Re: Jat Kushans etc -perspectives and approaches
- Dear Ravi,
I am sorry that you had to go through this process. To be frankly, I
was (perhaps like David?), afraid that this could happen.
It is not only that names which sound the same, but also other
similar elements between totally dissimilar groups, which are
Dahiya, Joon, Dhillon, Pauria, have made an attempt to lay a
foundation for further research on Jat history. But their words are
not always gospel truths, especially not in the field of etymologies,
but an attempt to collect material in their own respects.
While Tod is one of the 'fathers' of the Jat-Getic-Guti-Goth-Yuezhi
connection, he is also the person who pointed out several times, in
his three-vulume-books, the intimate connection of the Yadu Vansha
and a majority of Jat sections, based on the Jaisalmer Annals of the
Bhattis. He obviously didn't understand this connection properly,
otherwise he would have refrained from the first connections.
I believe that Joon is perhaps the one who did understand this the
most, as he remarks "Jat is in fact only another name of Chandra
Vanshi branch of Aryans.." (History of the Jats, ch. 1 introduction)
The Jaisalmer Annals confirm the information of the local dynasties,
like the one of Dholpur, about an ancestor Shalivahana, and an
area "beyond the Five Rivers". This is clearly a hint towards
Zabulistan (Jabal) and the capital Gajni (named after Gaja or
Gajasimha I Yadava), where the ancestors of the later two major
groups, the Bhatti and Janjua Yadavas, were ruling and to which many
Jat groups and their traditions are connected: Por, Mor, Tor, Bais,
etc. are all in the Yadu, especially Bhatti lineages [in one lineage
of Bhattis, according to the Kapurthala traditions, we come across
Chauhan (not the same as the Chahamanas), Manj and Mann sections.]
Almost all other Yadu and Jat groups related to the (pre-)Shalivahana
sections, on the other side of the Indus, became Muslims, of which
the Jats were known as Zotts to the Arabs.
But what even Tod forgets, is that the Yadus according to their own
traditions, are being located before the Zabulistan period in the
more eastern Marusthali area in the subcontinent, and before that in
Gujarat upto Mathura, areas where they are also traditionally
located. They give the names of the kings, the events and the
locations. And not really giving room to a Central-Asian (or NW)
--- In JatHistory@yahoogroups.com, "Ravi Chaudhary"
> David Watson had posted a message on the Kushana List.him.
> Here is my view:
> David Watson attempts a balanced response, and I am grateful to
> David is very right in suggesting that I have been influenced by my
> readings of various historians, and he has cited some of them. To
> extent many of us are influenced by what we read, and the quotedwork.
> authors are not the only ones I read or who have influenced me. On
> this very list, I am grateful to have access to Professor Sim's
> On authors like Wadell and Sayce. In fairness I have not had the
> opportunity to read either of them, so I cannot comment. Dr Abbas
> posted on the Jathistory list a link, to an online version of one
> of Waddel's books. I could not determine the methodology the
> Wadell used. (In other words I did not find Waddell quite convincingarcheological
> Sayce, I have no idea.
> Wadell about the turn of the last century also did some
> excavations at Patliputra (modern Patna ) where incidentally thanksnames
> to Prof. Sim's decipherment of the Rabatak inscription, we have
> confirmed that the Kushan Empire had spread that far and further.
> What is Wadell's archeological work like. Is that also bunkum ?
> ON SIMILAR SOUNDING WORDS:
> Dahiya, Joon, Pauria etc follow caln names, which are proper nouns,
> genenerally handed down form father to son and so on.
> They are tracing clan names, and finding similar sounding clan
> dispersed across a vast geographical territory connect them. Isthat
> faulty methodology?then
> Stewarts in Scotland or Stewarts in Canada are still connected,
> why can other clans names not indicate a connectedness of people?sound
> And quite naturally I for one would expect the clan's names to
> similar, if they are connected.They
> ON THE CONNECTON BETWEEN: GUTI, GETAE, MASSAGETAE, JATS, and GUTIA
> Yes, DW is correct that the Jat Historians connect these names.
> are not the only ones.and
> What is incorrect to claim, that since they are not linguists by
> DW 's standards, and hence must be wrong.
> The Rumanian scholars are also taking an interest in linguistics,
> it is not clear to me that they are accepting the orthodox line,e.g.
> on the sound changes on the G and J especially.letter,
> I gather, that the Greek language did not have the J sound or
> and G was substituted instead.finally
> So we find a written G, where one would have expected a J.
> If a modern linguists reading archaic Greek, and seeing a G, will
> pronounce a G as in "GO". But he cannot with any certainty assert
> that it should not have been sounded as a " JO" -"Joe"
> There is also the little matter of this word sounded in the Greek
> era, how it was transmitted to the recorder, and how it was
> recorded by the recorder, and how it was finally deciphered bysome "
> historian" 2000 years later.reading,
> These are little problems that make the study of all this quite
> Frankly I am not claiming anything. I am following what I am
> from various historians, and in my own manner trying to logicallya
> connect some data together.
> There is very little doubt that the "Kushans" and let us stay with
> that nomenclature for now, had an empire that spread from Central
> Asia all the way to the eastern part of India and well into the
> central India.
