Huns(Xiongnu), Turks(Tujue) and Mongols

Thanks for your response. 

If it were true that the Jats were descended from the Getae who were connected with the Alano-Sarmatian World, it would show just how wide ranging the Alan-Sarmatian World really was.  The Sarmatian influence could be determined to have ranged clear across the Eurasian continent from Alanic Spain and even Britain (Roman-Sarmatian cavalry) through E. Europe and Central Asia up to the border of China and down into northwestern India.  That would have made a pretty impressive empire had they been united.

Rava-

I have a quick question for you which has been bothering me for a while.  Do you know if any Sarmatians were included among the Sakas who had migrated to India?  I have read some sources which state that the western Indian region of Saurashtra was named after the Sauromatae/Sarmatians.  However, other sources state that the name Saurashtra means "land of the sun-worshippers."  Still others say that Saurashtra means "land of the Solar Medes (Saurya Madra)," and they say that Sauromatae also means "Solar Medes."  It's all a little confusing.  However, it makes sense to me to say that Sarmatians did indeed end up in India, because the Sarmatians had become the dominant group amongst the Scythian peoples by this time (c. 100 BC).  What do you think?

Saka is the word which means "Scythian" in the Persian and Indian languages.  The Sakas who entered India were originally centered in the area of the Aral Sea.  Being nomads, they moved from pasture to pasture throughout the steppe region until the Yue Zhi forced them south, out of these grazing lands and into Bactria, and eventually western India.  A large number of the Rajput peoples of India trace their ancestry to the Sakas. 

Incidently, the Yue Zhi themselves were later forced out of the steppe region and into Bactria and India, following the same pattern as the Sakas.  It is believed that the Yue Zhi were descended from the Tocharians of Xinjiang.  Their greatest king in India was Kanishka, who ruled around 100 AD.

It was the Yuezhi that destroyed the Greek/Bactrian kingdoms, right?

I don't think they were Iranic. They came from Gansu, a region near the Tarim Basin (land of the Tokharians). Besides, Greeks called them Tocharoi. The Yuezhi were more likely Tokharian.

It seems to be impossible to resolve the entire structure and genealogical relationships between steppe tribes of various ethnicity. The tribes were relatively small, divided into clans and verticaly stratificated (warriors, priests etc. ) and involved in many cultural and political patterns. To a great deal cultural symetry between Turks and Iranians existed as well. Therefore I can only recall Sims-Williams who translated Rabatak inscription written perhaps in the first year of Kanishka reign in Bactria : "He issued(?) an edict(?) in Greek and then he put it into the Aryan language". This would point out an eastern iranian language of Kushans since Kanishka used bactrian for his inscription. However... Turks used Sogdian script and Praktrit was court language in Kroraina Kingdom...

The Wuhuan were a branch of the Donghu people, not the Xianbei.

Btw, I thought Xianbei were the ancestors of the Khitans

I have questions here. Since everyone was saying that Xianbei was the direct ancestor of the Mongolian, so what about the Wuhuan tribe? I thought from the Wuhuan came Shiwei tribe and then from Shiwei came the Mongol or was Wuhuan considered part of the Xianbei tribe? And i heard people said that Xianbei was Tungusic people from Manchuria and was somehow related to Fuyu and Shuzhen tribes in Manchuria and Amur region, so which one was right then?