A Letter from Lou-Lan Mentioning a Title of a Manichean Dignitary?(*)

A LETTER FROM LOU-LAN MENTIONING A TITLE OF A MANICHEAN DIGNITARY?(*)

A PRELIMINARY STUDY

Summary: The author reinvestigates a few documents from Lou-lan, in the Lop-nor region (Miran, Yü-ni), discovered by Sven Hedin and published by Conrady in 1920. The terminology, which suggests that there was a Buddhist community, is brought into a new context and reveals new information. It is suggested, with the necesary reserve, that there might have been a Manichean community in the area between Lou-lan, Wei-lao and Kucha.

Introduction

»Es ist schwer, mit Worten die Freude zu schildern, die den Forscher in dem Augenblick beseelt, da er deutliche Spuren und Überreste von Menschenleben aus längst vergangenen Zeiten entdeckt. Eine solche Freude war mir beschieden, als ich am 28. März 1900 das Glück hatte, die Überreste der alten chinesische Militärkolonie Lou-lan zu ent- decken—und vielleicht in noch grösseren MaBe, als ich am 8.März des darauffolgenden Jahres eine bedeutende Anzahl Manuskripten auf Holz und Papier fand, die 1600 Jahre lang vergessen und begraben unter den Ruinen der kleinen Stadt gelegen hatten«. These are the opening phrases of the introduction by Sven Hedin of the book by Albert Herrmann. Lou-Lan: China, Indien und Rom im Lichte der Ausgrabungen am Lobnor. Leipzig. 1931. Among the finds was also a letter published in 1920 by Conrady A. in »Die chinesischen Handschriften und sonstigen Kleinfunde Sven Hedins in Lou-lan«. Stockholm. 1920. The letter will be reproduced further below. For reasons which will become clear later, we will give a description of the site. In March 28th 1900 the site of Lou-lan, or present-day

* Prof. Dr. L. VAN TONGERLOO and Prof. LIEU kindly read through the text. I wish to thank them for their remarks. My thanks go also to the SML, Scheut Memorial Library, Kessel-lo (Leuven), and the Scheutists as well as the Leuven University Library, who kindly allow me to use their libraries. 84 L. TALPE A LETTER FROM LOU-LAN 85

Lop-nor, where once civilisation flourished, was discovered by Sven Hedin. »In March 1901, he discovered the chief ruin: the military station of Lou-lan«. The place where the document was probably found, is described by Hedin as follows1. »It was in this house (L.B.II) that we found not only the greatest quantity, but also the most beautiful, of the wood-carvings in the entire area of the ruins—A new faint traces of red and white on stone of the planks point to their having been painted as well«. Besides these orna- mental wood-carvings, Buddhist reliefs and a sculpture, he mentions Chinese coins, many small earthen-ware cups and a wooden tablet with Kharoshthi script (reproduced in Conrady’s Taf(2) VI:121 being the only one of its kind found by Hedin »2. Bergman,73). The discovery of the documents is certainly worthwhile describing, because it reveals the difficulties of the reconstruction of the original text. Hermann writes: »Aber die grobartigste Entdeckung brachte erst der nächste Tag, der 8. März 1901. Man hatte in der Haupsiedlung bei dem grobten Lehmturm in vielen Holzgebäuden vergeblich den Sand durchmühlt, als man die Aufmerksamkeit einem aus lehmziegeln erbaute Haufe zuwandte, das einem Stalle mit drei Ständen glich. Hier fand man einem zerschnitterten PapierfeBsen mit mehreren ganz deutlichen chine- sischen Schriftzeichen, dann in einem mit Lumpen, Schafknochen und Fischresten bedeckten Kehrichthofen — wohl ein paar hundert beschrie- bene Papierstücke nebst 42 Holzstäben, die ebenfalls mit chinesischen Schriftzeichen bedeckt waren! Auch am folgenden Tage, dem letzten

