05-05-2006, 02:06 AM
I prefer and suggest some caution when dealing with terms like Scythian, Magi Brahmin, and caste.
One should also be cautious in using modern geographical terms in discussing ancient history.
Thus we have a problem of dealing with â Eastern Iraniansâ, since Iran as a national identity did not exist.
<b>
1. SCYTHIA</b>
One is unable to find any evidence that the people there ever knew themselves as Scythians.
Scythian is a term coined by the Greek Herodotus in roughly 475 BCE, It is unknown before that.
The area Scythia is roughly the area between the Caspian Sea and the Pamir ranges, the Tarim Basin. In this falls the Amur and Syr Daryas (rivers), Bactria etc
In the last century the tern caught the fancy of Colonial historians, and has also caught the fancy of some Indians, (North Indians especially) who see merit in their origin in this area- i.e. anywhere but in India.
<b>
2. YAVANA</b>- this term also should be treated with some caution. Why is it applied to the Greeks? Were the Greeks that easily distinguishable to the Indian populace?
We do know of peoples known as Yonas, who pre-exist the Greeks, and were found in the area, now called Bactria (NE Afghanistan).
As a variant, we also find the term âYunaniâ. This is commonly used for a system of medicine asking to the Ayurvedic system.
Earlier I though this meant Greek, but on refection, I do not think that is the case, and it was just the system of medicine that was followed in Afghanistan, Persia, and evolved differently form the Ayurvedic stream.
All that Yavana, Yunani then signifies is foreign, that will include the Greeks who visited the Indian subcontinent, but are not restricted to them. (Treat it as a bit like Mleccha)
3.<b> SAKA.</b>
It would a superficial treatment to call these people Eastern Iranian.
We find the people in the area, known in modern nomenclatures as Saka, Hun, Yueh Chi, (Chinese nomenclature) Getae, and Massagetae. (Greek nomenclature), Kushan, Parthian. These terms simply mean Jat, and we see them evolve into the Gujars, Abhira divisions subsequently.
These people are not different from each other but are ethically the same, and this is a major error that historians make, wishing to serve up the dish, in neat categories.
A broader approach shows that they are simply the same people.
<b>4. LINKS TO THE INDIAN SUBCONTINENT.</b>
The links of this area and its people to the Indian subcontinent have largely been ignored. Indian literature contains many references to the, links gong back to Vedic / Harrappan times (circa 2500 BCE)(and I am staying away, from using terms like Saraswati civilization, just for neutrality)
We are all aware that a lot of information has been lost, and a lot buried under the Islamic shadow, precluding any research at all today.
However the links are very much there, - in clan names, place names, words, that are found that are common etc
It is also more than possible, indeed it is quite certain, that migrations did occur both backwards and forwards
5. The â Maagâ or the â magiâ were a class of people in what was later called Persia, and now Iran. The evidence does point to their having come into the Indian subcontinent, and of their works the Atharvaveda is probably one. They are also found to be extant in the times of Harsh Vardhan (600 CE) and are found at his court. It is more than possible they became merged in to the â Brahminâ caste stream as time went on, as did the groups- bhats, poets, anyone with any smattering of learning or pretensions thereto
<b>6. PEOPLE MERGING INTO THE HINDU CASTE SYSTEM</b>
Here again more than just a little caution is justified. Many of the Indians never accepted the varna/caste system, or accept the 4 fold hierarchy of the orthodox Hindu system, as especially as it evolved post 7th century CE.
The Jats for example, did not ever accept the Hindu Varna system- contrast for example their historical attitude to widow remarriage- they are in tune with the Vedas in supporting it whole heartedly, but Hinduism frowns a upon Widow remarriage. (This is technical comment only]
Yet some did accept the system, and fell into the system, whether they came from outside or not.
7. INDO ARYANS etc.
If you define Indo- Aryan very loosely, and the term â looselyâ is important, one could say there is more than just some affinity between the people of the Indian subcontinent, and Central Asia, and for that matter Europe.
One thing they are defined by is that they are distinguishable from those with Mongoloid features.
The Sakas, Huns, Getae, were not Mongoloid, but had the features we find among the Jats and other people of Northern/ Central India.
We also find resemble among Indians from the South too, and culturally there is no question, there is much in common.
We find cultural and physical links that are borne out by DNA studies, and this is only to be expected.
We should also always keep in mind that human being mutate and evolve, as they migrate for place to place, intermarry etc, and we will find local variations. We are after all dealing with a culture that is over 5,000 years old.
