The Turushka

Aug 2013
298
Germany
#1
The Turushka (Sanskrit: तुरुष्क turuṣka; also Turuška, Turushaka, Turuksha, Tushkara or Turukha) were the people of Turkistan. In Sanskrit and Persian sources they are known as the Indo-Scythians[1] or Turks,[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] who, under Kanishka and other kings of the people, held Northern India.[1] Generally, Turushka, a Sanskritized form of Turk,[11] is used as an ethnic term for people from central Asia.[12] The Tamil word Tulukkan, denoting "Muslim", is in correspondence with Sanskrit Turushka.[13] Sanskrit Turushka can also denote for Turan or Turkistan.

The Turkish Shahi rulers (Kābulshāhs or 'Turk-Shāhi') of north-west India, which were identified as 'Turks' in the Arab conquest literature,[15] claimed Kushana ancestry, a circumstance which would suggest that they could be seen as representing a certain historical continuity linked to central Asia.[12] In the chronicle of Kashmir, also known as Rājataraṃgiṇī, there are recorded three Kushan king names, Hushka, Jushka and Kanishka, which were members of the Turkic Turushka tribe.[16][17] In Kashmir we do hear about Turks and Turushkas until the period of the Ghaznavids in the 11th and 12th centuries.[15] Kalhana, the author of Rajatarangini, comments on certain Mleccha customs that the kings of Kashmir allegedly adopted from the Turks, such as the iconoclasm of 'Harsharājaturushka' and the keeping of excessively large seraglios of women.[15] The Turkish Shāhi dynasty continued up to the late 9th century, when it was replaced by Brahman dynasty of the same title. Names of apparent Turkish origin, such as Toramāna, survived even among these Hindu 'Shāhi' king.[18] 'The Turushkas', states the Pṛthivirāja-vijaya (S. VI), 'came across the desert (marusthali); by the time they reached the Cāhamāna dominions they were so thirsty that according to Jonarāja they had to drink the blood of their horses'.[19] It is also supposed that many Turushka horsemen in the army of Deva Raya II were possibly of Turkic origin.[20] There are three main conditions supporting the Turkic identity of the Turushkas:[21]

the rulers of the Kushana were called "Turushka".
various Turkic tribes are referred to as "Turushka".
the dress of the Turushka resembles to that of the Göktürks.
Hence, it is supposed that among the Kushana, the ruling tribes are believed to be mainly of Turkic stock, closely related to the ruling caste of the Turkic Kengeres tribes.[21][22]

In a 13th-century Sanskrit text, it is mentioned that Turushka (Turkic) costumes tended to cover the body from the neck to the feet.[23] In addition, the Persian historian Al-Biruni reports that Kanishka, a descendant of the Turk family called "Shahiya", was dressed in Turkish manner, a short tunic open in front, a high hat, boots and arms.[24] The physical traits of the Turushka Kushana depicted on coins may reflect Turkic or Mongoloid origins (see Turanid race).[25] It is also mentioned in Hemachandra's Abithana Chintamani (959) that the Turks were also called Sakhas: "Turushkas tu Sakhayah syuh".[5][26]

A Kushan Tamga also seems to be connected with that of a Göktürk tribe called «Ta-A-she-tê» by the Chinese.[27]

Name

The original form of Turukha or Turuška is most likely traceable to the Turkic-Altaic ethnonym Türk or Türük.[28][29][30] Turushka can also serve for the designation of the Kushana or Indo-Scythians.[31] J. Marquardt, Zeki V. Togan and Berthold Laufer postulate the same Turkic etymology.[31][32][33] The name "Turuška" also occurs in Ancient Egypt around 1400 BC.[34]


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turushka
 
Mar 2013
410
India
#5
Kushans were the Yue-Chih who were driven off from western China/Central Asia. They are probably the same as the Tatars of today.

Hepthalites/Hunas were a different Turkic branch. Their leader Mihirkula established his base in Kashmir and majority of the Kashmiris are of Hepthalite origin (thus their prominent Caucasian appearance compared to even the Afghans).

Sakas/Scythians were a "Persian" tribe and the Jats and possibly Gujjars are their descendants. From these early Scythians/Gujjars also descended the Gurjara-Pratiharas and later the "Rajputs".

Majority of the population of North Western India are "Turkic" in origin, NOT Aryan, as previously thought. In fact, the Indo-Aryans were driven off to the Southern and Eastern regions by the Turkic tribes where they established their Brahmanic culture (Brahmanism is in most orthodox and primitive form can be found in South India and Bengal). It is well recorded in the Puranas themselves that the Turkic tribes of Kushans, Huns etc invaded as far as Malwa.

