Sogdian Version of the Bugut Inscription Revisited1

SOGDIAN VERSION OF THE BUGUT INSCRIPTION REVISITED1

Yoshida Yutaka Kyoto University

Abstract The Sogdian version of the Bugut Inscription has been known since the early 1970’s through the edition and studies by the two Russian specialists Kljaštornyj and Livšic. Many scholars have made extensive use of their edition in discussing the history of early Inner Asia, in particular the history of the first Turkic Qaghanate. Since this edition left much to be improved from the philological point of view, the revised edition has been a desideratum. In this paper the author gives the new text and translation based not only on rubbings but also on the new 3D photographs. The most important is the discovery that Mahan Tegin, to whom the inscription was believed to be dedicated, no longer exists in the inscription. The new edition suggests that the inscription claims the legitimacy of Tatpar and his son Umna’s qaghanship and describes the funeral ceremony for Tatpar Qaghan carried out by Umna together with his cousin Shabolüe, to whom Umna yielded the qaghanship soon after his enthronement.

Introduction officials preserved in the “Tujue” section of the Chinese chronicles, such as Beishi 北史, Suishu 隋書, and The first edition of the Sogdian version of the Bugut Zhoushu 周書, etc. stele was published by Kljaštornyj and Livšic in 1971 in A few pieces of intriguing new information claimed Russian and its English version appeared soon after that by Kljaštornyj and Livšic to be recovered from the Bugut in 1972 (hereafter referred to as K-L). Their study com- inscription may be mentioned here. The authors read prises the edition of the Sogdian text with philological Mahan Tegin (mγ’n tykyn) five times in the inscription 5 notes and translation most probably by Livšic and the (B1/2-3, B1/3, B2/4-5, B2/6, B3/4) and argued that the discussion of its historical context prepared obviously inscription commemorates Mahan Tegin, who was Muhan by Kljaštornyj. The Sogdian inscription begins on the left Qaghan’s brother – a person not recorded in the Chinese hand narrow side (B1, 5 lines), continues to the back side sources. They also read RBkw nw(h) snk’ ’wst in B2/10 and (B2, 19 lines), and ends on the right hand narrow side translated the passage as “Establish a great new saṃgha!”. (B3, 4 or 5 lines)2. Livšic was able to read mwγ’n γ’γ’n3 According to the Chinese sources, the 4th qaghan Tabo in several places of the inscription and Kljaštornyj identi- Kehan 他鉢可汗, who was Muhan’s younger brother and fied this name with Muhan Kehan 木汗可汗4 (r. 553-572) was identified with what they read t’sp’r x’γ’n in the stele, who was the third qaghan of the first Turkic Qaghanate. introduced Buddhism to Turks and Kljaštornyj related this 6 Thus, the inscription turned out to be a very unique his- passage with Tabo Qaghan’s belief in Buddhism. Livšic torical source on the Qaghanate recorded by the Turks also reads βγβwmyn x’γ’n in B2/8 and identifies him themselves, while the only sources available by that time with Yili Qaghan, who was the first qaghan; his name had been the records taken by the contemporary Chinese is recorded in a Runic inscription of the second Turkic Qaghanate as Bumïn Qaghan. Should the readings be correct, all these arguments would sound very convincing, 1 I should like to thank Dr. D. Maue for improving on the draft of and it comes as no surprise that several competent Turkol- my paper and also for preparing several more readable 3D figures of ogists and historians advanced somewhat far-fetched the forms discussed in this article. I also thank Dr. Th. Jügel for reading arguments following Kljaštornyj and Livšic’s understand- through the draft to check for errors and incongruities of all kinds. Needless to say, any remaining flaws are entirely my responsibility. ing of the inscription. For example, when Bazin (1975) 2 Four lines have survived on B3 but the fifth line must have existed on the upper half now lost. 3 When I cite K-L’s reading in this article, I simply reproduce their 5 Hereafter the notation like B1/2-3 denotes lines 2-3 of the transliteration without distinguishing x from γ. side B1. 4 His name is also spelled Mugan 木杆. 6 This scenario was largely followed by Bazin 1989.

Journal Asiatique 307.1 (2019): 97-108 doi: 10.2143/JA.307.1.3286342 98 YOSHIDA YUTAKA dwelled on the relationship between Turks and Sogdians, 1 the new revised edition based on the rubbings he largely followed their reading and translation. Also and new photographs when Sinor discussed the history of the Turk empire, he referred to Toba Qaghan as Taspar and called the sixth In August 2018, I was allowed full access to the new qaghan Nivar basing on the two Russian scholars’ edi- 3D photographs prepared by Professor Ölmez and his tion. Lin Meicun proposed to identify what Livšic reads colleagues. The new photographs are far better than the cynst’n kwts’tt ’γšywn’k “Kwts’tt the ruler of China” old photographs taken by Kljaštornyj, but as far as I can with ditoukehan ashina kutou 地頭可汗阿史那庫頭7 see, and as far as the Sogdian version is concerned, the recorded in the Chinese sources, equating kwts’tt with rubbings are not very inferior to the new photographs. In kutou 庫頭. He also argued that Mahan Tegin is the pre- fact my new revised text and translation presented here regnal name8 of Topa Qaghan and is consisting of Sanskrit is not much different from those published in 1999. Nev- mahat “great” and tegin (Lin 1990). ertheless, the new photographs are highly important in On the other hand, Sogdianists have refrained from that they prove more clearly that the text Livšic published commenting on Livšic’s edition mainly because the in 1972 is no longer reliable in many places and in the photographs provided by the editors were too poor to following I shall refer to them occasionally. One good check his readings, which seemed not entirely reliable. example is the word Livšic reads cynst’n “China” in B1/1, For example, in B2/5 Livšic read ’nγwncyδ γšywny and which I read ’’šyn’s. (figs. 2, 3) On the basis of a poor translated “(without) such a ruler”. Since this part is rel- quality photograph one may well read the sequence of atively clear in Fig. 10 reproduced in K-L, p. 99, one can letters as cynst’n, since one tends to find a word form that check their reading vis-à-vis the photograph. The reading is known or at least comprehensible, lectio facilior, as it of ’nγwncyδ was confirmed, but it is an adverb meaning were. The last letter which I read -s is slightly ill-shaped “like, in such a way” and cannot not be translated as and the reading of -s is not very obvious. However, -s of “such”. The word γšywny, on the other hand, looks more like xšy’ ny/ZY in the photograph. This revised reading ’nγwncyδ xšy’ ZY makes better sense: “Rule (2sg. impv.) in such a way and ...”.9 Obviously, one needs rubbings rather than photographs, which are not fitting for repro- ducing poorly preserved inscriptions. In August 1997, being a member of the expedition headed by Professor T. Moriyasu of Osaka University (now emeritus), I was Fig. 1 (rubbing): ’xwšwy-n’tt (B1/4) given an opportunity to visit the archaeological site of Bugut and to produce two sets of rubbings of the inscription housed in the local museum.10 By means of these rubbings I was able to correct a considerable number of Livšic’s readings. I published my text and translation both in Japanese and English in T. Moriyasu and A. Ochir Fig. 1a (3D photograph) (eds.), Provisional report of researches on historical sites and inscriptions in Mongolia from 1996 to 1998, Osaka, 1999, pp. 122-125.

