Scythian (Skythian) : Etymology

M

moar

Banned
>>


http://www.livius.org/sao-sd/scythians/scythians.html suggests:


"The first to describe the life style of these tribes was a Greek researcher, Herodotus, who lived in the fifth century BCE. Although he concentrates on the tribes living in modern Ukraine, which he calls Scythians, we may extrapolate his description to people in Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and possibly Mongolia, even though Herodotus usually calls these eastern nomads 'Sacae'. In fact, just as the Scythians and the Sacae shared the same life style, they had the same name: in their own language, which belonged to the Indo-Iranian family, they called themselves Skudat ('archers'?). The Persians rendered this name as Sakâ and the Greeks as Skythai. The Chinese called them, at a later stage in history, Sai.


<<




See also:


(1) Scythians : http://www.jatland.com/home/Scythians

(2) Indo-Scythians : http://www.jatland.com/home/Indo-Scythians
 
Last edited:
.
First of all, why do we need to rely on false Western theories which only mislead us. Jat race is purely of Indian (Aryan) origin. It is also a fact that some of our ancestors left India and resided in far-off places. Some of them, after thousands of years, came back to India (Western scholars call them 'Scythians', 'Saka', 'Gaete', 'Skythai' etc.) So, it does not mean that their origin was from Western part or Central Asia etc.

Thakur Deshraj writes:

.....बौद्ध-काल में तथा बौद्ध-काल के बाद हिन्दू-काल में जातियों में इतना हेर-फेर हुआ कि वास्तव में जो जाति-समूह आगे थे वे पीछे और जो पीछे थे वे आगे हो गये। जहां कुछ समूह नितान्त लुप्त हो गये, वहां कुछ बिल्कुल नवीन पैदा भी हुए। क्रान्ति में होता भी ऐसा ही है। भारत में बौद्ध-धर्म का बहिष्कार एक महान् क्रान्ति के पश्चात् हुआ था। अर्जुन, शुंगमित्र, शशांक आदि हिन्दू राजाओं ने बौद्ध लोगों के साथ वैसे ही व्यवहार किये थे जैसे कि आगे उनके धर्म बन्धुओं के साथ मुसलमानों ने किये थे। हमें यहां उस रक्त-रंजित इतिहास की चर्चा नहीं करनी है जो धर्मान्धता में हिन्दू-नरेशों द्वारा बौद्ध लोगों के साथ, हिन्दू-पुजारी और आचार्यों के संकेत से बनाया गया था। हमें तो यह बताना है कि इन दो धार्मिक क्रान्तियों के बाद, आर्य जाति में इतना घपला हुआ कि आज इतिहासकारों के लिए यह बताना जटिल समस्या हो गई है कि अमुक जाति (उपजाति से अभिप्राय है) अमुक-वर्ण और अमुक-वंश से है। इस समस्या को विदेशी जातियों के भारत के आगमन और सम्मेलन ने और भी पेचीदा बना दिया है। शक, सीथियन, तुरष्क, कुषाण, तातार आदि विदेशी विजेता जाति-समूह भारत में आकर आबाद हुए और आज उनका कोई अलग अस्तित्व है नहीं? तब अवश्य ही भारत की जातियों में कुछ जातियां ऐसी हैं जो आर्य-नस्ल के सिवाय दूसरी नस्लें हैं। इसी आधार को लेकर कुछ विदेशी इतिहासज्ञों ने जाटों को भी राजपूत, मराठे और गूजरों के प्रसंग में शक, सीथियन और हूण आदि जातियों के उत्तराधिकारी साबित करने की व्यर्थ चेष्टा की है। ऐसे लोगों में मि. स्मिथ और उनके अनुयायियों को पहला नम्बर है। स्मिथ महोदय का अनुमान है कि '''विजेता हूणों में से जिनके पास राजशक्ति आ गई वे राजपूत और जो कृषि करने लग गये वे जाट और गूजर है।''' हम कहते हैं कि स्मिथ की यह धारणा जहां निर्मूल है, वहीं बगैर सोचे समझे और अनुसंधान किये हुए ही जल्दबाजी में बनाई हुई है।

