02-12-2007, 04:58 PM
Dear Nandibum,
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The main problem starts beacuse of our excessive reliance on foreign authors and terminologies given by them<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is not the problem. I believe that specialists have enough expertise to know how to deal with primary (original texts) and secondary (translations and primary interpretations) or for that matter tertiary (secondary interpretations and/or proposals and conjectures) data. Mentioning data doesn't mean reliance on these. It means that these points are being raised, for which there must be an explanation, that is why it needs to be examined.
The main problem is rather that certain data may be pleasing and others not, but that is not historiography.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->A better approach in this regard would be to take real indian people and see what were they called by other historians as Herodotus ,Procopius or Heuntsang.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The data as supplied by these classical and Chinese authors aren't contradicting the traditional Indian sources. The whole Scythian myth was unknown till the Cunninghams, Tod's etc. started their conjectures in the 19th century, unknown before that time, and which was never an established fact.
Unfortunately some outdated works quoted in other works containing these conjectures are still being cited as facts, which they certainly are not.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->When we equate Sakas with Scythian and attest their presence in Indus region from ancient times we can not think that there would have been boundaries to restrict their to and fro movement between central asia and northwest , and distances between Parama ,Kamboja ,Tukharas ,Sindh Peshwar ,Sogandia ,Parthia,were even some times less than southern and northern parts of present indian nation
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is also not an issue, but the nomenclature is and the clear identity of any group.
And there was a relatively greater boundary between Inner subcontinental areas (Aaryaavarta) as compared with the Trans-HinduKush areas. We oftener meet Indian people considering "Inner India" as their cultural and political soil than Central-Asia (Trans-Oxiana). The peripheral areas were considered as the ones of the Mleccha ganas (Praakrita speaking, and transitional from Indo-Arya to Iranic).
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->We can not forget the existence of a nation of Sakas called Scythia by author Periplus of Eurythrian sea and Sindhu Sauvira by native scholars at the same place with in India. Similary movement of Turusakas and Bala hords in to and out of indian lands.These Tur sah or tur saka are recorded as per Iranian records ruling north west and at the same time we are finding the rise of Tur and tomars of Indian Jats Rajputs or Gujjars .Similarly Paramabhattaraka Balas are reported with their genealogies shifting from Indian names to Turanian names and at the same time emergence of Balas of Indian Jats gujjar or Rajputs.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
One thing no researcher must ever forget is the timeline: the mentioned Periplous is a work from the first century CE. Sindhu Sauviira is a very ancient Janapada predating any mentioning of Shakas, "Bala hords" or the folk etymological "Tur sah" equated with "Tur saka" and "Turusaka" (the correct word is: Turushka, which word is neither Vedic nor ancient. Its use in literature: m. pl. (also = -raShka) the Turks Kathâsaritsâgara Râjatarangini Prab. &c.; sg. a Turk Kathâsaritsâgara xxxvii.)
The word Gurjara is neither ancient
Another folk etymological conjecture is to link "Turanian" with "Indian", which was also hardly known before the 19th century. Most people involved with these theories are not specialists in (Indian) languages, some of whose work I have read myself to confirm this.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->So many times we are seeing the same race moving at different times and being treated as a different groups.
Again we can not rule out the fact that people from Parthia and Parma called parthihar ,parthavas ,parmaras did come and established their rule and most probably gave rise to some legends of Agani kula nature.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is why researchers needs to look at primary texts first and not secondary ones as primary. Secondary works are filled with interpretations which need to be examined critically.
The whole issue of Paramaras is explained by Yashwant: Paramaras are from the south (like Sholankis/Chaulukyas and many other families). They were initially the only Agnikulas.
Pratiharas have nothing to do with Parthavas, neither etymologically, which last are rather known as Pahlavas.
Thus, matters are much more complicated, that is why we need primary texts and exact quotes coupled with exact timelines.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The main problem starts beacuse of our excessive reliance on foreign authors and terminologies given by them<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is not the problem. I believe that specialists have enough expertise to know how to deal with primary (original texts) and secondary (translations and primary interpretations) or for that matter tertiary (secondary interpretations and/or proposals and conjectures) data. Mentioning data doesn't mean reliance on these. It means that these points are being raised, for which there must be an explanation, that is why it needs to be examined.
The main problem is rather that certain data may be pleasing and others not, but that is not historiography.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->A better approach in this regard would be to take real indian people and see what were they called by other historians as Herodotus ,Procopius or Heuntsang.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The data as supplied by these classical and Chinese authors aren't contradicting the traditional Indian sources. The whole Scythian myth was unknown till the Cunninghams, Tod's etc. started their conjectures in the 19th century, unknown before that time, and which was never an established fact.
Unfortunately some outdated works quoted in other works containing these conjectures are still being cited as facts, which they certainly are not.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->When we equate Sakas with Scythian and attest their presence in Indus region from ancient times we can not think that there would have been boundaries to restrict their to and fro movement between central asia and northwest , and distances between Parama ,Kamboja ,Tukharas ,Sindh Peshwar ,Sogandia ,Parthia,were even some times less than southern and northern parts of present indian nation
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is also not an issue, but the nomenclature is and the clear identity of any group.
And there was a relatively greater boundary between Inner subcontinental areas (Aaryaavarta) as compared with the Trans-HinduKush areas. We oftener meet Indian people considering "Inner India" as their cultural and political soil than Central-Asia (Trans-Oxiana). The peripheral areas were considered as the ones of the Mleccha ganas (Praakrita speaking, and transitional from Indo-Arya to Iranic).
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->We can not forget the existence of a nation of Sakas called Scythia by author Periplus of Eurythrian sea and Sindhu Sauvira by native scholars at the same place with in India. Similary movement of Turusakas and Bala hords in to and out of indian lands.These Tur sah or tur saka are recorded as per Iranian records ruling north west and at the same time we are finding the rise of Tur and tomars of Indian Jats Rajputs or Gujjars .Similarly Paramabhattaraka Balas are reported with their genealogies shifting from Indian names to Turanian names and at the same time emergence of Balas of Indian Jats gujjar or Rajputs.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
One thing no researcher must ever forget is the timeline: the mentioned Periplous is a work from the first century CE. Sindhu Sauviira is a very ancient Janapada predating any mentioning of Shakas, "Bala hords" or the folk etymological "Tur sah" equated with "Tur saka" and "Turusaka" (the correct word is: Turushka, which word is neither Vedic nor ancient. Its use in literature: m. pl. (also = -raShka) the Turks Kathâsaritsâgara Râjatarangini Prab. &c.; sg. a Turk Kathâsaritsâgara xxxvii.)
The word Gurjara is neither ancient
Another folk etymological conjecture is to link "Turanian" with "Indian", which was also hardly known before the 19th century. Most people involved with these theories are not specialists in (Indian) languages, some of whose work I have read myself to confirm this.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->So many times we are seeing the same race moving at different times and being treated as a different groups.
Again we can not rule out the fact that people from Parthia and Parma called parthihar ,parthavas ,parmaras did come and established their rule and most probably gave rise to some legends of Agani kula nature.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is why researchers needs to look at primary texts first and not secondary ones as primary. Secondary works are filled with interpretations which need to be examined critically.
The whole issue of Paramaras is explained by Yashwant: Paramaras are from the south (like Sholankis/Chaulukyas and many other families). They were initially the only Agnikulas.
Pratiharas have nothing to do with Parthavas, neither etymologically, which last are rather known as Pahlavas.
Thus, matters are much more complicated, that is why we need primary texts and exact quotes coupled with exact timelines.