False Histories-saka/kushana Debate

[Guest]

The standard euro version seems completely falsified.These tarim dwellers were related to indian indus valley only as confirmed by their DNA sampling also.Tarim basin just seems a part of greater india,which was annexed as late as seventh century by chinese.Kushan could never have patronized indian parakrit and indian culture had they been some foreigner tribe.

This also makes certain things very clear about jats also,as there seems a clear link between these Yueh zhi tribes known as tushars in indian literature and jats,which is provided by

presence of Tushar group among jats such as tushari tomars.
presence of similar genetics in terms of sharing genes with indus valley civilization inhabitants
presence of kushan and kashwan gotr in jats

This identification of kushans and their nativiness indicates that all sordid attempts made by Euro scientists to link these indian groups with foreginers is without any base and tottaly untrue.These people have been living in india since Indus valley civilization.

The mention of Sythia for both for people leaving near black Sea and people near Indus mouth seems because of explanation as provided by dhu of movability of these ancient indian jat,jut ,gitano,sinti,sintoi to far places,and origin of these groups is in India only not from some nomads of centeral asia.

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->"During Ranjit Singh’s time, a section of Kashmiri Muslims requested him to let them convert back to Hinduism because they realized dark realities of Islam. They were summoned near Jhelum for the ceremony for re-conversion. But then 7-8 ‘raj-purohit’(Kashmiri Pundits) stood in Jhelum water with just their head out and said if Ranjit Singh lets them convert to Hinduism they would kill themselves and sin of ‘brahmin-hatya’ would fall on Ranjit. So they had their way. By those Pundit’s arrogance and foolishness their descendants got kicked out of valley by descendants of same Muslims who wanted to come to Hinduism. They might be just small section of Muslims but I just wanted to make a point. So Hinduism should adapt itself to allow these kinds of movements."<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
but ultimately, our purpose is not to blame each other but move forward.... and we shd not let this discussion come in between and have feeling of hatred...
Above all we are Indians...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

In response to the above:
http://hamsa.org/StThomas_Chapt_4.htm#elst
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Thus, it was said in those circles that when in the 1880s the Maharaja of Kashmir wanted to reconvert the forcibly converted Muslims in his domains, the Brahmins rejected this timely proposal, arguing from their obscurantist shastras that one is only a Hindu by birth. This well-known allegation has been argued to be unhistorical (though of course nobody denies that mindlessly scripturalist Brahmins do exist, in dwindling numbers): it cannot be traced farther back than 1946, sixty years after the facts which it claims to describe. Admittedly, this argumentum e silentio is not strong in itself, but it is strengthened by the fact that Brahmins have reconverted ex-Hindus ever since the forcible conversions by Mohammed bin Qasim in A.D. 712. The ritual effecting conversion into the Arya fold has been available and in use since Vedic times.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


Hindus who care about Hinduism, ought to take care to first verify all stories (especially slanderous ones) before they repeat it as fact. Just because a story is repeated a 1000 times doesn't make it a fact. Hindus tend to foolishly accept any slander tossed our way, especially when it's from the mouths of people inimical to our way of life. Even the RSS repeats such baseless stories without verifying them, Hindus having internalised a sense of guilt for everything and so immediately believing the worst of their own.

From now on, take such hearsay statements to be false until you have verified it from a reliable source. The only ones who need to have a grave sense of shame and guilt for past misconduct which continues into the present are those of the Christian, Islamic and communist persuasions.

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-NANDIBUM+Feb 2 2006, 10:43 PM-->QUOTE(NANDIBUM @ Feb 2 2006, 10:43 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->The standard  euro version seems completely falsified.These tarim dwellers were  related to indian indus valley only as  confirmed by their  DNA  sampling also.Tarim basin just seems a part  of greater india,which was annexed as late as seventh century by chinese.Kushan could never have patronized indian parakrit and indian culture had they  been some foreigner tribe.

This also makes certain things very clear about jats also,as there seems a clear link between these Yueh zhi  tribes known as tushars in indian literature and jats,which is provided  by

presence of Tushar group among jats such as tushari tomars.
presence of similar genetics in terms of sharing genes with indus valley civilization inhabitants
presence of  kushan and kashwan gotr in jats

This identification of kushans and their nativiness  indicates that all sordid attempts made by Euro scientists to link these indian  groups with foreginers is without any base and tottaly untrue.These people have been living in india since Indus valley civilization.

The mention of Sythia for both for people leaving near black Sea and people near Indus mouth seems because of explanation as provided by dhu of movability of these ancient indian jat,jut ,gitano,sinti,sintoi to far places,and origin of these groups is in India only not from some nomads of centeral asia.
[right][snapback]46167[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


Dear Nandibum

If KuShâNa is related to Kashwan, could you please proof this linguistically? What is the nature of the the sibilant, of the nasal too in the last word? What is the reason for a shift of the labial element towards the second syllable?

