False Histories-saka/kushana Debate

dhu · (This post was last modified: 11-04-2005, 01:51 PM by dhu.)

Ravi,

Would you agree that, from the earliest times, the Mongoloid component is overrepresented in C asia compared to that derived from the native indo-afghan type. So there is nothing extraordinary in the fact that Kushans were indeed Mongoloid. You can see for yourself a reconstruction of timur's face: http://www.silk-road.com/artl/timur.shtml . Timur was a native of samarkhand and it is not all that much different from kushan art samples you provide. I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that timur was a descendant of Kanishka, only that they were accultured differently; one to the dominant buddhism/Shaivism; the other to Arabic savagery.

Kushan horse-riding culture (with tunics, longbows, etc,) before their acculturation to the area is most represented by mongolian culture. Only Mongolians today retain the basic traits of this culture. This culture stretched all the way from korea to central asia.

There is the very real and weighty evidence that when the Huns were at the gates of Constantinople, they were addressed as descendants of the scythii (saka).

Also can you provide one instance where the chinese were the least bit concerned about a powerful non-mongoloid nomadic group.

Also you do state that there are references to Jat clans in the Veda.

11-05-2005, 09:12 AM

While most of the tribes of Central Asia were mongoloid, some of them were clearly Aryans speaking languages related to Sanskrit.

It is quite possible that the Kushans are one such tribe.

The kushan clothing reflects Mongol influence however.

Also, Mihirakula the Huna king was a devotee of Shiva.

We also also know many Hindu kings ruled over towns in Central Asia upto 900 AD I believe, until they were ousted by the Chinese.

Based on the link provided by Ravi - http://www.med.unc.edu/~nupam/kushan1.html, It appears majority of the Kushan coins had Vedic deities, specifically Shiva.

QUOTEAll that has happened is that a Chinese nomenclature has been used for a non Chinese people. Once the nomenclature came into use, the rest of the would be historians, used the term unconsciously.

The correct pronunciation of Yueh chi is Gut-ia or Jut-ia for 'g' and 'j' sounds are interchangeable. So we find these people calling themselves Juts, Jats in those time.


I agree that the Chinese nomenclature is inaccurate.
However, what evidence do you have that the Yueh chi called themselves Jats?

11-05-2005, 11:37 AM

This dicussion is very important and going in a postive way which will result in either shreading a myth or providing light on the glorious past of these tribes. Both way winner is India. Serious exchange of views between dhu mitradena and ravi is enlightening .[Edit] Is he a suitable person to discuss such an important topic,he should ponder over himself. To my views hinduism has provided a unitary spirit to this land called Bharatvarsh.let us start again,are jats and other similar casts decendents of Shakas &Kushans ,if not ,shread this myth to pieces. [QUOTE]

No personal attack
-Admin

11-07-2005, 12:06 AM

QUOTE(mitradena @ Nov 5 2005, 09:12 AM)However, what evidence do you have that the Yueh chi called themselves Jats?
[right][snapback]40677[/snapback][/right]

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JatHistory/message/1429

Hukam Singh Pauria, did a detailed research on the term "Jat", its variant names etc.

The connection of the term "Jat" with the term "Yueh Chi" is explored below

Ravi
*********

Extract from: pp 344 to 347

" The Jats, Their origin ., antiquity, and migration" (1993)H S Pauria Manthan Press, Rohtak, India, ISBN 81-85235-22-8.

" Continuing our quest for more variants of the word "Jat" as an ethnic term, we now turn to central Asiatic countries and their chronicles.

In the countries of the Oxus valley we come across the word "Jatah" or "Jetteh"[75], "Zutt" or "Az-Zutt"[76], "Jith" or "Git"[77] during medieval and early medieval tunes, not only as names of various places including villages, towns, canals, rivers and mountains but also those of the Jat people who inhabited them after their deportation[78] from India. From classical historians and geographers of the first century B.C. as well as from those of first century A.D. have come down to us variants like "Xanthii" or "Zanthii" or "XandHii"[79] "Iatii" or "Iattii"[80] used for the people living on the banks of the Oxus between Bactria, Hyrkania and Khorasmia [81], "Xuthi" or "Zuthi"[82] for those who occupied Karamanian desert and Drangiana[83]. One scholar[84] suggests that those people gave their name as "Zotale" or "Zothale" to the irrigation channel from the Margus river. All these terms are said[85]to be variants of the term "Jit" with their "parental house on the Oxus" and "their original seat or colony in Sindh" as well as "on the Margus ("Zotale" or "Zothale") river".

This reference definitely indicates that the Jats were spread over tbs region bounded by Indus in the east and the Oxus in the West in Central Asia.

This learned scholar seems perplexed in deciding the original habitat of the Jats in spite of the fact that earlier scholars like Pliny, Diodorus Siculus and Megasthenes had claimed that contemporay Indians were indigenous.

Pliny[86] the Indians living in the Indus Valley from the past. Diodorus Siculus[87] asserted that the contemporary Indians were evidently indigenous and Megasthenes [88], who was, in fact, more familiar with northern India of the fourth and third centuries B.C. than any other of his contemporaries, wrote about the people, inhabiting north-western India, that "none was alien and all of them were India's indigenous citizens". These impartial statements of the classical writers amply expose the fallacy of the assertions of those who assign foreign origin to the Jats.

It is a pity that in spite of the corroborative evidence, the Indian origin of the Jats was disputed and repudiated in favour of their Central Asian origin, simply because this theory was propounded by European scholars led by writers like Cunningham and Todd. These theories were readily accepted by their Indian adherents without making any reason or rhyme, simply because of the prestige that European scholars commanded.

THE CHINESE VARIANT - YUEH CHI

We now turn to some other forms of the term "Jat" available to us from the Chinese. During this very period in the region under review several variants were current: "Yat" or "Yata", "Yeta"[91] or "Ye- tha"[92] or "Yet"[93] "Yete" or "Yeti"[94], "Yewti"[95] or "Yuti"[96], "Yuchi"[97] or "Tuc-Chie"[98] or "Yue-Chi" or "Yueh- Chih" [99].

