05-11-2006, 03:26 PM
(A) The following I know for a fact - from my reading of books (before the current <i>Age of Propaganda</i>, as I like to refer to it):
- Shakas <i>are</i> Scythians. Shaka is the Indian name for them.
- 'Sakhya muni' has nothing to do with the invading Shakas. Gautama Buddha's life is estimated to have been at 2500 bp (before present).
- The Shaka invasions were about 2100 years ago (in the 1st century bc).
- Shakas were Iranian speakers. They originated from Central Asia
- Zoroastrians specifically stated that the Shakas were not Airya, Indians held similar views
- Shakas being Iranian-speaking are <i>not</i> Indo-Aryan at all
(i) in the Indology sense of the term. They're Iranians, going by language. Indology speaks of Indo-Aryan as a linguistic term.
(ii) not from India, hence not <i>Indo</i>
(iii) not Arya, according to ancient Zoroastrians and ancient Hindus who coined the phrase
- The Shakas had nothing to do with Harrappa or the Vedas, which are much older than 2100 bp
- Yavanas were applied to many foreigners. Greeks were one of them. Whether the <i>Ionians</i> gave rise to the word or whether we had an applicable word already, the use of the term Yavana was not restricted to Greeks.
- No evidence whatsoever that the Shakas had blond hair, blue eyes or anything European. They were Iranian speaking, some of them were from Mongolia or Turkic.
(B) The following I <i>think</i> I remember reading (90% sure, unless specified)
- Yavanas at one point meant (foreign) meat-eaters. I think on occassion Shakas were called Yavanas in this sense.
- Persians called the Greeks (Ionians) Yaunas.
- Kaniska was a Shaka, and became a Buddhist
- Indians referred to Shakas as Anaryas, like the Zoroastrians did.
- Magi were a presence throughout India, Afghanistan and Iran <i>before</i> the Zoroastrian religion. They practised the same Vedic religion as the ancient Hindus. In Iran they were called Magi. The Magi did not <i>come</i> to India and <i>become</i> Brahmins. Those in India <i>were</i> Indians. After Iran became Zoroastrian, the <i>Iranian</i> Magi became Zoroastrian priests. The Atharvaveda is of the Indian subcontinent, not Iran. That makes the question of whether Indian Magi brahmins or Indian brahmins wrote it moot, since the first is a subset of the second.
- Shakas were neither of Hindu nor Zoroastrian religion.
( C) Correct me if I'm wrong:
- Kanishka was from the northern reaches (Mongolia) or other Turkic lands, not from the north western expanses. Persia's outposts had Iranianised many central Asian countries. Thus, if Kanishka's ancestors were Iranian speaking, he might still be called Shaka by Indians even if he were not Iranian by ethnicity. Turkic or Mongolian culture and Iranian language would be enough to designate Kanishka as such.
- The Shakas have left relatively very few traces of themselves, culturally, religiously or otherwise in India.
- Jats are an older presence in India than Shaka invasions
- Jats are Indians and speak Indian languages, not a modified dialect of Iranian (excepting any of Urdu's minor Persian influences from after Islam)
- Jats are Hindu and with the emergence of Sikhism, there are Sikh Jats
(Shakas did merge into Hinduism I know, but do any Jats claim they had an older religion neither related to Hinduism nor Zoroastrianism?)
(D) Not from books, but from traditional knowledge
- Marathas came from the South of India. The Karnatakans say the Marathas came from Karnataka. Their local histories speak of this.
In recent times, other claims have been put forth for various reasons. Today's pan-Islamist Pakistani sites including their dalitstan, their persistent lobbying in wikipedia has accomplished the same, pro-AIT people and now jathistory group say that Marathas are Shakas.
- Rajputs are Indian Kshatriya tribes. Only with the British and the Aryan Invasion Theory did the idea start that Rajputs emerged from the Shakas of the Shaka Invasions. The idea has apparently caught on greatly with Indologists, dalitstan and other Pak-sponsored and Islamist sites (there are entries in wikipedia that refer to such sites) and the Not From India crowd.
(E) Is there great architecture built by the Shakas in Central Asia? Does it have the kind of ancient architecture that there is in Afghanistan and Iran?
- What is to be found in Central Asia that was not Shamanist (Turkic) or Buddhist?
- How do Jats remember they were Shaka, when people making these claims
(i) do not recall they came from Central Asia, but think they had to do with India's Vedic/Harrappan civilization
(ii) do not recall they invaded in the 1st century bc, but think they were in India in the Vedic/Harrappan periods.
(iii) do not know that Scythian and Shaka do refer to the same groups of people. The Shakas were the part of the population group that invaded India. The Scythians were the ones of the same original population group that the Greeks came across. They essentially refer to the same people.
(iv) refer to Shakas as 'Indo-Aryan', implying not the Punjabi language of today, but the historic language they were supposed to have spoken. This, in spite of the fact that they spoke an Iranian language not an Indo-Aryan one.
Or perhaps if they meant Indo-Aryan as an ethnicity, then it is wrong too. Because Shakas originated in Central Asia at the time they invaded.