> There is fair certainly that it did spread at least to Mathura/
> Agra/Delhi, which would fall in the centre. Kaniska's statue was
> been found there and is still there in the local museum.- worth the
> visit, if one has the opportunity.
> There we find a number of Jat clans who trace their lineage back to
> the " Kushans".
> Their own traditions have been preserved, in part, because they
> managed to maintain a cohesive society, a republican society, where
> clan lineage, linkage was quite important to their identity.
> The society was republican, governed by the council of five, at the
> village level, and right upto a confederacy of 84 villages, called
> Khap, and then across a geographical territory or many such unitsof
> For example the Haryana Sarv khap, based in Western UP, 150 miles
> North of Delhi, governed a territory from the Sutlej river in the
> Punjab to the Chambal river in Central India to Western Uttar
> Pradesh ( now west of Delhi) , and this lasted in one form or
> from 600 CE to 1857 CE.simply
> It was formed by Harshvardhan in 606 CE, by uniting the smaller
> individual Khaps or confederacies.
> All these clans/Khaps,had their system of clan genealogists, whose
> duty it was to records clan history and genealogy.
> Many of their traditions point to Afghanistan
> Much historical information was lost in the warfare and turmoil of
> the last 2000 years, but is someone suggesting that we should
> ignore these historical traditions? And simply stay with what wecan
> glean from some coins, or Greek accounts.14th
> If they did exist in Afghanistan, Bactria etc, and came into the
> Indian subcontinent, is it unreasonable to expect that they would
> have gone in other directions as well?
> The term "jatah" stayed in central Asia, and is attested in the
> century by Timur Lane, also known as Timur, or Timur Lung, for heran
> into the Jats there who offered him some not inconsiderablemade
> The if a historians sees a term that can be read at Jat, Jut, Gut,
> Guti, Gutai in Afghanistan, is the inference of connection being
> so unreasonable?about
> Unlike some historians I do not distinguish surgically between the
> Sakas, the Massagetae, the Huns. There is a broader connection
> between them and in one form or another many clans /tribes of them
> and the Jats are in common.
> CONDITIONING AND BIASES - On DW's comment ,that I am concerned
> historians of various Ilk's and backgrounds.we
> History unlike a Science like Physics, is not a hard science that
> lends itself to repeatable provable experiments.
> Much of it is opinions (or views).
> All of us are shaped by the cultural inputs we received as we grew
> up, the games we played, the social norms that were followed, what
> were taught in school and the professors who taught us inUniversity.
> I call this " Bias".
> It is not good bias or bad bias, it is simply a bias, and it is not
> bias that can be shaken off that easily.and
> In fields like social studies and history this " Bias" comes to the
> The 1857 event in India is a mutiny to an English Historian of the
> times; it was the first war of liberation to the Indian populace
> the Indian recorders. For one Indian view I posted some views fromgoing
> the Indian perspective, and while digressing, those who are
> interested can go to:
> Now some historian who is steeped in the " Mutiny " version is
> to cry " Bunkum, Bunkum"recorded
> In historical and social texts, it is common to find the historian
> adding his slant.
> One has to recognize it when it occurs,
> DW's comments about Muslim Historians.
> The Muslim period in Indian History saw much of the History
> by Muslim Historians, starting with the early Arab accounts. Elliotis
> and Dowson did a rather good job in bringing together the various
> versions of the manuscripts.
> In many of these accounts the Jats are treated unflatteringly. It
> also correct to say that the much of the resistance in the North tosuccessful,
> the Islamic wave was from the Jats. The Jat traditions are often in
> opposition to what the Muslim Historians have written or to those
> versions, which other historians have written and uncritically
> Two events which may serve an examples:
> 1) The raid of Timur on India -. Conventional view: very
> he looted, plundered, came away unscathed.not
> 2) Jat version: he was harassed and chased away.
> Re the famous Mahmud of Ghazni, where historians account of his
> supposed 17th expedition is shown to be wrong
> The same for what DW calls "Brahmin" historians.
> Indian history has been portrayed, as a social history of the four-
> fold caste system, an unbroken tradition from the Rig-Veda down
> (circa 1500 BCE conventional dating).
> Well my investigations do not accept this view and yes, a Jat
> perspective is presented.
> If the Rig-Veda, shows that over 60 clans mentioned are Jat clans,
> and many rishis composers are Jats, then I would expect Indian
> historians to bring out this feature.
> Yet we do not find it, one is led to wonder why?
> To the Western Historian, who came into India, the brahminical
> literature was the prime source of information.
> So when I see a western Historian writing, he is more often than
> writing on the basis of information, which he has received, and ifhe
> is gong to be critical of it, it will only be after an immenseopportunity
> learning curve has been gone though, and hen ha shad the
> to go through other views and accounts.there
> That would require quite some motivation.
> What DW is correct is on that I am bringing together Jat related
> material on the Jathistory site, and he has been quite helpful
> on bringing a critical perspective as have John Piscopo and others.can
> Note what I am saying, this is RAW material, and as I run into more
> and more, I will bring it out, so that others who are interested
> use the material for their research.be
> It is possible all that is written about the Jats traditions will
> debunked, well so be it.
> We will all be better educated for that.
> But there will some critical analysis, and new thought processes,
> which will lead to that debunking if that is going to be the case.