1

Itihāsa of Bhāratam Janam: Vessa were Yuezhi, Kushana túṣāra,

Meluhha (Mleccha) merchants of Bronze Age in Eurasia

According to Zhang Guang-da, the name Yuezhi is a transliteration of their own name for

themselves, the Visha ("the tribes") or Vèsh in modern Pashto meaning "divisions", being called

the Vijaya in Tibetan.(History of civilizations of Central Asia, volume III: Zhang Guang-da, The

city-states of the Tarim Basin, p. 284). Visha were vessā part of the four-fold grouping of a

community in ancient times and principally engaged in trading activities in Meluhha caravans or

as seafaring Meluhha: khattiyā brāhmaṇā vessā suddā (Pali).

Yuezhi are usually identified with the Tókharoi (Τοχάριοι), named by Greek historians among

the conquerors of the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom in the 2nd century BCE. (Millward, James A.

(2007). Eurasian Crossroads: A History of Xinjiang. Columbia University Press, New York. p.

15.)

Who were the Tókharoi? They were túṣāra, tushara. Their lineage are likely to have been

involved in the dissemination of Sanghata-sutra which is a very long Bauddham text mostly

dealing with the merit accruing from reciting, copying, etc., the text itself, but containing a

number of interesting parables. Many complete folios and numerous fragments are extant. The

gloss sanghata is instructive. This is a rebus representation of the Indus script hieroglyph:

sangaDa 'lathe, portable furnace' which is frequently deployed to denote metalwork catalogs in

Indus Script Corpora which are Meluhha texts written in mlecchita vikalpa, 'Meluhha cipher'.

Varahamihira explains the phrase Vajra sanghAta as: 'adamantine glue' in archaeometallurgical

terms which is consistent with the rendering of semantics of Bhāratam Janam as 'metalcaster

folk' in Rigveda.

Sangar

'fortification', Afghanistan (evoking the citadels and fortifications at hundreds of archaeological

sites of Sarasvati-Sindhu civilization).

Sanghata Sutra (Ārya Sanghāta Sūtra; Devanagari, ) is a Mahāyāna Buddhist

scripture widely circulated in northwest India and Central Asia. Manuscripts of the Sanghāta

have been recovered in Gilgit (in 1931 and 1938), Khotan, Dunhuang, and other sites in Central

Asia along the silk route. Translations appear in Khotanese, Sogdian, Chinese, Tibetan and

English. "In standard Sanskrit, sanghāta is a term meaning the ‘fitting and joining of timbers’ or

‘the work done by a carpenter in joining two pieces of wood,’ and can refer to carpentry in

general. It has a specialized use in a few Buddhist Sanskrit texts, where it means ‘vessel’ or ‘jar,’

2

and this image of ‘something that contains’ is evoked several times within the sutra, when

Buddha calls the Sanghāta a ‘treasury of Dharma.’

Whether we take sanghāta as having the sense of joining or connecting that it has in standard

Sanskrit, or the sense of holding or containing that it can have in Buddhist Sanskrit, the question

remains as to just what is connected or held. One possible interpretation is that what is connected

are sentient beings, and they are joined or connected by the Sanghāta to enlightenment. This

suggestion—that what the Sanghāta joins is sentient beings to enlightenment—was offered by

Kirti Tsenshab Rinpoche during an oral transmission of the text in 2003. In this, we find an idea

that we readers and reciters are the material that the Sanghāta is working on, as it shapes us, and

connects us to our enlightenment in such a way that we will never turn back. This, indeed, is

what Sarvashura initially requests the Buddha to give: a teaching that can ensure that the young

ones are never disconnected from their path to

enlightenment." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanghata_Sutra

Source: Janos Harmatta (Editor), B. N. Puri (Editor), G. F. Etemadi (Editor), 1994, History of

Civilizations of Central Asia: The Development of Sedentary and Nomadic Civilizations, 700

BCE to 250 CE, Unesco, p.399.

Contributors: A. H. Dani, UNESCO Staff, M. S. Asimov, B. A. Litvinsky, Guang-da Zhang, R.

Shabani Samghabadi, C. E. Bosworth, Unesco, 01-Jan-1994 - 574 pages. Volume II presents an

account of various population movements and cultural exchanges in Central Asia between 700

B.C. and 250 A.D. Important nomadic tribal cultures such as the Kushans emerged during this

period. Contacts between the Mediterranean and the Indus Valley were reinforced by the

campaigns of Alexander the Great and, under his successors, the progressive syncretism between

Zoroastrianism, Greek religion and Buddhism gave rise to a new civilization instituted by the

Parthians, known for its artistic creations. Under Kushan rule, Central Asia became the

crossroads of a prosperous trade between the Mediterranean and China along the Silk Route.

3

Yuezhi were Tocharian-speakers. Christopher Beckwith's narrative on Central Eurasian history

begins with the chariot warriors and the Proto-Indo-Europeans in the late 3rd millennium

BCE. Christopher Beckwith argues that the character 月, usually read as Old Chinese *ŋʷjat >

Mod. yuè, could have been pronounced in an archaic northwestern dialect

as *tokwar or *togwar, a form that resembles the Bactrian name Toχοαρ (Toχwar ~ Tuχwar) and

the medieval form Toχar ~ Toχâr.(Beckwith, Christopher I. (2009). Empires of the Silk Road: A

History of Central Eurasia from the Bronze Age to the Present. Princeton University Press, page

5, footnote #16, as well as pages 380–383 in appendix B.) Christopher Beckwith "equates the

Tokharians with the Yuezhi, and the Wusun with the Asvins, as if these are established facts, and

refers to his arguments in appendix B. But these identifications remain controversial, rather than

established, for most scholars." As succinctly sumamrised by Doug Hitch, Christopher Beckwith

proposes three migratory waves of languages from Urheimat (the PIE homeland): wave A with

one set of stop consonants (Tocharian, Anatolian), wave B with three (Germanic, Italic, Greek,

Indic, Armenian), and wave C with two (Celtic, Slavic, Baltic, Albanian, Iranian)(p.365).(Hitch,

Doug (2010). "Empires of the Silk Road: A History of Central Eurasia from the Bronze Age to

the Present" in: Journal of the American Oriental Society 130 (4): 654–658.)

http://www.ynlc.ca/ynlc/staff/hitch/review_of_Beckwith.pdf (Embedded) https://www.scribd.co

m/doc/269518451/Review-of-Christopher-Beckwith-s-Empires-of-the-Silk-Road-A-history-of-

central-Eurasdia-from-th-Bronze-Age-to-the-Present-JAOS-130-4-2010-pp-65

For the pronunciation of Mod. yuè, as *togwar (cognate túṣāra) see: Baxter, William H.

(1992). A Handbook of Old Chinese Phonology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. p. 806.

Thus, yuè-zhi were indeed Tushara of Vedic texts,

túṣāra m. sg. and pl. ʻ frost, snow, mist, dew, thin rain ʼ MBh., adj. ʻ cold ʼ Kālid.

Pk. tusāra -- n. ʻ hoarfrost, snow ʼ; Ku. tusyāro, tos ʻ frost ʼ (y?); N. tusāro ʻ snow, hoarfrost,

dew ʼ; B. tusār ʻ cold, dew, drizzle ʼ; H. tusār ʻ cold ʼ, m. ʻ cold, frost, snow, ice, hail, dew, mist,

thin rain, blight, crop ripening in cold season ʼ, tusārā, °rū ʻ cold, frosty ʼ; M. tusār, °rā m. ʻ

drizzle ʼ; Si. tusara ʻ dew, mist ʼ, adj. ʻ cold ʼ. -- K. tū run ʻ to freeze ʼ < *tuhār -- ?(CDIAL

5894). It is suggested that the Tókharoi derived their self-designation from the gloss: túṣāra,

'frost, snow' considering the snow-clad Himalayan ranges of Xinjiang they migrated to and

settled in.

They were "...Tusharas, also known as the Tukharas or Tócharoi, were a tribe of ancient India,

with a kingdom located in the north west of India, according to the epic Mahabharata. An

account in Mbh 1:85 depicts the Tusharas as Mlechchas and the descendants of Anu, one of the

cursed sons of king Yayati. Yayati's eldest son Yadu, gave rise to the Yadavas and youngest

son Puru to the Pauravas that includes the Kurus and Panchalas. Only the fifth son of Puru's line

was considered to be the successors of Yayati's throne, as he cursed the other four sons and

denied them kingship. Pauravas inherited the Yayati's original empire and stayed in the Gangetic

plainwho later created the Kuru and Panchala Kingdoms. They were followers of the Vedic

culture. The Yadavas made central and western India their stronghold. The descendants of Anu,

known as the Anavas, are said to have migrated to Iran."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tushara_Kingdom

4

Puranic traditions (Bhagavata Purana) say that Budha, the patriarchic figure the Yadu, Turvasa,

Druhyu, Anu and Puru clans had come from Central Asia to Bharatkhand to perform

penitential rites and he espoused Ella, the daughter of Manu, by whom was born Pururavas.

Pururavas had six sons, one of whom is said to be Ayu. This Ayu or Ay is said to be the patriarch

figure of the Tartars of Central Asia as well as of the first race of the kings of China. (James

Tod, Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan, p 172.)

Pururavas and Urvasi had two sons, Ayu and Amavasu.Referring to these sons, Baudhāyana

Śrauta Sūtra 18.44:397.9 sqq records:

Ayu migrated eastwards. His (people) are the Kuru-Pancalas and the Kasi-Videhas. This is the

Ayava (migration). Amavasu migrated westwards. His (people) are the Ghandhari, Parsu and

Aratta. This is the Amavasu (migration).

Read with the Bhagavata Purana narrative, it is hypothesised that Ayu's people migrated to

Xinjiang region and were referred to as Visha ("the tribes") or Vèsh in modern Pashto meaning

"divisions" or Vijaya in Tibetan or Yuezhi in Chinese (identified with Tókharoi or Tushara).

These were the people who migrated back to Gandhara and North-west India as Kushanas -- as

shown in the Yuezi migration map from Tocharian-speaking region. It is notable that Tocharian

records the Rigvedic word ams'u (a synonym of Soma) in a phonetic variant ancu 'iron' (cf.

Georges Pinault).Rigveda also records that Soma was purchased from traders from Mujavant

mountain (which could be Mustagh Ata of Tocharian-seaking region).

Many theories have been propounded to identify the origin of Yuezhi people: The Rishikas are

said to be same as the Yuezhis (Dr V. S. Aggarwala). The Kushanas or Kanishkas are also the

same people (Dr J. C. Vidyalankara). Prof Stein says that the Tukharas were a branch of the Yue-

chi or Yuezhi. Tusharas/Tukharas (Tokharois/Tokarais) and the Yuezhi are stated to be same

people (Dr P.C. Bagchi).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Asians_in_Ancient_Indian_literature

Stein's contention that Tukharas (Tushara) were a branch of Yuezhi is consistent with Ayu

peoples' migration to Xinjiang as Tartars, the first race of the kings of China. This is

corroborated by the statement in Vayu Purana and Matsya Purana, that river Chakshu (Oxus)

flowed through the countries of Tusharas (Rishikas?), Lampakas, Pahlavas, Paradas and Shakas

etc.

These Tushara mleccha (Meluhha) were the people of Sarasvati_Sindhu Civilization who created

the Indus Script Corpora.

The Chinese kept referring to the Kushans as Da Yuezhi throughout the centuries. In

the Sanguozhi (三國志, chap. 3), it is recorded that in 229 CE, "The king of the Da Yuezhi,

Bodiao 波調 (Vasudeva I), sent his envoy to present tribute, and His Majesty (EmperorCao Rui)

granted him the title of King of the Da Yuezhi Intimate with the Wei (魏) (Ch: 親魏大月氏王,

Qīn Wèi Dà Yuèzhī Wáng)."

...

5

In a sweeping analysis of the physical types and cultures of Central Asia that he visited in 126

BCE, Zhang Qian reports that "although the states from Dayuan west to Anxi (Parthia), speak

rather different languages, their customs are generally similar and their languages mutually

intelligible. The men have deep-set eyes and profuse beards and whiskers. They are skilful at

commerce and will haggle over a fraction of a cent. Women are held in great respect, and the

men make decisions on the advice of their women."(Shiji123)(Watson 1993, p. 245. Watson,

Burton (1993), Records of the Grand Historian of China: Han Dynasty II (revised ed.)Translated

from the Shiji of Sima Qian., p. 245)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuezhi

"The Great Yuezhi [Kushans] is located about seven thousand li (about 3000 km) north of India.

Their land is at a high altitude; the climate is dry; the region is remote. The king of the state calls

himself "son of heaven". There are so many riding horses in that country that the number often

reaches several hundred thousand. City layouts and palaces are quite similar to those

of Daqin (the Roman empire). The skin of the people there is reddish white. People are skilful at

horse archery. Local products, rarities, treasures, clothing, and upholstery are very good, and

even India cannot compare with it." [Benjamin, Craig (October 2003). "The Yuezhi Migration

and Sogdia". Transoxiana Webfestschrift (Transoxiana) 1 (Ēran ud Anērān).] Note: Craig

Benjamin's article "The Yuezhi Migration and Sogdia"is embedded for ready reference.

These textual references indicating indicate that Yuezhi were traders, that they dealt with

handicrafts and 'rarities, treasures', which was the hall-mark of Meluhha who have created

metalwork catalogues as Indus Script Corpora with about 7000 inscriptions. Yuezhi were the

Meluhha (mleccha). They were the vessa, vēsa, Vaiśya 'traders' (cognate Yuezhi). They could

also have included the ivory-carvers of Begram who moved to Kankali-Tila, Mathura, Bharhut,

Sanchi to create the architectural marvels of Stupa and Torana with Indus Script hierolyphs

venerating dharma-dhamma.