Ravi Chaudhary
One should also be cautious in using modern geographical terms in discussing ancient history.
Thus we have a problem of dealing with â Eastern Iraniansâ, since Iran as a national identity did not exist.
<b>
1. SCYTHIA</b>
One is unable to find any evidence that the people there ever knew themselves as Scythians.
Scythian is a term coined by the Greek Herodotus in roughly 475 BCE, It is unknown before that.
The area Scythia is roughly the area between the Caspian Sea and the Pamir ranges, the Tarim Basin. In this falls the Amur and Syr Daryas (rivers), Bactria etc
In the last century the tern caught the fancy of Colonial historians, and has also caught the fancy of some Indians, (North Indians especially) who see merit in their origin in this area- i.e. anywhere but in India.
<b>
2. YAVANA</b>- this term also should be treated with some caution. Why is it applied to the Greeks? Were the Greeks that easily distinguishable to the Indian populace?
We do know of peoples known as Yonas, who pre-exist the Greeks, and were found in the area, now called Bactria (NE Afghanistan).
As a variant, we also find the term âYunaniâ. This is commonly used for a system of medicine asking to the Ayurvedic system.
Earlier I though this meant Greek, but on refection, I do not think that is the case, and it was just the system of medicine that was followed in Afghanistan, Persia, and evolved differently form the Ayurvedic stream.
All that Yavana, Yunani then signifies is foreign, that will include the Greeks who visited the Indian subcontinent, but are not restricted to them. (Treat it as a bit like Mleccha)
3.<b> SAKA.</b>
It would a superficial treatment to call these people Eastern Iranian.
We find the people in the area, known in modern nomenclatures as Saka, Hun, Yueh Chi, (Chinese nomenclature) Getae, and Massagetae. (Greek nomenclature), Kushan, Parthian. These terms simply mean Jat, and we see them evolve into the Gujars, Abhira divisions subsequently.
These people are not different from each other but are ethically the same, and this is a major error that historians make, wishing to serve up the dish, in neat categories.
A broader approach shows that they are simply the same people.
<b>4. LINKS TO THE INDIAN SUBCONTINENT.</b>
The links of this area and its people to the Indian subcontinent have largely been ignored. Indian literature contains many references to the, links gong back to Vedic / Harrappan times (circa 2500 BCE)(and I am staying away, from using terms like Saraswati civilization, just for neutrality)
We are all aware that a lot of information has been lost, and a lot buried under the Islamic shadow, precluding any research at all today.
However the links are very much there, - in clan names, place names, words, that are found that are common etc
It is also more than possible, indeed it is quite certain, that migrations did occur both backwards and forwards
5. The â Maagâ or the â magiâ were a class of people in what was later called Persia, and now Iran. The evidence does point to their having come into the Indian subcontinent, and of their works the Atharvaveda is probably one. They are also found to be extant in the times of Harsh Vardhan (600 CE) and are found at his court. It is more than possible they became merged in to the â Brahminâ caste stream as time went on, as did the groups- bhats, poets, anyone with any smattering of learning or pretensions thereto
<b>6. PEOPLE MERGING INTO THE HINDU CASTE SYSTEM</b>
Here again more than just a little caution is justified. Many of the Indians never accepted the varna/caste system, or accept the 4 fold hierarchy of the orthodox Hindu system, as especially as it evolved post 7th century CE.
The Jats for example, did not ever accept the Hindu Varna system- contrast for example their historical attitude to widow remarriage- they are in tune with the Vedas in supporting it whole heartedly, but Hinduism frowns a upon Widow remarriage. (This is technical comment only]
Yet some did accept the system, and fell into the system, whether they came from outside or not.
7. INDO ARYANS etc.
If you define Indo- Aryan very loosely, and the term â looselyâ is important, one could say there is more than just some affinity between the people of the Indian subcontinent, and Central Asia, and for that matter Europe.
One thing they are defined by is that they are distinguishable from those with Mongoloid features.
The Sakas, Huns, Getae, were not Mongoloid, but had the features we find among the Jats and other people of Northern/ Central India.
We also find resemble among Indians from the South too, and culturally there is no question, there is much in common.
We find cultural and physical links that are borne out by DNA studies, and this is only to be expected.
We should also always keep in mind that human being mutate and evolve, as they migrate for place to place, intermarry etc, and we will find local variations. We are after all dealing with a culture that is over 5,000 years old.
Ravi Chaudhary