1 HEDIN Sven (1865-1952): Swedish explorer, famous for his expeditions to Asia, was born in Stockholm on Feb. 19, 1865. At the age of 20 he travelled in the Caucasus, Persia and Mesopotamia and in 1890 was appointed interpreter to the Swedish-Norwegian mission to the shah of Persia. In 1891 he visited Khurasan, Russian Turkestan and Kashgar. Between 1893-98 he traversed Asia from Orenburg via the Urals, the Pamirs and Lop Nor to Peking; during 1905-1908 he followed the Tarim river and crossed the Gobi desert. At a later age, when he was 63, he led an elaborate Sino-Swedish expedition from 1928 to 1932 into inner Mongolia, western Kansu and Sinkiang and in his 69th year he surveyed part of the ancient »silk route« in Central Asia. He received many honours for his work. (Encl. Britt., vol. 11, p. 296 for a short biography.). Some of his works: Le Tibet dévoilé. Hachette. Paris.1910; Zu Land nach Indien. Brockhaus. Laipzig. 1921; Rätsel der Gobi: die Fortsetzung der Grossen Fahrt durch Innerasien in den Jahren 1928-1930; Across the Gobi Desert. London. 1931.; Die Sei- denstrasse. Brockhaus. Leipzig. 1936.; A biography by Kaneko TAMIO. Hedin-den. Eidai na shirukurôdo no tankensha [The Life of Hedin. A heroic explorer of the Silk Road]. Chûkôbunkô. 1989 (+bio-bibliography). 2 BERGMAN,(1935),73. 86 L. TALPE seiner Ausgrabungen, barg Hedin aus demselben Abfallhaufen noch weitere beschriebene Papierresten und Holzstäbe….«3. As to the written documents, i.e the wooden tablets, some critical remarks has been made about Conrady’s judgement. According to Berg- man, some of his statements are erroneous. So e.g. document 33 attribu- ted to Wang Hsi-chih (321-379). He, Bergman, states “Some small finds have been misinterpreted by Conrady as to their proper use, while some have been overlooked. In many cases the statements about the materials of which the objects are made are wrong…”4. In the region still archeological investigations are going on5. Their results will help us to understand the history of the region better. Lou- lan is located within the so-called Shanshan kingdom. According to Meicun Lin, who follows E. Chavannes, this kingdom was set up in the large area from Lou-lan to Niya, in the south-eastern part of the Tarim bassin. Its capital, Lou-lan, was originally in Mou-lan(viz. Krora’ina)but was moved south yo Yü-ni/ Huan-ni(Kror.Khuv’ani)in the lower reaches of the Cherchen river in 77 B.C., when the name of this king- dom was changed to Shanshan(Tibetan cercen). Between the 3-d and 5-th centuries A.D. the imperial courts of China generally established their headquaters of the Frontier Troops of the Western Region in Lou-lan, as attested by 3-d-5-th century Chinese documents found there6. The text of the letter itself is of course only a recontsruction. Moreo- ver, the condition of the paper of the photographs is very bad and the text is very hard to read. Some of the reconstructions are mere guesses. A few characters have, we assume, also been misinterpreted. For the punctuation and the order of the words Conrady has been fol- lowed, but this is of course not mandatory. Indeed there are no indicati- ons on the small fragments themselves. According to Conrady, the writing varies from Li-shu to K’ai-shu and is written by a child, as a kind of exercise, as already explained before. The text we want to discuss is given on a separate sheet.

Chinese text

3 HERMANN, (1931), 20. 4 BERGMAN, (1935), 78. 5 For reports on the archeological investigations see HUANG SHENSHANG, “Some Notes on the First Capital of the Loulan Kingdom in Town LE", Wen Wu, 8 (1996), 62- 78. A LETTER FROM LOU-LAN 87

Address 88 L. TALPE

(By?) Fu Chung-hing? to the Mister Kün-mou Mao, named Mao Ch’eng.

Illustrations

Tafel XXIII A LETTER FROM LOU-LAN 89

Tafel XXIV

Translation

21. 1…..think, (that) not………… 2…..many……………. 3. Fu Chung… 4. The Mozak greats again. Before, (I have) made… All know the city (where) to buy… 5. Things. Kucha and… (One) should use… recto: 21.6. the stolen things. Practically all (things) were exhausted?. There was nothing ……the one (?)… 21.7….. five cereals. Subdueing?.. 21.8….the great man (adult) sits before… 21.9. recto: Recently, we haven’t heard from each other… 90 L. TALPE

when I could speak, I should think (that).. his feelings with injuries. You have honoured me with a letter. 21.9. verso: The…one(s) always existing between …A matter of the heart… Again…. very much/enough……estimate/ (grain) being piled up… 21.10 the priest….(or the chief-clerk) Pu.. 21.11. to the Wei….Nan ..wish…..to 12. deadly crime. (left) night??