Yuezhi or Rouzhi (Chinese: 月氏; pinyin: Yuèzhī, Wade–Giles Yüeh-chih) were an ancient Indo-

European people. (Loewe, Michael; Shaughnessy, Edward L. (1999). The Cambridge History of

Ancient China: From the Origins of Civilization to 221 BC. Cambridge University Press. pp. 87–

88.). These were Meluhha speakers who had settled in the grasslands of Tarim Basin area which

is today Xinjiang and western Gansu, in China. Yuezhi or Tókharoi (Τοχάριοι) or Tushara,

migrated to Bactria and founded the Kushan Empire, which 'stretched from Turfan in the Tarim

basin to Pataliputra on the Gangetic plain at its greatest extent, and played an important role in

the development of the Silk Road and the transmission of Buddhism to

China." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuezhi

In the Indian tradition, the Yuezhi can be called the chandra-vams'i since the name Yuezi in

Chinese is formed with yuè (月) "moon" and shì (氏) "clan".

The Yuezhi were organized into five major tribes, each led by a yabgu, or tribal chief, and

known to the Chinese as Xiūmì (休密) in Western Wakhān and Zibak, Guishuang (貴霜) in

Badakhshan and the adjoining territories north of the Oxus, Shuangmi (雙靡) in the region of

Shughnan, Xidun (肸頓) in the region of Balkh, and Dūmì (都密) in the region of Termez.(Hill,

John E. (2003). The Peoples of the West from the Weilüe 魏略 by Yu Huan 魚豢: A Third

6

Century Chinese Account Composed between 239 and 265 CE. Draft annotated English

translation,pp. 29, 318–350).

It is notable that ancient Indian tradition also divided the community into five groups, panchal,

five artisans, each guild led by a chief.There is a gloss in Sumerian and Gujarati (Indian

sprachbund) denoting a pilgrim's companion: sanga 'priest'(Sumerian/Akkadian); sanghvi

(Gujarati).

pañca-kammāḷar , n. < pañcantaṭṭāṉ, kaṉṉāṉ, ciṟpaṉ, taccaṉ, kollaṉ;

, , ,

. ( . அ .) அ añcu-pañcalattār , n. < அ +

. Pañca-kammāḷar, the five artisan classes; . (I. M. P. Cg.

371.) pañcālá m. ʻ name of a tribe in North India ʼ ŚBr.

Pk. paṁcāla -- m. ʻ id. ʼ; K. panzāl m. ʻ the Pīr Panjāl range south of the valley of Kashmir

ʼ.(CDIAL 7680) pāˊñcāla ʻ of the Pañcālas ʼ MBh. [pañcāla -- ] H. p cāl ʻ clever, deceitful

ʼ?(CDIAL 8029) pāñcāla a. (- f.) Belonging to or ruling over the Pañchālas. - 1 The

country of the Pañchālas. -2 A prince of the Pañchālas. - m. (pl.) 1 The people of the

Pañchālas. -2 An association of five guilds (i e. of a carpenter, weaver, barber, washer- man, and

shoe-maker). pāñcālaka a. Belonging to the people of the Pañchālas. - A king of

that country. pāñcālī 1 A woman or princess of the Pañchālas. -2 N. of Draupadī, the

wife of the Pāṇḍavas. (Samskritam. Apte)

7

The migrations of the Yuezhi through Central Asia, from around 176 BCE to 30 CE

ش es ,s.m. (2nd) Division, share, distribution, portion. 2. A division or interchange of lands وی

peculiar to Yūsufzīs and a few other clans, a kind of agrarian law.

Pl. ه شون شل .es ūnah وی es al, verb trans. To divide, to share, to distribute, to portion, to وی

apportion, to distribute. Pres. شي شه es ī; past وی شي .u- es ah; fut ؤ وی ه وی u bah ؤ ب

es ī; imp. شه es ūnaey; past ویشوني es ūnkaey or ویشون ي .u- es ah; act. part ؤ وی

part. ویش ي es alaey; verb. n. نه ش es ana h. (Pashto) وی

VIŚ ʻ enter, settle in ʼ:vēśá1 m. ʻ inhabitant (of a víś -- ), neighbour ʼ RV. [víś -- f. ʻ tribe,

habitation ʼ RV. -- √viś] Kho. Kal.rumb. gram -- bešu ʻ neighbour ʼ (< *vēśaka -- BelvalkarVol

90).(CDIAL 12124) vḗśa2 m. ʻ habitation ʼ VS. (= víś -- : VS. vḗśān dhāraya ~ RV. viśā ṁ

dh rtr -- ), ʻ house ʼ Daś. -- See vēśa -- 3. [√viś](CDIAL 12125) vēśíya metr. for vēśyà -- m. ʻ

inhabitant ʼ RV. [vḗśa -- 2] Kt. vušī ʻ neighbour ʼ (Rep1 57 < vēśin -- ).(CDIAL

12127) vaíśya m. ʻ peasant as member of the third caste ʼ RV. adj. ʻ belonging to such ʼ MBh.

(n. ʻ vassalage ʼ TS.). [vḗśa -- 1 or vēśyà --] Pa. vessa -- m., °sī -- , °sikā -- f. ʻ member of the

third caste ʼ, Pk. vessa -- , vēsa -- m., vēsī -- f.; Si. vessā, st. ves<-> ʻ merchant ʼ; -- A. behā ʻ

trade ʼ. vaiśyavr tti -- Add. 14810.(CDIAL 12150). Vessa [cp. Vedic vaiśya, a dial. (local) word]

a Vaiśya, i. e. a member of the third social (i. e. lower) grade (see vaṇṇa 6), a man of the people

D iii.81, 95 (origin); Si.102, 166; iv.219; v.51; A i.162; ii.194; iii.214, 242; Vbh 394; DA i.254

8

(origin). -- f. vesī (q. v.); vessī (as a member of that caste) D i.193; A iii.226, 229.Vessikā (f.) [fr.

vessa] a Vaiśya woman Sn 314.(Pali)

Vaṇṇa [cp. Vedic varṇa, of vṛ: see vuṇāti. Customary definition as "vaṇṇane" at Dhtp 572]

appearance etc. (lit. "cover, coating"). There is a considerable fluctuation of meaning, especially

between meanings 2, 3, 4. One may group as follows. -- 1. colour Sn 447 (meda˚); S v.216

(chavi˚ of the skin); A iii.324 (sankha˚); Th 1, 13 (nīl'abbha˚); Vv 4510 (danta˚=ivory white);

Pv iv.39; DhA ii.3 (aruṇa˚); SnA 319 (chavi˚); VvA 2 (vicitta˚); PvA 215. Six colours are usually

enumd as vaṇṇā, viz.nīla pīta lohitaka odāta mañjeṭṭha pabhassara Ps i.126; cp. the 6 colours

under rūpa at Dhs 617 (where kāḷaka for pabbassara); J i.12 (chabbaṇṇa -- buddha -- rasmiyo).

Groups of five see under pañca 3 (cp. J i.222). -- dubbaṇṇa of bad colour, ugly S i.94; A v.61; Ud

76; Sn 426; It 99; Pug 33; VvA 9; PvA 32, 68. Opp.suvaṇṇa of beautiful colour, lovely A v.61; It

99. Also as term for "silver." -- As t. t. in descriptions or analyses (perhaps better in meaning

"appearance") in abl.vaṇṇato by colour, with saṇṭhānato and others: Vism 184 ("kāḷa vā odāta vā

manguracchavi vā"), 243=VbhA 225; Nett 27. -- 2. appearance S i.115 (kassaka -- vaṇṇaŋ

abhinimminitvā); J i.84 (id. with māṇavaka˚); Pv ii.110 (=chavi -- vaṇṇa PvA

71); iii.32 (kanakassa sannibha); VvA 16; cp. ˚dhātu. -- 3. lustre, splendour (cp. next meaning)

D iii.143 (suvaṇṇa˚, or=1); Pv ii.962 (na koci devo vaṇṇena sambuddhaŋ

atirocati); iii.91 (suriya˚); Vv 291 (=sarīr' obhāsa VvA 122); PvA 10 (suvaṇṇa˚), 44. -- 4. beauty

(cp. vaṇṇavant) D ii.220 (abhikkanta˚); M i.142 (id.); D iii.68 (āyu+); Pv ii.910 (=rūpa --

sampatti PvA 117). Sometimes combd with other ideals, as (in set of 5): āyu, sukha, yasa, sagga

A iii.47; or āyu, yasa, sukha, ādhipacca J iv.275, or (4): āyu, sukha, bala A iii.63. -- 5.

expression, look, specified as mukha˚, e. g. S iii.2, 235; iv.275 sq.; A v.342; Pv iii.91; PvA 122.

<-> 6. colour of skin, appearance of body, complexion M ii.32 (parama), 84 (seṭṭha); A iii.33

(dibba); iv.396 (id.); Sn 610 (doubtful, more likely because of its combn with sara to below 8!),

686 (anoma˚); Vism 422 (evaŋ˚=odato vā sāmo vā). Cp.˚pokkharatā. <-> In special sense applied

as distinguishing mark of race or species, thus also constituting a mark of class (caste) distinction

& translatable as "(social) grade, rank, caste" (see on term Dial. i.27, 99 sq.; cp. Vedic ārya varṇa

and dāsa varṇa RV ii.12, 9; iii.34, 9: see Zimmer, Altind. Leben 113 and in greater detail

Macdonell & Keith, Vedic Index ii.247 sq.). The customary enumn is of 4 such grades,

viz. khattiyā brāhmaṇā vessā suddā Vin ii.239; A iv.202; M ii.128, but cp. Dial. i.99 sq. -- See

also Vin iv.243 (here applied as general term of "grade" to the alms -- bowls: tayo pattassa

vaṇṇā, viz. ukkaṭṭha, majjhima, omaka; cp. below 7); D i.13, 91; J vi.334; Miln 225 (khattiya˚,

brāhmaṇa˚). -- 7. kind, sort Miln 128 (nānā˚), cp. Vin iv.243, as mentioned under 6. -- 8. timbre

(i. e. appearance) of voice, contrasted to sara intonation, accent; may occasionally be taken as

"vowel." See A i.229 (+sara); iv.307 (id.); Sn 610 (id., but may mean "colour of skin": see 6),

1132 (giraŋ vaṇṇ' upasaŋhitaŋ, better than meaning "comment"); Miln 340 (+sara). <-> 9.

constitution, likeness, property; adj. ( -- ˚) "like": aggi˚ like fire Pviii.66 (=aggi -- sadisa PvA

203). -- 10. ("good impression") praise DhA i.115 (magga˚); usually combd and contrasted

with avaṇṇa blame, e. g. D i.1, 117, 174; A i.89; ii.3; iii.264; iv.179, 345; DA i.37. -- 11. reason

("outward appearance") S i.206 (=kāraṇa K.S. i.320); Vv 846 (=kāraṇa VvA 336); Pv iv.16 (id.

PvA 220); iv.148.-- āroha (large) extent of beauty Sn 420. -- kasiṇa the colour circle in the

practice of meditation VbhA 251. -- kāraka (avaṇṇe) one who makes something (unsightly)

appear beautiful J v.270. -- da giving colour, i. e. beauty Sn 297. -- dada giving beauty A ii.64. --

dasaka the ten (years) of complexion or beauty (the 3rd decade in the life of man) Vism 619;

J iv.497. -- dāsī "slave of beauty," courtezan, prostitute J i.156 sq., 385; ii.367,

9

380; iii.463; vi.300; DhA i.395; iv.88. -- dhātu composition or condition of appearance, specific

form, material form, natural beauty S i.131; Pv i.31; PvA 137 (=chavivaṇṇa); DhsA 15. --

patha see vaṇṇu˚.-- pokkharatā beauty of complexion D i.114, 115; A i.38; ii.203; Pug 66; VbhA

486 (defd); DhA iii.389; PvA 46. -- bhū place of praise J i.84 (for ˚bhūmi: see bhū2). --

bhūta being of a (natural) species PvA 97. -- vādin saying praise, praising D i.179, 206; A ii.27;

V.164 sq.; Vin ii.197. -- sampanna endowed with beauty A i.244 sq., 288; ii.250 sq.(Pali)

[p= 732,2] (or ) cl.1 P. , to go Dha1tup. xvii , 71 (= √ q.v.) to enter , enter in

or settle down on , go into to enter (a

house &c ) Hariv. ; f. (m. only L. ; nom. sg. / ; loc. pl. /उ) a settlement , homestead ,

house , dwelling ( / / " lord of the house " applied to and ) RV.(sg.

and pl.) the people κατ ᾽ , ἕξοχ ήν , (in the sense of those who settle on the soil

; sg. also " a man of the third caste " , a ; with or or &c , " lord of

the people " , a king , sovereign) S3Br. &c(pl.) property , wealth BhP.mf. a man in general ,

person L.

viṣaya m. ʻ scope ʼ ŚāṅkhŚr., ʻ sphere, region ʼ MBh. [√viṣ] Pa. Pk. visaya -- m. ʻ sphere,

locality ʼ; -- Si. visā ʻ district ʼ (EGS 166) ← Pa.?(CDIAL 11973) vḗṣa -- 1 m. ʻ work, activity ʼ

VS. [√viṣ]

[p= 997,1] a country with more than 100 villages L.; m. (ifc. f( ). ; prob. either fr √1. , " to act " , or fr. + √ , " to extend " cf. Pa1n2. 8-3 , 70 Sch.) sphere (of influence or activity)

, dominion , kingdom , territory , region , district , country , abode (pl. = lands ,

possessions) Mn. MBh. &c; special sphere or department , peculiar province or field of action ,

peculiar element , concern (ifc. = " concerned with , belonging to , intently engaged on " ; , with gen. or ifc. = " in the sphere of , with regard or reference to " ; , " with regard to

this object ") MBh. Ka1v. &c; a symbolical N. of the number " five " VarBr2S.anything

perceptible by the senses , any object of affection or concern or attention , any special worldly

object or aim or matter or business , (pl.) sensual enjoyments ,

sensuality Kat2hUp. Mn. MBh. &c

kauśa a. (- f.) [ - ] 1 Silken; Bhāg.3.4.7.-2 Made of Kuśa grass.- An epithet

of Kānya- kubja. [ ; - , ] 1 An island. -

2 A place of refuge, shelter, pro- tection. -3 A division of the terrestrial world; (the number of

these divisions varies according to different authorities, being four, seven, nine or thirteen, all

situated round the mountain Meru like the petals of a lotus flower, and each being separated from

the other by a distinct ocean. [In N. 1.5 the Dvīpas are said to be eighteen; but seven appears to

be the usual number :- , , , , , and ; cf. Bhāg.5.1.32; R.1.65; and Ś.7.33. The central one is in which is included

10

or India.] [p= 296,3] m. grass S3Br. S3a1n3khS3r. Ka1tyS3r. A1s3vGr2. the

sacred grass used at certain religious ceremonies (Poa cynosuroides , a grass with long pointed

stalks) Mn. Ya1jn5. MBh. &cf. a rope (made of grass) used for connecting the yoke of a

plough with the pole L. (= ) a small pin (used as a mark in recitation and consisting of

wood [ MaitrS. iv] or of metal [TBr. i S3Br. iii]) f. a ploughshare L. f. ( Pa1n2. 8-3 , 46) a

small pin or piece of wood (used as a mark in recitation) La1t2y. ii , 6 , 1 and 4 (Monier-

Williams)

Wall painting of "Tocharian Princes" from Cave of the Sixteen Sword-Bearers (no. 8), Qizil,

Tarim Basin, Xinjiang, China. Carbon 14 date: 432–538 CE. Original in Museum für Indische

Kunst, Berlin.

