The history of the states that emerged on the ruins of the Hellenistic world has long attracted the attention of researchers by the complexity of the processes that took place in them, due to the synthesis of Greek and Eastern (often nomadic) principles. Despite the considerable volume of publications, which are now largely outdated due to the constant expansion of the number of sources, there is no clear picture of the history of the Greco-Bactrian and Kushan kingdoms. One of the controversial issues, the solution of which can significantly contribute to the reconstruction of the history of Bactria, is the problem of the "five possessions" of the Yuezhi. According to Chinese chronicles, the Yuezhi conquered the Dasha region, which is closely related to Bactria in the ancient tradition, during the fall of the Greco-Bactrian kingdom, although they may not have been the main culprits of this collapse of the" Far East of the Hellenistic World " (as S. P. Tolstov put it). The published material is related to the interpretation of data from Chinese chronicles.

"Qian-Hanshu" (translated by A. F. P. Khulseve) reports the following: "The state of Greater yuezhi. The ruler's location is in the city of Chienshih, located 11600 li from Ch'ang-an. It does not report to the Governor-General (of the Western Provinces). It has 100,000 households, 400,000 inhabitants, including 100,000 capable of carrying weapons. To the east, the distance to the governor-general's headquarters is 4,770 li, and in the west you can reach An-xi (Parthia) in 49 days of travel, in the south it has joined Chi-pin. The land, climate, varieties of products( goods), way of life and coinage are similar to the Anxi [Parthian]. The land produces the one-humped camel. Greater Yuezhi was originally a nomad country. The population moved with their herds and followed the same lifestyle as the Xiongnu. There were over 100,000 trained archers, and for this reason, they relied on their strength and treated Xiongnu lightly. Originally, [the people] lived between Dunhuang and Qilian. Then came the time when Shanyu Mao Tun attacked and defeated Yuezhi. And shanyu Lao-Shang killed [the ruler] yuezhi, making a drinking bowl out of his skull. After that, the Yuezhi went far away, passing through Davan [Ferghana] and crossing to the west, attacked and subdued Das. The central city was placed north of the Gui River for the ruler's court. The remaining small group, unable to leave, found favor among the Ch'iang tribes of the Southern Mountains and were called the Little Yuezhi. Initially, Dasya did not have a supreme ruler or chief, and small rulers were freely established in cities. The denizens are weak and afraid to fight, as a result, when the Yuezhi came here, they made all of them their subjects. They provide food for Han envoys. There are five si-hou (domains. - A. Z.). The first is called si-hou Siu-mi, the residence of the ruler in the city of Ho-mo; it is located 2841 li from the [seat] of the governor-general and 7802 li from the "Yang barrier". The second is called si-hou Shuang-mi, the residence of the ruler in the city of Shu-

page 18

an-mi, located 3,741 li from the Governor-General and 7,782 li from the Yang Barrier. The third is called xi-hou Gui-shuang, the seat of the ruler in the city of Hu-cao; it is located 5962 li from the governor-general and 7982 li from the "Yang barrier". The fourth is called si-hou Si-dun, the seat of the ruler in Po-mao City; it is located 5962 li from the governor-general and 8202 li from the "Yang barrier". The fifth is called si-hou Gao-fu, the seat of the ruler in Gao-fu City; it is located 6041 li from the governor-general and 9283 li from the "Yang barrier". All five si-hous are subject to the yuejam. " 1

The Hou-Hanshu contains some additional information: "The Han-shu idea that it (Gao-fu) was one of the five domains (yuezhi) is not true. It had previously belonged to An-xi (Parthia); only when the Yuezhi defeated An-xi did they gain the Gao-fu district. " 2 Instead of Kao-fu, the fifth si-hou is replaced by Du-mi 3 .

For many years, there has been a continuing debate about the specific localization of si-hou4. The concept of I. Markwart is widely used in foreign historiography. Based on a comparison of the data of "Qian-Hanshu" and "Hou-Hanshu", the information of the Chinese Buddhist pilgrim Xuan Tsang, who made a trip to India from China through Central Asia in the 7th century, and the chronicle "Beishi" (7th century), I. Marquart located Xu-mi in Wakhan, Shuang-mi in Chitral, Gui-shuang is located by him in the north of Gandhara (the area between the Kunar and Pyandshi rivers), Si-dun-in the vicinity of Parwan (also in Pyandshi), and Gao-fu is connected with the vicinity of Kabul .5 The historiography of the problem of localization of the "five possessions" was described in detail by A. M. Mandelshtam6 , so it should only be supplemented with the latest developments. Some researchers prefer not to make any speculations7, however, rather adhering to the Marquart hypothesis. The latter is supported (with certain additions) by one of the most serious Kushan scholars in India, B. N. Mukherjee8, as well as by Bhaskar Chattopadhyay9 , and it is also accepted in the general monograph on the history of India 10 . Previously famous sinologists Edouard Chavannes 11 and Gustave Haloun 12 generally agreed with Markwart's point of view. Baldev Kumar considers it incorrect, based on the fact that if it is adopted, all the possessions are outside Das, which he understands as Bactria proper - the territory south of Hissar (the area north of the Amu Darya) and the vicinity of Balkh 13 . The famous Italian researcher Paolo Duffina opposed the Marquart concept [14] in an article with a critical analysis of the Mukherjee hypothesis. However, his arguments are mostly philological, archeology and even more numismatics are not considered at all.

In Russian historiography, attention to this problem is closely connected with large-scale archaeological work on the territory of Southern Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. 15 A. M. Mandelstam considered it unlikely that a small mountainous region in Badakhshan, where Gui - shuang was located according to Markwart, would become an organizing and leading center during the collapse of the Kushan Empire. 16 V. M. Massa, agreeing with such a conclusion, He believed that Gui Shuang was located in the fertile valley of Kashkadarya 17 . However, there are practically no coin finds that could be associated with the early Kushans. In addition, it completely ignores the important role of Badakhshan in the history of the ancient East: first, only lapis lazuli was mined there, secondly, this area was rich in metal, and thirdly, it is not always a richer agricultural country that becomes the center of unification, vivid examples of which are the history of the Assyrian power, the Persian Empire, The confrontation between China and the Xiongnu 18], and the latter were inferior to China in terms of economic development. G. A. Pugachenkova, who conducted the excavations of Khalchayan, thinks that it "played the role of a residence

page 19

"Geraev family"", and "the city that grew up on the territory of Dalverzin-tepe is the capital of the indigenous Kushan domain, which appears in the ancient chronicle under the name Hojo" 19 .

