Kujula Kadphises and His Title Kushan Yavuga

SINO-PLATONIC PAPERS Number 280 August, 2018 Kujula Kadphises and His Title Kushan Yavuga by Joe Cribb Victor H. Mair, Editor Sino-Platonic Papers Department of East Asian Languages and Civilizations University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia, PA 19104-6305 USA [email protected] www.sino-platonic.org SINO-PLATONIC PAPERS FOUNDED 1986 Editor-in-Chief VICTOR H. MAIR Associate Editors MARK SWOFFORD PAULA ROBERTS ISSN 2157-9679 (print) 2157-9687 (online) SINO-PLATONIC PAPERS is an occasional series dedicated to making available to specialists and the interested public the results of research that, because of its unconventional or controversial nature, might otherwise go unpublished. The editor-in-chief actively encourages younger, not yet well established, scholars and independent authors to submit manuscripts for consideration. Contributions in any of the major scholarly languages of the world, including romanized modern standard Mandarin (MSM) and Japanese, are acceptable. In special circumstances, papers written in one of the Sinitic topolects (fangyan) may be considered for publication. Although the chief focus of Sino-Platonic Papers is on the intercultural relations of China with other peoples, challenging and creative studies on a wide variety of philological subjects will be entertained. This series is not the place for safe, sober, and stodgy presentations. Sino- Platonic Papers prefers lively work that, while taking reasonable risks to advance the field, capitalizes on brilliant new insights into the development of civilization. Submissions are regularly sent out to be refereed, and extensive editorial suggestions for revision may be offered. Sino-Platonic Papers emphasizes substance over form. We do, however, strongly recommend that prospective authors consult our style guidelines at www.sino-platonic.org/stylesheet.doc. Manuscripts should be submitted as electronic files, preferably in Microsoft Word format. You may wish to use our sample document template, available here: www.sino-platonic.org/spp.dot. Beginning with issue no. 171, Sino-Platonic Papers has been published electronically on the Web at www.sino-platonic.org. Issues 1–170, however, will continue to be sold as paper copies until our stock runs out, after which they too will be made available on the Web. Please note: When the editor goes on an expedition or research trip, all operations (including filling orders) may temporarily cease for up to three months at a time. In such circumstances, those who wish to purchase various issues of SPP are requested to wait patiently until he returns. If issues are urgently needed while the editor is away, they may be requested through Interlibrary Loan. You should also check our Web site at www.sino-platonic.org, as back issues are regularly rereleased for free as PDF editions. Sino-Platonic Papers is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercialNoDerivs 2.5 License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 543 Howard Street, 5th Floor, San Francisco, California, 94105, USA. Kujula Kadphises and His Title Kushan Yavuga Joe Cribb Former Keeper of Coins and Medals, British Museum The title 侯 or 侯 applied to Kujula Kadphises, in Chinese textual sources, and, on the coins of Kujula Kadphises in the forms or ζαοοϛ ( , ü or ü in Gandhari Prakrit and εἰα[ι]οϛ (ē [ ] ) ) in Greek, is normally rendered in modern scholarship as “yabgu,” from the later Turkish version of the title. This link with the later Turkish term has led some to understand the Kushan title from its Turkish usage as “tribal chief” (e.g. Cribb 1985, p. 146; Salomon 1996, pp. 440–441; Srinavasan 2007, p. 6; Liu 2001, p. 267). In the Turkish context it is used both for the level of authority immediately below the royal title texts relating to the Kushan and as a title for the chief of a tribal group. In the Chinese Kujula Kadphises and other individuals among Inner Asian peoples, it appears to have the former meaning. And it appears to have the same meaning in Kujula Kadphises coin inscriptions. There has been frequent debate in academic research about the origins of the title, with two widely held positions predominating, one identifying it as a Chinese title, the other as a Central Asian title transcribed into Chinese. Recent publications have outlined the debate, especially the entry for the term j in E I (Sims-Williams and de la Vaissière 2012), which presents the main arguments on both sides and concludes that the term is a Chinese transcription of a title used by the Wusun and Yuezhi peoples of Inner Asia. One of the authors of this note had previously proposed that the term was a Chinese title meaning “allied prince” (Sims-Williams 2002, pp. 229–230). The same position is proposed in his commentary on the Western Regions section of the H H S by John Hill (Hill 2009, p. 588). This paper sets out to examine the use of the term in the Chinese chronicles of the period of the Kushan and in coin and stone inscriptions of Kujula Kadphises to illustrate the function of SINO-PLATONIC PAPERS NO. this title for him (H H S 280 118, 13; Hill 2009, pp. 28–29) and interrogate the contextual evidence from these sources for the meaning of this title and its likely origins. USE OF XIHOU IN The title CHINESE SOURCES was used in the Chinese chronicles to refer to the secondary rank of authority in three Central Asian states, the Wusun, Kangju and Da Yuezhi, and to two