^{page 546 note 1} I leave aside several Chinese examples (*toxora, see above) which are perhaps to be discounted as insufficient renderings.—Tibetan and Chinese transcriptions of Skt. Tukhara need not be considered here.

^{page 548 note 1} “Ein manichäisches Bet- und Beichtbuch” (Abh.P.A.W., 1938, No. 10; quoted as Beichtbuch), p. 89.Google Scholar—For the remarkable change of u to in closed syllables in cases of epenthesis (e.g. nyund-: , Beichtbuch, p. 76) compare Saka mūra: mvīre, etc.

^{page 548 note 2} In Parthian even initial results regularly in ux- Cf. Sogdian wywśw “six”= from

^{page 548 note 3} see Beichtbuch, p. 59.

^{page 548 note 4} suxāy- cf. “pupil”

^{page 548 note 5} ‘wx = ux “mind” from see Beichtbuch, p. 86; Man. Sogd. “parasang”, Beichtbuch, p. 125, from (in Chr.S. and in Buddh. S.

^{page 549 note 1} For the opposite cf. Chr. swq-: Buddh., Man. Chr. pcwq'd'r- beside ptšqw'd'r- (see ST., ii, s.v.), Chr. pcwqyr- = pačukīr- (later > pčukīr- > yaghn. čukīr-, see Beichtbuch, p. 69).

^{page 549 note 2} –y- = “historical spelling.”

^{page 550 note 1} 1 For the Sogdian ending -'k (also written -'w, -'y, -k, -y) was pronounced as -e.

^{page 500 note 2} It is my conviction that the site of “Four Twγry” is to be determined solely by comparing both versions of the inscription. The identity of the Qayan, e.g., does not matter much for our purpose: it was, according to Chavannes and Pelliot, (Traité Manichéen, pp. 203, 223),Google ScholarAï tängridä gut bulmïš alp bilgä uïyur qayan (808–821; he set up the inscription), according to Schlegel Tängridä ülüg bulmīš alp qutluy uluy bilgä qayan (795–805); the Sogdian version supports, I think, Schlegel's view. Even the true date of the campaigns carried out, ace. to Schlegel, before the Qayan acceded to the throne, is only of secondary import: the war against the Qīrqīz is identified (by Schlegel, p. 86) with their defeat in 758 (hardly credible), whilst the expeditions against Qarluq and Tibetans refer (ace. to Schlegel, p. 87) to the great battle near Pei-t'ing in 791 as to the siege of Kuča, cf. Chavannes-Pelliot, , Traité, p. 202, n. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 553 note 1} Besides the edition, cf. Clauson, , JRAS., 1931, pp. 297–309;Google ScholarThomas, F. W., BSOS., viii, pp. 793 sq.,Google ScholarZDMG., 91, pp. 13–15, 47 sq.;Google Scholar Minorsky, al-'Ālam, pp. 271 sq., 292.

^{page 553 note 2} (14), between Kua-ṭsou and Su-ṭsou, is probably Karlgren 1318 + 609).

^{page 553 note 3} Secū (17, 20), see Bailey, and Minorsky, , BSOS., viii, p. 120.Google Scholar

^{page 553 note 4} Anittuṃga may be the same name as later Handling (Bretschneider, s., Medieval Res., ii, pp. 218 sq.).Google Scholar

^{page 553 note 5} Cf. = Töliš, in Manichsean script (as part of a name, Mahrnāmag, line 97).

^{page 553 note 6} See Minorsky, , BSOS., viii, p. 918.Google Scholar

^{page 554 note 1} It is not felt necessary to enter into a discussion of the Sie-ien-to (supposedly Sir Tarduš) here.

^{page 554 note 2} In the same fragment, B 2, “auditores” is to be read instead of the mysterious the čigši Myr “γδy (Mīr-āγaδe) is a Sogdian (“Sundaywish”).

^{page 555 note 1} Acc. to Minorsky, , BSOS., viii, 918,Google Scholar a Tölis tribe. The Chinese rendering would be unusually imperfect; other transcriptions, e.g. o-tie (*ā-d'iet, Karlgren 414 + 880) cf. o-pa (*ǎ;-b'uǎt and .ǎ-b'^wat, + 750) indicate a vowel as initial; ace. to Chavannes, , Doc., p. 88 n., = Ädiz.Google Scholar

^{page 555 note 2} karabīri (BSOS., viii, p. 884) is a misprint; so also is iṃjuva.Google Scholar

^{page 555 note 3} Dr. W. Simon kindly communicated to me T'ang values (in keeping with Karlgren's system) for the characters in question, missing in the Analytical Dictionary.