11

Possible Yuezhi king and attendants, Gandhara stone palette, 1st century CE

12

Shu-ilishu cylinder seal of eme-bal, interpreter. Akkadian. Cylinder seal Impression. Inscription

records that it belongs to ‘S’u-ilis’u, Meluhha interpreter’, i.e., translator of the Meluhhan

language (EME.BAL.ME.LUH.HA.KI) The Meluhhan being introduced carries an goat on his

arm. Musee du Louvre. Ao 22 310, Collection De Clercq 3rd

millennium BCE. The Meluhhan is

accompanied by a lady carrying a kamaṇḍalu. The goat on the trader's hand is a phonetic

determinant -- that he is Meluhha. This is decrypted based on the word for the goat: mlekh 'goat'

(Brahui); mr..eka 'goat' (Telugu) Rebus: mleccha'copper' (Samskritam); milakkhu 'copper' (Pali)

Thus the sea-faring merchant carrying the goat is a copper (and tin) trader from Meluhha. The jar

carried by the accompanying person is a liquid measure:ranku 'liquid measure' Rebus: ranku 'tin'.

A hieroglyph used to denote ranku may be seen on the two pure tin ingots found in a shipwreck

in Haifa. See Annex on Tarim Basin mummies and Meluhha speakers.

13

Elamite, holding a goat (Gold, silver cire perduestatues) ca. 1400 BCE. mlekh, mr..eka 'goat'

(Brahui.Telugu) Rebus: milakkhu 'Meluhha, mleccha' 'copper' (Pali)

14

Meluhha (Bhāratam Janam) trade routes 1. From Hanoi to West of Sindhu to Haifa (assur

meluhha)and 2. Eurasia (túṣāra meluhha)

15

[quote]From the sixth century BCE, land and river routes criss-crossed the subcontinent and

extended in various directions – overland into Central Asia and beyond, and overseas, from ports

that dotted the coastline – extending across the Arabian Sea to East and North Africa and West

Asia, and through the Bay of Bengal to Southeast Asia and China. Rulers often attempted to

control these routes, possibly by offering protection for a price.

Those who traversed these routes included peddlers who probably travelled on foot and

merchants who travelled with caravans of bullock carts and pack-animals. Also, there were

seafarers, whose ventures were risky but highly profitable. Successful merchants, designated as

masattuvan

in Tamil and setthisand satthavahasin Prakrit, could become enormously rich. A wide range of

goods were carried from one place to another – salt,

grain, cloth, metal ores and finished products, stone, timber, medicinal plants, to name a few.

Spices, especially pepper, were in high demand in

the Roman Empire, as were textiles and medicinal plants, and these were all transported across

the Arabian Sea to the Mediterranean.

Items traded

Recent archaeological finds suggest that copper was also probably brought from Oman, on the

southeastern tip of the Arabian peninsula. Chemical

analyses have shown that both the Omani copper and Harappan artefacts have traces of nickel,

suggesting a common origin.

There are other traces of contact as well. A distinctive type of vessel, a large Harappan jar

coated with a thick layer of black clay has been found at Omani sites. Such thick coatings

prevent the percolation of liquids. We do not know what was carried in these vessels, but it is

possible that the Harappans exchanged the contents of these vessels for Omani copper.

Mesopotamian texts datable to the third millennium BCE refer to copper coming from a region

16

called Magan, perhaps a name for Oman, and interestingly enough copper found at

Mesopotamian sites also contains traces of nickel.

Other archaeological finds suggestive of long distance contacts include Harappan seals, weights,

dice and beads. In this context, it is worth noting that Mesopotamian texts mention contact with

regions named Dilmun (probably the island of Bahrain), Magan and Meluhha, possibly the

Harappan region. They mention the products from Meluhha: carnelian, lapis lazuli, copper, gold,

and varieties of wood.

17

A Mesopotamian myth says of Meluhha: “May your bird be the haja-bird, may its call be heard

in the royal palace.” Some archaeologists think the

haja-bird was the peacock. Did it get this name from its call? It is likely that

communication with Oman, Bahrain or Mesopotamia was by sea. Mesopotamian texts refer to

Meluhha as a land of seafarers. Besides,we find depictions of ships and boats on seals. [unquote]

See: http://www.quora.com/Did-ancient-India-trade

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Annex: Tarim Basin mummies and Meluhha speakers

Some Tarim mummies on trade caravans spoke Mleccha (Meluhha) before they were mummies

Mirror:https://www.academia.edu/11382844/Some_Tarim_mummies_on_trade_caravans_spoke

_Mleccha_Meluhha_before_they_were_mummies

This hypothesis needs to be tested by archaeometallurgical and historical linguistic studies from

an extended area from Ancient Far East to Ancient Near East. This is also an imperative in the

context of a new start for Vedic and IE studies. Evidence of contact between Vedic and

Tocharian has already been attested in the cognate expressions: ams'u (Vedic), ancu (Tocharian).

25

The circular stones in funerary practices unite Tocharian and Dholavira. By the 6th century CE,

the Brihat Samhita of Varahamihira also locates the Tusharas with Barukachcha (Bhroach) and

Barbaricum (on the IndusDelta) near the sea in western

India: bharukaccha.samudra.romaka.tushrah.. :(BrhatsamhitaXVI.6). If contacts with area lived

in by speakers of Kafiri (Nuristani) was a transit point, Tushara could also have arrived to settle

in Barukachcha from this detour from Kyrgystan (Muztagh Ata), taking a caravan route south of

the Oxus (Amu Darya) river. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tushara_Kingdom

What language did the people of Sarasvati-Sindhu doab river basins (with about 2,600

archaeological sites) speak? Given the evidence of Buddhist Hybrid Samskritam (BHS) in the

Tarim Basin documents and the links between Rigvedic people and Tushara (Tocharian) in trade

transactions of Soma (synonyms, metaphors: ams'u, ancu), a proto-BHS, or Proto-Indo-Aryan, or

Early Indo-European, Mleccha (Meluhha) is suggested as the language of the metalworkers of

the Bronze Age. Mleccha, 'copper' (Samskritam) provides the profession of Mleccha-speakers,

'metal workers', also referred to by cognate expressions: Milakkha (Pali), Meluhha (Akkadian on

a Shu-ilishu cylinder seal). A reference to the metalworkers is contained in the expression used

in Rigveda to denote the people in general by Rigveda Rishi Visvamitra: Bharatam Janam, 'lit.

metalworker people'. Chandas, 'prosody' represented the liturgical version of an Indo-European

language and Mleccha/Meluhha 'parole or speech' represented the administrative version of the

language used predominantly by trader caravans (as attested by Tarim Mummies and the Tin

Road from Asshur to Kanesh in Ancient Near East), by metalworkers, in general and by

specialist cire perdue metalcasters,dhokra kamar, in particular. The expression, kamar is an

Indo-European gloss: karmāˊra m. ʻ blacksmith ʼ RV. [EWA i 176 < stem *karmar -- ~ karman -

- , but perh. with ODBL 668 ← Drav. cf. Tam. karumā ʻ smith, smelter ʼ whence meaning ʻ

smith ʼ was transferred also to karmakāra -- ] Pa. kammāra -- m. ʻ worker in metal ʼ;

Pk. kammāra -- , °aya -- m. ʻ blacksmith ʼ, A. kamār, B. kāmār; Or. kamāra ʻ blacksmith, caste

of non -- Aryans, caste of fishermen ʼ; Mth.kamār ʻ blacksmith ʼ, Si. kam burā.

Md. kan buru ʻ blacksmith ʼ.(CDIAL 2898). kamar 'artisan, smith, smelter' (Santali) karum

(Akkadian: kārum "quay, port, commercial district", plural kārū, from Sumerian kar

"fortification (of a harbor), break-water" is also perhaps an expression related to karumā 'smith,

smelter' or khārun, 'the trough into which the blacksmith allows melted iron to flow after

smelting' (Kashmiri, see below) of this Indian sprachbund.

The roots of the expression are found in Kashmiri where a number of compounds are attested

and hence provide the trade route across Karakoram and Pamir, from Muztagh Ata through

Kashmir to Sarasvati-Sindhu river basins: khār 1 । m. (sg. abl. khāra 1 ; the pl.

dat. of this word is khāran 1 , which is to be distinguished from khāran 2, q.v., s.v.), a

blacksmith, an iron worker (cf.bandūka-khār, p. 111b, l. 46; K.Pr. 46; H. xi, 17); a farrier (El.).

This word is often a part of a name, and in such case comes at the end (W. 118) as in Wahab

khār, Wahab the smith (H. ii, 12; vi, 17). khāra-basta - । f. the skin

bellows of a blacksmith. -büṭhü - &above; &below; । f. the wall of a

blacksmith's furnace or hearth. -bāy - । f. a blacksmith's wife (Gr.Gr. 34). -

d k r ; । m. a blacksmith's hammer, a sledge-hammer. - i ; or -güjü; ।

26

f. a blacksmith's furnace or hearth. -hāl - । f. (sg. dat. -höjü ;), a

blacksmith's smelting furnace; cf. hāl 5. -kūrü ; । f. a blacksmith's daughter. -

koṭ ; । m. the son of a blacksmith, esp. a skilful son, who can work at the same

profession. -küṭü -; । f. a blacksmith's daughter, esp. one who has the virtues and

qualities properly belonging to her father's profession or caste. -më˘ʦü 1 ; । f. (for 2, see [khāra 3] ), 'blacksmith's earth,' i.e. iron-ore. -n cy - &below; ।

m. a blacksmith's son. -nay - । f. (for khāranay

2, see [khār n] ), the trough into which the blacksmith allows melted iron to flow after

smelting. -ʦañ - &dotbelow;ञ । f.pl. charcoal used by blacksmiths in

their furnaces. - ān । m. a blacksmith's shop, a forge, smithy (K.Pr. 3). - aṭh -

। m. (sg. dat. - aṭas - ), the large stone used by a blacksmith as an anvil.

"Early references to karū come from the Ebla tablets; in particular, a vizier known as Ebrium

concluded the earliest treaty fully known to archaeology, known variously as the "Treaty

between Ebla and Aššur" or the "Treaty with Abarsal" (scholars have disputed whether the text

refers to Aššur or to Abarsal, an unknown location). In either case, the other city contracted to

establish karū in Eblaite territory (Syria), among other things... By 1960 BC, Assyrian merchants

had established the karū,[5] small colonial settlements next to Anatolian cities which paid taxes

to the rulers of the cities.[6] There were also smaller trade stations which were called mabartū

(singular mabartum). The number of karū and mabartū was probably around twenty. Among

them were Kültepe (Kanesh in antiquity) in modern Kayseri Province; Alişar Hüyük (Ankuva (?)

in antiquity) in modern Yozgat Province; and Boğazköy (Hattusa in antiquity) in modern Çorum

Province. (However, Alişar Hüyük was probably a mabartum.)(a metal in trade

transactions)... amutum, was even more valuable than gold. Amutum is thought to be the newly

discovered iron and was forty times more valuable than silver. The most important Anatolian

export was copper, and the Assyrian merchants sold tin and clothing to Anatolia." (Ekrem

Akurgal: Anadolu Kültür Tarihi, Tubitak, Ankara, 2000, pp. 40-41). It is possible

that amutum also relates to Vedic-Tocharian ams'u-ancu.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karum_(trade_post)

27

Letter from Assyria to karum Kanesh concerning the trade in

precious metals. 1850–1700 BC. Walters Museum (click on image for more info).