We regard them all as variants of the term "Jat".

Another term "Yueh-Chih", (with its two branches, "Siao-Yueh-Chih" or little Yueh-Chih and "Ta-Yueh-Chih" or great Yueh-Chih, is equally noteworthy.

This term, variously spelt by scholars, comes from archaic Chinese. It was pronounced from the fourth century B.C. to about the first century A.D., as "ngiwatt-sie = ngiwattia" which, according to B. Karlgren [100], points to a foreign word "Gut-tia" in China.

The Chinese adopted this name to designate newly encountered foreigners, probably the Dai or Tai[11] (Dahae or Tahae) of the Iranian writers or the Dadicae of Herodotus. Scholars, earlier, were doubtful if this was the real import of Yueh Chih, but the uncertainty was removed by H.W. Bailey, a keen student it of Chinese language, who [102] identified the Yueh-Chih with the Iatoi or latii mentioned by Ptolemy and who were the Jats of Cunningham, Todd, Elphinstone etc.[103].

The archaic Chinese pronunciation of "Yueh-Chih" as "ngiwat-teh" might have been responsible for its vernacularization as "Jatah" or "Jeteh" (Yatah or Yattah) till medieval times and "Ywati" for the other forms prefixed with 'Y'. There is every probability that' ngiwattia' was transformed into Gut-tia, and was abbreviated as Guti or Gut in the course of time. (Guti, as a variant, will be described in the sequel).

We may also note that what MacRitchie has observed : namely that the
form Jaut of Jat, (which he came across in the Memoires of Lord
Combermare), appears to offer the best compromise... with the popular
English form of a similar word "Ghat", viz. "Ghaut"[104] which
exactly sounds like Chinese, "ngiwat". It is significant, further,
that British officers called "Jat" as Gat but in writing that they
spelt it as "Gat" or "Gaut"[105].

What is pertinent to our enquiry is the question of the identity of
the foreigners for whom the Chinese use the term "Yueh-Chih".
Further, from where did these Yueh-Chih penetrate into China? The
term obviously would not indicate the neighbouring people like the
Mongols and the Turks. It is far more plausible to link this term
with terms we have already explored at some length, i.e. the "Getae"
and with the "latii" of Ptolemy, the "Jatii" of Pliny, and the Jats
of Cunningham, who were natives at that period of the countries
between the Sindh and Oxus valleys, and whom we have already
identified with "Sakas".

Some of these adventurous tribes of the Sakas from India at Buddha's
time penetrated as far as Kucha, (Kusa in Sanskrit [106]) or Lobnor,
where, the Chinese gave these aliens the name "Yueh-Chih" which came
nearest to their original name in sound. These tribes derived or were
given a new name in their new home Kucha or (Kusha) and became famous
in history as the Kushanas [106]. Consequently, it was but natural
for later historians to regard the Kushanas as a branch of the Yueh-
Chih.

There is still a tendency among historians to regard the Jats as the
descendents of the Yueh-Chih or to regard them as one of their
branches, the Kushanas, but the truth is just the reverse.

The names " Yueh-Chih" and "Kushana" are later names given to Jats or
a branch of them who migrated to Central Asian regions from Sindh in
ancient period.

Our reading of historical facts, pertaining to the tribal movements
to, and in, the Central Asian countries, leads us to the firm
conclusion that scholars like Cunningham and Todd, astute and honest
though they ere, have discovered the Jat horse as well as the Yueh-
Chih cart, but have managed only to put the cart before the horse.

References:
75. Mahil, UjagarSingh; Antiquity of Jat Race, Delhi, 1955, p.
14; Kephart, op.cit., pp. 262, 468. Sykes, Sir Perey; His of
Persia, Vol. II. pp. 120, 123. O' Ne al, Cothburn; "Conquests of
Tamer Lane, AVON Pubns. inc. 545, Mdison A- e., New York-23, pp.
29,91 ff, 95, 97,103f, 106ff, 110,125,130,232.

76. Strange, op.cit. pp. 244, 331.

77. Ibid., p. 454.

78 Cf. f.n. No. 50 above.
79 Strabo, Geog., XL, 8-2 & 3. Westphal and Westphal, op.cit.,
pp. 87-88.
80 Pliny, His. Nat., VI, 18. Ptolemy, Geog., VI, 12,14.
81 ASR, Vol., II, (1863-64), p. 55.
82 Ibid. Westphal and Westphal, op.cit., pp. 87-88.
83 Ibid.
84 Ibid.
85 Ibid.
86 Majumdar, R.C.; op.cit., p. 340.
87 Ibid., p. 235.
88 Diodoros Siculus, Bibliotheca Historica, II, 220.
89. Deshraj, Thakur, Jat Itihas, Agra, 1934, p. 95.
90. Dr. Kunudsen, a Norwegian visiting Professor in the Math.
Deptt. of the Pb.Univ. in 1970, holds that Yatas are
Juts who migrated from the east, probably Ind., to the Scandnavian
and the Netherlandic countries in the remote past. Please note that
the name Kunudsen is just Indian. Lt. Ram Sarup Joon, His of
Jats, p.4,1967.
91. Law, B.C.; Some Kshatriya Tribes of Anc. Ind., 1975, p. 270.
92. Gankovsky, Yu. V.; The Peoples of Pakistan (an Ethnic His.),
Lahore, 1971,
93. Law, B.C., op.cit., p. 270.
94. Joon, op.cit., p. 4.
95. Chanda, R.P.; op.cit.,1969, p. 35.
96. Mukerji, A.B.; op.cit., p. 39.
97. Desraj, op.cit., p. 65. Joon, op.cit., p. 4. Mahil, op.cit.,
pp. 13-14. H.G. Wells,op.cit., chapter 28, Sec. 4.
98. Mahil, op.cit., p. 48.
99. Tarn, W.W.; Greeks in Bactria. and India., p. 286. It was a very
popular name and is found in all standard works. E.J. Rapson, Camb.
His. of Ind., Ch. XXII, pp.510. Ency. Brit. 13th ed., Vol. 3, pp. 180-81.
100. Mukherjee, B.N.; Kushan Genealogy, Skt. Coll., Calcutta, 1967,
p. 37. B.Karlgren, JAOS, 1945, Vol. LXV, p. 77. B. Karlgren, Analytic
Dic. Of Chinese and Sino-Japanese, nos. 879 and 1347; Paris, 1923.
101 Mukherjee, B.N.; op.cit., p. 38, Camb. His. Vol. II, pt.I,
LVIIIf. JIH, Vol. XII,
102 Mukherjee, B.N., op.cit., p. 39. J. Marquardt, Eranshahr, p. 206,
Cf. also E.G. Pulleyblank, Asia Major, ns. 1963, Vol. IX, p.
109; Asia Maj., 1964, Vol. XI, p.6; JRAS, 1966, p. 17. Pulleyblank
equates ngiwat-cie + ngiwat-tehy with Iatioi ( = Ywati).
103. Ibettson, Denzil; op.cit., 1916, p. 97.
104. Mac. Ritchie, op.cit., p. 78.
105. Princep, Sett, R. of Sialkot, S. 136; 1865. H.A. Rose,
Gloss, of Tribes. and Castes, Vol. Ill, p. 416.
106. Bagchi, P.C.; Ind. and Cen. Asia, Calcutta, 1955, p.68.
Mukherjee B.N., op.cit., pp. 6-7,11-12, Sakas so were
driven to that region from Ind.; Mukherjee, B.N.; op.cit., pp. 26-
27. For Indian rule and influence in Cen. Asia, Cf. A.
Kalyanraman, Aryatarangini, vol. II, Bombay, 1970. p. 9, Aurel Stein
also supports it.
107. Ibid. Bagchi holds that Kuci or Kuchi or Kusi is the
archaic pronunciation of Kucinam of Kucina from which
a genetive plural form would be Kusana. The ancient name of
Khotan was Godana (Ibid. p. 49) which proves the existence of
Indians there in the remote past.

