Lands of Asia layouts (Eng) 26.11.21

2 .3
2.3
TITLES OF RULERS OF
STATES AND DOMINIONS
IN CENTRAL ASIA FROM
EARLY IN THE 1ST
MILLENNIUM BC TO THE
3RD–4TH CENTURIES AD
The political significance of a particular state can to a large
extent be determined by the title or honorary rank of its leader, as well as a number
of other factors. These titles were inherited or acquired through power struggles with
other persons who had initially borne equally important titles. As a state expanded
and became increasingly powerful, its initial leader, who may have held a title of
modest importance, would acquire all sorts of glorifying titles, as would their state.
In many states, leaders were placed on a par with deities, with the Chinese referring
to a ruler as the ‘son of god’, the Indians using the equivalent title devaputra, and the
Bactrians the title bagopouro. Of course, there are also examples throughout history
where the rulers of small and politically insignificant domains assumed the title of
‘king’ or ‘king of kings’, but this was the exception rather than the rule.
The titles of the kings and rulers of Central Asia have long been a subject of
interest for historians, and much research has been undertaken, especially by the
scholars V.A. Livshits, B.I. Vainberg, I.M. Dyakonov, E.V. Zeymal, S.P. Tolstov, O.I.
Smirnova, and W. Henning. However, most studies have concentrated on the titles of
rulers of individual states, for example of Khorezm or the Kushan kingdom, and the
main focus has been on the identification of the origin of the titles, of their meaning
and of their ethnic history. However, there are no studies examining the titles of pre-
Islamic rulers in Central Asia, the nature of their development, or how they changed
over time.
59