......अतः यह अचम्भे की बात है कि इस सचाई के होते हुए भी कि प्रत्येक मनुष्य जो कि पंजाब के रहने वालों से पूरी जानकारी रखता है और जाट, गूजर एवं राजपूतों की मानव-तत्व अनुसन्धान की तुलना को देख लिया है कि वे स्पष्टतया सीथियन नहीं, आर्य हैं । तो भी अन्वेषकों ने आम तौर पर उनको सीथियन,गेटाई, यूची और खिजर न मालूम क्या-क्या होने के सिद्धान्त बना लिये हैं। यह भी निर्णय कर लिया है कि वे ऐतिहासिक काल में भारत में आये हैं। यही नहीं, अपितु सन् ईस्वी का भी बता दिया है। इस प्रकार के आ बसने के प्रमाण के लिए किंचित् भी ऐतिहासिक उल्लेख नहीं है। (उनका भारत में आने का न तो कोई विदेशी वर्णन ही है और न उनकी अपनी ही कोई दन्त-कथा ही है ताकि भारत में आने का उनका समय बताया जा सके। न ऐतिहासिक व शिलालेख के प्रमाण हैं) हम ऐसे सिद्धान्तों को देशी व यूरोपियन के दिमाग का केवल भ्रम ही कह सकते हैं, जो कि भारत की हर एक अच्छी और उत्साही जाति को विदेशी और सीथियन साबित करते हैं।

जाट न हूणों की संतान हैं और न शक सीथियनों की किन्तु वे विशुद्ध आर्य हैं। उपर के उद्धरण से यह पूर्णतया सिद्ध हो जाता है, किन्तु इससे भी अधिक गहरा उतरा जाए तो पता चलता है कि बेचारे हूणों और शकों के आक्रमणों का जब नाम निशान तक न था, तब जाट उस समय भी भारत में आबाद थे। '''पाणिनि''', जो कि ईसा से लगभग 900 वर्ष पहले हुआ है उसके व्याकरण (धातु पाठ) में '''जट शब्द''' आता है जिसके कि माने संघ के होते हैं। पंजाब में जाट की अपेक्षा '''जट''' अथवा '''जट्ट''' शब्द का प्रयोग अब तक होता है। अरबी यात्री अलबरूनी तो यहां तक लिखता है कि '''श्रीकृष्ण जाट थे'''। ऐसे प्रबल प्रमाणों के होते हुए भी जाटों को हूण लिखने वाले लेखकों ने अपने अन्वेषण कार्य की जल्दबाजी को ही प्रकट किया है।.....

.
 
Last edited:
Deswal ji has rightly seconded the theory of Indian origin of the Aryans [including the Jats therein] as propounded by Swami Dayanand, Prof. Sampurananad, Swami Omanand Sarswati and supported by Dr. K.R. Qanungo and Thakur Deshraj--the pioneer historians on the Jats. I agree with him that why we are so much under the spell of outsiders theory especially of the Western authors to prove ourselves of foreign product. Do we the orientalists rise above our appetite to label everything foreign returned!

I may add here that to prove the whiteman's burden to civilise the inhabitants of the colonies, the imperialist tried to paint that India has always been under the grip of the people who were originally entered from North-western passes of Hindukush right from the times of the Aryan invasion! They also propounded the view that unhygenec atmosphere and uncongenial weather conditions continued to make its population lethargic, idle and good for nothing which invited fresh invaders like Iranian, Greek, Kushan (white hunas), Turks and Mughals to come, fight out and establish their hold over them. Their intention to inject this type of history was to prove their own racial superiority on the surmise that they had also came from colder Western region and were superior to Indians. So Kindly beware falling prey to this propaganda.
 
