8
INTRODUCTION
It is hardly necessary to cite other numerous examples that prove that the Chinese
held Jie as the Huns, but we can not bypass one very important linguistic evidence which
helps to identify ethnicity of the Jie themselves, and of the Huns to which they
belonged. It is a phrase, uttered in the Jie language by a native of India, Buddhist
monk Fotu Den (Buttocho 佛図澄,
pinyin: Fu Tucheng; Wade–Giles: Fu T'u-ch'eng, ca. 235-348), who served for Shi Le and was spreading Buddhism in China. This only
phrase in the Hun language that reached us has meanings of its words and a general translation.
In 328 sparked a war between Shi Le and Liu Yao, the Emperor of the Former Zhao dynasty.
Defeating the Shi Le army at Gao-Hou, Liu Yao came to Luoyang, and besieged a town Tszinyon
near the Gao-Hou. Shi Le wanted to come to the Luoyang aid, but high officials were persuading him not to do
that.
8
Then Shi Le turned for advice to Fotu Den, who said in the Jie language, referring to
the sound of the pagoda bells (presumably, the transcription
is
correctly adjusted to the phonetics of the 4th c. AD):
|
Orig.: |
English |
|
Ñþ÷æè òèëèãàí
Ïóãó öçþéòóäàí |
Süčy tiligan
Pugu qüitudan.. |
According to the explanations, süčy means “army”; tiligan is “send”, “move”; pugu is Hu's title
that Liu Yao had, and qüytudan is “seize”, “catch”. And is given a translation of the whole phrase: “Move the troops, will catch Liu Yao” [20, Ch. 95, pp. 12-b-13-a
(20. Fang Xuanling. Jin-shu (History of Jin Dynasty). Peking,
Bo-na, 1958)].
As I.N Shervashidze pointed out, [3, p. 3-9 (3. Shervashidze I.N.
Verb forms in the language of the Turkic runiform inscriptions. Tbilisi, 1986)], there are three major attempts to interpret the text, all based on the assumption of its Turkic origin
(V.S. Taskin is citing the previous scholarship by reference,
the contents of the references are compiled in the following table)
| Hunnic in Chinese script |
|
秀支 替戾剛 , 僕谷 劬禿當 |
| Translations |
秀支
Süčy
âîéñêà
Army |
替戾剛
tiligan
âûñûëàòü
go out |
僕谷
Pugu (Liu Yao's rank)
Ëþ ßî çâàíèå
Liu Yao's rank |
劬禿當
qüitudan
ñõâàòèòü
capture |
| Ramstedt, 1922 |
Bazin, 1948 |
Von Gabain, 1949 |
I.N.Shervashidze, 1986 |
Sükâ tal'iğan
bügüg tutan! |
Süg tâgti idqan
boquγı tutqan! |
Särig tilitgan
buγuγ kötüzkan |
Sükâ tol'iqtin
buγuγ qodigo(d)tin |
“Go with a war
[and] captured bügü!” |
“Send an army to attack
[and] capture the commander!” |
“You'd put forth the army,
you'd take the deer” |
“You came to the army
Deposed buγuγ” |
As can be seen, each interpreter has good reasons to link the two phrases uttered by Fotu
Den with the ancient Türkic language (it works).
