Print Page | Close Window

Word "Aryan" is priced becoz of its Indic(Hindu)

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: Ancient Mesopotamia, Near East and Greater Iran
Forum Discription: Babylon, Egypt, Persia and other civilizations of the Near East from ancient times to 600s AD
Moderators: Akolouthos
URL: http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=12971
Printed Date: 23-Jul-2014 at 12:53


Topic: Word "Aryan" is priced becoz of its Indic(Hindu)
Posted By: Maziar
Subject: Word "Aryan" is priced becoz of its Indic(Hindu)
Date Posted: 27-Jun-2006 at 08:37
Originally posted by varma

And the term "Arya" is first to be found in the Rig Veda, and the meaning of it is Respectable, honourable or of noble qualities and nothing else.

incorrect, Arya was first appeared in Central Asia befor the immigration to India and Iran.
And yes we know all that Arya is not a race, only a name. we disscussed this zilion times befor. So you say nothing new, search for topics befor you post. 
To all the Iranains who are in so much illusion that Iran influenced vietnam, combodia, Korea and other nations of the World stop fooling yourselves...
Why do you allege we Iranians are ultranationalists? only 3 posts here and soon you are badmouthing Iranians, a very bad startDead



Replies:
Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 27-Jun-2006 at 09:06

Varma- If your goal is to start a flame war, go somewhere else.  If you are indeed interested in discussing origins, first do as Maziar suggests and research previous posts. Also, you might readjust attitude towards non Hindu, we try to show each other a certain degree of mutual respect.  Smile  



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


Posted By: varma
Date Posted: 27-Jun-2006 at 09:11
Maziar

    You have said that "Arya" first appeared in Central Asia before the immigration to India and Iran, is that what u wanted to say and if it is so are u talking about any engravings of the word Arya or any literature that mentios the  word  "Arya".
   Please give me the source  "about the first use of the term "Arya". According to me it is in the Rig Veda and it is the widely accepted. Give me link which says otherwise...

        Really I am not badmouthing the Iranians, I am simply outraged about what I have read, some posters in this forum are claiming that Iraninas have influenced as far as Vietnam, Korea, Japan and if any of these people read they will laugh at and create a bad impression of Iraninas, I didnt found anyone questioning their asserations probably digesting as they are Iraninas....
       First the  assumption of historians is  Aryan Invasion, Now becoz of lack of proof of any sort of Invasion the historians falled back to Aryan Migraton theory and scholars raising some serious doubts about even the Migration theroy as it is no supported on some  basic things...
    


Posted By: varma
Date Posted: 27-Jun-2006 at 09:15
Hey I am sorry for that if it hurt...sorry
  
       It will be very helpfull if the so called person who claimed that Iranians influenced as far as Korea, Japan, Veitnam...please provide me link a credible link that is accepted by scholars


Posted By: Maziar
Date Posted: 27-Jun-2006 at 09:53
Varma, we all can be outraged about what we read or what we hear. But we try to calm and we try to show each other a certain degree of mutual respect, as Red Clay said.
For the sources, as i said befor search the forum and you will see many topics about aryans, so i think there is no need to provide a source.


Posted By: malizai_
Date Posted: 27-Jun-2006 at 10:19
Originally posted by red clay

Varma- If your goal is to start a flame war, go somewhere else.  If you are indeed interested in discussing origins, first do as Maziar suggests and research previous posts. Also, you might readjust attitude towards non Hindu, we try to show each other a certain degree of mutual respect.  Smile  

 
I add my voice to red clay's. Varma u need som karma.LOL


-------------
"We didnt land on Israel, Israel landed on us!!"--Palestinian X
http://www.antiwar.com - antiwar.com
http://www.crimesofwar.org - crimesofwar.org


Posted By: varma
Date Posted: 27-Jun-2006 at 11:31
What I read from the above post only confirms my doubt about the lack of evidence that people are floating in this forum about the Influecnes of Iran around the World


Posted By: Maziar
Date Posted: 27-Jun-2006 at 17:41
And what i read from your above post confirms my accurasy about your contentiousness. (sorry to say that)


Posted By: azimuth
Date Posted: 28-Jun-2006 at 03:32
Verma
 
can you provide links and quotes from this forum where Iranians taking credit of Indian culture.
 
because i dont remember reading any.
 


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


Posted By: Iranduxt
Date Posted: 28-Jun-2006 at 19:20
The word Aryan is priced becouse of it hindu(indic)?????
 
The word Aryan, is our tribal name if you like, to make it as simple as possiable for you to understand.
At the beginning they were all one, about 4000 years ago they divided into two groups, half went into India and mixed with the Dravidians, the habitants of the Indian sub continent. The Dravidians who look like aboriginals from Australia mixing with the caucasian looking Aryans, the result being the way Indians look today. The name Aryan only survived amongst the Indian as more of the philosophical and spiritual term then anything else.
The other half went into Iran ( medes, Persians and Parthians ) and some stayed in the steppes ( Scythians who divided into few other groupes such as: Cimmerians, Sarmatians, Alans, Roxolanis, and Jazyges ).
 
comparing the Rig Vede to Avesta would explain the division.
Divas are gods in Rig Veda, in Avesta Divas (Divs in Persian) became Demons and Ahura Mazda the lord of wisdom has been mentiond as the only true god.
And also has been mentioned that the Aryanem vaeja was the original homeland of the Aryans, which was the south of Aral sea modern day Turkmenistan.


Posted By: Iranduxt
Date Posted: 28-Jun-2006 at 23:10
What is this fascination that everyone (from west to east) has with the Aryans, I'm getting sick of this.
 
Why can't you leave us and our ancestors in peace. Really is nothing special, just let us be who we are.
 
It's enough not being able to say you're an Aryan in the west, becouse in the west everyone thinks an Aryan is suppose to be a Nordic Blond hair Blue eye, and the original Persians were all nordic, now we have mr India saying that the original Persians were Indians. Is this a joke????? becouse this is the first time I'm hearing of this. you seriously must be kidding. That's all it is, you just want to start a flame war.
 
What is this world coming to. I wish everybody would drop it by now.


Posted By: varma
Date Posted: 29-Jun-2006 at 03:23
         Rig Veda and Avesta are not to be compared becoz of their different time frames of their composition.
         Avesta mentions where the Iranians came from but Rig Veda doesnt mention any, and more importantly it relates to the geographical areas of India as their original home...
        And it is a fact that Rig Veda is the oldest of Composition bewtween the Avesta and Rig Veda..
        Well the Aryanem vaeja could be anywhere. On what basis have u placed the Aryanem Vaeja in the south of the Aral Sea...Does the Avesta gives the description of the geography of the aryanem Vaeja....
         Iranians came from somewhere else, now that is true by your own citation of the Avesta.  But the second part of your assertion that another branch further migrated into India and mixed with Dravidians is worng becoz their is no proof of such migration anywhere in the Vedas.
       This is pure specualtion that the word Aryan has survived in India as pure philosophical and spiritual terms. It from the very begining in Indian concious didnt refer an particualr race or people. "Arya" means noble and nothing from the vry begining.
       Various scholars have various opinions about the locationof Aryanem Vaejo, the central asian Republics, Afhanisthan, and Kashmir...
        Among the three of the options to myknowledge Kashir had very rich 5000 year old culture and civilization and it was an ancient seat of vedic learning which is far more superior than the those that can be found in Central asia or Afghanistan.
       Can kashmir be a possible place......
      
    
        


Posted By: Vedam
Date Posted: 29-Jun-2006 at 03:25
I want to comment about the Generalisations users are making.
I don't agree with "VERMA'S" view of India being the only source of everthing Aryan.  I refute that completely. I'm not going to even go into it.
But i don't agree with the counter argument of "Irandux" either. He says 
"The Aryans in India mixed with the Dravidians who look like aborginal Austrailians, the result being the way Indians look today"  and then "the name Aryan survives in India as a spirtual term only". 
Well "Irandux" India has a population of 1 billion, with a lot of diverse ethnicities, languages, there is no one Indian look, believe me. The complexions and features  are very diverse.
You say "leave you and your ancestors in peace" come on if India has Dravidians, do you think that Arabs, and Mongolians to name but a few, never settled in Iran. They say Genghis Khan has 14 million descendents in central asia, they must be settled somewhere.
You both seem to want to claim being "true Aryans" which is pointless, and make generalisations from different ends of the spectrum.  
Vedam
 
 


Posted By: Iranduxt
Date Posted: 29-Jun-2006 at 06:57
varma, It seems like you only know what you want to know and you've made up your mind about it.
 
Like Maziar said, this has been disscussed so many times befor in this forum.
so search the forum you might learn something.


Posted By: Iranduxt
Date Posted: 29-Jun-2006 at 07:23
vedem, my nick name Irandoxt is an iranian name meaning daughter of Iran. I'm not a he.
 
I know what Indians look like, I have been to India when I was a kid and I have many distant families who live there.


Posted By: varma
Date Posted: 29-Jun-2006 at 07:26
    No I havent made up my mind I'll try to provide various evidences regarding the existence of Indian rulers and their influence to the west of India aropund the areas of Iran, Syria etc....
     Vedam, u have to conclude from the information in the Avesta that Aryans were originallyfrom "Aryanam Vaejo". That really confirms the bit that Aryan were one who settled in Iran...Regarding where they come from ......Debate with the facts the best possible thing and I dont think the best possibl;e and viable thing lies in the central asian mountains and afghanisthan if u dont consider the aryan to be nomads( and nomads are not given the title of Noble)...

The presence of Indian descdents in and aroud Syria ::
           Does anybody know about Mittanis. The Mittani kings names are  just not linguistic similarities becoz Tushrattha(Dasaratha) is the name of the father of the legendary indian Hero Rama.
           This is the exact name so their doesnt arise any doubt that it is just linguistic similarity, and moreover this is possible only when they are decendants of Indinas that they would like to honour their ancestory by naming their children

Extract from Wikki


           

Some theonyms, proper names and other terminology of the Mitanni exhibit an http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Aryan_languages - Indo-Aryan superstrate, suggesting that an http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Aryans - Indo-Aryan elite imposed itself over the Hurrian population in the course of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Aryan_migration - Indo-Aryan expansion . In a treaty between the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hittites - Hittites and the Mitanni, the deities http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitra - Mitra , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varuna - Varuna , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indra - Indra , and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasatya - Nasatya ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asvins - Ashvins ) are invoked. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kikkuli - Kikkuli 's horse training text includes technical terms such as aika (eka, one), tera (tri, three), panza (pancha, five), satta (sapta, seven), na (nava, nine), vartana (vartana, round). Another text has babru (babhru, brown), parita (palita, grey), and pinkara (pingala, red). Their chief festival was the celebration of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solstice - solstice (vishuva) which was common in most cultures in the ancient world. The Mitanni warriors were called marya, the term for warrior in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanskrit - Sanskrit as well.

Sanskritic interpretations of Mitanni royal names render Shuttarna as Sutarna ("good sun"), Baratarna as Paratarna ("great sun"), Parsatatar as Parashukshatra ("ruler with axe"), Saustatar as Saukshatra ("son of Sukshatra, the good ruler"), Artatama as "most righteous", Tushratta as Dasharatha ("having ten chariots"?), and, finally, Mattivaza as Mativaja ("whose wealth is prayer"). Some scholars believe that not only the kings had Indo-Aryan names; a large number of other names resembling Sanskrit have been unearthed in records from the area.

It has been widely conjectured that this original Mitanni aristocracy who bore Indo-Aryan names, had emigrated from the north and imposed themselves upon the indigenous Hurrians of Syria who were not Indo-Aryan, although historical clues are scarce.
   I'll give more info in the due course and if anybody would like to rubbish it plez ur welcome with valid points


Posted By: Iranduxt
Date Posted: 29-Jun-2006 at 07:40
all you saying only suggest that the Aryans were one and divided into two, half went to india and the other half went into Iran and some stayed in the steppes. you are just twisting the same thing into your liking. Everything that you mentioned is the same with Avestan.


Posted By: Maziar
Date Posted: 29-Jun-2006 at 08:49
Originally posted by Iranduxt

vedem, my nick name Irandoxt is an iranian name meaning daughter of Iran. I'm not a he.
 
 
So your name is also Irandokht Smile, you use the X as a synonyme for "kh", i thought what Iranduxt means, now i know.


Posted By: Iranduxt
Date Posted: 29-Jun-2006 at 09:21
yeh, but I've misspelt it, instead of O I wrote U, I been wanting to correct it but didn't know how.


Posted By: Anujkhamar
Date Posted: 29-Jun-2006 at 09:31
Originally posted by Iranduxt

yeh, but I've misspelt it, instead of O I wrote U, I been wanting to correct it but didn't know how.


I think if you ask one of the Administrators nicely they might help you with that.


Posted By: Iranduxt
Date Posted: 29-Jun-2006 at 09:38
Thank you Anujkhamar, I'll try that.


Posted By: varma
Date Posted: 29-Jun-2006 at 09:44
Irandoux, this forum is being moderated very badly, last minute I have seen some 3 or 4 messages all of them are removed, why is it .....

   Any way I do not want to claim anything from the Perssian. I respect the Persian acheivments, All my intention was to let u know the iinfluence of India in the region of Iran and syriya..
   All the things mentioned regarding Mittani kings were historical facts, u may conclude whatever..
   U might have known the Mitanian kings names before but u may not have known that they are Indic and they are not just  liguistic similarities.

I am not twisting anything here....
 
         Your notion of one went to India and one went to Iran lacks evidence.Neither it has the support of the genetics nor evidence of historic writings. The only basis upon which u are making this arguemetn that Aryans decended from Central asia of which one group went to Inda and the other to India, all this based on the early 20th century writings of the historians almost all derived from the hyposthesis of linguists...
    Your argument doesnt have any archeological basis as well as gentic ...
   And moreover I would like to know if their is any form of conciousness in Iraninas or in their native writings of such a migration
The Avestan doesnt place it in the Aral mountains. We indians in our ancient texts doesnt have such sort migration recorded but they have detailed accounts of the tribes migration to the west of India...
  I would like to present those details if u would like.....

And another request please dont moderate everything which would steel this thread of its liveliness..


  


Posted By: Anujkhamar
Date Posted: 29-Jun-2006 at 10:00
Originally posted by varma

Irandoux, this forum is being moderated very badly, last minute I have seen some 3 or 4 messages all of them are removed, why is it .....
 


If you read the Rules and Regulations you signed you will have read that you have agreed that you are not allowed insulting and are not allowed to write anything intended on insulting a group of people. If you do not follow that then your posts are edited and/or you are suspended. If you can follow that then you can enjoy the forum like the other 3900 other forumers who come to this forum for its good moderation on friendliness.

Other than that you seem quite knowledgable on certain things so learn the rules and try to enjoy.



Posted By: Darigh
Date Posted: 29-Jun-2006 at 12:18
" To all the Iranains who are in so much illusion that Iran influenced vietnam, combodia, Korea and other nations of the World stop fooling yourselves... "

&

" Any way I do not want to claim anything from the Perssian. I respect the Persian acheivments, All my intention was to let u know the iinfluence of India in the region of Iran and syriya.. "

 Who is claiming somthing Varma or Iranians??????Pinch

-------------
ei darigh az Irane man ke viran shavad


Posted By: Darigh
Date Posted: 29-Jun-2006 at 12:32
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naqsh-e_Rustam

Darius the Great's Inscription at Naqsh-e Rustam

I. A great god is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahura_Mazda - Ahura Mazda , who created this earth, who created yonder sky, who created man, who created happiness for man, who made Darius king, one king of many, one lord of many.

II. I am Darius the Great King, King of Kings, King of countries containing all kinds of men, King in this great Earth far and wide, son of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hystaspes - Hystaspes , an Achaemenian, a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persians - Persian , son of a Persian, an http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan - Aryan , having Aryan lineage.

III. Darius the King says: By the favor of Ahura Mazda, these are the countries which I seized outside of Persia; I ruled over them; they bore tribute to me; what was said to them by me, that they did; my law - that held them firm: Media, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elam - Elam , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthia - Parthia , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aria - Aria , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bactria - Bactria , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sogdiana - Sogdiana , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chorasmia - Chorasmia , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drangiana - Drangiana , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arachosia - Arachosia , http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sattagydia&action=edit - Sattagydia , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandhara - Gandhara , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sind - Sind , http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amyrgian&action=edit - Amyrgian http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythian - Scythians , Scythians with pointed caps, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonia - Babylonia , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyria - Assyria , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabia - Arabia , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egypt - Egypt , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenia - Armenia , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cappadocia - Cappadocia , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sardis - Sardis , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionia - Ionia , Scythians who are across the sea, Skudra, petasos-wearing Ionians, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libya - Libyans , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopia - Ethiopians , men of Maka, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carian - Carians .

IV. Darius the King says: Ahura Mazda, when he saw this Earth in commotion, thereafter bestowed it upon me, made me king; I am king. By the favor of Ahura Mazda I put it down in its place; what I said to them, that they did, as was my desire. If now you shall think that "How many are the countries which King Darius held?" look at the sculptures (of those) who bear the throne, then shall you know, then shall it become known to you: the spear of a Persian man has gone forth far; then shall it become known to you: a Persian man has delivered battle far indeed from Persia.

V. Darius the King says: This which has been done, all that by the will of Ahura Mazda I did. Ahura Mazda bore me aid, until I did the work. May Ahura Mazda protect me from harm, and my royal house, and this land: this I pray of Ahura Mazda, this may Ahura Mazda give to me!

VI. O man, that which is the command of Ahura Mazda, let this not seem repugnant to you; do not leave the right path; do not rise in rebellion!





-------------
ei darigh az Irane man ke viran shavad


Posted By: Sharrukin
Date Posted: 30-Jun-2006 at 02:29
And the term "Arya" is first to be found in the Rig Veda, and the meaning of it is Respectable, honourable or of noble qualities and nothing else.
 
We don't know which came first, the Rg Veda or the Avesta, but that's not even important.  What is important is that even in the Rg Veda, the term "Arya" has been used for a people.  They had "tribes", considered "evil", and even killed by the gods.  

How many scientists, philosophers, academicians and scolars has appreciation for the Zorasternism. Not to mean any disrespect to Zarathustra. It is the 20th century discovery of the Indian(hindu) philosophy that accrued the Term "Aryan" its present day glory...
 