जाट जाति की उत्पत्ति के अनेक सिद्धान्त समय-समय पर इतिहासकारों द्वारा प्रतिपादित किये हैं. परन्तु कोई भी एक अकेला सिद्धांत इस जाति की उत्पत्ति को पूर्ण रूप से समझाने में असफल है. कृपया यहाँ पढ़ें -

[Wiki]Jat Jati Ki Utpatti Aur Vistar[/Wiki]

यह सब पढ़ कर हमें निष्कर्ष निकालना पड़ता है कि जाट जाति को केवल एक सिद्धांत से नहीं समझाया जा सकता. ठाकुर देशराज का यह सिद्धांत सही लगता है कि जाट एक संघ है. इस संघ में अनेक समूह समाहित हो गए. इससे यह भी सिद्ध होता है कि इस संघ की प्राचीन काल में बहुत लोकप्रियता थी.

यही कारण है कि जाट जाति में अब तक 3,565 जाट गोत्रों की जानकारी जाटलैंड पर संकलित की जा सकी है और यह वृद्धि निरंतर जारी है. ये जाट गोत्र अफगानिस्तान, पाकिस्तान और भारत में फैले हुए हैं. कृपया यहाँ पढ़ें -

[Wiki]Category:Jat Gotras[/Wiki]
 
Last edited:
dndeswal said:
.
First of all, why do we need to rely on false Western theories which only mislead us. Jat race is purely of Indian (Aryan) origin. It is also a fact that some of our ancestors left India and resided in far-off places. Some of them, after thousands of years, came back to India (Western scholars call them 'Scythians', 'Saka', 'Gaete', 'Skythai' etc.) So, it does not mean that their origin was from Western part or Central Asia etc.

Thakur Deshraj writes:

.....बौद्ध-काल में तथा बौद्ध-काल के बाद हिन्दू-काल में जातियों में इतना हेर-फेर हुआ कि वास्तव में जो जाति-समूह आगे थे वे पीछे और जो पीछे थे वे आगे हो गये। जहां कुछ समूह नितान्त लुप्त हो गये, वहां कुछ बिल्कुल नवीन पैदा भी हुए। क्रान्ति में होता भी ऐसा ही है। भारत में बौद्ध-धर्म का बहिष्कार एक महान् क्रान्ति के पश्चात् हुआ था। अर्जुन, शुंगमित्र, शशांक आदि हिन्दू राजाओं ने बौद्ध लोगों के साथ वैसे ही व्यवहार किये थे जैसे कि आगे उनके धर्म बन्धुओं के साथ मुसलमानों ने किये थे। हमें यहां उस रक्त-रंजित इतिहास की चर्चा नहीं करनी है जो धर्मान्धता में हिन्दू-नरेशों द्वारा बौद्ध लोगों के साथ, हिन्दू-पुजारी और आचार्यों के संकेत से बनाया गया था। हमें तो यह बताना है कि इन दो धार्मिक क्रान्तियों के बाद, आर्य जाति में इतना घपला हुआ कि आज इतिहासकारों के लिए यह बताना जटिल समस्या हो गई है कि अमुक जाति (उपजाति से अभिप्राय है) अमुक-वर्ण और अमुक-वंश से है। इस समस्या को विदेशी जातियों के भारत के आगमन और सम्मेलन ने और भी पेचीदा बना दिया है। शक, सीथियन, तुरष्क, कुषाण, तातार आदि विदेशी विजेता जाति-समूह भारत में आकर आबाद हुए और आज उनका कोई अलग अस्तित्व है नहीं? तब अवश्य ही भारत की जातियों में कुछ जातियां ऐसी हैं जो आर्य-नस्ल के सिवाय दूसरी नस्लें हैं। इसी आधार को लेकर कुछ विदेशी इतिहासज्ञों ने जाटों को भी राजपूत, मराठे और गूजरों के प्रसंग में शक, सीथियन और हूण आदि जातियों के उत्तराधिकारी साबित करने की व्यर्थ चेष्टा की है। ऐसे लोगों में मि. स्मिथ और उनके अनुयायियों को पहला नम्बर है। स्मिथ महोदय का अनुमान है कि '''विजेता हूणों में से जिनके पास राजशक्ति आ गई वे राजपूत और जो कृषि करने लग गये वे जाट और गूजर है।''' हम कहते हैं कि स्मिथ की यह धारणा जहां निर्मूल है, वहीं बगैर सोचे समझे और अनुसंधान किये हुए ही जल्दबाजी में बनाई हुई है।

