Print Page | Close Window

Was there a Persian Empire?

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: General History
Forum Name: Alternative History
Forum Discription: Discussion of Unorthodox Historical Theories & Approaches
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=24961
Printed Date: 11-Jul-2020 at 13:33
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Was there a Persian Empire?
Posted By: norsken
Subject: Was there a Persian Empire?
Date Posted: 27-Jul-2008 at 03:00
Was there a "Persian Empire"?

Sounds strange but it is a valid question. Our view is there was no "Persian Empire" because there were no "Persians". So who were those people running the "Persian Empire"?.  We would like to investigate this question and find out who were realy those people who created the "Persian Empire".

According to Assyrian Records, some people who were called Persians moved into South West of today's Iran in 800 B.C. This is the first appearance of Persians recorded in Assyrian records. So Persians were a recent migrants to this region as opposed to Medes and other natives such as Elamites who assyrians knew about a long time before this period.

It is assumed that they were Proto-Aryans that had just moved from Central Asia to Persia. But many facts contradict this hypothesis.

Persian Empire
Firstly in a span of 200 to 300 these "Persians" created a  vast empire with a very  advance  level of civilization with Post Office and Highways. Persians had a very advance religion. It was called Zoarastrianism. Both Judaism and Christiniaty is based on Zoarastrianism. Even Budism is based on Zoarstrianism. And these "Persians" managed a very vast Empire with a complex organization and social relations. Persian Empire even adopted the "declaration of Human Rights" in 500 B.C.  Persian Empire had even its own CIA too. They were called the "Eyes of the King".

So these people could not have been Proto-Aryans or in other words early Aryan tribes migrating to warmer climates due to the climate change in Central Asia.

So "Persians" should have lived somewhere else for thousands of years before they moved into Persia. In this other location they had developed a high level of culture and civilization and then they had moved into Persia.

So where was this other place that Persians lived previously before moving into Persia? The only place the Persians could have lived is Afghanistan. Afghanistan is an older Aryan civilization than Persia.

We can ask  two questions: If Persians came from Afghanistan, then why Pesians did not speak Pashtoon language? Secondly why did Persians move to South West Iran?

OLD PERSIAN
Persians spoke Old Persian language. Old Persian was contemporary to Avestan, another Old Iranian language. Old Persian is preserved through cuneiform tablets found in the remains after the Achaemenid dynasty (550- 330 BCE). The oldest traces of Old Persian date to the 6th century BCE, but it was spoken until the 3rd century BCE.

Old Persian was spoken in southwestern Iran, while Avestan was spoken in northeastern Iran.
It is believed that there must have been a fair level of mutual intelligibility between the Iranian languages of this period, and more than there would be in later periods. Old Persian and Avestan are closely related to Pashtoon language. The question is why Avestan and Pashtoon language which are eastern Iranian languages was transformed into Old Persian which is south Western Iranian language? Some anthropologist and linguist assume that Median language had some influence on Old Persian and that is the reason for a change of language structure.

"Old Persian" language indicates that the Afghan Society had developed a high level of civilization. There had been a process of stratification in Afghan society. There was a differentiation in Urban and Rural areas. There had developted an elite within Afghan society related to Zoarastrian religion with its own lanague separate from tribal afghans. There was high level of trade with neighboring areas  such as Mesopothemia and Persia's native civilization.

The Question of Trade
We think the expansion of trade required access to the sea. Persians or Parsua or Parsis were the elite of Afghan society. This elite decided to move its headquarters or its main center of civilization from Afghanistan to Persia. So the objective of this migration was to  reach Persian Gulf. That is the reason Persians moved to Pars Province which is adjacent to Persian Gulf and main centers of Babylon in Mesopothemian and Susa in Elam civilizations enabling it to trade with these urban advance civilizations.

We can see the same pattern later with Sakas or Scythians establishing settlements in Lursitan next to Pars province 100 years later and Parthians establish settlements in Pars and Lursitan province 1000 years later. Again access to the Persian Gulf was the main reason for these settlements.

Persians as Afghans
This theory that Persians were actually Afghans is also confirmed by the way "Persian Empire" developed. We have a lot of information about how "Persian Empire" expanded in  the West toward Egypt, Greece, Lydia and the Black sea. There were many wars specially with Greeks involving millions of soldiers and 1000's of ships in those battles. But there is very little information about the Persian Empire expanding to the East. The reason is very simple. Persian Empire was only an extension of Afghan Civilization and Persians were the elite of  Afghan society. So there was no need to expand and conquer the eastern countries or regions.

Furthermore when Greeks called these people for "Persians", they were refering to a specific region or location. Persians were not a specific ethnic group separate from the main Afghan-Bactrian civilization. Therefore we conclude that Persians were actually Afghans who had migrated to Persia and the real "Persian Empire" was actually an Afghan Empire.

Those people who might have a knowledge in this area is welcome to contribute to the elaboration of this theory.



Replies:
Posted By: Conservative
Date Posted: 27-Jul-2008 at 12:20
There's no question that the Achaemenids (it is their empire presumably you're talking about) were a dynasty and "elite" that belonged to Iran and what is now Fars province of Iran. Afghanistan as it exists today is merely a few hundred years old. The Afghans are natives of what is south and south-eastern Afghanistan. The rest of that country was incorporated into Afghanistan through conquest and later what the Russians and British empire's decided the boundaries of Afghanistan would be. So there is no question of Persians being an extension of "Afghans" - Afghans-Pashtuns werent even around when the Achaemenids were ruling Pars as regional Kings, sometime before Cyrus the Great began to build the first Persian empire.
 
Zoroastrianism no doubt is older than the first Persian empire but what's your point about that? The Achaemenid empire did not have an official state-religion even though the Achaemenid's themselves may have been Zoroastrians. It was only sometime during the Sassanid empire that Zoroastrianism become something that was institutionalized.
 
Anyway, Persians were living in Iran for generation's before the Achaemenid empire was founded.
 
