PAE Boat of rst States 8) fantons VS Is TOCHARIAN A DRAVIDLAN TRADE LANGUAGE? Clyde A. Winters Utimran darn Fedio Instinae Minors 1, Andrew and Susan Sherratt (4988 $85) have eaition may heave een an important feature of larga 2 giemal trade. fa this paper we plan to examine vou discuss the hypothesis that Tochieian Was a Deavihisn trade tangsage Fhe Prote-IndoEuropean tainily is based upon surviving langsages swrd historical literature, Andrew ond Susin Shersatt (1988: S84) have suggested th istic entity, Indlo- Europeu. may be valid for a rckitively late point in ‘ime, Given the evwence of Hittite, this view in general has Htle support Put, iy relation to Tocharian on the otheeband. this hypothesis has considerable met V1 Georgiev (1981) has suggested Uat the commen original homeland of Hie Tocharians was u region estending hetween the Denieper river sind the Urals, neat Finno-Ugrians, This hypothesis is foundea! on the act that Tocharian shies many phonological, word form guages. Georgiev (1981: 297) believes that there probably existed a Finno-Ussian substratum in Tocharian Mallory (1989: 263) hy suggested that she Atunatsieve culture of the steppes nvay be the ancestor culture of the ‘Tocharian speakers. He believes that the {cographical separation of the Atanastevo culture from bis proposed Pontie-Caypisn bbomielund for the IE speakers, would explain the failure of Focharign 10 reflect the setics of linguistic innowstions experigneed by the Indo-Iraians (ibid: 22). Whe Chinese historical fiterature, on the otherhind, indivates tht Yoohariun speakers were colied Kushana or Yueh chit) and originatest in China Winters (1990) has argued that their ancestral culiite as the Qijia culture of 4. Winters (19NSb, 1086. FSSKe, 1990) has cirgued that the Yueh fers. Lscouperie (1887: 423) was sure that the Yueh cehayge an pruwess of ete Jet limes sa result of imer-ze onal and lexical features With the Bults-Slavie lon es. G wewtera Chi people were Drasidiians spe: people came irom the We The Chinese elaiimed that the Tocharians called themselves Kushant — Kuishuang. ‘This confiens | acouperie’s (1887: 123) hypothesis for a western origin for the Tochuriuns because avcording to Cob, Raywfinsin, decipher uf the esineiform script much of Iran was called Kushive in the eunciform literature, During the Kassite period the peuple of fran were called Kayhsla. The expansion of western people inw Chins would explain the analogy beween the lerms; Kuivlinang Kushana and Kaveh ‘The Qua exlture is characterized by Uomesticarcd cutie, sheep and pix. This culture existed from the upper Weisbui Walley in the eas, He Huangsbui Valley of Oijia in the West, Ningxia smd the westernmost inner Mongotia iy the worth,Clyde A Winters This was the most advanced agro-pastoral group in early CWina (Chang 1987 283). The Oujia pottery signs are analagous to those found in the Harappan writing Gnd on Rarappan pottery (Chiang 1987: 283) Many Indo-Europenists Would agree that the spread of the Pit Grave and Andronove cultures of the 3rd and 2nd millennium nc.. may reflect the Indo- Sranian infilling of the steppe sone {Mallory 19S Sherram 198A), This view is complicated by Tocharian which reflects little To explain this attomaly Tocharianists argue that Tocharian early separated! trom its Proto-Inda-European neighbours (Ackams LYS}. An additions) argument used 0 explain the difference hetween Tocharian as i “western” Indo-European language is that Tocharian early lost contact with its cogeners, but reflects palatals that place it ia the centum LE Dranch (Pulleyblaok 1995). Tis second hypathesisis used fo explain the numerous archaisins in Toeharian and the few common innovations shared hy Tocharian and speakers of the “western” Indo-European nnguages (Adams 1995: 411}. But Adams (1995) makes it eleae that Hinity 10 Indo-deaniaa Subsequent investigation has led to the conclusion that Toe! closely related to any other Indo-European branch. Shared lexical innova tions do teu ta show a erewter dlegees of celation hip with variows Wester, branches of Indo-European than with the eastern (L.c.. Indo-Iranian) but the lexical associstions are not very overwhelming” (Pp. 404) The