Abstract
Utilizing ancient Chinese, Latin, and Greek literary sources, this paper examines the interconnected evidence relating to maritime trade from the late 2nd century bc to the 6th century ad. By analyzing the similarities and differences found in texts regarding regions from the South China Sea to the Indian Ocean, the paper explores aspects that transcend the geographical boundaries of both Chinese and Greco-Roman civilizations, with the goal of throwing light on the flourishing of Sino-Roman maritime trade during late antiquity.
Introduction1
When Ferdinand von Richthofen (1877:454) defined the concept of Seidenstraße(n) in 1877, the term “Silk Road(s)” primarily referred to land-based trade routes.2 While cultural, commercial, and military exchanges were documented in both Western and Eastern sources in maritime settings, detailed cartographic representations of transoceanic trade in antiquity were limited. Most studies focusing on maritime interactions tended to take a regional approach. In the Western context, key sources like the Periplus Maris Erythraei (pme) and Ptolemy’s Geography provided detailed information on the western Indian Ocean but offered vague descriptions beyond the Bay of Bengal.3 Discussion of maritime silk trade in pre-medieval China was also scarce. Not until the Tang Dynasty (ad 618–907) did a complete maritime connection between China and the West, stretching beyond the eastern Indian Ocean, become evident.4 The lack of information in Chinese chronicles, such as the Hanshu (The Book of the Western Han Dynasty) and Houhanshu (The Book of the Eastern Han Dynasty), can be attributed to their focus on official activities rather than private trade. Descriptions of international exchanges in the Chinese context primarily focus on the northern steppe “tributary trade” over spontaneous private trade.5 Despite this, some references in the Han chronicles throw light on private maritime trade, supplementing the information found in Western sources like the pme, Ptolemy, and Pausanias.6 From the fifth century ad, evidence of Sino-Occidental maritime connections can be seen in accounts from Chinese (Buddhist) and Western (Christian) monks, with Sri Lanka serving as a significant landmark for sea trade routes.7 To better understand the interactions between China and the West at sea, it is crucial to consider evidence from both Eastern and Western sources. By examining texts such as the pme and Hanshu, the following sections aim to organize these dynamic encounters in a chronological manner.
The First Maritime Encounter in the First Century ad
According to Procopius, garments made of silk yarns had been weaved in the cities of Beirut and Tyre from ancient times.8 While Procopius refrains from specifying when this industry began, we have evidence that silk yarn was exported to the eastern Mediterranean by sea in the first century ad. In fact, the pme mentions two land routes that brought Chinese silk floss, silk yarn, and silk textile to India: one “via Bactria to Barygaza” and the other “via the Ganges back to Limyrike.”9 In this connection, three harbours are specifically mentioned. While silk yarn and silk textile appeared among the items available for export to the West in the Indian trade centre Barbarikon,10 only silk textile was mentioned in connection with the other Indian trade centres, namely, Barygaza11 and Limyrike.12 Therefore, it is likely that the silk yarn used for producing silk garments in Beirut and Tyre during the first century ad came from Barbarikon via the Persian Gulf and Palmyra.13
Indeed, although Palmyra may not be the first place in the eastern part of the Roman Empire where Chinese silk has been unearthed, it is undoubtedly the most important. Ever since Pfister uncovered the ruins of Palmyra in the early twentieth century ad, large amounts of silk fragments have been excavated here. The German research team divides the silks discovered in Palmyra into three categories: non-patterned and linen-binding silks, Han-Damasten, and compound tabbies (Schmidt-Colinet 2000:26; Żuchowska 2014:143). Apart from the imported Chinese silk textiles, some silks were apparently refined locally, as evidenced by their weft-faced weave structures.14 It thus seems that Palmyra not only imported Chinese silk but also instituted a local silk weaving industry.
The pme, however, is silent about the maritime silk trade route stretching between China and the Indian subcontinent. This contrasts not only with Cosmas Indicopleustes’ description of Sri Lanka, where the island is described as the centre of a long-distance silk trade route, but also with Chinese sources that describe a vivid maritime silk trade network much earlier than the sixth century ad.
When Rinan has been blocked, sailing from Xuwen and Hepu for five months, there is the Duyuan kingdom (都元國); again sailing for four months, there is the Yilumo kingdom (邑盧沒國); again sailing for more than twenty days, there is the Chenli kingdom (諶離國); walking for about ten days, there is the Fugandulu kingdom (夫甘都盧國). From the Fugandulu kingdom sailing for two months, there is the Huangzhi kingdom (黃支國). The customs in Huangzhi are similar to the Zhuya Prefecture. The region is large. The households are many. Huangzhi kingdom has many curiosities, which have been seen in tribute since emperor Wu. There is a position named yizhang [譯長, sc. Translator], subordinate to huangmen [黃門, sc. a Chinese official position], who joins the recruits to trade bright pearls, green glasses, strange stones and other treasures on the sea. They [engaged in business] after having prepared gold and different kinds of zeng silk textile (雜繒) […]. From Huangzhi kingdom sailing for eight months, one would reach Pizong (皮宗); sailing for two months, one would reach Xianglin (象林) in Rinan. There is the Sichengbu kingdom [巳程不國, sc. Sri Lanka] in the south of Huangzhi. Han’s translators and envoys return to China from this place.15
Most kingdoms mentioned in this passage are not attested in other Chinese documents. In a famous book published in 1943, the Japanese scholar Fujita Toyohachi proposed locations that have been generally accepted by subsequent scholars. Fujita (1943:98) identified the Duyuan kingdom with the Dukun/Dujun kingdom (都昆/都軍國), mentioned in the Encyclopedia Tongdian (通典, Comprehensive Record) in ad 801. In its chapter on “Nanman” (南蠻, Southern Barbarians), Dukun/Dujun is placed south of Funan (扶南, encompassing south Vietnam and south Cambodia), after traversing the “Gulf of Jinlin” (金鄰大灣, Jinlin Dawan) and three other kingdoms: Biandou (邊斗), Juli (拘利), and Bisong (比嵩) (Tongdian 2015:juan 188, 5103). This so-called “Jinlin Gulf” is also referred to in the Taiping Yulan (太平御覽, Reading Collections of the Taiping Era): “The other name for Jinlin is Jinchen (金陳) […]. From the west of Funan sailing for more than two thousand miles one reaches Jinchen.”16 It is highly likely that the Jinlin kingdom was situated in present-day southern Thailand, with the Jinlin Gulf representing the Gulf of Thailand. Therefore, Fujita concluded that the Dukun/Dujun kingdom was positioned on the northeastern coast of Sumatra.
As for the Yilumo kingdom, Fujita (1943:114–5) equates it with the Juloumi kingdom (拘蔞蜜國), mentioned in the Xin Tangshu (新唐書, The New Book of the Tang Dynasty, completed in ad 1060). His argument for locating Juloumi is rooted in the Tanghuiyao (唐會要, Institutional History of the Tang Dynasty, completed in the second half of the tenth century ad): “Juloumi is located west of Linyi [林邑, sc. south Vietnam], and it can be reached by walking for three months.”17 Fujita suggests that Juloumi is the modern-day Thaton in Myanmar. Additionally, he associates the Chenli kingdom with Xiliyi City (悉利移城) in the Xin Tangshu. Finally, he equates the Fugandulu kingdom with a never-attested Pugandhara in Myanmar (Fujita 1943:116–23).
Fujita’s reliance on phonetic resemblances, without adequate historical support, is a significant weakness in his approach. Additionally, he overlooked some pertinent sources regarding the locations of the Duyuan and Yilumo kingdoms. Nevertheless, it is not entirely his fault as he was naturally unaware of new data from archaeological investigations in the Kra Isthmus. This information allows us to revisit this geographical issue by combining literary sources with archaeological findings.
Regarding Duyan, it is doubtful that it correlates with the Dukun/Dujun kingdom referenced in the Tongdian, a kingdom that was first mentioned during the Sui Dynasty (ad 581–618) (Tongdian, Section “Nanman” 南蠻 (Southern Barbarians) of Chapter “Bianfang iv” 邊防四 (Border Defense iv) in the Tongdian 2015:juan 188, 5103). Instead, the Duyuan mentioned in the Hanshu may correspond to the kingdom of Dubo/Zhubo (杜薄/諸薄國), documented in the Liangshu chapter on “Zhuyi” (諸夷, Barbarians) and the Taiping Yulan. According to these documents, Dubo/Zhubo is situated to the east of Funan, across a vast sea that would take several decades of days to traverse by boat.18 Geographically, Dubo/Zhubo is likely located in present-day Philippines. This hypothesis is supported by the discovery of potteries from the South China Sea in central Philippines, indicating a strong commercial connection between the Philippines and China during the Western and Eastern Han eras (Balbaligo 2016; Bellina et al. 2019:112).
Regarding Yilumo, it may indeed correspond, as Fujita suggests, to the Julomi kingdom attested in the Xin Tangshu, but it cannot be in Myanmar. The Xin Tangshu chapter on “Panpan” (盤盤) mentions that Julomi was situated southeast of Panpan and Langyaxiu (狼牙脩).19 To pinpoint the exact location of Panpan and Juloumi, it is crucial to establish the coordinates of Langyaxiu. According to the Liangshu chapter on “Zhuyi,” Langyaxiu is located in the South Sea and is far away from the Chinese Guangzhou (Liangshu 2020: juan 54, 879). Fujita’s suggestion that the Chinese name Langyaxiu is a transliteration of the ancient Malay “Langkasuka”, is likely accurate (He & Fujita 1936:1–34). Therefore, Langyaxiu was probably situated in today’s Changwat Pattani, near the southern coast of Thailand. Since Juloumi was southeast of Panpan and required more than a month of sailing to reach, Juloumi should be situated somewhere on the Malay Peninsula, potentially in its southernmost part.20
Fujita’s identifications of the Chenli and Fugandulu kingdoms are equally lacking in conviction. The connection between Chenli and Xiliyi City relies solely on a delicate phonetic similarity. Xiliyi City is mentioned in a mere two passages of the Xin Tangshu chapter on “Dili” (地理, Geography), where the city “Xili” (悉利) is placed along a land route connecting southwestern China and Myanmar.21 In the chapter on “Nanman,” Xiliyi is one of the nine titles representing the city-defenders of the Piao kingdom (驃國).22 The accepted location for the Piao Kingdom is Halin, situated in present-day central Myanmar (Zhao 2021:122–35; He 2021:48–9; Lu 2023:105–12; Zhu 2022:80–8). Therefore, if Xili(yi) were indeed in central Myanmar, it would be unlikely to be the same as Chenli, which is just a twenty-day sail from Yilumo in the southern Malay Peninsula. Additionally, should Chenli be found in Myanmar, merchants could have easily reached it via the mountainous silk trade route operated by the Shu merchants, making any detours unnecessary.23
The most convincing evidence for pinpointing the location of Chenli can be found in Hanshu’s claim that the travel time from Chenli to Fugandulu is around a ten-day march by foot, indicating a possible link to a trans-peninsular route, specifically a road across the Kra Isthmus.
