Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Brief history of Kushans

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Brief history of Kushans
    Posted: 03-Dec-2008 at 12:52
Can anyone give me a brief history of Kushans and their lineage?

thanx
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Dec-2008 at 16:13
lol no one has any info?!!
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Dec-2008 at 21:18
hey has no one any idea?
please point to some website information links atleast?
Back to Top
Copperknickers View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 18-Feb-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 22
  Quote Copperknickers Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Jan-2009 at 23:52
The Kushans were a nomadic tribe from modern day China, also known as the Yueh Zhi. They raided North India in 174BC after being driven from China by the Huns, and founded an empire in North India and Bactria that was a link between the Romans and the Chinese. Their first emperor was Kadphises I. Their second emperor, Kadphises II, extended the empire further, and embraced and early form of Hinduism. Their greatest empeoror was Kanishka, who extended the empire to stretch from west china, to india, to parthia. He was Buddhist. After a couple more emperors, the empire gradually declined, and incpapable emperors led to the Kushans splitting up and melting into nothing by 250 AD, leaving a large cultural legacy.
Back to Top
Aryan de Pakhtra View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 27-Jan-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 13
  Quote Aryan de Pakhtra Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Jan-2009 at 16:30

Kushans were Aryans from Afghanistan (Aryana), and they loved Buddhism. Before, Greek was literary language of most Aryana, but the Kushan emperor Kanishka made Kushan Bactrian the literary language.

"It was he who laid out (i.e. discontinued the use of) the Ionian ("ιωνα", Yona, Greek) speech and then placed the Arya ("αρια", Aryan) speech." (Rabatak inscription)
 
Their empire was destroyed by Hephthalites who disliked Buddhism, who were also Aryans according to modern view of scholars.
 
Several modern tribes such as Ghilzi Kochi could have been descendants of Kushans but both their original languages, Tocharian as well as Kushan Bactrian they adopted later, are now extinct.


Edited by Aryan de Pakhtra - 28-Jan-2009 at 16:39
Back to Top
Copperknickers View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 18-Feb-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 22
  Quote Copperknickers Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Jan-2009 at 18:05
With respect, the Kushans were not from Afghanistan. They were Asians, although they were of Aryan ancestory. Besides, the Aryans were from Modern day Russia, not Afghanistan.
Back to Top
Aryan de Pakhtra View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 27-Jan-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 13
  Quote Aryan de Pakhtra Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Jan-2009 at 16:56
Originally posted by Copperknickers

With respect, the Kushans were not from Afghanistan. They were Asians, although they were of Aryan ancestory.
 
I think Kushans were from Afghanistan. Their original homeland was Tokharistan (modern Takhar, Kunduz, Samangan and Baghlan). They were Aryan nomads, and used to migrate as far as Xinjiang.
 
Although their original Tocharian languages are now extinct, but Pashtun Kochi clould have been their descendants. Barry O'Connell believes the Pashtun Sleeping Rugs are related to 2500 years old Tocharian sleeping rugs found in the Tarim Basin area of the Xinjiang. (see http://www.persiancarpetguide.com/Oriental_Rugs/Afghanistan_Rugs/Neo_Tocharian_Pashtun_Slip_Loop_Sleeping_Rug.htm)
 
Besides, the Aryans were from Modern day Russia, not Afghanistan.
The original homeland of ancient Scythians as well as most modern Pashtuns and Pamiris, who speak similar East Iranian languages linked with Pashto, is Afghanistan and Merv from where they migrated to Central Asia and eastern Europe.


Edited by Aryan de Pakhtra - 29-Jan-2009 at 17:00
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Jan-2009 at 18:18
Moved to Questions and Answers
Back to Top
Copperknickers View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 18-Feb-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 22
  Quote Copperknickers Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Jan-2009 at 22:30
Source, Aryan?
Back to Top
Nick1986 View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar
Mighty Slayer of Trolls

Joined: 22-Mar-2011
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7940
  Quote Nick1986 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Jun-2012 at 19:40
Is there a connection to the Kushites, ancient enemies of Egypt?
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!
Back to Top
oxydracae View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 26-Feb-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 107
  Quote oxydracae Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Jun-2012 at 03:33
No they dont have any coonection with Kushites... but Gujjar tribes in modern Pakistan, India and Afghanistan are considered as their descendants...
Back to Top
TheAlaniDragonRising View Drop Down
AE Moderator
AE Moderator
Avatar
Spam Fighter

Joined: 09-May-2011
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6084
  Quote TheAlaniDragonRising Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Jun-2012 at 05:32
I found this following paper interesting in that it may add in some way to the discussion on this thread.

