Is There a “Nationality of the Hephtalites”?
ÉTIENNE DE LA VAISSIÈRE
1. Interpretation of the The Jushi theory is found in the Liangshu. The Dynastic Histories Liang (502–557) were a Southern Dynasty, but they were in continuous contact with Central In 1959, Enoki Kazuo published his groundbreak- Asia through Qinghai. The beginning of the text ing article “On the Nationality of the Ephtalites” is: in the Memoirs of the Research Department of the Toyo Bunko.1 Since then it has been regarded The country of Hua is another branch of Jushi (Turfan). as the basic study of the ethnic affiliation of the In the 1st year of Yongjian (126 A.D.) of the Han, a Jushi named Bahua, who under (the Chinese general) Hephtalites. According to Enoki, this tribe was Ban Yong had rendered distinguished services in con- a local one whose origin was the western Hima- quering the Northern savages (i.e. the Xiongnu), was layan Mountains. This idea is based on geography promoted to Hou-bu Qin-han-hou (or Marquis of Pos- and on some Iranian names attested among them terior Jushi, who is friendly to the Han) by arrange- but also on the fact that the Chinese sources de- ment of Ban Yong.3 scribed polyandry as one of the Hephtalite cus- toms. Polyandry, well known on the Western Enoki correctly rejected the commentary link- Tibetan plateau and quite unusual elsewhere, ing the Hephtalites with a Jushi general as a was used by Enoki as the cornerstone of his dem- learned gloss. But did the author of the commen- onstration of the local origin of the Hephtalites tary deduce that the inhabitants of the country of (pp. 51–55). Hua were Jushi from the ethnic identity of Ba What Enoki could not have foreseen is the dis- Hua only, or was “Jushi” a data with which he covery in the Rob archive of a polyandric mar- had to deal? Enoki answered this question in riage contract antedating the first mention of the another article, published in 1970. From the bi- Hephtalites in Bactria by a century.2 As usual in ography of Pei Ziye !"# (471–532), it seems in- the Chinese descriptions of the Western world, deed clear that the only information the Liang their authors simply mixed together customs of court had was the name of Hua, so that the Jushi the various components of the Bactrian society theory is devoid of any basis: “During this period, and gave them the name of the leading tribe, that there were beyond the Northwestern frontiers of the Hephtalites. Polyandry was a genuine Bac- the states of Boti and Hua, who sent envoys trian custom, not a Hephtalite one. While logical through the mountain road of the Min (river, in half a century ago, Enoki’s hypothesis can no Sichuan) to offer tribute. These two states had longer be regarded as demonstrated. It is time to not been guests of the successive dynasties, their return to the Chinese texts, our main sources. origin was unknown” $%&'Ϗ)*+Ř-. Enoki proceeded in his article by following the /1234Ǚΰ78:ƿ/<=>?@AB various origins of the Hepthalites that can be Ȯ . Then Pei Ziye continues with his erudite found in the Chinese sources: first the Jushi, an explanation of both names, and the emperor or- ancient tribe located to the north of Turfan; then ders him to write an illustrated treaty on the for- the Da Yuezhi, the tribes that conquered Bactria eign countries, which is the source for chapter 54 in the second century b.c.; and finally the Gaoju, of the Liangshu.4 the Turkic tribe that conquered the Turfan region While this chapter gives a good deal of in- in the fifth century a.d. formation about the Hephtalites, it is strange
119 de la vaissière:Is There a “Nationality” of the Hephtalites? that the ambassadors were unable to provide any shows us that the Ephtalites originated in the about their origin. It might suggest that the pre- neighbourhood of Altai Mountain or anywhere cise origin of the Hephtalites was already some- to the north of the Tianshan Mountains. So far thing that was not clear in their own country in as we know for the moment, the Ephtalites had the first quarter of the sixth century, an idea that risen to power in Tokharistan where the Eph- is to be found in other Chinese texts, as we will talites continued to live even after the destruc- see. tion of their empire. This will show that the The second theory to be read in the Chinese origin of the Ephtalites should be looked for in, texts, that they are of Da Yuezhi stock, seems at or in the neighbourhood of, Tokharistan” (p. 13). first glance to have a wider textual base than the It is obvious that there is a flaw in this argu- previous one but is in fact easier to dismiss. The ment. If Enoki assumed that the Hephtalites had Weishu chap. 102, p. 2278; Zhoushu chap. 50, always lived in Tokharistan, why did he try to ex- p. 918; Beishi chap. 97, pp. 3230–31; and Suishu plain the Chinese texts saying that they arrived chap. 83, p. 1854; all wrote that the Hephtalites in Tokharistan? To say that there are no archae- ( D Yada in the Weishu, the Zhoushu, and the ological remains of the Hephtalites in the Altai Beishi, EF Yida in the Suishu) “are a branch of is not convincing, as there has been no archaeo- the Da Yuezhi” (GHIJKLM). logical research on this period in the Altai, while However, it has long been known that all identified Hephtalite remains, even in Bactri- these texts copy each other. The original text of ana, are also almost nonexistent. Also, to say the Weishu, the basis of this textual tradition, that there is no textual evidence is not convinc- is lost. The chapter of the Weishu in question ing either, given the fact that the only texts that was reconstructed according to the Beishi. Enoki deal with northern Central Asia at that time are inserted very useful line-by-line comparisons of Chinese. these texts (pp. 7–10) and demonstrated, after Enoki’s argument is flawed because these Chi- Hermann and Funaki, that some parts of the nese texts are not analyzed for themselves but present chapter of the Beishi and Weishu are only as an introduction to the geographic and copied from the Zhoushu and Suishu. In par- ethnographic rationale with which Enoki tried to ticular, the description of the Hephtalites as a prove the western Himalayan origin of the Heph- branch of the Da Yuezhi is convincingly inter- talites. He had to discard the text of the Weishu preted by him as meaning only that in the sixth to clear the ground for his geographic and ethno- century they occupied the former territory of the graphic comparisons, and obviously he failed in Da Yuezhi, that is, Bactriana and Tokharistan this regard. Basically, Enoki does not explain why (p. 11). a text placed the origin of the Hephtalites in the But the Beishi, or Weishu, also states that “it Altai. If he had good reasons to reject the Jushi is also said that they are a branch of the Gaoju. and Da Yuezhi theories, he had none for rejecting They originated from the north of the Chinese the original Weishu, which situated the Heph- frontier and came down south from the Jinshan talites there. mountain” D/[ÿ]QRSTJUKVWȮXY The consequence of this is that not only the 'Z[Ǚ\] . The Gaoju were a nomadic tribe ethnographic section of his article should be cor- that lived to the west of Mongolia, between rected but also the textual one, as all his reason- Turfan and the Jinshan, that is, the Altai. This is ing was biased. the third point of Enoki’s demonstration. He agreed that this part of the Beishi must have been in the original Weishu as it is not in 2. The Tongdian the Zhoushu and Suishu (p. 12). But he neverthe- less dismissed the Gaoju theory as well: “It is not The Tongdian ų_, published at the beginning clear why the Ephtalites were identified with a of the ninth century, can also be a source for the branch of the Gaoju, while it is recognized that history of the Hephtalites. Regarding the West- the language of the Ephtalites was different from ern Regions, the Tongdian juxtaposed or sum- that of Rouran, Gaoju and other tribes of Cen- marized texts taken from the various dynastic tral Asia (according to the Beishi). There is no histories, so that in it there are three texts con- evidence, both literal and archaeological which cerning the Hephtalites: one on the country of
120 de la vaissière:Is There a “Nationality” of the Hephtalites?
