Etienne de la Jaissire

Iranian in Wusun?
A tentative reinterpretation of the Kultobe inscriptions
The great migrations oI the 2
nd
c. BC modiIied the political landscape oI Central Asia:
many tribes moved to the West. Among them, the Wusun, who settled on the pastures all
along the North-Western Tianshan. Although many attempts tried to identiIy them in Greek
sources describing the Iate oI the Bactrian kingdoms destroyed by these migrations, or in the
Geography oI Ptolemy, no saIe result was achieved in this way. Eor the time being, the only
data we have on the Wusun are the Chinese ones, and the archaeology.
The Wusun are described in the Dayuan chapter oI the Shifi (chap. 123), as well as in
the Memoir on Zhang Qian and Li Guangli oI the Hanshu (chap. 61). Their myth oI origin is
thus described in the Hanshu:
'When I was living among the Xiongnu I heard oI Wusun; the king was entitled Kunmo, and the
Kunmo`s Iather was named Nantoumi; originally |Wusun| had lived with the Da Yuezhi between
the Qilian |mountains| and Dunhuang; and they had been a small state. The Da Yuezhi attacked
and killed Nandoumi, seizing his lands; and his people Iled to the Xiongnu. An inIant Kunmo
had recently been born, and the Bujiu Xihou, who was his guardian, took him in his arms and ran
away. He laid him in the grass and searched Ior Iood Ior him; and on his coming back he saw a
wolI suckling the child; Iurthermore there were ravens holding meat in their beaks and hovering
at |the child`s| side. (transl. Hulsewe, p. 214215).
___|j_]_{Q_||j_[___
|]_|]jj____j_=
____ _] (Hanshu 61.26912)
This myth oI origin is extremely striking, in that it reminds us both oI parallel myths in
the steppe and in the Indo-european world: the she-wolI suckling a baby is part oI the Turk
and Mongol legends oI origins, as well as the Roman one.
The other animal oI the legend, the crow, is clearly reIered to in the name oI the Wusun:
descendants (sun j) oI the crow (wu ). However most oI the authors regarded Wusun as a
transcription oI a Ioreign tribal name. The crow part oI the myth would have been a Chinese
addition in an attempt to explain what was essentialy in Iact a transcription. It would have
been a learned gloss and no crow would have nourish the heir oI the Kunmo in the original
321
I r ani an i n Wus un? A t ent at i ve rei nt er pret at i on of t he Kul t obe i ns cr i pt i ons
myth. E. Pulleyblank, among others, wrote Ior instance: 'the part played by the crow seems
to be an embellishment based on the meaning oI the Chinese characters used Ior the name
oI the Wu-sun, i.e. crow grandson`. Since these characters are undoubtedly a transcription
oI a non-Chinese word, one can only suppose that this punning interpretation was added by
Chang Chien himselI or some other Chinese (Pulleyblank, 1970, p. 156).
It is not clear why this solution was preIered to the equally possible opposite one, that
the crow was an original part oI the myth and that the Chinese translated the selI-designation
oI the Wusun, or, third possibility, that they played on words to mention a crow in what was
still an approximate attempt oI transcription oI the name.
OI these possibilities, the Iirst, transcription, and the third, mixed transcription, are best
attested in Chinese dealings with the names oI Ioreign tribes. Xiongnu is a good example oI
the third possibility, the mix oI meaning and sound, rendering very approximately Hun so
that to convey a derogatory meaning crying slaves` (Henning, 1948, la Vaissiere, 2005). The
various Chinese names oI the Rouran are also good examples, Rouran simply transcribing a
Ioreign name, while Ruanruan is both a transcription oI the same name and a translation, iI
we are to accept the Ruanruan-Avar link
1
, or at least part-phonetical and part-derogatory iI
we are not. As regard the second possibility, the High Carts (Gaoju) oI the Tiele ( mongol
telegen, cart) conIederation are a good example.
However, recent developments have shown that among these possibilities, only the sec-
ond or the third ones are to be accepted as regard the Wusun. To cut it short, the crows were
there Irom the beginning and are not a learned gloss.
