02-11-2007, 05:04 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->g) ... Similarly there was never any period of time where large parts of India were ruled by Huns.
i) Lastly similarity in names does not mean common origin.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Correct.
On Huna starting with Wikipedia: "The Bhishama Parava of the Mahabharata, supposed to have been edited around the 4th or 5th century, in one of its verses, mentions the Hunas with the Parasikas and other Mlechha tribes of the northwest including the Yavanas, Chinas, Kambojas, Darunas, Sukritvahas, Kulatthas etc (MBH 6.9.65-66)."
The referred Shloka of the textplace is:
yavanaash ca sa kaambojaa daaruNaa mleccha-jaatayaH |
sakShaddruhaH kuntalaash ca huuNaaH paaratakaiH saha ||
Among the tribes of the north are the Mlecchas, and the Kruras, O best of the Bharatas; the Yavanas, the Chinas, the Kamvojas, the Darunas, and many Mleccha tribes; the Sukritvahas, the Kulatthas, the Hunas, and the Parasikas;
Comment: See here already a discrepancy between Gangulyâs translation based upon another recension than the one appearing as the critical edition. No Parasikas in the last.
The Hunas are, if I am correct, only a few times mentioned in the Shatasahasriiya MBh of the 1st century CE, predating the Hephthalite incursion, and thus cannot refer to the Hephtalites in any way.
Huna here is described as an indigenous, peripherous Mleccha Gana (mleccha stands for originally related culture and speech, but moved away from the mainstream. Mleccha = Praakrta VaibhaaShika). They must be related to the other N/NW Ganas like Yavana-Kamboja and W/NW ones like Paaradas or Paarata-kas.
The form HuuNa is clearly a Praakritika form. And one cannot seriously rule out misspellings by the generations of reciters and copyists of the manuscripts.
It is again enumerated with NW Ganas like Chinas/Shinas and Shakas.
ciinaan huuNaan shakaan oDraan parvataantaravaasinaH |
vaarShNeyaan haarahuuNaaMsh ca krShNaan haimavataaMs tathaa || MBh ii.47.19||
This Shloka refers to Chinas (is Shinas and not Chinese), Hunas, Shakas and Odras (?) and the ones living in the interior mountainous areas of the HinduKush as natural border. It is mentioned further with the Varshneyas (related to the Vrshnis) , Harahunas, Krshnas and Himalaya people.
In short, we are dealing here with people closely neighbouring and resembling each other within the inner subcontinental shield of HinduKush and Himalaya.
On HaraHuna:
haarahuuNaaMsh b02.c029.v011 b02.c047.v019 (see above) b03.c048.v021
ramaThaan haarahuuNaaMsh ca pratiicyaash caiva ye nrpaaH |
taan sarvaan sa vashe cakre shaasanaad eva paaNDavaH ||ii.29.11||
And the son of Pandu, by sheer force, reduced to subjection the Ramathas, the Harahunas, and various kings of the west. And while staying there Nakula sent. O Bharata, messengers unto Vasudeva.
Nothing points here to an foreign nature of the Hara-Hunas. (special branche of (north)western Hunas?). And in the following, they are again mentioned amongst other Praakrita speaking Ganas:
haarahuuNaaMsh ca ciinaaMsh ca tukhaaraan saindhavaaMs tathaa |
jaaguDaan ramaThaan muNDaan striiraajyaan atha tangaNaan ||iii.48.21||
The indigenous HaraHunas are clearly neighbouring Indo-Arya Shinas, people of snowy mountainous areas (Tukhaara a kentum word, hinting at Bangani speaking areas? The satem variant is TuShaara) and (N-)Indus Ganas. Some think that Hunadesha is an Himalayan area close to Tibet, to which Bhavishya Purana also hints in: ekadaa tu shakadhisho himatungari samaayayau hunadeshasya madhye vai giristhan purusam shubhanodadarsha balaram raajaa [the Shloka is a bit corrupt at: http://news.sulekha.com/newsanalysisdisp...cid=134574]
The indigenous Shakas were also always present in the subcontinent, having their origins in Ushinara country, with Kantha town names mainly in Ushinara country and at Varnu area as per Ashtadhyayi of Panini (at least ca. 500 BCE). Gradually the ancient Shaka dialect, closely resembling Eastern Iranian, must have Iranized during Medo-Achaemenid times, comparable perhaps with the Hindko situation later on in the NW. And also see how Ashvayana of Panini gets represented as Aspasioi in Alexandrian times.
The very early off branched Shakas reached Agnidesha areas in Xinjiang in which province the Gandhari Prakrita can be traced in Bauddha texts. The returning Shakoid people, had absorbed many elements of other Xinjiang and Central-Asian groups. One of these were the Kushanas.
These âforeignâ Shakoids, speaking by then rather an Eastern Iranian language, were really seen as barbarians as they appeared in the 1st century BCE and 1st century CE on Indian soil pushed by the expanse of the Hsiungnu. It is especially from this period on that the descriptions of horror and evil of the Kaliyuga are rising in the Puranas and reedited DharmaSmrtis. See also the Yugapurana section of the Garga Samhita describing the slaughter and deportation caused by these hordes reducing the entire population enormously.
When much later on the Mongoloid Huns (Juan Juan) swept over Eurasia, the nomadic (polyandrous!) Shako-Mongoloid Hephthalites when pushed towards the south replacing the Kidarites, may have been identified with the indigenous Huna Ganas, whose northern areas they entered as their overlords. This is much the same as the Alexandrian Macedonians entered areas of the Yavana Gana and adopted the identity of the last and also cultural features, like the Vaasudeva Cult.
Thus, nomadic Eurasian Huns were not the same as the indigenous Hunas, despite the homonymous resemblance.