Tracing the Tarim mummies to the traditions associated with the veneration of the departed

aatman, we find a remarkable parallel in Dholavira and Harappa of stone circles associated with

death ceremonies. It is not unlikely that some of the mummies before they were mummies spoke

Mleccha (Meluhha) language, not far from Kafiri (Nuristani) which was attested as a possible

candidate by Frits Staal.(http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.in/2015/03/a-new-start-for-vedic-and-ie-

studies.html ) Sivalinga as pillars of fire, pillars of light (venerated in Atharvaveda Stambha

Sukta) are also associated with stone circles in Dholavira and Sivalinga have been found in

Harappa. If these lingas denoted Agni-Rudra by the fire-worshippers and philosophers of fire,

the historical linguistic studies should include Mleccha (Meluhha) as the administrative, spoken

language of the people in contact with the Sarasvati-Sindhu civilization area exemplified by

Indian sprachbund to record in Indus Script Corpora, metalwork catalogues. Such a spoken form

may explain the ams'u (Vedic) ~~ ancu (Tocharian) cognates to denote 'metal' (pace Georges

Pinault). Vedic ams'u is a synonym, also a metaphor for Soma.

According to Louis Renou, the immense Rigvedic collection is present in nuce in the themes

related toSoma. Rigveda mentions amśu as a synonym of soma. The possibility of a link with

Indus writing corpora which is essentially a catalog of stone-, mineral-, metalware, cannot be

ruled out.

George Pinault has found a cognate word in Tocharian, ancu which means 'iron'. I have argued

in my book, Indian alchemy, soma in the Veda, that Soma was an allegory, 'electrum' (gold-silver

compound). See: http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.in/2011/10/itihasa-and-eagle-narratives.html for

Pinault's views on ancu, amśu concordance.

28

The link with the Tocharian word is intriguing because Soma was supposed to come from Mt.

Mujavant. A cognate of Mujavant is Mustagh Ata of the Himalayan ranges in Kyrgystan.

Is it possible that the ancu of Tocharian from this mountain was indeed Soma?

The referemces to Anzu in ancient Mesopotamian tradition parallels the legends of śyena 'falcon'

which is used in Vedic tradition of Soma yajña attested archaeologically in Uttarakhand with

a śyenaciti, 'falcon-shaped' fire-altar.

http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.in/2011/11/syena-orthography.html śyena, orthography, Sasanian

iconography. Continued use of Indus Script hieroglyphs.

Comparing the allegory of soma and the legend of Anzu, the bird which stole the tablets of

destiny, I posit a hypothesis that the tablets of destiny are paralleled by the Indus writing corpora

which constitute a veritable catalog of stone-, mineral- and metal-ware in the bronze age

evolving from the chalcolithic phase of what constituted an 'industrial' revolution of ancient

times creating ingots of metal alloys and weapons and tools using metal alloys which

transformed the relation of communities with nature and resulted in the life-activities of

lapidaries transforming into miners, smiths and traders of metal artefacts.

I suggest that ayas of bronze age created a revolutionary transformation in the lives of people of

these bronze age times.

http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.in/2013/07/legend-of-anzu-which-stole-tablets-of.html

"The Tarim mummies are a series of mummies discovered in the Tarim Basin in present-day

Xinjiang, China, which date from 1800 BCE to the first centuries BCE. Many centuries separate

these mummies from the first attestation of the Tocharian languages in writing. A 2008 study by

Jilin University that the Yuansha population has relatively close relationships with the modern

populations of South Central Asia and Indus Valley, as well as with the ancient population of

Chawuhu. (Mitochondrial DNA analysis of human remains from the Yuansha site in Xinjiang

Science in China Series C: Life Sciences Volume 51, Number 3 / March, 2008). The scientists

extracted enough material to suggest the Tarim Basin was continually inhabited from 2000 BCE

to 300 BCE and preliminary results indicate the people, rather than having a single origin,

originated from Europe, Mesopotamia, Indus Valley and other regions yet to be

determined.(Amanda Huang https://archive.today/bK4h)."

http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.in/2015/03/a-new-start-for-vedic-and-ie-studies.html

"Buddhist missionaries possesed liturgical texts in what is known as Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit, a

language originating in northern India...Whether from India or greater Iran, all of these

languages were carried into the Tarim basin by religious communities or merchants from outside

the region during the 1st millennium CE. A second group of languags are associated with

documents that were not exclusively religious, but also adminsitrative. This may indicate that the

languages were spoken by considerable numbers of the local population. Buddhists in the region

of Kroran (Chinese Loulan), for example, employed an Indic language, Prakrit, in

administration. Tocharian was used both to translate Buddhist texts and as an administrative

language, which suggests that it was spoken by a wider range of people than exclusively monks.

29

Another major language was Khotanese Saka, the language spoken in the south of the Tarim

Basin at th site of Khotan as well as at northern sites suh as Tumshuq and Murtuq and possibly

Qashgar, the western gateway into the Tarim Basin...And unlike Tocharian, which became

extinct, there were small pockets of Saka speakers who survived in the Pamir Mountains...two

main languages in the Tarim Basin that might be associated with at least some of the Tarim

mummies of the Bronze Age and Iron Age: Khotanese Saka (or any other remnant of the

Scythians or the Eurasian steppe) and Tocharian...Saka belongs to the eastern branch of the

Iranian languages, which was one of he most widespread of the Indo-European family of

languages spoken in most of Europe, Iran, India, and other parts of Asia...The sub-branch to

which Saka belongs also included Sogdian, Bactrian and Avestan. Most archaeologists believe

that the Iranian languages appeared earliest in the steppelands and only later moved southward

through the agricultural oases of Central Asia into the region of modern Iran. The Iranian

language group is very closely related to Indo-Aryan, the branch of Indo-European that occupies

the northern two-thirds of India; these language groups presumably shared a common origin in

the steppe region during the Bronze Age, perhaps about 2500 BCE." (Mallory, 2010, JP, Bronze

Age languages of the Tarim Basin, Expedition, Volume 52, Number 3

http://www.penn.museum/documents/publications/expedition/pdfs/52-3/mallory.pdf pp.45-47)

Mallory goes on t provide select glosses comparing Saka with Tocharian B:

duva - wi (two)

drai - trai (three)

tcahora - s'twer (four)

hauda - sukt (seven)

sata - kante (hundre)

pate - pAcer (father)

mAta - mAcer (mother)

brAte - procer (brother)

ass- - yakwe (horse)

gguhi - keu (cow)

bar- - par- (bear, carry)

puls- - park- (ask)

In the Tarim Basin, in addition to Tocharian, administrative texts in Prakrit have been

discovered; this is an Indian language from the terroritory of Kroran; the Kroranian documents

date to ca. 300 CE providing the earliest evidence of spoken Tocharian.

Mallory continues: "From a linguistic point of view, we need to explain how languages from two

major Indo-European language groups managed to spread into the Tarim Basin, and evaluate as

far as possible whether they were the language spoken by those Bronze Age individuals whose

remains were mummified...We also know that the Saka were known to the ancient Greeks as

Scythians, and were clearly a people of the northern steppes, famous as horse-riding nomads who

periodically challenged the civilizations to their south. They are attested in historical and

archaeological sources from about the 8th century BCE...The one language group that is most

clearly anchored in the Tarim, Tocharian, lacks any obvious external source..." (ibid., pp.49-50).

The search is on to trace the movements from Andronovo or Afanasievo cultures, the way the

30

search is on for the Urheimat of PIE. Based on what Nicholas Kazanas has pointed out and

argued, the search for Urheimat for PIE may lie closer to the river basin where most of Rigveda

was composed and chanted: Sarasvati River Basin. This river basin attests a spoken,

administrative language: Mleccha (Meluhha) which may include many mispronunciations of

reconstructed IE glosses and expressions and closely associated with the Prakrits which may also

be termed Proto-Indo-Aryan. Tocharian speakers got isolated from the rest of the Indo-

Europeans but had apparent trade contacts with the Rigvedic people for exchanges of Soma

(ancu) from Mount Mujavant (Muztagh Ata) of the Tarim Basin as argued with the evidence of

cognates (Soma syonym) ams'u~~ancu pointed out by Georges Pinault.

So, with Frits Staal, Mallory and Mair have to answer the question posed earlier, why Mleccha

(Meluhha) could not be the candidate among the IE languages to explain Tocharian languages.

The concentric circles of timber posts found in Tarim Basin may also compare with concentric

circles of stones found in Ukherda and Dholavira. See also polished stone pillars found in

Dholavira and stone sivalinga found in Harappa.

Ancient graveyard, near Nakhtarna, Kutch:

anthropomorphic menhirs Ukherda burial

ground,

cemetery.

31

Barrow Cemetery in India

Near Nakhtarana in Kutch, Gujarat, there is a large cemetery and cremation ground called

Ukherda by the locals. There are also ancient hero and Sati

stones. http://www.megalithic.co.uk/article.php?sid=26370

32

Circle of stones at Dholavira.

33

Remains of Circular hutments (?) joined in 8-shape with stone pillar fragments at the centre of

each circle, close to the area where two polished stone pillars (sivalinga?) were found. Did these

circular stone remnants, denote a smithy? In Kota language (Indian sprachbund, Mleccha-

Meluhha) kole.l 'smithy, temple'.

Three stone Siva Lingas found in Harappa. Plate X [c] Lingam in situ in Trench Ai (MS Vats,

1940, Excavations at Harappa, Vol. II, Calcutta): ‘In the adjoining Trench Ai, 5 ft. 6 in. below

the surface, was found a stone lingam [Since then I have found two stone lingams of a larger

size from Trenches III and IV in this mound. Both of them are smoothed all over]. It measures 11

in. high and 7 3/8 in. diameter at the base and is rough all over.’ (Vol. I, pp. 51-52)."

Using stone slabs in cremation samskara in Vedic tradition is attested from the days of Rigveda.

"When the body is almost consumed by the fire the chief mourner carries an earthen pot (the one

in which fire was brought) filled with water on his shoulders and walks thrice round the burning

pyre. A man walks with him piercing with a stone called the ashma or life-stone a hole in the jar

out of which water spouts round the burning corpse. He finally throws the trickling water pot

backwards over the shoulders spilling the water over the ground. Then, he pours libations of

water mixed with sesamum on the ashma to cool the spirit of the dead which has been heated by

the fire. The ashma is carefully preserved for ten days. The mourners also pour such water on

34

the ashma. When the body is completely consumed, the party returns. During the first ten days,

all closely related persons belonging to the family observe mourning called

sutak." http://akola.nic.in/gazetteers/maharashtra/people_rituals.html As'ma is the symbolic stone

of the departed aatman which is used during the samskara performances lasting upto 13 days

after the cremation. 1 [p = 114 , 1] ifc. for. 2 / , a stone Pa1n2. 5-4, 94th as'man *=

2 %{A} m. (once %{azma4n} S3Br. iii), a stone, rock RV. &c.; a precious stone RV. v, 47, 3

S3Br. vi; any instrument made of stone (as a hammer &c.) RV. &c.; thunderbolt RV. &c.; a

cloud Naigh.; the firmament RV. v, 30, 8; 56, 4; vii, 88, 2 [cf. Zd. {asman}; Pers. {as2ma1n};

Lith. {akmu}; Slav. {kamy}].

http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.in/2013/06/ancient-near-east-ziggurat-and-related.html

The salty sands and freeze-drying climate of the Tarim Basin, where the mummies were found,

are highly conducive to preservation. http://www.upenn.edu/gazette/0111/feature2_1.html

35

http://atlantisonline.smfforfree2.com/index.php?topic=14315.0

A Tarim Mummy and a reconstruction.

http://dienekes.blogspot.in/2011/05/on-tocharian-origins.html

http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.in/2015/03/some-tarim-mummies-on-trade-caravans.html

Ērān ud Anērān Webfestschrift Marshak 2003

The Yuezhi Migration and Sogdia

Craig Benjamin

Introduction

Following the defeat of the formerly powerful Yuezhi confederation by the Xiongnu near

Dunhuang in c.162 BCE, the Yuezhi dynasty and those tribes that remained loyal to it

36

commenced a migration away from the Gansu that was destined to completely reshape the

geopolitics of ancient Inner Asia. Both the Han Shu and Shi Ji provide evidence of their

departure: "the Yuezhi had fled furious with the Xiongnu"1, the 'Yuezhi had fled and bore a

constant grudge against the Xiongnu'2. The decision to migrate, despite still having a force of

perhaps 100,000 armed archer warriors at their disposal is indicative of the severity of the defeat,

and also of the steadily increasing power of the Xiongnu under Maodun and Jizhu during the

preceding decades. The Yuezhi dynasty may in fact have considered such a move several times

during the fourteen years between Maodun's initial raid against them in 176, and their ultimate

defeat in 162.

Indeed, the fact that the migration seems to have been conducted in an orderly fashion suggests

something of a planned strategic relocation rather than a rout. The Yuezhi's original intention

was to move some 2000 kilometres to the northwest and resettle in the valley of the Ili River, a

region occupied by a group of Sakas (or Scythians). They had no intention, nor any idea, that this

journey would only be the first stage of a migration that ultimately would take them half away

across Central Asia, until thirty years later they would find themselves in secure occupation of

the fertile river valleys north of the Amu Darya, and masters of the former Greek kingdom of

Bactria.

Leaving the Gansu in 162 the Yuezhi headed northwest towards the Ili Valley, settling near Ysyk

Kul in present-day Kazakhstan. Corroborative evidence for this new location is provided by the

Greek geographer Ptolemy who mentions a group called the Tagouraioi (clearly a variation on

Tocharian, the Indo-European language spoken by the core Yuezhi) dwelling near Ysyk Kul3.

Russian archaeologist Yu Zadneprovsky has noted a substantial number of podboy sites in the

region, which he has tentatively identified as Yuezhi on the basis of their similarity to other

podboy tombs discovered at the Haladun site near Minqin in the Central Gansu, which he also

argues are Yuezhi. The Ysyk Kul region is rich in nomadic burial sites and some 370 tombs had

been noted by as early as 1960. Of these, 80% were in pits, and attributed to the autonomous

Sakas, and 17% in podboys, tentatively attributable to the Yuezhi4.

