Chapter 2.8 Buddhist Etymologies from First-Millennium India and China

Works by Vasubandhu, Sthiramati, and Paramārtha

In: Plurilingualism in Traditional Eurasian Scholarship
Author:
Roy Tzohar
Search for other papers by Roy Tzohar in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
Open Access

Abstract

Indian Buddhist textual production—championed under a missionary ideology that resisted the Brahmanical rhetoric of the exclusivity of Sanskrit—has always conceived of itself as operating within and targeting a diversified multilingual context. Under this framework, Sanskrit etymological analysis was not primarily about revealing an underlying intrinsic structure of language, nor was it a means for gaining insight into the temporal dimension of language (as in the case of historical etymology). Rather than a way of excavating semantic meaning, it was utilized as a way to negotiate and create meaning in commentarial praxis. The text excerpts below examine, as a case study, some Buddhist etymological glosses of the Sanskrit word śāstra (treatise) in Abhidharma and Yogācāra texts from around the first half of the first millennium CE. Demonstrating the Buddhist use of etymology primarily as an interpretative, tradition-making, commentarial tool they help to explain how this approach enabled the carrying over of Sanskrit etymologies across languages (in the case before us, into Chinese).

Indian Buddhist textual production—championed under a missionary ideology that resisted the Brahmanical rhetoric of the exclusivity of Sanskrit—has always conceived of itself as operating within and targeting a diversified multilingual context (of both literary and vernacular languages). This awareness, joined with a nominalistic and conventional view of language, found expression in the development of an array of distinct textual and hermeneutical practices, which persisted even during the growing Sanskritization of the North Indian branch of the tradition from around the second century CE.

One of these practices was the appropriation of Sanskrit etymological analysis (nirvacana, nirukti) into a primarily commentarial technique. Applied in this way, etymology was not about revealing an underlying intrinsic structure of language (as in the case of some Brahmanical schools of thought, see Chapter 2.2), nor was it a means for gaining insight into the temporal dimension of language (as in the case of historical etymology). Rather than a way of excavating semantic meaning, it was utilized as a way to negotiate and create meaning in commentarial praxis. As demonstrated in the text excerpts below, one of the rather unique expressions of this approach was the carrying over of Sanskrit etymologies across languages (in the case before us, into Chinese).

The Buddhist conception of etymology as a largely hermeneutical device differed in an important way from the way in which it was conceived in Sanskrit Brahmanical sources, which understood it—schematically put—as a means for exploring the interconnections of language and uncovering the ontological deep structure that was seen to be embedded in it. This approach was grounded in a language metaphysics that took Sanskrit as consisting of a fixed semantic system corresponding to real existents, and in which the essence of a thing was to be uncovered by identifying the meaning of the term that denotes it (primarily nouns, all taken to be derivations of verbal roots). The method for doing so was therefore etymological analysis, which sought—either through grammatical analysis or by pointing out commonalities—to trace nouns to their verbal roots, and by doing so to identify their decisive meaning.

In opposition to the Brahmanical view of language, Indian Buddhist schools of thought championed a view of language as utterly conventional, a system whose signs do not refer to real existents but are forever mere interpretants of other signs. Under this framework, linguistic structures and interrelations—revealed either by formal analysis or by descriptive practices such as etymological analysis—were seen merely as an intrinsic feature of language as a self-referential realm, and as having no purchase on reality as it truly is. So while Buddhists keenly adopted the Brahmanical Sanskrit etymological techniques (with their reduction of nouns into verbal roots, and as a semantically rather than historically oriented analysis), they saw these techniques as serving not to uncover the deep structure of language but primarily as an interpretative and argumentative tool in the elucidation of Buddhist philosophical and literary texts.

The text excerpts below all focus on Buddhist etymological glosses of the Sanskrit word śāstra, a generic term for a treatise (by a human author, in contrast to sūtra, i.e. scripture, which is ascribed to a Buddha or a bodhisattva). All the sources before us are from around the first half of the first millennium, and while they vary in their sectarian affiliation (some are affiliated with Northern Abhidharma schools, some with the Mahāyāna Yogācāra school), they nonetheless form a tightly connected intertextual realm insofar as they refer to, explicitly comment upon, and quote each other.

