Talk:Asii

message: There are some sensible Tocharian words that make sense of the Asii and Pasiari tribal names
"Asant" means "leader/charioteer"
"Aisi" means "knowing/wise"
"Pas-" means "to protect"
__TOC__
asii people living in turkey. Asiyanlı (asiiani). they are fast horse rider.
asiyanlı kabilesi. (meaning asiani tribe) asii+yan+lı= asiani = asii+an+i
The asii tribe lives around the Suphan mountain . The old name of the city of pasinler is pasiani.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.47.201.136 (talk) 20:33, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Tocharian etymologies

message: The citecheck template has a narrow purpose: to point to misuse of reliable sources, such as quotes taken out of context.  When adding citecheck to an article please state specific misuses on the talk page so that editors can correct the problem. DurovaCharge! 04:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citecheck template 

message: It appears to me that there is too little notice taken in this article that the identity of the Asii is still very uncertain and the subject of much debate in academic circles. There are many alternative theories as to the identity of the various Saka tribes mentioned in ancient literature, and many scenarios for their movements have been proposed which have not been included in this article. (I can give many examples of this if they are needed - but a short look at the recent literature on the Kushans and various Saka peoples should be enough to convince any doubters). The article, as it stands, seems to imply that many of these relationships have been worked out to the satisfaction of most scholars - when this is certainly not the case. (One example among several is the equation here of the Asii/Asioi/Asiani with the Parama Kambojas - this is really just a hypothesis or theory - not an established - or even generally-accepted - fact). Therefore, I respectfully suggest that appropriate qualifications be added to the claims made here and that they should be presented as possibilities and alternative scenarios also discussed. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 04:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Call for qualifications and discussion of alternative theories

message: I am deeply concerned that this page has been renamed without discussion and many unreferenced changes made. Where does this name "Osian" come from? This article needs major revisions - it is now full of unreferenced speculations. Please, could an Administrator have a look at this page as a matter of urgency. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 22:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like The Man in Question is doing a Wikipedia-wide replacement of Asii with Osians, apparently on the authority of a 20 year old Indian art history book. I agree that these changes don't represent any kind of scholarly consensus, and TMiQ should discuss what he's doing with someone before he proceeds any further. benadhem (talk) 00:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: HELP! Why has this page been renamed?

message: I have just reversed the recent changes made by Shri Satbir Singh for these reasons: 
1. He added  and  tags to a referenced section on a relatively new but plausible theory without giving any reasons at all for the tags. This theory has been proposed by the distinguished and well-respected French archaeologist and historian, Claude Rapin, as recently as 2007. 
2. He restored a section "Beyond Geographical ken of Classical writers" which claimed that Classical writers could not have known that the tribes "originally" came from beyond the Jaxartes river. 
While this may be technically true in an extremely narrow sense (for no-one can say for certain where any group of people "originally" came from), it is absolutely clear from the texts that the Classical writers meant simply that the tribes first came to their attention when they came from the lands beyond the Jaxartes - a region they had been well aware of since the time of the campaigns of Alexander the Great. 
May I suggest that any further changes to this article be accompanied by some discussion of the reasons for the changes on this page? Thank you, John Hill (talk) 05:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Reversed Changes

message: I have just been through the article removing the proliferation of titles (in, particular, the massive overuse of "Dr." to describe some writers while no titles were given to others - some of whom had superior qualifications) as per the "Wikipedia Manual of Style" - see: . In the process I made a number of other small edits - mainly spelling and grammar mistakes. 
Also, I would like to remove references to the so-called "Osii" (and variants) as I know of no source for such a tribal name for the Asii or related tribes. If you have any objections, please add your reasons here or I will start to remove such references soon. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 05:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed titles as per Wikipedia Manual of Style

message: RISIKA= ARSIKA = ASIKA= ASII+KA = ASIANI = ASII = ASIOI
PARAMA RISIKA = PARAMA ARSIKA = PASIKA = PASIANI= PASII= PASIOI 
IMPORTANT NOTE: CHANGE FROM ASIKA TO ASI OR ASII IS NOT UNSUAL. THE YONA, KAMBOJA, MADARA, SIVI, MALA, LICHCHIVI etc etc ARE ALSO WRITTEN INTERCHANGEABLY AS YONAKA, KAMBOJAKA, MADRAKA, SIVIKA, MALLAKA, LICHCHIVIKA etc.  