Not really.  The Europeans discovered the term in the 18th century when they first gained access not only to Hindu sacred texts but also to Iranian ones as well.  
  
And for Iranians as their country name meant Land of Aryans, it is absurd to claim the glory acheived by the Indians as their contribuition.....
 
The land has been called as such as early as the time of Zoroaster who was said to have been born in Airyanem vaeja "by the Vanguhi Daitya" (i.e. the Amu Darya).  The Iranians were already using the term for the land of their origin.  The ancient Greeks knew Iran as Ariana.  Hence, the ancient Iranians saw their origins from the name of a people.
 
Persia was famous for the size of its empire and with size comes Wealth, but their is no evidence that it is the wealthiest contemporary empire and its borders never reached India proper not even to the present day Pakisthan...
 
On the contrary, we know of at least two ancient Persian provinces in Pakistan.  Their names were Gandara and Hindush.  They were named in the inscriptions of Darius I and onwards.

The persian influence is nowhere to be seen, but I can put up extensive evidence of the Vedic(Hindu) Civilization all around the World from Hungary, to South Korea, from Combodia to south America.
 
Wrong again.  The Sanskrit word for "Greek" for instance was Yona, which came from Persian, Yauna
 
The paramount language of the Middle East at the time of the Achaemenid Empire was Aramaic, which the Persians used extensively throughout their empire.  In the East, the Aramaic script was adopted by the Indians which among the earliest known was called Kharoshti.  This was done under Persian auspices.  Incidentally, the Aramaic word for Greek, Yavan was also adopted by the Indians, who also knew the Greeks as Yavanas.   Hence, the Indians knew the Greeks by two versions of the same name.  

May be during the time of Darius and Cyrus, persians were Arya but not any more, the term "Arya" accrues to those who lead a moral living. But Iranains at present as they are muslims their is  nothing respectable about them, becoz those who follow a person who has sex with a 9 year old girl when he was 53 years old as there prophet or saint is very immoral.....
 
Again, the word "Arya" had always had an ethnic meaning to Iranians.   Hence, it never really had a moral meaning to them. 
 
And one other thing.  It is rather presumptuous of you to talk about their Prophet when bal vivaha is still practiced in India.
         
Take a look at India, India was repeatedly attacked by Muslim murderes and the condition Indians faced would have been no differnt from those faced by the Iranains, but Hindus held on to their civilization and ushered in its continuation...........
 
Iran was adjacent to the regions where the invaders came from.....India was not.  Iran did not have the natural barriers that India was blessed with, and so was hit much harder than India.  And, ultimately, Iran was completely conquered.  The invaders of India, although making inroads into southern India, really only dominated the north, while the rest of India was able to remain independent, practicing their traditions and religion. 


Posted By: Sharrukin
Date Posted: 30-Jun-2006 at 03:42
As for the Mitanni, there is agreement that the names of the Mitanni rulers are Indo-Aryan, not Iranian.  But what does that mean?  The consensus of linguistics still shows that Indo-Aryan and Iranian originated from someplace else.  The mitigating evidence shows that the earliest strata of place-names in eastern Iran are Indo-Aryan, not Iranian.  The earliest ruler of the Mitanni is dated to about 1550 BC.
 
The current working theory, as postulated by J.P. Mallory places the Indo-Aryans about the southeast Caspian, and the Gorgan Grey Ware Culture.   Part of these Indo-Aryans migrated westward into Mesopotamia where they became the ruling clan of the Mitanni.  The rest (the majority) moved southeast where they settled eastern Iran.  The Iranians, sometime between 1500 and 1400 BC moved from beyond the Oxus into Iran pushing the Indo-Aryans into Pakistan.  The RgVeda mentions the Aryans living "on the Seven Streams". (8.24.17). 
 
So, there is an explanation regarding the Mitannian rulers.  Yes, their language was a form of Indic, but nothing suggests that they came from India.  Only that they and the other early Indo-Aryan speakers had a common ancestry.  Nothing more, nothing less. 


Posted By: varma
Date Posted: 30-Jun-2006 at 05:48
Originally posted by Sharrukin

The consensus of linguistics still shows that Indo-Aryan and Iranian originated from someplace else. 


    The arguement of the linguists have neither the base of archeological or literary evidence.
   
Originally posted by Sharrukin

  The current working theory, as postulated by J.P. Mallory places the Indo-Aryans about the southeast Caspian, and the Gorgan Grey Ware Culture.   Part of these Indo-Aryans migrated westward into Mesopotamia where they became the ruling clan of the Mitanni.  The rest (the majority) moved southeast where they settled eastern Iran.  The Iranians, sometime between 1500 and 1400 BC moved from beyond the Oxus into Iran pushing the Indo-Aryans into Pakistan.


           The homeland of the Aryans all through the century kept moving from place to place, how credible this one onlytime will tell but every hypothesis that Aryan originated somewhere from the steppes, Russia, and now the Souther caspian Sea were purely based upon linguistic hypothesis and not based upon any as I mentioned earlier scietific evidence..
    And more importantly every so called historian and investigators almost ignored the fact that Sumerians beleived that they have descended from the east.
   If indeed as u Mr J P mallory's theor the Sumerians or those people who moved into Iran, India and mespatomia must have mentioned that they descended from the west not the east.

          


Posted By: Sharrukin
Date Posted: 30-Jun-2006 at 14:03
The arguement of the linguists have neither the base of archeological or literary evidence.
 
There is archaeological evidence, however to show such a migration toward India as well as to other places where IE languages are evidenced.  Therefore, it is not necessary for archaeology to show that culture flowed into India.   It is a given that Indo-Aryan is related to European languages, so, there must have been a place of origin of language somewhere between the two geographic regions.  One of the most devastating arguments for the outside origin of Indo-Aryan is that while Sanskrit does display borrowings from such native languages as Dravidian and Munda, other IE language do not.  Not even Iranian languages (Sanskrit's closest relatives) have such borrowings.  It therefore stands to reason, that as the original Indo-Aryan migrants entered the Indian subcontinent, they adopted vocabulary of the native Dravidian and Munda peoples they encountered.  
 
Another piece of linguistic evidence involves innovation of language.  Linguists have long known that the younger the language, the more innovative it becomes.  Older characteristics of a language family disappear as a language changes.  Indo-Iranian displays among the most innovative changes in relation to other Indo-European languages, therefore they are among the youngest of IE languages.  Hittite and Tocharian, on the other hand, show the most archaic features of the IE language family - such features (or relics) that had long disappeared from other IE languages.  Here there is agreement with archaeology.  The culture of the steppe was expanding into Europe long before it expanded toward India. 
 
The homeland of the Aryans all through the century kept moving from place to place, how credible this one onlytime will tell but every hypothesis that Aryan originated somewhere from the steppes, Russia, and now the Souther caspian Sea were purely based upon linguistic hypothesis and not based upon any as I mentioned earlier scietific evidence..
 
I did not say that the Aryans originated on the Southern Caspian Sea.  I merely mention the region as a starting point of migration.  JP Mallory's theory takes it back even further back into the Euroasian steppe, and so he is in agreement with the Central Asian theory. 
 
    And more importantly every so called historian and investigators almost ignored the fact that Sumerians beleived that they have descended from the east.
 
I know Sumerian literature.  There is nothing in it to show that they originated anywhere else except southern Mesopotamia - just like Indian literature.
 
If indeed as u Mr J P mallory's theor the Sumerians or those people who moved into Iran, India and mespatomia must have mentioned that they descended from the west not the east.
 
All I said was that the Mitanni originated from the east.  Where do you get the idea that Mallory's theory applied to Sumerians?  All he was talking about was IE groups. 


Posted By: Maziar
Date Posted: 30-Jun-2006 at 19:24
Originally posted by Varma

May be during the time of Darius and Cyrus, persians were Arya but not any more, the term "Arya" accrues to those who lead a moral living. But Iranains at present as they are muslims their is  nothing respectable about them, becoz those who follow a person who has sex with a 9 year old girl when he was 53 years old as there prophet or saint is very immoral.....
 
I am atheist and not really a fun of Islam. But what you write here is not only respectless toward Iranians, but also offensive against Muslims believes. I have reported this to the moderatores. We won't tolerate such behavior in our forum Varma, so watch your mouth.


Posted By: Vedam
Date Posted: 30-Jun-2006 at 20:30
Sharrukin
I agree with all your points but i have a few as well  
You know that the Aryan incursion spanned perhaps 1000 years, but is it not possible that it was from different locations such as Afganistan, eastern Iran, Uzbekistan. I will give a few examples
Firstly i'm sure you know that the Indo-aryans worshipped the devas and gave the Asuras the status of demons while it was vice versa in Iran.
But did you know that there are a clan of Brahmins who were given the special role of priests of the Asuras during the late vedic period, and are called the Atharvans and composed the fourth Veda the Atharveda. Could they have not been a later Iranic tribe.  
Secondly the tribes of the vedas are not the same as the ones who dominate the epics such as the Mahabharata but newcomers ie the Kurus, who is to say their where there original location was. There are names in sanskrit literature of tribes that sound very similiar to names such as Parsua. 
Thirdly there are brahmins called the Maga who scholars believe are the Magi and reintroduced the cult of Mitra  and sun worship in punajb.
Fourthly when the Achamenids ruled over Gandhara and sindh, surely there was a large  persian settlement in India  who gradually would be pushed  further inland by later incursions
My point is if you include the Kusanas and scythians as Aryan there have been many migrations from different areas who all share commom Indo-Iranian elements such as the sacred fire and soma/haoma ritual.


-------------
Vedam


Posted By: AFG-PaShTuN
Date Posted: 01-Jul-2006 at 05:21
Originally posted by varma

tera (tri, three), panza (pancha, five), satta (sapta, seven), na (nava, nine)
 
Varma Bro, what language do those bolded words belong to? They are exactly the same as Pashto/Afghan.
 
In Pashto language, the word AR has two meanings, one is pure, and the other farmer, it is a possibility that the word ARYAN might have its origins in Pashto language. Afghan authors believe the Aryans were a peaceful people, and lived as farmers in communities. The references to most Afghan claims and statements are the books of Avestan, and the Rig Veda, both these books are related to the history of the Pashto language and Afghan people, Rig Veda is full of Afghan history.
 
Aweja is another ancient Aryan word that still exists in Pashto language, it means HOMELAND, which is what the words Aryan Aweja/Avejo means.
 
I don't understand as to when or how did the ancient Aruans came to be knwon as 'Iranians'. The origin of the so called Aryan race lies in the mountains of Afghanistan, yet Afghanistan is never ever mentioned, when things related to ancient Aryan history are discussed.
 
The first ever city built by the Aryans was Pakt (Paktra, Bakhdi, Balheka, Bahleka), from which the word Pashto and Pashtun derives. They all at that point spoke one language. After the city over-populated, some Tribes moved West to Iran, some East to Northern India, and some stayed in Afghanistan. The Aryans of Iran during the course of time fromed a language of their own, still similar to the original Aryan language, same with the Indian Aryans. So on.......


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


Posted By: varma
Date Posted: 01-Jul-2006 at 23:25
         The words in the brackets(tri,pancha,sapta,nava) are the Sanskrit roots from which the words(tera,panza,satta,na) are derived
        On what basis do u claim that RIG Veda is full of Afghan History. Rig veda contains the history of the peoples of Saraswathi Region and the Sarasvathi region didnt extend into Afghanisthan. May be the Afghans were a part of this civilization who later after the drieng up of Sarasvathi migrated to Afghanisthan and west wards..
        I dont know about Pashto language, but all the Vedas are in Sanskrit language I dont know where did u get the info that Pashto is the language of VEDAS and Avesthan language is said to be more similar to Vedic sanskrit
      Their can be lot of difference between Avaejo and Vaejah.
the Avesta however, unlike the Rig Veda, does speak of an http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airyanem_Vaejah - Airyanem Vaejah , an external homeland of the Avestan Aryas and of Zarathustra, generally considered to be somewhere between the Caucuses and South Asia and it does not have a memory of South Asia. The term Vaejah can be derived from the Vedic "vij" and would thus suggest the region of a fast-flowing river (see Bryant 2001: 327)
.

   The Rig Veda doesnt talk about Aryanaem vaejah, so the place of RIG vedic people should the Aryanem Vaejah, from where if their had been migrations, the migrants will talk about their homeland and exactly the Iranians spoke about this land in Avesta as this is the only region in the whole of central asia that a mightier rive Sarasvathi is spoke off in the RIG VEDA..
               another bit of info to my AFG PAHSTOO bro that king Vikramaditya of Inda has a married a Bahlika princess...So their has a been a relation between the Afghan people and Idians long from antiquity..

      You are in this assumption that Pashto is the root language, of Persian as well as Sanskrit. My friend if u want to discuss with any scholar with this assumption and if u let him know that, the scholar will not have second thought but he will end the discussion their as he might think that a person doesnt have the knowledge for a discussion with some basic facts of his are wrong....
    Read research material not articles written by some afghans or pakis which are normally their own personal opinions that doesnt have any evidence..
   In this case I would like to mention, some Islamic site states that Arabic is the mother of Languages and it states that Arabic words are roots of Sanskrit words... U know what serious schlar after coming acroos that site will never ever will come back becoz he will know that their basic assumptions are worng..
      I guess all the Pahstuns lost their original religion. Is their any movement among the pahstuns to revive their old religion, becoz I have seen yesterdsy in Discovery a documentary , in which in the Hindu Kush mountains in the valleyof Chitral their were people of other religion. Their religion is not Islamic and their dressing is completely different from the rest of the PAKIS. And they said that that they beleive after death they go to a mountain which they called kalash. I would liek to draw to ur attention that the abode of LORD SHIVA according to Hindus is mount KAILASH.
      


Posted By: Iranduxt
Date Posted: 03-Jul-2006 at 01:19
The interpretation of the Sanskrit word in Europe was influenced by cognate words in Avestan. 
 
Airiya "noble born", "respectable" also "Iranian"
Airyana "Iranian"
 
"Iranian" as used above refers to all the speakers of Iranian languages , not yet sharply differentiated from each other at the time of the composition of the Zoroastrian Yashts texts where Zarathustra is discribed to have lived in Airyanem vaejah "Expantion of Aryans".
The word "Iran" (Eran) itself comes from proto-Iranian Aryanam "(land) of the (Iranians) Aryans".
Airya was distinguished from Anariya, non Iranian, and is clearly to be understood as a name of self-identified nation or ethnic or linguistic group.
The word and concept of Airyanem vaejah is present in the name of the country Iran (lit. land of Aryans) which in modern Persian of the word Aryana (lit. country of Aryans).
 
Tha word Arya (in the form Ariya) in the modern Persian language also means "noble", "Aryan", "Iranian" is both related to the language and athnicity and is found in various forms for boys and girls names.
Aryan is also commonly used as boys name in various Indic languages.
 
In Sanskrit and related Indic languages, however the sense of Arya as distinct ethnic group is either weak or absent. Arya is in general either a term of approbation or refers to ones standing in the var a system, an Arya is a free man and not a member of the lower caste or slaves. This social standing was not, however necessarily related ethnic, linguistic or racial identity.
At an early period the cultural area where the var a system was used and linguistic area  where the Indic language were spoken would have been the same. This region (northern and central India, the Indus and Ganges plains) was called Aryavarta "abode of the noble people". At present however, these cultural and linguistic spheres overlap but are quite distinct from each other.
 
The western interpretation of Arya at the same time of particular race became well-known in India in the 19th century and was generally accepted by Hindu Nationalist, though combined by religious self-identification.
 
 


Posted By: Vedam
Date Posted: 03-Jul-2006 at 05:28
I apologise Iranduxt for saying he, when you are a she. By the way my name is Vedam not vedem.
Varma and Iranduxt i disagree with both of you. You both make extreme generalisations.
Varma i agree with Sharrukin that  later Sanskrit has absorbed did absorb the words from the indegenious culture over time. Indicating probably that the Arya did migrate from the west.
Iranduxt to suggest that the Aryas of India only use the word "Arya" to differeniate between high caste free men and low caste "slaves" and is not a linguistic or ethnic term is something that i completely disagree with. Perhaps you should read The Rig veda.
The term "Arya" is completely based on those who speak Vedic sanskrit and hence also follow the ritual and deities of the vedas.
 
In the Rig veda the word Arya is used continously before any caste system. The varna sytem that you speak about, with the 4 varna/castes, only appears only once in a late hymn. The last book of the Rigveda, this is out of over 1000 hymns.
Before then those who do not speak vedic sanskrit are called "dasa" in the  Avesta "daha" which has been interptreted as no mouth or no nose.
My point is that "Arya" was used before any caste system and was based on language, culture and ritual. In other words  precisely a linguistic or ethnic group.
The Arya society was composed of Priests, warriors and commoners, they followed the Arya culture and those of a different culture were "dasa"  which as i already mentioned was known in the avesta as " daha". High caste and low caste, freeman and slave, did not exist at this point, and Arya warriors could  become priests and vice-versa.
Irandux why do you have this obsession that India cannot have any Arya ancestry. If  Brahmins can preserve the vedas, for  3000 years and for the first 2000  years simply by commiting it to memory and making numerous cheaks and counter checks, with scrupulous care to ensure no mistakes crept in, well does this not represent keeping the ARYA culture alive? 
You may be surprised to know that the divisions of Priests in the Avesta as Zaotars, Athravans, kavis usanas still exist amonst the Brahmins Priesthood as hotrs, Atharvans, kavis. As does the fire rituals and homa/soma cult in Hindu ceremonies.
 
Mitram yazai zaotrabyo........ Avestan
Mitram yajai  hotrbhyah........Sanskrit
    
To say that the Aryans who settled in Iran used the term "Aryan" as self identification, whereas those who settled in India did not, seems a rather strange deducement, considering how the people were obviously from the same stock.  
 