Passages I, II, and III are from treatises traditionally ascribed to the influential Buddhist philosopher Vasubandhu (typically dated to around the late fourth to early fifth century CE). According to the traditional biographies, Vasubandhu’s life, during the Gupta reign in India, was marked by two acts of conversion: first from the Sarvāstivāda to the Sautrāntika school of Indian Abhidharma, and then to Mahāyāna, into the Yogācāra school, of which he is considered one of the founding figures.

Passage I provides an etymology of the term “treatise” (śāstra) that is taken from the opening lines of Vasubandhu’s Commentary on the Treasury of Abhidharma (Abhidharmakośabhāṣya), an encyclopedic source for Abhidharma doctrinal thought. This etymological gloss is rather straightforward, and in terms of Sanskrit classical grammar, a correct analysis.

Passage II provides an alternative etymology of the term given by a different work by Vasubanhdu, The Proper Mode of Scriptural Exegesis (Vyākhyāyukti, extent only in Tibetan translation), a protocol for the writing of commentaries and exegesis written from a distinctively Mahāyāna perspective. Here Vasubandhu uses a more fanciful etymological gloss to argue that scripture (the Buddha’s speech) should be seen as the ultimate treatise.

Passages III and IV demonstrate how both these alternative glosses are then taken up and woven together to form a new commentarial synthesis. Both passages are taken from a thread of commentaries on Distinguishing the Middle from the Extremes (Madhyāntavibhāga). Traditionally, the Madhyāntavibhāga is considered to be a revealed work ascribed to Maitreya, who is said to be a Bodhisattva removed from complete Buddhahood by only one birth. According to the tradition, Maitreya pronounced the work in verse form to Asaṅga (ca. fourth to fifth century CE), one of the founding figures of the Yogācāra school, who in turn made it available to Vasubandhu, who composed the commentary (Madhyāntavibhāga-bhāṣya). To this chain of commentaries is then added Sthiramati’s (ca. sixth century CE) super-commentary (Madhyāntavibhāga-bhāṣya-Ṭīkā) on Vasubandhu’s commentary.

As is the custom in these works, Vasubandhu opens his commentary with a dedication (Passage III), in which, however, he refers to the revealed work as a “treatise” (śāstra). This presents a serious interpretative difficulty for the ensuing super-commentary of Sthiramati, since, as I mentioned above, in Buddhist Mahāyāna lore a treatise is typically used as a generic term for a scholastic work composed by an ordinary human author, whereas revelatory works ascribed directly to the Buddha or bodhisattvas like Maitreya are called sūtra. The issue at stake, it should be clarified, is more than just getting the terminology right: it bears on the fundamental question of the text’s authority. It is this question, therefore, that Sthiramati addresses in his ensuing super-commentary (Passage IV). For this purpose, he provides a definition of a treatise that uses etymology to reinstate its status and authority as equal to that of any other revelatory text. It is important to note that in this passage, Sthiramati provides two alternative etymologies of śāstra, taken from Vasubnadhu’s sources mentioned above (in Passages I and II), and which constitute two different interpretations, neither of which is exclusive.

This feature, which is ubiquitous in Buddhist Sanskrit lore, emphasizes yet again the foremost interpretative function of etymology in the Buddhist context. The Buddhist conception does not view meaning as something that lies in the temporal evolution of language or reflects its deep structure. It is not something to be discovered in language, but something to be created with language, that is, in the context of its use.

This conception of etymology and meaning, in turn, sheds light on the otherwise rather puzzling instances in which Sanskrit etymological glosses are carried across languages within the Buddhist realm. Passage V is a distinct example of such a case: it is a translation of Passage I from Sanskrit into Chinese by Paramārtha (499–569 CE), an Indian monk who worked in, among other places, the Chinese imperial capital. While Paramārtha faithfully translates Vasubandhu’s original etymological gloss, he also supplements it and synthesizes it with the additional alternative etymology we encountered above (in Passage II, and also in Passage IV).

