Argi and the "Tokharians"

By W. B. HENNING

A PRECIOUS fragment amongst the treasures in the possession

of the Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften in Berlin
contains a Sogdian " List of nations " (ndfndmak), the edition of which
I am preparing. Two names, however, call for a special study: (1)
'tyw'r'k, denoting a people in the Oxus-region, obviously the inhabitants
of To^aristan, and (2) 'rkcyk, mentioned immediately after Kasyar,
Khotan, and Kuca. The list was written about A.D. 800 in the Turfan
region.

1. 'tyw'r'k
During the last years the problem of the " Tokharians " has been
studied by S. Levi ("Le ' Tokharien '," JA., 1933, i, pp. 1-30), Pelliot
("Tokharien et Koutcheen," JA., 1934, i, pp. 23-106), H. W. Bailey
("Ttaugara," BSOS., viii, pp. 883-921), again Pelliot ("A propos du
' tokharien '," T'oung Poo, xxxii, pp. 264 sqq.), Haloun (" Zur Ue-tsi-
Frage," ZDMG., 91, pp. 243-318), and E. Sieg ("Und dennoch
' Tocharisch'," Sb.P.A.W., 1937, pp. 130-9). Facts mentioned in
these articles are, as a rule, not repeated.
The Sogdian form of the " Tokharian " name, 'tyw'r'k, suggests
the pronunciation atyudre (from 9tyudrak). This apparently derives
from Hyudre and permits the assumption of parallel forms such as
*t9yudr- and *tayuar-. It is possible to take as starting-point Hayudr
instead of *tyuar as vowel-reduction is well attested for the first syllable
of Sogdian words; the entering of a prothetic vowel to ease the
newly created double consonant at the beginning of a word is quite
common in Sogdian as well as in other Iranian languages; here as
in other cases historical spelling often obscures phonetical realities;
e.g. Olr. mrya- " bird" is maya, mya, finally amya in Sogdian:
amya, warranted by Choresmian 'A* I amya, may be written 'mry'
(cf. Gauthiot, Gramm., i, pp. 40 sqq.).
The pronunciation tyudr (tayuar, tayudr) was already attested
by Syriac thwrstn, in the Singanfu inscription, i.e. tayudristdn.
Furthermore, the group -yu- in the middle of the word is confirmed
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Western Sydney University Library, on 07 Jan 2019 at 11:05:13, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0041977X0007837X
 546 W. B. HENNING—

by Chinese transcriptions, most of them rendering (according to

Pelliot, JA., 1934, p. 49 n.) foreign Tuyuar- or Toxudr (tuo-xvd-ld,
t'uo-xud-ld, etc.); the forms as recorded by Chinese pilgrims, i.e.
heard in To^aristan itself, are of special value. There are only com-
paratively few transcriptions which suggest Huxura or *toxora, e.g.
y- p^ H t'uo-xuo-la in the Wei-su (on the phonetical value of signs
such as xuo s e e Pelliot, T'oung Pao, xxxii, pp. 264, 283).
I am indebted to Professor Bailey for being enabled to quote the
Saka spellingttahvdrawhich he has recently discovered in a Saka manu-
script in Professor Pelliot's collection. I have to thank Professor
Bailey, whom Professor Pelliot kindly permitted to quote from his
Saka materials, for the following remark :—•
"P[eUiot] 2787, 154-194: the story of Kaniska's stupa. 154-6
(first half) Sanskrit of Khotan. 156 sqq. Khotanese, beginning with
a translation of 154-6.
" Skt. 154-5 bdhulaka-vasiye [= Indian Skt. visaye] ' in the
kingdom of Bahulaka [ = Balkh]'.
" Khot. 157 bahulaka-vasayi ttahvdra-sthaima ' in the kingdom
of Balkh, Tokharistan'. sthaima, not noted elsewhere, may
represent *sthdma (for sthdna : ma wrongly for na has been noticed
in another passage : gaustami desa = gaustana-desa ' Khotan', the m
probably being due to an inverse spelling from *gaustam = older
*gaustand ; cf. ganam < *ganama- beside ganama-heraa- ' wheat-
sower '. There had been confusion of -ana- and -ama- to -am)."
Hiian-tsang heard the name as *toxudr in Tokharistan; a
similar form is employed by the man who (in A.D. 781) erected the
famous Singanfu-inscription: he was a native of Balkh, capital of
Tokharistan. These facts prove conclusively that txudr (etc.) was
used in Tokharistan itself and was not brought about by the influence
of any foreign language (e.g. Sogdian).
Apart from Sanskrit Tukhara (Tusara) all Eastern forms have
xud in the second syllable wheresoever the name clearly refers to
the country of Balkh-Tokharistan.1 In the West, however, no other
form occurs but toxdr or tux&r. The various forms collected by
Bailey, Ttaugara, pp. 887 sq., 921, may be grouped as follows :—
Middle Consonant: x m Greek (Latin thogarii is wrong for
tocharii), Armenian, Arabic, Pahlavi, Sanskrit (kh = foreign %),
1
I leave aside several Chinese examples (*toxora, see above) which are perhaps
to be discounted as insufficient renderings.—Tibetan and Chinese transcriptions of
Skt. Tukhara need not be considered here.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Western Sydney University Library, on 07 Jan 2019 at 11:05:13, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0041977X0007837X
 ARGI AND THE " TOKHAEIANS " 547

Saka (h = x), Syriac and Chinese (see Pelliot, T'oung Poo, xxxii,
p. 264 n.); ambiguous : only Sogdian.
Quantity of Vowel in Second Syllable : long a. in Arabic, Pahlavi,
Sogdian, Saka, Sanskrit, perhaps even Chinese; ambiguous, either
a or a: Greek, Armenian, Syriac.
Consequently, only those languages are ambiguous which in
writing do not distinguish a and a, x and y ; wheresoever distinction
is possible x a n ( i ® res P- a r e indicated. Therefore, the only correct
forms of the name are txudr (atxudr, taxudr, toxudr) and toxdr
(tuxdr).
It is very difficult indeed to determine the relation between these
two forms. If nothing but the possibilities of phonetical development
within Iranian languages had to be considered, there could be no
hesitation in answering the question : toxdr (tuxdr) is developed from
older taxudr. The change from older ahu, axy- into ox, ux (some-
times oxu as intermediate stage) is abundantly attested for nearly
all Iranian dialects, beginning with Old Iranian languages (cf., e.g.,
Avestan -awuka < -ahva = Skt. -asva; Avestan varmhim, vanhim
< vahvim = Skt. vasvim, etc.). A fine example is offered by the
rendering of Old Persian harahbvatis (corresponding to Skt. SarasvaM)
in the Akkadian and Old Aramaic versions of the BisutQn inscription :
Akk. a-ru-hat-ti and Aram. TllTm (line 39, ed. Cowley, p. 253)
= haruxoti approach medieval Arrux0^ rather than the official
Old Persian form or Avestan haraxvaitl-, Gr. 'Apaxoo-ia. The
intermediate form XopoxodS (Isidor of Kharax), attested as it
is about half a millennium after the phonetically younger form
haruxati, may help to remove the apparent difficulty which lies
in the fact that *txudr occurs only many centuries after Toxapoi.
Nevertheless, this difficulty should not be disregarded: the priority
of the group t(a)xudr (which, in Greek, should be *raxu)poi or
*raxoapoi) cannot be taken for granted until an old example
has been found. Ptolemy mentions Tax°POL with regard to the
northern section of the Yaxartes region, but Toxapoi with reference
to Bactria (see Marquart, Erdnsahr, p. 206 and n. 4): it is tempting
though probably unwise to draw the inference that rax°Pot represents
*taxuar as the original name of the people whilst roxapoi is a later
form developed under the influence of the Iranian language spoken
in Bactria.
On the other hand, it must be examined if there is any possibility
of the reverse development: Hxudr from older *tuxdr. Such a
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Western Sydney University Library, on 07 Jan 2019 at 11:05:13, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0041977X0007837X
 548 W. B. HENNING—

change could have taken place either in the original language of the
Tokharians which is completely unknown, or in the indigenous
language of Bactria, undoubtedly Iranian, probably adopted by the
immigrants, which, however, is equally unknown (cf. Bailey, Ttaugara,
pp. 892 sq.). As we have to deal with unknown languages nothing,
in fact, can be proved or disproved.
As to the indigenous language of Bactria, we are at liberty to assume
a strong affinity with the Sogdian neighbouring language. It is a well-
known fact that there was a tendency in Sogdian to replace any
kind of w-sound (sonant as well as consonant),1 especially where a
Sogdian y (representing Old Iran, h, y, g, y) stood near to it. This
tendency, however, operates in exactly the same direction as in other
Iranian languages though it is much more pronounced : -yu- changes
to -uy_- in the middle 2 of a word, whether a vowel precedes 3 or a
consonant,4 whilst final -ayu results in -uy as in cognate dialects5;
the Sogdian verb patyudy- " to kill", quite similar to dtyuar- in its
grouping of sounds, is patuydy- in later texts ( > patuyay- > ptuyay-
> tuydy in Yaghnobi); hence, in Sogdian we should expect tuydr
for older tyudr.
There are, however, peculiar spellings like Sywt-, syw8-, yywt-,
yyws-, representing older Suyd-, suyS-, yuyt-, yuys-, which seem.to
authorize the assumption of progressive w-metathesis in Sogdian.
It is, of course, possible to look upon these spellings as nothing but
a rather unusual case of inverse writing, based upon the experience
of frequent change of -yu- (written yw) into -uy- (written -wy-);
this view could be supported by the apparently absurd spelling
wc'ywt'k (Dhuta 215) instead of wc'wytk or wyc'wytk " wise " ; other
spellings, wc'ytk, wyc'ytk, wc'yty, wyc'yty clearly show that -'w- in
wc'wytk denotes a short vowel, u or preferably o (see Beichtbuch,
p. 62): it would require a great deal of credulity to believe the
reality of a pronunciation U9cayud- < U9coyd- which the Sogdian
1
"Ein manichaisches Bet- und Beichtbuch" (Abh.P.A.W., 1937, No. 10;
quoted as Beichtbuch), p. 89.—For the remarkable change of u to u in closed syllables
in cases of epenthesis (e.g. nyund- : nyuend-, Beichtbuch, p. 76) compare Saka
mura : mvire, etc.
2
In Parthian even initial xu- results regularly in «X' > c^- Sogdian wywiw " six "
= tixuasu from *xsnasam.
3
auxast- < axuast, iu-j/ay- < iymty-, see Beichtbuch, p. 59.
4
sux&y- < sxuay-, cf. zux$k " pupil" < ixuslc.
5
'u>x = UX " mind " from ax2?> see Beichtbuch, p. 86 ; Man. Sogd./su»x =fasux
" parasang ", Beichtbuch, p. 125, from frasaxu (in Chr.S. fasax, and in Buddh. S.
'ps'ny = vjsamx < frasanha-).
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Western Sydney University Library, on 07 Jan 2019 at 11:05:13, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0041977X0007837X
 ARGI AND THE " TOKHARIANS " 549

