QuoteReplyTopic: Iranians root in Central asia Posted: 01-Feb-2007 at 05:01
There does not seem to be a record of Naga royal ancestors in Punjab-Gujarat region. Can you imagine Candra Gupta or Asoka climbing a tower to marry his ancestral Naga? A Semitic loan-word is Assyrian ialu "sacred ibex-goat "<W`L "to ascend", Sumerian Babylonian (y)alu "ram", Tocharian and Ethiopic yalu "royal ibex", and Hindi yali "goat-lion" . This Semitic beast is in the Bangkok palace, as well as on the UK Royal Coat-of-Arms, and THAT is another thread.
There does not seem to be a record of Naga royal ancestors in Punjab-Gujarat region.
A Naga clan ruled by the river Ravi (Punjab region). Other Nagas ruled in adjacent regions in northern India.
Can you imagine Candra Gupta or Asoka climbing a tower to marry his ancestral Naga?
No.
A Semitic loan-word is Assyrian ialu "sacred ibex-goat "<W`L "to ascend", Sumerian Babylonian (y)alu "ram", Tocharian and Ethiopic yalu "royal ibex", and Hindi yali "goat-lion" . This Semitic beast is in the Bangkok palace, as well as on the UK Royal Coat-of-Arms, and THAT is another thread.
You see, this is the kind of linguistic confusion that myself and others try to either avoid, or in vain correct in others. Just because we have a group of words which have similar spelling spread throughout the world, does not make them indicative of some far-flung migration. On the other hand some of these may have been the result of a diffusion of ideas, but even these may be explained in ways other than Scythian intermediacy. If I was to venture a guess - what you've mentioned looks more like a Semitic intermediacy rather than a Scythian one. At least we know that Aramaic was a far-flung language reaching from Africa all the way to central Asia. The shortcomings of the other terminology previously discussed have already been noted, but to continue with other terminology more precarious than the last seems rather foolhardy.
But did those Indian Naga rulers have the ancestral snake-marriage legend and ritual as at Angkor? If Candra Gupta and Asoka did not have it, then it appears to be of non-Indian origin within India.
I did not write that Scythians took "yalu" anywhere or even had the word.
It is just a parallel royal symbol to the "kambuzi", of Semitic origin. Heb. "buts"=Persian "bujiya", Greek "byses,byssos" and perhaps French "beige" meaning "wool". Assyrian "yalu", E."yale" travelled as far and with similar prestige as "Cambodia".(but I'm not saying yalu reached Cambodia).
In Russian its RuGha, with "KHA" sound not Kha of a "Can" In Old Slavic its Rughan, in Ossitics its Gurgwa, and in Pashto its Guwag, so anyone with Lingusitic backround can prehance this connection, where as this words maybe differe in 75% of other European Langauges, another words Aryan/Iranic influnce is over 20% in European/Germanic countries.
Dear Sharrukin again I am not presenting my point of views i can only trust on things that make sense, and usually it happens when there are enough facts that i can relay on.
As Of what abouts of Saka, Tocharians, Paktrians, Kandaharis, Hephatalites, are all Aryanic/Eastern Iranian groups who shares the same langauge and maybe changed over time. These groups did not had much of written facts since they were the same Uneducated as they are Today's Afghans. Everything that we hear about them is from outsiders, like Southern Europeans, Western Iranian (In this Case Western Iranians never like eastern Iranians like Sakas and Hephatalites etc or At least we can say they had long fought for Power of the region)
AND if your Sources are Turkish/old Europeans whose sources are just off topic since Ottaman paid a large sum of money for their Identity (I am not really sure but That's according to Meacadonians who are anti-Turks) Turks (Is just a word to describe Turkish speakers, the orgin of the word is not known some say during Turanian period Far North Eastern people of Iran (Today South western part of China) and Some it came 1100 years ago during (CAMP) period when people moved to Modern day Turkey they were called Mardomi Karkis (emigrated people) Tark means emigrate. Turk today is not a race but it belongs to mixture of Aryans and Altics culture and language. Some look more like Aryans and some look more like Altics.
I can't disagree on everything you say and nor i have been agree since many of your information is old trying i have read it over many times. And the amazing part is that it sounds like its true. And Its has nothing to do with your personal Points since everyone is different, some might and some might reject. I personally think your smart but your source are not strong as they should of been, everything that you said has been thought to Europeans and western World for over 250 years, and its not easy to change someone's mind, unless they want to learn. Cause Learning never stops, And History always changes. But Facts still remains the same.
And the Facts regaring our subject is.... that
-Yueh-Chih Confederation aka Tocharians (Were Turanian tribes re-mixed with Aryans which made them 75% Aryanic/Afghan. Today present day Tachar province north of Afghanistan.
-Saka - Scythians (Were natives of Afghanistan their homeland was known as Sakastan.
-Indo-European 'Aryans' (were living in Afghanistan, Afghanistan was their homeland.
-Kushans - Subtribe of the Tocharians (Who were not much different from Pashtuns, Their capital Peshawar and brought Pashtuns into Indic land, ie crossing from Kyper pass.
And According to George Morgenstierne, the only linguist who had studied Afghanistan for a long time, and there was no other modern westerner like him. In His last book he said "Pashto is an Eastern Iranian language that was brought from Pakhtria to southern Eastern Afghanistan/Iran. Its speakers were Sakas who migrated to Siestan (Sakistan). Before this, Pashto and other Saka dialects like Pamiri, in particular Munji and Yadgha, were spoken in the same style. Moreover, it had a close affinity with Ephtalite and Kushanian languages. Proto Pashto had a very close affinity with Avesta but was more intimately linked to Saka. It seems that after its early phase in Pamir and Balakh, Pashto completed its middle phase (Middle Pashto) in Siestan, Helmand, Ghor, and Arachoasia (Kandahar) and modern phase (Modern Pashto) in Kasi Ghar (Suleiman Mountains) and the rest of the Afghanistan"
But this had reached to the brians of Western World in late 1990s. (God thanks to modern day internet we can be up to date, regarding any new discoveryLOL.) I mean its going to take some time to reached babyboomers, and others who atleast care, otherwise i am very sure even you have read this, but still iqnore this fact, which might either attack your previous belives, or you just don't care. Hey i don't blame you LOL Here is another example after all the discoveries still there are many young people just like me and you who thinks that Aryans invaded Afghanistan (central Asia) and Eastern Iran and that Aryan means blue eyes blonde hair and white skin german looking LOL http://www.vnnforum.com/ this world is far too complacated for one person to understand.
Here is the article which i found very useful.
The Scythians
Scythians (Sakas) are Eastern Aryanian, speaking Eastern Iranian language of Bactrian, somewhat like Pashtu/Avestian, living in eastern Iran in today's Afghanistan living among other Aryanic tribes. Their home was known as Sakastan which is today's Nimroz province at their capital of Zaranj (1000-800 BCE) "The capital ofSistan (Sakistan) Land of the Saka. Persians of the earliest Aryan type. Zaranj was a London of the East'. The homes, like other towns in Central Asia were built from clay in the form of archlike vaults." (Barthold: 1984..pg 69). Others like George Morgenstierne, the linguist thinks that Sakas were from Bakhtar (Balkh) or Bactria brought Eastern Iranian Language of Pashtu to south-eastern Iran and southern Afghanistan. On the other hand Dariush inscription of Bisotun, placed Sakastan Shahr-e sukhteh or "homeland of Scythians near Koh-i-Kojha, (Mountain of leaders) located in Zaranj from archaeological point of view.
The Saka tribe managed to united other Aryan/Afghan tribes along. It was around 700 BCE that one of this Afghan tribe made their first cutting through the young Median empire and appeared in Assyrian border. The Scythian king, Partatua married an Assyrian princess in 674 B.C. and two nations remained allies from there the Scythians became entangled in Mesopotamian politics.
.
At the request of Ashurbanipal of Assyria, the Scythians in 650 BCE reinvaded the Median Empire this time from the northwest and East. Their campaigns were so effective that a Scythian, Madius, became ruler of the Medes for twenty-eight years (653 BC - 625 BC) and temporarily elimated the Medes as a threat to Assyria. After 625 BCE, however, the Scythians left the Median Empire - whether they did so voluntarily or were expelled is debated. At any rate, following the Median sack of Assur in 614 BC, the Sakas were compelled to switch sides and ally with the Medes. They comprised part of the force that sacked Nineveh 612 BC.
Some time afterwards, the Scythians returned to their homeland, but few Scythians did not leave they made themselves a new home. According ancient Diodorus Siculus at the 1st century B.C. Scythians "lived in very small numbers at the Araks River....that they gained for themselves a country in the mountains up to the Caucasus, in the lowland on the coast of the Ocean (Caspian Sea) and the Meot Lake (Azov Sea) and other territories up to the Tanais River (Don River). Born in that land from the conjugal union of Zeus and a snake-legged goddess was a son Scyth (Sakha) who gave the name Scythian to the people they won for themselves a country "behind the Tanais River up to the Egyptian Nile River"
(Diodorus II, 43).
From 5th century BCE to 1st century BCE Europeans have faced many difficulties with this small tribe reasonably big enough to cause distractions. Scythians attacked many parts of Europe, including Ukraine Rome, Greece. The Scythians left Caucasus and North western Persia the came back home (Sakastan). That doesn't mean end of Scythian invasion. Scythians attacked Altai regions many times and looted gold from its mountains after Alexander the Great 's run another very important event took place the Saka tribe made a new turning point to Indus valley from 250 BCE-50 BCE they are known as Indo-Scythians. This time Scythians were much more advanced bring a new history page to Indians.
Language:
Scythian tribe (Saka tribe) were somewhat illiterate when they first came to Europe, they left few records behind. However the Scythian language still survived, by no arguments Pashtu is classified as Scythian language, and we can still trace the remains of Scythians in Europe their language is known as Ossetic or Ossetian. Which by no means is the closest language to Pashtu.
Life Style of the Saka's:
The Scythians were famous for their bloody tribal custom.Warriors not only cut off the heads of slain enemies but also made leather-bound drinking cups from their enemies' skulls. Scythians were traditionally polygamous and male- dominated society. A wealthy Scythian could take several wives. Scythian women had little power beyond the confines of their households.
Their staple diet consisted of kumis, a form of fermented mare's milk which is still popular in Afghanistan, a good deal of cheese, and vegetables such as onions, garlic and beans. They cooked their meat as a stew. As for cleaning, Herodotus noted that the Scythians did not use water for washing. Instead the women used a paste of pounded cypress, cedar and frankincense that, according to Herodotus, they applied to the face and body: "A sweet odour is thereby imparted to them, and when they take off the plaster on the day following, their skin is clean and glossy". Scythians are said to be passionate people - bearded men with dark, deep set eyes with long, wind-snarled hair.
The Death:
Prolonged and demonstrative grieving followed the death of every Scythian tribesman. At the death of a king all Scythian tribes joined a show of stupendous grief that last 40 days (Which is still practiced among muslim Afghans its called Da-Roz-i-Chil meaning the 40th day where prayers are made to mark 40 days from her/his death). Herodotus also noticed that the grave was to be covered with 60-feet hight mound.
