The Told and Untold

Abstract

Believed to be an eye-witnessed report by Xuanzang 玄奘 (c.602–664 CE), the Datang Xiyu ji has long been held up in the western scholarship as a handy guide for the historical geography of South Asia and a standard source for identifying archaeological sites since the pioneer archaeologist Alexander Cunningham (1814–1893). Strangely, over a century of using the Xiyu ji has generated little critical awareness among archaeologists who have too often taken the text for face values. Indeed, an examination of the text will demonstrate that not all the description from the text is firsthand, at least so for around one-fifth of the countries not visited by Xuanzang. Yet it does not mean that Xuanzang is to be blamed. The production of the Xiyu ji was more complex than that of a general travelling record, which associates the text to the genre of official geographical writing. It was brought into being in response to an expanding empire. The edited ‘itinerary’ and the incorporation of secondary sources thus pose outstanding questions for researchers who might assume that they were following the steps of the pilgrim and urge us to reconsider the current conception of and approach to this document.

Keywords:

• The Xiyu ji
• Xuanzang
• itinerary
• reevaluation
• formation of the text
• early India

Acknowledgement

I am deeply imdebted to the anonymous reviwers whose constructive comments have inspired me to take a broader review of the written materials. I am also grateful to Professor Robin A. E. Coningham and Professor Max Deeg who generously offered their advice on the initial draft. This study was first presented in the 7th Allchin Symposium on South Asian Archaeology (Decomeber, 2020), and I would also like to express gratitude to the organisers and the audience.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Correction Statement

This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Notes

1. A. Cunningham, The Ancient Geography of India (London: Tribuner & Co., 1871): 456.

2. See T. Watters, On Yuan Chwang’s Travels in India, Vol.I (London: Royal Asiatic Society, 1904): 303; and Max Deeg, ’Has Xuanzang really been in Mathura? Interpretation Sinica or Interpretation Occidentalia - How to critically read the records of the Chinese pilgrims’, in Essays on East Asian Religion and Culture: Festschrift in honour of Nishiwaki Tsuneki on the occasion of his 65th birthday, ed. by C. Wittern and L. Shi (Kyoto: Institutes for Research in Humanities, Kyoto University, 2007): 35-73; Max Deeg, Miscellanae Nepalicae: early Chinese reports on Nepal - the foundation legend of Nepal in its trans-Himalayan context (Lumbini: Lumbini International Research Institute, 2016).

3. Deeg, ’Has Xuanzang really been in Mathura? Interpretation Sinica or Interpretation Occidentalia - How to critically read the records of the Chinese pilgrims,‘ 424.

4. Max Deeg, ‘”Show me the land where the Buddha dwelled … ” - Xuanzang’s Record of the Western Regions (Xiyu ji): a misunderstood text,’ China Report, 48, 1-2 (2012): 89-113; his ’When Peregrinus is not pilgrim: the Chinese pilgrims records - a revision of literary genre and its context,’ in Searching for the Dharma, Findings Salvation - Buddhist Pilgrimage in Time and Space, eds by M. Deeg and C. Cueppers (Lumbini: Lumbini International Research Institute, 2014): 65-95; his ’The political position of Xuanzang: the didactic creation of an Indian dynasty in the Xiyu ji,‘ in The Middle Kingdom and the Dharma Wheel: aspects of the relationship between the Buddhist saṃgha and the state in Chinese history, Vol. 1, ed. by T. Juelch (Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2016): 94-139.

5. See Yong Rong et al., Qingding siku quanshu zongmu [Imperial Catalogue of the Complete Library in Four Branches of Literature] (Beijing: zhonghua shuju, 1965): juan 71, shibu 24 (此書侈陳靈異, 尤不足稽).

6. Samuel Beal trans., Si-Yu-Ki. Buddhist Records of the Western World, Translated from the Chinese of Hiuen-Tsiang (A.D. 629), Vol 1 (London: Trübner, 1884): xx-xxi.