scribe would like to make us believe; on the contrary, wc'ywt'k

only proves that the scribes were apt to write -yw- instead of -wy-
without the slightest regard to phonetical possibilities and realities.
On the other hand, a mistaken spelling such as wc'ywt'k, to be
found in carelessly written texts only, is not quite on the same level
with Sywt- (etc.) attested for all periods of Sogdian writing. This mode
of writing is confined to Sogdian writing proper, it is not employed in
texts written in, e.g., Manichsean characters (cf. Man.S. Swyt', etc.),
a fact which can be explained best by assuming that Sywt-, sywS->
etc., represent dialectical forms used in that dialect which was chosen
as literary language when Sogdian writing was established; the
development: Suyd- > h&yud- > 8"yud (shifting of accent on
anaptyctical vowel) offers no difficulty. Confirmation may be found
in cuneiform sug"d, suguud (irregularly used) and in Christian Sogd.
ywd'r- = yuddr < uyddr- (uaydar, see Lentz, ST., ii, p. 584), ywr't-
= yaghn. yurdt- from uyrdt- ( < uiyrdt-, see Beichtbuch, p. 84). How-
ever, these cases of metathesis, restricted to sonantic u before y
followed by a consonant, offer no strict parallel to Huyar > tyudr.
Occasionally, progressive metathesis of u before k can be found,1
e.g. Buddh. S. 'flz'ykwstr (Dhyana 41) = gfizdxkustar from 'fiyz'ywk
" distressed " = afizdxuk,2 Chr. S. bz'xwq = /Jza^wA and, through
different metathesis, bwz'xq = fiuzdxk (see Lentz, ST., ii, p. 580)
Closer parallel would be Man. S..§mnkw'nc " devilish " = ismankudnc
beside older smnwk'nc = ssmanukdnd (intermediary form Buddh. S.
'tSrmnwkw'nch — ssmanukudnc), see Beichtbuch, p. 78. The closest
parallel imaginable exists perhaps in Chin. ;flj =££ jm-xwo, rendering
the name of Bu^ara (beside }§flJJpu-xo, *b'uo-ydt, Karlgren 49 + 295
= buxar), which possibly represents *buyudr {*puo-xudt, Karlgren
42 + 57; second sign also in Pfc f£ £ t'u-xuo-lo, *t'uo-xudt-ld,
Karlgren 1129 + 57 + 569).
Even though it cannot be decided with any amount of certainty
which of the two forms is older: txudr {dtyudr, taxudr, toxudr) or
toxdr (tuxdr), there cannot be the least doubt that these two forms
only were used as the names of Bactria; of these two forms txudr
(etc.) alone was employed in Central Asia. It is, therefore, completely
out of the question to assume that the famous twyry in Uyyur
1
For the opposite cf. Chr. swq-: Buddh., Man. (')shv-, Chr. pcwq'd'r- beside
ptiqw'd'r- (see ST., ii, s.v.), Chr. pcwqyr- = pacuklr- < paihmr (later > p6uldr- >
yaghn. (ukir-, see Beichtbuch, p. 69).
2
-y- = " historical spelling."
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Western Sydney University Library, on 07 Jan 2019 at 11:05:13, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0041977X0007837X
 550 W. B. HENNING—•

colophons of Buddhist texts referred to Tokharistan. In Uyyur which,

as a rule, closely follows Sogdian in matters of orthography the name
of Bactria would be written *'tyw'ry or Hyw'ry. Moreover, the Sogdian
form corresponding to Uyyur twyry is attested in the Sogdian version
of the Karabalgasun inscription, in the identical x spelling twyr'k:
it is flatly impossible that Hyw'r'k and twyr'k represented one and the
same name.
If, however, Tokharistan is excluded, it is necessary to take up
the problem afresh : which country, which nation, which language
is meant by twyry % It is better to leave aside, for the present, the
Uyyur colophons, which have proved to be anything but unambiguous.
The most important passage is the Sogdian Karabalgasun
inscription, line 19 (ed. 0. Hansen, p. 20); the Uyyur king is said
to have annihilated :—
yr'n twp'wtc'ny 'sp'8 m'ywny ZY
ctp'r twyr'kc'ny ZY yrfi'ny . . .
" the powerful Tibetan army completely as well as the Four-
Twyry (army) and many other . . . "
Near the end of the same line (19) Qarluq and Tibetans are
mentioned. The preceding line (18) deals with the destruction of the
Qirqiz, corresponding to xiii, 61-xiv, 38, of the Chinese version (ed.
G. Schlegel, MSFO., ix). After the annihilation of the Qirqiz the
Chinese inscription describes at length the war against the Qarluq
and the Tibetans (corr. to Sogd., 1. 19) which was waged near Pei-t'ing
(Chin, xv = Bisbaliq) and Kuca (Chin, xvi); farther on a campaign
is mentioned, presumably against the Qarluq, in the course of which
the Qayan reaches the Pearl River ( = Sirdarya). The comparison
of the two versions tends to prove that the country (or nation) ctft'r
twyr'k " Four Twyry " is to be looked for near (or between) Bisbaliq
and Kuca.2
1
For the Sogdian ending -'k (also written -w, -y, -Ic, -y) was pronounced as -e.
2
It is my conviction that the site of " Four Twyry " is to be determined solely
by comparing both versions of the inscription. The identity of the Qayan, e.g., does
not matter much for our purpose: it was, according to Chavannes and Pelliot (TraiU
Manicheen, pp. 203, 223), Ai tdngridd gut bulmis alp bilgd u'iyur qayan (808-821 ;
he set up the inscription), according to Schlegel Tdngridd illiig bulmis alp qutluy
uluy bilgd qayan (795—805); the Sogdian version supports, I think, Schlegel's view.
Even the true date of the campaigns carried out, ace. to Schlegel, before the Qayan
acceded to the throne, is only of secondary import: the war against the Qirqiz is
identified (by Schlegel, p. 86) with their defeat in 758 (hardly credible), whilst the
expeditions against Qarluq and Tibetans refer (ace. to Schlegel, p. 87) to the great
battle near Pei-t'ing in 791 ; as to the siege of Kuca, cf. Chavannes-Pelliot, TraiU,
p. 202, n. 1.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Western Sydney University Library, on 07 Jan 2019 at 11:05:13, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0041977X0007837X
 ARGI AND THE " TOKHAEIANS " 551

The final -y of twyry, corresponding to Sogdian -'k, is a Sogdian

ending; the real name, therefore, was twyr. From twyr, Middle
Persian twyryst'n = twyr-istdn is derived, i.e. the country where the
Twyr are living, twyryst'n, written in Manichsean script, proves that
y in twyry was pronounced as y (i.e. voiced guttural fricative), not as
X (in Sogdian characters y and % are written with the same sign).
It occurs in a Manichsean hymn (Miiller, Handschriftenreste, i, p. 351)
which praises :—
. m . mry wh[m]n xwrxsyd hmwc'g ['y] hwr's'n p'ygw[s].
. n . n'mgyn s'r'lf] ['«/] ctir twyryst'\n\.
" Mar Wahman-^warxseS, ' Teacher' of the archbishopric
' East',
Famous (religious) head of Four-Twyr-country."
It has been shown elsewhere that hwardsdn pdygos is the official
designation of the easternmost Manichsean archbishopric, comprising
all Manichaean communities east of the Pamirs (Beichtbuch, p. 10) ;
the archbishop's (" teacher's ") see was Kao-c'ang (Qoco), during the
reign of the northern Uygurs, probably even before that time
(see ZDMG., 90, pp. 14 sqq.). It is noteworthy that in the above
passage besides the usual designation hamozdy i hwardsdn pdygos
the archbishop (or, perhaps better, patriarch) is given the additional
title " Head of Four-Twyr-country". One might conclude that
" Four-Twyr-country" was the original name of the patriarchate
before the conversion of the Uyyurs which led to the acceptance of
a more ambitious title, " head of the patriarchate ' East' " ; later
on, of course, the older and more modest title was dropped. The older
name of the patriarchate was probably taken from the name of the
country where the hierarch was residing: consequently, Qoco was
a town in the " Four-Twyr-country ".
In Turkish texts, apart from Buddhist colophons, twyry occurs
once only, namely in the colophon of a Manichsean book, published
by von Le Coq, Turk. Man., i, p. 27. The passage is badly mutilated,
as can be seen from the photograph (plate iii, top of left-hand side).
The word standing immediately before twyry (end of line 3) has been
read by von Le Coq : [t]oi-n (? ?); instead of this not quite satis-
factory reading I should like to propose: tort, i.e. twyrt (r drawled
tofillthe line, t at its end; minute traces of initial t are still perceivable).
The text runs as follows :—
(3) mr wymnyy'ryzd twyrt
(4) twyry d'qy 'wlwy mwz'k
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Western Sydney University Library, on 07 Jan 2019 at 11:05:13, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0041977X0007837X
 552 W. B. HENNING—