9
|
Hunnic words, transliterated in V.S.Taskin Cyrillic rendition, in Pinyin format
converted from V.S.Taskin Cyrillic rendition to Pinyin format, and in modern
TurkicEnglish transcription:
| Transliterations |
| Cyrillic (V.S.Taskin) |
Pinyin format (V.S.Taskin) |
English |
Ñþ÷æè òèëèãàí
Ïóãó öçþé òóäàí |
Xiù zhī Tì lì gāng
Pú gǔ Qú tū dāng |
Süčy tiligan
Pugu qüi tudan |
The phrase is concise and even in modern Türkic is readily recognizable. Semantically,
it may sound obsolete, some expressions are not in common use any more, but the grammar
is perfectly intact, and since we can easily catch the phrase “The zex would have xyzed the door
wide” with only literary familiarity with Mr. Zex and the “xyz” action, so the whole phrase
sounds to the Türkic speaker undoubtedly natural “If you do this, you' d get that”:
| Chinese annals' phonetization and translation |
| Annalitic phrase |
 |
|
in Unicode |
秀支 , |
軍也 o |
替戾剛 , |
出也 o |
僕谷 , |
劉曜胡位也 o |
劬禿當 , |
捉也 |
| Romanized Mandarin |
Xiù zhī , |
jūn yě o |
Tì lì gāng , |
chū yě o |
Pú gǔ , |
Púgǔ Liúyào hú wèi yě o |
Qú tū dāng |
zhuō yě |
| Translated Mandarin |
Xiù zhī , |
Army
have o |
Tì lì gāng , |
Out of have o |
Pú gǔ , |
Púgǔ Liúyào Hu rank have o |
Qú tū dāng |
catch have |
|
The Hunnic phrase with Türkic and English rendition is:
| Chinese |
秀支 |
替戾剛 , |
僕谷劬 |
禿當 |
| Romanized Mandarin |
Xiù zhī |
Tì lì gāng |
Púgǔ qú |
Tū dāng |
|
English
Phonetization
|
Sü chi |
Ti li gang |
Pugu chu
|
Tu
dang |
| Chinese to English |
Army |
go out |
Pugu'd be |
capture(ed) |
| Türkic |
Süči (Süchi) |
tiligan |
Pugu'yu |
tutar |
| Türkic to English |
Army-man |
would go |
Pugu (he) would (be) |
capture(ed) |
| Comment |
-či (= chi/ji) - std. occupational affix |
-gan - past participle, 3ps, perfect tense verbal affix |
-'yu - future conditional verbal transitive affix |
capture in 3rd person future tense ablative ending, passive voice |
In modern Turkish, the second line of the phrase is practically the same:
| English |
Modern Turkish |
Translation fr Turkish |
Süčy tiligan
Pugu'qüi tudan |
Süčy tiligan
Pugu'yu tutar |
Army Commander would go
(He) would capture Pugu |
From the comparison, it is clear that Ramstedt and Bazin were closest in their
reconstructions, they correctly parsed the phrase, but Ramstedt erred in not replacing the Chinese
symbol (n) with (r) for the verb tutar = “seize, capture”, and both failed to use the
standard Türkic future conditional transitive affix 'yu ('gyu in the Hunnic Ogur dialect).
It can't be excluded that 1,700 years ago the modern form of the verb tutar =
“seize, capture” had in fact the root tutan. This is supported by the rhyme tiligan
- tudan in the poem, that definitely made it memorable and remembered. Since the word tutan in Chinese records
is a hapax, that can't be proved or disproved, but a systematic comparison of all 35+
Türkic languages, plus the Türkic relicts in the modern and oldest known forms of this
word in the Eurasian languages with known layer of the Türkic ancient words may point to
a most likely original form.
Any linguist would observe the amazing continuity of the vocabulary and grammatical
affixes:
Su = army
-či = noun-derivational affix to form profession or occupation
tilek = to wish (ref. Old Türkic Dictionary, 1969, Leningrad, Science, p. 560)
-gan = past participle, 3rd person singular, perfect tense verbal affix
Pugu = 1. Türkic title/rank, with few interpretations, one is historically attested
Pugu = Bull;
2. a homophonic pug/buk is also excrement, poop, shit
-'yu /-'gyu = future conditional verbal transitive affix
tutar = 1. capture in 3rd person future tense; 2. quyut = to scare, to
spook, quitudan - scare out of. Mahmud Kashgary cites an example “Ol atig
quiutti” = “He scared a horse” (Mahmud Kashgari, 1960. Turky suzlar devoni (Devon
lugotit turk), Tashkent, vol. 2, p. 326).