SABHARA PARAVA OF MAHABHARATA
:0020240201/.tatah.suhmaamz.ca.colaamz.ca.kiriiTii.paaNDava.RSabhah./
:0020240203/.sahitah.sarva.sainyena.praamathat.kuru.nandanah.//
:0020240211/.tatah.parama.vikraanto.baahliikaan.kuru.nandanah./
:0020240213/.mahataa.parimardena.vaze.cakre.duraasadaan.//
:0020240221/.gRhiitvaa.tu.balam.saaram.phalgu.ca.utsRjya.paaNDavah./
:0020240223/.daradaan.saha.kaambojair.ajayat.paaka.zaasanih.//
:0020240231/.praag.uttaraam.dizam.ye.ca.vasanty.aazritya.dasyavah./
:0020240233/.nivasanti.vane.ye.ca.taan.sarvaan.ajayat.prabhuh.//
:0020240241/.LOHAAN.PARAMA KAMBOJAAN.RSIKAAN.UTTARAN.api./
:0020240243/.sahitaams.taan.mahaa.raaja.vyajayat.paaka.zaasanih.//
:0020240251/.RSikeSu.tu.samgraamo.babhuuva.atibhayam.karah./
:0020240253/.taarakaa.maya.samkaazah.PARAMA RSIKA.paarthayoh.//
:0020240261/.sa.vijitya.tato.raajann.RSikaan.raNa.muurdhani./
:0020240263/.zuka.udara.sama.prakhyaan.hayaan.aSTau.samaanayat./
:0020240265/.mayuura.sadRzaan.anyaan.ubhayaan.eva.ca.aparaan.//
:0020240271/.sa.vinirjitya.samgraame.himavantam.sa.niSkuTam./
:0020240273/.zveta.parvatam.aasaadya.nyavasat.puruSa.RSabhah.//27
http://tiger.bun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/mtokunag/skt_texts/Mahaabhaarata/m2.1_1.e
LITERAL TRANSLATION:
"Then the son of Indra, endued with great prowess, after pressing them with great force, brought the Valhikas always difficult of being vanquished, under his sway. Then Falguna, the son of Pandu, taking with him a select force, defeated the Daradas along with the Kambojas. Then the exalted son of Indra vanquished the robber tribes that dwelt in the north-eastern frontier and those also that dwelt in the woods. And, O great king, the son of Indra also subjugated the allied tribes of the Lohas, the  furthest Kambojas (PARAMA KAMBOJAS), and northern Rishikas. And the battle with the PARAMA RISIKAS was fierce in the extreme. Indeed, the fight that took place between them and the son of Pritha was equal to that between the gods and the Asuras in which Taraka (the wife of Vrihaspati) had become the cause of so much slaughter. And defeating, O king, the Parama Rishikas in the field of battle, Arjuna took from them as tribute eight horses that were of the colour of the parrot's breast, as also other horses of the hues of the peacock, born in northern and other climes and endued with high speed. At last having conquered all the Himalayas and the Nishkuta mountains, that bull among men, arriving at the White mountains, encamped on its breast."
*-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After subduing the Bahlikas Daradas, Kambojas and robber tribes of the hills (Hindukush),  Pandava Hero Arjuna's  conquest culminates in the defeat of the Lohas, Parama Kambojas, the Risikas/Parama Risikas, who therefore, by implications of Central Asia are to be identified with Asioi of Strabo (2.24). (See: Sanskrit Epics, 1998, p 200, J. L. Brockington;  Literary History of Ancient India in Relation to Its Racial and Linguistic Affiliations, 1953, p 148,  Chandra Chakraberty - Sanskrit literature;  Cf: Geography of the Mahabharat, 1986, p 14,  B. S. Suryavanshi for Kamboja/Parama Kamboja, Rsikas/Parama Risikas  as for  related tribes of the Epic  Mahabharata)
Based on the evidence of Rajatarangini of Kalahana, Stein places the Tusaras (Tukharas) on the banks of Oxus in Balkh and Badakshan. According to Strabo (2.24) the Greeks were deprived of Bactria by Asii, Pasiani, Tochari, Sacarauli and Saca. According to Mercellinus, Tocharii obeyed the Bactrians.  Ptolemy places Tokharoi in Sogdiana (in most northern section of Jaxartes). They are also placed in the far north in the Epics, Puranas and Brhatsamhita--all Indian sources. Rajatrangini of Kalahana associates the Tukharas with the Kambojas and place them in east and west Oxus valleys.  Yue-chi sometimes have been supposed to be included in the Tukharas. Asiai/Asioi/Asiani have benn identified with Risikas and the Pasiani/Pasii/Pasiani with the Parama Risikas (See: Foundations of Indian Culture: Dimensions of Ancient Indian Social History, 1990, p 20,  Govind Chandra Pande - History).
According to B. M. Barua, I. N. Topa, Asii/Asiani correspond to Chang Kien’s Yue-chi and Asiani and Pasiani are the Iranic forms of Indo-Aryan  Asika-Risikas and the Parama Risikas (See: King Asoka and His Inscriptions, 1968, p 96, B. M. Barua, I. N. Topa).
The Asii are same as the Asioi and Asiani of Strabo. They are to be identified with Risikas of the Mahabharata. (Etymologically: Risika= Arsika = Asika=  Asi+ka  ==> Asii + ka just as Kambojaka = Kamboja+ka, Yonaka = Yona +ka, Madaraka = Madra+ka in Sanskrit terminology)  Similarily the Parama-Risikas  are to be identified with Pasii = Pasiani =Pasioi (Parama Risika = Parama Arsika ==>> (shortened) Pasika = Pasii +ka = Pasii = Pasiani) . And  the Sacarauli  were undoubtedly a branch of the Sakas (See: Geographical and Economic Studies in the Mahābhārata: Upāyana Parva, 1945, p 16 sqq.,  Moti Chandra - India; Literary History of Ancient India in Relation to Its Racial and Linguistic Affiliations, 1953, p 148, Chandra Chakraberty--Published by Vijaya Krishna Bros).