Further development of the problem of the "five possessions" was carried out in line with the analysis of numismatic material. B. Y. Stavisky suggested, based on the thesis about a single line of evolution of "imitation of Eucratid coins "1 => coins" Geraya", that the area of the latter is the area of Gui-shuang, located in Southern Bactria, in the Kunduzdarya valley. This, according to Stavisky, follows from the fact that it is necessary to remember the connection of the early coinage of Kujula with imitations of the coins of Hermea and the area of Paropa-misad 20 . The Surkhandarya region, where imitations of the coins of Heliocles I are particularly widespread, should be connected with another Yuezhi domain. A little earlier, a well-known expert on Central Asian numismatics, E. A. Davidovich, published a hoard of coins "Geraya", suggesting a periodization of the history of the region in the Yuezhi period, based on differences in the reports of Chinese dynastic chronicles .21 The first stage (139-125 BC) is associated with the conquest of the Yuezhi Dasha, which consists of several possessions. The latter depend on the yuezhi, which are located north of the Amu Darya. At the second stage (according to "Qian-Hanipu", before 25 BC), the state of Large Yuezhi is formed, their capital is located to the north of the Amu Darya, the southern border is Chi-pin (Gibin in the national tradition). In the territory subordinate to the yuezham, and there are five possessions. At the third stage (according to the "Khou-Khanip", which brings the events to 125 AD), the state of the Greater Yuezhi disintegrates, the rulers of the possessions gain independence, and the Kushan Empire begins to form under Kujul Kadfiz, who subdued the other four Si-khou. However, two years later, A. F. P. Khulsev and M. A. N. Lowy demonstrated that the original text of the 123rd chapter of Sima Qian's Shih-chi was lost and restored in the third and fourth centuries on the basis of the Qian - Hanypu data. 22 Thus, the first two stages identified by E. A. Davidovich, they can't be opposed to each other.

E. V. Zeymal hypothesizes that imitations of the coins of Heliocles I were minted by the Gui-shuang domain, and the coins of the "barbarian Eucratides" were minted by the Shuang-mi domain .23 Imitations of the coins of Heliocles I can be precisely associated with the Surkhandarya Valley, since it is there that their main finds are known (in Termez, Khalchayan, Dalverzin Tepe, Sherali tepe, Barat tepe, Paenkurgan) 24. E. V. Rtveladze objects to the Leningrad numismatist, pointing out, not without reason, the absence of Kujula Kadfiz coins in the region where imitations of the coins of Heliocles I were found, and their presence in Kabulistan and Gandhar25 . The location of Gui Shuang is not entirely clear 26 . However, according to E. V. Rtveladze, there is a contradiction between the data of numismatics and Chinese chronicles, due to the quantitative discrepancy between the possessions reconstructed from coin finds and the number of si-hou according to the Chinese tradition. In addition to the well - known areas where coins-imitations of the coinage of Eucratides I and Heliocles I-were circulated, there are two other groups of coins, namely the coinage of Phraates IV with a super-coinage and imitations of it, and the Sapadbiz issues that continue this line of evolution, localized in Western Bactria.

In a recent paper, E. V. Rtveladze suggested placing the Gui-shuang in the Baghlan region, where the major dynastic temples of the Kushans were located-in Surkh-Kotal and Rabatak .27 However, this argument is not very convincing, since the existence of a dynastic temple in Mata (Mathura district, India) is known, and the term for such a temple in the Bactrian language - {ZosuoA, osuuo - is found in an inscription from Ayrtam,located in Northern Bactria.

Publishing the materials of Tillya Tepe excavations, V. I. Sarianidi suggested localizing two of the Yuezhi possessions: one to the north, the other to the south of the Amu Darya28 . The reason for this was the findings of imitations of the coins of Heliocles I, discovered

page 20

Sarianidis for some reason in the burial grounds of the Bishkent valley (where they never existed), and coins "Geraya" 29 . Other numismatics data were not taken into account. Recently, K. Abdullayev presented his concept of localization of the capital of the state of Greater Yuezhi. From his point of view, Qianshi (Gyanipi, according to Bichurin; Chienchih in Khulsev; Ch'ien-shi ch-end in Enoki in Narain's monograph) should be identified with Dalverzin-tepe, and the center of the Gui-shuang domain (Hozo, according to Bichurin; Hu-cao in Khulsev) in Khalchayan . Dalverzin tepe was first named the capital of Greater Yuezhi by G. A. Pugachenkova 31 . The hypothesis of Gui-shuang in Halchayan seems not entirely justified, since the excavations did not find a single coin of not only Kujula Kadfiz, probably the undisputed founder of the Kushan dynasty, but even "Gerai", recently identified with him32.

Recently, a very original concept of localization of the five si-hows, proposed by L. A. Borovkova, has appeared in Russian historiography. It located Xiu-mi 30 km east of the present city of Khujant (formerly Leninabad), where the second Shuang-mi domain was located, or 120 km west of Kokand; Gui-shuang was located in the Bekabad district, Si-dun - in the Khawasta district, Gao-fu - on the site of Ura-tube 33 . Such a concept does not seem to correspond at all to the historical and archaeological situation. In the territories where L. A. Borovkova places Yuezhi possessions, there are no coin finds that could be associated with early Kushans. Coins of Kujula Kadfiz (Ch'iu-Chiu-ch'ueh) of the Chinese chronicles are not found even to the north of the Amu Darya, except for his issues of "Geraya" mints. But one of the conclusions of L. A. Borovkova deserves attention: from her point of view, there were more than five known possessions; the latter came to the attention of the Chinese first because they provided food to the Chinese ambassadors (according to the Qian-Hanshu), or because the possession of Gui - shuang conquered the other four (Hou-Hanidu) 34 . Nevertheless, the sequence with which the five si-hous are described casts doubt on the reasons for the Chinese interest in them: "Initially, the Da-xia had no supreme ruler or leader, and the cities were ruled by small rulers. The denizens are weak and afraid to fight, and as a result, when the Yuezhi came here, they made all of them their subjects. They provide food for Han envoys. There are five si-hows." This can be interpreted to mean that the Chinese ambassadors were provided with food either by yuezhi or Dasha. But the presence of a significant number of domains is in good agreement with the general idea of nomads: for example, the Xiongnu have a very extensive system of ranks among the nomadic aristocracy .35