Religion:
The religion of Scythians who came to Europe is not known since it has not been recorded. However we can see Avestia and Rigvada influence both books which were created in Afghanistan. Here this one can we distinguish signs 59-33 Tar(a) and a stylised drawing of a pair of horses. On the other hand, a pair of horses signs of the sun is associated with the god Andora/Indara according to old Aryan hymns of Rigvada (II, 11: 6, 7).
Again as everyone believes, that to date there is no certain explanation to the above of your claim for the origin of the Scythians or details of how they migrated to the Caucasus and Ukraine. But slowly over time right from modern day Afghanistan/Eastern Iran.
It is only a "fact" when proof is provided. Thus far there is nothing to suggest that Bactrians were Scythians, at least nothing to suggest that they were any different than any other Iranic-speaking people, with respect to language or culture. If Bactrians were Scythians, then all other Iranic peoples were also Scythian.
wait what makes you say that? Scythians were just one of Aryanic tribes. Depanding on the period/years there were many tribes/ # of Iranic/Aryanic people.
You can't say all Iranics are Scythians LoL its like saying all Iranic were Palavi, (Palavi very strong tribe of Iran) or all Afghans are Ephthalites (We know that Abadhalis are the biggest tribe of Afghanistan), or are all south-Africans Ethopians, (yes Ethopians were the most strongest of them all but not all Africans.)
And its not just Scythains there are many famous Aryanic tribes, like Palavi (From Parthisia), Archai (Medians From Persia "PARS" province). I don't want to give you alot of exanple. Since they many empires but you know what i mean.
Wrong. Pahlavi and Kurdish are different languages although they are both Western Iranic languages
dear friend i didn't meant to say its the same language if you read articles from Sassanid period you would know what i mean. they'r like brother and sister just like Pakhtrian and Avestian.
In Russian its RuGha, with "KHA" sound not Kha of a "Can" In Old Slavic its Rughan, in Ossitics its Gurgwa, and in Pashto its Guwag, so anyone with Lingusitic backround can prehance this connection, where as this words maybe differe in 75% of other European Langauges, another words Aryan/Iranic influnce is over 20% in European/Germanic countries.
SO.........what are you trying to say?
The perceptive man is he who knows about himself, for in self-knowledge and insight lays knowledge of the holiest.
~ Khushal Khan Khattak
In Russian its RuGha, with "KHA" sound not Kha of a "Can" In Old Slavic its Rughan, in Ossitics its Gurgwa, and in Pashto its Guwag, so anyone with Lingusitic backround can prehance this connection, where as this words maybe differe in 75% of other European Langauges, another words Aryan/Iranic influnce is over 20% in European/Germanic countries.
SO.........what are you trying to say?
Europeans iqnore the fact and don't want to admit Aryan influnce instit they call themselves Aryans.
"don't want to admit Aryan influnce instit they call themselves Aryans. "
Sorry I didn't understand this part...
w'll think hard man.
Until this day we teachers and high educated white people who call themselves Aryan (they don't use the word) thinking that its going to be racism but in their words you can feel the pride the have.
What i mean is that White People are not Aryans. (there maybe 20% of themEuropeans) and that's because of Aryan invasions from eastern Iran/Afghanistan like the simmerians Sakas (Scythain) and late Turanian invasion (Turanians are half Aryan/Altic) like the Turks.
They still iqnore this fact and concludes that Aryans came from upper central Asia or siberia/germany into Afghanistan. Which is rejected by modern scientists. Aryans were native of Afghanistan and many Evidence were found to support this.
Dear Sharrukin again I am not presenting my point of views i can only trust on things that make sense, and usually it happens when there are enough facts that i can relay on.
As Of what abouts of Saka, Tocharians, Paktrians, Kandaharis, Hephatalites, are all Aryanic/Eastern Iranian groups who shares the same langauge and maybe changed over time. These groups did not had much of written facts since they were the same.
The fallacy of such a presentation is that while it is true that each of these groups contributed to the makeup of the present-day Afghan, what is not so clear-cut is their land of origin. It is clear by (for instance) ancient Greek and Chinese sources that the Tocharians came from someplace else. The controversy as to the origin of the Ephthalites is itself not understood. The Sakas were not present in the region until the 140's BC, as Greek and Chinese sources attest and as Persian sources imply.
Uneducated as they are Today's Afghans. Everything that we hear about them is from outsiders, like Southern Europeans, Western Iranian (In this Case Western Iranians never like eastern Iranians like Sakas and Hephatalites etc or At least we can say they had long fought for Power of the region)
This is merely an excuse. Just because "outsiders" with the expertise can determine certain facts, does not mean that they purposefully undermine Afghani perceptions about their own origins.
AND if your Sources are Turkish/old Europeans whose sources are just off topic since Ottaman paid a large sum of money for their Identity (I am not really sure but That's according to Meacadonians who are anti-Turks) Turks (Is just a word to describe Turkish speakers, the orgin of the word is not known some say during Turanian period Far North Eastern people of Iran (Today South western part of China) and Some it came 1100 years ago during (CAMP) period when people moved to Modern day Turkey they were called Mardomi Karkis (emigrated people) Tark means emigrate. Turk today is not a race but it belongs to mixture of Aryans and Altics culture and language. Some look more like Aryans and some look more like Altics.
Let me put your mind to rest on this particular point - I have never believed that "Turks" was native to Turkey. But even this is useful. Taking the Turks as an example, we know that before the arrival of the Turks to what is now Turkey, we had many peoples there from various different origins. The Turks were among the last to come and which fundamentally altered the linguistic landscape of Anatolia, replacing the native languages with Turkish. Just as the Turks can claim many origins, (because many "Turks" were by origin, natives) so can the Afghans claim many origins - it was not just native.
I can't disagree on everything you say and nor i have been agree since many of your information is old trying i have read it over many times. And the amazing part is that it sounds like its true. And Its has nothing to do with your personal Points since everyone is different, some might and some might reject. I personally think your smart but your source are not strong as they should of been, everything that you said has been thought to Europeans and western World for over 250 years, and its not easy to change someone's mind, unless they want to learn. Cause Learning never stops, And History always changes. But Facts still remains the same.
Well, here's the thing. Everything that I've written comes from the most recent works, which take their information from the most ancient sources.
And the Facts regaring our subject is.... that
-Yueh-Chih Confederation aka Tocharians (Were Turanian tribes re-mixed with Aryans which made them 75% Aryanic/Afghan. Today present day Tachar province north of Afghanistan.
By "Turanian" what do you mean? If you mean "Turk" than you are mistaken. A Turkic presence is not detected until about AD 650. If you mean "central asian nomad", then you use the term far too generally to determine ethnic origins.
-Saka - Scythians (Were natives of Afghanistan their homeland was known as Sakastan.
Again, there was no "Sakastan" until the 1st century BC. Both the Zend Avesta and the Old Persian inscriptions give other names for this region. In the Zend Avesta the region was called Haetumant, and in the Old Persian inscriptions it was called Zranka. In the earliest Greek descriptions of this region, no "Sacae" are ever mentioned. Instead they are located to the north of Iran about the region of the Oxus.
-Indo-European 'Aryans' (were living in Afghanistan, Afghanistan was their homeland.
I am at least in agreement that the Zend Avesta considered the people of this region as Airyas.
-Kushans - Subtribe of the Tocharians (Who were not much different from Pashtuns, Their capital Peshawar and brought Pashtuns into Indic land, ie crossing from Kyper pass.
Kushans, as Tocharians, obviously came from somewhere else. See above, as well as other notes.
And According to George Morgenstierne, the only linguist who had studied Afghanistan for a long time, and there was no other modern westerner like him. In His last book he said "Pashto is an Eastern Iranian language that was brought from Pakhtria to southern Eastern Afghanistan/Iran. Its speakers were Sakas who migrated to Siestan (Sakistan). Before this, Pashto and other Saka dialects like Pamiri, in particular Munji and Yadgha, were spoken in the same style.
Okay, let's assume that Pashto was a Sacian dialect (and let's remember that the relation between Pashto and Bactrian is not even addressed), then......
Moreover, it had a close affinity with Ephtalite and Kushanian languages.
We have no evidence for Ephtalite and Kushanian.
Proto Pashto had a very close affinity with Avesta but was more intimately linked to Saka. It seems that after its early phase in Pamir and Balakh, Pashto completed its middle phase (Middle Pashto) in Siestan, Helmand, Ghor, and Arachoasia (Kandahar) and modern phase (Modern Pashto) in Kasi Ghar (Suleiman Mountains) and the rest of the Afghanistan"
I think you read more into this than what is warranted. Nothing is said as to when proto-Pashto developed. It could have easily occurred in the late 2nd century BC when the Sakas invaded the region. What is quite clear is that his "Sakas" invaded Sistan, not that Sistan was the original home of the Sakas. Another thing that is quite clear is that Pashto was not Bactrian. According to the author, proto-Pashto developed in the Pamir/Balakh region, whereas Bactrian was the language of the greater part of Bactria.
But this had reached to the brians of Western World in late 1990s. (God thanks to modern day internet we can be up to date, regarding any new discoveryLOL.) I mean its going to take some time to reached babyboomers, and others who atleast care, otherwise i am very sure even you have read this, but still iqnore this fact, which might either attack your previous belives, or you just don't care. Hey i don't blame you LOL Here is another example after all the discoveries still there are many young people just like me and you who thinks that Aryans invaded Afghanistan (central Asia) and Eastern Iran and that Aryan means blue eyes blonde hair and white skin german looking LOL http://www.vnnforum.com/ this world is far too complacated for one person to understand.
I don't believe "Aryan means blue eyes blonde hair and white skin..."
There is much I can comment on the article you cut and pasted, but all I will do is focus on the map. If the home of the Saka was Sakastan there is no evidence of such. What we have instead is various sources intimating that the Saka were latecomers, intruders into Afghanistan speaking languages related to the native population. What I want to see is at least an inscription much older than the 2nd century BC of Saka presence in Sistan, or an historical narrative which describes the Saka presence older than the 2nd century BC (not based on legends).
When Alexander the Great invaded eastern Iran he encountered "Scythians" but they lived beyond Sogdiana in central Asia, and when he entered Drangiana/Zarangia (the later Sistan) there was no such encounter with Scythians - in his time there were still no Scythians in eastern Iran.
Great respond sharrukin.. I have no enough time to dig up all good evidences and write here but I follow your discussion with other fellow and gotta be most of the time with your side. You answer with good logic responds that I really admit it. Thank you.
I think what he is talking about is the Proto-Indo European peoples entrance into Central and Southwest Asia.
I have a few books on this but I have neglected to contribute because I'm afraid of getting sucked into this debate , which in the end will be fruitless.
The perceptive man is he who knows about himself, for in self-knowledge and insight lays knowledge of the holiest.
~ Khushal Khan Khattak
I think what he is talking about is the Proto-Indo European peoples entrance into Central and Southwest Asia.
I have a few books on this but I have neglected to contribute because I'm afraid of getting sucked into this debate , which in the end will be fruitless.
No, he is definitely talking about Saka/Scythians, but what I think makes him confuse them with native cultures, is their similarity to Avestan or to any native eastern Iranian language. For him, there is no distinction between a native Bactrian or a Saka. If their languages are similar, they must Saka. He does not seem to take into account the various recorded migrations into the region which obviously influence language. If Pashto itself (spoken mainly in the south, and therefore outside classical Bactria, even) should be considered a Saka language it only indicates a late presence of Saka, and not to some very ancient habitation, like he wants to indicate. As far as Bactria (i.e. northern Afghanistan) is concerned, the present-day language of the region is Persian (Dari), which obviously superceded Bactrian.
