Saka, Yauna and Skudra

[akritas]

Most commentators have concentrated on the status of communities named in Persian sources and little attention has been given to the nature of the terms used. The sequence of names is not regular at first, with what seem to be ad hoc epithets, consistent with the naming of recent acquisitions; subsequently more formal designations followed. The earlier documents contain references to various peoples living by or beyond a sea.

The Apadana Foundation inscription (DPe) mentions Ionians(Yauna) of the mainland, Ionians-by-the-sea, and unspecified countries by and beyond the sea, while some inscriptions of Dareios at Susa (DSm, DSe) refer on the one hand to men of Skudra and petasos-wearing Yuana , on the other Skudra and Yauna across the sea.

On the tomb of Dareios at Naksh-i-Rustem 'Skythians beyond the sea' and 'petasos-wearing Yuana' replaced the unspecified 'countries beyond the sea' of DPe. Skythians (Saka) appear in two separate groups.

The Saka Haumavarga (Hauma-drinking Skythians) and Saka Tigraxauda (Saka who wear the pointed hat) usually appear on the monuments between the east Iranian and Indian groups of peoples. A third group of Skythians, Saka Paradraya (beyond the sea), are named alongside Skudra and petasos-wearing Ionians beginning with Dareios' tomb inscription. In later official texts the eastern Saka continued to be listed in the usual place, but the western Saka disappeared. Thus there is no reference to them on Xerxes' 'Daiva' inscription (XPh), although 'Skudra' appear as a separate entry on the two Susa texts, on Dareios' tomb, in the 'Daiva' document, and among the throne-bearers on later royal tomb reliefs. The documents from Dareios' reign must antedate 486 BC and recent attempts to give more precision to their chronology would suggest that the sequence began no earlier than the 490s.

Archaeological evidence indicates that there was very little settled occupation of the open steppe before the fifth century BC. This pattern seems to have changed quite rapidly over the course of the following century, although such settlement as there was continued to be scattered. Dareios' greatest problems are more likely to have stemmed from supplying his troops than from harrying at the hands of small, mobile bands. In this respect the campaign against the European Saka did present additional and far more intractable difficulties than those he would have faced in central Asia.

The later texts (DNa, XPh), seem to represent a coherent sequence: Ionians of the Asiatic mainland, followed by coastal Ionians,Yauna Takabara, , in other words, east Greeks, Hellespontine Greeks, north Aegean Greeks, and Skudra as Thracians (1).

Yauna Takabara seem in some cases, as at Susa, to correspond with earlier designations of coastal Ionians (Paradraya) and have conventionally been taken to mean Macedonians, because of the distinctive flat hats depicted on coins from the Macedonian region. 27 (http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=97825560#27)But this is a misnomer. Coins pre-dating regal Macedonian issues which show large hats are difficult to locate geographically and are even harder to identify according to ethnic origin. They are neither strictly 'Thracian' nor 'Macedonian', because at the beginning of the fifth century these terms lacked definition. The Argead dynasty was just beginning to extend control over areas beyond the Thermaic Gulf. Even in the later fifth century, tribal designations are encountered more often than topographic names (Thuk. 2. 99). If Yuana Takabard were considered by the Persians to correspond specifically to Macedonians, this should be taken to mean their diplomatic partners from 511 BC onwards, the Argeads, and Argead dependencies. Only in 492 did this relationship change from one of loose alliance, albeit on unequal terms, to one of close dependency (Hdt. 6. 44. 1). The Persian documents do not elaborate such niceties. Allies and subjects are listed in the same way, only the nomenclature changes. Thus at the time of DPe, no distinction is made amongst the inhabitants 'beyond the sea'. Thereafter Yauna Takabara is separated out and 'Skudra' likewise.

'Skudra' is the most elusive term. Although Xerxes' 'Daiva' inscription at Persepolis (1) corresponds in other respects with Herodotos' muster roll at Doriskos (7. 61 ff.), the Greek historian has no equivalent for 'Skudra'. Xerxes did proceed to call up troops from amongst the native and Greek settlers along the coast as his army advanced westwards, and the term has most often be taken to apply to Thracians, or Thracians and Macedonians. 28 (http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=97825560#28)The etymology of the word is obscure but suggests that the Persians may have used it in a more specialized way than simply to describe their dependencies in Europe as such. The Persepolis Fortification Tablets have numerous references to workers from Skudra and the most obvious candidates for Europeans working in some numbers deep within the Persian empire are the Paionians whom Herodotos makes so much of in his narrative (5. 1. 12-16, 98).