 


-------------
Vedam


Posted By: varma
Date Posted: 03-Jul-2006 at 07:23
             You cannot on the one hand take liniguists as a proof of possible migration fromm the west and on the other hand ignore the facts the RIG VEDA doesnt mention any such migration. while on the other hand Iranians of Aryan origin mentioned that they are from some other place.
              If indeed for we assume that Aeryan have migrated from the West and first settled in Iran one thig is sure that Iraninas mentiion the palce from whcih they have arrived adn then if we further assume that some aryans fom there migrated into India, it should be obvious that those who settled in India should also refer to the plaxce from whcih they have migrated, but incidently their is no mention in the Vedas of such a place...
          But instead in the Vedas the repeatedly describe the geographical boundaries as the Sarasvathi River system alog which these suposed Aryans have originated. And if we consider the reverse everthing will fall in its place....
        Assuming that Aryans have migrated from India, it becomes obvious that Iraninas call their Homeland a Aryanem Vaejaho which has to be in India because the Vaejah is nothing but relates to "vij" (Sanskrit word) which means fast flowing river, and rig veda in numerrous words mentions the Sarasvathis river in far greater praise and in the entire region then River Sarasvathi is the only mightier river to have existed.
       And all the people further west of Iran have in their follore that they have come from the East inlcuding the Sumerians....
     So it beocmeobvious that Most probabaly Aryans originated fromthe banks of River Sarasvathi and not the other way round from the WEST.
     Aryans were not deined by race in the past , the people becoame "Aryas" because of their noble deeds and examplary living.

   



Posted By: varma
Date Posted: 03-Jul-2006 at 07:28
   And I dont agree with Sharkinn when he say that Sanskrit has been derived from Persian language. It is as absurd....
    Any presence of Persian words was lmited to loans and they are present in complete...They wee no loans from Pereisna language into Sanskrit but their are words which have been loaned from Persian into Hindi and other Indian languages and they are very limited to the Influnce and it can be explained by the fact that the muslim rulers emplyed persian as their official court language....
  That was the only way through which some Persian words got into Indian languages....
   But even those words can be argued and their roots can be found in Sanskrit language which also prooves that Sanskrit is much older than the oldest of Persian dialects


Posted By: Sharrukin
Date Posted: 04-Jul-2006 at 11:39
You cannot on the one hand take liniguists as a proof of possible migration fromm the west and on the other hand ignore the facts the RIG VEDA doesnt mention any such migration.
 
But of course we can!!!  It is the only logical solution as to why languages derived from Sanskrit are so similar to European ones.  While it is true that the Rg Veda does not mention migration, it does mention that the Arya inhabited the Punjab (and not any other place in India).
 
Another bit of evidence is the fact that place-names of eastern Iran were originally not Iranian but Indo-Aryan!!!  The classic example is the Helmand River.  Its Avestan name was Harahvaiti, but this is a derivation of the Indo-Aryan name Sarasvati.  There is in fact a theory first put forward by an Indian (I can't recall his name) who postulates that the Sarasvati mentioned in the Rg Veda may have been the Helmand.  Whether this is true or not, the river-name is only one of several other place-names in historic eastern Iran which bear an Indo-Aryan stamp.  The Indo-Aryans were there before the Iranians.
 
while on the other hand Iranians of Aryan origin mentioned that they are from some other place.
 
The Avesta was quite specific as to where Airyanem Vaejah was located - "by the Vanguhi Daitya" which is identified as the Oxus.  Hence, just as the Airya migrated further south, so did the place-name, also.

If indeed for we assume that Aeryan have migrated from the West and first settled in Iran one thig is sure that Iraninas mentiion the palce from whcih they have arrived adn then if we further assume that some aryans fom there migrated into India, it should be obvious that those who settled in India should also refer to the plaxce from whcih they have migrated, but incidently their is no mention in the Vedas of such a place...
 
Not necessarily.  Greek mythology does not mention migration from outside Greece (only internal ones), which has led some to believe that the original Greek-speakers were always native to Greece.  Yet Greek shows characteristics which make it closer to Armenian and Indo-Iranian than to any other IE language family.  How can this be, unless at one time, all three language families were at one time more related to each other than they are now in a single geographical region?

But instead in the Vedas the repeatedly describe the geographical boundaries as the Sarasvathi River system alog which these suposed Aryans have originated. And if we consider the reverse everthing will fall in its place....
 
As I've mentioned before, the geographical region of the Aryans of India was "the Seven Streams"  (RV 8.24.17).  The Saraswati may have been an Iranian river.

Assuming that Aryans have migrated from India, it becomes obvious that Iraninas call their Homeland a Aryanem Vaejaho which has to be in India because the Vaejah is nothing but relates to "vij" (Sanskrit word) which means fast flowing river, and rig veda in numerrous words mentions the Sarasvathis river in far greater praise and in the entire region then River Sarasvathi is the only mightier river to have existed.
 
This is false.  Vaejah is a proper Iranian word.  More importantly it is a land-name.  You simply cannot take an Iranian word and mutate it into something that it originally did not mean.  "Vaejah" simply meant "home", or "expanse". 

And all the people further west of Iran have in their follore that they have come from the East inlcuding the Sumerians....
 
I've already mentioned that the Sumerians don't have such a folklore.

So it beocmeobvious that Most probabaly Aryans originated fromthe banks of River Sarasvathi and not the other way round from the WEST.
 
It is obviously not so obvious.

Aryans were not deined by race in the past , the people becoame "Aryas" because of their noble deeds and examplary living.
 
There are several passages in the RgVeda which describe them as having "tribes" and even punished by the gods.  Therefore the original meaning must have been something more in line with an ethnic self-identity rather than a social one.
 
And I dont agree with Sharkinn when he say that Sanskrit has been derived from Persian language. It is as absurd....
 
I never said that!!!!

Any presence of Persian words was lmited to loans and they are present in complete...They wee no loans from Pereisna language into Sanskrit but their are words which have been loaned from Persian into Hindi and other Indian languages and they are very limited to the Influnce and it can be explained by the fact that the muslim rulers emplyed persian as their official court language....That was the only way through which some Persian words got into Indian languages....
 
There can be different levels of loans.  To just reduce it to Islamic period loans denies cultural contacts prior to that period.  In the Avesta, the Punjab was known as the Hapta Hendu.   It was one of the "sixteen perfect lands created by Ahura Mazda".   Therefore, the peoples of eastern Iran were acquainted with western historic India.  It then becomes inevitable that there would have been an exchange of ideas and goods, as well as linguistic terms.

But even those words can be argued and their roots can be found in Sanskrit language which also prooves that Sanskrit is much older than the oldest of Persian dialects
 
Proof?  What proof?  You cannot prove anything when you use the phrase "can be argued".  You need to argue from the point of view of an indisputable "fact".  If the "fact" itself is disputable, than you first need to prove the "fact".  'Nuf said.


Posted By: Vedam
Date Posted: 04-Jul-2006 at 12:10
Varma would you not concede that the Vedas were composed in what is now Punjab, the Brahmanas which are texts which explain the vedic rituals in Kuru-panchal  area which is the Ganga Yamuna doab area and the Upanishads and epics such as the Ramayana were placed still further east.
Does this not point to gradual Migration into India, from the North west?
We have such a rich history, be content with that.
Everyone migrates at some point from somewhereSmile
PS In the Rig Veda the Kabul River is mentioned


-------------
Vedam


Posted By: varma
Date Posted: 04-Jul-2006 at 23:25
Vedas are were written in the Sarasvathi river region. Ramayana as u may claim doesnt lie i the Afghanisthan. Sarasvathi even till recently it was a mythical river, it was considered a sacred river all through the breadth of the country.
  I dont know what logic made u to point out that it wa a gradual migration from the west into India and north West.
  My dear freind the Indus valley ruin precisely lie along the course of river Sarasvathi. Now going by the books you read I suppose Indus valley civilization is of the Dravidians.You need to take facts here nomads cant be in a position to evolve a great literature until if those setlled for a vey long period of time. And the Vedic people as described in the vedas were no nomads.
 Again you are ignoring the basic facts here or otherwise  dont know other information. The mittani kings presence in the West asia region with a reduced pantheon of VEDIC GODS seems suggests that they migrated from India along the course of whcih it may be argued with success that the reduced pantheon of GODS is because of loss of culture and religion because of beig away from their original homeland.
  And you cant take the puranas, epics for your will full deducation and just ignore that other information mentioned in them. The puranas mention the migraition of Indian people to the west of its borders...
 Your logic that the presence of vedic culture in the west of India meant a a migration of the people from the west is pretty absurd.
   Indian geo political influence in most of the ancient times covered most of Afghanisthan so it is obvious that kabul river is going to be mentioned . It is cannot be an argument that support the westward migration...

     Unfortunately my friend the only thing, the Migration theorists can argue to proove this migration is with linguists. As u see here u opted for physical evidence which never suported such a migration or invasion.


Posted By: varma
Date Posted: 04-Jul-2006 at 23:28
    Nobody has an iota of doubt that the vedas were composed in the Sarasvathi region, I dont know why are u requesting me to concede that, when I have not made any claim or mention that they were written elsewhere.
   Comeone you are not even able to understand what I say


Posted By: Sharrukin
Date Posted: 05-Jul-2006 at 02:38
I dont know what logic made u to point out that it wa a gradual migration from the west into India and north West.
 
Simple.  We find evidence of Indo-Aryan place-names in historic eastern Iran/Afghanistan.  We also see how similar Indo-Aryan is to European languages.  Therefore, there had to be a place somewhere in between where that similarity began.  Archaeologically we find cultural drift from central Asia, into the region of the Oxus where the BMAC civilization thrived.  Here, the migrants left much of their central Asian culture behind, and continued onward into India where they adopted the local culture there.

My dear freind the Indus valley ruin precisely lie along the course of river Sarasvathi. Now going by the books you read I suppose Indus valley civilization is of the Dravidians.
 
And why not?  If there is one linguistic group which can demonstrate complete local developement, its the Dravidians!!!   Have you ever heard of the Brahui?  They live in southern Pakistan.  Their language is considered a northern form of Dravidian.  Yet, their language shows enough of a difference with southern Dravidian to make comparisons with other historic languages possible.  Enter, Elamite.   We now know that Brahui shows characteristics comparable with Elamite!!!   Brahui, therefore stands as a "connecting" language between Elamite and Dravidian, thus allowing us to speak of a "Elamo-Dravidian" language family.  Such a "bridge" speaks of a continuum of related languages stretching at one time, from southwestern Iran through the greater part of southern Iran, into southern Pakistan and into western India, and south into southern India!!!  Indus Valley Civ., falls right smack into that continuum!!!  One thing really bothers me - what do you have against the Dravidians?  
 
You need to take facts here nomads cant be in a position to evolve a great literature until if those setlled for a vey long period of time. And the Vedic people as described in the vedas were no nomads.
 
Wrong again.  Nomads adapt very quickly to a literate civilizations.  There are far too many examples in history to mention.  As far as the Vedic people are concerned, the Vedas described them as "non-urban, non-maritime, basically uninterested in exchange other than that involving cattle, and lacking in any forms of political complexity beyond that of a king whose primary function seeems to be concerned with warfare and ritual."  In warfare, the use of the horse and chariot is described for the storming of enemy "forts".  This describes a nomadic society, not the society of the Indus Valley Civ.  Out of curiosity, why does Indra "take the Seven Rivers as [his] own domain"? (RgVeda 10.49.9).   Didn't the Punjab belong to him before?

Again you are ignoring the basic facts here or otherwise  dont know other information. The mittani kings presence in the West asia region with a reduced pantheon of VEDIC GODS seems suggests that they migrated from India along the course of whcih it may be argued with success that the reduced pantheon of GODS is because of loss of culture and religion because of beig away from their original homeland.
 
There's a big, huge humongus problem with your theory - there is absolutely NOTHING to prove that they came from India.  There is no cultural flow traceable archaeologically westwards from India, and no Indian place-names between eastern Iran/Afghanistan and Mesopotamia.  The very proof YOU deny for "Aryan" migration into India is the VERY SAME proof that is completely absent from showing that the Mitanni came from India.  Again, there's no denial of the Indo-Aryan nature of the Mitanni nobility as well as facits of their language and some deities (other deities worshipped by the Mitanni were in fact Semitic and Hurrian, showing how they adopted local culture).  Again, language plays the most important role here.  Because Indo-Aryan is far too closely related to Iranian, they must have had a linguistic urheimat as well as an ursprache.   It was probably in northern Iran when the Mitanni separated from its Indo-Aryan kin to go into Mesopotamia, while the rest of Indo-Aryans went into India.  This is the simplest solution to the problem of linguistic origins.    

And you cant take the puranas, epics for your will full deducation and just ignore that other information mentioned in them.
 
All I did was to show how ridiculous it is to assign very high dates for ancient rulers when the Puranic evidence can be used to thwart such dating.
 
The puranas mention the migraition of Indian people to the west of its borders...
 
Yeah, but not far.  Still far too close to home to be considered relevant.

Your logic that the presence of vedic culture in the west of India meant a a migration of the people from the west is pretty absurd.
 
Well, if my "logic" is "absurd" than yours is even "more absurd".  How do you like that?

Indian geo political influence in most of the ancient times covered most of Afghanisthan so it is obvious that kabul river is going to be mentioned . It is cannot be an argument that support the westward migration...


Unfortunately my friend the only thing, the Migration theorists can argue to proove this migration is with linguists. As u see here u opted for physical evidence which never suported such a migration or invasion.
 
The linguistic evidence is far too revealing to be ignored.  The only people who try to ignore it are virtually all Indian, with only a handful of foreigners.  Try as they might, the consensus of linguists is that IE (including Indo-Iranian) came from somewhere else. 


Posted By: Iranduxt
Date Posted: 05-Jul-2006 at 04:05
Originally posted by varma

    Nobody has an iota of doubt that the vedas were composed in the Sarasvathi region, I dont know why are u requesting me to concede that, when I have not made any claim or mention that they were written elsewhere.
   Comeone you are not even able to understand what I say
 
Yes you are right we are not able to understand you. We are not from planet Varma, where everything is made in India I mean made in Varma.Confused


Posted By: Vedam
Date Posted: 05-Jul-2006 at 04:38
Verma calm down, don't get personal. I am proud of being Indian. Don't make offensive comments. You should respect all cultures believe me there is in Indian history elements that are quite shocking. Lay off Islam. 
Let me first say that i don't agree with Iranduxt views on anything to do with Aryas. I have also read her views on "INTELLECTUAL DISCUSSIONS" on "why Persians are proud" and i have given my response, and i'm glad Iranians did as well.
Iranduxt with your "leave me and my ancestors alone" because the Aryas don't and never really existed in India"  well in regards to your above comment -don't include me in your "we".
Now Verma you say "according to the books i've read", well tell me were you actually there with the Bharatas?? Your knowledge if i'm not wrong is also based on books.
I have just two question for you?
If the Aryas are of the Indus valley civilisation, why is the rhinoceros the most frequently depicted animal on Harrapan seals but the horse is absent which is central the vedas?
Why is there an indus valley script but no mention of it in the Vedas?
 


-------------
Vedam


Posted By: Iranduxt
Date Posted: 05-Jul-2006 at 08:18
Originally posted by Vedam

Let me first say that i don't agree with Iranduxt views on anything to do with Aryas.  
 
Even Varma has been saying that through out his posts. Read his posts in this topic alone, "Aryan is a term, is a way of life, is only applied to people who follow the religion". It's not only me and everyone else who say that's what Aryan means to Indians. If you disagree maybe you should start telling your own people what Aryan is.
 
 
 


Posted By: Iranduxt
Date Posted: 05-Jul-2006 at 08:28
Originally posted by Vedam

I have also read her views on "INTELLECTUAL DISCUSSIONS" on "why Persians are proud" and i have given my response, and i'm glad Iranians did as well.
I have replied to your post on that topic, and have nothing else to say to you. I would appreciate it if you don't reply to my posts now.
Thank you


Posted By: varma
Date Posted: 05-Jul-2006 at 08:36
SHarkinn : I have nothing against the Dravidians and  either way I am proud of the the heir of their sythesis(if their was any), for argument sake.
 
Vedam : Havent u read about the opposite claim of the the finding of horse
               bone though few in number. I reproduce those here and let me tell
               you not even 5% of the Harrapan sites were excavated till now.

Meanwhile, in several Harappan sites remains of horses have been found.  Even supporters of the AIT have admitted that the horse was known in Mohenjo Daro, near the coast of the Arabian Sea (let alone in more northerly areas), in 2500 BC at the latest. http://www.bharatvani.org/books/ait/ch44.htm#30 - 30  But the presence of horses and even domesticated horses has already been traced further back: horse teeth at Amri, on the Indus near Mohenjo Daro, and at Rana Ghundai on the Panjab-Baluchistan border have been dated to about 3,600 BC.  The latter has been interpreted as indicating “horse-riding invaders” http://www.bharatvani.org/books/ait/ch44.htm#31 - 31 , but that is merely an application of invasionist preconceptions.  More bones of the true and domesticated horse have been found in Harappa, Surkotada (all layers including the earliest), Kalibangan, Malvan and Ropar. http://www.bharatvani.org/books/ait/ch44.htm#32 - 32 Recently, bones which were first taken to belong to onager specimens, have been identified as belonging to the, domesticated horse (Kuntasi, near the Gujarat coast, dated to 2300 BC).  Superintending archaeologist Dr. A.M. Chitalwala comments: “We may have to ask whether the Aryans (…) could have been Harappans themselves. (…) We don’t have to believe in the imports theory anymore.” http://www.bharatvani.org/books/ait/ch44.htm#33 - 33

Admittedly, the presence of horses in the Harappan excavation sites is not as overwhelming in quantity as in the neolithic cultures of Eastern Europe.  However, the relative paucity of horse remains is matched by the fact that the millions-strong population of the Harappan civilization, much larger than that of Egypt and Mesopotamia combined, has left us only several hundreds of skeletons, even when men sometimes had the benefit of burial which horses did not have.

The implication for the question of the horses is that any finds of horses are good enough to make the point that horses were known in India, and that they were available to a substantially greater extent than a simple count of the excavated bones would suggest.  The cave paintings in Bhimbetka near Bhopal, perhaps 30,000 years old (but the datings of cave paintings are highly controversial), showing a horse being caught by humans, confirm that horses existed in India in spite of the paucity of skeletal remains. http://www.bharatvani.org/books/ait/ch44.htm#34 - 34 There is, however, room for debate on whether the animals depicted are really horses and not onagers.  Other cave paintings, so far undated, show a number of warriors wielding sticks in their right hands and actually riding horses without saddles or bridles. http://www.bharatvani.org/books/ait/ch44.htm#35 - 35

The fact that both the Austro-Asiatic and the Dravidian language families have their own words for “horse” (e.g. Old Tamil ivuLi, “wild horse”, and kutirai, “domesticated horse”) not borrowed from the language of the Aryans who are supposed to have brought the horse into India, should also carry some weight.  Partly because of the uncongenial climate, horses must have been comparatively rare in India (as they would remain in later centuries, when Rajput forces were attacked by Turkish invaders with an invariably superior cavalry), but they were available.