7 On this ruler see below. 8 Before they were given throne names, Turkic qaghans bore sev- Fig. 2 (3D photograph): ’’šyn’s (B1/1) eral names. For example, Muhan Kehan 木汗可汗 had been called Sijin 俟斤 and Yandu 燕都 (cf. K-L, p. 74) before he became a qaghan. Not knowing the exact nature of these appellations, I simply refer to them as “pre-regnal names”. 9 Similarly, the alleged Zoroastrian element no longer exists in the stele. What Livšic reads ’swšwyn’tt and translates “saviors” is to be read ’xwšwyn’tt and is likely to be an error of *’xšywn’tt “kings”. The letter x is clearly seen in the rubbing. (figs. 1, 1a) 10 The photographs of one set of the rubbings are accessible at: http://hdl.handle.net/11094/20839; http://hdl.handle.net/11094/20824 Fig. 3 (rubbing): ’’šyn’s (B1/1) SOGDIAN VERSION OF THE BUGUT INSCRIPTION REVISITED 99

I used to suppose that “the stone of law” refers to the Bugut Inscription itself (Yoshida 1999). However, as far as I can now see from Dr. D. Maue’s text of B4 and Professor Vovin’s translation, this does not seem to be the case. In any case, whether the inscription itself is Fig. 4 (rubbing): ms (B2/4) Fig. 4a (3D photograph) referred to by nwm snk’ “a stone of law”14 is dependent on my reading of (mwn’)k nwm (sn)k’ “this stone of law”, in particular mwn’k “this”. This part is badly damaged and I must confess that mwn’k is not very certain. Among the Chinese chronicles, Zhoushu, Suishu, Beishi, and Zizhi tongjian 資治通鑑 include the history of the Turks during the period covered by the Sogdian version. The records found in the first three books are Fig. 5 (rubbing): ’’šn’s (Karabalgasun inscription, line 6) very similar to each other and are known to be interde- pendent. In the following, I cite from Liu Mau-Tsai’s (Die chinesischen Nachrichten zur Geschichte der Ost- ms “also” encountered in line B2/4 assumes a similar Türken (T’u-küe), Wiesbaden 1958) German transla- shape. (figs. 4, 4a) tion of those parts which are most relevant for under- As I have already shown on several occasions (Yoshida standing the contents of the inscription. Here, for the 2011 and 2011a), it is the original Turkic form of what sake of the readers’ convenience, the names and reigns is transcribed ashina 阿史那 in Chinese (Middle Chinese of the first six qaghans recorded in the Chinese sources 15 *·â ṣi nâ)11, a name of the royal clan of the Turkic are listed: Qaghanate. This reading is also supported by its variant (1) Yili 伊利 Qaghan (Tumen 土門): r. 552~553 CE; form ’’šn’s attested in the Sogdian Karabalgasun Inscrip- (2) Yixiji 乙息記 Qaghan (Keluo 科羅; son of (1)): tion, line 6. (fig. 5) Thus, the opening sentence of the r. 553 CE; inscription (B1/1) in my text and translation reads as fol- (3) Mugan 木汗 Qaghan (Sijin 俟斤, Yandu 燕都; the lows: (r)ty (mwn’)k nwm (sn)k’ ’wst’t δ’r-’nt tr-’wkt younger brother of (2)): r. 553~572 CE; ’(’)šy-n’s kwtr(’)’tt ’xšy-wn’k, “The kings of the Turkish (4) Tabo 他鉢/佗鉢 Qaghan (Ditou Kehan Ashina Ashinas tribe have established this stone of law.” Compare Kutou? 地頭可汗阿史那庫頭; younger brother of it with Livšic’s text and translation: ’mwh?)[. . .](pt)s’kh (3)): r. 572-581; ’wst’t δ’r’nt tr’wkt c(yn)st’n kwt(s)’tt ’γšywn’k “This . . . (5) Anluo 庵羅 (the son of (4)): r. 581 CE; stele was erected by the Turks (under) Kwts’tt the ruler (6) Shabolüe 沙鉢略 / Yilijulu She Mohe Shiboluo 伊 of China”. 利倶盧設莫何始波羅 Qaghan (Shetu 攝圖, Erfu爾 The Sogdian version of the Bugut inscription as 伏; son of (2)): r. 581-587 CE. edited by me records the enthronement and rules of the fourth qaghan of the First Turkic Qaghanate, called As we will see below, the years of reigns gleaned Tatpar Qaghan (t’tp’r x’γ’n),12 as well as his death, and from the Chinese sources do not always agree with what the succession of the qaghanship by Tatpar’s son named one reads in the Bugut stele. Umna, the funerary ceremony for Tatpar Qaghan, and the establishment of a stone of law (nwm snk’)13, which is possibly an inscription expounding certain laws or teach- 2 the qaghans’ names ings. The inscription seems to end with the reference to the person who wrote it. Assuming that the text in Brahmi As for the qaghans’ names, what Livšic reads t’sp’r is script found on the side B4 is a Buddhist Sanskrit text, in fact to be read t’tp’r. (figs. 6, 6a, 7, 7a) This reading is now supported by another Chinese transcription, daba 達拔 (Middle Chinese *d‘ât b‘wăt), recently discovered 11 In this article, Middle Chinese forms are cited from Karlgren 1957. 12 As Dr. Maue points out to me, the Brahmi spelling is tad pa-ṟ 14 Dr. Maue draws my attention to the possibility that the word and one may rather transcribe Tadpar. nwm denotes “official statement” rather than “(Buddhist) law”, and 13 For the word meaning “stone”, one may expect snk rather than that nwm snk’ means “statement stone = inscription”. snk’. Indeed, it may have been the reason why Livšic equated snk’ with 15 For this list see K-L, p. 74. Names in (round brackets) are what Sanskrit saṃgha, “assembly of Buddhist monks”. As a matter of fact, I call pre-regnal names. On Anluo, who is omitted by Kljaštornyj and out of three attestations of this word in the Vessantara Jātaka, two are Livšic, see below. For Tabo’s prince name Ditou Kehan Ashina Kutou spelled snk’ and the remaining one snky. see also below. 100 YOSHIDA YUTAKA

Fig. 6 (rubbing): mγ’ t’tp’r x’γ’n (B2/11) Fig. 6a (3D photograph)

Fig. 7 (rubbing): ’BY mγ’ t’tp’r x’γ’n (B2/9) Fig. 7a (3D photograph)

Fig. 8 (rubbing): x’γ’n (B1/4)

Fig. 8a (3D photograph)