TuShâra may refer to cold or snowy areas, but also to a proper name. Some have already alluded to the process of namegiving and subbranches:
1. after a powerful person: Raghava branch, after king Raghava
2. after a location: Sesodia branch after Sesoda
3. after a nickname/title: Ghorpade branch of Modhol Bhonsales
etc.

If any community has a subbranch, which seems to resemble that of others in name, it doesn’t necessarily mean that they are related. That has to be substantiated from other sources.
If there are TuShâras in some subbranches, it doesn’t mean that they have to be related (only) to Tukhâras of outside.

Yuezhi
The pronounciation seems to have been ruzhi (link to 'erzuna'?). Which is close to the Indian name “RShikas” to a group of far NW. In Xinjiang it is confirmed by “Arshi” Kuchi (the Asii). In that Chinese province there were people known as Khotanese Sakas and also Tochari.
But, from ca. 500 BCE on at least the subcontinent, must have known indigenous Shakas, as is witnessed in the Darius inscriptions, mentioning the Saka satrapy between Gandhara and Shatagu (Gazni to Indus): Behistun column 1 [1.6]:
“Says Darius the king: These are the countries which came to me; by the grace of Auramazda I became king of them; Persia, Susiana, Babylonia, Assyria, Arabia, Egypt, the (lands) which are on the sea, Sparda, Ionia, [Media], Armenia, Cappadocia, Parthia, Drangiana, Aria, Chorasmia, Bactria, Sogdiana, Ga(n)dara, Scythia, Sattagydia, Arachosia, Maka; in all (there are) 23 countries.”
NOTE: The western translators change Saka into Scythia.

These indigenous Shakas were not seen as foreigners, rather as “Prâkrtika Mlecchas” or “fallen”(deviated from their remote past culture of) Kshatriyas.
But, the KuShâNas were certainly not a welcome guest. Their barbaric terror behaviour caused much turmoil, as can be witnessed by the Yugapurana section of the Gargi Samhita.:
The Yugapurana explains that the king of the Shakas killed one fourth of the population, before he was himself slain by the Kalinga king Shata and a group of Shabalas (Shavaras)
The Kaliyuga episodes in the Puranas are if concentrating on wordly examples, referring to mainly to their coming (1st century BCE-1st century CE). They are called Shaka too sometimes, most probably after their hosts, the indigenous Shakas. (like the foreign Greeks were called so, after their indigenous Yavana hosts).

The Bhavishya Purana, Pratisarga III.2, has a curious reference to
king Shalivahana in this period of turmoil:
Svargate Vikramaditye raajaano bahudhaa 'bhavat.
tathaaShTaadasharaajyaani teShaam naamaani me shrNu. (9)
Etasminnantare tatra Shaalivaahanabhupatih.(17)
Vikramadityapautrashca pitrrajyam grhiitvaan,
jitvaa ShakaanduraadharShaash-CiinaTaittirideshajaan. (18)
Mlecchasthaanam param Sindhoh krtam tena mahaatmanaa. (21)

Note the word Ciinataittira-deshaja. Ciina may refer to Xinjiang, but also to the ShiNa area. Taittira refers to horses.

Thanks to especially the ShâtakarNis, etc. the incursions were delayed. Gautamiputra may have defeated Vima Takto between 78-84/5 CE, probably with the indigenous Shaka named Chashtana as his KShatrapa general (see his statue in the devakula of Mat) , becoming governor of Ujjain as a reward.
The Bhadramukhas and ShâtakarNis were save from some skirmishes relativelt peaceful towards each other.
But more research is needed.

[Guest]

Textplace of the destructive Shaka incursion in the 1st centuries BCE-CE, from Garga Samhita,YugaPurana, vv.54,84:

caturbhaagam tu shastreNa naashayiShyanti praaNinaam |
shakaah sheSham hariShyanti caturbhaagam svakam puram |
vinaShTe shakaaraajye tu shuunyaa prthvii bhaviShyati ||

This is a clear case of a horrible period, indicating that a quarter of the population was killed in wars, another quarter was being enslaved and carried away to their cities.

Now, how many still want to be connected to the foreigners? This devastating period was repeated with the arrival of the White Huns. Central-Asian hordes didn't have much respect for Indian lives initially.