-dan / -tan = locative directional verbal affix “from, out of” (Russ. “óêàçûâàåò
íà èñõîäíîñòü äåéñòâèÿ”) (ref. Old Türkic Dictionary, 1969, Leningrad, Science, p. 664)
The Modern Turkish replaced the verb tiligan (tiligar) with a different root, çık,
the only substantial modification in the 2,000-year old phrase. Other than that, each
grammatical form and each word is known from the new and old Türkic dictionaries, and
from the common speech..
Most interesting is the homophonic message of the poem, completely missed by the
non-Türkic-speaking investigators, the ancient Chinese as well as the modern scholars.
Pugu is not only a title/rank of Liu Yao, pug/buk is also poop. In Türkic
tilek (Turkish dilek, ref. Old Türkic Dictionary, 1969, Leningrad, Science,
p. 560) is “to wish”, with affix -gan it becomes tiligan = having wished
(past participle, 3rd person singular, perfect tense, ref. Mahmud Kashgari, 1960. Turky
suzlar devoni (Devon lugotit turk). vol. 1, p.412. Tashkent.), Süčy tiligan = Army
commander has wished (Russian “ïîæåëàâøèé”).
Pugu qüitudan has 2 homophonic forms:
1. Literally: Pugu'yu tutar = (He) would capture Pugu
2. Figuratively: Pug quitudan = scared his poop (akin to English idioms “scared
his ass”, or closer “scared shit out of him”). This form originates in a Türkic proverb
“[Do not try to scare me], scare your own poop”
Thus, the poem relays three messages:
First and foremost, it translates the sacred toll of the bells into the human language,
reflecting the bells' rhythm and rime;
Secondly, it says that the bells are urging on:
Army commander would go
(He) would capture Pugu;
Thirdly, it says that the bells are reassuring:
Army commander has wished
(And) scared the poop out of Pugu
And finally, melodically the verse follows a five-syllable metrical pattern, or
pentameter, typical for the Türkic ancient poetry (Khatipov Gosman, “Shigyr tozeleshe”,
Tatar Publishing, Kazan 1975,. pp. 108-135)
Analysis ©2010 A. Mukhamadiev
|
9
* * *
5
INTRODUCTION
On the Jie ethnogenesis
This issue assembled materials relating to the nomadic tribe Jie
(羯). They are selected from
the “History of Jin dynasty” (Jin-shu 晉書), the
authorship of which is attributed to the Tang Emperor Tai Zong (626-649), in reality it
was written by a group of authors headed by a high official Fang Xuanling (房玄齡, 578-648).
What kind of people were Jie, and what was their ethnic origin? The question is not
hollow, since the Soviet historical literature has no clear answer. M.V. Krukov, not
touching on the Jie ethnogenesis, only noted briefly: “Most of the modern researchers believe
that the Jie are from the territory of Middle Asia; to the Central China Plain they
came together with the
Huns” [2, p. 72], he also stresses: “In the process of “Migration of
Peoples” to the territory of the Northern China in addition to the Huns, Syanbi
(pl. Syanbis, like kiwi ~ kiwis), Qiangs
(Kians, Tibetans, or Kian-Tibetan dual exogamy marital couple) and Di
(pl. Dis, like kiwi ~ kiwis) also happen to come the Jie
(pl. Jies, like tui ~
tuis, die ~ dies), natives
of the
Western Region” [2, p. 256].
L.N.Gumilev addressed Jie in more detail, although basically referring to E.
Chavannes: “Another large tribe were Jielu, who lived on the banks of the river Hey-shui.
That tribe was formed of the Huns' slaves, freed by the disintegration of the Hunnic
society (25-85 AD). Their main occupations were animal husbandry and hunting.
They are not identical with the tribes in the West, who belonged to Beibi (Syanbi). They are
not of a single race, among them were Tunhu (Mongols) and Dinlins
(Tele, aka Ch. Di) and Qiangs
(Kians, Tibetans), who lived with
them. And that is because originally, they were the slaves of the Huns” [1, p. 28].
Based on that evidence, L.N.Gumilev mistook Jielu for an ethnonym, and states that the word,
supposedly pronounced qul and in the modern Turkic languages it means “slave”, in
the 6th-8th cc.
it had a very different meaning: “alien” or “submitting to foreign state,” without any
shade of personal bondage.
