# Hunnic Peoples in Central and South Asia

Dániel Balogh

► To cite this version:

Dániel Balogh (Dir.). Hunnic Peoples in Central and South Asia. 2020, 9789493194557. hal-05055959

HAL Id: hal-05055959

https://hal.science/hal-05055959v1

Submitted on 15 May 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution - ShareAlike 4.0 International License
Hunnic Peoples in
Central and South Asia

— Sources for their Origin and History —

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>
Hunnic Peoples in Central and South Asia
Sources for their Origin and History
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>
Hunnic Peoples
in Central and South Asia

*Sources for their Origin and History*

edited by

DÁNIEL BALOGH

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

Barkhuis
Groningen 2020
Typesetting and layout: Dániel Balogh

Front cover image design: Dániel Balogh

Cover design: Anke de Kroon, ontwerpzolder.nl

Research and production of this book have been made possible by:

erc The European Research Council (ERC synergy project no. 609823)

ISBN original print edition 9789493194014

ISBN this edition with CC license 9789493194557

Copyright © 2020 The editor and the authors

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0
International (CC BY-SA 4.0) License.
Preliminaries

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>
Michael Willis

From 2014 to 2020, the European Research Council funded *Beyond Boundaries: Religion, Region, Language and the State*, a multi-disciplinary research project based in the British Museum. Co-hosted by the British Library, the School of Oriental and African Studies (University of London) and Leiden University, the project took South Asia, Central Asia and Southeast Asia as its geographical focus. The political and chronological horizon was the Gupta dynasty and their contemporaries in the fourth, fifth and sixth centuries CE. Although this time has been characterised as a 'golden age' in modern scholarship—and noted for developments that shaped facets of South Asian society for more than a thousand years—the exploration of this pivotal moment is largely fragmented and compartmentalised. Cultural and historical research are entrenched in 'silos of knowledge' thanks to modern nation states, regional languages and established disciplinary protocols.

The purpose of the *Beyond Boundaries* project has been to move beyond these limitations and recover a more compelling and complete picture of early medieval Asia. To achieve this aim, the key themes driving the research have been those in the project's subtitle: religion, region, language and the state. The distribution of royal, ritual and religious centres, their patronage and institutional arrangements reveal much about the relationship between religions and states, while inscriptions and texts show the nature and use of the languages that enabled interactions across Asia.

India needs no introduction as a place that has given birth to a number of religions that have impacted Asia as a whole. That influence was especially felt from the early centuries CE when Hinduism and Buddhism spread to Southeast Asia, and Buddhism alone to Central Asia and China. Texts of Indian origin were transmitted and translated, surviving today in Chinese, Tibetan and Pali, with traces of other campaigns of translation preserved in all but vanished languages such as Khotanese, Old Kannada and Pyu. Of course, the characterisation of the fourth to sixth centuries as a time of vibrant expansion and international exchange is only part of the story. Outside the circle of elite individuals who moved between regions and important centres—and were responsible for the texts, translations and inscriptions we know—merchants created and maintained wide networks. Occasionally their activities are recorded, but the main residues are archaeological and numismatic. Local populations, meanwhile, were sedentary and subordinate. Of them we hear little, their presence emerging only in land records which normally take the opportunity to remind farmers that taxes are due. People who lived in the forests and in the hills, like their village counterparts, had little voice. They are alluded to in texts and inscriptions, but figure as the quintessential opposite of the civilised world: wild, strange, disordered and dangerous. Despite these problematic qualities, forest people provided valuable products: ivory, honey, timber, resins, metals, minerals, medicinal plants, to name just some items. The general picture that emerges from the written records is that civilised identity was articulated against the otherness of the forest and the people in it. The tightly circumscribed world of South Asian civilisation, with its lowland agrarian footing and
settled focus, constituted itself against the peoples and regions who were perceived as lying beyond
the pale. Ironically, this external world—at once alien, impure and always threatening—contained
much that useful for the civilised order in material terms and everything that was essential for its
existential stability. The matter is neatly summed up in the *Visṇusmṛti* (84: 3–4) which tells us that
those countries are deemed barbarian where the system of the four castes does not exist—even
drinking the water in such places turns one into a savage! The point is clear: the world outside
offers nothing but chaotic barbarism because it does not conform to ordained standards. If you go
there you will become unhinged, a common enough theme in the medical vision of Ayurveda where
one’s natural environment is key to balanced humours, good health and a sound mind. Any doubt
is removed by Sanskrit, the language of elite discourse in South Asia and many regions beyond.
We only need look at the name: it means ‘perfectly formed’, as every school master of Sanskrit is
ready to explain. The pride in this perfection—the work of grammarians as the tradition itself con-
firms—reveals more than the tradition supposes and exposes it more to critical analysis than it
might prefer. It is a matter of simple logic that any language—or indeed anything—that defines
itself as ‘perfectly made’ has taken shape in opposition to difference, plurality and perceived im-
perfection. The perfect articulates itself against the imperfect. To put the matter another way, the
perfectly made world of the Sanskrit cosmopolis—as some have described India—with its intricate
arts, fine poetics, heroic fables and orchestrated rituals, has been created by pushing complexity,
variety—and much of lived existence—to the periphery.

This is all very well as long as the elites are safe in their seats with social, physical and
mental boundaries intact. Agrarian populations can attend to farming, husbandry and paying their
share, while the lower orders otherwise can be instructed to get on with their functions in the ghet-
toes assigned to them. Forest dwellers can be left to their curious customs in the bush as long as
the supply of forest products is not interrupted. The religion, location, language and social organi-
sation of these peoples are of little concern and certainly of no account: ethnography in India did
not exist until the Mughals introduced it. Problems come only when the world outside confronts
the world within. And this is exactly the situation brought about by the Hunnic people. Despite
accounts of them in Chinese, Khotanese, Pahlavi, Sogdian, Bactrian, Armenian, Syriac, Arabic,
Sanskrit, Greek and Latin—all collected and translated here for the first time—the Hunnic people
had little to offer in terms of religion, region, language or state, at least as far as the sources allow
themselves to tell us. Ammianus is especially hostile, but his criticisms usefully sum up the diffi-
cultly that settled folk have with nomadic people: “No one in their country ever plows a field or
touches a plow-handle. They are all without fixed abode, without hearth, or law, or settled mode of
life, and keep roaming from place to place, like fugitives, accompanied by the wagons in which
they live; in wagons their wives weave for them their hideous garments, in wagons they cohabit
with their husbands, bear children, and rear them to the age of puberty. None of their offspring,
when asked, can tell you where he comes from, since he was conceived in one place, born far from
there, and brought up still farther away” (Text IX.004).

The Huns are a people beyond boundaries, certainly, and they seem to be people largely
beyond comprehension. But to follow an established trope in post-modern analysis, we can ap-
proach the matter from the opposite end and observe that the sources tell us more about those who
wrote them than about the Huns *per se*. The profile of their anxieties is not documentation of the Huns in a direct or empirical sense, but they do reveal aspects of the world in which the Huns operated. For example, if we know that people in Byzantium during the mid-sixth century thought the Huns had "a sort of shapeless lump, not a head, with pin-holes rather than eyes" (Text IX.002/B), and that they have "compact, strong limbs and thick necks, and are so monstrously ugly and misshapen, that one might take them for two-legged beasts or for the stumps, rough-hewn into images, that are used in putting sides to bridges," (Text IX.004), we will have some measure of the mental landscape of those living in the eastern Roman empire and the presuppositions that informed their interactions with the Hunnic people they may have encountered.

The historical sources are thus a rich mine of information from every perspective, and now that they have been brought together progress can be anticipated in the study of the eastern Huns and the impact they had on India, Persia and Central Asia. Significant gaps remain nonetheless. To my mind, the most important is that despite an examination of the problem at the Budapest conference, we are left with no clear information about the language or languages that the Hunnic peoples spoke, other than those they adopted in the course of their interactions with others. Some of the sources are distinctly unhelpful and xenophobic. Iordanes recounts how Filimer, a king of the Goths, found witches among his people and had them expelled. As the women wandered in exile, they were picked up by 'unclean spirits' and eventually "begat this savage race, which dwelt at first in the swamps, a stunted, foul and puny tribe, scarcely human, and having no language save one which bore but slight resemblance to human speech" (Text IX.002). The *Liangshu* is at least objective: "their speech is different from that of the Ruanruan, Gaoju and other *hu*" (Text I.039). We should not complain, but sadly, the Chinese made no attempt to transliterate the Hunnic language as they did, for example, with early forms of Burmese. The language could be translated by the Tuyuhun, and that seems to have satisfied requirements (Text I.072/B). Hunnic names have a Turkic ring, certainly, but with the oldest forms of Turkish attested only from the eighth century in the Orkhon and Tonyukuk inscriptions of the Göktürks, names alone are inconclusive.

In general terms, the sources are remarkably Thucydidean. Their primary concerns are matters of state as conducted by those in power: politics, diplomacy, warfare, lands raided, occupied or put under tribute. Dress is described not from any love of haute couture but rather as a means identifying members of the alien elite when you see them. Despite the pragmatic orientation, we are told little about the system of governance and other matters of administration outside some basic military matters. These things we are unlikely to ever know, but an understanding might be gleaned from comparative studies of similar people, for example the Mongols, for whom we have much more information. This could be enriched by an examination of societies that may have had shared features, the Göktürks just mentioned seeming to offer a fruitful line of comparative investigation.

Having invoked Thucydides, we follow the western historiographical divide to Herodotus. His cosmopolitan worldview, fascination with human nature, interest in the influence of religion in history and curiosity about 'foreign' beliefs and habits are less well served by the sources, even if our interest in the Huns finds its roots in historians who admired Herodotus like Johan Huizinga and Marc Bloch. Here and there, the *Sourcebook* gives insights into social arrangements, such as
the detail that brothers shared the same wife, that Hunnic people ate meat, were good with the bow, wore long gowns with short sleeves and used gold and jade as ornaments. They buried the dead, and worshipped the 'spirit of heaven' and 'the spirit of fire' (Text I.043/B). Despite all this, it is astonishing that what the Hunnic people called themselves was of no direct or detailed concern. The ethnic name Alchon or Alkhan, used in South Asia at least, does not feature; it is known only from the seals and coins that they issued. In the Chinese sources, the term Yeda or Yida is regarded as a transliteration of the name for a Hunnic people but the link is tentative, being made through reconstructions (see notes to Text I.027/C.). One name that does appear across many sources is 'Hun' and its variants. With variations in western and eastern sources both, these cannot be exonyms. The certainty of this is shown by the seal of Ularg (Text V.008). While the case relationship of 'king' and 'Huns' is not settled fully, that the Huns are indeed named is certain. A seal is a public proclamation, made in multiples for circulation and meant to be recognised by those who read it. Thus, the word 'Hun' in the Ularg seals (of which there are several), can be taken to be a 'real world' reference to a people who where known by this name. If the matter is not settled with absolute finality, the compilation of the *Sourcebook* has, nonetheless, done much to fill historical gaps, and the companion volumes that will come on the Alchon and on the Yueban and Yeda will combine the sources assembled here with archaeological, numismatic and epigraphic information to map the wider history of the Hunnic peoples in Central Asia, Persia and South Asia.

In closing it is my pleasant duty to thank the scholars who travelled long distances and gave their time and effort to the conference in Budapest. Eötvös Loránd University generously hosted the event and supported it in every way. I am especially grateful to Hans T. Bakker for conceiving the need for the conference and *Sourcebook*, and for forging the scholarly networks needed to deliver the results. Csaba Dezső and Gergely Hidas graciously prepared and orchestrated the proceedings in Budapest, while Dániel Balogh undertook the Herculean task of assembling all the texts in their original and in translation. Thanks are due not only to all the contributors who came to Budapest, but also to those co-opted to the Sourcebook subsequently to deal with specialist details in an authoritative manner. The speed with which everyone contributed and engaged sympathetically is indicative of the synergy created and a general consensus that a *Sourcebook* was much needed. Behind this all stands the European Research Council whose support for our project has enabled this and many other publications.
Dániel Balogh

The period from the fourth to the seventh century CE has long been considered a dark one in the history of Central Asia and Northwest India. The various ruling elites known to contemporaries as Hūṇa, Hephthalite, Alchon, or Kidarite, played pivotal historical roles. Though portrayed in colonial scholarship as a period of decline, with conventional notions of barbaric hordes, this was in fact a moment of great cultural and artistic development. The grand Buddhas at Bamyan were made under these rulers, and pilgrims carried Buddhist learning from India to China through their territory. Historians, working on diverse sources from coins to travelogues, have begun to recover the history of this fascinating period. This culminated in a public exhibition, 'The Countenance of the Other: The Coins of the Huns and Western Turks in Central Asia and India,' in Vienna from 2012 to 2014. Despite this there remain many controversies. The public identities that rulers adopted in their own coinage are often contradicted by the identities contemporaries ascribed to them. The complexity of the issue is raised to another power by the fact that textual sources pertaining to them are often brief and fragmentary, ever biased in one direction or another, and dispersed across thousands of kilometres of geography, several centuries of history and a dozen or so languages.

In August 2017, the ERC project ‘Beyond Boundaries: Religion, Region, Language and the State’i in collaboration with the Eötvös Loránd University of Budapest organised a workshop titled ‘Hunnic Peoples in Central and South Asia — Sources of their Origin and History.’ The workshop convened a team of international scholars interested in this topic, and included a small number of keynote presentations by principal speakers. The bulk of the convention, however, consisted of introductions to textual sources across a range of languages by specialists and an open discussion of these sources by the participants, who included a diverse selection of linguists, numismatists, historians, and archaeologists. The sources that served as points of focus were selected in advance and aggregated into a “portfolio” distributed to all participants well in advance of the event. Subsequently, they were revised and are now being presented in the form of a sourcebook along with some commentary and translations, usually into English but occasionally into another international language in cases where a section coordinator deemed a published German or French translation to be best suited for the purpose. A similarly composed collection of texts (Yu 2018) has seen the light of day during the time our sourcebook was being readied for the press. While many of the excerpts in that compilation overlap with ours, we expect the present Sourcebook to reach out to a wider and disciplinally more diverse international readership thanks to its collaborative commentaries and extensive translations. In addition, this Sourcebook will be accompanied by a series of companion volumes with more profound analysis of specific aspects of Hunnic history. The first of these companions, treating on the Alchon (Bakker 2020), is to see the light of day around the same time as the present volume.

<footnote>i An ERC Synergy project from the European Research Council under the EU’s 7th Framework Programme (FP7/2007–2013)/ERC, grant agreement no. 609823</footnote>
Being the work of various scholars and covering a material that is extremely diverse in genre, the Sourcebook is inevitably a slightly tangled affair. Collaborators were given free rein in arranging their contributions as they felt best, and some sections are much larger and more complex than others. The use of brackets and other editorial notation has been largely standardised (see 'Editorial conventions' below), and it is hoped that an occasional deviation from the standard will be obviously understandable in its context.

The overall structure of the present compilation is as follows. Primary sections are based on language, except that Greek and Latin sources, coming from a largely identical cultural milieu and manifesting a high level of intertextuality, have been bundled into a single section. Each section heading has Roman capital numeration. Sections may begin with an introduction to the material and/or an overview of the compiled texts. Some of the larger sections have the texts organised thematically. Thematic chapters are numbered in Arabic numerals suffixed to the section number, e.g. I.1. Some such chapters have subchapters, numbered in the same way, e.g. I.1.1. The individual text excerpts (or quasi-texts such as numismatic evidence) collected for the portfolio have three-digit Arabic numbers, to which the Roman number of the language section is prefixed, e.g. I.001. Text numbers are restarted in each language section, but run continuously through any thematic chapters and subchapters within a section. Some texts, especially those consisting of multiple, non-contiguous excerpts from a single source, are further subdivided, and have a Latin capital letter suffixed to their number, e.g. I.001/A.

To facilitate the use of the Sourcebook, primary and secondary text is differentiated visually in the following way.

Original texts (regardless of the directionality of the script in which they are presented) are indented on the left and marked with a double vertical line on that side.

Translations of original texts are marked with a single vertical line on the left-hand side.

Where applicable, the critical apparatus accompanying a text is surrounded by a box.

All non-primary material is printed without a line on the left.

Commentaries interspersed with or placed after texts are marked by a single vertical line on the right-hand side.
## Credits

As intimated above, this Sourcebook is a product of synergistic collaboration between numerous scholars. Hans Bakker was the initiator and chief coordinator of the workshop, and Dániel Balogh has curated the texts discussed there and edited the final compilation. The individual sections were each compiled and, on many occasions, translated and/or commented on by a small number of specialists as listed below, yet most have received input from several other participants of the workshop. Comments and footnotes not otherwise attributed in the body of the book may be deemed to be by the author(s) of the section in which they appear.

Chinese Ching Chao-jung and Imre Galambos, with contributions by Max Deeg, Inaba Minoru (Chinese Buddhist texts) and Wong Junfu (overview of sources)

Khotanese Mauro Maggi

Pahlavi Frantz Grenet

Sogdian Nicholas Sims-Williams

Bactrian Nicholas Sims-Williams

Armenian Giusto Traina

Syriac Mark Dickens (with a smaller core selection prepared for the workshop by Christelle Jullien)

Arabic Étienne de La Vaissière (core selection of translated Islamic sources), Mark Dickens (selection of translated Christian sources) and Orsolya Varsányi (original texts and revision)

Greek and Latin Timo Stickler

Sanskrit Hans Bakker (epigraphic sources), Csaba Dezső (literary sources), Gergely Hidas (Buddhist texts) and Dániel Balogh (seal inscriptions)

Numismatic Robert Bracey

The workshop that generated the fundament of this publication was organised by Csaba Dezső and Gergely Hidas with the aid of Robert Bracey and Dániel Balogh, and the advisorial support of Hans Bakker. In addition to the authors listed above, outstanding contributors to various panels included Bruno Bleckmann, Joe Cribb, Rene Pfeilschifter and Klaus Vondrovec, but congratulations and thanks are due to all the other participants not named here.
Manuscript/epigraph properties

— space in original, except word spacing in texts that space words

(a) unclear text [except Greek and Bactrian]

(a/b) unclear text with ambiguous reading

. one illegible character component (in alphasyllabic script)

x one illegible character (in non-metrical text)

□ one missing or illegible character (in logographic script)

x...x series of illegible characters

— in metrical text: prosodic quantity of illegible or lost syllables

[] lacuna, text lost

[a] lacuna, text restored by editor

[a?] lacuna, text tentatively restored by editor

[ lacuna to end of line (may contain partial editorial restoration)]

\a/ scribal insertion

[] scribal deletion (deleted text not read)

{abc} commentarial (pre-modern) additions to core text

Editorial intervention

{a} superfluous text deleted by editor

<a> editorial insertion, scribal omission corrected by editor

:(a:) text emended or standardised by editor (original reading not shown)

† corruption, not emended by editor

[...] text extant but excluded from this compilation

[1] line, verse or paragraph number

Special conventions for Greek and Bactrian languages

α underdot marks unclear characters

ā overline represents abbreviation marker in the original document
## Conventions for translations

(abc) round parentheses in translated text are regular punctuation marks without any special function

[abc] editorial addition, clarification, comment or summary

[[abc]] translation of lost and supplied text

{abc} translation of commentarial additions to core text

## Editorial punctuation and numbering

Punctuation marks, sometimes including quotation marks and round parentheses, as well as verse numbers in Indic texts, have been added at the individual editors' discretion to many of the extracts herein. These are not flagged as editorial and are thus not distinguished from punctuation and numbering (if any) present in the original manuscript or epigraph.
Hans Bakker

The following table provides an overview of the key dates and events related to Central and South Asian Hunnic peoples, and offers Hans Bakker's interpretation of the underlying historical processes. In case the actual source is not included in our Sourcebook, a reference is made to the author and the passage concerned.

<table><thead><tr><th>year CE</th><th>Persia</th><th>India</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>350–388</td><td>Hunnic Peoples settling in Bactria<br>Shāpur II defeated by the ‘Kushans’ (Text VI.002/C)</td><td>and South of the Hindu Kush</td></tr><tr><td>388–450</td><td>Sasanian–Kidarite Wars</td><td><strong>Kidarites and Alchons</strong> establishing their rule in Gandhāra and the Punjab</td></tr><tr><td>453–459</td><td>The Sasanian king <strong>Yazdegerd II</strong> is engaged in a war with <strong>Kidarite Huns</strong> in c. 456 CE (Text IX.008/B). First embassy (AD 459) of ‘Juchang’ (= Kushan/Kidara) to the court of the Northern Wei (I.018/A).<br><strong>Pērōz</strong> (r. 459–84)<br>(1) Deposes his brother Hormizd in 459 (with help of the Huns?).<br>(2) Deceives the Kidarite King Κούγχας and the Kidarite–Persian war is rekindled in 464–65 (Text IX.008/C). <strong>Pērōz</strong> is forced to leave his son Kawād as hostage (Text VII.001/A).<br>(3) Successful campaign of <strong>Pērōz</strong>: conquers Baλαάμ (Balkh?) in 467 (Text IX.008/D) and frees son(?). <strong>This may mark the end of Kidarite power in Bactria.</strong><br>(4) After 474 another campaign against the Hephthalites. <strong>Pērōz</strong> is taken captive and ransomed by Emperor Zeno (Text VII.001/A).<sup>i</sup><br><strong>The Sasanians become tributary to the Hephthalites.</strong></td><td>The young <strong>Skandagupta</strong> fights adversaries referred to as <em>mleccha</em> (Text X.028) and Hūņa (Text X.027).<br>Last known date of Skandagupta (coins): 468.<br>Installation by the Yeda (Hephthalites) of the first <em>chiqin</em> (<strong>Khiṅgila</strong>?) in Gandhāra (Text I.054/B).</td></tr><tr><td>459–484</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

<footnote>i In line with Luther (1997, 120ff), Christelle Jullien (personal communication prior to the workshop) argues that this episode (4) may be a literary doubling of episode (2).</footnote>
<table><thead><tr><th>year CE</th><th>Persia</th><th>India</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>484</td><td>(5) Pērōz attacks the Hephthalites again under their King Xašnawāz/Akhshunwar (Texts III.002, VIII.002/B), and is destroyed together with his army (Texts VII.001/A, VI.007/A, IX.010, III.002, VIII.002/B).<br>The good relations between the Sasanian and the Roman empires begin to unravel as the Roman Emperor Zeno denies the Sasanians further financial support.</td><td>Last known dated monument of the Imperial Guptas in Western India: Eran Stone Pillar Inscription of Budhagupta (476-95), Gupta Year 165.<br>Column and twin temple erected by Mahārāja Mātṛviṣṇu and his younger brother Dhanyaviṣṇu in Eran (Betwā Valley).</td></tr><tr><td>484-488</td><td>Interregnum of brother of Pērōz, Walāsh (Text VII.001/B). Commander-in-chief Zarmihr Sokhra is the strong man in a country that is in disarray and broke.<br><b>Kawād</b> (488-96/498-531), son of Pērōz, replaces Walāsh in 488 (Text VII.001/B).</td><td><b>Suraśmicandra</b> ruling (as viceroy) the Western Gupta Empire (Eran Stone Pillar Inscription of Budhagupta).<br><b>The Gupta Empire begins to fall apart.</b></td></tr><tr><td>488-531</td><td>Socio-religious movement of Mazdak, tolerated by Kawād, weakens Zoroastrian orthodoxy and nobility (Texts III.002, VIII.004/D; cf. Joshua the Stylite 20).<br>Kawād is dethroned (496) and confined to the 'Prison of Oblivion' (Text IX.011/B; cf. Procopius I, 5).<br>Interregnum of Jāmāsp (496-98), brother of Kawād.<br>Kawād escapes to the Hephthalites (Text VIII.002/C).</td><td>Period of the Alchon (Hūṇa) invasions in India.<br>Year 68 (Kaniṣka Era?) of Text X.030, the Schøyen Copper Scroll, corresponds to 495/96 CE. Gandhāra - Punjab - NW Kashmir: a quadrumvirate of Alchon kings including devarāja Toramāṇa.</td></tr><tr><td>496-498</td><td>With the help of the Hephthalite king (his father-in-law & brother-in-law?) <b>Kawād</b> conquers the Sasanian throne (Texts VII.001/C, IX.011/B, VIII.002/C; cf. Procopius 1, 5).</td><td><b>Toramāṇa</b> assumes the Indian titles rājādhirāja mahārāja, combined with the Central Asian title of ṣāh(i) jaūhkha (yabğu?) (Text X.031).<br><b>Alchon invasion in Western India</b> in the first year of the reign of mahārājādhirāja Toramāṇa. Battle of Eran (Betwā Valley), in which Mātṛviṣṇu is probably killed. His younger brother Dhanyaviṣṇu installs a Varāha mūrti in Eran. (Text X.032)</td></tr><tr><td>c. 498</td><td></td><td>First Hunnic War.<br><b>Sack of Kauśāmbī</b> by Toramāṇa (c. 499-502).</td></tr><tr><td>498-500</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>498-515</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th>year CE</th><th>Persia</th><th>India</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>c. 502–505</td><td>First Sasanian–Roman (Byzantium) war. Kawād's army is reinforced by Hephthalite auxiliaries (Text VII.001/D). Kawād takes Amida (Jan. 503) (Joshua 53, Procopius I.7.29ff.).</td><td>In the third year of the reign of <i>mahārājādhirāja</i> Toramāņa, <i>mahārāja</i> Bhūta in Vadrapālī / Sanjeli is holding the governorship over the Śivabhāgapura district (North Gujarat), thanks to Toramāņa's grace (Text X.034/A).</td></tr><tr><td>510</td><td></td><td>Text X.035 reports that Goparāja and <i>rāja</i> Bhānugupta fought together in the <b>second battle of Eran</b> (against Toramāņa?), in which Goparāja was killed.</td></tr><tr><td>515</td><td></td><td>The Later Aulikara king <b>Prakāśadharman of Daśapura</b> reports victory over the <i>hūņādhipa</i> Toramāņa (Text X.036). End of the First Hunnic War.</td></tr><tr><td>c. 518–532</td><td>The <b>Chinese envoy Song Yun</b> reports that the King of the Hephthalites receives tribute from 40 countries (Text I.046/A). Their territory stretches to Dieluo [Zabul] in the south, extends until Chiqin (?) in the north, encompasses the land up to Yutian [Khotan] in the east, and reaches to Bosi [Persia] in the west (Text I.046/A).</td><td>Second Hunnic War.<br/>Song Yun meets a king of Gandhāra of a <i>chiqin</i> family, probably Mihirakula, in his army camp on the banks of the Jhelum River (Vitastā) in West Punjab (Text I.054/B).<br/>He describes the king as fierce and brutal, someone who often commits massacres (Text I.054/B).</td></tr><tr><td>519–520</td><td>Second Sasanian–Roman war.<br/>Battle of Daras in 530. Kawād's army is defeated (Procopius I.13.13ff.). Death of Kawād in 531. (Procopius I, 12ff and I, 21.) He is succeeded by <b>Khusraw</b> (<b>531–79</b>) (Procopius I.21.17ff.), who kills Mazdak and his followers (Texts III.002, VIII.002/D).</td><td><b>Toramāņa's son Mihirakula</b>, Lord of the Earth, is bending to no-one save Śiva (Text X.037). Foundation of a Sun Temple in fortress of Gwalior (Gopagiri).</td></tr><tr><td>c. 530–531</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>532</td><td>Khusraw concludes the 'Endless Peace' with Emperor Justinian (Procopius I.22.17; Joshua 98). Beginning of the Sasanian revival.</td><td><b>Rājādhirāja parameśvara Yaśodharman</b> of Daśapura reports the submission by force of the Northern Kings (Hūņas) (Text X.038).<br/><b>End of the Second Hunnic War.</b></td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th>year CE</th><th>Persia</th><th>India</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>c. 532–534</td><td></td><td>Two victory pillars with identical inscriptions, found in Sondhni/Mandasor, claim that Emperor (samrāj) Yaśodharman had rescued the earth from rude and cruel kings of the present Kali age, and “had bent the head of Mihirakula” (Text X.039).<br>The Maukharis of Kanauj claim in 544 (Text X.040), that their ancestor <b>Īśvaravarman</b> “had alleviated the distress caused by the arrival of cruel people” (i.e. Hūṇas). Īśvaravarman may have joined a coalition under Yaśodharman of Mandasor in 532.</td></tr><tr><td>c. 534–540</td><td><b>Fading of Hephthalite power.</b> Khusraw breaks the ‘Endless Peace’ and captures the city of Antioch (Procopius II.8).</td><td>Maukhari king <b>Īśānavarman</b> claims to have “routed in battle the Sūlikas and their galloping arrays of innumerable horses” (Text X.041). The Sūlikas are to be located in the Northwest and may refer to Hunnic adversaries and/or their allies.</td></tr><tr><td>560–563</td><td><b>Western Turks</b> under khāqān Ishtemi (= Σιλζίβουλος / Silzibul ?) conquer the Hephthalites in Transoxana (Sogdiana), killing their King W.r.z (Warāz?) (Text VIII.002/D).</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>late 560s</td><td><b>Khusraw</b> leads an expedition against the Hephthalites (jointly with the Western Turks?) and conquers Bactria (Texts I.068, VIII.002/D).<br>End of the Hephthalites as dominant power in Bactria.</td><td>Period of peace in Northern India under the Maukhari king of Kanauj, <b>Śarvavarman</b>. <b>Śarvavarman</b> is believed to have sent the <b>game of chess</b> to the Sasanian King Khusraw (<i>Shāhnāma</i>).</td></tr></tbody></table>
## I.1.7. GAO Hui's two missions to the Yeda in 515-525 CE