The crossover of an etymology-derived meaning from one language into another—without any acknowledgment of this transfer or adjustments to the target language—is already something of a peculiarity, as it seems to obliterate the explanatory force of such an analysis. Cases like these—and they are ubiquitous in the translations of Buddhist texts across East Asia—were often explained away by scholars as reflecting either the translator’s ignorance of the original etymology, or, more commonly, the translator’s reverential treatment of the Sanskrit and the original text. Neither explanation, however, can adequately make sense of the case before us (and many other such cases), in which the translator both knew his Sanskrit well and intentionally altered the meaning in the process of the translation. This move makes perfect sense, however, once we consider it in light of the broader Buddhist approach to etymology outlined above—as primarily an interpretative, tradition-making, commentarial tool.

Sanskrit, Tibetan, and Chinese Texts

Excerpt I: From the Commentary on the Treasury of Abhidharma (Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya) by Vasubandhu

… tasmai namaskṛtya kiṃ kariṣyati? ity āha—śāstraṃ pravakṣyāmi.7 śiṣyaśāsanāc chāstram. kiṃ śāstram? ity āha—Abhidharmakośam ||8

Excerpt II: From the Proper Mode of Scriptural Exegesis (vyākhyāyukti) by Vasubandhu

sangs rgyas kyi gsung bstan bcos kyi mtshan nyid du ’thad pa’i phyir ro //nges pa’i tshig tu ’chos pa dang / skyob par byed pas / de’i phyir bstan bcos so //

nyon mongs dgra rnams ma lus ’chos pa dang /

ngan ’gro srid las skyob pa gang yin de /

’chos skyob yon tan phyir na bstan bcos te /

gnyis po ’di dag gzhan gyi lugs la med /

de lta bas na sangs rgyas kyi gsung kho na don dam par bstan bcos yin pas ’chos pa dang skyob pa’i yon tan gyi phyir yang don gzung ba la ’bad pa dang ldan par bya’o //9

English Translation

Translated by Roy Tzohar.

Excerpt I: From the Commentary on the Treasury of Abhidharma (Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya) by Vasubandhu

… After having rendered homage [to the teacher of truth], what will the author do? “I shall compose a treatise.”1 A treatise [śāstra] is that which instructs disciples.2 Which treatise? The “Abhidharmakoṣa.”

Excerpt II: From the Proper Mode of Scriptural Exegesis (vyākhyāyukti) by Vasubandhu

It is tenable to consider the speech of the Buddha as having the characteristics of a treatise [śāstra]. Under etymological analysis, because it overcomes3 and provides protection,4 therefore it is a treatise:5

“That which overcomes the enemies like defilements in their entirety,

and protects from lower births and [cyclic] existence, is a treatise,

because of its qualities of overcoming and protecting.

These two [qualities] do not exist in any other systems.”6

Hence the speech of the Buddha alone is the ultimate treatise, and because it has the qualities of overcoming and protecting one should exert oneself to apprehend its meaning.

Excerpt III: From the Commentary on Distinguishing the Middle from the Extremes (Madhyāntavibhāga-bhāṣya) by Vasubandhu

namo buddhāya | śāstrasyāsya praṇetāram abhyarhya sugatātmajaṃ | vaktāraṃ cāsmadādibhyo yatiṣye ’rthavivecane ||16

Excerpt IV: From the Super-Commentary on Distinguishing the Middle from the Extremes (Madhyāntavibhāga-bhāṣya-ṭīkā) by Sthiramati17

… idam idānīṃ vaktavyaṃ kīdṛśaṃ śāstrarūpam | śāstraṃ kiṃ ceti nāmapadavyañjanakāyaprabhāsā vijñaptayaḥ śāstram |atha vā lokottarajñānaprāpakaśabdaviśeṣaprabhāsā vijñaptayaḥ śāstram | kathaṃ vijñaptayaḥ praṇīyanta ucyante vā | praṇetṛvaktṛvijñaptiprabhavatvāt śravaṇavijṇaptīnāṃ18 nātra doṣa | śiṣyasaśānāc cāstra19 hi śīlasamādhiprajñāviśeṣotpāditvāt kāyavāṅmanasāṃ saṃbhārānutpattikarmaṇo nivartate saṃbhārotpattikarmaṇi ca pravartate|‬‎

atha vā śastralakṣaṇayogāc chāstram20 | tac ca śāstralakṣaṇaṃ yad upadeśe ’bhyasyamāne savāsanākleśaprahāṇaṃ nirantaradīrghavividhatīvraduḥkha-

Excerpt III: From the Commentary on Distinguishing the Middle from the Extremes (Madhyāntavibhāga-bhāṣya) by Vasubandhu

Homage to the Buddha! Honoring the author of the treatise [śāstra], the Son of the Sugata,10 and the one who expounded it to us and to others, I shall strive to examine its meaning.