The Origin of the Kushans 
by YU Taishan 
Chinese Academy of Social Sciences 
The “Guishuang  貴霜” found in the Chinese histrical records must have been the “Kuṣāṇa 
(Kushan)” seen on existing coins and in the inscriptions found in Central Asia and the northwest 
subcontinent. The origin of the Guishuang 貴霜 is one of the weak links in research on Kushan 
history. Up to now there seems to be no hypothesis that is internally consistent. Here I will offer 
my opinions upon this problem. 
In the Hou Hanshu 後漢書, ch. 88 (Memoir on the Western Regions), the origin and rise of the 
Guishuang 貴霜 are recorded as follows: 
Formerly, when the Yuezhi 月氏 had been destroyed by the Xiongnu 匈奴, they 
moved to Daxia 大夏 and divided the country into the five Xihou 翖侯 of Xiumi 
休密, Shuangmi 雙靡, Guishuang 貴霜, Xidun 肹頓, and Dumi 都密. More than 
a hundred years later, the Xihou 翖侯 of Guishuang 貴霜 [named] Qiujiuque 丘
就卻 attacked and destroyed the [other] four Xihou 翖侯 and established himself 
as king; the state was named Guishuang 貴霜. [This] king invaded Anxi 安息, 
took the country of Gaofu 高附, and, moreover, destroyed Puda 濮達 and Jibin 罽
賓 and completely possessed their territory. Qiujiuque 丘就卻 died at the age of 
more than eighty years, and his son Yangaozhen 閻膏珍 succeeded him as king. 
He in his turn destroyed Tianzhu 天竺 and placed there a general to control it. 
Since then the Yuezhi 月氏 have been extremely rich and strong. In the various 
states [their ruler] is always referred to as “the King of Guishuang 貴霜,” but the 
Han 漢, basing themselves upon the old appellation, speak about “the Da Yuezhi 
大月氏.”

It is generally accepted that Qiujiuque 丘就卻, the founder of the Guishuang 貴霜 Dynasty, is 
identical with the Kujula Kadphises shown on  the coins and inscriptions of the Kushans. 
Therefore, the predecessor of the Kushan Dynasty is undoubtedly the Xihou 翖侯 of Guishuang 
貴霜, one of the five Xihou 翖侯 of the Da Yuezhi 大月氏. 
Since the memoir claims that the Da Yuezhi “divided the country into the five Xihou 翖
侯 of Xiumi 休密, Shuangmi 雙靡, Guishuang 貴霜, Xidun 肹頓 and Dumi 都密” after they had 
moved to the land of Daxia 大夏, it appears that the five Xihou 翖侯 (including the Xihou 翖侯
of Guishuang  貴霜) were the Da Yuezhi  大月氏 people. Moreover, this point seems to be 
confirmed by the assertion that “the Han 漢, basing themselves upon the old appellation, speak 
about ‘the Da Yuezhi 大月氏’” after Qiujiuque 丘就卻 had unified the other four Xihou 翖侯
and established the Kushan Dynasty. 
In my opinion, the claim that Da Yuezhi 大月氏 established the five Xihou 翖侯 after 
they had destroyed the state of Daxia 大夏 in the Hou Hanshu 後漢書, ch. 88, is based on the 
Hanshu 漢書, ch. 96A. In the latter it is recorded: 
Originally Daxia 大夏 had no major overlord or chief, and minor chiefs were 
frequently established in the towns. The inhabitants are weak and afraid of 
fighting, with the result that when the Yuezhi 月氏 migrated there, they made 
them all into their subjects. They provide supplies for Han 漢 envoys. There are 
five Xihou 翖侯. The first is entitled the Xihou 翖侯 of Xiumi 休密, and the seat 
of government is at the town of Hemo 和墨; it is distant by 2,841 li 里 from [the 
seat of] the Protector General and 7,802  li 里 from the Yang 陽 Barrier. The 
second is entitled the Xihou 翖侯 of Shuangmi 雙靡, and the seat of government 
is at the town of Shuangmi 雙靡; it is distant by 3,741 li 里 from [the seat of] the 
Protector General and 7,782 li 里 from the Yang 陽 Barrier. The third is entitled 
the Xihou 翖侯 of Guishuang 貴霜, and the seat of government is at the town of 
Huzao 護澡; it is distant by 5,940 li 里 from [the seat of] the Protector General 
and 7,982 li 里 from the Yang 陽 Barrier. The fourth is entitled the Xihou 翖侯 of 
Bidun 肸頓, and the seat of government  is at the town of Bomao 薄茅; it is 

distant by 5,962 li 里 from [the seat of] the Protector General and 8,202 li 里 from 
the Yang 陽 Barrier. The fifth is entitled the Xihou 翖侯 of Gaofu 高附, and the 
seat of government is at the town of Gaofu 高附; it is distant by 6,041 li 里 from 
[the seat of the] Protector General and 9,238 li 里 from the Yang 陽 Barrier. All 
the five Xihou 翖侯 are subject to the Da Yuezhi 大月氏. 
According to this, the five Xihou 翖侯 were in fact not the Yuezhi 月氏 people, but were the 
people in the state of Daxia 大夏. This is because there was no sovereign who could order the 
whole country in the state of Daxia 大夏, where each town carried out its affairs in its own way 
and was ruled by a so-called “minor chief.” The Yuezhi 月氏 did not wipe out these “minor 
chiefs,” but “made them all into their subjects” after they had conquered the state of Daxia 大夏. 
It was a common pattern that nomadic tribes in ancient times ruled occupied areas by means of 
puppet goverments. As to the title of “Xihou 翖侯,” it may have been brought to Bactria by the 
Yuezhi 月氏, or might have been there before. If the latter, it means that the Yuezhi 月氏 calling 
their puppets “Xihou 翖侯” reflected local custom. Of course, one cannot rule out the possibility 
that this title was common to the people of both Yuezhi 月氏 and Daxia 大夏. 
If this is true, the statement in the Hou Hanshu 後漢書, ch. 88, that they “divided their 
country” and so on mentions only that the division into the five Xihou 翖侯 took place after the 
Da Yuezhi 大月氏 invaded. There was no indication that all the five Xihou 翖侯 were Da Yuezhi 
大月氏 people. Moreover, the five Xihou 翖侯 (or some of them) already existed before the Da 
Yuezhi 大月氏 conquered Daxia 大夏, and they were “minor chiefs” as described in the Shiji 史
記, ch. 123. The Da Yuezhi  大 月 氏 ruled the Daxia  大 夏 in conformity with the local 
circumstance that a great number of “minor chiefs” ruled independently. Even if the Da Yuezhi 
大月氏 appointed other people to be the Xihou 翖侯, we should grant that these Xihou 翖侯
possibly were the Daxia 大夏 natives who had close relationships with the Da Yuezhi 大月氏. In 
addition, the statement “divided their country” and so on does not say that the Da Yuezhi 大月氏
partitioned the whole territory of Daxia 大夏 into the lands of the five Xihou 翖侯, but can be 
taken only as a move to enfeoff the chief lieutenants. In fact, the lands of the five Xihou 翖侯
were located in the eastern part of the land of Daxia 大夏. It is self-evident that even if the five 