I.012. Biography of GAO Hui ..................................................................................................................24

## I.1.8. SONG Yun's mission to the Western Regions, 518/519-522 CE

I.013. Description of SONG Yun's mission in the *Weishu* ................................................................25

## I.2. King Jiduoluo 寄多羅 in the *Weishu*

I.014. The entry on the Great Yuezhi in the *Weishu* ........................................................................26

I.015. The entry on the Smaller Yuezhi in the *Weishu* ........................................................................29

## I.3. The Xiongnu conquest of Sogdiana in the *Weishu*

I.016. The entry on Sogdiana in the *Weishu* ....................................................................................31

I.017. The passage about Huni in the *Tongdian* ................................................................................33

## I.4. Possible Kushan and Kidarite emissaries to the Northern Wei in the late fifth century

I.018. Tribute payments from Juchang and Juduoluo........................................................................34

I.018/A. 459 CE..................................................................................................................................................34

I.018/B. 460 CE..................................................................................................................................................34

I.018/C. 477 CE..................................................................................................................................................34

## I.5. Entries on Western states adjacent to the Smaller Yuezhi in the *Weishu*

I.019. Bosi (Persia) ........................................................................................................................................35

I.020. The five states considered to be the five Xihou of the past................................................................36

I.021. Agou Qiang 阿鈞羌................................................................................................................................38

I.022. Bolu 波路........................................................................................................................................39

I.023. Jibin 簋賓........................................................................................................................................39

I.024. Tuhuluo 吐呼羅........................................................................................................................................40

I.025. Tribute payment from Tuhuluo in 464 CE................................................................................43

I.026. Fuhuo 副貨........................................................................................................................................43

## I.6. The Yeda 嘬嚠, referred to in the *Liangshu* as Hua 滑

### I.6.1. Ethnic name and origin

I.027. Records from the Northern Dynasties ....................................................................................45

I.027/A. *Original *Weishu* 102 ................................................................................................................45

I.027/B. *Zhoushu* 50........................................................................................................................................45

I.027/C. *Suishu* 83........................................................................................................................................45

I.028. Records from the Southern Dynasties ....................................................................................46

I.028/A. *Liangshu* 54........................................................................................................................................46

I.028/B. *Liangshu* 30........................................................................................................................................46

I.028/C. *Liangshu* 54........................................................................................................................................47

I.028/D. *Nanshi* 79........................................................................................................................................47

I.028/E. *Liang zhigong tu*........................................................................................................................................47

I.029. Information from the Sui and Tang period....................................................................................47

I.029/A. *Xin Tangshu* 211........................................................................................................................................47

I.029/B. *Tongdian* 193 (on Hua)................................................................................................................48

I.029/C. *Tongdian* 193 (on Yeda)................................................................................................................48

### I.6.2. Location (of the capital)

I.030. Records from the Northern Dynasties ....................................................................................49

I.030/A. *Zhoushu* 50........................................................................................................................................49

I.030/B. *Suishu* 83........................................................................................................................................49

### I.6.3. Expansion

I.031. Records from the Northern Dynasties ....................................................................................50

I.031/A. *Weishu* 101........................................................................................................................................50

I.031/B. *Suishu* 83........................................................................................................................................51
<table><tr><td>I.032. Records from the Southern Dynasties</td><td>51</td></tr><tr><td>I.032/A. Liangshu 54</td><td>51</td></tr><tr><td>I.032/B. Liang zhigong tu</td><td>52</td></tr><tr><td>I.033. Shi Fǎxiàn's Pilgrimage in the Gaoseng zhuan 高僧傳</td><td>52</td></tr></table>

### I.6.4. Population

<table><tr><td>I.034. Records from the Northern Dynasties</td><td>55</td></tr><tr><td>I.034/A. *Original Weishu 102</td><td>55</td></tr><tr><td>I.034/B. Suishu 83 (on the Yida)</td><td>55</td></tr></table>

### I.6.5. Royal court, political system, economy and natural environment

<table><tr><td>I.035. Records from the Northern Dynasties</td><td>56</td></tr><tr><td>I.035/A. *Original Weishu 102</td><td>56</td></tr><tr><td>I.035/B. Qielanji 5</td><td>57</td></tr><tr><td>I.036. Description in the Liangshu</td><td>58</td></tr></table>

### I.6.6. Social and cultural characteristics of ordinary people

<table><tr><td>I.037. Records from the Northern Dynasties, the Sui and the Tang</td><td>59</td></tr><tr><td>I.037/A. *Original Weishu 102</td><td>59</td></tr><tr><td>I.037/B. Qielanji 5</td><td>59</td></tr><tr><td>I.037/C. Zhoushu 50</td><td>59</td></tr><tr><td>I.037/D. Suishu 83</td><td>59</td></tr><tr><td>I.037/E. Suishu 83 (on Tuhuoluo)</td><td>59</td></tr><tr><td>I.037/F. Tongdian 193 (on Tuhuoluo)</td><td>60</td></tr><tr><td>I.037/G. Xin Tangshu 221 (on the Yeda)</td><td>60</td></tr><tr><td>I.037/H. Tongdian 193 (on the Yeda)</td><td>60</td></tr><tr><td>I.038. Description in the Liangshu</td><td>61</td></tr></table>

### I.6.7. Language and script

<table><tr><td>I.039. Records from the Northern Dynasties</td><td>61</td></tr><tr><td>I.039/A. *Original Weishu 102</td><td>61</td></tr><tr><td>I.039/B. Qielanji 5</td><td>61</td></tr><tr><td>I.040. Description in the Liangshu</td><td>61</td></tr></table>

### I.6.8. Calendar

<table><tr><td>I.041. Information in the Luoyang Qielanji</td><td>63</td></tr></table>

### I.6.9. Religion and cults

<table><tr><td>I.042. Records from the Northern Dynasties and the Sui</td><td>63</td></tr><tr><td>I.042/A. Qielanji 5</td><td>63</td></tr><tr><td>I.042/B. Suishu 83</td><td>63</td></tr><tr><td>I.043. Records from the Southern Dynasties</td><td>63</td></tr><tr><td>I.043/A. Liangshu 54</td><td>63</td></tr><tr><td>I.043/B. Liang zhigong tu</td><td>63</td></tr></table>

### I.6.10. Funeral

<table><tr><td>I.044. Description in the Weishu</td><td>64</td></tr><tr><td>I.045. Records from the Southern Dynasties</td><td>64</td></tr><tr><td>I.045/A. Liangshu 54</td><td>64</td></tr><tr><td>I.045/B. Liang zhigong tu</td><td>64</td></tr></table>

### I.6.11. International Status

<table><tr><td>I.046. Records from the Northern Dynasties</td><td>64</td></tr><tr><td>I.046/A. Qielanji 5</td><td>64</td></tr><tr><td>I.046/B. Weishu 102</td><td>65</td></tr><tr><td>I.046/C. Zhoushu 50</td><td>65</td></tr><tr><td>I.047. Description in the Liang zhigong tu</td><td>65</td></tr></table>

### I.6.12. The states subjugated by the Yeda

<table><tr><td>I.048. Zhuju 朱居</td><td>66</td></tr></table>
<table>
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td>I.049. Kepantuo 渴槃陁</td>
      <td>66</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>I.050. Bohe 鉢和</td>
      <td>66</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>I.051. Bozhi 波知</td>
      <td>67</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>I.052. Shemi 贖彌 and Bolule 鉢盧勒</td>
      <td>67</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>I.053. Wuchang 烏萇</td>
      <td>68</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>I.053/A. Weishu 102</td>
      <td>68</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>I.053/B. Youyang Zazu</td>
      <td>68</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>I.053/C. Qielanji 5</td>
      <td>68</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>I.054. Qiantuo 乾陀</td>
      <td>70</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>I.054/A. Weishu 102</td>
      <td>70</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>I.054/B. Qielanji 5</td>
      <td>70</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>I.055. Baiti 白題 and other states adjacent to Hua in the Liangshu</td>
      <td>73</td>
    </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>

I.6.13. Conflicts between the Rouran, Gaoju and Yeda

<table>
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td>I.056. Doulun's succession to the Rouran throne in 485 CE and the split of the Gaoju from the Rouran</td>
      <td>74</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>I.056/A. Weishu 103 (on the Ruanruan)</td>
      <td>74</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>I.056/B. Weishu 103 (on the Gaoju)</td>
      <td>74</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>I.057. Wars between Doulun and Afuzhiluo before Nagai's succession to the Rouran throne</td>
      <td>75</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>I.058. Death of Qiongqi and Afuzhiluo and the Yeda intervention to support Qiongqi's son Mi'etu</td>
      <td>76</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>I.059. Emperor Shizong's decree to Mi'etu in 508 CE</td>
      <td>77</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>I.060. Futu's succession to the Rouran throne and his death after attacking Mi'etu in 508 CE</td>
      <td>78</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>I.060/A. Weishu 103 (on the Ruanruan)</td>
      <td>78</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>I.060/B. Weishu 103 (on the Gaoju)</td>
      <td>78</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>I.061. Mi'etu's death around 516 after his defeat by the Rouran ruler Chounu</td>
      <td>79</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>I.061/A. Weishu 103 (on the Gaoju)</td>
      <td>79</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>I.061/B. Weishu 103 (on the Ruanruan)</td>
      <td>79</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>I.062. Yifu's succession to the Gaoju throne by the summer of 522</td>
      <td>79</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>I.063. The Rouran prince Anagui's refuge in the Northern Wei in 520-521</td>
      <td>80</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>I.064. Poluomen's succession to the Rouran throne</td>
      <td>81</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>I.065. Yifu's attack on Poluomen</td>
      <td>81</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>I.065/A. Weishu 103 (on the Gaoju)</td>
      <td>81</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>I.065/B. Weishu 103 (on the Ruanruan)</td>
      <td>81</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>I.066. Poluomen's attempt to flee to the Yeda and his death in 524 in China</td>
      <td>82</td>
    </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>

I.6.14. Final days of the Yeda

<table>
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td>I.067. General account of the history of the Yeda</td>
      <td>82</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>I.067/A. Zhoushu 50 (on the Yeda)</td>
      <td>82</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>I.067/B. Suishu 83 (on the Yeda)</td>
      <td>82</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>I.068. General account of the history of the Turks</td>
      <td>83</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>I.068/A. Zhoushu 50 (on the Tujue)</td>
      <td>83</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>I.068/B. Suishu 84 (on the Tujue)</td>
      <td>83</td>
    </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>

I.6.15. Yeda tribute payments to China

<table>
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td>I.069. Tribute payments to the Northern Wei court</td>
      <td>84</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>I.069/A. A General review in the Weishu, j. 102</td>
      <td>84</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>I.069/B. 456 CE</td>
      <td>84</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>I.069/C. 502 CE</td>
      <td>85</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>I.069/D. 507 CE</td>
      <td>85</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>I.069/E. 509 CE</td>
      <td>85</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>I.069/F. 511 CE</td>
      <td>86</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>I.069/G. 512 CE</td>
      <td>86</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>I.069/H. 513 CE</td>
      <td>86</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>I.069/I. 517 CE</td>
      <td>86</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>I.069/J. 518 CE</td>
      <td>86</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>I.069/K. 519 CE</td>
      <td>87</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>I.069/L. 524-525 CE</td>
      <td>87</td>
    </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>
<table><tr><td>I.069/M. 530 CE</td><td>87</td></tr><tr><td>I.069/N. 532 CE</td><td>87</td></tr><tr><td>I.070. Tribute payments to the Western Wei and Northern Zhou courts</td><td>87</td></tr><tr><td>I.070/A. General review in the Zhoushu, j. 50</td><td>87</td></tr><tr><td>I.070/B. 558 CE</td><td>88</td></tr><tr><td>I.071. Tribute payments to the Sui court</td><td>88</td></tr><tr><td>I.072. Tribute payments to the Liang court</td><td>88</td></tr><tr><td>I.072/A. General review in the Liangshu, j. 54</td><td>88</td></tr><tr><td>I.072/B. Liang zhigong tu</td><td>89</td></tr><tr><td>I.072/C. 520 CE</td><td>89</td></tr><tr><td>I.072/D. 526 CE</td><td>89</td></tr><tr><td>I.072/E. 535 CE</td><td>89</td></tr><tr><td>I.072/F. 541 CE</td><td>90</td></tr></table>

## I.6.16. Analysis of the entry on the Yeda in the Weishu

<table><tr><td>I.073. Part A</td><td>90</td></tr><tr><td>I.074. Part B (from the Zhoushu)</td><td>90</td></tr><tr><td>I.075. Part C (from the Suishu)</td><td>90</td></tr><tr><td>I.076. Part D (from the Zhoushu)</td><td>91</td></tr><tr><td>I.077. Part E (from the Suishu)</td><td>91</td></tr><tr><td>I.078. Part F (from the Zhoushu)</td><td>91</td></tr><tr><td>I.079. Part G</td><td>91</td></tr><tr><td>I.080. Part H</td><td>91</td></tr><tr><td>I.081. Part I</td><td>92</td></tr><tr><td>I.082. Part J (from the Zhoushu)</td><td>92</td></tr><tr><td>I.083. Part K (from the Zhoushu?)</td><td>92</td></tr><tr><td>I.084. Part L</td><td>92</td></tr><tr><td>I.085. Part M (from the Suishu)</td><td>93</td></tr></table>

## I.7. Legends about Mihirakula in Chinese Buddhist texts

<table><tr><td>I.086. Legend about Mihirakula in Xuanzang's records</td><td>93</td></tr><tr><td>I.087. Legend about Mihirakula in the Fu fazang yinyuan zhuan 付法藏因緣傳</td><td>97</td></tr><tr><td>I.088. Legend about Mihirakula in the Lianhuamian jing 蓮華面經</td><td>99</td></tr></table>

## I.8. Legends about Himatala in Chinese Buddhist texts

<table><tr><td>I.089. Legends about Ximodaluo recorded by Xuanzang</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>I.089/A. Da Tang xiyuji, j. 3</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>I.089/B. Da Tang xiyuji, j. 6</td><td>101</td></tr><tr><td>I.089/C. Da Tang xiyuji, j. 12</td><td>102</td></tr></table>

## I.9 The legend of Xinnie in the seventh and eighth centuries

<table><tr><td>I.090. King Xinnie in the Jiu Tangshu</td><td>103</td></tr><tr><td>I.091. Xiuxian dudufu 修鮮都督府 and other Area Commands in the Jiu Tangshu</td><td>107</td></tr></table>

## Supplement: The Yueban and Gaoju in the Weishu

<table><tr><td>I.092. The Yueban 悅般</td><td>108</td></tr><tr><td>I.093. The Gaoju 高車</td><td>110</td></tr></table>

## II. Khotanese Sources

Mauro Maggi

<table><tr><td>Overview of sources</td><td>114</td></tr><tr><td>II.001. Book of Zambasta 15.5–10</td><td>114</td></tr><tr><td>II.002. Hedin 20</td><td>116</td></tr><tr><td>II.002/A. Letter a</td><td>116</td></tr><tr><td>II.002/B. Letter b</td><td>117</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>VI.001/B. §123, The prowess of the Armenian king Trdat</td><td>151</td></tr><tr><td>VI.002. Buzandaran Patmut'iwnk' (P'awstos Buzand)</td><td>151</td></tr><tr><td>VI.002/A. III 6, About Grigoris, kat'otikos of the Caucasian Albanians</td><td>151</td></tr><tr><td>VI.002/B. III 7, Raid into Armenia of the king of the Mazk'ut'k'</td><td>151</td></tr><tr><td>VI.002/C. V 7, War of Šāpur II against the "K'ušan"</td><td>154</td></tr><tr><td>VI.002/D. V 37, War of Šāpur II against the "K'ušan"</td><td>155</td></tr><tr><td>VI.003. Elišē, History of Vardan and the Armenian war</td><td>156</td></tr><tr><td>VI.003/A. War of Yazdegerd against the Huns</td><td>156</td></tr><tr><td>VI.003/B. The Armenians attack the Albanians</td><td>159</td></tr><tr><td>VI.003/C. The situation before the Persian begin to counterattack the Armenians</td><td>160</td></tr><tr><td>VI.003/D. The Battle of Avarayr</td><td>160</td></tr><tr><td>VI.003/E. Warfare after the battle of Avarayr</td><td>160</td></tr><tr><td>VI.003/F. Inquiry at the Persian court against Vasak of Siwnik'</td><td>161</td></tr><tr><td>VI.004. Łazar P'arpec'i</td><td>161</td></tr><tr><td>VI.004/A. §83, Letter of Vasak, lord of Siwnik', to Aršawir Kamsarakan</td><td>161</td></tr><tr><td>VI.004/B. §119, Speech by Vahan Mamikonean to the council of Armenian princes</td><td>162</td></tr><tr><td>VI.004/C. §121, Letter by some "apostate" Armenian princes to the Persian marzpan of Armenia</td><td>162</td></tr><tr><td>VI.004/D. §126; 132: 133, The alliance between the Armenians and the Georgian king</td><td>162</td></tr><tr><td>VI.004/E. §154, News of the battle of Herat</td><td>163</td></tr><tr><td>VI.004/F. §166, Speech of the Persian official Nixor to Vahan Mamikonean</td><td>164</td></tr><tr><td>VI.005. Movsēs Dasxuranc'i or Kałankatuac'i</td><td>164</td></tr><tr><td>VI.005/A. I. 10, War between Peroz and Vač'ē, the king of the Albanians</td><td>164</td></tr><tr><td>VI.005/B. I. 19, Discovery of the relics of St. Zacharias</td><td>164</td></tr><tr><td>VI.005/C. I. 29, Invasion of Albania, Armenia and Georgia by the Northerners</td><td>165</td></tr><tr><td>VI.005/D. I. 30, The martyrdom of general Theophilus</td><td>165</td></tr><tr><td>VI.005/E. II. 1, Duel of Babik, the fourth son of Andok of Siwik', and the Hun Honagur</td><td>166</td></tr><tr><td>VI.006. Movsēs Xorenac'i, Patmut'own Hayoc' (History of Armenia)</td><td>167</td></tr><tr><td>VI.006/A. II. 65, About king Vałarš, son of Tigran</td><td>167</td></tr><tr><td>VI.006/B. II. 85, War of king Trdat in Armenia, when he slew the king of the Basilk'</td><td>168</td></tr><tr><td>VI.006/C. II. 86</td><td>168</td></tr><tr><td>VI.006/D. III. 60, The preaching of saint Mesro</td><td>168</td></tr><tr><td>VI.007. Sebēos</td><td>168</td></tr><tr><td>VI.007/A. §8, Vahan Mamikonean, Peroz and Kawat</td><td>169</td></tr><tr><td>VI.007/B. §9, Persian marzpan's and generals who came to Armenia after Vardan</td><td>170</td></tr><tr><td>VI.007/C. §16, Treasure seized from a Persian auditor</td><td>171</td></tr></table>

## VII. Syriac Sources

Mark Dickens with contributions by Christelle Jullien

<table><tr><td>VII.001. Chronicle of Joshua the Stylite</td><td>174</td></tr><tr><td>VII.001/A. 8–11</td><td>174</td></tr><tr><td>VII.001/B. 18–19</td><td>176</td></tr><tr><td>VII.001/C. 23–24</td><td>177</td></tr><tr><td>VII.001/D. 48</td><td>178</td></tr><tr><td>VII.001/E. 51</td><td>178</td></tr><tr><td>VII.001/F. 55</td><td>179</td></tr><tr><td>VII.001/G. 57</td><td>179</td></tr><tr><td>VII.001/H. 59</td><td>180</td></tr><tr><td>VII.001/I. 62</td><td>180</td></tr><tr><td>VII.002. Severus of Antioch, Homily 30 (Syriac version) (513)</td><td>181</td></tr><tr><td>VII.003. Biography of Peter the Iberian (Syriac version) (c. 528)</td><td>182</td></tr><tr><td>VII.004. Chronicle of Arbela (c. 550?)</td><td>182</td></tr><tr><td>VII.005. Biography of Mar Aba (after 552)</td><td>182</td></tr><tr><td>VII.006. Pseudo-Zachariah Rhetor, Ecclesiastical History (568/69)</td><td>183</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>VII.007. Pseudo-Zachariah Rhetor, Ecclesiastical History, Geographical appendix (554/55)</td><td>185</td></tr><tr><td>VII.008. Synodicon Orientale (late 8th century), under the Synod of Išoʻyahb I (585)</td><td>186</td></tr><tr><td>VII.009. Xi'an "Nestorian" Stele (781)</td><td>186</td></tr><tr><td>VII.010. History of the Monastery of Qartamin (c. 797)</td><td>187</td></tr><tr><td>VII.011. Michael the Great (Michael the Syrian), Chronicle (1195)</td><td>188</td></tr><tr><td>VII.011/A. Book IX, Chapter 7, centre column:</td><td>188</td></tr><tr><td>VII.011/B. Book IX, Chapter 7, inner column:</td><td>188</td></tr><tr><td>VII.012. Anonymous Chronicle to 1234</td><td>189</td></tr><tr><td>VII.013. Barhebraeus (Bar 'Ebroyo), Ecclesiastical History (Chronicon Ecclesiasticum) (1286, cont. to 1496)</td><td>190</td></tr><tr><td>VII.014. Barhebraeus (Bar 'Ebroyo), Secular History (Chronicon Syriacum) (1286, cont. to 1297)</td><td>191</td></tr></table>

# VIII. Arabic Sources

Étienne de La Vaissière, Mark Dickens and Orsolya Varsányi

## VIII.1. Islamic Sources

Selected by Étienne de La Vaissière

<table><tr><td>VIII.001. Akhbār al-Ṭiwāl</td><td>194</td></tr><tr><td>VIII.001/A. Bahrām V (420–438)</td><td>194</td></tr><tr><td>VIII.001/B. Fayrūz</td><td>196</td></tr><tr><td>VIII.001/C. Qubāḍ</td><td>198</td></tr><tr><td>VIII.001/D. Kisrā Anūširwān</td><td>198</td></tr><tr><td>VIII.002. Ṭabarī</td><td>199</td></tr><tr><td>VIII.002/A. Khaqan</td><td>199</td></tr><tr><td>VIII.002/B. Fayruz</td><td>201</td></tr><tr><td>VIII.002/C. Qubadh I</td><td>207</td></tr><tr><td>VIII.002/D. Kisra</td><td>208</td></tr><tr><td>VIII.003. Masūdī</td><td>209</td></tr><tr><td>VIII.003/A. Vahrām V</td><td>210</td></tr><tr><td>VIII.003/B. Fîrūz</td><td>210</td></tr><tr><td>VIII.003/C. Anouchirvan</td><td>210</td></tr></table>

## VIII.2. Christian Sources

Selected by Mark Dickens, prepared and revised by Orsolya Varsányi

<table><tr><td>VIII.004. Chronicle of Se'ert</td><td>210</td></tr><tr><td>VIII.004/A. Chapter 1.5, The Story of the Roman Maidens</td><td>210</td></tr><tr><td>VIII.004/B. Chapter 1.65, The Story of King Jazdgerd</td><td>211</td></tr><tr><td>VIII.004/C. Chapter 2.5, The Death of Piroz</td><td>212</td></tr><tr><td>VIII.004/D. Chapter 2.12, The Story of Qawad</td><td>213</td></tr><tr><td>VIII.004/E. Chapter 2.14, The Story of Zamasp</td><td>214</td></tr><tr><td>VIII.004/F. Chapter 2.24, The Story of Kosrau Anoširwan</td><td>214</td></tr><tr><td>VIII.004/G. Chapter 2.29, Catholicos Mar Aba</td><td>215</td></tr><tr><td>VIII.005. The Annals of Eutychius of Alexandria (Sa'id ibn Batriq)</td><td>215</td></tr><tr><td>VIII.005/A. Bahram-Ġor</td><td>215</td></tr><tr><td>VIII.005/B. Qabad</td><td>217</td></tr><tr><td>VIII.005/C. Kesra Nušerwan</td><td>217</td></tr></table>
# IX. Greek and Latin Sources