It should be noted that, from our point of view, the evidence of the Chinese chronicles was perceived uncritically by those researchers who relied mainly on archeology and numismatics in their observations. The Chinese annals indicate that the five domains were located within Dasa, and not north of the Amu Darya, a territory that also belonged to the Yuezhi .36 Thus, the findings of imitations of the coins of Eucratides and Heliocles cannot provide information about the localization of the possessions known from "Qian-Hanshu" and " Hou-Khanyn "(emphasis added), since they were made in the regions of Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. If we continue to use coins to reconstruct the borders of individual Yuezhi possessions, then we can follow E. V. Rtveladze to draw a conclusion about the duration of the process of their formation .37 But it seems to us that in this case the observations mentioned above will be ignored, which will again lead to a situation of uncritical approach to sources. The well-known French researcher B. Lionnet 38 believes that it is impossible to establish the zones of domination of certain nomadic tribes based on the distribution of certain coins. Her arguments run as follows. First, in different burial grounds in terms of inventory

page 21

Coins of the same type were found-imitations of the obols of Eucratides I. Secondly, in monuments with the same inventory (in the Bishkent Valley and on Zeravshan) belonging to the Scythian (Saka) population, different coins were found - imitations of Eucratides, Euthydemus and an authentic copy of the coin of Heliocles. Third, there are definitely no coins of Heliocles in the monuments of the Bishkek Valley. Finally, no coins were found at all during the excavations of Babashov.

Probably, A. M. Mandelstam rightly noted that I. Markwart localized the five si-hows as correctly as possible, based on philological observations. 39 However, other confirmations of this concept are also needed. As noted above, the picture of numismatic finds does not coincide with the materials of Chinese chronicles. To date, it looks as follows: imitations of Eucratides I coins - Southern Tajikistan (middle and lower Kafirnigan valleys, Dangara and Panj districts) 40 ; imitations of Heliocles I coins - Southern Tajikistan (Hissar and Javan valleys, Dangara, Kobadi and Parkhara districts), Southern Uzbekistan (Surkhandarya valley), Northern Afghanistan, Pakistan (Taxila) 41; imitations of the coins of Phraates IV with over minting and minting of Sapad biz-West Bactria. It is also known to find an imitation of the obol of Eucratides I on Talashkan Tepe II (Sherabaddarya Valley), which differs from all others by the image of the king on the obverse - he is shown without a helmet, in a diadem, and the degree of distortion of the legend is different .42 Apparently, this is another branch of imitation 43 . Two imitations of the coins of Heliocles I were also found on Talashkan tepe II, and the latter were also found in the Sherabaddarya Valley (Zar tepe and Shor tepe) .44

Whether these coin finds convey a political story is a rather complicated question. First, some imitations were found not in the layer on the settlement, but in burial grounds. Therefore, we cannot determine their place in monetary circulation. Moreover, it seems that the very fact of placing the coin in the grave leaves no doubt that it was either withdrawn from circulation, or in principle it was not intended for it (at least, it is very difficult to explain otherwise the finds of imitations of the obols of Eucratides I exclusively in burial grounds 45). The main group of coins of Phraates IV with a nadchekan and imitations of them were raised on Takhti-Sangin in botros-a pit for storing cult offerings to the deity, where they were brought as a religious gift. Based on this, it is methodologically incorrect to conclude that they were minted in the Vakhsh Valley. Coins of this group, in addition to Takhti-Sangin, were found in the necropolis of Tillya-tepe 46 and Begram 47 . The location of the Na-stena release is unknown. Minting of Sapadbiz can be quite accurately localized in Western Bactria: finds of its coins were made in Zar Tepe, Kampyr tepe, Khayrabad tepe (southern Uzbekistan) and Dilberjin (Balkh oasis of Afghanistan 48). Probably, this area can be attributed to the territory of the possessions of Sapadbiz. Based on the iconographic similarity of the coins, Agesiles is also attributed to the dynasty of this ruler, whose coins are known only from museum collections .49 However, whether his domain was part of the five Xi-hou yuezhi is not clear.

To solve this problem, the etymology of the ruler's name should be established, but it is even more important to find out the location of Das. Judging by the archaeological evidence, it is permissible to localize Dasya in Eastern Bactria50 . In addition, it should be emphasized that the Yuezhi were not dependent on Parthia, and Sapadbiz recognized Parthian suzerainty, minting the original drachmas of Phraates IV in such a way as not to damage the images of the Parthian ruler .51 But the coins of Phraates IV and imitations of them by G. A. Koshelenko and V. I. Sarianidi are considered as issues of the Saka rulers of Western Bactria .52 In any case, the claim about the connection of the Sapadbiz coin with the Yuezhi seems to be illegitimate. In addition, it is For-

page 22

Ancient Bactria yielded a significant number of Parthian coins (12 identified and 4 poorly preserved specimens were found at Tillya Tepe, Mazar-i-Sherif, Old Termez, Mirzabek-kala, Meimen, Kampir tepe, and Ayrtam) 53, which largely coincides with the area of finds of the Sapadbiz coinage. The Tanlisma-idat coins were found in Meimen (Northwestern Afghanistan), west of Sapadbiz's supposed possessions. [54]

Apparently, in connection with the question of the influence of Parthia in Western Bactria, there are reasons to return to the problem of attribution and dating of the Tillya Tepe burial structures. According to G. A. Pugachenkova and L. I. Rempel, this is a monument of the Sako-Parthian culture 55. V. I. Sarianidi believes that these are Yuechji-Kushan burials 56 . The arguments given by G. A. Pugachenkova and L. I. Rempel: direct analogies of most of the pictorial motifs and style of jewelry from Tillya Tepe in the monuments of the Parthian Nisa and objects from the Sako-Parthian layers of Taxila, in the light of the analysis of numismatic finds and data on Dasya, seem, on the one hand, convincing. But on the other hand, it should be noted that in order to accept the hypothesis of G. A. Pugachenkova and L. I. Rempel, it is necessary to prove the existence of the so-called "Yuezhi-Kushan culture", which is sharply different from the "Sako-Parthian"one.

