|
Post by wefone90 on Jan 29, 2007 12:57:30 GMT 3
Let's talk about the origin of yuezhi, anybody knows about them?
I know there's many connections made for them, inlcuding proto-Tibetan, Hun and Tocharians, but take note that the words Tochar did not appear in Chinese literature until 6th century, which was prefering in Afghanistan.
|
|
|
Post by temur on Jan 29, 2007 13:06:34 GMT 3
I know this tribe but my knowledge is limited and superficial. This tribe originally lived in Gansu province and was pushed to central Asia by Huns(Xiong nu) They probably belongs to Turk tribe. Let's talk about the origin of yuezhi, anybody knows about them? I know there's many connections made for them, inlcuding proto-Tibetan, Hun and Tocharians, but take note that the words Tochar did not appear in Chinese literature until 6th century, which was prefering in Afghanistan.
|
|
|
Post by wefone90 on Jan 29, 2007 13:09:34 GMT 3
I know this tribe but my knowledge is limited and superficial. This tribe originally lived in Gansu province and was pushed to central Asia by Huns(Xiong nu) They probably belongs to Turk tribe. Let's talk about the origin of yuezhi, anybody knows about them? I know there's many connections made for them, inlcuding proto-Tibetan, Hun and Tocharians, but take note that the words Tochar did not appear in Chinese literature until 6th century, which was prefering in Afghanistan. Yes, but not just limited to Gansu, they range from eastern Sinkiang to there.
|
|
|
Post by temur on Jan 29, 2007 14:15:56 GMT 3
In Han dynasty of China, War Emperor Wu Di( Liu Che) sent Zhang Qian to there, unfortunately he was captured by Huns. 10 years after he and his Hun's wife fled, and completed his Emperor's order. During the war between Han and Huns, Yue Zhi provided Turk horse to Han army, because Chinese hourse breed is inferior to Huns breed.
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Jan 29, 2007 21:38:16 GMT 3
The Yuèzhī (Yüe-chih) 月氏 were called Tokharoi (Tokharians) in Greek. The area they settled, today's Northern Afghanistan, was named Tokhâristân in Islamic sources. Even in the Blue Turk inscriptions found in the Orkhon Valley, the name Toqar is mentioned among the places and peoples that were briefly taken under control when the Blue Turks invaded Western Turkistân in the year 711.
|
|
|
Post by wefone90 on Jan 29, 2007 22:53:27 GMT 3
Actually, I believe that Kushan and Ta-Yuezhi are quite different.
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Jan 30, 2007 12:45:34 GMT 3
We would like to learn your points
|
|
|
Post by wefone90 on Feb 1, 2007 1:24:43 GMT 3
First of all, the Chinese did not called the cities peoples in tarim as "Tocharians", they called them merely according to their city name. There is no sources to prove whether Kushan was actually nomadic Ta-Yuezhi, in fact these sources shown that their more Bactrians then tarim. Tochar in Chinese appeared in 6th century, which was prefering in Afghanistan.
|
|
|
Post by sharrukin on Feb 4, 2007 17:37:04 GMT 3
We know that Kushans were Ta-yuehzhi. According to the Han shu, they became divided into five tribes. One of these was the "Kuei-shang", Kushans. According to the Hou Han-shu, we have the names of two of these Kuei-shang rulers, namely, "Ch'iu-chiu-ch'ueh" and "Yen-kao-chen", dating to the 1st century AD, and, like the Han-shu of about 100 years previously, reiterates that the Kuei-shang were Ta-yuehzhi. We know that "Ch'iu-chiu-ch'ueh" was none other than Kujula Kadphises I, since the ancient Chinese pronunciation of his name was probably *Kilu-dzilu-Kilak. Hence, his son "Yen-kao-chen" could be none other than Vima I Kadphises II. It even mentions that western countries referred to the entire Ta-yuezhi nation as Kuei-shang "Kushans".
As for the language of the Kushans, we know that they first adopted Greek in their inscriptions. Well, since we know that they were not Greeks, argument by inscriptions is quite hazardous. According to the inscriptions of Kanishka I, the Kushan king, he discontinued the use of Greek in favor of "Aryan", which in this case was the East Iranian Bactrian language. Since we know that the Kushans-Ta Yuehzi were not native to Bactria, the origin of their language must lay elsewhere.
While it is true that the Chinese did not call the "city peoples in the Tarim as 'Tocharians'" we do in fact find in Greek geographies, such as that of Ptolemy (c. AD 150) the name spelled in different ways located in the region, which they called "Serica" (essentially the eastern Tarim). Thus we have a group of mountains called "Thagurus", a people called "Thaguri", and a town called "Thogara", testifying to Tocharian habitation.