[dhu]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->There is yet another evidence which equates the Kamboja = Tokhara. A Buddhist Sanskrit Vinaya text (Gilgit Manuscripts, III, 3, 136, Dr N. Dutt, quoted in B.S.O.A.S XIII, 404) has the expression Satam Kambojikanam kanayanam i.e a hunderd maidens from Kamboja. This has been rendered by Tibetan as Tho-gar yul-gyi bu-mo brgya and in Mongol as To-gar ulus-un yagun ükin. Thus, the proper name Kamboja has been rendered as Tho-gar or To-gar. And Tho-gar/To-gar are Tibetan/Mongolian names for Tokhar/Tukhar. See refs: Irano-Indica III, H. W. Bailey Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 13, No. 2, 1950 , pp. 389-409; see also: Ancient Kamboja, Iran and Islam, 1971, p 66, Dr H. W. Bailey.link<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[dhu]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Several kings of the Cimmerians are mentioned in Greek and Mesopotamian sources, including Tugdamme (Lygdamis in Greek; mid-7th century BC), and <b>Sandakhshatra </b>(late-7th century  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cimmerian <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[dhu]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The linguistic state of Roma dialects point to its NIA (New Indo-Arya) stage, with two genders (losing the MIA stage neutre). This supports an 11th century date for the (main) migrations.

Did these 11th century IA groups adopt previous IA groups already migrated to the west? Like the Zott's a few centuries before in the early Muslim period and other groups from earlier Sasanian times?

The reason for this is that a group closely resembling the post-11th century Roma were already noticed in the Byzantine period around 800 C.E., for instance in Thrace. These 'foreigners' are called 'atsinganoi' in Greek, from which many names denoting Roma people are derived.

A German-Dutsch word 'zigeuner' may be either derived from that Greek word, or perhaps from the word designating the descendants of an ancient group, called the Sigynni living on the side of the river Ister, close to the Sindoi (definitely an Indic speaking group, as also the Maeotians).

The Sinti group do consider themselves different from the other Roma

Probable Indian origin

The speculated connection of Roma with Doms, is perhaps not correct.

This is also speculative, but I believe that none has linked the (main) Roma people with the ancient Roma-kas, pl. N. of a people MBh. ii, 1837 . The Romakas or Raumyas were a fierce (sometimes) warlike people of the west of the subcontinent, closely related to the worship of Virabhadra and Mahakali, and staunch Shaivites. We can see the Shiva worship still in the adapted Roma word for "Cross" when they were Christianized. Their word is "Trushul", which is the Indo-Arya word "Trishul(a), the Trident of Shiva.

Groups of Roma are indeed called 'Cale or black ones', connected to Maha-Kali.
A note to remember: Roma must have had the ancient base form Roman, as the feminine form is Romanii. With the diminutive suffix Roman becomes Roma-ka.
It is interesting to note that Roma(n) as well as JaTT(a) both have a connection with hairs. What this does say about both groups, I do not know yet.

The ancient Saindhava people were mainly branches of Shivi Aushinaras, or the Shiva clans, like the Kekaya in W.Panjab, Madra-ka in E.Panjab, Sau-vira-ka in Multan-upto-Sindhu-mouth [Vira-bhadras? giving the Romaka] and Vrshadarbha (Mahavrsha's?)  somewhere in the NW.

<b>Note that in 1350 Ludolphus of Sudheim mentioned a similar people to the 'atsinganoi' with a unique language whom he called Mandapolos. Perhaps this points to the Mand group (also called Med), a Sindh people. Ibn Haukal describes the Mands of his time (about A.D. 977), as occupying the banks of the Indus from Multan to the sea, and to the desert between Makrán and Famhal. Masudi, who visited India in A.D. 915-16, calls them Mind, and states that they were a race of Sindh, who were at constant war with the people of Mansura.</b>

The Mands were not really the same as the Jatt (known as Zott to the Arabs), as per the historian Rashídu-d dín decsribing the rivalry between the Jats and Meds. [See the Mujmalu-t Tawáríkh, supra, p. 103,]

Thus, we have different groups moving to Byzantine, like the earlier Zott and Mand (as mercenaries) and regrouping with the new arriving groups. Some groups to the north regrouped perhaps with elements of older Indo-Arya, like the Sindoi-Maeotoi (with more Thrako-Scythoid influenced Sigynni?) may have been a separate branch, perhaps more intimately connected with the Sinti group, who consider themselves a different from (other) Roma.

The 'atsinganoi' are the earlier wave, the 'gypsies' the later one, absorbing many families of the earlier one, except for instance the Sinti.

I haven't yet read about these new point-of-views in websites or books on the Roma in this light.
There may be a strong link of the Roma with the Romaka Vishaya or district of Romakas (with the city Romakapura in Sindhu area. Vishaya is a subdivision being used for ancient, local Janapadas, thus not for far-off areas, like Rome!).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->