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

NINGHAM, but neither its original form, nor that of San-po-ho, has been restored with certainty. Yet,
Hsüan-tsang's transcription Mo-lo-so can be based only on *Mrā-sa, *Mar-sa or *Marāsa, and I think
that the balance weighs in favour of A. H. FRANCKE's hypothesis (JRAS, 1908, 189), according to
which the original name would be Tib. *Mar-sa, « Low-land ». For San-po-ho, VIVIEN DE SAINT-
MARTIN's assertion (in JULIEN, Mém., II, 334) that « it certainly represents Champāka, which is the
Sanskrit form of Chamba » is egregiously erroneous. ROCKHILL (The Land of the Lamas, 340) has
stated without any qualification that it was « Yaru tsang-po », i. e. the upper Brahmaputra. This,
coming from a man who knew some Chinese, can be explained only by confusion between 河 ho, a
character of transcription, and 河 ho, « river », the remaining san-po being taken as the equivalent of
«tsang-po». The curious fact is that a similar solution has been proffered from a non-sinological side :
FRANCKE (JRAS, 1908, 189) says that San-po-ho « is the Chinese attempt to represent γtsang-po,
'river', this being the ordinary name of the Indus in Ladakh ». But *Sām-puā-γā supposes an original
*Sampāha, which can have nothing to do either with gcaṅ-po itself, or with a sanskritized form based
on gcaṅ-po. THOMAS (Tibetan Texts and Documents, I, 149) speaks of the «Sampaha and the other
three Śākya youths, connected with Śāmbi, Udyāna, Himatala, and Bāmiān »; and, on p. 152, in refe-
rence to the location of Suvarṇagotra, unreservedly gives «Sam-pa-ha (Śāmbi)». But I know of no
Śākya called « Sampaha ». ROCKHILL, Life of the Buddha, 118, to whom THOMAS gives a reference,
actually speaks of « King Shampaka », not « Sampaha ». As to « Śambi », which THOMAS took from
BEAL (Buddhist Records, II, 21), who himself copied JULIEN (Mém., I, 318), it is an erroneous restora-
tion. The text says that the four Śākya became respectively kings of Uḍḍiyāna, *Bāmyana (Bamyan,
Bāmiyān), Himatala (< Hephtalites), and 商 彌 Shang-mi, restored by JULIEN into
*Śāmbi, can render only *Śyāṅmf (< *Śyāmf) or *Śāṅmf) (< *Śāmf). As a matter of fact, the name
is also written Shĕ-mi, which is either *Śyāmf or *Śāmf, and Hui-ch'ao says that its king was called
*Śyāmarāja (or *Śāmarāja); *Śyāmf seems to me to be more probable. But the main fact is that
this country is well known and does not at all correspond to Ladakh. It is Chitral, to the north-
west of the Indus (cf. CHAVANNES, Doc. sur les Tou-kiue, 129; FUCHS, Huei-ch'ao's Pilgerreise, 447),
and there is not the slightest possibility that it should be connected with *Sampāha. So the name
remains unaccounted for, and we must be content with the admission that *Sampāha, alias *Mar-sa,
which was at the western frontier of Suvarṇagotra, is Ladakh. To account for the double name, we
might suppose that *Mar-sa (sanskritized to *Marāsa ?) was the form used in Kashmir, while *Sam-
pāha, heard in Kulūta, would be the Kulūta name of Ladakh.

The question of 羊 同 Yang-t'ung (*Iang-d'ung) is no less obscure. The original form is
likely to be Tibetan, but remains unknown. One might think of one of the Tibetan names ending
in gdoṅ, « face » (cf. BEFEO, v, 291); and, from the phonetic point of view, *gYaṅ-gdoṅ, « Auspicious
Faces », or Yaṅs-gdoṅ, « Broad Faces », would be quite satisfactory, but, as far as I know, no such
name is attested. Hui-ch'ao writes the name 楊 同 Yang-t'ung (FUCHS, 443, 445), which is pho-
netically identical; both characters yang were interchangeable in proper names during the T'ang
dynasty (cf. BEFEO, IV, 370, 1100-1103). The Shih-chia fang-chih says that Suvarṇagotra was
the same as Ta Yang-t'ung, 'Great Yang-t'ung', and it is a fact that T'ang texts speak of a 'Great
Yang-t'ung' (Ta Yang-t'ung) and a 'Lesser Yang-t'ung' (Hsiao Yang-t'ung).

The only special notice on Yang-t'ung occurs in T'ung tien, 190, 5 b (cf. BUSHELL, in JRAS,