The fact is that it is almost impossible to find any features of the material culture of yuezhi 57 . Ceramic complexes and terracotta figurines are more likely to support a single Yuechji-Scythian cultural matrix (at least from a certain point), which, by the way, V. I. Sarianidi wrote about, pointing out in the publication of the Tillya Tepe necropolis to numerous analogies of the materials of the monument to the Scythian-Sarmatian culture .58 Let us add that A.D. Grachin wrote about the" Scythian-Saxon-Yuezhi world", although on a slightly different occasion . Imitations of the coinage of Greco-Bactrian rulers are not an ethnic indicator and, as shown above, are not associated with the five Si-hou. In addition, the Tillya Tepe coin finds should now be revisited in the light of Joe Cribb's research. The obol "Gerai" found there, identified with Kujula Kadfiz 60, makes us not only attribute the burials to the first century AD, 61 but also refuse to consider them as a monument to one of the xi-hou yuezhi. Probably, these are the graves of the nobility of the already existing Kushan Empire. The presence of rich female burials confirms the information of the written tradition about the high position of women among the Kushan aristocracy 62 . In a recent paper by J. R. R. Tolkien, Ilyasov also drew attention to one interesting detail common to Early Kush and Indo-Scythian numismatics: the presence of a cover on the tails of horses depicted on the reverses. Without now touching on the origin of this tradition, we note that this fact can be interpreted in two ways: either the Yuezhi quickly mixed with the Sakas (as J. E. Van Lohuizen de Leeuw 64 wrote ), or the Sakas inherited it from the Pazyryk people (as J. E. Van Lohuizen de Leeuw 64 insists). Ilyasov, noting in passing that the latter were Yueji 65). In general, this observation only confirms the point of view about the close connection of the nomads of the Indo-Bactrian region-Yuezhi and Saka.

Returning to the hypothesis of I. Markwart, it can be noted that Dasya, located probably in Eastern Bactria, has not yet yielded any coin finds that could be associated with Yuechzhi, however, like Badakhshan. Explanations for this fact can be, firstly, the complete disregard of philological data (in the spirit of archaeological and numismatic concepts), secondly, the recognition of insufficient data at the present stage of scientific development, and thirdly, the nomadic past of Yuezhi itself, in which the transition to minting coins takes time. In general, there is no reason to believe that the problem of "five possessions" has received any satisfactory solution.

page 23

In conclusion, it is necessary to consider the crucial issue of extending the power of the Yuezhi to the territory south of the Hindu Kush. In the Chinese chronicles quoted above, there is a contradiction between the reports of " Qian Hanipu "and" Hou Hanipu": according to the first source, Gao Fu (Kabul region) was part of the five Si Hou, according to the second-it was conquered only under Kujul Kadfiz. Most researchers take the side of the late chronicle 66, but recently the French numismatist O. Bopearachchi has been trying to prove the spread of Yuezhi power in Northwestern India (Paropamisadah and Gandhara) as early as the first century BC on the basis of studying the coinage of Hermaeus and imitations of it67 . First of all, I would like to note that from the point of view of studying numismatic material - its systematization and relative chronology-the researcher's conclusions seem quite reasonable. However, there are known gaps in the historical interpretation of coin data. The main argument of O. Bopearacchi is the imitative character of the bulk of coins with the name of Hermaeus, compared with the imitations of the coinage of Eucratides I and Heliocles I. No other evidence is given, except for the information of the Chinese tradition, refuted within it itself. We have already had to express doubts about the idea of Bopearacchi, but without a detailed argument .69 The need for such is quite large.

The main objection to the concept under consideration is the methodological basis-the inability to directly link imitative coin issues with the ethnic characteristics of those who minted them. In the case of imitations of the coins of Eucratides I and Heliocles I, it was noted above that there is no sufficient data to attribute them to any of the xi-hou mentioned in the Chinese chronicles. There are other series of imitations of the coinage of the Greco-Bactrian rulers, which definitely cannot be considered as yuezhi issues - for example, imitations of the coins of Euthydemus I of Sogdiana. The beginning of their coinage, as shown by the same O. Bopearachchi, is the last years of the life of this king, 70 that is, the time when the Yuezhi still lived in the territory of the present Chinese province of Gansu .71 It was pointed out above that imitations of the coinage of Phraates IV are considered by G. A. Koshelenko and V. I. Sarianidi as issues of the Saka rulers of Western Bactria. The presence on the latest issues of imitations of the coins of Hermey named after Kujula Kadfiz can be interpreted in the sense that the latter subordinated the mints of Paropamisad and Gandhara and continued the traditional coinage, but with his own name.

The apparent contradiction between the duration of issues of imitations of Hermey coins and the final initial phase of Kujula minting is explained from the Chinese tradition: the possession of Gui-shuang conquered the other four and other territories, including the Kabul region (where imitations of Hermey coins were previously minted). The hypothesis of O. Bopearachchi is also contradicted by the fact that in the sources Gao-fu never coincides with Gui-shuang and, obviously, they designate different territories. The emerging problem of who issued imitations of the Hermean coins can be solved in favor of the Saks or the Indo-Parthians (the latter is more likely, since Gao-fu, according to "Hou-Hanipu", belonged to An-xi), although it is possible that these coins were first minted by the Saks, and later they were minted by the Saks. replaced by Indo-Parthians 72 . O. Bopearachchi's objection, according to which imitations of the Hermean coins differ sharply in their stylistic characteristics from those of the Indo - Scythians, is based on the single assumption that in India the latter include only the Mawesa dynasty, Aza I and their heirs. However, philological observations only give grounds for concluding that the Mawes dynasty is Scythian, but not for a general conclusion, according to which only it is such. Moreover, this does not follow from the coin data. In this regard, we should recall the existence of some sac-

page 24

in the first half of the second century BC, as described by D. R. Bhandarkar, S. Chattopadhyaya, B. N. Puri, and B. A. Litvinsky when analyzing the data of Patanjali's Mahabhashya " 73 .