For him, there is no distinction between a native Bactrian or a Saka.
What's best for you is to read what i have said before. NATIVE BACTRIANS WERE THE SAKAS. However there is no Aryan invasion in Afghanistan since Aryans were natives of Afghanistan What i am saying it that Saka (Scythians) where not different from other Aryans/Iranians and they were just a tribe. Its as simple as that. they are not some god given race who drove Europeans.
The original population of Bactria were largely Scythian. Apparently the Aryans who came over and took control, formed a military aristocracy over a technologically less developed people - as was the case with early Greeks, Romans and Gauls.
That has been concluded when older evidence of Scythians were found in Afghanistn.
Again, there was no "Sakastan" until the 1st century BC. Both the Zend Avesta and the Old Persian inscriptions give other names for this region. In the Zend Avesta the region was called Haetumant, and in the Old Persian inscriptions it was called Zranka. In the earliest Greek descriptions of this region, no "Sacae" are ever mentioned. Instead they are located to the north of Iran about the region of the Oxus.
I am sorry my friend another mistake Sakas reached north of Oxus after first they lived in sakaistan. Yes i know there was no such govern-nation as Sakaistan until 100 BCE "During Indo-Scythain Period" But Sakaistan was mention in both Avesta and sanskirt. later during Archemanids period they named an area called "Sakhuztan" .
H.C. Raychaudhuri and others have suggested that the Helmand river, which was called Harahuvaiti, was the original Saraswati river which is frequently alluded to in the Rigveda. Seistan was known as Sakastan but the name can also be a variant of Shivastan
As far as Bactria (i.e. northern Afghanistan) is concerned, the present-day language of the region is Persian (Dari), which obviously superceded Bactrian.
Persian is slang version of Dari. Dari is older then Persian. And Dari/Persian is made of three Base Languages Avestian (Pakhtrian/Paktru/Pashtu) Quranic (Arabic/semtic) and Palavi (Sussanain)
When Alexander the Great invaded eastern Iran he encountered "Scythians" but they lived beyond Sogdiana in central Asia, and when he entered Drangiana/Zarangia (the later Sistan) there was no such encounter with Scythians - in his time there were still no Scythians in eastern Iran
The Scythains were in Eastern Iranian from the start, they were one of the Aryanic tribes. THERE are many tribes or groups of Aryans that once upon a time get together and move around, we can't say the Parthian tribe are the same as median tribes of early Aryans (of PARS Province), or Kushanians are the same as kadarites, LOL we can't even say Kadarites are the same as Apadalhai tribe. Even thought kadarites carried the same name same tradition (althought they supported both Buddhism and Hindism) and ruled nothern India (KNOWN AS INDO-HUNs).
I think you read more into this than what is warranted. Nothing is said as to when proto-Pashto developed. It could have easily occurred in the late 2nd century BC when the Sakas invaded the region. What is quite clear is that his "Sakas" invaded Sistan, not that Sistan was the original home of the Sakas.
No thanks dear I don't know what else to say Bisotun mentions the Saka's and their city was known as Zaranka Afghans call it "Zarhaj" located in helmand province (AFG) located right in the border. To iranians its known as Sukhtea city.
Another thing that is quite clear is that Pashto was not Bactrian. According to the author, proto-Pashto developed in the Pamir/Balakh region, whereas Bactrian was the language of the greater part of Bactria.
My friend pashto/pakhtru along with other major eastern iranian languages are all located in (AFG) the only language eastern iranian languages that's alive outside (AFG) border is Ossitic (Europe) and Youqnobi (southern Russia Or Uzbekistan/Tajikistan). Believe me Youqnobis/afghans not only have the same looks but also their language sounds like spanish of spain and spanish of Mexico.
Avesta is known as old Pakhtrian. And if your saying Pashtu is not Pakhtrian then i can't help since that's the only old language remains spoken in AFG/Eastern Iran. (Pakhtu/pakhtru/pakhtun/pakhtrian all have the same meaning.) The word has been mention in many ways by (Greek/Indians/ Western Iranians/Latin/Chinese etc etc)
According to the author, proto-Pashto developed in the Pamir/Balakh region, whereas Bactrian was the language of the greater part of Bactria.
It would be very kind of you to provide me with some kind of site/source/ (only if you have one) i would like to know. Thanks. Cause Maybe i know Pakhtrian/Backrian had reached into central India and the 4rd part of reg-veda mentions the influnce. It's believed that the frist Mede tribe who came to Pars province (1500-1000 BCE) were Bactrian speakers, and later getting mixed with Elamids later the Median language was developed. So its possible the Greater Bactrian region were bactrian speakers. Avesta does mentions Bactrian Empire which has some missing points. Beside Balkh Old Bactrians regions still has their name like Bakhtika, Pakhtia (two other provinces of AFG located in south East) mentioned in Sanskirt as the Gates of Kyber, homes of Aryias.
Sistan ancient Sakistan,Zaranka of Dariush inscription ofBisotun and land ofSaka ,where Shahr-e sukhteh is located ,fram the archaeological point point of view.
"The history of the fathers of all non-Africanoid humanity, a.k.a., Scythians, and all civilizations began only "God-knows-when" in the Khyber Mountain region of Afghanistan/occupied Pashtunistan (NWFP)
By Gene D. Matlock, B.A., M.A (Sorry i forgot the site if you need it just let me know)
This is guy is very much of "Pro-Jewish". He's talking about Sakastan, (land of Sakas). For some reason he doesn't like to mention Iran but anyways. There are more discoveries coming from (AFG)Land which could very hard to believe. Afghanistan has not been studied until late 1960-1970. Even now there are more evidance needs to be cleared, and it would take another 15 years, as i always say history changes.
And you also have to consider Afghanistan was a death trap for many Invaders/empires, the only empire that has even taken taken control of this region was one of their own, like Khurous (Cyrus the great).
Either these people are mixed or pure is upon you to believe whichever makes sense (Offcourse there is no just a race as Pure as Chinese LOL) but you know what i mean.
Covering some 120 hectares and located along the Zabol-Zahedan highway, the historic site of Shahr-e Sukhteh is the most important prehistoric city of the 3rd millennium BC and a key location for Iranian prehistoric studies, particularly concerning the southeastern region, and a connection point between Near-Eastern civilizations and that of the Indus valley. The result of archaeological excavations and researches, as well as laboratory studies, have provided ample data about 3rd millennium BC civilizations in Iran and the country's prehistory in general
BTW there is more work needs to be done on both sides of sakastan 1/3 of that region is located in Iran and 1/5 to Pakistan.
Boddy since you did not provided me with enough information to change my mind, My view remains the same. I am still open to any information you can provide.
Just to let you know i read three old European books regarding Scythians and your point of view are not different, so i know where your coming from. My friend there is alot of difference between what we knew in 1909 and what we know now.
For him, there is no distinction between a native Bactrian or a Saka.
What's best for you is to read what i have said before. NATIVE BACTRIANS WERE THE SAKAS. However there is no Aryan invasion in Afghanistan since Aryans were natives of Afghanistan What i am saying it that Saka (Scythians) where not different from other Aryans/Iranians and they were just a tribe. Its as simple as that. they are not some god given race who drove Europeans.
There are still many questions to ask, and some challenges have still not been answered, but, okay, let's just continue on.
There's far too much information to support the idea that the Sakas were "just a tribe". What we have instead is records mentioning many Saka tribes, but none state that they inhabited Bactria until a later period. Simple as that.
The original population of Bactria were largely Scythian. Apparently the Aryans who came over and took control, formed a military aristocracy over a technologically less developed people - as was the case with early Greeks, Romans and Gauls.
That has been concluded when older evidence of Scythians were found in Afghanistn.
Please specify what that evidence was?
Again, there was no "Sakastan" until the 1st century BC. Both the Zend Avesta and the Old Persian inscriptions give other names for this region. In the Zend Avesta the region was called Haetumant, and in the Old Persian inscriptions it was called Zranka. In the earliest Greek descriptions of this region, no "Sacae" are ever mentioned. Instead they are located to the north of Iran about the region of the Oxus.
I am sorry my friend another mistake Sakas reached north of Oxus after first they lived in sakaistan. Yes i know there was no such govern-nation as Sakaistan until 100 BCE "During Indo-Scythain Period" But Sakaistan was mention in both Avesta and sanskirt. later during Archemanids period they named an area called "Sakhuztan" .
I know both the Avesta and Vedas and both don't mention this. Please specify where is "Sakhuztan" mentioned in each literature?
H.C. Raychaudhuri and others have suggested that the Helmand river, which was called Harahuvaiti, was the original Saraswati river which is frequently alluded to in the Rigveda. Seistan was known as Sakastan but the name can also be a variant of Shivastan
The operative word here is "suggested". The question still remains if the Sibis (the inhabitants of Shivastan) were Sakas. Also, "can be" is not the same as "is". This is just one assumption built on another. Insubstantial
As far as Bactria (i.e. northern Afghanistan) is concerned, the present-day language of the region is Persian (Dari), which obviously superceded Bactrian.
Persian is slang version of Dari. Dari is older then Persian. And Dari/Persian is made of three Base Languages Avestian (Pakhtrian/Paktru/Pashtu) Quranic (Arabic/semtic) and Palavi (Sussanain)
I'm not going into an arguement as to which is older. That is besides the point. The relevant point is that "Sacian" Pashto is mainly spoken in the south, generally outside the region of classical Bactria.
When Alexander the Great invaded eastern Iran he encountered "Scythians" but they lived beyond Sogdiana in central Asia, and when he entered Drangiana/Zarangia (the later Sistan) there was no such encounter with Scythians - in his time there were still no Scythians in eastern Iran
The Scythains were in Eastern Iranian from the start, they were one of the Aryanic tribes. THERE are many tribes or groups of Aryans that once upon a time get together and move around, we can't say the Parthian tribe are the same as median tribes of early Aryans (of PARS Province), or Kushanians are the same as kadarites, LOL we can't even say Kadarites are the same as Apadalhai tribe. Even thought kadarites carried the same name same tradition (althought they supported both Buddhism and Hindism) and ruled nothern India (KNOWN AS INDO-HUNs).
Until you can prove that Drangians/Sarangians were Sakas, there is no reason whatsoever why the region should have been called Sakastan at so late a date. If they were recognized as Saka, why did it take so long before the the name appears in the region? Since, you say that the Bactrians were Saka, why don't we have an ancient appellation such as a "greater Sakastan" comprising the entire eastern Iran. The obvious reason why we don't, is because those native peoples were not recognized as Saka. Saka were nomadic tribes inhabiting the north of Iran.
I think you read more into this than what is warranted. Nothing is said as to when proto-Pashto developed. It could have easily occurred in the late 2nd century BC when the Sakas invaded the region. What is quite clear is that his "Sakas" invaded Sistan, not that Sistan was the original home of the Sakas.
No thanks dear I don't know what else to say Bisotun mentions the Saka's and their city was known as Zaranka Afghans call it "Zarhaj" located in helmand province (AFG) located right in the border. To iranians its known as Sukhtea city.