In an article recently published in Asian Folklore Studies, Namu Jila has discovered
many parallels to the close association wolI-crows in Mongol and Oirat myths, including a
legend oI a baby nourished by a she-wolI and a crow (Namu, 2006)
2
. However, being later
than the Wusun myth, it can be objected that these myths might have been in a way or another
inIluenced by the Chinese texts. But the author adds a parallel that is not questionable: in the
Roman version oI the myth, iI usually only the she-wolI is remembered, in Iact the original
texts mentioned both a she-wolI and a bird, a woodpecker, nourishing the twins
3
. Whatever
might have been the evolution oI the myth in the Mongol world, the oldest version oI this
myth, the Roman one, does associate a wolI and a bird. So that we do have to reject the hy-
pothesis that the mention oI the crow in the Chinese source is a mere learned gloss created to
explain the name Wusun. It is the opposite, the birds were there Irom the beginning, and the
name cannot be a mere transcription.
Consequently, this name, meaningIul, or is a translation oI the selI-designation oI the
Wusun, or, more complex, is a meaningIul attempt to transcribe their name.
In the Iollowing, I will assume that Wusun is not a plain translation, but an attempt to play
both on the sound and the meaning, as so oIten the case in Chinese. II I cannot rule it out, it
1
These 'wriggling insects might translate the mongol Abarga, with the same meaning, itselI to
be linked to the name Avar, the name oI the Ruanruan aIter they would have Iled to the West. On all
this Golden, 1992, p. 7677.
2
There are errors in this study, especially as regard the linguistic aIIiliation oI the Wusun.
3
See also Beckwith, 2009, p. 8485, 376377 and 388, n. 12, who is aware oI the woodpecker/
crow parallel, but does not see that it impaired the Chinese transcription oI the sounds. Beckwith
Iavors the old idea oI Wusun transcribing Asvin, that is the Horsemen` in Old Indic, considering the
possibility oI pockets oI Old Indic speakers leIt outside oI India.
322
Et i e nne de l a Jai s s i e re
should be pointed out that in the myth, Wusun and Roman, the crow is always secondary to the
wolI and eventually disappears in the Gaoju, Turk and Mongol myths oI origin. In a way
it would be strange to put the crow Iorward instead oI the wolI. Would it had been a transla-
tion, the heirs oI the wolI` would have been more logical, as were the Turks or the Mongols.
Wu was pronounced in Han time, the date oI our earliest mentions oI the Wusun, as
?a according to Baxter, o according to Cobin in the Northwestern dialect. However it tran-
scribes also a simple a, as in Wuyishanli, Alexandria, and also Sanskrit o, in Han-time Bud-
dhist texts Irom China. Karlgren gave the value u. Sun j was su~n, or sun, or son during the
Han period. Wusun might have been pronounced Usun, or Osun, or Asun, or Usu~n, or
Oson, Usun, Asun, Usu~n.
But the main result up to now is not the phonology, but rather its limited value: this pro-
nounciation was most probably only an approximate one, being distorded by the necessity to
Iind some meaningIul characters. There is theoritically the possibility that, by an extraordi-
nary chance, Wu sun would have actually both sounded exactly as the actual name oI the
Wusun and meant something important Ior Wusun origins. But the chance is so low that I
will ignore it. As Xiongnu is only a very approximate transcription Ior Hun, coined mainly
to be derogatory, Sons oI the crow could be only an approximate rendering oI the original
name, something close to Usun, or Osun, or Asun, or Usu~n, but most likely not exactly that,
so that to accommodate a meaning.
We should now shiIt to an entirely diIIerent oI data, directly linked with Vladimir Aro-
novich Livshits`s interests. It is a pleasure to dedicate this study to a wonderIul scholar and
actual gentleman the works oI whom are at the basis oI so many discoveries in Central Asian
studies and especially Sogdian epigraphy.
In 1992 came to light the Iirst oI a serie oI Iragmentary inscriptions on ceramic plaques
Irom the Kazakh site oI Kultobe, on the river Arys, excavated by N. Podushkin (Podushkin,
2000, 2005). IdentiIied as Sogdian by E. Grenet and N. Sims-Williams, they were translated
and commented in two articles published in 2006 and 2007 (Sims-Williams, Grenet, 2006
and Sims-Williams, Grenet, Podushkin, 2007). They were discovered in a much ruined Ior-
mer citadel on the bank oI the river, at the Ioot oI a plateau inhabited by nomads as shown by
the big kurgans overlooking the valley.
