The Rashīdī History 17.5

17.5

If so it was situated some distance to the north of Farghana, and would therefore not fall within the region described by Mirza Haidar as Mangalai Suyah. There is, moreover, a difference in date between Hiuen Tsang and Mirza Haidar of some nine hundred years, and the latter nowhere implies that he is employing an ancient term. Su-Yeh or Su-Sa was, in fact, applied by the Chinese writers to a different locality, though, strangely enough, in the syllable Su it has a certain degree of connection with a part of our author's province—that is, with Kashghar. Su-li was an ancient name for Kashghar, and Hiuen Tsang tells us: "From the town of the Su-Yeh river as far [west] as the Ki Shwang Na country, the land is called Su-li, and the people are called by the same name" (Beal's Si Yu Ki). Ki Shwang Na is usually identified with Kesh, in Mavara-un-Nahr, and if that be correct it would mean that most of Western Turkistan and a great part of Mavara-un-Nahr went, in the seventh century, by the same name as the city (and perhaps district) of Kashghar, though the latter place stood altogether apart from the tract of country between the Chu and Kesh. Thus, whether it is in any way possible, that Hiuen Tsang's Su-Yeh, Su-Sa, or Su-li can be connected with Mirza Haidar's Suyah must remain extremely doubtful. If Mr. Watters' reading of Su-Sa instead of Su-Yeh is the right one, such a suggestion could not hold good. (See China Rev., as below.)