dhu · (This post was last modified: 11-07-2005, 01:19 PM by dhu.)

QUOTEWhat is pertinent to our enquiry is the question of the identity of the foreigners for whom the Chinese use the term "Yueh-Chih". Further, from where did these Yueh-Chih penetrate into China? 
The Chinese are obviously referring to Xinkiang. We now know that this area was indeed occupied by the Harappans, who are otherwise same as the Punjabis/Sindhis. See Hemphill's craniometric studies in the DNA thread. So there is evidence that C Asia was being continuously populated by Indians from Harappan times. There are also the Shakta Temples in Turkmenistan.

QUOTEThe names " Yueh-Chih" and "Kushana" are later names given to Jats or
a branch of them who migrated to Central Asian regions from Sindh in
ancient period.
Guru Gobind Singh states in the Bichitra Nataka that Guru Nanak is a descendant of Rama's elder son Kush. Can the Kushans be seen as the descendants of Kush?

But how do we account for the MOngolian features of Saka attire as seen here: http://img14.imagevenue.com/img.php?loc=lo...ic_monument.jpg

It is also possible that the Hunnic Scythii refferred to by the Greeks have been conflated with the Indic Saka.

11-08-2005, 09:35 AM

dhu,Nov 7 2005, 01:13 PM]

Ravi>What is pertinent to our enquiry is the question of the identity of the foreigners for whom the Chinese use the term "Yueh-Chih". Further, from where did these Yueh-Chih penetrate into China? [/quote]

DHU> The Chinese are obviously referring to Xinkiang. We now know that this area was indeed occupied by the Harappans, who are otherwise same as the Punjabis/Sindhis. See Hemphill's craniometric studies in the DNA thread. So there is evidence that C Asia was being continuously populated by Indians from Harappan times. There are also the Shakta Temples in Turkmenistan.

*******

Ravi> The IVC is spread through to Central Asia

*********
Ravi>The names " Yueh-Chih" and "Kushana" are later names given to Jats or
a branch of them who migrated to Central Asian regions from Sindh in
ancient period.[/quote]

DHU>Guru Gobind Singh states in the Bichitra Nataka that Guru Nanak is a descendant of Rama's elder son Kush. Can the Kushans be seen as the descendants of Kush?

Ravi> it is possible. There is a tradition, that the sons of Ram went west. etsblishing Lahore and kingdoms further west.

DHU>But how do we account for the MOngolian features of Saka attire as seen here: http://img14.imagevenue.com/img.php?loc=lo...ic_monument.jpg

It is also possible that the Hunnic Scythii refferred to by the Greeks have been conflated with the Indic Saka.

Ravi> the image URl does not work

It is quite possible that troops of Mongolian origin also joined the Huns!

If the two people are interacting it would not be unexpected for them to take Mongolian ladies as wives.

Ravi

11-08-2005, 09:37 AM

This entire area, upto the Oxus/Jaxartes River and the Syr River were known to the Indians in ancient times. The rivers were known as the Sihoon and Jihoon.

They are referred to in the Mahabharata and in Raghuâs Digvijay by Kalidas.

There is plenty of evidence of the spread of the IVC or the Sarasvati Sindhu civilization
into these areas.

Kandhar. / Gandhara, Kamboj etc are quite commonly known.

It should not be unexpected to find tribes and people moving back and forth.

Looking closer these areas are not the barren areas as portrayed by Western writers.

The Bactrian. Marghiana complex, NW of Afghanistan is quite fertile, and evidence of irrigation (canal complexes) goes back to the years 2000 BCE or so at least.

Contrary to European writerâs assertions, the Greeks did not bring prosperity to this area, but there is little evidence that they contributed anything at all.

Then there is also, again contrary to Western authors' assertions, there was no wholesale ldestruction and burning of the Greek settlements in these areas by some nomadic barbaric tribes.

Undoubtedly the Greeks established some kind of presence, but also the local powers threw off the yoke, and carried on to establish their empire from Central Asia to the Bay of Bengal.

There is no difference in the ethnicity of the people known to us as the Huns, the Sakas, and the Kushans.

We finds Hun villages all through Northern India down to Madhya Pradesh. The Huns are found in the Jats and the Gujars.