high nobles defecting to the Chinese from the Xiongnu. WUSUN XIHOUS The earliest reference to a appears to be as the title of a high noble of the Wusun people (H S , 61.4B, Hulsewé and Loewe 1979, p. 215). The Bujiu Nandoumi, ruler ( or , as the guardian of the infant son of ) of the Wusun people, rescued the child when the Da Yuezhi attacked and killed his father. Later the child became the Wusun ruler. The story was reported as recounted by the Chinese envoy Zhang Qian who had heard it while he was being held by the Xiongnu, c. 138–128 BC, and when the son of Nandoumi was already an old man. However, Pulleyblank has pointed out the inauthentic nature of the details of the narrative about the Wusun Bujiu (Pulleyblank 1970, pp. 156–159), so it is possible that this title could have been applied to this narrative in an retrospective manner, i.e., by a Chinese narrator who applied the term to a Wusun noble because of its later use by the Wusun. The later use of this title by the Wusun is more certain, as the H S account of this people (96B.1A–11B [Hulsewé and Loewe 1979, pp. 143–162]) contains numerous other references to high Wusun nobles by this title and apparently indicates there were three such nobles in the Wusun state (pp. 143–144). Specific references to individual include one to the Ruohu , who married the younger daughter of the senior Wusun ruler Wengguimi and his Chinese princess wife in the mid-first century BC (Hulsewé and Loewe 1979, p. 150). The same Wusun ruler is also recorded as taking charge of the s' cavalry c. 71 BC (Hulsewé and Loewe 1979, p. 151) in a joint action with the Chinese against the Xiongnu. After his death, his son Wujiutu is recorded as overthrowing a rival and becoming senior ruler of the Wusun with the aid of his father’s to restore to these s in c. 50 BC (p. 156), but he failed s their subjects, so the Chinese intervened (p. 157). Some time between 33 and 2 CRIBB, “KUJULA KADPHISES AND HIS TITLE KUSHAN YAVUGA” 11 BC, Cilimi, Wujiutu’s grandson, became the senior Wusun ruler, and all the submitting to him (p. 159). One of his s are reported as s, Nanxi, is described as killing Cilimi’s rival, the lesser ruler (p. 160), an action recognized by the Chinese as worthy of reward (p. 161). In 5 BC the Beiyuanzhi , a concubine’s son of the lesser Wusun ruler, is reported to have attacked the Xiongnu (H 94B.11b) and in 1 BC to have been given the title S (restoration of righteousness noble) (Hulsewé and Loewe 1979, pp. 161–162). KANGJU XIHOUS The Kangju are described by the H S as having five lesser kings (H S 96A.35B–36A; Hulsewé and Loewe 1979, pp. 130–131). Each is named after the town (城) where his court was located. Attempts have been made to equate these kings and towns with the main centers of Sogdh (Hulsewé and Loewe 1979, pp. 130–131; Yu 2014, pp. 180). Elsewhere in the H S a different structure of the Kangju state is described in which the Kangju king is noted as holding council c. 44 BC with his s. He consulted with them about allying with the Xiongnu as a protection from the Wusun (H S , 94B.8; Pulleyblank 1966, p. 28). These s seem to occupy the role of immediate subordinates of the Kangju king, so it seems likely that they are the same princes of the Kangju state referred to as the five lesser kings. In the Q H J they are also referred to as s. The context of this is the attack by the Chinese army on the Xiongnu who had taken control of Kangju (Q H J 23.2). The text says that the Chinese destroyed the five main towns (城) and captured the banners of the s in 36 BC. If the five lesser kings were ruling in the ancient centers of Sogdh (e.g., Chach, Samarkand, Bukhara, Khwarezm, Kesh), then it seems more problematic to identify them with the s who were defeated and had their five towns destroyed by the Chinese army. An alternative to such an analysis would be to question the linkage of the five lesser kings with the Sogdh city states. DA YUEZHI The five (G XIHOUS s of the Da Yuezhi are well known to modern scholars and include the Kushan ) (H S 96A.32A–33A; Hulsewé and Loewe 1979, pp. 121–123; Falk 2015: 69–78). Recently discovered wooden tally records, found at Xuanquan near Dunhuang, refer to two of these s, the Shuangmi and the Xiumi , as envoys from them to the Chinese court who had 3 SINO-PLATONIC PAPERS NO. 280 passed through this relay post in 43 and 37 BC respectively. These documents provide contemporary evidence of the correct Chinese version of this title, matching that surviving in the chronicles (Zhang Defang 2004, pp. 136–137; Grenet 2006). The meaning of the names of the five but the Shuangmi and the Dumi (or Gaofu s is not fully clear, ) seem to derive their names from the territory they controlled as their seat of residence has the same name. The significance of the names of the other three s is not clear. Likewise the names attached to the titles of the Wusun give no indication of their meaning. The Kangju s s do not have any specific names. So the meaning of Kushan could be individual to the family of the or relate to a place name that is no longer known. It was clearly important to Kujula Kadphises as he retained the title Kushan after he was also using the title “king” in his southern conquests, and even used the name Kushan as his own personal name. It was also important to his descendants even after the title was no longer used (Table 4). The H S (96A. 15A) describes the establishment of five on behalf of the Da Yuezhi king. The five to rule Da Xia (Tokharistan) s were Xiumi 休密, Shuangmi 雙靡, Guishuang 貴霜, Xidun 驸頓 and Gaofu 高附. It is thought that this information was added to the chronicle on the basis of a report by Ban Chao c. AD 74–75 (Hulsewé and Loewe 1979, p. 121, n. 288), but it does not refer to events that are in the H H S and that took place before AD 74–75, so is probably an earlier report based on information from the Protector General of the western regions, an office active in the region from 59 BC until AD 16 (Hulsewé and Loewe 1979, pp. 10–11). The wooden tallies from Xuanquan (Zhang Defang 2004, pp. 136–137), show the Da Yuezhi and Xiumi H S in 43 BC in 37 BC) sending envoys to China during the first century BC, so the author of the would have had ample evidence of the in the H pp. 68–69). The list of that in the H s (Shuangmi H s of the Da Yuezhi (Grenet 2006, p. 339; Falk 2015, (Hill 2009, pp. 28–29) is different in one respect from S , substituting Dumi 都密 for Gaofu, and commenting that the H S was mistaken in this respect. The ethnicity and location of the five Da Yuezhi of the use of the s has been much debated. The evidence title among the Wusun suggests that it related to members of the immediate court of the king, even direct relatives of the king, so one would expect the Da Yuezhi holders of this title to be members of the Da Yuezhi elite, rather than local princes who had been conquered by the 4 CRIBB, “KUJULA KADPHISES AND HIS TITLE KUSHAN YAVUGA” Da Yuezhi, as has been suggested (Yu 2014, pp. 387–389). The locations of the five s in Daxia/Tokharistan has been based on attempts to match the place names in the Chinese chronicles with place names mentioned in non-Chinese sources. The H S (96A. 15B) also gives distances from the seat of the Chinese Protector General and from the Yang frontier post, measured in Chinese miles ( ). These distances do not give a solution to the location of the s, as exact conversions of the distances do not work when laid out on a map, but they do show some relative relationships between them. Various solutions have been proposed and discussed (Hulsewé and Loewe 1979, pp. 121–123; Hill 2009, pp. 320–345), but the most recent attempt to find a solution, by Grenet, offers the most convincing use of the place names mentioned, as its solution also fits the relative positions of their locations as given in the Chinese sources. Grenet places all the north of the river Oxus/Amu Darya, Xiumi, nearest to the Protector General (2841 ), in the upper Wakhsh valley (Karategin); Shuangmi, next nearest to the Protector General (3741 ), in the upper Kafirnigan valley (Hisar); Guishuang, further from the Protector General (5940 ), in the lower Vakhsh valley (Takht-i Sangin); Xidun, a similar distance from the Protector General (5962 ), in the lower Kafirnigan valley; and Gaofu/Dumi, furthest from the Protector General (6041 ) at the juncture of the Surkhandaria valley and the river Oxus/Amu Darya (Termez). Grenet offers a coherent explanation of the confusion between the chronicles over Dumi and Gaofu (Grenet 2006; see also Falk 2015, pp. 75–78). The locations also correspond with the distribution of coinage in the reign of Kujula Kadphises and before (Staviskii 1986, pp. 127–140, fig. 12; information supplemented by Aleksey Gorin’s maps in Falk 2015, pp. 75–77, figs. 2–4). The “Heraus” coinage issued by Kujula Kadphises circulated primarily in the Vakhsh valley where his original domain was located. His issues of copper Heliocles imitations copied the earlier silver imitations circulating in the Dumi ’s territory around Termez. Silver imitation Eucratides were current in the territory of the other three s in the upper and lower Kafirnigan valley. The locations of the territory as the H S s as set out by Grenet makes it clear that they occupy the same indicates for the location of the Da Yuezhi king’s court, north of the river Oxus/Amu Daya (媯水 guishui). This offers further evidence that the five Kushan s, including the , were part of the Da Yuezhi elite rather than local princes. According to the H H S (Hill 2009, pp. 28–29) more than a hundred years after the five 5 SINO-PLATONIC PAPERS NO. 280 s had been given charge of Tokharistan, Kujula Kadphises (丘就卻 qiujiuque), the Guishuang , overthrew the other four and established himself as sole ruler in Tokharistan. This action made him leader of the former Da Yuezhi state, but it seems likely that the title Da Yuezhi king had already become obsolete, as there is no mention of this title since the H S . The H H S makes it clear that Kujula Kadphises and his son were not identified by their neighbors as Da Yuezhi, but as Kushan kings, even though the Chinese continued to refer to them as Da Yuezhi kings. The rise of Kujula Kadphises appears to have taken place c. AD 50 (Cribb 2018), therefore it seems likely that the establishment of the five well before s, more than a hundred years earlier, took place before c. 50 BC, i.e., were sending their own envoys to China in 43 and 37 BC (Zhang Defang 2004, pp. 136–137; Falk 2015, p. 69). Falk suggests that their establishment could have taken place as early as c. 80 BC (2015, p. 69). XIONGNU XIHOUS The use of the title by Xiongnu nobles has a different nature to that of the nobles bearing it among the other Inner Asian nomad peoples. It was only used by Xiongnu nobles who had broken with their Xiongnu overlord and deserted to the Chinese. The first mention of Xiongnu is of Handan, who was one of a group of Xiongnu nobles who defected