It is true that Darius's Bisutun inscription mentions "Saka". But, if we take those mentionings in context, this is what we get:
In 1.12-7 Darius lists the 23 lands under his rule. "Saka" and "Zranka" (Drangiana/Sarangia) are both mentioned, therefore we know that they were two different lands.
In 2.5-8 Darius relates that among the countries in revolt from him was the Saka country.
In 5.20-30 Darius describes those revolting Saka as near the "Sea" and even specifies them, namely the Saka Tigrahauda, "the Pointed-Hat Scyths". These are usually located to the north of Hyrcania and Parthia, east of the Caspian Sea. In Herodotus, they were known as Orthocorybantes "Tall Hatters" and placed in the same province as the Medes and Hyrcanians (Paricanians) (Herod. Book 3.92).
Another thing that is quite clear is that Pashto was not Bactrian. According to the author, proto-Pashto developed in the Pamir/Balakh region, whereas Bactrian was the language of the greater part of Bactria.
My friend pashto/pakhtru along with other major eastern iranian languages are all located in (AFG) the only language eastern iranian languages that's alive outside (AFG) border is Ossitic (Europe) and Youqnobi (southern Russia Or Uzbekistan/Tajikistan). Believe me Youqnobis/afghans not only have the same looks but also their language sounds like spanish of spain and spanish of Mexico.
Yagnobi is considered a descendant of Sogdian. Are you also including Sogdian as Sacian too? If so, then you should also include Chorasmian, and all other Eastern Iranian languages. Yes, all eastern Iranian languages are Sacian languages. No distinctions.
Avesta is known as old Pakhtrian.
By who?
And if your saying Pashtu is not Pakhtrian then i can't help since that's the only old language remains spoken in AFG/Eastern Iran. (Pakhtu/pakhtru/pakhtun/pakhtrian all have the same meaning.) The word has been mention in many ways by (Greek/Indians/ Western Iranians/Latin/Chinese etc etc)
And now here's the problem. Herodotus (except for the Armenian reference) is clearly talking about an Indian people, not a Scythian one. In fact, when he does talk about such tribes, he does not hesitate to describe them as "like the Scyths", "a Scythian nation", etc. He uses no such language to describe the Pactyes or their land.
Now, that being said, since, you've brought up the idea of ethnicity, something now has to be said about so-called ethnic names. Thus far, the only evidence that has been put forward to suggest that "Bactrians [and others] were Scythians" is similiarity of language. Everything else is either refutable or simply insubstantial. If these "Pactyes" were the ancestors of todays Pashto-speaking population, they may not have received their modern language until much later. They may have started off speaking an Indian language!!! Thus again, there is no proof that Sakas were present in India at such an early date.
According to the author, proto-Pashto developed in the Pamir/Balakh region, whereas Bactrian was the language of the greater part of Bactria.
It would be very kind of you to provide me with some kind of site/source/ (only if you have one) i would like to know. Thanks. Cause Maybe i know Pakhtrian/Backrian had reached into central India and the 4rd part of reg-veda mentions the influnce.
I had been trying to find a good online map showing the Pamirs in relation to Bactria, but with no success. The only way I can describe their relationship is that the Pamirs were to the extreme northeast of Bactria.
It's believed that the frist Mede tribe who came to Pars province (1500-1000 BCE) were Bactrian speakers, and later getting mixed with Elamids later the Median language was developed.
There have been many things that had been said about the Medes, but the view that they were formerly Bactrian, presupposes way too much. One thing is known, based on Assyrian sources. The region which the Medes took as their own had previously been the abodes of the Lullubians, peoples speaking probably Hurrian languages. To the south, the next linguistic group were the Kassites, and then to their south were the Elamitic-speaking groups.
So its possible the Greater Bactrian region were bactrian speakers. Avesta does mentions Bactrian Empire which has some missing points. Beside Balkh Old Bactrians regions still has their name like Bakhtika, Pakhtia (two other provinces of AFG located in south East) mentioned in Sanskirt as the Gates of Kyber, homes of Aryias.
There is nothing in the Avesta which makes the region of Balkh prominent. Instead what we have is the rule of the earliest kings in northern Iran/southern Uzbekistan followed by the devastation of Frangasyan (Afrasiab) the Tur, followed by a new dynasty of rulers in southern Afghanistan near "Lake Kasava by the Haetumant river", or essentially, to the south of Bactria. No Bactrian empire, although Herodotus describes a "Chorasmian empire".
Sistan ancient Sakistan,Zaranka of Dariush inscription ofBisotun and land ofSaka ,where Shahr-e sukhteh is located ,fram the archaeological point point of view.
"The history of the fathers of all non-Africanoid humanity, a.k.a., Scythians, and all civilizations began only "God-knows-when" in the Khyber Mountain region of Afghanistan/occupied Pashtunistan (NWFP)
By Gene D. Matlock, B.A., M.A (Sorry i forgot the site if you need it just let me know)
This is guy is very much of "Pro-Jewish". He's talking about Sakastan, (land of Sakas). For some reason he doesn't like to mention Iran but anyways. There are more discoveries coming from (AFG)Land which could very hard to believe. Afghanistan has not been studied until late 1960-1970. Even now there are more evidance needs to be cleared, and it would take another 15 years, as i always say history changes.
And you also have to consider Afghanistan was a death trap for many Invaders/empires, the only empire that has even taken taken control of this region was one of their own, like Khurous (Cyrus the great).
Either these people are mixed or pure is upon you to believe whichever makes sense (Offcourse there is no just a race as Pure as Chinese LOL) but you know what i mean.
Apart from him not specifying any tribe, how does he draw such grandious conclusions? I'm afraid that there is nothing there, unless you specify what he is talking about?
[quote]
Covering some 120 hectares and located along the Zabol-Zahedan highway, the historic site of Shahr-e Sukhteh is the most important prehistoric city of the 3rd millennium BC and a key location for Iranian prehistoric studies, particularly concerning the southeastern region, and a connection point between Near-Eastern civilizations and that of the Indus valley. The result of archaeological excavations and researches, as well as laboratory studies, have provided ample data about 3rd millennium BC civilizations in Iran and the country's prehistory in general
Again, nothing is said about the identity of the inhabitants. Unless you can prove that the builders of that city were Saka, the mere mentioning of this archaeological site really does not mean much to our subject of discussion.
[quote]
BTW there is more work needs to be done on both sides of sakastan 1/3 of that region is located in Iran and 1/5 to Pakistan.
Boddy since you did not provided me with enough information to change my mind, My view remains the same. I am still open to any information you can provide.
Just to let you know i read three old European books regarding Scythians and your point of view are not different, so i know where your coming from. My friend there is alot of difference between what we knew in 1909 and what we know now.
I reiterate what I've said - I don't consult very old books. I draw from the latest research (if and when I am able). If that's what they believed in 1909, I am in total ignorance of it.
For him, there is no distinction between a native Bactrian or a Saka.
What's best for you is to read what i have said before. NATIVE BACTRIANS WERE THE SAKAS. However there is no Aryan invasion in Afghanistan since Aryans were natives of Afghanistan What i am saying it that Saka (Scythians) where not different from other Aryans/Iranians and they were just a tribe. Its as simple as that. they are not some god given race who drove Europeans.
There are still many questions to ask, and some challenges have still not been answered, but, okay, let's just continue on.
There's far too much information to support the idea that the Sakas were "just a tribe". What we have instead is records mentioning many Saka tribes, but none state that they inhabited Bactria until a later period. Simple as that.
The original population of Bactria were largely Scythian. Apparently the Aryans who came over and took control, formed a military aristocracy over a technologically less developed people - as was the case with early Greeks, Romans and Gauls.
That has been concluded when older evidence of Scythians were found in Afghanistn.
Please specify what that evidence was?
Again, there was no "Sakastan" until the 1st century BC. Both the Zend Avesta and the Old Persian inscriptions give other names for this region. In the Zend Avesta the region was called Haetumant, and in the Old Persian inscriptions it was called Zranka. In the earliest Greek descriptions of this region, no "Sacae" are ever mentioned. Instead they are located to the north of Iran about the region of the Oxus.
I am sorry my friend another mistake Sakas reached north of Oxus after first they lived in sakaistan. Yes i know there was no such govern-nation as Sakaistan until 100 BCE "During Indo-Scythain Period" But Sakaistan was mention in both Avesta and sanskirt. later during Archemanids period they named an area called "Sakhuztan" .
I know both the Avesta and Vedas and both don't mention this. Please specify where is "Sakhuztan" mentioned in each literature?
H.C. Raychaudhuri and others have suggested that the Helmand river, which was called Harahuvaiti, was the original Saraswati river which is frequently alluded to in the Rigveda. Seistan was known as Sakastan but the name can also be a variant of Shivastan
The operative word here is "suggested". The question still remains if the Sibis (the inhabitants of Shivastan) were Sakas. Also, "can be" is not the same as "is". This is just one assumption built on another. Insubstantial
As far as Bactria (i.e. northern Afghanistan) is concerned, the present-day language of the region is Persian (Dari), which obviously superceded Bactrian.
Persian is slang version of Dari. Dari is older then Persian. And Dari/Persian is made of three Base Languages Avestian (Pakhtrian/Paktru/Pashtu) Quranic (Arabic/semtic) and Palavi (Sussanain)
I'm not going into an arguement as to which is older. That is besides the point. The relevant point is that "Sacian" Pashto is mainly spoken in the south, generally outside the region of classical Bactria.
When Alexander the Great invaded eastern Iran he encountered "Scythians" but they lived beyond Sogdiana in central Asia, and when he entered Drangiana/Zarangia (the later Sistan) there was no such encounter with Scythians - in his time there were still no Scythians in eastern Iran
The Scythains were in Eastern Iranian from the start, they were one of the Aryanic tribes. THERE are many tribes or groups of Aryans that once upon a time get together and move around, we can't say the Parthian tribe are the same as median tribes of early Aryans (of PARS Province), or Kushanians are the same as kadarites, LOL we can't even say Kadarites are the same as Apadalhai tribe. Even thought kadarites carried the same name same tradition (althought they supported both Buddhism and Hindism) and ruled nothern India (KNOWN AS INDO-HUNs).
Until you can prove that Drangians/Sarangians were Sakas, there is no reason whatsoever why the region should have been called Sakastan at so late a date. If they were recognized as Saka, why did it take so long before the the name appears in the region? Since, you say that the Bactrians were Saka, why don't we have an ancient appellation such as a "greater Sakastan" comprising the entire eastern Iran. The obvious reason why we don't, is because those native peoples were not recognized as Saka. Saka were nomadic tribes inhabiting the north of Iran.
I think you read more into this than what is warranted. Nothing is said as to when proto-Pashto developed. It could have easily occurred in the late 2nd century BC when the Sakas invaded the region. What is quite clear is that his "Sakas" invaded Sistan, not that Sistan was the original home of the Sakas.
No thanks dear I don't know what else to say Bisotun mentions the Saka's and their city was known as Zaranka Afghans call it "Zarhaj" located in helmand province (AFG) located right in the border. To iranians its known as Sukhtea city.