Xihou 翖侯 were originally the “minor chiefs” of the state of Daxia 大夏, already located in 
their own lands, seen through the Da Yuezhi’s 大月氏 eyes, they were the new chief lieutenants.
From this, we see that the  Hou Hanshu 後漢書, ch. 88, repeats exactly the previous 
historical records in that it mentions the origin of the Guishuang 貴霜, but the formulation is 
ambiguous due to its ignorance of the facts, and therefore clarification is needed. Of the 
statement “Fan wu Xihou jie shu Da Yuezhi 凡五翖侯大月氏 (All the five Xihou 翖侯 are 
subject to the Da Yuezhi 大月氏)” “shu 屬” means to be mastered. The predecessor of the 
Kushan Dynasty was the Guishuang 貴霜 Xihou 翖侯, one of the “minor chiefs” of the Daxia 大
夏 state, who was subject to Da Yuezhi 大月氏. 
Since the predecessor of the Kushan Dynasty was the Guishuang  貴 霜 Xihou  翖 侯 in the 
original Daxia 大夏 state, the Kushan people can be traced back to the Daxia 大夏. The so-called 
“state of Daxia 大夏” occurs first in the Shiji 史記, ch. 123, in which it is recorded: 
Daxia 大夏 is at a distance of more than two thousand li 里 southwest of Dayuan 
大宛, on the south bank of the Gui 嬀 River. The inhabitants are settled on the 
soil, dwell in walled cities and houses and follow the same way of life as Dayuan 
大宛. They have no major overlord or chief, and minor chiefs are frequently 
established in the towns. The army is weak and afraid of fighting. The people are 
expert traders. When the Da Yuezhi 大月氏 migrated west, they attacked and 
defeated Daxia  大 夏 and made the Daxia  大 夏 all into their subjects. The 
population of Daxia 大夏 may amount to more than a million. Their capital is 
called Lanshi 藍市, and it has markets for the sale of all sorts of merchandise. 
Southeast of this state is the state of Shendu 身毒. 
These were the observations of Zhang Qian 張騫 during his first mission to the Western Regions 
as an envoy of Han 漢 (ca. 130–129 B.C.). The state of Dayuan 大宛 was located in the present Ferghana. The River Gui 嬀 refers to 

the present Amu Darya.
 Therefore, the state of Daxia 大夏 must have been located in the 
southwest of the Ferghana Basin, the southern bank of the River Gui 嬀, i.e., Amu Darya. Its socalled capital, the town of Lanshi 藍市, probably refers to Bactra, the largest town in that region, 
which had been the capital of the Hellenic kingdom of Bactria.
The “state of Daxia 大夏,” attacked and vanquished by the Yuezhi 月氏 when they 
migrated west, was not the Hellenic kingdom of Bactria. It was the Sacae tribes who destroyed 
this kingdom. It has been suggested that “Daxia 大夏” refers to the Hellenic kingdom of Bactria, 
but this theory is inadequately substantiated, for the following reasons.
First, the state of Daxia 大夏  as  seen  in  the Shiji 史記, ch. 123, in which it is said “they 
have no major overlord or chief, and minor chiefs are frequently established in the town,” did not 
conform to the situation of the Hellenic kingdom of Bactria. The latter had undoubtedly had an 
“overlord.” 
Second, on the basis of a relatively credible theory, the Hellenic kingdom Bactria was 
destroyed in ca. 140 B.C.  The Da Yuezhi’s 大月氏 western migration could not have begun 
earlier than 130 B.C. In other words, at the time the Da Yuezhi 大月氏 migrated west, the 
Hellenic kingdom of Bactria had already been destroyed. 
Third, the theory is unable to explain why Zhang Qian 張騫 called the Hellenic kingdom 
of Bactria “Daxia 大夏.” However, “Daxia 大夏” can be taken as a precise transliteration of 
“Tochari,” one of the four Sacae tribes that destroyed the Hellenic kingdom of Bactria. 
The fact that the Sacae tribes destroyed the Hellenic kingdom of Bactria is recorded in 
Strabo’s Geography: 
Now the greater part of the Scythians, beginning at the Caspian Sea, are called 
Däae, but those who are situated more to the east than these are named 
Massagetae and Sacae, whereas all the rest are given the general name of 
Scythians, though each people is given a separate name of its own. They are all 
for the most part nomads. But the best known of the nomads are those who took 
away Bactriana from the Greeks; I mean the Asii, Pasiani, Tochari and Sacarauri, 
who originally came from the country on the other side of the laxartes River that

