09-03-2006, 09:02 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-NANDIBUM+Feb 2 2006, 10:43 PM-->QUOTE(NANDIBUM @ Feb 2 2006, 10:43 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->The standard euro version seems completely falsified.These tarim dwellers were related to indian indus valley only as confirmed by their DNA sampling also.Tarim basin just seems a part of greater india,which was annexed as late as seventh century by chinese.Kushan could never have patronized indian parakrit and indian culture had they been some foreigner tribe.
This also makes certain things very clear about jats also,as there seems a clear link between these Yueh zhi tribes known as tushars in indian literature and jats,which is provided by
presence of Tushar group among jats such as tushari tomars.
presence of similar genetics in terms of sharing genes with indus valley civilization inhabitants
presence of kushan and kashwan gotr in jats
This identification of kushans and their nativiness indicates that all sordid attempts made by Euro scientists to link these indian groups with foreginers is without any base and tottaly untrue.These people have been living in india since Indus valley civilization.
The mention of Sythia for both for people leaving near black Sea and people near Indus mouth seems because of explanation as provided by dhu of movability of these ancient indian jat,jut ,gitano,sinti,sintoi to far places,and origin of these groups is in India only not from some nomads of centeral asia.
[right][snapback]46167[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Dear Nandibum
If KuShâNa is related to Kashwan, could you please proof this linguistically? What is the nature of the the sibilant, of the nasal too in the last word? What is the reason for a shift of the labial element towards the second syllable?
TuShâra may refer to cold or snowy areas, but also to a proper name. Some have already alluded to the process of namegiving and subbranches:
1. after a powerful person: Raghava branch, after king Raghava
2. after a location: Sesodia branch after Sesoda
3. after a nickname/title: Ghorpade branch of Modhol Bhonsales
etc.
If any community has a subbranch, which seems to resemble that of others in name, it doesnât necessarily mean that they are related. That has to be substantiated from other sources.
If there are TuShâras in some subbranches, it doesnât mean that they have to be related (only) to Tukhâras of outside.
Yuezhi
The pronounciation seems to have been ruzhi (link to 'erzuna'?). Which is close to the Indian name âRShikasâ to a group of far NW. In Xinjiang it is confirmed by âArshiâ Kuchi (the Asii). In that Chinese province there were people known as Khotanese Sakas and also Tochari.
But, from ca. 500 BCE on at least the subcontinent, must have known indigenous Shakas, as is witnessed in the Darius inscriptions, mentioning the Saka satrapy between Gandhara and Shatagu (Gazni to Indus): Behistun column 1 [1.6]:
âSays Darius the king: These are the countries which came to me; by the grace of Auramazda I became king of them; Persia, Susiana, Babylonia, Assyria, Arabia, Egypt, the (lands) which are on the sea, Sparda, Ionia, [Media], Armenia, Cappadocia, Parthia, Drangiana, Aria, Chorasmia, Bactria, Sogdiana, Ga(n)dara, Scythia, Sattagydia, Arachosia, Maka; in all (there are) 23 countries.â
NOTE: The western translators change Saka into Scythia.
These indigenous Shakas were not seen as foreigners, rather as âPrâkrtika Mlecchasâ or âfallenâ(deviated from their remote past culture of) Kshatriyas.
But, the KuShâNas were certainly not a welcome guest. Their barbaric terror behaviour caused much turmoil, as can be witnessed by the Yugapurana section of the Gargi Samhita.:
The Yugapurana explains that the king of the Shakas killed one fourth of the population, before he was himself slain by the Kalinga king Shata and a group of Shabalas (Shavaras)
The Kaliyuga episodes in the Puranas are if concentrating on wordly examples, referring to mainly to their coming (1st century BCE-1st century CE). They are called Shaka too sometimes, most probably after their hosts, the indigenous Shakas. (like the foreign Greeks were called so, after their indigenous Yavana hosts).
The Bhavishya Purana, Pratisarga III.2, has a curious reference to
king Shalivahana in this period of turmoil:
Svargate Vikramaditye raajaano bahudhaa 'bhavat.
tathaaShTaadasharaajyaani teShaam naamaani me shrNu. (9)
Etasminnantare tatra Shaalivaahanabhupatih.(17)
Vikramadityapautrashca pitrrajyam grhiitvaan,
jitvaa ShakaanduraadharShaash-CiinaTaittirideshajaan. (18)
Mlecchasthaanam param Sindhoh krtam tena mahaatmanaa. (21)
Note the word Ciinataittira-deshaja. Ciina may refer to Xinjiang, but also to the ShiNa area. Taittira refers to horses.
Thanks to especially the ShâtakarNis, etc. the incursions were delayed. Gautamiputra may have defeated Vima Takto between 78-84/5 CE, probably with the indigenous Shaka named Chashtana as his KShatrapa general (see his statue in the devakula of Mat) , becoming governor of Ujjain as a reward.
