Ravi,
Let me first try to summarize my understanding so far. and then I will take a step back.
Herodotus and Hippocrates both describe Mongoloid headhunters similar to the Huns, certainly not swamp tundra Ruski aboriginals. So the Euro scholars are already wrong on this account.
Even earlier sites like Pazyryk which are squarely in Mongolian/E.Siberian territory and which had an elaborate shaman/horse/animal-art culture (including pointed hats) are shamelessly appropriated by the euro theorizers who like to view their ruski ancestors as horse barbarians rather than as swamp tundra runts and bums.
I would argue that the Mongoloid horizon extended upto the volga with regular incursions upto the dneiper... as has been the general pattern throughout recorded history.. Even the ruskis acknowledge that they were runts till a viking aristocacy descended upon them in 1000AD.
The Euro agenda as regards the Kushans/Saka in C Asia is to establish a wayward Celtic tribe as the critical intermediaries for the Spread of Buddhism from India into China. Then to force an account of Sakyamuni as just one of these intruders. If theis cannot be done for the kelts then Iranians will be substituted.
This absurd Euro Tocharian theory is not worthy of consideration. As proven by craniometric, Genetic, and archeological studies, the populations upto the Aral was Indo-Afghan derived. Even more specifically, the Pamirs are clearly relatable to Kashmir..and Xinkiang/turkemenistan to the Indus. Infact, the Sindoi/Maoetae take the indic reach right up to the Pontic Black Sea, as pointed out by Dr. K. Elst . This area is also the âScythiaâ of Herodotus!!
We have tribal offshoots of both the settled iranians and indians moving into the northern reaches. Even Semitics have their mobile tribal offshoots like the Hyksos and Assyrians which were generated locally. No distant central asian homeland was ever required in case of these semetics, including the Jews who were from Babylon itself..
The Afghans seem to have been a very stable population. They were glossed over as the more mobile Indus-derived Sinti/Sindoi/Getae/Gitanos/Jats did much of the footwork into C Asia. We see this even today and with the Sikh/Hindu trader community in Afghanistan and more Northern areas.
The Kushan period is first-most a cultural phenomenon (not about tribal movements, etc)..As such we have plenty of evidence for an overwhelmingly sanskritic culture in the Kushan areas. There was an additional iranian zoroastrian element. And a peripheral greek element which could hardly sustain itself.
As regards Kucha origin for Kushans, there is a Kashi in UP as well as in C Asia. There is Kamboja in Gandhara and a Kampuchea.in SEA. Nothing defintive can be said from these linguistic games, except when it is overwhelming like in case of Zotts/Xianthi/Iatti offshoots to C asia.
....................................................
Which tradition do you follow for Buddha Sakyamuniâs date; Chinese or Sri Lankan. Brahmi in S India is tied specifically to the Jains and is attested at 800 BC. So Mahavir must have been still earlier and Buddha was, of course, a contemporary of Mahavir.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>..
Is the Hsiung Niu displacement of the Yueh Chi attested in Chinese sources or 2nd hand western.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Let me first try to summarize my understanding so far. and then I will take a step back.
Herodotus and Hippocrates both describe Mongoloid headhunters similar to the Huns, certainly not swamp tundra Ruski aboriginals. So the Euro scholars are already wrong on this account.
Even earlier sites like Pazyryk which are squarely in Mongolian/E.Siberian territory and which had an elaborate shaman/horse/animal-art culture (including pointed hats) are shamelessly appropriated by the euro theorizers who like to view their ruski ancestors as horse barbarians rather than as swamp tundra runts and bums.
I would argue that the Mongoloid horizon extended upto the volga with regular incursions upto the dneiper... as has been the general pattern throughout recorded history.. Even the ruskis acknowledge that they were runts till a viking aristocacy descended upon them in 1000AD.
The Euro agenda as regards the Kushans/Saka in C Asia is to establish a wayward Celtic tribe as the critical intermediaries for the Spread of Buddhism from India into China. Then to force an account of Sakyamuni as just one of these intruders. If theis cannot be done for the kelts then Iranians will be substituted.
This absurd Euro Tocharian theory is not worthy of consideration. As proven by craniometric, Genetic, and archeological studies, the populations upto the Aral was Indo-Afghan derived. Even more specifically, the Pamirs are clearly relatable to Kashmir..and Xinkiang/turkemenistan to the Indus. Infact, the Sindoi/Maoetae take the indic reach right up to the Pontic Black Sea, as pointed out by Dr. K. Elst . This area is also the âScythiaâ of Herodotus!!
We have tribal offshoots of both the settled iranians and indians moving into the northern reaches. Even Semitics have their mobile tribal offshoots like the Hyksos and Assyrians which were generated locally. No distant central asian homeland was ever required in case of these semetics, including the Jews who were from Babylon itself..
The Afghans seem to have been a very stable population. They were glossed over as the more mobile Indus-derived Sinti/Sindoi/Getae/Gitanos/Jats did much of the footwork into C Asia. We see this even today and with the Sikh/Hindu trader community in Afghanistan and more Northern areas.
The Kushan period is first-most a cultural phenomenon (not about tribal movements, etc)..As such we have plenty of evidence for an overwhelmingly sanskritic culture in the Kushan areas. There was an additional iranian zoroastrian element. And a peripheral greek element which could hardly sustain itself.
As regards Kucha origin for Kushans, there is a Kashi in UP as well as in C Asia. There is Kamboja in Gandhara and a Kampuchea.in SEA. Nothing defintive can be said from these linguistic games, except when it is overwhelming like in case of Zotts/Xianthi/Iatti offshoots to C asia.
....................................................
Which tradition do you follow for Buddha Sakyamuniâs date; Chinese or Sri Lankan. Brahmi in S India is tied specifically to the Jains and is attested at 800 BC. So Mahavir must have been still earlier and Buddha was, of course, a contemporary of Mahavir.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>..
Is the Hsiung Niu displacement of the Yueh Chi attested in Chinese sources or 2nd hand western.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>