Shermans (198K: 58) have suggested two sulutions to the Toeharsian “problem”, The first solution ts that Tocharian may represent the earliest phase of Indo-European migration from the Proto-Indo-Eurepean hometand, The slter- native solution is that Tocharian isa late Indo-European Language associated with, trade long the Silk Road, In 1908 Sieg and Siegling published their findings that Tocharian was an TE language. This discovery was accepted without any challenge. Bit Ringe (1995: 439) ‘maintains that although Tocharian is an TE language “the Tocharian languages do not closely resemble any other IE languages, In other words Tocharian is a sep: branch’ of the I-E family, or! par with Germanic. Greek, Indo-Leaniatt, eu Although Tocharian is accepted as an IE language there is disturbing linguistic evidence that makes i difficult to properly place Tocharian in the IE tantily. There is considerable influence on Tocharian from Sanskrit and Iranian due to Buddhism Tocharian also shares many phonological and word {ormational and lexical cor: respondences with Ballo-Slavic languages, J. Van Windekens(1976) has compared Toeharian and 1 vocabularies and established the following Tocharian isoglosses, ranked as follows: 1) Germanic, 2) Greek, 3) Indic, 4-5) Baltic and Iranian, 6) Latin, 7) Slavic, 8) Celtic, 9) Anatolian, 10) Acntenia and 11) Albanian. D.Q. Adans (1984) established a wifferem rank order 1) Germanic, 2) Greek. 3) Baltic, 4) Indic, 5) Slavic. 6-8) Tatin, Celtic, eanian, 9) Albanian. 10) Anatolian and TL) Armenian Tochafian shares many ancient features with Hittite in noun morphology. Kor cexanaple, Tochatian Ac, Bai-"to gives Hinite pais < pa-ai-; Tocharian A yas "to do": Hittite ica: Tocharian A than, B em “earth's Hittite tekun by Tocharian « Dra In eck sige and the prese viaenee of Teh cognates: Teh anak Ring“ There 1s 0 and technical term relation to “ON | Ando-Earops Anatolian (Malle Phrygian retain kiyosmar, B Al Bonfunte (L stavie or throu phonologies! Ringe deli western 1F long eauucal” Hingt Tochariaf inn swith perfective rake, Breki: S ‘Sehaniat the result of + 1991) has are The Deas andl gram ttement animals. © “Toei A TE roots for interesting ? “Tochatian y ‘The Ts vighue Bl cera KEY Chines: ol stl Ta fury 206 orients 8 “pein "P ’ The heA. Winter, (Chang 19) ppaM vr it Grave ot the Indo. This view ix remem DYPOMRe sis is, trian is no cal iano: mS Western an) but the Tocharian Ht phase of The alter. fated with Sas an Te 95: 439) ages ay separate linguistic ¥. There uth ica cor wes and anic, 2) hie, 9) shed a ©. 68) Is Tocharian « Dravielian Trade Language? 3 2a rotation to Sunskirt and Greek, Tocharian has preserved the mediopassive ‘voice anil the presence of both subjunctive and optative mood. The most important evidenge of Toshatian relations within the TE family are the Greek and fochasian cognates: Toeharian A vikar, & Hlakwe ‘God's A natik ‘lord, nasi “lady's Greek wanake “King”. “wunakya “queen There is also evidence of Sanskrit and Uranian influences in relation to religions and technical terms, Tocharian has « Herta association with Tranian, especially in relation t "Old Iranian” or Avestan terms, Buctriatt rerms and Ossetic terms. Indo-European archaisms re preserved in Tocharian, Celtic, Phrygian and Anatolian (Mallory 1989: 185). lly addition, Tocharisa. Latin, trish, Maite and Pheveian cecain the mediopassive ending inr, e.t.. Tocharitn A mar, B-mar: A Kiyosmar. B klvausemar hear"; Latin loguitur, Old Trish labrithir “speaks Bontante (1987: 77) has observed that Tocharian has old contacts only with Skvie or through Slavic, As a result of this contact Tocharian shares many Phonological, word tormational and texieal vorrespondences with Balto-Slavic. Ringe helieves that many of the Toeharian innoviitions which link # to the western IE Languages may have developed iardependtently in Tochariga and reflec, natural’ language changes (Ringe 1990, 1995: 440), Bontante (1987) lists four Tochatian innovations shaced with Slavie: 1) 16 “ew becomes yu; 2) the prefix so- with perfective value (ound Tochrian only in tbe imperative); 3] Tocharian A rake D pek?: Stayie ree, and 4) Toeharian A yur, B ser: Slavic yestra “sister Schmid (1990) has argued that many of che innovations in Tocharian may be the result of substeutum influences of non-LE linguages, Winters (J98Se, 198%, 1991) has argued that shere é¢ Dravidian substratum to Tocharian ‘The Dravidian (mainly Taunil) and Tocharian languages also possess structural and grammatical analogy. Dravidian and ‘Tocharian share the plural ending element -fa and -1, egy Telugu mugady “man. husband’, (pl) magali ‘men's Focharian wast house’, (pl.) wastu "houses It is interesting t0 note that Dravidiaas and Tocharians shace many terms for animals, ¢.g.. Dravidian kena ‘dog’ Tocharian ku ‘dog’ set Dravidian kode cow’ ‘Yookarixa do cow’, There are five different IE. roots for horse. This multiplicity of TE roots for horse makes these ternis inconclusive for the IE proto-lenicon. ‘This is interesting because the Dravidian term for horse is iyull, Unis is analogous & Tochatrian yuk (Winters 1989, 1997), The Tacharian lexicon has also been influenced by Tibetan, Chinese and Uighur (Blozek 1988; Winters 1991), The Sino-Tibetan influence is evident in certain key terms, ¢.8,. Tochatian B plewe “boat”, Gurung plava *boat’. Archaic Chinese piyog and ancivat Chinese piyow ‘boat these tecnis for boat corresponds with Tamil paiavn “boat's Tacharian A kuryur, B haryar “business, purchase’. B Kary Wo bus”. Tibetan-Burmie “kroy, in Burne Krasw ‘debt, Kuchin Khor "borrow or lend’: and Tue A and B par“bring.take’, IE. “blrer “bring? Tibeto-Burmic “pos in “par teade, buy. sell” and Kannad bar “bring ‘The Dravidian and Atlaie substratuins in Toeharian supports the hypothesis af4 Winters le tanguage. This fated ito Centeal Andrew and Susun Sherratt (YS) that Tocharian was at ‘would also agree with Chinese evidence thie the Lachagivns em Asia fron the east, not the northwest, WH Toehaciun was a trade language. this would expknin the evidence that uni laneatige apd RS iihussration ot a elear dual contrast in Tocharian is not a een seflexes of the guttural. This hypothesis slo aller an explanation of the grest time depth indicated for the separation af Tochatian from Prowl Central As mrscterized DY the habitation af this aren by diverse gruups. Thus its history i manifested by the infiling of Central Asia, by various nomadic groups in search of congue! on made this part of ex, Given Central Asin’s Stuation as a contre of dpas fong been Asis 4 centee of pluralistic socie Jinguistic fragmentation made the developmen of «lingua tranca ausantageous for imtor-tribal relations A down the lite pattern of conquest and settlement by sucessive non indi genous populztons in Centeal Asia probably fed to extensive bilingualism in Cemral Asia. These bilingual speakers hundled trade between the watious Cente Asian populations, and their trading partners in neig This suggest that down the fing exchange directional trade pattern through the use of bilingual speakers at each step of the chia may offer one explanation for the origin ut Tocharian as a teade Tanguage eombining elements andl yoesbulary from, the Language spoken by populations of different bilingual spesters participating in the Cemrat Asian excbatge system, This means that Toebarian may be a mixed Janguawe—a Contral Asian Bingua franca Similar to the Swath buaguage of east Africi. which combines the Bangu ine Arabic h pouring countries 2. Dravide-Harappans of Central Asia Andrew and Susin Sherratt (L988) has hypothesized that Dravidian speakers een! one of the non-TE firming groups that had aleeady occupied many areas, before the expansion of the TE speakers. The archaeological evidence for the spread of Herappan elements across Central Asst demonstrates cultural eontact the period in question. This pattern supports she evident relationship between Dravidian tanguases andl Wnguages formerly spoken am Iran such as Elamite, and Kassite (MeAlpin i974) Winters (84H), andl the Altaic group, (Menges 1977; Vacok (983; Wang 195) and lilo European (Winters 198K, 1989, $994), There is historical evidence which can help ss to ilysteate that watil after 1000 5.c., and especially S00 #.¢.