Abstract
Following an influx of foreign cultures as well as new interactions among various ethnic groups, Daoist-Buddhist debates in Mediaeval China also came to involve issues of ethnic origins. Two intriguing ethnic theories that emerged in the debates as quoted in Chinese Buddhist sources are:
(1) The Yun tribe (允姓) that once lived in Dunhuang were Sakas;
(2) The Li clan (李氏) that ruled the Tang Dynasty was of Tabγač origin.
While historians generally remain skeptical of theory (2), theory (1) has recently gained much favor among Chinese writers of the ancient history of Central Asia. This paper calls attention to the fact that scholars who support theory (1) have based their arguments on what is very likely to be a misreading of the text in question. For this reason, the hypothesis that the Yun tribe is of Tibetic (rather than Iranic) origin as suggested by earlier historical records such as the Zuozhuan 左傳 and Houhan shu 後漢書 should not be rashly discarded. On the other hand, this paper encourages further investigation and reflection on theory (2) by showing that it may very well contain a kernel of truth. Beginning with a thorough clarification of the hitherto uninterpreted quote 拓拔達闍唐言李氏 (“Taba Dazhe = Ch. Lishi”), this paper suggests that “Lishi” in the quote was intended to represent Li Hu 李虎 and that Dazhe (*Ta[r]ja) was the very Xianbei word for “tiger” in the Chinese transcription. This anthroponym was an instance of the onomastic practice that was hardly separable from the shamanic cult of the tiger among the Tungusic people. It is therefore not too surprising that the Li clan had chosen to worship Laozi instead of Buddhism, since Laozi’s alleged name Li Er 李耳 had long been connected with the tiger.
Keywords
Saka, Qiang (Tibetic), Tabγač, Laozi, shamanism
Cite
Citations are generated automatically from bibliographic data as a convenience, and may not be complete or accurate.