The Bhadramukhas and ShâtakarNis were save from some skirmishes relativelt peaceful towards each other.
But more research is needed.
This also makes certain things very clear about jats also,as there seems a clear link between these Yueh zhi tribes known as tushars in indian literature and jats,which is provided by
presence of Tushar group among jats such as tushari tomars.
presence of similar genetics in terms of sharing genes with indus valley civilization inhabitants
presence of kushan and kashwan gotr in jats
This identification of kushans and their nativiness indicates that all sordid attempts made by Euro scientists to link these indian groups with foreginers is without any base and tottaly untrue.These people have been living in india since Indus valley civilization.
The mention of Sythia for both for people leaving near black Sea and people near Indus mouth seems because of explanation as provided by dhu of movability of these ancient indian jat,jut ,gitano,sinti,sintoi to far places,and origin of these groups is in India only not from some nomads of centeral asia.
[right][snapback]46167[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Dear Nandibum
If KuShâNa is related to Kashwan, could you please proof this linguistically? What is the nature of the the sibilant, of the nasal too in the last word? What is the reason for a shift of the labial element towards the second syllable?
TuShâra may refer to cold or snowy areas, but also to a proper name. Some have already alluded to the process of namegiving and subbranches:
1. after a powerful person: Raghava branch, after king Raghava
2. after a location: Sesodia branch after Sesoda
3. after a nickname/title: Ghorpade branch of Modhol Bhonsales
etc.
If any community has a subbranch, which seems to resemble that of others in name, it doesnât necessarily mean that they are related. That has to be substantiated from other sources.
If there are TuShâras in some subbranches, it doesnât mean that they have to be related (only) to Tukhâras of outside.
Yuezhi
The pronounciation seems to have been ruzhi (link to 'erzuna'?). Which is close to the Indian name âRShikasâ to a group of far NW. In Xinjiang it is confirmed by âArshiâ Kuchi (the Asii). In that Chinese province there were people known as Khotanese Sakas and also Tochari.
But, from ca. 500 BCE on at least the subcontinent, must have known indigenous Shakas, as is witnessed in the Darius inscriptions, mentioning the Saka satrapy between Gandhara and Shatagu (Gazni to Indus): Behistun column 1 [1.6]:
âSays Darius the king: These are the countries which came to me; by the grace of Auramazda I became king of them; Persia, Susiana, Babylonia, Assyria, Arabia, Egypt, the (lands) which are on the sea, Sparda, Ionia, [Media], Armenia, Cappadocia, Parthia, Drangiana, Aria, Chorasmia, Bactria, Sogdiana, Ga(n)dara, Scythia, Sattagydia, Arachosia, Maka; in all (there are) 23 countries.â
NOTE: The western translators change Saka into Scythia.
These indigenous Shakas were not seen as foreigners, rather as âPrâkrtika Mlecchasâ or âfallenâ(deviated from their remote past culture of) Kshatriyas.
But, the KuShâNas were certainly not a welcome guest. Their barbaric terror behaviour caused much turmoil, as can be witnessed by the Yugapurana section of the Gargi Samhita.:
The Yugapurana explains that the king of the Shakas killed one fourth of the population, before he was himself slain by the Kalinga king Shata and a group of Shabalas (Shavaras)
The Kaliyuga episodes in the Puranas are if concentrating on wordly examples, referring to mainly to their coming (1st century BCE-1st century CE). They are called Shaka too sometimes, most probably after their hosts, the indigenous Shakas. (like the foreign Greeks were called so, after their indigenous Yavana hosts).
The Bhavishya Purana, Pratisarga III.2, has a curious reference to
king Shalivahana in this period of turmoil:
Svargate Vikramaditye raajaano bahudhaa 'bhavat.
tathaaShTaadasharaajyaani teShaam naamaani me shrNu. (9)
Etasminnantare tatra Shaalivaahanabhupatih.(17)
Vikramadityapautrashca pitrrajyam grhiitvaan,
jitvaa ShakaanduraadharShaash-CiinaTaittirideshajaan. (18)
Mlecchasthaanam param Sindhoh krtam tena mahaatmanaa. (21)
Note the word Ciinataittira-deshaja. Ciina may refer to Xinjiang, but also to the ShiNa area. Taittira refers to horses.
Thanks to especially the ShâtakarNis, etc. the incursions were delayed. Gautamiputra may have defeated Vima Takto between 78-84/5 CE, probably with the indigenous Shaka named Chashtana as his KShatrapa general (see his statue in the devakula of Mat) , becoming governor of Ujjain as a reward.
The Bhadramukhas and ShâtakarNis were save from some skirmishes relativelt peaceful towards each other.
But more research is needed.