, 1938, could not yet be used; the
new forms of the Tokharian name as collected by Dr. Tarn, pp. 515 sqq., particularly
tayorae, takwaioi, etc., prove that the group toxar, etc., was developed in Bactria under
the influence of an Iranian tongue.]
1 Also in Manichaean Middle Persian if the scribe adhered to .Sogdian orthographical
2 I have to apologize for several inconsistencies which will be found in the present
article; they arose from hesitation to decide a question which has puzzled us long
enough. I should like to state expressly that. I adhere wholeheartedly to the last
proposal, i.e. len-k'i = Argi = Arg (Ark), akene from older "arkene = argiha.