British Academy: The UK's National Academy for the Humanities and Social Sciences
| Related pages: |
|
After Alexander: Central Asia Before Islam
Nomad migration in Central Asia
Kasim Abdullaev
The events determining nomad migration in Central Asia are connected with the historico-geographical situation on the Western borders of Han China in the second century BC. The Chinese chronicle (Shih-chi, 123) describes the conflict between the powerful confederation of the Hsiung-nu and the Ta Yueh-chih. The latter roamed between Tun-huang and the mountains of Ch'i-lien (the Tien Shan of the Kansu range). In 176 BC after suffering a crushing defeat from the Hsiung-nu and their leader Mao Tun, and afterwards Lao Shang the Ta Yueh-chih moved West, crossed the Ta Yuan lands and reached the banks of Oxus. The Chinese ambassador and diplomat Chang Ch'ien met them there in 129/128 BC. He found them already settled on the right bank of the Oxus. In this period they had not yet occupied Southern Bactria, but already had power over Ta Hsia. Besides this, according to the ancient sources it can be determined that the arrival of the Ta Yueh-chih on the banks of Oxus is impossible after this date. It is clear that they passed some time in the area between their initial homeland and the banks of Oxus. However, Shih-chi does not mention this. This gap is partially filled in by Han Shu: the first and most important event which is related is that the Ta Yueh-chih attacked the Sakas. The second event is related with K’un-mo (the king of Wu-sun), who pursued the Yueh-chih pressing them to move west. Both events happened before the death of Shan Yu, who reared K’'un-mo, that is to say before 160 BC. - a date too early for the conquest of Bactria. As for the Sakas, the same chronicle Han shu indicates that in the period when the Chinese established contact with Kashmir (Chi-pin) by a Suspended Crossing, they knew that the local rulers were Sakas, who came from the North (Han Shu pu-chu, 96A, p. 5463). They were also told that the king of the Sakas had been forced out of his homeland in the Pamir by the Yueh-chih.
Crossing Ta Yuan the Yueh-chih found themselves north of the Oxus (Amudarya). It is interesting that Chinese sources do not mention the other, no less important river of Central Asia, namely Yaksart (Syrdarya). Chinese scholars consider that the Yueh Chih tribe moved along the Yellow River and afterwards continued to migrate westwards to the Yili River valley (Lu Enguo, 2002). Probably, moving west and crossing Ta Yuan the Yueh-chih rounded the Alay and Turkestan ranges by their northern extremities, finding themselves in Sogdia through Ustrushana.
One of the most important sources of information about nomad migration in Central Asia is in Justin's prologue to Pompeii Trogues (prol. to XLII book). The Asiani are kings of the Tochari and destroyed the Sakaraukes (Reges Tocharorum Asiani interitusque Sakaraucarum). Consequently, it is possible to conclude from this extract that the Asiani and the Tochari were closely related tribes. What is more it indicates that the ‘Asiani’ dominated the ‘Tokhari’ (Reges Tocharorum Asiani). We can identify the ‘Asiani’ with the ‘Kushan’, one of the leading tribes of which subsequently came to power and created a great empire. The Tochari were ruled by the Asiani despite being the largest of the five Yeah-CM principalities mentioned in the Chinese sources.
The second part of the sentence is also important. We have information about the ‘destruction of the Sakaraukes’. I propose that ‘the Asiani kings of the Tochari’ opposed the Sakaraukes, and that this confrontation took place between two absolutely different ethnic groups. One can also recall Strabo’s list of tribes which indicates the main tribes which conquered Bactria from the Greeks and includes the Sakaraukes. Thus the second part of the sentence concerns the war of the Asiani and Tochari against the Sakaraukes. The latter were settled on the territory of Sogdia and Bactria before the arrival of Yueh-chih.
Numismatically the Sakaraukes can be associated with early Sogdian coins with ruler profile on the obverse and archer representation on the reverse. The other group that hypothetically can be related to this period is an early imitation of the coins of Antiochus I with a horse head on the reverse. Geographically both types are concentrated around Sogdia, including the Bukhara region. But in any chronological divergence, it seems probable that the tribes round the Bukhara oasis gained their independence as early as the Seleucid period, meanwhile Sogdia and Bukhara themselves became free from Greek power during the reign of Euthydemus, as numerous imitations of his coins testify. We have another imitation of a Greek coin, namely Eucratides’ coins. Imitations of his obols are localised in the territory of southern Tadjikisan and partially in Uzbekistan. It confirms Strabo's information about the Parthian annexation of Bactrian territories (satrapies of Aspiona and Turivu).
So, according to archaeological data, one can suppose that the nomad tribes gathered round the Bukhara oasis in its western and north-western parts were autochthonus. Similar tribes populated the east and north-eastern parts of Margiana. Those tribes that moved to the Surkhandarya and Amudarya plains may have been forced out by the Yueh-chih arrival from Siberia and Altai. There is evident iconographic similarity of certain Khalchayan personages and the portraits on the obverse of Sogdian coins with archer representation. An important similarity is that long whiskers occur on both the coins and the sculptural representations of Khalchayan.
The discovery of Tulkhar, Aruktau (Tadjikistan), Babashov (Turkmenistan) and Rabat (Uzbekistan) necropolis show that the culture is similar to that of the Altai burials (kurgans), particularly those of Pazyryk. That territory was in former times populated by the Yueh-chih. At the same time, recent archaeological investigations in China (material not, unfortunately, accessible for Central Asian archaeologists), especially in Ningxia, Xinjiang demand scrupulous comparative studies.
In my opinion it is possible that the name Ta Yueh Chih in the Chinese chronicles (for the early history of Kushans) was unknown and subsequently had no equivalent in the ancient western sources. Although the Chinese continued to call the tribes of Yueh chih by the name ‘Yueh chih’ even after their migration, Greek and Latin authors gave them different names. In this case the identification ‘Asioi-Tocharoi = Ta Yueh-chih; Pasianoi; Sakaraukai’ is disputable. The same tribal name but transformed as Sakaravles or Sakarukes is sometimes found and scholars have relatively similar opinions about it. The divergence of opinion only concerns the interpretation of the ethnonym itself.