National Institute of Informatics - Digital Silk Road Project
Digital Archive of Toyo Bunko Rare Books

> > > >
Color New!IIIF Color HighRes Gray HighRes PDF   Japanese English
0395 Sino-Iranica : vol.1
Sino-Iranica : vol.1 / Page 395 (Color Image)

New!Citation Information

doi: 10.20676/00000248
Citation Format: Chicago | APA | Harvard | IEEE

OCR Text

 

IRANO-SINICA-THE NAME CHINA   569

st.n) .1 The parallelism of initial 1' and s corresponds exactly to the Greek doublet l ivai and 6"cvai ( = Cinai), and the Iranian forms with /' meet their counterpart in Sanskrit Cina (Cina) . This state of affairs renders probable the supposition that the Indian, Iranian, and Greek designations for China have issued from a common source, and that this prototype may be sought for in China itself. I am now inclined to think that there is some degree of probability in the old theory that the name "China" should be traceable to that of the dynasty Ts'in.

I formerly rejected this theory, simply for the reason that no one had as yet presented a convincing demonstration of the case ;2 nor did I become converted by the demonstration in favor of Ts`in then attempted by PELLIOT.3 Pelliot has cited several examples from which it appears that even under the Han the Chinese were still designated as "men of the Ts`in" in Central Asia. This fact in itself is interesting, but does not go to prove that the foreign names Cina, Cén, etc., are based on the name Ts`in. It must be shown phonetically that such a derivation is possible, and this is what Pelliot failed to demonstrate: he does not even dwell for a moment on the question of the ancient pronunciation of the character Win A. If in ancient times it should havé had the same articulation as at present, the alleged phonetic coincidence with the foreign designations would amount to nothing. The ancient pho-

netic value of   was *din, *dzin, *dzin (jin), *a`in, with initial dental
or palatal sonant;4 and it is possible, and in harmony with phonetic

1 R. GAUTHIOT, T`oung Pao, 1913, p. 428.

2 T `oung Pao, 1912, pp. 719-726.

3 Ibid., pp. 727-742. The mention of the name CIna in the Arthaçastra of Ciakya or Kautilya, and Jacobi's opinion on the question, did not at all prompt me to my view, as represented by Pelliot. I had held this view for at least ten years previously, and Jacobi's article simply offered the occasion which led me to express my view. Pelliot's commotion over the date of the Sanskrit work was superfluous. I shall point only to the judgment of V. A. SMITH (Early History of India, 3d ed., 1914, p. 153), who says that " the Arthaçastra is a genuine ancient work of Maurya age, and presumably attributed rightly to Caîakya or Kautilya; this verdict, of course, does not exclude the possibility, or probability, that the existing text may contain minor interpolations of later date, but the bulk of the book certainly dates from the Maurya period," and to the statement of A. B. KEITH (Journal Roy. As. Soc., 1916, p. 137), "It is perfectly possible that the Arthaçästra is an early work, and that it may be assigned to the first century B.c., while its matter very probably is older by a good deal than that." The doubts as to the Ts'in etymology of the name "China" came from many quarters. Thus J. J. MODI (Asiatic Papers. p. 247), on the supposition that the Farvardin Yast may have been written prior to the fourth or fifth century B.C., argued, "If so, the fact that the name of China as Saini occurs in this old document, throws a doubt on the belief that it was the Ts'in dynasty of the third century B.C. that gave its name to China. It appears, therefore, that the name was older than the third century B.C."

'In the dialect of Shanghai it is still pronounced dzin.