As for the question of the "state of the Great Yuezhi", which, according to the "Qiang-Hanipu", was subject to five possessions, and its further fate ("Hou-Hanshu" knows nothing about it), it is necessary to remember the specifics of nomadic society: the power of any leader is strong only as long as it suits the rest of the nomads, first of all their nobles 74 . There is no reason to believe that the power of the Great Yuezhi chieftain was based on anything other than authority and military success. Since, after the fall of Greek power in Bactria, a struggle for hegemony was going on between the Yuechi and Sakas, and not so successful for the Yuechi, it is probably acceptable to assume that the leader of the Large Yuechi lost his authority and the tendency to separatism within the nobility strengthened, as well as the subsequent independence of separate possessions of other representatives of the nomadic aristocracy.

Summing up, we can draw certain conclusions. First, no more precise localization of the five Yuezhi domains, including Gui - shuang, has been proposed since the time of I. Markwart, but its concept remains nothing more than a hypothesis .75 Secondly, there is no sufficient reason to believe that the minting of imitations of the coins of Eucratides I and Heliocles I can be attributed to any of the five xi-hou yuezhi. Most likely, the territory to the north of the Amu Darya was the domain of the Big Yuezhi, and it was they (and not si-hou!)who were located there. they issued imitations of the coins of Heliocles I and Eucratides I. But the number of them is not exactly set. It may have been the domain of a powerful nomadic nobility, like the Suren family in Parthia. The two known branches of imitations of the obols of Eucratides I have different localities and probably, although far from indisputable, reflect the existence of two possessions. Imitations of the coins of Heliocles I are probably issued by a single possession that existed for a long time.

But on the whole, it is probably acceptable to assume that the problem of five Yuechi possessions is not even such: if the possessions of a nomadic aristocracy are certainly more than five, then it is pointless to search for these last ones. An exception will be provided by Gui-shuang, since it was there that the Kushan statehood was born. On the territory of Western Bactria were located the possessions of Sapadbiz, whose reign can presumably date back to the first half of the first century AD and his dynasty, which also includes Agesiles. Tanlismaidat's domain must have been located in the same region. As a hypothesis, we can assume that the Nastena domain was located in the same part of Central Asia. Judging by the number of possessions, we can assume that Bactria at that time was characterized by fragmentation, and therefore a struggle for hegemony. The Khalchayan sculpture depicting the collision of Yuezhi and Saka (according to P. Bernard 76) confirms this thesis. Paropamisadas and Gandhara were not subject to Yuezhi rule at the time under review, and these territories only came under Yuezhi control under Kujul Kadfiz.

notes

Hulsewe A. F. P. 1 China in Central Asia. The Early Stage: 125 B.C. -A.D. 23. An Annotated Translation of Chapters 61 and 96 of the History of the Former Han Dynasty. With an Introduction by M.A.N. Loewe. Leiden, 1979. P. 119 - 123. Cf.: Zurcher E. The Yueh-chih and Kanaka in the Chinese Chronicles // Papers on the Date of Kanaka, submitted to the Conference on the Date of Kanaka, London, 20 - 22 April, 1960. Ed. by A.L. Basham. Leiden, 1968. P. 364 - 365.

Hulsewe A. F. P. 2 Op. cit. P. 122, n. 296. Cf.: Pulleyblank E. G. Chinese Evidence for the Date of Kaniska // Papers on the Date of Kanaka... P. 248; Zurcher E. Op. cit. P. 367 - 368.

page 25

Zurcher E. 3 Op. cit. P. 367.

4 The problem of whether these properties belong to yueji or not (the negative answer is given by K.). Enoki. See: Enoki K., Koshelenko G. A., Haidary Z. The Yueh-chih and their migrations / / History of the Civilizations of Central Asia. V. II. The Development of Sedentary and Nomadic Civilizations 700 BC to 250 AD. Ed. by J. Harmatta. P., 1994. P. 174), apparently, is devoid of any grounds: the Chinese have retained the right to See: Davidovich E. L. The first treasure trove of tetradrachmas of the Kushan "Geraya" // Bulletin of Ancient History (hereinafter-VDI). 1976. N 4. pp. 60-61.

Marquart J. 5 Eransahr nach der Geographic des Ps. Moses Xorenac'i. Mil historisch-kritischen Kommentar und historischen und topographischen Exkursen. B., 1901. S. 242 - 248.

Mandelshtam A.M. 6 Materials for the historical and geographical survey of the Pamirs and Pamir regions from ancient times to the X century AD //Proceedings of the Academy of Sciences of the Tajik SSR. Vol. LIII. Stalinabad, 1957. pp. 60-64.

Rosenfield J. 7 The Dynastic Arts of the Kushanas. Berkeley-Los Angeles, 1967. P. 11, n. 18 (p. 282); Frye R. N. The History of Ancient Iran. Munchen, 1984. P. 251.

Mukherjee B. N. 8 The Ta-hsia and the Problem concerning the Advent of Nomadic peoples in Greek Bactria // East and West (далее - EW). V. XIX. 1969. P. 395 - 400; idem. The Rise and Fall of the Kushana Empire. Calcutta, 1988.P. 11 - 12.

Chattopadhyay B. 9 Kushana State and the Indian Society. A Study in Post Mauryan Polity and Society. Calcutta, 1975. P. 28.

Banerjea J. N. 10 The Rise and Fall of the Kushana Power//A Comprehensive History of India. V. II. The Mauryas and Satavahanas, 325 B.C. -A.D. 300. Ed. by K.A. Nilakanta Sastri. Calcutta, 1957. P. 226.

Chavannes E. 11 Les Pays d'occident d'apres le Heou han chou // T'oung Pao. T. VIII. 1907. P. 190 sqq.

Haloun G. 12 Zur Ue-tsi Frage // Zeitschrift der Deutchen Morgelandischen Gesellschaft. Bd. 91. В., 1937. S. 257 f.

Kumar B. 13 The Early Kushanas (The History of the Rise a Progress of the Kushana Powers under the Early Kushana Rulers - from Kujula Kadphises to Vasudeva). New Delhi, 1973. P. 18 - 19.

Daffina P. 14 The Return of the Dead // EW. V. 22. 1972. P. 87 - 92.