7. The three copies collected by Julien, according to Takata’s identification, are possibly derived from the Tripitaka of Jiaxingzang (printed in c. 1589-1677 CE) and of Yonglenanzang (printed in c. 1412-1417 CE), see T. Takata, ‘Faguo hanxue yu hanseng xiyu xingji [French Sinology and the Records of Chinese Monks]’, Speech for the SISU Forum on History of Civilisations, Shanghai International Studies University (May 19, 2018). Transcript available at: https://www.thepaper.cn/newsDetail_forward_2358895. Besides, in most late editions, following the description of Foya jingshe (Vihara of the Buddha’s tooth) in Sri Lanka, there is a passage about how Buddha’s tooth was brought to China by Zheng He after a fight with the King. It is believed that it was interpolated into the text when the Tripitaka of Yonglebeizang was compiled in the first half of the fifteenth century and appeared in most printed versions of later time in the Southern China tradition, see Ji Xianlin et al., eds, Datang Xiyu ji [Records of the Western Regions] (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1985): 880-881. The interpolation is also found in Julien’s Chinese copies, see S. Julien, Mémoires sur les contrées occidentales, traduits du Sanscrit en Chinois, en l’an 648, par Hiouen-Thsang, et du Chinois en Français [Memoirs of Western regions, translated from Sanskrit to Chinese in 648 by Hiouen-Thsang, and from Chinese to French], 2 tômes (Paris: Imprimerie impériale. 1857/1858): Vol. II, 142, footnote 1.

8. S. Julien, Histoire de la vie de Hioun-Thsang et des ses voyages dans l’Inde, depuis l’an 629 jusqu’en 645, par Hoei-Li et Yen-Thsong [Story of the life of Hioun-Thsang and his travels in India, from the year 629 until 645, by Hoei-Li and Yen-Thsong] (Paris: Imprimerie impériale, 1853): ix-xi.

9. Beal, Si-Yu-Ki, xx-xxii.

10. See P.C. Almond, The British Discovery of Buddhism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988): 7-12, 64-65; Also see Max Deeg, ‘The Historical Turn: How Chinese Buddhist Travelogues Changed Western Perception of Buddhism, Hualin Journal of International Buddhist Studies 1, 1 (2018): 43-75.

11. Beal, Si-Yu-Ki, ix.

12. A. Cunningham, Four Reports Made During the Years 1862-1863-1864, Vol. I (Simla: Government Central Press, 1872): iv.

13. J.A. Rémusat, Foĕ Kouĕ Ki, ou, Relation des royaumes bouddhiques: voyage dans la Tartarie, dans l’Afghanistan et dans l’Inde, exécuté, à la fin du IVe siècle par Chy Fa Hian. Traduit du chinois et commenté par Abel Rémusat. Ouvrage posthume, rev., complété, et augm. d’éclaircissements nouveaux par MM. Klaproth et Landresse (Paris: Imprimerie royale, 1836).

14. H.H. Wilson, ’Art. VIII. - Account of the Foe Kúe Ki, or Travels of Fa Hian in India,‘ Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 5, 9(1838): 108–140.

15. D.K Chakrabarti, Archaeological geography of the Ganga Plain: the lower and the middle Ganga (New Delhi: Permanent Black, 2001): 7-10, 39.

16. A. Imam, ’Sir Alexander Cunningham (1814-1893): the first phase of Indian archaeology,’ Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland 3/4(1963): 205.

17. See C. Allen, The Buddha and Dr. Führer: an archaeological scandal (London: Haus Publishing, 2008).

18. A. Chadha, ’Visions of discipline: Sir Mortimer Wheeler and the archaeological method in India (1944-1948),’ Journal of Social Archaeology 2, 3(2002): 378–401.

19. See T. Trautmann and C. Sinopoli, ’In the Beginning Was the Word: excavating the relations between history and archaeology in South Asia,’ Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 45, 4(2002): 502-504.

20. See ibid.; and J. Hawkes, ’Finding the “Early Medieval” in South Asian Archaeology,‘ Asian Perspectives 53, 1 (2014): 53-96.

21. K. Deva and V. Mishra, Vaisali Excavations: 1950 (Bihar: Vaisali Sangha, 1961).

22. K.K. Sinha, Excavations at Sravasti 1959 (Varanasi: Banaras Hindu University, 1967); also see Y. Aboshi, K. Sonoda, F. Yoneda, A. Uesugi, ’Excavations at Saheth Maheth 1986-1996,’ East and West 49, 1/4 (1999): 119-173.

