Last updated 2nd August 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. As we resolve the issues resulting from this, we are also experiencing some delays to publication. We are working hard to restore services as soon as possible and apologise for the inconvenience. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 December 2009
The extent and nature of Chinese penetration into Central Asia during the third century and the problems raised by the Chinese and Kharoṣṭhī documents that have been found at the various sites of Lop-nor, Niya, and elsewhere have recently formed the subject of articles by two scholars. Professer Brough has suggested that the territory of the state of Shan-shan was incorporated into the Kuṣāṇa empire for a short period, perhaps in the middle of the second century, before independent rules took over control. He believes that a further change was marked by the adoption of the royal title jiṭuṃgha from the seventeenth year of king Aṃgoka, and that thereafter the country was subject to Chinese control (or at least nominally so) for the period of about 60 years until the end of King Vaṣmana's reign; and he suggests that the seventeenth year of king Aṃgoka can be identified with 263. Professor Enoki has recently taken the opportunity to revise his earlier theory that the year in question should be identified as 609; and he now believes that the five kings mentioned by name in the Kharoṣṭhī documents should be dated from the middle of the third century to the decade starting in 330.
2 Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, XXVIII, 3, 1965, 582–612.Google Scholar.
3 Memoirs of the Research Department of the Toyo Bunko, No.22, 1963,125–7;1.
4 For the status and situations of the dependent states, see RHA, I, 62.
5 i.e. with the appointment of Cheng Chi 
, HS, 19A.13a(23b and HS, 96A.2b 7b). Chϋ-yen strip 118.17 (Chϋ-yen Han-chien t‵u-pan chih pu, p95; chϋ-yen Han-chien chia pien, no. 678) refers to Chi
, a colonel who had been comissioned to protect Shan-shan and the area to that the west, and also uses the term Tu-hu 
. This strip mentions dates in 64 and 62 B.C. The last recipient of the title Tu-hu before the Eastern Han period was Li ch‵ung 
(HS, 96B. 23A (36a); HS, 99B.35b (30b)).
6 HS,96B.8b (10b)and 20b(33b).
7 Established in 48 B.C.; HS, 19A. 13b(23b). In the Eastern Han period there were variously one or two of these officers, See Kyoto index to HHS, P. 663.
8 The total number of Han titles held in the Western Regions in given as 376 in HS, 96B.23a (36a). Examples of the despatch to hostages to the Han court or the attendance there of sons of the kings of the west are seen in HS, 96A.4b (12a),16a (34a). and 18b (38a); and in HS, 96B. 8a (10a)and 13a (20a).
9 CS, 2.8a.
10 CS, 47.3b.
11 CS, 67.11a; probably between 271 and 284.
12 CS, 56. la et seq.
13 CS, 3.5b and 3.12a.
14 CS, 14.14b et seq.; the other seven commanderies were Hai-p‵ing 
, Wu-wei
.chang-i 
, Hsi
, Chiu-ch'ϋan
, Tun-huang
, and Hsi-hai
,
15 CS, 14.15a.
16 CS, 86.9b,11a. For the ch'ien Liang ‘dynasty’, see Maspero, 78.
17 CS, 3.6b.
18 CS, 3.6a.
19 CS, 3.6b, 8a.
20 CS, 3.8b. The event concerned the execution of Ling-hu Hung 
by the Regional Inspector of Liang-chou. Ling-hu Hung had assumed control of the commandery on the death of his elder brother Ling-hu Feng
, who had himself seized control from Ling Ch'eng 
. This official had been the prefect of Tun-huang hsien, and had been placed in charge of the governor's office of Tun-huang commandery at local initiative. This had taken place after the death of Yin Ch'ϋ
, who had been the last officially appointed governor of the commandery.
21 CS, 3.10a.
22 CS, 3.6A, 8b, 10b, 11a; CS, 57.4b;Tzu-chih t'ung-chien, 79(Peking punctuated edition, p.2513).
23 CS, 3.12b.
24 CS, 3.13a, 13b.
25 HS, 96B. 20a(32b) et seq.
26 Wei-lüeh chi-pen 
, 22.2b; the central route is described here as running from the Yϋ-men Barrier by way of OLD Lou-lan and other places to Ch'iu-tzu and the Pamir.
27 Huang, 26.
28 Stein, Serindia, i, 230.
29 Huang, 24.
30 Enoki, art. cit., 152 f.
31 HS, 19A. 15b (28b,29a).
32 For the dependent states, see p. 92 above; forshu-kuo tu-wei, etc., HS, 19A. 11a and 15b (19b and 29a).
33 HS, 96A. 4a and 7A (10b and 15b).
34 See Bokubi
, No. 24, 1953, (no pagination is given there after the introduction, and the unmbers which follow here refer to pages in sequence after p.16)17 and 25.
35 e.g. see HS, 96A. 16a (34a) and HS, 96 B. 8a(10a).
36 HS, 19A. 13b (24a, b); HHS (tr.), 26, 4b (4a).
37 The text is given by Professor Brough, art, cit., 600. It is possible that the inscription will bear an interpretation as a list of names and titles of several officials rather than as tbat of a single one.
38 e.g. HS, 96A.2b (7b); HS, 96B.8b(11a); HHS, 87 (biog. 77). 13b and 38b (8a and 23a). See alos p. 97 above.
39 There are 120 pieces shown in Conrady, See also Maspero, nos. 169–242 and 243–52; chavannes, , Documents chinois découverts par Aurel Stein, Oxford, 1913, nos. 721–939 and 940–50Google Scholar; and Stein, Ancient Khotan, I, 537 f., where Chavannes gives the texts, translations, and notes of 52 pieces.
40 i.e. the pieces presented in Huang, 179 f. Of the total of 71 strips and fragments assembled there, 7 are also given in Chϋ-yen Han-chien chia pien (seee RHA, II. 375).
41 i.e. Huang, no. 1; see also p. 92, n.5.
42 Conrady, no. 107; Chavannes, op, cit., nos. 751,752,885; Maspero, no. 209; and Stein, op.cit., Niya N.xv. 85 (p.538).
43 Maspero, no. 213.
44 Huang, 25; HHS, 47 (biog. 37).21a (12b).
45 HHS, 47 (biog. 37). 23b (14a).
46 Huang, 26.
47 Maspero, 53; where reference is made to Maspero. no. 209 and Conrady, (Paper fragment 9.3 verso).
48 Chavannes, op. cit., nos. 940–7.
49 art. cit., p. 590, n,25.
50 In Ancient Khotan, I, 538.
51 See n. 51, p.103.
51 Maspero, 52. Huang, 26, suggests that the date 
, which is said to appear in one inscription, is a corruption for 
i.e. 252. However, as the same set of fragments also refer to a date in T'ai-shih 2, i.e. 266, they cannot be dated before that year.See Conrady, (paper)16.1, 16.2, where, however, the crucial character does not appear on the facsimile.