Hua, taken from the Liangshu; one on Yada coun- the original Weishu, as a Wencheng (452–466) try, from the Weishu; and one on Yidatong, from was a Wei emperor. Moreover, it is known that a the Suishu.5 On the whole, these texts add very great part of the Wei knowledge of Central Asia few facts to the parallel passages in the dynastic comes from the Hephtalite embassy that arrived histories. But the Tongdian was written before in 456. This is demonstrated by Enoki, who the disappearance of the original Weishu and pre- wrote: “here the time of the emperor Wencheng serves or summarizes the lost original text, which means 456, when the Ephtalites sent the first em- was still extant at the beginning of the ninth bassy to the Wei.” But, curiously, he added: “But century. This is clearly demonstrated by the fact the authority on which this chronology was that here and there the Tongdian directly quotes based is not known,” and he concluded, after dis- the Weishu, as “The Weishu said . . .”6 cussing the textual variants on the name of the The relationship between the various chapters emperor:8 “According to Syriac sources, the date on the Yada country is then: of the Ephtalites can not go back earlier than 460” (p. 2, n. 3). But obviously it is most probable original Weishu (+ Zhoushu + Suishu) § Beishi that the information on the date of the migration § reconstructed Weishu came from the ambassadors themselves, while summarized in the Tongdian. the Syriac sources gave only the date of their ac- cess to political power. There is no good reason Enoki recognized that some parts of the text of to dismiss this date. the current Beishi, which are not in the Zhoushu Moreover, the Wei were certainly the Chinese or in the Suishu, must have come from the or- dynasty that best knew the Western countries, as iginal Weishu (p. 12). Regarding the text of the they sent some envoys to the West and received Tongdian, it is possible to demonstrate this hy- several embassies.9 But the embassy of 456 was pothesis: most of these precise parts of the Beishi the earliest contact between the Hephtalites and are also in the Tongdian, while the few facts that China, and is separated from the next one by half are in the Beishi and not in the parallel passage a century. The data in the Weishu derived from of the Tongdian are summarized in it, or can be this embassy are logically the most reliable read in other parts of the Tongdian. All of them found in the Chinese dynastic histories. Accord- are dated from the Wei dynasty and can be as- ing to these data, gathered from the Hephtalites sumed to have been in the original Weishu. and early enough to be regarded as a reliable ac- That is especially the case regarding the Gaoju count of their origin, the Hephtalites had mi- 7 theory. The beginning of the text is: grated from the Altai to the south in the middle of the fourth century and were of the same stock Yada country, Yidatong: Yada country is said to either as the Gaoju. We do not have the slightest reason be a division of the Gaoju or of Da Yuezhi stock. They to doubt this description from a sinological point originated from the north of the Chinese frontier and of view. came down south from the Jinshan mountain. They are located to the west of Khotan. To Chang’an, to the The link established by the original Weishu be- east, there are 10,100 li. To the reign of Wen(cheng) of tween the Hephtalites and the Gaoju may mean the Late Wei (452–466), eighty or ninety years have that the Hephtalites were a Turkish tribe and, elapsed. more precisely, an Oghuric one, as the Gaoju are regarded as inheritors of the old Tiele confeder- Enoki was aware of the presence of some data ation supposed to be the origin of the various in the Tongdian only. If he did not bring up the Oghuric tribes.10 But I would argue parodoxically fact that the Gaoju theory was mentioned there that in this description, the main point is cer- first (so that it can be assumed that it was also the tainly not the ethnic affiliation, but the date. case in the original Weishu, a fact which would have weakened his own theory) he did comment upon the date, but in a surprising manner. 3. Bactrian Hephtalites The Tongdian is the only text in the Chinese sources that gives a date of the migration of these In a recently published article I attempted to nomadic tribes from the Altai to the south, be- analyze the events in the Altai in the middle of tween 360 and 370. Clearly this date comes from the fourth century. I demonstrated that the great
121 de la vaissière:Is There a “Nationality” of the Hephtalites?