23. K. Ray, Ray, ’Rajgir in the Gupta and the Post-Gupta Period: literary and archaeological evidence,’ Proceedings of the Indian History Congress 61 (2000): 1280-1286.

24. Translated by the author from the Chinese text in Ji et al., Datang Xiyu ji, 9 (親踐者一百一十國, 傳聞者二十八國, 或事見於前典, 或名始於今代). This edition worked out by Ji and his colleagues is based on a critical evaluation of several old editions and has been widely circulated among the Chinese scholarship since it was published.

25. See Liu Shufen, ’Xuanzang de zuihou shi nian (655-664): jian lun zongzhang er nian (669) gaizang shi [The Last Ten Years of Xuanzang (655-664 CE): With a Discussion on the Reburial Event in 669],’ Zhonghua wenshi luncong 95, 3(2009): 9.

26. ibid., 14-15.

27. The translation is cited from Li trans. The Great Tang Dynasty Record of the Western Regions (Berkeley: BDK America, 1996): 283, 294. This version is a recent English translation of the Xiyu ji from the Taishō Tripitaka. For the Chinese text, see Ji et al., Datang Xiyu ji, 856-886 (自此南行三千餘里, 至秣羅矩叱國。 … … 自達羅毗荼國北, 入林野中 … … 行二千餘里, 至恭建那補羅國).

28. The translation is cited from Li Rongxi trans. A Biography of the Tripitaka Master of the Great Ci’en Monastery of the Great Tang Dynasty (Berkeley: Numata Centre for Buddhist Translation and Research, 1995): 116, 120. This English version is also based on the edition from the Taishō Tripitaka. For the Chinese text, see Sun Yutang, Xie Fang and Fan Xiangyong eds, Da ci’en si sanzang fashi zhuan [Biography of the Tripitaka Master of the Great Ci’en Monastery], (Beijing: zhonghua shuji, 1983): 87, 90 (自此國界三千餘里, 聞有秣羅矩叱國 … … 自達羅毗荼與師子國僧七十餘人, 西北歸, 觀禮聖蹟, 行二千餘里, 至恭建那補羅國).

29. Beal, Si-Yu-Ki, Vol. 2, 230-231 note 123.

30. Li, The Great Tang Dynasty Record of the Western Regions, 190, 192, 193. For the Chinese text, see Ji et al., Datang Xiyu ji, 607-618 (從此東北行五百餘里, 至弗栗恃國。 … … 從此西北千五百里, 踰山入谷, 至尼波羅國。 … … 從此復還吠舍釐國, 南渡殑伽河, 至摩揭陀國).

31. Beal, Si-Yu-Ki, Vol. 2, 81 note 103; T. Watters, On Yuan Chwang’s Travels in India, Vol. II (London: Royal Asiatic Society, 1905): 84; S. Lévi, Le Nepal: Étude historique d’un royaume hindou, Vol. 1 (Paris: E Leroux, 1905): 152 note 1, 154; Deeg, Miscellanae Nepalicae.

32. Lévi, Le Nepal, Vol.1, 154, also cited in Deeg, Miscellanae Nepalicae, 12.

33. Ibid., 51.

34. T. Watters, On Yuan Chwang’s Travels in India, Vol. II (London: Royal Asiatic Society, 1905): 81; Also noted in Ji et al., Datang Xiyu ji, 608-609 note 1.

35. Also noted in S. Lévi, The Mission of Wang Hiuen Ts’e in India, written in French by M. Sylvain Levi, translated from the original French by S.P. Chatterjee (Delhi: Sri Satguru Publications, 1967): 6.

36. The Chinese text from the editions of the Taishō Tripitaka is available on CBETA (Chinese electronic Tripitaka collection, 2019.Q3, http://cbetaonline.cn/), see CBETA T04, no. 202: 422c1-2; CBETA T22, no. 1425: 341c14-15.

37. Li, The Great Tang Dynasty Record of the Western Regions, 191; For the Chinese text, see Ji et al., Datang Xiyu ji, 609-610.

