02-11-2007, 09:37 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In short some of the native Indus Valley inhabitants termed Scythians or saka by Greek and other authors just moved outside and returned back over a period of time.
This is well supported by Genetic evidences also.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Dear Nandibum,
It is much more complicated than that, otherwise there would not have been confusions about the movements.
The older classical authors like Herodot were rather very ignorant about eastern nomads, relying on indirect sources.
The ancient Shakas and other indigenous Ganas like Kamboja (traders) that moved out must have done that very early in history in small numbers and rather without getting much attention.
By the time they were pushed back through Eastern Iranian areas they had absorbed much of their language and culture, but also Proto-Turki, Mongoloid and "Kentum Tokharian" elements and subjects.
The Xinjiang "Sakoids" which were pushed by Mongoloid and Proto-Turki groups were a very mixed group.
One can see how we are dealing with two "ethnically" different group descriptions when "in 644 A.D. the Chinese pilgrim Xuanzang remarks seeing a small settlement of 'White Huns' by Kunduz in the Hindu Kush. He calls this area Himatala, originally part of Tukhara and says that it once was a powerful country with a royal lineage of Saka stock. He also calls the inhabitants 'short and ugly in their features'. This goes directly against Procopius who wrote in 550 A.D. that the 'Ephthalitae' were 'the only ones among the Huns who have white bodies and are not ugly' and 'are not nomads like the other Hunnic peoples, but for a long period have been established in a goodly land'."
Also: '"The Ephthalites are of the stock of the Huns in fact as well as in name; however they do not mingle with any of the Huns known to us.... They are the only ones among the Huns who have white bodies and countenances which are not ugly." [Procopius]'
Note that they are counted amongst the "Huns" (Juan Juan) as coming from Central-Asia and farther, but are clearly not Mongloid Huns, as per Procopius, who is by the way not an eye-witness. Compare that with what Xuangzang says!
Is the very small group of settlers of Hephthalite origins then related to Sakas? No, as per Zuangzang! Their even smaller number of aristrocracy is counted as Saka. This alienated Sakoid aristocracy reentered the areas of the distantly related (Hybrid Iranized-Indic Shakas)
Hepthalite and Hua = Avar?
"To the Chinese, they were the Ye-ti-i-li-do or Yeda, even though the Chinese chroniclers seem to realize that the people called themselves the people of Hua", as per Richard Heli. [Hua may be the Chinese rendering of Var = Avar. The name Yetilito is based upon the name of their aristocracy. When the Sassanians and Gok or Blue Turks defeated the Hephthalites between 550-580 CE, we see Mongoloid Avars moving westward to Europe.]
Thus, a very small amount of "Saka" returned, and that too mostly in Afghanistan. Their significance to Indian population is negligable.
This is well supported by Genetic evidences also.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Dear Nandibum,
It is much more complicated than that, otherwise there would not have been confusions about the movements.
The older classical authors like Herodot were rather very ignorant about eastern nomads, relying on indirect sources.
The ancient Shakas and other indigenous Ganas like Kamboja (traders) that moved out must have done that very early in history in small numbers and rather without getting much attention.
By the time they were pushed back through Eastern Iranian areas they had absorbed much of their language and culture, but also Proto-Turki, Mongoloid and "Kentum Tokharian" elements and subjects.
The Xinjiang "Sakoids" which were pushed by Mongoloid and Proto-Turki groups were a very mixed group.
One can see how we are dealing with two "ethnically" different group descriptions when "in 644 A.D. the Chinese pilgrim Xuanzang remarks seeing a small settlement of 'White Huns' by Kunduz in the Hindu Kush. He calls this area Himatala, originally part of Tukhara and says that it once was a powerful country with a royal lineage of Saka stock. He also calls the inhabitants 'short and ugly in their features'. This goes directly against Procopius who wrote in 550 A.D. that the 'Ephthalitae' were 'the only ones among the Huns who have white bodies and are not ugly' and 'are not nomads like the other Hunnic peoples, but for a long period have been established in a goodly land'."
Also: '"The Ephthalites are of the stock of the Huns in fact as well as in name; however they do not mingle with any of the Huns known to us.... They are the only ones among the Huns who have white bodies and countenances which are not ugly." [Procopius]'
Note that they are counted amongst the "Huns" (Juan Juan) as coming from Central-Asia and farther, but are clearly not Mongloid Huns, as per Procopius, who is by the way not an eye-witness. Compare that with what Xuangzang says!
Is the very small group of settlers of Hephthalite origins then related to Sakas? No, as per Zuangzang! Their even smaller number of aristrocracy is counted as Saka. This alienated Sakoid aristocracy reentered the areas of the distantly related (Hybrid Iranized-Indic Shakas)
Hepthalite and Hua = Avar?
"To the Chinese, they were the Ye-ti-i-li-do or Yeda, even though the Chinese chroniclers seem to realize that the people called themselves the people of Hua", as per Richard Heli. [Hua may be the Chinese rendering of Var = Avar. The name Yetilito is based upon the name of their aristocracy. When the Sassanians and Gok or Blue Turks defeated the Hephthalites between 550-580 CE, we see Mongoloid Avars moving westward to Europe.]
Thus, a very small amount of "Saka" returned, and that too mostly in Afghanistan. Their significance to Indian population is negligable.