The decline of the Greek kingdoms in the north-west coincided with an attack on Bactria itself by nomadic tribes from central Asia. These tribes included the Scythians. The movement of these tribes westwards originated with the activities of the Chinese emperor Shi Huang Ti, who built the Great Wall in the last half of the third century B.C. to defend China's frontiers against the nomadic tribes of the Hiung-nu, Wu-sun, and Yuchchi. The nomads kept herds of animals and pastured them in the plains to the west of China.
Gradually, as their pasture lands began to dry up, they made intermittent raids into the Chinese empire in search not only of new pastures, but also the wealth of the more civilized Chinese. But with the construction of the Wall, China was closed to them. The tribes were therefore forced to migrate south and west. Of the three main tribes the Yuch-chi were driven from the best lands and had to flee far across the continent. They split into two hordes - the Little Yueh-chi settled in northern Tibet and the Great Yueh-chi wandered further west to the shores of the Aral Sea, where they stopped for a while, displacing the inhabitants of the region, the Scythians, or the Shakas as they were called in Indian sources.
The Shakas poured into Bactria and Parthia. The Parthians failed to hold back the Shakas except for a brief period during the reign of Mithridates 11. On his death in 88 B.C. Parthia was overrun by the Shakas, who however did not pause there, but, using the Bolan Pass (near Quetta), swept down into the Indus valley, and settled in western India, their power eventually reaching as far as Mathura (in the neighbourhood of Delhi) and Gandhara in the north.
The first Shaka king in India was Maues or Moga (c. So B.C.), who established Shaka power in Gandhara. His successor, Azes, successfully attacked the last of the Greek kings in northern India, Hippostratos. A later king, Gondophernes, achieved fame through the association of his name with that of St Thomas, it being held by tradition that St Thomas travelled from Israel to the court of Gondophernes.
Shaka administration was broadly similar. to that of the Achaemenid and Seleucid systems in Iran. The kingdom was divided into provinces each under a military governor called mahakshatrapa (great Satrap). Each of these provinces was further subdivided into units under the control of lesser governors or satraps, who not only issued their own inscriptions in whatever era they wished to observe, but also minted their own coins, thereby indicating a more independent status than was normal to an administrative governor.
The Shakas were destined once more to be driven out by the Yuch-chi. The Chinese historian Ssu-ma-chien records that a Yuch-chi chief, Kujula Khadphises, united the five tribes of the Yuch-chi and led them over the northern mountains into the Indian sub-continent, establishing himself in Kabul and Kashmir by defeating Hermacus. Soon after the middle of the first century A.D. Kujula died at the age of eighty and was sueceeded by his son, Vima Khadphises.
Kanishka was the greatest ruler of the Kushan Empire, which flourished in what is now Pakistan, Afghanistan, and northwest India from about A.D. 50 to the mid-200's. The accession of Kanishka has been dated anywhere between A.D. 78-144. The Kushana kingdom extended southwards as far as Sanchi, and to the east as far as Banaras, with Mathura having the status almost of a second capital. Kushana political power and art reached their peaks under his leadership.
Kanishka created a great council of Buddhist monks, and missionaries spread Buddhism to China during his reign. At his capital, Purushapura, (modern Peshawar) he built a famous towering monument to house relics of Buddha.
Kanishka sponsored the Gandharan school of sculpture, one of the first schools to produce stone images of Buddha. Earlier, sculptors had created things only associated with Buddha, such as his footprints. An era based on A.D. 78 has come to be called the Saka Era supposedly started by the Shakas. Kanishka adopted the Saka Era, a calendar system still used by the Indian government.
The successors of Kanishka ruled for a hundred and fifty years, but Kushana power gradually diminished. Events in Persia were once again to intervene in the history of north western India. In A.D. 226 Ardashir overthrew the Parthians and established Sassanian ascendancy. His successor conquered Peshawar and Taxila in the mid third century and the Kushana kings were reduced to subsidiaries of the Sassanians.
The coming of the Kushanas had pushed the Shakas south into the region of Cutch, Kathiawar, and Malwa in western India. Here they dramatically burst into the Indian political scene in the mid second century under Rudradaman. With the weakening of Kushana power after the death of Kanishka, the Shakas once more asserted themselves. Rudradaman came from the region of Cutch. At Junagarh a lengthy inscription (the earliest of any importance in Sanskrit) provides evidence of his deeds. The inscription dated in A.D. 150 records the repairing of the Mauryan dam and refers in eulogistic terms to Rudradaman's conquest in the Narmada valley, his campaigns against the Satavahana king (south of the Narmada), and his victory over the Yaudheya tribes in Rajasthan.
After the death of Rudradaman, the Shakas lapsed into political quietude until the closing years of the fourth century A.D.
LOL. Yup, these massive barbarian invasions, including those which broke the Roman and Byzantine Empires, resulted from major war or displacement among the tribes and semi-Sinicized states clustered on the Chinese imperial border. So India wasn't the only victim.
Aside from the Scythians, Yueh chi and WuSun (the last two were tribes from the Chinese political/cultural world described as having blond and red hair,) there were also the White Huns, the Tanguts (Tibetans) and the Khitans (earlier Mongol tribes) that found their way into Afghanistan and northern India.
It must have been fund in those days when screaming barbarians would overrun your cities every few years or so when the Chinese imperial armies do a little house cleaning. LOL
Actually, it was worse when there were no Chinese empire to do the house cleaning. LOL. Because when that happens, a half-sinicized state would grow into tremendous size and power under the Great Wall, a fighting barbarian horde which was also armed with the best weapons and seige engines produced by the civilized Chinese state. That was what happened under Genghiz Khan's mongols.
------------------------------------------------- WHAM BAM! PANDA MA'AM!
In India, there never was a house-cleaning, the invaders would become one of us. Technically, I have a fatherline of Shakas, thus my interest in the topic. Sakas have traditionally been primary opponents of Brahmin orthodoxy within Hinduism, and also militant protectors of Hinduism as well. Anyone you find with last name Saxena is a Saka (Saka+Sena).
In this case Indians really weren't "victim". Sakas were successful in invading northern India, but soon they were attacked and defeated by local alliances (same way as we defeated Hephalites). The main reason Sakas (and almost all other invaders) remained was that, unlike China, we had LOTS of internal wars and power struggle all the time, and Sakas made very good mercenaries and assimilated into Indian society quickly...
But Bharat's right about one thing, that almost all invaders were defeated and they assimilated quickly, and became a part of India instead of being killed...
-----------------------------------
17th century India, The Masters of the Oceans...
Well, there really was never an Indian empire that affected the movements of warrior races like Qin, Han, Tang and Ming empires did. When China was strong, it pushed the great conquering tribes away from its borders into other countries, causing other empires to fall under Kushan, Hun, Mongol and Turkish hooves.
When China was weak, it also absorbed the warrior tribes like India. The Chinese themselves were closely related to many of the tribes on its borders. In fact, many of the powerful barbarian nations on China's border were sinicized (Chinese culturally) but remained warlike.
A general description of ancient Asian politics follows:
1. the nomadic nations (Yeuhchi, Huns, Turks, Mongols) were always aggressive; 2. the Chinese empire fluctuated between aggression and passivity;
3. India was nearly always passive.
------------------------------------------------- WHAM BAM! PANDA MA'AM!
you guys are a wrong in your theory of the Saka, Sakas are the ones that whose culture in followed in Northern India, Pakistan and Afganistan today. And this can be told by the customs, dress and certain cutrual traits that differ from other parts in the sub-continent.
And Bharat can you provide a sourse for our name "saxena", from what i have studied, i never heard then mention of this name.
Origin of the Saka Races
Collapse of the Brahminist Empire
By Khshatrapa Gandasa
The Sakas
The Scythians inhabiting Central Asia at the time of Herodotus (5th century B.C.) consisted of 4 main branches known as the MassaGatae, Sacae, Alani, and Sarmatians, sharing a common language, ethnicity and culture. Ancient Greek (e.g. Herodotus, Pliny, Plotemy, Arrian) and Persian sources (Darius's historians) from the 5th century place the MassaGatea as the most southerly group in the Central Asian steppe. The earliest Scythians who entered the northern regions of South Asia were from this group. Historians derive "Jat" fom "Gatae", "Ahir" from "Avar", "Saka" from "Scythii", "Gujjar" from "Khazar", "Thakur" from "Tukharian", "Saurashtra" from "Saura Matii" or "Sarmatians", "Sessodia" (a Rajput clan) from "Sassanian", "Madra" from "Medes", "Trigartta" from "Tyri Getae" and "Sulika" from "Seleucids". "Massa" means "grand" or "big" in old Iranian - the language of the Scythians.
The early Sakas or Scythians are remembered by Greek (e.g. Herodotus, Megatheses, Pliny, Ptolemy) and Persian historians of antiquity as tall, large framed and fierce warriors who were unrivalled on the horse. Herodotus from the 5th century BC writes in an eye-witness account of the Scythians: "they were the most manly and law-abiding of the Thracian tribes. If they could combine under one ruler, they would be the most powerful nation on earth." According to their origin myth recorded by Herodotus, the Sakas arose when three things fell from the sky: the i) plough, ii) sword and iii) cup. The progenitor of the Sakas picked them up and hence the Saka race began its long history of conquering lands, releasing its bounties and enjoying the fruits of their labor (the cup has a ceremonial-spiritual-festive symbolism). The relevance of these symbols and codes of life and culture to the traditional Punjabi and northwest society are tantalizingly obvious. A branch of the Sakas kown as the Alani reached regions of Europe, Asia Minor and the Middle East. They have been connected to the Goths of France/Spain, Saxons and the Juts of Denmark.