Athla, " Attila" is still a commn name in Haryana

Ravi

11-08-2005, 09:49 AM

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JatHistory/message/1312

a review of archaeological reports:
Southern Bactria & northern India before Islam

By: Fussman, Gerard
http://home.btconnect.com/CAIS/Archaeology...ern_bactria.htm

A rather interesting article by Prof. Fussman. from a talk given at
the School of Oriental and African Studies.
He reviews the work of the archeologists , the French - Francfort,
the Germans - Hartel, and the Italians- Tucci, as well as the
English Marshall and wheeler.
Wish we had more like this.
He draws our attention to some of his observations.
The Bactria area, the current area in the Oxus valley, known as
Bactria, was a lush fertile area, with an ancient complex irrigation
system.
It was found settled in the 3rd millennium BCE, i.e. 3000 to 2000BCE,
about the period of the so-called Harappan or IVC or Saraswati
civilization. He also makes notes of links between the IVC
civilization and the Bactrian civilization.
Agriculture was plenty, as was irrigation with canals to make that
agriculture possible.
This was the picture when the Greek intrusion took place. The author
notes that agriculture did not show an increase in the Greek period.
There was no decisive increase in cultivation with the advent of the
Greeks. Hence Greek colonization was not responsible for the
proverbial agricultural wealth of Bactria.

The author also points out that there is no evidence that the Greek
civilization there was destroyed by the nomads, though it is accepted
historical fact to think so.
There is no archeological evidence for the invasion by Indo-Aryan
tribes.
He also pints out what I have been pointing out is the use of
Chinese term to denote a non Chinese people- Yueh Chi, Sai etc

He also points from the Sonkh excavations at Mathura, that circa 0
BCE --"social groups of foreign origin, especially the ruling clans,
kept to quite unshastric family systems and rights of inheritance
(Fussman 1980, 23). Brahmins could be engaged in trade and their
widows could act as family heads (Fussman 1993, 115). This scanty
data is enough to show that around the Common Era, Indian society was
still far from functioning like the ideal Hindu society depicted in
the probably much later dharmasastras."

Ravi Chaudhary

Some quotes:

It is generally agreed that the town was vacated by the Greeks c. 145
B.C. under pressure from the nomads, although no incontrovertible
evidence that it was attacked, burnt, or sacked by these nomads was
ever found.( P. Bernard only made the noncommittal statement: "the
Greeks of Ai Khanum were driven from their city by nomad invaders"
(Bernard 1982, 148)

So one is puzzled to learn that the town was probably vacated after
an attack (Leriche 1986, 57); that it was destroyed by Yuezhi nomads
(Rapin 1992, 291) and that there was a Kushan occupation (Leriche
1986, 99-101). What is P. Bernard's own opinion? Is there any
evidence of these facts in other excavated buildings? And why are we
not given the possibility of judging whether the arrowheads
discovered against the northern wall belonged to Greek troops (who
could have enlisted Central Asiatic archers) or to nomadic tribes?
(27) Can we not know from the ceramic finds whether the city was
inhabited in Kushan times or not?(28)
He should have shortened - among others - his Sakuntala story (pp.
192-97), found in all histories of Indian literature, and I would
have expected him to have been much more cautious in discovering a
depiction of this same Sakuntala story in the so-called "plaque
indienne."(32

The results of these well-planned surveys are impressive. They
demonstrated that, as postulated, the climate had not changed much
during the past 5,000 years; that agriculturists had been settled in
Bactria at least since the early third millennium B.C.; that channel
irrigation was practiced on a large scale, and sometimes under very
difficult technical conditions, long before the Greek conquest; that
Ai Khanum was built on an already densely populated territory; that
some changes in population could be inferred from the distribution of
channels and sherds, and possibly correlated with previously known
historical data.(37)

The irrigated areas were largest in Greek times, but as some channels
were probably in use in pre-Greek, Greek, and post-Greek times, it
was not possible to say whether there was an increase in cultivation
in Greek times.

. It is shown that in the third millennium B.C., eastern Bactria
belonged to a Baluc cultural sphere, without implying that it was a
political entity or that there was any ethnic unity. The same is said
about the Harappan period (2500-1500), at a time when close contacts
with the Indus civilization are attested by surveys and the
consecutive Shortughai dig (Francfort 1989, below): B. Lyonnet
expresses some reservations about any explanation founded upon
economic or ethnic colonization. She clearly says that the eastern
Bactria surveys do not help to solve the vexing problem of the
relationship between Turkmenia, Bactria, and Balucistan, and that
there is no field evidence for the historically sure arrival of Indo-
Iranian or Indo-Aryan tribes. In the same way there is no ceramic
evidence for the inclusion of Bactria in the Persian Achaemenid
empire, although the existence of a Bactrian Achaemenid satrapy is a
well-known fact

B. Lyonnet is probably right in ascribing some shapes (gobelets a
piedouche and bottled-shaped pots) to nomad invaders, less so in
attributing them respectively to the Saka (Sai) and Yuezhi, because
Sai and Yuezhi are Chinese names for shifting confederations of
tribes without any linguistic, ethnic (i.e., racial), and probably
cultural, unity.

. The main economic impulse dates back to the second millennium B.C.:
neither the Achemenids nor the Greeks were responsible for the
irrigation of the larger part of Bactria, and the probable increase
in population which ensued. There was no decisive increase in
cultivation with the advent of the Greeks. Hence Greek colonization
was not responsible for the proverbial agricultural wealth of Bactria.

The final report of the Shortughai excavations, which is a revised
Ph.D. dissertation (Francfort 1989), would deserve a longer review,
both for the importance of the finds and the way they are published.
The excavations, made after the discovery of Harappan sherds during
the survey of the plain of Ai Khartum, brought to light the remains
of a Harappan settlement, either a trading or colonial outpost
(Francfort), or evidence for the existence of a huge cultural zone
including both Central Asia and the Indus valley (Lyonnet), and
proved the use of channel irrigation in Central Asia as early as the
third millennium B.C

H.-P. Francfort is most probably right in denying the existence of
any archaeological evidence of the Indo-Aryan presence,

chronology of the Sacred Precinct.
I would go so far as to say that Butkara I is the best excavation
ever made and published of a Gandharan Buddhist site. As a result,
thanks to this very detailed report, we can use a wealth of reliable
data for tracing the history of building techniques, decorative
elements (mouldings, columns, etc.) and the painting of the
Hellenized art of Gandhara. It is a wonder that nobody, up to now,
has taken advantage of the evidence that is here provided in such a
convenient way for further research. Faccenna 1980 is a welcome
counterpart to Marshall's Taxila excavations, whose data, collected
with less care,(62) are notoriously unreliable.