Why did Herodotos make so much of the Paionians? Herodotos tells us that Megabazos was instructed, after Dareios' return from Skythia, to conquer the whole of Thrace, to bring every city and every people under Persian control (5. 2. 2). Later he seems to indicate that this was indeed carried out (6. 44. 1: 'all tribes on this side of the Makedones had already been made subject to him'). But tantalizingly, the historian tells us absolutely nothing about the campaign, except that Megabazos began by subduing Perinthos and every other city. A few paragraphs later he modifies this statement, intimating that it was the coastal parts of the wider region he was describing (tes chores tautes . . . ta parathalassia) which Megabazos was systematically bringing under his command (5. 10). It seems unwise to take any one of Herodotos' statements too literally.


sources:

Ancient Cambringe History, Vol II, Greek Edition, 2005
the Odrysian kingdom of Thrace, Archbald, Oxford University,1998

[akritas]

YAVANA, YONA, YONAKA, ETC.


IT is clear from inscriptions of Darius I that the word Yauna or Ia-manu (-ma was actually pronounced as -va, hence Ia-va-nu), the name of the Ionians of Asia Minor who were conquered by Cyrus in 545 B.C., was applied to all Greeks without distinction. The Hebrew word Yawān (Javan) was also originally the designation of the Ionians, but it gradually came to be used for the whole Greek race, and the ethnic name denoted also a political entity. The term Yavana may well have been first applied by the Indians to the Greeks of various cities of Asia Minor who were settled in the areas contiguous to north-west India.

The Yavanas were regarded by the law books and epics as degenerate Ksatriyas, and were considered to be of Indian origin, the descendants of Turvasu. But their names alone are sufficient to prove that they were foreigners.

The word Yavana, if it is assumed to be Indian, can be derived in three ways. Firstly, from √yu = 'keeping away', 'averting' (dveṣo yavana),signifying one who is disliked. Secondly, from √yu 'mixing, mingling', (i.e. Yauti miśrayati uā miśrībhavati sarvattra jātibhedābhāvāt iti yavanah), implying a mixed people. Thirdly, from the meaning, 'quick', 'swift'; a swift horse, (i.e. Yavena gacchatīti yavanah), denoting those who have a quick mode of conveyance. These derivations taken together may indicate that the Yavanas were thought of as a mixed people, who had a quick mode of conveyance and who were disliked as aliens and invaders; these derivations are, however, comparatively recent.

Of the Sanskrit Yavana, there are other forms and derivatives, viz., Yona, Yonaka, Javana, Yāvana, Jonon or Jonaka, Ya-ba-na, &c. Yona is a normal Prakrit form from Yavana and ja- is a well-known Prakritism for Sanskrit ya-. Tarn has, however, tried to derive Yonaka independently from a form 'Iwvakós, which 'though unknown in Classical Greek, existed at this time in the current Hellenistic Greek of the Farther East'. This is not only unconvincing but also unnecessary. It has been pointed out that it was a usual Indian practice to add -ka to ethnic names; it is often expletive in Sanskrit. J. Gonda has rightly noted that 'as a means of forming thematic stems -ka was very productive and as such it was repeatedly used to aryanise foreign words or to make them fit to be inflected as Aryan nouns'.

But Tarn has not revised his opinion in the second edition of his book; he asks, 'why before the Greeks came, did Asoka call Greeks Yonas, while after they came, the Milinda calls them Yonakas?', although he admits that he probably went too far in speaking of the current Hellenistic Greek of the East. His persistence is probably due to the fact that he imagines that the form Yonaka appears only in the Milindapañha, and also because he does not suppose that the word Yavana, which would be its original form in Sanskrit, could have been known before Alexander, and long before the time of the Indo-Greek kingdoms. But we have already shown that theform Yonaka does occur in other places in Pāli literature of known antiquity, and not only in works like Sāsanavaḿsa, of the modernity of which Tarn rightly complains, and so it is not peculiar to Milindapañha. And, further, Yonaka does not replace Yavana or Yona, but is just one of its various forms, all of which, even Sanskrit Yavana, are used indiscriminately in Pāli sources. Quite pertinently Gonda answers Tarn's query by pointing out that it is equally difficult to settle why one author used the name Madraka and why another preferred Madra.