Excerpt IV: From the Super-Commentary on Distinguishing the Middle from the Extremes (Madhyāntavibhāga-bhāṣya-ṭīkā) by Sthiramati

… Now it should be explained what is the nature of a treatise, and why it is called a “treatise.” A treatise consists in mental representations11 appearing as groups of names, words, and syllables. Alternatively, a treatise consists in representations appearing as particular words procuring the attainment of supramundane wisdom. [Objection]: How can mental representations be proclaimed or expounded upon? [Response]: There is no fault here since the hearer’s12 representations arise from the representations of the author and expounder.13

It is a treatise [śāstra] because it is an instruction for novices [śiṣya-śāsana], which in order to generate distinction in morality, meditative concentration, and wisdom, deters them from the actions of body, speech, and mind that do not produce the accumulations of merit and wisdom, and induces them to engage in actions that produce the accumulations.

Alternatively, it is a treatise because it is compatible with the characteristics of a treatise. The characteristics of a treatise consists in the fact that, when the teaching is practiced, one cuts off the moral defilements along with their latent karmic imprints, and is also protected [trāṇaṃ] from both becoming14 and the wretched states of existence15 which are fearful because of their acute, extensive, and perpetual manifold sufferings. Therefore, it has the characteristics of

bhītadurgatibhyo bhavāc ca trāṇaṃ bhavati27|‬‎ tasmāt kleśaripuśāsanād bhavadurgatitrāṇāc28 ca śāstralakṣaṇam |

etac ca dvayam api sarvasmin mahāyāne sarvasmiṃś ca tadvyākhyāne vidyate nānyatreti | ata etac chāstram | āha ca/

yac chāsti ca kleśaripūn aśeṣān

saṃtrāyate durgatito bhavāc ca |

tac chāsanāt trāṇaguṇāc ca śāstraṃ

etad dvayaṃ cānyamateṣu nāsti ||

Excerpt V: From Paramārtha’s Chinese Translation of the Commentary on the Treasury of Abhidharma (Abhidharmakośabhāṣya) by Vasubandhu

…… 頂禮如理教師已。欲何所作。偈曰。對法俱舍我當說。釋曰。此法通名滅濟教。別名云何。阿毘達磨俱舍。29

a treatise [śāstra] because it overcomes [śāsana] the enemy-like moral defilements and because it protects [trāṇa] from becoming and the wretched states of existence. Furthermore, as these two qualities [“overcoming” and “protecting”] are said to be found in all works of the universal vehicle [Mahāyāna] and their exegeses, but nowhere else, this work [which belongs to the Mahāyāna] is a treatise [śāstra]. It is said:21

That which overcomes [śāsti] the enemies like defilements in their entirety,

and protects [saṃtrāyate] from lower births and [cyclic] existence,

is a treatise, because of its qualities of overcoming and protecting.

These two [qualities] do not exist in any other systems.

Excerpt V: From Paramārtha’s Chinese Translation of the Commentary on the Treasury of Abhidharma (Abhidharmakośabhāṣya) by Vasubandhu

… After rendering homage to the teacher of reality/truth,22 what should I do? The verse says: I shall explain the Abhidharmakośa.23 The commentary24 says:

This dharma [teaching] can be generally termed cessation, saving, and teaching.25 It is also known as the Abhidharmakośa.26

Abbreviations and Symbols

T

Taishō shinshū Daizōkyō [revised Tripiṭaka compiled during the Taishō period], 85 vols, edited by Junjirō Takakusu and Kaigyoku Watanabe. Tokyo: Taishō Issaikyō Kankōkai, 1924–1932

*

reconstructed form

|

for Sanskrit

||

for termination of section (when it is marked so in the original text)

/

for Tibetan

//

for termination of section (when it is marked so in the original text)

1

In this excerpt, quotation marks indicate the portions of the root verse that are glossed by the commentary.