adjoins that of the Sacae and the Sogdiani and was occupied by the Sacae. (XI, 8-
2) 
Since in a later passage Strabo says very definitely that the Sacae “occupied Bactriana” (XI, 8-4), 
the Asii, Pasiani, Tochari and Sacarauri “who took away Bactriana from the Greeks” must fall 
into the Sacae tribes, who were Scythians along with the Däae and Massagetae. We thus can call 
the Asii and the others “four tribes of the Sacae.” 
Furthermore, the Trogus Prologues states that, “the Scythian tribes Sacaucae (Sacarauli) 
and Asiani seized Bactria and Sogdiani.” (XLI) It also states ambiguously: “Asiani (Asii) the 
kings of the Thocari (Tochari), the annihilation of  Sacarauca.” (XLII).
“Scythia” here is 
equivalent to “Sacae,” because, according to Strabo, Sacae also can be called Scythia, and the 
Saraucae and Asiani must have been the Sacarauli and Asii noted in Strabo. 
That is, in the course of the Sacae tribes’  invasion of Bactria, those who captured its 
capital were the Sacarauli and Asii, and the Asii eventually triumphed over the Sacarauli. As to 
the statement “Asiani (Asii) the kings of the Thocari (Tochari),” we can take it as meaning that 
the former was the suzerain of the latter. In other words, it was the Asii who led the Tochari to 
capture Bactra and Sogdiana, and who triumphed over the Sacarauli.
The Pasiani, another of 
the four Sacae tribes, was not referred to, probably because of the fragmentary infomation. 
Zhang Qian 張騫 took Bactria to be “Tochari,” the name of one of the four Sacae tribes 
who had invaded and occupied Bactria. This is probably either because the Tochari were the 
greatest in number or because the Tochari,
whose suzerain was the Asii, had triumphed over the 
Sacarauli and controlled Bactria. 
In sum, at around 140 B.C., the Hellenic kingdom of Bactria was destroyed by the Sacae 
tribes who had invaded. The Chinese historical books call Bactria when occupied by the Sacae 
tribes, “Daxia 大夏.”
 In fact, the Guishuang 貴霜 (Kushan) can be traced back to the Sacae 
tribes.

Since the Xihou 翖侯 of Guishuang 貴霜 came originally from the Daxia 大夏, one of the four 
Sacae tribes that destroyed the Hellenic kingdom of Bactria, the Kushans can be further traced 
back to the Pasiani of the Sacae tribes. 
Except for the above-cited record in the book of Strabo, the Pasiani do not appear in other 
records, and there is no evidence to be examined. This seems to show that the tribal name 
recorded by Stabo is wrong. It has been suggested that Pasiani (Πασιανι) is a textual corruption 
for Gasiani (Γασιανι).
In my opinion, this is a reasonable suggestion, and “Guishuang 貴霜” 
[giuƏt-shiang] or Kuṣāṇa (Kushan) and Gasiani can be understood as different transcriptions of 
the same name. 
That is, the Gasiani who invaded Bactria would have submited to the Da Yuezhi 大月氏, 
just as the other Sacae tribes did after the Da Yuezhi 大月氏 had moved west. One chief of the 
Gasiani was granted recognition and became the Xihou 翖侯 of Guishuang 貴霜, as seen in the 
Chinese historical books. 
The fact that the Xihou 翖侯 of Guishuang 貴霜 took its name from a Sacae tribe is not 
unique: the Xihou 翖侯 of Xiumi 休密, another of the five Xihou 翖侯 in the state of Daxia 大
夏, also had acted thus. For “Xiumi 休密” [xiu-miet] can be understood as a transcription of 
“Comediae,” and according to Ptolemy’s Geography (VI, 13) the Comediae were of the Sacae. It 
is thus clear that those groups recorded by Strabo are only the most conspicuous. 
The main reason to understand Guishuang 貴霜 as Gasiani is that “Guishuang 貴霜” and 
“Yuezhi  月 氏” [njiuk-tjie] can be taken as different  transcriptions of the same name. The 
Guishuang 貴霜 and the Yuezhi 月氏  or  Da  Yuezhi 大月氏 must have come from the same 
source, but they migrated in different directions. Only when this point is accepted can the 
relevant records in the Chinese historical books reasonably be explained. 
First, according to the  Hou Hanshu 後 漢 書, ch. 118, after Qiujiuque  丘 就 卻 and 
Yangaozhen 閻膏珍 had established a kingdom, “the state was named Guishuang 貴霜,” and “in 
the various states [their ruler] is always referred to as ‘the King of Guishuang 貴霜,’” “but the 