The modern Rajputs, Khatris and other Caucasians of North Western India are Turkic, not Indo-Aryan. Therefore, the purest Aryans of India are the Parsis and Brahmins and Jats. The Thakurs, Rajputs, Gujjars etc who comprise of about 50% of the population of North Western India are Turkic tribes.


It is true that Indo-Aryans established the Haryana-Punjab region as the seat of Brahmanic culture, but it was later shifted South, especially in Tamil Nadu and Kerala, due to the invasion by these Jats, Gujjars etc who did not give them the respect which they felt entitled to. From there, the Brahmins migrated in masses towards Bengal to form another center of Brahmanism (Sena dynasty).
 
Jun 2014
4,516
India
#6
Kushans were the Yue-Chih who were driven off from western China/Central Asia. They are probably the same as the Tatars of today.
Tatars are different, they are Turkic, Kushanas were Iranic, all their inscriptions are in Iranic and they show Iranic deities on their coins, no Turks in Central Asia before 500AD.


Hepthalites/Hunas were a different Turkic branch. Their leader Mihirkula established his base in Kashmir and majority of the Kashmiris are of Hepthalite origin (thus their prominent Caucasian appearance compared to even the Afghans).
Character of Hephtalites is still in debate and here you are again mistaken.
Mihirkula is itself an Iranic name, and Kashmiris are not of Hephtalite origin, Kashmiri language is Indo Aryan not Turkic. Are you telling us that Huns settled in Kashmir, changed entire population and then gave up their language? Also, how many Kashmiris have you seen? Many do not look like Afghans and those who do are earliest IndoAryans along with some Muslim foreign groups.


Sakas/Scythians were a "Persian" tribe and the Jats and possibly Gujjars are their descendants. From these early Scythians/Gujjars also descended the Gurjara-Pratiharas and later the "Rajputs".
Sakas were Iranic not Persian( there is difference but you are not aware, all persians are Iranic but all Iranic are not Persians) and they have no role in formation of Rajputs. Sakas were eliminated by 400AD and Rajputs did not emerge before 600AD . Gurjars are a pastoral community who speak an IndoAryan Language called gujjari.

Majority of the population of North Western India are "Turkic" in origin, NOT Aryan, as previously thought.
Even Turk nationalists have not claimed this:)

In fact, the Indo-Aryans were driven off to the Southern and Eastern regions by the Turkic tribes where they established their Brahmanic culture (Brahmanism is in most orthodox and primitive form can be found in South India and Bengal)
There were no Turkic tribes and all invaders became brahmanic very soon so I do not know what you are talking about. If IndoAryans were driven off to south, how the region is full of IndoAryan speakers, are you telling me that Turks made them learn this?

It is well recorded in the Puranas themselves that the Turkic tribes of Kushans, Huns etc invaded as far as Malwa.
Puranas are inreliable and invasion means nothing. India was also invaded by British, are Indians British then?


The modern Rajputs, Khatris and other Caucasians of North Western India are Turkic, not Indo-Aryan.
Turks were mongoloid. Khatris are IndoAryan by langauge so no chance that they are of turkic origin.

Therefore, the purest Aryans of India are the Parsis and Brahmins and Jats.
Parsis are from Persia who mixed a lot with Arabs. People with caucasian features in India who are specimens of IndoAryan settlers are Jats and Khatris( most of bollywood is khatri), Brahmins of Haryana are not that caucasian.


The Thakurs, Rajputs, Gujjars etc who comprise of about 50% of the population of North Western India are Turkic tribes.
And dalits are African tribes.:) What nonsense is this? Are you aware that Turks were mongolid who imposed their language on Armenian and Greeks who now have become Turks? Show me a single Gujjar who is mongoloid.

It is true that Indo-Aryans established the Haryana-Punjab region as the seat of Brahmanic culture, but it was later shifted South, especially in Tamil Nadu and Kerala, due to the invasion by these Jats, Gujjars etc who did not give them the respect which they felt entitled to. From there, the Brahmins migrated in masses towards Bengal to form another center of Brahmanism (Sena dynasty)
Pure crap. There were no Jats in Haryana before 11th century and Jats were nothing but an untouchable group which later became powerful, brahmins did not migrate en masse to south or Bengal. Percentage wise, there are more brahmins in Haryana than in Tamil Nadu.
 