Entry into India
Some of these Saka tribes entered northwest India through the Khyber pass, others through the more southerly Bolan pass which opens into Dera Ismail Khan in Sindh -- an entry point into Gujarat and Rajasthan. From here some invading groups went north (Punjab), others went south (Maharasthra), and others further east (UP, MP). This explains why some Jat, Gujjar and Rajput clans claim descent from Rajasthan (Chauhan, Powar, Rathi, Sial etc.) while others from Afghanistan (e.g. Mann, Her, Bhullar, Gill, Bajwa, Sandhu, etc.). This is supported by the fact that the oldest Rajput geneologies (10th centuries) do not extend into the northwest's Gandharan Buddhist period (400 B.C. - 900 AD).
Sir Cunningham (former Director General of Indian Archeological survey) writes:
"the different races of the Scythians which succesively appeared as conquerors in the border provinces of Persian and India are the following in the order of arrival: Sakas or Sacae (the Su or Sai of the Chinese - B.C. ?), Kushans (the great Yue-Chi (Yuti) of the Chinese - B.C. 163), Kiddarite or later Kushans (the little Yue-chi of the Chinese - A.D. 450) and Epthalites or White Huns (the Yetha of the Chinese - 470 A.D.).
Cunningham further notes that
". . . the successive Scythian invasions of the Sakas, the Kushans, and the White Huns, were followed by permanent settlements of large bodies of their countrymen . . ".
Cunningham and Tod regard the Huns to be the last Scythian wave to have entered India.
Herodotus reveals that the Scythians as far back as the 5th century B.C. had political control over Central Asia and the northern subcontinent up to the river Ganges. Later Indo-Scythic clans and dynasties (e.g. Mauryas, Rajputs) extended their control to other tracts of the northern subcontinent. The largest Saka imperial dynasties of Sakasthan include the Satraps (204 BC to 78 AD), Kushanas (50 AD - 380), Virkas (420 AD - 640) while others like the Mauryas (324 - 232 BC) and Dharan-Guptas (320 AD - 515) expanded their empires towards the east.
According to Ethnographers and historians like Cunningham, Todd, Ibbetson, Elliot, Ephilstone, Dahiya, Dhillon, Banerjea, etc., the agrarian and artisan communities (e.g. Jats, Gujars, Ahirs, Rajputs, Lohars, Tarkhans etc.) of the entire west are derived from the war-like Scythians who settled north-western and western South Asia in successive waves between 500 B.C. to 500 AD. Down to this day, the very name of the region `Gujarat' is derived from the name `Khazar', whilst `Saurashtra' denotes `Sun-worshipper', a common term for the Scythians. The Gujarat-Rajasthan region continues to be the most Scythic region in the world.
The oldest Rajputs clans found in southern and western Rajasthan arose much later from earlier Scythic groups; or are of Hun origin (5-6th century AD); and many are no doubt of mixed Scythic-Hun origin. Virtually all are of Scythic descent.
Sakastan : The Saka States
Uptil the advent of Mohammed Ghori in the 13th century, the west and northwest was politically unified with the subcontinent for only 92 years under the Mauryas since the start of Saptha Sindhva's Vedic period (1500 BC). For most of its independant history it was under the rule of Saka kings. The west was also independant from the rest of India, existing under its Saka dynasties for virtually the entire period of history. The term `Sakastan' which is found on coins, was applied to the Rajasthan-Gujarat core region, and at its greatest extent included Punjab, UP and Haryana as well.
The largest Saka imperial dynasties of Sakasthana include the Satraps (204 BC to 78 AD), Kushanas (50 AD - 380), Virkas (420 AD - 640) while others like the Mauryas (324 - 232 BC) and Dharan-Guptas (320 AD - 515) expanded their empires towards the east. A brief selected list of Saka rulers of Punjab and the northwest spanning 16 centuries includes Porus (4th century BC), Mauryas (3rd century BC), Rudradaman, Azes, Maues, Soter Megas (2nd century BC), Azilises, Wima Kadphises (1st century AD), Kanishka I, Haviska (2nd century), Vasudeva (3rd century), Vyaghra rata and Yasovardhana.
Mauryas
The Mauryas were themselves perhaps of Scythic origin. D.B. Spooner who evacuated Pataliputra was struck by his findings and writes in his article "The Zoroastrian Period of Indian History" as follows:
"For Chandragupta' s times, the evidences are more numerous and more detailed, and indicate a following of Persian customs all along the line - in public works, in ceremonial, in penal institutions, everything".
The theory of a Scythic descent of the Mauryas is supported by the following pieces of evidence :
*
Mauryan coins have the symbol of the sun, a branch, a humped bull and mountain (Dehiya, p.155). All these are pre-eminently Scythian MassaGetae icons who were Sun worshippers with the high mount symbolizing earth and the irregular curving lines alongside it symbolizing water. The tree branch is a symbol of productivity of the earth - agriculture and soldiering were the traditional noble occupations of Sakas. The historians of Darius record that when he attempted to attack the Scythian MassaGetae (an old-Iranian culture of Central Asia) along the Black sea in the 5th century BC, "the Saka kings swore by the sun god and refused to surrender earth and water".
*
The clan name of Toramana and Mahirgula, viz Jauvla, is still available among Indian Jats who are now called Jauhl.
*
Jat/Gujar clans and villages named Maur and Dharan exist even today in Punjab, Haryana, Bihar and western MP.
*
The Puranas do not even refer to the largest imperial dynasties of the north such as the Mauryas (324 - 232 BC) and Dharan Guptas (320 AD - 515) as "Kshatriyas". Regarding the Mauryas, Dehiya [p.147] states "Another indication of the foreign origin [ ie. Saka ] of these people is . . . The Vishnu Purana calls them [ Gupta rulers ] Sudras. The Markandeya Purana brands the Mauryas as Asura. The Yuga Purana called them `utterly irreligious, though posing as religious'. The Mudra Rakshasa calls these people as Mlecchas and Chandragupta himself is called 'Kulahina', an upstart of unknown family".
It has also been suggested that this Scythic influence was occasioned by the immigration of Iranic Scyhtians fleeing the Greek conquest. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the main civilizing impetus behind the Mauryan empire was Scythic.
Dateless revisionist Brahmanist monkey tales with reincarnating imaginary devtas may lie BUT inscriptions/coins texts do not - unless read by crooked and bigoted Brahmin and Bania historians like Majumdar and Bhevelkar turning "Jarta" (Sanskrit for "Jata") into "Guptas" and "Gartas" into "Guha" (cave)! Only unbiased non-Brahminist research can help uncover the true past of the Scythians of India.
Gupta
Some historians also feel that the Guptas were of Scythic origin. The term "Gupta" in this theory is considered a misnamed version of "Jarta" found in early texts and inscriptions by modern pro-Brahmanist historians (e.g. Majumdar, Belvelkar, Satavalekar). "Jarta" is thus thought to be the Sanskritized form of "Jat" as other Saka tribal names such as "Gujar" become "Gurjara" and "Munda" become "Marunda". Gupta is derived from "Goptri" meaning "military governor" as in the inscription of Skandagupta (Dehiya, p 176). It was not a surname or clan name but a title.
P. L. Gupta writes "The most common gold coins of the Guptas appear to be the direct descendants of the gold coins of the later Kushans . . .". He adds that the standing pose of the Gupta kings at the altar is almost identical to that of the Kushan kings, as is their dress - Kushan long coats and trousers (uchkin, salwar/kameez). The Kushana or Kasvan tribe of the Sakas had ruled over Sakasthan (west and northwest) in the period from 1st century to 4rd century AD. The early Gupta coins are significantly called "dinar" and their weight is the same as those of westerly Kushana coins. Moreover, Alberuni (an Arab who traveled to southasia in A.D. 1030) learnt that "the Guptas were powerful but bad and the locals (in the Gangetic region) celebrated the end of their rule by starting a new era" (Dehiya, p. 190). This again supports the Scythian origin of the Guptas: the end of the Saka empire in the eastern subcontinent was a cause of celebration to the gangetic Brahmins.
Regarding the Guptas, Dehiya [p.181] states "The coins of SamudraGupta, Chandragupta I, Kacha, Chandragupta II Vikramaditya, Kumaragupta I, Skandagupta, etc. all have the central asian long coat and trousers and boots and long swords. This is the most significant fact proving that the Guptas were in fact central asian Jats (a Saka tribe; derived from Getae) . . . ".
However, the fact that the Guptas were responsible for the rise of Vaishnavism and the revival of Brahmanism goes against their purported Scythic origin. The features described above may be explained in terms of their adoption of certain Saka customs as they conquered Sakastan. In conclusion, most historians consider the Guptas to be neo-Brahminist. With their advent began the slide of India into casteism and the dark ages which immediately preceded the Islamist Liberation.
In a number of recent articles I have alluded to the Saka, a grouping of Iranian-speaking horsemen who entered the west-central regions of present-day Iran and eventually became a part of the list of nations that made up the Achaemenian Empires ["Of wine and war", "Homavarka"]. In this essay, I explore the influence of Saka on such place-names as Sakkiz, Sakastan, Sakavand and Arsaka.
To get us to the discussion of the place-names, I will first describe in general terms the place of the Saka in ancient Iranian. Theirs is a fascinating story of a people who, not unlike many others came before and after them, began with a tumultuous arrival on the Iranian plateau as invaders, followed by them being booted out and only to return later and become as one of “us.” Whatever this “us” has been in different times of Iranian history shall be the subject of a future essay. For now, to learn more about Saka, I refer you to the Old Persian texts, with transliteration and translation, on the website Avesta.org, for the picture of Achaemenian monuments depicting them please refer to the website of the Oriental Institute (University of Chicago).
