365bet娱乐

The 艢腻办诲惫墨辫墨测补 叠谤腻丑尘补峁嘺蝉 have been the subject of many studies since the second half of the nineteenth century. Eminent scholars from all over the world have dealt with the translation of Sanskrit texts regarding their legends, trying to explain their origin and their very unusual religious cult. Each effort has been fundamental to enriching our knowledge about this social group. In spite of the important work of these scholars鈥攑articularly that of H. von Stietencron, who in 1966 published an excellent monograph on the 艢膩kadvip墨ya 叠谤腻丑尘补峁嘺蝉 in which he collected, edited and translated some sections from the 厂腻尘产补- and the 叠丑补惫颈峁�y补-辫耻谤腻峁嘺蝉鈥攁 complete and updated compendium, exhaustive from a philological, historical and religious point of view, has not yet appeared.

In brief, the legend contained in the Pur膩峁噄c sections recounts that Kr胎 峁ａ箛a鈥檚 son 厂腻尘产补, having been cursed by his father, contracted leprosy, but was healed by the sun god through his worship of and devotion to him. 厂腻尘产补 then found a statue of the sun and installed it in a temple; but there were no 叠谤腻丑尘补峁嘺蝉 in India who could properly worship the god. On the sun god鈥檚 advice, 厂腻尘产补 flew to 艢腻办补诲惫墨辫补 (identified with the Iranian lands) on 骋补谤耻岣峚, and brought back to India 18 families of Maga (艢膩kadv墨p墨ya) 叠谤腻丑尘补峁嘺蝉 to worship the sun鈥檚 idol. From that moment on, the Magas, and the Bhojakas, also mentioned in the Pur膩峁噄c texts, have been considered the most expert 叠谤腻丑尘补峁嘺蝉 with respect to the sun cult.

This is the first step. However, the obstacles to undertaking a broad study on the 艢膩kadv墨p墨yas are several: first, the original material is very scarce, and the sources are limited to some Pur膩峁噄c sections, three late poems and some references found in other works (痴补谤腻丑补尘颈丑颈谤补, Buddhist sources, epigraphy etc.). Second, the materials we have are not exhaustive and often in contradiction one another; they were composed over centuries and probably in different locations.

From a linguistic point of view, many scholars have pointed to the influence of Iranian languages on sections from 厂腻尘产补-and 叠丑补惫颈峁�y补-辫耻谤腻峁嘺s, especially with regard to loanwords. Curiously, nobody has investigated the historical importance of the fact that, even if we cannot establish a priori the origin of these loanwords from one Iranian language or another, is undeniable that they belong to different strata of Iranian linguistic history.

The content of these texts has to be analysed more broadly as well: in the last two centuries, speculations on the religious-cultural context have sometimes been reduced to an analysis of their cultural practices and customs, other times to an investigation of the origins of this group, but in any event focusing time after time only on one single aspect.

An update of the previous studies of this group is necessary; new research now allows us to formulate a more accurate analysis than in the past, both in terms of linguistics and onomastics. A broader overview is essential to re-examining the problem from a new perspective, and to exploring the correlation between the linguistic evidence and the contents of the materials we have. A study of the historical context is fundamental as well. The continuous exchange of cultural knowledge and practices in Central Asia in the first centuries A.D. draws a picture of the dynamic between the two areas of influence, Iranian and Indian. This data is iconographical, religious and linguistic, and mutually influenced each aspect of everyday life, underlying the importance of the boundary dialogue.

The aim of this research is to present a broad and comprehensive study on the 艢腻办诲惫墨辫墨测补 叠谤腻丑尘补峁嘺蝉, and to examine all the religious, historical and linguistic evidence related to them. This exposes the first limitation of the present work: in trying to be as exhaustive as possible, the research could possibly turn out desultory and not completely cohesive. Each topic deals with the necessity of understanding the context of 艢腻办诲惫墨辫墨测补 culture, and all of the topics discussed are ultimately interconnected and contribute to forming a picture of the problem.

Second, I started my research on the 艢腻办诲惫墨辫墨测补s a long time ago, and much fundamental information is presented in my M.A. thesis, I Maga 叠谤腻丑尘补峁嘺 tra eredit脿 iranica e sinecismo indiano, as well as some forthcoming articles. Extensive translations from the pertinent sections of the 厂腻尘产补- and 叠丑补惫颈峁�y补-辫耻谤腻峁嘺s appeared in my thesis; I have found it redundant to include those passages again in the present work. When necessary, I have directly quoted the Pur膩峁噄c verses in order to provide the appropriate sources and contextualize the topic discussed.

Another important point to stress is the fact that the names 艢腻办诲惫墨辫墨测补, Maga and Bhojaka are almost synonymous. According to the context, i.e. the sources have 鈥楳agas鈥� rather than 鈥樑毮灏旎灞鼓�辫墨测补s鈥�, I have adopted the name used in the sources in that particular section. In addition, even the spelling of the different names varies according to the language (Sanskrit of 贬颈苍诲墨) and context. Pur膩峁噄c texts mention Magas and Bhojakas; the Magavyakti includes the names of the Magas; later texts and modern communities talk about 艢腻办诲惫墨辫墨测补 叠谤腻丑尘补峁嘺蝉; epigraphic evidence contains all the appellatives. Nowadays the 艢腻办诲惫墨辫墨测补s have adopted different surnames, including Mag and Bhojak, and they have told me explicitly that there is no real difference between these names. Probably, depending on the period in history, and maybe also on their geographical region, they were known by different names. In my opinion, 鈥樑毮灏旎灞鼓�辫墨测�� 叠谤腻丑尘补峁嘺蝉鈥� is the general category, which subsumes all the sub-divisions to Magas, Bhojakas, Sevaks, etc. 鈥樑毮灏旎灞鼓�辫墨测补鈥� is clearly the most general name, because it refers to all the people coming from 艢akdv墨pa whom 厂腻尘产补 brought to India to worship the sun god.

One major challenge has been presented by the different methodologies I had to adopt in my research. I had to apply different methodological approaches to the different types of analysis; in particular, I鈥檝e employed the philological method in the first and second chapters, an onomastic analysis has been in the third chapter, and I have done my best to propose an ethnographic study in the fifth chapter.

Finally, the most important limitation is probably the linguistic one: research on 艢腻办诲惫墨辫墨测补 叠谤腻丑尘补峁嘺蝉 requires knowledge of Sanskrit and ancient Iranian languages, plus familiarity with Middle Indian and Iranian languages; a basic understanding of 贬颈苍诲墨 and F膩rs墨 is useful as well. Moreover, my lingua franca in interacting with people and conveying my ideas has been English, which is not my mother tongue. For this reason, and for many others, I have to thank all the numerous people who contributed to my research, helping me in this exciting, multifaceted experience.