Comments

The words Kun-mou kun “in the address are translated as ”Kun-mou Herrn Mao“, omitting thus . They are not reproduced on the photographs. In the preface he translates “kun-mou” as “Generalstäbler” (Con- rady, o.c., p. 24), staff-officer. The literal meaning is “military strate- gist”. This title does not occur in Hucker.

21.1. These characters are written in K’ai-shu while the remaining part of the text was probably written by another hand or at least in another style. Maybe li-shu? (clerical writing). cf. Conrady, o.c., p. 39. 21.3. Fu Chung:? According to 21.10, he is a (kind of) governor (liu shu?), if at least this binomen is in adposition to Fu. 21.4. Mozak: “Mo” is < * mwâ/muâ/mo (GSR, 17e) (Mt. 5901). According to Pulleyblank’s Lexicon (1991), page 217, we have Early Middle Chinese (M)* ’ma ‘, Late Middle Chinese (L) * mua. “Shu” (Mt. 5901) : Karlgren (1973), 916 has “≥`u, ≥uk, zîwok” Karlgren, GSR-1224 a-c has “* ÿîuk /zîwok/shu”. For reasons of completeness we provide the data of Pulleyblank’s Lexicon, p. 288: EMC * d®uawk L. ≥h’ ywk. In this way, one may reconstruct the following forms: EMC * ma — * d®uawk; LMC * mua * ≥ uwk.Conrady proposed to read first Mo-teng, (Kasyapa) Matanga, which is virtually excluded, for phonetic reasons. His name is usually rendered as “ ” (cf. TT.vol. 49, T. 2035, 166a16). Conrady’s speaks of “etwa Masuk?”, »vielleicht ein zentralasiatischen Namen«. According to Karlgren, the second form A LETTER FROM LOU-LAN 91 of GSR-1224a-c, namely “zîwok” is Ancient Chinese (the language of Ch’ang-an around 600 A.D.) and may as such be the pronounciation of the T’ang period (618-912 A.D.). On the value of Karlgren’s “z” see Pulleyblank E.G., “The consonantal system of old Chinese”, A.M., N.S., 9.2.218 (1962), 58-144, esp. p. 67: “When we turn to transcription values we find that to postulate an affricate j- for the second initial is more satisfactory than Karlgren’s z-. It regularly represents Sanskrit j up to the seventh century”. The reading of both characters may thus be “* muâ * zîwok > or according to the Lexicon: * ma-d®uawk >“mozak”7. For the meaning of the term “mozak” see Van Tongerloo A. and Lin Wu-shu8. Scholars have already shown that there has been a community of Budd- hist monks in Lou-lan, which is also proven by the existing documents in Kharosti9. It should also be noted that a proper name of such a monk named ‘ mocha ‘is attested in the Kharosthi inscriptions (Rapson, Noble. Oxford.1929. Index, p. 364). “cha ‘cha” is almost certainly a double consonant (ibidem, p. 296). The name is also found in compound names as sramaµna mochapriyaÒa (= sramana Maudgalyâyanapriyasya?). This may prove that a corresponding consonant existed at that time. Finally, Pelliot. Traité. p. 590, gives an equivalent for the term as naovPc. The Hebrew letter o corresponds then to ch!10.

* The fact that “monks” go to the markets to buy, may indicate that they were e.g. Sogdian merchants (Manicheans). Buddhism does in fact not allow ‘commerce’ to get food. (dasasik≥apada, Vinaya I, 83-84. Lamotte, Histoire du Bouddhisme Indien. Louvain. 1967. p. 59. The term

6 MEICUN LIN (1996), introduction. 7 COBLIN W. SOUTH. A Handbook of Eastern Han Sound Glosses. Hong Kong. 1983. gives a slightly different reading for Han-times: * djuak > zjuak (nr. 3723a of Xu 661). Compare with zja (Coblin, op.cit., p. 35) as well as in the compound name, âcâra. For the value of z (ibidem, p. 54). 8 VAN TONGERLOO A., «La structure de la communauté manichéene dans le Turkestan chinois à la lumière des emprunts moyen-iraniens en ouigour», in CAJ 26, 2-3 (1982), 262-288. Lin Wu-shu. Mo ni chiao chi chi tung chien. Peking. 1985, 232-233. 9 ENOKI (1963), p. 152, e.g. Fujita Ryôsaku. Some of the texts are even dated from the T’ang period. 10 PELLIOT P., «Un Traité Manichéen retrouvé en Chine (première partie)», JA, 18 (1911), 590. 92 L. TALPE