Mahabharata Epic displays a very  close/intimate connection of the Parama Kambojas with the Risikas (Asii) and Paramarisikas (Pasii). Both people (Parama Kambojas and Risikas/Paramarisikas)  are said to have allied their forces together and fought together against the Indo-Aryna forces of Pandava Arjuna (See: Geographical Data in the Early Purāṇas: A Critical Study, 1972, p 168, M. R. Singh; Geographical and Economic Studies in the Mahābhārata: Upāyana Parva, 1945, p 13, Moti Chandra - India; The Mahabharata of Krishna-Dwaipayana Vyasa: Tr. Into English Prose from Original Sanskrit Text, 1889, p 82, Pratāpacandra Rāya, Kisari Mohan Ganguli; A prose English translation of the Mahabharata: ((tr. Literally from the Original Sanskrit Text), 1895, p 40,  Manmatha Nath Dutt, Manmathanatha Datta; The mahabharata of krishna-dwaipayana vyasa, part 2, 2004, p 62,  Krishna-Dwaipayana Vyasa).
Even as late as 8th century AD, the Tukharas are placed in the upper valleys of Oxus and the Kambojas are also placed coterminous with them in the Ghalcha speaking areas of Badakshn/Pamirs valleys (See: Encyclopaedia Indica: India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, 1996, p 528,  p 355, Shyam Singh Shashi - India). The predatory Kumiji tribe (whom some people erroneously relate to Hunas, while others with Turks) and who were located in Buttaman Mountains, in Upper Oxus and referred to in the 9th/10th c. in the records of Muslim writers like Mqdisi, Baihaki, obviously remind us of the Kambojas referred to and place in the same region in ancient Indian Texts (P. C. Bagchi). The modern Kamoj/Kamoji of Siahposh tribe of Kafiristan (Nuristan) are also said to be modern representives of ancient Kambojas (N. L. Dey, H. C. Raychaudhury, H. H. Wilson, Charles Frederick Oldham, Encylopedia Brittanica etc etc). 
The wide-spread Kamboja settlements/locations have been mentioned by Ptolemy variously as Tambyzoi (south of Oxus in Balkh..S Levi), Ambautai (south of Hindukush in Paropamisus.. Michael Witzel), Kumedei (up in Pamirs/Darwaz P. C. Bagchi, Buddha Prakash), and the Komoi/Khomroi people etc located in Sogdiana spread as far as Jaxartes (See: Indian Historical Quarterly, 1963, p 403; Central Asiatic provinces of the Maurya Empire, p403,  H.C. Seth; Ancient Kamboja, People and the Country, 1981, pp 48-49,  J. L. Kamboj; History and Archaeology of India's Contacts with Other Countries, from Earliest Times to 300 B.C., 1976, p 152, Shashi Asthana etc etc) are seen by scholars as carrying the traces of name Kamboja of the Sanskrit texts. The Komedes tribe was wide spread in Sogdiana in second C BC as is amply attested by several Classical writers. The Komdei of Ptolemy is same as Kiu-mi-to of Hiuen Tsang.  It is the same as Kumuda-Dvipa (Tartary region)  of the Puranas and represents the land of the Iranian Kambojas/Parama Kambojas (Buddha Prakash, Kirpal Singh, J. L. Kamboj etc). It had formed the southern tip of the Saka-dvipa.
SEE KOMEDES LINK FOR KOMEDES: 
Needless to say, the Parama Kambojas have been placed in Sakadvipa of the Puranas---the Scythia of the classical writers. The Kambojas/Parama Kambojas have been said to be a nomadic tribe of Central Asia beyond the Himalayas (Hindukush) originally… a branch of this people is said to have entered India in remote antiquity and was merged with the general mass of Indian population. Another batch of them entered Tibet, Assam and from there in later times invaded Bengal. Trails of  Kambojas have been seen in Yunnan and Cambodia.  Many scholars connect the Tukharas with the Kambojas and regard the latter a branch of the former (See: India And Central Asia, 1955, p 31-32, P. C. Bagchi; Buddhism in Central Asia, 1987, p 90,  Baij Nath Puri- Buddhism). It is interesting to note that the Kushanas are also connected with Tibet. According to Foucher, Nepalese tradition applied the name Kamboja-Dea to Tibet. It is generally stated that the little Yue-chis migrated to Tibet. The  post Christian era name of Tibet is Kamboja. Foucher, Sir Charles Elliot and Dr G. G. Gokhale, P. C. Bagchi, and even V. A. Smith have connected ancient Kambojas with Tibet. Brahma Purana of 5th c AD  mentions the Kambojas around Pragjyotisha and Tamraliptika(Brahama Purana 53/16). Thus we again see Tukharas (Yueh-Chis of Chiang Kiue) and the Kambojas jointly conected with Tibet. 