38. Li, The Great Tang Dynasty Record of the Western Regions, 79-80; For the Chinese text, see Ji et al., Datang Xiyu ji, 298-300 (從此東行, 踰嶺越谷, 逆上信度河, 飛梁棧道, 履危涉險, 經五百餘里, 至鉢露羅國。 … … 從此復還烏鐸迦漢荼城).

39. Li, The Great Tang Dynasty Record of the Western Regions, 324-325; For the Chinese text, see Ji et al., Datang Xiyu ji, 982 (波謎羅川南, 越山有鉢露羅國, 多金銀, 金色如火).

40. Watters, On Yuan Chwang’s Travels in India, Vol. I, 240.

41. See Li, A Biography of the Tripitaka Master of the Great Ci’en Monastery of the Great Tang Dynasty, 161; For the Chinese text, see Sun et al. Da ci’en si sanzang fashi zhuan, 118.

42. See Li, A Biography of the Tripitaka Master of the Great Ci’en Monastery of the Great Tang Dynasty, 44; For the Chinese text, see Sun et al. Da ci’en si sanzang fashi zhuan, 29.

43. The interpolation of Ferhan was noticed in earlier years, see Beal, Si-Yu-Ki, Vol. 1, 31; Watters, On Yuan Chwang’s Travels in India, Vol. I, 88-89.

44. Li, The Great Tang Dynasty Record of the Western Regions, 23; For the Chinese text, see Ji et al., Datang Xiyu ji, 84-85.

45. ibid., 809 note 1.

46. See Li, A Biography of the Tripitaka Master of the Great Ci’en Monastery of the Great Tang Dynasty, 176-178; For the Chinese text, see Sun et al. Da ci’en si sanzang fashi zhuan, 128-129.

47. See Li, A Biography of the Tripitaka Master of the Great Ci’en Monastery of the Great Tang Dynasty, 182-183; For the Chinese text, see Sun et al. Da ci’en si sanzang fashi zhuan, 131-134.

48. Wu Yugui, Tujue hanguo yu Sui Tang guanxi shi yanjiu [Study on the History of the Relationship between the Turkic Khaganates and the Sui-Tang Empire] (Beijing: Zhongguo shehui kexue chubanshe, 1998): 312-313. The intensive Turk-Tang competition for control of the eastern Central Asia is explicated in detail in this monograph.

49. Ibid., 405.

50. This record is lost today, but its preface is quoted in the biography of its author, Pei Ju, in the Sui shu (Book of Sui). The year of its completion is discussed in G. Uchida, ‘Zui Haiku sen Seiikizuki ibun sankō [A Note on the Collected Fragments of Xiyu tuji by Pei Ju of the Sui Dynasty],’ In Fujiwara Kōdō Sensei Koki Kinen Shigaku Bukkyōgaku Ronshū [Studies in the History and Buddhism in commemoration of the 70th Birthday of Professor Fujiwara Kodo] (Kyoto: Naigai Insatsu Kabushiki Kaisha, 1973): 115-128.

51. See the biography of Pei Ju in Liu Xu et al. Jiu tang shu [Old Book of Tang] (Beijing: zhonghua shuju, 1975): 5306 (隋炀帝时, 遣裴矩应接西蕃, 诸国多有至者, 唯天竺不通, 帝以为恨).

52. At the beginning of the Xiyu zhuan of the Sui shu (Book of Sui), it is stated that the foreign delegations to the proper China was interrupted due to the turmoil following the fall of Sui and that the documents suffered a loss with only twenty countries on record by the time of compiling the Xiyu zhuan. See Wei Zheng, Sui shu [Book of Sui] (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1973): 1841-1842 (寻属中国大乱, 朝贡遂绝。然事多亡失, 今所存录者, 二十国焉).