Han 漢, basing themselves upon the old appellation, speak about ‘the Da Yuezhi 大月氏.’” It’s 
true that Qiujiuque 丘就卻 probably flaunted the banner of the Da Yuezhi 大月氏, his suzerain, 
when he “attacked and destroyed the [other] four Xihou 翖侯.” However, obviously, it was not 
necessary for him to do so when his state had been established. In fact, there is another dynastic 
title, “Guishuang 貴霜,” that is recorded in the  Hou Hanshu 後漢書.
For the fact that the 
Eastern Han 漢 called it “Yuezhi 月氏” or “Da Yuezhi 大月氏” as before the only reasonable 
explanation is that “Yuezhi 月氏” and “Guishuang 貴霜” are different transcriptions of the same 
name. 
In the “Xirongzhuan 西戎傳” of the Weilue 魏略 it is recorded: “there were the states of 
Jibin 罽賓, Daxia 大夏, Gaofu 高附 and Tianzhu 天竺; these were all annexed and belonged to 
Da Yuezhi 大月氏.” In Kang Tai’s 康居 Waiguozhuan 外國傳 cited in the Shiji Zhengyi 史記正
義, it is recorded: “A foreigner says that there are three numerous things in the world: Zhongguo 
中國 (the Central Kingdom) has numerous people. Da Qin 大秦 has numerous treasures. Yuezhi 
月氏 has numerous horses.” Because of the date, the terms, “Da Yuezhi 大月氏” or “Yuezhi 月
氏” in the above-cited two books are necessarily referring to “Guishuang 貴霜.” This can be 
taken as evidence. 
Second, in the Sanguozhi 三國志, ch. 3, it is recorded that on the date of Guimao 癸卯 of 
the twelveth month in the third year of Taihe 太和 (i.e., A.D. 229), “The king of the Da Yuezhi 
大月氏, Bodiao 波調 (Vāsudeva), sent his envoy to present tribute, and his majesty granted 
[Bo]diao [波]調, the king, the title of King of Da Yuezhi 大月氏 Intimate with Wei 魏.” The 
only reasonable explanation is that the Guishuang 貴霜 approved of the fact that the Eastern Han 
漢 called it “Da Yuezhi 大月氏.” To Bodiao波調 (Vāsudeva), “the king of the Da Yuezhi 大月
氏 was not different from “the king of Guishuang 貴霜.” This seems to show not only that 
“Yuezhi 月氏” and “Guishuang 貴霜” are different transcriptions of the same name, but also that 
the Yuezhi 月氏 and the Guishuang 貴霜 came from the same source. 
Since the Guishuang 貴霜 were not the Yuezhi 月氏, even though they had the same 
name and origin as the Yuezhi 月氏, they were in all probability the Gasiani, a Sacae tribe who 
came from the northern bank of the Syr Darya. 
A pertinent clarification must be made: “Yuezhi 月氏” and “Gasiani” can be taken as 

different transcriptions of the same name, but we cannot, based on this, take it for granted that 
the destruction of the Hellenic kingdom of Bactria by the Sacae tribes was the event that caused 
the Da Yuezhi’s 大月氏 migration to the valley of the Amu Darya. 
A. As mentioned above, the date when the Da Yuezhi 大月氏 moved west does not tally 
with the time at which the Hellenic kingdom of Bactria was destroyed. 
B. According to the Shiji 史記, ch. 123, and the Hanshu 漢書, ch. 96A, the Da Yuezhi 大月
氏 moved to the valley of the River Gui 嬀 by “passing [Da]yuan [大]宛,” i.e., Ferghana. 
This does not tally with Strabo’s record on the Sacae tribes who came from the northern 
bank of the Syr Darya. 
C. “Yuezhi 月氏” and “Gasiani” can be taken as different transcriptions of the same name. 
The Yuezhi 月氏 originated as a farraginous tribal association, probably containing the 
same composition as in the Sacae association recorded by Strabo, but those who 
controlled Bactria were undoubtedly not the Asii or the Tochari after the Da Yuezhi 大月
氏 had moved westward. This fact is also against the records of Strabo and Trogus 
Prologues. 
In sum, the Guishuang 貴霜 (Kushans) can be traced back to the Gasiani, one of the 
Sacae tribes. 
The predecessors of the four tribes of Sacae, i.e., Asii, Gasiani, Tochari and Sacarauli, seem to be 
respectively the Rong 戎 of the Surname Yun 允, the Yuzhi 禺知, the Daxia 大夏 and the Suoju 
莎車 who appear in pre-Qin 秦 records and books.
On the Yuzhi 禺知, the predecessors of the Gasiani, in the Mutianzizhuan 穆天子傳, ch. 
1, it is recorded that “on the day Jihai 己亥, he arrived in the vast plain of the Yanju 焉居 and the 
Yu z h i 禺知.” “Yuzhi 禺知” [ngio-tie] and “Gasiani” can be taken as different transcriptions of 
the same name. It is generally believed that “the vast plain of the Yanju 焉居 and the Yuzhi 禺
知” probably was located in the northeast of Hetao 河套.
Based on existing data, speculation has arisen that by the end of the seventh century B.C.

the Asii, Gasiani and other tribes already lived in the valleys of the Ili and Chu. In 623 B.C.,