SONKH, MATHURA

The excavations at Sonkh, near Mathura, were conducted for eight
years (1966-74) by a team of German archaeologists led by Prof.
Hartel. With the objective of unravelling "structural remains to an
extent sufficient for a reassessment of the antiquity of Mathura and
the nature of early historical settlements in its environment"
(Hartel 1993, 12), the relatively undisturbed mound of Sonkh (c. 20 m
high) was selected. T

1 We may assume that, as in almost every society, Indian society at
that time was made up of a number of groups. But we do not know
whether these groups were knitted into a fixed and hierarchized
social frame bearing some resemblance to the modern Hindu jati system
or whether there was only one system of ranking, incorporating the
many groups of followers of Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and Iranian
religions into one and the same scheme. If we can judge from some
stray inscriptions, social groups of foreign origin, especially the
ruling clans, kept to quite unshastric family systems and rights of
inheritance (Fussman 1980, 23). Brahmins could be engaged in trade
and their widows could act as family heads (Fussman 1993, 115). This
scanty data is enough to show that around the Common Era, Indian
society was still far from functioning like the ideal Hindu society
depicted in the probably much later dharmasastras.

dhu · (This post was last modified: 11-11-2005, 11:46 AM by dhu.)

Ravi>What is pertinent to our enquiry is the question of the identity of the foreigners for whom the Chinese use the term "Yueh-Chih". Further, from where did these Yueh-Chih penetrate into China?
Ravi> The IVC is spread through to Central Asia

They indeed penetrated from the IVC itself. The Indian connection to C Asia has always been subsumed under such obfuscating terms as "Eastern Mediterranean" The antiquity of the Indo-Afghan type in C Asia is v deep. Hemphill:

QUOTEAAPA 2004

East of Eden, west of Cathay: An investigation of Bronze Age
interactions along the Great Silk Road.

B.E. Hemphill

..Results indicate that, despite identification as Europoid and
Mongoloid, inhabitants of Yanbulaq exhibit closest affinities to one
another. No one recovered from Yanbulaq exhibits affinity to Russian
steppe samples. Rather, the people of Yanbulaq possess closest
affinities to other Bronze Age Tarim Basin dwellers, intermediate
affinities to residents of the Indus Valley, and only distant
affinities to Chinese and Tibetan samples
___________________________________________________

..a craniometric study by B. E. Hemphill published in 2000 (after
Genes, Peoples, and Languages had presumably gone to press) indicates
that the Tarim Basin populations had a more complex ancestry than was
initially supposed. [/B]The earliest groups had their closest affinities
with populations from the Indus Valley, and the later ones exhibited
affinities with peoples of the Oxus River Valley of south-central
Asia, with both groups being considerably divergent from one another.
These results argue against a Russian steppe origin for the Tarim
Basin peoples..
___________________________________________________

Craniometric investigation of the Bronze Age settlement of Xinjiang
American Journal of Physical Anthropology
2003
Brian E. Hemphill, J.P. Mallory

..Indus Valley samples (HAR, CEMH, and TMG) are located in the lower
left of this array and, once again, the earliest western Chinese
sample, QÃ¤wrighul (QAW), is identified as possessing closer affinities
to Indus Valley samples than to samples from any other region.

..all analyses of phenetic relationships consistently reveal a
profound phenetic separation between steppe samples and the samples
from the Tarim Basin (QÃ¤wrighul, Alwighul, and KrorÃ¤n).

..The results, however, fail to demonstrate even a low-level phenetic
affinity between QÃ¤wrighul and either steppe samples or samples from
Oxus civilization urban centers.

..all results indicate that these later inhabitants of the Tarim Basin
manifest a unique affinity to Bactrians.

Additionally, there is a special relationship beteen Turmenistan and Harappans, where the Shakta temples have been located since deep antiquity.

QUOTEHemphill:Â Indus Valley samples are identified as sharing slightly closer affinity to samples from Iran and Turkmenistan than to Bactrian samples.
QUOTETurkmenian samples from Geoksyur (GKS) and Altyn depe (ALT) serve as a phenetic link between Indus Valley samples (HAR, TMG, and CEMH) that feature the closest affinities to one another. 

>>It is quite possible that troops of Mongolian origin also joined the Huns!

If the two people are interacting it would not be unexpected for them to take Mongolian ladies as wives.>>

Huns are MOngoloid.

>>Looking closer these areas are not the barren areas as portrayed by Western writers.
The Bactrian. Marghiana complex, NW of Afghanistan is quite fertile, and evidence of irrigation (canal complexes) goes back to the years 2000 BCE or so at least.>>

Yes, Much more so than their darling Ukraine-W Russia which, contrary to perception, is one huge swamp. St petersburg is a case in point. Also nothing comparable to Bamiyan is to be found in darling Ukraine. There is no contest at all in terms of culture and power.

Canal complexes differentiated the Pontic Sindoi from their neighbors as well. Sinti is a later gypsy tribe. The Sindh (and maybe Jat) connection is obvious.

Massagatae can be related to the Gitano who did indeed colonize Europe at a later date.

>>There is no difference in the ethnicity of the people known to us as the Huns, the Sakas, and the Kushans.

We finds Hun villages all through Northern India down to Madhya Pradesh. The Huns are found in the Jats and the Gujars.

Athla, " Attila" is still a commn name in Haryana>>

It would make more sense that the Kushans were a Hunnic-Jat Hybrid, just as the Uighurs are hybrids between the ancient LOCAL indo-afgan-fergana types and sino-mongols.

dhu · (This post was last modified: 11-10-2005, 12:47 AM by dhu.)