53. As described by Bianji in the eulogy, he was given the materials, wove them into a record with the brush pens and papers provided by the court official. See Ji et al., Datang Xiyu ji, 1049 (爰命庸才, 撰此方志 … … 恭承志記, 倫次其文, 尚書給筆札而撰錄焉). In Li’s translation, it is improperly translated as ’I respectfully listened to the words, committed them to writing, and put them in proper order,’ see Li, The Great Tang Dynasty Record of the Western Regions, 351. Perhaps the translator assumes that Bianji played a similar role here as what he did in the translation of the Buddhist canon. As one of the zhuiwen dade 缀文大德, Bianji was responsible to enhance the Chinese text Xuanzang and his assistants translated from the Sanskrit, making it intelligible to Chinese readers. However, the compilation of the Xiyu ji is different from the working float of translation. According to Bianji’s description, he was the one who did the writing in practice.

54. Fan Chengda, ’Wuchuan lu [Record about Boats in Wu],’ in Fan Chengda Biji liu zhong [Six Records from Fan Chengda] (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 2002): 204.

55. J. Legge, A Record of Buddhistic Kingdoms, being an account by the Chinese monk Fâ-hien of his travels in India and Ceylon (a.d. 399–414) in search of the Buddhist books of discipline (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1886): 117; For the Chinese text, see Zhang Xun ed. Faxian zhuan jiaozhu [Annotated Biography of Faxian] (Shanghai: Shanghai guji chuban she, 1986): 179.

56. According to the biography of Jing Bo in the Jiu tang shu (Old Book of Tang), he participated in the compilation of the Sui shu (Book of Sui) and the Jin shu (Book of Jin), worked on the memoirs of Tang emperors, Gaozu and Taizong, and compiled the Xiyu tuzhi (Illustrated Record of the Western Region) in the early years of Gaozong. See Liu et al., Jiu tang shu [Old Book of Tang], 4954.

57. This record is not preserved today, but it is cited in the Buddhist encyclopaedical Fayuan zhulin 法苑珠林 (Forest of Gems in the Garden of the Dharma) and the Yiwen zhi 藝文志 (’Treatise on Arts and Letters’) of the Xin tang shu (New Book of Tang) as well as the biographies of two contributors, Jing Bo and Xu Jingzong, from the Jiu tang shu (Old Book of Tang).

58. Cited from Deeg, ‘”Show me the land where the Buddha dwelled … ” - Xuanzang’s Record of the Western Regions (Xiyu ji): a misunderstood text,’ 96.

59. See Rong Xinjiang and Wen Xin, ’The Semantic Shift of “Western Regions” and the Westward Extension of the “Border”in the Tang Dynasty,’ Eurasian Studies III (2015): 396-397.

60. See the biography of Yancong in Daoxuan’s Xu gaoseng zhuan, CBETA 2022.Q4, T50, no. 2060, p. 437c3-21: … 尋又下勅。令撰西域傳 … 勅又令裴矩共琮修纘天竺記. The record of India is not noted anywhere else, not even in Daoxuan’s other writings. It was likely incorporated into the Xiguo zhuan and transmitted as a same copy. When introducing the Xiguo zhuan in Dharmagupta’s biography, Daoxuan praised the region under record ’the natal land of the sacred and the virtuous‘ (靈聖之所降集, 賢懿之所挺生者), quoted from the section about India in the Xiyu zhuan from the Han shu.

61. See the biography of Dharmagupta in Daoxuan’s Xu gaoseng zhuan, CBETA 2022.Q4, T50, no. 2060, p. 435c19-22: … 有沙門彥琮 … 以笈多遊履具歷名邦 … 因著大隋西國傳一部.

62. The Xiguo zhuan is listed as one of Yancong’s works in Daoxuan’s Datang neidian lu (Catalogue of Inner Cannon of the Great Tang) and briefly introduced in another book of his, Shijia fangzhi (A Gazetteer of Śākyamuni’s World). More details are provided in the biographies of Dharmagupta and Yancong from Daoxuan’s Xu gaoseng zhuan (Further Biographies of Eminent Monks). It is not recorded in the Kaiyuan shijiao lu, another comprehensive catalogue of Buddhist literature compiled in 730 CE, indicating that it was possibly lost by then.

63. See the biography of Dharmagupta in Daoxuan’s Xu gaoseng zhuan, CBETA 2022.Q4, T50, no. 2060, p. 435c22-24: 凡十篇。本傳。一方物。二時候。三居處。四國政。五學教。六禮儀。七飲食。八服章。九寶貨。十盛列山河國邑人物.