Duke Mu  穆 of Qin  秦 dominated the Western Rong  戎 and opened up territories which 
extended for 1,000 li 里, causing the western migration of the Asii, Gasiani and other tribes.
Of these, the Yuzhi 禺知 who migrated west may have been a small part of the whole tribe, and 
those who remained in their former land eventually developed into a powerful and prosperous 
tribe called the Yuezhi 月氏, the ancestors of the Da Yuezhi 大月氏.
In 177/176 B.C., the Asii, Gasiani and other tribes were expelled from the valleys of the 
Ili and Chu rivers by the Yuezhi 月氏 who moved west. They migrated west to the northern bank 
of the Syr Darya. Of course, they could have retreated to the northern bank of the Syr Darya, 
because the possibility that they had expanded to the northern bank of the Syr Darya before that 
time cannot be ruled out. About 140 B.C., very possibly due to the pressure from Da Yuezhi 大月
氏, their eastern neighbors, the Gasiani invaded south of the valley of the Amu Darya with the 
other tribes of Sacae. 
In the  Hanshu 漢 書, ch. 96A, it is recorded: “When, formerly, the Xiongnu  匈 奴
conquered the Da Yuezhi 大月氏, the latter moved west and established themselves as masters of 
Daxia  大 夏; it was in these circumstances that the king of the Sai  塞 moved south and 
established himself as master of Jibin 罽賓. The Sai 塞 tribes split and separated and repeatedly 
formed several states. To the northwest of Shule疏勒, states such as Xiuxun 休循 and Juandu 捐
毒 are all of the former Sai 塞 race.” This shows that the Sacae tribes not only moved west to the 
northern bank of the Syr Darya, and from there went down to the valley of the Amu Darya, but 
also that some of them went down to Jibin 罽賓 (Gandhāra) through Cong Ling 葱嶺 (the Pamir 
Region). Those who went into the Pamir Region not only scattered and formed several small 
states to the northwest of Shule 疏勒, but also went into the area surrounding the Tarim Basin 
and founded small states in some oases. From the names of the states and places and tribes that 
are preserved in Hanshu 漢書, ch. 96, we can see some clues or traces. Of these, those who bear 
a relationship to the Gasiani are Gushi 姑師 [ka(kia)-shei], Jushi 車師 [kia-shei], Guishan 貴山
[giuƏt-shean], Xiuxun  休 循 [xiu-ziuƏn], Juyan  居 延 [kia-jian], Weixu  危 須 [khiai-sio], 
Gaochang 高昌 [kô-thjiang] and so on, because all these names and “Gasiani” can be taken as 
different transcriptions of the same name.

As to the problem of where the Yuzhi 禺知 who had lived in Hetao 河套 came from, I 
have put forward a hypothesis that the Yuzhi 禺知 can be traced back to the Youyu 有虞 whose 
ancestor was Zhuanxu 顓頊. At first Zhuanxu 顓頊 lived in the valley of the Ruo 若 River in the 
present Sichuan 四川, then moved east to Qiongsang 窮桑, replaced the lord of the Shaohao 少
昊 and then again moved to the south of Jin 晉 from Lu 魯, following Shun 舜. After Shun 舜
died, a part of the Youyu 有虞 emigrated, and some of these moved north and developed into the 
Yuezhi 月氏. Of course, it is also possible that a part reached the valley of the Ili and Chu rivers 
via the Hexi 河西 region as soon as Shun 舜 died, and became a tribe of the Sacae people.

As we continue to trace back these tribes we can speculate that the Zhuanxu 顓頊 in the valley of 
the Ruo River, who came from the Middle East, may have been the Guti seen in cuneiform 
records. 
It has been suggested that the Guti who came from the mountainous region in Western 
Persia had defeated Narâm-Sin, the ruler of Babylon, and dominated Babylon for one hundred 
years (ca. 2100 B.C.). Besides the Guti, there  are also records about  the Tukri in cuneiform 
writing, whose land adjoined the Guti’s on the east and south. There were close relations between 
them. About the end of 3000 B.C., the Tukri and Guti departed from the west of Babylon and 
made a long, arduous journey to China. The Yuezhi 月氏 seen in the Chinese historical records 
must have been the Guti, and the Tuhuolu 吐火羅 (Tokharians) took their name from the Tukri.
In my opinion, it is easy to identify  the Guti and Tukri with the “Yuzhi 禺知” (the 
predecessor of the Yuezhi 月氏 or Da Yuezhi 大月氏) and “Daxia 大夏” (the predecessor of the 
Tuhuolu 吐火羅), the latter both appearing in pre-Qin 秦 records and books. The time when the 
Guti and Tukri moved east may be earlier than  that at which they contacted Babylon. It is 
possible that a branch of the Guti who came from the west reached the valley of the Ruo 若
River and formed the tribe of Zhuanxu 顓頊, the predecessor of the Youyu 有虞. 
The bronze statues, golden scepter, golden masks, etc., which were unearthed from the 
Sanxingdui 三星堆 ruins are in shape, style and function quite different from those belonging the

local culture of the ancient Shu 蜀 state. Nor have any similar bronzes in the contemporaneous 
Central Plains in China been found. But they are very obviously connected with bronzes 
belonging to the Mediterranean civilization.
Special attention should be paid to the bronze tree, 
which may be the legendary Ruo 若 tree.
The Ruo 若 tree is closely connected with the Ruo 若
River, where Zhuanxu 顓頊 was born. This seems to show that the master of the Sanxingdui 三
星堆 ruins was not unrelated to Zhuanxu 顓頊. 
Of course, this does not prove that the Sanxingdui 三星堆 ruins are a trace left by the 
Guti who moved to Sichuan 四川. However, it does provide support for the probability that the 
Guti made a long arduous journey to Sichuan 四川 from Western Asia. 
The following is a brief discussion on two problems with reference to the origin of the Kushans, 
the nationality and language. 
I. On the nationality: 
The main foundation on which to discuss this problem is the physical characteristics reflected in 
portraits of the Kushan kings (Kujula Kadphises, Wima Kadphise, Kaniṣka and Huviṣka) in the 
extant coins and statues. On these characteristics, there are always different views among 
scholars. Some find Turkic attributes in them, some, the Iranian element, and some find others. In fact, going by the physical characteristics seen in the coins and other art, it is 
insufficient to judge the nationality of their people or royalty, because the Kushans must have 
undergone a process of racial mixing during their long migration. Moreover, as is generally 
known, hybridism can change physical characteristics in only one generation. Therefore, for the 
purpose of judging nationality, the portraits of the Kushan kings on the extant coins and statues 
are only suggestive. 
The relevant records in the historical books are also ambiguous. 
1. In the Shiji 史記, ch. 123, it is recorded that “To the west of [Da]yuan [大]宛
and as far as the state of Anxi 安息 there are many different languages spoken, 
but their customs are in general the  same, and the people understand each