Archaeological evidence has shown, too, that such a road existed already in the fifth century bc. The archaeological evidence unearthed from the Kra Isthmus have yielded an array of commodities from different cultural areas, including Chinese vessels, Indian glass, and Philippine pottery. In particular, at the Khao Sam Kaeo site, an abundance of Chinese Han Dynasty-style pottery fragments and Indian manufactured fine wares have been excavated. These discoveries reveal the peninsula’s pivotal role as a nexus for Indo-Chinese maritime trade in the later centuries bc (Bellina 2019:107–10). Around the fourth century bc, cities along the coast of southern and southeastern Asia, such as Khao Sam Kaeo and Tha Chana, as well as inland cities like Khao Krim, started importing a variety of goods and also producing and selling their own products extensively. Ceramic artifacts found here can be divided into six categories, including three that were locally made and three that were imported from what is now the Philippines (Kalanay-related pottery), China, and India (Ibid; Bouvet 2017:231–280; Favereau 2018:37–49). The Chinese potteries discovered showcase distinct pre-Han and Han styles, featuring geometric patterns and recurring elements. Referred to by Bellina as the “South China Sea style,” these potteries have also been uncovered in central and southern Vietnam, the Philippines, and Indonesia (Bellina 2019:112; Balbaligo 2016; Favereau & Bellina 2016:219–27; Dizon 2003:52–68; Solheim et al. 2006).
From a different perspective, the extensive trade network in the South China Sea, which was prominent prior to the downfall of the Eastern Han Dynasty, highlights the economic importance of the Philippines and the Thai-Malay Peninsula. In contrast to Fujita’s theories, the archaeological findings that place Duyuan in the Philippines and Yilumo in the southernmost Malay Peninsula support the idea that the Chenli and Fugandulu may have been situated on the Isthmus of Kra. Chenli was probably located on its eastern coast, and Fugandulu on the western coast. The description of “walking for over ten days” (步行可十餘日), then, most likely refers to a trans-peninsular road on the Kra Isthmus itself.
As for the Huangzhi kingdom (黃支國), it is commonly identified as Kancipura, located in the southeast of India (Fujita 1943:124–31; Yu 1967:chapter vii; Lin 2006:146–8). As for the Sichengbu kingdom, which Hanshu locates “at the south of Huangzhi” (黃支之南，有巳程不國), it is phonetically similar to “Shizi” (獅子/師子), the name for Sri Lanka since the early Yixi (義熙) era (probably in ad 405) during the reign of Emperor An (晉安帝) of the Eastern Jin Dynasty. In contrast to the kingdoms mentioned above, Sichengbu may not have been as popular for Western Han merchants, and unlike descriptions of other realms, Hanshu neglected specific details like duration of the journey or distances along the trade route from Huangzhi to Sichengbu, utilizing instead a simplified referencing style typically used for regions with minimal Chinese central government knowledge. Consequently, it is warranted to assume that merely a few Western Han merchants travelled to Sri Lanka for business purposes.24
Combining the descriptions in the Hanshu and pme, an overall trade map between the Han China and the Greco-Roman world may now be depicted in Fig. 1.
The Complete Maritime Trade Routes in the First Century ad25
Citation: Old World: Journal of Ancient Africa and Eurasia 4, 1 (2024) ; 10.1163/26670755-04020002
The Continued Prosperity before the Mid-third Century ad
In both Hanshu and the pme, it appears that Sri Lanka was a notable destination marking the end of Han merchants’ western journey. One distinguished noble from Sri Lanka, Rachias’ father, reportedly participated in “silent trade” with a group of questionable Seres from the Hemodus Mountains, as noted by Pliny the Elder.26 While Ptolemy’s cartographic approach does not explicitly feature trade, his extended map of the eastern world clearly represents a development over the pme. In his Geography, the Seres and Sinai are distinctly identified as silk traders with unique geographic locations. The Seres are positioned in the far northeast, connecting to the trade routes of the Eurasian Steppe, while the Sinai are located to their southern border, interacting with Taprobane (Sri Lanka) through a particular Μεγάλος κόλπος (Great Gulf) and Kattigara (Ptol. 7.2–4). Ptolemy views Kattigara as a port of the Sinai (7.3.3: Καττίγαρα* ὅρμος Σινῶν), suggests a possible southwest land route from Sina to Kattigara, and mentions two land routes like the pme – one leading to Bactria and one to Palimbothra – from Serike (Ptol. 1.17.5).
In the second century ad, again, Pausanias (6.26.6) shows some knowledge of a maritime region known as “Seria” that he associates with the “silk land.” Pausanias clearly relies on second-hand information, however, seeing that he uses specific verbs to describe the ethnicity and geography of the Seres, such as “I have heard” (ἤκουσα) and “some say” (οἱ δὲ – φασίν). While his association of the Seres with maritime trade may have been influenced by Pliny, there is not enough additional evidence to corroborate this theory. In fact, it is more likely that his knowledge was obtained from merchants involved in the silk trade routes. In any case, it is interesting to note that Pausanias used the term “Seria” (Σηρία) to describe the land of the Seres, which distinguishes it from the Ptolemaic references to the Seres (including a country Serike, a metropolis Sera, and a river Seros) and Sinai (including a country Σῖναι, and a metropolis Θῖναι) (Ptol. 7.3.1).
Regarding the location of Seria, Pausanias (6.26.6) asserts that it is “an island lying in a recess of the Red Sea” (Γινώσκεται δὲ ἡ Σηρία νῆσος ἐν μυχῷ θαλάσσης κειμένη τῆς Ἐρυθρᾶς) or that “it is not the Red Sea, but a river called Ser, that makes this island” (ἤκουσα δὲ καὶ ὡς οὐχ ἡ Ἐρυθρά, ποταμὸς δὲ ὃν Σῆρα ὀνομάζουσιν, οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ποιῶν νῆσον αὐτήν). This inference is also corroborated by Pausanias’ discussion of the ethnicity of the Seres. In this context, two opinions are presented. The first connects the Seres to the Ethiopians, while the second relates the Seres to a mix of Scythians and Indians. Although both theories are obviously speculative, the second opinion evidently originates from a silk trade centred on the pme’s Barbarikon and Barygaza, while the first links the Seres, or at least the silk trade, to the Red Sea region.
In addition, Pausanias was astonishingly well informed about the silk production process. This is particularly noteworthy since Pausanias’ account of the origin of silk stands out as an exception when compared to many other Latin authors (Hernández 2016:958). Indeed, cognizance of the silk-making process is not to be found again until the famous Procopian passage on the introduction of silkworms in the West (Bell. 8.17). Pliny the Elder, for instance, refers to silk as the wool (lanicium) of the Seres, a nation renowned for its forests (silvarum nobiles) (N.H. 6.20.54). Solinus (50.2) and Claudianus (Ol. 176–83) hold a similar opinion. They both use the term fleece (vellus) for silk, associating it with a kind of bark. Later, Martianus Capella (6.693) uses a resembling word, lanugo, to emphasize the similarity of silk to wool, both in shape and on account of it stemming from trees. Further, still at the end of the fourth century ad, Ammianus Marcellinus (23.6.67–8) described silk as a kind of bark. Pausanias probably did not meet a specific Chinese merchant himself, however. He may have been influenced by details about silk production from merchants in the East and perhaps by the methods of Greek traditional silk attire, specifically the Coa Vestis, when forming his opinions on the silk technique.27 However, it has to be pointed out that some knowledge of silk is implied already by the very ethnonym Seres, first mentioned by Apollodorus from Artemita. In fact, the term Seres/Ser may have originally been inspired by the Chinese character si for silk yarn.28 In this connection it is worth noting, too, that Sanskrit reflects the same duplicity of opinions regarding the origin of Indian silk: while the pattra ūrṇā hints at an origin from leaves of certain trees, kauśeya more correctly connects silk to the cocoon.29
After Pausanias, mentions of the maritime silk trade became infrequent from the beginning of the third century ad onwards. Among the exceptions, Solinus writing in the mid-third century ad merits some attention. In his descriptions of the land routes leading to the Seres, Solinus employs a similar arrangement to Pliny and Pomponius Mela.30 Additionally, Solinus (52.21) also repeats the vague maritime connection between the Seres and the Sri Lankans: “(The inhabitants of Taprobane) discern the coast of the Seres from the ridges of their mountains” (Cernunt latus Sericum de montium suorum iugis). Therefore, Solinus’ associations between the Seres and Sri Lanka should perchance not be taken as definite evidence of the continued prosperity of the transoceanic silk trade. However, his witness may also suggest precisely that such trade did continue to exist after the third century ad.
In the ninth year of the Yanxi (延熹) era of Emperor Huan (漢桓帝), king Andun [sc. Aurelius] of Daqin [sc. Rome] sent envoys from the region outside the Rinan Prefecture to make tributes to the Han court, including ivories, rhinoceros horns, and tortoiseshells This was the first connection.31
The people of the kingdom [sc. Daqin] engaged in business. They frequently reached Funan, Rinan, and Jiaozhi. But people of these southern prefectures hardly went to Daqin. In the fifth year of the Huangwu (黃武) era of Sun Quan (孫權) [ad 226], a Daqin merchant named Qinlun arrived at Jiaozhi. The prefect of Jiaozhi, Wu Miao, sent Qinlun to the court of Sun Quan. Sun Quan asked him about the geography and customs of Daqin, Qinlun replied in details.32
Both the envoys of Andun and the Daqin merchant Qinlun consistently confirm that Ptolemy’s extensive map updates the information in the pme, potentially having become a new guidebook for western merchants traveling across the Μεγάλος κόλπος to meet the Sinai people beyond the harbor of Kattigara.