64. See the biography of Yancong in Daoxuan’s Xu gaoseng zhuan, CBETA 2022.Q4, T50, no. 2060, p. 435c24-27: 斯即五天之良史。亦乃三聖之宏圖。故後漢西域傳云靈聖之所降集。賢懿之所挺生者是也。詞極綸綜。廣如所述. Also see his Shijia fangzhi, CBETA 2022.Q4, T51, no. 2088, p. 948b2-5: 昔隋代東都上林園。翻經館沙門彥琮著西域傳一部十篇。廣布風俗略於佛事。得在洽聞失於信本.

65. In an article discussing the relation of the state-sponsored translation of the Buddhist canon to the imperial diplomacy, Fan Jingjing briefly noted that Dasui xiguoji and Datang Xiyu ji resemble each other in themes and political motivation, but she does not go further to elaborate the similarity. Nevertheless, her conclusion concords with this article by pointing out that Yancong and Xuanzang were involved in the official undertakings of foreign affairs. See Fan Jingjing, ’Fojiao guanfang yichang yu zhonggu de waijiao shiye [The Buddhist translation under the auspice of the state and the foreign diplomacy of Medieval China],‘ Shijie zongjiao yanjiu 3 (2015): 77-78.

66. One can find a series of Buddhists’ travelogues noted or cited in Daoxuan’s Shijia fangzhi, Datang neidian lu and Xu gaoseng zhuan. In the fifth chapter or Juan of the Shijia fangzhi, he summarised the major records of the Chinese travellers, mostly Buddhists, many of which were still extent by then.

67. Li, The Great Tang Dynasty Record of the Western Regions, 352. For the Chinese text, see Ji et al., Datang Xiyu ji, 1049 (境路盤迂, 行次即書, 不存編比。 … … 書行者, 親遊踐也; 舉至者, 傳聞記也).

68. The debate is centred around a few sentences found in other writings such as Daoxuan’s Shijia fangzhi and Daoshi’s Fayuan zhulin which are allegedly cited from the Xiyu ji but missing in the current version. Fan Xiangyong argued that the earliest and full edition of the Xiyu ji, the one presented to Taizong, was revised by Yu Zhining, the author of the second preface, in 656 CE under the order of the emperor Gaozong. See Fan X., ’Datang Xiyu ji quewen kaobian [Textual Analysis of the Missing Accounts in Datang Xiyu ji],’ first published in Wenshi 13(1982), reprinted in Fan Xiangyong wenshi lunwenji [Essays in Literature and History] (Shanghai: Shanghai guji chuban she, 2014): 182-208. T. Takata agrees with Fan’s hypothesis but believes that Bianji’s manuscript was the full version which was edited by Xuanzang before it was submitted to the court. In Takata’s opinion, the revised edition in 656 CE was no more than a slight modification of language as shown in some early manuscripts from Dunhuang and Japan. See T. Takata, ’Bianji de Xiyu ji [Bianji’s Version of the Datang Xiyuji],’ Xuanzang foxue yanjiu 27, 3(2017): 1-16. A more recent article by Wang Bangwei refutes the possibility of alternative versions, considering the missing descriptions were not cited from the Xiyu ji but added personally by Daoxuan or other authors. See Wang B., ’Ye tan Datang xiyu ji de quewen wenti [Further discussion on the missing accounts of Datang xiyu ji],’ Wenshi 135, 2(2021): 273-280.

69. Deeg, ’Has Xuanzang really been in Mathura? Interpretation Sinica or Interpretation Occidentalia - How to critically read the records of the Chinese pilgrims.’

70. See R. S. Sharma, Urban Decay in India (c.300–c.1000) (New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal, 1987): 118-119.

71. S. Kuwayama, ’Pilgrimage Route Changes and the Decline of Gandhāra,‘ In Gandharan Buddhism: Archaeology, Art, Texts, eds. by P. Brancaccio and K. Behrendt (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 2006): 107-134.

72. See, for example, L. Gopal, The Economic Life of Northern India, c. AD 700-1200 (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1965): 102-104.