It is true that Darius's Bisutun inscription mentions "Saka". But, if we take those mentionings in context, this is what we get:
In 1.12-7 Darius lists the 23 lands under his rule. "Saka" and "Zranka" (Drangiana/Sarangia) are both mentioned, therefore we know that they were two different lands.
In 2.5-8 Darius relates that among the countries in revolt from him was the Saka country.
In 5.20-30 Darius describes those revolting Saka as near the "Sea" and even specifies them, namely the Saka Tigrahauda, "the Pointed-Hat Scyths". These are usually located to the north of Hyrcania and Parthia, east of the Caspian Sea. In Herodotus, they were known as Orthocorybantes "Tall Hatters" and placed in the same province as the Medes and Hyrcanians (Paricanians) (Herod. Book 3.92).
Another thing that is quite clear is that Pashto was not Bactrian. According to the author, proto-Pashto developed in the Pamir/Balakh region, whereas Bactrian was the language of the greater part of Bactria.
My friend pashto/pakhtru along with other major eastern iranian languages are all located in (AFG) the only language eastern iranian languages that's alive outside (AFG) border is Ossitic (Europe) and Youqnobi (southern Russia Or Uzbekistan/Tajikistan). Believe me Youqnobis/afghans not only have the same looks but also their language sounds like spanish of spain and spanish of Mexico.
Yagnobi is considered a descendant of Sogdian. Are you also including Sogdian as Sacian too? If so, then you should also include Chorasmian, and all other Eastern Iranian languages. Yes, all eastern Iranian languages are Sacian languages. No distinctions.
Avesta is known as old Pakhtrian.
By who?
And if your saying Pashtu is not Pakhtrian then i can't help since that's the only old language remains spoken in AFG/Eastern Iran. (Pakhtu/pakhtru/pakhtun/pakhtrian all have the same meaning.) The word has been mention in many ways by (Greek/Indians/ Western Iranians/Latin/Chinese etc etc)
And now here's the problem. Herodotus (except for the Armenian reference) is clearly talking about an Indian people, not a Scythian one. In fact, when he does talk about such tribes, he does not hesitate to describe them as "like the Scyths", "a Scythian nation", etc. He uses no such language to describe the Pactyes or their land.
Now, that being said, since, you've brought up the idea of ethnicity, something now has to be said about so-called ethnic names. Thus far, the only evidence that has been put forward to suggest that "Bactrians [and others] were Scythians" is similiarity of language. Everything else is either refutable or simply insubstantial. If these "Pactyes" were the ancestors of todays Pashto-speaking population, they may not have received their modern language until much later. They may have started off speaking an Indian language!!! Thus again, there is no proof that Sakas were present in India at such an early date.
According to the author, proto-Pashto developed in the Pamir/Balakh region, whereas Bactrian was the language of the greater part of Bactria.
It would be very kind of you to provide me with some kind of site/source/ (only if you have one) i would like to know. Thanks. Cause Maybe i know Pakhtrian/Backrian had reached into central India and the 4rd part of reg-veda mentions the influnce.
I had been trying to find a good online map showing the Pamirs in relation to Bactria, but with no success. The only way I can describe their relationship is that the Pamirs were to the extreme northeast of Bactria.
It's believed that the frist Mede tribe who came to Pars province (1500-1000 BCE) were Bactrian speakers, and later getting mixed with Elamids later the Median language was developed.
There have been many things that had been said about the Medes, but the view that they were formerly Bactrian, presupposes way too much. One thing is known, based on Assyrian sources. The region which the Medes took as their own had previously been the abodes of the Lullubians, peoples speaking probably Hurrian languages. To the south, the next linguistic group were the Kassites, and then to their south were the Elamitic-speaking groups.
So its possible the Greater Bactrian region were bactrian speakers. Avesta does mentions Bactrian Empire which has some missing points. Beside Balkh Old Bactrians regions still has their name like Bakhtika, Pakhtia (two other provinces of AFG located in south East) mentioned in Sanskirt as the Gates of Kyber, homes of Aryias.
There is nothing in the Avesta which makes the region of Balkh prominent. Instead what we have is the rule of the earliest kings in northern Iran/southern Uzbekistan followed by the devastation of Frangasyan (Afrasiab) the Tur, followed by a new dynasty of rulers in southern Afghanistan near "Lake Kasava by the Haetumant river", or essentially, to the south of Bactria. No Bactrian empire, although Herodotus describes a "Chorasmian empire".
Sistan ancient Sakistan,Zaranka of Dariush inscription ofBisotun and land ofSaka ,where Shahr-e sukhteh is located ,fram the archaeological point point of view.
"The history of the fathers of all non-Africanoid humanity, a.k.a., Scythians, and all civilizations began only "God-knows-when" in the Khyber Mountain region of Afghanistan/occupied Pashtunistan (NWFP)
By Gene D. Matlock, B.A., M.A (Sorry i forgot the site if you need it just let me know)
This is guy is very much of "Pro-Jewish". He's talking about Sakastan, (land of Sakas). For some reason he doesn't like to mention Iran but anyways. There are more discoveries coming from (AFG)Land which could very hard to believe. Afghanistan has not been studied until late 1960-1970. Even now there are more evidance needs to be cleared, and it would take another 15 years, as i always say history changes.
And you also have to consider Afghanistan was a death trap for many Invaders/empires, the only empire that has even taken taken control of this region was one of their own, like Khurous (Cyrus the great).
Either these people are mixed or pure is upon you to believe whichever makes sense (Offcourse there is no just a race as Pure as Chinese LOL) but you know what i mean.
Apart from him not specifying any tribe, how does he draw such grandious conclusions? I'm afraid that there is nothing there, unless you specify what he is talking about?
Covering some 120 hectares and located along the Zabol-Zahedan highway, the historic site of Shahr-e Sukhteh is the most important prehistoric city of the 3rd millennium BC and a key location for Iranian prehistoric studies, particularly concerning the southeastern region, and a connection point between Near-Eastern civilizations and that of the Indus valley. The result of archaeological excavations and researches, as well as laboratory studies, have provided ample data about 3rd millennium BC civilizations in Iran and the country's prehistory in general
Again, nothing is said about the identity of the inhabitants. Unless you can prove that the builders of that city were Saka, the mere mentioning of this archaeological site really does not mean much to our subject of discussion.
BTW there is more work needs to be done on both sides of sakastan 1/3 of that region is located in Iran and 1/5 to Pakistan.
Boddy since you did not provided me with enough information to change my mind, My view remains the same. I am still open to any information you can provide.
Just to let you know i read three old European books regarding Scythians and your point of view are not different, so i know where your coming from. My friend there is alot of difference between what we knew in 1909 and what we know now.
I reiterate what I've said - I don't consult very old books. I draw from the latest research (if and when I am able). If that's what they believed in 1909, I am in total ignorance of it.
Again, there was no "Sakastan" until the 1st century BC. Both the Zend Avesta and the Old Persian inscriptions give other names for this region. In the Zend Avesta the region was called Haetumant, and in the Old Persian inscriptions it was called Zranka. In the earliest Greek descriptions of this region, no "Sacae" are ever mentioned. Instead they are located to the north of Iran about the region of the Oxus.
I am sorry my friend another mistake Sakas reached north of Oxus after first they lived in sakaistan. Yes i know there was no such govern-nation as Sakaistan until 100 BCE "During Indo-Scythain Period" But Sakaistan was mention in both Avesta and sanskirt. later during Archemanids period they named an area called "Sakhuztan" .
When Alexander the Great invaded eastern Iran he encountered "Scythians" but they lived beyond Sogdiana in central Asia, and when he entered Drangiana/Zarangia (the later Sistan) there was no such encounter with Scythians - in his time there were still no Scythians in eastern Iran.
The Scythains were in Eastern Iranian from the start, they were one of the Aryanic tribes. THERE are many tribes or groups of Aryans that once upon a time get together and move around, we can't say the Parthian tribe are the same as median tribes of early Aryans (of PARS Province), or Kushanians are the same as kadarites, LOL we can't even say Kadarites are the same as Apadalhai tribe. Even thought kadarites carried the same name same tradition (althought they supported both Buddhism and Hindism) and ruled nothern India (KNOWN AS INDO-HUNs).
Until you can prove that Drangians/Sarangians were Sakas, there is no reason whatsoever why the region should have been called Sakastan at so late a date. If they were recognized as Saka, why did it take so long before the the name appears in the region?
my friend i don't have a lot information to satisfiy you. Based on what i know your talking about the late Sakastan 100BCE. I am talking about mede Sakastan (1000 BCE). You have to understand that where the is the region its refering to and what is means.
Drangianna is the region far south of the aryan land near the ocean. And the name has something to with water/fertile plains althought its said to be very dry in some areas. At the same time we have "Araho-sia" i don't really know what the word means some say "Aria-asia" which means Aryan land (Notice the word Asia is iranic means land or Aryanic land and now it refers to china India far east etc etc). I don't get it why are you using these names. There are so many of them and over it has been changed.
Since, you say that the Bactrians were Saka, why don't we have an ancient appellation such as a "greater Sakastan" comprising the entire eastern Iran.
Why would someone comprise all of Eastern Iran. There was no just a place as "greater Sakastan" until 100BCE.
I know both the Avesta and Vedas and both don't mention this. Please specify where is "Sakhuztan" mentioned in each literature?
Sorry i can't, i can only trust on those people who have gone far but still i always compare and keep my mind open to any changes. All i did was to provide you with more sites (above). And if you really want to get answers ask Sergei V. Rjabchikov or atleast by his book. And there are so many other Russians who have studied the sakas. Even thought they first thought (Just like You) that Sakas were from southern Russian or Ukrian etc have changed their minds. But yes the base idea remains the same there was Saka/scythains in southern Russian as was recorded by Assyrians, Greeks and Medes, but were not natives of that region.
The original population of Bactria were largely Scythian. Apparently the Aryans who came over and took control.
That has been concluded when older evidence of Scythians were found in Afghanistn.
I wish i did now we both have problem here you don't agree that Scythians lived in AFG until late 200 BCE or 100 BCE. Where as i think they existed right from the start (Or at least 2500 BCE or even older records found). NOw i just like you disagree on somethings because this article (information) is old and they concluded that there was "Aryan invasion we re talking 1970s" because of older Evidence of Scythain being found like the Gods, Goddes, artistic stones etc etc. (Now i don't know how/Where/How they know this since I am not in that level)
The obvious reason why we don't, is because those native peoples were not recognized as Saka. Saka were nomadic tribes inhabiting the north of Iran.
Now we both agree on this, northern Iran (800-700BCE)
was where they crossed and reached North Western Iran.
I think you read more into this than what is warranted. Nothing is said as to when proto-Pashto developed. It could have easily occurred in the late 2nd century BC when the Sakas invaded the region. What is quite clear is that his "Sakas" invaded Sistan, not that Sistan was the original home of the Sakas.
No thanks dear I don't know what else to say Bisotun mentions the Saka's and their city was known as Zaranka Afghans call it "Zarhaj" located in helmand province (AFG) located right in the border. To iranians its known as Sukhtea city.