Timo Stickler

<table><tr><td>Introduction</td><td>220</td></tr><tr><td>Overview of Authors</td><td>223</td></tr><tr><td>Recommended Further Reading</td><td>225</td></tr></table>

## IX.1. Early history of Huns and the Hun way of life (before the fifth century CE)

<table><tr><td>IX.001. Ptolemy 3, 5, 25: First mention of the Huns in a western source</td><td>226</td></tr><tr><td>IX.002. Iordanes, Getica: Early history of the Huns</td><td>226</td></tr><tr><td>IX.002/A. Iord. Get. 5, 36 f.</td><td>226</td></tr><tr><td>IX.002/B. Iord. Get. 24, 121–128</td><td>227</td></tr><tr><td>IX.003. Agathias 5, 11, 1–4: Origins of the Huns east of Lake Maeotis</td><td>229</td></tr><tr><td>IX.004. Ammianus 31, 2: General excursus on the Huns</td><td>230</td></tr><tr><td>IX.005. Pseudo-Maurice, Strategicon 11, 2: The Hun way of life</td><td>235</td></tr></table>

## IX.2. Huns as allies of Persians and Romans in the fourth century CE

<table><tr><td>IX.006. Ammianus: The Persian king Shapur II fights the Huns in the east</td><td>240</td></tr><tr><td>IX.006/A. Amm. 16, 9</td><td>240</td></tr><tr><td>IX.006/B. Amm. 17, 5</td><td>241</td></tr><tr><td>IX.007. Ammianus: The siege of Amida by the Persians, participation of the Chionite king Grumbates</td><td>241</td></tr><tr><td>IX.007/A. Amm. 19, 1, 7 f.</td><td>241</td></tr><tr><td>IX.007/B. Amm. 19, 2, 3 f.</td><td>242</td></tr></table>

## IX.3. Huns as opponents of Persians and Romans in the fifth century CE

<table><tr><td>IX.008. Priscus</td><td>243</td></tr><tr><td>IX.008/A. Prisc. frg. 11, 2 (Blockley): Hun invasion in the Middle East</td><td>243</td></tr><tr><td>IX.008/B. Prisc. frg. 33, 1 (Blockley): Kidarite Huns in Inner Asia</td><td>244</td></tr><tr><td>IX.008/C. Prisc. frg. 41, 3 (Blockley): Perozes and the Kidarite Huns</td><td>245</td></tr><tr><td>IX.008/D. Prisc. frg. 51, 1 (Blockley): Persians and Kidarite Huns in inner Asia</td><td>246</td></tr><tr><td>IX.009. Ioannes Antiochenus frg. 237, 9 (Mariev): Huns and Persians in the time of emperor Zeno</td><td>247</td></tr><tr><td>IX.010. Procopius, De Bellis: King Perozes, King Kabades and the Hephthalite Huns</td><td>248</td></tr><tr><td>IX.010/A. Proc. bell. 1, 3, 1–22</td><td>248</td></tr><tr><td>IX.010/B. Proc. bell. 1, 4, 1–16</td><td>251</td></tr><tr><td>IX.010/C. Proc. bell. 1, 4, 32–35</td><td>254</td></tr><tr><td>IX.011. Agathias: King Perozes and the Hephthalites</td><td>254</td></tr><tr><td>IX.011/A. Agath. 4, 27, 4</td><td>254</td></tr><tr><td>IX.011/B. Agath. 4, 28, 1–7</td><td>255</td></tr><tr><td>IX.012. Pseudo-Maurice, Strategicon 4, 3: the Hephthalites</td><td>256</td></tr><tr><td>IX.013. Theophanes: King Perozes, King Kabades and the Hephthalite Huns</td><td>257</td></tr><tr><td>IX.013/A. Theoph. AM 5967</td><td>257</td></tr><tr><td>IX.013/B. Theoph. AM 5968</td><td>257</td></tr><tr><td>IX.014. Theophylact 4, 6, 9–11: King Kabades and the Hephthalites</td><td>259</td></tr><tr><td>IX.015. Procopius, De Bellis 1, 9, 24: King Kabades and the Hephthalites</td><td>259</td></tr></table>

## IX.4. Huns as opponents of Persians and Romans in the sixth century CE

<table><tr><td>IX.016. Procopius, De Bellis: the home of the Huns</td><td>260</td></tr><tr><td>IX.016/A. Proc. bell. 1, 10, 3–8</td><td>260</td></tr><tr><td>IX.016/B. Proc. bell. 1, 12, 5–7</td><td>260</td></tr><tr><td>IX.017. Cosmas Indicopleustes: the land of the Huns</td><td>261</td></tr><tr><td>IX.017/A. Cosm. Ind. 2, 27</td><td>261</td></tr><tr><td>IX.017/B. Cosm. Ind. 2, 47</td><td>262</td></tr><tr><td>IX.017/C. Cosm. Ind. 3, 65</td><td>262</td></tr><tr><td>IX.017/D. Cosm. Ind. 11, 20 (Gollas)</td><td>263</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>IX.017/E. Cosm. Ind. 11, 24</td><td>263</td></tr><tr><td>IX.018. Procopius, De Aedificiis 2, 1, 5f: Persian war on Huns at the time of Anastasius</td><td>264</td></tr><tr><td>IX.019. Procopius, De Bellis 1, 21, 26–28: The Huns are feared by the Persians at Martyropolis</td><td>265</td></tr><tr><td>IX.020. Ioannes Lydus, De magistratibus 3, 52–53: Huns between Romans and Persians in the time of Anastasius</td><td>265</td></tr><tr><td>IX.021. Procopius, De Bellis: Justinian attempts to win the Huns’ support</td><td>267</td></tr><tr><td>IX.021/A. Proc. bell. 2, 1, 12–15</td><td>267</td></tr><tr><td>IX.021/B. Proc. bell. 2, 3, 47</td><td>268</td></tr><tr><td>IX.021/C. Proc. bell. 2, 10, 16</td><td>268</td></tr><tr><td>IX.022. Procopius, De Bellis 2, 16, 3f.: The war of the Huns with Chosroes</td><td>269</td></tr><tr><td>IX.023. Procopius, Historia Arcana: Justinian, Persians and Huns</td><td>269</td></tr><tr><td>IX.023/A. Proc. hist. arc. 2, 29</td><td>269</td></tr><tr><td>IX.023/B. Proc. hist. arc. 8, 5</td><td>269</td></tr><tr><td>IX.023/C. Proc. hist. arc. 11, 5–7</td><td>269</td></tr><tr><td>IX.023/D. Proc. hist. arc. 11, 12</td><td>270</td></tr><tr><td>IX.024. Menander frg. 6, 1 (Blockley): Chosroes’s victories over the Huns</td><td>270</td></tr><tr><td>IX.025. Theophylact 7, 7, 6–7, 8, 11: The Scythian excursus</td><td>271</td></tr></table>

# X. Indic Sources

Hans Bakker, Csaba Dezső, Gergely Hidas and Dániel Balogh

<table><tr><td>Introduction</td><td>276</td></tr></table>

Hans Bakker

<table><tr><td>Literary sources</td><td>276</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>Epigraphic sources</td><td>279</td></tr></table>

## X.1. Literary sources

Csaba Dezső and Gergely Hidas (Buddhist texts)

### X.1.1. Ethnological and geographical lists

<table><tr><td>X.001. Mahābhārata</td><td>282</td></tr><tr><td>X.001/A. MBh (1) Ādiparvan, Vasiṣṭha’s cow Nandinī generates barbarians</td><td>282</td></tr><tr><td>X.001/B. MBh (2) Sabhāparvan, Nakula’s conquest</td><td>282</td></tr><tr><td>X.001/C. MBh (2) Sabhāparvan, Duryodhana speaks of the wonders he saw at the Pāṇḍavas’ palace</td><td>283</td></tr><tr><td>X.001/D. MBh (3) Āranyakaparvan, Kṛṣṇa speaks to Yudhiṣṭhira</td><td>283</td></tr><tr><td>X.001/E. MBh (6) Bhīṣmaparvan, Samjaya speaks to Dhṛtarāṣṭra (6:10,63–68)</td><td>284</td></tr><tr><td>X.001/F. MBh (8) Karṇaparvan, Karṇa’s victories</td><td>284</td></tr><tr><td>X.001/G. MBh (12) Śāntiparvan, Śuka’s travels</td><td>285</td></tr><tr><td>X.002. The Lay of Lands in the Purāṇas</td><td>285</td></tr><tr><td>X.002/A. Condensed List of Peoples</td><td>285</td></tr><tr><td>X.002/B. Realms of the North</td><td>286</td></tr><tr><td>X.002/C. Mountain-dwelling People</td><td>287</td></tr><tr><td>X.003. Other Purāṇic enumerations</td><td>288</td></tr><tr><td>X.003/A. Brahmāṇḍapurāṇa</td><td>288</td></tr><tr><td>X.003/B. Bhāgavatapurāṇa</td><td>288</td></tr><tr><td>X.004. Brhatsaṃhitā</td><td>289</td></tr><tr><td>X.004/A. Brhatsaṃhitā 11.61</td><td>289</td></tr><tr><td>X.004/B. Brhatsaṃhitā 14.24ff., a list of people in the North</td><td>289</td></tr><tr><td>X.004/C. Brhatsaṃhitā 16.37–38</td><td>289</td></tr></table>

### X.1.2. Genealogies

<table><tr><td>X.005. Reconstructed Purāṇic genealogy</td><td>290</td></tr><tr><td>X.006. Visṇupurāṇa</td><td>290</td></tr><tr><td>X.007. Bhāgavatapurāṇa</td><td>290</td></tr><tr><td>X.008. Jinasena’s Harivaṃśapurāṇa 60</td><td>291</td></tr><tr><td>X.009. Guṇabhadra’s Uttarapurāṇa 76</td><td>291</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>X.010. Nemicandra, Trilokasāra</td><td>292</td></tr><tr><td>X.011. The Mahāvīracarita of Hemacandra</td><td>293</td></tr><tr><td>X.012. Mañjuśrīmūlakalpa 53</td><td>293</td></tr><tr><td>X.012/A. Later Imperial Guptas and the East</td><td>293</td></tr><tr><td>X.012/B. Installation of Pra[kaṭāditya] by H[ūṇa]</td><td>294</td></tr><tr><td>X.012/C. Graha son of H[ūṇa] and his father</td><td>295</td></tr><tr><td>X.013. Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra Chapter 10</td><td>296</td></tr></table>

### X.1.3. The Kashmir secular tradition

<table><tr><td>Introduction</td><td>296</td></tr><tr><td>X.014. Rājataraṅgīnī</td><td>298</td></tr><tr><td>X.014/A. Jalauka / Jalaukas</td><td>298</td></tr><tr><td>X.014/B. Tuñjīna I</td><td>302</td></tr><tr><td>X.014/C. Tuñjīna II</td><td>302</td></tr><tr><td>X.014/D. Tuñjīna III</td><td>302</td></tr><tr><td>X.014/E. Mihirakula</td><td>303</td></tr><tr><td>X.014/F. Khiṅkhila Narendrāditya</td><td>305</td></tr><tr><td>X.014/G. Toramāṇa</td><td>305</td></tr><tr><td>X.014/H. Pravarasena II</td><td>306</td></tr><tr><td>X.014/I. Laḥkhaṇa Narendrāditya</td><td>307</td></tr><tr><td>X.014/J. Alakhāna</td><td>307</td></tr></table>

### X.1.4. Miscellaneous references to Hūṇas

<table><tr><td>X.015. Raghuvamśa of Kālidāsa, 4:70–71 in Vallabhadeva’s version</td><td>308</td></tr><tr><td>X.016. Harṣacarita of Bāṇa</td><td>309</td></tr><tr><td>X.016/A. Harṣacarita, Ucchvāsa 4</td><td>309</td></tr><tr><td>X.016/B. Harṣacarita, Ucchvāsa 5</td><td>309</td></tr><tr><td>X.016/C. Harṣacarita, Ucchvāsa 6</td><td>309</td></tr><tr><td>X.017. Kuvalayamālā of Uddyotana Sūri, p. 282. vv. 6–7</td><td>310</td></tr><tr><td>X.018. Nītivākyāmṛta of Somadeva Sūri, Durgasamuddeśa 8</td><td>310</td></tr><tr><td>X.019. Pādatāḍitaka of Śyāmilaka, a Hunnish horse</td><td>310</td></tr><tr><td>X.020. Cāndravṛtti of Candragomin, I.2.81 parokṣe liṭ</td><td>311</td></tr><tr><td>X.021. Subhāṣitas</td><td>311</td></tr><tr><td>X.021/A. A Hunnish woman: Subhāṣitaratnakoṣa 924</td><td>311</td></tr><tr><td>X.021/B. A Hunnish woman: Saduktikarṇāmṛta 3:1483</td><td>312</td></tr><tr><td>X.022. Hunnic script in the Mahāvastu, Chapter 7</td><td>312</td></tr><tr><td>X.023. Hunnic script in the Lalitavistara, Chapter 10</td><td>313</td></tr><tr><td>X.024. Hārahūṇas in the Purāṇas</td><td>314</td></tr><tr><td>X.025. Hārahūra in the Arthaśāstra 2:25,24–25</td><td>314</td></tr><tr><td>X.026. Hārahaura in the Bṛhatsaṃhitā</td><td>315</td></tr></table>

## X.2. Epigraphic Sources

Hans Bakker

<table><tr><td>X.027. Bhitari stone pillar inscription of Skandagupta</td><td>316</td></tr><tr><td>X.028. Junagadh rock inscription of Skandagupta</td><td>319</td></tr><tr><td>X.029. Inscription on a silver bowl from Swat</td><td>320</td></tr><tr><td>X.030. Schøyen copper scroll</td><td>322</td></tr><tr><td>X.031. Kurā stone inscription of the time of Toramāṇa Ṣāhi</td><td>326</td></tr><tr><td>X.032. Eran stone boar inscription of the time of Toramāṇa</td><td>328</td></tr><tr><td>X.033. Mandasor inscription of Gauri</td><td>330</td></tr><tr><td>X.034. The Sanjeli charters</td><td>333</td></tr><tr><td>X.034/A. Charter 1, Year 3</td><td>333</td></tr><tr><td>X.034/B. Charter 2, Year 6</td><td>335</td></tr><tr><td>X.034/C. Charter 3, Year 19</td><td>336</td></tr><tr><td>X.035. Eran pillar inscription of Goparāja</td><td>338</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>X.036. Rīsthal inscription of Prakāśadharman</td><td>339</td></tr><tr><td>X.037. Gwalior stone inscription of Mihirakula</td><td>343</td></tr><tr><td>X.038. Mandasor stone inscription of Yaśodharman</td><td>346</td></tr><tr><td>X.039. Sondhni pillar inscription of Yaśodharman</td><td>352</td></tr><tr><td>X.040. Jaunpur inscription of Īśānavarman</td><td>355</td></tr><tr><td>X.041. Haraha inscription</td><td>357</td></tr><tr><td>X.042. Aphsad inscription of Ādityasena</td><td>358</td></tr><tr><td>X.043. Kabul inscription of Ṣāhi Khiṅgāla</td><td>360</td></tr></table>

### X.3. Seals from India

Dániel Balogh

<table><tr><td>X.044. Seal impressions excavated at Kauśāmbī</td><td>363</td></tr><tr><td>X.045. Seal impressions with a fragmentary genealogy from Nālandā</td><td>363</td></tr></table>

## Appendix: Numismatic and Sigillary Evidence

Robert Bracey

<table><tr><td>Relevant publications</td><td>366</td></tr><tr><td>The Göbl numbers</td><td>366</td></tr><tr><td>Issues for consideration</td><td>367</td></tr><tr><td>Definitional</td><td>367</td></tr><tr><td>What coins can (and cannot) tell us about history</td><td>368</td></tr><tr><td>The state of numismatic research</td><td>369</td></tr></table>

### The Lists

<table><tr><td>List 1. Main list</td><td>370</td></tr><tr><td>List 2. Bactrian inscriptions</td><td>384</td></tr><tr><td>List 3. Brahmi inscriptions</td><td>387</td></tr><tr><td>List 4. Pahlavi inscriptions</td><td>392</td></tr><tr><td>Countermarks</td><td>393</td></tr></table>

### Images of Hunnic type coins

<table><tr><td>Appendix.001. Kidarite issues</td><td>394</td></tr><tr><td>Appendix.002. Alchon issues</td><td>396</td></tr><tr><td>Appendix.002/A. Gold coinage continuing Kushanshah tradition</td><td>396</td></tr><tr><td>Appendix.002/B. Horseman types</td><td>398</td></tr><tr><td>Appendix.002/C. Toramāna and Mihirakula</td><td>399</td></tr><tr><td>Appendix.002/D. Hunnic issues after Indian and Kushan Models</td><td>400</td></tr><tr><td>Appendix.003. Tobazini, Hephthalite, and Nezak silver</td><td>402</td></tr><tr><td>Appendix.004. Sind series</td><td>403</td></tr><tr><td>Appendix.005. Seals without recorded provenance</td><td>407</td></tr></table>

### References

<table><tr><td>Bibliography</td><td>409</td></tr><tr><td>Index</td><td>431</td></tr></table>
# I. Chinese Sources

Ching Chao-jung and Imre Galambos with contributions by Max Deeg and Inaba Minoru.

Translations in this section, unless otherwise specified, are collaborative products of Ching Chao-jung and Imre Galambos, in most cases building upon previous translations.

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>
Introduction

*Draft prepared in Chinese by Ching Chao-jung, translated into English by Imre Galambos*

In order to remain faithful to the general theme of the 2017 Budapest workshop, i.e. the so-called
'Iranian Huns' of the fourth to sixth centuries CE,¹ we concentrate in this section on the primary
regions of numismatic provenance, that is, Tokharistan and Gandhāra, and to a lesser extent
Sogdiana, Xinjiang (Chinese Turkestan) and the Pamirs. Accordingly, we focus on sources about

(i) Jiduoluo 寄多羅 (EMCii kih-ta-la) in the Weishu 魏書 accounts on the Great and Smaller Yuezhi;

(ii) Huni 忽倪 (EMC xwət-ŋɛj), a ruler of Sogdiana identified in the *Weishu* as belonging to the Xiongnu 匈奴; and

(iii) the newly emerging power called Yeda 嘬噠 (EMC ʔjiap-dat/tat)iii in the Weishu and Hua 滑 (EMC γwəit) in the Liangshu 梁書. Yeda and Hua, together with other variants including Heda/Yeda噠噠 in the Luoyang Qielanji,iv Yeda 嘟噠 (EMC ŋ(i)at-dat/tat?) in the Zhoushu 周書, and Yida 挹怛 (EMC ʔjip-tat) in the Suishu 隋書, are generally considered to be different appellations of the Hephthalites in early medieval China.v

For the historical background before the 4th century, readers are invited to consult the publi-
cation *Kushan Histories* (Falk 2015), which includes a thorough introduction of the late Kushan
period. Here we only supplement that material with some results of Chinese and Japanese scholar-
ship (Chapter I.1.1).vi Our selected sources also include an overview of Xiyu 西域, i.e. the “Western
Regions,” in the eye of the Chinese before the 437 mission of DONG Wan 董琬 (departure from
Dai [Datong, Shanxi Province] around September 436 [Yu 2005, 424]; see Chapters I.1.2 to I.1.5);
information obtained as a result of the mission of DONG Wan, who was accompanied by GAO Ming
高明 (Chapter I.1.6); the major embassies after DONG, led by GAO Hui 高徽 (Chapter I.1.7) and
later by SONG Yun 宋雲 (Chapter I.1.8). As to the selected texts in Chapter I.2 and onward, readers
shall be able to find alternative English translations, useful comments and fuller references in Yu
(2014a), La Vaissière (2007), Kuwayama (2002) and Enoki (1969), and this section only provides

<footnote>i Cf. “Iranian Huns” in the online Encyclopaedia Iranica (Schottky 2004). “Nezak” is not discussed here because, as Inaba (2010) has demonstrated, most of the relevant Chinese material occurs in Tang records about the Tujue (Turks), and Chinese sources are still insufficient to establish any solid etymology for the name or document its history before the 7th century.</footnote>

<footnote>ii Early Middle Chinese reconstructed forms throughout this volume follow Pulleyblank (1991). (Ed.)</footnote>

<footnote>iii The pronunciation of *ye* 嘬 is given in the *Jiyun* 集韻 and *Leipian* 類篇 both as EMC ʔjiap (*yi-she qie* 益涉切). The *Zihui* 字彙 also gives it as EMC ʔjiap (*yu-ye qie* 於葉切, the same pronunciation as *ye* 嘘).</footnote>

<footnote>iv is transliterated by Kuwayama (1989; 2002) as *he*. In Yu (2014a, 545), it is given as *ye*.</footnote>

<footnote>v See Note Ching and Galambos on Text I.027.</footnote>

<footnote>vi Other than mentioning the problem of the “five states” that Jiduoluo conquered (cf. Texts I.014 and I.021), we omit references to city-states when the information is of unknown provenance; for example, the parts of the *Weishu* dealing with the states of Jiaseni 迦色尼, Muzhi 牟知 or Zheshe 者舌 (i.e. old Kangju 康居). The reason for this decision is that such material has no direct relevance for documenting the movements of peoples but merely provides information on geographic names.</footnote>
a concise bibliography of the most important scholarship concerning historical and Sinological issues.

From the point of view of chronology, the core of the *Weishu* entries on the Great Yuezhi and Sogdiana most likely derives from DONG's report or from slightly later sources; these descriptions were part of the original *Weishu*.¹ Many scholars believed that if one removes the parts erroneously interpolated by the editors of the *Weishu* from Han dynasty sources, the bulk of the entries on Sogdiana and the Great and Smaller Yuezhi comes from the report of DONG.ii But according to Matsuda Hisao's calculation, in the course of his journey, DONG did not reach Sogdiana and the Great Yuezhi but merely heard things about Huni and Jiduoluo on the road. Matsuda (1937, 40; 1970, 171) was once of the opinion that the information about the Smaller Yuezhi comes from DONG, but later in his life he (1970, 445, 447-48) believed that it was GAO who collected information about Jiduoluo when he arrived in Čač in 437.iii

Based on his analysis of juan 102 of the *Weishu*, Enoki Kazuo (1951, 142-43) thought that Sogdiana and the Great Yuezhi must have been among the sixteen states in DONG's report (Text I.011/C), whereas the description of the Smaller Yuezhi was very likely based on slightly later sources. He (1958, 8; Eng. 1969, 9) further assumed that DONG's report did not include two clauses that appear in the *Weishu* entry on the Great Yuezhi, namely, "[the city of Jianshi] lies west of Fudisha" and "[the city of Boluo is] at a distance of 2,100 *li* from Fudisha" (Text I.014). His reason for this is that the state of Fudisha 弗敵沙 was most likely not among the sixteen states in DONG's report. On the other hand, Funaki (1956, 98-99) proposed that the information on Huni was based on what DONG heard when he was in Liangzhou 涼州 (today's Wuwei, Gansu Province, China). This idea was supported by Naitō (1989, 169).

Yu Taishan (1986, 74, 59) and Frantz Grenet (2002, 205, 207-8) both thought that DONG Wan knew about Jiduoluo and Huni in 437. Nevertheless, based on a passage in the *Tongdian* 通典 (Text I.017), La Vaissière (2004, 99, esp. n. 57) suggested that the information on Huni was provided by the Sogdian envoys who came to the Northern Wei court in 457. His opinion was readily accepted by Rahman, Grenet and Sims-Williams (2006, 127). Later on, Yu (2005, 474, 502 n. 75, Eng. 2014a, 630, 662 n. 75) concurred that the information about Jiduoluo probably derived from DONG's report, whereas the news about Huni should date no earlier than Emperor Gaozong's accession to the throne, i.e. 452 (Yu 2005, 461 Comm. 208; Eng. 2014a, 617).iv He thought that it was impossible to identify the sixteen states from the content of the *Weishu* (Yu 2005, 425 Comm. 25; Eng. 2014a, 570). In his new book on the history of the Kushans (Yu 2015, 101), he goes a step further in proposing that the *Weishu* entry on the Smaller Yuezhi includes information from DONG's report as well, so that when DONG travelled through the Western Regions, the Kidarites—

<footnote>i Matsuda (1937, 40–41); Uchida (1959, 24–25; 1972a, 62–65); Yu (2005, 473–75, 480–461, esp. 474, Comm. 292; Eng. 2014a, 629–31, 637–39, esp. 630). On the process of how the *Weishu* was lost and then recompiled, see Enoki (1955b); La Vaissière (2007).</footnote>

<footnote>ii Matsuda and Enoki further suggested that the confusion of Sogdiana with Yancai 尕蔡 during the Han period was also the result of a misunderstanding on DONG's part.</footnote>

<footnote>iii See further the commentary on “16,000 *li*” for Text I.016.</footnote>

<footnote>iv This view is also found in Appendix I of Yu (2012, 217; cf. Yu 2011, 84–85), but in Appendix II of Yu (2012, 257; cf. Yu 2014b, 40), he reaches the same conclusion as La Vaissière (2004).</footnote>
following their conquest of Gandhāra—had already been driven out of Tokharistan by the Hephthalites.¹ In order to evaluate various solutions for dating the Kidarite conquest and, later on, the Hephthalite invasion of Central Asia, I would like to draw attention to the ambiguity of the words *shi* 世 and *dai* 代 in Chinese sources. This problem is relevant not only for the date of the “Xiongnu” conquest of Sogdiana (Text I.016), but also for the “Yeda” conquest of Gandhāra (Text I.054).

Concerning the Yeda or Hua—the latter cannot be easily identified as the name of a people or merely the name of a region—Matsuda (1937, 40–41) drew attention to the fact that the richest source of historical data about them was the *Weishu* entry on the Yeda and the seven smaller states under their control (Chapter I.6.12). In his view, these entries mainly derived from what SONG Yun and his companions saw as they passed through Yeda territory in 519 and then Gandhāra in 520. On the other hand, Enoki (1965a, 10) suggested that the *Weishu* entry on the Yeda was based on material obtained from tribute missions to the Northern Wei from 456 onward (Text I.069). We should not forget, however, that in the early sixth century GAO Hui led two embassies to the Yeda (Text I.012).² Accordingly, even if we could successfully remove the parts mistakenly interpolated into the *Weishu* from the *Zhoushu* and *Suishu*, when it was reconstructed on the basis of the *Beishi* 北史 (Chapter I.6.16, cf. introduction of Chapter I.6), the original extent of the *Weishu* entry on the Yeda would still be a mixture of various sources and thus the individual events in it would remain difficult to date.

