Irano-Sinica— The Name China 569 



stan). 1 The parallelism of initial I and 5 corresponds exactly to the 

 Greek doublet SZvat and Qlvai ( = Cinai), and the Iranian forms 

 with c meet their counterpart in Sanskrit Cina (Cina). This state of 

 affairs renders probable the supposition that the Indian, Iranian, and 

 Greek designations for China have issued from a common source, and 

 that this prototype may be sought for in China itself. I am now inclined 

 to think that there is some degree of probability in the old theory that 

 the name "China" should be traceable to that of the dynasty Ts'in. 

 I formerly rejected this theory, simply for the reason that no one had 

 as yet presented a convincing demonstration of the case; 2 nor did I 

 become converted by the demonstration in favor of Ts'in then attempted 

 by Pelliot. 3 Pelliot has cited several examples from which it appears 

 that even under the Han the Chinese were still designated as "men of 

 the Ts'in" in Central Asia. This fact in itself is interesting, but does 

 not go to prove that the foreign names Cina, Cen, etc., are based on 

 the name Ts'in. It must be shown phonetically that such a derivation 

 is possible, and this is what Pelliot failed to demonstrate: he does 

 not even dwell for a moment on the question of the ancient pronuncia- 

 tion of the character ts'in at?. If in ancient times it should have had the 

 same articulation as at present, the alleged phonetic coincidence with 

 the foreign designations would amount to nothing. The ancient pho- 

 netic value of ^ was *din, *dzin, *d2in (jin), *d2'in, with initial dental 

 or palatal sonant; 4 and it is possible, and in harmony with phonetic 



1 R. Gauthiot, T'oung Pao, 1913, p. 428. 



: T'oung Pao, 1 912, pp. 719-726. 



3 Ibid., pp. 727-742. The mention of the name Cina in the Arthacastra of 

 Canakya or Kautilya, and Jacobi's opinion on the question, did not at all prompt me 

 to my view, as represented by Pelliot. I had held this view for at least ten years 

 previously, and Jacobi's article simply offered the occasion which led me to express 

 my view. Pelliot's commotion over the date of the Sanskrit work was superfluous. 

 I shall point only to the judgment of V. A. Smith (Early History of India, 3d ed., 

 1914, p. 153), who says that "the Arthagastra is a genuine ancient work of Maurya 

 age, and presumably attributed rightly to Canakya or Kautilya; this verdict, of 

 course, does not exclude the possibility, or probability, that the existing text may 

 contain minor interpolations of later date, but the bulk of the book certainly dates 

 from the Maurya period," and to the statement of A. B. Keith (Journal Roy. 

 As. Soc, 1916, p. 137), "It is perfectly possible that the Arthacastra is an early 

 work, and that it may be assigned to the first century B.C., while its matter very 

 probably is older by a good deal than that." The doubts as to the Ts'in etymology 

 of the name "China" came from many quarters. Thus J. J. Modi (Asiatic Papers. 

 p. 247), on the supposition that the Farvardin YaSt may have been written prior 

 to the fourth or fifth century B.C., argued, "If so, the fact that the name of China 

 as Saini occurs in this old document, throws a doubt on the belief that it was the 

 Ts'in dynasty of the third century B.C. that gave its name to China. It appears, 

 therefore, that the name was older than the third century B.C." 

 4 In the dialect of Shanghai it is still pronounced dzin. 



