Who Were the *Kjet (羯) and What Language Did They Speak?1
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
WHO WERE THE *KJET (羯) AND WHAT LANGUAGE DID THEY SPEAK? 1 ALEXANDER VOVIN – EDWARD VAJDA – ÉTIENNE DE LA VAISSIÈRE EHESS/CRLAO, WESTERN WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY, EHESS/CETOBAC 1. Introduction Xiongnu could not be held responsible for the pillaging of Northern China in the 300’s, it would indeed weaken In a recent publication on the pages of the same jour- de la Vaissière’s whole demonstration, and that of a nal Shimunek, Beckwith et al. (further SB et al.) attempted political and partly cultural continuity between a late to resurrect the old theory (Shiratori 1900, Ramstedt Northern (i.e. Altay-Minusinsk) branch of the Xiongnu 1922, Bazin 1948, Gabain 1949) that the couplet in the and the Huns arriving on the Volga ca. 370 AD (2005: 羯 *kjet ( , MdC jié) language recorded in the biography 3-26, more recently 2014: 175-192). But such is not the 佛圖澄 of Futo Cheng ( ) in the volume ninety-five of the case and SB et al. could not quote any precise Chinese 晉書 Jìn shū ( , History of the Jìn Dynasty) is composed in text in favor of their reconstruction, as the texts say the a Turkic language (2015). We find this revision untenable opposite. To begin with: Shi Hu pillaging Ye in 307 AD? on historical, philological, and linguistics grounds, He was 12 years old … a very young general indeed! because it largely rests on its authors’ peculiar (and not A Chinese rebel took and destroyed Ye in 307 AD. Shi universally shared) ideas about Chinese history, Chinese Le (later the Jié leader) was during this period, and up historical linguistics and philology, and Turkic historical to 319 AD, only one of the several generals of the Liu linguistics. We essentially believe that de la Vaissière’s dynasty, rebelling against the Jìn (Jìn shū 104 and 105). analysis of the general historical situation (2005, 2014) Even is own troops are not described as Jié during this and Vovin’s demonstration that the said couplet was period in the Jìn shū (104.2708-2709), the earliest men- written in a Yeniseian language (2000, 2002) are correct, tion of Jié troops, associated with Xiongnu ones, being and we present our response below based on the state of dated 314 AD (Jìn shū 62.4460) and they became prom- art in Chinese history, Chinese historical phonology and inent only after 319 AD. The Sogdian Letter of 312 or philology, Turkic historical linguistics, and Yeniseian 313 AD, not foreseeing the future, does describe the Liu historical and descriptive linguistics. offensives against the Jìn armies: it were Liu troops, not Shi Le’s that took Luoyang, Chang’an and were close to 2. Historical background Ye. The Liu, by far and large the biggest players in the field up to 319 AD, titled Shanyu, and direct descendants Regarding the first historical part of the article, there of a whole line of Shanyu of the Southern Xiongnu, at is not much to say, except that it is entirely based on a the head of the five hordes of the Xiongnu, were undoubt- general anachronism, and several mistakes, all on a mere edly Xiongnu in the full meaning of the name, i.e. a half-page. SB et al.’s analysis of the situation preceding political and historical one. De la Vaissière is not dealing the Sogdian Letter of 312 or 313 AD — the only relevant with languages but with self-assigned identities, which part — is actually limited to the few following phrases: cannot be discarded so lightly, and SB et al. are them- “Chinese historians’ records of the events tell us specif- selves accepting that the Liu, in that case Liu Yao, are ically that the foreign people responsible for the deed heirs to the Xiongnu. The Liu had troops of various ori- 羯 were the Chieh or *Kɨr, not the Hsiung-nu. According gins, mainly Xiongnu, and also Chinese and marginally 晉書 to the Chin shu , the official dynastic history of the Jié (see for instance Jìn shū 102.2658-2659), but the period, a *Kɨr army led by Shih Hu, a general and rela- political identity of their leadership was Xiongnu. Liu tive of Shih Le, captured Yeh in 307 AD. In 311 AD, the Yuan, the head of the Liu dynasty, was an important 劉曜 *Kɨr and others, including Liu Yao (a Hsiung-nu member of the Jìn court, where he was sent as a hostage by ancestry) captured and sacked Loyang.” If the Southern from the Southern Xiongnu territory in Shanxi. He was offered the Shanyu title by the conspiracy of Xiongnu 1 We thank Mehmet Ölmez and Laurent Sagart for their comments nobles in 304 AD during the civil war of the Jìn princes. and for help with some materials otherwise inaccessible to us. All mis- It is exactly what the