The material concerning the state of Hua in the *Liangshu* must be primarily based on information obtained from embassies sent by that state from 516 onward; this material in many ways overlaps with the *Liang zhigong tu* 梁職貢圖 (“Liang dynasty images of tributaries”), which was discovered in the 1960s. In other words, before DONG’s report, apart from fragmentary bits of information preserved in the *Weilüe* 魏略 and *Yiwuzhi* 異物志, etc., the information on the Western Regions was almost exclusively provided by Buddhist pilgrims and translators. The entire fourth century remains virtually a white spot,³³³ inspiring conjectures and leading to controversy.

Taking the Yeda or the Hephthalites as an example, as Enoki summarized in 1959, there are four pre-modern theories concerning their identity: (i) Jushi 車師; iv (ii) Kangju 康居; v (iii) Great Yuezhi; vi and (iv) Gaoju 高車. vii In addition, there are also four modern theories: (i) the Hun Theory; (ii) the Mongol Theory; (iii) the Turk Theory; and (iv) the Altaic People Theory. Enoki believed that the Yeda/Hephthalites were an Iranian people that emerged in the mountain region of the Hindu Kush, supposing that the Yeda “moved south from the Altai Mountains” 自金山而南

<footnote>i Nevertheless, see Note Grenet on Text I.032/B.</footnote>

<footnote>ii Cf. Matsuda (1970, 197–98, 218); Yu (1986, 123–24).</footnote>

<footnote>iii According to the *Weishu*, around 318 Yulü 鬱律, one of the ancestors of the Northern Wei, led a military campaign westward against the old territories of the Wusun. According to the *Jinshu*, in 382 Lü Guang 呂光 (338–399) invaded the Western Regions. Yet very little information survives about the Western Regions from the 4th century.</footnote>

<footnote>iv Assumption of PEI Ziye, adopted in the *Liangshu* (Text I.028/A)</footnote>

<footnote>v EMC *kʰay-kiš*. An assumption included in the *Tongdian* (Text I.029/C).</footnote>

<footnote>vi An assumption adopted in the *Zhoushu* and then followed by the *Suishu* (Text I.027/B and I.027/C).</footnote>

<footnote>vii EMC *kaw-kiš*. An assumption recorded in the *Beishi* and *Tongdian*, probably from the original *Weishu* (Text I.027/A and I.073).</footnote>
(Texts I.027/A and I.073), was merely a fictional narrative added by the editors of the *Weishu* or the *Beishi* for the sake of explaining their ethnic affiliation that was said to be close to the Great Yuezhi or the Gaoju (Enoki 1951, 134). Even though the sentence “Until the reign of Emperor Wen[cheng] of the Later Wei (r. 452–466), eighty or ninety years have elapsed” 至後魏文[成]帝時已八九十年矣, quoted in the *Tongdian* (cf. commentary on I.027/A), may come from the original version of the *Weishu*, Enoki (1951, 149–50) thought that it could not be substantiated by any historical source. <fnref n="1" /> In his theory, the Yeda/Hephthalites were different from the “Xiongnu” or Wennasha 溫那沙 (?wən-nah-ṣai < *Hūnashāh), who conquered Sogdiana (Text I.016). The latter were identified by him (1955c; 1965b) as the Chionites, whom he considered another Iranian people.

Nevertheless, some scholars in Japan, especially Matsuda, defended the Altaic theory. At the end of his life, Shiratori (1940, 123–24) emphasized his assumption, held since 1900–1901, that the Yueban 悅般 (EMC *jwiat-pan/pain/pɛ:n*, or *jwiat-pa* if one reads *ba*般 as *bo*), who only appeared in Chinese history in 437–448 (Text I.092), were to be identified with the true Avar/Obar/Ibar, etc. In his view, the “Xiongnu” who conquered Sogdiana (Text I.016) were the Yueban, a Turkic people distinct from the Yeda/Hephthalites (*op. cit.*, also *apud* Enoki 1955a, 35). In contrast, Matsuda (1936, 320) identified the Yueban with the Yeda/Hephthalites. <fnref n="2" /> He (1936; 1956; 1960; 1970) further argued for the reliability of the aforementioned statement in the *Tongdian*, suggesting that the Yueban who disappeared from Chinese records after 448 were not ran over by the Rouran 柔然 <fnref n="3" /> but, instead, conquered Sogdiana and then resurfaced in historical sources as the Yeda. Naitō (1975) developed Matsuda’s theory by dividing the history of the Yeda into five stages: 1) from the Altai until the Tianshan Mountains, from 366 or 376 onward; 2) from the Tianshan until Sogdiana, c. 420–437; 3) from Sogdiana until Tokharistan, c. 438–459; 4) a period of prosperity; 5) decline and disappearance, 563–569. However, Naitō’s study (1974; 1975) did not discuss Jiduoluo or the Kidarites. It is unclear whether she agreed with Matsuda’s view that Jiduoluo was an alternative transliteration of the ethnonym Hephthalites.

In China, Yu (1986; 2012) believed that before their Iranification, the Yeda originally used to be a branch of the Yifu Xianbei 乙弗鮮卑, then, taking advantage of the temporary weakness of the Rouran, they expanded westward and successively conquered Sogdiana (c. 366/376), Tokharistan (c. 438–440; i.e. driving out the Jiduoluo), and from the mid-fifth century began expanding towards Sasanian Persia and Gupta India. According to his “Yifu Xianbei Theory” concerning the ethnicity of the Hephthalites, the latter’s language contains not only elements of the Xianbei language but also that of the Korean (Appendix II of Yu 2012, 276 n. 30; Eng. 2014b, 55 n. 30).

<footnote n="1">¹ For an overview and assessment of Enoki’s theory on the origins of the Yeda, see La Vaissière (2007).</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² The Tang practice of naming area commands and loose-rein prefectures after ancient names (e.g. *Yueban dudufu* in Text I.091) is not in the scope of this section. On this practice, see Inaba (2015, 110–11 n. 33).</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ I.e. the Ruanruan in the *Weishu*, the Ruru in the *Liangshu*.</footnote>
I. Chinese Sources

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1. Picture of the Hua envoy in the *Liang zhigong tu*, currently housed in the National Museum of China.¹ (Public domain image from Wikimedia Commons)</figcaption></figure>

As is well known, one of the focal points of the dispute whether the Yeda/Hua were an Iranian people is that the facial features of the Hua envoy in the *Liang zhigong tu* (Figure 1) do not look like those of Indo-Europeans. In this regard, Enoki emphasized that the envoy's curly hair was not a "Mongoloid" feature. He further argued that the Hua envoy was not necessarily a native Hua/Yeda himself. Ma Xiaohe (2008, 429-79) suggested that the Yeda were an Iranian people who originally lived north of the Chinese frontier, and were different from Turkic peoples such as the Yueban and the Gaoju. In Ma's theory, the Yeda were referred to as "Xiongnu" in the *Weishu* entry on Sogdiana (i.e. the conquerors of Sogdiana) and were known in the West as the Chionites (i.e. the Alchon seen on coins). They occupied Sogdiana from the mid-fourth through the mid-fifth centuries. Their king Xinnie 馨孽 (i.e. Huni in his view) in 456 sent a tribute embassy to the Northern Wei and in 458 invaded the Gupta Kingdom. He was probably the king who had a bit earlier driven out the Kidarites, conquered Tokharistan and in 460 conquered Gandhāra (Ma 2008, 480-537). According to Ma (2008, 423), *Chion*-, *χov* (extracted from *αλχον* [sic]), *wenna* 溫那 and *wen* 溫 all represent the surname of the ruling clan of the Hephthalites. iii Nonetheless, his theory was refuted by Yu (2014b) who argued that 1) coins that bore the inscription *αλ-χονο* [sic] did not necessarily have anything to do with the Hephthalites; 2) even if *αλ-χονο* was engraved by the

<footnote>i See also http://www.chnmuseum.cn/zp/zpm1/201812/t20181218_26391.shtml.</footnote>

<footnote>ii Enoki (1964, 17; 1965a, 24). It is worth noting that Naitō (1974, 36) disagreed with this view, arguing that the situation of Hua envoys coming on a tribute mission to the Liang court was fundamentally different from that of the Turks sending Sogdians on an embassy to the Eastern Roman Empire, although she did not explain the nature of the difference. In contrast, Yu always considered that the Liang court would have made certain that they depicted the envoys in a way that matched the features of the people from a given state. In my view, the physical features of the Hua envoys are neither sufficient nor necessary to determine the ethnicity of their rulers, since some of the envoys depicted on the scroll, including the one representing the state of Kucha, might be Sogdians; see Note Ching on Text I.039.</footnote>

<footnote>iii Sims-Williams (2010, 33) prefers the reading *αλχανο* to *αλχονο*; see his note on Text I.016.</footnote>
I. Chinese Sources

Hephthalites, this did not necessarily mean that the portraits on the coins were images of Hephthalite kings. More importantly, one should not assume that only the nomadic rulers had the right to mint coins. States under the Hephthalite rule were also likely to mint coins of their own. While Yu's theory is to be evaluated in light of new numismatic, archaeological, philological and linguistic evidence, readers should also note that some of the widespread ideas initially proposed by Josef Marquart, in particular his reconstruction of *paδiyān for the name of the Yeda's capital in the sixth century, as well as his presumption of Balaam = Krasnowodsk near the southeastern shore of the Caspian sea, have been considered highly problematic by specialists.<fnref n="1" />

At the moment, most Japanese scholars have difficulties in deciding whether the Yeda or Hephthalites were closer to Iranian or Turkic people. Among them, Yoshida (2011, 23–24) points out that from a linguistic point of view, the Hephthalites were probably neither Iranian nor Turkic, as he had already argued in 2004. As the focus of the debate has recently shifted from Chinese sources to new numismatic and epigraphic evidence, we hope that the texts in this section will be helpful for integrating a variety of data concerning the Hunnic peoples in Central Asia in the fourth to seventh centuries into a broader historical context.

Overview of sources

Summarized by Ching Chao-jung, Imre Galambos and Wong Junfu
on the basis of Kushan Histories (Falk 2015).

BS = *Beishi* 北史, “History of the Northern [Dynasties],” 100 *juan*, started by LI Dashi 李大師 (570–628) and completed by his son LI Yanshou 李延壽. It deals with events from the foundation of the TUOBA Wei 拓跋魏 (i.e. YUAN Wei 元魏) in 386 CE until the fall of the Sui in 618 CE. They used the original *Weishu* (WS, q.v.), *Beiqishu* 北齊書, *Zhoushu* (ZS, q.v.), *Suishu* (SS, q.v.) and other sources.

Ed.: *Beishi*, Beijing: Zhonghua, 1974, in 10 vols.

CF = *Cefu Yuangui* 冊府元龜, “Prime tortoise of the Record Bureau”, 1,000 *juan*, is the largest encyclopaedia finished in the Song Dynasty (960–1279 CE). Coming in as the last book of the *Song si da shu* 宋四大書 (“Four Great Books of the Song”), it was compiled by WANG Qinruo 王欽若 from 1005 to 1013. Originally named as the *Lidai junchen shiji* 歷代君臣事跡 (“Narrative of Monarchs and Officials in the Past Dynasties”), this work contains more than nine millions words in thirty one sections (*bu* 部), covering a wide array of political texts which record the biographies of past monarchs and officials, together with a series of memorials submitted to the throne and decrees issued by past monarchs. It is a rich work for studying the political dimension of the Tang Dynasty (618–907 CE).

Ed. *Cefu Yuangui*, Beijing: Zhonghua, 1960, 12 vols.

<footnote n="1">¹ See Text I.024 and I.030/A, as well as Note Grenet on Text I.014 and the notes of La Vaissière, Grenet and Sims-Williams on Text I.030.</footnote>
I. Chinese Sources

Gaoseng zhuan 高僧傳 (T. 2059), “Biographies of Eminent Monks,” 14 juan, is the earliest of the collections of biographies of eminent monks in China. It was completed by the monk Huijiao 慧皎 (497–554) around 530, although a considerable amount of information is taken over from earlier sources. The biographies are arranged into ten categories, such as Translators (yijing 譯經) or Performers of Miracles (shenyi 神異). In terms of their time frame, the biographies begin with the introduction of Buddhism to China around the beginning of the Common Era and go up to the beginning of the 6th century.

Ed. Gaoseng zhuan, Beijing: Zhonghua, 1992.

GFZ = Gaoseng Faxian zhuan 高僧法顯傳 (T. 2085), “Records of the Eminent Monk Faxian,” 1 juan, is a compilation of travelogues that record the pilgrimage of a group of monks who embarked on a journey from Chang’an to India from 399 to 413. It was composed in 416 by Fǎxiǎn 法顯, one of the pilgrims.

Ed. Zhang Xun 章巽, Faxian zhuan jiaozhu 法顯傳校注, Beijing: Zhonghua, 2008. See also Drège (2013), Deeg (2005).

HHS = Hou Hanshu 後漢書, “Book of the Later Han,” 120 juan, continues where the Hanshu has left off, in 24 CE, and ends with the enthronement of the Emperor Xiandi 獻帝 (181–234) in 189 CE. It was compiled by historians under the supervision of FAN Ye 范曄 (398–445) at the court of the LIU Song 劉宋 Dynasty (420–479). It seems that for the chapters on the Western Regions, the Hou Hanshu mixes data from the Later (i.e. Eastern) Han with the text in Shiji and Hanshu.

Ed.: Hou Hanshu, Beijing: Zhonghua, 1965, in 12 vols.

HS = Hanshu 漢書, “Book of the Han,” 100 juan, also called Qian Hanshu 前漢書, “Book of the Former Han.” It deals with the history of the Western (i.e. Former) Han Dynasty from the rise of its founder LIU Bang 劉邦 in 206 BCE up to the fall of WANG Mang 王莽 in 23 CE. The text evolved within one family, BAN 班, from 36 CE to c. 140 CE.

Ed.: Hanshu, Beijing: Zhonghua, 1962, in 12 vols.

Huanyuji = Taiping Huanyuji 太平寰宇記, “Universal Geography of the Taiping Era,” 200 juan, is a geographical treatise written by YUE Shi 樂史 around the 10th century. Since this treatise structurally follows the Tang system of geographic division, recording the names of the places, population, religious temples, as well as the regional customs, it also contains invaluable sources for the study of Tang geography and ethnography.

Ed. Taiping Huanyu ji, Beijing: Zhonghua, 1985.

Jiji = Chu sanzang jiji 出三藏記集 (T. 2145), “Collection of notes on the translation of the Tripiṭaka,” 15 juan, is the earliest Buddhist bibliography composed by Sengyou 僧祐 (445–518). It can be subdivided into two major sections. The first is an explanation of the provenance of Buddhist scriptures that had been translated.
I. Chinese Sources

The second is the biographies of Buddhist monks. Because of the early bibli-
graphic evidence preserved in these two sections, the collection has been com-
monly used in Buddhist studies to identify apocryphal texts.

Ed. *Chu sanzang jiji*, Beijing: Zhonghua, 1995.

Jinshu 晉書, “Book of Jin,” 130 juan. It presents the history of the Western and Eastern Jin Dynasties (265–420 CE). It was compiled in 646–648 under the direction of the Prime Minister FANG Xuanling 房玄齡 (579–648), based on more than ten versions of the “History of Jin” (Jinshi 晉史) written before the Tang Dynasty. Ed.: *Jinshu*, Beijing: Zhonghua, 1974, in 10 vols.

JTS = Jiu Tangshu 舊唐書, “Old book of Tang,” 200 juan. The work is “old” in comparison to the Xin Tangshu (XTS, q.v.). It presents the history of the Tang Dynasty (618–907 CE). It was compiled by ZHANG Zhaoyuan 張昭遠, JIA Wei 賈璋 and others under the direction of ZHAO Ying 趙瑩 (885–951), one of the most important Chinese officers in the court of the Later Jin 晉 (936–947 CE). It was completed in 945 when LIU Xu 劉旭 was the Prime Minister of the Later Jin. Ed.: *Jiu Tangshu*, Beijing: Zhonghua, 1975, in 16 vols.

LS = Liangshu 梁書, “Book of Liang,” 56 juan. It deals with the XIAO Liang 蕭梁 Dynasty (502–557), started by YAO Cha 姚察 (533–606) and completed by his son YAO Silian 姚思廉 (557–637).

Ed.: *Liangshu*, Beijing: Zhonghua, 1973, in 3 vols.

Ed.: *Liangshu*, Beijing: Zhonghua, 1973, in 3 vols.

NS = Nanshi 南史, “History of the Southern [Dynasties],” 80 juan. Started by LI Dashi and completed by LI Yanshou in c. 659 CE. It deals with events starting with the foundation of the LIU Song 劉宋 Dynasty in 420 until the fall of the Chen 陳 Dynasty in 589. The authors used the Songshu 宋書, Nanqishu 南齊書, Liangshu (LS, q.v.), Chenshu 陳書 and other sources.

Ed. *Nanshi*, Beijing: Zhonghua, 1975, in 6 vols.

Qielanji = Luoyang qielanji 洛陽伽藍記, “Notes of Buddhist Monasteries in Luoyang,” 5 juan.

A geographical work that records the Buddhist monasteries located in the city of Luoyang during the Northern Wei Dynasty. It was composed by YANG Xuanzhi 楊銜之 around the early 6th century CE. This work documents the histories of the monasteries in Luoyang, their architectural structure, and records a range of anecdotes and mysteries in relation to these monasteries.

Ed. Yang Yong 楊勇, *Luoyang qielanji jiaojian* 洛陽伽藍記校箋, Beijing: Zhonghua, 2006.

SGZ = Sanguozhi 三國志, “History of the Three Kingdoms,” 65 juan. Composed by CHEN Shou 陳壽 (233–297), this work deals with events starting with the Yellow Turban Rebellion in 184 CE until the final unification of CAO Wei 曹魏, SUN Wu 孫吳 and SHU Han 蜀漢 by the Western Jin Dynasty in 280 CE. The current *Sanguozhi* contains the commentaries of PEI Songzhi 裴松之 (372–451), whose quotes
I. Chinese Sources

include a significant portion of the *Weilüe* 魏略, i.e. a concise history of CAO Wei (50 *juan*, composed by YU Huan 魚蒙), in *j*. 30, concerning the peoples in the West. The full text of the *Weilüe* has been lost for centuries.

Ed. *Sanguozhi*, Beijing: Zhonghua, 1982, in 5 vols.

*Shiji* 史記, “The Scribe’s Records,” 130 *juan*. The first of the long series of Chinese official histories and the basic model for all subsequent ones. Started by SIMA Tan 司馬談 (165–110 BCE) and completed by his son SIMA Qian 司馬遷 (135–86 BCE), encompassing history from the mythical age until his own time around 91 BCE.

Ed. *Shiji*, Beijing: Zhonghua, 1959, in 10 vols.

SS = *Suishu* 隋書, “Book of Sui,” 85 *juan*. Supervised by LINGHU Defen 令狐德棻 (583–666), FANG Xuanling 房玄齡, WEI Zheng 魏徵 and others and completed in 636 CE. It deals with the events in the course of the Sui Dynasty (581–619 CE).

Ed. *Suishu*, Beijing: Zhonghua, 1973, in 6 vols.

T = *Taishō Tripitaka* 大正新修大藏經, compiled by Takakusu Junjirō 高楠順次郎 and others in 100 volumes. The publication began in 1924, during the Taishō reign in Japan.

TD = *Tongdian* 通典, “The Book of Institutions,” 200 *juan*, is the first complete encyclopaedia that records detailed information in relation to governmental structure and regulations. It took DU You 杜佑 almost three decades (766–801) to compile. It features a wide range of topics from foods to rites, examination and administration system to military border defence and penal laws.

Ed. *Tongdian*, Beijing: Zhonghua, 1988, in 5 vols.

THY = *Tang Huiyao* 唐會要, “Institutional History of Tang,” 100 *juan*, compiled by WANG Pu 王溥 and submitted to the throne in 961. It covers the institutional history of the Tang Dynasty (618–907 CE) from 779 to 846. Finished in the early Song period, this work contains much rare material that unobtainable from official histories of the Tang.

Ed. *Tang Huiyao*, Beijing: Zhonghua, 1955, in 3 vols.

Tongzhi 通志, “Comprehensive Records,” 200 *juan*, is an encyclopaedia compiled by ZHENG Qiao 鄭樵 (1104–0062) in 1161. The work is widely noted as it also incorporates twenty monographs (*liüe* 略) that include, among others, those on phonetics, astronomy, geography, liturgy, examination system, familial system, art, literature, metal and stone, food and wine. Apart from the twenty monographs, it also contains chronicles and biographies of past dynasties.

Ed. *Tongzhi*, Taipei: Xinxing, 1965, 12 vols.

*Weilüe* 魏略, See SGZ.

WS = *Weishu* 魏書, “Book of the Wei,” dealing with the events in the Northern Wei (386–534) and Eastern Wei (534–550) Dynasties. The original *Weishu* (130 *juan*) was compiled by WEI Shou 魏收 in the Northern Qi Dynasty. In 1041, when the imperial
I. Chinese Sources

catalogue *Chongwen zongmu* 崇文總目 was compiled, less than 100 *juan* of the
original *Weishu* were preserved in the Song court. The lost part, including *juan*
101 on Gaochang 高昌 (Turfan) and other peoples, *j*. 102 on the “Western Re-
gions” and *j*. 103 on the Ruanruan 蠕蠕 and the Gaoju 高車, was reconstructed
by LIU Shu 劉恕 and his contemporaries in the middle of the 11th century based
on the *Beishi* and other texts. The current *Weishu* contains 114 *juan*. On the loss
and restoration of *Weishu*, cf. Enoki (1955a, 8–10; 1955b, 45–46); Uchida (1970,
83–86).

Ed. *Weishu*, Beijing: Zhonghua, 2017, in 10 vols.

WXTK = *Wenxian tongkao* 文獻通考, “Complete investigation of textual sources,” 348 *juan*, is an
encyclopaedia that mainly examines the institutional regulations of past reigns,
presenting the manner in which these regulations actually functioned. It was
compiled by MA Duanlin 馬端臨 (1254–1324 CE) who relied on the *Tongdian*,
but significantly expanded it, including additional textual sources such as scrip-
tures, genealogies of emperors and cosmological constellations. This work was
submitted to the throne in 1319.

Ed. *Wenxian tongkao*, Beijing: Zhonghua, 1986, 2 vols.

XTS = *Xin Tangshu* 新唐書, “New book of Tang,” 225 *juan*, compiled by OUYANG Xiu 歐陽修,
SONG Qi 宋祁 and others in the Northern Song period. It was finalized by
OUYANG Xiu in 1060 CE. It aims at presenting a more ethical and educational
treatment of the past than the *Jiu Tangshu* 舊唐書 (JTS, q.v.).

Ed. *Xin Tangshu*, Beijing: Zhonghua, 1975, in 20 vols.

Xuanzang = *Da Tang xiyuji* 大唐西域記, “Records from the Regions West of the Great Tang,” 12
*juan*. A travel account of Xuanzang 玄奘 (c. 600–664) which was orally trans-
mitted to his disciple Bianji 辩機. The latter put it into writing after 647 CE. In
this section, the punctuation of *Da Tang xiyuji* follows the edition edited by Ji
Xianlin 季羨林 et al. (1985).

Youyang zazu 酉陽雜俎, “Miscellaneous morsels from Youyang,” 30 *juan*, is a miscellany recorded
and compiled by DUAN Chengshi 段成式 (?–863). Included in this work are
more than thirteen hundred entries covering a wide range of hearsay heard by
the compiler, including foreign myths and tales, taboos and ethos, anecdotes and
records of natural phenomena.

Ed. *Youyang zazu*, Beijing: Zhonghua, 1981, 1 vol.

Yulan = *Taiping yulan* 太平御覽, 1,000 *juan*, is an encyclopaedia compiled in the Taiping xingguo
太平興國 period (976–984) of the Northern Song Dynasty, written by a group
of scholars from 977 to 983. It cites various ancient sources that were then lost
in the following centuries, including the original *Weishu*.

Ed. *Taiping yulan*, Beijing: Zhonghua, 1960, 4 vols.
I. Chinese Sources

ZG = *Liang zhigong tu* 梁職貢圖, “Liang Dynasty images of tributaries.” An ancient scroll of painting published by Jin Weinuo 金維諾 from the collection of the Nanking Museum in 1960; probably a copy made in the 10th or 11th century. According to Enoki (1970b; 1984) and some Chinese scholars, the original of *Liang zhigong tu* is the *Zhigong tu* 職貢圖 painted by XIAO Yi 蕭繹 (508–555), Emperor Yuan of the Liang. However, other scholars, including Yu Taishan (2003, 26–64, esp. 43), do not support this identification. According to Yu (*loc. cit.*), the original of ZG, including both the images and the captions, is most likely the *Fangguo shi tu* 方國使圖 by PEI Ziye 裴子野. In the present volume, the transliteration of ZG follows the one given in Yu (2003, 26–64).

ZS = *Zhoushu* 周書, “Book of Zhou,” 50 *juan*. Compiled by LINGHU Defen and others and completed in 636. It deals with the Northern Zhou Dynasty (557–581) but also records some events in the courts of the Western Wei (535–557), Eastern Wei (534–550) and Northern Qi (550–577).

Ed. *Zhoushu*, Beijing: Zhonghua, 1971, in 3 vols.
# I.1. Background

## I.1.1. Situation in the third century

### I.001. Two routes to the north of the Hindukush in the *Weilüe*

On the southern route across the Pamirs from Tashkurgan to Gandhāra, see *Kushan Histories*, §§084, 122.

#### I.001/A. The central route via Kucha and Kashgar

SGZ 30 《三國志・魏書・烏丸鮮卑東夷傳第三十》(p. 858), cf. Yu (2014a, 451, 461, 464). On scribal errors in the second paragraph excerpted here, see also Chavannes (1905, 554–55); Shiratori (1913, 84).

從玉門關西出......到故樓蘭，轉西詣龜茲，至葱領，為中道。

Leaving Yumen Guan to the west [...] one reaches ancient Loulan; turning west one arrives in Qiuci [Kucha] and [then] reaches the Congling [Pamirs, lit. 'the Onion Range)]. This is the Central Route.

中道西行尉梨國、危須國、山王國皆并屬焉耆，姑墨國、溫宿國、尉頭國皆并屬龜茲也。楨中國、莎車國、竭石國、渠沙國、西夜國、依耐國、滿(for 蒲)犂國、億若國、榆令國、損(for 捐)毒國、休脩(for 休循)國、琴國皆并屬疏勒。

[...] The Central Route leads west: the states of Yuli/Weili, Weixu and Shanwang are all dependencies of Yanqi; the states of Gumo, Wensu and Yutou are all dependencies of Qiuci [Kucha]; the states of Zhenzhong, Suoju [Yarkand], Jieshi, Qusha, Xiye, Yinai, Manli [for Puli], Yiruo, Yuling, Sundu [for Juandu], Xiuxiu [for Xiuxun] and Qin are all dependencies of Shule [Kashgar].