See:  EASTERN KAMBOJAS
Some people tend to identify the Uttarakurus and the Uttaramadras with the Tocharian (Uttarakuru = Tokhari) branch of Indo-Europeans located to the north of the Himalayas   
Tokhari or Tukharas, the later Yucchis, are the same as the Risikas of Mahabharata. The epic attests the  Risikas and the Parama-Kambojas as very close neighbors (Mahabharata II.27.25-26) or allied tribes.  They are said to have allied their forces together against Pandava Arjuna and fought him tooth and nail.  
Very interestingly, at one place in the Epic Mahabharata, the Rishikas are stated to be a sub-section of the Kambojas (Ishwa).
 
:Shakanam Pahlavana.n cha Daradanam cha ye nripah./ 
:Kamboja RishikA ye cha pashchim.anupakashcha ye 15.//  (MBH 5/4/15) 
See Link: 
TRANSLATION BY PROF.  ISWA MISRA:
"These kings of the Shakas, Pahlavas and Daradas, these are Kamboja Rshikas and these are in the western riverine area” (IndianCivilzation Forum)
V. S. Aggarwala too, seems to relate the Parama Kambojas of the Trans-Pamirs to the Rishikas of the Mahabharata (The Deeds of Harsha: Being a Cultural Study of Bāṇa's Harshacharita, 1969, p 199, Vasudeva Sharana Agrawala) and also places them in the Sakadvipa (or Scythia) (India as Known to Pāṇini: A Study of the Cultural Material in the Ashṭādhyāyī, 1953, p 64, Vasudeva Sharana Agrawala - India; A Grammatical Dictionary of Sanskrit (Vedic): With a Complete Index to Wackernagel's Altindische Grammatik and Macdonnell's Vedic Grammar, 1953, 62, Vasudeva Sharana Agrawala, Surya Kanta, Jacob Wackernagel, Arthur Anthony Macdonell,  Peggy Melcher – India). 
The Tukharas are shown as fighting in the Kurukshetra war under the command of  Kamboja king Sudakshina Kamboj (See: Mahabharata  8.88.13-18 etc; The Nations of India at the Battle Between the Pandavas and Kauravas, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, 1908, pp 313, 331, Dr F. E. Pargiter (Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland).
In eighth century digvijaya campaign of king Lalitaditya of Kashmir (Rajatrangini: 4/164-165), the Tukharas (Tusharas) and the Kambojas are again geographically placed side by side and almost in the same location in Central Asia as earlier attested  in the Mahabharata.
“The Cultural Heritage of India, S. (Sarvepalli) Radhakrishnan, Ramakrishna Mission Institute of Culture": also sees very close ethnic relationship between the Kambojas and the Tukharas (=Rishikas = Yue-chis) and the modern Tajik/Tadzhik race. Authors regard the modern Tajik race to be the descendants of the Tukharas/Kambojas, thus assuming Kambojas as an ethnic component of the Tukharas or vice-versa (See: The Cultural Heritage of India: Sri Ramakrishna Centenary Memorial, 1936, p 151). 
IMPORTANT: (For Kambojas being the ancestors of the Tajiks, See also Bhart Bhumi Aur Unke Nivasi, p 313-314, 226, Bhartya Itihaas Ki Mimansa, p 335 by Dr J. C. Vidyalanka; Prācīna Kamboja, jana aura janapada =: Ancient Kamboja, people and country, 1981, pp 164-65, Dr Jiyālāla Kāmboja, Dr Satyavrat Śāstrī - Kamboja (Pakistan); cf: Geographical and Economic Studies in the Mahābhārata: Upāyana Parva, 1945, p 19, Dr Moti Chandra; Mahābhārata: Myth and Reality : Differing Views , 1976, p 232, Swarajya Prakash Gupta, K. S. Ramachandran - Mahābhārata; cf: Geography of the Mahabharata, 1986, p 14, Bhagwan Singh Suryavanshi; Vishal Kamboj, October 2001, S. S. Nirmal, pp 7-10).
According to Prof P. C.  Bagchi, the Kambojas belonged to some Central Asian Nomadic tribe, beyond the Himalayas and  were probably a branch of the Tukharas (Risikas) or northern Kushanas (India and Central Asia, 1955, p 31-32, P. C. Bagchi; See also: Journal of Tamil Studies, 1969, p 87, International Association of Tamil Research, International Institute of Tamil Studies - Tamil philology; Also see: International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics: IJDL., 1984, p  348,  University of Kerala Dept. of Linguistics - Dravidian languages)
According to  B. N. Puri, too,  the Kambojas were a branch of the Tukharas (i.e. Risikas) ('Buddhism in Central Asia, p. 90). 
Moti Chander also sees a close ethnic/geographical relationship between the Kambojas and the Yuezhi (See: Geographical and Economic Studies in the Mahābhārata: Upāyana Parva, 1945, p 19, Dr Moti Chandra – India).