From a different viewpoint, the shifting orders along the Eurasian Steppe trade routes following the Eastern Han Dynasty’s withdrawal from the Western Regions in the early second century ad also played a role in boosting transoceanic commerce. As described in Liangshu, closure of routes beyond the western borders of the Gansu Corridor forced Indian merchants to adopt the maritime route through Vietnam to China, previously used by Roman traders.33
The Eastern Indian Ocean Trade in the Accounts of Buddhist Monks
After the fall of the Eastern Han Dynasty in ad 220 and the destruction of Palmyra in ad 273, the maritime silk trade appeared to enter a “dark age.” This does not mean that the silk exchange disappeared altogether after the third century ad, but rather that it experienced a significant decline in both Western and Eastern accounts. The Liangshu notes that, after the fall of the Wu Kingdom (ad 229–280), the next recorded interaction between the Chinese court and the Indians occurs during the early Tianjian (天監) era of Emperor Wu of the Liang Dynasty (梁武帝) In around ad 502.34 Interestingly, most Western sources show a similar trend up until the sixth century, when Cosmas Indicopleustes, a Christian monk, again pays attention to the South China Sea as the successor of Ptolemy.35
The country had no inhabitants in the first place. Only ghosts, divine figures, and dragons lived there. Merchants from different countries exchanged goods in common markets. During trading, the ghosts and divines did not show their shapes. They only offered treasures for certain prices, and the merchants acquired the merchandise by paying the compared values. Many countries knew the benefits of this land because of the rumors spread by merchants who traveled and lingered there. People from these countries all kept coming to the island after hearing of its inhabitable environments. Thus, a big country has been formed. The climate in this country is pleasant. Winter and summer on this island are alike. Plants always blossom. The land is easily cultivated and has no changing of seasons.36
A Buddhist temple called Abhayagiri was established near the tower. The temple has five thousand monks. A hall is settled in the temple. The hall is carved with gold and silver and decorated with treasures. There is a light-green jade statue (青玉像, qingyuxiang) in the middle. The statue is more than two zhang [sc. about five meters] high, with the shining light of seven treasures covering its body. The statue has a solemn portrait that no words can describe its appearance. The statue holds a priceless pearl in its right hand. Faxian left China for many years. The people he talked to were all from foreign countries. Of mountains and rivers, plants and woods, nothing was familiar. As for the people who traveled with Faxian, they either died or stopped the journey. Only his own shadow accompanied him. His heart was always vexed. Suddenly, he saw a merchant putting a white silk folding fan of the Jin Dynasty (晋晉地一白絹扇) in front of this jade statue. He felt grave and was in tears.37
It was the Chinese elements in the temple that caused Faxian’s homesickness, particularly, the “light-green jade statue” and the “silk folding fan of the Jin Dynasty.” While Sri Lanka was famous for its luxurious stones, such as pearls (πινικόν) and hyacinth (ὑάκινθος), jade was not produced there.38 According to the information given in the passage, the jade statue was more than five meters high, and the raw materials from which it was produced should have been heavier than the statue itself. Merchandise of such weight requires a suitable ship for loading – a ship like the ones used by Faxian on his return journey. The book mentions that Faxian traveled on many different “giant merchant ships” (商人大舶, shangren dabo) from one place to another, until he reached the Chinese Changguang Prefecture.39 Together with jade, silk, too, was exported from China to Sri Lanka. The silk folding fan from the Jin Dynasty that Faxian observed at Abhayagiri undeniably confirms the presence of a silk trade route connecting China and Sri Lanka in the early fifth century ad.
In addition, Faxian’s journey also provides intriguing insights into the private trade between the Bay of Bengal and the Pacific Ocean. His sea journey can be divided into three phases. The initial segment of the trip took him from the Bay of Bengal to Sri Lanka. Faxian commenced his sea journey from the “Duomolidi kingdom” (多摩梨帝國), probably standing for Tāmralipti in the Ganges delta (Faxianzhuan Jiaozhu 2015:121). Subsequently, he embarked on a giant merchant ship, sailing southwest for about fourteen days carried by the early winter monsoon (初冬信風, chudong xinfeng), eventually reaching Sri Lanka. After a two-year sojourn in Sri Lanka, Faxian decided to return to China. He set sail from Sri Lanka on another large merchant ship, journeying for approximately ninety days before arriving at the Yepoti kingdom (耶婆提國) – the exact location of which remains uncertain. According to Zhang Xun, the commentator of the Faxianzhuan, Yepoti is probably the country referred to in the Indian epic Rāmāyaṇa as Yava-dvīpa (today’s Sumatra or Java) (Faxianzhuan Jiaozhu 2015:136). Considering the trajectory of Faxian’s return journey, this suggestion may be right. There he stayed five months, before boarding yet another giant merchant ship (商人大船, shangren dachuan), ultimately reaching the Chinese Changguang Prefecture (長廣郡) in the present-day Shandong Province in China.
Normally, the voyage from Yepoti to the Chinese Guangzhou Prefecture (present-day Guangdong Province) would only have lasted around fifty days. However, a storm impeded the ship’s itinerary, prolonging the journey to Laoshan (牢山), Changguang, to eighty days (as shown in Fig. 2). The ethnicity of the merchants on the last ship is unknown, but they were certainly not Chinese. When the ship hit the storm, the merchants considered abandoning a bhikṣu (沙門, shamen) on an isolated island. As a follower of the Buddhist doctrine, Faxian stood up against the merchants, in the same way a Chinese subject would resist foreigners.40
Map of Faxian’s Voyage
Citation: Old World: Journal of Ancient Africa and Eurasia 4, 1 (2024) ; 10.1163/26670755-04020002
In discussing Sri Lanka, the later official Chinese historical documents, the Liangshu and the Tongdian, merely copied the story presented by Faxian.41 In addition, the Liangshu refers to Sri Lanka’s tributary trade with China on four occasions, but there is no specific reference to silk.42 In all likelihood, therefore, silk trade between China and Sri Lanka remained predominantly a private affair during this period. Despite Chinese official sources consistently neglecting such private commerce, the report of Faxian does point toward the existence of a maritime trade route between the Bay of Bengal and the South China Sea.
After Faxian, one additional Buddhist work, Datang Xiyuji (大唐西域記, The Great Tang Journey to the West), refers to Indian affairs as part of Xuanzang’s travelogue of ad 646. Similar to his predecessor Faxian, Xuanzang visited most states on the Indian subcontinent. Even though Sri Lanka is not on the list of places he visited, the record of the island, based on the information from the Indians who lived on the continent, shows significant development on account of the absence of mythical elements in the narrative.43
The Recovery of Maritime Silk Trade in Cosmas Indicopleustes
Yet, if Paradise did exist in this earth of ours, many a man among those who are keen to know and enquire into all kinds of subjects, would think he could not be too quick in getting there: for if there be some who to procure silk (μέταξιν) for the miserable gains of commerce, hesitate not to travel to the uttermost ends of the earth, how should they hesitate to go where they would gain a sight of Paradise itself? Now this country of silk is situated in the remotest of all the Indies, and lies to the left of those who enter the Indian sea, far beyond the Persian Gulf, and the island called by the Indians Selediba and by the Greeks Taprobane. It is called Tzinista (Τζίνιστα), and is surrounded on the left by the ocean, just as Barbaria is surrounded by it on the right. The Indian philosophers, called the Brachmans, say that if you stretch a cord from Tzinista to pass through Persia, onward to the Roman dominions, the middle of the earth would be quite correctly traced, and they are perhaps right. For the country in question deflects considerably to the left, so that the loads of silk passing by land through one nation after another, reach Persia in a comparatively short time; whilst the route by sea to Persia is vastly greater. For just as great a distance as the Persian Gulf runs up into Persia, so great a distance and even a greater has one to run, who, being bound for Tzinistza, sails eastward from Taprobane; while besides, the distances from the mouth of the Persian Gulf to Taprobane and the parts beyond through the whole width of the Indian sea are very considerable. He then who comes by land from Tzinista to Persia shortens very considerably the length of the journey. This is why there is always to be found a great quantity of silk in Persia. Beyond Tzinista there is neither navigation nor any land to inhabit.44
The passage in Cosmas is remarkable for several reasons, particularly regarding the terminology employed to denote silk and China. Cosmas’ term for China, Τζίνιστα, is evidently connected to the ancient Indo-Iranian compound *Cīnasthāna (the land of China) which is first attested in its Sogdian form as Cynst’n found in a fourth-century ad letter unearthed by A. Stein. In lines 17–19, it is stated: “Then, Sir, we do not know whether the remnant Chinese were able to drive those Huns [out of] Čīnastan (cynstn) or occupied their other land.” (Sims-William 2001:267–280; Henning 1948:604–6.) Based on the close association between Čīna and the Chinese character Qin (秦), Henning (1948:606) hypothesized that Čīnastan, in its Sogdian form, may not encompass the entirety of China but could merely refer to the capital of the Western Jin Dynasty situated in the Northwest. The term Cynst’n may also find mention in the later Sogdian Bugut inscription, which was erased during the reign of Tatpar Qaghan (ad 572–581). According to Kljaštornyj and Livšic, the stele in question contains the following inscription: “The Turks erected this (?) [sic!] […] stele (under) Kwts’tt the ruler of China (Cynst’n).”45 Since no Chinese ruler with a name similar to that of ‘Kwts’tt’ is attested, Lin Meicun suggests that “Kwts’tt” refers to a Turkish Quaghan, probably to Ashina Kutou (阿史那 庫頭). Hence the sentence would read: “This […] stele has been established by Kutou the king of Turkey and China (Cynst’n).”46 However, Yoshida Yutaka, for his part, has questioned the very reading of Cynst’n, proposing an alternative rendering as ’’šyn’s. According to Yutaka, the sentence would thus read: “The kings of the Turkish Ashinas tribe have established this stone of law.”47
The next ascertained appearance of a derivative from the ancient Indo-Iranian compound *Cīnasthāna is the Syriac cynst’n found in the 1.1 (sc. the first raw, first sentence) of the bilingual Sino-Syriac Nestorian Stele from the mid-Tang Dynasty in Xi’an (ad 781): “Adam priest and chorepiscopus and priest of China (cynst’n).”48 Furthermore, a simple from without the affix -st’n, dcÿny’, occurs at 1.13. The initial component of the compound *Cīna-sthāna undoubtedly derives from the Sanskrit word Cīna, as documented in the Arthaśāstra (2.11.114) as part of the compound cīnapatana, denoting “Chinese cloth.” Ramifications of the old Indian term Cīna are also reflected in the Greek forms Θῖνα/Θῖναι, present in the pme 64, as well as Ptolemy’s Σῖναι – whereas Σηρία is clearly a retro-gradation from Σῆρες/Seres (Ptol. 7.3). As for the suffix st’n (<sthāna), it appears both in Sogdian and Syriac, which insinuates a Middle Asian origin (Hunter 2009:73–4; Zhang 2004:452–4.).