The Chinese sources show that the Ili/Ysyk Kul region was already populated by the Sai people,

an eastern concentration of Sakas or Scythians who probably spoke an Indo-Iranian language.

Upon arriving at the Ili, the Yuezhi quickly displaced them: (The Yuezhi) 'attacked the king of

the Sai (who) moved a considerable distance to the south and the Yuezhi then occupied his

lands'5. Most of the displaced Sakas subsequently undertook their own substantial migration,

moving west and then south through the western Tarim Basin, crossing the so-called 'Suspended

Crossing' (probably the Khunjerab Pass or similar, between present-day Xinjiang and northern

Pakistan) before ultimately settling in Kashmir6.

The Yuezhi confederation occupied the former Sakan lands in the hope of permanently resettling

there, and remained in residence for almost three decades. They no doubt felt they had

successfully relocated, having escaped the Xiongnu menace and reestablished themselves in the

fertile Ili Valley. They returned to their previous semi-nomadic, semi-sedentary lifeway and

probably began to lose interest in Chinese/nomadic politics. But the Kunmo of the Wusun, the

former neighbours of the Yuezhi in the Gansu, could not forget the ill treatment his people had

suffered as a result of a Yuezhi attack upon them in 1737. Eventually he sought permission from

his Xiongnu overlord (the new ShanyuJunchen, successor to Jizhu who had died in 158) to

pursue the Yuezhi into the Ili and 'avenge his father's wrongs'8. In 132 BCE the Kunmo led a

powerful force of mounted Wusun archers into the region which attacked and routed the no

37

doubt surprised and dismayed Yuezhi, forcing them to once again uproot and resume their long

march to the west.

The sources indicate that within a short space of time the Yuezhi passed through a region

called Dayuan 'The Yuezhi thereupon went far away, passing Dayuan and proceeding west'9 and

then through a land to the southwest called Kangju. Although the exact route remains a matter of

some conjecture, the evidence of both the Chinese annals, and of Russian and Central Asian

archaeology, leaves little doubt that the Dayuan through which the migrating horde passed can

only be identified with the Ferghana Valley10

. The Yuezhi apparently met with little resistance

from the urbanised Dayuans/Ferghanese, and after perhaps spending some months (the winter of

132/1?) in southwestern Ferghana, they passed on unmolested. Zadneprovsky has also noted

several single podboy burials that have been unearthed in the southwestern, northern and eastern

parts of the Ferghana Valley, most concentrated in the Lyailyaka-Isfara-Sokha interfluve in

southern Kyrgyzstan where over 300 podboy burials have been located. Although originally

attributed to a separate culture by Baruzdin in 1960, Zadneprovsky argues for their re-attribution

to the migrating Yuezhi, on the basis of their similarity to podboy sites also tentatively

attributable to the Yuezhi in both the Gansu and Ysyk Kul region11

.

Perhaps in the spring of 131 BCE then, the Yuezhi most probably moved from Ferghana into the

'state' of Kangju, probably the Zeravshan Valley in the heart of Sogdia. Some four or five years

later they were followed through the region by Han envoy Zhang Qian, who was led there by

guides and interpreters provided for him by the king of Dayuan. It is references to Kangju in

the Han Shu and Shi Ji (and by Ptolemy in his Geographica), as well as the discoveries of Soviet

and Russian archaeologists, that has provided evidence identifying Kangju with Sogdia, and thus

of the role of Sogdia in both the migration of the Yuezhi and the mission of Zhang Qian. The

intention of this paper is to consider the origins of the relationship that developed between the

Kangju and Yuezhi dynasties, a relationship that subsequently evolved to provide vital political

and military stability in the region throughout the Kushan Era. The initial task is to consider

evidence that allows for the conclusive identification of Kangju as Sogdia.

References to Kangju and the Yuezhi in the Han Annals

Kangju Sogdia: Location and Lifeway

Location

'The seat of the king's government in winter is in Leyuenidi to the town of Beitian. It is distant by

12,300 li from Xian. One reaches (Le)yuenidi after a journey of seven days on horseback, and it

is a distance of 9,104 li within the realm to the king's summer residence. To the east it is a

distance of 5,500 li to the Seat of the Protector General'12

.

'It is said: Some 2000 li to the northwest from Kangju is the state of Yancai. The trained bowmen

number 100,000. It has the same way of life as Kangju. It is situated on the Great Marsh, which

has no further shore and which is presumably the Northern Sea'13

.

'Kangju is situated some 2,000 li northwest of Dayuan. The country is small and borders Dayuan.

It acknowledges nominal sovereignty to the Yuezhi people in the south and the Xiongnu in the

east'14

38

'(Wusun) adjoins Kangju in the northwest'15

'(The State of Wusun) and 5000 li to the west, to land within the realm of Kangju'16

Attempts by scholars over several centuries to geographically locate and delineate Kangju have

not been helped by textual corruption in both the Han Shu and Shi Ji. And yet, although several

words and even whole sentences are missing, the information provided is still in the same order

as that for the other 'western states', so that any gaps cannot be substantial. Certainly the

distances between Xian and Beitian are not quite reconciled, and the distance from Beitian and

the king's summer capital (9104 li or 3641 kms) is surely corrupt. Hulsewe and Loewe suggest

that the text may originally have read 'ninety one li' (or 36 kilometres, although this seems too

low),17

while Pelliot noted Wang Kuowei's suggestion of 1104 li (441 kms)18

which is a more

viable figure within a country described as 'small'.

The identities of both Beitian and (Le)yueni(di) are almost impossible to determine, however,

Wang Kuowei identified the former (impossibly) with Ysyk Kul19

while Pulleyblank has argued

that the latter might 'represent some form of the name Jaxartes'20

. The distance between Beitian

and (Le)yueni(di) is described as 'seven days on horseback' in the Han Shu, which Hulsewe and

Loewe suggest equals about 500 li i.e. marches of seventy lior 28 kilometres per day through the

mountainous country of the region21

. The identification of these two principal settlements with

Samarkand and Bukhara is one obvious possibility, although the distance between the two cities

by road is about 200 or so kilometres which does not reconcile with any of the given statistics.

Pulleyblank discusses the possible Tokharian philological origin of the name 'Kangju', in his

reconstruction of 'Old Chinese' *khan-kiah. In the Tokharian vocabulary (Tokharian 1A) there is

the word kank, which means 'stone'. Thus Kangju could mean the 'Stone Country', i.e.

Samarkand (or equally Tashkend as 'Stone City')22

. A.K. Narain offers a precise geographical

location for Kangju: 'the northeastern wedge of modern Uzbekistan into Kirghiziya and

Kazakhstan; the eastern part of this wedge formed part of Dayuan'23

. This description, however,

does not allow for the inclusion of any lands south of the Syr Darya, thus excluding the entire

Zeravshan Valley, the cultural heart and population centre of Sogdia.

The information provided by the texts is hardly ambiguous, however, and clearly suggests the

identification of the 'state' of Kangju with ancient Sogdia. Kangju is to the north of the Amu

Darya and the Yuezhi's principal city of Jianshi (Khalchayan in the Surkhan Darya valley?); to

the west and northwest of the Ferghana Valley (where it also apparently adjoined the clearly very

substantial, post-132 realm of the Wusun); and southeast of the western realms of the Xiongnu

(which must therefore have included the steppes of present-day Kazakhstan). Kangju

incorporated lands on either side of the middle Syr Darya, particularly the densely occupied

Zeravshan Valley south of the Syr Darya, and must surely have included Samarkand and

Bukhara (as Shishkina also argues below). Hence, according to the textual evidence at least,

Kangju can only convincingly be located within the general geographical region of ancient

Sogdia.

Population/Size

Households: 120,000 Individuals: 600,00024

'The country is small'25

The physical dimensions of the Kangju realm may not have been vast, but the population was

substantial, which allowed the ruling dynasty to maintain a formidable military force.

39

Military Strength

Persons able to bear arms: 120,00026

'They have 80,000 or 90,000 skilled archer warriors'27

'(it) is not subject to the Protector General'28

'In the east (the inhabitants) were constrained to serve the Xiongnu'29

'It acknowledges nominal sovereignty to (Zurcher translates as 'it is subservient to')30

the Yuezhi

people in the south and the Xiongnu in the east'31

'However, Kangju felt that it was separated (from Han) by a long distance, and alone in its

arrogance it was not willing to be considered on the same terms as the various other states'32

'(He Wudi - heard that) to the north, there were (people or places) such as the Da Yuezhi and

Kangju, whose forces were strong; it would be possible to present them with gifts and hold out

advantages with which to bring them to court'33

The Chinese were clearly impressed by the strength of Kangju, finding them arrogant and

militarily self-confident. The military resources of Kangju (120,000 armed men, 80,000 - 90,000

of which were skilled and presumably mounted archers) were substantial, and would not easily

be defeated by the Han. Presumably the ruling Kangju dynasty and its pastoralist allies provided

the bulk of the mounted archer warriors, while the sedentised agriculturists of the river valleys

could be relied upon to provide the remainder. Eschewing any military option then, Zhang Qian

argued instead (in his report to Wudi) that the Kangjuans could be persuaded by Han gifts and

favours to consider becoming subjects (or at least allies) of the Chinese. In short, Kangju was

powerful and remote enough to resist Han attempts to join their tributary confederacy by military

means, but was clearly under some sort of sovereignty obligation to both the Yuezhi and the

Xiongnu.

Environment/Lifeways

'The way of life is identical with that of the Da Yuezhi'34

'Its people likewise are nomads and resemble the Yuezhi in their customs'35

'In Kangju there are five lesser kings all the five kings are subject to Kangju'36

The last reference clearly indicates that 'Kangju' should be considered both as the Han name of

the 'state' (that is the realm or region) of Kangju/Sogdia, but also of the dominant faction or

dynasty which was controlling that realm at the time (i.e. the Kangju dynasty). Shishkina agrees,

and argues that geo-political changes in Sogdia that became apparent towards the end of the

second century BCE must have been as a result of Kangju hegemony:

'The historical situation of the first century BC suggests that these changes were related to the

spread of the power of the Kangju, when this dynasty controlled Samarkand and Bukhara'37

The five lesser kings noted in the Han Shu were probably subordinate tribal groups within the

realm of 'greater Kangju', and given that all are listed as having specific 'seats of government'

(different to the two principal settlements named as belonging to the Kangju proper), may

represent sedentised, agrarian-based 'peoples' living under Kangju hegemony38

The way of life of the dominant Kangju faction was probably that of semi-nomadic militarised

pastoral nomadism, similar to the assessment of the lifeway of the Yuezhi soon after their arrival

north of the Amu Darya that Zhang Qian provided to the Han court. If the Kangju state is thus to

be identified with ancient Sogdia under Kangju dynastic hegemony, then a brief account of

Sogdian history prior to the arrival of the Yuezhi is required to identify the probable date of the

establishment of Kangju power, and also to clarify the archaeological and textual evidence of

subsequent Yuezhi/Kangju interaction.

40

Sogdian Historical Framework Prior to the Arrival of the Yuezhi

Between 553 and 550 BCE, Cyrus II (r. 559-529), a leader of the Persian Achaemenid family,

overthrew Astyages, King of the Medes, and brought Mesopotamia, Parthia and Anatolia under

his control. By 539 he had conquered Bactria and much of Sogdia as well, where he established a

line of fortresses on the Syr Darya. Sogdia was made the thirteenth satrapy of the Achaemenids,

and paid tribute to Cyrus' successors. The oldest layers of Afrasiab, the ancient site of

Samarkand, date from this Achaemenid period. But, whilst the city states of Sogdia and Bactria

gained considerably through their incorporation into the Achaemenid Empire, they remained

intent upon regaining their independence, which parts of Sogdia may have done by c. 400 BCE39

Some two centuries after Cyrus' death, Alexander of Macedon reconquered much of Central

Asia, following his arrival in Bactria in 329 BCE. Alexander's principal opponent in the region

was the Achaemenid ruler Darius' former satrap, Bessus, who had Darius murdered in modern-

day Shahr-I Qumis before proclaiming himself as his successor. Bessus' troops consisted of

armoured cavalry from Bactria and Sogdia, which, following their defeat at Gaugemela, he took

back across the Amu Darya after destroying its bridges. Alexander led his troops on forced

marches through the desert, crossed the Amu Darya on inflated hide rafts, and confronted his

opponents who immediately sued for peace.

Bessus was executed; the Macedonians installed themselves in the satrapal palace at Maracanda

(Samarkand) and Sogdia, following some seventy years of independence, found itself

incorporated into the new Macedonian Empire. But while Alexander campaigned further north

along the Syr Darya, the Sogdians, under the leadership of Spitamenes, rose in his rear and

massacred a garrison of Macedonians, inflicting arguably the worst defeat of Alexander's

career40

. Over the course of the ensuing eighteen months Alexander gained his revenge by

reducing the fortified towns of Sogdia one by one, starting in the Hissar Mountains and moving

along the Zaravshan Valley41

.

At the heart of ancient Soghd were the valleys of the Zeravshan and Kashkadarya, and in his

vengeful campaign along these densely occupied valleys the Macedonians may have killed up to

120,000 Sogdians42

.

Amongst the many prisoners captured during the Sogdian campaign was the Princess Roxanne,

daughter of another Sogdian opponent, Oxyartes. Alexander's subsequent decision to marry

Roxanne was due partly to her exceptional beauty, but was also intended as a gesture to appease

the rebellious Sogdians. After Alexander's death in Babylon in 323, Bactria and Sogdia

immediately rebelled but were reconquered in c. 305 by his successor Seleucus Nicator (r. 311-

281 BCE). However under Seleucus' son Antiochus I (r. 281-261), Bactria and (probably) Sogdia

broke away again from Seleucid hegemony. None the less, Sogdia, along with much of Central

Asia, was brought into the orbit of Hellenistic influence during its brief period of Macedonian

conquest.

