05-12-2006, 01:27 PM
in fact the only people<b> in india</b> who have clans have some connection with the sakas to lesser or greater degree.
Guess all of the Tamil and Kannada village communities must be Shaka then, too, they are full of different clans. That throws light on the origins of the supposed Dravidians then: the invading Shakas bypassed the north and became South Indians. :Sarcasm:
Of course, Scots and Celts form clans, so do Native Americans. They must be Shakas too. It's amazing logic. All human societies form tribes or clans. Hence we are all Shakas. Brilliant.
scots and celts - are not indian. read my post.
as for the clans of south india, can we have the names please??? rajputs have many clans each with a seperate name, deity etc. as do marathis.
finally i never said "those who have a clan system MUST be saka". i pointed out that the only people IN INDIA who have a system of clans in their society (ie. rajputs, marathis and jats) incidentally have (or are rumoured to have) connections with the sakas. so your brialliant conclusion goes to the dustbin.
Guess all of the Tamil and Kannada village communities must be Shaka then, too, they are full of different clans. That throws light on the origins of the supposed Dravidians then: the invading Shakas bypassed the north and became South Indians. :Sarcasm:
Of course, Scots and Celts form clans, so do Native Americans. They must be Shakas too. It's amazing logic. All human societies form tribes or clans. Hence we are all Shakas. Brilliant.
scots and celts - are not indian. read my post.
as for the clans of south india, can we have the names please??? rajputs have many clans each with a seperate name, deity etc. as do marathis.
finally i never said "those who have a clan system MUST be saka". i pointed out that the only people IN INDIA who have a system of clans in their society (ie. rajputs, marathis and jats) incidentally have (or are rumoured to have) connections with the sakas. so your brialliant conclusion goes to the dustbin.