2

The passage glosses the term śāstra—according to the etymological procedure described above—by breaking it into the verbal root śās (instruct, teach) and a Sanskrit instrumental suffix tra. The resulting meaning, then, is “something by means of which one teaches.” In itself, this analysis is rather straightforward and correct in terms of Sanskrit classical grammar. I am grateful to Dan Lusthaus, Harvard University; Meir Shahar, Tel Aviv University; and Shenghai Li, Fudan University, for their knowledge and comments on all things related to Paramārtha.

3

’chos pa, *śasana, “over-comes” but also in the sense of “sets-right.”

4

skyob pa, *trāṇa

5

Here Vasubandhu breaks down the term differently than before, into the verbal roots śās* (to overcome, or to set right), and trai (to protect, to rescue). This provides the opening to point out that just like the Buddha’s speech, so too a treatise overcomes (the defilements) and protects (from lower births), and hence the speech of the Buddha should in fact be seen as the ultimate treatise.

6

This verse also appears in other Buddhist sources, for instance in Candrakīrti’s Prasnnnapadā, 3.3–4 and Sthiramati’s Madhyāntavibhāga-bhāṣya-tīkā, passage IV.

7

In all text excerpts, sections in bold indicate root verses or portions of root verses glossed in commentary.

8

Abhidharmakośabhāṣya 1.1, excerpted from Pradhan, Abhidharmakośabhāṣyaṃ of Vasubandhu, 1.22–2.2.

9

TD 4061, sems tsam, shi 123a, in Lee, The Tibetan Text of the Vyakhyayukti of Vasubandhu, 277.

10

“The son of the Sugata,” that is, the Bodhisattva Maitreya; the “one who expounded it” is Asaṅga, another founding figure of the Yogācāra school, and, according to the tradition, Vasubandhu’s half-brother.

11

*vijñapti, rnam par rig pa rnams (TD 190a:4). Broadly speaking, the Yogācāra propagates a kind of philosophical idealism (whether epistemic or metaphysical is a matter of contestation), according to which all phenomena—including all types of discourse—can be either known or discussed as mere mental representations (vijñapti), the outcome of the ever-developing causal activity of consciousness.

12

Sthiramati is referring here to Vasubandhu, the author of the commentary.

13

Here Sthiramati is referring to the Bodhisattva Maitreya and to Asaṅga, respectively. One way of understanding the objection is as pointing out the fundamental difficulty in attributing intention ascriptions—which are presupposed by any communicative discursive act—to mere mental events, i.e., independently of any intentional agent.

14

That is, from cyclic existence, saṃsāra.

15

In Buddhist cosmology, to be a sentient being means necessary to belong to one of the five (and in some schemes six) realms of existence into which one can be reborn. The wretched or lower states are those of animals, ghosts, hell-beings, etc.

16

Nagao, Madhyāntavibhāga-Bhāṣya, 17.

17

The following is based on the critical edition by Yamaguchi, Madhyāntavibhāgaṭīkā, 2.16–3.12. Yamaguchi’s edition is based on one incomplete manuscript of the text (discovered by Lévi 1928), and the Sanskrit of the missing portions is reconstructed based on the Narthang and Peking editions of the Tibetan translation. In quoting the Sanskrit I have integrated the corrections suggested in Stanley, “A Study of the Madhyantavibhaga-Bhasya-Tika,” 3–4. Stanley’s corrections are based on the original manuscript as well as on the Tohoku Derge edition of the Tibetan translation (TD).

18

Tibetan translation: nyan pa’i rnam par rig pa rnams. TD190a.5.

19

Yamaguchi, Madhyāntavibhāgaṭīkā, 2.21: dhārmiko. Stanley, “A Study of the Madhyāntavibhāga-bhāṣya-Ṭīkā,” 3n10: saśānāc cāstra.

20

Following Stanley, 3n11, and the Tib: yang na bstan bcos kyi mtshan nyid du ’thad pa’i phyir bstan bcos te (TD 4023, bi, 190a.6); in place of Yamaguchi’s reading (Madhyāntavibhāgaṭīkā, 3.2): atha vā śāstralakṣaṇasya śāsanāc chāstram.

21

Here Sthiramati seems to quote the verse from Vasubanhdu’s vyākhyāyukti given in excerpt II above.

22

如理 = yathābhūta.

23

The Sanskrit word kośa, a treasury (of Abhidharma teachings), is transcribed here rather than translated (俱舍).

24

Literally: explanation, interpretation.

