DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.36958#0229
Chinese Turkestan than in Muslim Samarkand. Thus there seems
to be no essential objection to HENNING'S attribution of the La-
dakh inscription to the Yazdigerdi year 210, that is, 841/2 CE, or
to his tentative supposition that its author(s) might have been sent
on an embassy to the ruler of Tibet by the Uighur Khan, who was
in urgent need of assistance since the Kirghiz had sacked his capi-
tal on the Orkhon in the previous year (840). At this period, when
Tibetan rule still extended as far north as Tun-huang, the "Qaghan
of Tibet" might well have seemed a promising ally for the hard-
pressed Uighur Khan. However, at best this can be no more than
a plausible hypothesis.
A much briefer commentary will suffice for the remaining inscrip-
tions. No 11 has already been mentioned in passing as containing
the Indian, presumably Buddhist, name Caitra. Another Buddhist
name, pwtypfiu "glory of the Buddha", occurs in No 13. Although
I have emphasized the fact that the principal inscription may have
been written by a Buddhist rather than a Christian, this does not
mean that none of the Sogdian inscriptions of Ladakh are of
Christian inspiration. Apart from No 1, which seems to be identi-
fied as Nestorian by the accompanying cross, the most likely candi-
date is inscription No 5: wry frxTi pr /9yy fCw "yf^yw "(I,) Urï
Tarkhan, have come in the name of God". The phrase "in the
name of God", which occurs again in an unclear context in No 10,
suggests an adherent of a monotheistic religion: Christianity, or
perhaps Islam, rather than Buddhism, Manichaeism, or Zoroastria-
nism.^ Urï Tarkhan's name, which occurs again in inscription
No 8 (cf also frx'n alone in No 6), is of course Turkish, but the
fact that he wrote in Sogdian rather than Turkish suggests that he
was at least half-Sogdian.^ Other interesting names attested in
these inscriptions are /%'wn in No 7, if it is to be equated with
in the documents from Mt Mug,^ and xtwz-ly, literally
"son of a judge", in No 3. Finally, vWlty'n "favour of (the god)
Srösh-art" in No 4 seems likely to be a Manichaean name, since
Srösh-art (Avestan Smoiö Amö) is only attested in Sogdian as the
19 Cf StMS-WiLHAMS-HAMiLTON 1990: 39-40.
20 Cf SiMS-WiLLiAMS 1992a.
21 Cf above, p 152 with n. 3.
157
to be no essential objection to HENNING'S attribution of the La-
dakh inscription to the Yazdigerdi year 210, that is, 841/2 CE, or
to his tentative supposition that its author(s) might have been sent
on an embassy to the ruler of Tibet by the Uighur Khan, who was
in urgent need of assistance since the Kirghiz had sacked his capi-
tal on the Orkhon in the previous year (840). At this period, when
Tibetan rule still extended as far north as Tun-huang, the "Qaghan
of Tibet" might well have seemed a promising ally for the hard-
pressed Uighur Khan. However, at best this can be no more than
a plausible hypothesis.
A much briefer commentary will suffice for the remaining inscrip-
tions. No 11 has already been mentioned in passing as containing
the Indian, presumably Buddhist, name Caitra. Another Buddhist
name, pwtypfiu "glory of the Buddha", occurs in No 13. Although
I have emphasized the fact that the principal inscription may have
been written by a Buddhist rather than a Christian, this does not
mean that none of the Sogdian inscriptions of Ladakh are of
Christian inspiration. Apart from No 1, which seems to be identi-
fied as Nestorian by the accompanying cross, the most likely candi-
date is inscription No 5: wry frxTi pr /9yy fCw "yf^yw "(I,) Urï
Tarkhan, have come in the name of God". The phrase "in the
name of God", which occurs again in an unclear context in No 10,
suggests an adherent of a monotheistic religion: Christianity, or
perhaps Islam, rather than Buddhism, Manichaeism, or Zoroastria-
nism.^ Urï Tarkhan's name, which occurs again in inscription
No 8 (cf also frx'n alone in No 6), is of course Turkish, but the
fact that he wrote in Sogdian rather than Turkish suggests that he
was at least half-Sogdian.^ Other interesting names attested in
these inscriptions are /%'wn in No 7, if it is to be equated with
in the documents from Mt Mug,^ and xtwz-ly, literally
"son of a judge", in No 3. Finally, vWlty'n "favour of (the god)
Srösh-art" in No 4 seems likely to be a Manichaean name, since
Srösh-art (Avestan Smoiö Amö) is only attested in Sogdian as the
19 Cf StMS-WiLHAMS-HAMiLTON 1990: 39-40.
20 Cf SiMS-WiLLiAMS 1992a.
21 Cf above, p 152 with n. 3.
157