^{page 556 note 1} 1 Here again, I owe the T'ang pronunciation of the last sign (not in Karlgren's book) to the kindness of Dr. Simon.

^{page 556 note 2} I am not aware if there is any means of deciding which pronunciation is the correct one in a given case; if k'iei should prove correct one might think of qyβyr in the Fragment Haneda (in that case, of course, the above explanation of kāribari had to be abandoned).

^{page 556 note 3} No connection can be traced between the Si-kie and the (Sie-)ien-to, apart from the fact that the Si-kie “occupaient l'ancien campement des Yen-t'o (Tardouch)”, Chavannes, , Doc., p. 88 n.;Google Scholar the name of the royal clan of the (Sie-)yen-to was i-li-tie (*.iět-lji-d'iet, *Elitir), Chavannes, , Doc., p. 94.Google Scholar

^{page 557 note 1} 1 The combination of ayabīri and emil would require the presupposition of (erroneous) re-transcription from Chinese (confusion of m and b); the mysterious may have to be explained in that way; this could be re-transcribed from Chinese, say, representing Turkish *anyaylibut or the like. A Chinese intermediate form alone explains Saka hvaih:ura = uiyur, containing hvai - a. Bailey, , Ttaugara, p. 883, n. 2.Google Scholar

^{page 557 note 2} I disregard the īyraq, uyraq, living between Yaγma and Čarīq.

^{page 557 note 3} The alternative explanation as name of a nation, suggesting *qara-taypat with the name of the Wei (t'o-po, *l'ǎk-b'uǎt, 1159 + 750; cf. t'u-fa, *t'uk-pi ^wnt, 1131 + 750, Haloun, s., ZDMG., 91, p. 275), is certainly to be rejected.Google Scholar

^{page 558 note 1} The tm'rywš yšyδ (line 5, verso line 1) is noteworthy, tm'rywš is to be looked for in Faryāna as is proved by the title hence, tm'rywš, tamar xuš = Tamā xuš near Isfara (Barthold, , Turkestan, p. 160).Google Scholar

^{page 558 note 2} Professor Bailey kindly told me that the equation ṭṣ'u-mi = čumul has been found before by Pelliot, , T'oung Pao, xxxii, p. 363.Google Scholar

^{page 559 note 1} The Oγuz tribe tükār (Kāšyarī, i, p. 57), living far away in the west, is ruled out; tükär would be written *ttūkari; the spelling ttau[ṃ]gara leaves no doubt that the word ended in a, not in r. The presence of such a great number of Turkish tribes in Kansu, Ṣa-ṭṣou, and Si-ṭṣou is hard to explain if the date proposed by the learned editors for the Saka document and the Tibetan document attached to it (second half of eighth century) is adopted. Though, of course, the infiltration of Turkish, mainly Tölis, tribes into this region began at an early date, one would not expect so many of them there before the destruction of the Northern Uyγur empire (840), which led to the foundation of Uyγur principalities in the territory in question by emigrant Uyyur tribes. The Khotanese king may have been a namesake of Vijayasambhava, not the same person. Preservation of Tibetan as official language at the beginning of the Uyγur reign would not be surprising. The name of the Ṣa-ṭṣou king The-po, The-bo, otherwise unknown (according to Professor Thomas, p. 129), recalls the name of the leader of the Uyγur immigrants, P'ang- (Bretschneider, , Res., i, p. 241;Google ScholarMinorsky, , Hudūd, p. 226 n. 2, 264 n. 5);Google Scholar this name, suggesting (if is the correct reading) P'ang tegin, a wholly unsatisfactory name for an Uyyur, is apparently distorted (so as to obtain the well-known title ). It is, I think, the same name as (another Turkish chief, Chavannes, , Doc., p. 86);Google Scholar alternatively, the possibility that the correct form of the name was tegin should be considered. In any case, The-po, The-bo might be a shortening of this name, thus rendering (it is probable that p'ȧng, *b'ȧng, Karlgren 585, would correspond to *bo or the like in Central Asia; is employed also in If the documents were written shortly after the Uyγur invasion the interest displayed by the Khotanese envoys in the population of the neighbouring country would be comprehensible. I do not know if any chronological inference can be drawn from 11. 41–2 of the Saka text: “Cāṃ ttūttū ordered to build the stūa (Bailey, , BSOS., viii, p. 119)Google Scholar of gūmattiri,” i.e. “the great stūpa of ” (Thomas, F. W., Tibetan Literary Texts and Documents, i, p. 108).Google Scholar