and were given Chinese noble titles in 147 BC (H 127 BC among the S 17.2; S j 19.5). His elevation to was ended in 131 BC. In Zhao Xin, a former king of the Hu people (S j 110.35; Watson 1971, II, p. 180) and a former high minister of the Xiongnu (S j 111.7; p. 214), is also reported as a defector to the Chinese who was appointed by them as . He then served as a general in the Chinese army until he was defeated in 123 BC by the Xiongnu and defected back to them. Here the title is not used within the nomad state, but by the Chinese, for individuals who have left their nomad group to side with the Chinese. The case of Handan suggests that Alongside the was used to indicate a feudal honor bestowed by the Chinese. Handan, the five other defectors were also given noble titles that also appear to indicate the name of the fiefdoms they had bestowed on them: 桓侯 19.5), 遒侯 , 容城攜侯 simplest explanation of the , 易侯 ,S j (or 垣侯 and 范陽靖侯 j . The title in this context therefore appears to represent the bestowal of a 6 CRIBB, “KUJULA KADPHISES AND HIS TITLE KUSHAN YAVUGA” fiefdom called , rather than a specific Central Asian title. Perhaps the same should apply to the bestowal of this title on Zhao Xin. One cannot, however, completely rule out the possibility that the title bestowed on both these Xiongnu nobles somehow relates to the context of its use for other nomad nobles. The case of another defector from the Xiongnu does suggest that the Chinese authorities bestowed the title as a reward with a political significance rather than a feudal one. In 59 BC the Xiongnu commander in the western regions, King Rizhu rebelled against the Xiongnu leader and deserted to the Chinese (H S 96A. 3A; Hulsewé and Loewe 1979, p. 78; Yu 2014, p. 99), handing control of the western regions to the Chinese. He was rewarded with the title 歸德侯 (the allegiance to imperial authority noble). THE CHINESE TITLE HOU IN INNER In China the title “noble” ( ASIA ) was normally linked with a place name, implying a feudal role whereby the recipient of such a title received the rights and authority over a specific district, such as collecting its taxes. The bestowal of noble ( ) titles in Inner Asia had a different function, and it was only attached to the particular place where they already had a role as a high noble under the local king. The titles bestowed by the Chinese on Inner Asian nobles mentioned in the H S (Table 1) gave these nobles an honorific status and mostly refer to the role of these nobles in relation to Xiongnu predation, such as 輔國侯 the nomads noble) and 國侯 (protect the kingdom noble), 擊胡侯 j (peace for the kingdom noble). In the H of such titles is also recorded, with additional titles mentioned, such the 節侯 H j (attack S the use (protect the law noble), bestowed by the Chinese on the loyal son of the assassinated king of Khotan (Hill 2009, pp. 38–39). The Chinese were also instrumental in bestowing the titles born by high nobles in the state of Further Jushi in the Turfan region, where a local Chinese commander tried to replace the king of this kingdom with its 破虜侯 (break the captives noble). This led to fighting that was eventually resolved by the Chinese general Ban Yong, who then bestowed the title 後部親漢侯 (further division love the Han noble) on the son of the new king of Further Jushi (Hill 2009, pp. 48–51). 7 SINO-PLATONIC PAPERS NO. 280 T le Titles bestowed by the Chinese on high-ranking nobles of Central Asian non-nomad states in H S Han Shu 96A kingdom 國 noble titles 侯 Hulwese & protect Loewe 1979 state noble attack (擊胡) or peace for kingdom resist (卻胡) nomads kingdom noble noble ( 國)/ world ( 世) noble 10 pp. 82–83 鄯善 Shan Shan 輔國侯 卻胡侯 16 p. 92 且末 Qiemo 輔國侯 17 p. 93 小宛 Xiaoyuan 輔國侯 20 p. 95 扜彌 Wumi 輔國侯 22 p. 97 于闐 Yutian 輔國侯 26 p. 101 蒲犁 Puli 48 p. 132 大宛 Dayuan 輔國王† 56 p. 139 莎車 Suoju 輔國侯 58 pp. 141–142 疏勒 Shule 輔國侯 疏勒侯 22 p. 162 姑墨 Gumo 輔國侯 姑墨侯 23 p. 163 溫宿 Wensu 輔國侯 24 p. 163 龜茲 Qiuci 輔國侯 34 p. 177 尉犁 Weili 35 p. 178 危須 Weixu 36 p. 178 焉耆 Yanqi 輔國侯 37 p. 179 烏貪訾離 Wutanzili 輔國侯 38 p. 179 卑陸 Beilu 輔國侯 39 pp. 179–180 卑陸後 further Beilu 輔國侯 40 pp. 179–180 郁立師 Yulishi 輔國侯 41 p. 180 單桓 Danhuan 輔國侯 侯‡ 擊胡侯 96B 擊胡侯 尉犁侯 世侯 擊胡侯 8 國侯 卻胡侯; 擊胡侯 CRIBB, “KUJULA KADPHISES AND HIS TITLE KUSHAN YAVUGA” Han Shu kingdom 國 noble titles 侯 42 pp. 180–181 蒲類 Pulei 輔國侯 43 p. 181 蒲類後 further Pulei 輔國侯 44 p. 181 西且彌 West Jumi 西且彌侯 45 pp. 181–182 東且彌 East Jumi 東且彌侯 46 p. 182 劫 Jie 輔國侯 47 p. 182 狐胡 Huhu 輔國侯 48 pp. 182–183 山 Shan 輔國侯 49 p. 183 車師前 nearer Jushi 輔國侯 50 pp. 183–184 車師後 further Jushi 國侯 擊胡侯 † a large state, so the sub-ruler is titled “king” instead of “noble.” ‡ the only title of the noble, so presumably this title means “state noble.” In this broad context of the Chinese bestowal of political titles on the high ranking nobles of the Inner Asian city states, can it be that the title also represents the same practice in relation to the nomad peoples of the same region and had a similar significance? If that is the case then the suggestion that it signifies “allied, united or harmonious noble” (Sims-Williams 2002, pp. 229–230; Hill 2009, pp. 587–590) would fit the practice of the Chinese in bestowing the traditional title of noble ( ) on the high nobles of its subordinate states in Central Asia. Although the relationship of the Chinese court with the nomad states was generally troublesome, the Chinese sources show the nature of the subordination of these states to Chinese authority. The contacts between the Da Yuezhi and the Chinese in the Han