Hunnic migrations that reached the Volga at that from the first half of the sixth century when time originated in the Altai and that these Huns Song Yun and several embassies gathered most were the political, and partly cultural, heirs of of the data, while the only data from 456 are the Xiongnu.11 But we also know that part of concentrated at the beginning of the text, where these migrations reached Central Asia and that Wencheng is mentioned. An evolution had taken the Hephtalites were among the tribes that ar- place, and I understand it to mean that the Heph- rived then, at least if we are to believe the date talites had ceased to retain their original Altaic provided by the Tongdian. They were one of language and adopted Bactrian.13 the various tribes loosely united under the old —the Liangshu and the Liang Zhigongtu, based Xiongnu political and cultural leadership. In on data gathered in the 520s, bridged the gap con- other words, the Hephtalites were in Bactria a cerning the origin of the Hephtalites with a century before gaining control there, and were learned gloss. The Liangshu adds also that “they under the leadership of others. The last nomadic were without a written language and kept records dynasty did not arrive in Bactria later than the by notching wood; [but from] the exchange of am- other ones but was there from the beginning of bassadors with the neighbouring countries they the nomadic period. This probably means that came to employ a Hu alphabet, using sheepskin all the nomadic kingdoms that flourished in Bac- for paper” and that the people of Henan, that is tria between the middle of the fourth century here the Tuyuhun, a proto-Mongolic people in the and the middle of the sixth century can trace Qinghai region, acted as translators for them. It their origin back to a single episode of massive has been understood as an indication of the proto- migration in the second half of the fourth cen- Mongol character of the Hephtalite language. tury (circa 350–370), and not to a whole set of However, the Liang dynasty was mainly linked successive migrations. The Sasanians did not with Central Asia through the Qinghai region, fight against successive waves of nomads freshly and as the main go-betweens in that region it is emerged from the northern steppe but against quite natural that the Tuyuhun acted as transla- successive leading tribes or clans within the no- tors, and that they translated from Bactrian, ex- madic world established in northern Bactria.12 plicitly mentioned in this text. The date provided by the Tongdian implies a new —the Zhoushu, from data of the third quarter reconstruction of the events in Central Asia. of the sixth century, says nothing about their ori- Moreover, these leading tribes are better de- gin, except that they are Da Yuezhi. scribed in political terms than in ethnic or lin- —the Suishu says only that they are Da Yuezhi. guistic ones. This is quite clear regarding the —the Tongdian, written at the beginning of the Hephtalites. If during one century the Hephta- ninth century, adds to the text of the Suishu a lites, already united or not, were among the nu- commentary of Wei Jie, the envoy of the Sui dy- merous tribes living as nomads on the pasture nasty to the Western countries between 605 and grounds of the mountains, and were not at the 616, according to which “I had a personal talk apex of the political hierarchy, the possibility with some Ephtalites and knew that they also that they partially or totally lost their language called themselves Yitian. In the Hanshu it is and their ethnic identity in a new environment stated that the viceroy of Kangju, named Yitian, should be taken into account. This idea can be plundered provisions and arms under Zhen Tang demonstrated from the succession of the Chinese who marched against Shishi (Shanyu). This may sources. If each of them gives a static view, it is mean that they are descendants of Kangju. How- worth considering them chronologically. ever, the information has come from remote countries and foreign languages are subject to —the oldest source, which is preserved in the corruption and misunderstanding and, moreover, Tongdian and goes back to the embassy of 456, is it concerns the matter of very ancient time. So we able to record quite a precise origin, as I have do not know what is certain. (In this way) it is im- demonstrated. possible to decide (the origin of the Ephtalites).”14 —the Beishi and the Tongdian state that “their speech is different from that of the Rouran, the That these Chinese texts, however imprecise, Gaoju and all the other hu,” while a few lines be- could support the hypothesis deduced from the fore this state that the Hephtalites are a branch Hephtalite onomastic in Tokharistan, in which of the Gaoju. This part of the text is certainly at least some names, for instance Akhshunwar,
122 de la vaissière:Is There a “Nationality” of the Hephtalites? one of the earliest Hephtalite kings, are clearly To a Sogdian ambassador, after the conquest of Iranian, was recognized by Henning. This does not the Hephtalite empire by the Turks, the emperor mean that they were Iranian from the beginning, asked: “‘You have, therefore, made all the power as Enoki tried to prove, but only that the pace of of the Ephthalites subject to you?’ ‘Completely,’ assimilation for a tribe or a clan not at the height replied the envoys. The Emperor then asked, ‘Do of the political hierarchy was swift after one cen- the Ephthalites live in cities or villages?’ The tury in Bactria. The Chinese texts are not contra- envoys: ‘My Lord, that people lives in cities.’ dictory or devoid of value—the various Chinese ‘Then,’ said the Emperor, ‘it is clear that you have courts were in constant contact with the Heph- become master of these cities.’ ‘Indeed,’ said the talites during the sixth century—but they reflect envoys.”17 the fact that in the Hephtalite empire itself, the These Byzantine descriptions contrast directly old ethnic origin was an intricate or perhaps even with that of Song Yun, who met the Hephtalite meaningless question, while, linguistically speak- emperor as he was nomadizing in the moun- ing, an evolution had already taken place when tains in 519. The Beishi, from the testimony of the Hephtalites came to power and was still go- Song Yun and other contemporary embassies, ing on during the period recorded by the Chinese states that: “Without cities and towns, they fol- sources. The Hephtalites went Bactrian. low water and grass, using felt to make tents, We can go beyond linguistic assimilation. The moving to the cold places in summer, to the other sources we have on the Hephtalites, the warm ones in winter. [The king?] separates his Byzantine sources, do confirm that an assim- various wives, each one in a separate place, apart ilation regarding their way of life took place, from one another at a distance perhaps of 200 or although later than the ethnic/linguistic assim- 300 li. Their king travels around and changes ilation. Procopius wrote, from information of the places every month, but in the cold of winter 530s or 540s:15 stays three months without moving.” But in the Zhoushu, using later mid-sixth-century data, we The Ephtalitae are