There are two separate friezes for the Indians and the Scythians at Persepolis. http://www.cultureofiran.com/noruz_celebration.php

The Ionians, The Medes, The babylonians, the Armenians, all have a curled hair style. Only the Indians and Scythians are portrayed with straight hair. What more, the Scythians are presenting Arm bracelets which is almost distinctly subcontinental in significance.

Gok Turk monument showing similarity between Scythian and Turkic styles:
http://img6.imageshack.us/my.php?image=t...ent6lz.jpg

11-10-2005, 09:52 PM

QUOTE(dhu @ Nov 10 2005, 12:45 AM)There are two separate friezes for the Indians and the Scythians at Persepolis.Â http://www.cultureofiran.com/noruz_celebration.php

The Ionians, The Medes, The babylonians, the Armenians, all have a curled hair style.Â Only the Indians and Scythians are portrayed with straight hair.Â What more, the Scythians are presenting Arm bracelets which is almost distinctly subcontinental in significance.

Gok Turk monument showing similarity between Scythian and Turkic styles:
http://img6.imageshack.us/my.php?image=t...ent6lz.jpg
[right][snapback]40918[/snapback][/right]

Can you more specifically elobrate what you want to suggest?

11-11-2005, 01:17 AM

Ravi,

Can you use the quote feature. It will make it easier to read your posts.

QUOTEThe Ionians, The Medes, The babylonians, the Armenians, all have a curled hair style.Â Only the Indians and Scythians are portrayed with straight hair.Â What more, the Scythians are presenting Arm bracelets which is almost distinctly subcontinental in significance.


Good point!
I never noticed that before about the Indians shown in the pic!

But the Scythians are wearing hats. How do you know they have straight hair?

Also I believe that "Hun" was a generic term for a group of tribes which included mongoloids and non-mongoloids.

Based on the descriptions provided by Roman commentators it appears that Attila was a Mongol.

Whereas the Ephtalites (white huns) were I believe more Indo-Iranian.
Mihirakula the famous Huna king was an Ephtalite.

dhu · (This post was last modified: 11-11-2005, 05:12 AM by dhu.)

QUOTEhttp://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/ethnic_of_sakas.php
Important evidence regarding the population of the region in question is provided by materials from the archaeological work carried out in the eastern Pamirs under the direction of Bernshtam and Litvinskii, namely, the location and investigation of burial mounds and other monuments of the seventh-first centuries BCE in the valleys of the Aqsu-Murghab, Alichur, and Pamir rivers in the vicinity of Lake Rangkul. Most date from the fifth-third centuries BCE; the most recent (second-first centuries BCE) are concentrated in the eastern and southern sections of the area in which they appeared earlier. The material culture resembles that of the Sakas, `but this is decidedly not true of the anthropological data. Like the modern inhabitants of the western Pamirs, the Sakas are primarily of the anthropological type characteristic of the Central Asian region between the Amu Darya and Syr Darya.Western Pamirs are today Tadjik, that is Mongoloid. The culture is the same as the Pazyryk finds.QUOTEThe population of the eastern Pamirs of the earlier period belonged to a completely different type, that of the eastern Mediterranean area. Eastern Med is code for Indo-Afghan.QUOTETherefore, anthropologists are in agreement that genetically these people are not related to the Saka tribes who inhabited the areas farther to the north: their ties lie to the southwest, perhaps in the Hindu Kush and northern India, and in all likelihood they are the descendants of a more ancient local population. In fact, although the modern population of Wakhan belongs to a different type, there is reason to believe that, at least in the last centuries BCE, a people of the same physical type and culture as the modern population of the eastern Pamirs lived there. As yet, there are no paleoanthropological materials on the given period from areas farther to the south, but their modern population-the Kashmirians and Burashki of Hunza and Yasin in particular (the latter are direct descendants of the ancient Kaspians)-are representatives of the Indo-Afghan type, a modern variant of that predominant in the ancient population of the eastern Pamirs. It is clear that the anthropological data coincide with the conclusions about the Kaspians (Kaspirs) presented in this article. 
In other words, The Hsiung Niu (mongoloid sakas) pushed back indo-afghan-kashimiri locals into Kushan territory.
There is also the comparatively more important cultural phenomenon that is the Kushans: the expansion of Buddhism into China.

11-11-2005, 07:42 AM

QUOTE(dhu @ Nov 11 2005, 04:11 AM)In other words, The Hsiung Niu (mongoloid sakas) pushed back indo-afghan-kashimiri locals into Kushan territory.Â
There is also the comparatively more important cultural phenomenon that is the Kushans: the expansion of Buddhism into China.
[right][snapback]40983[/snapback][/right]


Dhu

I would be very careful, if I were you, before making these very 'bold definitive but generalized statements.

Piankov etc are only quoting from general "historical" sources, in other words secondary sources- a ilttel bit form here and a litle fom here.

They have a pre conceived idea of "Scythians" ," mongols", uncivilized barbarians, nomads, which fit their Euro views.

No one but Herodutus knew the Scythians as Scythians. This then turns into the gospel truth, carved into stone.

I will suggest you take a few steps back, and try and corroborate what you are reading with our domestic information

Do please study Fussman's article

Ravi

dhu · (This post was last modified: 11-11-2005, 01:02 PM by dhu.)

Ravi,

Let me first try to summarize my understanding so far. and then I will take a step back.

Herodotus and Hippocrates both describe Mongoloid headhunters similar to the Huns, certainly not swamp tundra Ruski aboriginals. So the Euro scholars are already wrong on this account.

Even earlier sites like Pazyryk which are squarely in Mongolian/E.Siberian territory and which had an elaborate shaman/horse/animal-art culture (including pointed hats) are shamelessly appropriated by the euro theorizers who like to view their ruski ancestors as horse barbarians rather than as swamp tundra runts and bums.

I would argue that the Mongoloid horizon extended upto the volga with regular incursions upto the dneiper... as has been the general pattern throughout recorded history.. Even the ruskis acknowledge that they were runts till a viking aristocacy descended upon them in 1000AD.