“pi∞∂apata”, alms food, is explained in Edgerton. Buddhist Hybrid Sans- krit Dictionary. Delhi. 1977. 344-5. However this is a mere conjuncture and presupposes that the subject is the same in both sentences11. For a more detailed description of the religious practises of Buddhists regarding “commerce” and related activities, see Jacques Gernet. Aspects économiques du Bouddhisme. Paris. 1956. p. 149-175: It might be inte- resting to note the following sentence from Gernet (p. 149), «Trois actes condamnés par les Vinaya sont en rapport avec les activités commerciales: le contact de l’or et de l’argent (jâtarûpa-rajata-sparÒana), le trafic des métaux précieux (rûpika-vyahâra), l’achat et la vente (kraya-vikraya).». 21.5.2. Kucha: on this region see Kumamoto Hiroshi, “The Khotanese Documents from the Khotan Area” in The Memoirs of the Toyo Bunko, 54, 1996, 27-64(in English). 21.7. Five cereals: Morohashi, Daikanwajiten. I., 480- nr.368.: Naka- mura Hajime. Bukkyô-go-daijiten. Tokyo. 1981. 360b. Maspéro H. Le Taoïsme et les religions chinoises. Paris. 1971, 453., Pelliot, Traite, 577. “Five” as a religious number. See Dictionnaire de Symboles. Seghers. Paris. 1969, 39-45. * Letters are preserved in Chinese, which may prove that cereals were imported for the soldiers in Lou-lan.The city of Lou-lan namely was built as a fortress against the Hsiung-nu. This means that they did not need “to go to buy” the cereals, since they were preserved in stocks. Ome may think that this region was not very fertile. And what was the relation then between the ‘religious community’ and the soldiers?12. 21.9 other translations are possible: * Recently, cf. Matth. p. 1054; nr. 7093, 46 for a similar expression. * also: when I could speak, it (would be) correct. (I) think (that).. * his feelings with injuries. You have honoured me with a letter.: sun, (Mt. 5548), means certainly disadvantage or injury. 21.10. “ling chu-pu”: “ling chu” can be translated as “leading master”, a title (Hucker, ?). However Pelliot, Traité, p. 195 note 2 speaks of the existence of a title of a monk “(tê) ling”, , which could be

11 LAMOTTE E., HBI (1967), 59. Edgerton. Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Dictionary. Delhi. 1977, 344-345. 12 ENOKI (1963), 135. A LETTER FROM LOU-LAN 93 applied here. Prof. Dr. Van Tongerloo, the éminence grise of Manicheism, prefers ‘scribae’.Comparing with the remains of the passage, there is still some space left between 21,9 and 21,10 where a character could fit in. Since the context is also religious (cf. 21.4) the term might be appropriate. One may also suggest “chief-clerk” (Hucker, nr. 3751). Ling= clerk. e.g. a clerk in a monastary. See Enoki K. (1963), p. 159 note 87. Burrow points out that in nr. 489 [of the Kharosthi documents] “khuwanemei bhîchu-saµgha” is used for the meaning of the “community of monks in the capital” (quoted in Enoki, op.cit., 135.). Kharosthi “dilicha”, Pali titikkâ, (Rapson, Noble, Kharosthi Inscriptions, Part III. Oxford. 1929, p. 350) is probably acceptable for phonological reasons (see Edgerton, Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Dictionary. Delhi. 1977. p. 254). Maybe this has to be read in context with 21.12.! 21.11. “Wei”: a personal name or a title!. “Commandant”or an abbre- viation of ‘hsien wei’, district defender; or chün wei, commandery defender (Hucker Charles O.. A Dictionary of Official Titles in Imperial China. Taipei. 1985. nr. 7657. However, the name “wei lao” is attested as a name of a country (or countries) in Fujieda A. (1970), p. 205, alt- hough they were not identified by the latter author. In a letter by a cer- tain Li Po, , to two kings we read ‘wei lao chu kuo’ ‘the countries Wei and Lao’.(=*Wardak?).A vase with an inscription from Wardak is known.Senart E., “L’inscription du Vase de Wardak”, in J.A., 11,4(1914), 569-585.The meaning remains obscure. We may suggest with due caution the following translation: “South of (the coun- tries) Wei and Lao”. Then Wei and Lao have to be identified. 21.12. Very doubtful. Conrady had a lot of doubts about these lines.