25

Paramārtha’s translation and interpretation apparently synthesizes several alternative Sanskrit etymologies of śāstra: 教, teaching, is derived from breaking the term down into the Sanskrit verbal root śās (to instruct, teach), and the instrumental suffix tra, whereas 滅 (causing cessation, destroying) and 濟 (crossing over, relieving) are probably derived by breaking the term down into the verbal roots śas (to destroy) and either trai (to save, rescue) or possibly tṛ (to cross over).

26

阿毘達磨俱舍, A-pi-da-mo-ko-śa.

27

Following Stanley, “A Study of the Madhyāntavibhāga-bhāṣya-Ṭīkā,” 4n12, supported by the Tib: lung mnos pa goms par byas pas bag chags dang bcas pa’i nyon mongs pa spong bar ’gyur ba dang/ bar chad med pa yun ring ba’i sdug bsngal drag po sna tshogs kyis ’jigs pa’i ngan song rnams dang/ srid pa las skyob pa gang yin pa de ni bstan bcos kyi mtshan nyid (TD190a.6). Yamaguchi (Madhyāntavibhāgaṭīkā, 3.3) reads: [tac ca śā]stralakṣaṇaṃ yad upadeśo bhāsamāno [’bhyastaḥ] savāsanākleśaprahāṇāyā[padyate] nirantaradīrghavividhativraduḥkhabhitāyāś ca durgater bhavāc ca saṃtrāyate |

28

Following Stanley, “A Study of the Madhyāntavibhāga-bhāṣya-Ṭīkā,” 4n13, and in the Tibetan translation: skyob pas; while in Yamaguchi (Madhyāntavibhāgaṭīkā, 3.6): saṃtārāc.

29

T.29.1559.161c28–62a1.

Bibliography

Primary Texts

Editions (Critical and Others)

  • Apidamo jushe shilun 阿毘達磨俱舍釋論. Chinese translation of the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya by Paramārtha (真諦). T1559, 163a13–73a5.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lee, Jong-Cheol. The Tibetan Text of the Vyakhyayukti of Vasubandhu: Critically Edited from the Cone, Derge, Narthang and Peking Editions. Tokyo: Sankibo Press, 2001.

  • Nagao, Gadjin, ed. Madhyāntavibhāga-Bhāṣya: A Buddhist Philosophical Treatise. Tokyo: Suzuki Research Foundation, 1964.

  • Pradhan, Prahallad. Abhidharmakośabhāṣyaṃ of Vasubandhu. 2nd ed. Patna, India: K.P. Jayaswal Research Center, 1975.

  • Yamaguchi, Susumu. Madhyāntavibhāgaṭīkā: Exposition Systématique du Yogācāravijñaptivāda. Nagoya: Librairie Hajinkaku, 1934.

English Translations

  • Abhidharmakośabhāṣyam. Translated from Sanskrit to French by Louis de la Vallée Poussin. Translated to English by Leo Pruden. Berkeley, CA: Asian Humanities Press, 1988.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Stanley, Richard. “A Study of the Madhyāntavibhāga-bhāṣya-Ṭīkā.” PhD diss., Australian National University, 1988.

Further Reading

  • Deeg, Max. “Creating Religious Terminology—A Comparative Approach to Early Chinese Buddhist Translations,” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 31, no. 1–2 (2010): 83118.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kahrs, Eivind. Indian Semantic Analysis: The “Nirvacana” Tradition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

  • Pollock, Sheldon. “The Idea of Śāstra in Traditional India.” In Shastric Traditions in Indian Arts: Texts. Vol. 1, edited by Anna L. Dallapoccola, Christine Walter-Mendy, and Steaphie Zingel-Avé Lallemant, 1726. Stuttgart: Steiner, 1989.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Tzohar, Roy. “Thoughts on the Early Indian Yogācāra Understanding of Āgama-Pramāṇa.” In “Not Far Afield: Asian Perspectives on Sexuality, Testimony and Print Culture. A Coffee Break Project,” edited by Daniele Cuneo, Elisa Freschi, and Camillo A. Formigatti. Special issue, Kervan: International Journal of Afro-Asiatic Studies, no. 21 (2017): 261277.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Collapse
  • Expand

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 234 137 4
PDF Views & Downloads 208 84 7