The deified Marcus and Commodus also stated in a rescript that a tax farmer should not be blamed for failing to instruct someone who broke the law, but that care should be taken that he does not mislead those who are willing to make a declaration. Types of goods liable to vectigal: […] metaxa (silk thread), silk or half-silk clothing.49
Later on, the term metaxa reappeared as part of the compound metaxablatte (purple-dyed silk yarn) in the Edictum de pretiis from ad 301. Intriguingly, the maximum price for this commodity was set at 50,000 denarii per pound, whereas the maximum price for white silk textile was only 12,000 denarii per pound.50 This phenomenon suggests that the price of raw silk materials has slowly decreased in comparison to the notably high price associated with only the noble color. Additionally, Hesychius’ Lexicon includes metaxa with the following definition: “Seres, animals who spin the silk thread (μέταξαν) or the name of the nation whence also the pure silk comes.”51 It is in this specific sense, explicitly referring to silk thread, that Cosmas employs the term as well. In contrast, various classical authors did not use a specific denomination for silk. For instance, the terms νῆμα in the pme (39, 64), μίτοι in Pausanias (6.26.6), fila in Ammianus Marcellinus (23.6.67–8), and subtegmina in Claudianus (Hon. Quart. 599–601) all refer to the thread in a general sense. When intending to specify the material in question, some sources insert additional descriptive words, such as νῆμα Σιρικόν (yarn of the Seres) in the pme and Seres subtegmina in Claudianus.
The island being, as it is, in a central position, is much frequented by ships from all parts of India and from Persia and Ethiopia, and it likewise sends out many of its own. And from the remotest countries, I mean Tzinista (China) and other trading places, it receives silk yarn (μέταξιν), aloes, cloves, sandalwood and other products, and these again are passed on to marts on this side, such as Male, where pepper grows, and to Calliana which exports copper and sesame-logs, and cloth for making dresses, for it also is a great place of business.52
As the central point between Ethiopia and Tzinista, Sri Lanka received silk yarn (μέταξις) and other products, which were then transported, along with local merchandise, in the opposite direction across the world. The former two places, Ethiopia and Tzinista, are specifically mentioned as being in “the other direction of the world,” likely indicating routes passing through the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf. After approximately three centuries, the maritime trade routes outlined by Ptolemy and Solinus reappear in Cosmas. It is worth noting that Cosmas not only acknowledges a land route from Tzinista to Persia but also a sea route connecting Tzinista, Sri Lanka, and Persia.
There is a road stretching between the southeast of Daqin and Jiaozhi Prefecture. There is also a river route along which one may reach the Yongchang Prefecture in Yizhou. […] Moving from the western frontier of Anxi [安息, sc. Parthia] along the seashores, one also arrives in Daqin. The distance back is more than ten thousand miles.53
Three Trade Routes in the Weishu
Citation: Old World: Journal of Ancient Africa and Eurasia 4, 1 (2024) ; 10.1163/26670755-04020002
Although the two land routes from Daqin to southwest China (Yongchang) and north Vietnam (Jiaozhi) seem to follow Zhang Qian’s silk trade route through mountainous regions seen in the late second century bc, the maritime branch clearly delineates a path from southwestern Persia to Roman Egypt. This route likely mirrors the path between the Persian Gulf and the Red Sea, as primarily outlined in the pme, and confirmed by Cosmas.54
Conclusion
The maritime silk trade between China and the Greco-Roman world is well-documented during two distinct periods: from the first to the third century ad and from the fifth century ad onwards. In contrast, only fragmentary descriptions can be found in the Faxian Zhuan and Liangshu during the two centuries in between. Despite this lack of evidence, it should not be considered a sign of a “dark age” in international maritime trade. On the contrary, consistency was a defining trait in ancient transoceanic exchange. For example, the development of the term metaxa indicates that the trade of silk threads was flourishing even before Cosmas’ time. The scarcity of evidence in the middle two centuries likely reflects the decline of two political powers on opposite sides of the globe: the Eastern Han Empire and the autonomous Palmyra.
From an archaeological perspective, Chinese pottery and artifacts are frequently found in the region stretching from the South China Sea to the Bengal Bay. However, in Sri Lanka, which served as a central point along the maritime trade routes, Chinese coins have primarily been dated to after the tenth century ad, while Roman coins were discovered there as early as the late first century ad (Walburg 2008:52, 284–5). This difference can be clarified through the Hanshu (Chapter “Dilizhi” 地理志 (Treatise on Geography) in the Hanshu 1960:juan 28, 2671), which suggests that Chinese merchants often used silk and gold as currency in international maritime trade.
Bibliography
Balbaligo, Yvette Ellerayne (2016). Ceramics and Social Practices at Ille Cave, Philippines. London: UCL Institute of Archaeology.
Bellina, Bérénice, Favereau, Aude, and Dussubieux, Laure (2019). Southeast Asian Early Maritime Silk Road Trading Polities’ Hinterland and the Sea-nomads of the Isthmus of Kra. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 54, pp. 102–120.
Bouvet, Phaedra (2017). Study of Socio-Technical Systems of local and regional pottery traditions. In: B. Bellina, ed., Khao Sam Kaeo: An Early Port-City between the Indian Ocean and the South China Sea, Paris: Ecole française d’Extrême-Orient, pp. 231–280.
Brodersen, Kai (2011). Mapping Pliny’s World: The Achievement of Solinus. Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 54 (1), pp. 63–88.
Burgersdijk, Diederik (2019). Palmyra on the Silk Road: Terrestrial and Maritime Trading Routes from China to the Mediterranean. Talanta 51, pp. 246–257.
Casson, Lionel (1984). Egypt, Africa, Arabia, and India: Patterns of Seaborne Trade in the First Century A.D. The Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists 21, pp. 39–47.
Casson, Lionel, ed. (1989). The Periplus Maris Erythraei, Text with Introduction, Translation, and Commentary. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Chin, Tamara (2013). The Invention of the Silk Road, 1877. Critical Inquiry 40 (1), pp. 194–219.
De Romanis, Federico (2016). An Exceptional Survivor and Its Submerged Background: The Periplus Maris Erythraei and the Indian Ocean Travelogue Tradition. In: G. Colesanti and M. Giordano, eds., Submerged Literature in Ancient Greek Culture, Berlin-Boston: De Gruyter, pp. 97–110.
Di Cosmo, Nicola (2018). The Relations between China and the Steppe: From the Xiongnu to the Türk Empire. In: N. Di Cosmo and M. Maas, eds., Empires and Exchanges in Eurasian Late Antiquity: Rome, China, Iran, and the Steppe, ca. 250–750, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 35–53.
Ding, Zhenghua 丁正華 (1983). Cong Hanghai Shixue Tantao Hanshi Hangcheng Wenti 從航海史學探討漢使航程問題 [A Research in to Voyage Problems of the Han Dynasty Based on Nautical History]. Zhongguo Hanghai 中國航海 [Chinese Maritime Navigation] 13 (2), pp. 104–120.
Dizon, Eusebio (2003). Anthropomorphic Pottery from Ayub Cave, Piñol, Maitum Sarangani Province, Mindanao. In: J. N. Miksic, ed., Earthenware in Southeast Asia: Proceedings of the Singapore Symposium on Premodern Southeast Asian Earthenwares, Singapore: Singapore University Press, pp. 52–68.
Duan, Yu 段渝 (2019). Zouchu Pendi: Bashu Wenhua Yu Ouya Guwenming 走出盆地：巴蜀文化與歐亞古文明 [Out of the Basin: Bashu Culture and Ancient Eurasian Civilizations]. Beijing: Renmin Chubanshe.
Fairbank, John, and Teng, S. (1941). On the Ch’ing Tributary System. Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 6 (2), pp. 135–246.
Favereau, Aude (2018). The Analysis of Khao Sek Pottery: Insight into the Circulations and the Politico-Economic Context of the Thai-Malay Peninsula during the Second Half of the 1st Millenium bc. Archaeological Research in Asia 13, pp. 37–49.
Favereau, Aude, and Bellina, Bérénice (2016). Thai-Malay Peninsula and South China Sea Networks (500 bc – ad 200). Based on a Reappraisal of “Sa Huynh-Kalanay” Ceramics. Quaternary International 416, pp. 219–227.
Fujita, Toyohachi 藤田豐八 (1943). Tozai Koshoshi no Kenkyu: Nankai Hen 東西交涉史の研究·南海篇 [Research on the History of East-West Interactions: Southern Sea]. Tokyo: Ogiwara Seibunkan.
Graf, David (2017). The Silk Road between Syria and China. In: A. Wilson and A. Bowman, eds., Trade, Commerce, and the State in the Roman World, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 443–530.
Hager, Joseph (1805). Description des médailles chinoises du Cabinet impérial de France. Paris: Imprimerie impériale.
Hall, Isaac (1896). The Syriac Text of the Chinese Nestorian Tablet. The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures 12, pp. 118–125.
Hanshu: Ban, Gu 班固 (1960). Hanshu 漢書 [The Book of the Western Han Dynasty]. Beijing: Zhonghua Shuju.
He, Jianmin 何健民, and Fujita, Toyohachi 藤田豐八 eds. (1936). Zhongguo Nanhai Gudai Jiaotong Congkao 中國南海古代交通叢考 [A Collection of Studies on Ancient Communication in South China Sea]. Shanghai: Shangwu Yinshuguan, pp. 1–34.