N. Sims-Williams edited and translated the main inscription so:
1. ZNH knth BDt sp`ony (c)|......... ZKn ..........|
2. BRY ZY swtt (SWTt ?) TMH KZY ZY |..........|
3. `P ZK n`p HLYK `P ZK wo`nn`p |HLYK......|
4. ZK symrkntc MR`Y `P ZK k|s`yk MR`Y `P ZK|
5. nxspyk MR`Y `P ZK nw(k!)my|tn MR`Y `PZYs|
6. ZK GNZ KL` LKHt `P ZK |....... `P ZK .......|
7. (blank) HLYK NP(S)|H/Y (blank?) |
Translation: 'This city was built by the leader oI the army, Ch|... the| son oI |...|. He
went (?) there so that (?) both the (land) allotted to (our) people and the |land allotted to| the
nomads |might be ...; and| the lord oI Samarkand and the |lord oI| K|ish and the| lord oI Na-
khshab and the |lord oI| Nk-m|than agreed(?); and he (?)| took all the treasure and the |...
and the| (land) allotted |to ...| (as his) own.
The other inscriptions are more Iragmentary and shorter, the second one mentions the
Iounding oI the Iortress by a general Irom Chch. The inscriptions cannot be dated with any
323
I r ani an i n Wus un? A t ent at i ve rei nt er pret at i on of t he Kul t obe i ns cr i pt i ons
certainty but on paleographical and grammatical grounds should be older than the Ancient Sog-
dian Letters oI the beginning oI the 4
th
c. AD. They do correspond quite closely to the situation
described in the Chinese sources on Western Central Asia in the 1
st
c. AD. By then the Iormerly
united Kangju state, centered on Chch, has dissolved into a conIederation oI oasis-states. This
situation seems to have lingered up to the 3
rd
c. AD as the Sassanian Paykuli inscription oI 262
seems to describe the same conIederation under the name oI 'Kash, Soghd and Chch.
4

It is clear that the inscriptions reIer to a colonization originating Irom Kangju. In these
texts are described the creation oI a Irontier citadel by a Chchian general (in the inscription
n 2), with the agreement or participation, and may be population, oI all the main Southern
oasis oI Kangju. This strategical move seems to have been at the expense oI a people iden-
tiIied as the wonnp, here translated as nomads, np meaning people or community in Sog-
dian, and *won being the regular, iI unattested, Sogdian counterpart oI some other Iranian
words, like Manichean Parthian wdn, meaning tent
5
. The wonnp would be the people oI
the tent`, hence the translation nomad.
But I cannot regard this name as equivalent to nomad, even iI *won could mean tent.
In this text and in this context, a precise name would be required, as precise as all the other
ethnonyms mentionned in the text, Chch, Samarkand, Nakhshab, Kesh, Bukhara. These in-
scriptions record the Iounding act oI the city, it was most certainly placed at its gates, as dem-
onstrated by E. Grenet. There were several copies oI them, as several examples oI the same
inscription are recorded in this small corpus. These are oIIicial texts, describing precise ne-
gociations in a precise context, to be remembered. The contrast between the supposed mean-
ing oI nomads, very vague to say the least, and the precise ethnonymic vocabulary is strik-
ing. I do not know a single ancient text in which a neighbour next door litteraly speaking
in Kultobe would be named in such a broad and generic way. In Sogdian or Khotanese
texts there are no words Ior nomads, there are Turks, or Huns, but no nomads. Similarly, in
Chinese texts, there are Rong, or Di, or Hu, but no nomads. The use oI Huns` Ior nomads
Irom the North-East is especially striking in the Mugh documents because the word is used
precisely where nomads` would be correct, or the more precise Turk. Nomad as a descriptive
anthropological word belongs to the Greek inheritage in Western vocabulary, and in Greek
it is used only to describe Iaraway peoples barely known as the Numids Ior instance, or
associated with the Anthropophagi in the Iarthest regions oI the Steppe. But in direct contact
with some actual nomads, even the Greeks named them, Scythian, or Saka, or Tokharian.