自是以西，大宛、安息、條支、烏弋。烏弋一名排特，此四國次在西，本國也，無增損。

West from these are Dayuan, Anxi, Tiaozhi and Wuyi. Wuyi is also called Paite. These four states follow each other as one moves to the west. They are identical [to how they are recorded in earlier sources], and their territories have neither increased nor diminished.

#### I.001/B. The new northern route via the Tianshan valley and Ferghana

SGZ 30 《三國志・魏書・烏丸鮮卑東夷傳第三十》(pp. 858–859), cf. Yu (2014a, 452, 485–86).

從玉門關西北出......到車師界戊己校尉所治高昌，轉西與中道合龜茲，為新道。
Leaving Yumen Guan to the northwest [...] one arrives in Gaochang [Turfan] controlled by the Wuji Commandant of Jushi territories [around today's Turfan, Jimsar and Qitai]. If one turns west from [Gaochang], one may join the Central Route at Qiuci [Kucha]. This is the New Route.

北新道西行，至東且彌國、西且彌國、單桓國、畢陸國、蒲陸國、烏貪國，皆并屬車師後部王。轉西北則烏孫、康居，本國無增損也。

[...] *The New Route in the north* leads west, reaching the states of Eastern Jumi, Western Jumi, Danhuan, Bilu, Pulu, Wutan, all dependencies of the king of the tribe of Further Jushi.<fnref n="1" /> Turning west from here are the Wusun and Kangju. They are identical [to how they are recorded in earlier sources], and their territories have neither increased nor diminished.

**Beixindao** 北新道 “The New Route in the north”: Matsuda (1970, 8–9, 118–21) questioned whether this route—very likely the Yulduz route in the Tianshan Mountains—was then new to the Chinese or not. At any rate, it was used predominantly by the nomads. Most stations on it are not yet identified with certainty. For instance, Eastern and Western Jumi were identified by Matsuda (1970, 89, 95) as Bagai Yulduz and Yehe Yulduz, respectively, while Yu (2005, 198–99; Eng. 2014a, 268–80) locates them roughly around today’s Urumqi.

北烏伊別國在康居北，又有柳國，又有巖國，又有奄蔡國一名阿蘭，皆與康居同俗。西與大秦東南與康居接。其國多名貂，畜牧逐水草，臨大澤，故時羈屬康居，今不屬也。

The state of Northern Wuyibie is located north of Kangju. There are also the states of Liu, Yan and Yancai, also called Alan, all of which have customs identical to those in Kangju. In the west, [the state of Yancai] connects with Daqin [the Roman Orient] and in the southeast with Kangju. In this state there are many fine martens, the people raise livestock and [move around] following water and pastures, [living] by large lakes. In the past, the state was controlled by Kangju but this is no longer the case.

## I.002. Description of Yuezhi in the *Nanzhou Yiwuzhi* 南州異物志

Cf. Maspero (1950, 99 n. 2); Enoki (1958, 32, Eng. 1970a, 28–29) on this passage, preserved in the *Taiqing jinye shendan jing* 太清金液神丹經 (composed by GE Hong 葛洪, 283–343 CE). Translation based on Enoki (1970a, 28).

安息，在月支西八千里，國土風俗，盡與月支同。......其國左有土地，百餘王治，別住不屬月支也。

Anxi lies 8,000 *li* to the west of the *Yuezhi*. Its lands, manners and customs are the same as those of the Yuezhi. [...] To the left [i.e. to the east] of the state there is a land ruled by more than a hundred kings. [All of these kings] live in different places and do not belong to the Yuezhi.

<footnote n="1">¹ Here the translation of Jushi houbu wang 車師後部王 follows Yu (2014a, 486).</footnote>
Yuezhi 月支: for Yuezhi 月氏, i.e. the Kushans, from the perspective of Wu 吳 Chinese (229–280 CE). The text implies the existence of independent rulers between the Sasanian Empire and the Kushan Empire before the fourth century.

I.003. Description of the Yuezhi, probably from the *Funan Yiwuzhi* 扶南異物志

Preserved in *Yulan*, j. 793, entry on the Great Yuezhi. Cf. Uchida (1972b, 107). Translated by Imre Galambos and Ching Chao-jung.

月氏俗乘四輪車，或四牛，或八牛，可容二十人，王稱天子。

The Yuezhi custom is to ride four-wheeled carts pulled by four or eight oxen that can carry twenty people. Their king is called the “Son of Heaven.”

[Note Ching] The above text is adopted in TD 192, p. 5240 on the Great Yuezhi: “The people of this state ride four-wheeled carts pulled by four, six or eight oxen, depending on the size of the cart” 國人乘四輪車，或四牛、六牛、八牛輓之，在車大小而已. See Li and Yu (2009, 26).

[Note Grenet and la Vaissière] One may recall the *Xin Tangshu* (j. 221, p. 6247) on Chorasmia that “Among the [states of] various *hu*, only this state uses/produces (lit. ‘has’) oxen carts. Merchants drive them when travelling around many countries.” It is indeed difficult to find any object in the Kushan archaeological material that may evidence oxen carts, except for a Gandhāran sculpture in the Peshawar Museum, showing a merchant’s cart, q.v. Tissot (1985 pl. XLIII: 2).

I.1.2. The itinerary of Fǎxiǎn 法顯 from Khotan to Uǒdiyāna in
401 CE

The route taken by Fǎxiǎn 法顯 (336/340 or 341/345 – 418/423)<fnref n="1" /> is the traditional southern route in the Weilüe (Shiratori 1913, 107). Here Fǎxiǎn’s itinerary follows that in Zhang Xun’s analysis.

I.004. The *Gaoseng Faxian zhuan* 高僧法顯傳

GFZ, j. 1, pp. 16–27. Translation modified by Imre Galambos from Legge (1886). See also Deeg (2005, 99–107, 219–21).

法顯等進向子合國，在道二十五日，便到其國。國王精進。有千餘僧，多大乘學。住此十五日已，於是南行四日，入葱嶺山，到於麾國安居。

Fǎxiǎn and the others went forward to the state of Zihe, which took them twenty-five days to reach. The king was a strenuous follower of our [Buddhist] Law, and had [around him] more

<footnote n="1">¹ See the discussion on his birth and death in Deeg (2005, esp. p. 28). In this section, the more famous Faxian 法顯 (336/340 or 341/345 – 418/423) and the Faxian 法獻 (d. 498) treated in Text I.033 are written with tone marks as Fǎxiǎn and Fǎxiàn, respectively.</footnote>
I. Chinese Sources

than a thousand monks, mostly students of the *mahāyāna*. Here [the travellers] stayed for fifteen
days, and then went south for four days, when they found themselves among the Congling
[Pamirs], and reached the state of Yuhui,<fnref n="1" /> where they kept their retreat.

安居已止，行二十五日，到竭叉國，與慧景等合。值其國王作般遮越師。般遮越師，漢言五年大會也。

When their retreat was over, they went on among the hills for twenty-five days, and arrived at Jiecha, there rejoining Huijing and his two companions. It happened that the king of this state was then holding the pañca pariṣad, that is, in Chinese, the great quinquennial assembly.

布施已，還從僧贖。其地山寒，不生餘穀，唯熟麥耳。眾僧受歲已，其晨輒霜。故其王每
請眾僧，令麥熟然後受歲。

[...] When this distribution has taken place, he again redeems [whatever he wishes] from the
monks. The state, being mountainous and cold, does not produce other kinds of cereals, only the
barley/wheat gets ripe. Whenever the monks receive their annual portion of this, the mornings
invariably show the hoar-frost, and therefore the king always requests the monks to let the bar-
ley/wheat ripen before they receive their portion.

其國中有佛唾壺，以石作之，色似佛鉢。又有佛一齒，其國中人為佛齒起塔。有千餘僧
徒，盡小乘學。

There is in the state a spittoon which belonged to the Buddha, made of stone, and in colour like
his alms-bowl. There is also a tooth of the Buddha, for which the people have built a stūpa,
connected with which there are more than a thousand monks and their disciples, all students of
the hīnayāna.

從此西行向北天竺。在道一月，得度葱嶺。葱嶺冬夏有雪。又有毒龍，若失其意，則吐毒風，雨雪，飛沙礫石。遇此難者，萬無一全。彼土人人即名為雪山人也。

From the [state of Zihe, the travellers] went westwards towards North India, and after being on
the way for a month, they succeeded in getting across the Congling. The snow rests on the range
both winter and summer. There are also among them venomous dragons, which, when provoked,
spit forth poisonous winds, and cause showers of snow and storms of sand and gravel. Not one
in ten thousand of those who encounter these dangers escapes with his life. The people of the
state are called “the people of the Snow Mountains.”

度嶺已，到北天竺。始入其境，有一小國名陀歷。亦有眾僧，皆小乘學。

When [the travellers] had got through the [Cong]ling, they arrived in North India, and immedi-
ately on crossing the frontier found themselves in a small state called Tuoli, where there were
also many monks, all students of the *hīnayāna*.

<footnote n="1">¹ Possibly for Yumo 於摩, cf. Chavannes (1903b, 433); Shiratori (1913, 103).</footnote>
順嶺西南行十五日。其道艱峼，崖岸嶮絕。其山唯石，壁立千仞，臨之目眩，欲進則投足無所。下有水，名新頭河。昔人有鑿石通路施傍梯者，凡度七百，度梯已，躡懸絕過河。河兩岸相去減八十步。九譯所絕。漢之張騫、甘英皆不至。

[...] The travellers went on to the south-west for fifteen days [at the foot of the Congling, and] following the course of their range. The way was difficult and rugged, [running along] a bank exceedingly precipitous, which rose up there, a hill-like wall of rock, 1,000 cubits from the base. When one approached the edge of it, one's eyes became unsteady; and if one wished to go forward in the same direction, there was no place on which one could place his foot; and beneath were the waters of the river called the Xintou River [Indus]. In former times men had chiselled paths along the rocks, and distributed ladders on the face of them, to the number altogether of 700, at the bottom of which there was a suspension bridge of ropes, by which the river was crossed, its banks being there eighty paces apart. [The place is so remote that the local language] cannot be successfully translated even through nine [intermediate] interpreters. Of the Han travellers neither ZHANG Qian nor GAN Ying had reached the spot.

度河便到烏萵國。

[...] After crossing the river, [the travellers] immediately came to the state of Wuchang [UESCO].

[Note Ching] Zihe 子合 and Jiecha 竭叉 had been known to Chinese. Their location was placed by Shiratori (1913, 88–97) in the valley of Asgansal (west of Karghalik) and Tashkurgan, respectively, whereas Deeg (2005, 219) thinks that the latter is in Baltistan. At any rate, the term xueshan ren 雪山人 “People of the Snow Mountains” was first reported by Fǎxiǎn. It is unclear whether this people was historically related to Ximodaluo (Text I.089).

### I.1.3. The Yuezhi in Kumārajīva’s terms, c. 402–406 CE

As demonstrated by Enoki (1958), Kumārajīva referred to the region of Gandhāra–Swat as “Great Yuezhi” or simply “Yuezhi,” rendering Tokharistan (Douqueluo 兜咲羅) as “Smaller Yuezhi.” This differs from the *Weishu* where Tokharistan is called Great Yuezhi and Gandhāra is called Smaller Yuezhi. This issue has been largely explored by Kuwayama (1990) and others. For example, see Appendix I in Wan (2011, 47).

### I.005. Taishō Tripiṭaka 1509 Da zhi du lun 大智度論 (Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra)

Kumārajīva started translating the *Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra* in 402 and finished it on the 27th day of the twelfth month of the seventh year of the Hongshi reign period, i.e. 1 February 406. The text cited here is treated and partly translated in Enoki (1970a, 14–15).
I.005/A. Attestation 1

T. 1509(XXV)126b24–c1, j. 9.

復次，如釋迦牟尼佛在閻浮提中，生在迦毘羅國，多遊行東天竺六大城。

Moreover, just like Śākyamuni Buddha who was in Jambudvīpa, but had been born in the state of Kapilavastu and travelled extensively to the six great cities of East India...

有時暫來北天竺月氏國，降阿波羅龍王。又至月氏國西，降女羅剎。佛在彼石窟中一宿，于今佛影猶在。有人就內看之則不見，出孔遙觀光相。

[...] he sometimes briefly visited the state of the Yuezhi in North India [and thus] gained control over the Nāga King Apolo [Apalāla], and, going to the west of the state of the Yuezhi, defeated a female rākṣasī. The Buddha spent a night in a stone cave there and his image is still there. If one goes into [the cave] to see it, one does not see it, but, if one comes out of the cave, one can see the luminous figure from afar.

**A stone cave (shiku 石窟):** The “Cave of the Shadow of the Buddha” (Fuoying ku 佛影窟) south of the Nagarahara (=Jelalabad) City (Enoki 1958, 20, Eng. 1970a, 14). Accordingly, here “Yuezhi” means Gandhāra. See also Kuwayama (1989, 68–88, 122–23); Deeg (2005, 249) for other descriptions of the cave.

I.005/B. Attestation 2

T. 1509(XXV)126c24, j. 9.

如大月氏西佛肉髻住處國。

It is just like [going to] the country to the west of Great Yuezhi, where the Buddha's uṣṇīṣa is preserved.

**Fo rouji zhachu guo 佛肉髻住處國 “the country where the Buddha’s uṣṇīṣa is preserved”:**
Namely Hiḍḍa where the Buddha’s skull was enshrined according to the Gaoseng Faxian zhuan (Enoki 1958, 20, Eng. 1970a, 13–14). It implies that Great Yuezhi in Kumārajīva’s terms refers to Gandhāra. See also Deeg (2005, 250–52) for more Chinese Buddhist texts about this relic.

I.005/C. Attestation 3

T. 1509(XXV)141c17–20, j. 11.

隨所有物盡能布施故，得福增多。譬如大月氏弗迦羅城中有一畫師，名千那。到東方多剎陀(for 施)羅國，客畫十二年，得三十兩金，持還本國。

By donating as many personal properties as one can afford, one can increase one’s *puṇya*. For instance, in the city of *Fujialuo* in [the state of] the Great Yuezhi, there was a painter named Qianna. He went to the state of Duoshatuoluo [for Duoshashiluo, i.e. *Takṣaśilā*] in the east, and
worked as a painter there for twelve years, receiving thirty *liang* of gold, which he brought back to his country.

**Fujialuo** 弗迦羅：The great city 弗迦羅婆多 Fujialuopoduo (Puṣkalāvatī) in the Da zhi du lun, j. 3.

I.005/D. Attestation 4

T. 1509(XXV)243a10, j. 25. The annotations in this excerpt were probably made by Kumārajīva himself or his colleagues at the beginning of the fifth century.

弊生處者。安陀羅、舍婆羅{裸國也}、兜咲羅{小月氏}、修利、安息、大秦國等。

Inferior locations where buddhas can be born include Antuoluo [Andhra], Shepoluo [Śabara] {the country of the naked}, Douqueluo [Tokhāra] {the Smaller Yuezhi}, Xiuli [Sogdiana], Anxi [Parthia/Sassanid Iran], Daqin [the Roman Orient], etc.

I.006. Taishō Tripiṭaka 2406 Maming pusa zhuan 馬鳴菩薩傳 (the biography of Aśvaghoṣa)

T. 2046(L)183c15–184a10, j. 1. Exact date of translation unknown. Cf. translation in Enoki (1970a, 17).

其後北天竺小月氏國王，伐於中國，圍守經時，中天竺王遣信問言：「若有所求，當相給與。何足苦困人民，久住此耶？...」

After that, the king of the state of the Smaller Yuezhi in North India attacked Madhyadeśa. As he maintained the siege for a long time, the King of Middle India [Madhyadeśa] sent him a message, asking: "If there is anything you want, I will give it to you. Why do you torment [my] people and stay here so long? [...]"

答言：「汝國內有二大寶，一佛鉢、二辯才比丘。以此與我，足當二億金也。......」

[... The king of the state of the Smaller Yuezhi] replied: "There are two great treasures in your country; one is the Buddha's begging bowl, the other is the Bhikṣu Sarasvatī. If you give these to me, they will amount to two hundred million pieces of gold [...]."

即以與之，月氏王便(or: 使)還本國。

[... The King of Madhyadeśa] then gave these to the King of the Yuezhi, and he immediately returned to his own country.

**Bei Tianzhu Xiao Yuezhi guo wang** 北天竺小月氏國王 “the king of the state of the Smaller Yuezhi in North India”: Identified as Kaniṣka by Enoki (1958, 2–3, Eng. 1969, 2–3), against M. F. C. Martin’s view who thought that the legend referred to the Hephthalite conquest of Gandhāra. Wan (2008; 2010; 2011) identifies him as king Jiduoluo in Text I.014, but his view is not accepted by Yu (2015, 116–18).
### I.1.4. Attestation of Xi Yuezhi 西月氏 in the *Gaoseng Faxian*
zhuan, c. 410–412 CE

#### I.007. The description of Ceylon in the *Gaoseng Faxian zhuan*

GFZ, j. 1, pp. 137–138. Cf. translation in Enoki (1970a, 18–19); Wang-Toutain (1994); Aleksandrova (2008, 147). The commentarial addition to this excerpt is most probably Fǎxiǎn’s own explanation.

法顯在此國，聞天竺道人於高座上誦經，云：

In this state Fǎxiǎn heard that an Indian monk, sitting on a high seat, chanted a *sūtra*, saying:

> 「佛鉢本在毘舍離，今在犍陀衛。竟若干百年，{法顯聞誦時有定歲數。但今忘耳。}當復至西月氏國。若干百年，當至于闐國。住若干百年，當至屈茨國。若干百年，當復來到漢地。住若干百年，當復至師子國。若干百年，當還中天竺。到中天已，當上兜術天上。」

> “Originally the Buddha’s *pātra* was in Vaiśālī, which is in Jiantuowei [Gandhāra] today. After several hundred years {when [I], Fǎxiǎn, heard the chanting, a specific number of years was mentioned but [now I can] not remember it anymore}, it will transfer to the state of *Xi Yuezhi*; after several hundred years, to the state of Yutian [Khotan]; after several hundred years, to the state of Quci [Kucha]; after several hundred years, it will arrive in China; after another several hundred years, in the state of Simhala [Sri Lanka]; and after another several hundred years, it will return to Central India. After returning to Central India, it will ascend to the Tuṣita Heaven.

**Xi Yuezhi** 西月氏: Enoki (Enoki 1958, 20–23, Eng. 1970a, 17–19) thought that this state, lit. ‘the Western Yuezhi,’ can be nowhere other than Bactria. In his view, this passage implies that Gandhāra and Bactria were separate states in 410–412. Yu (2015, 121), however, argues that this biography does not have much value for dating the rise of the Kidarites and their invasion of Gandhāra.

### I.1.5. Tanwujie's itinerary from Kashmir to Yuezhi, c. 421–422 CE

#### I.008. Pilgrimage of Tanwujie 曇無竭 (Dharmavikrama) in the *Gaoseng zhuan*

Gaoseng zhuan, j. 3, p. 93, cf. Jiji, j. 15, p. 581. Partly translated in Enoki (1970a, 19–20). On the various descriptions of the location of the Buddha’s bowl around Great Gandhāra in the 5th-6th centuries, see Kuwayama (2002, 20–43).

進至闐賓國，禮拜佛鉢。停歲餘。學梵書梵語。(Jiji: 學胡書竟，便解胡語。)求得觀世音受記經梵文一部。
They continued their journey and reached the state of Jibin where they venerated the bowl of the Buddha. [Tanwujie] stayed here for over a year, studying Indian scripts and Indian languages [Jiji: having finished studying *hu* scripts, he was able to understand *hu* languages.] He was able to obtain an Indian manuscript of the *Guanshiyin shouji jing*.

復西行至辛頭那提河,漢言師子口。緣河西入月氏國,(Jiji: 西行到新頭那提。漢言師子口河。西入月氏國。)禮拜佛肉髻骨,及覩自沸木舫。

Continuing westward they reached a river called Xintounati 辛頭那提 [Sindhu nadī], which in Chinese means Lion's Mouth. Moving west along the river, they entered the state of the Yuezhi. [Jiji: Going westward they reached a river called Xintounati 新頭那提, which in Chinese means Lion's Mouth River. Moving west, they entered the state of the Yuezhi.] Here they venerated the *usnīsa* bone of the Buddha and saw a wooden boat that floated on the water of its own accord.

**fobo** 佛鉢 “the bowl of the Buddha”: Given the location relative to the Indus River, Jibin here most probably denotes Kashmir. But Kuwayama (2002, 20–43 esp. 23) strongly argues for Puruṣapura as its worship place and thus he (1990, 72) thinks the *Sindhu nadī* in this passage may refer to the Swat or the Kabul. Deeg (2005, 237–45) mentions various texts about the bowl, without concluding its location at the time of Tanwujie’s arrival around 420.

**foroujigu** 佛肉髻骨 “the *usnīsa* bone of the Buddha”: As in Text I.007, Enoki identified its location as Haḍḍa, so Gandhāra is called Yuezhi in Tanwujie’s biography. However, it is unclear whether or not the whole of Gandhāra was then under the domination of one political power. In other words, Enoki does not clearly indicate whether in his opinion the Kidarites had invaded Gandhāra by 421–422 CE.

## I.1.6. DONG Wan's mission to the Western Regions in 437 CE

### I.009. The Wusun in the *Weishu*, *juan* 102

WS 102 《列傳第九十・西域》 (p. 2459) ~ BS 97 《列傳第八五・西域》 (p. 3219). Translation based on Yu (2014a, 604). According to the hypothesis of Yu (2005, 424 Comm. 17; Eng. 2014a, 569), the mission departed from the capital of the Northern Wei around the 8th month of the second year of the Taiyan reign (28 August – 25 September 436).

烏孫國，居赤谷城，在龜茲西北，去代一萬八百里。其國數為蠕蠕所侵，西徙葱嶺山中，無城郭，隨畜牧逐水草。太延三年遣使者董琬等使其國，後每使朝貢。

The state of the Wusun: [Its king] resides in the town of Chigu [lit. 'red valley'] northwest of Qiuci, and it is at a distance of 10,800 li from Dai. The state was invaded several times by the Ruanruan, so they migrated west into the Congling., They have no walled cities, they follow

<footnote n="1">¹ I.e. T. 371 *Guanshiyin pusa shouji jing* 觀世音菩薩授記經.</footnote>
their herds in search of water and pasture. In the third year of the Taiyan reign [437 CE], [Wei] sent the envoy DONG Wan and others on a mission to their state. From then on, it often sent envoys to present tribute.

**Wusun 烏孫:** According to Matsuda (1970, 195–204, esp. 199–200, cf. Text I.092), this people had been chased by the Xianbei into the Pamirs in the early fourth century, so the “Ruanruan” here is a misnomer, and the first sentence “[Its king] resides in the town of Chigu northwest of Qiuci” is just an extract from the sources in the Han periods. Yu (2005, 451 Comm. 150; Eng. 2014a, 605) dated their movement to 402–410 at earliest, based on the time of Shelun’s attack, cf. Text I.093. In any case, although the primary goal of DONG’s mission was to visit the nomadic court north of Kucha, the people he and GAO Ming found there was actually the Yueban.

## I.010. Tribute payments from the Wusun and other states in 437 CE

WS 4 《世祖紀第四・太延三年(437 CE)》 (pp. 102–103).

癸巳，龜茲、悅般、焉耆、車師、粟特、疏勒、烏孫、渴槃陁、鄯善諸國各遣使朝獻。

On the *guisi* day [of the third month], Qiuci [Kucha], Yueban, Yanqi [Karashahr], Jushi [Qitai or Jimsar] ~ Turfan], Sute [Sogd], Shule [Kashgar], Wusun, Kepantuo [Tashkurgan], and Shanshan sent envoys to present tribute.

甲申，破洛那、者舌國各遣使朝獻，奉汗血馬。

[...] On the *jiashen* day [of the eleventh month], Poluona [Ferghana] and Zheshe [Čač] sent envoys to present tribute. They presented “sweats blood horses” [i.e. Ferghana horses].

## I.011. Prefaces in *juan* 102 of the *Weishu*

WS 102 《列傳第九十・西域》 (pp. 2450–2451) ~ BS 97 《列傳第八五・西域》 (pp. 3205–3207). Translation based on Yu (2014a, 567–68, 575).

## I.011/A. Envoys sent by the Northern Wei Emperor in the 430s

始遣行人王恩生、許綱等西使，恩生出流沙，為蠕蠕所執，竟不果達。又遣散騎侍郎董琬、高明等多齋錦帛，出鄯善，招撫九國，厚賜之。

[Emperor Shizu] initially sent envoys, WANG Ensheng, XU Gang and others, to go on a mission to the Western Regions. When they emerged from the Flowing Sands, [WANG] Ensheng and the others were unexpectedly captured by the Ruanruan, and thus were unable to reach [their destination]. Emperor Shizu then sent the *sanji shilang* [Gentleman Cavalier Attendant] DONG Wan, GAO Ming and others. They took large quantities of brocade silk with them, and when they appeared in Shanshan they sought to summon and appease nine states by offering them large rewards.
I.011/B. The Wusun in the description of DONG Wan

初,琬等受詔: 便道之國,可往赴之。琬過九國,北行至烏孫國,其王得朝廷所賜,拜受甚
悅,謂琬曰:「傳聞破洛那、者舌皆思魏德,欲稱臣致貢,但患其路無由耳。今使君等既
到此,可往二國,副其慕仰之誠。」琬於是自向破洛那,遣明使者舌。烏孫王為發導譯達
二國,琬等宣詔慰賜之。已而琬、明東還,烏孫、破洛那之屬遣使與琬俱來貢獻者十有六
國。

When [DONG] Wan and the others initially accepted the imperial edict, it stated that they should proceed to states accessible by road. [DONG] Wan, having passed through the nine states, then proceeded north and reached the state of the Wusun, whose king received a reward from the imperial court, did obeisance in acceptance, and was duly pleased [with the reward]. He then said to [DONG] Wan, "I hear that both Poluona [Ferghana] and Zheshe [Čač] longed for the virtue of Wei, and wanted to swear fealty and pay tribute, but were worried there was no road [to reach Wei]. Now that you have arrived here, it is proper to go to these two states to encourage them in their sincere admiration." [DONG] Wan thereupon went in person to Poluona, and sent [GAO] Ming to Zheshe. The king of the Wusun provided them with guides and interpreters for each of the two states. [DONG] Wan and the others read out the imperial edict intended to pacify and reward them. When [DONG] Wan and [GAO] Ming later returned eastwards, the Wusun, Poluona, and their dependencies sent envoys with [DONG] Wan, to pay tribute, on behalf of sixteen states in all.