Antiochus I minted an extensive local coinage in the region, probably at Balkh (the 'capital' of

Bactria). These were coins of large denominations: staters, tetradrachms and drachms. During

the last two centuries before the Common Era, several series of diverse denominations and types

were struck at Sogdian mints, and coins were widely used in Sogdia and Bactria, although

perhaps only by the Greek population43

None the less the native population of Sogdia became used to Greek coinage during the Seleucid

period, and when the inflow of Greek coins stopped following their independence from

Antiochus I, local rulers began to mint their own. As Nymark has pointed out, however, these

41

local issues were highly debased, and in fact were 'mere imitations of the most widespread Greek

coins'44

.

Yet these imitations remain as crucial (and often the only) evidence of political, economic and

social developments in Sogdia during the first century BCE. Furthermore, both Sogdian and

Bactrian imitation issues also constitute potential evidence for the Yuezhi during the 'five-

yabghu period'.

In the mid-third century (c. 250) the Seleucid Governor of Bactria, Diodotus, established an

independent Graeco-Bactrian kingdom, which may also have exercised a degree of control over

Sogdia. In c. 230 Diodotus' son was overthrown by one of his satraps, a Greek settler called

Euthydemus, who then ruled Graeco-Bactria for about forty years until c. 190 BCE. If Sogdia

was indeed part of the incipient Graeco-Bactrian state, then the evidence of the Euthydemus

imitation coinage indicates that some time late in the third century, during the lifetime of

Euthydemus, Sogdia became an independent entity once more45

.

Euthydemus concluded a peace treaty with the Seleucid ruler Antiochus III in 206, but did not

attempt to reconquer Sogdia. Instead the Graeco-Bactrians expanded south into India,

establishing the Indo-Greek kingdoms. If the 'state' of Kangju is indeed to be identified as

Sogdia, then it was during this period of post-Seleucid independence, i.e. from c. 210 BCE, that

the region came under the hegemony of the Kangju dynasty, which then continued to rule an

independent Sogdia until it came under Kushan political influence early in the first century CE.

As Bopearachchi concludes, under the Kangju dynasty 'Sogdiana probably remained free at least

until the arrival of the Yuezhi in c. 130 BC'46

.

The Passage of the Yuezhi through Kangju/Sogdia

Although neither of the Chinese sources categorically states that the Yuezhi horde passed

through Kangju, the only logical inference to be drawn from the texts is that they did. In

addition, Ptolemy continued to unknowingly chart the course of the Yuezhi migration by noting

a group he this time called the Tachoroi (surely another variant of Tocharian) dwelling in

Sogdia47

.

The conclusion that the Yuezhi must have passed through the region is further strengthened by

the fact that the Han sources do unequivocally show that Zhang Qian passed through Kangju

during his search for the Yuezhi. The Han envoy was obviously well informed by the rulers of

Dayuan as to the route followed by the Yuezhi who provided him with guides to lead him to the

Yuezhi, unless they knew the migrants' route and probable whereabouts? And thus is likely to

have followed closely in the original footsteps of his quarry. The chronology is straightforward

enough.

C. 132/1 BCE: The Yuezhi depart Dayuan and continue their migration to the west

That the Yuezhi continued westwards in their migration following their passage through (and

possibly winter residency in) Dayuan is implicit in the key Han Shu passage: 'passing Dayuan

(and) proceeding west to subjugate Daxia'48

.

There are three feasible route options west from Ferghana, whether starting from present-day

Kukon in the centre of the valley, or Isfara in the southwest. The first is due north and then west,

across the 2267 metre Kamcik Pass and through Angren into Tashkent, thence southwest to

Samarkand. A second and more direct route is due west through present-day Chugand and

42

Zizzach, thence southwest into Samarkand. However, given that the Zeravshan Valley was the

agricultural and population heartland of Sogdia/Kangju (information probably given to the

Yuezhi by the rulers of Dayuan who were no doubt anxious to encourage the Yuezhi to move on

and seek suitable settlement lands elsewhere), the migrating horde may have chosen to follow a

third route option from Chugand, south over the 3378 metre Sahristan Pass, then down into the

upper Zeravshan Valley. If the Yuezhi leadership decided upon this latter route, then it would

indeed have been necessary for them to winter in southern Ferghana before attempting the

crossing of this high pass in the spring.

The Shi Ji also implies this in noting (in Watson's translation) that the Yuezhi 'moved far to the

west, beyond Dayuan'49

, which Zurcher reads as: 'They passed through Dayuan and to the west of

thatcountry'50

. Between Dayuan and Daxia (Bactria) lay only Kangju/Sogdia; anyone moving to

the west, beyond Dayuan (or to the west of that country) and heading for northern Bactria would

have to have passed through Sogdia. This probability is then strengthened by the unambiguous

statement that Zhang Qian was taken to Kangju by his Dayuan guides and interpreters, and from

there proceeded directly to the realm of the Da Yuezhi in northern Bactria.

129/128 BCE: Zhang Qian also passes through Kangju

The Han Shu notes that:

'(the king of Dayuan) sent off (Zhang) Qian, providing him with interpreters and guides. He

reached Kangju who passed him on to the Da Yuezhi'51

.

Or as Sima Qian puts it:

'The king of Dayuan trusted his words and sent him on his way, giving him guides and

interpreters to take him to the state of Kangju. From there he was able to make his way to the

land of the Great Yuezhi'52

.

Despite its obvious military strength, Kangju (like Dayuan) also apparently facilitated (or at least

did not hinder) the passage through its territory of both the migrating Yuezhi horde in c. 131 and

the Han envoy in c. 128 BCE. Given the size of its military resources, Kangju was powerful

enough to be not 'easily defeated by Han forces',53

although it was 'constrained to serve the

Xiongnu' in the east,54

and (later) would acknowledge 'nominal sovereignty' (or even become

'subservient to') the Yuezhi in the south'55

.

Does this acknowledgement suggest that parts of Sogdia (and the most populous parts at the

Zeravshan valley and Samarkand) were actually invaded and defeated by the migrating Yuezhi,

and then forced into a subordinate relationship thereafter? Certainly Torday is prepared to argue

that not only did the Yuezhi defeat the Kangju dynasty in Sogdia, but in northern Bactria as well

where he suggests the Kangju were also ruling:

'We must accept that they took the region from the Kangju by force, in a war. His (the Yuezhi

king's) subsequent conquest of Sogdiana was probably a by-product of his ambitions further

south-east where he had brought Daxia under his sway'56

.

If Torday is correct, this says much about the military capabilities of the migrants that a

displaced, previously fragmented and essentially homeless nomadic tribal confederation, soundly

defeated twice during the previous three decades by the Xiongnu and the Wusun, was none the

less able to invade and defeat the well-defended state of independent Kangju Sogdia. But there is

simply no evidence to support Torday's reconstruction, and indeed his argument is unconvincing.

He has the Yuezhi settling in the Jaxartes (Syr Darya) delta rather than northern Bactria at the

end of their migration, which is clearly incorrect as textual and archaeological evidence

43

indicates. He then suggests that the Yuezhi defeated the Kangju dynasty to gain control of

Bactria, where the evidence shows it was a group of Sakas (who had established hegemony over

those regions of Bactria to both the north and south of the Amu Darya) that the Yuezhi were

forced to defeat and evict to gain control of the region.

Ultimately there is no suggestion (other than the mention of 'nominal sovereignty') that the

Yuezhi were ever forced to confront the Kangju militarily. If there had been any need for

conflict, then given the subsequent history of the region (including the invasion of Sogdia by the

Karakhanid Dynasty in the 11th

Century, for example), the acceptance of Yuezhi suzerainty by

Kangju should more accurately be seen as an example of an all-too-familiar phenomenon in

Central Asian history, and the greater military power of pastoral nomadic states over semi-

sedentary, irrigation-based city states, whatever the relative size of their forces. Despite the fact

that the ruling dynasty of Kangju was probably of a militarised, semi-nomadic ancestry, the bulk

of the population was surely sedentised agriculturists.

The evidence might alternatively be interpreted as suggesting that Kangju (both the state and the

dynasty) adopted a conciliatory and diplomatic position towards most of its neighbours, even

including the migrating Yuezhi horde. Kangju acknowledged nominal sovereignty (or was

subservient) to both the Xiongnu and the Yuezhi; they also assisted the Chinese by helping (or at

least not impeding) Zhang Qian in his attempt to locate the Yuezhi and subsequently even sent a

'royal' son as envoy to the Han Court during the reign of Emperor Zheng. Undoubtedly, like the

Wusun, Kangju felt that the Han court was remote and refused to become subject to the Protector

General, but the dynasty was careful to offend no one Han, Xiongnu or Yuezhi. It is therefore

more likely that the Kangju rulers of Sogdia agreed to allow the Yuezhi unmolested passage

through their territory, and accepted some form of subservient relationship thereafter to avoid

military conflict.

It is not at all necessary to envisage violent military confrontation between the two dynasties, but

rather a situation where local rulers recognised that the Yuezhi were powerful enough to be

worth accepting as symbolic overlords. Certainly the later Mongol invasions would show that

where cities made peace with the migrating, invading force without offering resistance, they

could survive and prosper under the rule of pastoralist conquerors, whereas those who refused

were destroyed utterly. The apparent ease with which the Yuezhi subjugated Bactria (just to the

south of and contiguous to Sogdia) a year or so later may also have been a salutary reminder to

the Kangju dynasty. And, just as the Dayuans might have suggested the Zeravshan Valley in

Sogdia as a possible resettlement location for the migrants, the rulers of Sogdia could in turn

have nominated the fertile valleys north of the Amu Darya in northern Bactria for the Yuezhi to

relocate, thus discouraging any thoughts the latter might have entertained of remaining in Sogdia

itself.

The careful relationship established between the two dynasties in c.131 BCE became an enduring

one. Kangju Sogdia would be drawn further and further into the Yuezhi/Kushan sphere of

influence over the following centuries until substantial portions of its territory may have been

incorporated into the Kushan Empire (although this is by no means certain). Certainly, according

to the Hou Han Shu, by 83 CE the Kushans were happy to further cement this relationship

through an alliance based on a 'bond of royal marriage' with the ruling family of Kangju57

. Even

as early as the last three decades of the second century BCE Kangju proved to be an ideal buffer

for the Yuezhi between their new homeland north of the Amu Darya, and the Wusun and

Xiongnu to the north and east.

44

The Kangjuans (or at least some elements of the Sogdian populace) also apparently

acknowledged sovereignty to the Xiongnu in the east (presumably northeast),58

indicating the

astonishing reach of Xiongnu influence. This is confirmed by the Han Shu inclusion of a

statement in Zhang Qian's description of the 'state' of Dayuan that '(the area) west of Wusun as

far as Anxi is close to the Xiongnu'59

. That is, Xiongnu influence apparently reached from the

steppes of eastern Mongolia to as far west as Parthia. Even allowing for possible Han

exaggeration or misinformation, this means that the Xiongnu were in seasonal occupation of (or

at least exercised some form of nominal hegemony over) a very substantial western realm

indeed, including the steppelands of present-day Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, from Lake Balkash

to the Aral Sea.

It is also possible that this 'nominal sovereignty' took the ambiguous form of gift-giving, which

the Xiongnu and Chinese sources interpreted as subordination, but which the locals (including

the ruling dynasties of Dayuan and Kangju) understood merely as diplomatic courtesies. There is

little or no evidence that the Xiongnu actively exercised military power further to the west,

although they may have occupied temporary sites along the Middle Syr Darya, if the

archaeological evidence of a burial mound at Zhaman-Togai attributed to the Xiongnu by the

tomb's Soviet discoverers in 1968 is accepted60

. Torday is prepared to read this acknowledgment

of nominal sovereignty as proof of Xiongnu military subjugation of Kangju, and even attempts to

date the beginning of that subjugation from early in the reign of Maodun. He finds the Han

Shu passage evidence of 'Kangju's humiliation by Xiongnu in the east', and links this humiliating

defeat to a steppe battle conducted by Maodun at Zaysan Nor in 203 BCE61

. Torday's

reconstruction is imaginative but there is simply no evidence to support it. In the hope of

corroborating the textual suggestions of Yuezhi/Kangju interaction, one must turn to a

consideration of archaeological evidence.

Archaeological Evidence of the Yuezhi in Kangju/Sogdia

Introduction and History

The textual references thus strongly imply that during the latter stages of their migration the

Yuezhi horde probably passed through some regions of the 'state' of Kangju Sogdia. However, as

is the case with most aspects of Yuezhi history, archaeological confirmation of this apparent

course of textually-attested events is hardly overwhelming. The most likely location for the

discovery of material evidence would surely be somewhere in the valley of the Zeravshan River,

which has its source between the Turkestan and Zeravshan ranges in Tajikistan, and then flows

west through Samarkand and out into the deserts of Uzbekistan. In ancient times the valley was

fertile and sheltered, providing excellent conditions for early Bronze Age agrarian settlements.

The discovery in 1976 of the Bronze Age settlement of Sarazm on the upper reaches of the river

showed that the valley had been settled for thousands of years, perhaps since as early as the mid-

4th

Millennium BCE62

.

Archaeological investigation of the middle and lower Zeravshan Valley commenced in 1940

with a survey carried out on the construction site of the Katta-Kurgan reservoir, halfway between

Samarkand and Bukhara, which resulted in the discovery of Sogdian burial mounds of the

'Kushan period'63

. Between 1945 and 1949 Terenozhkin conducted systematic research in the

immense town site of ancient Samarkand, Afrasiab64

. This was followed by expeditions from the

Uzbek Branch of the Soviet Academy of Sciences in the late 50s and early 60s, which

45

thoroughly investigated a series of sites around Samarkand65

. In 1946, meanwhile, the Academy

of Sciences of the Tajik Soviet Socialist Republic began investigating the upper reaches of the

Zeravshan, east of Samarkand, which, under the direction of Yakubovsky, laid the ground work

for a systematic archaeological survey of the entire length of the upper regions of the valley66

.