" Mar Wahman-hayar-yazd, the great patriarch (archbishop,

teacher) residing in Four-Twyry."
The country where the book was written to which the colophon
is attached was, therefore, part of the Manichsean patriarchate " Four-
Twyr-country ". This country is determined by the following names :
Aryu (district between Isbigab and Balasayun, Kasyarl, i, 31; between
Taraz and Balasayun, Kasyari, i, 114), Talas (Taraz, Aulie-ata),
Yk'nknt ( = vi>A-JlX_>, i.e. ^_£jlx_>_ between Taraz and Mirki,
Hudud al-'Alam, transl. Minorsky, p. 119 [§ 25, 93]; t^5o \SL>_ in
Isbigab, MaqdisI, ed. de Goeje, p. 48, 1. 14; 263, 1. 2; 274, 1. 9),
Qasu (unknown), Cigil-baliq (the second Cigil, a town near Taraz,
mentioned by Kasyarl, i, 330, and by MaqdisI, p. 48, 1. 15, etc. ;
see Minorsky, Hudud, pp. 298 sq.), and Ordukdnt (probably = Ordu,
Kasyarl, i, 112, a qasabah near Balasayun; usually Ordukant is =
Kasyar; it cannot possibly be intended here, though there were
villages called Cigil also in the neighbourhood of Kasyar, see Kasyarl,
i, 330). The two last names are joined {Ordu-Cigil-kant) in the title
of the king in whose honour the book was written. His name, Cigil
arslan il tirgiig alp buryucan alp tarqan bag, has been compared, by
von Le Coq (p. 44), with Arslan Tarqan, name of a king of Faryana,
who in 739, 745, 751 sent embassies to the Chinese Court (Chavannes,
Doc, pp. 147, 149, 295). This identification, however, can hardly be
accepted ; for Arslan Tarqan was a powerful king of Faryana, whilst
the king mentioned in the colophon was ruling over a comparatively
small district round about Talas and Balasayun, over Aryu. Otherwise,
the more modest title given to the patriarch suggests that the book
was written before the conversion of the Uyyurs (762), i.e. about
the time of Arslan Tarqan's reign. Howsoever that be, the main
point is that the Manichsean communities of Aryu formed part of the
patriarchate the head of which was residing in far-away " Four-
Twyry ". I should like to add that there is no ground whatever for
the usual assertion that Mar Wahman-hayar-yazd was " teacher " of
Tokharistan, which is based solely upon the fact that, in 719, Tes, king
of Cayaniyan and Tokharistan, sent a Manichsean " teacher" as
ambassador to the Chinese emperor (cf. Chavannes-Pelliot, Traite,
pp. 220 sq.). On the other hand, it is admissible to state that
Wahman-hayar-yazd was a predecessor or a successor to the mu-Sd
mentioned in the Chinese Karajbalgasun inscription (x, 62-3); he
may have been even the same holder of office.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Western Sydney University Library, on 07 Jan 2019 at 11:05:13, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0041977X0007837X
 ARGI AND THE " TOKHAEIANS " 553

The only occurrence of the name " Twyr " which has not yet been
mentioned in the course of the present article seems to be Saka
ttaugara : its main value, I think, lies in that it has provoked Professor
Bailey's ingenious contribution. It occurs in the Saka part of the
Stael Holstein scroll, published along with the Tibetan document
by Professor F. W. Thomas and Professor Sten Konow (Two medieval
documents from Tun-huang, Oslo, 1929), in a list of names (27-31)
that follows another list containing place-names (10-26). In the course
of the last years, it has become increasingly clear * that this list of
place-names, undoubtedly one of the most valuable documents for
the history of Central Asia, enumerates at first places between (about)
Khotan and Liang-tsou 2 and then the towns of Si-tsou,3 from Qomul
in the east to Urumci and Camilbaliq in the west. Several names
mentioned separately at the end of the list are possibly to be placed
to the south of Tun-^uang.4
The second list, however, in which ttaugara stands, contains
names of nations. Professor Bailey, comparing a document from
Sa-tsou which offers similar names in an enumeration of the tribes
that constituted the population of Kan-tsou, drew the inference that
the nations mentioned in the Stael Holstein scroll were to be looked
for also in Kansu. On the other hand, the names which are
common to both lists are comparatively few, namely (1) Tolis
(tulisi ~ ttUdlsa 5), (2) Turk Bayirqu,8 (3) imju, ijuva, imjuva. The
alternative possibility that the list of nations refers to the territory
described before cannot, perhaps, be discarded. As there was no
need for the envoys of the Khotanese king to describe the population
of the Khotan region the list probably relates to the inhabitants of
Kan-su (with Sa-tsou) and Si-tsou.
The list of nations is divided into two sections, the first of which
(27-8) ends with tti tulisi stare " these are Tolis ". The summariza-
.tion of the second section (29 sqq.) to be found in the words tti ttari

1
Besides the edition, cf. Clauson, JBAS., 1931, pp. 297-309; F. W. Thomas,
BSOS., viii, pp. 793 sq., ZDMG., 91, pp. 13-15, 47 sq.; Minorsky, Hudvd al-'Alam,
pp. 271 sq., 292.
2
Gakimamni (14), between Kua-tsou and Su-tsou, is probably 3£ f|J t)-man
(*ngi«>ok-muvn, Karlgren 1318 + 609).
3
Secu (17, 20), see Bailey and Minorsky, BSOS., viii, p. 120.
4
Anitturnga may be the same name as later Handling (s. Bretschneider, Medieval
Res., ii, pp. 218 sq.).
5
Cf. twlyS = Tolis, in Manichsean script (as part of a name, Mahrnamag, line 97).
• See Minorsky, BSOS., viii, p. 918.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Western Sydney University Library, on 07 Jan 2019 at 11:05:13, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0041977X0007837X
 554 W. B. HENNING—

ttrusahuta is less clear. Professor Bailey, with whom I had the pleasure
of discussing the passage, believes that du is to be read instead of
ttru ; he further suggests taking ttaridusa- for one word and comparing
Tardus, the well-known name of a federation of Turkish tribes, written
ttarddsa in unpublished Saka documents. In that case I should like
to propose to take -huta for an irregular spelling of classical Saka
hvata, and to translate " these are called Tardus ". Three further
names constitute the end of the list.
The two federations, Tolis and Tardus, were, according to
V. Thomsen (Inscriptions, pp. 146 s.), the main constituents of the
Eastern Turks.1 It is the natural course, therefore, to pay attention
to the names of Eastern Turkish tribes in attempting to identify the
names offered by the Saka list. The Chinese lists of fifteen Tolis
tribes and of nine proper Uyyur tribes will prove helpful (enumerated
by Chavannes, Doc, pp. 87 sq., 94; by Schlegel, Karabalgasun,
pp. 1, 8 sq. ; Schlegel has earned the gratitude of non-Sinologists by
indicating the contemporary Chinese pronunciation which alone, even
though sometimes not quite correct, renders identifications possible).
The various names of the Saka list are to be examined
separately:—
(1) Both sections begin with the same word, or with two similar
words, namely (a) ijuva, probably misspelt for imjuva, and (b) imju.
Professor Minorsky compares Turk, incu " appanage " (BSOS., viii,
p. 918) or injii " the tribe belonging to the chief's household "
(Hudud, p. 292). It is indeed very likely that the word is a term for
a tribal division if it is not the name of a tribe. It occurs in the Uyyur
fragment published by Haneda (Mem. Res. Dep. Toyo Bunko, Nr. 6,
p p . 1 - 2 1 ) , A 1 0 s q . : incu urungu sangu'n apa cur o o incu ... As
the names of the Uyyur Manichaeans enumerated in the fragment
are usually preceded by an indication of their origin, either a
geographical term (e.g. kusdnlig) or the name of a tribe (e.g. k'nc'k, see
Bailey, Ttaugara, p. 913, n. 1), it is probable that incu has a similar
meaning ; Haneda's interpretation 2 of the word as " pearl " (p. 7)
is hardly admissible : in Uyyur " pearl " is yincu, not 'yncw.—Cf. also
Tci imjuva, surely the name of a tribe, in the Satsou document published