In Afghanistan, name me and show me some proof of where this "high level of civilization" existed? And by Afghanistan im talking about the real Afghan homeland, ie Helmand, Qandahar etc Where is the proof in archeology of what you claim? All of the Achaemenid's traced their roots and origins to Pars and that is why the region was the centre of the empire and places such as Persepolis, Pasargadae etc were built there.
 
And there is nothing about Afghans-Pashtuns that resembls Persian culture or civilization. Their society, traditions and way of life are totally different to that of Persians and what was known about ancient Persians.


-------------
ایران‌ زمین


Posted By: Slayertplsko
Date Posted: 27-Jul-2008 at 12:49
Originally posted by norsken

We can ask  two questions: If Persians came from Afghanistan, then why Pesians did not speak Pashtoon language?


If Slavic peoples come from modern-day Ukraine, why didn't they speak Ukrainian?
If Germanic peoples come from modern-day Sweden, why didn't they speak Swedish?
If English language has its Germanic origin around modern-day Denmark, why don't they speak Danish?
If Celts come from modern-day Germany, why don't they all speak High German dialects??

You're from Afghanistan, right??Cheers



Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 28-Jul-2008 at 22:48
Persepolis is actually Pashtunopolis. Simple historical misunderstanding.

Is this alternative history or historical amusement?  I can't decide.


-------------


Posted By: Carpathian Wolf
Date Posted: 28-Jul-2008 at 23:18

Christianity didn't come from Zorastrianism. One is dualistic the other is not.



Posted By: norsken
Date Posted: 29-Jul-2008 at 00:02
Originally posted by Zagros

Persepolis is actually Pashtunopolis. Simple historical misunderstanding.

Is this alternative history or historical amusement?  I can't decide.


Mr. Zagros: you have to address the issues raised in the article. Does Old Persian originate from Pashtoon language and are they related? Where was Zoarastra born? Where did Persians come from? We welcome people who might have information about these events to comment the article.

I am personally not from AFghanistan.


Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 29-Jul-2008 at 05:51

The better theory which is based on historical facts is that Persians alongside Scythians, Cimmerians and some other Iranian peoples migrated from "Caucasus" first to the northwest of Iran, according to Assyrian sources ancient Persia was just a region around the lake Urmia (northwest of Media, modern Azerbaijan).

http://www.heritageinstitute.com/zoroastrianism/achaemenian/index.htm - http://www.heritageinstitute.com/zoroastrianism/achaemenian/index.htm :

From about 800 to 700 BCE, Parsua or Parsumash, ancient Persia, extended from the southern regions of Lake Urmia to what is Kermanshah (central western Iran) today. Over the period of another century, the concentration of Persians would gradually and peacefully move to the south of this territory - towards the northern boundaries of Elam and the city of Susa (today called Shush, south of Dezful and north of Ahwaz), (see map below) and along the western slopes of the Zagros and Bakhtiyari mountains (see photo of a valley in the Bakhtiyari mountains at the left).
Archaeological evidence indicates that the early Persians lived in established, permanent and peaceful settlements. The gradual move south likely happened for political reasons, because of raids from invading armies such as the Scythians and the Assyrians, and because of a desire to live in security and peace.



-------------


Posted By: norsken
Date Posted: 29-Jul-2008 at 23:20
Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri

The better theory which is based on historical facts is that Persians alongside Scythians, Cimmerians and some other Iranian peoples migrated from "Caucasus" first to the northwest of Iran, according to Assyrian sources ancient Persia was just a region around the lake Urmia (northwest of Media, modern Azerbaijan).

http://www.heritageinstitute.com/zoroastrianism/achaemenian/index.htm - http://www.heritageinstitute.com/zoroastrianism/achaemenian/index.htm :

From about 800 to 700 BCE, Parsua or Parsumash, ancient Persia, extended from the southern regions of Lake Urmia to what is Kermanshah (central western Iran) today. Over the period of another century, the concentration of Persians would gradually and peacefully move to the south of this territory - towards the northern boundaries of Elam and the city of Susa (today called Shush, south of Dezful and north of Ahwaz), (see map below) and along the western slopes of the Zagros and Bakhtiyari mountains (see photo of a valley in the Bakhtiyari mountains at the left).
Archaeological evidence indicates that the early Persians lived in established, permanent and peaceful settlements. The gradual move south likely happened for political reasons, because of raids from invading armies such as the Scythians and the Assyrians, and because of a desire to live in security and peace.



Thanks. There are several problems with this theory about Caucasus as the migration path. Persians came from an area between Oxus and Caspian sea.  So they probably came through Khorasan and not Caucasus.

Secondly the text treats Medes and Persians as the same people. Persians and Medes are entirely different people. Medes were natives of Iran. Kurds have 8000 years of civilization in Iran. Medes did not speak an Iranian language and they were not part of aryan tribes.

Also western Iran was occupied already by Medes and others. There was no reason to go to Western Iran. Also Persians were looking for Persian Gulf. There was no reason to go to a landlocked area. Persians had a high level of civilization and culture before coming to Iran.


Posted By: norsken
Date Posted: 29-Jul-2008 at 23:28
Originally posted by Conservative

There's no question that the Achaemenids (it is their empire presumably you're talking about) were a dynasty and "elite" that belonged to Iran and what is now Fars province of Iran. Afghanistan as it exists today is merely a few hundred years old. The Afghans are natives of what is south and south-eastern Afghanistan. The rest of that country was incorporated into Afghanistan through conquest and later what the Russians and British empire's decided the boundaries of Afghanistan would be. So there is no question of Persians being an extension of "Afghans" - Afghans-Pashtuns werent even around when the Achaemenids were ruling Pars as regional Kings, sometime before Cyrus the Great began to build the first Persian empire.
 
Zoroastrianism no doubt is older than the first Persian empire but what's your point about that? The Achaemenid empire did not have an official state-religion even though the Achaemenid's themselves may have been Zoroastrians. It was only sometime during the Sassanid empire that Zoroastrianism become something that was institutionalized.
 
Anyway, Persians were living in Iran for generation's before the Achaemenid empire was founded.
 