The Euro agenda as regards the Kushans/Saka in C Asia is to establish a wayward Celtic tribe as the critical intermediaries for the Spread of Buddhism from India into China. Then to force an account of Sakyamuni as just one of these intruders. If theis cannot be done for the kelts then Iranians will be substituted.

This absurd Euro Tocharian theory is not worthy of consideration. As proven by craniometric, Genetic, and archeological studies, the populations upto the Aral was Indo-Afghan derived. Even more specifically, the Pamirs are clearly relatable to Kashmir..and Xinkiang/turkemenistan to the Indus. Infact, the Sindoi/Maoetae take the indic reach right up to the Pontic Black Sea, as pointed out by Dr. K. Elst . This area is also the âScythiaâ of Herodotus!!

We have tribal offshoots of both the settled iranians and indians moving into the northern reaches. Even Semitics have their mobile tribal offshoots like the Hyksos and Assyrians which were generated locally. No distant central asian homeland was ever required in case of these semetics, including the Jews who were from Babylon itself..

The Afghans seem to have been a very stable population. They were glossed over as the more mobile Indus-derived Sinti/Sindoi/Getae/Gitanos/Jats did much of the footwork into C Asia. We see this even today and with the Sikh/Hindu trader community in Afghanistan and more Northern areas.

The Kushan period is first-most a cultural phenomenon (not about tribal movements, etc)..As such we have plenty of evidence for an overwhelmingly sanskritic culture in the Kushan areas. There was an additional iranian zoroastrian element. And a peripheral greek element which could hardly sustain itself.

As regards Kucha origin for Kushans, there is a Kashi in UP as well as in C Asia. There is Kamboja in Gandhara and a Kampuchea.in SEA. Nothing defintive can be said from these linguistic games, except when it is overwhelming like in case of Zotts/Xianthi/Iatti offshoots to C asia.
....................................................

Which tradition do you follow for Buddha Sakyamuniâs date; Chinese or Sri Lankan. Brahmi in S India is tied specifically to the Jains and is attested at 800 BC. So Mahavir must have been still earlier and Buddha was, of course, a contemporary of Mahavir.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>..

Is the Hsiung Niu displacement of the Yueh Chi attested in Chinese sources or 2nd hand western.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

11-23-2005, 03:54 AM

[quote=dhu,Nov 11 2005, 12:31 PM]

Dhu

From what I am reading, I do not think we are at cross purposes.

1) Kushans:

You are correct, that this is a cultural phenomenon. I lean towards the older Vedic cultural influences.

The term Kushan is inappropriate nomenclature. The term is actually that of the Clan Kshvan or Kisan, which rose to prominence, at this time, and this was the name with which their empire /expansion got be known as.

There is some evidence of their Westward expansion too- towards Bulgaria

The Kasvan clan is still found among the Jats of Rajasthan.

Linking Kuch or Kashi to the origin of the name Kushan, as you have rightly pointed out is a bit fanciful, and not to be accepted, unless some better evidence is supplied.

We can however note that the â Kushanâ Empire spread from Central Asia, Bactria, Karnataka, to Orissa. Quite a large empire by nay standards

Re the expansion further to the East to Kampuchea, it may not be out of order to take into account the evidence that points to Kushan/ Gandhara/ Kamboja links to Kampuchea.

Xanthii/ Iatti/ etc are late terms picked up by Cunningham etc. The positive thing is that they at least noticed it. But I will shift this part of the discussion to the Jat history thread.

2) Re Buddha Sakyamuni.

I am quite open re the dates of Gautam Buddha. The work of Sethna among others points to a great discrepancy between the conventional dates of Buddha, an Indian Historians tend to point to.

Omanand Saraswati, of the Arya Samaj Gurukul Jhajjar, for example also wrote a number of books on Indology, before Sethna et al, and he too among many others did not accept the Western Indologists dating.

Was there a connection between the Sakyamuni or the Sakas- there may very well be. It is not issue worth being bogged down into a â There never was â standâ.

A good book is Republics in Ancient India - R P Sharma, Leiden 1955 .

It s based on the Rig Ved evidence..

There is plenty of evidence pointing to a Northwest connection of the Liccvhavis.
.

3)' Huing Nu' 'displacement; of Jats (Juts)(Chinese Yueh Chi)

Who were these People?

This is all from a Chinese work the Ho Han Shu; a manuscript of circa 100 BCE .I would take it with a pinch of salt.

I have discussed this with committed â Silk Roadâ types, to whom this thing is the Holy gospel and the Holy Grail combined in one.

Migrations/ wars occurred all the time.

The real issue is that one cannot set up a well organized Empire â from Central Asia to Orissa, unless one is part of an advanced society, - agriculture, literature, intellectual , economic surplus.

Earlier you had asked about the Jat Rig Ved connection. I will post that on the Jat history thread

Ravi

11-23-2005, 10:43 PM

Ravi Chaudhary,Nov 23 2005, 03:54 AM Wrote:[quote=dhu,Nov 11 2005, 12:31 PM]

Dhu

From what I am reading, I do not think we are at cross purposes.

1) Kushans:

You are correct, that this is a cultural phenomenon. I lean towards the older Vedic cultural influences.

The term Kushan is inappropriate nomenclature. The term is actually that of the Clan Kshvan or Kisan, which rose to prominence, at this time, and this was the name with which their empire /expansion got be known as.

There is some evidence of their Westward expansion too- towards Bulgaria
It is interstingly true RAVI.Use of address as o' Kishan for jats in north by other casts such as gaderia sansi dhanks etc. is more in the nature of a race than occupational sence. Can we know wether this word was ushed before Kushans also.

The Kasvan clan is still found among the Jats of Rajasthan.

Linking Kuch or Kashi to the origin of the name Kushan, as you have rightly pointed out is a bit fanciful, and not to be accepted, unless some better evidence is supplied.

We can however note that the â Kushanâ Empire spread from Central Asia, Bactria, Karnataka, to Orissa. Quite a large empire by nay standards

Re the expansion further to the East to Kampuchea, it may not be out of order to take into account the evidence that points to Kushan/ Gandhara/ Kamboja links to Kampuchea.