For traditional written works on the Saka, I recommend Herodotus’ “Histories” (Rawlinson’s edition), Roman Ghirshman, “Iran” (1954), J. M. Cook’s “The Rise of the Achaemenids and Establishment of their Empire,” in Cambridge History of Iran (vol. 2) and two general works by Tamara Talbot Rice -- “The Scythians” (London, 1957) and "Scythians," in the 15th edition of Encyclopaedia Britannica (1981). There is also H.W. Bailey’s “Khotanese Saka Literature,” in Cambridge History of Iran (vol. 3:2); T. Sulimirski’s “The Scyths” in Cambridge History of Iran (vol. 2) and Mallory and Mair, “The Tarim Mummies.” For a comparative linguistic look at the various names that applied to Saka see the essay by Oswald Szemerenyi called “Four Old Iranian Ethnic Names: Scythian -- Skudra -- Sogdian -- Saka” published by the Austrian Academy of Sciences in 1980.
The Iranian-speaking Central Asiatic horsemen who stormed the Median Kingdom from southern Russia in the 7th century were known to the Achaemenians as the Saka. The inscriptions of Darius I the Great at Bisotun, Susa, Parsa (Persepolis) and Egypt, as well as the records of other Achaemenian kings, provide a rich textual and graphic depiction of the people who counted perhaps more than any other group in multiple satrapies of the world’s first and only two world empires -- the second arguably being Alexander the Great’s. The tall pointed caps that the Saka donned set them distinctly apart from all others in the realm.
In 6th century BC the Medes expelled the Saka from west-central Iran and the Saka retreated into Armenia while another group of them ended up on the eastern shores of the Caspian Sea, where they intermingled with their Daha kinsmen. Another group pushed east and then south into east-central region of present-day Iran and southern Afghanistan (Zrangiana=Sistan) where they were settled by the dawn of the Achaemenian times.
The Saka who remained in Media became a part of the kingdom and in Achaemenian times their lands in Jaxartes River (Syr Darya) basin and in the Balkans belonged to the empire, while contingents of them were deployed in Egypt. They were among the few national delegates that bore arms when in the presence of the king and were along with Persians and Medes the backbone of the foot soldiers transported by Xerxes’ ships to fight against the Greeks in the Battle of Salamis.
In 330 BC Alexander III of Macedonia ended the Achaemenian Empire. In the course of the Greek pacification of Iran’s eastern provinces, the Saka made common cause with some Bactrians (Balkhi) and Sogdians in opposing Alexander. Alexander hurried to Jaxartes where, with the use of catapults, he overcame the Saka on the north bank of the river and chased them further inland. In 328 BC Alexander defeated the Bactro-Sogdian allies, married the rebel leader’s daughter, installed a garrison of 10,000 infantry and 3,500 cavalry in Bactria and headed south into India.
The gradual demise of the Seleucid Kingdom (312-64 BC) and concomitant rise of the Parthian kingdom in Iran (247 BC -- AD 224) heralded the emergence of the Saka to national prominence as a part of the Parthian tribal blend under Parni (Aparni) leadership. By one account, the Parni were a tribe of Central Asiatic roots, who followed the road along the upper Atrak River and ended up in Parthava [Parthia, greater Khorasan] during the reigns of Seleucid I (312-281 BC) and Antiochus I Soter (281-261 BC). Mixed with the Parni were the Saka, who probably played an important role in the acceptance of the Parni as confederates by Daha. By another account, the Parni were not a separate tribe but the young men of the Saka, who held sway over an area from eastern Caspian to Central Asia.
In 247 BC, Arsaces (ruled about 250-211 BC) and his Parni followers took over Parthava and broke away from Seleucid rule. He annexed Hyrcania [Mazandaran and Astarabad] and crowned himself king in the city of Asaak. When Seleucus II (ruled 246-226 BC) reached the breakaway province, in 232 BC, Arsaces fled north to the land of his allies Apasiacae [= Saka of the Waters]. Arsaces accepted Seleucus’ suzerainty and this latter returned to Syria. Under Arsaces’ successor, Artabanus I (aka Arsaces II, ruled about 211-191 BC) Parthia rebelled again and another Seleucid expedition hurried east and forced the Parthian leader to escape to Central Asia until a compromise could be reached with the Seleucids.
During the reign of Mithradates I’s reign (171- 138 BC), the Parthian rule extended ever westward to include Media and the lands bordering the Tigris. With Ekbatana as its capital, the Parthian Empire of Iran now was elbow-to-elbow with the Seleucid kingdom in Syria. By the end of Mithradates’ reign the tribal disturbances in Central Asia resulted in the dislocation of a group of Saka from their traditional grazing grounds, which forced them into southwest China, present-day Sinkiang and Kashgar regions. There, the Saka established a kingdom at Khotan and began pressing up against Parthia’s eastern frontier.
During the reign of Pharaates II (139-128 BC), the Persians assisted the Seleucids in dealing a blow to the Parthians in western Iran, but in 128 BC Pharaates, aided by the Medians, gained the upper hand and defeated the Seleucid king, no thanks to the Saka who managed to join his campaign with too little and too late. Pharaates dismissed the unreliable Saka and this provoked a Saka revolt that consumed the countryside and cost Pharaates his life. His successor, Artabanus II (ruled 128-123 BC) did not fair any better.
Mithradates II (ruled 123-88 BC) regained control of Parthia’s eastern provinces, but in the process the Saka retreated eastward into Zrangiana [Drangiana, later Sistan] and further south into India. Between the 1st centuries BC and AD, the Saka settled in Zrangiana and in the aftermath of this migration the place acquired the name Sakastan [country of Saka]. Another Saka group that had been dislocated from Central Asia passed the Pamir Mountains into India, advanced to the western bank of the Indus River and established a kingdom in northwest India by the 1st century AD.
The Parthian kingship under Artabanus III (aka Ardaban, ruled about AD 12 -- about 38) repaired its relations with the Saka. Artabanus wanted his son to be elevated to the throne of Armenia, but the Romans were backing a rival claimant. Under Roman attack, Artabanus escaped from his capital and hurried east to take refuge with the Daha; they helped him regain his throne. Subsequently, in the war of succession that ensued between Artabanus’ sons, Hyrcanian and Daha reinforcements helped secure the throne for Gotarzes II (aka Godarz, ruled about 38 -- 51 AD). In 58 AD, however, Hyrcania threw off allegiance to the Parthian kingdom and thereafter the Daha and Saka played no noteworthy role in the affairs of the Parthian state.
I began with this long description of the Saka to support the point that Saka were present on the Iranians scene for a long time and they were spread all over the place. And so, I posit, this significant presence in ancient Iran must have left some imprint on place-names in Iran, especially where Saka’s geographical concentration is known to have occurred the most -- principally in Iran’s west-central region, corresponding to the area of present-day Kordestan-Kermanshahan-Lorestan; north-central, corresponding with the east and southeast of the Caspian region; and east-central, corresponding to Sistan and Hilmand basin in present-day Iran and Afghanistan.
The late archeologist and Iranist Roman Ghirshman believed that the Saka who stormed the Median Kingdom in the 7th century BC were settled in an area south of Lake Urumia in a place presently known as Sakkiz, which Ghirshman identified as their capital and in which name “we may recognize the name of the Scythians, or Saka as they called themselves.” This nomenclature was due, according to Ghirshman, because “the name of a people was often given to its capital.”
Ghirshman believed also that Sakkiz was one of the few villages of Kurdistan that had preserved its name from the time of the arrival of the Saka. Whether that was indeed the case, I cannot say with certainty. Naturally, say “sakkiz,” “saqqiz” or “saghiz” and an Iranian’s ears perk up because the sound conjures up gum, such as chewing gum, and also reminds one of a kind of wood. But etymologically, from a present-day perspective, who could argue with Sakkiz meaning the land of Saka, in which “kiz” referred to the quality of the land that gave rise to them. According to Dehkhoda (vol. 21, pp. 1003-1004) the word “kiz” was already in existence in the 10th century as a noun and place-name suffix. But in antiquity?
Whether Sakkiz was named such and kept its name from its Saka days are matters of conjecture. It is likely that the name originated with the Saka, but changed and then resurfaced at a later date for a reason altogether different. In the geographical work of the Greek historian Strabo (d. after 23 AD) no mention is made of Sakkiz per se, but reference is made (16.1.18) to a small country named Sagapeni, which was bound in the north by Media and Armenia, in the west by Adiabene and Mesopotamia and in the northwest by Babylon. The name [Sagapeni/Sakapeni] and the description of its geographical situation approximated the location of present-day Sakkiz.
Unlike Sakkiz, Sakastana is the most clearly identifiable of Saka place-names. This designation arose from the fact of Saka’s migration in large numbers into the greater Sistan region. By the time of the Greek itinerant Idirous of Charax Spasini (about late 1st century AD) the place was already called Sakastan, a toponym that would persist as long as the Saka enjoyed regional prominence. With the passing of Sakastan to Sasanian rule about 224 AD, the place-name changed to Sagastan. When the Sasanian ruler Bahram II (Varahran: ruled 276-293 AD) re-conquered the region, he appointed his son, the future Bahram III (ruled 293 AD) as governor and bestowed on him the title of Saganshah (king of the Saga/Saka]. Subsequently, the Arab conquest of Sagastan in 643-44 AD and re-conquest in 650-51 paved the way for the name change to Sajistan, Seijistan, Seistan and Sistan.
There is an anecdotal connection between Sakkiz and Sakastan and it comes from the meaning of the word “sakkiz” in Persian, terebinth. This small tree native to Northern Africa, Southern Europe and Western Asia is a source of turpentine and also is considered a common object of veneration. In Iran, it is most prominently obtained in the forests of Kordestan, particularly in Pusht Kuh, a mountainous region east of Kermanshah in Lor country. The etymological assumption has been that the word is of Turkic origin (see Dehkhoda, 29:545). This in turn raises the intriguing connection of the plant to Central Asia, the cradle of Turkic languages, and by this association with the Saka and Sakastan (Sistan), who were however geographically from Central Asia but linguistically Iranian-speaking.