Conclusion

The date of the letter nr. 20, which seems to belong to nr. 21-although no explanation is given, is the 19th of the 8th month of the 4th year of [Yung] chia i.e. 330 A.D. according to Conrady. The photographs are unfortunately not available. Letter nr. 22 has a ‘similar date' but ‘Yung' is not in the text. It is only a reconstruction. The calculation is certainly wrong. The exact year of letter nr. 20 and 21 is however 310 A.D., since Yung-chia is 307 A.D. (Tables in Matthews, p. 1168) of the Western Tsin and if we assume that C.’s reading is correct. Another possibilty is to read “Yüan-chia”. The date then would be 427 A.D.. (of the 94 L. TALPE

Sung dynasty), or T’ien-chia. Then the date would be 563 A.D. (Ch’ên dynasty). In general the findings of Lou-lan are dated between 263 A.D. and 330 A.D.13. Lieu has shown that Manicheism made its spread eastwards very early. He mentions a story about the Huns who in 484 annihilated the Persian army led by Peroz who were fighting against them (The Huns or Hepthalites). At that time Sogdiana was ruled by the Chionitae, allies of the Persians. Later on, we hear of occassional tribute from Persia during the fourth and fifth centuries in Chinese literary sources and the envoys might have been Heptalitic emissaries14. There are however documents in Lou-lan which prove even the very early contacts with the West and probably thus also with Manicheism. Good examples may be the names of Greek persons (Konow St. Kha- rosthi Inscriptions. Calcutta. 1929, p. 2-7). e.g. the inscriptions of Greek chiefs:“ Theüdorena meridarkhena pratithavid(r)a ime sarira sakamu- nisa bhag(r)avato bahujanastitiye”, “By Theodoros, the meridarkh, were established these relics of the Lord Sakyamuni for the purpose of secu- rity of many people” (Konow St., o.c., 4). Other names appear as well (see the Index).Sunderman has also found documents which prove Mani’s early missionary activities15. Regarding the calligraphy, the changing of the style of a character from Kai-shu to Li-shu, for a child is questionable. The combination of the pieces is also doubtful. Would a child have written about such a topic?. Or as a schoolbook exercise? Is it excluded that the Manicheans were present in the region between Lou-lan, Kucha? The subject is probably worthwhile considering.

13 BERGMAN, o.c., 77. 14 LIEU (1985), 181-182. 15 According to Ya’qubi (died 897 A.D.) Mani would have gone to China and Tibet. (Sunderman, 1971, p. 87): So also al Biruni and al-Mas’udi (956-958 A.D.). He also mentions Ibnu-n-Nadim (died 995 A.D.) who wrote a letter mentioning Mani’s activities in India. He writes, »Mani hatte (bereits vorher) Indien, China und die Bewohner von Îurasan zur Annahme seiner Lehre aufgefordert und in allen Gebieten einen Jünger zurückgelassen« (Sundermann’s translation, in »Zur frühen missionarsichen Wirksamkeit Manis«, A.O.H. XXIV (1), 1971, p. 87-88. see also Römer. (1994), p.194, Mani and Armenia. The Heptalites also seem to have been in contact with Nestorians as explains HUNTER E (1992). However, are these so-called Nestorians not Manicheans? Both seem often be confused. PELLIOT. Traité(1911), 213. A LETTER FROM LOU-LAN 95