......अतः यह अचम्भे की बात है कि इस सचाई के होते हुए भी कि प्रत्येक मनुष्य जो कि पंजाब के रहने वालों से पूरी जानकारी रखता है और जाट, गूजर एवं राजपूतों की मानव-तत्व अनुसन्धान की तुलना को देख लिया है कि वे स्पष्टतया सीथियन नहीं, आर्य हैं । तो भी अन्वेषकों ने आम तौर पर उनको सीथियन,गेटाई, यूची और खिजर न मालूम क्या-क्या होने के सिद्धान्त बना लिये हैं। यह भी निर्णय कर लिया है कि वे ऐतिहासिक काल में भारत में आये हैं। यही नहीं, अपितु सन् ईस्वी का भी बता दिया है। इस प्रकार के आ बसने के प्रमाण के लिए किंचित् भी ऐतिहासिक उल्लेख नहीं है। (उनका भारत में आने का न तो कोई विदेशी वर्णन ही है और न उनकी अपनी ही कोई दन्त-कथा ही है ताकि भारत में आने का उनका समय बताया जा सके। न ऐतिहासिक व शिलालेख के प्रमाण हैं) हम ऐसे सिद्धान्तों को देशी व यूरोपियन के दिमाग का केवल भ्रम ही कह सकते हैं, जो कि भारत की हर एक अच्छी और उत्साही जाति को विदेशी और सीथियन साबित करते हैं।

जाट न हूणों की संतान हैं और न शक सीथियनों की किन्तु वे विशुद्ध आर्य हैं। उपर के उद्धरण से यह पूर्णतया सिद्ध हो जाता है, किन्तु इससे भी अधिक गहरा उतरा जाए तो पता चलता है कि बेचारे हूणों और शकों के आक्रमणों का जब नाम निशान तक न था, तब जाट उस समय भी भारत में आबाद थे। '''पाणिनि''', जो कि ईसा से लगभग 900 वर्ष पहले हुआ है उसके व्याकरण (धातु पाठ) में '''जट शब्द''' आता है जिसके कि माने संघ के होते हैं। पंजाब में जाट की अपेक्षा '''जट''' अथवा '''जट्ट''' शब्द का प्रयोग अब तक होता है। अरबी यात्री अलबरूनी तो यहां तक लिखता है कि '''श्रीकृष्ण जाट थे'''। ऐसे प्रबल प्रमाणों के होते हुए भी जाटों को हूण लिखने वाले लेखकों ने अपने अन्वेषण कार्य की जल्दबाजी को ही प्रकट किया है।.....

.
Click to expand...

Deswal ji, It's not so easy as you have made it. You can not just quote one historian and claim jats to be of India's origin. Burdak ji has rightly said there are many theories of Jat's origin and none of them have got a universal acceptance yet. Undoubtedly, Jats have a strong scythian connection and many Indian and foreign historians have recognized that..though it is quite debatable that the people who entered in India as Scythian and Hunas were originally the Indian origin people who had settled in Central asia long before. Apart from this, Your another claim is also quite controversial, very less historians agree on the point that Arya people originated from India, widely accepted theory of Arya's origin is that they spread out from Modern Iran
 
Last edited:
DrRajpalSingh said:
Deswal ji has rightly seconded the theory of Indian origin of the Aryans [including the Jats therein] as propounded by Swami Dayanand, Prof. Sampurananad, Swami Omanand Sarswati and supported by Dr. K.R. Qanungo and Thakur Deshraj--the pioneer historians on the Jats. I agree with him that why we are so much under the spell of outsiders theory especially of the Western authors to prove ourselves of foreign product. Do we the orientalists rise above our appetite to label everything foreign returned!