The evidence concerning horses remains nonetheless the weakest point in the case for an Indian Urheimat.  While the evidence is arguably not such that it proves the Harappan culture’s unfamiliarity with horses, it cannot be claimed to prove the identity of Vedic and Harappan culture either, the way the abundance of horse remains in Ukraine is used to prove the IE character of the settlements there.  At this point, the centre-piece of the anti-AIT plea is an explainable paucity of the evidence material, so that everything remains possible.

This is true both at the level of physical evidence and on that of artistic testimony: the apparent absence of horse motifs on the Harappan seals (except one) http://www.bharatvani.org/books/ait/ch44.htm#36 - 36 can certainly be explained, viz. by pointing at the equally remarkable absence of the female cow among the numerous animal depictions on the seals, eventhough the cow must have been very familiar to the Harappans considering the frequent depiction of the bull.  A taboo on depictions of the two most sacred animals may well explain the absence of both the cow and the horse.  However, it is obvious that a positive attestation of the horse on the Harappan seals would have served the non-invasionist cause much better.
   

A fossil has been discovered from the Siwalik hills (Himalayan foothills): with short-pillare teeth and find limbe the horse is 15-hands long and perhaps date back to the stone age. (J.C.Ewart, Animal remains, in J.Curle, A Roman frontier post and its people (The Fort of Newstead), Glasgow: J. Mackehose and Sons, 1911, Appendix II, pp. 364,368). E.J. Ross reported the discovery of bones scattered over an area of about 40 ft., of a domesticated horse in the lowest level of Rana Ghundai I, close to Mohenjodaro and Ga_ndha_ra (pre-Harappan, contemporary with Hissar IA, Susa B and Middle Uruk in Iraq, assigned to ca. 3500-3400 B.C.) in a chalcolithis site of Northern Baluchistan . ‘It should be noted, however, that these remains are not, as might be expected, those of small pony-like animals. The teeth were well examined by an expert veterinary officer before their dispatch to the Archaeological Department and he assured us that they are indistinguishable either in structure or in size from those of our modern cavalry horses. This points to a very long previous period of domestication’. (E.J. Ross, Rana Ghundai, a chalcolithic site in Northern Baluchistan, Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 5, 1946, pp. 284-516; R.H. Dyson, Problems in the relative chronology of Iran 6000-2000 B.C. in R.W. Ehrick, Chronologies in old world archaeology, Chicago, Univ. of Chicago Press, 1965, pp. 215-50).

A.K.Sharma, The Harappan horse was buried under the dunes of..., in Puratattva, Bulletin of the Indian Archaeological Society, No. 23, 1992-93, pp. 30-34]: "At Surkotada the bones of the true horse (equus caballus Linn.) identified are from Period IA, IB and IC. (radiocarbon dates: 2315 B.C., 1940 B.C. and 1790 B.C respectively). With the correction factors, the dates fall between 2400 B.C. and 1700 B.C... In 1938 Mackay (FEM, Vol. I, p. 289) had remarked on the discovery of a clay model of horse from Mohenjodaro. 'I personally take it to represent horse. I do not think we need be particularly surprised if it should be proved that the horse existed thus early at Mohenjo-daro'. About this terracotta figurine Wheeler wrote: (Indus Civilization, Cambridge, 1968, p. 92): 'One terracotta from a late level of Mohenjodaro seems to represent a horse, reminding us that the jaw bone of a horse is also recorded from the same time, and that the horse was known at considerably early period in northern Baluchistan ... It is likely enough that camel, horse and ass were in fact all familiar feature of the Indus caravans.'... appearance of true horse from the neolithic sites of Koldihwa and Mahagara in Uttar Pradesh..." (Note: camel is also not depicted on Harappan inscriptions) The identification by Sharma has been endorsed by Prof. Sandor Bokonyi, Director of the Archaeological Institute, Budapest, Hungary (an archaeozoologist); he wrote in a letter dated 13 Dec. 1993 to the Director General of the Archaeological Survey of India: 'Through a thorough study of the equid remains of the prehistoric settlement of Surkotada, Kutcha, excavated under the direction of Dr. J.P. Joshi, I can state the following: The occurrence of true horse (equus caballus L.) was evidenced by the enamel pattern of the upper and lower cheek and teeth and by the size and form of incisors and phalanges (toe bones). Since no wild horses lived in India in post-Pleistocene times, the domestic nature of the Surkotada horses is undoutbtful. This is also supported by an intermaxilla fragment whose incisor tooth shows clear signs of crib biting, a bad habit only existing among domestic horses which are not extensively used for war."  

"Perhaps the most interesting of the model animals is one that I personally take to represent a horse.' (Mackay 1938, vol. I, p. 289; vol. II, pl. LXXVIII).  Lothal has yielded a terracotta figure of a horse. It has an elongated body and a thick stumpy tail, mane is marked out over the neck with a low ridge. Faunal remains at Lothal yielded a second upper molar. Bhola Nath of the Zoological Survey of India and GV Sreenivasa Rao of the Archaeological Survey of India note (S.R.Rao, 1985, p. 641): 'The single tooth of the horse referred to above indicates the presence of the horse at Lothal during the Harappan period. The tooth from Lothal resembles closely with that of the modern horse and has pli-caballian (a minute fold near the base of the spur or protocone) which is well distinguishable character of the cheek teeth of the horse.' "However, the most startling discovery comes from the recent excavation at Nausharo, conducted by Jarrige et al. (in press). In the Harappan levels over here have been found clearly identifiable terracotta figurines of this animal." (Lal, 1998, opcit., p. 112).





          
  
  








Posted By: varma
Date Posted: 05-Jul-2006 at 08:44
Sorry for copy pasting,  but they are facts so it doesnt matter if I copy paste and those who stick to that horse was absent in Indus valley civilization, the famous one being Micheal Witzel this is how he argues 

Witzels argument is in the following lines: (1) No horse bone has been found in Harappan sites. (2) When pointed out that they are found in some instances, it is said they are only fragments and not full skeletons. (3) When pointed out they were found in more than one site it is said the layers in which they were found ought to have been eroded ones or disturbed. (4) When pointed out that the reports of horse bones were not by present day archaeologists but by the early pioneers it is said that those are dubious and decades old. (5) When pointed out they were reported by archaeological excavators then comes the argument that archaeologists are not trained zoologists and palaeontologists to comment on horse bones (though by the same argument no credence can be placed on Witzel's opinion as he is neither an archaeologist nor a palaeontologist). Such arguments are brought under reductio ad absurdum by logicians. More examples of wilful rejections of points can be cited throughout the article but suffice to say that for an unbiased reader, the whole article reads purely a personal attack on an individual writer and exhibits certain amount of impatience to listen to other view.


Posted By: varma
Date Posted: 05-Jul-2006 at 08:53
Did the vedas mention about any other script? no

Sharkinn : You told " Nomads adopt well to literate civilizations" hahaha u
                   make me laugh and the way you rubbished me saying "Wrong
                   again".. Take the example Europe let in these better than
                    nomadic people the Libyans, Somalis, Pakis, Banghladeshis. Now did u find them adopting quickly to Literate Europe. Now similarly civilized people and literate people more than any body can adopt to any civilization not the nomads and illiterate backward people..
                It took a whole 1000 years for the GOTHS, germans to reach the sophistication of Romans and Greeks though they were neighbours to these civilizations...
   


Posted By: varma
Date Posted: 05-Jul-2006 at 09:15
There's a big, huge humongus problem with your theory - there is absolutely NOTHING to prove that they came from India.  There is no cultural flow traceable archaeologically westwards from India, and no Indian place-names between eastern Iran/Afghanistan and Mesopotamia.  The very proof YOU deny for "Aryan" migration into India is the VERY SAME proof that is completely absent from showing that the Mitanni came from India.  Again, there's no denial of the Indo-Aryan nature of the Mitanni nobility as well as facits of their language and some deities (other deities worshipped by the Mitanni were in fact Semitic and Hurrian, showing how they adopted local culture).  Again, language plays the most important role here.  Because Indo-Aryan is far too closely related to Iranian, they must have had a linguistic urheimat as well as an ursprache.   It was probably in northern Iran when the Mitanni separated from its Indo-Aryan kin to go into Mesopotamia, while the rest of Indo-Aryans went into India.  This is the simplest solution to the problem of linguistic origins.   

   Now certain Varma lives in US, it is obvious that he came from India.
   it does'nt need a great mapping of my trail, checking my passport to
   say that I came  from India. But due to the 1500BC time frame, Their needs to be evidence to convince skeptics like you, but you should recoganise that with that reason again the evidence becomes all the more difficult to secure becoz of 1500 BC time frame.
     Here I havent got hold on any material of the origins of place names  in West asia, but u should forget the ability of Sanskrit unlike any other language contain the roots of most words. So it doesnt becoem that hard to  relate the names of places to Indian culture and langugaes

here are far too many examples in history to mention.  As far as the Vedic people are concerned, the Vedas described them as "non-urban, non-maritime, basically uninterested in exchange other than that involving cattle

            I really dont seem to know whether u are really reading RV. Vedas doesnt describe these people as non urban, non maritime and themsleves as nomads" but I guess u were reading the translations of 20th cenutry scholars most of who's translations were driven with justifying British colonisation of India.
           No longer it is beleived in the scholarly cirlces that RV people were non urban, non maritime. It has been refuted with valid arguments and this notion of the vedic people is no longer accepted.
    RV descriptions alone dispel this myths and a mere anaysys would tell you that Vedic people were no nomads. and they were urban, and maritime.I would present them upon ur request.

Vedam : I read the same books but I read the both side of the 
               arguments and deduce and weigh the archeological, astronomical and literary eidence and I dont take linguists as all linguistic theories are just hypotheisis.

   I am 23 years of age and I need to keep up with my studies in computer science as well I am really struck to the computer wasting a lot of time....
   I may reply slowly but have patience...



Posted By: varma
Date Posted: 05-Jul-2006 at 09:36
I would ask to refer to this site to know some of the information about the evidence of  posiible cultural trail from India and Indic names in West asia beyongf Eastern Iran place names and the origin of kingdom names of West asia..

http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/connections/Western-Asia.php - http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/connections/Western-Asia.php


Posted By: Vedam
Date Posted: 05-Jul-2006 at 11:32
Iranduxt believe me i will not reply to your comments, unless i feel you are attacking different civilisations witth baseless comments, without foundation.
If you make such comments then be prepared for a reaction.
 


-------------
Vedam


Posted By: Vedam
Date Posted: 05-Jul-2006 at 11:42
Originally posted by Iranduxt

Originally posted by Vedam

Let me first say that i don't agree with Iranduxt views on anything to do with Aryas.  
 
Even Varma has been saying that through out his posts. Read his posts in this topic alone, "Aryan is a term, is a way of life, is only applied to people who follow the religion". It's not only me and everyone else who say that's what Aryan means to Indians. If you disagree maybe you should start telling your own people what Aryan is.
 
 
 
 
For your information i have been arguing with Verma throughout this TOPIC, and you only say it in reference to Indians not Iranians, so as to exclude. Verma says it about all Aryans, that is the difference.
"maybe i should tell my own people what Aryan is" i think your quote sums you up.
I totally agree with Sharrukin who i presume is not of Indian origin.Its just like when you were attacking other Iranians because they dared to disagree with another Iranian. For me its not Indian V  iranian. TRUTH KNOWS NO ETHNICITY!.
  


-------------
Vedam


Posted By: Iranduxt
Date Posted: 05-Jul-2006 at 16:14
You can have a dig at me as much as you like as you allready have been in the other topic "why Persians are proud", but you can't change facts, and you can't change history.


Posted By: Vedam
Date Posted: 05-Jul-2006 at 17:27

I don't even know why i am taking the bate. But its the way you word it.  

I recognise the glory of Persia believe me.
Your comments about  "all the mathamaticians, scientists, philosophers, engineers were from Persia until the Arabs introduced it to the rest of the world."
Yes fine if it makes you happy with your version of history and the facts, then good luck to you.
 
Thats it i'm not gonna engage in this anymore. 


-------------
Vedam


Posted By: Iranduxt
Date Posted: 05-Jul-2006 at 18:29
I have allready explained so many times on that topic to what I was exactly trying to say.
 
And what I meant by saying that you can not change facts and history was in regards to what Aryan means to Indians.


Posted By: Vedam
Date Posted: 06-Jul-2006 at 03:40
Originally posted by Iranduxt

I have allready explained so many times on that topic to what I was exactly trying to say.
 
And what I meant by saying that you can not change facts and history was in regards to what Aryan means to Indians.
 
As i have said to you so many many times.
The Arya in the Rig veda are a ethno-linguistic group, there are many tribes by name, they all speak the Arya language and take part in the VEDIC Ritual. Those that are not Aryas are the dasas, who are the enemies of the Aryas and Arya Gods.
I dont what you base your facts and history on.
Read the Vedas before you make yor comments.
I am not the only INDIAN  who subscibes to this. I suggest you read Romila Thapar -a history of India.
You say "i have been to india i know what Indians look like" what Indians are you refering to, its a vast country of 1 billlion.
Have you seen the Brahmins of Kashmir, the Khatris of Delhi and Punjab, many originally from Peshawar, the Rajputs, sindhis, Gujaratis, chitpavans who have grey eyes, Tamils, bengalis.
Which is india, we have 15 official languages .
I some how don't think you have seen each and every indian, because you have relations there.
Aryas,  Greeks, Parthians, Sycthians, Kushanas, White huns all have entered India at some point and settled. That is why we are such a versatile people.
I am not gonna be bated by you anymore. I have nothing left to say to you. YOU CAN THINK WHAT YOU WANT
 


-------------
Vedam


Posted By: varma
Date Posted: 06-Jul-2006 at 08:58
Vedam,
            Romila Thapar's scholarship has been under serious questions and it is pretty evident in her works. You just need to read her critics to jst get a glimpse of how many blunders she had made with the hiostory of India.
          And one more thing, in her works Romila Thapar till recently classified Aryans as some one who invaded India massacred the local population and establishe their rule and introduced caste system. Now after the recent findings she started to air that it might be miogration that brought Aryans to India and it is only fairly recently that she classified Aryans as ethno Linguistic groups. Romila thapar's work is consumed by communism and she is no scholar, she is just a historian(I can becoem a historian by reading the works of my predecessors and teaching it to the students), thus she became a historian. I dotn think if she ever had the intellect to intrepet the archeological and genetic findingss, but cites some other bigot like WITZEL who's scholarship is just linguists and comments on every other field.
        Romila Thapars book a hsitory of India is not exhaustive and I dont think any intelligent perso will make an opinion just by reading it, but u need to start reading the opposite view or Critique of that book where in the possible blunders willl be highlighted thus overall contributing to a more truthfull account of history.


Posted By: varma
Date Posted: 06-Jul-2006 at 10:00
          This is breif critiqe of Romila thapars book History of India  http://www.voiceofdharma.com/indology/thaparreview1.html - http://www.voiceofdharma.com/indology/thaparreview1.html
           Please develop a habit of cross checking which will help understand an issue much better rather than holding some book as ultimate error free compilation....Dont behave like Muslm


Posted By: Vedam
Date Posted: 06-Jul-2006 at 10:14
Verma I realise i am arguing with an extremist hindu nationalist, and any debate with you is a waste of time, as you have completely rewritten history. You have your own Hinduvta historians who have their own "evidence" and everything prior is a result of  British Colonialism. Ive heard it all before .
Let me guess "Abraham means non-brahman" 
 
For your infomation i have read various counter views as well, and your views are  mainly just conjecture without proof, and your "historians" seem to have a hindutva taint, whose so called facts are questionable, and far from conclusive. 
You are very judgemental and speak in an extremely offensive away. I do not know if i want to bother debateing with such a person.
You say you don't mean to offend any cultures and then say "don't behave like muslim".
This is really not worth my time and energy. 
You tell me to develop a habit of cross checking,
I don't need to be told  how to cross check anything, especially by you!!!!!! Believe me i know how to analyse.
I live in the UK and have muslim friends, and your comment has offended me.
You can speak on your own behalf but do not speak on behalf of all Indians.
A 23 year old is telling me how develop a habit of cross checking rather than holding some book as ultimate error free.
Who  do you think you are!!!!!!!!!!
Do not reply to my posts again.
  


-------------
Vedam


Posted By: varma
Date Posted: 06-Jul-2006 at 23:09
I too have a muslim freinds blind belief is the sole characterstic of the muslims, I have found that quality in you. I just meant stop beleiving blindly..
    And vedam you havent addressed at all the genuine arguments I have raised against the reliablity of Romila Thapars -History of India and

This is typical of escaping the crunch rather than finding a honourable way out...

1 When u said that there was absence of Horse remains,  if one had crossed checked u would never had made this argument, but u made and were caught that u doesnt have a habit of cross checking.
 
2. When I pointed out the various anomolies and shown a breif critique of Romila Thapar's History of India, u again havent replied to that critique while not denying that Romila's work may be plageud with errors it only confirms that u hold her works as ultimate work..

     Precisley u have'nt made one right point answering the questions I have received but your are personaly accusing me in most of your posts...
    U havent answered the findings of Horse remains, U havent let me know the credibility of Romila Thapar in view of the Critique.
   That Romila Thapar has categorised first that Aryans were a race and later described them as Ethno Linguists...

 This just goes to confirm ones scholarship. I respect archeology and when Historians come armed with their predecessors assertions wiothout any proof of archeology I despise them....
     All those who were seeing our conversation will realise who is making a worthy point....So dont ask me to stop replying but it would be in your interest to answer with facts or else u'll be noted for the type of scholarship u are exhibiting in this forum


Posted By: Sharrukin
Date Posted: 07-Jul-2006 at 03:33
http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/connections/Western-Asia.php -

Meanwhile, in several Harappan sites remains of horses have been found. Even supporters of the AIT have admitted that the horse was known in Mohenjo Daro, near the coast of the Arabian Sea (let alone in more northerly areas), in 2500 BC at the latest.