In the English translation of Joseph Ferrier’s “Caravan Journeys and Wanderings in Persia, Afghanistan, Turkistan, and Baloochistan,” one reads of one Kazi Mohammad Hassan, a 19th century magistrate of Heart, why Sistan is called by that name. The name, Kazi Mohammad said, derived from the “word ‘saghis,’ the name of a wood much used in Persia for burning at this time.” The wood, Ferrier added, was found frequently in the steppes of Central Asia and grew “in much greater quantities near the Helmund and it is this that has given to the country in which it grows so abundantly the appellation Saghistan, the place of saghis.”
In an amusing comment, the English editor of Ferrier’s work, H.D. Seymour, expounded: “The Kazi had not heard of the Sakae and their migrations [into Drangiana=Sistan].” Neither Seymour nor the Kazi would have known for sure about the Saka’s presence in Sakkiz, because the discovery by Ghirshman that made the connection did not come around until the 1950s. Yet, somehow I get the feeling that the Kazi knew more than believed.
The preponderance of the Saka in Sakastan, naturally, would explain the origin and meaning of the place-name Sakavand (variation: Sagavand). In the 10th century Sistan, Sagavand referred to a town at the foot of a mountain of the same name, with a fortified wall and much agriculture. On the other hand, Abulfeda (d. 1331) wrote the name as Sakavand and placed it in the Bamiyan region of Zabolestan. Further Similarly, the place-name Sokavand referred to a fort and village near Ghazneh in the eastern part of present-day Afghanistan.
The connection between the Saka and the place-names Sakiz and Sakastan at two opposite ends of Iran suggests the likelihood of the existence of other Saka place names in the areas where the Saka are known to have inhabited. In the southeast Caspian region, the evidence of a Saka place-name appears in the name Asaak (variation: Asaac, Arsace, Arsacia), which was the early Parthian capital built by Arsaces in about 250 BC. The Orientalist W. Schoff, among others, identified the town as the present-day Quchan, located in the upper Atrak River valley eighty miles northwest of Mashad. The topography of Quchan is highly mountainous, with the nearby Hezarmasjid, Aladagh, and Shahjahan elevations ensuring wintry conditions that last for six months.
The name Arsaka was probably a from of Ark+saka that would have meant “the fort of Saka.” The Persian word “ark” meant “fort.” Its variant “arg” meant a small fort built inside another, fort, walled fortification and in Sasanian times “Arkbod” meant commander of the fort. The name Ark (Arg) occurred as a toponym referring to a fort in Sistan (Dehkhoda, 5:1875-76, 1880). Regardless of the form or orthography, the significance of the name “Asaak” itself was in revealing that, unlike in Sakiz and Sakastan, the marker “sak” could serve as an adjectival suffix. Similarly, the notion of a ‘fort’ or ‘fortress’ was evident in the description of the place name Arsakavan [?Ark+sakavan], located south of Ararat Mountain, which served as the seat of an Armenian king named Arsaces II in 4th century AD (see N. Pigulevskaja’s “Cities of Iran in Parthian and Sasanian Eras”).
Lastly, I offer this explanation about the origin of Zadrakarta (a Greek name) and what possible influence the Saka may have had on its development. This was the capital of Hyrcania (Mazandaran and Astarabad) in Achaemenian times and it was where the governor of Hyrcania-Parthia tendered his submission to Alexander. It is identified with present-day area of Grogan. Phonetically at least, in the name one could hear the echo of the proto-toponym Saka-karta [= village of Saka], where “karta” in Old Persian of the Achaemenians meant “village.” I would go even further to entertain the notion that the word place-name was probably Sakarta, made up of “sa,” which I have equated with “pasture” or “grassland” in Avestan/Old Persian. That a city could be called “Sa-karta” is not far-flung -- do you know the way to Sabzevar? Can it then be that people who hailed from Sakarta came to be known to the Achaemenians as Saka, for short?
Regardless, the Greeks turned Sakarta into Zadrakarta. Many believe that Gorgan was founded by Gorgeen Milad, a hero mentioned in Ferdowsi’s Shahnameh. I have wondered about the connection between “Zad” in Zadrakarta and “Milad.” Zad in Persian means “birth” as does “milad,” albeit the latter is an Arabic word. Could the name of Ferdowsi’s hero (Milad) been a translation from Zad preserved by the Greek writers as Zadrakarta?
I also wonder about the connection between “saka” and “asagh.” This latter word was explained by the German Orientalist Wilhelm Geiger as a derivative from a series of Avestan words meaning “district” -- not unlike the word “dehestan” that originated from the name of the tribe known as Daha (literally meaning “enemy” in the original Indo-Iranian lexicon), which already inhabited the areas in the southeast corner of the Caspian littoral by the time of Cyrus the Great. Could the Saka have left us their imprint in the innocuous locative suffix of “sak” or “asak” that end many of the Iranian place-names?
About
Guive Mirfendereski is VP and GC at Virtual Telemetry Corporation since 2004 and is the artisan doing business as Guy vanDeresk (trapworks.com). Born in Tehran in 1952, he is a graduate of Georgetown University's College of Arts and Sciences (BA), Tufts University's Fletcher School (PhD, MALD, MA) and Boston College Law School (JD). He is the author of A Diplomatic History of the Caspian Sea (2001).
Wise Padishah (Premier Login Padishah) Arab Legion
SAKAS
May 24 2005, 7:20 PM
Here is an article from the Silk Road exhibit, at the University of Washington:
Sakas
Saka nomads from Central Asia migrated to the northwestern Indian subcontinent in the first and second centuries BCE. Herodotus (4.1-142) describes the extent, customs, and origins of various groups of Scythians (designation for Sakas in Western classical sources) who inhabited large areas of the steppes of Central Asia on the northern peripheries of the Greek world. The Sakas are also known from Old Persian inscriptions of the Achaemenid Empire. The Naqs-i-Rustam inscription of Darius I distinguishes three groups of Sakas:
1) Saka Tigraxauda: "Sakas wearing the pointed cap" who are portrayed in a sculpture at Behistun and described by Herodotus (7.64) as "clad in trousers" and having "on their heads tall stiff caps rising to a point"; these Sakas lived between the Caspian Sea and the Jaxartes River (Syr Daria);
2) Saka Haumavarga: "hauma-drinking" or "hauma-preparing" Sakas (hauma is a type of alcoholic beverage) identified with the Amyrgian Scythians of Greek sources, possibly located in the southeastern Iranian province of Drangiana, which later became known as Sakastan or Seistan;
3) Saka Paradraya: Sakas "across the sea" who probably lived north of the Black Sea and in the Russian steppes, although some groups reached the Danube Valley in central Europe, Syria, and upper Mesopotamia.
Chinese historical annals refer to the movements of the Sai (Chinese designation for Sakas) southwards into northwestern India following a period of disturbances in Central Asia during the second century BCE. According to the History of the Former Han (Han shu), covering the period from 206 BCE to 25 CE: "When, formerly, the Hsiung-nu [Xiongnu] conquered the Yueh-chih [Yuezhi] the latter moved west and established themselves as masters of Ta Hsia [Da xia]; it was in these circumstances that the king of the Sai moved south and established himself as master of Chi-pin [Jibin]. The Sai tribes split and separated and repeatedly formed several states."1
The westward migrations of the Yuezhi (see Kushan essay) led to the emigration of the Sai sometime before 128 BCE, when the Han ambassador Zhang Qian arrived in Sogdia and Bactria to make an alliance with the Yuezhi. Saka migrations were not led by a single king, but were probably gradual movements of acephalous groups to Jibin, a region apparently corresponding to Gandhara or to northwestern India in general.
At the beginning of the first century BCE, two or possibly three groups of Sakas migrated to India from Central Asia:
a) Sakas from the north (perhaps coming from Khotan) took the 'Pamir routes' through the Karakorum Mountains to Swat and Gandhara;
b) Sakas crossed the Hindu Kush under pressure from the Yuezhi to mountain valleys of northeastern Afghanistan;
c) Sakas coming from the southwest (Sakastan) took control of modern Sindh in southern Pakistan.
Maues was one of the earliest Indo-Scythian rulers during the early first century BCE. His name is preserved in bilingual Greek (Maues) and Kharosthi (Moa) coins and a Kharosthi inscription from Taxila (Moga). Maues' origins are obscure: he may have been connected with the Sakas of Sakastan, or he could have belonged to another branch of Sakas that migrated from the north through the mountains to Gandhara and Taxila. In giving himself the title of "King of Kings" in bilingual Greek and Kharosthi coin legends, Maues imitated Parthian royal titles. A Kharosthi inscription on a copper plate from Taxila dated in year 78 of an unspecified era during the reign of "maharaja Moga the Great" records the establishment of Buddhist relics by a donor named Patika, the son of an official (ksatrapa) named Liaka Kusulaka. The inscription demonstrates that Liaka Kusulaka acknowledged the authority of Maues as his overlord. Decentralized administration continued after the period of Maues under loosely affiliated officials who acknowledged a more powerful leader.
Numismatic sequences and inscriptions show that Azes followed Maues as the most powerful Indo-Scythian ruler in 58 BCE, a date corresponding to the beginning of the so-called "Vikrama" era, which is still used in India. Like his predecessor, Azes adopted the title of "King of Kings" and iconography of Greek and Indian gods and goddesses from the coins of contemporary Indo-Greeks. Indo-Greek power in territories of central Afghanistan and eastern Punjab rapidly diminished during the second half of the first century BCE as Indo-Scythians predominated. Azes and his successors Azilises and Azes II administered Taxila and other areas of northwestern Pakistan and India through regional rulers with Iranian, Greek, and Indian titles.
Another branch of Indo-Scythians called the "Western Ksatrapas" ruled parts of western India from the first century BCE to the end of the fourth century CE. The Western Ksatrapas vied with the Satavahanas, another regional dynasty in western India, to control trade routes between the Deccan Plateau and ports on the west coast. This area flourished due to lucrative long-distance trade across the Indian Ocean to the Red Sea and Mediterranean (described in the Periplus Maris Erythraei). The Western Ksatrapas and other ruling families and groups of merchants supported Buddhist cave monasteries clustered along routes through the Western Ghats (see essay on Buddhism and Trade). Ujjayini in central India was the center of the Western Ksatrapas from the second to early fourth centuries, until the Gupta ruler Candragupta II defeated the "Sakas" between ca. 395-400 CE (see essay on Guptas).