There are several other ancient references which also equate 'the Kamboja' with the Tokhara (=Yue-chi). For example, a Buddhist Sanskrit Vinaya text translated by N. Dutt, Gilgit Manuscripts, III, 3, 136, (quoted in B.S.O.A.S. XIII, p. 404) has the expression satam Kambojikanam kanyanam i.e. 'a hundred maidens from Kamboja'. This has been rendered  as Tho-gar yul-gyi bu-mo brgya in the Tibetan and  as Togar ulus-un yagun ükin in Mongolian. Thus, Kamboja has been rendered as Tho-gar or Togar. And Tho-gar/Togar are Tibetan or Mongolian forms of Tokhar/Tukhar (See: H. W. Bailey, Irano-Indica III, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 13, No. 2, 1950, pp. 389-409; see also: Ancient Kamboja, Iran and Islam, 1971, p. 66, H. W. Bailey). 
It is very much possible that in remote antiquity, the Tocharians and the Parama Kambojans had formed parts of Uttarakuru (and possibly Uttaramadras). Uttarakurus were the parent tribe of the Kurus of Kurukshetra.  The  ancient relationship between the Kurus and Kambojas has also been suggested by several eminent scholars. This is also confirmed from the Epic war of  Kurukshetra. Some scholars see the reflections of Kambojas and Kurus in the royal names Kurush (Cyrus) and Kambujiya (Cambyses) of the ancientPersians dynasty of Achaemenids. James Hope Moulton remarks that “The names Kuru and Kamboja are of disputed etymology, but there is no reason whatever to doubt their being Aryan. I do not think there has been any suggestion more attractive than that made long ago by Spiegel (Die altpersischen Keilinschriften: Im Grundtexte mit Uebersetzung, Grammatik ..., 1881, p 86, Friedrich Spiegel - Old Persian inscriptions) that they attach themselves to Sanskrit Kura (Kuru) and Kamboja, originally Aryan heroes of the fable, whose names were naturally revived in a royal house (in Persia)....Kamboja is a geographical name, and so is Kuru often: hence their appearance in Iranian similarly to-day as Kur and Kamoj"(Early Zoroastrianism, 2005, Page 45, James Hope Moulton; Zoroastrian and Israel, 1892, p 490, fn). It is also highly probable that in very remote antiquity, the Uttaramadras, Uttarakurus and the Parama Kambojas (Uttara-Kambojas) formed one tribal people. All three are documented to  have been living beyond Himalaya (himavantam) and same form of political constitution is said to have obtained amongst this people (Aitareya Brahamana, VIII.14; Hindu Polity: A Constitutional History of India in Hindu Times, 1955, p 77-78, Dr K. P. Jayaswal).  
Chandra Chakraverty regards the Kurus and Kambojas as the earlier Scythian invaders from shores of Caspian sea where the traces of their name have been seen in the rivers/regions of Kura and Cambyses as mentioned by Strabo. Chandra Chakraverty thinks that Kuru and Kambojas were related tribes. 
John Hill, please review and respond.
I have produced evidence from the ancient Indian texts and have tried to reconcile Indian tribal names with those of Classical writers. The etymology relating the Sanskrit Risika  and Paramarisika to Iranian form Asiani and Pasiani respectively above is that from Prof Moti Chander, B. M. Barua, Chandra Chakervert, G. C. Pande etc etc. Some scholars have tried to relate Pasiani  to Parsi which is not correct. 
Satbir Singh (talk) 06:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: KAMBOJA-RISHIKA CONNECTION AS EVIDENCED BY EPIC MAHABHARATA

message: Dear Satbir: Thank you for your long and detailed notes. They are so long and detailed I hardly know where to begin! Now, first of all, I want to assure you that I am not trying to attack you or your theories - my sole aim is to try to make this article as useful and factual as possible - a good general article for an encyclopedia - staying within Wikipedia's guidelines.
Now, we are dealing here with a people whose origins and connections have been speculated about by many scholars for a very long time without any generally agreed upon answers having been reached. The texts relating to them are few and, generally, open to various interpretations. The article, therefore, should (I believe) briefly examine at least some of the major theories and present them in a form that the reader can use to reasonably assess the probabilities of one or the other theory within the limits of verifiable evidence, and to keep the article as neutral as possible in regard to the many conflicting points of view on the Asii people.
We must all be careful not to engage in "original research" or push a particular "point of view". See: , ,  for Wikipedia's policies on these matters.
Unfortunately, these are, I believe, among the mistakes you are making here. There are, as I mentioned above, numerous theories as to the origins and connections of the Asii - many of them made by reputable scholars, and many of them conflicting with each other. I intend, when I have time available, to briefly outline a few of them in the article, but it is important not to overload the article with the often detailed and very long arguments of the supporters of one theory or another.
Your statement that: "I have produced evidence from the ancient Indian texts and have tried to reconcile Indian tribal names with those of Classical writers" is a clear indication that you have engaged in what the Wikipedia refers to as "original research". I am not at all accusing you of doing this deliberately - it is quite possible you are not aware of Wikipedia's policies. If so, and this is part of the problem, please do check out the links I have given you above.
You also state a number of speculations about names or words being related when this may or may not be the case. This is a trap many scholars fall into - and just showing a similarity between names without further is by no means to establish a connection. 