1
It is not felt necessary to enter into a discussion of the Sie-ien-to (supposedly
Sir Tardus) here.
2
In the same fragment, B 2, nyw?kl'[r] " auditores " is to be read instead of the
mysterious u'xusikla[r]; the cigU Myr "ySy (Mir-ayaSe) is a Sogdian (" Sunday-
wish " ) .
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Western Sydney University Library, on 07 Jan 2019 at 11:05:13, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0041977X0007837X
 ARGI AND THE " TOKHARIANS " 555

by Bailey, Ttaugara, p. 883, mentioned along with Tolis, Turk

Bayirqu, and hdttibara.1
(2) yah:idakari, i.e. yaylaqar, is | g fg J|£ iau-lo-ko, *iak-ld-kdt
(Karlgren 568 + 569 + 73), clan of the Uyyur kings. Professor •
Bailey has kindly drawn my attention to Yaylaqar qan ata, an Uyyur
chief, whose epitaph has been published by Ramstedt (" Zwei
uigurische runeninschriften," JSFO., xxx, 3, p. 4); furthermore,
he told me that Professor Minorsky had communicated to him his
discovery of the same name in the Mahrnamag, line 62 : ygVyr
( = yaylaqar) inal.
(3) adapahutti, i.e. alpayut " the men bound to pay a tribute or
to take service " (Minorsky, Hudud, p. 292); cf. Uyyur alpayut as
title (Miiller, Pfahlinschriften, p. 23, line 14), Orkhon inscr. alpayu,
etc. (Thomsen, p. 163).
(4) bdku, i.e. *boqu or buqu, and (5) basikdtti, i.e. *bosqot, busqut,
are unknown to me. Besides the name of the famous Uyyur Qayan
Bogii (Buyuy), *buqu recalls -$| ^* pu-Jcu, a Tdlis tribe (*b'uok-kudt,
Karlgren 760 + 427 : <-plural ?). There is some likeness between
basikdtti and IS ?{JC Jj. | £ mo-ko-si-ki (*mvk-kd-si9k-kidt, Karlgren
686 + 413 + 780 + 332, might be *boqsiqit), an Uyyur tribe; it
would be necessary to assume a mistake in the Chinese rendering.
(6) kurabiri 2 (different from kdribari), i.e. *kurdbir, *kurdbor, is
exactly ^ fg fft kii-lo-po (*kiu-ld-b'u9t, Karlgren 488 + 569 + 748),
an Uyyur tribe, mentioned in the Kiu-T'ang-su along with a long
list of Tohs tribes. Kii-lo-po also occurs as the name of an Uyyur chief
(ace. to Chavannes, chief of the tribe Kii-lo-po) who plays an important
role in the internal Uyyur quarrels in 648, v. Chavannes, Doc, pp. 91 sq.,
338. I have not been able to find any other mention of the Kii-lo-po ;
I should like, however, to propose that Kii-lo-po is to be regarded as
the same name as P||} | g %i o r P/3 | | > i-e. the third Uyyur tribe.
The Chinese signs (tu-lo-u) indicate *tu9t-ld-miudt and *yu9t-ld-
miu9t (missing 3 -f 569 + 1278); -Id-miudt is an exact rendering of
-rabiri; ^7 miudt = Saka biri is to be found elsewhere ; cf. also 3U
1
Ace. to Minorsky, BSOS., viii, 918, gpf DJ: xo-tie (*xd-d'iet), a Tolis tribe. The
Chinese rendering would be unusually imperfect; other transcriptions, e.g. fpj J ^
o-tie (*d-d'iet, Karlgren 414 + 880) cf. | g£ o-po, | $£ o-pa(* d-b'udtsuid -d-b'^at,
+ 750) indicate a vowel as initial; ace. to Chavannes, Doc., p. 88 n., = Adiz.
2
karabiri (BSOS., viii, p. 884) is a misprint; so also is imjuva.
3
Dr. W. Simon kindly communicated to me T'ang values (in keeping with
Karlgren's system) for the characters in question, missing in the Analytical Dictionary.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Western Sydney University Library, on 07 Jan 2019 at 11:05:13, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0041977X0007837X
 556 W. B. HENNING—

*miet (mi, Karlgren 617) transcribed by bin (F. W. Thomas, ZDMG.,

91, p. 33). The difficulty, therefore, lies with the first sign : PflJ *tuat
and pj@ *%u9t side by side suggest a mistake. The original spelling
may have been US *k'iudt {Mil, Karlgren 493); hence, *k'j,u9t-ld-
miuat and kiu-la-b'uat = Saka kurabtri.
(7) kdribari, i.e. *qorbar, *qurbar, probably the Tolis tribe Jg jgj.
or | }g: K'i-pi, *ki9t-piet (Karlgren 334 + 717) and kijt-b'iet.1 It is
true that there is also a trisyllabic spelling, | \ %$ (u, *jiu, 1320),
further, that for the first sign the alternative pronunciation *k'iei
is admissible 2 ; consideration of these points may account for Schlegel's
*Kibyi. The vowels do not disagree with the proposed equation ;
kidt-piet appears to be a correct rendering of *qorbar if, e.g., 3U
*miet is considered which corresponds to biri as well as to mola
(muda), see farther on.
(8) sikari, preceded by imju, is the first name of the second section.
There can be no doubt about the identity of sikari with © jfg si-kie,
*si-kiet (813 + 325), a Tolis tribe; for the first sign, si, cf. F. W.
Thomas, ZDMG., 91, p. 38. As far as I know, it is not mentioned
elsewhere that the Si-kie were the royal clan of the Tardus 3 ; this
inference is to be drawn from our text if imju is indeed the same
word as i[rn]juva and if the meaning " royal clan ", as proposed by
Professor Minorsky, is to be admitted ; it suits very well in connection
with Yaylaqar who were the " royal clan " of the Uyyurs, therefore
of the Tolis too. Its does not matter in the least that the Si-kie (and
other tribes mentioned in our list as Tardus) are called Tolis elsewhere
as the composition of the great federations was subject to constant
changes.
(9) ttaugara is followed by (10) ayabiri, written ayaviri in
unpublished Saka documents, according to Professor Bailey. This
is, I think, the last of the nine Uyyur tribes, J^ 3fl$ ^3 hi-ie-u, *yiei-ia-
miu9t (126 + 791 + 1278), i.e. *eyabor or• eydfiir (Schlegel: Eyamur) ;
%j = biri has been found in kurabiri (see above); -ya- in Brahmi
1
Here again, I owe the T'ang pronunciation of the last sign (not in Karlgren's
book) to the kindness of Dr. Simon.
2
I am not aware if there is any means of deciding which pronunciation is the
correct one in a given case; if k'iei should prove correct one might think of qyflyr
in the Fragment Haneda (in that case, of course, the above explanation of kdribari
had to be abandoned).
3
No connection can be traced between the Si-kie and the (Sie-)ien-to, apart from
the fact that the Si-kie " occupaient l'ancien campement des Yen-t'o (Tardouch) ",
Chavannes, Doc., p. 88 n.; the name of the royal clan of the (Sie-)yen-to was
— flj l§: i-K-tie (*-iet-lji-d'iet, •Elitir), Chavannes, Doc., p. 94.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Western Sydney University Library, on 07 Jan 2019 at 11:05:13, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0041977X0007837X
 AEGI AND THE " TOKHARIANS " 557

script = " Ancient Chinese " ia is attested, e.g. for 4^ (223) and
3|5 (226), see F. W. Thomas, ZDMG., 91, p. 41. It is perhaps to be
considered if this explanation is to be preferred to Professor Thomas's
combination with Emil, Emin (ibid., p. 48), written in Chinese P@
Jg ien-mie (*-ien-miet, 273 + 622) and | f§ ien-mien (*-ien-mian,
624), i.e. exactly Emil, Emin x (also tribal name, Chavannes, Doc,
p. 123 n.).
(11) caraiki, i.e. *cariy, *carix, perhaps even *cariq (on h and h:
see Bailey, BSOS., ix, pp. 297 sqq., esp. p. 300 n.). This tribe, J ,=~ =
v v *
Cariq, Caruq, is to be found later on in Barcuq (Maralbasi), as stated
by Kasyarl (i, 318) who, furthermore, indicates that at his time
(second half of eleventh century) the J^f- were living between
Yayma (in Kasyar) and Cumul (near Manass), i, 28.2
(12) yabuttikari, i.e. *yabutqar or *ydbutkdr, probably the eighth
Uyyur tribe, $j %J ^ iau-u-ko, *iak-miu9t-kdt (568 + 1278 + 73),
Schlegel's Yamukar. The first and the third sign are employed also
for yay-la-qar; it is, however, rather strange to find the same character
used in rendering both ya and yay; no doubt need be felt about ^5
as equivalent of biMi {but) as well as biri (bor).
(13) anakidipabhiitti is a puzzle (-bh- is also unusual). Possibly
two words : ana " other " yilpabut ? Another (equally unsatisfactory)
explanation has been proposed above, p. 557, n. 1.
(14) karattahapata, Professor Bailey explains karattaha as Turkish
Qara-tay. This is surely right 3 and could be supported by yijrikim-
nittaki (in the Sa-tsou document, Bailey, Ttaugara, p. 883) which
can be explained only as Turk, yipkin tay " brown (violet) mountains ".
-pata (Bailey, Ttaugara, p. 884 n. 3 : = pati " lord ") is rather curious
here; one might expect a post-position " in " ( = classical Saka
pata1).
(15) sddimiya, struck out in the manuscript, follows upon tti
ttaridusa huta. Professor Bailey has recognized Sulml (Solmi), cf.
1
The combination of ayabiri and emil would require the presupposition of
(erroneous) re-transcription from Chinese (confusion of m and 6)'; the mysterious
anah-.idipabhutli may have to be explained in that way ; this could be re-transcribed
from Chinese, say, *TJ? | | | j t ^ / *-dn-iak-li3p-m}ii9t, representing Turkish
*anyaylibut or the like. A Chinese intermediate form alone explains Saka hvaih-.ura =
uiyur, containing hvai — [5] yuai (xuei), a. Bailey, Ttaugara, p. 883, n. 2.
2
I disregard the iyraq, uyraq, living between Yayma and Cariq.
3
The alternative explanation as name of a nation, suggesting *qara-taypat with
the name of the Wei (t'o-po, *fdk-b'itdt, 1159 + 750; cf. t'u-fa, *t'uk-piwvt, 1131 +
750, s. Haloun, ZDMO., 91, p. 275), is certainly to be rejected.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Western Sydney University Library, on 07 Jan 2019 at 11:05:13, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0041977X0007837X
 558 W. B. HENNING—