Tarn has also suggested that the term Yonaka in the Milindapañha has a specific meaning; that 'they are really his Council -- the ordinary council of every Hellenistic king, which in another aspect was his "Friends" -- is not in doubt; the number 500 is of course conventional. . . .' It is true that numbers such as 500 in the Pāli works are almost invariably used conventionally, but it is surely too much to think that the Yonaka meant ministers or councillors. Not to speak of references in the Dīpavaḿsa and Mahāvaḿsa -- where the word is explicitly used as an adjective of names and places, even in the Milindapañha, part I, on this assumption what can be the meaning of . . . atthi Yonakānam nānāpuṭabhedanaṃ Sāgalannāma nagaraṃ. . . ? Surely Sāgala was not a city of the ministers or councillors, who opened their bags of merchandise. Then we read of statues of Yonakas, holding lamps, among the decorations used by the Sākyans in Kapilavatthu, and also of the Yonakas who went about clad in white robes because of the memory of religion which was once prevalent in their homeland. Moreover, in the Milindapañha, Part I, we find the ministers referred to by the usual word amacce, when the king addresses them. Thus Yonaka is only a variant of YavanaYona with the same meaning. To find in it the hypothetical Hellenistic 'IωνΑκóς is unwarranted and unnecessary. One may rather agree with Gonda, that 'the form Yonaka may be considered as an Indian and Iranian derivative, and the Hellenistic Greek of Bactria etc. will have taken it from these languages'.

The earliest Indian form known is Yavana, attested in Pāṇinī. It was suggested by Belvalkar that the word Yavana, where -va stands for an original Greek Ϝ, must be at least as old as the ninth century B.C., because the digamma was lost as early as 800 B.C. But, as Skold has pointed out, the digamma was dropped at different times in different dialects; in the Ionian dialect it may perhaps have vanished only a short time before the earliest inscriptions, which are of the seventh or perhaps the eighth century B.C. It is very difficult, however, to say whether the Indians took the word Yavana directly from the Greeks or from some intermediate language.

It is necessary here to consider the forms used in the trilingual inscriptions of the Achaemenids, namely:

(i) the old Persian, Yauna;
(ii) the Elamite, ia-u-na; and
(iii) the Akkadian (Babylonian), ia-ma-nu.

It has sometimes been thought that the Prakrit form Yona was derived from the Old Persian Yauna, that it was an earlier form than the Sanskrit Yavana, and that the latter is a back-formation in Sanskrit. But there is no need for this supposition, since the Sanskrit form could very well have been derived from the Akkadian ia-ma-nu. It is well known that in the Akkadian version of the Achaemenid inscriptions -ma stands for -va, according to a peculiar sound-law, or perhaps an orthographical rule, and there are numerous examples of this phenomenon. 1Thus the Akkadian form ia-ma-nu presupposes the form with the digamma 'IáϜων, whereas the former must be traced back to 'IáΟνΕς where the digamma is dropped. This is also the case with Hebrew Yāwān. Hence there is no warrant for taking Yona as an earlier form. One might conclude from the correspondence of O.P. Yauna-M.I.A. Yona, that there existed an old form Yona older than Yavana. But this equivalence of sounds applies to inherited words coming independently from an Indo-Iranian source, which Yavana is not, being a loan word. At best one can say that both Yavana and Yona are borrowed from the West, i.e. the Persians and the Semitic peoples. But historically the first known form in extant Indian literature is Yavana and not Yona, and Yona can be a normal Prakrit replacement of the Sanskrit Yavana.


Of course the possibility is not excluded that the immediate source of the word may have been the Greeks, including the Ionians, who were already settled in regions to which Pāṇini's knowledge could have very easily extended. We have shown that settlements of Greeks existed in the eastern parts of the Achaemenid empire long before Alexander.