Identification of the Jielu, or quls with Jie is clearly erroneous and apparently is
due to the misreading the French transcription in the works of the Western authors. In the works of L.N.Gumilev
such
occasions are not uncommon. So, he reads Sima Chjie [1, p. 51] instead
of Sima Chi, Li Kung [1, p. 57] instead Lu Kung, Wan Dun [1, p. 73] instead of Wan Dung,
etc. Similarly, in our case E.Chavannes is not talking about the Jie, but about the tsy, or tszylu, about whom the
sources provide information.
6
In the “History of Southern Qi dynasty” (Nan Qi-shu 南齊書) we find: “Henans belong to the Hun
group. During the Han dynasty in the era of Jian-wu rule (26-56 AD), several thousand of the
Huns male and female slaves from different [ethnic] groups fled and hid in the Lianzhou
area. In the language of the barbarians the slaves are called qy or alternatively
qylu” (19, Ch. 59, p. 4-a]. Further, it says that the Henans lived to the
north-west of Yizhou area, in the Lianzhou region, they were living of the nomadic
pastoralism, and were subjects of Tuyuhuns, whose rulers since the Song dynasty (宋朝 420-479) received appointments and
titles from the Chinese Court.
Comparing Nan Qi-shu with the stipulations of L.N.Gumilev, it turns out that tsy, or tszylu
(qy, or qylu) is not an ethnonym, but the words
that in the language of the barbarians mean “slave”.
And an ethnonym is the word Henan (literally, “living south of the river [Huanhe]”),
that arose from the fact that the escaped Huns' slaves settled on the lands south of the
river Huanhe. The sources do not mention any
evidence of Henans' involvement in the events that took place in the northern China
during
the Former and Later Zhao dynasties.
It should be noted that the historical sources are not uniform in covering the ethnic origin of the Henans. According to
the
Nan Qi shu, Henans included various ethnic groups, among which a most numerous was
apparently the Hun group,
which gave a reason to attribute all of them to the Huns. At the same time, the “History
of Southern Dynasties (Nan shi 南史) attributes the Henan rulers to the
Syanbis: “The
ancestors of the Henan rulers come from Syanbi clan Mujun (aka Murong; Murong is a pinyin version of the Syanbi clan Mujun/Muyun). In the past, the Mujun chief
Ylogan had two sons, the eldest called Tuyuhun was born of a concubine, and the youngest
called [Mujun] Gui was born of his lawful wife. After the Ylogan death, Mujun Gui
inherited the throne. Wishing to secede from Mujun Gui, Tuyuhun moved west to Shanlun,
crossed Fuhan, went into the south-western part of Lianzhou, and came
to the river Chishui, where he began to live. Those lands are located to the south of the
river [Huang He], so he adopted the name of the place as the title [Henan-wan]” [12,
Ch. 79, p. 9-a]. Apparently, the Henans, composed of different ethnic groups,
were too weak, so the author of the Nan-shi calls their rulers Syanbis, meaning
Tuyuhun and his descendants (Syanbi was a Mongol tribe that in
the 3rd c. BC escaped Hun's control, and consequently retained their original culture
until they conquered a significant number of the Huns in 160 AD. After that, under a
common name Syanbi must be discriminated the Mongol Syanbis and the Türkic Syanbis. The
tribe Toba was a Türkic Syanbi tribe [ref. P.Budberg, L.Bazin, and
V.P.Yudin]).
According to numerous direct and indirect evidence, Jie were a community that owned one of the Huns'
19 pastoral routs, they were a splinter from the parental tribe Qianqui
(orig: Öÿíöçþé, also spelled Kangqu) that owned a pastoral rout mentioned in the Jin-shu among the 19 Huns' pastoral rout communities that lived in the Chinese territory
(i.e. inside the border walls or fortified lines; the Qianqui is a transcription
that may be a derivative of
Kang/Kangar Kyankyui Kyangaoi Qiang Qu, Kian ~ Kiat ~ Gilyan ) [20, Ch. 97,
p. 11-b].