- much of Cente Asia was setiled by ayrospastoral Dravidian groups. These groups were settled over a wide arcs including Tork: menis, UArekistan. Tapkigtan, Mongolia and the Gansu aud Yunnan provinces of China Contrary 10 the views of Renfrew (1987, 1988) niost scholars working on the Hurappan script accept the hypothesis that thiy script is written in’ Dewvidian (Winters T9S4, YSN, 1987). Tis hypothesis & supported by 1] the fact that Dravidian speakers five i Ba n. 2) the histan. Afghanistan and “Turke: Pairsetts rosa, 1987) | due to theirs Tingunstic €vid K.Ab M Draven 9 hypothesized ran down i he Ind oft tring hod wo sat oveurred here * formalized ni the 2 ss areas 1B in stam wake ae ‘Cent: ineressed ‘asi thro ‘winters separate 1988) Mat rearing! reamed te Ath (Elen Th “there istrict sullen r intwe areAt Winters © Thy soc tray lettce thay he great Stes by Asia by ‘span of eeatre of 20S foe £00 usm in Comer Ugh the For the Y froin mised cakers the Iship) has roup yo, lon oral Sot the he Is Fochariun a Dravidian Grade Language? prescace of Dravitian foan words in Sanskrit indiew(es chat Deaviiaee speakers probubly occupied the Indus Valley before the Indo-Aryaas arrived. andl 3) the spread Of the bhick-and-red Ware (BRW) tralition in the Indo-Pakistin tea. all support the Dravidian hypothesis, Fuirservis (1986), Mabadevun (1986), Parpola (1986), and Winters (1o8sa 1984, 1987) haere Ql suggested a Dravidian identity for tke Harappan due to their structural analysis of the Harappin script, The archacologieat ane linguistic evidence all supports this view. s (1966) using linguistic dita assumes an early seettement of Dravidian speakers far to the northwest on the Iranian phiteww. Zvelebil has Dypothesized 4 southeastern migration of Dravidian speakers oat of portheastern Tran dowa into Tamitnady, ‘The Indus region is an area of uncertain rains because it is located jn the fringes Of the mensciam (Fajeservis 1975, 1986, 1987). Semlers ip she Indus Valley hod to suffer both frequent droughts and floods. Severe droughts frequently vvcetyrred in the Indus Valley so the people dug wells There was a multi-staged Dravidian dispersal across Central Asia, Oravieiver migrations were not spontancous in nature, their colonization of Central Asia was fiymalized. The Dravidian colonists of Centeal Asia, were motivated by curiosity. and the search for new grazing land and metals, Indus Valley Dravidian settlements have been found i around the Iyzurite areas of Bayaghisign in qorchern Afghanistan (Beentjes 2983), Lapis lazuli is fou in metamorphic limestone or dolomite (Rosen 1988). This nesterial was Used 10 §n ancient times (Winters 1988e). ars ago was relatively empty, As Dravidian populations and miners colonized Central snguawe make ouiny prestige item Central Asia $000 y Increased in the Indus Walley, seuentary- pastoral Asia through small-scale migrations and settlemtent of hitherto unfatmed or grazing areas aver a petiod of several generations (Franeefort 1987a, 19STh: Gupta 1979, Winters 1988e). These Dravidians as they dispersed across Central Asia named the separate water bodies and land Yorms were rey sextled GVintery 1986: 132, 1988). Many north Dravidian poeple are presently found in Central Asia, The cattle dian pastoral element that Brahuis are found rearing Brahuic may represent deseendants of the Dr: roamed the steppes in ancient times. North Dravidian speaki Afghan Halachisian, Persian Sistan and the Marwonsis in Soviet Turkmenistan (Elfenbein 1987: 229) There are iskinds of Dravidian speakers i Afghanistan, Tran and Pakistan There are over XII Brahul speakers cr Quatat. Heirper aad Hyderabad districts of Pakistan. Other Dravidian speakers are found in Iran, Russia and Yugoslovia. The distribution of Northern Dravidian speaking groups outlined shove, corresponds to the former spread of Harappan cultures in the Sr millennium .c., in Central Asia (Winters 1990) Due 10 curly the Draxidhian seslement of Central Asia the Dravidian speakers influenced many Iungunges, There is a Dravidian substratum ip Tado-Aryan. There are Dravidian loans Rg Vedu. eventhough Aryan recorders of this work were6 Cede A. Weoters situated in the Punjab, which was occupied around this time by Drei BRw Emeneau and Burrow (1962) found S00 Dravidian han Words in Sanskrit. [1 addition. Indo-Aryan illustrates a widespread structral borrowing front Dravidian in adgition te 70U lexigal loans (Kuiper 1967; Sourwworth 1977: Winters 1989) The Dravidian lanwuay 0 influenced the ANaie group e.g. Turkic (Menges 1977. Vacek (987; Andronos 2963-64), Mongolian (Vacek 1978, 1983. 