I may add here that to prove the whiteman's burden to civilise the inhabitants of the colonies, the imperialist tried to paint that India has always been under the grip of the people who were originally entered from North-western passes of Hindukush right from the times of the Aryan invasion! They also propounded the view that unhygenec atmosphere and uncongenial weather conditions continued to make its population lethargic, idle and good for nothing which invited fresh invaders like Iranian, Greek, Kushan (white hunas), Turks and Mughals to come, fight out and establish their hold over them. Their intention to inject this type of history was to prove their own racial superiority on the surmise that they had also came from colder Western region and were superior to Indians. So Kindly beware falling prey to this propaganda.
Click to expand...

While the motives of western historians who attributed most historical discoveries in the subcontinent to outsiders rather than native India population is well understood, isnt it also fathomable that a large number of Indian historians in their efforts to reclaim history have sought to neglect out side influences?

As Prashanth posted, the origins of the aryans are still debatable and contradicting theories abound. So we must carefully weigh each theory and wait for more research before giving credence to one over the other.
 
Burdak ji has rightly pointed out that it is impossible to explain origin of Jats by any single theory.....It is because people could not understand the exact meaning of terms associated with Jat like ,yeuhzhi,saka,hun arya etc..

But I diagree with Burdak ji that Jat term was a sangh type thing ...I willl explain all this in my book but it will take sometime

However I would like our scholars to come out of the false notions like Aryans were originally Indians because you have every evidence both written and scientific to understand that Aryans came from outside.So late till Alexander invasion Greeks never called Indian as Aryans and Aryana was faraway near jaxartes than Ganga,for them Iranians were Aryans rather than Indians.Also term Jat is wider and ancient than Aryan and aryans were a part of them not vice vesa There is no pride in falsely associating ourselves with India if we came from outside .Infact our elders never knew boundaries that keep on changing and are man made not approved by God.This very urge of being native has destroyed our history and we are searching our roots here and there.Despite all that we are one of the oldest group that came and settled here long back but our waves kept on pouring from northwestern borders.

And yes Scythians were Jats no doubt over that.
 
Moar said:
* Genetic evidence suggests European migrants may have influenced the origins of India's caste system - Genome News Network : http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/05_01/Indo-European.shtml / http://www.jatland.com/forums/showt...ics-amp-European-migrants-Genome-News-Network

-----------!!
Click to expand...

Vice-verse may be the case; for, the author or the propound-er of this theory is himself not sure about validity of his statement. Please note ''may have influenced''.....

Thanks
 
Following are some of groups that we know that had influence in ancient times, with ancient boundaries of India that stretched to Hindu Kush:

i) Greeco-Bactrians and later Indo-greeks,
ii) Parthians,
iii) Kushans,
iv) While Huns

According to so called Scythian experts here, which of these groups can be labelled as Scythians. I exclude Saka here as they most likely are not foreign.
 
nrao said:
Following are some of groups that we know that had influence in ancient times, with ancient boundaries of India that stretched to Hindu Kush:

i) Greeco-Bactrians and later Indo-greeks,..............No
ii) Parthians,......................................................Yes
iii) Kushans,........................................................Yes
iv) While Huns......................................................Yes

According to so called Scythian experts here, which of these groups can be labelled as Scythians. I exclude Saka here as they most likely are not foreign.
Click to expand...

And Why you left Saka they to were Scythians Saka was just a persian name for them.


From your reply that Saka probably may not be foreign I can find basic problem with your approach towards scythians as you take them at places where they were reported by Greek authors like Herodotus ,who could have never moved to other places or came from a different place.Scythians were most mobile group in history with their swift horses.

The very fact that Saka were known as Scythians by Greeks should open your eyes to the fact that their identities were known by different names at different places and they had knocked at Indian doors long back.

Though you consider Parthian some different group but Greeks authors name their area in Indus as Scythia (Periplus of Eurythrian sea)Here you find Parthian station right in Scythia of Scythians ,Kushans came from a place that were known to have Scythian messagetae by other Greek authors.


PS
My reply to your post should not be treated as if some illusion by myself of being a Scythian or So called Scythian expert.
 