7
The ethnonym Qianqui (also spelled Kangqu) can be thought of as associated with the name of Qianqui, a Shanuy
of the Southern Huns, who held this post
from 179 to 188 AD [21, Ch. 89, pp. 32-a - 32-b]. The Wei-shu says: “Ancestors of Shi Le
belonged to a separate Huns' pastoral rout, dispersed in the Shendan district, in the Usyan
county, in the Qeshi area, after the name of which they started to be called Qeshi Hus
(pl. of Hu)” [7, Ch. 95, p. 9-a]. Consequently,
the ethnonym Jie is associated with the name of the Qeshi area (modern Yuyshe county in the Shanxi province)
(Jinzhong
Shi, Yuci 榆次区 district), and thus the Jie is only a
geographical definition, not a self-name of the nomadic union.
|
V.S. Taskin supplied the following notes on the origin of Jie and etymology of their
name:
| 149 FAN XUANLING, History of Jin Dynasty, ch. 104
Shi Le. Part 1
Complete text
1. Wei-shu states that Shi Le had a child name Pule [7, Ch. 95, p. 9-a]. The last name
Shi and first name Le were given to Shi Le by Shi Ji Sang (汲桑), and quite possibly the name Le was
derived from the last syllable of the child name Pule.
2. Jie, or Kaishi (orig.: Öçå, or Öçåøè) is the name of a
location inhabited by one of Hun nomads. After the
location, the Chinese started calling the nomads of that pastoral rout community Tsze's
(Jie)
Hus (Huns), and thus Tsze (Jie) is not a self-name of the nomadic pastoral rout community [7, Chap. 95, pp. 9-a]. The main town Usyan
of the county was 30 li north-west of the modern county town Yuyshe in Shanxi province [15, p. 516].
3. Apparently, the subject is the pastoral rout of the southern Hun Shanuy Tsyantszyuy
(Qiangqu 羌渠, Kyankyui, Kyangaoi, Qiang Qu; orig.: Öÿíöçþé), about
whom is known the
following: “In the second year [of Kuang-ho rule era, 179 AD] the head of bodyguard guards Zhang Xu quarrelled with
Shanuy Huchjen, killed him, and on his own, without Emperor's sanction, raised to the Shanuy
throne a right Sian-Wang (aka Xian-Wang) Tsyantszyuy
(Qiangqu). Since Zhang Xu executed Shanuy without
permission of the Emperor, he was taken to the capital in a cage and handed over to the
chief of the judicial department, who sentenced him to death
(This is one of the testimonies that associate pin. Jie 羯
people with the Kiyan tribe, as a splinter of the Kiyans. The Kians (Huyans) were an
ancient Hun's maternal dynastic tribe. Kians are also listed as one of the 12 or 15 Tele
tribes. As a Hunnic and Türkic dynastic tribe the Kiyans are known throughout the Ancient
and Middle Age history).
Shanuy Tsyantszyuy (Qiangqu) ascended the throne in the second year of Kuen-ho reign era (179 AD). In the fourth year of the Zhong-ping reign era (187 AD) a former governor of the
Zhongshan district Zhang Shun raised a revolt, headed Syanbis, and began raiding the border districts.
The Emperor Ling Di ordered the Southern Huns to send troops, to jointly punish the
rebels with Liu Yu, a governor of Yuchzhou province. Shanuy sent to Yuchzhou cavalry led
by left Sian-Wang (Xian-Wang). But his people were afraid that the Shanuy would be sending troops without an end, and so in the fifth year [of Chjun-pin rule era, 188 AD] the right
pastoral rout community Ilo, various Huns' pastoral rout communities in the Syuchu county,
pastoral rout community Baymatun, and others, more than 100 thousand people, rebelled and
killed the Shanuy (Chinese annalistic explanation is
suspicious, more likely the reason for the revolt was the discontent with the Chinese
policy of divide and rule; the “Syanbi” tribes headed by the local Hun ruler may have had
legitimate, in the eyes of the Huns, reasons for uprising, may have been a kindered Hun
horde, like Toba, within the Syanbi confederation, and may have had marital or other
kindred links with the Southern Hun hordes. The “were afraid” of being ordered around by
the Chinese as a reason for the revolt may be a less immediate motive for the uprising.