[source : The Indo-Greeks, Appendix I by A.K. Narain]

[akritas]

Bahman Yasht

Certain Persians prophesied that the hated European would be expelled from Iran and from Asia by divine intervention and that the Orient would be restored to its former primacy. This idea circulated clandestinely for several centuries. We know of it in more than one version: in the Old Testament Book of Daniel; in fragments of an Oracle of Hystaspes quoted by Lactantius as late as A.D. 300; and in a Medieval translation from Persian into Pahlevi, the Bahman Yasht.

According the book King is Dead by Samuel Eddy the Iranian word Bahman Yasht isthe detailed picture of the apocalyptic conditions brought about by a successful invasion of Iran by foreigners, existed before the time of Ardashir I. But the Bahman Yasht must therefore also have said something of the invasion. In fact it does, and twice names its leader as Alexander the Great. He was not at all a threat to Sassanid prophets living more than half a millennium after his death. The name Alexander, then, is further evidence of Hellenistic date. He is called "Destroyer of the Religion" and "Invader."

The first epithet is a parallel to the tradition preserved in the Dinkard, the second to the Sibylline Oracle. Furthermore, the rank and file of the aggressors are once identified as Yunan, which is ancient Near Eastern usage for "Greeks," derived from the word for "Ionians." This word is a Pahlevi vocalization equivalent to Old Persian Yaunā , Elamite Iauna, Hebrew Yāwān, and Hindu Yavanā. Sassanid writers, however, usually referred to Greeks as Rūmi.


It is true that the Bahman Yasht sometimes says that the invaders come from Rum. That is Sassanid editing. It sometimes indicates that they are Muslims. That is post-Sassanid editing. The apocalypse normally refers to them by the cryptic title, "The Demons with Dishevelled Hair of the Race of Wrath." This, from the old Persian point of view, was a good characterization. The appearance of the Great King, Dareios or Xerxes, in the Persepolis reliefs was with neatly marcelled hair and beard and attended by attentive and docile courtiers.

On the other hand, the portrait coins of Alexander, the bust by Lysippos, and the statue attributed to Euphranor show him with his hair madly tousled, and we can imagine the impression made by his rough-and-ready Makedonian soldiers recruited from a people whom the Greeks of the age of Demosthenes accused of wearing bearskins as their usual clothing. There was even an ancient tradition in Greek that Alexander had the nature of a wild beast and very sharp teeth, and that his hair was like the mane of a lion.

[Ptolemy]

A coin of Alexander I wearing the "sun-hat", a kind donation of Mr Soros :laugh:

http://www.soros.org.mk/archive/G01/images/sg0202.gif

The existence of a satrapy in Europe, called 'Skudra', is known from Persian inscriptions (B44, 58f), 'Lands beyond the sea', that is beyond the waters of Asia Minor from the Persian point of view, were recorded in an inscription on the terrace-wall of Persepolis c. 513 B.C and a satrapy 'Skudra' was mentioned in a egyptian record of c.498-7 B.C and then on a list on Darius' tomb at Naqsh-i Rustam, c.486. The name 'Skudra' was probably Phrygian for the homeland, later called Thrace, which the Phrygians had left in migrating to Asia. The peoples of the satrapy were named c.492 B.C as three: 'Saka Paradraya', meaning 'Sacae (a general name for Scythian-type people) beyong the sea', probably the Getae, who resembled the Scythians in customsand equipment; the 'skudra' themselves, mainly Thracians; and 'Yauna Takabara' or Ionians [Viz. Greeks] with a shield-like hat' The last were mentioned also on glazed bricks at the palace at Susa. Some scholars have supposed that the Sacae 'beyond the sea' were Scythian peoples of the Crimea whom Darius had subjugated, but it seems improbable that Persia did hild that area, and that if she id it was assigned to 'Skudra' rather than to the territories in Georgia, centred on Tbilisi. Envoys from 'Skudra' bringing tribute carried two javelins, a long knife and a small round shield, which were characteristic of Thracian troops later (See Pls. Vol., p1,.40 XIX.
The Greek-speaking people with the shield-like hat were the Macedones, renowned for wearing the sun-hat, as Alexander I did on his fine coins from 478 B.C (look above). The Greek-speaking citizens of the colonial city states on the seaboard were not mentioned; nor did they wear a sun-hat.

Source: Cambridge Ancient History Vol 4