Last edited:
Parthians were known as Parthians only after they took Parthia otherwise they belonged to Arskes faily that ruled Bactria Ghandara regions of ancient India treating them foreigner will mean considering Panini also a foreigner than.
 
Ok. So that is 3 out of 4. Do you have any other group in mind other than these who had influence in ancient India and who were Scythians. I leave Saka out since they find mention in Mahabharat, not as a foreign group. I cannot provide the quotes as I do not have it with me right now but can dig it up or somebody else can provide it.

I consider Parthians as the only group that can be considered as Scythians.

Why do you put Kushans and White Huns as Scythians that have origin in present day China?
Do you think Jats existed in India before any of the above groups came anywhere close to India?


narenderkharb said:
And Why you left Saka they to were Scythians Saka was just a persian name for them.


From your reply that Saka probably may not be foreign I can find basic problem with your approach towards scythians as you take them at places where they were reported by Greek authors like Herodotus ,who could have never moved to other places or came from a different place.Scythians were most mobile group in history with their swift horses.

The very fact that Saka were known as Scythians by Greeks should open your eyes to the fact that their identities were known by different names at different places and they had knocked at Indian doors long back.

Though you consider Parthian some different group but Greeks authors name their area in Indus as Scythia (Periplus of Eurythrian sea)Here you find Parthian station right in Scythia of Scythians ,Kushans came from a place that were known to have Scythian messagetae by other Greek authors.


PS
My reply to your post should not be treated as if some illusion by myself of being a Scythian or So called Scythian expert.
Click to expand...
 
nrao said:
Why do you put Kushans and White Huns as Scythians that have origin in present day China?
Click to expand...



Chinese Turkestan or Xinjiang province of China which is considerded original place for Kushana was home place of IndoEuropians earlier Chinese moved quite late and their mixing resulted in later groups like uighurs.
Tochharians were Indo Europians could be varified from Toccharian mummies.Their language was Indo Europian and very similar to Punjabi in numerical sounding.Tochharians were later mentioned as Alanians who were recorded formerly messagetae by others who in turn were recorded Scythians.
nrao said:
Do you think Jats existed in India before any of the above groups came anywhere close to India?
Click to expand...



Yes.


In addition to Saka ,Parthva too have been mentioned many times in ancient literature but since we concur here so no argument.


I have other group in mind but that would be a diversion of the main topic .
 
Last edited:
nrao said:
Ok. So that is 3 out of 4. Do you have any other group in mind other than these who had influence in ancient India and who were Scythians. I leave Saka out since they find mention in Mahabharat, not as a foreign group. I cannot provide the quotes as I do not have it with me right now but can dig it up or somebody else can provide it.

I consider Parthians as the only group that can be considered as Scythians.

Why do you put Kushans and White Huns as Scythians that have origin in present day China?
Do you think Jats existed in India before any of the above groups came anywhere close to India?
Click to expand...

Yes. The names of various Jat clans as studied by various historians prove existence of the Jats in India to earlier periods of history than the advent of all those groups as mentioned in your post. For detailed bibliography, please visit JatLand Wiki Library section.

Thanks.
 
Skudat ('archers'?), Scythians, Sacae, Sakâ, Skythai, Sai - Gentlemen, Please Share Your Views that which of these Names was used by The People for Themselves 'or' You Believe none of them & any other Name that strikes Your mind (might well be the case) ?! Also, There is no doubt that MassaGetae ( Great Jats : www.jatland.com/forums/showthread.php?33913-Important-Scholars-who-identified-Jats-as-Massagetaeans ) have a lot to do with these Names, but how did Jats found Themselves being recorded in History by such these Names ?! I have a very limited grip over this topic but I am sure Dear Narender Kharb Sir & Dear Burdak Sir & Talented Members may have a lot of Knowledge to Share here !!




There is no doubt that MassaGetae (Great Jats) have a lot to do with these Names !!
 
Last edited:
We are in a process to Wikify book by H. W. Bellew titled - [Wiki]An Inquiry Into the Ethnography of Afghanistan/Page 26-50[/Wiki] which will be of great help in understanding Jat clans.