Fig. 10 (rubbing): mγ’ wmn’ x’γ’n (B2/8) Fig. 9 (rubbing): tk’ynt (B2/11) Fig. 9a: (photograph): tk’ynt (B2/11) by K. Suzuki (2005) in a Chinese epitaph of Ashina Simo (figs. 7, 7a) Curiously, the two qaghans preceding Tatpar 阿史那思摩, who is a grandson of Tatpar Qaghan. Simi Qaghan do not bear mγ’: ZK βγy mwx’n x’γ’n “godlike larly Livšic’s readings such as mγ’n tykyn and βγβwmyn Mukhan Qaghan”17 (B1/3) and y’rwkc ’ḤY nw’’r x’γ’n γ’γ’n can no longer be maintained. Livšic’s mγ’n tykyn “-?- brother Nwar Qaghan” (B1/2). must be read mγ’(’) t’tp’r16 and βγβwmyn γ’γ’n is also a misreading of mγ’ wmn’ x’γ’n. (fig. 10) Admittedly in the As I once showed (Yoshida 2000), the word mγ’ is latter case, what I read mγ’ is ill-shaped, in particular the transcribed mohe 莫何 in Chinese characters. For exam- final alif. But in this inscription one finds attestations of ple, the full title of the sixth qaghan Shabolüe (r. 581- mγ’ preceding qaghans’ names so often that the reading 587) is yili julu mohe shiboluo 伊利倶盧莫何始波羅. It is virtually certain, although mγ’ itself is a so far unknown has hitherto been generally assumed that mohe 莫何 word. Incidentally, Livšic was not able to read this word (Middle Chinese *mâk γâ) stands for a Turkish mor- in any of its attestations in the inscription. For example pheme baγa as encountered in such word as baγatur. mγ’ t’tp’r x’γ’n of B2/11 is read βγ’ t’sp’r γ’γ’n by him. However, the Northwestern Middle Chinese initial *m- was denasalized to *mb- only in the 8th century onward and the transcription of the 6th century certainly stands 16 Unfortunately, in all of its attestations, this name is damaged in one way or another and it is difficult to prove my reading. Nevertheless, for *m-. Livšic’s tykyn is impossible, because the first word of B1/4, which is As stated above, according to the two Russian schol- clearly read x’γ’n (figs. 8, 8a), could hardly follow the last three words ars, mγ’n tykyn is a so far unknown brother of Mukhan of B1/3 as read by Livšic: βγy mγ’n tyky(n), while βγy mγ’’ t’tp’r and Qaghan and Tatpar Qaghan, and the inscription is dedi- x’γ’n constitute a good combination. Curiously, Livšic does not read x’γ’n here and describes the place as totally damaged. It is also to be cated to him. This scenario can no longer be supported, noted that the plural form of the Turkish word meaning “prince” (tk’ynt) appears in this inscription in B2/11. Livšic reads the word in 17 I transliterate mwx’n and transcribe Mukhan, but, as Dr. Maue question tr(’γ)t and translates it as “distressed”. (figs. 9, 9a) suggests, the Brahmi spelling mu-glan seems to prefer mwγ’n Mughan. SOGDIAN VERSION OF THE BUGUT INSCRIPTION REVISITED 101 because all the alleged attestations of mγ’n tykyn are to ’ḤRZY nwkr ZK βγy mwx’n x’γ’n ’PZY βγy mγ’ t’t(p)[’r] be read or restored mγ’ t’tp’r. They also argued that what x’γ’n (c)[nn x](wr)-sn(y) k’w xwr-tx(y)z pr(m) prw ’nγt’k they read βγβwmyn should be identified with Bumïn ’βc’npδ ’xwšwy-n’tt wm’t[’nt] Qaghan attested in a Turkic Runic inscription of the “Then the godlike Mukhan Qaghan and the godlike Magha early 8th century; this Bumïn is the first Turkic qaghan Tatpar Qaghan were rulers of the entire world from the referred to as Tumen (throne name Yili Qaghan) in the East to the West” (B1/3-4). Chinese sources and is accordingly Mukhan and Tatpar’s Following Xue (1992, pp. 134-135), Hirata (2004) father. However, the correct reading mγ’ wmn’ x’γ’n sug- argues that Tatpar Qaghan is to be identified with gests identifying him not with the first qaghan but with Mukhan’s younger brother Ditou Kehan Ashina Kutou the fifth qaghan, whose name is transcribed Anluo 菴羅地頭可汗阿史那庫頭, who used to be a minor qaghan in Chinese (Middle Chinese *·ậm lâ)18. The difference is · governing the eastern part of the Qaghanate during not big and the Chinese designation makes one to assume Mukhan’s reign.21 The mentioning of “from the east to a dissimilation of n to l, i.e. Umna to Umla. Since there the west” may lend slight support to this identification. is no mention of Mahan Tegin or Bumïn Qaghan in the After Mukhan’s death, Tatpar mounted the throne in Bugut stele, one is to abandon the Russian scholars’ a year of hare, i.e. 571 CE: rty xr-(γw)šk srδy (xwt’)w understanding of the historical background of the inscrip- (’)k(rt)[y] “In the year of hare he became a king” (B2/6). tion. Moreover, their translations of k’w βγy s’r pwrsty According to the inscription, when he had succeeded to “asks the god” (B2/1) and k’w βγyšt s’r pwrst “asked the the throne, Tatpar followed the advice of his vassals: gods” (B2/7) are also to be discarded. In their understanding, the god(s) were asked for the advice in diffi- tw(’) xwyštr ’ḤY mwx’n x’γ’n ... ’β](t)kšpw (xšy-)’t δ’(r)[t cult situations (K-L, pp. 77-78, 88-89). However, the ZY n’β](cy)h šy-r’k p’rtw δ’rt rty ms ’kδry tγw βγy mγ’ two expressions actually mean “he returned (past stem t(’tp’r) x[’γ’n] ... (’β)tkšpw ’nγwncyδ xšy’ ZY n’βcyh p’r of ’pw’rt ‘to turn back, return”) to the god/gods” and “Your elder brother Mukhan Qaghan ruled the entire “returning to the god(s)” is a euphemism of dying. Inci- world and nurtured the people well. Again now you, god- dentally in the almost contemporary Mongolküre Inscrip- like Magha Tatpar Qaghan ..., rule the entire world in such tion one finds k’w βγw s’r p’w’rtnt “they returned to the a way and nurture the people.” (B2/3-5) god”.19 What I translate “entire world” corresponds to ’βtkšpw Nevertheless, their recognition of Mukhan and Tatpar, “lit. the seven divisions of the world” (cf. Avestan haptō. though they misread the latter as Taspar, is still correct karšvan/r-),22 of which the latter part was read by Livšic as and their dating of this inscription to the years just after KSP “money” in B2/3. Incidentally, this year of Tatpar’s Tatpar’s death, i.e. 581-582, is to be maintained. enthronement differs by one year from that recorded in the Zizhi Tongjian, where Mukhan’s death is recorded in 572 CE.23 3 topics of the Sogdian text

