Well it just depends on where you want the starting point for "origins". I thought you were referring to further past their encounter with the Scythians. Keep in mind the ethnic makeup of various regions was possibly different, as the Mongols hadn't pillaged through this area yet.
My view, FWIW, is that the entire borderland of Iran, specifically Achaemenid Iran, was peopled by peoples of a mixed ethnicity, but speaking various dialects of East Iranian. It was these peoples, whom the Achaemenid Emperors found to be very slippery customers, very elusive enemies, that we know as the Scythians (and variants on that name). Since my narrative seems to have been unduly obscure, I am referring to the period
prior to their - the Tocharians, again, in my view, the Kushans, in yours, in short, the people referred to by Chinese narratives as enemies of the Hiung Nu, who lost both their moments of crisis with those ferocious proto-Mongolians - critical encounter with the Scythians. Not after, as my wording seems to have conveyed.
You're wrong on the certainty of the language or certainty of them not being "Iranic". I suppose Iranic is a vague term, but generally it's implying Caucasoid, light brown/fair skin, certain features etc.
Certainty? Yes, that would be an unnecessary oratorical flourish; nothing belonging to that age and location is 'certain', neither then nor later; take, for instance, the self-elevation of the Mughals 13 centuries after these events as descendants of both Chengiz and Taimur.
May I strongly dissent from your identification of Iranic as Caucasoid, with light brown or fair skin, and 'certain' features (presumably the straight-nosed, strong-chinned type straight from the pages of Edgar Rice Burroughs, or the other Edgar, Edgar Wallace). My sense is of an increasing consensus that even the Indo-Iranians were of mixed ethnicity, and that the unfortunate racist stereotypes are increasingly discredited.
However, you will say, and rightly so, that even this is uncertain; after all, positive identification of human remains with the language spoken by those humans is absent.
As the historian John E. Hill has put it: "For well over a century ... there have been many arguments about the ethnic and linguistic origins of the Da Yuezhi (大月氏), Kushans (貴霜), and the Tochari, and still there is little consensus". (wikipedia)
Not too difficult to understand that despairing point of view, considering that the Tocharian language was a Centum language, awkwardly placed on the wrong side of the Satem languages. They should never have been there, they should have lived cheek-to-strongly-'Caucasoid'-jowl with their linguistic agnates, who later refined and carried the Centum languages. The excitement of discovering these apparently European types, with their Nordic features and gingham dresses, was, to the social consciousness of the Europeans of those times the biggest turn-on. I recommend, having introduced a reference to popular literature of the times already, a re-reading of G. A. Henty, as a necessary carminative.
And wikipedia as a reference? I thought we were having a polite conversation, and I was even enjoying it.
Why yes. Yes it is a trifle unlikely. It's also an unnecessary segway. It sorta like you asking me if those jeans made you look fat.
Hmm. Apparently I am speaking to a scarred and battered consciousness. My commiserations.
Whether or not it is an unnecessary 'segway' (did you mean 'segue'? This discussion is not about personal transportation of a post-modern variety, or am I in the wrong discussion?) is moot. I thought it was a relevant 'ad absurdum' reference that I made.
They did set up base in Peshawar, made it the capital, and really boosted the city. Their original language was Greek, and eventually became Bactrian. A few scholars believe Pashto to have descended from Bactrian language.
The gap widens. Who 'they'? The Pashtun, presumably, from the context. That is a circular argument. The people who spoke Greek in Peshawar were the Indo-Greeks, not the Pashtun; now look who's conflating. By defining the people who spoke Greek in Peshawar as Pashtun we actually take as a certainty what is nothing but the speculation that is under discussion. And 'they' ultimately converting to Bactrian is again an historical development of the Indo-Greeks, amply borne out by their coinage. That had nothing to do with the Pashtun, which nomenclature came in centuries later. Whether or not a mix of these elements, the Indo-Greeks who later took to Bactrian and the Kushans, gave rise to the Pashtun is what is being discussed. Taking it as a given is as sound an argument as the historicity of the Pakistan identity as one that was lovingly crafted in ancient times and bequeathed with solicitous care through the centuries.
As befits a pedant, may I cite the phrase 'ad litteram'?
And if you are saying that the Kushans originally spoke Greek, let me admit crushing defeat and scurry away as fast as I can.
See above. Their origins was in question. Not the timeline of events.
Well, to continue with the obscure, 'Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus'.
Yes, Gandhara aka Peshawar was at their second push. Sure. Following that they expanded further, upon making Peshawar their capital, and a center for buddhist art etc etc etc.
The point precisely is that Gandhara is NOT aka Peshawar. Punjab is NOT aka Lahore. Sindh is NOT aka Karachi. And so on....'Falsus in uno...', etc.
When in their timeline was this?
Their imperial, mature phase? Even with the benefit of being able to look forward at your next argument, it is difficult not to conclude that finding a fixed capital, reasonably safe from attack, in sharp distinction from their years of flight, denotes a rooting and a fundamental element of stability.
2-3 centuries of ruling, after making Peshawar their capital, doesn't equate to mature. It's you who's having trouble with reconciling this. Instead of recounting the various events, give me the timeline, and that'll decide whether it was at the mature phase, infancy, or entirety.
I'll save you the time. Yuezhi tribes, best guess, is they started their nomadic migration stuff around 127 BCE. Kushan empire was from 30 CE to 375 CE.
Bewildering.
My argument is based entirely on their reaching a stable point, from which they would not have to retreat further. Why should not 2 to 3 centuries of ruling, after making Peshawar their capital, not equate to mature?
In fact, to cite your own figures, which are entirely acceptable, though not to the exclusion of other views, the Yuezhi started around 127 BC, or BCE, if you prefer. Considering that they spent nearly a century and a half flying before a determined and implacable enemy, and considering that they won Peshawar AFTER they had displaced their immediate neighbours in their frantic effort to find safe havens, I see no logic behind denying that this was during their mature phase, the phase when they became known to a wider assortment of people as an imperial force, the phase when they acculturated themselves to their surrounding social and intellectual and religious milieu, the phase when they remained a powerful, expansive military force, pushing deep into the Gangetic plain.
You are. You are assuming the Kushans are merely a rewording of the Tocharians. I'm saying they're distinct, as well there is no consensus on their origins.
If you wish. Doesn't really bother me if you wish to use ad hominem. It should, on the other hand, bother you.