For example - right at the beginning of your note you say: 
:"RISIKA= ARSIKA = ASIKA= ASII+KA = ASIANI = ASII = ASIOI
:PARAMA RISIKA = PARAMA ARSIKA = PASIKA = PASIANI= PASII= PASIOI
:IMPORTANT NOTE: CHANGE FROM ASIKA TO ASI OR ASII IS NOT UNSUAL. THE YONA, KAMBOJA, MADARA, SIVI, MALA, LICHCHIVI etc etc ARE ALSO WRITTEN INTERCHANGEABLY AS YONAKA, KAMBOJAKA, MADRAKA, SIVIKA, MALLAKA, LICHCHIVIKA etc."
I am sorry, but just saying: "CHANGE FROM ASIKA TO ASI OR ASII IS NOT UNSUAL" is really not convincing evidence that the were, in fact, related.
Further, you give great emphasis to the account of the Mahabharata epic and its mention of various people and then try (unsuccessfully, I believe) to link them with various peoples mentioned in the Western Classical accounts on the basis of claims (and I stress these are claims - not "proven facts") by other scholars. 
First of all, how can we be sure the Mahabharata is dealing with the same period of history? No one can be certain exactly when the events recorded in the Mahabharata took place. The Wikipedia article on the Mahabharata says: "Its earliest layers probably date back to the late Vedic period (ca. 8th c. BC)[2] and it probably reached its final form by the time the Gupta period began (ca. 4th c. AD)." 
Furthermore, we are talking about the Asii here - who I think we would both agree were a highly mobile group of people - and we have no real evidence to show they might have been in the same region at the same time as, or are identical with the PARAMA RISIKAS. This is, in my opinion, really shaky speculation.
You also refer to a lot of statements by other scholars which were really speculations or hypotheses rather than established historical facts, and then go on from there to draw conclusions which I suggest are tenuous at best. For just one example amongst many, you say:
:"According to B. M. Barua, I. N. Topa, Asii/Asiani correspond to Chang Kien’s Yue-chi and Asiani and Pasiani are the Iranic forms of Indo-Aryan Asika-Risikas and the Parama Risikas (See: King Asoka and His Inscriptions, 1968, p 96, B. M. Barua, I. N. Topa).
:The Asii are same as the Asioi and Asiani of Strabo. They are to be identified with Risikas of the Mahabharata. (Etymologically: Risika= Arsika = Asika= Asi+ka ==> Asii + ka just as Kambojaka = Kamboja+ka, Yonaka = Yona +ka, Madaraka = Madra+ka in Sanskrit terminology) Similarily the Parama-Risikas are to be identified with Pasii = Pasiani =Pasioi (Parama Risika = Parama Arsika ==>> (shortened) Pasika = Pasii +ka = Pasii = Pasiani)." 
Now, please tell my why you expect the reader to accept this as fact rather than, say, speculation or, at best, a theory?
Finally, although I do not have time to really check all the many references you have made you have certainly given us at least a few statements which could be misleading. 
For example: you say: "According to Mercellinus, Tocharii obeyed the Bactrians". I assume you are referring to Ammianus Marcellinus (c. 330-400 CE) - whose historical work, "chronicled the history of Rome from 96 to 378, although only the sections covering the period 353 - 378 are extant." 
Ammianus Marcellinus says in Book 23.55 that: "Many tribes are subject to the Bactrians, the most considerable of which are the Tochari". It is very possible then, that he is speaking of the period from 353 to 378 and this statement very likely has no relevance at all for the events we have been talking about which occurred hundreds of years earlier.  
Again, you say that "Ptolemy places Tokharoi in Sogdiana (in most northern section of Jaxartes)." This is, in fact, a bit sloppy. 
What Ptolemy did say was (in Chap. 12.4): "The territories close to the Oxeian mountains are inhabited by the Pasikai, those along the northern section of the Iaxartes by the Iatioi and the Tachoroi ... ." However, in Chap. 11.6 he also says: "The northern regions of Baktriana, along the Oxos, are inhabited by the Salaterai and the Zariaspai; to the south (of the Oxos), below the Salterai, dwell the Chomaroi, and below these, the Komoi; then (follow) the Akinakai, then the Tambyzoi. Below the Zariaspai (live) the Tocharoi, a numerous people . . ." From: Ptolemaios. Geographie 6,9-21. Ostiran und Zentralasien. Teil I. Containing Greek and Latin texts. Translated and annotated in German with English translation by Italo Ronca. Instituto Italiano per il medio ed estremo Oriente. Rome 1971.
Now, it is possible that the "Tocharoi" and the "Tachoroi" were branches of the same people living widely separated - but we don't know this for sure. In any case, the "Tocharoi", whom you mention, are placed south of the Oxus - not north of the Jaxartes.
You also make many links between names in the paragraph starting: "The wide-spread Kamboja settlements/locations have been mentioned by Ptolemy variously as Tambyzoi", which are not accepted by many scholars and, I believe, are very speculative. They have no place in an article such as this except, perhaps, to represent what some scholars have hypothesised about. 