In the Hun's eyes Kyankyui was illigitimate Shanyu from a maternal, and not a paternal
dynastic line, installed by allien ruler).
Shanuy Tsyantszyuy (Qiangqu) remained on the throne for ten years, after him the throne ascended his son Yuyfulo, who had a post of right Sian-Wang” [21, Chap. 89, pp. 32-a-32-b].
|
The translation of the same segment by N.Bichurin is
here,
page 146 (200 PDF). V.S. Taskin was apparently using a Russian rendition of the pinyin
vocalization of the princely title as Sian-Wang (pin. Xian-Wang, orig.: Ñÿíü-Âàí,
Ch. Wise Prince), which
N.Bichurin vocalized Chjuki-Prince (pin. Tuqi Prince 贤王, Hunnic
Wise Prince with Chinese character for Prince), in the Chinese form of ca 1825.
It is clear that the Ming phonetic form Chjuki is vocalized in contemporary
Mandarin as Tuqi. The vocalization
Chjuki matches the Chinese translation of the title, “wise”, which is Ükü
in the Oguz Türkic, and should have sounded Jükü in the Ogur
Türkic (“jo” dialect). N.Bichurin vocalized the name of the Shanuy as Kyankyui
(Qiangqu 羌渠), which consists
of two parts, Kyank + Yui, Kian being an old maternal dynastic tribe of the
Eastern Huns, with Chinese prosthetic -ng, or with applied Türkic possessive affix -k, which produce as nominal adjective Kian's, and Yui stands for the tribal name of Uigurs. That is confirmed by the fact that
Kyankyui was a Right Chjuki-Prince (Ch. Tuqi-Prince,
Turk. Juku-Prince), not eligible for succession as being descended
from the maternal side of the dynastic union, which was variously given in Chinese
rendition as Hui/Sui/Yui. In the Türkic succession tradition, Kyankyui
is an usurper. Apparently, that tradition was well known to the Chinese, who repeatedly
violated it to seed a discords among the Southern Huns and other nomads. Once at the helm, Kyankyui
appointed his son a Left Chjuki/Wise-Prince, making him a lawful successor in an outward
accordance with the succession tradition, but in fact creating an usurper dynasty.
Pule, rechristened Shi Le, was an extract from the Hunnic maternal dynastic tribe of Kian
Uigurs, which gave the name to the home base of their pastoral rout, Kian, possibly with
an archaic Türkic and now Mongolian plural affix -ty, by the Chinese it was
rendered 羯 ~ Kiat, pinyin Jie, Russian Tsze. The chances that Kiat has
any relation with the Kets or with the Kangars are nil, both conjectures clearly
contradict the story given in the Chinese annals, and may only refer to the remote
pre-historic period for which no records exist.
| Relationship between Qiangs and Huns Sometime in the 1st millennium BC, the horse
pastoralists of the Taklamakan and Turfan steppes adjacent to the Tibetan Plateau
encountered a loose assembly of Tibeto-Burman tribes, allied with them, and established
marital unions. It is possible that the Kiyan Huns inserted themselves into the Tibetan
Plateau in their expansion from the Middle Asian steppes. The conglomerate later received a name Qiang from the neighboring Chinese
principalities, and that name was canonized in the Chinese annals for the next
millennium, exactly like other Chinese designations of the non-Chinese people. In the
Hunnic context, that name was recorded in the form Kian, Kiyan, Huyan as the old maternal
dynastic tribe of the Eastern Huns, later supplanted by the Hui/Sui/Yui tribe. The
politonym Qiang remained a foreign designation for the Tibetans, while for the Huns it was an
ingenious name of one of their tribes. The situation is quite similar with the names of
Ruses, Bulgars, Bosnians, Croats, Hungarians, and French.