No.  The evidence of horses in Harappan sites has actually been disputed by supporters of the AIT theory.  Their evidence points to the verifiable presence of equus caballus in about 1800 BC. http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/connections/Western-Asia.php -

http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/connections/Western-Asia.php - But the presence of horses and even domesticated horses has already been traced further back: horse teeth at Amri, on the Indus near Mohenjo Daro, and at Rana Ghundai on the Panjab-Baluchistan border have been dated to about 3,600 BC. The latter has been interpreted as indicating "horse-riding invaders" http://www.bharatvani.org/books/ait/ch44.htm - 31 http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/connections/Western-Asia.php - , but that is merely an application of invasionist preconceptions. http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/connections/Western-Asia.php - More bones of the true and domesticated horse have been found in Harappa, Surkotada (all layers including the earliest), Kalibangan, Malvan and Ropar. http://www.bharatvani.org/books/ait/ch44.htm - 32 http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/connections/Western-Asia.php - Recently, bones which were first taken to belong to onager specimens, have been identified as belonging to the, domesticated horse (Kuntasi, near the Gujarat coast, dated to 2300 BC). http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/connections/Western-Asia.php - Superintending archaeologist Dr. A.M. Chitalwala comments: "We may have to ask whether the Aryans (…) could have been Harappans themselves. (…) We don’t have to believe in the imports theory anymore." http://www.bharatvani.org/books/ait/ch44.htm - 33 http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/connections/Western-Asia.php -
 
Here's the problem.  The literature of such "discoveries" does not elaborate on how they determined the "type" of "horse" or how their chronology was determined, both which are important, since other types of "horses" such as the onager, donkey, and the hemione, which are documented in the area.  Bones of such equids have fooled those untrained in archaeozoology (an expert in examining animal remains in archaeological contexts) into thinking that they are the true horse since their bones are very similar.  In examining the correct age of the animal it must be determined from the bone itself, not from the surrounding strata.  An example of such examination is the case of the remains of a camel found within Mature Harappan context (c. 2200-1900 BC), but upon examining the bones themselves, it was determined that the animal died about AD 690.  Since the published reports completely lack such examinations, their worth is simply, nil.

Admittedly, the presence of horses in the Harappan excavation sites is not as overwhelming in quantity as in the neolithic cultures of Eastern Europe. However, the relative paucity of horse remains is matched by the fact that the millions-strong population of the Harappan civilization, much larger than that of Egypt and Mesopotamia combined, has left us only several hundreds of skeletons, even when men sometimes had the benefit of burial which horses did not have. The implication for the question of the horses is that any finds of horses are good enough to make the point that horses were known in India, and that they were available to a substantially greater extent than a simple count of the excavated bones would suggest. http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/connections/Western-Asia.php - The cave paintings in Bhimbetka near Bhopal, perhaps 30,000 years old (but the datings of cave paintings are highly controversial), showing a horse being caught by humans, confirm that horses existed in India in spite of the paucity of skeletal remains. http://www.bharatvani.org/books/ait/ch44.htm - 34 http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/connections/Western-Asia.php -

But the question is - "What kind of horse is it?"
 
 
This still doesn't determine what kind of horses we are talking about.  Also, what are the dating of that horse-riding art?

The fact that both the Austro-Asiatic and the Dravidian language families have their own words for "horse" (e.g. Old Tamil ivuLi, "wild horse", and kutirai, "domesticated horse") not borrowed from the language of the Aryans who are supposed to have brought the horse into India, should also carry some weight.

Having a word for horse doesn't really mean that it had to be borrowed.  They could have easily "made-up" a new word for the steppe-horse, or used an adaptation of their word for onager or donkey.  Sorry, but this proves nothing. 
 
Partly because of the uncongenial climate, horses must have been comparatively rare in India (as they would remain in later centuries, when Rajput forces were attacked by Turkish invaders with an invariably superior cavalry), but they were available.
 
For the most part, from the time of the Vedic until recently, the Indians had always replenished their stock of horses by importing horses from abroad.

The evidence concerning horses remains nonetheless the weakest point in the case for an Indian Urheimat. While the evidence is arguably not such that it proves the Harappan culture’s unfamiliarity with horses, it cannot be claimed to prove the identity of Vedic and Harappan culture either, the way the abundance of horse remains in Ukraine is used to prove the IE character of the settlements there. At this point, the centre-piece of the anti-AIT plea is an explainable paucity of the evidence material, so that everything remains possible.

Thus far nothing suggests that the Harrapans were familiar with the horse.
 
http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/connections/Western-Asia.php - This is true both at the level of physical evidence and on that of artistic testimony: the apparent absence of horse motifs on the Harappan seals (except one) http://www.bharatvani.org/books/ait/ch44.htm - 36 http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/connections/Western-Asia.php - can certainly be explained, viz. by pointing at the equally remarkable absence of the female cow among the numerous animal depictions on the seals, eventhough the cow must have been very familiar to the Harappans considering the frequent depiction of the bull. A taboo on depictions of the two most sacred animals may well explain the absence of both the cow and the horse. However, it is obvious that a positive attestation of the horse on the Harappan seals would have served the non-invasionist cause much better.

Rajaram's two claims to have found the steppe-horse in Harappan contexts have proven to be hoaxes by Witzel, and co.  Even his supporters have abandoned him on this point.

A fossil has been discovered from the Siwalik hills (Himalayan foothills): with short-pillare teeth and find limbe the horse is 15-hands long and perhaps date back to the stone age. (J.C.Ewart, Animal remains, in J.Curle, A Roman frontier post and its people (The Fort of Newstead), Glasgow: J. Mackehose and Sons, 1911, Appendix II, pp. 364,368). E.J. Ross reported the discovery of bones scattered over an area of about 40 ft., of a domesticated horse in the lowest level of Rana Ghundai I, close to Mohenjodaro and Ga_ndha_ra (pre-Harappan, contemporary with Hissar IA, Susa B and Middle Uruk in Iraq, assigned to ca. 3500-3400 B.C.) in a chalcolithis site of Northern Baluchistan . ‘It should be noted, however, that these remains are not, as might be expected, those of small pony-like animals. The teeth were well examined by an expert veterinary officer before their dispatch to the Archaeological Department and he assured us that they are indistinguishable either in structure or in size from those of our modern cavalry horses. This points to a very long previous period of domestication’. (E.J. Ross, Rana Ghundai, a chalcolithic site in Northern Baluchistan, Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 5, 1946, pp. 284-516; R.H. Dyson, Problems in the relative chronology of Iran 6000-2000 B.C. in R.W. Ehrick, Chronologies in old world archaeology, Chicago, Univ. of Chicago Press, 1965, pp. 215-50).

A.K.Sharma, The Harappan horse was buried under the dunes of..., in Puratattva, Bulletin of the Indian Archaeological Society, No. 23, 1992-93, pp. 30-34]: "At Surkotada the bones of the true horse (equus caballus Linn.) identified are from Period IA, IB and IC. (radiocarbon dates: 2315 B.C., 1940 B.C. and 1790 B.C respectively). With the correction factors, the dates fall between 2400 B.C. and 1700 B.C... In 1938 Mackay (FEM, Vol. I, p. 289) had remarked on the discovery of a clay model of horse from Mohenjodaro. 'I personally take it to represent horse. I do not think we need be particularly surprised if it should be proved that the horse existed thus early at Mohenjo-daro'. About this terracotta figurine Wheeler wrote: (Indus Civilization, Cambridge, 1968, p. 92): 'One terracotta from a late level of Mohenjodaro seems to represent a horse, reminding us that the jaw bone of a horse is also recorded from the same time, and that the horse was known at considerably early period in northern Baluchistan ... It is likely enough that camel, horse and ass were in fact all familiar feature of the Indus caravans.'... appearance of true horse from the neolithic sites of Koldihwa and Mahagara in Uttar Pradesh..." (Note: camel is also not depicted on Harappan inscriptions) The identification by Sharma has been endorsed by Prof. Sandor Bokonyi, Director of the Archaeological Institute, Budapest, Hungary (an archaeozoologist); he wrote in a letter dated 13 Dec. 1993 to the Director General of the Archaeological Survey of India: 'Through a thorough study of the equid remains of the prehistoric settlement of Surkotada, Kutcha, excavated under the direction of Dr. J.P. Joshi, I can state the following: The occurrence of true horse (equus caballus L.) was evidenced by the enamel pattern of the upper and lower cheek and teeth and by the size and form of incisors and phalanges (toe bones). Since no wild horses lived in India in post-Pleistocene times, the domestic nature of the Surkotada horses is undoutbtful. This is also supported by an intermaxilla fragment whose incisor tooth shows clear signs of crib biting, a bad habit only existing among domestic horses which are not extensively used for war."

"Perhaps the most interesting of the model animals is one that I personally take to represent a horse.' (Mackay 1938, vol. I, p. 289; vol. II, pl. LXXVIII). Lothal has yielded a terracotta figure of a horse. It has an elongated body and a thick stumpy tail, mane is marked out over the neck with a low ridge. Faunal remains at Lothal yielded a second upper molar. Bhola Nath of the Zoological Survey of India and GV Sreenivasa Rao of the Archaeological Survey of India note (S.R.Rao, 1985, p. 641): 'The single tooth of the horse referred to above indicates the presence of the horse at Lothal during the Harappan period. The tooth from Lothal resembles closely with that of the modern horse and has pli-caballian (a minute fold near the base of the spur or protocone) which is well distinguishable character of the cheek teeth of the horse.' "However, the most startling discovery comes from the recent excavation at Nausharo, conducted by Jarrige et al. (in press). In the Harappan levels over here have been found clearly identifiable terracotta figurines of this animal." (Lal, 1998, opcit., p. 112).

Much of this is outdated information, especially from Mackey.  The archaeozoologist Richard Meadow disputes these claims on the grounds already set forth earlier in my response.  Again, nothing is said about examining the true age of the fossils in all quotes made.  Therefore, there is nothing that can be made from this evidence at all.
 
Sorry for copy pasting, but they are facts so it doesnt matter if I copy paste....
 
Thus far, nothing can be said to have been a "fact", but, oh well....
 
...... and those who stick to that horse was absent in Indus valley civilization, the famous one being Micheal Witzel this is how he argues

Witzels argument is in the following lines: (1) No horse bone has been found in Harappan sites. (2) When pointed out that they are found in some instances, it is said they are only fragments and not full skeletons. (3) When pointed out they were found in more than one site it is said the layers in which they were found ought to have been eroded ones or disturbed. (4) When pointed out that the reports of horse bones were not by present day archaeologists but by the early pioneers it is said that those are dubious and decades old. (5) When pointed out they were reported by archaeological excavators then comes the argument that archaeologists are not trained zoologists and palaeontologists to comment on horse bones (though by the same argument no credence can be placed on Witzel's opinion as he is neither an archaeologist nor a palaeontologist). Such arguments are brought under reductio ad absurdum by logicians. More examples of wilful rejections of points can be cited throughout the article but suffice to say that for an unbiased reader, the whole article reads purely a personal attack on an individual writer and exhibits certain amount of impatience to listen to other view.
 
Richard Meadows who is in fact an archaeozoologist, and involved in the Harappan digs in fact backs up Michael Witzel!!!  Witzel, in composing his response to Rajaram's assertations had consulted with Meadows, and Meadows agreed that the evidence, both artistic and biological is far from being factual.  If there is anyone who is qualified to give such judgements, it is Meadows. 

Sharkinn : You told " Nomads adopt well to literate civilizations" hahaha u
make me laugh and the way you rubbished me saying "Wrong
again".. Take the example Europe let in these better than
nomadic people the Libyans, Somalis, Pakis, Banghladeshis. Now did u find them adopting quickly to Literate Europe.

I haven't the slightest idea what you were trying to say.  Please rewrite this, so I can respond.
 
Now similarly civilized people and literate people more than any body can adopt to any civilization not the nomads and illiterate backward people..
It took a whole 1000 years for the GOTHS, germans to reach the sophistication of Romans and Greeks though they were neighbours to these civilizations...
 
Goths encountered literate civilization by about AD 230.  They gained literacy by about AD 350.  Just a little more than 100 years.  'Nuf said.

 

There's a big, huge humongus problem with your theory - there is absolutely NOTHING to prove that they came from India. There is no cultural flow traceable archaeologically westwards from India, and no Indian place-names between eastern Iran/Afghanistan and Mesopotamia. The very proof YOU deny for "Aryan" migration into India is the VERY SAME proof that is completely absent from showing that the Mitanni came from India. Again, there's no denial of the Indo-Aryan nature of the Mitanni nobility as well as facits of their language and some deities (other deities worshipped by the Mitanni were in fact Semitic and Hurrian, showing how they adopted local culture). Again, language plays the most important role here. Because Indo-Aryan is far too closely related to Iranian, they must have had a linguistic urheimat as well as an ursprache. It was probably in northern Iran when the Mitanni separated from its Indo-Aryan kin to go into Mesopotamia, while the rest of Indo-Aryans went into India. This is the simplest solution to the problem of linguistic origins.


Now certain Varma lives in US, it is obvious that he came from India.
it does'nt need a great mapping of my trail, checking my passport to
say that I came from India. But due to the 1500BC time frame, Their needs to be evidence to convince skeptics like you, but you should recoganise that with that reason again the evidence becomes all the more difficult to secure becoz of 1500 BC time frame.

Ah, so since you came here by plane, I must believe that the Mitanni came into Mesopotamia by plane, also.   Wait, I'm sorry, many planes!!!  Very good comparison, varma!!!  But seriously, come on now.  You cannot have us believe that a people is not going to leave some sort of migration "trail" from India to Mesopotamia......unless, of course you actually believe they flew there?  Flying saucers, anybody?
 
Another thing about the Mitanni, is that an analysis of their Indo-Aryan has shown that it is, on linguistic grounds older than the oldest Indo-Aryan of India itself!!!  We shouldn't be talking about Mitanni coming from India, but of Mitanni going to India!!!  But of course, that will definitely not be acceptable to you, but I throw it out nevertheless.  I don't believe it either.

Here I havent got hold on any material of the origins of place names in West asia, but u should forget the ability of Sanskrit unlike any other language contain the roots of most words. So it doesnt becoem that hard to relate the names of places to Indian culture and langugaes.
 
In IE contexts, that is simply not true.  The consensus among linguists is that as languages spread geographically, they adopt words from indigenous regions, as well as dropping some terms in favor of native ones.  Indo-Iranian was the most wide-spread subfamily among all IE languages, at one time stretching from the Danube to the western Takla Makan.  It became inevitable that it would drop-off more terms than European languages.  It is the European languages which have the roots of most words.

here are far too many examples in history to mention. As far as the Vedic people are concerned, the Vedas described them as "non-urban, non-maritime, basically uninterested in exchange other than that involving cattle


I really dont seem to know whether u are really reading RV. Vedas doesnt describe these people as non urban, non maritime and themsleves as nomads" but I guess u were reading the translations of 20th cenutry scholars most of who's translations were driven with justifying British colonisation of India.

And here's the crux of your way of thinking.  Why does everything a western scholar say have to "justify" anything?  Why can't you look beyond such political rhetoric?   We should be way beyond such posturing, but instead of looking at the merits of their scholarship, you simply dismiss it as "justifying colonization".  This smacks at an agenda, which I'm too familiar with.  I've had to deal with such rhetoric in discussing Macedonians and the Bible, I guess I'll have to deal with it here, as well.

No longer it is beleived in the scholarly cirlces that RV people were non urban, non maritime. It has been refuted with valid arguments and this notion of the vedic people is no longer accepted.
 
Only by Indian nationalists.  Scholarly circles still believe in the non-urban, non-maritime nature of the Vedic Aryans.

RV descriptions alone dispel this myths and a mere anaysys would tell you that Vedic people were no nomads. and they were urban, and maritime.I would present them upon ur request.
 
I do so request your evidence.

I would ask to refer to this site to know some of the information about the evidence of posiible cultural trail from India and Indic names in West asia beyongf Eastern Iran place names and the origin of kingdom names of West asia..

http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/connections/Western-Asia.php -

http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/connections/Western-Asia.php%5b/quote - http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/connections/Western-Asia.php

 
I've looked at the information, and virtually all of it is dated.  There is nobody today (except Indian nationalists) who believes that there are (or were) Indo-Aryan placenames beyond eastern Iran. http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/connections/Western-Asia.php -

 

 

 

 



Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 07-Jul-2006 at 04:52
Sharrukin, as always, good value for money.

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


Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 07-Jul-2006 at 05:02
Originally posted by Sharrukin

They gained literacy by about AD 350. 
They as in a relative small number of individuals. I don't equate the conversion to Arianism with literacy.
I think it's unproper to develop a point about the literacy of Goths prior to the estabilishment of their two kingdoms in Western Europe. And even then, not only commoners, but also conservative aristocratic factions who were openly opposing the acceptance of "Roman values".


Posted By: Sharrukin
Date Posted: 07-Jul-2006 at 05:22
Regardless of the "quantity" of people made literate, the point is that their language was committed to written form and with such a "democratic" context as the Bible.  In regards to a state, the Goths (more specifically the Ostrogoths) were already established in the Ukraine by about AD 200 with a king.  Their last great king Hermanrich was killed in the wake of the Hunnic conquest, c. 372.  Their "level" of civilization may be said to be "lower" than the Roman, but nevertheless, attain a coherency to be able to establish an empire stretching into the north, into regions inhabited by Uralic, Baltic, and Slavic tribes. 


Posted By: Vedam
Date Posted: 08-Jul-2006 at 05:02
Verma the reason i no longer bothered replying to your so called "facts" is because  your arguments are ridiculous.
For example your argument ... "nomads like Somalis, Bangadeshis,Pakistanis, Libyians could not adapt quickly to western Europe, which proves the Aryas could not be Nomads......because it follows that Nomads could not come up with the sophistication of the Vedas"
My god is this a joke. ARE YOU SERIOUS!!!!!!!!!!!! THESE ARE THE WORDS OF AN EXTREMIST FANATIC
When a fact that destroys your theory, such as how Vedic Sanskrit has incorporated indegious words, or how The vedas never mentions a script, which the Indus valley has, Well this you conviniently  choose to ignore. 
 
I'm sure your Muslim friends appreciate the way you speak about Islam. You speak about the Prophet Mohammed as if you personally knew him, and then you have the nerve to talk about "one sided arguments" and "examing all views" as if you are an Objective Academic.
 
