02-11-2007, 09:56 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-Hauma Hamiddha+Feb 11 2007, 03:31 AM-->QUOTE(Hauma Hamiddha @ Feb 11 2007, 03:31 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->
<b>Their origins are highly varied. By no account are all rAjpUts agni-bhU.</b>
-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 mAraTh<b>a clans like Shinde and Bhosle have been called Apa-bhU.</b>
. <b>There was a small remnant hUna kingdom known as hUNa maNDala which was later absorbed as a rAjpUt family.</b> Even today you find that surname.
-I have seen inscriptions of kShatriyas of Andhra of the haihaya clan where they use the term rAjaputra.
<b>We also see this term in context of a south Indian dynasty the ga~Ngas.</b>
-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.
[right][snapback]64274[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hauma
As you have pointed out that term was used for all groups from south to north this term can not be synonimous with a northern endogamous group like Rajputs.
Again as pointed out that Hunas became a part of Rajputs this group can not be equated to ancient kshatriya ,So evidence do suggest, to follow a more balanced view of modern historians, in this regard and treating present rajputs as a mixed group of diverse origin.
However I would like to point out since Hunas have negative refernces, no group wants to assosiate with them.The famous hapthalite king was named Narendera or Naryana and name like Mihir was a common name in Rajputana and their adoption/support of hinduism is a well known fact.
We can not limit Indic influence to present Indian territory if we think in historical terms, in fact hauma explained about hindu Mangla kings in the area of hunas so late as seventh AD actively supported by Indian traders and later overthrown by Chinese rulers.
Again King Suraj is not a mythical figures and said to be the father of King Siladitya ruling Gujarat.
<b>Their origins are highly varied. By no account are all rAjpUts agni-bhU.</b>
-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 mAraTh<b>a clans like Shinde and Bhosle have been called Apa-bhU.</b>
. <b>There was a small remnant hUna kingdom known as hUNa maNDala which was later absorbed as a rAjpUt family.</b> Even today you find that surname.
-I have seen inscriptions of kShatriyas of Andhra of the haihaya clan where they use the term rAjaputra.
<b>We also see this term in context of a south Indian dynasty the ga~Ngas.</b>
-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.
[right][snapback]64274[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hauma
As you have pointed out that term was used for all groups from south to north this term can not be synonimous with a northern endogamous group like Rajputs.
Again as pointed out that Hunas became a part of Rajputs this group can not be equated to ancient kshatriya ,So evidence do suggest, to follow a more balanced view of modern historians, in this regard and treating present rajputs as a mixed group of diverse origin.
However I would like to point out since Hunas have negative refernces, no group wants to assosiate with them.The famous hapthalite king was named Narendera or Naryana and name like Mihir was a common name in Rajputana and their adoption/support of hinduism is a well known fact.
We can not limit Indic influence to present Indian territory if we think in historical terms, in fact hauma explained about hindu Mangla kings in the area of hunas so late as seventh AD actively supported by Indian traders and later overthrown by Chinese rulers.
Again King Suraj is not a mythical figures and said to be the father of King Siladitya ruling Gujarat.