3-1 Succession of the qaghanship das zwischen Vater und Sohn gebe, aber mein älterer Bruder hatte nichts übrig für seinen Sohn (Ta-lo-pien) und vertraute mir das Land The Chinese sources record some discords as to who an. Wenn ich sterbe, nimm Dich vor Ta-lo-pien in Acht!” ... Ta-lo- pien hegte Mißmut gegen An-lo, weil er den Thron nicht besteigen would succeed to the throne after Mukhan died and again konnte; er ließ oft durch Boten An-lo beschimpfen, aber dieser konnte 20 after Tatpar died. Toward the beginning of the inscrip- ihn nicht davon abbringen, daher übergab er das Land Sche-t’u (= Shetu tion, Tatpar is described as a co-ruler of Mukhan: or Shabolüe, YY). ... An-lo stieg hinab und liess sich am Fluss Tu-lo (To-la) nieder und trug den Titel Ti-ör (Zweiter) Khagan.” (Suishu: Liu, pp. 43-44) 18 Curiously, Anluo is not listed by Kljastornyj as the fifth qaghan 21 As I mentioned above, Lin (1990) also proposes to identify Tabo (K-L, p. 74). Possibly, it is because Anluo stayed on the throne only Qaghan with Ditou Kehan Ashina Kutou. However, his argument is for a short period and handed over the qaghanship to his cousin based on the equation of Livšic’s kwts’tt with the name element Kutou Shabolüe, while he himself became the second qaghan. On this point 庫頭. see note 20 (2) below. 22 Compare this expression with “master of the seven climes” 19 For this still unpublished inscription see de la Vaissière (2010). (Sinor 1990, p. 306), which is the self-designation of a certain Turkic 20 (1) Mu-kan Khagan (= Mukhan Qaghan, YY) regierte 20 Jahre qaghan recorded by Theophylactus Simocattes. On this point see also lang. Dann starb er. Vorher noch hatte er seinen Sohn Ta-lo-pien über- Yoshida (2011, pp. 1-5). gangen und dafür seinen jüngeren Bruder zu seinem Nachfolger 23 In my edition given below I tentatively restored rty pr (m)[yw? bestimmt. Das war T’a-po Khagan (= Tabo Qagan, YY). (Suishu: Liu, srδ βγy mwx’n x’γ’n pr’yt] “And in [the tiger year(?) godlike Mukhan p. 42) Qaghan died].” This implies that Mukhan died in 570 CE. However, (2) T’a-po blieb 10 Jahre auf dem Thron, dann erkrankte er und starb this is nothing but a conjecture based on my assumption that the year (581). Vorher hatte er zu seinem Sohn An-lo (= Anluo, YY) gesagt: of Mukhan’s death is stated in this place. m- can also be the first letter “Ich habe gehört, daß es keines näheres Verwandtschaftsverhältnis als of mwš “mouse”. It may also be restored as (x)[rγwšk] “hare”. 102 YOSHIDA YUTAKA

When Tatpar died after his ten years’ rule ((rty) 10s srδ ’xšy(’)[t δ’rt] “he ruled ten years” B2/7),24 it was also the vassals who put Tatpar’s son Umna on the throne: rty py-štrw š’δp-y-t trx(w)[’nt] xwrγ(’)pcy-(nt ) ... rty nwkr mγ’ wmn’ x’γ’n w’δy nšyδ(t)[w] δ[’](rnt) Fig. 11 (rubbing): xwrγ’pcynt (B2/2) “Later, shadapits, tarkhwans, khurghapchins ... They sett- led Magha Umna Qaghan on the throne.” (B2/7-9). Apparently, Tatpar’s son claims the legitimacy of his succession to the throne by this sentence. Incidentally, my reading of xwrγ’pcynt differs from Livšic’s γwrγ’p’ynt. (figs. 11, 11a) Whatever its etymology may be, my read- Fig. 11a (3D photograph) ing of this title is supported by the transcription in Chinese characters kuhezhen 窟合真 (Middle Chinese *k‘uət γâp tśien) encountered in the Chinese sources (Yoshida 2011).25 It was also Umna who ordered to put up a stone of law for his deceased father: Fig. 12 (rubbing): 10s srδ (B2/7) pr(m’tw) δ’r-t (MN) ’BY mγ’ t’tp’r x’γ’n wsn ... (r)[t](y) m(s) prm’(’)tw δ’r(t) RBkw nwm snk’ ’wst26 “He ordered for the sake of (his) father Magha Tatpar Qaghan ... and again he ordered to establish a great stone of law” (B2/9-10). Notice that here we can read a word ’BY “father” for Livšic’s enigmatic ’yβ. (fig. 13) Fig. 13 (photograph): ’BY (B2/9)

The Chinese sources record that soon after his enthronement, Umna Qaghan yielded the throne to his 3-2 Funeral ceremony? cousin Shabolüe and he himself became the second After the mention of establishing the stone of law for 27 δ qaghan. One finds w’ xšywnk “two kings” (B2/15) and Tatpar Qaghan, Tatpar’s funeral ceremony also seems to δ γ w’ x’ ’n “two qaghans” (B2/19) in the broken contexts. be described in the latter half of B2 side, although this The two qaghans mentioned in this place of the inscrip- part is so badly damaged that one can hardly be certain tion seem to denote Umna and Shabolüe, although the about the context. Nevertheless, mention in B2/11 of latter’s name is not found in the surviving part of the princes ( ), grandsons ( ) , and great grandsons 28 tk’ynt npyšnt inscription. (βrnp’šnt)29 reminds one of the passage in the Chinese source:30 24 In my text published in 1999, I interpreted the number 11 βγy mγ’ t’(t)p’r x’γ’n tk’y-nt ’cw npyšnt cw instead. But now I prefer to read a strange stroke following the numeral βrnp’š(nt)[...](cw)[ š’δ](pyt) cw xwr-(γ’pcy-)nt cw (Z)Y 10 as the letter s, i.e. 10s standing for δs’ ~ δs “ten”. (Fig. 12) wkwrt cw n’βcy-’kh ’(st)[’nt? ...]w β’r-’k ’sp’δy-’(n) 25 See Liu, p. 53 (Suishu): “Ich kann mein untertäniges Gefühl und pr’y(w) ’βt my-δ ’xšt δ’r-’nt meine Sehnsucht nach Euer Majestät nicht mehr ertragen und schicke darum mit grosser Ehrfurcht meinen siebenten Sohn, Euer Majestät Untertanen, K’u-han-tschen (窟含真 error for窟合真, cf. Liu, p. 529, 29 βrnp’šnt is likely to be a spelling error for *βrnpyšnt “great- n. 279) mit andern, auf daß er Euer Majestät dieses Schreiben überre- grandchildren”. For the prefix βr- (< *fra) in this word, see Bactrian iche.” For shadapit and tarkhwan see K-L, p. 89. φρονιαγο “great-grandfather” and the discussion found in Sims-Williams 26 ’wst is the infinitive depending on prm’’tw δ’rt “he ordered”. and Cribb (1995/1996, p. 94). ’wst may be the present infinitive derived from the present stem ’wst’y ~ 30 The relevant passage in the Zhoushu reads as follows (Liu, p. 9): ’wst rather than a spelling error for the past infinitive ’wst’t, because “Wenn einer von ihnen starb, wurde die Leiche im Zelt aufgebahrt. ’wst appears again in B2/15, and because one encounters ’wst’t δ’r-’nt Alle Kinder und Kindeskinder, männliche und weibliche Verwandte in B1/1. des Verstorbenen schlachteten jeder Schafe und Pferde und legten sie 27 See note 20 (2) above. als Opfergabe vor dem Zelt. Dann ritten sie zu Pferde siebenmal um 28 However, it may also be possible to see Shabolüe’s name in B3/4: das Zelt, und jedesmal, wenn sie vor den Eingang des Zeltes kamen, wmγ’’ ’yry mγ’[ ]. On this point see above his longer name yili julu ritzten sie mit einem Messer ihr Gesicht auf. Dabei weinten sie, so daß mohe shiboluo transcribed in Chinese characters, of which Yili 伊利 may Blut und Tränen zusammen herabfielen. Das taten sie siebenmal und be compared with ’yry. dann hörten sie auf.” SOGDIAN VERSION OF THE BUGUT INSCRIPTION REVISITED 103

“The godlike Magha Tatpar Qaghan’s princes, grandsons, great grandsons, [...] shadapits, khurghapchins, kinsmen, and people, (whoever) there may be, [...] together with a cavalry soldier, they lamented31 for seven days.” (B2/11- 13). The period of seven days of lamenting found in the Fig. 14a (photograph): Sogdian version and seven times of lamenting described Fig. 14 (rubbing): ’xšt (B2/13) ’xšt (B2/13) in the Chinese source may not be a mere coincidence. Riding horses seven times around the tent recorded in the Chinese text may also be compared with β’r’k sp’δy’n pr’yw “together with a cavalry soldier”. The killing of cattle as sacrifice may also be mentioned in B2/14: Fig. 15 (rubbing): y’rwkc (or n’rwkc) ’ḤY (B1/2) [...] ptxwstw δ’rnt rty cym’nt pyštrw m(s) [ ] “They killed [...]. After this also [...]”.