Haneda's above-mentioned article, pp. 10 sqq.; Pelliot, Toung Pao,

1931, 493 sq. ; JA., 1934, i, p. 58; Minorsky, Hudud, p. 272. It
occurs in a Sogdian letter published by Reichelt, Soghdische Hand-
schriftenreste, ii, p. 61, line 3, where swrm'y ywflw " king of Solmi"
should be read (instead of sw'mny).1 It does not appear to be known
which country is meant by Sulmi: it is somewhere " near " Bisbaliq
(in Mongol time), it is one of the five important places in the Uyyur
country (Kasyari), situated much nearer to Qoco than to Bisbaliq
(Kasyarl's map); it was not always dependent upon the Uyyurs
(sulmi ywfiw side by side with " the Uyyur king " in the Sogdian letter);
called Uc-Sulmi " three Sulmi", it is mentioned on the same level
with Kuca, (tort kiisan) as a country of importance for the propagation
of Buddhism. It is tempting to think of Qara-sahr.
(16) Turk Bayirqu is followed by (17) cunuda, the last name on
the list; the employment of n suggests a mistake on the side of the
scribe: probably cumuda was intended. This is obviously a later form of
cimola in the Niya documents, written cimuda and, as Professor Bailey
has told me, cumuda in unpublished Saka documents. The identity
of this people with Kasyarl's Cumul (cf. Minorsky, Hudud, p. 275)
has been stated by Bailey, Ttaugara, p. 917, n. 1. They were known
to the Chinese as ^ ffi or | ^ ts'u-mi, *t's"iwo-miet (1256 + 617),
living in exactly the same region as the Cumul were according to
Kasyari, i.e. near Manass (cf. Chavannes, Doc, register s.v. Tch'ou-mi);
the Chinese transcription points to cimul rather than cumul.2 On
^ miet see above, pp. 555 sq.
Accordingly, the Saka list of nations may be translated : " The
royal clan Yaylaqar, thefieftribes *Buqu, *Busqut, Kiirabor, Qorbar :
these are Tolis. The royal clan Sikar (the fief tribes) ttaugara, Eyabor,
Cariy, Yabiitkar, (and) *other *yilpabut in the Black Mountains :
these are called Tardus. [In (?) Sulmi] the Turk Bayirqu and the
Cumul."
If the main points of the interpretation as proposed here are
admitted it seems necessary to reconsider the import of ttaugara,
mentioned as they are in a long list of purely Turkish tribes, perhaps
actually designated as a Tardus tribe ; a reference to the " Tokharians "

1
The tnCrywS ysyS (line 5, verso line 1) is noteworthy, tm'rywi is to be looked for
in Faryana as is proved by the title x^eS; hence, tm'ryws, Uimaryua" = Tamdxui
near Isfara (Barthold, Turkestan, p. 160).
2
Professor Bailey kindly told me that the equation ts'u-mi = iumul has been
found before by Pelliot, T'oung Pao, xxxii, p. 363.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Western Sydney University Library, on 07 Jan 2019 at 11:05:13, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0041977X0007837X
 ABGI AND THE " TOKHABIANS " 559

or Oayovpoi or " Little Ue-tsI " appears to be impossible. If, therefore,

the ttaugara are a Turkish tribe, as seems practically certain, only
an Anusvara need be added to the first ahsara to obtain *ttaumgara =
tongra, the name of a Tolis tribe, recorded in the Orkhon inscriptions
(Thomson, p. 163); they were known to the Chinese as [pj |g t'ung-lo
(*d'ung-ld, 1150 + 569).1
ttaugara being eliminated, the only genuine mentions of the
jTwyr-country are one Sogdian, one Uyyur, and one Middle-Persian
passage. It is noteworthy that the name occurs only in connection
with " Four ", as " Four Twyr ". Nevertheless, it can be regarded
as certain that the " language of twyry ", twyry tili, is the language of
the country " Four Twyr(y) ". In his latest contribution, Professor
Sieg has maintained, rightly I think, that twyry tili refers to the
language IA, which was the language of Qarasahr, as established by
Bailey, or of Qarasahr and Turfan, as suggested by S. Levi (JA.,
1933, i, p. 29). As has been proposed above, " Four Twyr(y) " relates
to the territory between Bisbaliq and Kuca, or a part of it: the

1
The Oyuz tribe jy Hlkdr (KSsyarl, i, p. 57), living far away in the west,
is ruled out; tiihar would be written *ttukari; the spelling ttau[ni]gara leaves no
doubt that the word ended in a, not in r. The presence of such a great number of
Turkish tribes in Kansu, Sa-tsou, and Si-tsou is hard to explain if the date proposed
by the learned editors for the Saka document and the Tibetan document attached
to it (second half of eighth century) is adopted. Though, of course, the infiltration
of Turkish, mainly Tolis, tribes into this region began at an early date, one would not
expect so many of them there before the destruction of the Northern Uyyur empire
(840), which led to the foundation of Uyyur principalities in the territory in question
by emigrant Uyyur tribes. The Khotanese king Visasambhata may have been a
namesake of Vijayasambhava, not the same person. Preservation of Tibetan as
official language at the beginning of the Uyyur reign would not be surprising. The
name of the Sa-tsou king The-po, The-bo, otherwise unknown (according to Professor
Thomas, p. 129), recalls the name of the leader of the Uyyur immigrants, P'ang-
t'3-h (Bretschneider, Res., i, p. 241 ; Minorsky, Hudud, p. 226 n. 2, 264 n. 5); this
name, suggesting (if )jfj is the correct reading) P'ang tegin, a wholly unsatisfactory
name for an Uyyur, is apparently distorted (so as to obtain the well-known title
t'd-to ~ tegin). It is, I think, the same name as T'3-p'ang-l3 (another Turkish chief,
Chavannes, Doc., p. 86); alternatively, the possibility that the correct form of the
name was *T'3-p'ang-t'3-U = T's-p'ang tegin should be considered. In any case,
The-po, The-bo might be a shortening of this name, thus rendering t's-p'ang (it is
probable that p'ang, *b'dng, Karlgren 585, would correspond to *bo or the like in
Central Asia; jf^jp t's is employed also in ^ p 1$) t'3-to, to-lis). If the documents
were written shortly after the Uyyur invasion the interest displayed by the Khotanese
envoys in the population of the neighbouring country would be comprehensible.
I do not know if any chronological inference can be drawn from 11. 41-2 of the Saka
text: "Cam ttutt-u ordered to build the stupa (Bailey, BSOS., viii, p. 119) of
gumattiri," i.e. " the great stupa of Hgum-stir " (F. W. Thomas, Tibetan Literary
Texts and Documents, i, p. 108).
VOL. IX. PART 3. 37
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Western Sydney University Library, on 07 Jan 2019 at 11:05:13, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0041977X0007837X
 560 W. B. HENNING—

geographical or political term coincides regionally with the name of the

language.
According to the Uyyur colophons, carefully examined by Pelliot,
JA., 1934, i, pp. 54 sqq., translations were made not only from Indian
into " the language of Twyry ", thence into Turkish, but also from
" the language of 'wkw kusdn " into Twyry and finally into Turkish
(cf. Miiller-Gabain, " Uigurica iv," Sb.P.A.W., 1931, pp. 678 sq.);
'whw = Oqu is possibly equivalent to Tibetan 'O-slcu, name of a country
(see F. W. Thomas, Tib. Literary Texts and Doc, i, pp. 132 sq., 135);
as kusdn unquestionably = Kuca, that region is excluded from
" Four Twyry ". Consequently, " Four Twyry " comprises Bisbaliq,
Qoco, and Qarasahr. A further limitation (viz. to Qarasahr alone)
is hardly possible, though at a later date the use of the language of
Twyry was restricted to Qarasahr after having become extinct in
Bisbaliq and Qoco, where Turkish speech became predominant (for
the series : oTcu kiisdn tili > twyry tili > tu'rlc, equals : Kuchean >
Twyry of Qarasahr > Uyyur of Qoco). This limitation seems to be
excluded by the importance attached to the " Four Twyry " in the
Karabalgasun inscription, where they are mentioned nearly on the
same level with the powerful Tibetans.
At the beginning of the ninth century the Uyyurs were fighting
with the Tibetans and " Four Twyry " ; about a century before that
date the Northern T'u-kiie, predecessors of the Uyyurs, were waging
war against the Toquz Arsin (r2s2n2) " the Nine Arsin ", next-door
neighbours of the Tibetans. Professor Schaeder's ingenious identifica-
tion of arsin with drsi, the designation used by the speakers of IA
for themselves and their language (according to Professor Sieg), will
certainly be accepted. Toquz Arsin, therefore, is about the same as
" Four Twyry " : the existence of a two-fold designation for the
country, the nation, and the language, drsi and twyry, is warranted by
the inscriptions set up by the rulers of Mongolia.1
As to the pronunciation of twyry, the following points are certain :
initial t,uoxo (preferably a short vowel), y (not x), r,finallythe Sogdian
1
It is, as a rule, seldom possible to give any historical reason for the numerals
which form part of tribal designations in Central Asia: toquz arsin recalls " the nine
cities " of Ien-k'i mentioned in the Wei-su (S. Levi, JA., 1933, i, p. 10); it is, however,
improbable that toquz arsin was confined to Ien-k'i. I leave aside twyrk in the
Mahrnamag (line 109; part of a personal name); the ending (-k in Manichsean
writing is wholly different from -(')k in Sogdian script) is not very well in accord
with the other examples; possibly Turkish toyraq " poplar " ; as the person of
whose name twyrk forms part was living in Arg (see farther on) it would not contradict
our conclusions even if it should be proved to contain twyr-.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Western Sydney University Library, on 07 Jan 2019 at 11:05:13, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0041977X0007837X
 AKGI AND THE " TOKHARIANS " 561