Yakubovsky's preliminary work was carried on through the 1960s by Mandleshtam in particular,

who discovered numerous burial mounds and settlements, many of them apparently left by

migrating nomadic groups during the early Kushan era (as Soviet archaeologists tended to label

the period between the second century BCE and the late second/early third century CE)67

.

However, within this broad and general chronology the attribution of particular types of burial

structures and fortified settlements to specific groups of pastoral nomads was again very

difficult. Mandleshtam was the first to attempt to narrow the search down somewhat in his

address to the 1968 conference on the Kushans in Dushanbe:

'The dating of the investigated monuments (which is substantiated by the results of recent

excavations of town-sites) enables us to state with certainty that they belonged to the nomads,

who in the last third of the second century BC destroyed the Graeco-Bactrian Empire.

Archaeology reveals four groups of nomads, which probably relate to four different tribes'68

.

Obelchenko, however, who from 1952 onwards carried out large-scale excavations of nomadic

burial mounds in the middle and lower Zeravshan, particularly around Bukhara, linked all of the

funerary monuments discovered in the Zeravshan to an invasion of 'Sarmatian' tribes in the

second to first centuries BCE69

. Gorbunova has summarised Obelchenko's mid-50s theory thus:

'The discovery and investigation of Sogdian pastoralists' sites were begun by O.V. Obelchenko.

He isolated among the cemeteries an earlier group dating from the second century BC to the first

century AD, and a later group dating from the second to the fourth centuries AD. He regards

both sites as relics of the Sarmatian tribes whose attacks contributed to the final defeat of

Graeco-Bactria'70

.

Obelchenko's conclusions were questioned by Mandleshtam, who argued that the attribution of

all of the mounds as Sarmatian was too generalised and superficial, particularly as various

groups of burials displayed quite distinctively different characteristics.

'The culture of all of them (the burial mounds) exhibits traits resembling the culture of the

Sarmat tribes, but this is mainly a 'temporal' resemblance, which is observed over a vast area. A

more concrete comparison points to links with areas to the N and NE of Central Asia'71

.

Zadneprovsky also disagrees with Obolchenko,72

and has argued that similarities between

possible Yuezhi tombs in northern Bactria and those discovered in the Bukharan oasis by

Obelchenko suggest that the latter are also relics of the passage of the Yuezhi through Sogdia:

'The coincidence of the design, funeral ceremony and the accompanying inventory definitely

point to their similarity'73

.

Artifacts from Nomadic Tombs in Ferghana and Sogdia

However, even a detailed analysis of the 'accompanying inventory' of grave goods discovered at

the various nomadic tomb sites does not clarify the matter74

. Pottery vessels (including censers)

occur in all types of graves, as would be expected. Gorbunova argues that 'they have a strictly

local character, originating in the pottery centres nearest to the cattle-breeding people's area of

habitation, or being diffused only over the local area'75

. Thus jugs (with and without handles) are

common to the whole region, although they vary in shape from one location to the next. Bactrian

46

and Sogdian jugs and goblets were almost all fashioned on a potter's wheel, which differentiates

them from Khorezmian ceramics, for example.

Weapons have also been discovered in most nomadic cemeteries throughout former Soviet

Central Asia, including swords, daggers, iron arrowheads and fragments from composite bows,

all weapons generally associated with militarised nomads. Swords and daggers with a cross hilt

are characteristic of both the Sogdian and Bactrian sites, whereas the majority of swords from

other areas (i.e. areas probably not visited by the migrating Yuezhi) do not have cross-hilts, thus

allowing for possible identification of the unique Sogdian and Bactrian examples as Yuezhi.

Also characteristic of Bactrian and early Sogdian sites are arrowheads with barbed triangular

flanges, which differ markedly from the triangular-flanged, straight-based arrowheads found in

Khorezmia, Turkmenia and at Kaunchi culture sites (near Tashkent). The graves of Ferghana,

emphasising that region's role throughout the Bronze and Iron Ages as an obvious funnel for all

manner of Eurasian nomads, contain arrowheads of almost every type76

. The arrowheads

discovered at early Kushan sites in Sogdia are similar to those found at Begram in Bactria, thus

dating them to the 'late-Yuezhi/early Kushan period'77

.

Household objects, including knives, spindle-whorls and a variety of toilet-articles also

demonstrate considerable local variation. Bronze mirrors have been found at sites all over former

Soviet Central Asia, with Khorezmia, Sogdia and Bactria yielding mirrors of a similar so-called

'Sarmatian' type, and Ferghana again yielding the largest number and greatest variety of

examples78

.

Belt buckles have also been found in extensive numbers, indicating that most pastoral nomads

probably wore belts with buckles. Differentiation of buckle types is also a potential source of

tomb identification. The link between Sogdian and Bactrian sites is again apparent Gorbunova

notes that 'belt buckles from Bactrian and early Sogdian cemeteries are obviously of the same

kind, and differ from the buckles of other places'79

. The nomadic cultures associated with the

different tomb types thus display a series of distinctive individual traits through their material

possessions, but also a range of other features commonly shared between all nomadic 'peoples',

which increases the difficulties of definitive attribution. Undeniably there is substantial evidence

of nomadic passage along (and even temporary occupation of) various sites in the Zeravshan

Valley, and it remains a matter of ongoing interpretation as to which tombs and funerary objects

(if any) might be convincingly identifiable as Yuezhi.

Shishkina argues, perhaps too dismissively, that there is no evidence whatsoever of Yuezhi

influence, although his conclusion that the densely populated Zeravshan valley proved ultimately

unsuitable as a possible relocation site for the nomads is self-evidently correct:

'In the second century BC the area between the Amu Darya and the Syr Darya was the object of a

massive invasion by peoples of a foreign culture, of which tribes of the Great Yuezhi made up a

considerable part. Nevertheless the character of the Hellenized culture was preserved and there

are no traces of new influences. One may assume that (the Yuezhi) passed through the Zeravshan

Valley peacefully and did not remain there for long. There certainly would not have been enough

room on the densely populated and cultivated lands of Soghd for masses of migratory peoples'80

.

Shishkina's claim that there is 'no trace' of the passage of the nomads obviously takes no account

of Zadneprovsky's argument that significant numbers of podboy tomb types, similar in style and

design to those found in other areas of probable Yuezhi occupation (the Gansu, Ysyk Kul and

Ferghana), have also been unearthed along the Zeravshan. Furthermore, in addition to the

similarity of tomb-type, many of the artifacts discovered in podboy tombs also display a range of

common features, particularly those found in tombs in Sogdia and Bactria; Gorbunova notes

47

similarities between 'Bactrian and early Sogdian cemeteries with their distinctive types of

pottery, weapons, belt buckles and women's clothing'81

. Whilst it is clearly impossible to prove

that these tombs and their artifacts were left along the Zeravshan by the migrating Yuezhi, there

is certainly sufficient evidence to at least entertain the possibility.

'Sogdian' Statuettes

Further archaeological evidence of Yuezhi activity in Sogdia might be provided by the

attribution of a particular sub-group of Sogdian statuettes unearthed at several sites in and around

Samarkand, particularly at Tali Barzu south of the city, and also at Afrasiab. A form type of

female statuette discovered at these (and other nearby) sites, characterised by the position of the

hands under the breasts or resting on the upper stomach, and with distinctive facial features and

dress, has been analysed by Fiona Kidd of Sydney University82

. The primary focus group of

figurines is distinct and stable in form a female figure with small protruding breasts and very

slim arms bent sharply at the elbows so that her hands are resting on her upper stomach. Related

groups include statuettes with stumps instead of arms, or with arms resting on the lower rather

than upper stomach. The three groups are united by their similar style of facial features. As a

stylistic form, similar examples are known from Mesopotamia at least as early as the

2nd

Millennium BCE, although it has been suggested that the form probably dates much further

back into antiquity83

.

Where there might be some (admittedly very tenuous) link between a particular sub-type of these

figurines and the Yuezhi is through a comparative coroplastic analysis of costume styles.

Examples from the Samarkand area show a variety of clothing styles pleats on the lower part of

the dress; a looser dress worn over long trousers with folds falling from the waist; a long pleated

dress with pleats falling from the waist; or with pleats falling all the way from the shoulders84

.

Abdullaev has tentatively attributed one particular group of figurines clothed in a long dress with

a flared lower half to the Yuezhi during their interim residency of the Zeravshan Valley85

. The

identification is somewhat strengthened by the discovery of similarly attired figurines at other

Yuezhi and early Kushan sites, notably Tillya-tepe and Dalverzin-tepe86

.

Sogdia lay at the heart of a network of ancient migration and trade routes, and it is only to be

expected that Sogdian art would be subjected to a range of stylistic influences, including those of

pastoral nomads, be they steppe- or oasis-dwellers. Kidd argues that 'the nomadic legacy of the

peoples living in this region must also be recognised as an important factor in the formation of

style in Sogdian art generally'87

. That the Yuezhi occupied, if only for a relatively brief period,

parts of the Zeravshan valley including the greater Samarkand oasis is more than likely, given

the cumulative textual and archaeological evidence considered above. The possibility that further

evidence of their residency might be found through a coroplastic analysis of the costume of

figurines unearthed at probable Yuezhi sites in the region is thus also worthy of consideration.

Archaeological Evidence: Conclusion

Archaeological evidence for the migrating Yuezhi confederation in both Sogdia and Ferghana is

at best inconclusive. Mass migrations of nomadic 'peoples' would hardly be expected to leave a

substantial archaeological record anyway, given that they generally did not construct settlements

or 'townships' meant to last longer than a winter season. During the long, cold Central Asian

winters the dead would be buried beside the encampments, and in the spring the tribes would

48

move on in search of new dwelling places. This would surely have been the lifeway of the

Yuezhi during the short period of forced migration following their eviction from the Ili Basin in

c. 133/2 and preceding their arrival in northern Bactria in c. 130 BCE. Thus the only record of

their passage through the Ferghana and Zeravshan valleys would be their funerary monuments

and the grave goods they contained. The incidence of podboy tombs in both regions (mostly with

a common north-south orientation), the similarity of household objects, weapons, arrowheads

and belt buckles in those tombs, and the possible evidence of Sogdian statuettes, provides clearly

circumstantial but arguably cumulatively convincing evidence that there does indeed exist a

material record of the passage of the Yuezhi. Textual and archaeological evidence thus allows

for the following tentative narrative reconstruction of events.

Conclusion and Summary

As a result of their defeat by the Wusun in 133/2 BCE, and after almost three decades of

residency in the Ili Valley, the confederation of the Da Yuezhi was forced to resume its

migration westwards, moving initially into the Ferghana Valley. Here they may have briefly

occupied sites in the Isfara region before continuing their journey (in the spring of 132/1?),

travelling west and south into the Zeravshan valley of Sogdia, before perhaps following it into

the Samarkand and Bukharan oases. This itinerary is implied by several references in the Han

Shu and Shi Ji, and also tentatively reinforced by Russian and Central Asian archaeology.

In the penultimate stage of their journey the Yuezhi horde entered the realm of Kangju, a dynasty

in control of a region most probably identifiable as Sogdia and the Zeravshan Valley. 'Kangju'

was the Han name for both the 'state' and the powerful ruling dynasty, which may have been in

control of Sogdia since it gained independence from the Graeco-Bactrians late in the third

century BCE, during the reign of Euthydemus. Ptolemy provides incidental evidence of the

identification of Kangju with Sogdia, and once again continued to unknowingly chart the course

of the Yuezhi migration by noting a group he this time called the Tachoroi (Tocharians) dwelling

in Sogdia88

.

Archaeologists have unearthed podboy tombs potentially attributable to the Yuezhi at the

periphery of the Bukharan and Samarkand oases, as well as in the upper valley of the Zeravshan.

All are similar in design, funeral ceremony and 'accompanying inventory' of artifacts to other

possible Yuezhi podboy monuments found in northern Bactria89

. In addition, the coroplastic

analysis of a group of Sogdian statuettes, might eventually provide supporting evidence of brief

Yuezhi occupation.

Both the Han Shu and Shi Ji suggest some level of diplomatic interaction between the Yuezhi

and Kangju dynasties prior to the Yuezhi's arrival in northern Bactria90

. Although Kangju is

described as a 'small' country in the Chinese sources, its military strength was substantial, with

some 120,000 persons able to bear arms, according to Ban Gu,91

of which 90,000 were skilled

archer warriors according to Sima Qian92

. Unlike Dayuan, it was described as powerful enough

to be 'not easily defeated by Han forces',93

but none the less was 'constrained to serve the

Xiongnu' in the east,94

and acknowledged 'nominal sovereignty' (or was 'subservient to') the

Yuezhi in the south'95

.

Kangju displayed obvious ability at inter-state diplomacy by balancing these competing (and

essentially opposed) interests recognising the nominal sovereignty over parts of its country by

both the Xiongnu and the Yuezhi, aiding Zhang Qian and subsequent Han envoys, and later

sending a Kangju prince as envoy to China. It is therefore probable that the rulers of Kangju

49

agreed to give the Yuezhi safe passage through their territory, and accepted some form of

subservient relationship to avoid military conflict. The Sogdian dynasty may even have

encouraged the Yuezhi to settle at the southern extremities of their territory, and suggested the

fertile river valleys north of the Amu Darya as an ideal homeland for the migrants.