Glossary

- mo shu: mozak (21.4). - (tê) ling: dilicha (21.10). - wei lao: Wardak (21.11).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BERGMAN F., “Lou-lan Woodcarvings and small finds discovered by Sven Hedin”, BMFEA 7 (1935), 71-144 + 16 pl. BURROW, “Tokharian Elements in the Kharosthi Documents”, JRAS, 1935, 667-675. BURROW. The Language of the Kharosthi Documents. Cambridge. 1937. BURROW. A Translation of the Kharosthi Documents from Chinese Turkestan. London. The Royal Asiatic Society. 1940. CHAO HUASHAN, “New Evidence of Manicheaism in Asia: A Description of some recently discovered Manichean Temples in Turfan”, M.S. 44 (1996), 267-315. CHAVANNES E., «Les Pays d’Occident d’après la Wei-lio», T.P., 1905, p.535-537. ENOKI KAZUO, “Yü-ni-chêng and the site of Lou-lan”, UAJb., XXXIII, 1961, 52-65. ENOKI KAZUO, “The Location of Lou-lan and the Date of Karosthi Inscriptions”, MRDTB 22 (1963), 125-171. ESIN E., “Antecedents and Development of Buddhist and Manichean Turkish Art in Eastern Turkestan and Kansu. Istanbul.1967. FESTUGIERE A.J., «cinq sceaux de l’Aiôn Alexandrin», Rev. d’Eg. VIII (1951), 63-89. FOUCHER A.. La vielle Route de l’Inde de Bactres à Taxila. Mémoires de la Délégation Archéologique Française en Afganistan. Tome I, Vol.1, Paris 1942, vol.2, Paris 1947. FUJIEDA AKIRA, “Comments on the Documents of Lou-lan”, Tôhô Gakuhô nr.41, 1970, 197-217. (Jap.). GENG SHIMIN & KLIMKEIT HANS-JOACHIM, »Zestörung manichäischer Klöster in Turfan«, ZAS 18, 1995, 7-11. HAUSSIG HANS WILHELM. Die Geschichte Zentralasiens und der Seidenstrasse in vorislamischer Zeit. WBG. Darmstadt. 1983. HERMANN ALBERT-HEDIN SVEN. Lou-lan: China, Indien und Rom im Lichte der Ausgrabungen am Lobnor. Brockhaus.Leipzig. 1931. HOYANAGI MUTSUMI, “Natural Changes of the Region along the Old Silk Road in the Tarim Basin in Historical Times”, in MRDTB 33 (1975), 23-85 (esp. p. 95: Lop Nor region). HUANG WEN-PI, “The Exploration around Lob-Nor”, Toyogakuho, I (70-3,4), 1989, 150-162, II (71-1,2) 1989, 172-183.(rev. by Enoki). HUANG SHENZHANG, “Some Notes on the First Capital of the Loulan Kingdom in Town LE”, Wen Wu, 8 (1996), 62-78. 96 L. TALPE

HUCKER CHARLES O., A Dictionary of Official Titles in Imperial China. Taipei. 1985. HULSEWÉ A.F.P., China in Central Asia. The Early Stage: 125 BC-A.D. 23. Leiden. 1979. HUNTER ERICA, “Syriac Christianity in Central Asia”, ZRGG 44 (1992), 362-368. KLIMA OTOKAR. Manis Zeit und Leben. Prag. 1962. KLIMKEIT HANS-JOACHIM, »Der Stifter im Lande der Seidenstrassen«. ZRGG, Bd. XXXV, 1983, Heft 4, 289-308. KLIMKEIT H.J., »Der Manichäismus in Iran und Zentralasien« in H.J. Klimkeit & H. Schmidt Glinters (Hrsg.). Japanische Studien zum östlichen Manichäismus. Wiesbaden.1986. KLIMKEIT H.J., »Ausbreitung und Untergang einer Weltreligion«, ZRGG 38,1, (1986), 370-372. KLIMKEIT H.J.. Gnosis on the Silk Road. San Fransisco. 1993. (unseen) KONOW STEN. Kharoshthi Inscriptions, with the exception of those of Asoka. Corpus Inscriptianorum. II, part I. Calcutta. 1929. LAUT JENS, »Die alte SeidenstraBe im Licht neuerer Publikationen«, ZRGG 42,4 (1990), 367-370. LIEU SAMUEL C. Manicheism in the Later Roman Empire and Medieval China. A Historical Survey. Manchester Univ. Press. 1985. LIN WUSHU, “On the spreading of Manicheism in Fujian, China”, in Klimkeit H-J. & Weisner Gernot (ed.). Studia Manichaica.II Intern. Kongress zum Manicheismus.Stdudies in Oriental Religions. Wiesbaden.1992., p. 342- 355. LIEU SAMUEL N.C.. The religion of Light. Centre of Asian Studies. Univ. of Hongkong.1979. LIN MEICUN, “Kharosthi Bibliography: The Collections from China (1897- 1993), CAJ 40/2 (1996), 188-220. LIN MEICUN, “The Jingjue Kingdom of the Han Dynasty and the Niya Site”, Wen Wu 10 (1996), 53-59. LIN MEICUN, “On the First Capital City of the Loulan Kingdom”, Wen Wu 6 (1995), 79-85. LIU TS’UN-YAN, “Traces of Zoroastrian and manichean Activities in Pre-t’ang China“, in: Selected Papers from the Hall of Harmonious Wind. Leiden. Brill. 1976.p. 3-55. PELLIOT P., «Un Traité Manichéen retrouvé en Chine» (1), JA, 18(1911), 500- 617. PELLIOT P., «Les influences iraniennes en Asie Centrale et en Extrême-Orient», RHLR, N.S. 3 (1912), 97-119. PELLIOT P., «Les traditions manichéennes au Foukien», T.P., XXII, (1923), 193-208. PELLIOT P., «Le‘Cha-tcheou-tou-fou-t’ou-king» et la colonie sogdienne de la région de Lob Nor”, J.A., 2sér., VII (Jan-Feb., 1916), p. 111-23. PELLIOT P., review of E.Chavannes, «Les Pays d’Occident d’après les Wei-lio», BEFEO, VI (1906), 361-400. PELLIOT P., «Notes sur les anciens itinéraires chinois dans l’Orient Romain», J.A., 1921, 139-145. A LETTER FROM LOU-LAN 97