With regards to your horse "evidence" you also have a habit of putting words in other peoples mouths. I never said anything about an absence of Horse remains ,i said it the horse was not familiar on the Harrapan seals. 
 
Aside from Sharrukins points, lets just say for the sake of argument the Harrapans were familiar with the Horse, yet by the sheer lack of its representation on their seals, it seems evident in all likelyhood it was not the dominant animal, whereas in the Vedas the Horse is often mentioned,  eg the sacred one year ritual the "Aswamedha" is totally dedicated to the horse. 
It seems odd that the horse is markedly absent from the Harapan seals, yet you argue the Harapans and the Aryans are one and the same, so they both frequently mention the horse in their sacred hymns and yet you hardly find any representation. Strange? 
Also is not strange that the rhinosorous is the most frquently rpresented animal on the Harrapan seals, but does not figure in the Vedas!
 
My final bit of advice, since you are so good at giving it, learn to seperate, Mythology, religion, history and conspiracy theories. 
 
 


-------------
Vedam


Posted By: Varmas
Date Posted: 09-Jul-2006 at 10:22
      This is varma again with a differnt username becoz it seems I have been banned from the forum.
      I flet that sharukkin and zagros are the two people who really cared to answer my doubts, and I have learned a lot in our conversations. When I wanted to reply to the post of Sharukkin yesterday, I have found myself banned from the forum. According to me the only possible reasons for this might have been that
    1. I started a thread in middleast forum " Buddha, Jesus, Mohammad who is the Worst". Now no person is above criticsm. personal attacks on the individuals in the forum is not good As long as comparitive analysis is great topic and good and bad exists in all. Whats the problem phrasing who is the Worst. If someone is good among 2 peopale it means that the other is not as good. As long as  people have two opinions of truth the world is going to be turmoil for sure. Their are some universal principles of morality and ethics which tranced beyond space and time, and culture. These should form the basis upon which an individual should be dissected to find the merit of an individual. That tread was for what I have started and as usual the people having two opinions abt truth has discontinued the thread not allowing postings thus censoring a valid and much needed discussion to see through some of the absurdities and goods that may have resulted out of the existence of these 3 historical figures.
    2. I had in a reply to Vedam, the historian, I have asked him not to behave like a muslim. By that I meant that he would not behave like a blind beleiver. Whatever the reason of most muslims being blind beleivers, illiteracy etc, it is a fact and i dont think  for that I would warrant a ban.
     Sharkuinn, I really wanted to reply you for the previous posts of urs   
                       but am not a person who will stick around a plae where I
                       am not desired .

  I request the same people who has banned me to go through the posts of vedam replying to me,

For example your argument ... "nomads like Somalis, Bangadeshis,Pakistanis, Libyians could not adapt quickly to western Europe, which proves the Aryas could not be Nomads......because it follows that Nomads could not come up with the sophistication of the Vedas"

     This is nothing like what I said, and it is nowhere what I meant. I hope members of the forum uderstand this, he failed to answer my basic questions and engaged in most part of his posts  in personally attacking me giving names calling me extremist fanatic. I am not hurt though .

[qoute]
When a fact that destroys your theory, such as how Vedic Sanskrit has incorporated indegious words, or how The vedas never mentions a script, which the Indus valley has, Well this you conviniently  choose to ignore. 
[/quote]
            This person never raised this question in his posts to me and now he asks me why have I ignored it.
            He always evades the question on hand from answering unlike sharkinn and zagros but defends himslef by raising another question when it is answered another question and when u question him he cites Romila thapar's History of India which is full of mistakes and was written to suit a particular prevailing ideology rahter than facts which were quite clearly pointed out in the critique(link) I have posted their.

 Anyway censoring is not a good thing, I dotn think I have blindly defended any topic and where I found the evidence in opinion not confirming the standards  I have retreated..

Shakinn reply to u : Outdated is what u say about the evidence that has been found in the Indus in the early 20th century.
    Now I dont think I have to drwa ur attention to implication of that statement of urs elsewhere.
    By ur statement the evidence of any such findings in the early 20th cenutury from other civilizations Like mesoptamia etc will be as obsecure as Indus findings of early 20th century.
     wnat ot go on ansering every questionu have raised and pointing every possible mistkaes in ur deductions...but as I said I dont pride comes first for the Indians I dont wish to be in a forum which doesnt want me..

Good luck to all the members.....


Posted By: Vedam
Date Posted: 09-Jul-2006 at 10:55
Verma you said the arguement about Sanskrit  incorporating indigenious words was never raised to you, as well as why the Vedas never mentioned a script, so how could you possibly ignore these questions when they were never put forward?
Well they were raised to you, they were all clearly put to you in this topic, and i have quoted them below.
 You simply choose to ignore them
 
I will quote each and everyone and i will also quote your comments about illiterate nomads.
Let the FACTS speak for themselves.
If there is anyone  who is not interested in cross checking it is most certainly you. 
 


-------------
Vedam


Posted By: Vedam
Date Posted: 09-Jul-2006 at 11:11
The argument about how Sanskrit incoporates indegenious words.
Originally posted by Sharrukin

The arguement of the linguists have neither the base of archeological or literary evidence.
 
There is archaeological evidence, however to show such a migration toward India as well as to other places where IE languages are evidenced.  Therefore, it is not necessary for archaeology to show that culture flowed into India.   It is a given that Indo-Aryan is related to European languages, so, there must have been a place of origin of language somewhere between the two geographic regions.  One of the most devastating arguments for the outside origin of Indo-Aryan is that while Sanskrit does display borrowings from such native languages as Dravidian and Munda, other IE language do not.  Not even Iranian languages (Sanskrit's closest relatives) have such borrowings.  It therefore stands to reason, that as the original Indo-Aryan migrants entered the Indian subcontinent, they adopted vocabulary of the native Dravidian and Munda peoples they encountered.  
 
Another piece of linguistic evidence involves innovation of language.  Linguists have long known that the younger the language, the more innovative it becomes.  Older characteristics of a language family disappear as a language changes.  Indo-Iranian displays among the most innovative changes in relation to other Indo-European languages, therefore they are among the youngest of IE languages.  Hittite and Tocharian, on the other hand, show the most archaic features of the IE language family - such features (or relics) that had long disappeared from other IE languages.  Here there is agreement with archaeology.  The culture of the steppe was expanding into Europe long before it expanded toward India. 
 
The homeland of the Aryans all through the century kept moving from place to place, how credible this one onlytime will tell but every hypothesis that Aryan originated somewhere from the steppes, Russia, and now the Souther caspian Sea were purely based upon linguistic hypothesis and not based upon any as I mentioned earlier scietific evidence..
 
I did not say that the Aryans originated on the Southern Caspian Sea.  I merely mention the region as a starting point of migration.  JP Mallory's theory takes it back even further back into the Euroasian steppe, and so he is in agreement with the Central Asian theory. 
 
    And more importantly every so called historian and investigators almost ignored the fact that Sumerians beleived that they have descended from the east.
 
I know Sumerian literature.  There is nothing in it to show that they originated anywhere else except southern Mesopotamia - just like Indian literature.
 
If indeed as u Mr J P mallory's theor the Sumerians or those people who moved into Iran, India and mespatomia must have mentioned that they descended from the west not the east.
 
All I said was that the Mitanni originated from the east.  Where do you get the idea that Mallory's theory applied to Sumerians?  All he was talking about was IE groups. 


-------------
Vedam


Posted By: Vedam
Date Posted: 09-Jul-2006 at 11:14
The argument about how the Vedas never mention any SCRIPT
Originally posted by Vedam

I have just two question for you?
If the Aryas are of the Indus valley civilisation, why is the rhinoceros the most frequently depicted animal on Harrapan seals but the horse is absent which is central the vedas?
Why is there an indus valley script but no mention of it in the Vedas?
 


-------------
Vedam


Posted By: Vedam
Date Posted: 09-Jul-2006 at 11:25
This is your beautiful quote about Nomads
Originally posted by varma

Did the vedas mention about any other script? no

Sharkinn : You told " Nomads adopt well to literate civilizations" hahaha u
                   make me laugh and the way you rubbished me saying "Wrong
                   again".. Take the example Europe let in these better than
                    nomadic people the Libyans, Somalis, Pakis, Banghladeshis. Now did u find them adopting quickly to Literate Europe. Now similarly civilized people and literate people more than any body can adopt to any civilization not the nomads and illiterate backward people..
                It took a whole 1000 years for the GOTHS, germans to reach the sophistication of Romans and Greeks though they were neighbours to these civilizations...
   


-------------
Vedam


Posted By: Vedam
Date Posted: 09-Jul-2006 at 11:46
On a final note Verma, for your information i also have read TALAGERI AND MISRA.
I dont really care what your opinion is about me, and muslims and who ever else.
As you said you are banned now, i no longer have to engage, and even if you weren't i would no longer waste my time arguing with such a person.  


-------------
Vedam


Posted By: Sharrukin
Date Posted: 10-Jul-2006 at 02:05
Shakinn reply to u : Outdated is what u say about the evidence that has been found in the Indus in the early 20th century.
    Now I dont think I have to drwa ur attention to implication of that statement of urs elsewhere.
    By ur statement the evidence of any such findings in the early 20th cenutury from other civilizations Like mesoptamia etc will be as obsecure as Indus findings of early 20th century.
     wnat ot go on ansering every questionu have raised and pointing every possible mistkaes in ur deductions...but as I said I dont pride comes first for the Indians I dont wish to be in a forum which doesnt want me..
 
That's just it.  Even the findings in Mesopotamia "from the early 20th century" have been revised in interpretation and chronology.  I remember reading about the the earliest Mesopotamian rulers in works dated to as late as about 1950 stating that they ruled from about 4300 BC!!!  Now these earliest rulers are put at about 2800 BC.  So, now, who is making mistakes in "deducting"?


Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 10-Jul-2006 at 10:14
Originally posted by Sharrukin

Regardless of the "quantity" of people made literate, the point is that their language was committed to written form and with such a "democratic" context as the Bible.
 However this is not literacy.
Anyway when various forms of Christianity spreaded out in the "Barbaric" Europe, Bible did not represent a "democratic" context. Reading the Bible ment to be literate, i.e., grosso modo, to be part of the Roman culture. Leaving aside the remnants of the Roman aristocracy and the clergy (itself formed mostly by ex-aristocrats) (though in some moments of time and some places even in their ranks the illiteracy was high - e.g. priests baptising in nomine patria et filia Wink) and those few educated non-Romans, the Christianity was preached: the images and statues, the symbols, the stories, the myths played an important part in "democratizing" the Christianity, not the Bible. 
 
In regards to a state, the Goths (more specifically the Ostrogoths) were already established in the Ukraine by about AD 200 with a king.  Their last great king Hermanrich was killed in the wake of the Hunnic conquest, c. 372.  Their "level" of civilization may be said to be "lower" than the Roman, but nevertheless, attain a coherency to be able to establish an empire stretching into the north, into regions inhabited by Uralic, Baltic, and Slavic tribes.
There's little information known about the early Gothic statal formations and I don't know on what grounds this "imperial coherency" is inferred (indeed the territory they seem to have dominated is multi-ethnic: Sarmatian, Thracian, Baltic, possibly Uralic and Slavic populations, yet there's too little information about how much they really controlled and the way they did it). When one talks about the two Gothic kingdoms usually refers to the ones estabilished in the ex-Roman territory.


Posted By: Sharrukin
Date Posted: 11-Jul-2006 at 03:48
Chilbudios, there seems to be a great deal of potential discussion regarding the Goths, (for example, we can philosophise on what constitutes 'literacy', or what would be considered a Gothic state or civilization), but because it will take us off topic for a prolonged period, I do not desire to continue with this line of thought.  Perhaps, if you wish to discuss this in an appropriate subforum, you may also attract others who wish to contribute.  I for one, just have too much to do, and so I restrict myself mostly to this subforum, occasionally visiting other subforums.   Thanks for your input, nevertheless.


Posted By: mojobadshah
Date Posted: 20-Apr-2007 at 23:13
To all, I would like to throw some food for thought out there: My, current, view on the Aryan phenomenon is that the the Iranian speakers are most justly Aryan, because the unbound morpheme Arya, which can stand without the bound morpheme -n.  The morpheme was used as a national designation in Aryan and according to the science of linguistics is as archaic as Rig Vedic Sanskrit, if not more.  The Aryans were aware of the monetary value of the word, personified by Shrosha, "the most profitable," "the expander and protector of the Aryan property," who was associated with the Manthra, "the body of the word," which came from Mazda, the supreme being.  It is no coinsidence, that the word Mazda, Manthra, Mainyu, mind, memory, mnemonic, music, math, mention, money, monetary, meaning, and man, come from the same root.  The Aryans were opposed to the drukh, literally, deciever, and synonymous with nonbelievers, in the monetary value of a word.   Hittite, is, generally, accepted to be more archaic than Gathic, but, Hittite died out over 2000 years ago, and has no living relatives, and if there is someone out there that is seriously going to claim that the core of the language that he speaks is Hittite, and Indo-European language and not a non-Indo-European language I would like to know.  The rest of the Indo-European family of languages were attested after Gathic Avestan the language, cultural, and intellectual property, an intangible asset of Iranian ownership, making the Gathic Avestan vocabulary prema facie evidence of the Indo-European family of languages, and even a lamen to the study of linguistics, not fully aware of all the linguistic laws and rules of the comparative method, can recognize  the obvious resemblence of the core of the Iranian vocabulary, the most frequently used words, to the core language of its latter, younger Indo-Euorpean sisters.   The Indo-European vocabulary is the most widely used vocabulary.   According to law if one can prove that there is a likelihood of confusion amongst consumers between the mark, vata, a known cognate to the mark, windows wind + eye, and that  the Iranian mark, vata, was used in business before the mark window then one will be as rich as Bill Gates, himself, and three times what he is worth, according to civil remedies for unfair competition. The law has predetermined that one word can not be copyrighted, because according to the laws definition a a single word does not display enough creativity, but for some reason two words or a word phrase does.  Yet, according to the science of linguistics, a morpheme, the smallest linguistic unit that conveys phonemics and semantics or sound with meaning, the idea, the concept.  Hence, creativity.   One out of every 100 citizens in the United States are Iranian.  That means 99% of the citizens are using 1% of the citizenry's property for certain political gains such as in campaign advertisements, to generate business, and for organizational use.  Then there's the whole premace of the larger concepts of the ideas attested in the Gathic Avestan language, one could argue also has premace in the world of politics, business, and organization.  Apparently, it is the expert linguists application to the lexical data that bears the outcome of a case, not an attorny.  I'm not an attorny, but I know that United States legislation has been founded on false premaces before.  In the beginning, slavery was legal.  If the Forefather's didn't think twice about enslaving a person, then I would gather as much that they wouldn't have thought twice about plagerism, though they were influenced by the Irano-Aryan Cyrus II's International Charter on Human Rights.  The Cyrus Cyropedia was one of their main handbooks.  I believe it is fair to say that the Aryans do not have an ignoble history.  The Jirga or democratic council was an institution.  Slaves of war did not stay slaves.  The Cast system was not an Irano-Aryan institution it was an Indo-Aryan institution, so on and so forth.  If anybody would like to join my disscusion forum on the topic of Irano-Aryan Roots and Intellectual Property go <a href="http://wordcraft.infopop.cc/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/932607094/m/4701048124/p/">here</a>


Posted By: pathan
Date Posted: 22-Apr-2007 at 16:01
lol aryan has iranian origins.


Posted By: Sharrukin
Date Posted: 24-Apr-2007 at 01:23
Hittite, is, generally, accepted to be more archaic than Gathic, but, Hittite died out over 2000 years ago, and has no living relatives, and if there is someone out there that is seriously going to claim that the core of the language that he speaks is Hittite, and Indo-European language and not a non-Indo-European language I would like to know.  The rest of the Indo-European family of languages were attested after Gathic Avestan the language, cultural, and intellectual property, an intangible asset of Iranian ownership, making the Gathic Avestan vocabulary prema facie evidence of the Indo-European family of languages, and even a lamen to the study of linguistics, not fully aware of all the linguistic laws and rules of the comparative method, can recognize  the obvious resemblence of the core of the Iranian vocabulary, the most frequently used words, to the core language of its latter, younger Indo-Euorpean sisters. 
 
Sorry, but the next earliest attested IE language (after Hittite and other Anatolian languages) is Greek, from the 13th century BC (Linear B tablets).  However, if we add the instances of Indo-Aryan (Indic) vocabulary in the literature of the Mitanni, then we have its attestation in the 14th century BC.  In terms of "archaicness' the next language would be Tocharian.  It possesses characteristics dropped by other IE languages with the exception of the Anatolian languages.  Avestan and other Indo-Iranian languages actually show the most innovation in development, hence they stand at a position younger than most other IE languages.


Posted By: mojobadshah
Date Posted: 24-Apr-2007 at 06:02
To the best of my knowledge, Tocharian  is as dead as Hittite.   And regarding Linear B, it was not, really, literature.  All but one word of Linear B was attested after 800 B.C.  Old Persian was attested around 600 B.C.    Even Younger Avestan is at least a few hundred years more archaic than Old Persian.  Zardusht or Zoroaster is attested by the Greeks to have lived around 8000 B.C.   Scholars generally agree that Gathic Avestan was composed at a time comparable to the Vedas, which was some time around or before 1800 B.C. 


Posted By: Sharrukin
Date Posted: 25-Apr-2007 at 00:13
To the best of my knowledge, Tocharian  is as dead as Hittite. 
 
The point is that there were many languages more archaic than Avestan.  Indeed, Tocharian is dead, but it survived until the 8th century AD when it was superceded by Uighur.
 
 And regarding Linear B, it was not, really, literature.
 
That was not even your original point.  The point was that Linear B attests to the Greek language within a contemporary setting in the 2nd millennium BC. 
 
All but one word of Linear B was attested after 800 B.C.
 
So, if 99% of Linear B Greek words of the 2nd millennium BC are attested after 800 BC, then can we say that Greek had survived relatively unchanged?  I'm not quite sure of what you are objecting to.
 
Old Persian was attested around 600 B.C.  Even Younger Avestan is at least a few hundred years more archaic than Old Persian.
 
I can at least agree that Avestan is more archaic than Old Persian.
 