But, as the Hunas especially under leadership of the Hephthalites were very aggressive, their Gana name became very impopular.
i) Lastly similarity in names does not mean common origin.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Correct.
On Huna starting with Wikipedia: "The Bhishama Parava of the Mahabharata, supposed to have been edited around the 4th or 5th century, in one of its verses, mentions the Hunas with the Parasikas and other Mlechha tribes of the northwest including the Yavanas, Chinas, Kambojas, Darunas, Sukritvahas, Kulatthas etc (MBH 6.9.65-66)."
The referred Shloka of the textplace is:
yavanaash ca sa kaambojaa daaruNaa mleccha-jaatayaH |
sakShaddruhaH kuntalaash ca huuNaaH paaratakaiH saha ||
Among the tribes of the north are the Mlecchas, and the Kruras, O best of the Bharatas; the Yavanas, the Chinas, the Kamvojas, the Darunas, and many Mleccha tribes; the Sukritvahas, the Kulatthas, the Hunas, and the Parasikas;
Comment: See here already a discrepancy between Gangulyâs translation based upon another recension than the one appearing as the critical edition. No Parasikas in the last.
The Hunas are, if I am correct, only a few times mentioned in the Shatasahasriiya MBh of the 1st century CE, predating the Hephthalite incursion, and thus cannot refer to the Hephtalites in any way.
Huna here is described as an indigenous, peripherous Mleccha Gana (mleccha stands for originally related culture and speech, but moved away from the mainstream. Mleccha = Praakrta VaibhaaShika). They must be related to the other N/NW Ganas like Yavana-Kamboja and W/NW ones like Paaradas or Paarata-kas.
The form HuuNa is clearly a Praakritika form. And one cannot seriously rule out misspellings by the generations of reciters and copyists of the manuscripts.
It is again enumerated with NW Ganas like Chinas/Shinas and Shakas.
ciinaan huuNaan shakaan oDraan parvataantaravaasinaH |
vaarShNeyaan haarahuuNaaMsh ca krShNaan haimavataaMs tathaa || MBh ii.47.19||
This Shloka refers to Chinas (is Shinas and not Chinese), Hunas, Shakas and Odras (?) and the ones living in the interior mountainous areas of the HinduKush as natural border. It is mentioned further with the Varshneyas (related to the Vrshnis) , Harahunas, Krshnas and Himalaya people.
In short, we are dealing here with people closely neighbouring and resembling each other within the inner subcontinental shield of HinduKush and Himalaya.
On HaraHuna:
haarahuuNaaMsh b02.c029.v011 b02.c047.v019 (see above) b03.c048.v021
ramaThaan haarahuuNaaMsh ca pratiicyaash caiva ye nrpaaH |
taan sarvaan sa vashe cakre shaasanaad eva paaNDavaH ||ii.29.11||
And the son of Pandu, by sheer force, reduced to subjection the Ramathas, the Harahunas, and various kings of the west. And while staying there Nakula sent. O Bharata, messengers unto Vasudeva.
Nothing points here to an foreign nature of the Hara-Hunas. (special branche of (north)western Hunas?). And in the following, they are again mentioned amongst other Praakrita speaking Ganas:
haarahuuNaaMsh ca ciinaaMsh ca tukhaaraan saindhavaaMs tathaa |
jaaguDaan ramaThaan muNDaan striiraajyaan atha tangaNaan ||iii.48.21||
The indigenous HaraHunas are clearly neighbouring Indo-Arya Shinas, people of snowy mountainous areas (Tukhaara a kentum word, hinting at Bangani speaking areas? The satem variant is TuShaara) and (N-)Indus Ganas. Some think that Hunadesha is an Himalayan area close to Tibet, to which Bhavishya Purana also hints in: ekadaa tu shakadhisho himatungari samaayayau hunadeshasya madhye vai giristhan purusam shubhanodadarsha balaram raajaa [the Shloka is a bit corrupt at: http://news.sulekha.com/newsanalysisdisp...cid=134574]
The indigenous Shakas were also always present in the subcontinent, having their origins in Ushinara country, with Kantha town names mainly in Ushinara country and at Varnu area as per Ashtadhyayi of Panini (at least ca. 500 BCE). Gradually the ancient Shaka dialect, closely resembling Eastern Iranian, must have Iranized during Medo-Achaemenid times, comparable perhaps with the Hindko situation later on in the NW. And also see how Ashvayana of Panini gets represented as Aspasioi in Alexandrian times.
The very early off branched Shakas reached Agnidesha areas in Xinjiang in which province the Gandhari Prakrita can be traced in Bauddha texts. The returning Shakoid people, had absorbed many elements of other Xinjiang and Central-Asian groups. One of these were the Kushanas.
These âforeignâ Shakoids, speaking by then rather an Eastern Iranian language, were really seen as barbarians as they appeared in the 1st century BCE and 1st century CE on Indian soil pushed by the expanse of the Hsiungnu. It is especially from this period on that the descriptions of horror and evil of the Kaliyuga are rising in the Puranas and reedited DharmaSmrtis. See also the Yugapurana section of the Garga Samhita describing the slaughter and deportation caused by these hordes reducing the entire population enormously.
When much later on the Mongoloid Huns (Juan Juan) swept over Eurasia, the nomadic (polyandrous!) Shako-Mongoloid Hephthalites when pushed towards the south replacing the Kidarites, may have been identified with the indigenous Huna Ganas, whose northern areas they entered as their overlords. This is much the same as the Alexandrian Macedonians entered areas of the Yavana Gana and adopted the identity of the last and also cultural features, like the Vaasudeva Cult.
Thus, nomadic Eurasian Huns were not the same as the indigenous Hunas, despite the homonymous resemblance.
But, as the Hunas especially under leadership of the Hephthalites were very aggressive, their Gana name became very impopular.