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 his- tory 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 cor- rect, 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 inscrip- tion 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 dam- aged and I must confess that mwn’k is not very certain.