ending -e1 < -ak which, of course, did not belong to the original
form of the name. Assumption of a vowel (a) between y and r is not
supported (though not completely excluded) by the spelling; if the
name were Hoyar one would expect at least one example of Hwyr,
especially in Uyyur. If twyr is considered with unbiased mind, by
far the most probable pronunciation appears to be Tuyr.
The country " Four Tuyr " covers roughly the same area as the
Tibetan " Drugu-country ", a name of Bisbaliq, Turfan, and Qarasahr,
as has been shown by Professor Thomas's researches (see JRAS., 1931,
pp. 807-827, esp. p. 826). It may be worth considering if dru-gu
(durgu) can be regarded as transcription of tuyr; even if originally
dru-gu had been meant for t'u-kiie, the choice of this term for the
region in question was probably influenced by the indigenous name
tuyr.
It is necessary to touch on the question (though a full review of the
problem cannot be given here) if an original connection between
txudr, the name of Tokharistan, and tuyr, the name of Bisbaliiq-
Qarasahr, is conceivable. It is hardly justifiable to take the presence
of such a connection for granted as is usually done ; on the contrary,
its existence very much needs proving. Until this proof (or disproof)
is forthcoming a considerable element of uncertainty will necessarily
be inherent in all theories on the origin of the " Tokharians ".
As unknown languages, however, are involved, it will be found
impossible to disprove any proposal to unite all the different forms
notwithstanding their indubitable disparity at the time when the
Central Asian documents were written. The scheme shown on the
following page, e.g., would cover all the forms.
Professor Haloun, in his excellent contribution " Zur Ue-tsi-
Frage ", maintains that the " Tokharians " were Ue-tsi everywhere,
in Bactria as well as in the Nan-san.2 He refrains, however, from
1
Quantity undecided. Sogdian loanwords in New Persian suggest e rather than
e (might be, however, influenced by the ordinary Persian ending -a). Chinese tran-
scriptions may be helpful in solving the problem, cf., e.g., H§ J§J p f § , Parthian hasenay
(Waldschmidt-Lentz, Stcllung Jesu, pp. 83, 85 sqq.) : x°-si-n9n9> *ydt-si-n3ng
presupposes sogdianized pronunciation as yasene (yamn'k) ; on the Central Asian
pronunciation of Chin, -ng, see Pelliot, JA., 1912, i, pp. 588 sqq., and particularly
F. W. Thomas, ZDMO., 91, pp. 10 sq. (where, however, Hjj is rendered by dimiii,
i.e. ding).
2
The second part, at least, of this assertion is open to further investigation. Apart
from Oayovpoi in Ptolemy (b. vi, ch. 16), Saka ttwwgara and Tibetan Phod-kar
(etc.), Professor Haloun's demonstration is based mainly on the fact that Kumarajiva
explains Tou-k'n-lo, i.e. transcribed Skt. Tukhara, by /J> ^ J£ siau Ue-tsi " Little
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Western Sydney University Library, on 07 Jan 2019 at 11:05:13, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0041977X0007837X
 562 W. B. HENNING—

inverting this sentence and assuming that the Ue-tsi were

" Tokharians ". Finding it impossible to reconcile the name of the
" Tokharians " with ^J j£, ^J J£ Ue-tsi and other Chinese spellings
of the name of this nation adduced by him, which according to him
suggest " Archaic Chinese" pronunciations such as *zngiwdt-t'ia
(nglwat-t'iaV), *ngiu-t'ia (zngo-tia), he proposes to take Ue-tsi for
*zguja(lca) as the name of the Scythians. On the other hand, the
general trend of his survey of the problem tends to demonstrate
against his will not only that the " Tokharians " were Ue-tsi, but
also that the Ue-tsi were the " Tokharians ". Professor Bailey was,
I believe, right in his attempt to find in (Ta) Ue-tsi the name of the

West East
*t'yur
j
I I
*t'3yur

tyy,ir Bayovpol *t'oyur

*t'6yar

I i r 1
Taxopoi *tx'/dr Boyapa *i'oyr

tuyr

tayyiar

tje-tsi". In Professor Haloun's opinion, this gloss proves that Kumarajiva knew
that the " Little tJe-tsi" of the Nan-san region called themselves " Tokharians "
(p. 280). It will hardly be admitted that this interpretation (contemplated before
by S. Levi, rejected by Pelliot) is the only one possible. Kumarajiva in explaining.
Tou-k'ii-lo should have written (Great) tTe-tsi; instead, he wrote " Little tJe-tsi",
thus misinterpreting the text he was commenting upon in a singular and ridiculous
fashion. It is as well to assume that Kumarajiva, bearing in mind the usual equation
Tukhara = (Great) tje-tsi, contemplated at first writing simply " tJe-tsi", but
substituted " Little tJe-tsI" because those were the only tJe-tsS that he knew of by
his own experience and expected his readers to have heard of. On the Phod-kar
(Thod-kar, Thod-gar), living in north-eastern Tibet, and mentioned many centuries
after the last occurrence of the " Little tle-tsl", see F. W. Thomas, JBAS., 1931,
834 sq. Their habitat is perhaps not yet sufficiently well defined to render their
identification with the Little Ue-tsi an incontestable certainty. If Tib. Dru-gu is =
Tuyr, the Drug-cun in Western Kan-su, " Little Dru-gu " according to Professor
Thomas (pp. 814 sqq.), might be = " Little Tuyr " = " Little Ce-tsi".

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Western Sydney University Library, on 07 Jan 2019 at 11:05:13, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0041977X0007837X
 ARGI AND THE " TOKHAKIANS ; ' 563

" Tokharians " even though it might prove necessary to modify his
proposals in. minor points.
It is not admissible to compare with Ue-tsii a developed form such
as toyar, just as it would be impossible to use the modern Mandarin
pronunciation of ft J£ for' comparative purposes. The only com-
parable form is that which was employed by the Ue-tsi' themselves
at the date when the Chinese transcription was created. The con-
temporary form has, of course, to be reconstructed. It has been
surmised above that the attested forms may derive from *t'yur or
a similar form, e.g. *0yur, *t'yu&r, *6yuar, etc. Chinese ft, in con-
temporary pronunciation **zngiwa8,1 could be a rendering of such a
form, as perfect as can be expected in a name containing a group
of initial consonants foreign to Chinese speech.2 The second sign, *t'ia,
might be regarded as representative of an indigenous plural ending.3
It would be well in accord with Professor Haloun's theories to find
the Tuyr-Ue-tsi in and near Qarasahr. When the main body of
the Ue-tsii, pressed hard by the U-sun, was compelled to leave the
T'ien-san region, some tribes may have stayed, as subjects of the
U-sun (see Haloun, p. 246). According to Professor Haloun, the
U-sun were " das urspriingliche ethnische Substrat der die beiden
' tocharischen ' Dialekte sprechenden Bevolkerung Ostturkestans "
(p. 254). It may be permitted to say that the population of the region
between Kaiyar and Bisbaliq, at the beginning of our era, consisted
mainly of U-sun and a few tle-tsi and Saka tribes (the latter, e.g., in
Barcuq). During the following centuries the remaining Ue-tsi tribes
have been absorbed by the more powerful U-sun; the process of
amalgamation probably was completed at the beginning of the T'ang
reign. At that date, nothing remains of the Ue-tsi but their name,
which, as Tuyr, is used indiscriminately for the same country,
population, and language as the name of the U-sun (Arsin, arsi),*

1
The initial z- appears to be anything but certain. For the T'ang pronunciation,
Saka Icamfturi, name of a tribe (in unpublished Saka documents; Professor Bailey
kindly communicated this name to me), is interesting: apparently = pj ft bung-He,
Icungur (thereby containing ft — gur).
* It would be interesting to learn from Sinologists how in their opinion the Chinese
could have rendered a word *8yur (or the like) in a less ambiguous way.
2
One might even go one step farther and assume an internal tJe-tsi sound change :
postsonantic 8 > r (attested in numerous languages); therefore, *t'yur < older
*6yuhi-, the latter being " attested " by Chinese *zngotia, *zngj,wat-t'ia.
4
It is taken for granted that ar$i, drain, and u-sun represent the same name;
the Chinese had some difficulty in rendering -r at the end of a syllable (on Jjj
see Haloun, pp. 252, 314); if necessary, -r could be explained as in Arg.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Western Sydney University Library, on 07 Jan 2019 at 11:05:13, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0041977X0007837X
 564 W. B. HENNING—

at least in QaraSahr and the adjacent districts. At the beginning of

the ninth century, it was still known in Kuca that the population was
composed of Ue-tsi and U-sun,1 though the use of the terms Tuyr
and Arsin/arsi is on the whole confined to Qarasahr (etc.). Possibly
the percentage of Ue-tsi was higher in Qarasahr than elsewhere.
As to the so-called " Tokharian " languages, the odds are heavily
on that they are U-sun dialects and not forms of Ue-tsi (Tuyr) speech ;
this is apparent as well from the historical development as from the
phonetic features shown by the two Ue-tsi words we know (see Bailey,
Ttaugara, p. 916). As alternative name for the mixed population of
Qarasahr (etc.), tuyr(e) was admissible; it is true that it has been
applied to the language, too : from a linguistical point of view>
this, however, was decidedly a misnomer; a misnomer, also, is
" tocharisch ", which, in any case, should be replaced by " tuyrisch ".