4 difficult words and passages

As one can easily imagine, it is extremely difficult to read this inscription. The difficulties are mainly due to Fig. 15a (photograph) the poor state of preservation. Apart from these, even when words are more or less clearly preserved they turn out to be hapax legomenoi and remain obscure. One likely to be read y’rwkc ’ḤY “y’rwkc-brother”. Obviously, example may illustrate this difficulty. The B1 side, which Niwar Qaghan was Mukhan’s brother, although y’rwkc is the beginning of the inscription, is relatively well pre- (or possibly n’rwkc) remains unclear. Thus, it is likely served. Lines 2-3 in my current text and translation read that Mukhan’s brother Niwar Qaghan spoke on behalf of as follows: Tatpar Qaghan, whose name is preceded by two unknown ’Y-(K) [ZKn] (mz’yx) m(wx)’n x’γ’n y’rwkc ’ḤY n(w)-’’r words ’wrkwp’r and cr’’cw. In my opinion they are two x’γ’n ’wr-kwp-’r cr-’’cw mγ’’ t’[t](p)[’r] (x’γ’n) wsn of Tatpar’s pre-regnal names, though they are not recorded wy’(βr)t in the Chinese sources.32 The fact cr’’cw sounds very “When Niwar Qaghan, (who was) a y’rwkc-brother of similar to Shabolüe’s brother’s name chuluohou 處羅侯 the great Mukhan Qaghan, talked on behalf of Urkupār (Middle Chinese *tś‘i̯wo lâ γǝ̯u) may perhaps lend a slight Chrāchu (’wrkwp’r cr’’cw) Magha Tatpar Qaghan.” support to regard cr’’cw as a name borne by Turkic princes. Livšic read the two words as ’wskwp’r and ckn’cw, and This passage is followed by the sentence “Then the translates “further” and “since”, respectively. However, godlike Mukhan Qaghan and the godlike Magha Tatpar his readings are not supported by the rubbing and the Qaghan were rulers of the entire world from the east to new photographs. (figs. 16, 16a) the west” discussed above. For the present, I am wondering whether this passage Kljaštornyj and Livšic identified nw’’r γ’γ’n with the refers to the time when the second qaghan Yixiji 乙息記 6th qaghan Shabolüe and based their interpretation on the became ill and was dying. According to the Chinese assumption that one of Shabolüe’s pre-regnal names erfu source, the second qaghan appointed his younger brother 爾伏 is a miscopying of *erba 爾拔 (Middle Chinese *ni Mukhan as his successor instead of his son Shabolüe.33 b‘wăt). While their reading of nw’’r seems to be justified both by the rubbing and the new photograph, their tran- 32 βγ As I mentioned above, Hirata (2004) argues that Tatpar Qaghan scription of the two preceding words as trwkc y “Tur- is to be identified with Mukhan’s younger brother ditoukehan ashina kic lord” cannot be correct. (figs. 15, 15a) They are most kutou 地頭可汗阿史那庫頭. If his assumption is correct, Tatpar Qaghan had still other pre-regnal names ditou 地頭 and kutou 庫頭 (Middle Chinese *d‘i d‘əu and *k‘uo d‘əu). 31 For my ’xšt-δ’r’nt Livšic reads ’nβγt δ’r’nt “they distributed”. 33 See the following passage in the Suishu (Liu, p. 41): “Er (= the See the rubbing of what I read ’xšt. (figs. 14, 14a) I tentatively take ’xšt second qaghan, YY) wurde krank und starb. Vorher schon hatte er seinen for the past stem of a present stem *’xšy- “to weep, lament”, of which Sohn Sche-t’u übergangen und dafür seinen jüngeren Bruder Sse-kin the cognates ’xšywn “weeping, lamentation” and prxšy “to lament” are zu seinem Nachfolger bestimmt. Sse-kin trug den Titel Mu-kan (= Mu- known. han) Khagan.” 104 YOSHIDA YUTAKA

5 conclusion

The main message of this inscription seems to be clear. Fig. 16 (rubbing): ’wr-kwp’r cr-’’cw (B1/2) It claims the legitimacy of Tatpar and his son Umna’s qaghanship and describes the funeral ceremony carried out by Umna together with Shabolüe, to whom Umna yielded the qaghanship soon after his enthronement. However, several places remain to be obscure. In particular, B2/19 and B3 side, which are inscribed in different ductus and their relationship to the preceding lines escapes me. In the meantime, the inscription known as Mongolküre has drawn attention of several scholars. Among others, de Fig. 16a (photograph) la Vaissière (2010) published a short article drawing on Sims-Williams’s and my text and translation. The inscription is dedicated to Mukhan’s grandson nry x’γ’n “Niri Qaghan” and mentions the hare year as the year when he I venture to suppose that this sentence is inserted to show became a great qaghan: rty 26 srδ pštrw ZK mwx’n x’γ’n that Tatpar was selected as Mukhan’s co-ruler by Yixiji npyšn cwrp’y nry x’γ’n pr xrγwšk srδy mz’yx x’γ’n n’ysty Qaghan at that time and to legitimize Tatpar’s qaghan- (or ’krty?) “And 26 years later Mukhan Qaghan’s grand- ship. If this assumption is correct, Niwar Qaghan is to be son (named) Churpay Niri Qaghan mounted the throne in identified with Yixiji Qaghan, whose pre-regnal name is the hare year”. This inscription also attests the idiomatic keluo 科羅 (Middle Chinese *k’uâ lâ). Nevertheless, it is expression k’w βγw s’r p’w’rtnt, “they returned to the not easy to connect *k’uâ lâ with nw’’r in spite of its god”, but with the verb in the imperfect form (p’w’rtnt) partial similarity. rather than the preterite (pwrst(y)) as in the Bugut inscrip- In this context, it is worth mentioning that almost all tion. Niri Qaghan is identified with nili kehan 泥利可汗 the personal names and titles found in the inscription, of the West Turks and the hare year mentioned corre- and for that matter those transcribed in Chinese charac- sponds to 595 CE. The two inscriptions are almost con- ters in the Chinese sources as well, are apparently temporary and the comparison of the two inscriptions will non-Turkish. Studies into the linguistic affiliation of all certainly yield a fruitful result. However, one must at first these non-Turkish elements seem to me to be one of the produce either good rubbings or 3D photographs of the most urgent desiderata of Central Asian studies. Mongolküre inscription.