of the stock of the Huns in fact as read: “Its king has his capital in the walled city well as in name; however they do not mingle with any of Badiyan, which means something like ‘the 18 of the Huns known to us, for they occupy a land nei- walled city in which the king resides’” and is ther adjoining nor even very near to them; but their in agreement with the Byzantine sources. The territory lies immediately to the north of Persia; in- evolution of the Hepthalites’ way of life seems deed their city, called Gorgo, is located over against the also quite clear, although it took place later. Persian frontier, and is consequently the centre of fre- On the whole, I suggest using the contempo- quent contests concerning boundary lines between the rary and parallel evidence from Tuoba-dominated two peoples. For they are not nomads like the other China as a model for understanding the situation Hunnic peoples, but for a long period have been estab- in northern Bactria. The Tuoba Northern Wei lished in a goodly land. As a result of this they have dynasty split in the sixth century, among other never made any incursion into the Roman territory except in company of the Median army. They are the reasons due to the question of their relationship only ones among the Huns who have white bodies and to the sedentary past, here Chinese. The Qi were countenances which are not ugly. It is also true that more in favor of sinization than the Zhou, who at their manner of living is unlike that of their kinsmen, least ostensibly clung to the Xianbei past.19 Al- nor do they live a savage life as they do; but they are though the context is different, it is beyond doubt ruled by one king, and since they possess a lawful con- that the question of assimilation was a major stitution, they observe right and justice in their deal- one for the tribes in Bactria. In this regard, the ings both with one another and with their neighbours, main difference between the Hephtalites and the 16 in no degree less than the Romans and the Persians. others, either Kidarites or Chionites, is their re- nunciation of the title of Kushanshah, which The accent is clearly put on the difference be- implies a different relationship to the sedentary tween the Hephtalites and pure nomads. Assim- Bactrian past.20 The Hephtalites, like the Zhou ilation with the sedentary population probably in China, chose at the beginning of their political was the major problem in the Hephtalite king- history not to present themselves as the inheri- dom. Another source, Menander, confirms slightly tors of the past glory of the Kushan empire, and later that the Hephtalites at the end of their em- are described by Song Yun in 519, and in all the pire were regarded as a mainly urban population. other sources, as clinging to their nomadic way
123 de la vaissière:Is There a “Nationality” of the Hephtalites? of life up to the first quarter of the sixth century. the Jinshan mountain. They are located to the On the other hand, their Kidarite predecessors, west of Khotan. To Chang’an, to the east, there who seem to be the first creators of the new ur- are 10,100 li. To the reign of Wen(cheng) of the ban network in mid-fifth-century Central Asia, Late Wei (452–466), eighty or ninety years have had chosen a Kushan titulature that might be in elapsed. Their clothing is similar to that worn by agreement with this urban policy. other Hu barbarians, [but] with the addition of tassels. They all cut their hair. Their speech is I have shown that the Chinese texts were not different from that of the Ruanruan, the Gaoju, so garbled on the origin of the Hephtalites as and all the other Hu. Their troops number per- Enoki has tried to show in a biased demonstra- haps 100,000 men. They wander in search of tion. The Tongdian preserves some data from the water and grass. Their country is without the first Hephtalite embassy to China. The Heph- She but has the Yu,21 and has many camels and talites might have been Oghuric, and certainly horses. They apply punishments harshly and came from the Altai. But the very fact that they promptly; regardless of how much or how little are listed among the great migration of people a robber has taken, his body is severed to the who arrived in Central Asia in the second half of waist, and even though only one has robbed, ten the fourth century combined with their subject may be condemned. When a person dies, wealthy status there makes it impossible to speak with families pile up stones to make a [burial] vault, precise meaning of a nationality of the Heph- while the poor ones simply dig a hole in the talites. They were, as all the tribal groupings of ground and bury [the corpse]. All of the de- that period, an intricate mixture of political and ceased’s personal effects are placed in the tomb. clan relationships, not mainly an ethnic or lin- Brothers, again, all together marry a wife. If there guistic entity. They might have been Oghuric at are no brothers, the wife wears a cap with one the beginning, but such also might have been the horn; if there are brothers, then she adds horns case of the Chionites and the Kidarites, and all according to their number. Kangju, Yutian, Sule, of them made use of the old imperial name of Anxi and over thirty of the small countries of Hun. All of them went Bactrian. But while the the Western Regions have all been subjugated Kidarite dynasty seems to have played the card of by them. They are reputed to be a large country. the local Kushan past, the Hephtalites differenti- They often sent envoys bearing tribute. In the ated themselves and perhaps even defeated the Xiping reign period of Xiao Ming Di, Fu Zitong Kidarites on this very question of the nomadic and Song Yun were sent as ambassadors to the past and way of life. They accepted the sedentary Western Regions but were not able to learn way of life very late in their history and probably much of the history or geography of the coun- not completely. We have no data to differentiate tries they traversed. We will nonetheless give a all these various dynasties on a linguistic or eth- rough outline.22 nic basis. We do have some to differentiate them on a political one. The ethnic question is cer- Chinese Text tainly not of great help for understanding the his- tory of the Hephtalites and the sources regarding DEFʊ them. D/abSTJUKabGHIJKLV dȮXY'Z[Ǚ\]ʖfgJ&hȸjʥ Ƹ͗Ƹnopqşst%ǝvƽǃyz{| Annex 1. The Chinese Texts L}~Ȥ; VST- }ʊȹǃ͗0V/T* A) The Tongdian ʜʄNjȽʜͯȽƸ Ŭǃ¡¢ǁ¤¥¦§¨Ű¢ªʕ\¬0 Translation ®¯°±Džȩ´ʀ¶Ƹτȩ´¢τ ¸Ƹ¹LJ¼*ȩ´¢VʜJ½¾~LJ¹ Yada country, Yidatong: Yada country is said to ¿&À¤Âfg͎ÄʥÅ-ǖ/džǃÈ either be a division of the Gaojgu or of Da Yue- BÉÊJ˧G/͋12Í8ÎÏtÐ zhi stock. They originated from the north of ÑÒ1Ó"ÔÕÖ2&ÀBͣ/ØAV 23 the Chinese frontier and came down south from ÙÚ-Ǚǚo½ÜÝVÞb
124 de la vaissière:Is There a “Nationality” of the Hephtalites?