Zardusht or Zoroaster is attested by the Greeks to have lived around 8000 B.C.
 
No one takes the Greek date seriously.  The date of Zarathustra is not fixed, but some Iranian traditions and scholarly sources date him as late as the 6th century BC.  
 
Scholars generally agree that Gathic Avestan was composed at a time comparable to the Vedas, which was some time around or before 1800 B.C. 
 
What is agreed is that Gathic Avestan is considered as ancient as Indo-Aryan.  Regarding the Vedas, the conventional dating is between 1500 and 1200 BC. 


Posted By: mojobadshah
Date Posted: 25-Apr-2007 at 19:53
I think part of the point is that the Hittite and Tocharian languages are, so, dead, that no individual could honestly claim that the core of the language that they speak is, even, a related.  That the Gathas are literature, and that the Iranian speakers were aware of the monetary value of a word are factors, too.   By the time the Gathas were recorded, its author had, already, looked back to a long history.   I recall something about the story of Jamshid and how it goes into the details of how Jamshid became the psychopomp of the departed, whereas the story of Jam's Sanskrit counterpart, Yama, the first man to die, doesn't go into the details and is basically, already, the psychopomp.   Does anybody know of any examples of these parallels?


Posted By: Sharrukin
Date Posted: 25-Apr-2007 at 23:00
I think part of the point is that the Hittite and Tocharian languages are, so, dead, that no individual could honestly claim that the core of the language that they speak is, even, a related.  That the Gathas are literature, and that the Iranian speakers were aware of the monetary value of a word are factors, too.   By the time the Gathas were recorded, its author had, already, looked back to a long history. 
 
 
Again, there is no verifiable date for the floruit of Zarathustra, and hence no verifiable date for the Avesta.  All that can be said is that he was probably pre-600 BC (reference to Ahura Mazda in the inscription of Ariyaramna, king of Parsa).  On the other hand we not only have Greek in written form from the 2nd millennium BC, but "literature" from the 8th century BC (i.e. Illiad, Odyssey, Works and Days, etc.)


Posted By: mojobadshah
Date Posted: 26-Apr-2007 at 03:34
Sharrukin, I appreciate you're feedback.  I know you're trying to keep it real.   There is Homeric literature.   Even, Young or Zend Avestan is estimated to be hundreds of years older, than the Old Persian Acheamenid inscriptions that are placed around 600 B.C.  And then there's Old or Gathic Avestan which is hundreds of years older than Young Avestan.  A few hundred years older than 600 B.C. would place the Gathas before the Illiad. 

Maybe you can help me understand the following evidence: according to the late, Joseph T. Shipley's, The Origins of English Words, the designation Persia is a triune of the words Ahura Mazda, Zoroaster, and Yasna.  The designations Persia, Parthia, Pashto, Pathan, and Parsi are rooted in *Parsu.  Apparently, there is evidence that the Pashtun tribe was mentioned in the Vedas.  Wouldn't that mean that the anomalies, Ahura Mazda, Zoroaster, and Yasna predated the anomally Parsu (older form of Pashtu) which was attested in the Vedas, and that Zarathustra lived before the attestation of the Parsu in the Vedas?


Posted By: Sharrukin
Date Posted: 27-Apr-2007 at 04:06
Sharrukin, I appreciate you're feedback.  I know you're trying to keep it real.   There is Homeric literature.   Even, Young or Zend Avestan is estimated to be hundreds of years older, than the Old Persian Acheamenid inscriptions that are placed around 600 B.C.  And then there's Old or Gathic Avestan which is hundreds of years older than Young Avestan.  A few hundred years older than 600 B.C. would place the Gathas before the Illiad. 
 
Granted that the Gathas may be older than the Homerc literature, we are still left with when did the Gathas become literature?  There is no evidence that at the time of their earliest composition, they were written down.  What we have are texts written down in an adaptation of Pahlavi script made specifically to convey the Avestan sound-system.  On the other hand, the Greeks already had alphabetic script, before the Homeric literature.  

Maybe you can help me understand the following evidence: according to the late, Joseph T. Shipley's, The Origins of English Words, the designation Persia is a triune of the words Ahura Mazda, Zoroaster, and Yasna.  The designations Persia, Parthia, Pashto, Pathan, and Parsi are rooted in *Parsu.  Apparently, there is evidence that the Pashtun tribe was mentioned in the Vedas.  Wouldn't that mean that the anomalies, Ahura Mazda, Zoroaster, and Yasna predated the anomally Parsu (older form of Pashtu) which was attested in the Vedas, and that Zarathustra lived before the attestation of the Parsu in the Vedas?
 
This touches upon a discussion I'm currently having with another forumer in another thread in this subforum.  According to the linguist I.M. Diakonoff, the original would be parsava, meaning "borderland".  It was originally used to designate frontier districts by the Iranians.  Hence, we know of several lands with this designation, including a Parsuash between Assyria and Media; Parsa, bordering Elam (the modern Fars); and Parthia (Old Persian, Parthava), the eastern "border-country" of the Medes.  It was thus, a land designation, not a tribal one, at first.  The Persians gained their name from occupying one of these districts, and we have historical documentation of other tribal peoples gaining this designation, such as Pashto (from parsava), and Pashtun (from parsavan.)  It is worth mentioning that Herodotus was told that the original name of the Persians was Artaei.   The terms then, listed, can represent peoples of various origins.  The Vedic Parsu does not necessarily have anything to do with Persians, merely just another "border-people".  As for the Avesta, the only reference I have is to "Pouruta" (perhaps the Paroutai of Ptolemy, located in Areia near the Hindu Kush).  Nothing, as far as I'm concerned indicates any priority between Avesta and Rg Veda.
 
 


Posted By: mojobadshah
Date Posted: 27-Apr-2007 at 17:37
Are you saying that the Avesta wasn't literature, while it was an unrecorded text being orally transmitted, and that it did become literature when it was inscripted in Phalavi?

The idea that parsava means border reiminds me of something from the OED Online about how, Parthian Shot, changed to Parting Shot, and might be related to words like, partition, and party.  Is that what it meant?  What I don't understand is how the roots ane, ger IV, and iag I or Ahura, Zoroaster, and Yasna became *Parsa or *Parsu, and whether it was a conscious fusion.  I am full of questions.  Does the word jirga have any Avestan relatives?  Were the Acheamenids monotheists or not?  Were there, really, libraries that were destroyed by Alexander, and if so, is there any telling what the nature of the content was? What is the underlying truth behind the Greeks and Roman's placing Zoroaster as early as they did? 

And what do you make of the following?

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/pdfs/traces_of_aryan.pdf 


Posted By: Sharrukin
Date Posted: 28-Apr-2007 at 03:37
Are you saying that the Avesta wasn't literature, while it was an unrecorded text being orally transmitted,.....
 
but of course!!!  This is purely logical.  If it is "unrecorded" it cannot be literature.
 
.....and that it did become literature when it was inscripted in Phalavi?
 
We don't have any physical evidence of it in literal form until it was recorded in Pallavi.  No cuneiform texts, no nothing!!!  This poses the justifiable question as to when it actually became literature.

The idea that parsava means border reiminds me of something from the OED Online about how, Parthian Shot, changed to Parting Shot, and might be related to words like, partition, and party.  Is that what it meant?
 
According to the noted linguist I've named, yes. 
 
What I don't understand is how the roots ane, ger IV, and iag I or Ahura, Zoroaster, and Yasna became *Parsa or *Parsu, and whether it was a conscious fusion.
 
Where are you getting this from?  This sounds like voodoo-type linguistics to me.  I don't understand how you relate the four terms.  Iranic Ahura and Indic asura are obviously related.  Why relate them to Vedic Parsu?  This doesn't make sense. 
 
I am full of questions.  Does the word jirga have any Avestan relatives?
 
Don't know enough about Avestan words to come to any conclusions.  Perhaps an Avestan concordance may help. 
 
Were the Acheamenids monotheists or not?
 
Probably not.  Although the official inscriptions only mention Ahura Mazda, the Avesta mentions other deities such as Mithra (and we have the names of Persians such as Mithridates), Atar, and Anahita, as worthy of worship.
 
Were there, really, libraries that were destroyed by Alexander, and if so, is there any telling what the nature of the content was?
 
The Greek sources only mention the sack and burning of the city.  Nothing specifically is mentioned about any 'library'.  Later Iranian tradition speaks of the burning of the "library". 
 
What is the underlying truth behind the Greeks and Roman's placing Zoroaster as early as they did? 
 
Some of the later Iranian literature mention very large reigns of the early Iranian kings.  The Avesta itself mentions that Yima Khshaeta reigned for 1200 years.  The Greeks obviously did not have any trouble attributing long reigns to human (and semi-divine and divine) rulers.  They did so with the Babylonians as well as the Egyptians. 

And what do you make of the following?

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/pdfs/traces_of_aryan.pdf 
 
I think that this author went far too to much to the deep end to be taken seriously.  His use of linguistic analysis is not conventional, and most of his etymologies have better solutions.  Some of it is obviously dead wrong, such as his etymology for Amurru which were obviously Semitic.  I do not recommend him as a reliable source. 


Posted By: mojobadshah
Date Posted: 28-Apr-2007 at 16:48

There is all these evidence of attested literary works that we have, today.  Avestan, Sanskrit, Homeric Greek, Celtic, Latin.  Do we know about the time of their attestation because of comparative-linguistics, calendrical correlations, and radio carbon dating the texts?

Secondly, there is evidence that the Greeks, and Romans were aware of Zoroaster.  Apparently, they place him long before, even, the Trojan wars, and, therefore, Homer.  Is there any evidence of Iranians placing Greeks and Romans 6000 B.C. before the author of the Gathas? 



Posted By: Sharrukin
Date Posted: 04-May-2007 at 04:01

There is all these evidence of attested literary works that we have, today.  Avestan, Sanskrit, Homeric Greek, Celtic, Latin.  Do we know about the time of their attestation because of comparative-linguistics, calendrical correlations, and radio carbon dating the texts?

Yes, through both comparative linguistics, and at times with historical correlations.  With the first, we can see the development of Greek from Homeric times to classical.  These just don't belong in a vaccuum, but we have a corpus of literature, including hymns and poetry from Homeric times into Classical times where we can document the changes and developments within the Greek language.  As for the earliest poets such as Homer and Hesiod, we can date them based upon the above to the 8th century BC.  For Hesiod, specifically, a hint for his date is a reference to the funeral games of a certain Amphidamas, where he was present.  We know from other sources of an Amphidamas who was a hero in the Lelantine War and who died about 705 BC.  Hesiod is thus usually dated to the late 8th and early 7th centuries BC.  The language of Homer is noticeably more archaic and thus we date him to the mid-8th century BC.
 
Secondly, there is evidence that the Greeks, and Romans were aware of Zoroaster.
 
That does not mean much.  The earliest known of these was Xanthus (5th century BC)
 
Apparently, they place him long before, even, the Trojan wars, and, therefore, Homer.  Is there any evidence of Iranians placing Greeks and Romans 6000 B.C. before the author of the Gathas? 
 
The question itself is non-sensical.  The remote dates of Zoroaster were based upon purely mythological foundations, including hyper-inflated lengths of reigns of rulers.  No scholar can take such dates seriously.  Even native Iranian sources are so wide in their chronologies, that nothing can really be concluded from them.  Now if the grounds upon which such a remote date of Zoroaster is not even considered because of the totally mythological nature of the subject matter, the rest of the question as to the Iranian awareness of Greco-Roman figures at such a remote period is itself irrelevant.


Posted By: mojobadshah
Date Posted: 11-May-2007 at 00:22
I hear that.  Apparently, Zoroaster may not have been written by Zoroaster, but an East Iranian speaker.  Can we say the same about Homer's works.  That they were not nessecarily compiled by Homer but a Homeric Greek speaker?  And, correct me unless I'm mistaken, Ahuramazda is an East Iranian.  Darius authorized his own autobiographical "literary" work to be inscripted and fixed in stone, and tells us that it was by Mazda, an East Iranian diety, that he came to be the Shahnashah.  Therefore, either Mazda along with the East Iranian vocabulary came, either, before or after Darius.   Both West and East Iranian works are part of the same Irano-Aryan continuem.  Can we be sure that the Irano-Aryan morphemes weren't influenced by the Greek branch of IE. ?  Both Darius's Behistun and Zoroaster's Gathas were autobiographical, and aside of some place names in the Behistun, conservative in not including non-Irano-Aryan.  It seems to me that the various works that were written in IE. aside from Irano-Aryan, were centered around anomalies of non-IE. origin.  Furthermore, Darius was a, Parsam (Eng. Persian), unless I'm mistaken.  The word, Parsam, was a tribal state designation rooted in the East Iranian roots Prana, Ahura, Zararthustra, Yasna, and Mazda.  Prana is related to every word that has, a P R followed by a vowel, and, a P followed by a vowel followed by an R, hence, protecter, printing, property, private, party or partition.  From the same four words developed the designation of the East Iranian tribe of Pashtun. 
 
The nature of the IP. works aside from Homer seem to be philosphical, mythological, religious, and fiction.  It is obvious that several Greek philosophers including Plato were aware of Irano-Aryan custom, but little about their vernacular aside from words like Zoroaster, Ahuramazda, Magus, and such. 
 
Evidence of Afro-Asiatic "literary" formula comes from the Septuagint, using Greek. 
 
Did the Afro-Asiatic "literal" formula influence Zoroaster or vice versa, because to the best of my knowledge the only thing that is authentic in Isaiah for example is the attestation of Cyrus's human rights charter.    
 
Are we safe to say that the Gathic, Zend, and Pahlavi "literary" works were written before the Vulgate. 
 
The Latin "literary" works were transaltions from the Greek.  Latin works were are centered around Etruscan anomalies, and Afro-Asiatic anomalies.  The "literary" formula in the Vulgate comes from Hebrew formulas. 
 
There is evidence in Greek attestations, and Irano-Aryan attestations like the Gathas that Zoroaster was the son of Mazda, which both Darius's and Zoroaster's "literary" works are centered around. 
 
In conclusion, i think, the Irano-Aryan "literary" work, the Behistun, was authorized by an authentic author, Darius, and it was written in first person, about his own history .  The next IP. work comparable to the Behistun were Plato's dialogues.  100 years after the Behistun.  Therefore, the Behistun is prima face evidence of an original and authentic, IE. "literary" formula and morphemes, and not an anonymous "literary" formula and morpheme.   The East Iranian "literary" formula and morpheme is part of the same Irano-Aryan continuem.  Ferwadousi's Shahnamah takes from the Avestan "literary" formula and morpheme. 
 
There is no doubt that other IP. "literary" works take copy and based remarks, on Irano-Aryan formula and morpheme or copyrights and trademarks, concepts and cognates, etc... and not the reverse.     
 
 
 
 


Posted By: Sharrukin
Date Posted: 12-May-2007 at 03:11
I hear that.  Apparently, Zoroaster may not have been written by Zoroaster, but an East Iranian speaker.  Can we say the same about Homer's works.  That they were not nessecarily compiled by Homer but a Homeric Greek speaker?
 
There is always that chance.  However, the ancients were unanimous in attributing Homer's works to "Homer", beginning in the 5th century BC, just three centuries after their composition.   
 
And, correct me unless I'm mistaken, Ahuramazda is an East Iranian.  Darius authorized his own autobiographical "literary" work to be inscripted and fixed in stone, and tells us that it was by Mazda, an East Iranian diety, that he came to be the Shahnashah.
 
There is no debate that Ahura Mazda was East Iranian.  We may add that Darius used other Avesta-like language in his inscriptions, like not "following the Lie", etc.  and Xerxes own inscription tells about shutting down a daiva temple. 
 
Therefore, either Mazda along with the East Iranian vocabulary came, either, before or after Darius.
 
There is no doubt that East Iranian Zoroastrian terminology came before Darius.  Even the name of his father Vishtaspa has an Avestan ring to it.  It uses the East Iran form -aspa "horse" instead of the normal Old Persian form -asa. 
 
Both West and East Iranian works are part of the same Irano-Aryan continuem.
 
Not quite sure what you are trying to say here.   It may be more accurate to say that it was the same religious "continuum" but even in its various forms, the Avesta remained in Avestan, despite the prevalence of the Persian language. 
 
Can we be sure that the Irano-Aryan morphemes weren't influenced by the Greek branch of IE. ?
 
I don't quite see the relevance of the question.  I do not think that there was any influence from either side until the Persians came into contact with the Greeks beginning about 547 BC.  
 
Both Darius's Behistun and Zoroaster's Gathas were autobiographical, and aside of some place names in the Behistun, conservative in not including non-Irano-Aryan.
 
What do you mean?  The Behistun inscriptions were in three languages, two being non-Aryan.  A fourth language, Aramaic, another non-Indo-Aryan language becomes the language of the Empire.  
 
It seems to me that the various works that were written in IE. aside from Irano-Aryan, were centered around anomalies of non-IE. origin.
 
You need to explain what you mean by that.  
 
Furthermore, Darius was a, Parsam (Eng. Persian), unless I'm mistaken.  The word, Parsam, was a tribal state designation rooted in the East Iranian roots Prana, Ahura, Zararthustra, Yasna, and Mazda.  Prana is related to every word that has, a P R followed by a vowel, and, a P followed by a vowel followed by an R, hence, protecter, printing, property, private, party or partition.  From the same four words developed the designation of the East Iranian tribe of Pashtun.
 
I think that "P R" pattern has been taken to the extreme.  "Pars-" simply meant "borderland", of which there were many, including one between Media and Assyria (Assyrian, Parsua), between Media and eastern Iran (Old Persian, Parthava from older *parsava), the eastern frontier district of Elam (Assyrian, Parsuwash; Old Persian, Parsa, and of course, Pashtun (older, *parsavan) originally designating the frontiers people next to historic India. 
 
The nature of the IP. works aside from Homer seem to be philosphical, mythological, religious, and fiction.
 
Like I've said, these post-Homeric works were hymns and poems, but also dealt with everyday life (Hesiod, Works and Days) especially in poetic form such as Sappho and Alcaeus.  Even Hesiod is autobiographical. 
 
It is obvious that several Greek philosophers including Plato were aware of Irano-Aryan custom, but little about their vernacular aside from words like Zoroaster, Ahuramazda, Magus, and such.  The Greeks adopted such words as "satrap" and "paradise", Iranic forms, among others.
 
