Macedonian conqueror of his empire. The event to which
I allude is none other than the arrival of the noble: Orpe-
lian or Ouhrbéléan race in Georgia, ’which they entered,
through the northern gate or pass of Dariel. They:settled
^in the fortress of Orpeth and became lords of the neighbouring
region, and their descendants still claim a^dgh station
among the nobility of Georgia. But the most curious part
of their history is that they were a colony from China. The
Orpelians indeed were not, according to writers on Georgia,
the first or only body of Chinese,who gainéd' a footing in
these regions during times that may really be called^ the
dark ages. The powerful race of the Mamigonians, who
performed a conspicuous part in the history of Armenia, camé
into that country two centuries before Moses-of Ohidrene.
According to that historian they likewise came from Djênas-
dan. Djénasdan, as M. Saint-^Martin shews, is thé name by
which China has always been known ini the Armenian
language. These accounts appear at the first -view very
absurd, and remind us of thé monkish chronicles of E.urOpé
which derive the Britons from Troy and the Irish chieftains
from the Red Sea, but in their support, and to bring the
idea of Chinese colonisation of Georgia and Armenia within
the limits of probability, a great deal of learned investigation
has been made by the translator of the Orpelian
history. M. Saint-Martin proves, by a comparison of
various statements of the Mohammédan historians', Mas-
soùdy, Rashid-ed-din and others, with notices tcHie found in
native Chinese writers, that the empire of China, from the
age of the Han dynasty, which was coeval with the Christian
era, to the end of the reign of the Thang, about nine hundred
years afterwards-, had extensive power over all the central
countries of Asia, as far to the westward as the Caspian,
and that Chinese colonies were founded near that inland
sea. The Turks of Samarkand and of Ferghana were,
according to the testimony of Abulfeda, vassals of China
about 737 a .d . The Chinese had been well acquainted
with the Roman empire, which they termed Ta-Thsin, or
the Great Thsin, “ à cause,” as M. Saint-Martin says, “ de
sa ressemblance avec la. Chine.” China itself was called by-
267
the ChinesetThsin, a name from which was derived, according
tofcSaint-Martin, that of the'{ ‘ancient Sinæ and the
modern ‘From! the^same origin calme Tchin or
Tchinistàln^the nahte given to China.by the Persians, as well
as the Sin' of ithe Aràb!ÿ,;||hë Tsinistan df'thei-Syrians, and
Djénasdan of the Armenians. Of the emjMteïofi Sin there
areaèèèünts in Massoudy, who lived at the. cbiHmencement
of the tenth century of our era, and was contempory with
Ibn Haukal.; By this* last * geographer welfare assured
that itke empire of Sin  i i ù f e ô d the Great Ocean,
meani ngPa ci f i c , to thèterritory^of the Moslims in
Transoxiana. M.^Saj|it-?Martin has,*traced.fo much con--
cordanceyin these; account^bf Sin- with the - description of
the^medeiui empire» of China, as to leavembi doubt upon this
subject. .. If the Chinese actually? were lords- of Mawèr-
al’nahar or Transoxiana,^nothing can be more probable than
that bodieS'Of them may from time to time havê passed In to
countries to the westward of the»? Caspian'. 'Whether
ChineSafccoloniesever reached -Georgia, or- notj.certain, it is
that thepfeoplë’of that country haVelnOthing of thèChinese
at present either in their language or îpersons. H
Such are the historicah rèfeords ofGeorgia,» if they deserve
that name, on which so mueh learned -research has been
bestowed by M. Saint-Martin. I should be very unwilling
to set up my own judgement in opposition to that of so
profound and justly, celebrated a scholar«;??,especially with
regard to matters on whicfehe>is?soSinfinitely better informed
than I can pretend tobe,, but if -F might entertain an opinion
on the subject; it would .be* mixed with -„doubt as to the
crediblity. of ; the documents which that writer has made
known to the learned of Europe; *
The structure of the Georgian language has been studied
by M. M. Adelung and Vater,+ and other modern philplp-
* The Chinese annals, as Saint-Marlin âssürës us, make mention of an embassy
from thé sbvé^ëignôf Ta-TïÈstlï, séüt hinïb year, Ÿâh-M,
which corresponds with A.D. 166.’ Thè* 'nam& ofs the sovereign-is written in
Cliinese history “ An-thon.” This was, as he says, Marcus Aurelius Antoninus,
then emperor of Rome.
t Mithridat., Th. 1, S. 480, et seqq. Beytraege., 4 Th., S. 130.