B) The Liangshu customs and those of Tujue are nearly the same. It is their custom that brothers share a wife in Translation common. If a man is without brothers his wife wears a hat with one horn, if he has brothers, The country of Hua is another branch of Jushi there are as many horns as he has brothers. They (Turfan). In the 1st year of Yongjian (a.d. 126) of have fringes on their garments. They all cut their the Han, a Jushi named Bahua, who under (the hair. Their tongue is different from the tongues Chinese general) Ban Yong had rendered distin- of the Ruanruan, the Gaoju, and the various Hu. guished services in conquering the Northern sav- Their total number can be estimated to be ten ages (i.e., the Xiongnu), was promoted to Hou-bu miriads. Without cities and towns, they follow Qin-han-hou (or Marquis of Posterior Jushi, who water and grass, using felt to make tents, mov- is friendly to the Han) by arrangement of Ban ing to the cold places in summer, to the warm Yong. Since the Wei and Jin, no envoy came ones in winter. [The king?] separates his vari- (from the country of Hua) to China [. . .]. While ous wives, each one in a separate place, apart the Yuan Wei (or the Tuoba Wei) had their capi- from one another at a distance perhaps of 200 or tal at Sanggan (i.e., 398–494 when the capital 300 li. Their king travels around and changes was situated at Pingcheng to the north of the places every month, but in the cold of winter present Datong), the Hua was still a small sub- stays three months without moving. The throne ject community under the Ruirui; but, waxing is not always passed on to the [elder] son, the more and more powerful in the course of time, [other] sons and younger brothers might also be they succeeded in conquering the tribes in the appointed, if they are able, when the king dies. neighbourhood such as Bosi (Sasanid Persia), They do not have the She but have the Yu. They Panpan (Warwâlîz?)24 Jibin (Kashmir), Yanqi (Ka- have many camels and horses. Corporal punish- rashar), Guizi (Kucha), Shule (Kashgar), Gumo ments are severe and quick, regardless of the (Aksu), Yudian (Khotan) and Juban (Karghalik), importance of the theft; the thief is severed to and expanded their territory by more than a 25 the waist, and if one steals, ten are punished. thousand li.” As regards the dead, if rich, a chamber made of stones is constructed; if poor, the earth is dug Chinese text and he is buried in the ground. All their belong- ./¢TßJUKMàáâãyv.«åæ ings are put in the tomb. They are violent and ç'è*éæljv.§qëàìZşíȤ fierce men, able to fight at war. Among the West- îųÒ/[ÿ]ãşJÂïðM.ȩ§ǖ/Ê ern countries, they control Kangju, Yutian, Shale, òòqɃôGõVö/÷øùùú?¿ and Anxi as well as more than thirty small coun- ûJýþÄψ!fgɃù#/$ʕǐ tries. They claim to be a great country. They have marital ties with the Ruanruan. From the Taian Èo period onward, they frequently dispatched en- voys to pay tribute. At the end of the period C) The Beishi Zhengguang, an envoy, offered a lion as tribute. He went up to Gaoping,26 where he met Moqi Chounu,27 so that he had to stay. Once Chounu Translation was defeated, he brought the lion to the capital. Country of the Yada. A kind of Da Yuezhi, they From the period Yongxi on, they stopped bring- are also said to be a division of the Gaoju. They ing tribute. The 12th year Datong, they dis- originated from the north of the Chinese frontier patched an envoy who brought native products. and came down south from the Jinshan moun- The second year of Feidi, the second year of tain. They are located to the west of Khotan. Mingdi of the Zhou dynasty, they also sent an Their capital is 200 li or more to the south of the envoy with tribute. Later they were smashed by river Wuhu. To Chang’an, there are 10,100 li. the Tujue. The tribes declined and dispersed, The capital of their king is the town of Badiyan, they stopped bringing tribute. In the Daye period which probably [means] the residence of the of the Sui, again they dispatched an envoy who king. Its city wall is ten square li or more. There brought native products. To the south, there are are many pagodas, all decorated with gold. Their 1,500 li to the kingdom of Cao, to the east, there
125 de la vaissière:Is There a “Nationality” of the Hephtalites? are 6,500 li to Guazhou. Before, during the period Chang’an. Its king has his capital in the walled Xiping, Mingdi sent as an envoy to the Western city of Badiyan, which means something like countries Sheng Fuzi, who ordered Song Yun, the “the walled city in which the king resides.” This monk Fali, and others to collect Buddhist sutra. walled city is some ten li square. Its penal laws There was then also the monk Hui Sheng, and and customs are about the same as those of Tu- they went all together. They came back during jue. They also have a custom by which elder the period Zhengguang, but Hui Sheng could not and younger brother both marry one wife. If one learn the history, or [the names of the] moun- has no elder or younger brother, his wife wears a tains or rivers, or the distances in li of the coun- one-horned hat. If one has brothers, horns are tries he passed through. We have just given a added to the hat according to their number. Its rough outline.28 people are fierce and violent, and make mighty warriors. Yutian, Anxi, and other countries, large Chinese text. I have differentiated phrases pre- and small, altogether more than twenty, are all sumably from the original Weishu in bold text, subject to it. In the twelfth year of the period from passages from the Zhoushu, underlined, Datong (546), it sent an envoy who presented its and from the Suishu, in italics. Some are in both characteristic products. In the second year of the the Zhoushu and the Suishu, and some are com- reign of Wei Feidi (553), and in the second year mon to all. of the reign of (Zhou) Mingdi (558), it also sent envoys, who came with tribute. Later, it was D/!"#$%&'()*+$,%-. smashed by the Tujue. Its settlement were scat- Ȯ01234Ǚ67ʖfgJ&&'ď] tered and its tribute stopped.29 ƿnÈoȸjʥƸ͗ƸnoV)&*+,- .)/-MV-0ǃoÈʜʦ23Ȥ[ Chinese text 4567ÞʊV5ȩ´ʀƸτ8ȩ´¢τ ¸Ƹ¹LJ¼*ȩ´¢VʜJ½¾~¹¿ D/GH0JKLʖfgJ&hȸjʥƸ 89&:Ȥ<=;?@A-BCDD*+F ͗noV)1*+,-.)/-MV-0ǃ GHIʊ ȹǃ͗NOPQ0STȤUV Èoʄ24567ÞʊV5Džȩ´ʀ¶ WXYôǓȬŸ̊Ŗ`-Gτʏʖ,d Ƹτ8ȩ´¢Vτ¸Ƹ¹LJ¼*ȩ´¢ eȸgƿidžik-lmn6o͋"ƸŖ VʜJ½¾~LJ¹¿Vǀ3;Ø< Ȭǀ$sdž"IªluIvwxxyz{ fgʥÅ#GǖƿǃÈ/ÉÊJGÔǃƿ |}~$-N+ʜ ʄNj y12=V0®ş>tƿyÏtƿy!1 ȽNʜ?ͯȽƸŬǃ|{ǁV 2î=q§67B"#$%&8α( Ű{ʕ60G?Vǀ: ;Ø <¤ ¡¢͎¤ʥ¦FGǖ džǃ¨?©ª$«V!CDD3® E) The Suishu
ʥȤ¯͋°±²³´µ¶°³·xƸ¸* ¹ºα¼½¾¿ÀÁ$½¾¹AÃ·Ä Translation: ÅȤ¯²ÆαÈpGÔǃƿy12=V0 The country of Yida has its capital 200 li or more ®>tƿyζÏtƿy!12î=q§6 to the south of the river Wuhu. The people are of 7B"#$%&8α(p)G*ÒDž1 Greater Yuezhi stock. They have an army of five 2Í80®V/ȸ+/ǐ,nohȸ-./ǐ to six thousand men. They are reputed to be good ,noÉŹÊËÌ°ÍÎxÏÐÑ͎Ò warriors. Formerly the country became disor- ÓÔÕ±Ŧ͌Øͣs͎ÒÚÛ{(C dered, and the Turks sent Tong Shad Zijie, who Üo´µÊÝÚÛdͣGIÞß-චforcibly took possession of this country. The FǙǚkâãä-åæ capital walled city is 10 square li or more. There are many pagodas, all decorated with gold. Broth- D) The Zhoushu ers share a wife in common. If a woman is mar- ried with only one man, she wears a hat with one horn, if he has brothers, there are as many Translation: horns as he has brothers. To the south, there The country of Yada is of Greater Yuezhi stock. are 1,500 li to the kingdom of Cao, to the east, It is west of Yutian, and 10,100 li west of there are 6,500 li to Guazhou. In the Daye pe-
126 de la vaissière:Is There a “Nationality” of the Hephtalites?
Song copy of the Liang Zhigongtu ?&8@: left fragment.