Wusun 烏孫: Again, this name here actually designates the Yueban (Matsuda 1970, 202), see Texts I.009, I.012 and I.092. Yu (2005, 451 Comm. 150; Eng. 2014a, 605), however, thinks that DONG and GAO indeed met remnants of the Wusun when they passed the Congling.

I.011/C. The sixteen states and four regions mentioned by DONG Wan

始琬等使還京師，具言凡所經見及傳聞傍國，云：西域自漢武時五十餘國，後稍相并。至太延中，為十六國，分其地為四域。

[...] Formerly, when [DONG] Wan and the others returned to the capital after their mission, they described all the neighbouring states they had seen with their own eyes or those they had heard about, saying: "Since Emperor Wu of Han, there have been more than fifty states in the Western Regions. Subsequently, they gradually annexed each other, and by the middle of the Taiyan reign [435-440 CE], they were [only] sixteen states in all. Their lands can be divided into four regions."

[Note Ching] Enoki (1955a, 13–15) regarded the sixteen to be the eleven in Text I.010 plus the [Great] Yuezhi (i.e. Jiduoluo), Daqin (Roman Orient), Jumi 且彌 (Text I.001), Xijuban (i.e. Zhujubo, Text I.048) and perhaps Bosi (Persia). Funaki (1956, 96) gave them as the states in Text I.010 (except for Kepantuo) in addition to Jumi, Xijuban, Bosi, the Great Yuezhi, Tiaozhi (approx. Mesopotamia) and Daqin. Yu (2005, 425 Comm. 25; Eng. 2014a, 570) avoids any identification. Since DONG and GAO's itinerary is obscure, and the structure of their report is
significantly modified in WS 102, the sixteen states cannot be identified with certainty. Nevertheless, it would be unexpected if Yutian (Khotan) was excluded from the list, even if the mission did not pass through there around 437. See further my note on Text I.014.

I.011/D. The four routes in the Western Regions in the Northern Wei period

其出西域本有二道，後更為四：出自玉門，渡流沙，西行二千里至鄯善為一道；自玉門渡流沙，北行二千二百里至車師為一道；從莎車西行一百里至葱嶺，葱嶺西一千三百里至伽倍為一道；自莎車西南五百里葱嶺，西南一千三百里至波路為一道焉。

[...] Access to the Western Regions was originally provided via two routes, but later this changed to four. From the Yumen Pass across the Flowing Sands, going west for 2,000 li until Shanshan, is the first route. From the Yumen Pass across the Flowing Sands, going north for 2,200 li until Jushi, is the second route. From Suoju [Yarkand], going west for 100 li to the Congling, then west for 1,300 li until Jiabei [Text I.020], is the third route. From Suoju going southwest for 500 li to the Congling, then southwest for 1,300 li until Bolu [Text I.022], was yet another route.

I.011/E. End of the preface

自琬所不傳而更有朝貢者，紀其名，不能具國俗也。其與前使所異者錄之。

As for those states that sent envoys to present tribute but were not described by [DONG] Wan, only their names are recorded, and an account of their customs cannot be given. In this place, we record those matters that differ from the reports of the former envoys.

I.1.7. GAO Hui's two missions to the Yeda in 515–525 CE

I.012. Biography of GAO Hui

WS 32 《列傳第二十・高徽》(p. 840).

延昌中，假員外散騎常侍，使於嚵嚵，西域諸國莫不敬憚之，破洛侯、烏孫並因之以獻名馬。還，拜冗從僕射。

During the Yanchang reign [512–515], [GAO Hui, who held the title of] *yuanwai sanji changshi* [Temporary Gentleman Cavalier Attendant], led an embassy to the Yeda, and all the states of the Western Regions treated him with respect and awe. As a result, [the state of] Poluohou [Ferghana] and the *Wusun* both presented him their finest horses. When he returned, he was promoted to the rank of *rongcong puye*.
**Wusun** 烏孫: Emphasizing that the Wusun mentioned here denoted their remnants in the Pamirs, Matsuda (1970, 187–204, esp. 197–198) thought that the horses were presented to GAO Hui not directly but through the court of the Yeda.

神龜中，......又假平西將軍、員外散騎常侍，使嚳嚙。還至aru罕，屬莫折念生反於秦隴。......長史元永平、治中孟賓、臺使元湛，共推徽行河州事。

During the Shengui reign [518–525] [...], holding the titles of *pingxi jiangjun* [General of Pacifying the West] and Temporary Gentleman Cavalier Attendant, he once again led an embassy to the Yeda. When he returned to *Fuhan*, MOZHE Niansheng rebelled in the Qinlong region [...]. *Changshi* YUAN Yongping, *zhizhong* MENG Bin and *taishi* YUAN Zhan together recommended [GAO] Hui for the management of affairs in Hezhou.

**Fuhan** 桑罕: Around today's Linxia 臨夏 County in Gansu, also the seat of Hezhou 河州 during the Northern Wei period. In WS 9, p. 242, for the first year of the Xiaochang 孝昌 reign (525), GAO Hui's title is given as *Yeda shizhu* 嚼嚙使主, lit. 'Chief of the Emissaries to the Yeda.' He was killed by **LIANG Jingjin** 梁景進 after having been elected by YUAN Yongping 元永平 and others to lead the interim government of Hezhou. Qinlong 秦隴 refers approximately to today's Shaanxi 陝西 and Gansu.

### I.1.8. SONG Yun's mission to the Western Regions, 518/519–522 CE

#### I.013. Description of SONG Yun's mission in the Weishu

WS 102 《列傳第九十・西域》(p. 2473) ~ BS 97 《列傳第八十五・西域》(pp. 3231–3232) Cf. translation of BS in La Vaissière (2007, 126); Yu (2014a, 650).

初，熙平中，肅宗(BS: 明帝)遣王伏子統(BS: 臆伏子統)宋雲、沙門法力等使西域，訪求佛經。時有沙門慧生者亦與俱行，正光中還。慧生所經諸國，不能知其本末及山川里數，蓋舉其略云。

Formerly, during the Xiping reign [516–518], Emperor Suzong [i.e. Emperor Ming in BS] sent *zhuyi zitong* 主衣子統 SONG Yun, the monk Fali and others in search of Buddhist *sūtras*. At the time, there was also the monk Huisheng, travelling together with them. They came back during the Zhengguang reign [520–525], but since it is unclear which mountains and rivers, and what distances, Huisheng traversed, we only give a rough outline [of his journey].

**Zhuyi zitong** 主衣子統: Both *wangfu zitong* 王伏子統 in the extant version of the *Weishu* and *shengfu zitong* 臆伏子統 in the extant version of the *Beishi* are scribal errors for *zhuyi zitong* 主

<footnote>i BS: 訪求佛經，</footnote>

<footnote>ii BS: 亦與俱行。正光中，還。</footnote>
衣子統, lit. 'Vice-Director (子統 zitong) of the Bureau zhuyiju 主衣局,' an official in charge of arranging the Wei emperor's attire (Uchida 1972a, 69). The mission departed from Luoyang in the eleventh month of the first year of the Shengui reign, i.e. between 18 Dec. 518-16 Jan. 519.

## I.2. King Jiduoluo 寄多羅 in the Weishu

### I.014. The entry on the Great Yuezhi in the Weishu

WS 102 《列傳第九十・西域》(p. 2468) ~ BS 97 《列傳第八十五・西域》(pp. 3226-3227). See also Zürcher (1968, 373); Enoki (1969, 8, 1 n. 3); Yu (2014a, 629-30); Kushan Histories §§061, 128.

大月氏國，都盧監氏城(BS: 臆監氏城)，在弗敵沙西，去代一萬四千五百里。

The state of the Great Yuezhi has its capital in the city of Lujianshi [BS: city of Shengjianshi]. It lies west of Fudisha, at a distance of 14,500 li from Dai.

北與蠕蠕接，數為所侵，遂西徙都薄羅城，去弗敵沙二千一百里。

In the north it is adjacent to [the territory of] the Ruanruan, and having been on several occasions invaded by them, they subsequently moved westward and established their capital in the city of Boluo, at a distance of 2,100 li from Fudisha.

其王寄多羅勇武，遂興師越大山，南侵北天竺，自乾陁羅以北五國盡役屬之。

Their king Jiduoluo, who was brave and martial, thereupon raised an army, crossed the great mountains and, moving south, invaded Northern India. Qiantuoluo [Gandhāra] and the four states to its north all fell under his control.

世祖(BS: 太武)時，其國人商販京師，自云能鑄石為五色瑠璃，於是採礦山中，於京師鑄之。既成，光澤乃美於西方來者。乃詔為行殿，容百餘人，光色映徹，觀者見之，莫不驚駭，以為神明所作。自此中國瑠璃遂賤，人不復珍之。

At the time of Emperor Shizu [BS: Emperor Taiwu [r. 424-451]], merchants of that state traded in the capital [i.e. Dai]. They said of themselves that they could forge stone into colour liuli. Thus they collected raw ore in the mountain and then forged it in the capital. When [the liuli

<footnote>i Reconstructed by Uchida (1972a, 62) as hou qi wang Jiduoluo yongwu 後其王寄多羅勇武“Afterwards, their king Jiduoluo, who was brave and martial ...” by adopting the word hou 後 preserved in the TD, Tongzhi and Huanyuji.</footnote>

<footnote>ii BS: 自乾陁羅以北五國，盡役屬之。</footnote>

<footnote>iii Reconstructed by Uchida (1972a, 62) as shangfan dao jingshi 商販到京師“merchants arrived in the capital” based on the text cited in the Huanyuji.</footnote>

<footnote>iv BS: 自云能鑄石為五色瑠璃。</footnote>

<footnote>v BS: 自此，中國瑠璃遂賤，</footnote>

<footnote>vi As noted by Enoki (1958, 2-3, Eng. 1969, 3), Martin (1937, 20) confused Taiwu's reign with that of Daowu 道武 (r. 398-409). This error became one of Martin's reasons to date Kidarite coins to the 4th century.</footnote>
was] complete, its lustre was more brilliant than that brought from the West. Therefore, by the imperial order a temporary palace [xingdian 行殿] was built [with *liuli*], which could contain more than a hundred people, and it radiated colourful rays of light. Those who saw the palace were all astonished and thought that it was built by divine beings. After this, *liuli* in the Central Kingdom [i.e. Wei] lost its value and the people did not consider it precious anymore.

**Lujianshi 盧監氏 (BS: Shengjianshi 臆監氏):** According to Enoki (1958, 8–9, Eng. 1969, 9), these are scribal errors for Jianshi 監氏, which he identified with Balkh (*loc. cit.*); this view was accepted by Uchida, Matsuda, Yu and others. Having first considered in 1958 Jianshi 監氏 and Lanshi 至市 scribal errors for *Moshi 莫市 or *Moshi 膜市, Enoki modified his idea in 1969 and reconstructed the original form in the *Shiji* and *Hanshu* as *Modi 莫氏 or *Modi 膜氏, in order to match the name with Bāχtri or Bāχdī, cf. Enoki (1958, 9, Eng. 1969, 10). See, however, *Kushan Histories*, §037 for other opinions.

**Fudisha 弗敵沙:** Today's Badakhshan according to Marquart (1901, 279).

**14,500 li:** The distance is merely a mechanical addition of 1,900 *li* (the distance between Chang'an and Dai) and 12,600 *li* (the distance between Chang'an and Jianshi in the *Hanshu*); see Matsuda (1937, 44–45).<fnref n="1" /> Like other cases in WS 102, this phenomenon implies that DONG and his companions did not visit the territory of the Great Yuezhi personally. See the Introduction to this section, as well as the commentary on “16,000 *li*” for Text I.016.

**Boluo 薄羅 (EMC bak-la):** Several Sinologists, including Yu (1986; 2005; 2015), accepted Enoki's view of Jianshi = Boluo = Balkh and that there was error or confusion in the second sentence. However, while Matsuda (1970, 447) finally adopted Enoki's theory and abandoned his own earlier solution, i.e. Boluo = Zabul (Matsuda 1937, 48–49), Uchida repeatedly defended Marquart's theory of Boluo = Balaam = Krasnowodsk. Kuwayama (1990, 143–44) did not specify the location of Boluo at all, however, see Note La Vaissière and Note Grenet, *infra*.

**Jiduoluo 寄多羅:** A name only attested in the *Weishu* and the parallel account in the *Beishi*. While Yu (1986, 74) followed Enoki (1958, 1, Eng. 1969, 1) to assert that the Kidarites in Western sources were named after this ruler, i.e. the founder of the Kidarites, he recently changed his opinion, suggesting that Jiduoluo in the *Weishu* is to be identified with the title “Kidāra Kushāna Shā[hi]” seen on coins, rather than with a personal name (Yu 2015, 99–100). Both Enoki (1970a, 33 n. 1) and Yu (2015, 100) agreed with Marquart (1901, 53) that Jiduoluo's tribe/clan was originally from the ruling class of the Kushan Empire, that is to say, a certain group emerging locally in Tokharistan, to be distinguished from the Hephthalites. On the other hand, Matsuda (1937, 55) considered Jiduoluo to be the name of a state/tribe rather than that of a person, citing as evidence the case of Yandaiyilituo 厭帶夷栗陁 in the *Liangshu* (Text I.070), where the Liang people mistakenly took the ethnonym as the king's personal name. He (1937,

<footnote n="1">¹ Matsuda (1937, 45) further indicated that the distance “11,600 *li*” in HS 96 (on the Chinese text, see *Kushan Histories* §061) is a scribal error for 12,600 *li*. His correction is widely taken as granted among Sinologists. For example, see Enoki (1958, 8, Eng. 1969, 8) and Yu (1986, 70; 2005, 473–74 Comm. 288; Eng. 2014a, 630). However, see also Yu (2005, 118 Comm. 300; Eng. 2014a, 160).</footnote>
55–56; 1970, 170–71, 185, 219) further argued that Jiduoluo was just another transliteration of the Hephthalites, i.e. for “Haital,” as he preferred to call them.

**The great mountains** (dashan 大山): The Hindu Kush (Shiratori 1931, 638).

**Zi Qiantuoluo yi bei wu guo** 自乾澕羅以北五國“Qiantuoluo and the four states to its north”: Enoki translated the passage alternatively as “five countries to the north of Ch’ien-t’o-lo” (1969, 8, assuming that this was possibly “a result of association with the five Xihou in the Han dynasty;” on the five Xihou, see *Kushan Histories*, §§044, 045) and as “Gandhāra and four countries to the north of Gandhāra” (1969, 14, esp. n. 3). Kuwayama (1989, 110; 2002, 124) identified the five states as Zhujubo (Text I.048), Kepantuo (I.049), Bohe (I.050), Shemi (I.052) and Qiantuo/Gandhāra (I.054), which was cited and rephrased in Grenet (2002, 207), but on one occasion he (1990, 106) excluded Gandhāra, assuming that the five would be among the following nine states: (1) Zhuju, (2) Kepantuo, (3) Bohe, (4) Shemi, (5) Bolule, (6) Bozhi (I.051), (7) Wuchang (I.053), (8) Jie 劫 and (9) Tuoli 陀歷 (I.004). Yu (2015, 100) identified the five states as Bohe, Bozhi, Shemi, Wuchang and Qiantuo, which he located in Wakhan [=Jiabei], Zēbak, Chitral ~ Mastuj [=Zhexuemosun], the historical Uddiyāna and Gandhāra, respectively.

**liuli** 瑚璃: The word has a range of possible meanings but here it must denote “glass” (Shiratori 1933, 533).

[Note Ching] Because of the use of the word zi 自 “[counting] from ...” in the passage, Gandhāra should be included in the five states (X. Rong, p. c. 31 Dec. 2017). Although Yu’s solution may be correct, the identification of the five states depends on whether they are mentioned in DONG’s report—in other words, whether the Kidarite invasion of Gandhāra happened before 437. If Enoki’s reconstruction of the sixteen states (Text I.011) is more or less correct, then not only the mention of Fudisha—a state presumably not in the list—but also the news about “the five states” are later than DONG’s report. If this is indeed the case, then Text I.014 and I.015 both contain a significant amount of information from after 437.

[Note La Vaissière] Boluo is Balkh (Bactrian *βαχλο* [vaxl], cf. N. Sims-Williams 2016, 273), and Jiduoluo is undoubtedly the founder of the Kidarites, as it is the case with Sasan, the founder of the Sassanids. Moreover, I suppose that the reference to the Ruanruan in this passage probably indicates Ruanruan raids into Sogdiana and the Pamirs, as far as Merv: it is remarkable that the enemy of Bahrām Gōr (Bahram V) was not only called a “Turk” but also “Qaghan” by Ṭabarī (Text VIII.002/A), a title only used by the Ruanruan in that period. Their retreat left the stage to the rising Kidarites.

[Note Grenet] Contrary to the note above, I think that “Qaghan” is anachronical, given that Ṭabarī wrote about the “Turks” as early as during the reign of Shāpur II. On this point I rather side with Yu and Uchida that “the Ruanruan” here actually means the newly-rising Hephthalites in the union of the Ruanruan. In any case, Boluo is Balkh (La Vaissière 2010; N. Sims-Williams 2016). Hence, if the Kidarites were disturbed by the Hephthalites who emerged in 457, presumably in southeastern Tokharistan, this would explain why they transferred their main capital
from eastern Bactria to Balkh, which they held until 467. Moreover, Boluo is Balaam (= Balkh); Marquart's idea that Balaam is Balkhān near the Caspian Sea is quite unlikely, cf. Grenet (2002, 211 n. 13), where Marshak's suggestion of a corruption of the phrase *Baxlī bāmīg*, i.e. "Balkh the radiant," is mentioned. At the Budapest conference (29 Aug. 2017) N. Sims-Williams proposed a plausible alternative: Balaam from *Baxl-lām*, where the second element would be Bactrian λαμο [lām] 'land; world.' If so, it would be the Bactrian equivalent to the Middle Persian form Balkhān 'Balkh country' (cf. in Zandī Wahman Yasn 7.7 "Balkh and Balkhān," i.e. "Balkh and the Balkh country").

## I.015. The entry on the Smaller Yuezhi in the Weishu

WS 102 《列傳第九十・西域》(p.2470) ~ BS 97 《列傳第八十五・西域》(pp. 3228–3229), cf. Zürcher (1968, 373); Enoki (1969, 14–15); Yu (2014a, 637–38); Kushan Histories, §129.

小月氏國，都富樓沙城。

The state of the Smaller Yuezhi has its capital in the city of Fulousha.

其王本大月氏王寄多羅子也。

The king was originally the son of Jiduoluo, king of the Great Yuezhi.

寄多羅為匈奴所逐，西徙後令其子守此城，因號小月氏焉。

When Jiduoluo was chased by the Xiongnu, he moved westward, and later ordered his son to defend this city; hence [the state] is called ‘Xiao Yuezhi’ [lit. ‘Smaller/Lesser Yuezhi’].

在波路西南，去代一萬六千六百里。

[The capital] lies south-west of Bolu [Text I.022], at a distance of 16,600 li from Dai.

先居西平、張掖之間，被服頗與羌同。

They formerly lived in the region between Xiping and Zhangye, and in their way of clothing they are identical to the Qiang.

其俗以金銀錢為貨。隨畜牧移徙，亦類匈奴。

As to their customs, they use gold and silver coins as currency. They move around following their herds; [in this respect] they also resemble the Xiongnu.

其城東十里有佛塔，周三百五十步，高八十丈。自佛塔初建，計至武定八年，八百四十二年，所謂「百丈佛圖」也。

<footnote>i BS: 西徙。後令其子守此城，</footnote>

<footnote>ii BS: 其俗以金銀錢為貨，</footnote>
10 *li* to the east of the city there is a *stūpa*, the circumference of which is 350 paces and the height is 80 *zhang*. From the time when the *stūpa* was first built up to the eighth year of the Wuding reign [550 CE], 842 years has elapsed. This is the so-called “*Stūpa of 100 zhang*.”

**Fulousha** 富樓沙 (EMC *puw*⁹-*ləw*-ṣaï): Identified as Puruṣapura (Peshawar) by Marquart. Accordingly, the Smaller Yuezhi in the *Weishu* is identified as Gandhāra, cf. Marquart (1901, 211); Chavannes (1903b, 422); Matsuda (1937, 34–37). But its location is debated, cf. *Kushan Histories*, §129.

**Jiduoluo wei Xiongnu suo zhu** 寓多羅為匈奴所逐“When Jiduoluo was chased by the Xiongnu”: Reconstructed by Uchida (1972a, 64–65) as *Jiduoluo wei Ruanruan suo zhu* 寓多羅為蠕蠕所逐“When Jiduoluo was chased by the Ruanruan” based on the text cited in the *Tongdian* and *Huanyuji*. In his view, it was the BS editors who changed WEI Shou’s “Ruanruan” in the original WS to “Xiongnu” when compiling the BS. Nevertheless, not all the Sinologists agree with this reconstruction.

**Xiping** 西平 and **Zhangye** 張掖: Today’s Xining 西寧 (Qinghai Province) and Zhangye 張掖 (Gansu Province), respectively (Matsuda 1937, 37).

**Stūpa of 100 zhang** 百丈佛圖: The famous “*stūpa du loriot*” (Chavannes 1903b, 422). Matsuda (1937, 36–37; 1970, 170) noted that the information about the *stūpa* was late, probably obtained during the Eastern Wei period. Uchida (1972a, 64–65) formed no judgment whether this piece of information belonged to the original text of the *Weishu*.

**[Note La Vaissière]** It is difficult to establish who “the Xiongnu” in this passage were, but they might refer to the Ruanruan (= War-Huns as they are named in the Byzantine texts) and therefore not necessarily a misnomer, cf. La Vaissière (2015a, esp. 185–86, 188 with n. 32). It is noteworthy that part of the Xiongnu were incorporated first in the Xianbei and then in the Ruanruan: for example, see WS 103, p. 2489 (= 1987 edition, p. 2290).

**[Note Grenet]** I think otherwise. Here the invasion of “the Xiongnu” could be a rephrasing of the raids of the “Ruanruan,” with a confusion between the fate of the Northern Kidarites (established in Tokharistan) chased out from Tokharistan by the Yeda and that of the Southern Kidarites (in Gandhāra) chased out by the “Alkhans.”

**[Note Ching]** Many Sinologists agree that the “Xiao Yuezhi” in the *Weishu* is not to be confused with the “Xiao Yuezhi” of the Han dynasty (Pelliot 1934, 43 n. 1; Matsuda 1937, 38–39; Enoki 1951, 142–43; Uchida 1972a, 65). This view is accepted by Yu (1986, 66–75) and Rong (1990), among other Chinese scholars. However, due to a misinterpretation on the part of the *Weishu* editors, part of Text I.015 is merely a rephrasing of old information, the Chinese text of which is given in *Kushan Histories*, §017. In particular, “They formerly lived in the region between Xiping and Zhangye” is from KAN Yin’s *Shisan zhou zhi* 十三州志,<fnref n="1" /> and “in their way of clothing they are identical to the Qiang” from the *Houhanshu* (Enoki 1958, 12–13, Eng. 1969, 15;

<footnote n="1">¹ 西平、張掖之間，大月氏之別，小月氏之國，cited in the *Shuijing zhu* 水經注. See also Matsuda (1937, 38).</footnote>
see also “Note Cribb” in *Kushan Histories*, §129). As to their currency and husbandry, while Haloun (1937, 206 n. 1) thought both parts were copied from the *Hanshu* account of the Great Yuezhi, Enoki (1958, 12–13, Eng. 1969, 15–16) pointed out that the reference to gold coins was new. According to him, the news about the “Smaller Yuezhi”—actually, the Kidarites in Gandhāra—in the Northern Wei period are as follows:

(1) Capital: Fulousha 富樓沙;

(2) King: son of Jiduoluo, who made this son defend Fulousha after he himself fled westwards under pressure from the “Xiongnu,” and therefore the state was called the Smaller Yuezhi;

(3) Location: southwest of Bolu, 16,600 *li* away from Dai;

(4) Currency: gold and silver coins.

Enoki (1969, 16) remarked that “those which have hitherto been identified with Kidāra’s are all silver and bronze coins,” although “this would not make it difficult to identify the Little Yüeh-shih with the Kidarites.” Recently, several gold coins have been classified as Kidarite ones, cf. Cribb (2010); Jongeward et al. (2015), which provide support for Enoki’s opinion. As explained in my note to Text I.021, it is interesting that in *WS* 102, besides the present one, only the entries on Jibin and Agou Qiang specify coins as local currency. This phenomenon may be related to the passage about the five states conquered by Jiduoluo.

## I.3. The Xiongnu conquest of Sogdiana in the Weishu

### I.016. The entry on Sogdiana in the Weishu

WS 102 《列傳第九十・西域》(p. 2462) ~ BS 97 《列傳第八五・西域》(p. 3221). Cf. Translation in Enoki (1955b, 44); La Vaissière (2004, 99); Yu (2014a, 615–16).

粟特國，在葱嶺之西，

The state of Sute [Sogd] is situated west of the Congling [Pamirs].

古之奄蔡，一名溫那沙。

This is where the Yancai had lived in ancient times. It is also called Wennasha.

居於大澤，在康居西北，去代一萬六千里。

They [i.e. the Yancai people in the Han period] lived by an extensive swamp north-west of Kangju, at a distance of 16,000 *li* from Dai.

先是，匈奴殺其王而有其國，至王忽倪已三世矣。i

<footnote>i BS: 至王忽倪，已三世矣。</footnote>
Formerly, the Xiongnu had killed the king [of Sute] and took the state. By the time of King Huni, there have been three generations.

其國商人先多詣涼土販貨，及克姑臧(BS: 及魏克姑臧)，悉見虜。

Merchants of that state used to come in great numbers to the region of Liang [i.e. Liangzhou 涼州, approx. the present Wuwei] to trade. When Guzang [Wuwei] was conquered [BS: conquered by the [Northern] Wei], all of them were taken captives.

高宗(BS: 文成)初，粟特王遣使請贖之，詔聽焉。自後無使朝獻。

At the beginning of the reign of Emperor Gaozong [BS: Emperor Wencheng [r. 452–465 CE]], the king of Sute sent embassies to ransom them, and this was granted by the Emperor. Since then no embassy came [to the court of Wei] to pay tributes.

gu zhi yancai 古之奄蔡 “This is where the Yancai had lived in ancient times”: Here the explanation of Enoki (1955b, 50) is provisionally adopted. In other words, Sogdiana is the region where the Yancai stayed in ancient times. The text given in the *Zhoushu* is more cautious: *gai gu zhi yancai 蓋古之奄蔡*, beginning the phrase with *gai 蓋 'perhaps/presumably.'* While Enoki (1955a, 31, Eng. 1955b, 57–58) supposed that the confusion between the Yancai in the *Hanshu* and the Sute in the *Weishu* was due to DONG's misinterpretation in his report caused by the similar pronunciation of Yancai (EMC ?iam'-tsʰajʰ) and Wennasha (EMC ?wən-naʰ-ṣaɪ, which he reconstructed as *Hūnashāh), Yu (1986, 59; 2005, 460–61 Comm. 202; Eng. 2014a, 612) suggested that the confusion started with the *Weishu* editors. In Yu's theory, both the “Xiongnu” Conquest of Sogdiana around 366–376 and the Hun Conquest of the Alans around 370 were originally part of DONG's report but were unfortunately misunderstood by the *Weishu* editors as referring to one and the same event.