It would seem more logical to regard this name, the people oI the tent, as precise, that is,
not a generic name given by the Sogdians, but the selI-designation oI this people. This name
does exist in nomadic ethnonymy, and Ior instance our Bedouin, people oI the desert` name
actually themselves the ahl al-Bayt`, people oI the tent. It is a much likely hypothesis that
the people involved in the negociation with the Kangju troops are 'the Tents as the Gaoju
are 'the High Carts.
4
The discovery oI the Kultobe inscriptions and the way it describes what is Kangju according
to the Chinese sources should lead to modiIy the current interpretation oI the Paikuli inscription and
revert to the Iormer one which interpreted Kash in the inscription as Kesh in Sogdiana and not Kashgar.
'Kash, Soghd and Chch seems to be a way to describe the three main components or valleys oI the
conIederation.
5
In latter Sogdian texts it is wyn, a borrowing Irom Middle Persian.
324
Et i e nne de l a Jai s s i e re
II we are to try to identiIy this people oI the Tents, an obvious candidate are the Wusun.
The Northern neighbors oI Kangju, as testiIied repeatedly by all the Chinese dynastic his-
tories, Irom the Hanshu to the Sanguo :hi, that is during this precise period, are the Wusun.
It might be argued however that the Chinese texts are not especially detailed and that some
more local nomadic peoples might have existed in this region. To reduce the group oI candi-
dates would in this regard be only a typical reductio ad notum.
Against this objection, it should be pointed out that the Kultobe inscriptions do not de-
scribe a local and limited operation. The Iour main towns oI settled Transoxiana, and Chch,
representative oI the Kangju conIederation as a whole, exactly as described in the Chinese
sources, operated an important attempt oI colonization on the very edge oI the steppe and, sur-
rounded by nomads (a Iact obvious on the spot), managed by a military oIIensive (the Chchan
general) to assure its success. It is not a minor operation, but one which involved Iorces and an
agreement coming Irom the whole Kangju. All its princes are mentionned in the inscription.
The Ioe should be equally important, on par with this coordinated strategical attempt.
In the Chinese texts oI this period (IIII c. AD) the Northern Ioe oI Kangju, established
Irom the Ili to Semirech`e, exactly as latter the Western Turks (the tudun oI whose was at
Tarvand/Otrar a Iew kilometers away Irom Kultobe.) has only one name: Wusun. It is sim-
ply logical to think that such a major attempt Irom the whole Kangju had major opponents,
the Wusun according to the same Chinese texts. In Iront and against this straightIorward his-
torical evidence, it is not obvious that in a diplomatic and political text we could have Iound
such a vague reIerence to the nomads.` These nomads` should much more precisely be the
Wusun. Is this possible, i.e. can we propose an ad hoc phonetical hypothesis bridging the gap
between Wusun and won?
As demonstrated above, the Chinese attempt was most probably an approximate one, as
room had to be made Ior a meaning. Wusun might have been pronounced Usuen, but this
Iorm was not a perIect rendition oI the sounds. Conversely, won in Sogdian, and keeping the
meaning tent`, should have been pronounced *win, in which is the voiced dental Irica-
tive,
6
much unIrequent in most oI languages, and totally Ioreign to Chinese phonology. Last-
ly and perhaps mainly, in this hypothesis both were attempts to reIlect the selI-designation
oI the same group, with a language and a phonology oI its own, in other words both Sogdian
and Chinese are here approximations to the actual name, the Chinese much more than the
Sogdian, impaired as it was by the meaning it conveyed and deprived oI the phonological
Ilexibility oI an alphabetic system.
Although hypothetical, I can see nothing which would preclude the Iollowing scenar-
io: the selI-designation oI the Wusun is actually the Tents, in an Iranian language close to,
but not similar to, Sogdian. In this language Tent might have been *w~0n vel sim., close
enough both to *Win, the Sogdian transcription and translation a possibility created by
the closeness oI the languages
7
, and to Wusun, *Usu~n, the Chinese partial transcription
coined to convey also the legend oI origins
8
.