Aug 2013
298
Germany
#8
Also claim Homer and Iranian freedom fighter Baibek as Turk. Kushanas were Iranic and quoting wiki which based its article on old colonial stupid theories will not change this.
I never claimed that Homer and Baibek were Turks. It's not wrong to say that some Kushan emperors like Kanishka were Turushkas though the lingua franca of the Kushan empire was Bactrian an Eastern Iranian language. The Yuezhi spoke an extinct Indo-European language but not Iranic although I believe that the Yuehzi were a mixed Indo-European and Turkic horde who used the Indo-Euopean language as communication

Kanishka (Kanishka the Great), (Sanskrit: कनिष्क, Bactrian language: Κανηϸκι, Middle Chinese: 迦腻色伽 (Ka-ni-sak-ka > New Chinese: Jianisejia)) was a Turushka (or Turko-Tatar) emperor[1] of the Kushan dynasty (127–151) who ruled an empire extending from Turfan in the Tarim Basin to Pataliputra on the Gangetic plain and famous for his military, political, and spiritual achievements. His main capital was at Purushpura (Peshawar in present-day Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan) with regional capitals at the location of present-day Bagram in Afghanistan and Mathura in India.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanishka


The Kushans were one of five branches of the Yuezhi confederation,[6][7] a possibly Iranian[8] or Tocharian,[9] Indo-European[10] nomadic people who had migrated from the Tarim Basin and settled in ancient Bactria.[7] Some of the Kushan kings, amongst which Kanishka, had a Turushka origin.[2][11] During the 1st and early 2nd centuries CE, the Kushans expanded across the northern parts of the Indian subcontinent at least as far as Saketa and Sarnath near Varanasi (Benares), where inscriptions have been found dating to the era of the Kushan emperor Kanishka, which began about 127 CE [12][13][14] Around 152 CE, Kanishka sent his armies north of the Karakoram mountains. They captured territories as far as Kashgar, Khotan and Yarkant, in the Tarim Basin of modern-day Xinjiang, China. A direct road from Gandhara to China was opened which remained under Kushan control for more than 100 years. The security offered by the Kushans encouraged travel across the Khunjerab Pass and facilitated the spread of Mahayana Buddhism to China.


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kushana
 
Last edited:
Jun 2014
4,516
India
#9
I never claimed that Homer and Baibek were Turks.
Sorry then but I have seen it myself with some people changing name of that Iranian as Bay Beg.:)


It's not wrong to say that some Kushan emperors like Kanishka were Turushkas though the lingua franca of the Kushan empire was Bactrian an Eastern Iranian language.
I will come later on this term Turuskha, Kushans used Bactrian after they invaded Bactria, before that they spoke perhaps Saka language.


The Yuezhi spoke an extinct Indo-European language but not Iranic although I believe that the Yuehzi were a mixed Indo-European and Turkic horde who used the Indo-Euopean language as communication
Scholarship is divided on this, many believe Yuezhi were Tocharians by language and many think they were speakers of saka. Please, I request you to tell us how you arrive at conclusion that they were mix of Turkic and IE tribes, anyway, if they spoke IE then they were IE or Iranic. Race does not matter, a Turk from Turkey looks more similar to Armenian but is closer to Uzbek by bonds of language.


Now let me explain this thing about Turushka.
Scholars initially classified a language known to us from Chinese Turkestan through its Indic script as Tocharian and when white mummies were found there, it was accepted that this IE language was carried by these whites.
Recent researches added a new dimension: while it is true that langauge known to us is IE and is mostly found from Aqsu and Turfan, there is no reason why it should be called Tocharian. The term Tochar or Tukhara seems to be used in antiquity to denote Kushans and similar people. So what really happened is that a people who were white and spoke IE extinct language were mistakenly called as Tocharians when it should have been used for Kushans. Based on names and places and general characteristics, scholars believe that Kushans were Iranic and who gave name Tukharastan to north Afghanistan.

Sanskrit authors of that time used Tukharas in their writings . Now after 600s, Turks became powerful and started dominating the whole area . Given that Kashmir had lot of wealth, it recruited Turks as soldiers in army, Tukhara was a term already there but Indians who were unaware of all this, knew only one thing and that is that regions called by them as Tukharas is now full of people who are Turk. Getting confused, they changed Tukharas into Turushkas and thought that both tukharas and Turushkas were same coming from same area.
This is not an exceptional case, sanskrit term Yavan was initially used for Greeks(Ionians) but later on it was used for invaders from west like Arabs and other Muslims.

Now, Kalhana who is caling these kings as Turushkas wrote his work in 1152 some one thousand years after Kanishka. It is to his credit that he preserved the names but it was beyond his power to understand that Turushkas of his time were different from Tukharas. He calls Kushans as Turushkas and no one else.

There is no evidence that any Kushan king ever called himself Turushka which is itself quite a late term in sanskrit.

One should not forget that no scholar is ready to see Turkic presence in Aqsu or Turfan and combined this with late use of Turushka, I do not see how one can still buy this theory which is some 100 years old.
 

tornada

Ad Honoris
Mar 2013
15,384
India
#10
The evidence for the Kushanas being turkic is based on a title? That doesn't sound reasonable. The Kushanas liked adopting titles, they even called their kings Kaisara, yet it doesn't mean they were Romans