Finally, we do find in early Turkic sources, (Uighur writings)of the region of the eastern Tarim where the Uighur settled, of the existence of a language whose literature was translated into Uighur, called twgry. The form resembles too much the name "Tocharian" to be coincidence.
|
|
|
Post by wefone90 on Feb 4, 2007 19:06:33 GMT 3
No, there's no source to prove that Kuei-shang was one of the tribe of Ta-yuehzhi, Ta-yuehzhi merely divided Bactria into five divisions acording to the Han shu and Hou Han-shu. There's no mentions of tribes or anythings. It is truth that Kuei-shang "Kushans" was prefered as Ta-yuezhi even in a later date, just because Ta-yuezhi invaded the region earlier and made an impact on it, but in the sources we also found that they were called Kushan in the west. Ptolemy did not travel to the east like Zhang Qian, who had spent his times and stay in Central asia, and Ptolemy locations were not utterly correct at all, based on the copied map made in 14th century. ALL these form of resembles are not direct evidences or sort.
|
|
|
Post by wefone90 on Feb 4, 2007 19:09:01 GMT 3
If the city peoples in the Tarim were called as 'Tocharians' they would be mentioned earlier in Chinese texts or any sort, but they don't even though they know the name, and appeared only in the 6th century that was prefering in Afghanistan.
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Feb 4, 2007 23:58:12 GMT 3
from my understanding Kushan wasn't supposed to be a tribename but the name of one of the 5 Tokharian kingdoms which eventually unified all other kingdoms under their rule.
|
|
|
Post by sharrukin on Feb 6, 2007 8:24:26 GMT 3
The Hou Han-shu was quite specific: "The hsi-hou [yabghu] of Kuei-shuang, Ch'iu-chiu-ch'ueh attacked and destroyed the four [other] hsi-hou and established himself as king; the kingdom was named Kuei-shuang. [This] king invaded An-hsi, took the country of Kao-fu, and, moreover, destroyed P'u-ta and Chi-pin and completely possessed their territory. Ch'iu-chiu-ch[ueh died at the age of more than eighty years, and his son Yen-kao-chen succeeded him as king. He in his turn destroyed T'ien-chu [northern India] and placed there a general to control it. Since then the Yueh-chih have been extremely rich and strong. In the various countries [their ruler] is always referred to as the king of Kuei-shuang, but the Han, basing themselves upon the old appellation, speak about the Ta Yueh-chih."
(Hou Han shu, 118:92)
So, then, what's the problem?
True, Ptolemy did not travel, but he did have his sources, including a first century AD Macedonian businessman by the name of Maes, who did send agents to explore the Silk Route, and thus has given the west a wealth of information. He and other sources were used by Ptolemy to give a detailed description of the Far East.
Now, as for the maps, I did not base my information on them, but rather on the descriptions. According to Ptolemy the first eastern land after Sogdiana was Sacara (which comprehends Ferghana). The next eastern land was designated as "Scythia beyond the Imaus Mts" (which comprehends Kashgaria, or the western Tarim) - so-named because of its Saka "Scythian" population as the Chinese even document, and linguistics have been able identify. The next eastern land was designated as Serica (Turfania, or the eastern Tarim).
There may be some incorrect dimensions involved, but in broad outlines, the map descriptions are essentially correct.
I did not say that the peoples in the Tarim were called as Tocharians, all I've merely stated was that their name in the region bore evidence of their presence. As for the tribe called the Thagura, Ptolemy's Geography made it clear that it was just one of many tribes in the region, and thus it may have just been a left-over, from the time of their migration, (c. 165-130 BC).
|
|
|
Post by wefone90 on Feb 6, 2007 11:19:02 GMT 3
You don't have to quote my words to make your reasons, Hou Han shu which is the source I said of later record, they called them Ta-Yuezhi, but in fact they were called Kushan in the west. Hsi-hou is not yabghu, different sources stated otherwise. About Maes, I must said, Ptolemy descriptions about his locations are even more disputed than whether Marco Polo did travelled to China. So far you had not provided me a source that Kuei-shuang was one of the tribe of Ta-Yuezhi. Thagura whatever, does not essential refer to eastern Sinkiang or any places, well you know. FYI the Yuezhi migrations, the timeline are usually varied, and are divided into different timelines, it is certainly not started from Laoshan Shanyu.
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Feb 7, 2007 0:19:01 GMT 3
Actually the Turkic title Yabghu was transcripted in Chinese in several ways, including Yehu and Xihu/Hsi-hu (according to E. Chavannes, Che-hou).
|
|