Sogdian trader wrote: “these (same) takes and shortcomings remain our own. Huns [who] yesterday were the emperor’s (subjects)!” Journal Asiatique 304.1 (2016): 125-144 doi: 10.2143/JA.304.1.3146838 001_98847_JAS_2016.indb 125 18/05/16 15:26 126 ALEXANDER VOVIN – edward vajda – ÉTIENNE DE LA vaissiÈRE The captured Jìn emperor was transported to the Liu Chinese reconstruction system, *kɨat (Pulleyblank 1991: court in 311 AD. There is not a single word to change to – AV et EV] 154): ‘people subject to Xiong-nu’). How- W. Henning’s analysis of these events (1948: 601-615). ever, the Chinese reconstructions used by the latter are The situation of the 320’s cannot be projected backwards not accurate enough for them to have drawn correct con- to the 300’s. clusions about the text or the name Chieh” (SB et al. 2015: 143, fn. 3). 3. The name of the 羯 (MdC jié) language and problems This footnote turns out to be full of incorrect and/or of Chinese reconstruction misleading statements: SB et al. reconstruct LOC2 *kɨr for the name of the a) Pulleyblank actually supposed that the ethnonym Jié 羯 language 羯 (MdC jié) and proclaim it to be the ‘Earliest reflects the Yeniseian word for ‘stone’ (1962: 246). Attested Turkic Language’ right in the title of their pub- It has already been explained in Vovin (2000: 91) that this is tenable only if Jié had the same fortition lication (2015). This reconstruction is apparently Beck- Ɂ with’s, easily enough identifiable by the anachronistic PY *č- > k-/__i as the Pumpokol does (PY *či s final *-r. But none of the five co-authors, including ‘stone’ > Pump. kit ‘id.’). Meanwhile Yeniseian linguis- tics made a big leap forward, and Werner now treats Beckwith, managed to publish any systematic revision or Ɂ Ɂ PY *qe s ~ *qe t ‘stone’ (Werner 2002.2: 85) and PY refutation of the mainstream Chinese reconstruction (Pul- Ɂ leyblank 1962, Starostin 1989, Baxter 1992, Coblin *t’ɨ s ‘stone’ (Werner 2002.2: 312) as separate etyma. 羯 5 1983, 1991, 1994, Sagart 1999, Schuessler 2009, Baxter The ethnonym Jié may reflect only the first. The et Sagart 2011, Sagart and Baxter 2012, Baxter and proposal that it is equally possible to connect with PY Ɂ 2 εɁ Sagsart 2014, etc.). All that has been done so far are bits *ke t ‘person, human being’ > Ket, Yugh k t, Kott and pieces of the new reconstruction. This was pre- hit ~ het ~ xit ~ kot, Arin kit ~ qit ~ k’it, Assan hit ~ sented with little discussion and/or evidence in Chapter 4 hɨt, Pumpokol ket ‘id.’ (Werner 2002.1: 420-421) ‘Archaic Northeastern Middle Chinese’ of Beckwith’s belongs to Vovin (2000: 91), and was never referred to book on Koguryǒ (2004: 93-105) on about ten pages and by Pulleyblank. And Vovin’s judgment that Jié couplet is heavily dependent on Beckwith’s ad hoc reconstruc- is in a Yeniseian language is based “above all” on the tion of the Koguryǒ language,3 which in its turn forms reading of the said couplet in Yeniseian – evidence the basis for his Archaic Northeastern Middle Chinese that SB et al. chose not to discuss, opting instead for reconstruction. Thus, the procedure turns out to be com- their own “Turkic” reading. pletely circular and methodologically unsound.4 How- b) Regarding the Jié couplet, Pulleyblank limited himself ever, on the basis of this reconstruction, SB et al. jump to a brief statement that -ŋ is a frequent verbal ending to the following conclusion inter alia: “…Turkologists in Yeniseian languages, but contrary to the statement Annemarie von Gabain and Louis Bazin, who conclude by SB et al., did not try to analyze the said couplet as that the language is Turkic, and much more recently the Yeniseian (1962: 263). East Asianists E. G. Pulleyblank and Alexander Vovin, c) Pulleyblank’s original reconstruction (1962) is indeed who conclude that the language is Yeniseian. The latters’ traditional. Moreover, it is presented as a whole sys- judgment is apparently based above all on the putative tem, and not just in bits and pieces that are more often similarity of the modern name Ket to the ‘Early Middle than not are based on bare ideas rather than on solid Chinese’ form of the name Chieh 羯 in the traditional facts. The later version of Pulleyblank’s reconstruction, which cannot be called traditional, since it deviates substantially from the mainstream Chinese recon- 2 SB et al. introduce confusing periodization of the Chinese lan- guage history, renaming LHC as EMC, and EMC as LMC (2015: 144, struction, was presented by Pulleyblank in (1984). fn. 16). We preserve traditional terminology here. One may agree or disagree with it, but again it is pre- 3 Beckwith’s reconstruction is based on Koguryǒ’s placenames, sented in a systematic way.