period relate to attempts by the Chinese to counter Xiongnu activities through alliances with Inner Asian nomads and city states. The Da Yuezhi initially refused to cooperate with China, but further envoys were sent from the Chinese court (Hulsewé and Loewe 1979, pp. 218–219), and a relationship was established. The wooden tallies from Xuanquan (Zhang Defang 2004, pp. 136–137), however, show the Da Yuezhi king and individual Da Yuezhi s (Shuangmi China during the first century BC. The H H and Xiumi S ) subsequently sent envoys to also reports the allegiance of the Da Yuezhi in the first century AD. In AD 78 the Da Yuezhi (i.e. the Kushan 9 Kujula Kadphises) were among a SINO-PLATONIC PAPERS NO. 280 group of western states “willing to return to allegiance” (Zürcher 1968, p. 369). In AD 86 a Da Yuezhi force fought alongside the Chinese army and their envoy was sent to the Chinese with gifts of precious stones, antelopes and lions (Zürcher 1968, p. 370). Subsequently the Da Yuezhi force turned against China and in AD 90 the Chinese army defeated it, accordingly “from that moment the Yüeh-chih were deeply impressed and sent tribute every year” (Zürcher 1968, p. 370). Although the Kushan rulers appear to have abandoned the title from the time of this defeat, the evidence of Chinese relations with the Da Yuezhi before AD 90 suggests that their earlier use of the title could have been a consequence of its bestowal on Da Yuezhi nobles in recognition of their status as high ranking nobles of a tributary of the Chinese emperor. The Chinese also saw the Wusun as their subordinates and allies (Hulsewé and Loewe 1979, pp. 146–147), and throughout the period covered by the H S there were frequent contacts with exchanges of envoys and gifts, and Chinese princesses were sent to the Wusun court. Kangju’s relationship with China was more detatched, but envoys were exchanged and the son of its king sent to the Chinese court (Hulsewé and Loewe 1979, pp. 126–128). The three nomad peoples using the title for their high nobles were for the most part submitted to the authority of the Chinese emperor, normally siding with the Chinese against the Xiongnu and only occasionally breaking this relationship. The reference to s, for example, under Kangju is only featured when Kangju, under duress, switched to an alliance with the Xiongnu who had occupied their territory, so its adherence to China was temporarily disrupted and duly punished. The Chinese calling high ranking nobles among the Central Asian nomad peoples by the title could accordingly be understood as part of the Chinese practice of including the Chinese title , normally translated as “noble” (or “marquis,” to indicate its feudal nature), in titles bestowed by the Chinese on high ranking nobles of the Inner Asian states submitting to their authority (see Table 1). In the H H S there is an explicit statement that, from a Chinese perspective, it was the emperor who appointed people to the rank of noble. The context of this statement is the usurpation of the Chinese imperial throne by Wang Mang who then exercised his authority by downgrading kings to nobles in the states of Inner Asia (Yu 2014, pp. 317; Hill 2009, pp. 2–3). The title is distinguished from the other Inner Asian title, , by its being used for individuals from states that were not settled city states, but that consisted of nomad peoples, even 10 CRIBB, “KUJULA KADPHISES AND HIS TITLE KUSHAN YAVUGA” when they had settled. This distinction has also been noted by Hill (2009, pp. 588). The H describes all the states with S s as nomads: the Wusun’s “way of life is the same as that of the Hsiung-nu,” the Da Yuezhi were “originally a land of nomads” and “followed the same way of life as the Hsiung-nu” (Hulsewé and Loewe 1979, p. 120), and the Kangju’s “way of life is identical to that of the Ta Yüeh-chih” (Hulsewé and Loewe 1979, p. 126). The inclusion of the two Xiongnu nobles given the title within this practice seems unlikely. Their subordination to the Chinese, having deserted from Xiongnu authority, suggests that the title could have the same meaning, but the context of the usage in the Chinese source suggests they were given this title within the usual Chinese system of ’s being a title related to a feudal estate. Various attempts have been made explain the title as a Chinese transcription of a title in a contemporary Inner Asian language, such as Altaic, Turkish, Iranian and Tocharian (Sims-Williams and de la Vaissière 2012). The context of its use in the Chinese chronicles suggests that it could have been bestowed by the Chinese and had a political meaning to the Chinese. It was used only for high ranking leaders of nomadic peoples, matching the practice of the Chinese bestowing titles on second-rank nobles in Inner Asian city-states. The use of the title 侯 or 侯 in the historical chronicles of the Han period does not preclude the possibility that this title was transcribed from an Inner Asian language, but the use of similar titles in the region suggests that it could have been a title bestowed by the Chinese court. The separate use of the character or in the Han period texts shows it was not exclusive to the context of the title, but appears in other words: 11 times in the S j , 23 times in the H 30 times in the H H S S , and (statistics from Chinese Text Project http://ctext.org/histories?searchu= &reqtype=stats, consulted 4 Sept 2017). The majority of these uses are metaphorical and refer to the harmonious conduct