In Afghanistan, name me and show me some proof of where this "high level of civilization" existed? And by Afghanistan im talking about the real Afghan homeland, ie Helmand, Qandahar etc Where is the proof in archeology of what you claim? All of the Achaemenid's traced their roots and origins to Pars and that is why the region was the centre of the empire and places such as Persepolis, Pasargadae etc were built there.
 
And there is nothing about Afghans-Pashtuns that resembls Persian culture or civilization. Their society, traditions and way of life are totally different to that of Persians and what was known about ancient Persians.


I hope our afghan friend  Mr. Afghanan can respond to your points. But  I think you misunderstand Afghanistan. You think there is a "Persian race" in Afghanistan who speaks Dari lanaguage and there is another Race called Pashtoon who do not really belong to the "Iranian Race".

Well, that is not correct. The people who speak Dari are the same people who speak Pashtoon and they are from the same tribes. Dari and Middle Persian are languages that came  later to Afghanistan. Before that they all spoke Pashtoon or Avesta which are both Eastern Iranian languages and closely related to each other.


Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 31-Jul-2008 at 17:28
Originally posted by norsken

Thanks. There are several problems with this theory about Caucasus as the migration path. Persians came from an area between Oxus and Caspian sea.  So they probably came through Khorasan and not Caucasus.

Secondly the text treats Medes and Persians as the same people. Persians and Medes are entirely different people. Medes were natives of Iran. Kurds have 8000 years of civilization in Iran. Medes did not speak an Iranian language and they were not part of aryan tribes.

Also western Iran was occupied already by Medes and others. There was no reason to go to Western Iran. Also Persians were looking for Persian Gulf. There was no reason to go to a landlocked area. Persians had a high level of civilization and culture before coming to Iran.
Please show your sources about these ones:
 
"Persians came from an area between Oxus and Caspian sea."
"Persians and Medes are entirely different people."
"Kurds have 8000 years of civilization in Iran."
"Medes did not speak an Iranian language and they were not part of aryan tribes."
 
As far as I know, there is absolutely no mention of a Persian presence in the eastern Iran before the Achaemenid period, Persians and Medes were very similar peoples, and about Kurds, if you considered them as the same Sumerain "Karda" (north of Iraq) or Akkadian "Kurtei" (Zagros mountains), they were certainly a non-Iranian people who adopted Iranian culture and language, probably after the Median conquest of these regions in the seventh century BC.


-------------


Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 01-Aug-2008 at 00:34
There is no doubt in academia that Medes were Iranic.  If you are going to go against conventional wisdom like this you need to present facts.   If the Medes were the primary ancestors of Kurds as you seem to indicate and they didn't speak an iranic language, then why do modern Kurds speak quintessentially iranian languages?

How do you explain the Iranian names of the Medean royalty and clergy? 

If Persians came from Afghanistan and brought everything they had therefrom why did they use the same Cunieform as Elam? 


-------------


Posted By: norsken
Date Posted: 01-Aug-2008 at 01:35
Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri


Please show your sources about these ones:
 
"Persians came from an area between Oxus and Caspian sea."

According to Avesta Iran was actually an area between Oxus and Caspian Sea. Persians were Zoarastrians. They should have come from this area. There is no Zoarastrian centers in Caucasus at this time.

Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri


"Persians and Medes are entirely different people."

According to Russian sources, Medes were natives of Iran. There are no traces of Medes in Central Asia. There was  a Media Empire long before Persians came to this area.

Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri


"Kurds have 8000 years of civilization in Iran."
"Medes did not speak an Iranian language and they were not part of aryan tribes."


According to Wikepedia Kurds have 8000 years of civilization in Iran. Kurds have different origin. We think Kurds mainly originate from Medes specially in Iran and Iraq. Medes and Kurds are not two different people. They are the same people. %15-%20 of Kurds are actually Persians-Sakas. Very  little is left from Median language but if Medes were natives of Iran then they could not have been an Iranian tribe. The Kurdish language is an adopted language by Kurds.

Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri


As far as I know, there is absolutely no mention of a Persian presence in the eastern Iran before the Achaemenid period, Persians and Medes were very similar peoplescentury BC.


Avesta was spoken in North Eastern Iran which is mutually intelligeble with Old Persian. We think Persians were Bactrians-Sakas. There may be 5% (Max %10) of these original Persians in Iran. The rest of Persians are actually Medes who have adopted the Persian language.


Posted By: norsken
Date Posted: 01-Aug-2008 at 01:52
Originally posted by Zagros

There is no doubt in academia that Medes were Iranic.  If you are going to go against conventional wisdom like this you need to present facts.   If the Medes were the primary ancestors of Kurds as you seem to indicate and they didn't speak an iranic language, then why do modern Kurds speak quintessentially iranian languages?

How do you explain the Iranian names of the Medean royalty and clergy? 

If Persians came from Afghanistan and brought everything they had therefrom why did they use the same Cunieform as Elam? 

Yes. They claim that. But they do not show any evidence to support it. Can you show any sources that make these claims? Those who claim there is a connection between Medes and persians should prove their claims.

Persians were actually similar to Japanese. They adopted anything which was technologically advance from any other people. Armaic was their Empire language.


Posted By: Kids
Date Posted: 01-Aug-2008 at 08:00
Has anyone checked the latest National Geographic? Anyone who is fan of Persian culture and history, you have to check the this issue (it even provide nicely made Persian map)!


Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 01-Aug-2008 at 08:38

According to Avesta Iran was actually an area between Oxus and Caspian Sea.

This is a non-proved theory (hypothesis), according to Avesta the oiginal land of Iranians which is called "Airyana Vaeja" (Land of Aryans), was in the remote north and too cold.
 
http://www.avesta.org/vendidad/vd1sbe.htm - http://www.avesta.org/vendidad/vd1sbe.htm : The first of the good lands and countries which I, Ahura Mazda, created, was the Airyana Vaeja, by the Vanguhi Daitya. There are ten winter months there, two summer months; and those are cold for the waters, cold for the earth, cold for the trees.

Therefore it couldn't certainly the region that you mentioned, furthermore Persians are not equal to Iranians or vice versa.

