C

Since the Xihou 翖侯 of Guishuang 貴霜 came originally from the Daxia 大夏, one of the four Sakā tribes that destroyed the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom, the Kushāns can be further traced back to the Pasiani of the Sakā tribes.

Except for the above-cited record in the book of Strabo, the Pasiani do not appear in other records, and there is no evidence to be examined. This seems to show that the tribal name recorded by Strabo is wrong. It has been suggested that Pasiani (Πασιανοί) is a textual corruption for Gasiani (Γασιανοί). In my opinion, this is a reasonable suggestion, and “Guishuang 貴霜” [giuət-shiang] or Kuṣāṇa (Kushān) and Gasiani can be understood as different transcriptions of the same name.

In other words, the Gasiani who invaded Bactria would have submitted to the Da Yuezhi 大月氏, just as the other Sakā tribes did after the Da Yuezhi 大月氏 had moved west. One chief of the Gasiani was granted recognition and became the Xihou 翖侯 of Guishuang 貴霜, as seen in the Chinese historical record.

The fact that the Xihou 翖侯 of Guishuang 貴霜 took its name from a Sakā tribe is not unique: the Xihou 翖侯 of Xiumi 休密, another of the five Xihou 翖侯 in the state of Daxia 大夏, also acted thus. “Xiumi 休密” [xiu-miet] can be understood as a transcription of “Comediae”, and according to Ptolemy's Geography (VI, 13) the Comediae were of the Sakā. It is thus clear that those groups recorded by Strabo were only the most conspicuous.

The main reason for interpreting Guishuang 貴霜 as Gasiani is that “Guishuang 貴霜” and “Yuezhi 月氏” [ngiuat-tyei] can be regarded as different transcriptions of the same name. The Guishuang 貴霜 and the Yuezhi 月氏 or Da Yuezhi 大月氏 must have come from the same source, but they migrated in different directions. Only when this point is accepted can the relevant records in the Chinese historical record be explained reasonably.

First, according to the “Xiyu zhuan 西域傳” of Houhanshu 後漢書 (ch. 88), after Qiujiuque 丘就卻 and Yangaozhen 閻膏珍 had established a kingdom, “the state was named King Guishuang 貴霜” and “in the various states [their ruler] is always referred to as ‘King Guishuang 貴霜’”, “but the Han 漢, basing themselves upon the old appellation, spoke about ‘Da Yuezhi 大月氏’”. It is true that Qiujiuque 丘就卻 probably flaunted the banner of the Da Yuezhi 大月氏, his suzerain, when he “attacked and destroyed the [other] four Xihou 翖侯”. However, it was obviously not necessary for him to do so when his state had been established. In fact, there is another dynastic title, “Guishuang 貴霜”, recorded in the “Xiyu zhuan 西域傳” of Houhanshu 後漢書 (ch. 88). The only reasonable explanation why the Eastern Han 漢 called it “Yuezhi 月氏” or “Da Yuezhi 大月氏” as before is that “Yuezhi 月氏” and “Guishuang 貴霜” were different transcriptions of the same name.

In the “Xirong zhuan 西戎傳” chapter of Weilüe 魏略 it is recorded: “There were the states of Jibin 罽賓, Daxia 大夏, Gaofu 高附 and Tianzhu 天竺; these were all annexed and belonged to the Da Yuezhi 大月氏”. In Kang Tai's 康泰 Waiguozhuan 外國傳 cited in Shiji zhengyi 史記正義 (ch. 123), it is recorded: “A foreigner says that there are three numerous things in the world. The Middle Kingdom has numerous people. Da Qin 大秦 has numerous treasures. Yuezhi 月氏 has numerous horses”. Because of the date, the terms “Da Yuezhi 大月氏” or “Yuezhi 月氏” in the two texts cited above necessarily refer to “Guishuang 貴霜”. This can be regarded as evidence.

Second, in the “Wei Mingdi ji 魏明帝紀” of Sanguozhi 三國志 (ch. 3), it is recorded that on the date guimao 癸卯 of the twelfth month in the third year [229] of the Taihe 太和 reign-period, “the king of Da Yuezhi 大月氏, Bodiao 波調, sent envoys to present tribute. [The Wei 魏 dynasty] conferred on [Bo]diao [波]調 the title ‘King of Da Yuezhi 大月氏 Close to Wei 魏’”. The only reasonable explanation is that the Guishuang 貴霜 approved of the fact that the Eastern Han 漢 dynasty called it “Da Yuezhi 大月氏”. To Bodiao 波調 (Vāsudeva), the “king of the Da Yuezhi 大月氏” was not different from “King Guishuang 貴霜”. This seems to show not only that “Yuezhi 月氏” and “Guishuang 貴霜” are different transcriptions of the same name, but also that the Yuezhi 月氏 and the Guishuang 貴霜 came from the same source.

Since the Guishuang 貴霜 people were not the Yuezhi 月氏, even though they had the same name and origins as the Yuezhi 月氏, they were in all probability the Gasiani, a Sakā tribe who came from the northern bank of the Syr Darya.

It needs to be pointed out that “Yuezhi 月氏” and “Gasiani” can be regarded as different transcriptions of the same name, but we cannot, on this basis, take it for granted that the destruction of the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom by the Sakā tribes was the event that caused the Da Yuezhi's 大月氏 migration to the valley of the Amu Darya.

I. As mentioned above, the date when the Da Yuezhi 大月氏 moved west does not tally with the time when the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom was destroyed.

II. According to the “Dayuan liezhuan 大宛列傳” of Shiji 史記 (ch. 123), and the “Xiyu zhuan 西域傳” of Hanshu 漢書 (ch. 96), the Da Yuezhi 大月氏 moved to the valley of the Gui 嬀 River by “passing Dayuan”, i.e., Ferghāna and Sogdiana. This does not tally with Strabo's record on the Sakā tribes who came from the northern bank of the Syr Darya.

III. “Yuezhi 月氏” and “Gasiani” can be regarded as different transcriptions of the same name. The Yuezhi 月氏 originated as a farraginous tribal association, probably having the same composition as the Sakā association recorded by Strabo, but those who controlled Bactria were undoubtedly not the Asii or the Tochari after the Da Yuezhi 大月氏 had moved westward. This fact also contradicts the records of Strabo and Pompeius Trogus.

In sum, the Guishuang 貴霜 (Kushāns) can be traced back to the Gasiani, one of the Sakā tribes. kQ/BOSlyQ4/Z9hKg6rrF2qZP+wreTMGxTEiUZ211T0jlwkqDMckRzeLmbg6lkYAf