Eventually Kangju would be drawn further and further into the Yuezhi/Kushan realm over the

following decades and centuries until the southern portions of its territory were probably

incorporated into the Kushan Empire, or at least into its sphere of influence96

. By 83 CE the

Kushans would further cement this relationship through an alliance based on a 'bond of royal

marriage' with the ruling family of Kangju97

. Kangju/Sogdia thus proved to be an ideal buffer for

the Yuezhi between their new northern Bactria homeland and the Wusun and Xiongnu realms in

the steppes to the north and east. Ultimately, as a result of the generally cooperative relationship

apparently established almost immediately between the Kangju and Yuezhi dynasties in c. 131

BCE, Sogdia went on to become an integral and stable member (through direct incorporation or

alliance) of the greater Kushan sphere of influence until the dissolution of the Kushan Empire in

the mid-third century of the Common Era.

Craig Benjamin March 2003

Dr. Craig Benjamin is a Lecturer in History at Macquarie University in Sydney, Australia. He

can be contacted at: craigbenjamin optusnet.com.au

1 HS 61 1B.

2 SJ 123. See B. Watson, Records of the Grand Historian by Sima Qian Han Dynasty

II (Revised edtn., Columbia University Press 1993) p. 231. 3 Ptol. Geog. vi, 14, 7-14. Hermann located Ptolemy's Tagouraioi to the north of the

'Alexandrovski Range', north of Ysyk Kul, in A. Hermann, Sakai col. 1770-1806', in Pauly

Wissowa, Real-Encyclopadedie Der Classischen Alterumewissenschaft, 2e Reihe, Vol I

(Stuttgart 1914). 4 Zadneprovsky (1999) op. cit., pp 4-5. See also J.P. Mallory and V.H. Mair The Tarim

Mummies (London 2000) pp. 156 and 158. 5 HS 61 4B.

6 On the Hanging Pass see HS 96A 12A/12B; HS 96B 1B; H. Tsuchiya, 'Tracing Ancient Routes

in Northern Pakistan', in M. Alram and D.E. Klimburg-Salter, Coins, Art and

Chronology (Vienna 1999) pp. 353 ff.; A. Stein, Ancient Khotan (Oxford 1907) pp. 1-46. 7 See HS 61 4B.

8 HS 61 4B.

9 HS 61 1A.

10 See A.K. Narain, The Tokharians (Shillong 2000) p. 36, n. 11 for example.

11 Y.A. Zadneprovsky, 'Migration Paths of the Yueh-chih based on Archaeological

Evidence', Circle of Inner Asian Art Newsletter No. 8 (April 1999) p. 5. 12

HS 96A 15B. 13

HS 96 A 17A. 14

SJ 123, Watson p. 234. 15

HS 96B 1B. 16

Ibid.

50

17 A.F.P. Hulsewe and M.A.N. Loewe, China in Central Asia. The Early Stage: 125 B.C. A.D.

23. An Annotated Translation of Chapters 61 and 96 of the History of the Former Han Dynasty

(Leiden 1979) p. 125, n. 299, 2. 18

P. Pelliot, 'L'Edition collective des oeuvres de Wang Kouo-wei', in T'oung Pao 26 (1929) p.

151. 19

See Ibid. p. 150. 20

E.G. Pulleyblank, 'The Consonontal System of Old Chinese', in Asia Major 9 (1962) p. 94; see

also L. Torday, Mounted Archers: The Beginnings of Central Asian History (Durham 1997) p.

319 n. 34 for a detailed discussion of the philological link between Kangju and the Jaxartes (Syr

Darya). 21

Hulsewe and Loewe op. cit., p. 125, n. 299, 2. 22

E.G. Pulleyblank, 'Chinese and Indo-Europeans', Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 2

(London 1966) p. 28. 23

Narain (2000) op. cit., pp. 29-30. 24

HS 96A 15B. 25

SJ 123, Watson p. 234. 26

HS 96A 15B. 27

SJ 123, Watson p. 234. 28

HS 96A 15B. 29

Ibid. 30

E. Zurcher, 'The Yueh-chih and Kaniska in the Chinese Sources', in A.L. Basham, ed., Papers

on the Date of Kanishka (Leiden 1968) p. 360. 31

SJ 123, Watson p. 234. 32

HS 96A 16A. 33

HS 61 3A. 34

HS 96A 15B. 35

SJ 123, Watson p. 234. 36

HS 96A 17A. 37

G.V. Shishkina, 'Ancient Samarkand: Capital of Soghd', Bulletin of the Asia Institute 8 (1994)

p. 90. 38

Hulsewe and Loewe, op. cit., pp. 130-1, ns. 320, 321, 322, 323 and 324 provide comments on

attempts to identify the five principal towns of the lesser kings. 39

See R. Frye, The History of Ancient Iran (Munich 1984) p. 141. 40

Arrian, Book Four, 5-7 (1971) op. cit., pp. 208-211 for a description of this defeat. 41

See for example, A.B. Bosworth, Conquest and Empire: The Reign of Alexander the

Great (Melbourne 1988) pp. 117, and 109-10. 42

See for example A. Nymark, Culture and Art of Ancient Uzbekistan vol.1 (Moscow 1991) p.

155. 43

See for example E. Rtveladze, The Ancient Coins of Central Asia (Tashkent 1987) p. 46. 44

Nymark op. cit., p. 156. 45

See O. Bopearachchi, 'The Euthydemus Imitation and the Date of Sogdian Independence', Silk

Roads Art and Archaeology 2 (1991/2) pp. 11-12; also Rtveladze op. cit., p. 46. 46

Ibid., p. 12. 47

Ptol. Geog. vii, 2, 15; vi, 14, 7-14. See W.W. Tarn, The Greeks in Bactria and

India (Cambridge 1938, 2nd

edtn. 1951) p. 517; and J.W. McCrindle, Ancient India as Described

by Ptolemy (London 1885) p. 281

51

48 HS 96A 15A.

49 SJ 123, Watson p. 234.

50 SJ 123.3b, trans. E. Zurcher (1968) op. cit., p. 360.

51 HS 61 2A.

52 SJ 123, Watson p. 232.

53 HS 61 3A.

54 HS 96A 15B.

55 HS 96A 15B; and Zurcher (1968) op. cit., p.360.

56 Torday op. cit., p. 301.

57 HHS 77.4a.

58 HS 96A 16A.

59 HS 96A 19A.

60 On the Zhaman-Togai Xiongnu tomb see A.G. Maximova, M.S. Merschiev, B.I. Vainberg,

L.M. Levina, Drevnosti Chardary (Antiquities of Chardara) (Alma-Ata 1968) pp. 175-190. 61

Torday op. cit., pp. 301-2. 62

On Sarazm see A.I. Isakov, 'Sarazm: An Agricultural Centre of Ancient Sogdiana', Bulletin of

the Asia Institute 8 (1994) pp. 1 ff. 63

See V.A. Shishkina, 'Arkheologicheskie nablyudeniya na stroitel' stve Katta-Kurganskogo

vodokhranilishcha' (Archaeological Observations on the Building Site of the Katta-Kurgan

Reservoir) Izvestiya Uzbfil AN SSSR Bulletin of the Uzbek Branch of the USSR Academy of

Sciences (1940) No. 10, pp. 19-24. 64

See A.I. Terenozhkin, 'Sogd I Chach' (Soghd and Chach) KSIIMK 33 (1950) pp. 152-169; A.I.

Terenozhkin, 'Roskopki na gorodishche Afrasiabe' (Excavations on the Site of

Afrasiab) KSIIMK 36 (1951) pp. 136-140. 65

See V.I. Shishkina, 'Uzbekistanskaya arkheologicheskaya ekspeditsiya AN UzSSR' (The

Uzbekistan Archaeological Expedition of the Uzbek Academy of Sciences. Field Work in 1956-

1959), IMKUz(Tashkent 1961) pp. 36-43; V.I. Shishkina, Afrasiab sokrovishchnitsa drevnei

kultury (Afrasiab Treasury of Ancient Culture) (Tashkent 1966) pp. 8-10. 66

See A.Y. Yakubovsky, 'Itogi rabot Sogdiiko-Tadzhikskoi arkheologicheskoi ekspeditsii v

1946-1947 gg' (Results of the Work of the Sogdian-Tajik Archaeological Expedition of 1946-

1947) MIA SSR No. 15 (Moscow-Leningrad 1950) pp. 13-28. 67

See for example, A.M.Mandleshtam, 'Mogilnik v s. Zosun verkhovya r. Zeravshan (The

Burial Site in Zosun Village, Upper Zeravshan) Izvestia Otdelniya Obshchestvennykh nauk AN

Tadzh. SSR No. 40 (1965) pp. 29-44. 68

A.M. Mandleshtam, 'Archaeological Data on the Origin and Early History of the Kushans',

in Central Asia in the Kushan Period (1970) op. cit., p. 166. 69

See for example O.V. Obelchenko, 'Kuyu-Mazarsky mogil'nik' (The Necropolis of Kuyu-

Mazar) Trudy IIA AN Uz. SSR VIII (Tashkent 1956) pp. 205-227; and O.V. Obelchenko,

'Kurgany okolo sel. Khazara' (The Kurgans Near the Village of Khazara) IMKUz (Tashkent

1963) pp. 57-65. 70

N.G. Gorbunova, 'Early Nomadic Pastoral Tribes in Soviet Central Asia during the First Half

of the First Millennium A.D.', in G. Seamen, ed., Foundations of Empire: Archaeology and Art

of the Eurasian Steppes (Los Angeles 1992) p. 34; and see O.V. Obelchenko, 'Kurgannye

mogilniki epokhii Kushan v Bukharskom oazise' (Kurgan Barrows of the Kushan Epoch in the

Bukhara Oasis), in Central Asia in the Kushan Period, vol I (Moscow 1974) for a summary of

Obelchenko's conclusions.

52

71 Mandleshtam (1970) op. cit., p. 166.

72 Y.A. Zadneprovsky, History of Central Asian Nomads in the Kushan Period', in Kushan

Studies in the U.S.S.R. (Moscow 1970) pp. 148-9. 73

Zadneprovsky (1999) op. cit., p. 5. 74

See Gorbunova (1992) op. cit., pp. 36 ff for a general outline of material artifacts discovered at

a range of Central Asian sites. 75

Ibid., p. 36. 76

Ibid., p. 39; and see G. Frumkin, Archaeology in Soviet Central Asia (Leiden 1970) pp. 42 ff,

for a detailed summary of Ferghana Valley archaeological discoveries, including grave artifacts. 77

See R. Ghirshman, Begram Recherches Archeologiques et Historiques sur les

Kouchans (Paris 1946), Plate XXXVI, Nos. BG 290 a and b for excellent photographs of the

Begram arrowheads with barbed triangular flanges. At the British Museum in January 2001

Elizabeth Errington was good enough to show me a colour transparency of a similar arrowhead

from the Charles Masson collection. See also E. Errington, 'Rediscovering the Collections of

Charles Masson', in M. Alram and D.E. Klimburg-Salter, eds., Coins, Art and Chronology.

Essays on the pre-Islamic History of the Indo-Iranian Borderlands(Vienna 1999) pp. 207ff. 78

See Gorbunova (1992) op. cit. p. 44, Fig. 5 for a map illustrating the 'Distribution of Mirror

Types'. 79

Ibid., p. 41. 80

Shishkina op. cit., pp. 89-90. 81

Gorbunova op. cit., p. 42. 82

Fiona Kidd, 'The Chronology and Style of a Group of Sogdian Statuettes', in C. Benjamin and

S. Lieu, eds., Walls and Frontiers in Inner Asian History, Silk Roads Studies VI (Turnhout 2002)

pp. 197 ff. 83

P. Ucko, Anthropomorphic Figurines of Predynastic Egypt and Neolithic Crete with

Comparative Material from the Prehistoric Near East and Mainland Greece (London 1968). See

also M. Gimbutas,The Goddesses and Gods of Old Europe (London 1982) for early examples of

similar figurines. 84

Kidd op. cit., pp 197 ff. 85

K. Abdullaev, in R.K. Suleimanov, Drevnii Nakshab: Problemi' Tzivilizatzii Uzbekistana VII

v. do N.E. (Tashkent 2000) p. 203. 86

On the Tillya-tepe figurines see V.I. Sarianidi, Khram I Nekropol' Tillyatepe (1989) p. 53 fig.

15 and p. 57 figs. 17, 25 and 70; on the Dalverzin-tepe figurines see K. Abdulaev, 'Portrayal of

musicians in Bactrian teracotta figurines', in Information Bulletin 7 (1984) pp. 52-56 figs. 4-5. 87

Kidd op. cit., p. 211. 88

Ptol. Geog. vii, 2, 15; vi, 14, 7-14. See Tarn (1938/1951) op. cit, p. 517; and McCrindle

(1885) op. cit., p. 281. 89

Zadneprovsky (1999) op. cit.,p. 5. 90

HS 96A 15B; SJ 123, Watson p. 232. 91

HS 96A 15B. 92

SJ 123, Watson p. 234. 93

HS 61 3A. 94

HS 96A 15B. 95

HS 96A 15B, and Zurcher op. cit.,p. 360. 96

Whether Sogdia/Kangju or Khorezmia were ever actually part of the Kushan Empire is a

matter of some conjecture. See, for example, Svend Helms, 'Ancient Chorasmia: The Northern

53

Edge of Central Asia from the 6th

Century B.C. to the mid-4th

Century A.D., in David Christian

and Craig Benjamin (eds.), Worlds of the Silk Roads: Ancient and Modern (Turnhout 1998), pp.

85-6; and S. Helms (in private correspondence) who has argued that Khorezmia at least remained

nominally independent. 97

HHS 77.4a.

http://www.transoxiana.org/Eran/Articles/benjamin.html

Review of Christopher Beckwith&#x27;s Empires of the Silk Road: A history of central

Eurasdia from th Bronz...

S. Kalyanaraman

Sarasvati Research Center

June 24, 2015