Post 270:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Another gtoup of highly important invaders were the Scynthians or the Shakas, a tribe from Central Asia. Their descendants are the Rajputs.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> The phrasing makes it sound like the Shakas make up all the Rajputs and no other Indian tribes (that is non-Central Asian people) are to be found among them.
- Besides the British-instituted mythology-origins for the them, what evidence is there that the Rajput population are wholly of Shaka origin?
- The Shakas were Iranian-speaking people from C-Asia, who were classed as non-Airyas by the Zoroastrian Persians and as Anaryas by the Hindus. The Shaka invasions are dated to the 1st century bce. (See the Marathas thread for more Shaka stuff)
Since the times of British Colonialism and missionaries, it was propagated widely that the Shakas were the Rajputs and that the Shakas were also possibly other martial tribes of India. Though it is possible that Shakas were absorbed into the martial castes of India (though speaking from an Indian viewpoint, they should have been absorbed into all 4 Varnas; the martial castes on their own seems unlikely) they do not make up all the Rajputs.
- Their ethnicity is unknown, and seems to be a conglomerate of C-Asian inhabitants actually. Some instances of Mongolians and Turkic people from Turkmenistan (albeit Iranian-speaking), who are also Central Asian, are to be found among those classified as Shakas by us and as Scythians by the Greeks.
A small example on the side: Buddhist Turkestan (roughly located where modern-day Turkmenistan is) has an Iranian name that ends on 'stan', yet its people were not Iranian but Turkic. The same is true for the Turkemenistan of today (still has an Iranianised name yet its people are still mostly Turkic).
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Then there was reign of the Kushana dynasty. They are believed to have come from the West China - Central Asia region. Under Kanishka,<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Kanishka (circa early 2nd century ce) was a Shaka, he's attributed having instituted the Shaka Era in India. Shakas already covered. The Kushanas are not a separate wave/invasion.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->They [the Shakas] adopted Hinduism, and at that an extreme form of it. A rigid Caste system, Sati and Jowhar are examples of that. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Jauhor, as our communist textbooks would gladly conceal from students, started after Islam. Jauhor is the term used for when women would <i>collectively</i> burn themselves to death when their city is thought lost to <i>Islamic</i> invaders and the men are losing. Islam (circa 700 ce) came after the Shaka invasions. Please give contemporary evidence that Jauhor (not Sati, note) took place in a pre-Islamic time.
Jauhor is an example of the consequences of Islamic terrorism, not a consequence of any kind of rigid caste system.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Off course, within the Caste system, these invaders from Central Asia would occupy the Higher Castes.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Stated matter-of-factly, but where does it follow that invaders from Central Asia (the Shakas) who were famously classed as An-aryas (and non-Airyas by our neighbours in Persia) were to be automatically granted a position that even our hard-working and self-sacrificing non-'high caste' people weren't given without matching the required skills? Please give evidence that the Shakas had to do nothing at all to leap from Anarya status to martial or other caste. Of course, if their community/-ies at some point proved their valour in defending our homeland and were accorded martial status in recognition of it, it's another matter entirely.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->However, when we try to study History and talk about skin colour and gene pool, we must recognise the fact that a large part of the High Caste Hindu population of Nortern India may not be the direct descendants of those who composed the Vedas. The direct descendants of the actual originators of the ancient Hindu scriptures, the great Epics and other works of spiritual, mathematical and scientific value may, today, form only a small proportion of the North Indian High Caste population.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->You're saying the exact opposite of what the genetics data says (see the DNA thread): it says C-Asian input is almost negligible (prior to 1500 bce as well as after) and that for the rest the genetic results indicate that we are the same as the ancient local population. Hence, most of us are direct descendants of the ancient Indians (some of whom composed the Vedas).
So on what basis does anyone conclude that only a small proportion of the North Indian population (caste irrelevant) is local whilst the majority are C-Asians? It beats me.
Besides, many C-Asians today are Iranian-speaking and are related to the present-day Iranians. And as DNA data has shown time and again, the West Asians (i.e. Iranian people of Persia and the Afghans who we always knew were Indians anyway) are related to Indians. The depth of this connection is found in tribal Indians whose blood flows through all our veins.
Therefore, in that alternate universe where North India's majority had C-Asian ancestry and not local ancient Indian ancestry, the ethnicity of those people would still be deeply connected with the tribal Indian genes (as opposed to the much-advertised European genes of the C-Asians).
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->the actual Aryans<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->In Samskritam there is no 'Aryan'. The word is Arya if you're Hindu/Jain/Buddhist or Airya if you're Parsee or Zoroastrian. The Zoroastrians of Persia and Parthia, like us Hindus, used the word as something to aspire to. When deserving, the populace of both countries gave the title to their kings and teachers. Among the Persians too, only those kings who never lied would dare to refer to themselves as Airya or Arya.
Ancient Hindus used the title as a description for non-Indians from neighbouring countries (China) as well as animals. Only Europeans, and those of us whom they've brainwashed, think this <i>non-European</i> word is tied to ethnicity, language or human beings even. It's not. Arya is merely a descriptive term or title, roughly meaning 'noble'.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Another gtoup of highly important invaders were the Scynthians or the Shakas, a tribe from Central Asia. Their descendants are the Rajputs.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> The phrasing makes it sound like the Shakas make up all the Rajputs and no other Indian tribes (that is non-Central Asian people) are to be found among them.
- Besides the British-instituted mythology-origins for the them, what evidence is there that the Rajput population are wholly of Shaka origin?
- The Shakas were Iranian-speaking people from C-Asia, who were classed as non-Airyas by the Zoroastrian Persians and as Anaryas by the Hindus. The Shaka invasions are dated to the 1st century bce. (See the Marathas thread for more Shaka stuff)
Since the times of British Colonialism and missionaries, it was propagated widely that the Shakas were the Rajputs and that the Shakas were also possibly other martial tribes of India. Though it is possible that Shakas were absorbed into the martial castes of India (though speaking from an Indian viewpoint, they should have been absorbed into all 4 Varnas; the martial castes on their own seems unlikely) they do not make up all the Rajputs.
- Their ethnicity is unknown, and seems to be a conglomerate of C-Asian inhabitants actually. Some instances of Mongolians and Turkic people from Turkmenistan (albeit Iranian-speaking), who are also Central Asian, are to be found among those classified as Shakas by us and as Scythians by the Greeks.
A small example on the side: Buddhist Turkestan (roughly located where modern-day Turkmenistan is) has an Iranian name that ends on 'stan', yet its people were not Iranian but Turkic. The same is true for the Turkemenistan of today (still has an Iranianised name yet its people are still mostly Turkic).
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Then there was reign of the Kushana dynasty. They are believed to have come from the West China - Central Asia region. Under Kanishka,<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Kanishka (circa early 2nd century ce) was a Shaka, he's attributed having instituted the Shaka Era in India. Shakas already covered. The Kushanas are not a separate wave/invasion.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->They [the Shakas] adopted Hinduism, and at that an extreme form of it. A rigid Caste system, Sati and Jowhar are examples of that. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Jauhor, as our communist textbooks would gladly conceal from students, started after Islam. Jauhor is the term used for when women would <i>collectively</i> burn themselves to death when their city is thought lost to <i>Islamic</i> invaders and the men are losing. Islam (circa 700 ce) came after the Shaka invasions. Please give contemporary evidence that Jauhor (not Sati, note) took place in a pre-Islamic time.
Jauhor is an example of the consequences of Islamic terrorism, not a consequence of any kind of rigid caste system.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Off course, within the Caste system, these invaders from Central Asia would occupy the Higher Castes.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Stated matter-of-factly, but where does it follow that invaders from Central Asia (the Shakas) who were famously classed as An-aryas (and non-Airyas by our neighbours in Persia) were to be automatically granted a position that even our hard-working and self-sacrificing non-'high caste' people weren't given without matching the required skills? Please give evidence that the Shakas had to do nothing at all to leap from Anarya status to martial or other caste. Of course, if their community/-ies at some point proved their valour in defending our homeland and were accorded martial status in recognition of it, it's another matter entirely.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->However, when we try to study History and talk about skin colour and gene pool, we must recognise the fact that a large part of the High Caste Hindu population of Nortern India may not be the direct descendants of those who composed the Vedas. The direct descendants of the actual originators of the ancient Hindu scriptures, the great Epics and other works of spiritual, mathematical and scientific value may, today, form only a small proportion of the North Indian High Caste population.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->You're saying the exact opposite of what the genetics data says (see the DNA thread): it says C-Asian input is almost negligible (prior to 1500 bce as well as after) and that for the rest the genetic results indicate that we are the same as the ancient local population. Hence, most of us are direct descendants of the ancient Indians (some of whom composed the Vedas).
So on what basis does anyone conclude that only a small proportion of the North Indian population (caste irrelevant) is local whilst the majority are C-Asians? It beats me.
Besides, many C-Asians today are Iranian-speaking and are related to the present-day Iranians. And as DNA data has shown time and again, the West Asians (i.e. Iranian people of Persia and the Afghans who we always knew were Indians anyway) are related to Indians. The depth of this connection is found in tribal Indians whose blood flows through all our veins.
Therefore, in that alternate universe where North India's majority had C-Asian ancestry and not local ancient Indian ancestry, the ethnicity of those people would still be deeply connected with the tribal Indian genes (as opposed to the much-advertised European genes of the C-Asians).
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->the actual Aryans<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->In Samskritam there is no 'Aryan'. The word is Arya if you're Hindu/Jain/Buddhist or Airya if you're Parsee or Zoroastrian. The Zoroastrians of Persia and Parthia, like us Hindus, used the word as something to aspire to. When deserving, the populace of both countries gave the title to their kings and teachers. Among the Persians too, only those kings who never lied would dare to refer to themselves as Airya or Arya.
Ancient Hindus used the title as a description for non-Indians from neighbouring countries (China) as well as animals. Only Europeans, and those of us whom they've brainwashed, think this <i>non-European</i> word is tied to ethnicity, language or human beings even. It's not. Arya is merely a descriptive term or title, roughly meaning 'noble'.