Song copy of the Liang Zhigongtu ?&8@ : right fragment.
riod, they dispatched an envoy who brought na- to the Liang from various tributary countries, tive products. with images of them (twelve out of thirty-five are extant).30 Chinese text Ambassadors from the Western countries or from the sea are depicted: from left to right, from EF/&'ď]ƿnÈoGHIJKLM Marw (Mo Ú ), Balkh (Boti +Ř ), Kumedh (Humi- 45¢,/ǐǀ56<7%/8671ų9 dan }AB ), Qubadiyan (Hebatan CDE ), Kar- ʠ;ô
127 de la vaissière:Is There a “Nationality” of the Hephtalites? country and under the rule of the Ruirui. In the 520, the date of the embassies of Hua recorded in Qi period (479–502), they left (their original the Liang Zhigongtu, many of the towns or small area) for the first time and shifted to Moxian, regions that sent embassies to the Liang were where they settled” Nè7Âïð.§ǖ/OÊ within the Hephtalite empire. The embassies of òòP%QR@=\ . Kumedh, Qubadiyan, and Karghalik were all sent With this new indication, and after correcting in 520 with the embassy of Hua, while Balkh sent Moxian @= to Moyou @S (*mâkshu), seen as a its embassy in 522. It is clear that the Hephtalites transcription of Wakhshu, Enoki proposed that, permitted independent embassies from the main having deduced from the name of Ba Hua that towns of their empire so that the fact that there the Hephtalites were Jushi, Pei Ziye logically were embassies of Samarkand up to 509 is not in thought: (1) that they were under the rule of the itself a proof of a late conquest of Sogdiana, while Ruirui as the whole area north of Turfan was un- the end of the embassies of the kingdom of Sog- der their rule in the second half of the fifth cen- diana in 479 might indeed mean more.34 tury; (2) that the reason for the presence of Hua Moreover the text gives the Qi period as the in Tokharistan and not to the north of Turfan moment of the shift to Moxian, but the Qi period was that when the Ruirui were expelled from began in 479 precisely, and the coincidence there in 485 (hence the mention of the Qi period would be perfect between the end of the embas- from 479 to 502) by the Gaoju, the Hua moved to sies from Sogdiana and the movement to Moxian. Tokharistan, perhaps to escape the turmoil. In The last character, Â, means to settle but also to other words the whole set of political data from occupy, so that the whole sentence might be the Liangshu and the Liang Zhigongtu would translated “in the Qi period they began to go to have been only an ad hoc explanation of Pei Ziye Moxian and occupied it.” From then on, Sogdi- to bridge the gap between his own explanation of ana would have been the wealthiest part of their the country of Hua as being to the north of Turfan empire. and the location of Hua in Tokharistan. It is strange that among all the conquests of the Although Enoki’s argument is quite logical, es- Hephtalites, the Liangshu failed to mention only pecially in his first part, I am not so sure that the Sogdiana, then certainly conquered, while men- part of the text dealing with Moxian is only a tioning all the other conquests (“they succeeded mere learned gloss, and I would like to propose in conquering the tribes in the neighbourhood another hypothesis, the weakness of which I am such as Bosi [Sasanid Persia], Panpan [Warwâlîz?], fully aware. Jibin [Kashmir], Yanqi [Karashar], Guizi [Kucha], As a matter of fact, Moxian is a real name, Shule [Kashgar], Gumo [Aksu], Yudian [Khotan], unknown from other sources, and it crept into and Juban [Karghalik], and expanded their terri- this precise part of the text, which might mean tory by more than a thousand li.”) The parallel that some part of these data might have come text in the Weishu does mention the conquest of from the ambassadors themselves. Furthermore, Sogdiana. It is known that a Hephtalite king bore Enoki corrected the name, but if left uncorrected, a Sogdian title as early as the 480s, which is dif- Moxian (EMC mâk-xIanh, Karlgren mâk-cïÅn’ ficult to explain if Sogdiana was not within the might be a truncated transcription of (Sa)mar- empire.35 Sogdiana would have been conquered kand, Greek Marakanda, as Enoki himself first first, before the war with Persia, and not last, as proposed.32 usually believed, and this idea would have con- It is not known precisely when Sogdiana was sequences for our understanding of the Sogdian conquered by the Hephtalites. I have in my Sog- economic and urban growth: I have proposed that dian Traders followed Kuwayama and under- the Kidarites, who invaded Sogdiana from Bactria stood the end of the embassies from Samarkand sometimes around 440, could have been held re- to the Northern Wei in 509 as a hint to the date sponsible for both of them. But with the Heph- of the Hephtalite conquest of Sogdiana.33 But the talite conquest of Sogdiana pushed backwards by last embassies of Sogdiana to the Wei are dated thirty years, the Hephtalites might have quickly precisely to 479, and Enoki understood the dis- superseded the Kidarites36 and have pursued the appearance of the name of Sogdiana in the Wei Kidarites’ efforts to construct a whole series of annals as the date of the Hephtalite conquest. He fortified Hippodamian towns, attested from Herat might be right: there is no question that in 516 or to Bukhara and Panjikent.37 The wealth of Peroz’
128 de la vaissière:Is There a “Nationality” of the Hephtalites? ransom might have been invested locally.38 In What would then be the Es- prefixed to it? Im- fact this hypothesis, while based on flimsy evi- mediately there comes to mind the common dence, would not contradict anything known of Turkic prefix Es-, meaning “comrade, companion the very obscure history of the Hephtalite empire of,”46 attested precisely during this period among in the second half of the fifth century, and would the Attilanic Huns (for instance Esqam ◊Escavm, help to explain in a neat and compact way the companion of the Shaman).47 EskiÙil would be a new distribution of wealth and power in western meaningful Hunnic name or title, companion of Central Asia after this period. the Sword (i.e., of Mars), and would be perfectly in accordance with what I have demonstrated to be the common political and ethnic past of the Annex 3 European and Central Asian Huns.