I quote from this book page-36:

Strabo says,

"Most of the Scythians, beginning from the Hyrkanian Sea, are called Dahai Skuthai, and those more to the east Massagetai and Sakai; the rest have the common appellation of Skythians, but each separate tribe has its peculiar name. The best known tribes are those who deprived the Greeks of Baktriana, the Arioi, Pasianoi, Tokharoi, and Sakarauloi, who came from the country beyond the Jaxartes, opposite the Sakai and Sogdianoi, and which country was also occupied by Sakai. Some tribes of the Dahai are surnamed Aparnoi, some Xanthioi, others Pissuroi. The Aparnoi approach nearest to Hyrkania and the Caspian Sea ; the others extend as far as the country opposite to Aria."
 
Moar said:
Skudat ('archers'?), Scythians, Sacae, Sakâ, Skythai, Sai - Gentlemen, Please Share Your Views that which of these Names was used by The People for Themselves 'or' You Believe none of them & any other Name that strikes Your mind (might well be the case) ?! Also, There is no doubt that MassaGetae ( Great Jats : www.jatland.com/forums/showthread.php?33913-Important-Scholars-who-identified-Jats-as-Massagetaeans ) have a lot to do with these Names, but how did Jats found Themselves being recorded in History by such these Names ?! I have a very limited grip over this topic but I am sure Dear Narender Kharb Sir & Dear Burdak Sir & Talented Members may have a lot of Knowledge to Share here !!




There is no doubt that MassaGetae (Great Jats) have a lot to do with these Names !!
Click to expand...

Saka saccae or sai all are one and same name denoting a title for these people .Scythian or Skythian was their other identity but they always called themselves Jat or a variation of this name as per the slang varing from region to region.However Skudat is an error here by historian as the real name was kshujat most probably a variation of original word Sujat .These Kshujats were later known as kjats and are known as kzaks today .derivation of Kzaks from Kjats is clearly known to Historian of kzakistan a territory of messagetae in earlier times.
 
lrburdak said:
We are in a process to Wikify book by H. W. Bellew titled - An Inquiry Into the Ethnography of Afghanistan/Page 26-50 which will be of great help in understanding Jat clans.

I quote from this book page-36"
Click to expand...

Burdak ji I read a book of H W Bellew from serindia section I would like our members to read a few lines of that book ....


CHAPTER III. ​
HISTORY OF K.dSHGHAR.*

By H. W. Bellew.



​
THE ancient history of this region, which constitutes no mean portion, as regards superficial extent at least, of that vast territory indicated by the comprehensive term Central Asia, is enveloped in the doubts of obscurity that surround all ancient history.

For several centuries anterior to the Christian era it formed part of the empire of swayed by a long line of Scythian Kings who are referred to a common
descent from the great family of Afr6syâb. Of the wealth, power, civilization and laws of this ancient and most remarkable people who figure in the early
records under the various Târt6,r, Chinese, Indian, and European appellations of Kinto Moey, Sai, Su, S6c6,, S6,kyâ, Xaca, Sacoe, Scythee, Tokh6ri, Yueichi, Yuchi, Yetoe, Getae, Jattah, Jath, Jat, Jotun, Gothi, Guti, Goths, Guttones, Massagetoe, Caucasians, Tentones, Venden, Vandals, Germans, &c., &c.


., and who are all_ classed under the generic appellation of Aryan from Ariavartha, the old Sanskrit name of the region now known as that group of mountain ranges concentrating in Hindû Kush—the Kohi K6f of Orientals, the Caucasus of occidentals—and recognized as the primæval abode or location of the-Caueasian stock-of- the Man *family, we have many historic records; but none more significant than the yet enduring consequences of their early foreign conquests from this cradle of their race extending from the valley of the Syhon on the west to the basin of Lake Balkash on the east. The successive irruptions of their vast colonizing hordes into northern and eastern Europe during the centuries just preceding and following the Christian era, as history teaches, thoroughly revolutionized the old form of society, and planted a new
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top