Until actual evidence turns up I am forced to believe that Jats have always been Indian and are not Shaka. In this I am not alone. Many Jats that I know are even more vocal about it.
- Shakas <i>are</i> Scythians. Shaka is the Indian name for them.
- 'Sakhya muni' has nothing to do with the invading Shakas. Gautama Buddha's life is estimated to have been at 2500 bp (before present).
- The Shaka invasions were about 2100 years ago (in the 1st century bc).
- Shakas were Iranian speakers. They originated from Central Asia
- Zoroastrians specifically stated that the Shakas were not Airya, Indians held similar views
- Shakas being Iranian-speaking are <i>not</i> Indo-Aryan at all
(i) in the Indology sense of the term. They're Iranians, going by language. Indology speaks of Indo-Aryan as a linguistic term.
(ii) not from India, hence not <i>Indo</i>
(iii) not Arya, according to ancient Zoroastrians and ancient Hindus who coined the phrase
- The Shakas had nothing to do with Harrappa or the Vedas, which are much older than 2100 bp
- Yavanas were applied to many foreigners. Greeks were one of them. Whether the <i>Ionians</i> gave rise to the word or whether we had an applicable word already, the use of the term Yavana was not restricted to Greeks.
- No evidence whatsoever that the Shakas had blond hair, blue eyes or anything European. They were Iranian speaking, some of them were from Mongolia or Turkic.
(B) The following I <i>think</i> I remember reading (90% sure, unless specified)
- Yavanas at one point meant (foreign) meat-eaters. I think on occassion Shakas were called Yavanas in this sense.
- Persians called the Greeks (Ionians) Yaunas.
- Kaniska was a Shaka, and became a Buddhist
- Indians referred to Shakas as Anaryas, like the Zoroastrians did.
- Magi were a presence throughout India, Afghanistan and Iran <i>before</i> the Zoroastrian religion. They practised the same Vedic religion as the ancient Hindus. In Iran they were called Magi. The Magi did not <i>come</i> to India and <i>become</i> Brahmins. Those in India <i>were</i> Indians. After Iran became Zoroastrian, the <i>Iranian</i> Magi became Zoroastrian priests. The Atharvaveda is of the Indian subcontinent, not Iran. That makes the question of whether Indian Magi brahmins or Indian brahmins wrote it moot, since the first is a subset of the second.
- Shakas were neither of Hindu nor Zoroastrian religion.
( C) Correct me if I'm wrong:
- Kanishka was from the northern reaches (Mongolia) or other Turkic lands, not from the north western expanses. Persia's outposts had Iranianised many central Asian countries. Thus, if Kanishka's ancestors were Iranian speaking, he might still be called Shaka by Indians even if he were not Iranian by ethnicity. Turkic or Mongolian culture and Iranian language would be enough to designate Kanishka as such.
- The Shakas have left relatively very few traces of themselves, culturally, religiously or otherwise in India.
- Jats are an older presence in India than Shaka invasions
- Jats are Indians and speak Indian languages, not a modified dialect of Iranian (excepting any of Urdu's minor Persian influences from after Islam)
- Jats are Hindu and with the emergence of Sikhism, there are Sikh Jats
(Shakas did merge into Hinduism I know, but do any Jats claim they had an older religion neither related to Hinduism nor Zoroastrianism?)
(D) Not from books, but from traditional knowledge
- Marathas came from the South of India. The Karnatakans say the Marathas came from Karnataka. Their local histories speak of this.
In recent times, other claims have been put forth for various reasons. Today's pan-Islamist Pakistani sites including their dalitstan, their persistent lobbying in wikipedia has accomplished the same, pro-AIT people and now jathistory group say that Marathas are Shakas.
- Rajputs are Indian Kshatriya tribes. Only with the British and the Aryan Invasion Theory did the idea start that Rajputs emerged from the Shakas of the Shaka Invasions. The idea has apparently caught on greatly with Indologists, dalitstan and other Pak-sponsored and Islamist sites (there are entries in wikipedia that refer to such sites) and the Not From India crowd.
(E) Is there great architecture built by the Shakas in Central Asia? Does it have the kind of ancient architecture that there is in Afghanistan and Iran?
- What is to be found in Central Asia that was not Shamanist (Turkic) or Buddhist?
- How do Jats remember they were Shaka, when people making these claims
(i) do not recall they came from Central Asia, but think they had to do with India's Vedic/Harrappan civilization
(ii) do not recall they invaded in the 1st century bc, but think they were in India in the Vedic/Harrappan periods.
(iii) do not know that Scythian and Shaka do refer to the same groups of people. The Shakas were the part of the population group that invaded India. The Scythians were the ones of the same original population group that the Greeks came across. They essentially refer to the same people.
(iv) refer to Shakas as 'Indo-Aryan', implying not the Punjabi language of today, but the historic language they were supposed to have spoken. This, in spite of the fact that they spoke an Iranian language not an Indo-Aryan one.
Or perhaps if they meant Indo-Aryan as an ethnicity, then it is wrong too. Because Shakas originated in Central Asia at the time they invaded.
Until actual evidence turns up I am forced to believe that Jats have always been Indian and are not Shaka. In this I am not alone. Many Jats that I know are even more vocal about it.