Wennasha 溫那沙: Very likely the Chinese transcription of *vovavó pao* (Yoshida 2013b, 382; based on the reading of Bactrian seal inscriptions published in Rahman, Grenet, and Sims-Williams 2006).

*daze* 大澤“an extensive swamp”: The Aral Sea, the eastern and northern shores of which were occupied by the Yancai (= Alan, Text I.001).

16,000 li: The distance is an approximate sum of 2,000 *li* (the distance between the Kangju and the Yancai in the *Hanshu*) and 12,300 *li* (the distance between Chang'an and the Kangju in the *Hanshu*), plus 1,900 *li* (the distance between Chang'an and Dai). It is not the actual distance of the itinerary from Dai to Sogdiana (Matsuda 1931, 36–37; 1970, 183–85). Matsuda used to consider DONG Wan as the one who invented the distances by confusing or deliberately matching Sute with the Yancai, as it was the case with confusing Jiduoluo with the Yuezhi. But towards the end of his life, he (1970, 444–49) thought the distances were concocted by the *WS* editors, assuming that the news about Sogdiana and Tokharistan were collected by GAO Ming in 437 on his way to Čač, and that it was the *WS* editors who confused the former with the Yancai. As to the case of Jiduoluo (= the Yeda/Hephthalites, in his view), he was of the opinion (*ibid*., 448) that this people was called “Yuezhi” by DONG and GAO, but then the *WS* editors separated the
events related to Jiduoluo into two entries, i.e. the Great and Smaller Yuezhi. Nevertheless,
readers should note that the actual itinerary of DONG and GAO and the information they collected
about the countries neighbouring Ferghana and Čač are still far from clear.

[**Note Sims-Williams**] As pointed out by Yoshida (2013b), whose view is essentially in agreement with that of Enoki (1951), Wennasha can be identified as a transcription of *vovavo pao* [hūnān šā] “king of the Huns” as a title of a Kidarite ruler of Samarkand. The identification of Wennasha as *alχovo povo* (more correctly *alχavo pavo*) “king of the Alkhan” (Ma 2008, 408–28) is phonetically unsatisfactory.

[**Note La Vaissière**] Huni is Kidarite; likewise, the “Xiongnu” in this passage are the Kidarites (La Vaissière 2004, 100). Perhaps Huni transliterated the same title as Khunghas (= Xun-qan, cf. Tremblay 2001, 188). However, before the Kidarite invasion of Sogdiana, the region had been passed and/or occupied by other nomads that identified themselves as “Xiongnu/Hun” around 350 (La Vaissière 2005, esp. 20–23).

[**Note Grenet**] Yoshida’s neat solution of Wennasha may further support Tremblay’s hypothesis that Khunghas = X(y)un-qan “Khan of the Huns” (adapted with a Greek case ending). But these seem to be titles, not personal names.

I.017. The passage about Huni in the *Tongdian*

TD, j. 193, p. 5258. This excerpt is from the *Tongdian* editors’ original commentary for the main text about the Yancai and Sute, cf. Li and Yu (2009, 177).

後魏史云：「初，匈奴殺其王而有其國，至文成帝初，遣使朝貢，其王忽倪已三代矣。」

The history of Later Wei [i.e. the *Weishu*] says: “Initially, the Xiongnu killed the king [of Sute] and took the state. At the beginning of the reign of Emperor Wencheng, an embassy was sent to pay tributes, [at that time] the king of this state was called Huni, [and since the conquest until his reign] there have been three generations.”

[**Note Ching**] The phrase *yi sanshi yi 已三世矣* in the *Beishi* and *Weishu* and *yi sandai yi 已三代矣* (*shi* 世 probably substituted by *dai* 代 to avoid writing the tabooed personal name of Li Shimin 李世民, i.e. the Taizong Emperor of the Tang) in the *Tongdian* are not precise, so that Huni could be interpreted as either the third ruler or the fourth one, cf. Enoki (1955c, part 2, 40–41). A parallel example is the pair of *yi ershi yi 已二世矣* (Text I.054/A) and *yijing ershi 已經二世* (I.054/B): their ambiguous meaning has permitted Yu to adjust his chronology of Mihirakula from the second generation (Chiqin, i.e. *Toramāņa* – Mihirakula, cf. Yu 2012, 122 n. 21) to the third one (Chiqin – *Toramāņa* – Mihirakula, cf. Yu 2012, Appendix I, 228) concerning the Yeda rule in Gandhāra. With regard to the latter example, I side with Kuwayama (1990, 134) who argues that the ‘king’ (i.e. Chiqin) in 520 could be either the second or the third generation of the new regime. In other words, it shall be risky to apply the equation of “1 *shi* 世 = 30 years” for these two cases, and both Marshall’s theory (1951, 76–77, 274ff.) to count 460
(= 520 – [30×2]) as the year of the Yeda invasion in Gandhāra as well as La Vaissière’s estimation (2015a, 182) to count 367/377 (≈ 457 [the first Sogdian tribute payment to Wei] – 30×3) as the year of the “Xiongnu” migration into Sogdianaᵢ are merely workable assumptions, rather than final solutions. Their validity is to be tested in light of archaeological, philological and numismatic data.

## I.4. Possible Kushan and Kidarite emissaries to the Northern Wei in the late fifth century

### I.018. Tribute payments from Juchang and Juduoluo

#### I.018/A. 459 CE

WS 5 《高宗紀第五・太安五年(459 CE)》(p. 141) = BS 2 《魏本紀第二・太安五年(459 CE)》(p. 70) Cf. translation of WS in Enoki (1969, 23).

五月，居常國遣使朝獻(BS: 朝貢)。

In the fifth month, the state of Juchang sent an embassy to pay tributes.

#### I.018/B. 460 CE

WS 5 《高宗紀第五・和平元年(460 CE)》(p. 142) = BS 2 《魏本紀第二・和平元年(460 CE)》(p. 70) Cf. translation of WS in Enoki (1969, 23).

冬十月，居常王獻馴象三。

In the tenth month, in the winter, the Juchang king presented three tamed elephants.

#### I.018/C. 477 CE

WS 7 《高祖紀第七・太和元年(477 CE)》(p. 172). Extracted text in BS 3, p. 94. Cf. Translation of WS in Enoki (1969, 23).

九月......車多羅、西天竺、舍衛、疊伏羅諸國各遣使朝貢。

In the ninth month [...] the states of Juduoluo

<footnote>ᵢ See also La Vaissière (2004, 99–100, esp. n. 57). Incidentally, Yu (2012, Appendix I, 217) uses a similar equation 366/376 (≈ 456 (Text I.069/B) – [30 × 3]) to date the Yeda Conquest of Sogdiana by identifying the “Xiongnu” in Text I.016 with the Yeda.</footnote>
, Western India [Xī Tianzhu 西天竺], Shewei [Śrāvasti] and Diefuluo [Žabula = Gazna] each sent embassies to pay tributes.

**Juchang** 居常 (EMC *kiš-dzian*) and **Juduoluo** 車多羅 (EMC *kiš-ta-la*): To be understood as Kushan and Jiduoluo 寄多羅 (Pelliot 1934, 34 n. 3; Enoki 1958, 46 n. 38, Eng. 1969, 23 n. 2).

[Note Ching] Enoki (1958, 16–17) questioned whether the Juchang attested in 459–460 CE could mean Tokharistan, given his view that the Kidarites were under pressure from the Yeda/Hephthalites in the middle of the fifth century. Later, he (1969, 23, esp. n. 3) suggested that Juchang here could mean (1) the Kushans in Tokharistan, who had just fallen under the control of the Hephthalites; (2) the Kushans in Gandhāra, assuming that the Kushans in this region might have sent embassies separately from the Kidarite ruling class there; or (3) the Kushans under the leadership of Jiduoluo (Kidāra) or his son Kouncha who had moved westwards due to the invasion of the Hephthalites. As for the Juduoluo attested in 477, Enoki (1958, 16–17, Eng. 1969, 23–24) identified it with the Kidarites in Gandhāra, i.e. the “Smaller Yuezhi” in the *Weishu*, since the Juduoluo emissary arrived to the Wei court along with the ones from Northwest India and Southern Afghanistan. Accordingly, he assumed that the Kidarite dynasty was in power in Gandhāra in 477, and the Hephthalites’ reign there must have been later, roughly in the last quarter of the fifth century or at the beginning of the sixth. His theory was further advanced by Kuwayama (1990, 143–44), who took 477 as the *terminus post quem* of the Hephthalite occupation of Gandhāra.

Yu (1986, 91) admitted that the Juduoluo attested in 477 may denote the Kidarites remaining in Gandhāra but, according to his interpretation of SONG Yun’s mission and Indic sources, the region could have been attacked by the Yeda/Hephthalites. Later he (2005, 480–81 Comm. 332; Eng. 2014a, 638) argued that the Kidarites surviving in Gandhāra may have been governed by the Yeda/Hephthalites before 455, i.e. the year taken by him (2012, 105) as the *terminus post quem* of the Junagadh Inscription (Text X.028). In his view, the Juchang and Juduoluo in the late fifth century were the same state subjugated to the Hephthalites. He (2015, 109) further assumed that 477 was the *terminus post quem* of their direct control over Gandhāra, but their power might have reached there in the 450s or 460s (≈ 520 – [30×2]). Regarding this problem, see my discussion on Text I.033.

## I.5. Entries on Western states adjacent to the Smaller Yuezhi in the *Weishu*

### I.019. Bosi (Persia)

WS 102 《列傳第九十・西域》(p. 2463) ~ BS 97 《列傳第八十五・西域》(p. 3222), partly translated in Tanabe (1997, 80). See also ZS 50 《周書・列傳第四十二・異域下》(p. 919) and its translation in Yu (2014a, 690).
其王姓波氏，名斯。坐金羊牀，戴金花冠，衣錦袍、織成帔，飾以真珠寶物。其俗：丈夫剪髮，戴白皮帽，貫頭衫，兩廂近下開之，亦有巾帔，緣以織成；婦女服大衫，披大帔，其髮前為髻，後披之，飾以金銀花，仍貫五色珠，絡之於膊。

The surname of the king is BO and his first name is Si. He sits on a golden bench-throne, the legs of which are in the form of a ram, and wears a golden flower crown. He wears a brocade gown with an embroidered cape that is adorned with genuine pearls. According to the local custom, men cut their hair and wear on their head a white leather hat; they wear a 'stick-the-head-through' garment with its two sides split towards the bottom; they also have capes with woven edges. Women dress in a large gown and drape over their shoulder a large cape; they arrange their hair in a bun at the front and keep it loose at the back, adorning it with golden and silver flowers; in addition, they string together colour pearls and wear those around their arms.

**Zuo jinyang chuang** 坐金羊牀 “sits on a golden bench-throne, the legs of which are in the form of a ram”: While Tanabe (1997) argued that this entry on Bosi came from the original *Weishu*, Uchida (1971, 100) pointed out that the text from *zuo jinyang chuang* onward was actually from the *Zhoushu*. Yu (2015, 94–97) agreed with Uchida, although he admitted the possibility that the *Zhoushu* editors might have relied on an unknown Wei source. However, Yu (*loc. cit*..) favoured the interpretation that the Persian kings listed in this entry could be the ones ruling Tokharistan after the Sasanian Empire defeated the Hephthalites in the Zhou period (557–581 CE).

[Note La Vaissière and Grenet] Perhaps the golden flower crown indicates more probably the post-Kushan Sassanid kings. In the second half of the fourth century, the floret-crown was used in northern Afghanistan, cf. Cribb (2010, 136, Table 9). Moreover, such floret-crowns are more typical from the fifth century onwards: a possible example is reproduced as Plate I (c) in Grenet 2002, which is a Kidarite one datable to the mid-fifth century. Although some Kushano-Sasanian crowns have palmettes, the crowns shown in Plate I (a) and (b), both datable to the end of the fourth century, could be flower ones.

[Note Cribb] I have no suggestions regarding the nature of the source, but if one is looking for a king with a flower on his crown, then most of the Kushano-Sasanians and all the Kidarites issue coins at Balkh with an artichoke-like device on top of the crown, cf. Jongeward et al. (2015). It could be described as a flower. The coins show no evidence of a throne. At any rate, the Sasanian kings who ruled Tokharistan after the Hephthalites did not have flowers on their crowns, but a hair ball or a star and crescent, so I suspect Yu is wrong on this.

## I.020. The five states considered to be the five Xihou of the past

WS 102 《列傳第九十・西域》(pp. 2467–2468) ~ BS 97 《列傳第八十五・西域》(pp. 3225–3226), cf. Yu (2014a, 626–29); *Kushan Histories* §044, 045.

伽倍國，故休密翕侯，都和墨城，在莎車西，去代一萬三千里。人居山谷間。
The state of Jiabei was formerly the Xihou of Xiumi. Its capital is at the city of Hemo; it lies west of Suoju [Yarkand], at a distance of 13,000 *li* from Dai. The people live in mountain valleys.

折薛莫孫國，故雙靡翕侯，都雙靡城，在伽倍西，去代一萬三千五百里，居山谷間。

The state of Zhexuemosun was formerly the Xihou of Shuangmi. Its capital is at the city of Shuangmi; it lies west of Jiabei, at a distance of 13,500 *li* from Dai. The people live in mountain valleys.

鉗敦國，故貴霜翕侯，都護澡城，在折薛莫孫西，去代一萬三千五百六十里，居山谷間。

The state of Qiandun was formerly the Xihou of Guishuang. Its capital is at the city of Huzao; it lies west of Zhexuemosun, at a distance of 13,560 *li* from Dai. The people live in mountain valleys.

弗敵沙國，故詳(BS: 相)頓翕侯。都薄茅城，在鉗敦西，去代一萬三千六百六十里。居山谷間。

The state of Fudisha was formerly the Xihou of Xidun/Bidun. Its capital is at Bomao; it lies west of Qiandun, at a distance of 13,660 *li* from Dai. The people live in mountain valleys.

閻浮謁國，故高附翕侯。都高附城，在弗敵沙南，去代一萬三千七百六十里。居山谷間。

The state of Yanfuye was formerly the Xihou of Gaofu. Its capital is at the city of Gaofu; it lies south of Fudisha, at a distance of 13,760 *li* from Dai. The people live in mountain valleys.

**Bomao 薄茅:** Possibly for *Bodi 薄第* (Badakhshan), as suggested by Shiratori (1912, 23), who took *Bodi as another transliteration of Xidun 相頓 and reconstructed the latter's Old Chinese pronunciation as *bat-dok (~ Pinyin *Bidu*). His suggestion was followed by Uchida (1972a, 61). Yu (2005, 472; Eng. 2014a, 628) did not reconstruct Bomao as *Bodi, but he gave the pinyin of 相頓 as Bidun and located it to the east of Faizabad, so he generally follows Shiratori, too.

[Note Ching] In Kushan Histories §048, as argued by Grenet, the five Xihou are placed to the north of the Oxus, while Yu (2014a; 2015, usually following Marquart and Shiratori) and Kuwayama (2017) placed most of them around Wakhan and Badakhshan. Yu located Jiabei/Xiumi, Zhexuemosun/Shuangmi, Qiandun/Guishuang, Fudisha/Bidun, Yanfuye/Gaofu in Kumidae (location unspecified), Sad-i-Mastuj (?), Kandud, Badakhshan and Hamakān (near the Kokcha), respectively, whereas Kuwayama identified them as East Wakhan, Yarkhun Valley, West Wakhan, Daraye-Īm~Boharak and the region between Jorm and Kurān (or Munjān). One may reflect whether these Xihou ever moved before the fourth century, yet the issues more important to the post-Kushan period are why Jiabei is mentioned in the preface of WS 102 (Text I.011/D) and whether DONG Wan and/or GAO Ming reached Wakhan.
I.021. Agou Qiang 阿鈎羌

WS 102 《列傳第九十・西域》(pp. 2469–2470) = BS 97 《列傳第八五・西域》(p. 3228) Cf. Yu (2014a, 636).

阿鈎羌國，在莎車西南，去代一萬三千里。

The state of the **Agou Qiang** is to the south-west of Suoju [Yarkand], at a distance of 13,000 *li* from Dai.

國西有縣度山，其間四百里中，往往有棧道，下臨不測之淵(BS: 深)，人行以繩索相持而度，因以名之。

To the west of the state is the Xuandu Mountains [‘Mountains crossed by suspension’]. It is 400 *li* in length and the road through here is often a plank path along a bottomless abyss on one side, and people cross it by supporting each other with ropes. This is where its name comes from.

土有五穀諸果。市用錢為貨。居止立宮室。有兵器。土出金珠。

The land [of the state] produces the five grains and many different fruits. In the markets they trade using coins; for residence they erect houses. [The state] produces weapons and the earth gives forth alluvial gold [lit. ‘golden pearls’].

**Agou Qiang** 阿鈎羌 (EMC ʔa-kəw-kʰiɑŋ): Shiratori (1917, 43–45) thought that *agou* meant ‘ice’ and cited Wakhan *yikh*, Persian *yakh* and Ossetic *yekh*, *yikh*, *ikh*. He placed this people or state in today’s Baltistan. Yu (2005, 479 Comm. 326; Eng. 2014a, 636) suggested that it was a branch of Qiang, possibly mixed with Argippaei.

[Note Ching] In WS 102, the states listed between the Great Yuezhi and South India are: Anxi (Sassanid Iran), Daqin (Roman Orient), Agou Qiang, Bolu, the Smaller Yuezhi, Jibin (Kashmir), Tuhuluo (Tokharistan) and Fuhuo. A brief examination of the ones that appear in the list after Daqin may help to resolve the question of the five states conquered by Jiduoluo. Among them, Agou Qiang, Bolu, the Smaller Yuezhi and Jibin form a series in which the geographical description is analogous, whereas the description of Tuhuluo 吐呼羅 (also transliterated as Tuhuoluo 吐火羅, see Texts I.024, I.037/E and I.037/F) and Fuhuo is of another style. In WS 102, coins as currency are only mentioned with regard to Agou Qiang, Jibin, the Smaller Yuezhi and implicitly Bolu, so it is possible that among the five states conquered by Jiduoluo, Gandhāra was later renamed Smaller Yuezhi in the four-fold series, whereas the fifth—presumably the remotest one from Agou Qiang—could refer to the region of Kabul. If so, an entry on Kabul may have been incorporated into another entry, such as the one on the Smaller Yuezhi, at a later stage of the editorial work.

<footnote>i BS: 其間四百里，中往往有棧道。</footnote>
I.022. Bolu 波路

WS 102 《列傳第九十・西域》(p. 2276) ~ BS 97 《列傳第八五・西域》(p. 3228) Cf. Yu (2014a, 636-37).

波路國，在阿鈎羌西北，去代一萬三千九百里。其地濕熱，有蜀馬，土平。物產國俗與阿鈎羌同(BS: 同類焉)。

The state of Bolu is north-west of the Agou Qiang, at a distance of 3,900 *li* from Dai. The land is humid and hot and they have small horses [lit. 'horses from Shu,' today's Sichuan]. The land is flat and in terms of their local produce and customs they are identical to the Agou Qiang.

**Bolu** 波路: I.e. Bolule 鈔盧勒 (Bolor), see Matsuda (1937, 37) and Text I.052. While Shiratori (1917, 43-45) located Bolu in Gilgit, Chavannes (1903a, 150) and Kuwayama (1990, 98) take Bolu/Bolule as today's Bolor-Gilgit.

I.023. Jibin 爵賓

WS 102 《列傳第九十・西域》(p. 2471) ~ BS 97 《列傳第八五・西域》(p. 3229) Cf. Yu (2014a, 639).

爵賓國，都善見城，在波路西南，去代一萬四千二百里。

The state of Jibin [Kashmir] has its capital at the city of Shanjian. It is located south-west of Bolu, at a distance of 14,200 *li* from Dai.

居在四山中。其地東西八百里，南北三百里。

[The people] live in the four mountains. The land stretches from east to west for 800 *li* and from south to north for 300 *li*.

地平溫和。有苜蓿、雜草、奇木、檀、槐、梓、竹。種五穀，糞園田。地下濕，生稻。冬食生菜。

The land is flat and mild, producing alfalfa, various types of grass and marvellous trees, sandal-wood, scholartree, catalpa and bamboo. [Local people] cultivate the five grains and use manure as fertiliser for their gardens and fields. The soil is wet and produces rice. In the winter, [people] eat raw vegetables.

其人工巧，雕文、刻鏤、織繡。有金銀銅錫以為器物。

The people are highly skilled in the arts of sculpting, engraving, weaving and knitting. [The land] has gold, silver, copper and tin, which are used for making objects.

市用錢。他畜與諸國同。每使朝獻。

In the markets, they use coins. Their livestock is the same as in other states. They often send embassies to present tribute.
[**Note Ching**] Opinions differ concerning which parts of this entry come from the *Hanshu* entry on Jibin. Identifying Jibin of the Han period with Gandhāra, Shiratori (1917, esp. 50) thought that the part from “The land is flat” onward derives from the *Hanshu*, save the final sentence “They often send embassies to present tribute.” His view was adopted by Yu (2005, 482 Comm. 340; Eng. 2014a, 640). Uchida (1972a, 65) took solely the passage “The land is flat [...] [people] eat raw vegetables” as a quote from the *Hanshu*. In my opinion, similarly to the cases of currency and husbandry in Text I.015, although the part from “The people are highly skilled” onward may be based on the *Hanshu* concerning the ancient Jibin, it could still reflect social realities in Kashmir in the Northern Wei period. In particular, the sentence *shi yong qian* 市用錢 “in the markets they use coins” is significantly shorter than its HS counterpart, i.e. *yi jinyin wei qian*, wen wei qi ma, mu wei ren mian 以金銀為錢, 文為騎馬, 幕為人面 “the coins are made of gold and silver. The front is decorated with a horse-riding figure, and the reverse with a person's face.” Rather than a laconic rephrasing of the latter, I see this as an updated description, which implies that in the Northern Wei period more varieties of coins were in circulation around Kashmir. Incidentally, if Jibin in the present entry indeed denotes Kashmir, then it was south or southeast of Bolor, instead of southwest. Perhaps the problem can be traced to a scribal error.

[**Note Grenet**] In the *Hanshu* Jibin is Kapisa. The identification with Kashmir seems firmly established only in the sixth century. The description in the *Weishu* seems, however, to fit Kashmir better than Kapisa. Perhaps the wrong direction “southwest of Bolor” was influenced by the earlier sources where Jibin still meant Kapisa? Anyway, it could be just a case of textual corruption.

## I.024. Tuhuluo 吐呼羅

WS 102 《列傳第九十・西域》(p. 2471) ~ BS 97 《列傳第八五・西域》(p. 3229). Cf. Yu (2014a, 640).

吐呼羅國，去代一萬二千里。

The state of Tuhuluo [Tokharistan] is at a distance of 12,000 *li* from Dai.

東至范陽國，西至悉萬斤國，中間相去二千里；南至連山，不知名；北至波斯國，中間相去一萬里。

In the east, it reaches the state of Fanyang and in the west, the state of Ximanjin [Samarkand], stretching for 2,000 *li* between [these two ends]. In the south, it reaches a mountain range with an unknown name, in the north it reaches the state of Bosi [Persia], stretching for 10,000 *li* between [these two ends].

國中有薄提城，周币六十里。城南有西流大水，名漢樓河。

<footnote n="1">¹BS: 薄提城周匝六十里。</footnote>
In the state there is the city of <u>Boti</u>, which has a circumference of 60 <u>li</u>. South of the city there is a great river flowing west, it is called <u>Hanlou</u> River.

土宜五穀，有好馬、駝、驢。

The earth is suitable for [cultivating] the five grains, and there are excellent horses, camels and mules.

其王曾遣使朝貢。

In the past the king used to send envoys to the [Wei] court.

**Boti 薄提 and the Hanlou 漢樓 River:** Some scholars, including Enoki and Yu, agree with Marquart (1938, 38) that Boti is today's Balkh; see also Note Sims-Williams, *infra*. As to the river name, while Marquart (*loc. cit.*.) took *han* 漢 as a scribal error for *pu* 潢, thus *Pulou* 潢樓 ~ *Wehrot* = Oxus, Shiratori (*apud* Enoki 1958, 9) reconstructed it as *mo* 漢, thus *Molou* 漢樓 < *Baxl*, *Baxlo*. Enoki (1958, 9, Eng. 1969, 10–11, esp. 11 n. 1) gave both reconstructions but identified the river as the Bactrus (today's Balchāb) rather than the Oxus itself. Given that the Bactrus flowed towards the north (rather than westward as seen on modern maps), this theory is not fully satisfactory; cf. Fig. 1 and 12 in La Vaissière et al. (2015).

Uchida (1972b, 97) identified *Pulou* as the Oxus but rejected the idea of locating Boti at Balkh, since Boti was north of the river in question, whereas Balkh is south of the Oxus. By linking Boti with Badiyan of the *Zhoushu* (Text I.029), he placed it at Warwaliz (north of the Kunduz river). In fact, as remarked by Marquart and then emphasized by Uchida (1972b, 96–97), the four limits in the present entry that appear in the order of East → West → South → North should be corrected to South (Bamyan) → North (Samarkand) → East (Mountains) → West (Persia). Accordingly, at least part of the original information about Tuhuluo was modified by the *Weishu* editors.

Another problem is the date and source of this entry, which was dated by Enoki (1951, 23) after 437 and then analysed as text from the original *Weishu* (Uchida 1972a, 66; Yu 2005, 482–83). If this is indeed the case, its source might be the Tuhuluo emissaries of 464 (Text I.025). Uchida (1972b, 98), however, dated this entry to before the Hephthalite conquest of Boti (Warwaliz in his theory) in the middle of the sixth century. He (*ibid*., 96–97) further used this entry as evidence to reject the idea of “Boluo = Balkh” regarding the capital of the Great Yuezhi (Text I.014). Accepting Enoki’s theory to identify Jianshi with Balkh, Uchida did not see any necessity to identify Boti or Boluo with Balkh, since in his view, Jianshi, Boluo and Boti must have been three different locations.