other’s language. The inhabitants of the area all have deep-set eyes, and many 
wear moustaches and beards. They are expert traders, haggling over fractions of 
a shu 銖 (a unit of weight).” In my opinion, this situation was one that Zhang 
Qian 張騫 saw himself, and therefore is credible. It is self-evident that the 
statement “to the west of [Da]yuan [大]宛 and as far as the state of Anxi 安息” 
includes both the Da Yuezhi 大月氏 who conquered the Daxia 大夏 and the 
Daxia 大夏 who were conquered by the Da Yuezhi 大月氏, i.e., the Sacae 
tribes. However, this shows only the physical characteristics of the Da Yuezhi 
大月氏 and the Daxia 大夏, including the Gasiani at the time Zhang Qian 張騫
was sent to the Western Regions. 
2. In Wan Zhen’s 萬震 Nanzhouzhi 南州志, cited in the Shiji Zhengyi 史記正義, 
it is recorded: “[Da Yuezhi  大 月 氏] is located about 7,000  li 里 north of 
Tianzhu 天竺. The place is high, arid, and distant. The king is called ‘Son of 
Heaven.’ The number of horses in the kingdom for riding and pulling chariots 
usually amounts to several hundred thousand. The city walls and palaces are the 
same as those of Rome. Its people have reddish-white skin and are used to 
shooting arrows and riding horses.” According to the date, “the Da Yuezhi 大月
氏” here refers to the Kushans. Since the “reddish-white” people are “used to 
shooting arrows and riding horses,” they seem not to be the natives in Bactria 
under the Kushans, but the Kushan rulers. Of course, this kind of observation 
has little value for judging the nationality of the Kushans at the time described 
by the Nanzhouzhi 南州志. 
As to religion, custom (dress and personal adornment, etc.) or official titles and other 
such characteristics, these cannot help to decide nationality, because all of these can be 
disseminated, changed or borrowed. 
Nevertheless. considering the possibility that the predecessor of the Kushans came from 
Western Persia, there is no harm in considering that they were Europoid, on grounds of the 
above-cited two classes of data. 

II. On the language of the Kushans. 
There are, in fact, two languages  to consider: first, the official language used in the Kushan 
Dynasty; second, the original language of the Kushans. To attest to the former, we have the coins 
and inscriptions of the Kushan Dynasty. The main languages are the Bactrian language in Greek 
script, and Sanskrit and Prākrit in Brāhmī or Kharoṣṭhī script. There is another unknown 
language in an unknown script, whose letters and language, according to creditable studies, are 
closely related to those of the Kharoṣṭhī and Khotanese. Since, as mentioned earlier, the 
Kushans and the Yuezhi 月氏 or Da Yuezhi 大月氏 came from the same source, but migrated in 
different directions, at first they both must have spoken the same language. 
In my opinion, it is very possible that the  original language of  the Kushans and the 
Yuezhi 月氏 is Tokharian, as stated by historical linguists, specifically, the second dialect of 
Tokharian B, i.e., the Qiuci 龜茲 language. 
1. The Guti, the predecessors of the Yuezhi 月氏, were in close relation with the 
Tukri, the predecessors of the Tokharians. They probably spoke a common 
language. That is to say, they both spoke Tokharian.
It is only because they 
developed differently, each group going its own way, that the different dialects 
were formed later. 
2. Since the people who spoke Tokharian B called their language the küšan 
language, and most of the relevant writings were unearthed from Qiuci 龜茲, it 
is beyond doubt that “küšan” and “Qiuci 龜茲” are different transcriptions of 
the same name. Therefore, Tokharian B in fact should be called the Qiuci 龜茲
language. “Qiuci 龜茲,” “Guishuang 貴霜,” “Yuezhi 月氏” and “Gasiani” can 
be taken as different transcriptions of the same name. The Qiuci 龜茲 must 
have been a branch of the Gasiani who went into the Tarim Basin when the 
Sacae tribes were expelled from the valleys of the Ili and Chu rivers by the Da 
Yuezhi 大月氏 and went down through Cong Ling 葱嶺 (the Pamir Region). 
3. This can provide evidence that some words occurring in connection with the 
Yuezhi 月氏 or the Kushans can be explained with Tokharian.
4. Doing as the local people did, the Gasiani used the Bactrian language in Greek