It is true that Darius's Bisutun inscription mentions "Saka". But, if we take those mentionings in context, this is what we get:
In 5.20-30 Darius describes those revolting Saka as near the "Sea" and even specifies them, namely the Saka Tigrahauda, "the Pointed-Hat Scyths". These are usually located to the north of Hyrcania and Parthia, east of the Caspian Sea. In Herodotus, they were known as Orthocorybantes "Tall Hatters" and placed in the same province as the Medes and Hyrcanians (Paricanians) (Herod. Book 3.92).
again we both agree on this, since Scythians had reached that part of the world, right after a peace deal with medes (600-300BCE) by 250 BCE they still controled northern Europe.
Another thing that is quite clear is that Pashto was not Bactrian. According to the author, proto-Pashto developed in the Pamir/Balakh region, whereas Bactrian was the language of the greater part of Bactria.
My friend pashto/pakhtru along with other major eastern iranian languages are all located in (AFG) the only language eastern iranian languages that's alive outside (AFG) border is Ossitic (Europe) and Youqnobi (southern Russia Or Uzbekistan/Tajikistan). Believe me Youqnobis/afghans not only have the same looks but also their language sounds like spanish of spain and spanish of Mexico.
There's far too much information to support the idea that the Sakas were "just a tribe". What we have instead is records mentioning many Saka tribes, but none state that they inhabited Bactria until a later period. Simple as that.
My friend,,,you are iqnoring the Medes sources forget about Bactria lol "Sakastana" was located south of Aryria city (Herat) LOL
Yagnobi is considered a descendant of Sogdian.
We both agree on this.
[quote]
Are you also including Sogdian as Sacian too?
No Sacian was only spoken in Europe ( 300 BCE by the eastern iranian who moved there)
[quote]
If so, then you should also include Chorasmian, and all other Eastern Iranian languages. Yes, all eastern Iranian languages are Sacian languages. No distinctions.
Again you missunderstood my point.
[quote]Avesta is known as old Pakhtrian.
By who?
My friend you know this very well, Avesta was spoken in eastern Iranian (AFG) they country of Pakhtrian and that's why they sometimes call it "Old Bactrian" I don't care what's its called, but you know what i mean.
[Bactria was originally the homeland of Aryan tribes who moved south-west Iran and into North-Western India around 2000-2500 BCE Later it became the north province of the Persian Empire in Central Asia.(Cotterell, 59) It was in these regions, where the fertile soil of the mountainous country is surrounded by the Turanian desert, that the prophet Zoroaster was born and gained his first adherents. Avestan, the language of the oldest portions of the Zoroastrian Avesta, was once called "old Bactrian".]
"I reiterate what I've said - I don't consult very old books. I draw from the latest research (if and when I am able). If that's what they believed in 1909, I am in total ignorance of it. "
My friend you have every right to iqnore anything that doesn't make sense to you. If you think your right... then your right. So what if I or others might disagree or agree does it really matter? That depands on you.
I want to share point of views with you. BUT YOU hav't provided any good source that i can use, although i had asked you many times.
Again, there was no "Sakastan" until the 1st century BC. Both the Zend Avesta and the Old Persian inscriptions give other names for this region. In the Zend Avesta the region was called Haetumant, and in the Old Persian inscriptions it was called Zranka. In the earliest Greek descriptions of this region, no "Sacae" are ever mentioned. Instead they are located to the north of Iran about the region of the Oxus.
I am sorry my friend another mistake Sakas reached north of Oxus after first they lived in sakaistan. Yes i know there was no such govern-nation as Sakaistan until 100 BCE "During Indo-Scythain Period" But Sakaistan was mention in both Avesta and sanskirt. later during Archemanids period they named an area called "Sakhuztan" .
We are going in circles here.There is no documentation whatsoever in either Avesta or oldest Sanskrit texts which mention a Sakaistan or a Sakhuzstan.If they did, please provide the place in each where it is found?
When Alexander the Great invaded eastern Iran he encountered "Scythians" but they lived beyond Sogdiana in central Asia, and when he entered Drangiana/Zarangia (the later Sistan) there was no such encounter with Scythians - in his time there were still no Scythians in eastern Iran.
The Scythains were in Eastern Iranian from the start, they were one of the Aryanic tribes. THERE are many tribes or groups of Aryans that once upon a time get together and move around, we can't say the Parthian tribe are the same as median tribes of early Aryans (of PARS Province), or Kushanians are the same as kadarites, LOL we can't even say Kadarites are the same as Apadalhai tribe. Even thought kadarites carried the same name same tradition (althought they supported both Buddhism and Hindism) and ruled nothern India (KNOWN AS INDO-HUNs).
Again, circles.Unless you present evidence to suggest that the term SAKA was even used at the time to represent eastern Iranian peoples, then the point is rather moot.
Until you can prove that Drangians/Sarangians were Sakas, there is no reason whatsoever why the region should have been called Sakastan at so late a date. If they were recognized as Saka, why did it take so long before the the name appears in the region?
my friend i don't have a lot information to satisfiy you. Based on what i know your talking about the late Sakastan 100BCE. I am talking about mede Sakastan (1000 BCE). You have to understand that where the is the region its refering to and what is means.
Since we dont have records regarding geography as known by the Medes, than, again the point is rather moot.Nothing to present.
Drangianna is the region far south of the aryan land near the ocean. And the name has something to with water/fertile plains althought its said to be very dry in some areas. At the same time we have "Araho-sia" i don't really know what the word means some say "Aria-asia" which means Aryan land (Notice the word Asia is iranic means land or Aryanic land and now it refers to china India far east etc etc). I don't get it why are you using these names. There are so many of them and over it has been changed.
The point is that these are the ancient names of Sakastana.The second point is that the name Saka in an ethno-geographical sense does not occur so far south until 100 BC.We can trace the route of those Saka which settled Drangiana.The older geography does not recognize any older Sakastana.
Since, you say that the Bactrians were Saka, why don't we have an ancient appellation such as a "greater Sakastan" comprising the entire eastern Iran.
Why would someone comprise all of Eastern Iran. There was no just a place as "greater Sakastan" until 100BCE.
Well, some postulate some ancient Bactrian empire (of which there is at least some indirect evidience).The problem with this interpretation is that it relies on a medieval Iranian romantic notion about their history in the Keianian period, i.e. the era of the kavis, where they supposedly dwelt in Balkh.The Avesta does not specify where the kavi rulers ruled, only that their land included the region of the Helmand.The other piece of information is rather negative.It speaks of the Tur as being in possession of Sogdiana.Hence, if there was such a thing as an eastern Empire, it probably included Bactria, Drangiana, Arachosia, and perhaps one or two other provinces.From Herodotus, after Cyruss conquest of the Median and Lydian Empires, he had intended to conquer the Babylonian Empire, Bactria, the Saka, and Egypt.(Herod. Book 1.155).Hence, during the Median Period, the Bactrians were independent and powerful.
Now, since you dont see a greater Sakastan, the point is moot.
I know both the Avesta and Vedas and both don't mention this. Please specify where is "Sakhuztan" mentioned in each literature?
Sorry i can't, i can only trust on those people who have gone far but still i always compare and keep my mind open to any changes. All i did was to provide you with more sites (above). And if you really want to get answers ask Sergei V. Rjabchikov or atleast by his book. And there are so many other Russians who have studied the sakas. Even thought they first thought (Just like You) that Sakas were from southern Russian or Ukrian etc have changed their minds. But yes the base idea remains the same there was Saka/scythains in southern Russian as was recorded by Assyrians, Greeks and Medes, but were not natives of that region.
Until such evidence is specified, again, the point is moot.
The original population of Bactria were largely Scythian. Apparently the Aryans who came over and took control.
That has been concluded when older evidence of Scythians were found in Afghanistn.
I wish i did now we both have problem here you don't agree that Scythians lived in AFG until late 200 BCE or 100 BCE. Where as i think they existed right from the start (Or at least 2500 BCE or even older records found). NOw i just like you disagree on somethings because this article (information) is old and they concluded that there was "Aryan invasion we re talking 1970s" because of older Evidence of Scythain being found like the Gods, Goddes, artistic stones etc etc. (Now i don't know how/Where/How they know this since I am not in that level)
Heres the problem with the link.Although it echoes some of the information you believe, it does not specify the sources of its information.It is merely an essay.The only connection it gives to an ancient Scythian population is the name of a goddess.I want to know why the name of this goddess is considered Scythian according to the article?Why is it even considered Scythian?This article does not answer questions.Please reread your sources to give more source material.Thanks.
The obvious reason why we don't, is because those native peoples were not recognized as Saka. Saka were nomadic tribes inhabiting the north of Iran.
Now we both agree on this, northern Iran (800-700BCE)
was where they crossed and reached North Western Iran.
You focused on the second part of this quote, but you obviously disagree with the first part.Unless you can show that those native peoples were considered Saka by their contemporaries, the point is moot.
I think you read more into this than what is warranted. Nothing is said as to when proto-Pashto developed. It could have easily occurred in the late 2nd century BC when the Sakas invaded the region. What is quite clear is that his "Sakas" invaded Sistan, not that Sistan was the original home of the Sakas.
No thanks dear I don't know what else to say Bisotun mentions the Saka's and their city was known as Zaranka Afghans call it "Zarhaj" located in helmand province (AFG) located right in the border. To iranians its known as Sukhtea city.
It is true that Darius's Bisutun inscription mentions "Saka". But, if we take those mentionings in context, this is what we get:
In 5.20-30 Darius describes those revolting Saka as near the "Sea" and even specifies them, namely the Saka Tigrahauda, "the Pointed-Hat Scyths". These are usually located to the north of Hyrcania and Parthia, east of the Caspian Sea. In Herodotus, they were known as Orthocorybantes "Tall Hatters" and placed in the same province as the Medes and Hyrcanians (Paricanians) (Herod. Book 3.92).
again we both agree on this, since Scythians had reached that part of the world, right after a peace deal with medes (600-300BCE) by 250 BCE they still controled northern Europe.
Nope, sorry, that was not what you originally meant.You were trying to show with the mention of the Bisutun inscription, that the Sakas were already present in eastern Iran, which was wrong, they were located to the north of Iran.
Control over northern Europe still by 250 BC?There is no such record.The archaeological evidence only suggests a military presence in the greater part of eastern Europe dating from between 500 and 400 BC, but thats it.By 400 BC the Celts were on the move even reaching eastern Europe by 350 BC.Alexander the Great met up with them in the northern Balkans.
Another thing that is quite clear is that Pashto was not Bactrian. According to the author, proto-Pashto developed in the Pamir/Balakh region, whereas Bactrian was the language of the greater part of Bactria.
My friend pashto/pakhtru along with other major eastern iranian languages are all located in (AFG) the only language eastern iranian languages that's alive outside (AFG) border is Ossitic (Europe) and Youqnobi (southern Russia Or Uzbekistan/Tajikistan). Believe me Youqnobis/afghans not only have the same looks but also their language sounds like spanish of spain and spanish of Mexico.
Having approximate distances does not mean much.The greater part of the Pamirs was located outside of Bactria, anyway.How about Sacian itself?It was spoken in the westernmost part of Sinkiang China (i.e. the region of Kashgaria).
There's far too much information to support the idea that the Sakas were "just a tribe". What we have instead is records mentioning many Saka tribes, but none state that they inhabited Bactria until a later period. Simple as that.