Persians were Zoarastrians. They should have come from this area.

Do you think Indian Muslims are from Saudi Arabia or Norwegian Christians from Israel?

There is no Zoarastrian centers in Caucasus at this time.

Sassanid source all mention Azerbaijan as the center of Zoroastrianism and the birth place of Zoroaster. (for example read "Zand Avesta")

According to Russian sources, Medes were natives of Iran.

Who do you mean?" Diakonoff in his "History of Media" says there was no mention of Medes before 9th century BC. (first by Assyrians as "Amadai" then New Elamite "matape", Hebrew "madai", Old Persian "Mad", Old Greek "Medoi", Armenian "Mar-k", ...)

There are no traces of Medes in Central Asia.

This is a exact quote from Diakonoff: "With due attention to the relations among Median and Central Asian languages, there is no doubt that the origin of Medes was from Central Asia." (of course some other scholars don't agree with him.)

There was  a Media Empire long before Persians came to this area.

Not more than a century, What does it prove?



-------------


Posted By: Afghanan
Date Posted: 01-Aug-2008 at 10:12
Originally posted by norsken

Was there a "Persian Empire"?

Sounds strange but it is a valid question. Our view is there was no "Persian Empire" because there were no "Persians". So who were those people running the "Persian Empire"?.  We would like to investigate this question and find out who were realy those people who created the "Persian Empire".

According to Assyrian Records, some people who were called Persians moved into South West of today's Iran in 800 B.C. This is the first appearance of Persians recorded in Assyrian records. So Persians were a recent migrants to this region as opposed to Medes and other natives such as Elamites who assyrians knew about a long time before this period.

It is assumed that they were Proto-Aryans that had just moved from Central Asia to Persia. But many facts contradict this hypothesis.

Persian Empire
Firstly in a span of 200 to 300 these "Persians" created a  vast empire with a very  advance  level of civilization with Post Office and Highways. Persians had a very advance religion. It was called Zoarastrianism. Both Judaism and Christiniaty is based on Zoarastrianism. Even Budism is based on Zoarstrianism. And these "Persians" managed a very vast Empire with a complex organization and social relations. Persian Empire even adopted the "declaration of Human Rights" in 500 B.C.  Persian Empire had even its own CIA too. They were called the "Eyes of the King".

So these people could not have been Proto-Aryans or in other words early Aryan tribes migrating to warmer climates due to the climate change in Central Asia.

So "Persians" should have lived somewhere else for thousands of years before they moved into Persia. In this other location they had developed a high level of culture and civilization and then they had moved into Persia.

So where was this other place that Persians lived previously before moving into Persia? The only place the Persians could have lived is Afghanistan. Afghanistan is an older Aryan civilization than Persia.

We can ask  two questions: If Persians came from Afghanistan, then why Pesians did not speak Pashtoon language? Secondly why did Persians move to South West Iran?

OLD PERSIAN
Persians spoke Old Persian language. Old Persian was contemporary to Avestan, another Old Iranian language. Old Persian is preserved through cuneiform tablets found in the remains after the Achaemenid dynasty (550- 330 BCE). The oldest traces of Old Persian date to the 6th century BCE, but it was spoken until the 3rd century BCE.

Old Persian was spoken in southwestern Iran, while Avestan was spoken in northeastern Iran.
It is believed that there must have been a fair level of mutual intelligibility between the Iranian languages of this period, and more than there would be in later periods. Old Persian and Avestan are closely related to Pashtoon language. The question is why Avestan and Pashtoon language which are eastern Iranian languages was transformed into Old Persian which is south Western Iranian language? Some anthropologist and linguist assume that Median language had some influence on Old Persian and that is the reason for a change of language structure.

"Old Persian" language indicates that the Afghan Society had developed a high level of civilization. There had been a process of stratification in Afghan society. There was a differentiation in Urban and Rural areas. There had developted an elite within Afghan society related to Zoarastrian religion with its own lanague separate from tribal afghans. There was high level of trade with neighboring areas  such as Mesopothemia and Persia's native civilization.

The Question of Trade
We think the expansion of trade required access to the sea. Persians or Parsua or Parsis were the elite of Afghan society. This elite decided to move its headquarters or its main center of civilization from Afghanistan to Persia. So the objective of this migration was to  reach Persian Gulf. That is the reason Persians moved to Pars Province which is adjacent to Persian Gulf and main centers of Babylon in Mesopothemian and Susa in Elam civilizations enabling it to trade with these urban advance civilizations.

We can see the same pattern later with Sakas or Scythians establishing settlements in Lursitan next to Pars province 100 years later and Parthians establish settlements in Pars and Lursitan province 1000 years later. Again access to the Persian Gulf was the main reason for these settlements.

Persians as Afghans
This theory that Persians were actually Afghans is also confirmed by the way "Persian Empire" developed. We have a lot of information about how "Persian Empire" expanded in  the West toward Egypt, Greece, Lydia and the Black sea. There were many wars specially with Greeks involving millions of soldiers and 1000's of ships in those battles. But there is very little information about the Persian Empire expanding to the East. The reason is very simple. Persian Empire was only an extension of Afghan Civilization and Persians were the elite of  Afghan society. So there was no need to expand and conquer the eastern countries or regions.

Furthermore when Greeks called these people for "Persians", they were refering to a specific region or location. Persians were not a specific ethnic group separate from the main Afghan-Bactrian civilization. Therefore we conclude that Persians were actually Afghans who had migrated to Persia and the real "Persian Empire" was actually an Afghan Empire.

Those people who might have a knowledge in this area is welcome to contribute to the elaboration of this theory.
 
It seems like you are mixing up the notion of the Iranic world (Indo-Iranians) with the Persian Empire.  As for Pashto being related to Old Persian and Avestan, that is plausible since it is an Iranian language, but the same goes with Dari/Modern Persian which both developed from Middle Iranian.  The Eastern portion of the Iranic world is inhabited by Persian speakers and Eastern Iranian speakers, and there is a very strong "Iranic" presence in the region even after the Turkic invasions.  Even in modern day Iran, the Eastern portion of Iran has been shown to have more Iranic haplogroups.
 