1987), Winters (1991) has discussed ia detail the Dravidian subst Aliaic languages, Recently, Vacek (1983) has discussed the atfinity benween 120 Mongolian and Dravidian verbs that show full correspondence 3, History of Ethnic Diversity in Central Asia ‘The Dravidhan substratum in Tocharian, Indo-Acvan and Altaie all suggest an early domination of Central Asia by the Dravidian speakers in 3 1 socivtivs. The presence ot “extreme” ethnic diversity in Central As fon of plural ‘support the hypothesis that there was extensive bilingulaismy in ancient Central Ast Ethnic and linguistic diversity stimulated the need for a fing franca in Central Asia to tucilitate communication and trade between the vittiows teil foups living ia the region, Due to the introduction of many items Of civilization and trade by the Dravidian speaking Harappans. Dravidian probably served as an carly lingua franca Hioking the urbanized Dravidian speaking people with the Dravidian and non-Dravidian speak to China and Mongolia in the Prancctort (19874.1987b) archavological data support somatic groups from Bactria iat the West nus Winters (19N8e, 1990, 1991) have outlined the: 4 Dravidian colonization of farming and mining habitats in Central Asia, This probably led to the adoption af Dravidian, as language of exchange: and ingergroup conimunication by non-Dra- vidian speakers. AU first the desire of hunter-gatherer and pastoral nomadic people to parti seonomie sysiem introduced by the Dravidlo-Harsppans led to extensive bilingualism amang the peoples af Ceuteal Asta The probable introduction af Dravidian ia such an area of linguistic ff on as a lingua francs probably proved to be advantageous for intee-tribal fication. The status of Dravidian as a wa mage was enhanced further through the introduction of innovative technological and economic culture traits by the Di These sox technolo: pate in the now vidian speakers ind economic factors prabahly fed (0 the dispersal at Dsavidians from Iran wo Central Asia, This made possible the presence of diverse languages it Central Asia that demonstrate many lesiesl makes congruent the sputial pattern separating speakers of Dravidian, Tocharian and Turkic sn time and space. «d yrammatical similarities: sand 4. Greeks Central Asia The speakers of IE and Altaic languages settled Central Asia at different bs Foch tunes T pactria years Th domi By Seleuc! i dectire king E Bactr 1 shar oor the Dra por sie ts A c BcA ian ya Sanskrit, ty ' Dravid BS 1089, ). Purkic tis ots "EST an OF play port the ‘anes iy 8 iba ‘ization Mdasan Uh the P West, ed the ining "Dra. veophe Spans frag Fiat heed tare and nt Winter, Bs Tocharian @ Dravidian Trade Language? 7 ria was garrisoned by 8,000 Greek mercenaries. In ive Greek culture. This culture existed for aver 100 times. The Kingdom of Ba Baciria there gress a distin years. The Greeks etled Bactria after the conquest of the region by Alexander. The dominant populatic reat at this time was probably Dravidian speaking Bactria was a strong point of Alexander's empire. It later became a part of the Seleucid empire The Seleucid administration was staffed by Greeks. In 245 wc, with the pire. the Bactrian Greeks established aq indupertent in the decline of the Seleucid e1 Jom By 183 Wc, the Greeks conquered India, As ie resttt they ruled an grea from Bactria to the Upper Ganges tiver Bactria was ruled directly iy the Greeks. This adminivsazion contrasted sharply with that of Greck rule in India. It India, the Greeks ttied to encotrage carnperation Between ladians and Greeks. and printed hilingual coinage Greck methods of administration encouraged the decline of Dravidian among the urban Bactrians, The clite dominance mode! may explain the decline of Dravidian, in Central Asia ‘The elite dominanve model implies the attival of a small mibtarily effective population into a new ferritory, speaking a mew languags ‘nieates and dominates the existing population, We usually can assume in such a Situation as this that the spoken inguage in this area is replaced by another language brought into the region by a new population from a different region Application of this model to explain the decfine ot Dravidian as 4 fingua franea it Central Asia probably corresponds to the Greck conquest and colonization of Bactria In 130 u.c., Slavic speaking Saka nomads attacked the Grecks. Tashkend, Fergamah and Koshpar were occupied by the Sekz. The Suka forced the Greeks oust of Baciyia and Tokharestan The Kushana first accupicd Trunsoxiona abou 360 nc. and established themselves in Oats Valley (Bagchi 1985: 8). The KushanwTocharians hater drove the Haymavorka Soka. Som Bactria and founded the Kushana dynasty which fasted aentil the 3rd century A.p ‘The homeland of the Alisie speakers, especially the Turkie people was central and Western Mongolia, The dispersal of the Turkic speakers began during the 6th and 7th centuries of our era. They did not cater Centeat Asia until the Sth century \., (Bagchi 1955). The presence of Dravidian loan words in the Aliaic grou?) suggest that although the Greeks dominated Bactria tor generations, remnants Of the ancient wictespread distribution of Dravidian settlements in central Asia esisced lop unt} the Turks arrived in the fegion, at successfully Subs Discussion The large corpus of non-B words in Tosharian discussed by Blaasle (1988) and Wénters (298%2, 1999, 199}) 1s congruent with the hypothesis that LE elementsx Chie 8. Winters In Youbarion, eepeciaily Greek (and Si the Circek conquest of Hacteh, This horrewing pattern is consistent sith the spread of the Greck language ine Bucttia by a small politically dominant nunanity of Ghock settlers into afar hirger and previously bong-established aon-IE speaking majority popukstton Phe Greco-Bactrians Were probably bilingual. Baliggualivn san be induced Jey were loanwords into Toehs wo MetHONS 1) StIle coercivg Or 2) iy Ubilify Ly OER advaMTaBeS 19 L89 OF more populations i contact The latter method of change usually accounts for bilingualism people use the new language to abtain hester access fo status, security. rituitl oF goods. ‘The Greck emphasis an dircet methods of political contrat it Bactria fered many non Greeks to become bilingsal due to its advimtage as it tool for greater opward mobility during Greck rale The historieal and linguistic evidence sue snecessive TF speaking popubations snd Shivie speakers conquered Yhe iedigenous Central Asan Davi Phis 41 that convergence in Centeal amely Grock, in speakers Asia, ts unidireetiona), in th ence ted 1 Une raise af Tacharian as wteade Dangwge As a result of prolanged bilingual contact beween Grock and noi Greek of, Tochttin was mote thao likely an interlonguage used for purposes of trade based on the Greck supersicatum and Dravidion substeatum. The view that Dravidian was spoken over a ltrge part of Cental Avia is supported by the istands of Drividdian speakers found today é Afghanistan, fut, Pakistan and Southern Russit. These pockets of eoniemparary Dravidian speakers support the sche logical evidence of Dravide-Farappan colonization at Central Asia over S8KI yeas (Winters 19884, 1990), os hi spe inpuistic foutures with Aha, Greek und Dravidian. These centuries Of sonzact within a maltdingul Setting Over the centuries various nomadic geoups have swept into the Centeal Axi steppes to plunder and conguer sedentary popubiions, Turks, Sogdian and Salinas. as tesult of this confliet. widespee vais became We! bikin snvral Asia, Us intact Sng from centuries of feature oF the socio-linguistic reality of Ancient © would lead to analogous phon. interference. This view is supported by archaeological esscuceh and history. The data is ule 1) Dravido-Harappans colonized Centra) Asia over 4100 years go: 2) the Greeks, subjugated the Bavtrians: und 3) the Kushana‘TochariansYuchehin Later colonized Contra Asia after living in Gansu. China, This, leads to the conclusion that formerly a substantial nuetber of Central Asians employes two a¢ more Langu and that Bactria was 9 centre of linguistic fragmestation, This population of bilingual speakers