Appendix: Text, translation and glossary34

Text

B-1 1 (r)ty (mwn’)k nwm (sn)k’ ’wst’t δ’r-’nt tr-’wkt ’(’)šy-n’s kwtr(’)’tt ’xšy-wn’k[] 2 ’Y-(K) [ZKn] (mz’yx) m(wx)’n x’γ’n y’rwkc ’ḤY n(w)-’’r x’γ’n ’wr-kwp-’r cr-’’cw mγ’’ 3 t’(tp)’r (x’γ’n) wsn wy’(βr)t ’ḤRZY nwkr ZK βγy mwx’n x’γ’n ’PZY βγy mγ’ t’t(p)[’r] 4 x’γ’n (c)[nn x](wr)-sn(y) k’w xwr-tx(y)z pr(m) prw ’nγt’k ’βc’npδ ’xwšwy-n’tt wm’t[’nt] 5 (rty •••••)[ ](t) ’Ḥ(RZY) nwkr cyw’nt py-štrw βγy (m)[wx’n x’γ’n]

34 In the text, parentheses () indicate uncertain readings mainly due to the damage to the stone. Illegible damaged letters are indicated by parenthesized bullets: (•••). Letters which are wholly restored are placed in square brackets []. Words not in the Sogdian text and added to improve the English translation are placed in (parentheses), while word(s) in [square brackets] correspond to the restored part of the text. In the glossary an asterisk preceding a line number (e.g. B2/*8) indi- cates that the form in question is substantially illegible or uncertain. SOGDIAN VERSION OF THE BUGUT INSCRIPTION REVISITED 105

B-2 1 [ ] (rt)y pr (m)[yw? srδ βγy mwx’n x’γ’n pr’yt Z]Y k’w βγy s’r pwr-sty rty nw(k)r k’w (•)[ ] 2 [ ]( •••••••••• cr-’’)(c)w mγ’ t’(t)[p’r x’γ’n tk’yn]t š’δp-y-t tr-xw-’nt xwr-γ’p-cy-nt tw-δwnt (s’t)[] 3 [ZKn βγy mγ’ t’tp’r ](x’γ’n w’n)kw pt[škw’](tw δ)[’rnt ’PZ]Y tw(’) xwy-štr ’ḤY mwx’n x’γ’n pr’y-t rty n’ 4 [-wyt ’krty ’ḤRZY 21? srδ ’β](t)kšpw (xšy-)’t δ’(r)[t ZY n’β](cy)h šy-r’k p’rtw δ’rt rty ms ’kδry tγw βγy mγ’ 5 t(’tp’r) x[’γ’n w’](δ)[y nyδ r]ty [ ](•) (’β)tkšpw ’nγwncy-δ xšy-’ ZY n’βcy-h p’r rty nw[kr] 6 β(γ)y m(γ)’ [t]’t(p’r x’γ’n ms ••)[ ptš](k)w’n ptγwštw δ’rt rty xr-(γw)šk srδy (xwt’)w (’)k(rt)[y] 7 (rty) 10s srδ xšy-(’)[t δ’rt rty? βγy] (mγ’?)[ t’tp’r x’]γ’n k’w (βγ)y-št s’r pwrst rty py-štrw š’δp-y-t trx(w)[’nt] 8 xwrγ(’)pcy-(nt )s[ ]t (••••••••••)[ ](’’βr)-’δtw δ’rnt rty nwkr mγ’ wmn’ x’γ’n w’δy nšyδ(t)[w] 9 δ[’](rnt r)t[y ](k•••)[βγy mγ’ wmn’ ](x’)γ’n pr(m’tw) δ’r-t (MN) ’BY mγ’ t’tp’r x’γ’n wsn RB(k’) 10 [ ](•••)[ ](’)krty (r)[t](y) m(s) prm’(’)tw δ’r(t) RBkw nwm snk’ ’wst rty ’YK nw(m) 11 [snk’ ’ḤRZY ](pts)[’r? cw ZKn ’wrkw](p’r) βγy mγ’ t’(t)p’r x’γ’n tk’y-nt ’cw npyšnt cw βrnp’š(nt) 12 [ ](cw)[ š’δ](pyt) cw xwr-(γ’pcy-)nt cw (ms) wkwrt cw n’βcy-’kh ’(st)[’nt?] 13 [ ](•) β’r-’k ’sp’δy-’(n) pr’y(w) ’βt my-δ ’xšt δ’r-’nt 14 [ ](t) (ptxw)stw δ’r-’nt rty cy-mnt pyštr(w ms?) BLANK 15 [ nwm s](nk’ pr)m’tw δ’r-(nt) ’(ws)t rty c’n’w δw’ xšywnk 16 [ ](t )[ ](r’’)tw δ’r-(nt rty) ’sky-s’r r[’](δy) m’tnt rty 17 [ ] (xwt)y ’yt δ’r-nt rty (wr’š yw)yδ’n s(p’)δ m(zyx?) 18 [ ](•)’ n(sm)y ZY [’n]y wys(pw) ’ytδ’r-(nt) r[ty] 19 [ ]’k δw’ x(’γ’n) šy(r’w) m(r)[ ]

B-3 1 [ šyr’](k) γr-’m’k krtk [’’β](r)y-(n)t rt[y ] 2 [ pry]myδ srδ šyr’k γr’mk krtk ’’βry-n[t ] 3 [ ]•••••t ’PZY (•••• n’βcyh?) mrtx(m’)k ’št’t ’ḤRZ-Yβγ m(.)[ ] 4 [ ](•• mr)δ βγ(’nyk) np’xšt-n(w)m (snk’) wmγ’’ ’y-ry mγ(’)[ ] 5 [ ] BLANK

Translation people. And then, godlike Magha Tatpar Qaghan also [agreed? and] listened to the plea(?) and in the hare year The kings of the Turkish Ashinas tribe have estab- he became a king. (B2/7)And he ruled 10 years. [And] god- lished this stone of law. (B1/2)When Niwar Qaghan, like Magha Tatpar Qaghan returned to the gods. (who was) a Yarukch (y’rwkc/n’rwkc) brother of the Then later shadapits, tarkhwans, khurghapchins, [...] great Mukhan Qaghan, talked for the sake of Urkupār (they) discussed(?) [the matter]. Then they placed Magha Chrāchu (’wrkwp’r cr’’cw) Magha Tatpar Qaghan, Umna Qaghan on the throne. (B2/9)And [... Magha Umna] then the godlike Mukhan Qaghan and godlike Magha Qaghan ordered, for the sake of his father, to establish a Tatpar (B1/4)Qaghan were the rulers of the entire world great [temple(?). And when the temple/tomb(?)] was from the east to the west. And [...] Then after that godlike made, again he ordered to establish a great stone of law. [Mukhan Qaghan] [...](B2/1)And in [the tiger year(?) god- Then when [the stone] of law (B2/11)[was made(?) ... ] like Mukhan Qaghan died a]nd returned to the god. Then Urkupar godlike Magha Tatpar Qaghan’s princes, Then, to [... Chrachu] Magha Tatpar’s [princes], grandsons, great grandsons, [...] shadapits, khurghap- shadapits, tarkhwans, qurghapchins, tuduns, all(?)(B2/3) chins, kinsmen, or people (whoever) there may be, [...] [addressed to godlike Magha Tatpar Qaghan, (saying)], together with a cavalry soldier, they lamented for seven “Your elder brother Mukhan Qaghan died35 and [has days (B2/14)[...] they killed [domestic animals?]. And after become] non-[visible.] And he ruled the whole world and this again [...] they ordered to establish [a stone of law]. nurtured [the people] well [for 21 years?]36. Now, again, And when the two rulers [...] they wept. And they were you godlike Magha (B2/5)Tatpar Qaghan [mount the throne? on (= followed?) the way eastward (or upward). And ... and] rule the whole world in that way and nurture the (B2/17)[...] they themselves took [...]. And the army of ???