of individuals and political entitites. The translation of this title as “harmonious noble” or “allied noble,” rather than the suggestion that it is a transliteration, is in accord with the use of Chinese-bestowed titles and usage in the chronicles. It is also possible that the word was also a transcription into Chinese of a local title, but written in a way that also gave it an appropriate meaning for its use by the Chinese court. The bearing of the title by nobles in three nomad groups explains its later use in the region. The high status achieved through the bearing of a Chinese title would have been enough for its 11 SINO-PLATONIC PAPERS NO. 280 continuity after the lapse of Chinese overlordship, and in this way it continued to be used by the Hephthalites and Turks, ηβοδαλο ιαβγο (Hephthalite ) in the Bactrian documents (Sims- ’ ( of the Bactrians) in Pahlavi on coins Williams 2007, vol. 2, pp. 122–127) and (Vondrovec 2014, pp. 630–632) and 葉護 ( ) in the biography of Xuan Zang (Li Rongxi 1995, p. 42) (for other usages see Sims-Williams and de la Vaissière 2012). These peoples seem to have been using the title in continuity from an earlier period, perhaps as successors of the Kangju or the Wusun. USE OF XIHOU IN NON-CHINESE LANGUAGES IN THE EARLY KUSHAN PERIOD The coin inscriptions of Kujula Kadphises give a range of possible transcriptions (in the genitive case) of the title into the languages and scripts of Kujula Kadphises conquests (Table 2). T le on the coins of Kujula Kadphises (all coin inscriptions at this period are in the genitive case) coin type location language script Hermaeus imitation Begram Gandhari Kharoshthi Sanskrit Kharoshthi Greek Greek Gandhari Kharoshthi ü Gandhari Kharoshthi ü ü Augustus head Taxila Seated king Soldier uncertain Gandhari Kharoshthi “Heraus” Bactria Greek Greek (genitive forms) ǵ ΖΑΟΟΥ (zaöou) ΗΙΑΟΥ (ēiaou) ΗΙΑΙΟΥ (ēiaiou) This interpretation of the inscription on the “Heraus” coins is still disputed (Falk 2105, pp. 85– 88). I have set out the case for the structure of their inscription in a previous article (Cribb 1993). To summarise the arguments (based on examining all the then known specimens): the position of the word ΗΙΑΟΥ in the inscriptions of both the tetradrachms and obols of this issue indicates it is intended to represent the title of the issuer. ΗΙΑΟΥ occupies the same place as the Greek ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ on the Bactrian Greek coins of Eucratides I that were the prototypes for their designs, and the word 12 CRIBB, “KUJULA KADPHISES AND HIS TITLE KUSHAN YAVUGA” ΚΟΡΡΑΝΟΥ occupies the place of the king’s name. On Eucratides I’s obols the kings’ names and royal title are the only inscriptions, likewise the “Heraus” obols are inscribed only ΗΙΑΟΥ ΚΟΡΡΑΝΟΥ or ΗΙΑΙΟΥ ΚΟΡΣΑΝΟΥ. On Eucratides I’s tetradrachms the epithet ΜΕΓΑΛΟΥ (great) is added to the title and on the “Heraus” coins the epithet ΤΥΡΑΝΝΟΥΝΤΟΣ (ruling) is added. The other instances of Kushan being used as Kujula Kadphises’s only name confirm this interpretation. The word ΣΑΝΑΒ[ΟΥ] or ΑΝΤΕΙΧ appearing between the horse’s legs has been interpreted by some as the ruler’s name, but the parallels on the coins of Gondophares (Senior 2001, pp. 152–153, types 216 and 217) and Zeionises (Senior 2001, pp. 119–120, types 130–132) make it clear that this part of the inscription is a mint control mark. The readings “Heraou,” “Heriaou” or “Miaou” are erroneous, as on no example does the letter iota have the curved top needed to make it rho, whereas the rho in ΤΥΡΑΝΝΟΥΝΤΟΣ and double rho or rho sigma in ΚΟΡΡΑΝΟΥ or ΚΟΡΣΑΝΟΥ are clear on the best inscribed examples. Other interpretations of the inscriptions do not reflect how they are written on the coins or the numismatic context within which these coins were issued. The Gandhari (Kharoshthi) version ü is also attested in a Buddhist inscription dated Azes year 126 (= AD 80) during the reign of Kujula Kadphises (Baums, 2012, p. 235). The inscription is j or without provenance. The other inscriptions of Kujula Kadphises give him the title j j j and he is titled ϷΑΟ in Bactrian in the Rabatak inscription (Sims-Williams 2008); on his coins from Kashmir he is also given these royal titles (Jongeward and Cribb 2015, p. 23). Konow’s suggestion that the word appears in another Kharoshthi inscription (Konow 1929, p. 27) has since been refuted (Baums 2012, pp. 211–212). Salomon has also seen a version of in the title contained ṃñ of the son of the satrap Kharahostes, inscribed on a silver cup (1996, pp. 440– 441), but it seems more plausible that it is a mistranscription of the title individual elsewhere, rather than a unique joining of the j , used for this title with a royal title in a context unrelated to the use of this Inner Asian title. These transcriptions correspond to some extent to the reconstructions of the early Chinese pronunciations of the title : Old Chinese ǝ - ô, Later Han ɨ - (Schuessler 2009, 37-1q, 10-6a); Archaic χ ǝ - ’ / Ancient χ ǝ -ɣǝ (Ulving 1997 [Karlgren 1957], 4301 (675q)/ 2901 (113a-d)); -ɣǝ (Pulleyblank 1991). The variations in the Gandhari and Greek versions of the title are also suggestive of 13 SINO-PLATONIC PAPERS NO. 280 its pronunciation consistent with its transcription from a Chinese original, or its rendition in the language used by the Da Yuezhi (Sims-Williams 2002). The transcriptions of Kujula Kadphises’ name (Table 3) and of the title Greek Ζ and Kharoshti j and to transcribe the same initial