Spencer Wells mentioned the genetic studies show that Indo-Iranian haplogroups are more present in Eastern Iran than in Western Iran:
 
"Intriguingly, the population of present-day Iran, speaking a major Indo-European language ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_language - Farsi ), appears to have had little genetic influence from the M17-carrying Indo-Iranians. It is possible that the pre-Indo-European population of Iran— effectively an eastern extension of the great civilizations of Mesopotamia—may have reached sufficient population densities to have swamped any genetic contribution from a small number of immigrating Indo-Iranians. If so, this may have been a case of language replacement through the ‘‘elite-dominance’’ model. Alternatively, an Indo-Iranian language may have been the lingua franca of the steppe nomads and the surrounding settled populations, facilitating communication between the two. Over time, this language could have become the predominant language in Persia, reinforced and standardized by rulers such as Cyrus the Great and Darius in the mid-first millennium B.C. Whichever model is correct, the Iranians sampled here (from the western part of the country) appear to be more similar genetically to Afro-Asiatic-speaking Middle Eastern populations than they are to Central Asians or Indians"
 
The problem with the notion of Afghans (Pashtuns) being the real Persians is that you are mixing a culture, a civilization, and ethnic groups into one being.  The Persians were an empire that drew from Eastern Iran, but they themselves were a settled and civilized culture and ruled of a mix array of people.  The Afghans for the most part, were nomadic, independent, and war-like and comprised of the ancient Saka, remnants of the Tocharians, White Huns, and earlier Indo-Aryan groups that they amalgamated with.
 
Bactria was inhabited by Scythian people before it became under the control of the elite Iranian noblemen, and they were always harassed by the Saka and the Confederation of Iranic/Tocharian nomads that the Pashtuns are said to be derived from.  Afghans did not make a strong unified presence until Ahmad Shah Durrani.
 
Other than in having a common ancestor, Pashtuns and Persians are culturally very different.  I think the people you are referring to are not the Afghans, but the Tajiks, who can be said are true Persians in culture, and ethnicity.


-------------
The perceptive man is he who knows about himself, for in self-knowledge and insight lays knowledge of the holiest.
~ Khushal Khan Khattak


Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 01-Aug-2008 at 10:46
Those Tajiks would surely be the descendants of of Soghdo-Bactrians.  True Persians are in Iran.

Norsken, Nick or whatever your name happens to be the burden of evidence is squarely on your shoulders if you are attacking conventional wisdom.  I don't have to prove conventional wisdom.  But if you simply look up the names of Medean royalty you will see that they are Iranic.   If you find a translation of the Naghshe Rostam inscriptions by Darius you will see that he unequivicollay pronounces himself an Aryan and a Persian.   Herodotus likewise states that Medes also knew themselves as Aryans and that Persian and Medean were mutually intelligible. 



-------------


Posted By: norsken
Date Posted: 01-Aug-2008 at 17:19
Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri

According to Avesta Iran was actually an area between Oxus and Caspian Sea.

This is a non-proved theory (hypothesis), according to Avesta the oiginal land of Iranians which is called "Airyana Vaeja" (Land of Aryans), was in the remote north and too cold.
 
http://www.avesta.org/vendidad/vd1sbe.htm - http://www.avesta.org/vendidad/vd1sbe.htm : The first of the good lands and countries which I, Ahura Mazda, created, was the Airyana Vaeja, by the Vanguhi Daitya. There are ten winter months there, two summer months; and those are cold for the waters, cold for the earth, cold for the trees.

Therefore it couldn't certainly the region that you mentioned, furthermore Persians are not equal to Iranians or vice versa.

Persians were Zoarastrians. They should have come from this area.

Do you think Indian Muslims are from Saudi Arabia or Norwegian Christians from Israel?

There is no Zoarastrian centers in Caucasus at this time.

Sassanid source all mention Azerbaijan as the center of Zoroastrianism and the birth place of Zoroaster. (for example read "Zand Avesta")

According to Russian sources, Medes were natives of Iran.

Who do you mean?" Diakonoff in his "History of Media" says there was no mention of Medes before 9th century BC. (first by Assyrians as "Amadai" then New Elamite "matape", Hebrew "madai", Old Persian "Mad", Old Greek "Medoi", Armenian "Mar-k", ...)

There are no traces of Medes in Central Asia.

This is a exact quote from Diakonoff: "With due attention to the relations among Median and Central Asian languages, there is no doubt that the origin of Medes was from Central Asia." (of course some other scholars don't agree with him.)

There was  a Media Empire long before Persians came to this area.

Not more than a century, What does it prove?



Actually Mr. Afghanan has responded to the question of Medes which confirms my statements. Here is his response:

"Intriguingly, the population of present-day Iran, speaking a major Indo-European language ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_language -


Posted By: norsken
Date Posted: 01-Aug-2008 at 17:25
Originally posted by Zagros

Those Tajiks would surely be the descendants of of Soghdo-Bactrians.  True Persians are in Iran.

Norsken, Nick or whatever your name happens to be the burden of evidence is squarely on your shoulders if you are attacking conventional wisdom.  I don't have to prove conventional wisdom.  But if you simply look up the names of Medean royalty you will see that they are Iranic.   If you find a translation of the Naghshe Rostam inscriptions by Darius you will see that he unequivicollay pronounces himself an Aryan and a Persian.   Herodotus likewise states that Medes also knew themselves as Aryans and that Persian and Medean were mutually intelligible. 


Mr. Zagros or Ahmadinejad or Khatami or whatever your name is: There is no conventional wisdom in science and you have to prove everything you say. Darius was Persian. What is that to do with Medes. Also Sogdians have disappeared a long time ago. You must be sleeping. Few Yangoobis left only. Most Tajiks in Tajikstan are neither Bactrian or Sogdian.


May I ask what is a "True Persian"?


Posted By: norsken
Date Posted: 01-Aug-2008 at 17:26
I wonder who has moved my thread to this section?????


Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 01-Aug-2008 at 18:08
Historiography is a science and not the baseless musings of individuals...  as a science it has established theory based on facts and thus conventional wisdom on issues, such as "Medes were Iranic; there was a Persian Empire".   In your case, you are questioning whether the Persian empire existed at all and in your amateurish excitement you have neglected some glaring historical facts such as Darius' proclamation at Naghshe Rostam and others which Cyrus has so kindly brought to your attention (yet with no apparent effect which justifies the reallocation of this thread to the loony bin of AE).

effectively an eastern extension of the great civilizations of Mesopotamia—may have reached sufficient population densities to have swamped any genetic contribution from a small number of immigrating Indo-Iranians. If so, this may have been a case of language replacement through the ‘‘elite-dominance’’ model.


Well, duh.  Nomadic Persian tribes came to Western Iran from CA (not South Afghanistan) encroached on the existing civlisations (Elamite, etc) and over the course of a couple of centuries supplanted them adopting and amalgamating the sedentary culture with their own nomadic culture, as was the case with the Iranic Mada further to the North of Iran.  

PS: I moved it, as is my prerogative, because you are questioning whether the Persian empire existed. 




-------------


Posted By: norsken
Date Posted: 01-Aug-2008 at 18:21
Originally posted by Zagros

Historiography is a science and not the baseless musings of individuals...  as a science it has established theory based on facts and thus conventional wisdom on issues, such as "Medes were Iranic; there was a Persian Empire".   In your case, you are questioning whether the Persian empire existed at all and in your amateurish excitement you have neglected some glaring historical facts such as Darius' proclamation at Naghshe Rostam and others which Cyrus has so kindly brought to your attention (yet with no apparent effect which justifies the reallocation of this thread to the loony bin of AE).

effectively an eastern extension of the great civilizations of Mesopotamia—may have reached sufficient population densities to have swamped any genetic contribution from a small number of immigrating Indo-Iranians. If so, this may have been a case of language replacement through the ‘‘elite-dominance’’ model.


Well, duh.  Nomadic Persian tribes came to Western Iran from CA (not South Afghanistan) encroached on the existing civlisations (Elamite, etc) and over the course of a couple of centuries supplanted them adopting and amalgamating the sedentary culture with their own nomadic culture, as was the case with the Iranic Mada further to the North of Iran.  

PS: I moved it, as is my prerogative, because you are questioning whether the Persian empire existed. 



Mr. Zagros: You do not even know the difference of Tajiks in Tajikstan with Sogdians. Also you do not read the posts. Persians are coming from an area from Caspian sea to Oxus. That is not southern Afghanistan. I  say Persian Empire is Afghan-Bactrian Empire.

Anymore of your comments, this thread should be moved to zoo section.

It is clear that this discussion contradicts your "Politically Correct" view of history. I suggest you correct  your PC than moving the thread.


Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 01-Aug-2008 at 18:23
Originally posted by norsken


Yes. They claim that. But they do not show any evidence to support it. Can you show any sources that make these claims?

Persians were actually similar to Japanese. They adopted anything which was technologically advance from any other people. Armaic was their Empire language.


Yes, Strabo in his Geography (15.8), he said that Persian, Medean and Soghdian were practically the same language with simple accent or dialectal differences.  He lived around 1AD but I suppose you know better than him since you have a time machine that is why no one can question what you say.  Maybe you should climb back in and check your facts because your head's in the sand on this one.






-------------


Posted By: norsken
Date Posted: 01-Aug-2008 at 19:28
Originally posted by Afghanan

 
It seems like you are mixing up the notion of the Iranic world (Indo-Iranians) with the Persian Empire.  As for Pashto being related to Old Persian and Avestan, that is plausible since it is an Iranian language, but the same goes with Dari/Modern Persian which both developed from Middle Iranian.  The Eastern portion of the Iranic world is inhabited by Persian speakers and Eastern Iranian speakers, and there is a very strong "Iranic" presence in the region even after the Turkic invasions.  Even in modern day Iran, the Eastern portion of Iran has been shown to have more Iranic haplogroups.
 
Spencer Wells mentioned the genetic studies show that Indo-Iranian haplogroups are more present in Eastern Iran than in Western Iran:
 
"Intriguingly, the population of present-day Iran, speaking a major Indo-European language ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_language -
 

This confirms that Medes were not central  asians.

Originally posted by Afghanan

  
The problem with the notion of Afghans (Pashtuns) being the real Persians is that you are mixing a culture, a civilization, and ethnic groups into one being. 
 

Pashtoon is only a language. It is not an ethnicity. Afghan can be Dari speaker or Pashtoon speaker.
Originally posted by Afghanan


The Persians were an empire that drew from Eastern Iran, but they themselves were a settled and civilized culture and ruled of a mix array of people.  The Afghans for the most part, were nomadic, independent, and war-like and comprised of the ancient Saka, remnants of the Tocharians, White Huns, and earlier Indo-Aryan groups that they amalgamated with.
 

Tochiarian and white huns and Kurshan: that is all long time after. At this time we are talking about 800 BC were only Bactrians and Sakas. Persians were not nomadic pashtoons but urban bactrians.
Originally posted by Afghanan


Bactria was inhabited by Scythian people before it became under the control of the elite Iranian noblemen, and they were always harassed by the Saka and the Confederation of Iranic/Tocharian nomads that the Pashtuns are said to be derived from.  Afghans did not make a strong unified presence until Ahmad Shah Durrani.
 

Can you explain what is Iranian and Iranic in this context. Who were those people?
Originally posted by Afghanan

 
Other than in having a common ancestor, Pashtuns and Persians are culturally very different.  I think the people you are referring to are not the Afghans, but the Tajiks, who can be said are true Persians in culture, and ethnicity.

I am not sure why you refer to Pashtoons. I am talking about afghans. Pashtoon is only a  language. Tajik is a wrong term. You mean Parsiwan that is Dari speaking Afghans. Tajiks are turks who speak Dari language.

Tajiks






Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 01-Aug-2008 at 21:37
This confirms that Medes were not central  asians.