15 The problem that is widely discussed in science: whether the territories north of the Amu Darya were part of Bactria as a historical and cultural region can probably be solved in the affirmative. See: Stavisky B. Ya. Kushanskaya Baktria: problemy istorii i kul'tury [Kushanskaya Baktria: Problems of History and Culture], Moscow, 1977, p. 36 sl.; Masson V. M. Severnaya Baktria // Archeology of the USSR. The oldest states of the Caucasus and Central Asia. Under the editorship of G. A. Koshelenko, Moscow, 1985, p. 250; Serditykh Z. V., Koshelenko G. A. Problemy istorii i kul'tury Greko-Baktriya v literatur poslednykh let [Problems of the history and culture of Greco-Bactria in the literature of recent years] // Soviet archeology. 1987. N 3. pp. 239-240; Pyankov I. V. Bactria in the ancient tradition (general data on the country: name and territory). Dushanbe, 1982. The opposite point of view is expressed by E. V. Zeymal. See: Zeymal E. V. Ancient coins of Tajikistan. Dushanbe, 1983. p. 46.

Mandelshtam A.M. 16 Edict. soch. P. 64.

Masson V. M., Romodin V. D. 17 History of Afghanistan, Vol. 1, Moscow, 1964, P. 152.

18 For more information, see: Kradin N. N. The Xiongnu Empire. Vladivostok, 1996; same name. Nomads and the agricultural world: the Hunnic Model in historical Perspective. 2000. N 3. pp. 5-16.

Pugachenkova G. A. 19 Khalchayan. To the problem of the artistic culture of Northern Bactria. Tashkent, 1966. p. 248.

Stavisky B. Ya 20 Edict. soch. p. 120-121.

21 Davidovich E. A. Edict. soch. p. 56-78.

Hulsewe A. F. P. 22 Op. cit. P. 11 - 25, esp. 19f. There are reasons, without repeating the entire argument of the researchers, to highlight the following aspects: the complexity of explaining the fact that the text of the 123rd chapter of "Shih-chi" is practically devoid of archaisms characteristic of the rest of the source, and is identical to the corresponding 61st chapter of "Qian-Hanshu", and the confusion caused by the specifics of the material on which the source is written down-a tree, in parallel parts exactly the same; the assumption that Ban Gu copied the "Shi-ji" cannot be accepted, since it does not take into account his personality: he was one of the greatest scientists of his time.

23 Politicheskaya istoriya drevnoi Transoxiana po numizmaticheskim dannym [Political history of ancient Transoxiana according to numismatic data]. Drevnost ' i rannee srednevekovie [Ancient and Early Middle Ages], L., 1978, p. 202.

Rtveladze E. V., Pidaev Sh. R. 24 Catalog of ancient coins of Southern Uzbekistan. Tashkent, 1981. pp. 25-26; Abdullayev K. Once again on the imitations of the coins of Heliocles (to the question of the political history of Bactria in the second half of the second century BC) / / Problems of History, Philology, Culture. Issue VIII. Moscow-Magnitogorsk, 2000. pp. 369-370, 375-376 (note 16).

Pugachenkova G. A., Rtveladze E. V. 25 Northern Bactria - Tokharistan. Tashkent, 1990, p. 49.

26 Ibid.

page 26

Rtveladze E. V. 27 K istorii stanovlenii Kushanskogo gosudarstva v Baktriya i Gandhara [27 To the history of the formation of the Kushan state in Bactria and Gandhar] = India and Central Asia. Tashkent, 2000. p. 39-42, 145-148. In this article, the researcher proposed a new interpretation of the Geraya coins: they were issued from the end of the second century BC to the second half of the first century AD and minted by several rulers. Following Joe Cribb, Rtveladze believes that these coins bear the personal name "Kushan", which was later adopted by all descendants of the first Kushan, who, according to Rtveladze, ruled at the end of the second century BC. Unfortunately, we cannot accept these ideas unconditionally, since, first of all, the article does not contain Critics of Joe Cribb's dating of the "Gerai" coinage to the late issues of Kujula Kadfiz, who reigned in the first century AD. Secondly, Rtveladze does not explain why Kujula's nominal coins have nothing in common with the "Gerai"coinage. Third, the mystery remains the Greek title on the coins of "Gerai" TYPANNOYNTOE ("the ruler"), which finds analogues in the titles of the heirs of Gondofar Abdagas and Sasan BAEIAEYONTOL ("the reigning"). Fourth, Rtveladze, without sufficient justification, attributes to other possessions issues of imitations of coins of Eucratides I and Heliocles I, without giving an answer to the question of why in one case we are dealing with imitations, and in the other - with nominal coinage. Chinese chronicles do not report anything about the priority of the possession of the Gui-shuang over others until the reign of Kujula. Consequently, Rtveladze's ideas remain hypothetical. For more information, see: Cribb J. The "Heraus" Coins: Their Attributions to the Kushan King Kujula Kadphises, c. AD 30 - 80 // Essays in Honor of Robert Carson and Kenneth Jenkins. L., 1993. P. 107 - 134; Mitchlner M. Indo-Greek and Indo-Scythian coinage. V. 8. The Indo-Parthians. L., 1976. Types 1120, 1122, 1126, 1131 - 1132, 1140, 1141(?) (Abdagas-es); 1125 (Sasan); Fussman G. L'inscription de Rabatak et l'origine de l'ere Saka // Journal Asiatique. T. 286, fasc. 2. 1998. P. 582 sqq., particulierement 589.

Sarianidi V. I. 28 Temple and necropolis of Tillya-tepe, Moscow, 1989, p. 173.

29 Ibid., pp. 172-173.

Abdullaev K. 30 Goroda v yuezhiiskii period (kitayskie istochniki i arkheologicheskaya situatsiya) [The History of Cities in the Yuezhi period (Chinese sources and archaeological situation)]. Issue IX. Moscow-Magnitogorsk, 2000. pp. 208-210.

Pugachenkova G. A. 31 Decree. soch. P. 248. The researcher thus combined the capital of Greater Yuezhi as such and Kushan as one of the five Si-hou cities in one monograph.