script, etc., as the official language  (on coins and inscriptions) instead of 
Tokharian. But considering the relations between the Gasiani, the predecessor 
of the Kushans and the Sacae tribes, it is easy to understand why the Kushans 
used a language similar to the one used by the Khotanese. It is not at all 
surprising that only the Gasiani who settled in some of the oases around the 
Tarim Basin continued to speak their original language, because of their 
isolated circumstances there. 
Some scholars have explained the words connecting the Yuezhi 月氏 or the Kushans as 
coming from the Turkic languages, thus concluding that the language of the Kushans was from 
the Türkic language branch.
In my opinion, this theory is inadequate. In the Zhoushu 周書, ch. 50, it is recorded that: 
“The ancestors [of the Türks] came from the state of Suo 索.”
It has been suggested that “Suo 
索” [sheak] is a transcription of “Sacae.” In other words, it may be possible that the ancestors of 
the Türks originally were kin of the Sacae. If this is true, it would not be difficult to understand 
why some words and titles connected with the Yuezhi 月氏 or the Kushans can be explaned by 
the Türkic languages. In the Rājataraṅgiṇī (I, 170) there is a reference to the fact that the Türkic 
ruler in Gandhāra claimed his ancestor was Kaniṣka, and maybe this is not merely boasting. 
Because some words used by the Kushans were the same as those of the Sacae in India, 
some words especially can be explained with the so-call Khotanese. Some scholars, therefore, 
have judged that the language of the Kushans was the Iranian language.
In my opinion, this 
theory is inadequate, for the following reasons. 
First, the Kushans were a branch of the Sacae, a tribal union composed of at least four 
tribes, i.e., Asii, Gasiani, Tochari and Sacarauli. Of these there were some tribes who spoke the 
Iranian language, but also some who spoke Indo-European languages other than the Iranian 
language, e.g., the Tochari. The Sacae people in ancient India and Khotan were not necessarily 
the Gasiani. 
Second, from the earlier homeland, through the course of the migration of the Asii and 
others, it can be seen that the groups had close relationships with one another. It is possible that 
some of their words (especially official titles) were identical. Therefore, we should not judge that

those using these words belonged to the same language branch only through the discovery of 
some common words. 
Third, since the tribes that spoke Tokharian were in close contact wrth the tribes that 
spoke the Iranian language, how can we know that the words connected to the Kushans that can 
be explained with Iranian did originally not come from Tokharian? It is possible that we cannot 
prove it, only because the extant Tokharian writings are few in number, and are dated to a later 
time. 
The above statement on the origin of the Kushans is only an effort based on existing data. 
Obviously, the hypothesis being pointed out here is by no means the sole possibility. For 
example, the Gasiani who moved south from the northern bank of the Syr Darya and participated 
in destroying the Hellenic kingdom of Bactria are not necessarily the Yuzhi 禺知 who came from 
the east. The possibility cannot be ruled out that they were those who remained in Central Asia 
when the Guti moved east. That is why these Guti or Gasiani could not speak Tokharian B from 
the earlier period. The above possibility, rather than others, is stressed in this paper, only because 
it has a broad base of historical data to support it.
http://sino-platonic.org/complete/spp212_kushan_guishuang.pdf



Edited by TheAlaniDragonRising - 08-Jun-2012 at 06:16
What a handsome figure of a dragon. No wonder I fall madly in love with the Alani Dragon now, the avatar, it's a gorgeous dragon picture.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Baron
Baron

BANNED TROLL

Joined: 25-Dec-2013
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 387
  Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Jan-2014 at 01:53
Wiki has info on The Kushans, which appears to me to be accurate:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kushan_Empire.
The Kushan Empire (Sanskrit: कुषाण राजवंश, Kuṣāṇ Rājavaṃśa; BHS: Guṣāṇa-vaṃśa; Parthian: Kušanxšaθr[3]) was an empire in South Asia originally formed in the early 1st century CE under Kujula Kadphises in the territories of ancient Bactria around the Oxus River (Amu Darya), and later based near Kabul, Afghanistan.[4] The Kushans spread from the Kabul River Valley to defeat other Central Asian tribes that had previously conquered parts of the northern central Iranian Plateau once ruled by the Parthians, and reached their peak under the Buddhist emperor Kanishka (127–151), whose realm stretched from Turfan in the Tarim Basin to Pataliputra on the Gangetic Plain."[2]

The Kushans were one of five branches of the Yuezhi confederation,[5][6] a possibly Tocharian,[7] Indo-European[8] nomadic people who had migrated from the Tarim Basin and settled in ancient Bactria.[6] They may also have been of Iranian origin.[9] During the 1st and early 2nd centuries CE, the Kushans expanded across the northern parts of the Indian subcontinent at least as far as Saketa and Sarnath near Varanasi (Benares), where inscriptions have been found dating to the era of the Kushan emperor Kanishka, which began about 127 CE [10][11][12] Around 152 CE, Kanishka sent his armies north of the Karakoram mountains. They captured territories as far as Kashgar, Khotan and Yarkant, in the Tarim Basin of modern-day Xinjiang, China. A direct road from Gandhara to China was opened which remained under Kushan control for more than 100 years. The security offered by the Kushans encouraged travel across the Khunjerab Pass and facilitated the spread of Mahayana Buddhism to China.

The Kushan dynasty had diplomatic contacts with the Roman Empire, Sassanid Persia and Han China. While much philosophy, art, and science was created within its borders, the only textual record we have of the empire's history today comes from inscriptions and accounts in other languages, particularly Chinese.[13] The Kushan control fragmented into semi-independent kingdoms in the 3rd century CE, which fell to the Sassanians who targeted from the west. In the fourth century, the Guptas, an Indian dynasty also pressed from the east. The last of the Kushan and Sassanian kingdoms were eventually overwhelmed by the Hepthalites, another Indo-European people from the north.[2]
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.092 seconds.