My friend,,,you are iqnoring the Medes sources forget about Bactria lol "Sakastana" was located south of Aryria city (Herat) LOL
What is LOL is that there are no Medes sources.But, perhapsIm ignorant, so I want you to specify which Medes sources you are talking about.
Yagnobi is considered a descendant of Sogdian.
We both agree on this.
If Yagnobi is Sogdian, then according to your definition, Sogdian was a Sacian language!!!
Are you also including Sogdian as Sacian too?
No Sacian was only spoken in Europe ( 300 BCE by the eastern iranian who moved there)
Sacian was spoken in the greater part of central Asia.In Europe, the most widespread language was Celtic.Now, as for your estimate as to the relationship of the eastern Iranian languages, there is no room to exclude Sogdian as a Sacian language because of its approximate distance from Afghanistan.If distance is no factor, (and you have stated that there was no difference between the speaker of Yagnobi and Afghans) as well as language similiarity, then Yagnobi was also Sacian.Either Yagnobi was Sacian, or you will need to revise your theory.
If so, then you should also include Chorasmian, and all other Eastern Iranian languages. Yes, all eastern Iranian languages are Sacian languages. No distinctions.
Again you missunderstood my point.
I honestly dont think you have one to make, but, okay, please make your point and make it clear.
Avesta is known as old Pakhtrian.
By who?
My friend you know this very well, Avesta was spoken in eastern Iranian (AFG) they country of Pakhtrian and that's why they sometimes call it "Old Bactrian" I don't care what's its called, but you know what i mean.
According to I.M. Diakonoff of the Oriental Institute of the Academy of Sciences, Leningrad:
In as much as a legendary Iranian tradition saw in Kavi Vishtaspa, patron of Zarathushtra, the king of Balkh, some 19th-century scholars thought that the culture of the Avesta, the sacred books of the Zoroastrians, belonged to Bactria.This view is finally disproved by recently discovered inscriptions in bactria of the 2nd century AD, which show that the Bactrian language was quite distinct from Avestan.The data contained in the preserved parts of the Avesta itself, also in no way support the localization of Kavi Vishtaspas kingdom in Bactria.
(The Cambridge History of Iran, vol. 2, page 130-131).
It looks like we have things backwards.The Avestan-Bactrian relationship was the old idea.
[Bactria was originally the homeland of Aryan tribes who moved south-west Iran and into North-Western India around 2000-2500 BCE Later it became the north province of the Persian Empire in Central Asia.(Cotterell, 59) It was in these regions, where the fertile soil of the mountainous country is surrounded by the Turanian desert, that the prophet Zoroaster was born and gained his first adherents. Avestan, the language of the oldest portions of the Zoroastrian Avesta, was once called "old Bactrian".]
Your source uses old information.Not only has the date moved downward for the entrance of the Aryan tribes but Avestan is no longer called old Bactrian.
"I reiterate what I've said - I don't consult very old books. I draw from the latest research (if and when I am able). If that's what they believed in 1909, I am in total ignorance of it. "
My friend you have every right to iqnore anything that doesn't make sense to you. If you think your right... then your right. So what if I or others might disagree or agree does it really matter? That depands on you.
Heres the problem.How one perceives their history will have an effect on how they see others history.In the case of your theory, it was from Bactria (or Afghanistan) that the Scythian proceeded to conquer Europe.Hence from your point-of-view, the Scythians had a great influence on Europe.In the back of your mind, it was the old Afghan (Scythian) who had such an impact on Europe.Not only does the first idea ignore certain (especially linguistic and historic) facts, but the second idea is totally out of proportion to the known history of Europe.The western Scythian has his place in European history, but not in the way you think.
I want to share point of views with you. BUT YOU hav't provided any good source that i can use, although i had asked you many times.
Thats just it I didnt have to provide much.All I really had to do is to provide negative evidence.It was YOU who had to prove your points.Most of you provided were merely statements from articles which research could have come from anywhere.
Again, there was no "Sakastan" until the 1st century BC. Both the Zend Avesta and the Old Persian inscriptions give other names for this region. In the Zend Avesta the region was called Haetumant, and in the Old Persian inscriptions it was called Zranka. In the earliest Greek descriptions of this region, no "Sacae" are ever mentioned. Instead they are located to the north of Iran about the region of the Oxus.
I am sorry my friend another mistake Sakas reached north of Oxus after first they lived in sakaistan. Yes i know there was no such govern-nation as Sakaistan until 100 BCE "During Indo-Scythain Period" But Sakaistan was mention in both Avesta and sanskirt. later during Archemanids period they named an area called "Sakhuztan" .
We are going in circles here.There is no documentation whatsoever in either Avesta or oldest Sanskrit texts which mention a Sakaistan or a Sakhuzstan.If they did, please provide the place in each where it is found?
When Alexander the Great invaded eastern Iran he encountered "Scythians" but they lived beyond Sogdiana in central Asia, and when he entered Drangiana/Zarangia (the later Sistan) there was no such encounter with Scythians - in his time there were still no Scythians in eastern Iran.
The Scythains were in Eastern Iranian from the start, they were one of the Aryanic tribes. THERE are many tribes or groups of Aryans that once upon a time get together and move around, we can't say the Parthian tribe are the same as median tribes of early Aryans (of PARS Province), or Kushanians are the same as kadarites, LOL we can't even say Kadarites are the same as Apadalhai tribe. Even thought kadarites carried the same name same tradition (althought they supported both Buddhism and Hindism) and ruled nothern India (KNOWN AS INDO-HUNs).
Again, circles.Unless you present evidence to suggest that the term SAKA was even used at the time to represent eastern Iranian peoples, then the point is rather moot.
Until you can prove that Drangians/Sarangians were Sakas, there is no reason whatsoever why the region should have been called Sakastan at so late a date. If they were recognized as Saka, why did it take so long before the the name appears in the region?
my friend i don't have a lot information to satisfiy you. Based on what i know your talking about the late Sakastan 100BCE. I am talking about mede Sakastan (1000 BCE). You have to understand that where the is the region its refering to and what is means.
Since we dont have records regarding geography as known by the Medes, than, again the point is rather moot.Nothing to present.
Drangianna is the region far south of the aryan land near the ocean. And the name has something to with water/fertile plains althought its said to be very dry in some areas. At the same time we have "Araho-sia" i don't really know what the word means some say "Aria-asia" which means Aryan land (Notice the word Asia is iranic means land or Aryanic land and now it refers to china India far east etc etc). I don't get it why are you using these names. There are so many of them and over it has been changed.
The point is that these are the ancient names of Sakastana.The second point is that the name Saka in an ethno-geographical sense does not occur so far south until 100 BC.We can trace the route of those Saka which settled Drangiana.The older geography does not recognize any older Sakastana.
Since, you say that the Bactrians were Saka, why don't we have an ancient appellation such as a "greater Sakastan" comprising the entire eastern Iran.
Why would someone comprise all of Eastern Iran. There was no just a place as "greater Sakastan" until 100BCE.
Well, some postulate some ancient Bactrian empire (of which there is at least some indirect evidience).The problem with this interpretation is that it relies on a medieval Iranian romantic notion about their history in the Keianian period, i.e. the era of the kavis, where they supposedly dwelt in Balkh.The Avesta does not specify where the kavi rulers ruled, only that their land included the region of the Helmand.The other piece of information is rather negative.It speaks of the Tur as being in possession of Sogdiana.Hence, if there was such a thing as an eastern Empire, it probably included Bactria, Drangiana, Arachosia, and perhaps one or two other provinces.From Herodotus, after Cyruss conquest of the Median and Lydian Empires, he had intended to conquer the Babylonian Empire, Bactria, the Saka, and Egypt.(Herod. Book 1.155).Hence, during the Median Period, the Bactrians were independent and powerful.
Now, since you dont see a greater Sakastan, the point is moot.
I know both the Avesta and Vedas and both don't mention this. Please specify where is "Sakhuztan" mentioned in each literature?
Sorry i can't, i can only trust on those people who have gone far but still i always compare and keep my mind open to any changes. All i did was to provide you with more sites (above). And if you really want to get answers ask Sergei V. Rjabchikov or atleast by his book. And there are so many other Russians who have studied the sakas. Even thought they first thought (Just like You) that Sakas were from southern Russian or Ukrian etc have changed their minds. But yes the base idea remains the same there was Saka/scythains in southern Russian as was recorded by Assyrians, Greeks and Medes, but were not natives of that region.
Until such evidence is specified, again, the point is moot.
The original population of Bactria were largely Scythian. Apparently the Aryans who came over and took control.
That has been concluded when older evidence of Scythians were found in Afghanistn.
I wish i did now we both have problem here you don't agree that Scythians lived in AFG until late 200 BCE or 100 BCE. Where as i think they existed right from the start (Or at least 2500 BCE or even older records found). NOw i just like you disagree on somethings because this article (information) is old and they concluded that there was "Aryan invasion we re talking 1970s" because of older Evidence of Scythain being found like the Gods, Goddes, artistic stones etc etc. (Now i don't know how/Where/How they know this since I am not in that level)
Heres the problem with the link.Although it echoes some of the information you believe, it does not specify the sources of its information.It is merely an essay.The only connection it gives to an ancient Scythian population is the name of a goddess.I want to know why the name of this goddess is considered Scythian according to the article?Why is it even considered Scythian?This article does not answer questions.Please reread your sources to give more source material.Thanks.
The obvious reason why we don't, is because those native peoples were not recognized as Saka. Saka were nomadic tribes inhabiting the north of Iran.
Now we both agree on this, northern Iran (800-700BCE)
was where they crossed and reached North Western Iran.
You focused on the second part of this quote, but you obviously disagree with the first part.Unless you can show that those native peoples were considered Saka by their contemporaries, the point is moot.
I think you read more into this than what is warranted. Nothing is said as to when proto-Pashto developed. It could have easily occurred in the late 2nd century BC when the Sakas invaded the region. What is quite clear is that his "Sakas" invaded Sistan, not that Sistan was the original home of the Sakas.
No thanks dear I don't know what else to say Bisotun mentions the Saka's and their city was known as Zaranka Afghans call it "Zarhaj" located in helmand province (AFG) located right in the border. To iranians its known as Sukhtea city.
It is true that Darius's Bisutun inscription mentions "Saka". But, if we take those mentionings in context, this is what we get:
In 5.20-30 Darius describes those revolting Saka as near the "Sea" and even specifies them, namely the Saka Tigrahauda, "the Pointed-Hat Scyths". These are usually located to the north of Hyrcania and Parthia, east of the Caspian Sea. In Herodotus, they were known as Orthocorybantes "Tall Hatters" and placed in the same province as the Medes and Hyrcanians (Paricanians) (Herod. Book 3.92).
again we both agree on this, since Scythians had reached that part of the world, right after a peace deal with medes (600-300BCE) by 250 BCE they still controled northern Europe.
Nope, sorry, that was not what you originally meant.You were trying to show with the mention of the Bisutun inscription, that the Sakas were already present in eastern Iran, which was wrong, they were located to the north of Iran.
Control over northern Europe still by 250 BC?There is no such record.The archaeological evidence only suggests a military presence in the greater part of eastern Europe dating from between 500 and 400 BC, but thats it.By 400 BC the Celts were on the move even reaching eastern Europe by 350 BC.Alexander the Great met up with them in the northern Balkans.