32 For coin finds in Khalchayan, see: Pugachenkova G. A. Edict, op. cit. pp. 109-124. It is necessary to briefly dwell on the idea of F. A. Golovkin. An essay on the dating of the reliefs of Halchayan. A French researcher believes that one of the sculptures depicting the "Parthian prince" (Pugachenkova G. A. Sculpture of Khalchayan, Moscow, 1971. p. 50) can be associated with Vardan I, about whom Tacitus reported: "Vardan, forced to retreat from Seleucia, moves his camp to the fields of Bactria "(Annales. XI. 8-10); for the entire composition, the date 47 AD is proposed and Joe Cribb's hypothesis about the "Geraya" coinage as belonging to Kujula Kadfiz (Cribb J. Op. cit. p. 107-134) and G. A. Pugachenkova's thesis about the connection between the "Geraichi" and Khalchayan is supported. A new hypothesis on the dating of Khalchayan reliefs / / VDI. 2000. N 2. pp. 130-135. We think that this idea is quite interesting, but it does not follow from the archaeological materials themselves. We should add that the iconographic similarity of sculptures and portraits on coins can also be explained by the common ethnic type. Until it is proved that the Khalchayan belongs to Kujula Kadfiz, the hypothesis of F. Greene cannot be accepted.

Borovkova L. A. 33 Kingdoms of the "Western Region" in the II-I centuries BC. East Turkestan and Central Asia according to their "Shi ji" and "Han Shu". Moscow, 2001. p. 172 el.

Borovkova L. 34 The Problems of Kushan Chronology (1 - 2 centuries A.D.) According to Chinese Sources // Information Bulletin of International Association for the Study of the Cultures of Central Asia. Issue 22. Moscow, 2000. P. lOOf.

Kradin N. N. 35 The Xiongnu Empire ... pp. 69-139, especially 115, 133.

36 Localization is reported by Shih-ji: "Dasya is located more than 2000 li southwest of Davan (Ferghana), south of the Gui River (emphasis added)." The Gui River is usually identified with the Amu Darya. All attempts of L. A. Borovkova to challenge this interpretation remain insufficiently proven (in her opinion, this is Syrdarya. See: Borovkova L. A. Edict. op. p. 104), since they take into account only philological grounds, while it is necessary to use data from the ancient geographical tradition, archeology, numismatics and other related disciplines. Zadneprovsky proposed in his review of Borovkova's early monograph to identify the Gui River with Zeravshan, which raises some doubts, since the latter was not exactly part of the Parthian (Anxi) domain, through which, according to the same Chinese chronicles, the Gui River flowed. See: Zadneprovsky Yu. A. [rec.]: Borovkova L. A. West of Central Asia in the II century BC-VII century AD (Historical and geographical review based on ancient Chinese sources). Moscow, 1989 // Vostok (Oriens): 1991. N 3. pp. 155-159; Hulsewe A. F. P. Op. cit. P. 116; Bichurin N. Ya. Collection of information about the peoples who lived in Central Asia in ancient times, vol. 2, Moscow, 1951, p. 151.

page 27

The meaning of the term Dasya has long been debated. In the light of recent studies, it is acceptable to assume that only the areas of Eastern Bactria that were really subordinate to the Yuechzhs were hidden under it. See: Zakharov A. O. On the ethnic aspect of the problem of the fall of Greco-Bactria / / Problems of History, Philology, Culture. Issue X. Moscow-Magnitogorsk, 2001. pp. 448-449. Cf.: Lyonnet B. Ceramique et peuplement du chal-colitique a conquete arabe (Prospections archeologiques en Bactriane orientale (1974 - 1978). Sous la direction de Jean-Claude Gardin. V. 2). P., 1997. P. 158. According to Lionnet, the Yuezhi occupied the eastern regions of Bactria, and the Saki occupied the western ones (p. 159 sqq.). For earlier works, see: Tarn W. W. The Greeks in Bactria and India. L., 1951. p. 295-298 (Tarn was a proponent of the Dasya = Bactria equation).

Pugachenkova G. L., Rtveladze E. V. 37 Decree. op. P. 50.

Lyonnet B. 38 Op. cit. P. 168. Mandelshtam A.M. Edict. op. cit. P. 64.

A., Sedov A.V. Kulty i ritualy Kushanskoi Baktrii [Cults and rituals of Kushan Bactria], Moscow, 1984, p. 186.

Zeymal E. V. 41 Ancient coins of Tajikistan... P. 110.

Rtveladze E. V., Pidaev Sh. R. 42 Edict. soch. p. 20-21.

43 Ibid.; see also: Zeymal E. V. Imitations of the obols of Eucratides ... p. 179.

Rtveladze E. V., Pidaev Sh. R. 44 Edict. op. p. 25.

45 For the Kalai Mir case, see Litvinsky B. A., Sedov A.V. Edict op. cit. p. 121. Note that the imitations of the obols of Eucratides I are silver, and, consequently, they are a treasure and could move considerable distances from the place of coinage.

Koshelenko G. A., Sarianidi V. I. 46 Les monnaies de la necropole de Tillia-tepe (Afghanistan) // Studia Iranica. T. 21. 1992. Fasc. 1. P. 24, 27 - 29. PI. 1, fig. 5. See also the earlier publication: Sarianidi V. I., Koshelenko G. A. Coins from the excavations of the necropolis located on the hillfort of Tillya-tepe (Northern Afghanistan) / / Ancient India. Istoriko-kul'turnye svyazi [Historical and Cultural Relations], Moscow, 1982, pp. 309-312, fig. 1, 2.

Ghirshman R. 47 Begram. Recherches archeologiques et historiques sur les Kouchans (Memoires de la Delegation archeologique Fran?aise en Afghanistan. V. XII). Le Caire, 1946. PI. XXII, 7.

Rtveladze E. V. 48 Coins of the Yuezhi Rulers of Northern Bactria // Silk Road Art and Archaeology. V. 3. Kamakura, 1993 - 1994. P. 83.

Mitchiner M. 49 Indo-Greek and Indo-Scythian Coinage. V. IV. Contemporaries of the Indo-Greeks: Kings of Sogdiana; Scythians of Merv, Chorasmia and Balkh; Yueh Chi and Early Kushans; Indian States of Taxila- Gandhara and the Punjab: Audumbara, Kuninda etc. Indo-Greek Mints, coin denominations and forgeries. L., 1975. P. 303, type 510.

