Download mummies, tocharians, yuezhi and kushans

MUMMIES, TOCHARIANS, YUEZHI AND KUSHANS
The intriguing discovery of Europoid mummies in China’s Xinjiang Uighur
Autonomous Region dating as far back as the second millennium BC, has raised many
important questions relating to the Bronze Age of this area and its impact on Chinese
civilisation itself. These mummies, startlingly European in appearance with blond or
red hair, full beards, of tall stature, long noses with deep-set round eye sockets,
wearing woollen garments of plaid twill and other European-style clothes, including
leather boots and the occasional witches’ hat, possibly speaking an early (Indo-)
European language ( viz. Tocharian) have made many people wonder whether many
aspects of Chinese culture and civilisation, previously thought to be indigenous, could
have arrived from the West. Who were these people, the Tocharians? And what was
their relationship to the Yuezhi or the Kushans, if any?
Nowadays, it seems probable that the wheel, chariot, metallurgy, the
domestication of sheep and the horse, the cultivation of wheat and the grape, textiles
etc. may have originally spread from the West. Some even say that written language
could have had a Western stimulus but there is absolutely no proof of this whatsoever:
the mummies of Xinjiang were prehistoric and no written documents have been
discovered. In fact it is highly likely that Chinese writing predates the mummies. If
the Xia dynasty really existed, as increasingly more archaeologists are prepared to
accept, it was most probably a literate civilisation (from 2200 BC approximately
onwards). Much earlier still in the Longshan and Yangshao cultures, some of which
go back to the 6th millennium BC, there have been found rudimentary written
symbols. However, the exciting discoveries by archaeologists at Sanxingdui, near
Chengdu, have revealed the surprising cultural heterogeneity and diversity within
ancient China.
There is much dispute about the putative language of the mummies. Many opt for
Proto-Tocharian whilst others believe it was Iranian (another branch of IndoEuropeans whose speakers also were Europoid in appearance). The truth seems to be
that both languages were present in this area (see Victor Mair’s works). Tocharian, a
language attested much later in Buddhist texts of Xinjiang, developed from ProtoIndo-European, then migrating from the Eurasian steppe, an important area of IndoEuropean ethnogeny, to Eastern Turkestan i.e. Xinjiang. The Tocharian language now
seems to be the second language to split from PIE after Anatolian, retaining many
features of PIE, but had many protracted contacts with non-PIE languages. The
Tocharians were probably the easternmost branch of Indo-European speakers while
Iranian Sakas (Scythians) are attested as far as Khotan, but the proto-Tocharians,
dating from at least the second millennium BC, probably preceded them.
There seem to be many loan-words in Chinese from Tocharian, lending weight to
this idea, dating from the third century BC or earlier, e.g. mi/mit (honey), shizi/secake
(lion), qilin (Chinese unicorn) qilian (heaven). Consequently it seems fairly
convincing that the original spoken language was indeed Proto-Tocharian.
It appears that, that by the start of the second century BC at the latest, the oases of
the Northern and Western Tarim Basin in Chinese Turkestan were still occupied by
Tocharian-speaking city-states while nomads ethnically and linguistically related to
32
them were in outlying areas including Gansu and Tianshan. At least four grouping of
probable Tocharian speakers have tentatively been identified viz. the Yuezhi, Wusun
Kangju and Dayuan, i.e. Caucasoid Indo-European speakers Of these, the most
important historically are undoubtedly the Yuezhi, who may be descendants of the
mummies.
The Yuezhi, usually associated with a provenance from China’s Gansu province
were once the predominant power in Eastern Central Asia before their defeat by the
Xiongnu (Huns) and their subsequent migration to the West. They are famous for
establishing the Kushan Empire in the area of Sogdiana/Afghanistan/India and are
probably equivalent to the Tochari (Tokharoi) mentioned in classical Western
sources, one of the confederation of tribes (xihou/yabghu) documented in Chinese
historiography as setting up a dynasty in Daxia (which was Bactria or later the
medieval Tokharistan named after them), overthrowing the remains of the GraecoBactrians and pushing the Saka southwards. .
