As is well known, the chronology of the Kushans, especially that of the king Kanishka, is one of the most controversial questions in Central Asian and Indian history. The author of the present article tries to indentify Hsieh _??_, Fu-wang _??__??_ of the Yüeh-shih, who led seventy thousand soldiers to the northwesternmost part of Tarim Basin to attack Chinese armies under Pan Ch'ao _??__??_ in A. D. 90, either with a viceroy of the Kushans in Central Asia or with a member of royal family or a king of the dynasty of Kanishka, that is to say, the second dynasty of the Kushans.
Actually, there are two different traditions concerning Hsieh. The Hou-han-shu _??__??__??_ or the Standard History of the Later Han (Biography of Pan Ch'ao, see Chavannes, TP, 1906, p. 232) records that he was a viceroy of the Yüeh-shih, while the Hou-han-chi _??__??__??_ or the Chronicle of the Later Han (ed. Ssu-pu ts'ung-k'an, Bk. 13, fol. 4a) writes that he was the king of the Yüeh-shih. The Hou-han-chi, compiled by Yüan Kung _??__??_ (327-376), is one of the sources utilized by Fan Yeh _??__??_ (393-445) for the compilation of his Hou-han-shu. However, there is no clue to decide which one of these two traditions should be followed.
Now, Hsieh has been explained by Ed. Chavannes as a proper name of the viceroy and by S. Lévi as a transcription of Shâhî. Seeing that Hsieh was pronounced as *zia' in Ancient Chinese (Karlgren, Analytic Dictionary, No. 865), it is possible that it represents shâhî. However, Hsieh was pronounced as *dziag in Archaic Chinese (Karlgren, Grammata Serica Recensa, No. 807g). And there are a number of evidences to show that the characters hsieh _??_ and shê _??_ was alternatively used at the time of Later Han. According to B. Karlgren's reconstruction, shê _??_ was pronounced d'iäk or dz'iäk in Archaic and Ancient Chinese respectively. Under the circumstances, though the pronounciation of the character hsieh under the Later Han is not clearly known, it is possible that it was also pronounced as *dziäg or *dz'iäk and that it represents (i)shk(a) which forms the second part of Kanishka, Vasishka and Huvishka. In the opinions of H. W. Bailey, W. B. Henning and K. L. Janert, —ishka<isthaka is the superative, these three names meaning the youngest, the most excellent and the most useful respectively.
Moreover, Fu-wang can be taken not only as viceroy but also as one of the dual rulers (dvairajya).
Taking these pronunciations of Hsieh and their possible original words, as well as the status of Fu-wang, into our consideration, we can presume as follows:
(1) If Fu-wang means a viceroy, he may have been a viceroy of the Kushans in Central Asia with no other identifications. In this case, it does not give any clue to the chronology of the Kushans.
(2) If Fu-wang means one of the dual rulers, he may have been either Vâsishka or Huvishka, both of whom ruled together with Kanishka.
(3) If Hsieh was a king as is recorded in the Hou-han-chi, he may have been identical with either Kanishka or Vâsishka or Huvishka, all of whom styled themselves shâhî.
In case of (2) and (3), it is likely that Hsieh is an abbreviated or omitted form of such and such hsieh (ishka). And, in case of (2) and (3), too, A. D. 90 can come in the chronology of one of these kings or dual rulers.

抄録全体を表示