Anyway, look, I am not trying to attack you - I just think that this article needs to reflect the very great uncertainty in scholarly circles about the Asii and, perhaps, briefly summarise some of the more likely or widely-accepted views and leave it to the readers to decide for themselves. If we are uncertain of something, we should say so instead of trying to present it as fact. 
I welcome comments from you and/or other readers. Sincerely, John Hill (talk)
Well John, you can not simply go on rejecting the views of others if they do not match your own liking or your point of view. These views come from writers like Moti Chander, M. R. Singh,  B. M. Barua and many other noted Indologists  who are no less distinguished and qualified in this field than your Claude Rapin or the like. How are you sure that Claude Rapin has indeed discovered the truth while the others have not. The Asii equivalence to Sanskrit Asva, Asvaka and Asioi  is plausible and has also been proposed by many earliier writers on the subject and this may not be far of truth since central Asian nomads were noted for their love for Asva or horses as well as Asi or sword. And the derivation of names like Asva, Asvaka, Asoi, Assii, Hipasii, Aspasii, Asaceni, Asii are indeed possible.
It is also possible that Arsi/Aorsi, Arsika have Sanskrit equivalent in Rsika and Pasii/Pasioi/Pasika in Parama Rsika as Moti Chander, B. M. Barua, M. R. Singh and many others have accepted. Etymologically this also makes sense. 
Mahabharata Case:
Undoubtedly, there are several layers of Mahabharata and it has been contended by many writers that the so-called epic Digvajaya which relates to the conquest of north Indian/Central Asian tribes by Pandava Hero Arjuna was a later addition to the epic when the Mahabharata was revised in 4th c AD. Mahabharata has never been in its current size and shape prior to the Christian era. Much of the material was added during redactions around Christian era and later around 4th c AD. Many events relating to the great tribal turmoil and movements which occured around/ little prior to start of our era....especially after the fall of the Maurya empire, have been vaguely and obliquely hinted at or alluded to. The epic references to Buddha, Maurya king Asoka; and  Yavanas and Kambojas having seized control of north-eastern India including Mathura etc etc  -- all these references show that epic contains historical material relating to as late as start of Christian era. And the scenario presented in the so-called Digvijaya expedition in the Sabhaparava of epic, at least portrays a factual geographical picture on tribal distribution with regard to the Dardas, Bahlikas (Bactrians), Kambojas, Lohas, Parama Kambojas, Risiks and Parama Rsikas on Indis extreme frontiers (mostly in Central Asia) and it must then messe with and correlate to the tribal stories told in other sources like  those of the Chinese and Greek records. Hence, the great indologists like Moti Chander, J. C. Vidyalankar, B. M. Barua etc can not be far from truth when they co-relate the Chinese Yue-chis to the epic Rsikas/Paramarsikas (or Tukharas) and Greek Asii/Asio/Pasii/i/Pasioi. No other tribes than the Lohas, Parama Kambojas and the Rsikas/Parama Risikas, lying beyond the Hindukush, are referred to in the epic Digvijaya expedidition of Pandava Arjuna. 
We can not summarily reject this evidence of Mahabharata unless we have a strong prejudiced mind.
Even if the Mahabharata story is taken to be a myth, one thing seems still very important and interesting to note here: Of all the central Asian non-Indo-Aryan tribes who appear in the epic, the Kambojas and Kambojas alone have been given the spotlight in the Mahabharata. The Sakas, Tukharas (Rsikas/Parama Risikas)), Yavanas, Pahlavas, Paradas, Daradas, Khasas etc are all stated to have fought the so-called Kurukshetra war under the supreme command of Kamboja king Sudakshina (See ref: The Nations of India at the Battle Between the Pandavas and Kauravas, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, 1908, pp 313, 331, Dr F. E. Pargiter--Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland). This shows that the Kambojas were in a very forefront commanding position during this period and the Sakas, Tukharas (Risikas), Daradas, Yavanas etc all were under the suzereignty of the Kambojas. 
The scenario of Arjuna's Digvijaya,  said to be a later addition (post Christian redaction), seems to allude to historical tribal distribution around Christian era from Indian point of view; and this picture undoubtedly reveals that the Kambojas/Parama Kambojas were still in the forefront around this period and are stated an allied tribe of the Risikas/Parama Rsikas (Asii/Pasioi). 
John, it seems very clear that the Greeks, Persians and the Chinese sources refer to the Indian name "Kamboja" under different names .......so the moot issue is the following: What could be the other name(s) by which the Kambojas were known to the Chinese and Greeks?. Can you guess the name(s)? Let us know if you can?
Satbir Singh (talk) 03:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply to Satbir Singh

message: Well, Satbir: "you can not simply go on rejecting the views of others if they do not match your own liking or your point of view." 
You seem to be accusing me of bias and prejudice without giving thought to what I have really said. Nor have you given me time to complete the editing I have started on this article (and I did say there was more to come).
I particularly object to you suggesting I have "a strong prejudiced" mind and "summarily" rejecting the evidence of the Mahabharata and the views of the authors you quoted. I have never done any such thing - I just pointed out that there are other plausible scenarios and theories which should be examined in this article.