were the vehicle for the ereitinn of the Tocharian Languog The Greek eulture ss teensplanted ia Buctria by the army of Alexander the Great. It can be assumed dit dve Wo Gireet cule, the Crock lange established in this region by the cultural mattis accompanying Greek cultuce ind language played a mayor role in the upssurd nsobility af “eokonis] subjeets” in Bitetria ‘in elt since possession of Is Teche Fre Fteo- Te series subjuzat Kasha An ethnieal ot Bu tw fune congue people tothe Bact exam This featur col his 4 by Be culty Greele 4. Smeg 2 ith the pee wantt apeot et GN be inchiceas IMLABES tO HMO People use 008. The greater epwa upward Ree in Centra) snantely Greek idiun speaker bd non-Greex OF purposes of The view that by the istinds ind Southern £ the archeo, Her $000 years Vidlion. These al Asian teks. Turks. lism became This intura centuries of ata is clear the Greeks, Fcoloneg fasion that hanguaves Sander the * Was well “ealoniat bs Tochariin a Dravidian Trade Language? 9 Fico-Toeharian is gvod exiuple of the intluence of Greeks in Centeal Asia Eteo-Tocharian wos suitten in a modified Greek sphabet (Mrieg 1958: 398). This script A manifestation of the Greek influence in Buctria, even after the Kushana subjugation of this tea. ‘This latter point is evident 3m the Grand Inscription of Kaniska (Marieg 1958), An intruding community like the Greeks in Central Asis did not have 10 outnuriber the colonized people in Ba lige of the original Bactrians, ‘The mere Gwl that the new specels community, althoagl ethnically different were now recognized as socially superios 10 theswbjeet peoples of Bactia, made iL oseful for Bacttians to become bibmeual 30 they would be able to fanetion both within thele own culture snd the new ealture latroduced Dy the Greeks, This hypothesis is congruent with Ehret’s (198%: 569) view that Pears to he Most advantageous 1 te impact on the hang conquerin people make eultucal choices on the Basts of what to the Hives they live The Grecks made 4 conscious effort to atfeet the underpinnings of the native Bactrian’s material world and their rcltions with their spits or gods. For mple, Greek influence 's evident in the Gundharan Buddhist style sculptures, ‘This art style illusteates Hellenistic influences sn the modeling of the hair and facial features Asa resull of the Groek influence in Bact Culture” t enluinee their position and apportunity in Baetria during Gir This placed presbze on stafus efementy introduced by the Greeks. Status acquired «quisition of Greek language and Greek a. Bactrivas had t0 sequire "Greek Ke cule by Bactrians was thus centred around suce. This would have inturn added pressure on the Th Greek terms into a Berrian ingua franca (ie. Tocharian) Given the fact that Grcck administrators in Baclcia refused to filly integrate Bactrisns into the ruling elite led ta subsequent generations of mative Bactrians to, ‘e language. This woule progressively incorporite more Gireck terms inte their nat explain why Tocharian hus many features that relite to certain IE elvmatogies associated with the Grecks, but illustrates lle affinity to Jndu-feanian tony whieh ace geographically anal temporally closer to Techariun ‘The inituence of colonial Grecks in Central Asia would explain why the most important evidence of Tochsrian relations within the TE family are the Greek ane Tochorian cognates (Mallory 1989) The Greek vasionivlite dominance model for HE elements in Tochatian is congruent with the linguistic and historical evidenge hich indicates the easly setslement of Central Asia by Dravidian speakers among a diverse Bacttian Population that used « Proto-Druvidian linauage as a lingua franca, whieh allowed communication in the region. Mallory’s (1989: 182) hypothesis of a Steppe homeland for the Tockiteians kicks eongrucney given the Pontie-Casp histarival evidence for the subjugation of the Bactrians by TE speakers, and a the Tochariains (Pulleyblank 1993; Wimers 1990, 1991), 1S (LORS) hyporhesis that (rade may may he the hest solution for the Chinese origin f In conclusion, ns have played 4 rofe in the raise of Toeh haan proton, It supp He bisoreel evidence oo ttone Greek insenee Andrew sax! Susan Shere