sound. The Greek version ΗΙΑΟΥ appears to be an attempt to use ΗΙ to match the initial sound of Kharoshthi show the use of as a “y” in the same way as the or Greek Ζ. The variation in the transcription of the initial sound of on Kujula Kadphises’ coins are in keeping with the range of versions of this j/ / sound in his own name (in the genitive case) on the same coins. T le Kujula Kadphises’ name on his coins. coin type location language script name Hermaeus imitation Begram Greek Greek ΚΟΖΟΥΛΟΥ ΚΑΔΦΙΖΟΥ (Kozoulou Kadphizou) Bactrian Greek ΚΟΖΟΥΛΟ ΚΑΔΦΙΣΕΙ (Kozoulo Kadphisei) Augustus head Taxila Gandhari Kharoshthi j Sanskrit Kharoshthi j′ū Greek Greek ΚΟΖΟΛΑ ΚΑΔΑΦΕΣ (Kozola Kadaphes) Seated king Soldier uncertain Gandhari Kharoshthi Gandhari Kharoshthi Bactrian Greek ΚΟΖΟΥΛΟΥ ΚΑΔΟΒΙΚΕΙ (Kozoulou Kadobikei) Bull-camel Kashmir Gandhari Kharoshthi Gandhari Kharoshthi 14 ü CRIBB, “KUJULA KADPHISES AND HIS TITLE KUSHAN YAVUGA” KUSHAN USE OF XIHOU AND THE ASSOCIATED Kujula Kadphises used KUSHAN DESIGNATION as his only title until his contacts with the Indo-Parthians and Indo- Scythians in Gandhara, Taxila and Kashmir prompted him to adopt Gandhari royal titles, such as j j j . On his coins some series maintain the title. His formal relationship as submitting to the Chinese continued until as late as AD 87 when he sent tribute to the Chinese in the form of exotic animals (H H army (H S H S 3.17a; Zürcher 1968, p. 370), but in AD 90 he attacked the Chinese 4.3b; Zürcher 1968, pp. 370–371). After Kujula Kadphises the title was no longer used by the Kushans. Kujula Kadphises identified himself as Kushan (96A.15B) as 貴霜 H H S Later Han 侯 , the title first attested in the H S (Hulsewé and Loewe 1979, p. 122), and was so named in the 貴霜 (Old Chinese (Hill 2009, pp. 28–29). The designation Kushan ǝ- ŋ, -ṣ ŋ, Schuessler 2009, 36-2b, 3-55g) was used by Kujula Kadphises on his coins, rendered with or without the title (Table 4). On some coins and in Kharoshthi inscriptions Kujula Kadphises appears to be called simply Kushan as though it was understood as his name. His successors continued to use Kushan as part of their official title, apparently as a dynastic designation. After the Kushan kings lost territory to the Sasanians and the Kidarite Huns this dynastic designation became associated with the territory they had ruled and their Sasanian and Kidarite successors adopted the title Kushanshah Bactrian ΚΟϷΑΝΟϷΑΥΟ Pahlavi king of the Kushan realm. 15 š‛ MLK‛, presumably meaning SINO-PLATONIC PAPERS NO. 280 T le : use of the title “Kushan” by Kushan kings. Kushan king coin inscriptions Kujula Kadphises Greek stone inscriptions without with ΚΟΡΡΑΝΟΥ ΧΟΡΑΝΣΥ ΚΟΡΣΑΝΟΥ ΚΟΡΣΝΑΟΥ ΚΟΡΣΝΟΥ Bactrian ΚΟΡΣΑΝΕΙ ΚΟΡΣΑΝ Kharoshthi ṣ ṇ ṣ ṇ ṣ ṇ Wima Takto Bactrian ṣ ṇ ṣ ṇ ΚΟϷΑΝΟ Kharoshthi ś (?) Brahmi ṣāṇ [ Wima Kadphises no recorded usage Kanishka Bactrian ΚΟϷΑΝΟ ] ΚΟϷΑΝΟ ṣāṇ Kharoshthi Huvishka Bactrian ΚΟϷΑΝΟ Vasudeva I Bactrian ΚΟϷΑΝΟ Vasishka Bactrian ΚΟϷΑΝΟ Vasudeva II Bactrian ΚΟϷΑΝΟ Kanishka II ṣ ṇ Mahi Kipunadha The application of the title to the nobles who ruled the territory of the Da Yuezhi, initially on behalf of the Da Yuezhi king, has led to some debate about the relationship between the s and the Da Yuezhi. Puri (1965, pp. 1–8), following several other commentators, suggested that the Kushan was ruler of a tribe or clan who were allied to, but not part of the Da Yuezhi. Enoki 16 CRIBB, “KUJULA KADPHISES AND HIS TITLE KUSHAN YAVUGA” et al. (1994, p. 174) have made a similar suggestion that the Kushans and the other four “tribal chiefs” had been conquered by the Da Yuezhi. It seems more sensible, in the light of the way in which the Chinese texts use the title in Inner Asia, to identify the five s, including the Kushan , as leading members of the Da Yuezhi nobility. This is the view now held by the majority of scholars, including Puri (1994, p. 247), but the view expressed by Enoki et al. still finds supporters (Yu 2011, 2014). The title born by Kujula Kadphises, and abandoned by him before the end of his reign for the higher title “king of kings,” positions him and his predecessors as high nobles of the Da Yuezhi, perhaps even originally members of its royal family, tributaries of the Chinese Empire. His replacement of the title perhaps indicated his independence from the Chinese and his adoption of an imperial role in the Iranian tradition following his establishment of hegemony over the Da Yuezhi and his conquest of territory from his Iranian and Scythian neighbors. Or perhaps his growing independence prompted the Chinese to withdraw his right to use the title and accordingly his successors also had no right to it. He and his successors, nevertheless, retained the designation Kushan as originally used with the title . The meaning of Kushan is often misunderstood as the name of the people or state ruled by the Kushan kings, but its origins in the period before Kujula Kadphises suggests it originally referred to the family of the first Kushan and it continued to be so used by his successors until late in the dynasty. Its use by the Sasanians who captured part of Kushan territory in the reigns of Kanishka II and Vasishka and Hun and by the Kidarites who succeeded them in Bactria and the Kushans in Gandhara had a different meaning and was used to indicate their rule over the former territory of the Kushan kings. The use of the title by members of four Inner Asian nomad peoples Da Yuezhi, Wusun, Kangju and Xiongnu, has been used