35 great [...] ??? and they took all the others. For pr’yt “died” see K-L, p. 90. (B2/19) (B3/1) 36 This number of years is reconstructed in accordance with rty 21 And [...] the two qaghans [...... ed] well [...] srδ ’xš’wn δ’r “he held the realm for 21 years” encountered in the he blesses [good] treasure accumulation(?) [... In] this Mongolküre inscription. year he blesses the good treasure accumulation(?).(B3/3) 106 YOSHIDA YUTAKA

[...] and [...] people (consisting of) men of eighty. Then, βrnp’šnt pl. B-2/11 (for *βrnpyšnt) o lord, [...] here the divine law-written stone Umagha Ili βw-/’krt- vb. intr. “to become, be” Magha [... wrote?] ’krty 3.sg.pret. B2/*6, B2/10 c’n’w conj. “when” B-2/15 cnn prep. “from” B1/4 Glossary cr’’cw pr. name “Chrāchu” B1/2(N) cw s.v. ’cw ’’βr’δtw-δ’rnt 3.pl.pret. unknown transitive verb B2/*8 cym’nt prep.+dem. “from this ~” B2/14 (Possibly related to βr’δ’nt found in an unpublished frag- cyw’nt prep. + dem. “from that ~” B1/5 ment So 13502.) δw’ num. “two” B2/15, B2/19 ’’βryn/ vb. tr. “to bless” γr’m’k m. “wealth” B3/1 ’’βrynt 3.sg.pres. B3/*1, B3/2 γr’mk B3/2 ’’šyn’s pr. name “Ashinas” B1/1 k’w prep. “toward” B1/4, B2/1(×2), B2/7 ’’šyn’s-kwtr’’tt “of the Ashinas tribe”, s.v. -kwtr’k krtk m. unknown word “accumulation (of treasure)(?)” B3/1, ’’s/’yt vb. tr. “to take” B3/2 ’yt-δ’rnt 3.pl.pret. B2/17, B2/18 -kwtr’k “of ~ tribe” ’βc’npδ f. “world” B1/4 ’’šyn’s-kwtr’’tt pl. B1/1 ’βt-myδ noun “week, seven days” B2/13 m’tnt s.v. x-/(w)m’t ’βtkšp- m. “the seven divisions (of the world) = entire world” mγ’ noun “(title) Magha = mohe莫何” ’βtkšpw acc.sg. B2/*4, B2/*5 mγ’ B1/3, B2/2, B2/4, B2/6, B2/8, B2/9, B2/11, B3/*4 ’BY m. “father” = ’ptr- B2/9 mγ’’ B1/2 ’cw rel. pron. “whatever” B2/11 MN prep. “from” = cnn B2/*9 cw B2/11, B2/*12, B2/12(×3) mrtxm’k m. “man” B3/3 ’ḤRZY conj. “then, and” (linking clauses) = rty B1/3, ms adv. “also” B2/4, B2/*6, B2/10, B2/*14 B1/*5(×2), B3/3 (’ḤRZYβγ) mwn’k demon. “this” B1/*1 ’ḤY m. “brother” = βr’t B1/2, B2/3 mwx’n pr. noun “Mukhan” B1/2, B1/3, B1/*5, B2/3 ’kδry adv. “now, then, thereupon” B2/4 myw noun “tiger” B2/*1 ’krt- s.v. βw- mz’yx adj. “big, large, great” B1/2 ’nγt’k adj. “whole, all” B1/4 mzyx B2/*17 ’nγwncyδ adv. “in such a way” B2/5 n’βcyh f. “people, nation” B-2/*4, B2/5 B3/*3 ’ny- adj. “other” n’βcy’kh B2/12 ’ny nom.sg.m. (as acc.) B2/*18 n’rwkc (or y’rwkc?) unknown word/personal name B1/2 ’PZY conj. “and” = ’ty B1/3, B3/3 np’xšt-nwm-snk’ noun “stone on which the law is written(?)” ’skys’r adv. “eastward, upward” B2/16 B-3/4 ’sp’δy’n noun “soldier” B2/13 npyšn m. “grandson” ’st’nt s.v. x- npyšnt pl. B2/11 ’št’t num. “eighty” B-3/3 nsmy unknown word B2/*18 (or nšmy “west”?) ’wrkwp’r pr. name “Urkupār” B1/2(N), B2/*11 nšyδ/nšyδt vb. tr. “to settle, place, set” ’wst/’wst’t vb. tr. “to place, establish, put” nšyδtw-δ’rnt 3.pl.pret. B2/*8-9 ’wst pres.inf. B2/10, B2/*15 nw’’r pr. name “Niwar” B1/2 ’wst’t-δ’rnt 3.pl.pret. B1/1 nwkr adv. “now, then” B1/3, B1/5, B2/1, B2/*5, B2/8 *’xšy/’xšt(?) vb. tr. “to lament over ~” nwm snk’ noun “a stone of law” B1/1, B2/10, B2/*10-11, ’xšt-δ’r’nt 3.p.pret. B2/13 B3/*4 ’xšywn’k m. “(supreme) ruler” p’r/p’rt vb.tr. “to nurture” ’xšywn’k B1/1 p’r 2.sg.impv. B2/5 ’xwšwyn’tt pl. B1/4 p’rtw-δ’rt 3.sg.pret. B2/4 xšywnk B2/15 /*pr’yt vb.intr. “to pass away” ’xwšwyn’tt s.v. ’xšywn’k pr’yt 3.sg.pret. B2/3 ’YK conj. “when” = c’n’w B1/2, B2/10 pr’yw postp. “together with” B2/13 ’yry pr. name “Ili” B-3/4 prm postp. “up to ~” B1/4 ’yt-δ’rnt s.v. ’’s/’yt prm’y/prm’t vb. tr. “to order” β’r’k m./adj. “cavalier” “B2/13 prm’tw-δ’rt 3.sg.pret. B2/9, B2/10 (prm’’tw-δ’rt) βγ- m. “god, lord” k’w βγy/βγyšt s’r pw’rt “to return to the prm’tw-δ’rnt 3.p.pret. B2/*15 god(s) = to die, pass away” prw prep. “on, in, at” B1/4 -βγ voc. sg. B3/3 (’ḤRZYβγ) prymyδ prep. + dem. “on this ~” B3/*2 βγy nom.sg.m. B1/3(×2), B1/5, B2/1 (k’w ~), B2/6, B2/11 ptγwš/ptγwšt vb.tr. “to listen to ~, hear” βγyšt pl. B2/7 ptγwštw-δ’rt 3.sg.pret. B2/6 βγ’nyk adj. “divine” B3/*4 ptškw’n noun “humble essage, request” B2/6 βrnpyšn noun “great grandson” ptškwy-/ptškw’t vb.tr. “to say humbly, request” SOGDIAN VERSION OF THE BUGUT INSCRIPTION REVISITED 107

