100 xavier tremblaycontradicts or con rms the stories. They are, moreover, implausible in
most details.^118
Contemporary witness reports (by Chinese) are sparse:^119 in 73 AD,
when the Chinese general Ban Chao visited Khotan it seems to
have still professed Mazdeism.^120 On the other hand, Indian culture
seems to have impinged on Khotan very early. Already in the second
century it was strong in Kucha. Indian presence in Khotan must
therefore be even earlier. When in 260 AD, the Chinese monk Zhu
Shixing choose to go to Khotan in an attempt to nd original
Sanskrit stras, he succeeded in locating the Sanskrit Prajñpramit
in 25,000 verses, and tried to send it to China. In Khotan, however,
there were numerous H naynists who attempted to prevent it because
they regarded the text as heterodox. Eventually, Zhu Shixing stayed in
Khotan, but sent the manuscript to Luoyang where it was translated
by a Khotanese monk named Mokala.^121 In 296, the Khotanese monk
G tamitra came to Chang’an with another copy of the same text. While
at the time of Zhu Shixing, most Khotanese monks seem to have been
H naynists, in 401, the Chinese pilgrim Faxian mentions that the whole
population of Khotan was Buddhist, most of them Mahynists.^122
The earliest long manuscripts in Khotanese are not earlier than
the seventh century, but the composition of the oldest Old Khotanese(^118) See the Tibetan “Prophecy of the Li Country” (Emmerick 1967, pp. 15–21) or
Xuanzang’s report (T.2087.51.943a25–b24; Beal 1884, book 12, pp. 309–311), which
connects the rise of Khotan with exiles from the city of Taxila, banished to the desert
under king A oka. In the same region, there were also some Chinese exiles, driven out
of their country, with whom the Taxilan exiles had some hostile contacts. This ction
tries to give an explanation for the fact that in the seventh century in Khotan, Indian
and Chinese in uences met and entangled. As an historical report, however, the story
is of no use: it ignores the Iranian population of Khotan. Even if, as it has never been
cogently demonstrated, Khotanese replaced in Khotan an earlier, Tibeto-Burmese
vernacular (cf. Shafer 1961, pp. 47f.), Xuanzang’s legend is hardly more satisfactory.
(^119) Cf. in general Stein 1907, pp. 151ff.; Bailey 1982, pp. 71–72; Rhie, Early Bud-
dhist Art, vol. 1, pp. 260–265, with identi cation of the various shrines described by
Xuanzang. 120
Yamazaki 1990, pp. 68ff. The Khotanese vocabulary preserves some Mazdean
terms (e.g., dyva- “demon”, andrmtä- “ r ”, urmaysde “sun”, gyasta- “worshipful
being”). Some customs, such as the deploration of the deceased, as described by the
monk Song Yun in 519, could be Mazdean (T.2092.51.1019a3–22; tr. Wang, 1984,
pp. 220–222). It cannot be excluded that Mazdeism still survived in Khotan in the
eighth or ninth century. 121
Skjærvø 1999, p. 277.
(^122) T.2085.51.857b3–5 (tr. Giles 1965, p. 4).
Heirman_f5new_75-129.indd 100 3/13/2007 1:15:56 PM