You say: "These views come from writers like Moti Chander, M. R. Singh, B. M. Barua and many other noted Indologists who are no less distinguished and qualified in this field than your Claude Rapin or the like. How are you sure that Claude Rapin has indeed discovered the truth while the others have not." I could equally reply: how can you be sure the authorities you quote are correct, and the others are not?
Satbir, I have never said I was sure that Claude Rapin (or any other writer on the subject) "has indeed discovered the truth while the others have not". It is you who has been promoting what is basically one view without giving credit to others. I don't believe it is up for us to decide who is right here (that would be what the Wikipedia refers to as "POV") - but to present the various main theories as fairly as possible, in a balanced manner. 
Satbir - you are seriously misreading and misrepresenting me in many ways. First of all, I am not pushing one point of view and rejecting others - just taking account of the fact that there are many interpretations of the historical evidence and suggesting that we should consider all the main ones briefly (including the view you have promoted at such length) - not just having a long account of one of them which meets with your approval. Nor was I saying your account is "wrong". What I did say was that there are many other theories by reputable scholars and that they were often in disagreement with each other and with the one you are promoting. Here is what I said very clearly above - please read it again:
:"There are, as I mentioned above, numerous theories as to the origins and connections of the Asii - many of them made by reputable scholars, and many of them conflicting with each other. I intend, when I have time available, to briefly outline a few of them in the article, but it is important not to overload the article with the often detailed and very long arguments of the supporters of one theory or another." 
So, instead of continuing to argue with you here, I will begin entering summaries of some of the alternate theories into the article and give the references to the sources so readers can check them for themselves.
Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 06:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Asini (or Aseni) referred to by Pliny (AD 23 – AD 79) in his Historia Naturalis  (VI.23) first appeared in the list of the Indian Races described by Megasthenes (350 AD-290 Ad) in his Indika from which text Pliny had borrowed for his History per J. W. McCrindle (FRAGM. LVI, Indika, J. W. McCrindle . These Aseni or Aseni of Megasthenese in all probability are same people as the Asaceni or Assaceni of Plutarch which are the Assakenoi of Arrian, a name being equivalent to Sanskrit Asvaka or Pali Assaka (Chandra Chakraverty).  Around the time of Megasthenes (350 BCE - 290 BCE), how could there be any Kushanas (Yue-chis) present on the south side of the Hindukush in the Punjab at such an early date unless they are a section of the Asvaka/Asvakayana Kambojas who are said to be a cognate/agnate tribe of the Rsikas/Parama Riskas (Asioi/Pasioi)?.
I leave it up to you. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 11:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Second reply to Satbir Singh

message: Dear oh dear, this is becoming a rather long and tedious discussion. I never insinuated that Pliny had ever been to India or anywhere near it - so why do you ask me such a pointless question? 
Now, Pliny's evidence on the "Asini" is, admittedly very brief and secondary. However, you cannot accuse Pliny of not using sources later than Megasthenes if only because he mentions (Book VI, 18) King Antiochus (Soter) who reigned 281-261 BCE, after the death of Megasthenes in 290 BCE.
But, to the point, the more important texts of Trogus/Justinius and Strabo discuss the fall of the Greco-Bactrian state circa 245 or 240 BCE, well after the death of Megasthenes. Moreover, Ptolemy, in the 2nd century CE mentions one of the tribes (the Tokharoi) already mentioned in the earlier accounts. He places them to the south of Zariaspa/Bactres/Balkh and refers to them as "a numerous people'. So, the reference you give above from the 1881 Imperial Gazetteer of India that "The knowledge of the Greeks and Romans concerning India practically dates from Megasthenese's researches ~300 BCE" is clearly wrong - the Classical authors obviously had information on Bactria and India dating from well after the time of Megasthenes.  
It follows, therefore, that your statement, "Naturally they (the tribes of the Upper Indus) must have belonged to Megasthenese era and not to that of Pliny", is also not valid.
Your attempt to connect the Asii with the Kambhojas is certainly valid - but I feel you are emphasising it at the expense of other theories (and that is all it is - it is not a proven or generally accepted "fact"). It deserves to be dealt with - in a concise and sober manner alongside the other theories and hypotheses.  
But, please, I do not wish to continue arguing with you. What I would like to see is this article made as accurate, precise and concise as possible - giving fair and equal treatment to the many and varied hypotheses about the identification of the Asii without pushing any particular scenario (which would amount to "original research" - a Wikipedia "no-no") or boring the reader with over-long and over-detailed polemics. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 07:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Another reply to Mr. Satbir Singh

message: I have just had to make numerous changes to a quote from a book by Moti Chandra. If people are paraphrasing someone please don't put your interpretation in quotes. Quotes should contain exactly what the source actually says. Also, the theory that the Asii are referred to in Indian literature is just a theory at best - it is not yet proven to everyone's satisfaction, even if some people think it is true. I have, therefore, reinserted the question mark which was removed without reasons given. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 02:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Please make quotes accurate!