Relying on Witzel (1980, 98), Kuwayama (1990, 407–9) argued against the view of “Boti = Balkh,” but he offered no solution with regards to the ruins north of the Oxus. He (2010, 290 n. 43) thought that this entry was too confused and doubted the plausibility of identifying Fanyang with Bamyan.
Yu (1986, 130–31), favouring Enoki’s view (1951) that the source of this entry is later than 437 but dating the Hephthalite conquest of Tokharistan and the split of the Kidarites to around 438–440, took this very entry and Text I.025 as evidence for the diplomatic autonomy of the city states under Hephthalite rule. Likewise, he sees the white elephant presented by “Yeda Bozhi 嚮嚙薄知” to the Wei court in 509 CE (Text I.069/E) as further evidence supporting such au- tonomy. Moreover, he (1986, 138–41, greatly elaborated in 2012, 231–40, Appendix I) provided a number of arguments to show that Balkh = Jianshi (Text I.014) = Boluo (I.014) = Boti (I.024) = Badiyan (I.030/A, in the *Zhoushu*) = the capital of Yida in the Sui Period (I.030/B). In par- ticular, he (1986, 139) assumed that *cheng nan* 城南 “south of the city” here was a scribal error for *cheng bei* 城北 “north of the city,” which allowed him to identify the *Pulou* with the Oxus. He (2015, 101) further suggested that the Kidarites had conquered Gandhāra and then moved westward by December 437 (arrival of DONG and GAO back in Dai), considering that the main corpus of Text I.014 (except for “At the time of Emperor Shizu” and onwards) and I.015 (except for “[The capital] lies south-west of Bolu” and onwards) were all extracted from DONG’s report.

Independent of Yu’s research, La Vaissière (2010) also strongly argued for Balkh = Jianshi = Boluo = Boti = Badiyan = the capital of Yida. He further identified all of these with Fudiye 縛 底耶, witnessed by the Korean monk Hyecho (in Chinese: Huichao 慧超) in 726.<fnref n="1" /> Analysing the two transliteration series distinguished by Enoki (1958; 1969), i.e. *Baxl-* and *Baxt-* , as Bud- dhist and diplomatic ones, he added βxtyk (Sogdian Mugh document V8, dated 707–708) and βαγδδιγγο (Bactrian coins, 244 and 245 in Göbl 1967) to the latter series, and these two forms provide convincing support for the identification of Balkh with Boti (EMC *bak-dej*). He (La Vaissière 2010, 215 n. 21) noted that the garbled cardinal directions—Samarkand to the ‘West’ of Balkh, etc.—imply that the great river actually flowed towards the north (i.e. the direction of Samarkand), as did the Bactrus.

[Note La Vaissière] Fanyang is Bamyan, and Boti is Balkh. The name *βαμοιavο* is attested in Bactrian Document *cg*, which is dated to *c*. 370 CE by Sims-Williams and de Blois (2018, 69).

[Note Grenet] Bamyan in this period is an enigma (cf. Fussman 2015, 178–79), but it could have been important far before the sixth century. We are still awaiting Z. Tarzi’s report on the Bamyan region: it is said that there are Buddhist monastery sites as early as the second and third centuries.

[Note Sims-Williams] Among various Chinese transliterations of the name of Balkh, Boti (EMC *bak-dej*) in the *Weishu* and Baiti 白題 (EMC *baijk/bɛ̈:jk-dej*) in the *Liangshu* (Texts I.028/B and I.055) are relatively more archaic than others. They both seem to reflect a proto-Bactrian *Bāxδī-, cf. Sims-Williams (2016, esp. 278–279).

<footnote n="1">¹ Yu’s opinion (2012, Appendix I, 239–240) is similar to that of La Vaissière with regard to Hyecho’s controversial distances.</footnote>
I.025. Tribute payment from Tuhuluo in 464 CE

WS 5 《高宗紀第五・和平五年(464 CE)》(p. 147) ~ BS 2 《魏本紀第二・和平五年(464 CE)》(p. 73).

十有二月(BS: 十二月)......吐呼羅國遣使朝獻(BS: 朝貢)。

In the twelfth month [....] the state of Tuhuluo sent envoys to the [Wei] court to present tributes.

I.026. Fuhuo 副貨

WS 102 《列傳第九十・西域》(p. 2471) ~ BS 97 《列傳第八五・西域》(p. 3229). Cf. Yu (2014a, 641).

副貨國，去代一萬七千里。

The state of Fuhuo lies at a distance of 17,000 *li* from Dai.

東至阿副使且國，西至沒誰國，中間相去一千里；南有連山，不知名；北至奇沙國，相去一千五百里。

In the east, it reaches the state of Afushiqie/Afushiju and in the west, the state of Moshui, stretching for 1,000 *li* between [these two ends]. In the south, it reaches a mountain range with an unknown name, in the north it reaches the state of Qisha, stretching for 1,500 *li* between [these two ends].

國中有副貨城，周币七十里。

In the state there is the city of Fuhuo, which has a circumference of 70 *li*.

宜五穀、荀桃，唯有馬、駝、驢。

The earth is suitable for [cultivating] the five grains and grape. [Of domestic animals] there are merely horses, camels and mules.

國王有黃金殿，殿下金駝七頭，各高三尺。其王遣使朝貢。

The king has a throne-hall made of gold and underneath the palace are seven golden camels, each three feet tall. The king [on one occasion?] sent envoys to the [Wei] court.

[Note Ching] No more references to Fuhuo (EMC *puw*<sup>h</sup>-xwa<sup>h</sup>) are found in the *Weishu* and *Beishi*. Shiratori (1924, 507-8) and Marquart (1938, 37) identified it with Buχāra and Puşkalāvatī (Peshawar), respectively, while neither Uchida (1972a) nor Yu (2005) offered a solution. I suspect that the limits in both east and west contain scribal errors. For example, Moshui 沒誰 possibly stands for Bosi 波斯 (Persia, also the western limit of Tuhuluo in Text I.024). As to Afushiqie/Afushiju 阿副使且 (EMC ?a-puw<sup>h</sup>-şī<sup>h</sup>/şī<sup>h</sup>-tshia’/tsiš), if it is not a
transliteration somehow related to Afshīn or *αρφιανο*, which would support Shiratori's theory, i
it is perhaps an error for *Afutuoli 阿副佗立 (EMC 2a-puwʰ-tʰa-lip) or another unknown trans-
literation of the Hephthalites. However, even if Fuhuo is Buχāra, Shiratori's identification of
Qisha 奇沙 here with Kešš (Shahri-sabz) is questionable: Shahri-sabz is in the east-southeast of
modern Buχāra, rather than in the north of it. Nor does it seem very likely that this Qisha 奇沙
is the same as the Qisha 奇沙 in the monk 智猛 Zhimeng's account, which Shiratori (1913, 115)
argued to be another transliteration of Jiecha 竭叉 (Tashkurgan). So I suggest two possibilities:
(1) Fuhuo = Buχāra (Shiratori's theory) so that Afushiqie/Afushiju may be identified with
Samarkand (developing from La Vaissière's discussion of αρφιανο); (2) Fuhuo = today's
Badghis, if Qisha here could be safely linked to Qisha Prefecture in the Tang period (Text I.091),
which is situated around Guzgan (Marquart 1938, 37–38 n. 1). If it is the second case, the enig-
matic Afushiqie/Afushiju would have been located approximately in today's Ghur Province in
Central Afghanistan.

I.6. The Yeda 嚥噠, referred to in the *Liangshu* as Hua 滑

Texts cited in this subchapter from the *Qielanji* (j. 5), *Zhoushu* (j. 50), *Suishu* (j. 83), *Liangshu* (j. 54), *Beishi* (j. 97), *Nanshi* (j. 79), *Xin Tangshu* (j. 221) and the *Tongdian* (j. 193) are from the Zhonghua shuju edition of these works; i.e. *Qielanji 5* 《洛陽伽藍記·洛陽城北伽藍記卷第五》(p. 211 [On the Yeda], p. 212 [On Wuchang], pp. 213–214 [on Qiantuoluo], Yang Yong’s edition), ZS 50《周書·列傳第四十二·異域下》(p. 918); SS 83《隋書·列傳第四十八·西域》(p. 1854); LS 54 《梁書·列傳第四十八·諸夷》(p. 812); BS 97《北史·列傳第八十五·西域》(pp. 3230–3231); NS 79《南史·列傳第六十九·夷狄下》(p. 1984), XTS 221《新唐書·列傳第一百四十六下·西域下》(pp. 6252–6253); TD 193《通典·邊防九》, pp. 5258–5259 (on Hua), 5259–5260 (on the Yeda/Yida), 5277 (on Tuhuoluo), respectively. Among them, a large part of the text from the *Zhoushu*, *Suishu*, *Beishi*, *Liangshu* and *Tongdian* has been treated by La Vaissière (2007, 124–27) with English translation. Our translation in Chapters I.6.1–I.6.2 and I.6.4 to I.6.11 is based on that with some modifications, but the Chinese text concerning the Yeda from the *Weishu*, j. 102, is the one reconstructed by Yu (2012, 194–95), marked here with an asterisk as “*Original WS 102.”ii The passages extracted from *Qielanji 5* in this subchapter are actually YANG Xuanzhi’s summary of Huisheng’s travelogue, a private biography of SONG Yun and the travelogue of Daoyao (Daorong) as his own explanation about SONG Yun’s old residence in Luoyang. As such, these are traditionally printed in smaller characters in editions of the *Qielanji*, but here we have not explicitly marked them as commentarial additions.

<footnote>i The reading of *αρφιανο* is provided by La Vaissière (apud Rahman, Grenet, and Sims-Williams 2006, 128). I am grateful for Grenet’s information on this form (p. c. 26 June 2017).</footnote>

<footnote>ii Slightly different reconstructions are given in Matsuda (1960, 21); Uchida (1972a, 67–69); Yu (1986, 158; 2005, 488; 2014a, 645–46).</footnote>
I.6.1. Ethnic name and origin

I.027. Records from the Northern Dynasties

I.027/A. *Original *Weishu* 102

嚙噠國，（大月氏之種類也？）高車之別種，其原出於塞北。自金山而南，至高宗時已八九十年矣。

The state of the Yeda [EMC ?jiap-dat/tat]: (its people are descendants of the Great Yuezhi?). A division of the Gaoju. They originated from north of the Chinese frontier and moved south from the Altai Mountains. Until the reign of Emperor Gaozong [r. 452-466], eighty or ninety years have elapsed.

Da Yuezhi zhi zhonglei ye 大月氏之種類也 “[Its people are] descendants of the Great Yuezhi”: According to Funaki (1954, 60) and Yu (1986; 2005; 2012; 2014a), the passage belongs to the Zhoushu, whereas La Vaissière (2007, 120, 126) considers it likely to represent from the original Weishu. See also Chapter I.6.16.

Zhi Gaozong shi yi ba jiu shi nian yi 至高宗時已八九十年矣 “until the reign of Emperor Gaozong, eighty or ninety years have elapsed”: This phrase is reconstructed on the basis of the Tongdian, j. 193, zhi Hou Wei Wen [cheng] di shi, yi ba jiu shi nian yi 至後魏文[成]帝時，已八九十年矣 “until the reign of Emperor Wen [cheng] of the Later Wei (r. 452–466), eighty or ninety years have elapsed.”

I.027/B. Zhoushu 50

嚙噠國，大月氏之種類，
The state of the Yeda [EMC Ṡ(i)at-dat/tat?]: descendants of the Great Yuezhi.

I.027/C. Suishu 83

挹怛國，......大月氏之種類也。
The state of the Yida [EMC ?jip-tat]: [...] [This people] is descended from the Great Yuezhi.

[Note Grenet] The form “Nephtalitai” in Agathias (Text IX.011) obviously stems from Jew-
ish—and, probably, Eastern Christian—stories about the ten “lost tribes” of Israel, one of which
was the Nephtali tribe. I once proposed this idea of a folk-etymology Hephthalites > Nephtali in
my oral intervention at a conference in Tashkent in 1996, but it is not reflected in the final ver-
sion of the respective paper, i.e. Tardieu (1996). On the passage where Benjamin mentions the
tribe of Nephtali among the four tribes dwelling in the “mountains of Nishapur,” see Tardieu
(1996, 307); Adler (1905, 93). I would say, among all the transcriptions of the name of the
Hephthalites, *Yida* in the *Suishu* is closest to the original *evdal* or *yevdal*, taking into account that Chinese final -t can transcribe Iranian -l.

[Note Ching and Galambos] In classical Chinese rime dictionaries, the character 嚼 is given with various pronunciations, including (1) Guangyun 廣韻: EMC *dzat* (cai-ge qie 才割切); (2) Jiyun 集韻: EMC *ŋat* (ya-ge qie 牙葛切), *ŋian*' (niu-yan qie 牛偃切), *dzat* (cai-da qie 才達切), *ŋiat* (yu-lie qie 魚列切); (3) Leipian 類篇: EMC *ŋian*', *ŋat*, *dzat*, *ŋiat* (as given by the Jiyun), in addition to *ŋianʰ* (yu-zhan qie 魚戰切). Here the pinyin of *Yeda* 嚼噠 in the Zhoushu is provisionally given as such, not only for the conformity with *Yeda* 嚼噠 in the Weishu and *Yida* 挹怛 in the *Suishu* but also for the reason provided by Grenet (*supra*), which rules out such candidates of pinyin as *Nieda* or *Nianda*.

## I.028. Records from the Southern Dynasties

### I.028/A. Liangshu 54¹

滑國者，車師之別種也。漢永建元年，八滑從班勇擊北虜有功，勇上八滑為後部親漢侯。

The state of Hua is another branch of the Jushi. In the first year of the Yongjian reign of the Han [126 CE], a Jushi named *Bahua*, who under [the Chinese general] BAN Yong had rendered distinguished services in conquering the Northern savages [i.e. the Xiongnu], was promoted, upon [BAN] Yong's recommendation, to the rank of Houbu Qin Han hou 後部親漢侯 [Marquis of Posterior Jushi, friendly to the Han].

*Bahua* 八滑 (EMC *pəit-ywəit*): This explanation is not reliable. It is merely derived from PEI Ziye's conjecture cited in LS 30 (Shigematsu 1917, 43–45), see *infra*.

### I.028/B. Liangshu 30

LS 30 《列傳第二十四・裴子野》(p. 443) ~ NS 33 《列傳第二十三・裴子野》(p. 866). Partly translated in Enoki (1959, 3–4) and La Vaissière (2007, 119).

是時西北徼外有白題及滑國，遣使由岷山道入貢。此二國歷代弗賓，莫知所出。ii子野曰：「漢潁陰侯斬胡白題將一人。服虔注云：『白題，胡名也。』又漢定遠侯擊虜，八滑從之，此其後乎。」時人服其博識。

During this period, beyond the Northwestern frontiers there were the states of Baiti and Hua, who sent envoys through the mountain road along the Min [river] [in today's Sichuan] to offer tribute. These two states had not been guests of the previous dynasties, their origin was unknown. [PEI] Ziye said: "There was Baiti, a *hu* general, who was killed by Marquis Yingyin of Han. FU Qian's commentary [to the *Hanshu*] says: 'Baiti is a *hu* name.' Moreover, it is known

<footnote>i The text preserved in ZG is /有功，勇與八滑/。</footnote>

<footnote>ii NS: 是時西北徼外有白題及滑國遣使由岷山道入貢，此二國歷代弗賓，莫知所出。</footnote>
that the Marquis Dingyuan of Han was accompanied by Bahua when attacking the barbarians, so perhaps these two states are their descendants.” His contemporaries admired his wide knowledge.<fnref n="1" />

I.028/C. *Liangshu* 54

元魏之居桑乾也，滑猶為小國，屬芮芮。

While the YUAN Wei settled [their capital] along the Sanggan [River] [398–494 CE], the Hua was still a small state under the Ruirui.

I.028/D. *Nanshi* 79

魏之居代都，滑猶為小國，屬蠕蠕。

While the [Northern] Wei had their capital at Dai [398–494], the Hua was still a small state under the Ruanruan.

I.028/E. *Liang zhigong tu*

索虜入居桑乾，滑為小國，屬芮芮。齊時始走莫獻而居。

While the Suolu [i.e. the Northern Wei] entered and settled along the Sanggan, the Hua was still a small state under the Ruirui. In the [Southern] Qi period [479–502], they left [their original area] for the first time and shifted to Moxian, where they settled.

**Moxian** 莫獻 (EMC *mak-xian*<fnref n="1" />): Enoki (1965a, 22) attempted to identify Moxian as either Samarkand or a political centre in the Herat region by reconstructing its name as MP *Baghgān*. The former solution is favoured by La Vaissière (2007, 128). Later Enoki (1970b, 41) was more inclined to identify Moxian with Wakhshu by taking it as an error for *Moyou 莫猷 (EMC *mak-juw*). Yu (1986, 82–83) identified Moxian with Margiana.

I.029. Information from the Sui and Tang period

I.029/A. *Xin Tangshu* 211

挹怛國，漢大月氏之種。大月氏為烏孫所奪，西過大宛，擊大夏臣之。治藍氏城。大夏即
吐火羅也。嚥嚠，王姓也，後裔以姓為國，訛為挹怛，亦曰挹闥。

[The people of] the state of the Yida are descendants of the Great Yuezhi of the Han period. When the Great Yuezhi were defeated by the Wusun, they crossed the [land of the] Dayuan and attacked the Daxia, subjugating those. Their seat of government was in the city of Lanshi. The

<footnote n="1">¹ Marquis Yingyin and Marquis Dingyuan refer to GUAN Ying 灌婴 (?–176 BCE) and BAN Yong 班勇 (?–c. 127 CE), respectively.</footnote>
[land of] Daxia is the [region of] Tuhuoluo [of the Sui period]. Yeda was the surname of the king, and his descendants made this surname the name of the state; they also call it Yida or Yitian, which are corrupted forms of the same.

I.029/B. *Tongdian* 193 (on Hua)

滑國，車師之別種也。......至後魏時，謂之滑圉。

The state of Hua is another branch of the Jushi. [...] From the Later Wei period onward, they were called *Huatun*.

**Huatun** 滑圉 (EMC γwəit-dwən): This form is not found in any other source. The *Huanyuji*, j. 183, in this place has *Yeda guo* 嘬噠國 “the state of the Yeda.”

I.029/C. *Tongdian* 193 (on Yeda)

This excerpt, apart from the first two characters 嘮噠 ‘the Yeda,’ is the *Tongdian* editors’ original commentary.

嚮噠{挹怛同}

The Yeda. {Identical with the Yida}

{按劉璠梁典，滑國姓嚮噠，後裔以姓為國號，轉訛又謂之挹怛焉。}

[...] According to LIU Fan’s *Liangdian*, the clan name of [the king of] Hua was Yeda. His descendants made this clan name the name of state. It is also called Yida, which is a corrupted form of the same.

{其本源或云車師之種，或云高車之種，或云大月氏之種。}

{Some say that [the people] of this [state] belongs to the Jushi, others that it belongs to the Gaoju, yet others that it belongs to the Great Yuezhi.}

{又韋節西蕃記云：「親問其國人，並自稱挹闐。」}

{Furthermore, WEI Jie’s *Xifanji* says: “I personally inquired from the people of the state [of Yeda/Yida] and [therefore know] that they call themselves Yitian [EMC ？jip-den].”}

{又按漢書，陳湯征郅支，康居副王挹闐抄其後重，此或康居之種類。然傳自遠國，夷語訛舛，年代綿邈，莫知根實，不可得而辨也。}

{Moreover, in the *Hanshu* it is stated that the viceroy of Kangju, [whose personal name is] Yitian, plundered provisions and arms of the Zhizhi [Chanyu] when the latter was attacked by CHEN Tang.<fnref n="1" /> This may imply that [the Yeda/Yida] are descendants of the Kangju. Nevertheless, information coming from remote countries by way of foreign languages is subject to corruption.

<footnote n="1">¹ CHEN Tang 陳湯: promoted to Marquis Guannei 關內 because of his victory over the Zhizhi Chanyu 郧支單于 of Xiongnu around 36 BCE.</footnote>
and misunderstanding and, moreover, it concerns matters of the remote past. Thus we do not know what is certain and cannot determine [the origin of Yeda/Yida].}

tong 同 ‘identical, the same:’ here it is used in its literal meaning, cf. Matsuda (1960, 16; 1970, 438 n. 68); TD, j. 193, p. 5285, n. 32; Li and Yu (2009, 181).

## I.6.2. Location (of the capital)

It seems that the Yeda did not settle down in the Northern Wei Period, at least until 520; see also Chapter I.6.5.

## I.030. Records from the Northern Dynasties

### I.030/A. Zhoushu 50

在于闐之西，東去長安一萬百里。其王治拔底延城，蓋王舍城也。其城方十餘里。

[The state of Yeda] is in the west of Yutian, 10,100 *li* west of Chang'an. Its king has his capital in the walled city of Badiyan, which probably means "the walled city in which the king resides." This walled city is more than 10 *li* square.

**Badiyan** 拔底延 (EMC *bəit-tej'-jian*): Yoshida (1985, 151) rejects Marquart's (1938, 36–37) Middle Persian reconstruction *paδiyān* by contemplating Iranian pronunciation underlying this Chinese transliteration as:

* bčā (t) ḍ (r) t (čě) yǎn

### I.030/B. Suishu 83

都烏澕水南二百餘里，

[Yida] has its capital over 200 *li* south of the river Wuhu [Oxus],

都城方十餘里。

[...] The capital walled city is a more than 10 *li* square.

南去漕國千五百里，東去瓜州六千五百里。

[...] In the south, it is at a distance of 1,500 *li* from the state of Cao [Kāpiśī, around today's Baghlan]; in the east, it is 6,500 *li* from Guazhou [around today's Dunhuang].

[Note La Vaissière] Badiyan is Balkh, cf. La Vaissière (2010, 214–15).

<footnote>i This phrase is adopted in BS 97, p. 3231 as 其國去漕國千五百里，東去瓜州六千五百里。</footnote>
[**Note Grenet**] I agree. Archaeologically there is no candidate other than Balkh, since the *Suishu* describes that in the Yida's capital, "there are many (non-Buddhist?) monasteries and pagodas" (Text I.042/B). Other solutions, e.g. Badghis (cf. Chavannes 1903a, 224), lack archaeological and first-hand textual evidence at all. Even though the problem whether Badiyan could be derived from the name of Balkh—pronounced somewhat like *vakht* in that period—with suffixation has been under debate, the Hephthalites' capital must be Balkh. On this issue archaeological arguments must take priority over philological ones. A possible difficulty is that the information on Badiyan given in the *Zhoushu*, presumably pre-dating the fall of the Hephthalites in 565, is reproduced and expanded (with the detail of the many temples) in the *Suishu*, which should rather concern the post-imperial period of the Hephthalites, when they did not hold Balkh anymore; see also Grenet (2019).

[**Note Sims-Williams**] I would emphasize that some scholars used to explain Badiyan as a form of the name Balkh, but that may be wrong, cf. Sims-Williams (2016, esp. 278 n. 32). In my opinion, it was not relevant in that context to cite Marquart's idea (1938, 36–37) who constructed an otherwise unknown Iranian word *paθiyān* as its source. That is obviously very hypothetical, but of course it is possible that the statement about its meaning “the walled city in which the king resides” in the *Zhoushu* is correct.

### I.6.3. Expansion

On the Yeda conquest of Gandhāra and the wars between Kashmir and the Yeda, see Chapter I.6.12.

## I.031. Records from the Northern Dynasties

I.031/A. *Weishu* 101

WS 101 *《列傳第八十九·高昌》* (pp. 2430–2431) ~ BS 97 *《列傳第八十五·西域》* (p. 3213).
Translated by Imre Galambos and Ching Chao-jung.

既立，又臣于蠕蠕那蓋。......及蠕蠕主伏圖為高車所殺，嘉又臣高車。

When [QU Jia, r. c. 501~523] ascended the throne, he was a subject of Nagai of the Ruanruan. [...] When the Ruanruan ruler Futu was killed by the Gaoju [c. 508; see Text I.060/B], Jia also became a subject of the Gaoju.

初，前部胡人悉為高車所徙，入於焉耆，焉耆又為嚈噠所破滅，國人分散，眾不自立，請王於嘉。嘉遣第二子為焉耆王以主之。

Formerly, when the *hu* people of the Nearer [Jushi, i.e. Turfan] were driven away by the Gaoju, they came to Yanqi [Karashahr]. But then Yanqi was destroyed by the Yeda and its people were

<footnote n="1">¹ BS: 入於焉耆，又為嚈噠所破滅，</footnote>
scattered; not being able to establish themselves, the multitudes asked Jia for a king. Jia sent his
second son to be the king of Yanqi and serve as their ruler.

永平元年，嘉遣兄子私署左衛將軍、田地太守孝亮朝京師，仍求內徙，乞軍迎援。

In the first year of the Yongping reign [508], Jia sent his elder brother's son Xiaoliang, who was holding the titles of sishu zuowei jiangjun and tiandi taishou, to the court in the [Wei] capital, once again requesting permission to settle inland and asking for military assistance [cf. Text I.059].

I.031/B. *Suishu* 83

SS 83《列傳第五十・異域下》(p. 1846) Translated by Imre Galambos and Ching Chao-jung.

既立，又臣于姑姑。及姑姑主為高車所殺，嘉又臣于高車。屬焉者為挹怛所破，眾不能自統，請主於嘉。嘉遣其第二子為焉耆王，由是始大，益為國人所服。

When [QU Jia] came to the throne, he was also a subject of the Ruru. When the Ruru ruler was killed by the Gaoju, Jia also became a subject of the Gaoju. Just then Yanqi was destroyed by the Yida and, not being able to govern themselves, the multitudes asked a ruler from Jia, who sent his second son to be the king of Yanqi. From this time on, [Jia] grew in power [in the Western Regions] and was increasingly admired by the people of the state [of Gaochang].

[Note Ching] Given the context of WS 103 (Text I.057), the year 488 when the Gaoju supported ZHANG Mengming 張孟明 as king of Gaochang (Turfan) would be the *terminus post quem* for the Yeda conquest of Yanqi. However, given the usage of *shu* 屬 “just then, just at that moment” in SS 83, this conquest would be approximately simultaneous to the rise of QU Jia in 501; see also Duan (1988, 238–40).

I.032. Records from the Southern Dynasties

I.032/A. *Liangshu* 54

後稍強大，征其旁國波斯、盤盤(NS: 渴盤陀)、罽賓、焉耆、龜茲、疏勒、姑墨、于闐、句盤(NS: 句般)等國，開地千餘里。

Growing more and more powerful in the course of time, [the Hua] succeeded in conquering the neighbouring countries such as Bosi [Sassanid Persia], Panpan [Warwaliz?] [NS: Kepantuo, =Tashkurgan], Jibin [Kashmir], Yanqi [Karashahr], Qiuci [Kucha], Shule [Kashgar], Gumo [Aksu], Yutian [Khotan] and Goupan [NS: Gouban, =Karghalik], and expanded their territory by a thousand li.