Khin% gila, EskiÙgil Notes
The name Khin%gila is known from various 1. Enoki 1959. As this article will be thoroughly sources, Indian, Chinese and Arabic, as well as quoted, in the text I will give only the reference to the on coins and inscriptions.39 It is now known pages. also on a Bactrian seal, recently published by 2. Sims-Williams 2000, 32–33. P. Callieri and N. Sims-Williams, at least if we 3. See the complete translation and Chinese text regard the eÂkiggilo to be read on this seal as a in Annex 1. variant of the same name.40 Sims-Williams cau- 4. Liangshu, chap. 30, p. 443; Enoki 1970, 39–41. tiously proposed an etymology through Indic— 5. Tongdian, 5258–60. 6. For instance in the Shiwei chapter, 5487. (Khin%gila *Kßin%gila [sanskritization] SkiÙil > > 7. See Annex 1 for a complete translation and the [metathesis] E ki il [prothesis]) but it is not > s Ù Chinese text. clear why this name, unattested in Indian ono- 8. Wencheng is the reading of the oldest manu- mastic, should be Indian. While various Khin%gila scripts. See n. 29 in Tongdian, 5284. are known in Indian history, all of them seem 9. Kuwayama 1989, 116–18. to be related to foreign dynasties of the North- 10. Golden 1992, 93–96. Outside of the sinological west, so that it would be more logical to regard data, two recent discoveries might confirm this idea: (1) Khin%gila as a foreign name. The problem is in a word is attested in the Hephtalite kingdom as swpano fact double: we have to find a suitable etymology and in proto-Bulgar as zoapan (Sims-Williams 2002, for Khin%gila and to explain the variant Eskingil. 234). This might mean a common Oghuric past. But As regards the first part of this problem, another we cannot be sure that it was not a Chionite or Kidar- possibility, first proposed to my knowledge by ite word or whatever tribe arrived with the Hephtalites in Central Asia. (2) A new Bactrian seal has been dis- X. Tremblay, would be interesting. Tremblay in- covered in Pakistan, but it was written at Samarkand, deed made the link between Khin%gila and an as this seal gives the titulature in Bactrian of a 5th-cen- 41 analysis by Pulleyblank of the name of the Sa- tury lord of Samarkand. It gives a title oglargo uonano cred sword worshipped by the Xiongnu, kenglu Âao king of the Oghlar Huns. Oghlar looks like a clan TU ( < *ke Ù –h fllax) compared by Pulleyblank and name, although an interpretation as Oghlar, king of others with Turkish qïÙïraq “double-blade knife,” the Huns, that is, as a personal name, can not be the Wakhi xiÙgar, and the Sogdian xngr.42 This excluded. This name is unknown from other sources, sword was worshipped among the Xiongnu in but it sounds very close to the eponymous name of the the same way as the Scythians and the Attilanic Oghuric tribes, Oghur, -lar being a plural suffix in Huns worshipped one.43 But kenglu was not only Turkish while Oghur being itself regarded as a form the name of a sword but also, at least among the based on Ogh- child, to be liked, and a denominative suffix -ur. Oghur is supposed to mean “the Kindred Xiongnu and Attilanic Huns, the name of a god 44 ones,” and so might be the meaning of Oghlar (Golden (kenglu shen), or perhaps the attribute of a god, 1992, 96. Differently in Rahman, Sims-Williams, and identified as the god of War, Mars, in Jordanes’s Grenet 2006, where Oghlar is understood as “the testimony about the “sword of Mars” given to princes, the sons.” Many thanks to Peter Golden, who Attila.45 Khin% %gila might have been a theophoric provided me with some help on this point). However, name. it is a Chionite or Kidarite seal, as the titulature on the
129 de la vaissière:Is There a “Nationality” of the Hephtalites? seal includes Kushanshah, a title that disappeared after Fuzhentong ¤\]ʊ sent in 520. It describes their cos- the Kidarites. For discussions of the ethnic background tumes and hairdos: Enoki 1970, 44. of the Hephtalites according to the vocabulary, see 32. Enoki 1970, 41. Tremblay 2001, 183–88, and Sims-Williams 2002, 233– 33. La Vaissière 2005, 110–11; Kuwayama 1989, 34. Tremblay could not have made use of the Bactrian 117–18; see also Grenet 2002, 211. documents, then still unpublished. 34. However, this would leave unexplained the end 11. La Vaissière 2005. of the embassies from Samarkand in 509. 12. See, for instance, Bivar’s article, and many 35. ˇabari I.874, transl. Bosworth 1999, 113, gives others, on the Hephtalites in the Encyclopaedia Iran- the name of the Hephtalite king who defeated Peroz ica: “It is therefore assumed that the Hephthalites in 484 as Akhshunwar, which can be Sogdian constituted a second Hunnish wave who entered Bac- ªxsªwndªr “power-holder” (Henning 1936, 17). tria early in the fifth century c.e., and who seem to 36. Peroz defeated them in 468 (Priscus, transl. have driven the Kidarites into Gandhara.” The idea of Blockley, 361). waves is to be found in all the historiography. 37. Grenet 1996, 372–83. 13. In itself, the sentence is quite hard to under- 38. Grenet 1996, 388, already suggested this idea, stand, because “all the other hu” can include all the but did not see that it contradicts his idea of a Heph- populations of nomadic and sedentary Central Asia, talite conquest of Sogdiana in 509. including Bactrian. But the contrast with the oldest 39. Petech 1964; Kuwayama 1999; Callieri 2002, part of the text is quite clear. 129. 14. Transl. Enoki 1959, 6–7. 40. Callieri 2002; Sims-Williams 2002b. 15. He was with Belisarius in his wars against the 41. Pulleyblank 1962, 222. Akinakès is sometimes Persians from 527 on, and he wrote the History of the added to this family of names. Wars between 540 and 550. If he also gives information 42. Tremblay 1999, 182–84. from an earlier period, it seems nevertheless that the 43. See Maenchen-Helfen 1973, 278–80. description is that of an eyewitness and that his tes- 44. Kao 1960, 222–23. timony on the Hephtalites can be dated from 527 on. 45. Maenchen-Helfen 1973, 279. 16. Procopius I.iii.2–8 (transl. Dewing), vol. 1, 13–15. 46. Clauson 1972, 253–54. 17. Menander (ed. and transl. Blockley), 115–17. 47. Maenchen-Helfen 1973, 408. Âscavn in Bel- 18. The passage is also in the Beishi, but here this isarius’ army, although interpreted differently by text only copies the Zhoushu. Maenchen-Helfen (p. 413) might also be “companion 19. Thanks to Prof. François Martin for his indica- of the Qan.” tions on this matter. 20. Grenet 2002, 210. 21. Both are chariots and this passage, repeated in Bibliography the Beishi, might be corrupted. 22. Transl. Wakeman 1990, 709–13, modified. Beishi 'ɀ Li Yanshou. Beijing: Zhonghua 23. Tongdian, 5259. shuju, 1974. 24. According to Enoki, but it should be rather Bivar 2004 A. D. H. Bivar. “Hephthalites.” Tashkurgan, Keban VW as in the parallel text of the EIr, vol. 12, fasc. 2. Tongdian. Callieri 2002 P. Callieri. “The Bactrian Seal 25. Liangshu, chap. 54, 812, transl. Enoki 1959, 1–2. of Khin%gila.” Silk Road Art 26. Modern Guyuan. and Archaeology 8:121–41. 27. A Xianbei rebel. Chavannes 1903 É. Chavannes. “Voyage de 28. See also the French translation of Chavannes Song Yun dans l’Udyana et le 1903, 402, n. 3. Gandhara (518–522).” BEFEO 29. Zhoushu (transl. Miller), 11–12. 3:379–441. 30. Enoki devoted a long article to this manuscript Clauson 1972 G. Clauson. An Etymological and its textual tradition: Enoki 1984, and a specific Dictionary of Pre-Thirteenth- article on the Hephtalites in this manuscript: Enoki, Century Turkish, 989. Oxford. 1970, reprinted at the end of Enoki 1984. Detailed Enoki 1959 K. Enoki. “On the Nationality images in Enoki 1984. of the Ephtalites.” Memoirs of 31. It also gives some additional data, especially the Research Department of that the Hephtalites enslaved the kings of the coun- the Toyo Bunko 18:1–58. tries which they conquered, and the names of three Enoki 1970 . “The Liang chih-kung- ambassadors: Puduoda (?)Xʜβ (? the last character is t‘u on the Origin and Migration missing), sent in 516, Fuheliaoliao ǁZƾƾ, and Kang of the Hua or Ephtalites.”