He, Qi 和奇 (2021). Tansuo Miandian Zaoqi Wenhua Tezheng Yi Kaoguxue Wei Zhengju 探索緬甸早期文化特徵以考古學為證據 [Exploring Myanmar’s Early Cultural Characteristics with Archaeological Evidence]. Ren Yu Shengwuquan 人與生物圈 [Man and the Biosphere] 2, pp. 48–49.
Henning, Walter (1948). The Date of the Sogdian Ancient Letters. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 12, pp. 602–615.
Hernández, Juan (2016). Pausanias and Rome’s Eastern Trade. Mnemosyne 69 (6), pp. 955–977.
Hildebrandt, Berit (2017). Silk Production and Trade in the Roman Empire. In: B. Hildebrandt and C. Gillis, eds., Silk: Trade and Exchange along the Silk Roads between Rome and China in Antiquity, Oxford: Oxbow Books, pp. 50–82.
Houhanshu: Fan, Ye 范晔 (1964). Houhanshu 後漢書 [The Book of the Eastern Han Dynasty]. Beijing: Zhonghua Shuju.
Hunter, Erica (2009). The Persian Contribution to Christianity in China: Reflections in the Xi’an Fu Syriac Inscriptions. In: D. Winkler and T. Li, eds., Hidden Treasures and Intercultural Encounters: Studies on East Syriac Christianity in Central Asia and China, Berlin: LIT Verlag, pp. 71–86.
Hyllested, Adam (2017). Word Migration on the Silk Road: the Etymology of English Silk and Its Congeners. In: B. Hildebrandt and C. Gillis, eds., Silk: Trade and Exchange along the Silk Roads between Rome and China in Antiquity, Oxford: Oxbow Books, pp. 51–59.
Ji, Xianlin 季羡林 ed. (2000). Xuan, Zang 玄奘, and Bian, Ji 辯機. Datang Xiyuji 大唐西域記 [The Great Tang Journey to the West]. Beijing: Zhonghua Shuju.
Kljaštornyj, Sergej, and Livšic, Vladimir (1972). The Sogdian Inscription of Bugut Revised. Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 26 (1), pp. 69–102.
Li, Chenglin 李成林 (1981). Gongyuanqianhou De Zhongxi Guhangxian Shitan 公元前後的中西古航線試探 [Research of the Ancient Marine Routes between China and the West in the Early Common Era]. Xueshu Yuekan 學術月刊 [Academic Monthly] 3 (5), pp. 77–81.
Liang, Mingyuan 梁明院 ed. (2010). Ōmi no Mifune 淡海三船, Tang Daheshang Dongzhengzhuan Jiaozhu 唐大和上東征傳校注 [The Record of Master Jianzhen’s Eastern Expedition During the Tang Dynasty Collated and Annotated]. Yangzhou: Guangling Shushe.
Liangshu: Yao, Cha 姚察, and Yao, Silian 姚思廉 (2020). Liangshu 梁書 [The Book of the Liang Dynasty]. Beijing: Zhonghua Shuju.
Lieberman, Samuel (1957). Who Were Pliny’s Blue-Eyed Chinese? Classical Philology 52 (3), pp. 174–177.
Lin, Meicun 林梅村 (1994). Bugute Suochu Sutewen Tujuekehan Jigongbei Kao 布古特所出粟特文突厥可汗紀功碑考 [A Study on the Sogdian Stele of the Turkic Khan Unearthed in Bugut]. Minzu Yanjiu 民族研究 [Ethno-National Studies] 2, pp. 64–71.
Lin, Meicun 林梅村 (2006). Sichouzhilu Kaogu Shiwujiang 絲綢之路考古十五講 [Fifteen Lectures on Archaeology of the Silk Roads]. Beijing: Beijing Daxue Chubanshe.
Liu Mingjin 劉明金 (2002). Cong “Zhangsai” Yici Kan Haishang Silu de Qishi Niandai 從“障塞”一詞看海上絲路的起始年代 [A Survey the Starting Point of Silk Road on the Sea]. Guangdong Haiyang Daxue Xuebao 廣東海洋大學學報 [Journal of Guangdong Ocean University] 22 (2), pp. 22–26.
Liu, Yonglian 劉永連 (2019). Luhai Silu Yu Wenhua Jiaoliu 陸海絲路與文化交流 [The Land and Maritime Silk Roads and Their Cultural Communications]. Beijing: Beijing Shehui Kexue Chubanshe.
Lu, Qiuyan 陸秋燕 (2023). Shilun “Piaoguo Yue” Zhongde Tonggu 試論《驃國樂》中的銅鼓 [On the Bronze Drums in “Piaoguo-Music”]. 唐都學刊 Tangdu Xuekan [Tangdu Journal] 39 (1), pp. 105–112.
Mertens, Matthias (2019). Did Richthofen Really Coin “The Silk Road”? The Silk Road 17, pp. 1–9.
Parker, Grant (1999). Sri Lanka from Hellenistic Times to the Christian Cosmographies. Studies in Classical Antiquity 8, pp. 115–120.
Richthofen, Ferdinand (1877). China, Ergebnisse eigener Reisen und darauf gegründeter Studien. Erster Band. Berlin.
Schmidt-Colinet, Andreas (2000). Die Textilien aus Palmyra. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern.
Seland, Eivind (2016). The Periplus of the Erythraean Sea: A Network Approach. Asian Review of World Histories 4 (2), pp. 191–205.
Selbitschka, Armin (2015). Early Chinese Diplomacy: “Realpolitik” versus the So-called Tributary System. Asia Major 28 (1), pp. 61–114.
Shiji: Sima, Qian 司馬遷 (1997). Shiji 史記 [Records of the Grand Historian]. Beijing: Zhonghua Shuju.
Sims-Williams, Nicolas (2001). The Sogdian Ancient Letter ii. In: M. G. Schmidt and W. Bisang, eds., Philologica et Linguistica, Historia, Pluralitas, Universitas. Festschrift für Helmut Humbach zum 80. Geburtstag am 4. Dezember 2001, Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag, pp. 267–280.
Solheim, Wilhelm, Bulbeck, David, and Flavel, Ambika (2006). Archaeology and Culture in Southeast Asia: Unraveling the Nusantao. Quezon City: University of the Philippines Press.
Stele on the diffusion of the Luminous Religion of Da Qin (Rome) in the Middle Kingdom (2016). Translated by Eccles, L. and Lieu, S., available at https://www.mq.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/55987/Xian-Nestorian-Monument-27-07-2016.pdf.
Stoneman, Richard (2015). Tales of Utopia: Alexander, Cynics and Christian Ascetics. In: M. F. Pinheiro and S. Montiglio, eds., Philosophy and the Ancient Novel, Groningen: Barkhuis, pp. 51–63.
Taiping Yulan: Li, Fang 李昉 (1960). Taiping Yulan 太平御覽 [Reading Collections of the Taiping Era]. Beijing: Zhonghua Shuju.
Tanghuiyao: Song, Qi 宋祁, and Ouyang, Xiu 歐陽修 (1975). Tanghuiyao 唐會要 [Institutional History of the Tang Dynasty]. Beijing: Zhonghua Shuju.
Tongdian: Du, You 杜佑 (2015). Tongdian 通典 [Comprehensive Records]. Beijing: Zhonghua Shuju.
Varadarajan, Lotika (1988). Silk in Northeastern and Eastern India: The Indigenous Tradition, Modern Asian Studies 22 (3), pp. 561–570.
Walburg, Reinhold (2008). Coins and Tokens from Ancient Ceylon: Ancient Ruhuna. Sri Lanka-German Archaeological Project in the Southern Province. Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag, Annotated edition.
Wang, Zhaoyu 王兆宇 (2023). Silk Forms and Silk Trade between China and India. Marburger Beiträge zur Antiken Handels-, Wirtschafts- und Sozialgeschichte 40, pp. 155–188.
Weishu: Wei, Shou 魏收 (1974). Weishu 魏書 [The Book of the Northern Wei Dynasty]. Beijing: Zhonghua Shuju.
Willis, Bailey (1905). Ferdinand, Frreiherr Von Richthofen. The Journal of Geology 13 (7), pp. 561–567.
Xin Tangshu: Song, Qi 宋祁, and Ouyang, Xiu 歐陽修 (1975). Xin Tangshu 新唐書 [The New Book of the Tang Dynasty]. Beijing: Zhonghua Shuju.
Yoshida, Yutaka (2019). Sogdian Version of the Bugut Inscription Revisited. Journal Asiatique 307 (1), pp. 97–108.
Yu, Yingshi 余英時 (1967). Trade and Expansion in Han China: A Study inthe Structure of Sino-Barbarian Economic Relations. California: University of California Press.
Zhang, Xun 章巽 ed. (2015). Faxianzhuan Jiaozhu 法顯傳校注 [Annotations on the Biography of Faxian]. Shanghai: Fudan Daxue Chubanshe.
Zhang, Xushan 張緒山 (2004). The Name of China and Its Geography in Cosmas Indicopleustes. Byzantion 74 (2), pp. 452–462.
Zhao, Jin 趙瑾 (2021). Miandian Puganwenhua De Yuanyuliu 緬甸蒲甘文化的源與流 [Origin and Transmission of the Pugandhara Culture of Myanmar]. Nanya Dongnanya Yanjiu 南亞東南亞研究 [South Asian and Southeast Asian Studies] 4, pp. 122–135.
Zhu, Haiying 朱海鷹 (2022). Piaoguo Fengshou Konghou Yu Tuoxingzheng 驃國鳳首箜篌與鼉形箏 [The Phoenix-Headed Konghou and the Alligator-shaped Zither of the Piao Kingdom]. Zhongguo Yinyue 中國音樂 [Chinese Music] 173 (1), pp. 80–88.
Żuchowska, Marta (2013). From China to Palmyra: The Value of Silk. Światowit XI (LII)/A, pp. 133–154.
Żuchowska, Marta (2014). “Grape Picking” Silk from Palmyra. A Han Dynasty Chinese Textile with a Hellenistic Decoration Motif. Światowit XII (LIII)/A, pp. 143–162.
This paper was originally delivered at the conference Sino-Indo-Hellenica, conjointly arranged by Mid Sweden University and Södertörn University in May 2022.