Sakas in control of major commercial centers along the "Northern Route" (Uttarapatha) and "Southern Route" (Dakshinapatha) (see Trade Route essay) encouraged the development of trade networks and supported Indian religious institutions. Inscriptions that record the establishment of Buddhist relics and donations to monasteries in Gandhara, Taxila, Mathura, and western India show that Sakas, Parthians, and other Iranians were active lay supporters of the Buddhist community. Saka support of Buddhism did not preclude their patronage of other religious traditions or imply that their old beliefs were abandoned. Iranian elements in architecture, iconography, languages, and many other spheres of Indian life around the beginning of the Common Era are easy to recognize. Concurrent with their impact in India, migrations of the Sakas during the last two centuries BCE and the Kushans in first century CE from Central Asia to northwestern India eventually led to the transmission of Buddhism in the other direction to Central Asia and East Asia.
-- Jason Neelis
(1) Translation of Anthony F.P. Hulsewe in China in Central Asia. The Early Stage: 125 B.C. - A.D. 23 (An Annotated Translation of Chapters 61 and 96 of the History of the Former Han Dynasty). Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1979, pp. 104-5. Pinyin equivalents in brackets correspond to the Wade-Giles transliterations.
There is a city in East Punjab named Moga, i dont know if it has any relevence to the Saka king but Then again moga in punjabi refers to the pathway famers make to get water to their fields from a canal.
Wise Padishah (Premier Login Padishah) Arab Legion
@HARRY
May 24 2005, 11:48 PM
"There is a city in East Punjab named Moga, i dont know if it has any relevence to the Saka king but Then again moga in punjabi refers to the pathway famers make to get water to their fields from a canal."
Very interesting.
Harry, do you feel that modern day Punjabis share a historical kinship with the various peoples of Afghanistan, Iran and Central Asia, as far as linguistics and culture are concerned?
Thats right. Whenever India is at its strength, it never really tries to supress any people inorder to maintain its strength, it relies on raw military power (ineffective method as assets are prone to being lost or misused). In ancient China you never really had a priestly class that Emperors have to pamper, but in India, if Emperors do anything to enrage the priests and local leaders, you could have rebellion and have to end up fighting. And when you're fighting, you'd much rather use the mercenary strength from nomadic invaders instead of risking them going over to help the rebels...
I'm not really sure what language the Sakas spoke, but I dont think they had an organised form of writing before they came to India, cause Kushans & Sakas always used Indian writing and never really brought their own styles to influence us...
-----------------------------------
17th century India, The Masters of the Oceans...
Wise Padishah (Premier Login Padishah) Arab Legion
DARKENSS
May 24 2005, 11:56 PM
1) "I'm not really sure what language the Sakas spoke,"
There seems to be some decendents still around in Tajikistan, such as Tashkorghani.
2) "but I dont think they had an organised form of writing before they came to India, cause Kushans & Sakas always used Indian writing and never really brought their own styles to influence us..."
That could be said of all the nomadic peoples of central and nothern Asia, be they Alatic or Indo-European in linguistic origin. Those closest to China were influenced by the Chinese. Likewise those entering India or interacting with Persia borrowed their related forms of civilizations.
yea Padishah, there is a strong cultural resemblence,
i dont know about Iran but with Afgan there is a lot.
-Cultural in a sense that the way "Dhol" is used, (the drum).
-the age when a man gets a "turban" 18 for both and the symbolism behind it.
-The dress for women, when most of India wears Sari, we punjabis be it Hindu or any other religion only wear Salwar Kameez.
-"Dhoti" is mainly wore in India, while in Punjab, Huryana and Kashmir for men we have the lungi and Kurta/Salwar kameez.
-The martial culture as well
-How the society functions. Each village has a council and elders that control it, this also exist in other parts of india.
In terms of Language.
there are similarities, and major differences, infact majority difference. But there is a dialect of Punjabi known as Landa which is spoken in NWFP and is similar to Pushto.
For Iran i dont know, but there is a lot of folk lore that incorporates Iran. We are told of stories of when there used to be battles with Iranis, the work Punjab, pronounced Panjab is of Persian orgins, as well as most of the rivers in Punjab and the way numbers are counted. And of course the legacy of the Turban and what it means.
Other folf-lores inculude the interaction that used to occur and about their culture.
What is interseting is that Punjabi as a language is placed on the outer-most branch of the Indic branch, most people think its similar to Hindi but to the contrary it is the most distinct Indic language and is placed outside the Indo-Aryan family.
This message has been edited by ShadowMast01 on May 25, 2005 12:18 AM
Thats right. Whenever India is at its strength, it never really tries to supress any people inorder to maintain its strength, it relies on raw military power (ineffective method as assets are prone to being lost or misused).
There were no manifestations of military strength outward by Indian nations unlike Chinese empires. Central Asian history is today largely a series of Chinese recordings because of this. Every time there was a major Chinese dynasty the Chinese brought war to the powerful tribes massed on its borders.
Conversely, India simply stood there and took invasion after invasion unlike the Chinese empires. The Tamerlane invasion, in particular, was a perfect example of this.
Tamerlane's tartar forebears were forced out from Chinese areas when the Ming dynasty broke the Mongol Yuan dynasty. Tamerlane devastated Northern India (many consider this one of the most brutal invasions in ancient history.)
But even in devastating India, his ultimate goal was to invade China and regain the places of his birthright in China and Mongolia. Tamerlame died before the Chinese invasion. It would have been an interesting campaign if it happened but the early Ming was extremely powerful.
In ancient China you never really had a priestly class that Emperors have to pamper, but in India, if Emperors do anything to enrage the priests and local leaders, you could have rebellion and have to end up fighting. And when you're fighting, you'd much rather use the mercenary strength from nomadic invaders instead of risking them going over to help the rebels...
Every ancient empire had a powerful noble class underneath the Emperor. China was no different. The Chinese noble class often split off parts of the Empire. This led to brutal cival wars and breaking of empires in China. Not to mention Chinese imperial border armies that created nations of their own (half Chinese/half barbarian) that ended up warring with the Empire.
Now, what most Chinese dynasties lacked was the humanitarian and pacifist philosophy of India that came from Buddha and Ashoka. The early Chinese empires was always able to go to war when it had the strength.
But during the later Ming dysnasty, China became Buddhist and the court really did ended up with a similar pacifist mentality like India. This was to result in the famous "Burning of the Fleet." Ming China, the most powerful and advance nation at the time (read Kennedy's "Rise of Nations"), simply destroyed its own fleet.
Why? Because the pacifist Bhuddist idiots in the Ming court said that if China doesn't bring war to the outside world, then the outside world won't bring war to China. Kind of like the ostrich with his head in the sand. (Also, on a more practical side, they didn't want trade created by the fleet to export Chinese technology to potential enemies.)
We all know what happens afterwards when the Ming had no fleet and the Europeans began rounding Africa. LOL
Indian thoughts and philosophies are wonderful ideas in keeping peace during a civil society but their ultimate affect was often weakness when confronted by foreign powers.
------------------------------------------------- WHAM BAM! PANDA MA'AM!
" Indian thoughts and philosophies are wonderful ideas in keeping peace during a civil society but their ultimate affect was often weakness when confronted by foreign powers."
actually thats quiet untrue. Whenever India faced invasions, they did not lose out right in the beginning. it took them many tries to simply get into India, this something that is mistaken by everyone when they think of Indian History, India faced so many invasions, its countless. In the 18th century alone, Afganistan tried 18 times to Invade India and was successfull only once. Babur the started of the Mohgul dynasty also had to try a number of time before he was successfull. And when they did invade they would stop at delhi, only the Mughal Dynasty went further. Like Alexander and Persia, they had a hard enough time to defeat the armies of Punjab and Sindh that they never decided to go further. And technically as stated before, only the Mughals went beyond Delhi, usually they would not go beyond Gujrat. Does that show weakness, you tell me.
@Panda,
I read an excellent article on the reason why Indian kings never expanded outside of India. Back then, the sole objective of any ruler, was to plunder, loot, etc. If you were a king in Kabul, you were presented with 4 options. To go north or west or east into harsh dry barren lands, or go south into India.
Even if you were a king in one of the outer confines of India (say in Lahore, now in Pakistan), what is there to gain from invading barren Afghanistan, when you can expand and actually become rich if you go in towards the fertile plains of the heartland.
The only Indian dynasty that seriously attempted to expand outside of India, were the Mughals. They sent some foolhardy expeditions into Samarkand, to "reclaim" their motherland.
Speaking of which, I think the Sikh dynasty of Ranjit Singh did occupy parts of Tibet, and so did the Dogras (the ruling Hindu dynasty of Kashmir, till 1947), and 1000 years before that, Jats owned parts of Trans-Oxania, God knows what that refers to. There are also theories of the Gypsies, dunno really.
The main reason Timur was successful in invading India was that there were already many Rajputs at war with the Islamic Tughluq dynasty at Delhi. These same Rajputs had formed the military of Tughluqs and Khiljis before them and since the ruler was loosing power, people started fighting for land. Timur tried to capitalise on this but his invasion was brief and mongols were overthrown very soon after his death.
And India wasn't always Pacifist, as Harry mentioned above, invaders had to try countless times before they could be successful, and many failed altogether. Then India almost always had garrisons in Gandhara (places around cities of Kandahar and Kabul), and Indian kings had terretories in places as far as Vietnam...