PREJEVALSKY. From Kulja across Tian-shan to Lob-nor. London. 1879. PUECH H-CH., «Les premières missions manichéennes dans l’Inde et en Egypte». Annuaire de l’Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes, V section, 80-81 (1973-4), 327-329. RÖMER CORNELIA EVA. Manis frühe Missionreisen nach der Kölner Manibiographie. Abh. d. Akad. d. Wiss.. Sonderreihe, XXIV, Opladen, 1994. SADAKATA A., «Quelques inscriptions kharosthi provenant du marché aux antiqités de Peshavar couverts», in J.A. 284 (1996), 301-324. SCHAEDER H.H., »Der Manichäismus und sein Weg nach Osten«, in Glaube und Gestalt. F.S. Fr. Gogarten. Giessen. 1948, 236-254. STRÖM A.V., «Le chiffre cinq», in Manichaica Selecta. Studies presented to Professor Julien Ries on the occassion of his seventieth birthday. ed. by Alois van Tongerloo and Soren Giversen. Leuven. 1991, 333-339. SUNDERMANN W., »Zur frühen missionarischen Wirksamkeit Manis«, AOH 24 (1971), 79-125. SUNDERMANN W., »Weiteres zur frühen missionarischen Wirksamkeit Manis«, AOH 24 (1971), 371-379. SYLWAN V. “Woolen Textiles of the Lou-lan Peoples”. Sino-Swedish- Expedition 15 7 ii (1941). 127 pp. VAN TONGERLOO A., “Notes on the Iranian Elements in the Old Uigyr Mani- chean Texts” in Manichean Studies. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Manichaeism. Lund-Plus Ultra 1988 (ed. Peter Bryder), 213-221. VAN TONGERLOO A., “Light, more Light” in Manichaica Selecta. Studies presented to Professor Julien Ries on the occassion of his seventieth birthday. ed. by Alois van Tongerloo and Soren Giversen. Leuven. 1991, 371-379. VAN TONGERLOO A. & SOREN GIVERSEN (ed.), Manichaica Selecta. Studies presented to Professor Julien Ries on the occassion of his seventieth birthday. Leuven. 1991 WANG KUO-WEI. Kuan-t’ang chi-lin. 1959. YAMAZAKI GEN’ICHI, “The Legend of the Foundation of Khotan” in MRDTB 48 (1990), 55-81. ZHANG G. AND RONG X., “The dating of some Khotanese-Chinese texts discovered in Khotan and related problems”, Toyo Gakuho 69 (1,2), 1988, 59-99. ZIEME P., »Uigurische Steuerbefreiungsurkunden für Buddhistische Klöster«. Altorientalsche Forschungen VIII (1981), 237-263.

Koetsweg 162 L. TALPE B-3010 Leuven