05-12-2006, 03:29 AM
- Shakas being Iranian-speaking are <i>not</i> Indo-Aryan at all
<b>so the iranians being iranian speaking are not indo-aryan at all ??</b>
- Magi were a presence throughout India, Afghanistan and Iran <i>before</i> the Zoroastrian religion. <b>
no. magi appeared on the horizon after zorastrianism was formed.</b>
They practised the same Vedic religion as the ancient Hindus.
<b>almost. they were the brahmins of zoroastrianism.</b>
In Iran they were called Magi. The Magi did not <i>come</i> to India and <i>become</i> Brahmins.
<b>
no they fitted into the brahmins. caste system assimilated inbound people according to their trades.</b>
Those in India <i>were</i> Indians.
<b>there werent magi in india - till the magi came and became one with the brahmins.</b>
<b>
- Shakas were neither of Hindu nor Zoroastrian religion.
then what were they??</b>
- Jats are an older presence in India than Shaka invasions.
<b>yes. they did absorb the bulk of the sakas, as did the ksatriyas of rajasthan.</b>
(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.
<b>
er... there are people in maharashtra who came from south india (refer OP - not all who speak marathi are marathas. the marathas, the 96 clans of them, came largely from ayodhya and other aryas north of maharashtra). the LAND of maharashtra is one of the "punch-dravirs" india</b>
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.
<b>
they have a little saka blood, or at least they have gotten the "clan" system from the sakas. in fact the only people in india who have clans have some connection with the sakas to lesser or greater degree.</b>
- Rajputs are Indian Kshatriya tribes.
<b>yes. who absorbed/assimilated a lot of invading sakas.</b>
<b>so the iranians being iranian speaking are not indo-aryan at all ??</b>
- Magi were a presence throughout India, Afghanistan and Iran <i>before</i> the Zoroastrian religion. <b>
no. magi appeared on the horizon after zorastrianism was formed.</b>
They practised the same Vedic religion as the ancient Hindus.
<b>almost. they were the brahmins of zoroastrianism.</b>
In Iran they were called Magi. The Magi did not <i>come</i> to India and <i>become</i> Brahmins.
<b>
no they fitted into the brahmins. caste system assimilated inbound people according to their trades.</b>
Those in India <i>were</i> Indians.
<b>there werent magi in india - till the magi came and became one with the brahmins.</b>
<b>
- Shakas were neither of Hindu nor Zoroastrian religion.
then what were they??</b>
- Jats are an older presence in India than Shaka invasions.
<b>yes. they did absorb the bulk of the sakas, as did the ksatriyas of rajasthan.</b>
(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.
<b>
er... there are people in maharashtra who came from south india (refer OP - not all who speak marathi are marathas. the marathas, the 96 clans of them, came largely from ayodhya and other aryas north of maharashtra). the LAND of maharashtra is one of the "punch-dravirs" india</b>
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.
<b>
they have a little saka blood, or at least they have gotten the "clan" system from the sakas. in fact the only people in india who have clans have some connection with the sakas to lesser or greater degree.</b>
- Rajputs are Indian Kshatriya tribes.
<b>yes. who absorbed/assimilated a lot of invading sakas.</b>