6
My sincere thanks to Nicholas Sims-Williams Ior clariIying this to me.
7
My sincere thanks to Ilya Yakubovich Ior helping to sharpen my ideas on this part oI the
argument.
8
The structure ww-Iricative-nn is common to both, and we might even consider a diachronic
aspect: the two names were transcribed at an interval oI 2 to 4 centuries, the 2
nd
c. BC Ior the Chinese,
325
I r ani an i n Wus un? A t ent at i ve rei nt er pret at i on of t he Kul t obe i ns cr i pt i ons
When compared with the strategical situation in Kultobe and once taken into account
the Iact that the Chinese name could not be a good transcription, it would be a mistake to ar-
gue on the actual but limited phonological diIIerences and not to see the wider picture. The
people oI the tents are designated as the main Ioe oI the Kangju conIederation by this major
Kangju attempt oI colonisation at the very limit oI the territory oI the nomads. The only pow-
erIul nomadic neighbours oI Kangju on par with it are the Wusun, with a name close, iI not
exactly similar, to won oI the Sogdian texts.
Does it mean that the Wusun were Iranian speaking? There is theoritically the possibility
that, by an other extraordinary chance, a name in an unknown language would have sound-
ed close enough to Sogdian tent` to be transcribed that way. In Iront oI the Iact that People
oI the Tents` is an actual nomadic name, in use among one oI the major nomadic people on
earth, it is much more probable that the two languages were close enough to allow a tran-
scription which did not modiIied the meaning.
It is clear that the interpretation put Iorward here is tentative. We have to accept some
preliminary hypothesis, mainly: 1. that Chinese Wusun is not a plain translation ; 2. that no
other major Ioe emerged on the Northern Irontier oI Kangju without being noticed by the
Chinese ; 3. that the selI-designation oI the Wusun was not by chance close to won but in an
unknown language. But none oI these hypothesis is actually diIIicult to accept. II we do, then
there is a strong possibility that the Wusun are mentionned in the Kultobe inscriptions under
their own Iranian name, the Tents.
Bibliography
Beckwith C. Empires oI the Silk Road. A History oI Central Eurasia Irom the Bronze Age to the
Present. Princeton, 2009.
Golden P. An Introduction to the History oI the Turkic Peoples. Wiesbaden, 1992.
Henning W. B. The Date oI the Sogdian Ancient Letters // BSOAS, 1948, 123/4, p. 601615.
Hulsewe A.E.P. China in Central Asia: the Early Stage: 125 B.C. A.D. 23. An annotated
translation oI chapters 61 and 96 oI the History oI the Eormer Han Dynasty, with an introduction by
M.A.N. Loewe. Leiden, 1979.
de la Vaissiere E. Huns et Xiongnu // CAJ, 2005, 491, p. 326.
Namu J. Myths and Traditional BelieIs about the WolI and the Crow in Central Asia: Examples
Irom the Turkic Wu-Sun and the Mongols // Asian Eolklore Studies, 2006, 652 p. 161177.
Hoymxnn A.H. Aptccxax xyntrypa Rxnoro Kasaxcrana. Typxecran, 2000.
Hoymxnn A.H. Honte namxrnnxn nnctmenno xyntrypt Rxnoro Kasaxcrana // Shygys
2005, 2, c. 133139.
Pulleyblank E. The Wu-sun and Sakas and the Yeh-chih Migration // BSOAS, 1970, 33, p. 154
160.
Sims-Williams N. Grenet E. The Sogdian Inscriptions Irom Kultobe 2006 // Shygys 2006, 1, p. 95
111.
Sims-Williams N. Grenet E. Podushkin A.N. Les plus anciens monuments de la langue sogdienne:
les inscriptions de Kultobe au Kazakhstan // CRAI, 151
e
annee, n 2, 2007, p. 10051034.
and between the 1
st
and 3
rd
c. AD Ior the Sogdian. The Wusun language 0 would have been alveolarized
in Chinese, i.e. rendered as s, a quite common phonological phenomenon, to convey a meaning, while
later it would have been voiced as a in Sogdian.