^{page 560 note 1} It is, as a rule, seldom possible to give any historical reason for the numerals which form part of tribal designations in Central Asia: toquz ärsin recalls “the nine cities” of Ien-k'i mentioned in the Wei-ṣu (Lévi, S., JA., 1933, i, p. 10);Google Scholar it is, however, improbable that toquz ärsin was confined to Ien-k'i. I leave aside in the Mahrnāmag (line 109; part of a personal name); the ending (-k in Manichsean writing is wholly different from -(')k in Sogdian script) is not very well in accord with the other examples; possibly Turkish toγraq “poplar”; as the person of whose name twγrk forms part was living in Arg (see farther on) it would not contradict our conclusions even if it should be proved to contain twyr-.

^{page 561 note 1} Quantity undecided. Sogdian loanwords in New Persian suggest ě rather than ě (might be, however, influenced by the ordinary Persian ending -ä). Chinese transcriptions may be helpful in solving the problem, cf., e.g., Parthian hasēnay (Waldschmidt-Lentz, , Stellung Jesu, pp. 83, 85 sqq.):Google Scholar presupposes sogdianized pronunciation as ; on the Central Asian pronunciation of Chin, -ng, see Pelliot, , JA., 1912, i, pp. 588Google Scholar sqq., and particularly Thomas, F. W., ZDMG., 91, pp. 10Google Scholar sq. (where, however, is rendered by i.e. ding).

^{page 561 note 2} The second part, at least, of this assertion is open to further investigation. Apart from in Ptolemy (b. vi, ch. 16), Saka ttaugara and Tibetan Phod-kar (etc.), Professor Haloun's demonstration is based mainly on the fact that Kumārajīva explains Tou-k'ü-lo, i.e. transcribed Skt. Tukhāra, by siau üe-ṭṣī “Little Üe-ṭṣï”. In Professor Haloun's opinion, this gloss proves that Kumārajīva knew that the “Little Üe-ṭṣï” of the Nan-ṣan region called themselves “Tokharians” (p. 280). It will hardly be admitted that this interpretation (contemplated before by S. Lévi, rejected by Pelliot) is the only one possible. Kumārajīva in explaining. Tou-k'ū-lo should have written (Great) üe-ṭṣī; instead, he wrote “Little Üe-ṭṣï”, thus misinterpreting the text he was commenting upon in a singular and ridiculous fashion. It is as well to assume that Kumārajīva, bearing in mind the usual equation Tukhara = (Great) Üe-ṭṣï, contemplated at first writing simply “Üe-ṭṣï”, but substituted “Little Üe-ṭṣï” because those were the only Üe-ṭṣï that he knew of by his own experience and expected his readers to have heard of. On the Phod-kar (Thod-kar, Thod-gar), living in north-eastern Tibet, and mentioned many centuries after the last occurrence of the “Little Üe-ṭṣï”, see Thomas, F. W., JRAS., 1931, 834Google Scholar sq. Their habitat is perhaps not yet sufficiently well defined to render their identification with the Little Üe-ṭṣï an incontestable certainty. If Tib. Dru-gu is = Tuyr, the Drug-cun in Western Kan-su, “Little Dru-gu” according to Professor Thomas (pp. 814 sqq.), might be = “Little Tuyr” = “Little Üe-ṭṣï”.

^{page 563 note 1} The initial z- appears to be anything but certain. For the T'ang pronunciation, Saka name of a tribe (in unpublished Saka documents; Professor Bailey kindly communicated this name to me), is interesting: apparently = kung-üe, kungur (thereby containing = gur).

^{page 563 note 2} It would be interesting to learn from Sinologists how in their opinion the Chinese could have rendered a word (or the like) in a less ambiguous way.

^{page 563 note 3} One might even go one step farther and assume an internal Üe-ṭṣï sound change: postsonantic (attested in numerous languages); therefore, older the latter being “attested” by Chinese *zngotia,

^{page 563 note 4} It is taken for granted that ärśi, ärain, and u-sun represent the same name; the Chinese had some difficulty in rendering -r at the end of a syllable (on see Haloun, pp. 252, 314); if necessary, -r could be explained as in Arg.