See also Willis 1905:561–67; Chin 2013:194–98. In fact, Richthofen is not the first modern scholar to have promoted the term “Silk Road.” As early as 1805, Joseph Hager highlighted Maes Titianus’ concept of Sino-Greek trade, terming it “route d’une caravane grecque à la Chine.” Although Hager did not come up with the precise phrase of the “route de la soie,” the silkworm and mulberry figures on his map demonstrate the primary structure of this notion. Subsequently, in 1838, a German scholar named Carl Ritter was the first to use the term ‘Seidenstraße’ to describe the trade route from China to the Caspian Sea. Despite this, Richthofen remains the most notable figure popularizing this term on a global scale. See Hager 1805:121–23; Chin 2013:200–01; Mertens 2019:1–9.
Due to the constraints of sailing techniques, subjects in the pme are particularly focused on the Red Sea, the South Arabian Peninsula, the Persian Gulf, and the western Indian Ocean. See Vivero 2013:142–48; De Romanis 2016:97–110; Casson 1984:39–47; Seland 2016:191–205.
For an outstanding study on the Chinese maritime exchange during the Tang Dynasty, see Liu 2019:1–18.
The concept of “tributary trade” was initially coined by Fairbank and Teng before Yu Yingshi further expounded on it in regard to ancient Chinese society. See Fairbank & Teng 1941:135–246; Selbitschka 2015:61–2; Yu 1967.
For instance, just fifty years after the pme, the official Chinese text, the Hanshu, outlines a sea route from China to South India and Sri Lanka. This mention of the trade route linking the South China Sea and the southern Bengal Bay could be the oldest indication of the maritime silk trade in the East. Notably, the Hanshu does not mention what is beyond Sri Lanka. The information left out by the Hanshu was provided by the pme and subsequent sources, like Ptolemy and Pausanias. See Casson 1989:6–7; Hanshu (Zhonghua Shuju ed. 1960): juan 40, 1334, 2671; Ptol., 7.3.1–3; Paus., 6.26.6. Somehow, people may accuse Pausanias’ “accurate descriptions” of the Seres as merely an imaginable coincidence, see Stoneman 2015. As for the identification of the Sichengbu kingdom with Sri Lanka, see Parker 1999:115–20.
These writers include Faxian, who visited the island in the early fifth century ad; Cosmas Indicopleustes, who traded in the Indian Ocean in the early sixth century ad; Xuanzang, who spent more than a decade in India in the seventh century ad; and Jianzhi, who saw enormous Sri Lankan fleets moored at Guangzhou. See Zhang Xun 2015:121–37; Cosm. Indic., 11.11–2; Datang Xiyuyi (Zhonghua Shuju ed. 2000):866–887; Liang Mingyuan 2010:71–76.
Proc., His. Arc., 25.14–5: “Garments made of silk yarn had been wont from ancient times to be produced in the cities of Beirut and Tyre in Phoenicia. And the merchants and craftsmen and artisans of these stuffs had lived there from ancient times, and this merchandise was carried thence to the whole world.” (ἱμάτια τὰ ἐκ μετάξης ἐν Βηρυτῷ μὲν καὶ Τύρῳ πόλεσι ταῖς ἐπὶ Φοινίκης ἐργάζεσθαι ἐκ παλαιοῦ εἰώθει. οἵ τε τούτων ἔμποροί τε καὶ ἐπιδημιουργοὶ καὶ τεχνῖται ἐνταῦθα τὸ ἀνέκαθεν ᾤκουν, ἐνθένδε τε ἐς γῆν ἅπασαν φέρεσθαι τὸ ἐμπόλημα τοῦτο ξυνέβαινεν.) Translation by Dewing 1916.
pme, 64: “Beyond this region, by now at the northernmost point, where the sea ends somewhere on the outer fringe, there is a very great inland city called Thina from which silk floss, yarn, and cloth are shipped by land via Bactria to Barygaza and via the Ganges River back to Limyrike.” (Μετὰ δὲ ταύτην τὴν χώραν ὑπ᾿ αὐτὸν ἤδη τὸν βορέαν, ἔξωθεν εἴς τινα τόπον ἀποληγούσης τῆς θαλάσσης, παράκειται δὲ ἐν αὐτῇ πόλις μεσόγειος μεγίστη, λεγομένη Θῖνα, ἀφ᾿ ἧς τό τε ἔριον καὶ τὸ νῆμα καὶ τὸ ὀθόνιον τὸ Σηρικὸν εἰς τὴν Βαρύγαζαν διὰ Βάκτρων πεζῇ φέρεται καὶ εἰς τὴν Λιμυρικὴν πάλιν διὰ τοῦ Γάγγου ποταμοῦ.) All English translations of the pme derive from Casson 1989.
pme, 39: “[…] as return cargo it (Barbarikon) offers: bdellium; lykion; nard; turquoise; lapis lazuli; Chinese pelts and Chinese cloth and yarn; indigo.[…]” (Ἀντιφορτίζεται δὲ κόστος, βδέλλα, λύκιον, νάρδος καὶ καλλεανὸς λίθος καὶ σάπφειρος καὶ Σιρικὰ δέρματα καὶ ὀθόνιον καὶ νῆμα Σιρικὸν καὶ Ἰνδικὸν μέλαν.)
pme, 49: “This area exports: nard; costus; bdellium; ivory; onyx; agate; lykion; cotton cloth of all kinds; Chinese cloth; molochinon cloth; yarn; long pepper; and items brought here from the ports of trade.” (Φέρεται δὲ ἀπὸ τῶν τόπων νάρδος, κόστος, βδέλλα, ἐλέφας, ὀνυχίνη λιθία καὶ σμύρνα καὶ λύκιον καὶ ὀθόνιον παντοῖον καὶ Σηρικὸν καὶ μολόχινον καὶ νῆμα καὶ πέπερι μακρὸν καὶ τὰ ἀπὸ τῶν ἐμπορίων φερόμενα.)
pme, 56: “They also export: good supplies of fine-quality pearls; ivory; Chinese clothes […]” (Φέρεται δὲ καὶ μαργαρίτης ἱκανὸς καὶ διάφορος καὶ ἐλέφας καὶ ὀθόνια Σηρικά […]).
The maritime connection of Palmyra is also discussed in Burgersdijk 2019:251–53.
Chapter “Dilizhi” 地理志 (Treatise on Geography) in the Hanshu, (Zhonghua Shuju ed. 1960), juan 28, 1671: “自日南障塞，徐聞、合浦船行可五月，有都元國；又船行可四月，有邑盧沒國；又船行可二十餘日，有諶離國；步行可十餘日，有夫甘都盧國。自夫甘都盧国船行可二月餘，有黃支國，民俗略與珠厓相類。其州廣大，戶口多，多異物，自武帝以来皆獻見。有譯長，屬黃門，與應募者俱入海市明珠、壁流離、奇石異物，齊黃金雜繒而往[…]自黃支船行可八月，到皮宗；船行可二月，到日南、象林界云。黃支之南，有巳程不國，漢之譯使自此還矣。” All the Chinese texts are translated by the author of this article. The word zhangsai 障塞 here should not be translated as “fortification(s)” because, according to Liu Mingjin, this use is only attested on the Han northern frontiers. It did not appear within maritime contexts during the Western Han period. See Liu 2002:22–26. In addition, the distance between Xuwen-Hepu and the Rinan Prefecture is considerable. Logically, one could hardly reach the Duyuan kingdom with the same time as one initiates the sailing from two different regions.
Section “Jinlin Guo” 金鄰國 (Jinlin Kingdom) of Chapter “Siyi” 四夷 (Peripheral Barbarians) in the Taiping Yulan (Zhonghua Shuju ed. 1960), juan 790, 3502: “金鄰一名金陳[…]從扶南西去金陳二千餘里到金陳。”
Tanghuiyao (Zhonghua Shuju ed. 1975), juan 100, 1794: “拘蔞蜜，在林邑之西，陸路三月行。” See also Fujita 1943:115.
Chapter “Zhuyi” 諸夷 (Barbarians) in the Liangshu (Zhonghua Shuju ed. 2020), juan 54, 872: “It has also been heard that in the east of Funan is Da Zhanghai [大漲海, sc. great swelling sea]. There is a huge continent on the great sea, and the Zhubo kingdom is on this continent.” (又傳扶南東界即大漲海，海中有大洲，洲上有諸薄國。) Section “Dubo Guo” 杜薄國 (Dubo Kingdom) of Chapter “Siyi” 四夷 (Peripheral Barbarians) in the Taiping Yulan (Zhonghua Shuju ed. 1960), juan 790, 3492: “The Dubo kingdom, located on the Zhanghai east of Funan, where one arrives after sailing for several decades of days.” (杜薄國，在扶南東漲海中，直渡海數十日而至。)
Section “Panpan” 盤盤 (Panpan Kingdom) of Chapter “Nanman” 南蠻 (Southern Barbarians) in the Xin Tangshu (Zhonghua Shuju ed. 1975), juan 222, 6300: “Panpan is in the curve of the South Sea […]. It is adjacent to Langyaxiu. From Jiaozhou [交州, sc. north Vietnam] sailing for forty days one could arrive to Panpan […] Geluo (哥羅) is to the southeast of Panpan […]. Juloumi is to the southeast of Geluo. Sailing for a month one can arrive at Juloumi.” (盤盤，在南海曲[…]與狼牙脩接，自交州海行四十日乃至[…]其東南有哥羅[…]東南有拘蔞蜜，海行一月至。)
As for the source that Fujita relies on, Tanghuiyao also mentions that Juloumi is somewhere southeast of the Panpan kingdom: “Juloumi lays southeast of Panpan and Zhiwu kingdoms and can be reached by sea in a month.” (在盤盤致物國東南，海路一月行。) In this case, the southern Malay Peninsula is the only place that agrees with both the Tanghuiyao and the Xin Tangshu. See Tanghuiyao (Zhonghua Shuju ed. 1975): juan 100, 1794.