Thus, these “Tocharians” established one of the greatest empires heretofore. The
Yuezhi occupied Bactria and Sogdiana between 136 and 129 BC and consisted of five
tribal elements (yabghu/xihou): the classical sources mention the Asioi/Asiani, which
some have seen as the Wusun, which is quite doubtful, while others connect the
Ossetes, an East Iranian language-speaking group now in the Caucasus, descendants
of Central Asian Scythians, with them. The Pasianoi (another yabghu) could,
imaginatively, be linked to the later Iranian language-speaking Pashtuns of
Afghanistan, while the Sakarauloi, another constituent group mentioned in the
classical sources, could well be Sakas (or Scythians). The Tokharoi/Tochari are
generally, but by no means always, identified with the Tocharians. The “Tuhuoluo”
mentioned by the Chinese Buddhist pilgrim Xuanzang must be the Sinicized version
of Tokharistan/Tochara, also mentioned in the “Sui shu” and other old sources.
As for the Kushans, the dominant tribe in the Empire, they must correspond to the
Chinese term “Guishuang” which must have been pronounced similarly to “Kushan”
in ancient Chinese and still bears a resemblance today. One can only say that it is
most probable that the Tochari/Yuezhi/Kushans were Indo-Europeans, possibly
Tocharian speakers and may conceivably be related to the earlier putative Tocharian
speaking mummies.
However, the question remains: were the Kushans Tocharians or Iranians? This
is an area of hot dispute, certainly the limited number of documents discovered
relating to this period are written in Bactrian (an Iranian language) with Greek
lettering, but many scholars adhere to the view that the Kushans took over this
language, already spoken in this area, as an administrative and official communicative
device, whilst at the same time keeping to Tocharian privately. One can compare the
use of French by Scandinavian Normans in France, and Russian by the Varangians in
Rus’. It is most probable that the Kushan confederation included speakers of both
Iranian and Tocharian languages.
The Kushans ruled, at their apogee, in addition to the Afghan realm, the
territories of Gandhara, the Punjab and the Ganga – Jamina Doab as far as Mathura in
India at least. Many accredit the Kushan King Kanishka with the conquest of
Magadha and beyond the Himalayas to areas including Kashmir and Khotan in
33
Xinjiang. They controlled East-West trade in Bactria and India, forming an important
part of the Silk Route.
At this time there was a fusion of different influences -: Iranian, Indian, Greek,
Chinese and Buddhist civilisation and art forms. Kanishka was certainly an illustrious
monarch; amongst his titles are “Maharajah”, “King of Kings” borrowed from the
Indian and Iranian worlds respectively, “Devaputra” (Son of God/Heaven) derived
probably from their experience in China, where the Emperor was “Son of Heaven”, or
conceivably from the Roman world where the Emperor was divine, which itself may
have been inherited from Alexander the Great’s association with Zeus or Roman
contact with Israel. In addition, the Emperor was accorded the title “Caesar” (Kaisar)
obviously based on contact with Rome. The glorious Kushan Empire dating from the
first to third centuries AD, (probably the period of the Great Kushans was from 50 –
233 AD, although the dynasty must have begun earlier) remains a fascinating area for
the study of multicultural influences, linguistic and artistic developments, East-West
trade, ideological links and crucial for the early development and spread of Buddhism
(even the Hellenization of Buddhist iconography). The Kushan Empire covered all
the trading-routes from China to Parthia, Egypt and Europe (the Roman Empire) and
all the routes by which Chinese products reached the West, controlling the major ports
of West India.
The Kushan pantheon, therefore, was subject to many diverse influences,
including pre-Zoroastrian, Zoroastrian, Greek, Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Indian and
probably Chinese (cf the title “devaputra” for the Kings, probably borrowed from the
Chinese “Tianzi” or Son of Heaven not to mention probable Daoist imfluences).
There followed a fascinating cultural fusion . Moreover, the Kushans contributed
greatly to the diffusion of Buddhism to Central Asia and China.
The conclusion to be drawn from all the above is that Chinese civilisation did not
occur in isolation as Sinologists used to believe until very recently. There was a twoway pattern of influences from East to West and West to East. Many important
aspects of Chinese civilisation appear to have Western origins. The fact that Western
Europoid mummies, almost definitely speaking an early form of Indo-European,
probably Tocharian, have been found in North West China, indicates that Chinese
contact with Western culture and practices existed far earlier than was previously
considered possible and that this contact stimulated Chinese development. As has
been shown, a cultural fusion of Eastern and Western ideas (Chinese, Indian, Roman,
Greek, Iranian etc.) also occurred later in the melting- pot of the Kushan realm. Of
course the Chinese genius fertilised Western civilisation to a huge degree even, but
now a web of interconnections between the West and China has been adumbrated
with a more holistic world-view beginning to emerge as the idea of reciprocity is
recognised.
34