@ Bharat
According to theory, the Gypsies originated in India and were mercenary fighters who were sent to destroy certain places and assasinate certain peoples in Afghanistan and Central Asia. Though they were successful, they were quite impoverished (constant wars with Ghazni bastard) and didnt have a good chance in India, so they moved further west into Iran or Caspian region and going all the way to Europe (apparently they were welcomed for bringing some fire weapons like Bombard with them).
-----------------------------------
17th century India, The Masters of the Oceans...
I read an excellent article on the reason why Indian kings never expanded outside of India. Back then, the sole objective of any ruler, was to plunder, loot, etc.
Dude, the sole objective of a nomadic warrior tribe is to conquer, raid and plunder. Mongols, Sakas, Huns and Turks were poorer than the great civilizations of Rome, China and India.
But that was not the objective of the Chinese or Roman Emperor when they took war to the tribes. Their objective was to clear their borders of any threats.
When the Chinese emperor brought war to the Mongols or the Huns, it was not to "plunder" them. They had nothing to plunder except for land. The purpose was to push those tribes as far away from the Chinese imperial borders as possible.
This was how early Chinese Imperial power manifest itself. A good offense is always the best defense. Only when the early Chinese empire was broken and very weak that it relies entirely on the defensive. (Later Chinese empires which became imbued with Buddhism were defensive even when they were strong.)
Indian nations had almost never shown the same ability or even desire to protect its land the same way. It stood and took invasions, almost never invading back. It was a pacifist attitude.
There was never an Indian campaign that knocked the warrior tribes back which China did repeatedly. In fact, most of the invasions of India by Central Asians started off as events caused by war along the Chinese border areas. Central Asian history today is well known only because of Chinese recordings of each campaign.
The Kushans (YuehChi of Chinese imperial records), the Scythians, the White Huns, the Mongols (Moguls) and Tamerlane himself all came into India as the results of bloody pushes deep into Central Asia by Imperial armies of the Qin, Han and Tang that causes displacement and migrations on the great warrior nations packed on its borders.
------------------------------------------------- WHAM BAM! PANDA MA'AM!
Indian kings had terretories in places as far as Vietnam...
Indian culture were in places like south Vietnam. But those places never belonged to India politically. But the people might have been a mixture of Bengali or Tamil with oriental.
Vietnam is actually a good case study. Vietnam used to be run by Chams who were Indian by culture. But when the sinicized Viets from South China invaded, the Chams long their country. The same with the Thais who invaded from South China into Siam. The area of Siam was once populated by people, Khmers, close to the Chams.
Both the culturally Chinese Thais and Viets were warrior nations while the Indian-cultured Chams and Khmers were mainly pacifist. Today we see the results in Thailand and Vietnam.
If you want to look at thing ethnically, starting at Assam and east through Burma to Vietnam we see the major ethnic groups as composing of fair-skinned Thais (northern Thai, Viets, Laotians are all in the Thai family group) and Sino-tibetans (Burmese), dusky Malays (southern Thais) and very dark Cambodians.
The modern people closest to the Chams are Cambodians who could pass for Indian Tamils.
Cambodian
Vietnamese
Northern Thai
Southern Thai (muslim)
------------------------------------------------- WHAM BAM! PANDA MA'AM!
This message has been edited by BigFatPandaBear on May 25, 2005 11:45 PM
Ranjit Singh's Empire did occupy parts of Tibet and Afganistan. Sadly it was due to the treachery of the Hindu Dogra's that the empire collapsed.
I still dont get Panda, it was usually the same 3 nations on the Indian subcontinent that faced invasions, rest never had to worry due to natural protection. And much of the time India was a friendly country to Iran, as for the invasions from central Asia, it was due to continuing attempts, they never got through the first or second time.
Quote:Indian nations had almost never shown the same ability or even desire to protect its land the same way. It stood and took invasions, almost never invading back. It was a pacifist attitude.
There was never an Indian campaign that knocked the warrior tribes back which China did repeatedly. In fact, most of the invasions of India by Central Asians started off as events caused by war along the Chinese border areas. Central Asian history today is well known only because of Chinese recordings of each campaign.
Thats not entirely true. Indian garrisons always existed in Afghansitan, the Guptas even fought the Sassanids to recapture Gandhara from Iranians and made the (former) Kushan rulers their tributaries...
War on nomadic people was seen as unjust, so it wasn't done often, and plus, for Chinese forces to attack central asia is easier because their forces have to cross Steppes which are flat grasslands while Indians will have to cross the Hindu Kush or the Himalyas...
And nomadic invasion of India didnt happen as often as it did in China, the areas around Mongolia and western China were almost frequently raided, but Eastern China was hard to get...
-----------------------------------
17th century India, The Masters of the Oceans...
Pacifism is part of Indian religion, and even if not religion (as in case of Indian Muslims like Mughals or Tughluqs), it is part of our psyche. As Panda said it, when Buddhism (read Indian religion) was exported to China, it also became defensive.
Seriously speaking, had Ashoka not converted to Buddhism, the Mauryan empire would have expanded officially into south-east Asia and central Asia and west Asia.
Them kshatriyas need to get their act together if you know what I mean.
Almost 60% of the population of the Punjab comprises of Rajputs and Jats and the various branches of their race such as Awans, Khokhars, Ghakkars, Khattars, Janjuas, Arains, Gujjars, etc.
-----
Rajput and Jat are both Saka.
By the way, the above article gives a quite detailed account of ethnicity of Punjab province.
Pakistan began to receive many waves of Sakas and Parthians. In the next stage beginning from 1st century B.C. wave after wave of the people such as the Kushans, the White Huns and the Gujjars also began to settle in Pakistan. In the course of time, all of these groups constituted an overwhelmingly predominant element of its population. This composition continues to this day. These waves were so large and cataclysmic that everything was sub-merged in it or absorbed by it. The waves of Sakas were so enormous and their settlements so vast that Pakistan came to be known to Greek geographers as Scythia and in Indian literature as Saka-dipa.
The first three Saka kings of Pakistan were Maues, Azes I and Azilises. Their numerous coinages are, almost without exception, copied from those of their Yavana (Greek) predecessors. As regards language and culture, the Sakas mostly adopted those of the Pahlavas or Parthians of Iran. In fact at a later stage Saka-dipa (Pakistan) was ruled by Pahlava princes. The most well-known of them was Gondopharnes whose capital was Taxila. During his reign (20-48 A.D.) St. Thomas, according to early ecclesiastical legends, preached Christianity in his dominions.
"Of the political history of this period a great deal is still in suspense. The leaders of the Sakas in the Indus basin seem to have first acknowledged the power of the local Greek Indian rulers. It is not until a few decades later that they felt themselves strong enough to lay claim to supreme suzerainship. Ghandara became the centre of the Saka domains, and the eastern Capital city of Taxila was chosen by the Saka king Mavak (Maues or Mauakes in the ancient authors, and Moga in early Indian sources) in the middle of the first century B.C. as its residence. Mavak's successors propagated their power over a considerable part of the Punjab.
"In the north-west in the Punjab, however, the Saka leaders' hold was shortlived. The dynasty founded by Mavak was overthrown by the Parthians as early as the beginning of the first century of our era.
"In the Western Punjab, Upper Sind and Derajat, a number of warring rulers related to the Surens, a Parthian clan controlling the eastern areas of Iran, held sway. The Parthian Kings, who keep ousting one another, rule over this country" (The Peoples of Pakistan, By Yu.V.Gankovsky).
Punjab has always been taken as a homogenous population. Even with all the different tribes and clans present there, historically as a people they are noted as one. The site states 60% are Saka 20% MiddleEastern, what are the rest 20%. Even chamars have some of the same names as Jatts. For example Gill. And the Chamar Huns Raj Huns (singer) looks more along the line of a proper light-skinned Punjabi than what is ideal for a low-caste. And he is a sufi.
This has Especially been noted with the studies that were done by the British on the diets of the subcontinent. It studied the Jatts of Punjab, but conculed the results as same for the rest of the population due to the homogenous entity to the population.
I take the whole of population as thorously mixed with a bit of everything.
And there was no Pakistan at this point. THese geocites have very low crediblity. try sites like apnaorg.com or something to that level.
And it better if stated sakas settled in Punjab, Sindh, Kashmir and what not, rather than Pakistan. This accoured thousand of years ago.
This message has been edited by ShadowMast01 on May 29, 2005 7:47 PM This message has been edited by ShadowMast01 on May 29, 2005 7:43 PM
Quote: Both the culturally Chinese Thais and Viets were warrior nations while the Indian-cultured Chams and Khmers were mainly pacifist. Today we see the results in Thailand and Vietnam.
Actually, Chams and Khamers weren't Pacifist, it was the other way around. Northern Vietnamese, and Amman regions were very rich as they had many garrisons of Chinese frontier forces (not very well armed) so they used to frequently raid to plunder; every king had to make atleast one such successful raid to kick start his economy after his corronation :p
And Hinduism/Indian culture & influence was prevailent in Thailand, Burma, Indonesia, and Amman region for a very long time, Buddhism came in around 700-800CE. Islam never came till the 16th century...
-----------------------------------
17th century India, The Masters of the Oceans...
Actually, Chams and Khamers weren't Pacifist, it was the other way around. Northern Vietnamese, and Amman regions were very rich as they had many garrisons of Chinese frontier forces (not very well armed) so they used to frequently raid to plunder; every king had to make atleast one such successful raid to kick start his economy after his corronation :p
Sorry dude, you can't change history. Both Vietnam and Thailand (as well as Laos, Assam and Burma) were all overran by Viet and Thai tribes originating in South China. These groups were Sinicized (just like many of the Mongol, Turkic and Tocharian/Aryan groups along the northern borders of the Chinese empire were Sinicized.)
When Sinicized (Chinese cultural influenced) groups met groups influenced by Indian culture, the results were always the same. The Indianized groups like the Khmers and Chams always gave way and lost their land.
In war, people of Indian culture always lost so that today only Cambodia is the only place where the dark Indian-like people of IndoChina remain in power. This is due to the passive nature of Indian culture.