Chapter “Dili” 地理 (Geography) in the Xin Tangshu (Zhonghua Shuju ed. 1975), juan 49, 1152: “From the Yangjumie City going westwards for three hundred miles, one reaches the Yongchang Prefecture. Then going westwards across the Salween River for two hundred miles, one arrives to the Zhugeliang City. Then going southwards for two hundred miles, one arrives at Le City. Then one enters the Piao kingdom. Crossing the Wangong and other seven tribes for seven hundred miles, one reaches the Xili City.” (自羊苴咩城西至永昌故郡三百里。又西渡怒江，至諸葛亮城二百里。又南至樂城二百里。又入骠國境，經萬公等八部落，至悉利城七百里。)
Chapter “Nanman” 南蠻 (Southern Barbarians) in the Xin TangShu (Zhonghua Shuju ed. 1975), juan 222, 6306–7: “The Piao kingdom has nine titles for city-defenders, named Daolinwang, named Xiliyi, named Santuo, named Minuodaoli, named Tumin, named Diji, named Dalimou, named Qiantang, and named Mopu.” (凡镇城九：曰道林王，曰悉利移，曰三陀，曰彌諾道立，曰突旻，曰帝偈，曰達梨謀，曰乾唐，曰末浦。)
The mountainous silk trade route adopted by Chinese Shu merchants was observed by Zhang Qian in around 120 bc. Shiji records this event in one of his report to emperor Wu. See Chapter “Xinanyi Liezhuan” 西南夷列傳 (Memoir of the Southwestern Barbarians) in the Shiji (Zhonghua Shuju ed. 1997): juan 116, 2995–6; Wang 2023:165–72; Duan 2019:299–551. The commercial connection between Chinese Shu merchants and Indians seemingly has been underestimated by many modern scholars, see Di Cosmo 2018:40; Graf 2017:449–54.
In regard to the return journey, Xianglin was a southern county of Rinan, but the exact location of Pizong is still uncertain. Fujita suggests a connection between Pizong and Bisong (now Pulau Pisang), a small island in southern Malaysia mentioned centuries later, based solely on phonetic similarity. However, Ding Zhenghu’s oceanographic perspective supports the idea that Pizong may be linked to Langyaxiu in southern Thailand. See Chapter “Dilizhi” 地理志 (Treatise on Geography) in the Hanshu (Zhonghua Shuju ed. 1960): juan 28, 1630; Fujita 1943:132; Li 1980:80; Ding 1983:104–20.
Plin., N.H., 6.8.24. These Seres are characterized by “red hair and blue eyes” (rutilis comis, caeruleis oculis). It is plausible that these so-called Seres were of Central Asian origin. Considering that their potential connection to the term Seres may hint at a silk dealer background, these Seres were likely the immigrants from the Chinese “Western Regions” (西域, xiyu). See Lieberman 1957. On the other hand, Lotika Varadarajan proposes that they were Bodos, who initially traversed the southeastern slopes of the Himalayas along the Brahmaputra Valley and eventually settled in the Assam region. See Varadarajan 1988:566.
Aristotle, believed to be the first author to mention the story of the wild silk βομβύκιον in the fourth century bc, recounts how a certain Coan woman named Pamphila discovered this technique. See Arist. Hist.Anim., 5.19.551b10-15. Later, Pliny adopted this story. See Plin., N.H., 11.26–27.76–77.
Strab., 11.11.1. For the relation between Seres and si, see Hyllested 2017:51–3.
For the pattra ūrṇā conception of silk, see: Arthaśāstra, ii, 11.107–114. For the kauśeya conception, see: Arthaśāstra, iv, 1.8–13; V, 2.14–15. Some modern scholars propose that kauśeya was the most common name for undomesticated silk in Sanskrit; see: Varadarajan 1988:566–7.
Mela, 1.11; Sol.,15.4. As for Pliny, Solinus especially adopted his idea of four Sinus Europae. See Brodersen 2011:72–4.
Chapter “Xiyuzhuan” 西域傳 (Memoir of the Western Regions) in the Houhanshu (Zhonghua Shuju ed. 1964), juan 88, 2920: “至桓帝延熹九年，大秦王安敦遣使自日南徼外獻象牙、犀角、瑇瑁，始乃一通焉。” Similar accounts contain in the Liangshu as well, see Chapter “Zhuyi” 諸夷 (Peripheral Barbarians) in the Liangshu (Zhonghua Shuju ed. 2020): juan 54, 882.
Chapter “Zhuyi” 諸夷 (Peripheral Barbarians) in the Liangshu (Zhonghua Shuju ed. 2020), juan 54, 882: “其國人行贾，往往至扶南、日南、交趾，其南徼諸國人少有到大秦者。孫權黃武五年，有大秦贾人字秦論來到交趾，交趾太守吴邈遣送詣權，權問方土謠俗，論具以事對。”
Chapter “Zhuyi” 諸夷 (Peripheral Barbarians) in the Liangshu (Zhonghua Shuju ed. 2020), juan 54, 883: “During the reign of the Han emperor He [ad 79–106], India on multiple occasions sent envoys to make tributes. But when the Western Region revolted, the connections ceased. Until the second and fourth years of the Yanxi (延熹) era of Emperor Huan (漢桓帝) [ad 159 and 161], India constantly sent tributes along the road outside of the Rinan Prefecture.” (漢和帝時，天竺數遣使貢獻，後西域反叛，遂絕。至桓帝延熹二年、四年，頻從日南徼外来獻。)
Chapter “Zhuyi” 諸夷 (Peripheral Barbarians) in the Liangshu (Zhonghua Shuju ed. 2020), juan 54, 883: “At the time of the Wei and Jin Dynasties [ad 220–420], [the route to India] was blocked. Only during the time of the Wu Kingdom (ad 229–280) did the ruler of Funan, Fan Zhan, send his crony Su Wu on a mission to India. […] In the early Tianjian (天監) era [ca. ad 502], the king of India Quduo sent his secretary Zhuluoda with a diplomatic letter to China.” (魏、晉世，絕不復通。唯吴時扶南王范旃遣親人蘇物使其國 […] 天監初，其王屈多遣長史竺羅达奉表.)
One alternative example is Ammianus Marcellinus, who in his Res Gestae written in the fourth century ad, notably references Batnae, a city located on the upper Euphrates, as a trade center where goods from the Indians and the Seres are transported by land and the Persian Gulf. See Amm. Marc. 14.3.3.
Faxianzhuan Jiaozhu (ed. Zhang 2015), 122: “其國本無人民，正（止）有鬼神及龍居之。諸國商人共市易，市易時鬼神不自現身，但出寶物，題其價直，商人則依價置直取物。因商人來、往、住故，諸國人聞其土樂，悉亦復來，於是遂成大國。其國和適，無冬夏之異，草木常茂，田種隨人，無所時節。”
Faxianzhuan Jiaozhu (ed. Zhang 2015), 124: “塔邊復起一僧伽藍，名無畏山，有五千僧。起一佛殿，金銀刻鏤，悉以眾寶。中有一青玉像，高二丈許，通身七寶炎光，威相嚴顯，非言所載。右掌有一無價寶珠。法顯去漢地積年，所與交接悉異域人，山川草木，舉目無舊，又同行分披，或留或亡，顧影唯己，心常懷悲。忽於此玉像邊見商人以晉地一白絹扇供養，不覺悽然，淚下满滿目。”
The pme specifically introduces the local productions of Sri Lanka: “It produces pearls, transparent gems, cotton garments, and tortoise shell.” (Γίνεται δὲ ἐν αὐτῆ πινικὸν καὶ λιθία διαφανὴς καὶ σινδόνες καὶ χελῶναι.) See pme, 61; Wang 2023:181.
The indications of the “giant merchant ship” can be seen in: Faxianzhuan Jiaozhu (ed. Zhang 2015):122, 134, 136.
Faxianzhuan Jiaozhu (ed. Zhang 2015), 136: “If you abandon this bhikṣu, you should also abandon me! If not, you should kill me! If you leave this śramana, I will, when I am back in China, sue you to my emperor. The Chinese emperor also adheres to Buddhism, and respects Buddhist monks.” (汝下此比丘，亦并下我！不爾，便當殺我！汝其下此沙門，吾到漢地，當向國王言汝也。漢地王亦敬信佛法，重比丘僧。)
Chapter “Zhuyi” 諸夷 (Peripheral Barbarians) in the Liangshu (Zhonghua Shuju ed. 2020):juan 54, 884. Liangshu was completed in the early seventh century ad. Chapter “Bianfang ix” 邊防九 (Border Defense ix) in the Tongdian (Zhonghua Shuju ed. 2015):juan 193, 5263–4. Tongdian was competed in ad 801.
Chapter “Zhuyi” 諸夷 (Peripheral Barbarians) in the Liangshu (Zhonghua Shuju ed. 2020), juan 54, 884–5: “In the early Yixi (義熙) era of the Eastern Jin Dynasty [ca. ad 405], Sri Lanka presented a jade statue as a tribute for the first time. The journey took ten years. […] In the sixth and twelfth years of the Yuanjia (元嘉) era of the Liu-Song Dynasty [ad 429 and 435], the king of Sri Lanka Shalimohe sent envoys to make tributes. In the first year of the Datong (大通) era [ad 529], the later king Jiayeqieluohelixie sent envoys carrying diplomatic mail [to the Liu-Song court].” (晋義熙初，始遣獻玉像，經十載乃至[…]宋元嘉六年，十二年，其王刹利摩訶遣使貢獻。大通元年，後王伽葉伽羅訶梨邪使奉表.)
See Datang Xiyuji (ed. Ji Xianlin 2000):866–868. Another later Buddhist monk, Jianzhen (鑒真) glimpsed a short sight of Indian Ocean trade on his fifth attempt to reach Japan in ad 748. During his journey, Jianzhen witnessed vast mercantile ships moored at Guangzhou. The average height of these ships was between six and seven zhang (18–21 m). The ethnicity of the merchants was a mixture of Poluomen (婆羅門, Indian), Bosi (波斯, Persian), Kunlun (崑崙, Southeastern Asian), and Shizi (獅子, Srilankan). See Ōmi no Mifune (淡海三船), Tang Daheshang Dongzhengzhuan (ed. Liang Mingyuan) 2010:71–6. Given the late date of this account, this paper will not extend the discussion to that far.