Bernard P. 50 Les nomades conquerants de l'empire greco-bactrien. Reflexions sur leur identite ethnique et culturelle / / Comptes Rendus de Academic des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres. 1987 (novembre-decembre). P. 758-768. See also: Zakharov A. O. Decree. op. pp. 448-449.

51 The connection of these coins seems certain to many researchers. See: Rtveladze E. V. Op. cit. P. 82f.; Wroth W. Catalog of the Coins of Parthia. L., 1903. P. 114.

Koshelenko G. A., Sarianidi V. I. 52 Op. cit. P. 29.

Rtveladze E. V. 53 Parthia and Bactria // In the Land of Gryphons. Papers on Central Asian Archaeology in Antiquity. Firenze, 1995. P. 190.

Rtveladze E. V. 54 Parthia and Bactria... P. 187.

Pugachenkova G. A., Rempel ' L. I. 55 O "zolote bezymyannykh tsarei" iz Tillya-tepe (k probleme stilya i svyazi) [Information about the "gold of nameless Tsars" from Tillya-tepe (to the problem of style and connections)]. Tashkent, 1986. pp. 209-213.

Sarianidi V. I. 56 Decree. op.

57 The only exception is the stamped pots faconnes en forme de bouteille, identified by B. Lyonnet and E. P. Denisov and rarely found in archaeological complexes (pots faconnes en forme de bouteille). See: Lyonnet B. Op. cit. P. 159-160, 165-166.

Sarianidi V. I. 58 Decree. soch. p. 46-135. There is reason to quote one of the author's statements about the yuezhi costume: "Both the Kushans and the Parthians are connected by their origin with the nomadic environment, so the conical caps of their sovereigns most likely go back to more ancient Scythian traditions" (Ibid., p.57). Sarianidi also pointed out the difference between the Bactrian half-kaftans reconstructed from the excavation materials and the Scythian ones: the latter are longer and reach to the middle of the thighs, and often even to the knees (Ibid., p. 88).

Ancient nomads in the center of Asia, Moscow, 1980, p. 92.

Cribb J. 60 Op. cit. P. 107 - 134.

page 28

Koshelenko G. A., Sarianidi V.I. 61 Op. cit. P. 22. Pl. I, fig. 1. In one of his recent publications, E. V. Zeymal considered the problem of dating Tillya-tepe and came to the conclusion (based on coin data and finds of Chinese mirrors) that these burials can be dated no earlier than the second quarter of the first century AD. Context of the Kushan Chronology / / Coins, Art and Chronology. Essays on the pre-Islamic History of the Indo-Iranian Borderlands. Ed. by M. Alram & D.E. Klimburg-Salter. Wien, 1999. P. 239 - 244.

62 For more information, see: Mukherjee B. N. The Rise and Fall of the Kushana empire ... P. 372-373f.; Mukherjee B. N. K izucheniyu sotsial'no - ekonomicheskoi istorii Kushanskoi imperii / / VDI. 1984. N 3. pp. 62-63.

63 Izobrazheniya na monetakh i svyazi rannykh kochevnikov [63 Images on coins and connections of early nomads]. Numizmatika Tsentral'noi Azii, T. V. Tashkent, 2001, pp. 17-30.

Van Lohulzen de Leeuw J. E. 64 "The Scythian Period". An Approach to the History, Art, Epigraphy and Palaeography of North India from the 1 B. C. to the III A. D. Leiden, 1949. P. 45.

Ilyasov J. Ya. 65 Edict. soch. p. 21-22.

66. V. M., Romodin V. A. Edict. op. T. 1. pp. 151-152; Fry R. N. Heritage of Iran. Moscow, 1972. pp. 234-235, 275; Mukherjee B. N. The Rise and Fall of the Kushana empire... P. 11; Kumar B. Op. cit. P. 18.

Bopearachchi O. 67 Monnaies Greco-Bactriennes et Indo-Grecques. Catalogue Raisonne. Bibliotheque Nationale. Paris, 1991. P. 121, 125; Bopearachchi O., Aman ur Rahman. Prekushana Coins in Pakistan. Karachi, 1995. P. 37f.; Sylloge nummoram graecorum. The Collection of the American Numismatic Society. Pt. 9. Graeco-Bactrian and Indo-Greek Coins. N. -Y., 1998; Bopearachchi O. Recent Coin Hoard Evidence on Pre-Kushana Chronology // Coins, Art and Chronology. P. 129.

Bopearachchi O. 68 Monnaies Greco-Bactriennes et Indo- Grecques... P. 112 - 125; Bopearachchi O., Aman ur Rahman. Op. cit. P. 37 - 44.

Zakharov A. O. 69 [rec. on]: Sylloge nummorum graecorum... / / Russian Archeology. 2000. N 4. P. 220.

Bopearachchi О. 70 The Euthydemus' Imitations and the Date of Sogdian Independence // Silk Road Art and Archaeology. V. 2. Kamakura, 1991 - 1992. P. 1 - 21.

71 For this stage in the history of yuezhi, see: Mukherjee B. N. The Rise and Fall of the Kushana Empire ... P. 3-10.

72 Banerjea J. N. The Bactrian Greeks in India, A Comprehensive history of India, V. II, p. 184, wrote about the Parthian imitations of Hermaean coins.

Bhandarkar D. R. 73 Notes on Ancient history of India // Islamic culture. V. 1. 1934. N 2. P. 275 - 280; Chatto-padhyaya S. The Sakas in India. Satiniketan, 1955. P. 1; Puri B.N. India in the Time of Patanjali. Bombay, 1957. P. 58-60. Cit. by: Litvinsky B. A. Ancient nomads "Roofs of the World", Moscow, 1972, p. 167.

74 On the power of the leader among nomads, see: Kradin N. N. Nomadic societies (problems of formation characteristics). Vladivostok, 1992. p. 1503.

75 Although it has long been noted that the earliest coins of the first Kushan king Kujula Kadfiz are associated with the territories south of the Hindu Kush.

Bernard P. 76 Les nomades conquerants de l'empire greco-bactrien... P. 758 - 768.

Permanent link to this publication: