08-07-2009, 10:42 PM
X-posted...
<!--QuoteBegin-Hauma Hamiddha+Aug 1 2009, 03:59 PM-->QUOTE(Hauma Hamiddha @ Aug 1 2009, 03:59 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->
<!--QuoteBegin-ramana+Jul 31 2009, 03:34 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ramana @ Jul 31 2009, 03:34 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->
HH, dhu and acharya, What are the chances that the Ionians (Yavanas) were the descendents of Anu, son of Yayati by Sharmistha? recall that Yayati had five children of whom Puru was the ancestor of the Kuru Panchalas. Another son was Turvasu who might have been the ancestor of the north Persians or Turks?
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Greeks, Indians and Iranians definitely had a shared development for sometime after Balto-Slavic split away from Indo-Iranian. This has linguistic support. However, Talageri's idea of finding all the Indo-European peoples (from Indians to Greeks to Germans to Tocharians) among the pa~nchajana is unsupported by the available data. It becomes even more incongruous with his OIT model which many Hindus who wish to avoid abhyAsa and do tyAjana of sAmAnyamati find attractive. There is really nothing linguistically or textually (i.e. from Greek sources or early vedic sources) supportive of Greeks coming from anu or druhyu. Only the itihAsa-purANa mention the descendants of turvasu as yavana-s but do not tell us how they were linked to the yavana-s.
We note from paurANIc genealogies that:
1) the turvasha-s, anu-s and druhyu-s are not greatly elaborated beyond the early generations. Even the name turvasha is mangled as turvasu and druhyu as drahyu.
2) The yadu-s, ikShvAku-s and pUru-s are greatly elaborated in terms of genealogies.
3) The RV remembers the anu-s and druhyu-s but does not see them as very intimately linked to the core. It however remembers the yadu-s and turvasha-s as closely associated. But by the time of the mahAbhArata and purANa-s only the yadu-s are prominent with the turvasha-s falling out.
So it appears that few if any turvasha-s, anu-s or druhyu-s made it into inner India to make any major impact. It appears that the various bAhya-s were eventually identified with the descendants of the turvasha-s, anu-s and druhyu-s. Now as to your question of did they contribute to tribes in the borderland or outside greater India?
Turks are not an Indo-European people unlike Iranians who are the closest linguistic sister group of Indo-Aryans. Their origins were also in Mongolia. So we can leave them out. It is quite possible that some of the Iranian tribes included some successors of anu -- on this point Talageri is perhaps correct. The mAdra-s and kekaya-s could have indeed been borderland tribes associated with the Iranians. sharmiShThA herself could have been an Iranian. But the degree to which these tribes participated in the core Iranian developments is unclear (e.g. Talageri-s Median-mAdra synonymy).
[right][snapback]100065[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thanks, ramana
<!--QuoteBegin-Hauma Hamiddha+Aug 1 2009, 03:59 PM-->QUOTE(Hauma Hamiddha @ Aug 1 2009, 03:59 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->
<!--QuoteBegin-ramana+Jul 31 2009, 03:34 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ramana @ Jul 31 2009, 03:34 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->
HH, dhu and acharya, What are the chances that the Ionians (Yavanas) were the descendents of Anu, son of Yayati by Sharmistha? recall that Yayati had five children of whom Puru was the ancestor of the Kuru Panchalas. Another son was Turvasu who might have been the ancestor of the north Persians or Turks?
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Greeks, Indians and Iranians definitely had a shared development for sometime after Balto-Slavic split away from Indo-Iranian. This has linguistic support. However, Talageri's idea of finding all the Indo-European peoples (from Indians to Greeks to Germans to Tocharians) among the pa~nchajana is unsupported by the available data. It becomes even more incongruous with his OIT model which many Hindus who wish to avoid abhyAsa and do tyAjana of sAmAnyamati find attractive. There is really nothing linguistically or textually (i.e. from Greek sources or early vedic sources) supportive of Greeks coming from anu or druhyu. Only the itihAsa-purANa mention the descendants of turvasu as yavana-s but do not tell us how they were linked to the yavana-s.
We note from paurANIc genealogies that:
1) the turvasha-s, anu-s and druhyu-s are not greatly elaborated beyond the early generations. Even the name turvasha is mangled as turvasu and druhyu as drahyu.
2) The yadu-s, ikShvAku-s and pUru-s are greatly elaborated in terms of genealogies.
3) The RV remembers the anu-s and druhyu-s but does not see them as very intimately linked to the core. It however remembers the yadu-s and turvasha-s as closely associated. But by the time of the mahAbhArata and purANa-s only the yadu-s are prominent with the turvasha-s falling out.
So it appears that few if any turvasha-s, anu-s or druhyu-s made it into inner India to make any major impact. It appears that the various bAhya-s were eventually identified with the descendants of the turvasha-s, anu-s and druhyu-s. Now as to your question of did they contribute to tribes in the borderland or outside greater India?
Turks are not an Indo-European people unlike Iranians who are the closest linguistic sister group of Indo-Aryans. Their origins were also in Mongolia. So we can leave them out. It is quite possible that some of the Iranian tribes included some successors of anu -- on this point Talageri is perhaps correct. The mAdra-s and kekaya-s could have indeed been borderland tribes associated with the Iranians. sharmiShThA herself could have been an Iranian. But the degree to which these tribes participated in the core Iranian developments is unclear (e.g. Talageri-s Median-mAdra synonymy).
[right][snapback]100065[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thanks, ramana