Even if you are to use the unreliable and flawed genetic line of argument, it does nothing of the sort since in NW Iran there is still a substantial % of M17 (R1a) which one can attribute to Medes.  And what proof is there that Indo Aryans predominantly bore R1a?  Why not R1b?  Well either way, your theory is debunked both by genetics and historical accounts. 

The red here is R1a and R1b, R1b is a third of R1a in NW Iran:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2229/1547718128_6898ed0025.jpg?v=0

This proves that Medes were a ruling Iranic elite from CA. 


-------------


Posted By: norsken
Date Posted: 01-Aug-2008 at 21:41
Originally posted by Zagros


effectively an eastern extension of the great civilizations of Mesopotamia—may have reached sufficient population densities to have swamped any genetic contribution from a small number of immigrating Indo-Iranians. If so, this may have been a case of language replacement through the ‘‘elite-dominance’’ model.


Well, duh.  Nomadic Persian tribes came to Western Iran from CA (not South Afghanistan) encroached on the existing civlisations (Elamite, etc) and over the course of a couple of centuries supplanted them adopting and amalgamating the sedentary culture with their own nomadic culture, as was the case with the Iranic Mada further to the North of Iran.  

PS: I moved it, as is my prerogative, because you are questioning whether the Persian empire existed. 

First Persians were Medes. Now Persians are Elamite. Are these the same dravidian elamites from southern India as some claim? So how come Persians look similar to Afghans? Are there elamites in Afghanistan too???


Posted By: norsken
Date Posted: 01-Aug-2008 at 21:47
Originally posted by Zagros

This confirms that Medes were not central  asians.


Even if you are to use the unreliable and flawed genetic line of argument, it does nothing of the sort since in NW Iran there is still a substantial % of M17 (R1a) which one can attribute to Medes.  And what proof is there that Indo Aryans predominantly bore R1a?  Why not R1b?  Well either way, your theory is debunked both by genetics and historical accounts. 

The red here is R1a and R1b, R1b is a third of R1a in NW Iran:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2229/1547718128_6898ed0025.jpg?v=0

This proves that Medes were Iranics from CA.  How do you like that?

So Azeri Turks have become Medes too!!!!!SmileClap

This is similar to Azeri Turks claim they have the same genes as Persians. Sorry there is no Persian Genes because there is no Persian race.Big%20smile


Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 01-Aug-2008 at 21:56
Persians weren't Medes and they were not Elamites either, nor were they Pashtuns!   You initially disputed the very existence of Persians!  Persians at that time consisted of various closely related tribes such as that of Cyrus the Great, the Pasargadae - these tribes knew themselves as Persians but the difference between them and Medes would have been as prominent as that between south Germans and Austrians or Czechs and Slovakians, to draw some analogies for you.  

Medes, Persians, Scythians, Parthians, Bactrians, Soghdians and others were all Iranic, with a common tribal root, so it is natural that their languages would be similar at this time since it was only a few centuries since they broke away from CA.

There is no doubt that the Persians adopted aspects of the Elamite culture INCLUDING the cunieform script as well as formal garb as can be witnessed at Persepolis. 

Now if you want to keep twisting words and talkning shit because your silly theory like all of the ones before it has been debunked then feel free, but I will entertain you no longer.

[EDIT:] Oh god! he's started on Azeri Turks again!!!  No those HG can be attributed to the Kurds of NW Iran.  You do know there are Kurds in the NW of Iran don't you? 

Quite funny how when I engage you in seriously debunking your claims you resort to ridicule because you CANNOT substantiate any of your claims... at all. 

Goodbye Chosloner.



-------------


Posted By: IamJoseph
Date Posted: 30-Sep-2008 at 04:39
Of course there was a Persian Empire, one of it's first descriptive history being in the Book of Esther - written before the Greeks landed in Arabia, in the Hebrew language. The Persian King Darius gave favour to the Jews after the Babylon destruction of King Solomon's temple, and allowed them to re-build it. It was later again destroyed by Rome in 70 CE. The Persians followed Zoroashtra as their diety, and was later Islamized after a series of wars. The Persian race is not Arab, but Islamic today.

-------------
Moses - the First Zionist.


Posted By: IamJoseph
Date Posted: 30-Sep-2008 at 04:49
Are these the same dravidian elamites from southern India as some claim? 
 
The book of Esther states the Persian empire extended to 127 countires, and culminated in India. The Israelites were drafted in the Persian army 2600 years ago, and many did get transported to the Indian continent.
 
What is amazing here is, the Indian alphabetical writings of today is 99% the same as the Hebrew - in alphabet design, sounds and ancient word meanings: Adam [Man/Heb] = Adami [Indian]; etc. While there is no question the Hebrew existed before this time, there is no hard evidence of any alphabetical indian writings before 2600 years. Sanscrit, often claimed as a precussor of today's Hindhi, is really not that old - it is less than 2400 years. The Urdu language, often said to be a prototype of Hindhi or an admixture of Arabic, cannot be correct: the Arabic writings emerged only after 350 CE. And there is no Persian alphabeticals before 2600 years.


-------------
Moses - the First Zionist.


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 30-Sep-2008 at 05:19
[edit]

-------------


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 30-Sep-2008 at 08:50
Originally posted by Aeolus

i haven't read all this (i skipped to the end), but why was norsken banned?


alright. i see it now.

perchance a section could be established for punished members? it would provide entertainment for the rest of us and keep real threads free of spam and passion.

forget it. nevermind, i need sleep. 8 ^ P


-------------


Posted By: IamJoseph
Date Posted: 02-Oct-2008 at 09:53
It seems like you are mixing up the notion of the Iranic world (Indo-Iranians) with the Persian Empire.  
 
I doubt today's Iranian peoples would be much connected to the original inhabitants. We can take an example from Egypt: this country's ruling majority, Muslim Arabs, are not connected with that ancient land, religion, language or peoples.
 
Egypt was not Arab, a race which appeared 2500 years ago, while the now small Coptic Egyptians were the real Egyptians, who never spoke Arabic, and had their lands stolen by mafioso style groups, who later became called Arabs because the entire region became known as Arabia in Roman times.
 