Xanthii/ Iatti/ etc are late terms picked up by Cunningham etc. The positive thing is that they at least noticed it. But I will shift this part of the discussion to the Jat history thread.

2) Re Buddha Sakyamuni.

I am quite open re the dates of Gautam Buddha. The work of Sethna among others points to a great discrepancy between the conventional dates of Buddha, an Indian Historians tend to point to.

Omanand Saraswati, of the Arya Samaj Gurukul Jhajjar, for example also wrote a number of books on Indology, before Sethna et al, and he too among many others did not accept the Western Indologists dating.

Was there a connection between the Sakyamuni or the Sakas- there may very well be. It is not issue worth being bogged down into a â There never was â standâ.

A good book is Republics in Ancient India - R P Sharma, Leiden 1955 .

It s based on the Rig Ved evidence..

There is plenty of evidence pointing to a Northwest connection of the Liccvhavis.
.

3)' Huing Nu' 'displacement; of Jats (Juts)(Chinese Yueh Chi)

Who were these People?

This is all from a Chinese work the Ho Han Shu; a manuscript of circa 100 BCE .I would take it with a pinch of salt.

I have discussed this with committed â Silk Roadâ types, to whom this thing is the Holy gospel and the Holy Grail combined in one.

Migrations/ wars occurred all the time.

The real issue is that one cannot set up a well organized Empire â from Central Asia to Orissa, unless one is part of an advanced society, - agriculture, literature, intellectual , economic surplus.

Earlier you had asked about the Jat Rig Ved connection. I will post that on the Jat history thread

Ravi
[right][snapback]41832[/snapback][/right]

dhu · (This post was last modified: 02-02-2006, 03:24 PM by dhu.)

Cross-post from another thread > Ancient Indian History, INDIAN CIVILIZATION <
QUOTE(Hauma Hamiddha @ Nov 22 2005, 12:09 PM)Under the Kushanas, unlike in the days of later Indian rulers, the Indians followed an active policy of supporting the central Asian oasis civilization in the Tarim region. This forward policy wasÂ adopted by Vima Taktu, furthered by Vima Khadphises and Kanishka. TheÂ most important victory was that of Kanishka in central Asia wasÂ against the Chinese, when he came to the aid of the Tarim chiefs, whoÂ had been severely oppressed by the Chinese warriors like Pan Cha'o.Â Having routed them, he brought four Chinese princes as hostages toÂ India and detained them in fort near what is now Amritsar. The villageÂ interesting bears the name Chiniyari, as a distant echo of the longÂ past days. These Chinas are supposed to have introduced the pear toÂ India. This is one of the few defeats of the China army at the handsÂ of the Indians that even the chronicle of Huan Tsang records. KanishkaÂ to convey his international status to all concerned adopted 4 titlesÂ simultaneously: mahArajAdhiraja (Emperor of India), Kaisara (for theÂ romans), Kshatriya-tama (for the Persians), and deva-putra (for theÂ Chinese). So firmly was Sogdiana, brought under the Indian sphere ofÂ influence that the Chinas referred to it as utto-lo-pa-do: uttarApatha or the northern frontier of India. Of course Kanishka's entry inÂ to Central Asia, other that its economic benefits, resulted in aÂ tremendous injection of sanskrit literature into China many of whoseÂ original were lost in India. This process to a certain extant actuallyÂ improved Sino-Indian relations and facilitated technological exchangeÂ between the then superpowers: the Parthian empire, India and China.Â Kanishka's domain stretched from the Tarim regions to Central India.Â His southern capital was Mathura where some statues of his vandalizedÂ by the Moslems can still be found. From a Hindu standpoint the KushanaÂ regime was critical for the rise of Kaumarism in India.

It is perhaps very likely that, Western powers of today wish to curtail India by propping up the encircling Moslem states. Because ifÂ these Moslem potentates were smashed, India's cultural and militaryÂ influence would flow to regain its natural extant in the direction ofÂ the Roof of World.
[right][snapback]41771[/snapback][/right]
so the spread of buddhism into China as well as the Chinese defeat in the first Sino-Indian war was due to euro half breeds.

The standard euro version states that the Tarim inhabitants :
1. conquered their way down to Mathura after being pushed out by the huns
2. set up a powerful empire there
3. and then traced their footsteps back to reconquer their Tarim home base
4. and went on to smite the chinese
5, and were responsible for india's greatest works of art as well as the foreign spread of buddhism

Like the AIT, this seems a most astonishing sequence of miracles. A butterfly flaps its wings in the west and causes a tsunami in India.

02-02-2006, 04:24 PM

QUOTELike the AIT, this seems a most astonishing sequence of miracles. A butterfly flaps its wings in the west and causes a tsunami in India.
<!--emo& Big Grin

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' />

It seems Europe has a dire need to claim India's past as its own. Indology is a branch of farce with the sole purpose of robbing Indians of their heritage by the Europeans.

02-02-2006, 10:42 PM

The standard euro version seems completely falsified.These tarim dwellers were related to indian indus valley only as confirmed by their DNA sampling also.Tarim basin just seems a part of greater india,which was annexed as late as seventh century by chinese.Kushan could never have patronized indian parakrit and indian culture had they been some foreigner tribe.

This also makes certain things very clear about jats also,as there seems a clear link between these Yueh zhi tribes known as tushars in indian literature and jats,which is provided by

presence of Tushar group among jats such as tushari tomars.
presence of similar genetics in terms of sharing genes with indus valley civilization inhabitants
presence of kushan and kashwan gotr in jats

This identification of kushans and their nativiness indicates that all sordid attempts made by Euro scientists to link these indian groups with foreginers is without any base and tottaly untrue.These people have been living in india since Indus valley civilization.

The mention of Sythia for both for people leaving near black Sea and people near Indus mouth seems because of explanation as provided by dhu of movability of these ancient indian jat,jut ,gitano,sinti,sintoi to far places,and origin of these groups is in India only not from some nomads of centeral asia.

Login




Remember me Lost Password?