Cosm. Indic., 2.50–52: “Οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ καὶ οἱ ἄνθρωποι ποθοῦντες τὰ πολλὰ μανθάνειν καὶ περιεργάζεσθαι, εἴπερ ἦν ὁ παράδεισος ἐν ταύτῃ τῇ γῇ, οὐκ ὤκνουν οἱ πολλοὶ φθάσαι μέχρι τῶν αὐτόθι. Εἰ γὰρ διὰ μέταξιν εἰς τὰ ἔσχατα τῆς γῆς τινες ἐμπορίας οἰκτρᾶς χάριν οὐκ ὀκνοῦσι διελθεῖν, πῶς ἂν περὶ τῆς θέας αὐτοῦ τοῦ παραδείσου ὤκνησαν πορεύεσθαι; αὕτη δὲ ἡ χώρα τοῦ μεταξίου ἐστὶν ἐν τῇ ἐσωτέρᾳ πάντων Ἰνδίᾳ, κατὰ τὸ ἀριστερὸν μέρος εἰσιόντων τοῦ Ἰνδικοῦ πελάγους, περαιτέρω πολὺ τοῦ Περσικοῦ κόλπου, καὶ τῆς νήσου τῆς καλουμένης παρὰ μὲν Ἰνδοῖς, Σελεδίβα, παρὰ δὲ τοῖς Ἕλλησι, Ταπροβάνη, Τζίνιστα οὕτω καλουμένη, κυκλουμένη πάλιν ἐξ ἀριστερῶν ὑπὸ τοῦ ᾽Ωκεανοῦ, ὥσπερ καὶ ἡ Βαρβαρία κυκλοῦται ἐκ δεξιῶν ὑπ᾽αὐτοῦ. Καί φασιν οἱ Ἰνδοὶ φιλόσοφοι οἱ καλούμενοι Βραχμάνες, ὅτι ἐὰν βάλῃς ἀπὸ Τζίνιστα σπαρτίον, διελθεῖν διὰ Περσίδος ἕως Ῥωμανίας, ὡς ἀπὸ κανόνος τὸ μεσαίτατον τοῦ κόσμου ἐστίν, καὶ τάχα ἀληθεύουσιν. Πολὺ γὰρ ἀριστερά ἐστιν, ὡς δἰ ὀλίγου χρόνου βασταγὰς μεταξίου γενέσθαι ἐκ τῶν ἐκεῖ, ἐκ διαδοχῆς ἑτέρων ἐθνῶν ἐν Περσίδι διὰ τῆς γῆς, διὰ δὲ τῆς θαλάσσης πάνυ πολλὰ διαστήματα ἀπέχουσα ἀπὸ τῆς Περσίδος. Ὅσον γὰρ διάστημα ἔχει ὁ κόλπος ὁ Περσικὸς εἰσερχόμενος ἐν Περσίδι, τοσοῦτον διάστημα πάλιν ἀπὸ τῆς Ταπροβάνης καὶ περαιτέρω ποιεῖ ἐπὶ τὰ ἀριστερὰ εἰσερχόμενός τις ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ Τζίνιστα, μετὰ τὸ καὶ διαστήματα πάλιν ἱκανὰ ἔχειν ἀπὸ τῆς ἀρχῆς ἐξ αὐτοῦ τοῦ Περσικοῦ κόλπου ὅλον τὸ Ἰνδικὸν πέλαγος ἕως Ταπροβάνης καὶ ἐπέκεινα. Διατέμνει οὖν πολλὰ διαστήματα ὁ διὰ τῆς ὁδοῦ ἐρχόμενος ἀπὸ Τζίνιστα ἐπὶ Περσίδα, ὅθεν καὶ πλῆθος μεταξίου ἀεὶ ἐπὶ τὴν Περσίδα εὑρίσκεται·περαιτέρω δὲ τῆς Τζίνιστα οὔτε πλέεται οὔτε οἰκεῖται. Translation by McCrindle.
Kljaštornyj & Livšic 1972, 72: “(‘mwh?) [sic!] […] (pt)s’kh ’wst’t δ’r’nt tr’wkt c(yn)st’n kwts’tt’ ’yšywn’k.”
At the time, no northern Chinese emperor’s name or title was pronounced similarly to “Kwts’tt.” However, the pronunciation of “Kwts” or “Kwtw” is not too far away from “Ashina Kutou,” the name of Tabo Qaghan. See Lin 1994:65–6.
Yoshida 2019, 97–99: “(r)ty (mwn’)k nwm (sn)k’ ’wst’t δ’r-’nt tr-’wkt ’(’)šy-n’s kwtr(’)’tt ’xšy-wn’k.”
Eccles & Lieu 2016: “’d’m qšyš’ wqwr’pysqwp’ wp’pšy dcynst’n.” available at: https://www.mq.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/55987/Xian-Nestorian-Monument-27-07-2016.pdf. Last accessible on June fifth, 2024. See also Hall 1896:125.
Dig., 39.4.16.6-7: “Divi quoque Marcus et Commodus rescripserunt non imputari publicano, quod non instruxit transgredientem: sed illud custodiendum, ne decipiat profiteri volentes. Species pertinentes ad vectigal: […] metaxa: vestis serica vel subserica.” Translation by Watson 1985.
The price for metaxablatte see Edict. De pret. 24, 1a, cfr. As for the undyed silk textile see Edict. de pret. 23, 1a. See also discussions in Hildebrandt 2017:65.
Hesy., Lexicon, Σ: 525: “Σῆρες·ζῶα νήθοντα μέταξαν. ἢ ὄνομα ἔθνους, ὅθεν ἔρχεται καὶ τὸ ὁλοσήρικον.”
Cosm. Indic., 11.13–15: “Αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ νῆσος ἡ μεγάλη ἐν τῷ Ὠκεανῷ, ἐν τῷ Ἰνδικῷ πελάγει κειμένη, παρὰ μὲν Ἰνδοῖς καλουμένη Σιελεδίβα, παρὰ δὲ Ἕλλησι Ταπροβάνη, ἐν ᾗ εὑρίσκεται ὁ λίθος ὁ ὑάκινθος· περαιτέρω δὲ κεῖται τῆς χώρας τοῦ πιπέρεως. Πέριξ δὲ αὐτῆς εἰσι νῆσοι μικραὶ πολλαὶ πάνυ, πᾶσαι δὲ γλυκὺ ὕδωρ ἔχουσαι καὶ ἀργέλλια· ἀγχιβαθαὶ δὲ ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ πλεῖστον πᾶσαί εἰσιν. Ἔχει δὲ ἡ νῆσος ἡ μεγάλη, καθώς φασιν οἱ ἐγχώριοι, γαύδια τριακόσια εἴς τε μῆκος ὁμοίως καὶ πλάτος, τουτέστι μίλια ἐννακόσια. Δύο δὲ βασιλεῖς εἰσιν ἐν τῇ νήσῳ, ἐναντίοι ἀλλήλων· ὁ εἷς ἔχων τὸν ὑάκινθον, καὶ ὁ ἕτερος τὸ μέρος τὸ ἄλλο, ἐν ᾧ ἐστι τὸ ἐμπόριον καὶ ὁ λιμήν· μέγα δέ ἐστι καὶ τὸ τῶν ἐκεῖσε ἐμπόριον. Ἔχει δὲ ἡ αὐτὴ νῆσος καὶ Ἐκκλησίαν τῶν ἐπιδημούντων Περσῶν χριστιανῶν καὶ πρεσβύτερον ἀπὸ Περσίδος χειροτονούμενον καὶ διάκονον καὶ πᾶσαν τὴν ἐκκλησιαστικὴν λειτουργίαν. Οἱ δὲ ἐγχώριοι καὶ οἱ βασιλεῖς ἀλλόφυλοί εἰσιν. Ἱερὰ δὲ πολλὰ ἔχουσιν ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ νήσῳ· εἰς ἕνα δὲ ἱερὸν αὐτῶν ἐφ’ ὑψηλοῦ κείμενόν ἐστιν ἕνα ὑακίνθιν, ὥς φασι, πυρροῦν καὶ μέγα ὂν ὡς στρόβιλος μέγας· καὶ λάμπει μακρόθεν, μάλιστα τοῦ ἡλίου αὐτὸ περιλάμποντος, ἀτίμητον θέαμα ὄν. Ἐξ ὅλης δὲ τῆς Ἰνδικῆς καὶ Περσίδος καὶ Αἰθιοπίας δέχεται ἡ νῆσος πλοῖα πολλά, μεσῖτις οὖσα, ὁμοίως καὶ ἐκπέμπει. Καὶ ἀπὸ μὲν τῶν ἐνδοτέρων, λέγω δὴ τῆς Τζινίστα καὶ ἑτέρων ἐμπορίων, δέχεται μέταξιν, ἀλοήν, καρυόφυλλον, ξυλοκαρυόφυλλον, τζανδάναν, καὶ ὅσα κατὰ χώραν εἰσί· καὶ μεταβάλλει τοῖς ἐξωτέρω, λέγω δὴ τῇ Μαλέ, ἐν ᾗ τὸ πίπερ γίνεται, καὶ τῇ Καλλιανᾷ, ἔνθα ὁ χαλκὸς γίνεται καὶ σησάμινα ξύλα καὶ ἕτερα ἱμάτια – ἔστι γὰρ καὶ αὕτη μέγα ἐμπόριον –, ὁμοίως καὶ Σινδοῦ, ἔνθα ὁ μόσχος καὶ τὸ κοστάριν καὶ τὸ ναρδόσταχυν γίνεται, καὶ τῇ Περσίδι καὶ τῷ Ὁμηρίτῃ καὶ τῇ Ἀδούλῃ, καὶ πάλιν τὰ ἀπὸ ἑκάστου τῶν εἰρημένων ἐμπορίων δεχομένη καὶ τοῖς ἐνδοτέρω μεταβάλλουσα καὶ τὰ ἴδια ἅμα ἑκάστῳ ἐμπορίῳ ἐκπέμπουσα.” Translation by McCrindle 2010.
Chapter “Xiyuzhuan” 西域傳 (Memoir of the Western Regions) in the Weishu (Zhonghua Shuju ed. 1974), juan 102, 2276: “[大秦]東南通交趾，又水道通益州永昌 […]從安息西界循海曲，亦至大秦，回萬餘余里。”
For Zhang Qian’s mentioning of a Sino-Indian mountainous silk trade, see note 22.