Indian culture is successful in peace and that is why Thailand, Burma, Vietnam and even China itself still has Indian influence. But Indian influence is very pacifist. It even made Chinese and Thai much less warlike than in the past.
------------------------------------------------- WHAM BAM! PANDA MA'AM!
I'm not trying to change History, just saying something that happened. The main religion (Buddhism) and most cultural aspects was spread to this regions by Indians, not Chinese. The Khamer, Chams, Burmese, Thai, Malay Indonesian, South Vietnamese, and as far as Phillipines were influenced by India, and not all of them chose to remain Pacifist...
And just because people of India had Pacifist doctrines, doesn't mean that this doctrine was adopted into SE Asian nations; because unlike India, they NEEDED war for economic benifit (as I said, it was easy loot as Chinese garrisons in SE Asia weren't equipeed as well). The only time India would go to war is when there is a major threat and areas outside of Gandhara need to be secured.
-----------------------------------
17th century India, The Masters of the Oceans...
I think, Panda needs to read up on the tribes of the North. Hell our villages, the way they are built, they are built as forts, war and courage is in our blood, Soldeiring has been the main occupation for hundreds of years.
Us Indic folks (that includes all those that can trace back to Central Asian invaders) need to get out of Brahminist pacifism, into Kshatriyan militancy.
The life of Shri Chandragupta Maurya was an ideal one. He led a life of blood and war, and when he got old, he became a holy saint, a man of God, and fasted unto death in search of nirvana. No need to be searching for nirvana for all your life. Many of my friends want me to take up weed, many are Rastafari. I say no, I'm not ruining my body and mind now. I'll do that when I am 60+ and ready to transcend out of here, not now.
And just because people of India had Pacifist doctrines, doesn't mean that this doctrine was adopted into SE Asian nations; because unlike India, they NEEDED war for economic benifit (as I said, it was easy loot as Chinese garrisons in SE Asia weren't equipeed as well).
Dude, you can't change history. Every country in IndoChina from Burma to Vietnam was overran and taken over by Thai (Vietnam, Laos and Thailand) and Sino-Tibetan (Burma) tribes from Southern China. The Indian-like Khmers and Chams always lost.
Again, pieces of Indian culture were absorbed by the Thais, Viets, Burmese and even the Chinese themselves in peace time. Indian philosophy made even the warlike Thais and Viets pacifists. Buddhism made turned Ming China from being an aggressive expansive empire to a weak pacifist one that burned its own navy.
I think, Panda needs to read up on the tribes of the North. Hell our villages, the way they are built, they are built as forts, war and courage is in our blood, Soldeiring has been the main occupation for hundreds of years.
Oh please. Hill tribes? LOL. There are warlike hill tribes and nomadic peoples everywhere. We are talking about cultural legacy. China's cultural legacy today is a historic record of repeated invasions into the great warrior nations of Kushans, Huns, Turks and Mongols.
India's legacy is that of a pacifist nation that sat and absorbed invasion after invasion without a single major campaign of retaliation. Seriously, look at Timur. Timur's tribe were forced from Chinese land and he died while preparing to invade Ming China. This was give and take.
Timur simply ravaged northern India in one of the bloodiest campaigns in the medieval world and there was no retribution from Indians. There was no give, just take.
------------------------------------------------- WHAM BAM! PANDA MA'AM!
Pacifism is not part of Indian religion or civilization. It is rather the self-destructive conservativism of the vast majority (fear of the unknown of war time) that makes us pacifist. There is resentment, there is widespread anger. But for Hindus, to go from anger to bullets, is a long way. It is funny because our mythology indicates to do otherwise.
Sri Ram and Sri Krishna did not sit idle in the name of ahimsa
"O son of Pritha, do not yield to this degrading impotence. It does not become you. Give up such petty weakness of heart and arise, O chastiser of the enemy." ~Bhagavad Gita 2.3
"The material body of the indestructible, immeasurable and eternal living entity is sure to come to an end; therefore, fight, O descendant of Bharata." ~Bhagavad Gita 2.18
"Considering your specific duty as a Kshatriya, you should know that there is no better engagement for you than fighting on religious principles; and so there is no need for hesitation. O Partha, happy are the Kshatriyas to whom such fighting opportunities come unsought, opening for them the doors of the heavenly planets. If, however, you do not perform your religious duty of fighting, then you will certainly incur sins for neglecting your duties and thus lose your reputation as a fighter. " ~Bhagavad Gita 2.32-3
The people i talk about occupy the plains. And its ok we dont need your validation, the British know about it pretty well and mention is often. The French teach about them in their schools.
Quote:Dude, you can't change history. Every country in IndoChina from Burma to Vietnam was overran and taken over by Thai (Vietnam, Laos and Thailand) and Sino-Tibetan (Burma) tribes from Southern China. The Indian-like Khmers and Chams always lost.
Again, pieces of Indian culture were absorbed by the Thais, Viets, Burmese and even the Chinese themselves in peace time. Indian philosophy made even the warlike Thais and Viets pacifists. Buddhism made turned Ming China from being an aggressive expansive empire to a weak pacifist one that burned its own navy.
Not trying to change history, just stating what I know, and what you need to know. Thais, Burmese, Assamese (almost same as Burmese), Cambodians, and southern Viets along with others were followers of Indian culture, they weren't Sinicised. Most of the kings of Thailand were named Rama, and the latest one is King Bhumibol Adulyadej, Rama IX. (I hope you know Rama is an avatar of Vishnu, from Inian mythology). I'm not denying the fact that Khamers and Cham lost in wars in the latter years, but they were very very successful for a very long time. The Angkor Wat is built from some of the booty of military campaigns.
As I have mentioned before, the Indianised peoples of SE Asia weren't all that Pacifist. They needed some of the loot money to kickstart their economies. China wasn't Pacifist either, which had adopted Buddhism. They may have burned their navy for a different cause; maybe the Admiralty was gaining too much influence or it was too expensive to maintain and seemed useless. Even India wasn't Pacifist, we always had internal wars and power struggles, but there was no point in us attacking Central Asia, as that waouldn't yield anything useful. Attacks on areas around Gandhara and around Afghanistan were done and strong garrisons were maintained inorder to prevent invasions.
Quote:Oh please. Hill tribes? LOL. There are warlike hill tribes and nomadic peoples everywhere. We are talking about cultural legacy. China's cultural legacy today is a historic record of repeated invasions into the great warrior nations of Kushans, Huns, Turks and Mongols.
India's legacy is that of a pacifist nation that sat and absorbed invasion after invasion without a single major campaign of retaliation. Seriously, look at Timur. Timur's tribe were forced from Chinese land and he died while preparing to invade Ming China. This was give and take.
Timur simply ravaged northern India in one of the bloodiest campaigns in the medieval world and there was no retribution from Indians. There was no give, just take.
Not hill tribes exactly, he means people who dwell in Northern India. They were Indo-Aryan peoples who faced constant warfare outside of cities. And Chinese legacy isn't of invading Central Asian lands; it was the nomadics livlihood to invade Western and Central China, and only sometimes an emperor is successful in securing the borders, and thats when the nomadics look elsewhere. As soon as Chinese imperial strength receeds, the Nomads return to loot. India's legacy is correct, we never really invaded the lands of nomads, but always destroyed nomads who didnt surrender when their good times were over.
And about Timur:
Timur wanted to be the next great Khan similar to Genghis or Kublai Khan. He wanted to invade India because it was one of the things Genghis Khan was unsuccessful at. And then there was obviously China, as without that, the Empire wouldn't be comparable to Gebghis's. And plus, we did reclaim all lost lands in India from the Timuruids, and the Timurids paid a very heavy price...
-----------------------------------
17th century India, The Masters of the Oceans...
Speaking of Mongols, Genghiz Khan was halted by Alauddin Khilji, the Sultan of India at the time. Alauddin Khilji was a one time when most of India was under same flag, therefore, naturally, the Mongols lost.
Even the British suffered many military defeats. British agents were already in India from early 1500s, people like Sir Thomas Roe served in Akbar's Mughal court. The British had watched and waited patiently for the perfect opportunity for centuries. They had seen the first Mughal Babur destroy Ibrahim Lodi. They had seen Sher Shah and Hemu putting the second Mughal Humayun to flight. They had seen Akbar reinstating the Mughal empire by crushing Sher Shah and Hemu.
The British in fact, once tried to act smart with Aurangzeb. Aurangzeb was one of the biggest Islamic tyrants the world has ever known, official sources (the encyclopaedia of world genocides posted on Middle East forum, very good scholarly work) he killed 2.5 million Hindus. His Talibanism estranged many of the patriotic Hindu citizens of Mughal India, and specifically practically broke up the Mughal alliance with the Rajputana confederacy. The British thought they could capitalize on this civil war, but got their asses handed to them by Aurangzeb in 1707.
But when the enemy is prepared to take any loss because the dream of conquering India is much more appealing, the Indians have little choice but constant vigilance. The success rate of all invaders, when compared to the failed attempts, is meagre. However, at any given time, there were a whole bunch of invader groups and internal turmoil, therefore, India has become the home of many that can trace some of their lineage to outside.
Harry:
"Punjab has always been taken as a homogenous population.
...
I take the whole of population as thorously mixed with a bit of everything."
Nowhere in that article was it claimed that Punjab's population is pure Saka. I did not quote the part where it says that today there is no distinction between a Rajput or a Jatt or anybody else.
The article only talks of what happened to SAKA people in the areas which are now Pakistan. [b]Isn't it what the topic is about?[/b]
This topic is not about Punjab's population composition, it is about Saka people.
---
Harry:
"And there was no Pakistan at this point."
There was no India either.
Harry:
" THese geocites have very low crediblity."
You did not disprove anything written on that website. Just because you don't like the facts, does not make those facts the fiction.
Harry:
" try sites like apnaorg.com or something to that level."