Iran is not Arabian, and was not Islamic. The original Persians, like the Coptics, were enforced to convert, and its other religions [Parsis, Bahai] were brutully supressed. Given any opportunities, there would be a welcome demand for seperatist non-islamic Coptic Egyptian and Persian seperatist states in these lands. And why not!
 
The current situation, of dividing the Middle-east exclusively as Islamic is from a corruption by Briton, which created all these states and handed large chunks of lands to Regimes [family clans] as ther private and personal properties - for preferential oil contracts. The situation in Palestine, its corruption of the Balfour Mandate, and the on-going serial demand for more states in this miniscule land, is a symptom of a much larger doctrine: that no other religion can prevail in Arabia [Quran].
 
This is why we see no other religion holding states, Lebanon de-christianised, the Coptics, Drews, Kurds and others never catered to, and the same oppression seen in today's Iran. This threatening situation does not stop here - it encroaches all the way to India, Asia, China, and Europe. And India is a country which has been the most generous to Muslims - giving them two large states [Pakistan and Bangladesh], and merited only terrorist demands for Kashmir and other Indian territories. These firey issues loom much more important than the climate issue, and constitutes the real pollution for humanity. Nations and historical heritages are being targeted to be wiped off the map.


-------------
Moses - the First Zionist.


Posted By: Asawar Hazaraspa
Date Posted: 02-Oct-2008 at 10:51

"According to Russian sources, Medes were natives of Iran. There are no traces of Medes in Central Asia. There was a Media Empire long before Persians came to this area."

Are you forgetting accounts of Herodotus - though sometimes inaccurate- he said that the Medes were formerly known as Airoi. Kurds speaking a definite Iranian language and culture just could have been accepted incorporations from foreign elements, So any other evidences of any inod-european presence in the region western Iran will enhance the chances of the theories of the earlier Ido-european presence all over Iranian plateau.  



Posted By: capcartoonist
Date Posted: 03-Oct-2008 at 07:55
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf

Christianity didn't come from Zorastrianism. One is dualistic the other is not.

 
Ernt!  Wrong answer. You do not win the living room set and the hibachi.
 
Both religions are dualistic.  God and Satan, Ahura Mazda and Ahriman.  Light and Dark, Order and Chaos, Good and Evil.
 
Most Christian theologians never had an original idea.
 
 


Posted By: IamJoseph
Date Posted: 03-Oct-2008 at 10:49
Both religions are dualistic.  God and Satan, Ahura Mazda and Ahriman.  Light and Dark, Order and Chaos, Good and Evil.
 
 
This is a confusing of the positive/negative duality factor expressed in Genesis, with a Godhead premise. The duality is post-creation, and not part of the Creator.  I don't see christianity stemming from Zoroastrianism, but of Hellenism, and initiated by the Greeks embedded in Rome.
 
The Greeks became privy to the OT via the Septuagint, the first translation of the Hebrew bible. They were so impressed that it created disatisfaction with their priests, who became diminished by the OT's superiority. Thereafter there was a series of attempts of amalgamation of the Greek and Jewish beliefs, which failed because the Greeks also wanted their deities and could not accept the stringent OT laws of diet, gays, forbiddence of images, etc. This resulted in numerous wars and an enmity.  The Greeks got their revenge via Christianity, inserting a series of villifications and false stories in the Gospels.


-------------
Moses - the First Zionist.


Posted By: Vorian
Date Posted: 03-Oct-2008 at 13:09
Joseph stop that please. There was no Greek conspiracy against Jews. 


Posted By: IamJoseph
Date Posted: 03-Oct-2008 at 14:14
Joseph stop that please. There was no Greek conspiracy against Jews.  
 
There was according to Roman & Greek writers, Josephus, and numerous wars between these two. So the Greeks placed their own conspiracy charge on their victim - and their story became a hit.


-------------
Moses - the First Zionist.


Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 10-Jan-2010 at 15:11
Wow, what a thread! Some where above some one wrote these words;

"effectively an eastern extension of the great civilizations of Mesopotamia—may have reached sufficient population densities to have swamped any genetic contribution from a small number of immigrating Indo-Iranians. If so, this may have been a case of language replacement through the ‘‘elite-dominance’’ model."

I would tend to side with the last remarks of the above paragraph, I.e. "this may have been a case of language replacement through the ‘‘elite-dominance’’ model."

I would even compare it to the so called Romantic languages now so prevalent in Europe! In this case scholars have presumed that these so called "Romantic" languages are the successors to the original Latin language, or something very close! That is, they consider most of them to be but evolutionary or regressive versions of pure Latin! Note, I offered two possibilities!

Thus, if a small but highly organized group from Afganistan actually made great inroads into what is now Iran, and eventually established a dynasty, and it found it more agreeable to assume the language of the native population, rather than change it, which is a very difficult and dangerous task, then they merely let things continue to "continue" in the common and well developed language of the area thus conquered. Certainly some words were continued, and especially maybe among the elite!

So, maybe a minority group actually conquered the native Iranic peoples, and being rather ahead of their times, merely absorbed the language of the masses rather than attempt a major change in attitude by those so conquered? Along with potentially dangerous consequences?

Regards,

-------------
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/


Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 19-Mar-2010 at 18:02
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf

Christianity didn't come from Zorastrianism. One is dualistic the other is not.



Actually, one might well say that Christianity, is a "Trilateral" religion! That is the equality given to the "holy ghost", and the "Father", and the "Son!"

In many Christian religions, one might even mention the "Quadralaterist" system, whereby the "Mother" is given equal status with the "Son", the "Father", and the "Holy Ghost!"

And in actuallity, the "Mother" goddess, is or has obtained maybe even greater status in the Roman World, than the others?

Regards,

-------------
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/


Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 12-Jan-2014 at 17:37
I am just reintroducing this wonder series of posts to our newer members!

Hope you like it?

Ron

-------------
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/



Print Page | Close Window

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz - http://www.webwizguide.com