Another thing that is quite clear is that Pashto was not Bactrian. According to the author, proto-Pashto developed in the Pamir/Balakh region, whereas Bactrian was the language of the greater part of Bactria.
My friend pashto/pakhtru along with other major eastern iranian languages are all located in (AFG) the only language eastern iranian languages that's alive outside (AFG) border is Ossitic (Europe) and Youqnobi (southern Russia Or Uzbekistan/Tajikistan). Believe me Youqnobis/afghans not only have the same looks but also their language sounds like spanish of spain and spanish of Mexico.
Having approximate distances does not mean much.The greater part of the Pamirs was located outside of Bactria, anyway.How about Sacian itself?It was spoken in the westernmost part of Sinkiang China (i.e. the region of Kashgaria).
There's far too much information to support the idea that the Sakas were "just a tribe". What we have instead is records mentioning many Saka tribes, but none state that they inhabited Bactria until a later period. Simple as that.
My friend,,,you are iqnoring the Medes sources forget about Bactria lol "Sakastana" was located south of Aryria city (Herat) LOL
What is LOL is that there are no Medes sources.But, perhapsIm ignorant, so I want you to specify which Medes sources you are talking about.
Yagnobi is considered a descendant of Sogdian.
We both agree on this.
If Yagnobi is Sogdian, then according to your definition, Sogdian was a Sacian language!!!
Are you also including Sogdian as Sacian too?
No Sacian was only spoken in Europe ( 300 BCE by the eastern iranian who moved there)
Sacian was spoken in the greater part of central Asia.In Europe, the most widespread language was Celtic.Now, as for your estimate as to the relationship of the eastern Iranian languages, there is no room to exclude Sogdian as a Sacian language because of its approximate distance from Afghanistan.If distance is no factor, (and you have stated that there was no difference between the speaker of Yagnobi and Afghans) as well as language similiarity, then Yagnobi was also Sacian.Either Yagnobi was Sacian, or you will need to revise your theory.
If so, then you should also include Chorasmian, and all other Eastern Iranian languages. Yes, all eastern Iranian languages are Sacian languages. No distinctions.
Again you missunderstood my point.
I honestly dont think you have one to make, but, okay, please make your point and make it clear.
Avesta is known as old Pakhtrian.
By who?
My friend you know this very well, Avesta was spoken in eastern Iranian (AFG) they country of Pakhtrian and that's why they sometimes call it "Old Bactrian" I don't care what's its called, but you know what i mean.
According to I.M. Diakonoff of the Oriental Institute of the Academy of Sciences, Leningrad:
In as much as a legendary Iranian tradition saw in Kavi Vishtaspa, patron of Zarathushtra, the king of Balkh, some 19th-century scholars thought that the culture of the Avesta, the sacred books of the Zoroastrians, belonged to Bactria.This view is finally disproved by recently discovered inscriptions in bactria of the 2nd century AD, which show that the Bactrian language was quite distinct from Avestan.The data contained in the preserved parts of the Avesta itself, also in no way support the localization of Kavi Vishtaspas kingdom in Bactria.
(The Cambridge History of Iran, vol. 2, page 130-131).
It looks like we have things backwards.The Avestan-Bactrian relationship was the old idea.
[Bactria was originally the homeland of Aryan tribes who moved south-west Iran and into North-Western India around 2000-2500 BCE Later it became the north province of the Persian Empire in Central Asia.(Cotterell, 59) It was in these regions, where the fertile soil of the mountainous country is surrounded by the Turanian desert, that the prophet Zoroaster was born and gained his first adherents. Avestan, the language of the oldest portions of the Zoroastrian Avesta, was once called "old Bactrian".]
Your source uses old information.Not only has the date moved downward for the entrance of the Aryan tribes but Avestan is no longer called old Bactrian.
"I reiterate what I've said - I don't consult very old books. I draw from the latest research (if and when I am able). If that's what they believed in 1909, I am in total ignorance of it. "
My friend you have every right to iqnore anything that doesn't make sense to you. If you think your right... then your right. So what if I or others might disagree or agree does it really matter? That depands on you.
Heres the problem.How one perceives their history will have an effect on how they see others history.In the case of your theory, it was from Bactria (or Afghanistan) that the Scythian proceeded to conquer Europe.Hence from your point-of-view, the Scythians had a great influence on Europe.In the back of your mind, it was the old Afghan (Scythian) who had such an impact on Europe.Not only does the first idea ignore certain (especially linguistic and historic) facts, but the second idea is totally out of proportion to the known history of Europe.The western Scythian has his place in European history, but not in the way you think.
I want to share point of views with you. BUT YOU hav't provided any good source that i can use, although i had asked you many times.
Thats just it I didnt have to provide much.All I really had to do is to provide negative evidence.It was YOU who had to prove your points.Most of you provided were merely statements from articles which research could have come from anywhere.
We are going in circles here.There is no documentation whatsoever in either Avesta or oldest Sanskrit texts which mention a Sakaistan or a Sakhuzstan.If they did, please provide the place in each where it is found
This i s what i found about you. You believe in Sakas as an some kind of Race or a seperat group coming from Europe or god knows where. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF SAKA AS BEING AN ETHNIC A RACE, THEY were just a small tribe and the name was given to them.
You believe that Saka's were in eastern Iran during 100BCE but the Bishtun talks about them and their origional home.
Unless you present evidence to suggest that the term SAKA was even used at the time to represent eastern Iranian peoples, then the point is rather moot.
Why should be counted as a seperate if there is no evidence of Saka's being different from old Iranian people. What they are not sure about is their religion, other then that Saka (scythians were not differernt from other Aryans. In fact they have found both reg vada (Frist one) and Avestian influnce. Either they havn't lift enough evidance of their religion or they just gave up after 100 years being away from homeland.
Hence, during the Median Period, the Bactrians were independent and powerful.
yes but later they became an empire. Its very known that Bactria had the first empire to date but their isn't enough prove. In fact a new discovery of BMAC, Which includes Merv and kyber area, as the home of Aryans. which goes against Aryans theory of them being White/European frim siberia or northern central Asia.
I want to know why the name of this goddess is considered Scythian according to the article?Why is it even considered Scythian?This article does not answer questions.Please reread your sources to give more source material.Thanks.
be espesific they talk about so many stuff, i have many problem with this article, they have some facts which was discovered in 1970s. which somehow crashed the European believe of Scythians being native european etc etc. The eurpeans always give the impression that every invasion that was made has to be white ect the early scythain history books mentioned the preserved name of Scythai as the "Prehistoric Antiquities of the Aryan Peoples" and called them the "proto-Indo-European." LOL even its used up to this date, which supports your point of views.
You were trying to show with the mention of the Bisutun inscription, that the Sakas were already present in eastern Iran, which was wrong, they were located to the north of Iran.
You mean the North-western Iran. Well that's what europeans want to hear close to europe. Nope its East and later north-east then by 700 BCE north east which resulted in conflict with Medes who were fighting with Assyrians.
Control over northern Europe still by 250 BC?There is no such record.The archaeological evidence only suggests a military presence in the greater part of eastern Europe dating from between 500 and 400 BC, but thats it.By 400 BC the Celts were on the move even reaching eastern Europe by 350 BC.Alexander the Great met up with them in the northern Balkans.
Have you forgotten the Romans??? AND that's the time i am talking about. Many think romans made mistake by refering Iranian Hephatalites to Scythains. But they were same can you blame them.
The greater part of the Pamirs was located outside of Bactria, anyway.How about Sacian itself?It was spoken in the westernmost part of Sinkiang China (i.e. the region of Kashgaria).
It depands on time. There was no such evidance of any language as sacian or scythian. Please provide with some sort of evidance. I am telling 100% the scythain langauge is linked with Avestain/pashtu. The scythains of europe may have called themselves after their father or their tribal name but not their language.
Sacian was spoken in the greater part of central Asia.In Europe, the most widespread language was Celtic.
There was no such thing as scythain langauge, as i said before its close to Pakhtrian or avestian, but its not a seperate/different language. Maybe over time it have been changed in Europe since connects were made with lacal Germanics. http://indoeuro.bizland.com/tree/iran/scythian.html
"
There are no written texts in any variant. The only materials are toponimic names, tribal and personal names found on Greek inscriptions in the ruins of ancient Black Sea colonies (Panticapeus, Olvia, etc.) We know about 200 word stems in Scythian, and that, certainly, has to be deemed paltry. A key for analysis of them is found in material from the Ossetic language.
The grammatical structure has not been researched enough, but its descent from Iranian is evident. Some traits of phonetics are also known, as well as syntactic features. All, to repeat, have an Iranian genesis"
Now, as for your estimate as to the relationship of the eastern Iranian languages, there is no room to exclude Sogdian as a Sacian language because of its approximate distance from Afghanistan.If distance is no factor, (and you have stated that there was no difference between the speaker of Yagnobi and Afghans) as well as language similiarity, then Yagnobi was also Sacian.Either Yagnobi was Sacian, or you will need to revise your theory
My friend you are trying to make connections here, and giving me more headache, the fact remains the same that there was no such language as Sacian or Scythains maybe something new to Europeans or to people of northern Iran (Georgia etc) but not to Eastern Iranians.
If Yagnobi is Sogdian, then according to your definition, Sogdian was a Sacian language!!!
No that's not the case sogdians never called themselves Saka's and no-one from that region ever did, even that native of Sakastan. They were refered as Saka's so you can blame them since they are located near the homeland of Sakas.
Your source uses old information.Not only has the date moved downward for the entrance of the Aryan tribes but Avestan is no longer called old Bactrian.
For the first time you pointed some that i really agree yes i agree that its old since Aryans were just natives but i had to used as a source, offcourse nothing is right unless you're aware of the facts.
Second yes i agree, Avesta should not of been called old Pakhtrian because it wasn't just spoken in Bactria(Balkh) but greater eastern Iran, so it still proves my point i have been saying this from the start althought over time different dialects were noticed but still not different. (read your and my previous posts). However that name was given by europeans. AND its still used.
According to I.M. Diakonoff of the Oriental Institute of the Academy of Sciences, Leningrad:
In as much as a legendary Iranian tradition saw in Kavi Vishtaspa, patron of Zarathushtra, the king of Balkh, some 19th-century scholars thought that the culture of the Avesta, the sacred books of the Zoroastrians, belonged to Bactria.This view is finally disproved by recently discovered inscriptions in bactria of the 2nd century AD, which show that the Bactrian language was quite distinct from Avestan.The data contained in the preserved parts of the Avesta itself, also in no way support the localization of Kavi Vishtaspas kingdom in Bactria.
The Cambridge History of Iran, vol. 2, page 130-131).
More info please cause the Cambridge history of Iran was published in 1985 and that I.M. Diakonoff is famous but was not an arthur of the book. BTW he's known to be an Assyriologist and linguist. So something is fishy. I am sure you made some sort of mistake.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Share Topic
Printable Version
Google
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Windows Live
Yahoo Bookmarks
reddit
Facebook
MySpace
Newsvine
Furl
Topic Search 
Topic Options
Quote 
Topic: Iranians root in Central asia
. I have no enough time to dig up all good evidences and write here but I follow your discussion with other fellow and gotta be most of the time with your side. You answer with good logic responds that I really admit it. Thank you.