Anything written on a sikh side is to believed wholeheartedly. Right Harry Singh?
Amen to that.
Harry:
"And it better if stated sakas settled in Punjab, Sindh, Kashmir and what not, rather than Pakistan. "
All these areas include Pakistan.
Zulfiqar, you are attempting to do the impossible. Pakistan has only one definition, that is a refuge for Muslims of the sub-continent of India.
It is only coincidental that the borders of Pakistan fall over the north-western part of the sub-continent, where you can see a gradual mixture with foreign ethnicities. But this is not enough to proclaim that Pakistanis are different from Indians in this aspect as well. Pakistan is not Sakastan as well, stop trying to prove that Pakistan is not simply different from India religio-politically, but also ethnically and racially, because it is not.
For all you know, Pakistan could have been in Uttar Pradesh/Bihar area, in the Gangetic plain, in the heart of Hindustan. Secessionist tendencies were stronger amongst Muslims where they were in minority like in Hindu-majority Hindustan, than in say Muslim-majority Punjab or Sindh or Kashmir. In 1946 elections, the Congress handsomely defeated the Muslim League in NWFP and Balochistan, and beat Muslim League in Punjab in a coalition with the Muslim Unionist party. The Muslims of Muslim-majority part were happy with being in India, because they knew they would dominate in their areas anyway, like Muslims dominate the government of Jammu and Kashmir state. If you were in Hindustan area, then what would you say? That Pakistanis are different from the Indians because they are "Sino-Tibetan" given that UP borders the Himalayas.
Again, usual Islamic tendency of imposing itself on issues which have no connection with the faith, such as NATIONAL IDENTITY, race, ethnicity, etc.
Quote:Harry:
" THese geocites have very low crediblity."
You did not disprove anything written on that website. Just because you don't like the facts, does not make those facts the fiction.
Harry:
" try sites like apnaorg.com or something to that level."
Anything written on a sikh side is to believed wholeheartedly. Right Harry Singh?
Amen to that.
Harry:
"And it better if stated sakas settled in Punjab, Sindh, Kashmir and what not, rather than Pakistan. "
All these areas include Pakistan.
THe website you provied seem to indicate only the area that is pakistan today was settled by Sakas, while areas such as Gujrat, Rajastan are left out. And it rambled on out the the origin of the Punjabi population, which you obiously have no idea of.
Come on now, already jumping to religous lines, did you even visit apnaorg.com, Its a site run by a Pakistani Punjabi Muslim but is on the Punjabi language, History and culture. Please double check for future reference on remarks you make. And should even visit their forum section and article sections, you ill find the disgruntled Punjabi Intellectua of Pakistan against the Pakistan government. All so for your referenc. Apna is the most visited "Desi" site on the net.
I haven't read the whole reply. Just commenting on the first para.
"But this is not enough to proclaim that Pakistanis are different from Indians in this aspect as well."
Pakistan is not Sakastan as well,"
No. Pakistanis are not Sakas. They are mix of many races. Sakas were one of them. And not all Pakistanis. It was only about Punjabis.
"stop trying to prove that Pakistan is not simply different from India religio-politically, but also ethnically and racially, because it is not"
Not just Pakistanis are different from Indians, religiously, historically, and geographically, but even the Indians are different on all these accounts THEMSELVES.
India is an artificial country united as one. India has never existed in history.
Please try to understand that I was not starting any debate about India. I don't know why Indians think I was trying to downplay their country. I was not.
The thread was about Saka people, and I shared my knowledge about them in Pakistan. What's so offensive about it?
I don't think about India all the time. Indians should give themselves a break as well.
Quote:India is an artificial country united as one. India has never existed in history.
And you claim that you want no flames??
Anyway, India has been known by many names, and its English name is India. And India has always existed, its not an artificial country or an abstract concept. It has been forever, disunited at times, perhaps, but also strong and unifed; and always be there. It won't be long when Pakistan is clensed of its sins and reunited to achieve Nirvana
-----------------------------------
17th century India, The Masters of the Oceans...
Well, India really has never existed as one country. There is nothing which defines being 'Indian'.
And I don't want to start flames by saying this. This is what reality is. If you disagree then disprove it. But you can not abuse Pakistan just because you can not disprove it.
---
Again. This thread was about Sakas. And I shared Sakas' history in Pakistan. There was no India-Pakistan issue there. Let's keep this thread clean.
I won't reply to any abuses or attempts to cause hatred here. If people start abusing then I will be the first person to leave.
I would rather accept my defeat then to abuse.
"CENTRAL EUROPE
- The area of Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and Hungary all has signs if ancient Vedic influence. Term Czech is from the term "shak' an ancient clan of Kshatriyas who as a branch of Daitya clan administered parts if Europe.
The Saxena of India, Saxons of Europe and Anglo-Saxons of Britain are part of the same stock.
Consequently the term Czechoslovakia is Sanskrit of Shakaslavakiya. Slavak is another ancient sub-clan.
- The Slav language also has many similarities with Sanskrit. Like agni (fire), Malka (meaning mallika) meaning mother, sestra is sister, brat is brother, syn is son, nos is nose, dam (dham) is house. Many of the personal names are also Sanskrit such as Sudhakant, Asha, Meenakshi and Ramkali.
In Scopte, a city in Yugoslavia there live over 50,000 Ramas, or families with names referring to Vedic connections.
- Slavak festival falling in January 13/14, known in Punjab of North India as Lodi and also as Sankranti, is almost the same as the "Loda" of Slavs.
Slavs celebrate the end of winter in the spring by building a bonfire. Peasants dance and sing songs to Loda, the goddess of spring and festivity.
The Christians have since changed the name to Butter Week. This is another indication of how the Christians have tried to place their identity on age old Vedic festivals to make them look deceptively Christian. Mr. Oak says The Slavs were forced into Christianity and to abandon Vedic culture in the 9th century. "For a long time Christianity suffered to exist. However, Vladimir, the Charemagne of Russia (who became king in 980 A.D.) proclaimed Christianity as the state religion by himself toppling a statue of the Vedic deity Varun, alias Parun. Then all Temples and Schools were turned to Christian Churches and monasteries. And Vladimir was changed to Wassily on being baptised.
- Hungary was shringeri, implying Scenic. Just like in Sindhu and Hindu the "S" and "H" is interchanged.
- Budapest was Buddhaprastha, meaning holy city of Buddha.
- In Bulgaria we find the dictionary replete with Sanskrit words. When the Indian Embassy, Bulgaria, informed Bulgarian government of this, they promptly set up courses in Sanskrit in numerous schools. During the Indian film festival organised in Bulgaria it was found that the audiences could easily understand Sanskrit words in the dialogue. "
Genetics: About 50% of Slavs and Balts,and about 30% of Central Europeans share the same Y chromosome (R1a) with 50% of the people of the Indus Valley.
The Sakas were an Iranic people and the Saxons a Germanic people. The Saxons never originated from the Steppes.
The similarity is that they are both Indo-Europeans.
As for Slavs being Indic, that's completely false. The linguistic similarities come from the fact that the Slavic languages are more closely related to Iranic and Indo-Aryan languages than to western European ones.
As for the Saka, Although they spoke an Iranic tongue and followed Iranic clutural and religious practices, they had more Altaic blood in them and thus probably looked like the people of Badakhshan in northern Afghanistan who are probably the best example of a mixture of Altaic and Iranic bloodlines.
"Who are the rulers of the lands beyond Guraiz and Burzil? The Darada Rajas."
The Rajatarangini
This is what some beleive whether it is true or bull**** I dont know !
The Saxons can trace their descent back to Isaac, the son of Abraham. This name was chosen by God for this very special child, the child of Abraham’s old age - Genesis 17:19. The name means laughter - Genesis 21:6.
Isaac was born after his parents were past the normal age for bearing a child. He was born for a special purpose; he was a spiritual child. He was a willing sacrifice when his father offered him upon the altar - thus an early type of Christ.
Abraham was told that his seed were to be named in Isaac - Genesis 21:12. For this reason, we find modern Israel called Saxons and Anglo Saxons and not Israelites. The word Israel means ruled by God. Until we become worthy of this high title we shall not be permitted to use the name. It must be remembered that spurious Israel bears the name today - (See Ezekiel 11:15; Isaiah 48:1, 2;) Isaac was given all the covenants that God conferred upon Abraham and all the blessings have continued with his descendants.
Later, when the Northern house of Israel was released from captivity to Assyria, she began her long trek across Europe. During this journey she was known by different names. The Phoenician name for them was BethSak the house of Isaac. They were known as Sakai, Sacae, Sak-Geloths, Saki, Saghs. The Behistun Rock mentions the Saki. On page 126 of “Tracing Our Ancestors,” Haberman states, “When Israel disappeared from the pages of history, the Anglo Saxons and the Goths were born.” (For anyone wishing to make a study of these people, chapter XI of this book is very valuable.)
The KKK believes that whites are the ancient tribe of Israel.
Mormons also have some weird belief, that the native Americans are also ancient tribes of Israel, but then they became pagan and God turned their skin black. There were these Mormons bothering me for days trying to convert me, what a victory it would be for them, get this mullah-looking guy with foreign accent into Mormon church. I finally gave in one day, and told them to give me their Bible, that I will read it and tell them later.
So later that day, I start reading a random page (these things don't really matter if you go in order) and I read this $hit first. Bad impression man. Next time I saw them, I returned it and said no thank you, I left that part highlighted, wonder if they ever found it, lol.
I had a bad experience with Islam too. My friend has a copy of the "Glorious" Quran in his house, so I was like let me read this. I open a random page in the middle, and first thing I read is that anyone that challenges the "Truth" as given to the prophet through gabriel by allah and even thinks that there is an alternate truth is deemed heretic. I was like, so much for freedom of thought. And I also realized that if Islam is so extremist at its heart, then all this Sufism, or India's "composite nationalism" which says "all ways reach the one and same allah" aren't Islamic at all.