here to question its interpretation as a formation from Tocharian or eastern Iranian and to suggest an external source for the title, i.e. that it was bestowed by the Chinese when these nomad peoples allied themselves with the Chinese, and that it had a meaning something like “allied prince.” This practice seems similar to the bestowal of titles such as 輔國侯 (protect the kingdom noble) on princes in the Inner Asian city states that allied themselves with the Chinese. The Da Yuezhi and therefore Kujula Kadphises, the first Kushan king, can be understood to have used the title because of this practice. The later use of the title by Turkic 17 SINO-PLATONIC PAPERS NO. 280 peoples in the region is not an indication of its origins, but can be understood as a survival of this honorific title among the Wusun (Mair and Cheng 2016). ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank Ching Chao-jung, Michael Loewe, Yu Taishan, Nicholas Sims-Williams, John Hill, and David Jongeward for their help with this paper. Thanks also to the anonymous referees of the paper who made useful observations that enabled me to improve the paper. The opinions and any mistakes are my own. BIBLIOGRAPHY Baums, S. 2012. “Catalog and Revised Texts and Translations of Gandharan Reliquary Inscriptions” in D. Jongeward, E. Errington, R. Salomon and S. Baums, G B R (Gandharan Studies, no. 1), pp. 200–251. Seattle. Chinese Text Project. http://ctext.org/histories (consulted August–September 2017). Cribb, J. 1985. “The Sino-Kharoshthi Coins of Khotan: Their Attribution and Relevance to Kushan Chronology 2,” T N C 145, pp. 136–149. Cribb, J. 1993. “The ‘Heraus’ Coins: Their Attribution to the Kushan King Kujula Kadphises, c. AD 30– 80,” in M. Price, A. Burnett and R. Bland (editors), E K J H R C , pp. 107–134. London. Cribb. J. 2018. “Numismatic Evidence and the Date of Kanishka I,” in W. Rienjang and P. Stewart (editors), P C G ā A . Oxford. Enoki, K., G. A. Koshelenko and Z. Haidary. 1994. “The Yüeh-chih and Their Migration,” in J. Harmatta, B. N. Puri and G. F. Etemadi (editors), H C C A , vol. II. Paris: UNESCO. Falk, H. 2015. K H . Bremen. Grenet, F. 2006. “Nouvelles données sur la localisation des cinq Yabghus des Yuezhi. Arrière plan politique de l’itinéraire des marchands de Maès Titianos,” J Hill, J. E. 2009. T J G R A 294, pp. 325–341. (especially see Appendix M: The Title Xihou, pp. 587– 590). Charleston, SC. 18 CRIBB, “KUJULA KADPHISES AND HIS TITLE KUSHAN YAVUGA” Hulsewé, A. F. P., and M. A. N. Loewe. 1979. C C A –T , K E S B.C. – A.D. : . Leiden. Jongeward, D., and J. Cribb. 2015. K A N ,K S -S T I Aś I M F , II.1, K E A 29. ṭ īI E . Calcutta. Li Rongxi. 1995. A B D C . New York. Karlgren, B. 1957. “Grammata Serica Recensa,” B Konow, S. 1929. C :AC T M G C’ M G T . Berkeley. Liu, Xinru. 2001. “Migration and Settlement of the Yuezhi-Kushan: Interaction and Interdependence of Nomadic and Sedentary Societies,” J W H 12.2, pp. 261–292. Mair, V. H., and Cheng Fangyi. 2016. “The Relationship of the Early Turks with the Wusun,” in I. Zimonyi and O. Karatay (editors), C G (T A M A :S H P 104), pp. 235–244. Pulleyblank, E. G. 1966. “Chinese and Indo-Europeans,” J R A S , pp. 9–39. Pulleyblank, E. G. 1970. “The Wu-sun and Sakas and the Yüeh-chih Migration,” B O A S , E R M Puri, B. N. 1965. I S 33.1, pp. 154–160. Pulleyblank, E. G. 1991. L C B. P E M C ,L M . Vancouver, BC. K . Bombay. Puri, B. N. 1994. “The Kushans” in J. Harmatta, B. N. Puri and G. F. Etemadi (editors), H C C A , vol. II. Paris: UNESCO. Salomon, R. 1996. “An Inscribed Silver Buddhist Reliquary of the Time of King Kharaosta and Prince Indravarman,” J Schuessler, A. 2009. M R A O C O S L H 116.3, pp. 418–452. C :AC G S . Honolulu. Sims-Williams, N. 2002. “Ancient Afghanistan and Its Invaders: Linguistic Evidence from the Bactrian Documents and Inscriptions” in N. Sims-Williams (editor), I P , pp. 225–242. Oxford. 19 -I L SINO-PLATONIC PAPERS NO. 280 Sims-Williams, N. 2004. “The Bactrian Inscription of Rabatak: A New Reading,” B I A , New Series 18, pp. 53–68. Sims-Williams, N. 2007. B D , vol. 2. London. Sims-Williams, N., and É. de la Vaissière. 2012. “jabguya,” E I , part i, (http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/jabguya, completed April 5 2012, consulted 25 July 2017). Srinavasan, D. M. 2007. “Pre-Kuṣāṇa Art: A New Concept” in D. M. Srinavasan (editor), O E :A P -K ṣāṇ W Ulving, T. 1997. D O A A d, pp. 1–27. M C K (B ’ Grammata Serica Recensa ). Göteborg. Vondrovec, K. 2014. C 8 C C I H T S B G ( CE). Vienna. Watson, B. 1971. R G H C Yu Taishan. 2011. “The Origin of the Kushans,” S Yu Taishan. 2014. A C C W E -P , vol. 2. New York. P no. 212, pp. 1–22. Memoirs on the Western Regions H ,W ,J , S N D O H . Beijing. Zhang Defang. 2004. “Xuanquan Han jianzhong ruogan xicheng ziliao kaolun” (Research notes on the data concerning western cities in the Han period bamboo tallies from Xuanquan) in Rong Xinjiang and Li Xiaocong (editors), Z G S (History of Chinese–Foreign Relations), pp. 147–129 (sic). Beijing. Zürcher, E. 1968. “The Yüeh-chih and Kaniṣka in the Chinese Sources,” in A. L. Basham (editor), P D K ṣ , pp. 346–393. 20 Since June 2006, all new issues of Sino-Platonic Papers have been published electronically on the Web and are accessible to readers at no charge. Back issues are also being released periodically in e-editions, also free. For a complete catalog of Sino-Platonic Papers, with links to free issues, visit the SPP Web site. www.sino-platonic.org