国立情報学研究所 - ディジタル・シルクロード・プロジェクト
『東洋文庫所蔵』貴重書デジタルアーカイブ

and that this country is not Yārkānd, but a place farther to the south, Qaryaliq according to Stein,
Chavannes and Thomas, Kök-yar according to Herrmann (Stein, Ancient Khotan, 28-29, 88-89;
Chavannes, in BEFEO, III, 398, and Doc. sur les Tou-kiue, 311, 342; Thomas, Tibetan Texts and
Documents, I, 25; Herrmann, in Southern Tibet, VIII, 60, 450). That Čukupa, the ancient Tzŭ-ho,
is to the south of Yārkānd is evident; it was on the direct road from Khotan to Taš-quryan. The
case of *Čakuka, Hsüan-tsang's Chê-chü-chia, is not so plain. Hsüan-tsang passes it on his way
from Kāšyar to Khotan, which makes one think of Yārkānd quite naturally. Moreover there is
a certain phonetic analogy between So-chü (*Sāku), the name of Yārkānd under the Han, and
*Čakuka, which might seem to be the same name with a Sanskrit derivative -ka suffix. It goes
without saying that, in such a case, *Čakuka < *Sāku could have nothing to do with *Čukupa
< Čugapa < *Čigap. But the alternation of -a- and -u- occurs for both names, since we have
met with a form Čukuka on the one hand and a form *Čakupa on the other. Both *Čakuka and
*Čakupa occur in the lists of the Candragarbha, and what Jñānagupta connects whith *Čakuka is
located at *Čakuban in a later compilation. It looks as if both *Čukupa and *Čakuka had been
used almost indifferently, or rather as if the first represented the name with a suffix in one language
(perhaps the non-Iranian and non-Indian language responsible for most of the non-Indian elements
in the Kharoṣṭhī documents), while the second would be an indianized form in -ka.
Such reasoning would be, however, of little avail if there were not geographical difficulties
in the way of the identification of Hsüan-tsang's Chê-chü-chia with Yārkānd. The pilgrim, on
leaving Ch'ieh-sha (Khaṣa, Kāšyar) travels to the south-east, crosses the Šītā River, passes a great
sand mountain (大沙嶺 ta sha-ling) and arrives at Chê-chü-chia. It seems difficult not to admit
that the Šītā River here is the Yārkānd River, but this precludes the identification of Chê-chü-
chia with Yārkānd, since a traveller coming from Kāšyar would reach the Yārkānd River only
after having left Yārkānd. That is why I concur with the above-named Western scholars in locating
Chê-chü-chia south of Yārkānd and the Yārkānd River.
But I find it hard to decide between Qaryaliq and Kök-yar. In my opinion, the general trend
of the itineraries from Khotan to Taš-quryan is decidedly in favour of *Čukupa being Qaryaliq.
On the other hand, Kök-yar would be quite out of the way for any one going from Kāšyar to Khotan;
but, if *Čakuka (and *Čukupa) were Kök-yar, we might easily suppose that Hsüan-tsang followed
a round-about route in order to visit the sites of *Čakuka which Jñānagupta had made famous in
China. But there is nothing decisive here either way. In favour of Kök-yar, Herrmann justly
said that there was no room in the cultivated area between the Yārkānd River (south of Yārkānd)
and Qaryaliq for the « great sand mountain » spoken of by Hsüan-tsang. But I am not certain
that it is easier to find it between Qaryaliq and Kök-yar; Kök-yar is in a mountainous, not a sandy
district. Without lending too much weight to what may be a pure coincidence, I must remark
that, among the few geographical names other than those of tribes and towns which are given by
Kāšyarī, there is Bayram-qumī, a sand hill or down between Kāšyar and Yārkānd (Brockelmann,
Kāšyarī, 29, 241). It must have been a site of some renown to be thus mentioned. I can only
suppose that it lay in the fairly high sandy region, which extends east of Yangi-ḥiṣār and is marked
on Stein's map as having at least two Mussulman shrines, perhaps continuing earlier Buddhist
ones. But to connect Kāšyarī's Bayram-qumī with Hsüan-tsang's « great sand mountain », one