130 de la vaissière:Is There a “Nationality” of the Hephtalites?
Journal of the Oriental Society Liangshu ?_ Yao Silian. Beijing: Zhonghua of Australia 7.1–2:37–45. shuju, 1974. Enoki 1984 . “The Liang chih- Maenchen-Helfen O. Maenchen-Helfen. The kung-t‘u ?&8@.” Memoirs of 1973 World of the Huns: Studies in the Research Department of Their History and Culture. the Toyo Bunko 42:75–138. Berkeley. Golden 1992 P. Golden. An Introduction to Menander R. C. Blockley, ed. and transl. the History of the Turkish The History of Menander Peoples, 489. Turcologica, the Guardsman. ARCA, 17. vol. 9. Wiesbaden. Liverpool, 1987. Grenet 1996 F. Grenet. “Crise et sortie de Petech 1964 L. Petech. “Note sur Kapi¶i e crise en Bactriane-Sogdiane Zabul.” Rivista degli Studi aux IVe–Ve s. de n.è.: Orientali 39:287–94. De l’héritage antique à l’adop- Priscus R. C. Blockley, transl. tion de modèles sassanides.” The Fragmentary In Convegno internazionale Classicising Historians sur tema La Persia e l’Asia of the Later Roman Empire: Centrale da Alessandro al X Eunapius, Olympiodorus, secolo/Accademia nazionale Priscus, and Malchus. dei Lincei and IsMEO (Rome, 2 vols. ARCA, Classical 9–12 novembre 1994), 367–90. and Medieval texts, papers, Atti dei Convegni Lincei 127. and monographs, 6, 10. Rome. Liverpool, 1981. Grenet 2002 . “Regional Interaction Procopius H. B. Dewing, transl., 7 vols. in Central Asia and North- Loeb Classical Library. West India in the Kidarite and London, 1974. Hephtalite Period.” In Rahman, Grenet, and A. ur Rahman, F. Grenet, and Indo-Iranian Languages and Sims-Williams N. Sims-Williams. “A Hunnish Peoples, ed. N. Sims-Williams, Kushan-shah.” Journal of Inner 203–24. Proceedings of the Asian Art and Archaeology British Academy 116. Oxford. 1:125–31. Henning 1936 W. Henning. “Neue Materi- Sims-Williams 2000 N. Sims-Williams. Bactrian alien zur Geschichte des Documents from Northern Manichäismus.” ZDMG 90:1– Afghanistan. Studies in the 18 (repr. in idem, Selected Khalili Collection, vol. 3. Papers, vol. 1, 379–96. ActIran CIIr, pt. 2, Inscriptions of the 14, Leiden, 1977). Seleucid and Parthian Periods Kao 1960 Kao Ch’ü-Hsün. “The Ching and of Eastern Iran and Cen- Lu Shen Shrines of Han tral Asia, vol. 6, pt. 1, Legal Sword Worship in Hsiung-nu and Economic Documents. Religion.” Central Asiatic Oxford. Journal 5:221–32. Sims-Williams 2002 . “Ancient Afghanistan Kuwayama 1989 Sh. Kuwayama. “The Heph- and Its Invaders: Linguistic talites in Tokharistan and Evidence from the Bactrian Northwest India.” Zinbun: Documents and Inscriptions.” Annals of the Institute for In Indo-Iranian Languages and Research in Humanities. Peoples, ed. N. Sims-Williams, Kyoto University 24:89–134. 225–42. Oxford. Kuwayama 1999 . “Historical Notes on Sims-Williams 2002b . “The Bactrian Inscrip- Kapi¶i and Kabul in the Sixth- tion on the Seal of Khin%gila.” Eighth Centuries.” Zinbun: Silk Road Art and Achaeology Annals of the Institute for 8:143–48. Research in Humanities. Suishu )_ Wei Zheng. Beijing: Zhonghua Kyoto University 34.1:5–77. shuju, 1973. La Vaissière 2005 É. de La Vaissière. Sogdian ˇabari C. E. Bosworth, transl. The Traders: A Histor y. Leiden. Sasanids, the Byzantines,
131 de la vaissière:Is There a “Nationality” of the Hephtalites?
the Lakhmids, and Yemen. Tien on the Peoples and Albany, 1999. Countries of Pre-Islamic Tongdian ų_ Du You. Beijing: Zhonghua Central Asia.” Ph.D. diss., shuju, 1988. University of California. Tremblay 2001 X. Tremblay. Pour une histoire Weishu ş_ Wei Shou. Beijing: Zhonghua de la Sérinde: Le manichéisme shuju, 1974. parmi les peuples et religions Zhoushu ζ_ Linghu Defen. Beijing, 1971. d’Asie Centrale d’après les Zhoushu 1959 R. A. Miller, transl. Accounts sources primaires. Veröffent- of Western Nations in the lichungen der Kommission für History of the Northern Chou Iranistik, no. 28. Vienna. Dynasty. Berkeley. Wakeman 1990 Ch. B. Wakeman. “Hsi Jung (the Western Barbarians): An Annotated Translation of the Five Chapters of the T’ung
132