ptškw’tw-δ’r’nt 3.pl.pret. B2/*3 xšywnk s.v. ’xšywn’k ptxw’y/ptxwst- vb. tr. “to kill” xwrγ’pcyn noun “(title) Khurghapchin” ptxwstw-δ’r’nt 3.pl.pret. B2/14 xwrγ’pcynt pl. B2/2, B2/8, B2/12 pw’rt/pwrst- vb.intr. “to turn away” k’w βγy/βγyšt pw’rt “to xwrsn noun “east” return to the god(s) = to die, pass away” xwrsny obl. B1/*4 pwrst 3.sg.pret. B2/7 xwrtxyz noun “west” B1/4 pwrsty 3.sg.pret. B2/1 xwt’w noun “king” B2/6 pyštrw adv. “later, afterward” B1/5, B2/7, B2/14 xwty adv. “self” B2/*17 r’δ noun “road, way” xwyštr adj. “elder” B2/3 r’δy obl. B2/16 y’rwkc (or n’rwkc?) unknown word/personal name B1/2 RBk’ adj. “big, large, great” = mz’yx B-2/9 ywyδ’n unknown word/personal name B2/17 RBkw B2/10 ZK art. B1/3 rty conj. = ’ḤRZY B1/*1, B2/1, B2/3, B2/4, B2/*5, B2/6, ZY conj. “and” B2/*1, B2/5, B2/18 B2/7(×2), B2/8, B2/*9, B2/*10, B2/10, B2/14, B2/15, 10s num. “ten” B-2/7 B2/16(×2), B2/17, B2/*18, B3/1 s’r postp. “toward” B2/1, B2/7 sp’δ noun “army” B2/*17 Bibliography srδ noun “year” srδ B2/7, B3/2 L. Bazin, “Turcs et Sogdiens: les enseignements de l’inscrip- srδy obl. B2/6 tion de Bugud (Mongolie)”, in: Mélanges linguistiques offerts š’δpyt noun “(title) shadapit” B2/2, B2/7, à Emile Benveniste, Paris, 1975, pp. 37-45. šyr’k adj./adv. “good, well” B3/*1, B2/4, B3/2 L. Bazin, tr. by M. Hamada, “6-8 sēki no Churukujin to bukkyō šyr’w adv. “well” B2/*19 (Les Turcs et le bouddhisme)” L. バザン「六ー八世紀の t’tp’r pr. name “Tatpar” B1/3(×2), B2/*2, B2/*5, B2/*6, チュルク人と仏教」 (濱田正美訳), in: Tōhōgaku 東方学 B2/9, B2/11 78, 1989, pp. 141-154. tγw pers. pron. 2 sg. “you (sg.)” B2/4 É. de la Vaissière, “Maurice et le qaghan: à propos de la tw’ obl. B2/3 digression de Théophylacte Simocatta sur les Turcs”, Revue tk’yn noun “(title) prince” des Études Byzantines 68, 2010, pp. 219-224. tk’ynt pl. B2/*2, B2/11 Y. Hirata 平田陽一郎, “Tokketsu Tahatsu kagan no sokui to tr’wk noun/adj. “Turk, Turkic” Kō Shōgi bōmē sēken (The Enthronement of the Tuju’s tr’wkt pl. B1/1 Tabo-Kehan and the Exiled Regime of Gao Shaoyi)” 突厥 trxw’n noun “(title) Tarkhwan” 他鉢可汗の即位と高紹義亡命政権, The Tōyō Gakuhō 東 trxw’nt pl. B2/2, B2/*7 洋学報 86/2, 2004, pp. 151-184. tw’ s.v. tγw B. Karlgren, Grammata Serica Recensa, Stockholm, 1957. twδwn noun “(title) Todon” S. G. Kljaštornyj and V. A. Livšic, “Sogdiojskaja nadpis’ iz twδwnt pl. B2/2 Buguta”, in: Starny i narody Vostoka, X, Moscow, 1971, w’δ noun “seat, throne” pp. 121-146. w’δy obl. B2/8 S. G. Kljaštornyj and V. A. Livšic, “The Sogdian Inscription wkwr noun “kinsman” of Bugut Revised”, in: AOH XXVI(2), 1972, pp. 69-102. wkwrt pl. B2/12 Lin Meicun 林梅村, “Bugute suochu Sutewen Tujue kehan wm’t’nt s.v. x-/(w)m’t jigongbei kao (Remarks on a Sogdian inscription retailing a wmγ’’ pr. name “Umagha” B3/4 Turkic qaghan’s achievements discovered in Bugut)” 布古 wmn’ pr. name “Umna” B2/8 特所出粟特文突厥可汗紀功碑考, in: Minzu yanjiu 民族 wr’š unknown word B2/17 研究 1994, no. 2, pp. 64-71. wsn postp. “for” B1/3, B2/9 Liu Mau-Tsai, Die chinesischen Nachrichten zur Geschichte der wy’βr/wy’βrt vb. intr. “to talk” Ost-Türken (T’u-küe), 2 vols., Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1958. wy’βrt 3.sg.pret. B1/*3(N) N. Sims-Williams and J. Cribb, “A new Bactrian inscription wysp- adj. “all, every” of Kanishka the Great”, Silk Road art and archaeology 4, wyspw acc.sg.m. B2/18 1995/1996, pp. 75-142. x-/(w)m’t vb. intr. “to be” D. Sinor, “The establishment and dissolution of the Türk ’st’nt 3.pl.inj. B2/*12 empire”, in: D. Sinor (ed.), The Cambridge history of early m’tnt 3.pl.pret. B2/16 Inner Asia, Cambridge, 1990, pp. 285-316. wm’t’nt 3.pl.pret. B1/*4 K. Suzuki 鈴木宏節, “Tokketsu Ashina Shima kēfukō: Tokketsu x’γ’n noun “(title) qaghan” B1/ 2(×2), B1/3(×2), B1/4, B-2/3, daiichi kagankoku no kagan kēfu to Tōdai Orudosu no Tokketsu B2/*5, B2/*7, B2/8, B2/*9, B2/9, B2/11, B2/19 shūdan (On the Genealogical Line of the Turk Ashina Simo: xrγwšk m. “hare” B2/6 The Royal Genealogy of the First Türkic Qaγanate and the xšy/xšy’t vb. tr. “to rule” Ordos Region during the Tang Period)” 突厥阿史那思摩系 xšy-’ 2.sg.impv. B2/5 譜考：突厥第一可汗国の可汗系譜と唐代オルドスの突 xšy’t-δ’rt 3.sg.pret. B2/*4，B2/*7 厥集団, The Tōyō Gakuhō 東洋学報, 87/1, 2005, pp. 37-68. 108 YOSHIDA YUTAKA

Xue Zongzheng 薛宗正 (1992), Tujue shi (History of the Turks) Y. Yoshida, “Some new readings in the Sogdian version of Kara- 突厥史, Beijing: Zhongguo Shehui kexue chubanshe, 1992. balgasun Inscription”, in: M. Ölmez et al. (eds.), From Ötüken Y. Yoshida, “Further remarks on the Sino-Uighur problem”, Ajia to Istanbul. 1290 years of Turkish (720-2010), Istanbul, 2011, gengo ronsō アジア言語論叢 3 (1999), 2000/3, pp. 1-11. pp. 77-86. Y. Yoshida 吉田豊, “Sogudojin to kodai Churukuzoku to no Y. Yoshida 吉田豊 and T. Moriyasu 森安孝夫, “Buguto kankei ni kansuru mittsu no oboegaki (Three philological hibun (Bugut Inscription)” ブグト碑文, in: T. Moriyasu and notes on the Sogdo-Turkish relationship)” ソグド人と古 A. Ochir (eds.), Provisional report of researches on historical 代チュルク族との関係に関する三つの覚え書き, Kyōto sites and inscriptions in Mongolia from 1996 to 1998 モンゴ daigaku Bungakubu kenkyū kiyō 京都大学文学部研究紀要ル国現存遺蹟・碑文調査報告, Osaka: Hôyû shoten, 1999, 50, 2011, pp. 1-42. pp. 122-125.