^{page 564 note 1} Attested by Xuei-lin: “Kučā a été appelé aussi Üe-ṭṣï et U-sun,” see Pelliot, , JA., 1934, i, p. 90, n. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 564 note 2} Written in Sogdian script.

^{page 564 note 3} The names following 'rkoyk in the list, probably pointing to the Turfan region, are not yet sufficiently clear to offer confirmation.

^{page 564 note 4} Not yet published (M 297); in Manichæan writing.

^{page 564 note 5} Name and title missing.

^{page 565 note 1} In Sogdian (s. Minorsky, p. 273); also attested in a Manichaean fragment, where is written, s. Beichtbuch, p. 12 (but drraya kaṃthe seems to be different). One might think of (better than mie), ‘ṭṣang-three-cities,” between Ien-k'i (Qarašahr) and Qočo, see Chavannes, , Doc., p. 6.Google Scholar

^{page 565 note 2} Khūlandyūn looks distinctly Sogdian (cf. Minorsky, p. 206 and n. 4); -yūn “kind” is rather obvious, but no word (might be “*covering”) or is attested; γw'r'nt (“right”, acc. to Rosenberg, , Izv., 1918, 831,Google Scholar originally “brilliant glorious, good”) is not satisfactory either; the word might have the same meaning as tan (“insipid, tasteless, watery”), in the T'ang-ṣu name of the Khaidu-gol, Chavannes, , Doc., p. 6.Google Scholar

^{page 565 note 3} See Bailey, , BSOS., viii, p. 120.Google Scholar

^{page 566 note 1} It gives me pleasure to state that years ago Professor Schaeder, in the course of a conversation, proposed to regard 'rk ('rk-cyq) as a geographical name, not as an appellative “castle” (as Müller thought).

^{page 566 note 2} It is, however, at least equally possible, if not more probable, that his much more powerful namesake (808–821) is meant.

^{page 566 note 3} Grammatically, the geographical terms are, all of them, adjectives; the Persian and Sogdian titles cannot, naturally, be regarded as official designations of the rulers in question; only under (3) are genuine titles given.

^{page 566 note 4} It is hard to explain the prothetic vowel which if not articulated would not be written in Manichaean script though possibly it would in Sogdian script; cf., e.g., Buddh. S. 'kwty as against Man. S. (kuti), “dog”; 'kwty suggests a development: (rather dubious). Derivation of 'kwcyk from *'kw = Turkish Oqu (küsän), see above, p. 560, is very unlikely.

^{page 568 note 1} A different opinion on the origin of barčuq is expressed by Pelliot, , JA., 1934, i, p. 60.Google Scholar

^{page 569 note 1} On Su-ṭṣou, see Pelliot, , JA., 1912, i, pp. 591 sqq.Google Scholar

^{page 569 note 2}

^{page 569 note 3} Not only the finals disagree (even Minorsky, p. 294, would be dubious if the presence of a final -k can be disproved), but also the initials (that of the Chinese name being a sonant) as well as the middle consonants (-nč- as against -n-s-; moreover a Chinese final -n in the JTan-period does not necessarily represent foreign -n; in the present case = r, according to Pelliot); furthermore, only contemporary Chinese names are comparable.

^{page 569 note 4} Turkish, ace. to Pelliot, , T'oung Pao, xxxii, p. 265 (cf. čalïs “wrestling” [Kāšyari] ?).Google Scholar

^{page 570 note 1} Turkish ? Cf. sumlï-maq “to gibber” (Kāšyarī) ?

^{page 569 note 2} But cf. Minorsky, , Ḥudūd, pp. 276, 497,Google Scholar on

^{page 569 note 3} See Pelliot, , JA., 1934, i, p. 91 n. 2.Google Scholar

^{page 569 note 4} In “Fan Yu Tsa Ming”: Bagchi, , Deux Lexiques, i, p. 295.Google Scholar

^{page 569 note 5} See Beichtbuch, pp. 88 sq.—Buddh. S. ‘βγ’nγ, βs'nγ (= not *afsang), mentioned by Pelliot, , JA., 1934, i, pp. 30 sq., is different (fra- > fa).+fa).>Google Scholar

^{page 571 note 1} Also in Manichaean Middle Persian if the scribe adhered to Sogdian orthographical principles.

^{page 571 note 2} I have to apologize for several inconsistencies which will be found in the present article; they arose from hesitation to decide a question which has puzzled us long enough. I should like to state expressly that I adhere wholeheartedly to the last proposal, i.e. Ien-k'i = Argi = Arg (Ark), from older