02-11-2007, 03:31 AM
(This post was last modified: 02-11-2007, 03:33 AM by Hauma Hamiddha.)
-It is clear that terms like brahma-bandhu and rAjaputra on occassions imply a general person belonging to the 1st or 2nd varNa-s respectively. Thus a rAjaputra may merely be a kShatriya or a prince or king. In the sense of loosely representing the second varNa the term rAjaputra is indeed used synonymously with rAjanya or kShatriya. It could though specifically denote a prince.
-The point whether rAjpUts are related to the ancient kShatriyas of the itihAsas cannot be easily settled. But it is clear that colonial historians have attempted to delegitmize the rAjpUts by calling them descendents of hUnas and so on. In the period of tripartite struggle (that is between North, south and middle India) for supremacy over the subcontinent the rAjput dynasties of the classical medieaval history rise to prominence. Their origins are highly varied. By no account are all rAjpUts agni-bhU. In early medieaval sanskrit literature we come across many rAjpUt clans linked to older kShatriyas. E.g.:
guhadattas (called guhilots in common language): state ikShvAku descent
kalachuris: state haihaya descent
kaushiks: state descent from gathin the father of vishvAmitra.
-the ChAhamAnas, chAlukya-s paramAra-s pratihAra-s are mentioned as the chief agni-bhU clans that were created in the yaj~na at arbuda parvata. As per some accounts the mAraTha clans like Shinde and Bhosle have been called Apa-bhU.
-The above always called themselves kShatriyas from the first time they appear in history. They are definitely not hUnas for some of them originated in south India away from hUna maNDala. There was a small remnant hUna kingdom known as hUNa maNDala which was later absorbed as a rAjpUt family. Even today you find that surname.
-I have seen inscriptions of kShatriyas of Andhra of the haihaya clan where they use the term rAjaputra. So it might have at one point been more widely used. We also see this term in context of a south Indian dynasty the ga~Ngas.
-The kammas, velamas and some groups in maharashtra (now called maratha or even kohli) do seem to be monophyletic. There is genetic evidence supporting that.
-The point whether rAjpUts are related to the ancient kShatriyas of the itihAsas cannot be easily settled. But it is clear that colonial historians have attempted to delegitmize the rAjpUts by calling them descendents of hUnas and so on. In the period of tripartite struggle (that is between North, south and middle India) for supremacy over the subcontinent the rAjput dynasties of the classical medieaval history rise to prominence. Their origins are highly varied. By no account are all rAjpUts agni-bhU. In early medieaval sanskrit literature we come across many rAjpUt clans linked to older kShatriyas. E.g.:
guhadattas (called guhilots in common language): state ikShvAku descent
kalachuris: state haihaya descent
kaushiks: state descent from gathin the father of vishvAmitra.
-the ChAhamAnas, chAlukya-s paramAra-s pratihAra-s are mentioned as the chief agni-bhU clans that were created in the yaj~na at arbuda parvata. As per some accounts the mAraTha clans like Shinde and Bhosle have been called Apa-bhU.
-The above always called themselves kShatriyas from the first time they appear in history. They are definitely not hUnas for some of them originated in south India away from hUna maNDala. There was a small remnant hUna kingdom known as hUNa maNDala which was later absorbed as a rAjpUt family. Even today you find that surname.
-I have seen inscriptions of kShatriyas of Andhra of the haihaya clan where they use the term rAjaputra. So it might have at one point been more widely used. We also see this term in context of a south Indian dynasty the ga~Ngas.
-The kammas, velamas and some groups in maharashtra (now called maratha or even kohli) do seem to be monophyletic. There is genetic evidence supporting that.