2. 'rkcyk
As stated above, in the Sogdian " List of nations " 2 'rkcyk follows
the nations of Kasyar, Khotan, and Kuci (Kuca). From the relative
importance of those districts it is at once apparent that the fourth
partner in a series like this refers to Qarasahr.3
'rkcyk, i.e. arkclk, is an adjective derived from 'rk, i.e. Ark (suffix
cik, see Gauthiot-Benveniste, Gramm., ii, p. 96). Ark (or Arg) occurs
as the name of a country: in a Middle Persian Manichaean hymn 4
homage is paid to the religious leader5 'y n'mwrng frwx'
[hjw'b'd shr 'y 'rq " of the famous, blissful, and prosperous country
of Ark ".
Ark (Arg) is mentioned also by Persian geographers and historians.
The Hudud al'Alam describe J j l = Ark, a town in the Toquzoyuz
(Uyyur) country, as " a small town near the river Khulandyiin,
possessing plenty of fruit, except grapes. To it belong seven villages,
and Ark and its districts are said to turn out 20,000 men " (tr.
Minorsky, p. 94). Professor Minorsky, commenting upon this passage
(pp. 273 sq.), has found that Ark is embedded in a series of names
that formed part of an itinerary leading from (Bars^an via) Kuca
1
Attested by Xuei-lin : " Kuca a ete appele aussi tTe-tsI et U-sun," see Pelliot,
JA., 1934, i, p. 90, n. 1.
2
Written in Sogdian script.
3
The names following 'rkcyk in the list, probably pointing to the Turfan region,
are not yet sufficiently clear to offer confirmation.
4
Not yet published (M 297); in Manichsean writing.
5
Name and title missing.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Western Sydney University Library, on 07 Jan 2019 at 11:05:13, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0041977X0007837X
 ARGI AND THE " TOKHARIANS " 565
V

to Qoco (Clndnckand). This itinerary, given in full by Gardezi,

mentioned no more than three names between Kuca and Qoco (roughly
300 miles), the first being Ark, the second ^Sij> sekaO " Three
Towns ",x whilst the third name remains rather mysterious. It is
true that it is rather strange to find Qarasahr as the first stage of a
journey from Kuca to Qoco ; on the other hand, the itinerary appears
to be rather sketchy in any case, and it would be still more curious if
Qarasahr were left out altogether. All the passages in Muslim authors,
brought together by Professor Minorsky, stress the importance of the
district Ark; it is, therefore, preferable, I think, to identify it with
Qarasahr instead of Bugiir (as contemplated by Professor Minorsky,
mainly on account of several spellings that rendered it possible to
take <Jjl, Jj\, etc. for misspellings of *_^X> = jy*.). In any
case, the Muslim authors do not contradict the evidence which
can be gained from Central Asian documents ; the river Khulandyiin
on whose banks Ark is situated can easily be the Khaidu-gol.2
Amongst the towns of Si-tsou, enumerated in the Stael Holstein
scroll, Argtnvd bisa 3 Icamtha " the town amongst the Argina " (22)
bears some resemblance to Ark. It is mentioned after Camilbali'q
(see Minorsky, Hudud, p. 272, n. 3), which lies in the extreme north-
west, and before several places near Turfan ; the enumeration of the
western towns possibly broke off after Camilbaliq, whereupon the list
restarted with a description of the south-western district; accordingly,
the succession of places permits one to locate " the town amongst the
Argina " in the Qarasahr region. On the other hand, it would be
rather surprising to find Qarasahr regarded as part of Si-tsou.
With Argina Bailey has compared Argiya in the Niya documents
(Ttaugara, p. 917, n. 1).
In Manichaean Middle Persian Ark (Arg) as well as arkcik was

1
In Sogdian (s. Minorsky, p. 273); also attested in a Manichaean fragment,
where 'hryy knS- — se hand (< 30re) is written, s. Beichtbuch, p. 12 (but drraya
kaiflihe seems to be different). One might think of §J| 2El J $ tsang-san-U'mg (better
than I j j j j mie), " t$a,ng-three-cities," between Ien-k'i (Qarasahr) and Qoco,
see Chavannes, Doc, p. 6.
1
Khulandyun looks distinctly Sogdian (cf. Minorsky, p. 206 and n. 4); -yun
" kind " is rather obvious, but no word *ywS'nt (might be " ""covering ") or *yw(')k'nt
is attested ; yw'r'nt (" right ", ace. to Rosenberg, Izv., 1918, 831, originally " brilliant
glorious, good ") is not satisfactory either; the word might have the same meaning
as ^jjj tan ("insipid, tasteless, watery"), in the T'ang-su name of the Khaidu-gol,
Chavannes, Doc., p. 6.
3
See Bailey, BSOS., viii, p. 120.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Western Sydney University Library, on 07 Jan 2019 at 11:05:13, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0041977X0007837X
 566 W. B. HENNING—

already attested, viz. in the Mahrnamag1 (ed. F. W. K. Muller,

Abh.P.A.W., 1912). In line 187 it is stated that the Mahrnamag
before its completion was left pa8 mdnistdn i Ark " in the monastery
of Ark ", for many years. Much more important is the other passage,
line 88, 'rkcyq ( = arkcik) xwa^w " the Ark-ian king ", i.e. " the
king of Ark". The text enumerates a large number of personalities
who were or were supposed to be friendly towards the Manichsean
church, beginning with the Uyyur king (Ai tangrida qut bulmis alp
bilga Uiyur qayan, 825-832, according to Muller2), his princes and
officers, who are joined by the rulers (and other influential personalities)
of the small states in the T'ien-san region, which, at the date of the
text, may have been more or less dependent upon the Uyyur empire ;
on the whole, the text gives a fairly accurate idea of the extent of the
Manichsean patriarchate " East ". Amongst those smaller kingdoms,
five divisions can be recognized :—

(1) panzkanOe ywaSdy (45)

(2) cindnckande ywahdy (55)
(3) 'kwcyk sirtusi (72), under him :—
(a) kdse xse8 (75)
(/?) parwdnc gafiyu (77)
(4) arkcik ywatdw (88)
(5) 'wcwrcyk ywatdw (110).3
It has long been known that (1) and (2) refer to Bisbaliq and Qoco
respectively. Miiller's tentative proposal to find in (3) the name of
Kuca, can now be supported by the Sogdian ndfndmak, wherein
'kwcyk precedes 'rkcyk. Despite its peculiar form, 'kwcyk corresponds
to Skt. kaucya " Kuchean " ; 'kwcyk = dkuclk presupposes, as the
name of the country, *dkuci (more likely than *dkuc) 4 = Skt. Kuci.

1
It gives me pleasure to state that years ago Professor Schaeder, in the course of
a conversation, proposed to regard 'rlc ('rle-cyq) as a geographical name, not as an
appellative " castle " (as Muller thought).
2
It is, however, at least equally possible, if not more probable, that his much
more powerful namesake (808-821) is meant.
3
Grammatically, the geographical terms are, all of them, adjectives ; the Persian
(xwaSay) and Sogdian (xwataw) titles cannot, naturally, be regarded as official
designations of the rulers in question; only under (3) are genuine titles given.
4
It is hard to explain the prothetic vowel which if not articulated would not be
written in Manichaean script though possibly it would in Sogdian script; cf., e.g.,
Buddh. S. 'kwty as against Man. S. kwty (kuti), " dog " ; 'kwty suggests a development:
kuti > kdtl > kti > dkti (rather dubious). Derivation of 'kwcyk from *'kw =
Turkish Oqu (ktisan), see above, p. 560, is very unlikely.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Western Sydney University Library, on 07 Jan 2019 at 11:05:13, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0041977X0007837X
 ARGI AND THE " TOKHARIANS " 567

(3 a) is the " kds-ism king " (not " the king of *KasI "), i.e. " the king
of Kds = Kasyar ", Chin, -fj fp k'ia-sa. (3 /?) refers to Aqsu, and
(5) to Uc (see below). All the important principalities between Kasyar
and Bisbaliq are mentioned, only Qarasahr appears to be missing:
it is, in fact, clear from this passage alone that Ark (Arg) is Qarasahr.
Accordingly, the enumeration comprises :—
(1) Bisbaliq
(2) Qoco
(3) Kuca
(a) Kasyar
(£) Aqsu
(4) Qarasahr
(5) Uc.
The principalities are not arranged in a purely geographical order,
but perhaps according to their relative political importance; yet it
would be rash to come to the conclusion that, at the date of the text,
Kasyar and Aqsu were politically dependent on Kuca whilst Uc had
retained its independence; it is quite likely that more attention was
paid to ecclesiastical than to political divisions.
It seems desirable to study more closely the names of Aqsu and
Uc attested in the Mahrnamag. The identity of prw'nc with Aqsu,
proposed by Professor Minorsky (Hudud, p. 482), will hardly be con-
tested. The feminine ending of prw'nc suggests a fuller form *prw'nc
Jcand, of which prw'nc is an abbreviation ; the masculine form corre-
sponding to prw'nc is either *parwdnak or *parwak (to be pronounced :
*parwdne and *parwe); for the latter cf. lease < kdsak " kachgarien "
beside kdsdnc " kachgarienne " (q's'nc, Mahrnamag, line 146, as part
of a name); again, *parwdnaJc derives from *parwdn or *paru, whilst
*parwah admits only *paru as name of the country ; the initial p-
possibly expresses b- if the scribe of the Mahrnamag (who changed his
orthographical principles every other line) followed Sogdian ortho-
graphy when writing this word. No certainty can be gaiined either
way : Parudn/Barudn and Paru/Baru are equally likely.
The various names of Aqsu have been studied by Pelliot, T'oung
Poo, xxii, pp. 128-130, and by Minorsky, Hudud, pp. 294 sqq.
Paru/Baru could be supported by Skt. Bharuka, Hiian-tsang's Po-lu-
kia (seeLuders,<S*.P.,4.tP., 1922, p. 258); Pelliot (p. 129) has adduced
5Jc )j& mo-lu, *mudt-luk (Karlgren 636 + 574). Final -k(a) is due to
sanskritization.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Western Sydney University Library, on 07 Jan 2019 at 11:05:13, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0041977X0007837X
 568 W. B. HENNING—