The part of the Tibetan history associated with outlying nomadic alliances escaped the
Tibetan folklore, and is known only from the Chinese sources. In the pre-7th c. AD, the
Tibetan history is limited to the central Tibetan people, and the role of the nomadic
horse husbandry tribes is only detected in the distinct genetical input of the Middle
Asian pastoralists and in the distinct complement of innovations brought by the nomads
into the life of sedentary river valley farmers. It is likely that the the two societies
in the alliance coexisted without much intermixing, retaining their respective languages
and ethnological distinctions, except that the ruling nomads introduced much of their
etiology and religious concepts to the Tibetan-lingual farming society. The mutual
parallels between the early Tibetan and early Türkic ethnologies are distinct and
numerous.
In the 4th c. AD, when the Huns were still retaining their leadership position, Qiangs
were a loose collection of the dependent tribes, playing a background subsidiary role in
the steppe events. In the revolutionary events of the 4th-6th cc. AD, their status has
transformed to autonomous, and at times independent position. In the 7th c. AD they
already were a major player on the Far Eastern scene, unified into a distinct
Tibetan-lingual state with a residual complement of the indigenous Huns, but with
unmistakably Hunnic cavalry and warfare.
The events of the 4th c. AD still see Qiangs as a Hunnic tribe under Kiyan rule, with
a Tibetan twist. The Chinese historiography makes a clear distinction between Qiangs and
Tibetans. The historical origins of the Qiangs and Tibetans is perhaps best defined by
the Professor Fei Xiaotong: “Even if the
Qiang people might not be regarded as the main source of the Tibetan people, it is
undoubtedly that the Qiang people played a certain role in the formation of Tibetan
race.” (Fei Xiaotong, “The Pluralistic and Unified Structure of Chinese Ethnic Groups”,
p. 28, Central Ethnic University Publishing, 1999)
The Chinese historians also noted a change in the Tibeto-Burman physique at the
beginning of our era, probably caused
less by admixture and direct injection of divergent genes then by the dietary changes that brought about
meat and dairy into the grain staple of the farmers (Qingying Chen, Tibetan history, 2003, China Intercontinental Press, ISBN
7-5085-0234-5, p. 6). |
|
The sources usually call the Huns “Hus” (sing. Hun ~ Hu).
Still Jia Yi (201 -169 BC) in his treatise “On the errors of the Qin house” wrote about
the Qin Emperor Shi-Huang: “He sent Meng Tian to the north to build the Great Wall, and hold
firmly the lines along it. [Meng
Tian] pushed the Huns out for 700-plus li, after which the Hus no longer dared to come down
to the south to graze their horses there, and their soldiers did not dare to tension
their bows to avenge
the insults [18, Ch. 6, p. 44-a]. It is clear that for Jia Yi the Hus and the Huns are one
and the same people. In 89 BC Shanuy Hulugu, having won a great victory over the Han
troops, sent to the Emperor Wu an ambassador with a letter stating: “In the south is the great state of Han, in the north
lay the powerful Hus” [4, Sec. 94-a, l. 29-b], i.e., he
himself called the Huns Hus. Since Jies are Huns, the Jin shu ordinarily calls them Hu, and only in rare cases they appear under the name Jie.
In particular, when Shi Le was a boy engaged in street vending in Luoyang, he was standing and
whistling by the city wall, when a Jin high official Wang Yan saw him and, startled by
his appearance, said: “In my opinion, the voice and the look of this Hu's milk-sucker
... display his extraordinary ambitions.” Zhang Bing, a closest ally of Shi Le,
was saying about him: “I've seen a lot of military commanders, but only with this Hu can
a great cause be successfully completed.”
It is hardly necessary to cite other numerous examples that prove that the Chinese
held Jie as the Huns, but we can not bypass one very important linguistic evidence which
helps to identify ethnicity of the Jie themselves, and of the Huns to which they
belonged. It is a phrase, uttered in the Jie language by a native of India, Buddhist
monk Fotu Den, who served for Shi Le and was spreading Buddhism in China. This only
phrase in the Hun language that reached us has meanings of its words and a general translation.
8
|
