DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.36954#0206
Text:
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ &
[da] [wei] [shl] [gd] [wei] [long] [jin] [xiang] [mi] [mi]
Great Wei envoy Gu Wei-long now towards Mi-mi
[shl] [qu]
dispatch to
Among the characters, " " is flatter than the others. The rock
surface above it is damaged, so it may be " ^ ". Here it is still
read as " ^ " for there is no reliable evidence for " x^". The
character " in the inscription can only be distinguished as
" ^ " owing to damage. But there is no other word that is suit-
able in this context except " ^ The lower part of the charac-.
ter " " is indistinct, but the upper part is quite clear. Because
"Mi-mi" is a place name which is mentioned in Chinese traditions,
it can be ascertained as " % ". The character " " is not clear in
the picture, but I have personally examined it, tracing the outline
by hand. It is " ^ " without question. The other characters are
quite distinct and need no further explanation.
Thus the meaning of the inscription is quite clear.
Translation:
o/WTd, As) Motu to AfTwz
Clearly it is not a formal inscription, but rather carved casually
by the envoy when he passed by the Sacred Rock of Hunza.
However, there is neither a date nor other information in the in-
scription; unfortunately we cannot find any records about Envoy
Gu Wei-long in extant sources.
Although the calligraphy of the characters is broadly of the "kai-
shu" ( ^ ) style, there also seem to be some traces of the "li-
shu" ( ^ *^* ) calligraphic tradition. The style is simple and un-
sophisticated, and the structure of the characters is unaffected
and straightforward.
To the right of the character " ^ ^ " there is a horizontal line
of Brahmi, the left end of which overlaps the Chinese inscription.
Obviously, the date of the Brahmi inscription must be later than
that of the Chinese. According to Prof. DANTs research, this
144
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ &
[da] [wei] [shl] [gd] [wei] [long] [jin] [xiang] [mi] [mi]
Great Wei envoy Gu Wei-long now towards Mi-mi
[shl] [qu]
dispatch to
Among the characters, " " is flatter than the others. The rock
surface above it is damaged, so it may be " ^ ". Here it is still
read as " ^ " for there is no reliable evidence for " x^". The
character " in the inscription can only be distinguished as
" ^ " owing to damage. But there is no other word that is suit-
able in this context except " ^ The lower part of the charac-.
ter " " is indistinct, but the upper part is quite clear. Because
"Mi-mi" is a place name which is mentioned in Chinese traditions,
it can be ascertained as " % ". The character " " is not clear in
the picture, but I have personally examined it, tracing the outline
by hand. It is " ^ " without question. The other characters are
quite distinct and need no further explanation.
Thus the meaning of the inscription is quite clear.
Translation:
o/WTd, As) Motu to AfTwz
Clearly it is not a formal inscription, but rather carved casually
by the envoy when he passed by the Sacred Rock of Hunza.
However, there is neither a date nor other information in the in-
scription; unfortunately we cannot find any records about Envoy
Gu Wei-long in extant sources.
Although the calligraphy of the characters is broadly of the "kai-
shu" ( ^ ) style, there also seem to be some traces of the "li-
shu" ( ^ *^* ) calligraphic tradition. The style is simple and un-
sophisticated, and the structure of the characters is unaffected
and straightforward.
To the right of the character " ^ ^ " there is a horizontal line
of Brahmi, the left end of which overlaps the Chinese inscription.
Obviously, the date of the Brahmi inscription must be later than
that of the Chinese. According to Prof. DANTs research, this
144