ParudnjBarudn is supported by the Chinese form ordinarily

employed by T'ang historiographers, :J§| $ | or | jg| fo-yuan, *pudt-
yua/n (Karlgren 17 + 99 or 1294), a perfect rendering of parudn
(barudn); on " ghain paragogique", see Chavannes-Pelliot, Traite
manicheen, pp. 190, n. 5, 191, n. 2 ; particularly ^ yuan, *yudn
(Karlgren 1343), rendering foreign udn (in ke-udn), should be com-
pared. The same name occurs in Tibetan documents, Par-ban, often
coupled with Gyu-mo (which again, as Professor Thomas has stated,
annoyingly resembles the ancient name of Aqsu, Ku-mo, *kuo-mdk),
though these places are to be looked for near Cercen (F. W. Thomas,
JRAS., 1930, pp. 85, 271, 274 sqq., 281).
With Po-yuan, Pelliot has ingeniously compared Idrisi's J\^\
(Baxuan), T'oung Pao, 1906, pp. 553 sqq.; the identity of the places
can hardly be doubted, though it seems to be impossible to reconcile
phonetically *bdxuan with po-xuan (maintained by Pelliot, T'oung
Pao, xxii, pp. 128 sqq.) notwithstanding their apparent likeness if
modern Chinese pronunciation is considered. Accordingly, i)\ja-\
should be changed in l)\jj\.
Professor Minorsky was, I believe, right in distrusting Idrisi's
o'j—i~\ which, for his part, he corrects in <jUjl Barman.
Furthermore he has proved that Barman also was another name of
Aqsu, by referring to i)^j\ in Kasyarl, iii, p. 272, and in Beruni's
Canon. I should like to add jl»_^ Barman, the only place between
Uc and Kuca on Kasyari's map, and A. fi i£ Pa-li-mang = Barman
on the Chinese map of the early fourteenth century which has been
studied by Bretschneider, Medieval Researches, ii (Ba-li-mang, p. 45;
Chinese : Journ. North China Branch R.A.S., x, 1876, opp. p. 75);
here again, Barman is the only name between Uo-ts'i (Uc) and Kuca.
In unpublished Sogdian documents p'rm'n = barman is mentioned.
Hence,, the medieval names of Aqsu were : Baru, B{h)aruka,
Barudn, Barman, all of them containing the element Bar- (or Par-),
which possibly is to be recognized also in Barcuq, ancient name of
Maralbasi.*
It has been proposed above to refer 'wcwr, contained in 'wcwrcyk,
to Uc(-Turfan); Miiller connected 'wcwrcyk, perhaps not quite con-
vincingly, with §orcuq ; it is, however, necessary to start comparisons
from 'wcwr, not from the enlarged form.
1
A different opinion on the origin of barcuq is expressed by Pelliot, JA., 1934, i,
p. 60.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Western Sydney University Library, on 07 Jan 2019 at 11:05:13, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0041977X0007837X
 ARGI AND THE " TOKHAEIANS " 569

On the different names employed for Uc, see Pelliot, Toung Poo,
xxii, pp. 130-2 ; Minorsky, Hudud, pp. 293 sqq. The present-day
name occurs from the end of the tenth century (viz. in the Hudud
al-'Alam); it is frequently mentioned by Kasyari; cf. also ^ Ifc
uo-ts'i on Bretschneider's map ( = Uc). This form may be due to
turkicization ; before the Turkish immigration the name was *0cu,
Ocu, Ucu, or the like : some such name has yielded 'wcwr = Ociir,
Ocur, ticur; for the final r cf. Marco Polo's Succiur (Succuir), i.e.
Sukcur < J$i>)Wsiuk-t'sidu,1 or even modern Kucdr < Kucd. On
the other hand, it is generally assumed that in the T'ang period the
name of Uc ended in -k; Skt. h[e]cyuka (restored by Pelliot)
as well as its Chinese transcription Jj| JU JJg hi-tsou-kia (*yiei-t'si9u-ka)
render no proof in either direction, as the ending may be sanskritized.
The assumption of final -k depends wholly on the interpretation to be
given to ^flj)£(T'ang historiographers), u'-tsou (tew); the contemporary
pronunciation, according to Karlgren (1317 + 163), was jiu-t'siuk
or jiu-t'sisu,2 and therefore permits a sonantic final. Not decisive
is the ancient name (.Xan period) Uan-su (*-u9n-siuk, A.D. 600) even
if it should be connected with the other forms ; the objections that
can be raised against Barthold's equation of Uan-su with J_j^>.
(Hudud and Gardezi) are numerous.3
It may be permitted to turn back once more to Ark. The present-
day name, Qarasahr, seems to be of fairly recent origin. At the time
of Timur, the region was called dalis,* and this name was still
employed at the beginning of the seventeenth century (Benedict
Goes, Cialis, see Bretschneider, Med. Res., register s.v. Chalish). Ark
(Arg) is attested for the time from about A.D. 800 to 1050 (Gardezi).
There is a gap between Gardezl's time and Timur's : it is hard to
believe that for several centuries a district (and town) of the standing
of Qarasahr should never have been mentioned; it is particularly
incredible that Qarasahr should have been omitted by Kasyari;

1
On Su-t?ou, see Pelliot, JA., 1912, i, pp. 591 sqq.
2
jiu-YM?!1 • 'w\cwr = siuk-]t'si»u : suk]cur.
3
Not only the finals disagree (even * J j * L , Minorsky, p. 294, would be dubious
if the presence of a final -Ic can be disproved), but also the initials (that of the Chinese
name being a sonant) as well as the middle consonants (-»c- as against -n-s-; more-
over a Chinese final -n in the JTan-period does not necessarily represent foreign -n;
in the present case = r, according to Pelliot); furthermore, only contemporary
Chinese names are comparable.
4
Turkish, ace. to Pelliot, T'oung Pao, xxxii, p. 265 (cf. ialis " wrestling"
[Kasyari] ?).
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Western Sydney University Library, on 07 Jan 2019 at 11:05:13, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0041977X0007837X
 570 W. B. HENNING—

for this reason alone, the identity of Sulmi* with Qarasahr (proposed
above, p. 558) should be considered.2
Thefirstmention of Ark coincides roughly with the end of the period
in which Ien-k'i (Qarasahr) though continuously troubled by much
more powerful neighbours enjoyed a status of independence; the
old name Ien-k'i, Skt. Agni, has been studied in full by Pelliot,
T'oung Pao, xxxii, pp. 266 sqq. It seems probable that Ark (Arg)
is a rather unexpected form of the same name. Professor Sieg has
recently discovered the indigenous name, Kuchean akene ypoy;
furthermore, he has assumed that akene is an adjective derived from
Kuchean dke (A ok) " end ", so that akene ypoy would mean " the
country situated towards the end", i.e., " the border country"
(Sb.P.A.W., 1937, pp. 130 sq.). If, therefore, akene, which is at the
base of transcriptions such as A-k'i-ni, agni, etc., is to be regarded
as a case of ellipsis, the possibility that the substantive dk/dke from
which akene derives was also employed as the name of the country
cannot be discarded. This name *dk, otherwise unattested, could be
represented by Ark.
There are two ways of explaining the medial /. Either it is a later
addition, or it belonged to the original form and has been dropped
in Kuchean (and in A). Both explanations would presuppose indistinct
articulation of a post-sonantic r up to complete disappearance (as,
e.g. in southern English), particularly in ante-consonantic position ;
in languages with insufficient orthographical tradition, especially in
cases of oral tradition, wrong forms inevitably follow. Some Central
Asian cases of an unetymological r may be mentioned : Vcur, *Sukcur,
Kucdr (see above); tamdryus : tamdyus (see p. 558, n. 1); Kuchean
yurpdske : (reconstructed) *yavaske, *bagazi : *burgayi (both recon-
structed) 3 ; Centra] Asian karpisaya : kapisa, korttana = Khotan *;
Sogdian fiaryar : vihdra, skord < skoO, yum < \un.h These cases
are not confined to Turkish languages (Pelliot, JA., 1934, i,
pp. 30 sq.).
Nothing, in fact, conflicts with the proposal to regard Ark as an
incorrect form of *Ak. On the whole, however, the alternative
explanation is more attractive ; for, if Ark (or Arg, indistinguishable
1
Turkish ? Cf. sumli-maq " to gibber " (Kasyari) ?
2
But cf. Minorsky, Hudud, pp. 276, 497, on cXf
3
See Pelliot, JA., 1934, i, p. 91 n. 2.
4
In "Fan Yu Tsa Ming " : Bagchi, Deux Lexiques, i, p. 295.
5
See Beichtbuch, pp. 88 sq.^Buddh. S. 'ps'ny, ps'ny (= gfmy x, foayx> n o t
*afsang), mentioned by Pelliot, JA., 1934, i, pp. 30 sq., is different (fra- > fa).
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Western Sydney University Library, on 07 Jan 2019 at 11:05:13, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0041977X0007837X
 ARGI AND THE " TOKHARIANS " 571

in Sogdian * and Persian) is the original form, the mysterious Chinese

spelling J§ ^ which cannot be explained by akene could be accounted
for. Ien-k'i, 'ian-g'ji might transcribe Argi or Argi (Pelliot: *Angi,
T'oung Poo, xxxii, p. 266 ; as to Chin, -n = foreign -r in transcriptions
of the Xan period, the best example is $£ ,§, An-si = Ar-sak). Hence,
akene could be a more developed form, instead of older *arkene,
attested by Saka argina ; akene, of course, accounts for Agni, Hiian-
tsang's A-k'i-ni, Maralbasi Saka agnye, etc.
Though several points need further elucidation,2 it seems, on the
whole, preferable to derive akene /argina from the name of the country,
Argi (not from dk/dke " end "). Finally, this name appears to be
directly attested by Argiya in the Niya documents, i.e. a man
from Argi.

[W. W. Tarn, The Greeks in Bactria and India, Cambridge, 1938,

could not yet be used; the new forms of the Tokharian name as
collected by Dr. Tarn, pp. 515 sqq., particularly tagorae, takoraioi, etc.,
prove that the group to\dr, etc., was developed in Bactria under the
influence of an Iranian tongue.]
1
Also in Manichaean Middle Persian if the scribe adhered to Sogdian
orthographical principles.
2
I have to apologize for several inconsistencies which will be found in the present
article; they arose from hesitation to decide a question which has puzzled us long
enough. I should like to state expressly that I adhere wholeheartedly to the last
proposal, i.e. len-lc'i = Argi = Arg (Ark), akene from older *arkene = argina.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Western Sydney University Library, on 07 Jan 2019 at 11:05:13, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0041977X0007837X