DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.36958#0230
name of a Manichaean deity, the "Column of Glory".^ The Sog-
dian inscriptions of Ladakh would thus attest all three of the
religions known to us from the Sogdian literature of Turfan and
Tun-huang and so notably ill-attested in the Sogdian inscriptions
of the Upper Indus: Buddhism, Christianity, and Manichaeism.
The presentation of the following catalogue conforms in general to
the conventions employed in my edition of the inscriptions of the
Upper Indus (SlMS-WiLLiAMS 1989, 1992).^ The running number
of the inscription (by which it is referred to in the present article)
is given in bold type at the beginning of each entry and is followed
by a signature consisting of the rock and inscription numbers sepa-
rated by a colon. In the case of previously published inscriptions
(Nos 1, 2, 7) the readings of MÜLLER 1925, BENVENISTE 1938,
HENNING 1958, and (KLJASTORNYJ-)LivsiC 1972 are cited in the
notes. So far as I am aware - relevant information is lacking for
Nos 10, 12, and 14 - all the inscriptions are written vertically in
the Chinese manner.
F/ 76, 2-3 1 1:1 ßz-'w
"increase" (?)
- Or yz-lv. MÜLLER's yUw (probably influenced by his
reading of No 7) is impossible. This inscription clearly
accompanies the large design of a Nestorian cross.
F/ 2-6 2 1:2 sr§ pr '§w 100 §s I pr('s)ynf I c'ytr'^ I sm'rknbc ! <smny>^
nws-prn^ t "s'C ! ('z-y-)'nd kw ! twp('y)Ü I x'y'n^ s'r
"In the year 210, (we,) Caitra of Samarkand, together with
22 See SUNDERMANN 1979: 101 (with n. 183 on p 128).
23 Note the following conventions: (ßcö) = uncertain letters; [ßcö] = letter
wholly restored; <ßc§> - letters added secondarily; *** = illegible letters;
-= indistinct traces of letters; I = end of a line.
158
dian inscriptions of Ladakh would thus attest all three of the
religions known to us from the Sogdian literature of Turfan and
Tun-huang and so notably ill-attested in the Sogdian inscriptions
of the Upper Indus: Buddhism, Christianity, and Manichaeism.
The presentation of the following catalogue conforms in general to
the conventions employed in my edition of the inscriptions of the
Upper Indus (SlMS-WiLLiAMS 1989, 1992).^ The running number
of the inscription (by which it is referred to in the present article)
is given in bold type at the beginning of each entry and is followed
by a signature consisting of the rock and inscription numbers sepa-
rated by a colon. In the case of previously published inscriptions
(Nos 1, 2, 7) the readings of MÜLLER 1925, BENVENISTE 1938,
HENNING 1958, and (KLJASTORNYJ-)LivsiC 1972 are cited in the
notes. So far as I am aware - relevant information is lacking for
Nos 10, 12, and 14 - all the inscriptions are written vertically in
the Chinese manner.
F/ 76, 2-3 1 1:1 ßz-'w
"increase" (?)
- Or yz-lv. MÜLLER's yUw (probably influenced by his
reading of No 7) is impossible. This inscription clearly
accompanies the large design of a Nestorian cross.
F/ 2-6 2 1:2 sr§ pr '§w 100 §s I pr('s)ynf I c'ytr'^ I sm'rknbc ! <smny>^
nws-prn^ t "s'C ! ('z-y-)'nd kw ! twp('y)Ü I x'y'n^ s'r
"In the year 210, (we,) Caitra of Samarkand, together with
22 See SUNDERMANN 1979: 101 (with n. 183 on p 128).
23 Note the following conventions: (ßcö) = uncertain letters; [ßcö] = letter
wholly restored; <ßc§> - letters added secondarily; *** = illegible letters;
-= indistinct traces of letters; I = end of a line.
158