Evidence of Afro-Asiatic "literary" formula comes from the Septuagint, using Greek. 
 
The ancient Egyptians, had an "Afro-Asiatic literary formula" long before the Septuagint. 
 
Did the Afro-Asiatic "literal" formula influence Zoroaster or vice versa, because to the best of my knowledge the only thing that is authentic in Isaiah for example is the attestation of Cyrus's human rights charter.  
 
What makes everything else "un-authentic"?  
 
Are we safe to say that the Gathic, Zend, and Pahlavi "literary" works were written before the Vulgate. 
 
Yes.
 
The Latin "literary" works were transaltions from the Greek.
 
There was plenty of original Latin literary works. 
 
Latin works were are centered around Etruscan anomalies, and Afro-Asiatic anomalies.
 
While it is true that there was some influence of Etruscan on Latin, this was mainly in the adoption of some words.  Latin works were mainly focused on Latin concerns. 
 
The "literary" formula in the Vulgate comes from Hebrew formulas. 
 
 Jerome purposefully wanted to translate the Bible into Latin from the original languages, hence the formulas (as in all Christian literature) was Middle Eastern in origin.  But, we must take care to not to confuse this facit of influence from the secular Latin base, which was native to Italy.
 
There is evidence in Greek attestations, and Irano-Aryan attestations like the Gathas that Zoroaster was the son of Mazda, which both Darius's and Zoroaster's "literary" works are centered around. 
 
I must point out that none of the Old Persian inscriptions even mention Zoroaster's name, only some Zoroastrian expressions, and of course, the name of Ahura Mazda.  The closest we come to this is the attestation from Herodotus of a daughter of Darius I named in Greek "Artozostre" whose name seems to betray a reference to Zoroaster, himself.
 
In conclusion, i think, the Irano-Aryan "literary" work, the Behistun, was authorized by an authentic author, Darius, and it was written in first person, about his own history.
 
A very brief history spanning only the first two (or three) years of his reign. 
 
The next IP. work comparable to the Behistun were Plato's dialogues.  100 years after the Behistun.
 
There were many Greek works before Behistun (but either now lost or in fragmented form).  There are allusions to works by the sophists and scientists, such as Thales and Pythagoras, not to mention Solon, who not only wrote Athens constitution, but was also a poet, philosopher and scientist, about 70 years before Behistun.
 
Therefore, the Behistun is prima face evidence of an original and authentic, IE. "literary" formula and morphemes, and not an anonymous "literary" formula and morpheme.
 
Considering that Homer, Hesiod, and Solon are much older than Behistun, priority still goes to the Greeks.  
 
The East Iranian "literary" formula and morpheme is part of the same Irano-Aryan continuem.  Ferwadousi's Shahnamah takes from the Avestan "literary" formula and morpheme. 
 
The Avestan "literary" formula involved mostly prayers and hymns.  Ferdousi's great work would be an "epic history".  Not much of a continuity.
 
[quote]There is no doubt that other IP. "literary" works take copy and based remarks, on Irano-Aryan formula and morpheme or copyrights and trademarks, concepts and cognates, etc... and not the reverse. 
 
I don't think so. 


Posted By: mojobadshah
Date Posted: 15-May-2007 at 18:22
Could you go into how Homer's, Hesiod's, and Solon's works were autobiographical histories written in first person, under their authorization.
 
The Old Persian inscriptions were written in first person, autobiographical, historical, and authorized by an Old Persian, and the base input stimili of the cognates, morphemes and the concept or formula, basically, the ideograms are rooted in IE. or Irano-Aryan verbal custom or vernacular and not Afro-Asiatic.
 
Zoroaster and Darius and Ferwadousi's "literary" works were efforts to preserve the prized private print properties of the person or IE. copy and mark.  The base input stimuli for the Septuagint was Afro-Asiatic.  What were the Septuagint, Vulgate, Gothic, Armenian words for supreme being for instance.  Were there one's Afro-Asiatic in origin?  Or were they IE.? 
Darius's inscriptions were written before the Septuagint.  The Gathas, same custom, were written after the Septuagint, during the Sassanian period.  Before the New Testament was attested, and attested in the Vulgate using Afro-Asiatic stimuli in morpheme and formula or concept.  This idea of Zoroaster being the son of God was attested, by Greek speakers long before the Vulgate or New Testament was attested.
 
       
 
  


Posted By: Sharrukin
Date Posted: 16-May-2007 at 03:17
Could you go into how Homer's, Hesiod's, and Solon's works were autobiographical histories written in first person, under their authorization.
 
You misunderstood.  I only consider Hesiod as being autobiographical.  I mentioned the others in response to other specifics - Homer for the earliest expression of Greek literature, and Solon for his social, philosophical, and political thought. 
 
So, regarding Hesiod, in his Works and Days, he states that:
 
1.  His father was a sea-borne merchant from Aeolian Cyme, trying to make a living, but was not successful and was forced to settle in Ascra, near Mt. Helicon, in Boeotia.(633-640)
 
2.  He had a foolish brother named Perses (10, 27, and thereafter)
 
3.  He and his brother divided up their father's inheritance, but with bribery, his brother received from the local lords, the greater portion of it. (36-41)
 
4.  His brother, through mischief and idleness lost his inheritance (27-34)
 
5.  He gained his inspiration for song from the Muses of Mt. Helicon (658-659)
 
6.  He won the singing contest for the funeral games of Amphidamas at Chalcis in Euboea.  (654-655)
 
7.  He wrote the Works and Days as an admonishment to his brother Perses. (1-29)
 
The Old Persian inscriptions were written in first person, autobiographical, historical, and authorized by an Old Persian, and the base input stimili of the cognates, morphemes and the concept or formula, basically, the ideograms are rooted in IE. or Irano-Aryan verbal custom or vernacular and not Afro-Asiatic.
 
I would agree with that, except for the "ideograms".  They originated in Mesopotamia, from the Sumerians, who obviously did not speak an IE language, taken over by the Akkadian-speaking peoples (Babylonians and Assyrians), also non-IE peoples, and then adopted by the Persians.
 
And Hesiod was written in the first person, with autobiographical details. 
 
Zoroaster and Darius and Ferwadousi's "literary" works were efforts to preserve the prized private print properties of the person or IE. copy and mark.
 
Doubtful, except for the last.  Darius had his message translated into many languages.  Zoroaster was preserved for mainly religious reasons. 
 
The base input stimuli for the Septuagint was Afro-Asiatic.
 
It was simply a translation of a work originally of the Hebrew and Aramaic languages, and thus does not represent the Greek language at large.  
 
What were the Septuagint, Vulgate, Gothic, Armenian words for supreme being for instance.  Were there one's Afro-Asiatic in origin?  Or were they IE.?
 
Is this even relevant?  These are obviously translations, not original works in their respective languages, hence, nothing is proved or disproved as for any alleged inadequacies.  This is for all intents and purposes, a strawman.  The question itself is set up to ignore other material and restrict it to something everyone knows does not address the true essence of the languages involved.
 
 
Darius's inscriptions were written before the Septuagint.  The Gathas, same custom, were written after the Septuagint, during the Sassanian period.  Before the New Testament was attested, and attested in the Vulgate using Afro-Asiatic stimuli in morpheme and formula or concept.  This idea of Zoroaster being the son of God was attested, by Greek speakers long before the Vulgate or New Testament was attested.
 
And Solon, the sophists, Hesiod, and Homer, (literature and treatises without the so-called "Afro-Asiatic stimuli" are attested before Darius.


Posted By: mojobadshah
Date Posted: 16-May-2007 at 14:57
 
 
Homer's "literary" work was not written down by himself c. 800 B.C.
Hesiod "literary" work was not written down by himself c.700 B.C.
 
Aparently, both both lived centuries before recorded history.  What does that mean?
 
Did Darius live before recorded history?
 
Solon's "literal" works were poetic in nature, and not autobiographical c. 638-558 B.C.
 
And then comes, Darius's "literal" work, right?  Or are their other Greek authorities that were primier to the Persian emperor?  Darius's "literal" work was autobiographical history, fiction.  Not poetry. Not mythology.  Which was written under his, Darius's, authority, while he existed.  Can we say the same about Homer, Hesiod, and Solon?
 
Why would Darius have chosen to mention Avestan Mazda, and not Avestan Zardusht?  Can we be sure that Zardusht was not initially a state designation, and as time passed, developed into new state designations, like Par-Za or Parsa? 
 
 
 
 


Posted By: Sharrukin
Date Posted: 17-May-2007 at 02:05
Homer's "literary" work was not written down by himself c. 800 B.C.
 
All ancient authors are unanimous in ascribing the Illiad to him.  As for his date, c. 750 BC.  The earliest Greek alphabetic inscription, c. 800 BC, hence he belongs to the historical era.  Despite the fact the text betrays an oral tradition (repetitive stock phrases), and despite his reputation as that "blind bard", Greek knowledge of letters was sophisticated enough (the earliest inscriptions were actually word games!!!), since its adoption from Semitic alphabets (which were already used for extensive inscriptions), to have immediately committed this ballad to writing. 
 
Hesiod "literary" work was not written down by himself c.700 B.C.
 
Again, ancient testimony is unanimous in ascribing at least the Works and Days to him.  Since, he also belongs to the period after the earliest Greek alphabetic inscriptions, he also belongs to the historical period.  Now, if he did not write it, then, please prove it!!!  Based upon its internal evidence, the nature and style of Greek obviously belonged to a period after Homer.
 
Aparently, both lived centuries before recorded history.  What does that mean?
 
Apparently you don't know that they did.
 
Did Darius live before recorded history?
 
Does this even warrant an answer?
 
Solon's "literal" works were poetic in nature, and not autobiographical c. 638-558 B.C.
 
Solon wrote on a great deal of different subjects, not just poetical.  Again, I mentioned him not because of "autobiography", but I was focusing on his political philosophy.  Are you having difficulty understanding what I'm writing?
 
And then comes, Darius's "literal" work, right?
 
Correct. 
 
Or are their other Greek authorities that were primier to the Persian emperor?
 
Yes, there were others as well, such as Eumelus, Alcaeus, Sappho, Tyrtaeus, etc.  The whole point was to show that as a group, these more ancient authors demonstrate the wide spectrum of literary expression, from poetry to history to law and philosophy before the time of Darius.  We already have Greek laws written in stone by about 650 BC.
 
Darius's "literal" work was autobiographical history, fiction.
 
Fiction? 
 
Not poetry. Not mythology.  Which was written under his, Darius's, authority, while he existed.  Can we say the same about Homer, Hesiod, and Solon?
 
Yes.  Remember, Solon was also a law-maker.  Hence Greek literary expression also was political. 
 
Why would Darius have chosen to mention Avestan Mazda, and not Avestan Zardusht?
 
 
Not just Darius but all the other Achaemenids as well.  But, to answer your question, the reason for such, probably had to do with the subject matter of his inscriptions.  They were not religious treatises, but political ones.  Mentioning Zarathustra would have been out-of-place.  In his conception of his place in the world, Darius merely needed to mention his deity, in the same manner that all other ancient middle eastern rulers always invoked the name of their deities to help in their endeavors, thus, this is not unusual. 
 
Can we be sure that Zardusht was not initially a state designation, and as time passed, developed into new state designations, like Par-Za or Parsa?
 
There is absolutely no evidence of such for Zoroaster.


Posted By: mojobadshah
Date Posted: 17-May-2007 at 14:59
I hear you loud and clear.  Tell me more about the Greek "literal" works, that are authobiographical "literal" work's authorized and written down by the author of the work, and not recounted by later Greek authors, not mythological, not poetic, and not legal.  First person accounts of history.  I know I said Darius's work is fiction but I meant to say non-fiction.  Very, non-fiction.  Not philosophy.  Not poetry.  Not mythology.  Not legal.   Just the facts.   
 
 
 
 
 
 


Posted By: Sharrukin
Date Posted: 18-May-2007 at 03:02
I've noticed that you have shifted from claims of earliest IE "literacy" to claims of earliest "first person [authorized] accounts of history".  I'm making the assumption that what you mean are Greek political inscriptions of the type like Darius's inscriptions.  I need to point out that such style of inscription was a Middle Eastern phenomenon which the Persians learned from the Babylonians and Assyrians.   Greece in the same period did not have such totalitarian concepts of rulership, as a matter of fact, no such political organization - hence no such inscriptions.   What point are you trying to make?


Posted By: mojobadshah
Date Posted: 18-May-2007 at 20:16
I like the way you put that.  Earliest IE. first person [authorized] accounts of history 'iteral' work.   I'm sure it could be stated better than, even, that.  I did mean a "non-secular" work.  Tell me more about how the Persian inscriptions was a Middle Eastern phenomenon.  
 
Can we be sure that there is no evidence of Irano-Aryan influence on Egypt, Sumaria, and Akkad?  For example: Egyptian Osirus, and Sirius, resemble Avestan Ahura and Tir.  Tigris and Euphrates are Irano-Aryan roots.  Do Summarian documents mention anything IE.?  
 
The Akkadian's borrowed Sumarian script, and the Babylonains from the Akkadians, the Assyrians from the Akkadians, and then the Persian's from the Assyrians?  And, Aramaic script comes, conventionally, from the Phonecians?  
 
What do you mean by style of inscription?    
 
My thinking is that it is important that the IE. authority was a Persian emperor.  An Aryan aristocrat and artisan.  What kind of statement was Darius making?  Why do Western history classes begin in Persia and then tell of Greece.  Or am I mistaken.  


Posted By: Sharrukin
Date Posted: 19-May-2007 at 03:24
I like the way you put that.  Earliest IE. first person [authorized] accounts of history 'iteral' work.   I'm sure it could be stated better than, even, that.  I did mean a "non-secular" work.
 
Now, I'm even more confused.  You want me to give an example of a "non-secular" work, you mean a religious one?  I thought you wanted me to give an example of a "factual" one.  
 
Tell me more about how the Persian inscriptions was a Middle Eastern phenomenon. 
 
The type of inscription that Behistun is, can be compared to similar ones by the Babylonians and Assyrians, in which the king, who refers to himself in the first person declares that he did this and that in his xth year of his reign.  The best examples are those of the Assyrian royal annals, such as the Khorsabad Annals of Sargon II which he dates from his first to thirteenth year of reign.  Thus Sargon starts off as saying "In my first year of reign, I...."  and "[by the will of] Shamash, who causes me to attain victory", etc.  The formulas are quite similar, although the Assyrian inscriptions tend to be more boastful.  Other examples include the Taylor Prism Annals of Sennacherib, the B/S Prism Annals of Essarhaddon, and the Rassam Cylinder Annals of Ashurbanipal. 
 
Can we be sure that there is no evidence of Irano-Aryan influence on Egypt, Sumaria, and Akkad?  For example: Egyptian Osirus, and Sirius, resemble Avestan Ahura and Tir.....
 
In order to even postulate such "influences" we must be able to detect the presence of the authors of such influence.  Theorizing "similarities" of names is never enough.  In the case of "Osiris", (ancient Egyptian, Wosir we find an Afro-Asiatic etymology meaning either "old" or "to die".  The latter is in bearing with the deity being the god of "death" as well as with resurrection and fertility.  The latter name "Sirius" is simply the Greek name for the star known to the Egyptians as Sopdet, known in Greek transliteration as Sothis.  Hence, no true Aryan connection necessary.
 
Tigris and Euphrates are Irano-Aryan roots.
 
Yes they are, but they only date from the time of Persian dominance.  Their Assyro-Babylonian names were Purattu (Euphrates) and Indiglat (Tigris). 
 
Do Summarian documents mention anything IE.? 
 
There has not been any study to confirm anything IE.  This is due in part for the fact that there is no evidence of an IE population being neighbors to the Sumerians.  To the west were Semitic-speaking populations, to the north, more Semitic-speaking populations as well as Hurrian-speaking populations, and to the east, Elamitic-speaking populations.  Because the Sumerian language has no relationship to any of these other languages, it is considered a language-isolate. 
 
The Akkadian's borrowed Sumarian script, and the Babylonains from the Akkadians, the Assyrians from the Akkadians, and then the Persian's from the Assyrians?
 
Actually, perhaps the immediate inspiration for Persian cuneiform was either the Assyrian or the Babylonian scripts but with hardly any corresponding sound system.  While the "style" of the script was "cuneiform" the characters themselves were differently formed and original values were assigned to these new signs, in the same way that while Japanese characters are similar to Chinese ones (which were the obvious inspiration to them), these were differently formed. 
 
And, Aramaic script comes, conventionally, from the Phonecians?
 
Yes.  
 
What do you mean by style of inscription? 
 
Autobiographical, historical, first-person, annalistic, mentioning divine intervention, justice against the rebels, admonishment to those who read it, etc.   
 
My thinking is that it is important that the IE. authority was a Persian emperor.  An Aryan aristocrat and artisan.
 
I fail to see why "IE authority" required imperial inspiration.  The Greek "literature" certainly did not require any.  Besides, it this is the case then, it required "IE authority" to leave inscriptions in several languages, chief among these being Aramaic, a non-IE language.  Hence, nothing suggests that such authority made OP any more "authoritative" than any other language.  Aramaic is the chiefest proof of this being spread to every part of the Empire by the emperors.  
 
What kind of statement was Darius making?
 
In the final analysis, simply a declaration of his power through the justification of the course of events he describes. 
 
Why do Western history classes begin in Persia and then tell of Greece.  Or am I mistaken.
 
Mainly to keep a certain chronological and regional scheme.  The earliest history is "Middle Eastern" from the Sumerians and Egyptians, down to the Persians.  Then it shifts to "Europe" with the Cretans (Minoans) and the Mycenaeans and then to the Archaic and Classical Greeks, etc. 


Posted By: mojobadshah
Date Posted: 21-May-2007 at 16:25
Darius's inscription was factual, and he mentioned Mazda, the progenator of man.  His inscriptions were not a legal document, poetry, mythology, or even philosphy.  It was an authentic IE. autobiographical history and "literal" work of art.   
 
I see your point.  Darius's style is similar to Sargon II's. 
 
Unless, one consider's that Zoroaster's "literal" work was composed before Sargon's, and, therefore Sargon's II's "literal" style is similar to Zoroaster's, right?
 
Sargon was allied with the IE. Cimmerians, and the place name, Assyria, and the invocation, Assur, resemble the Irano-Aryan Asura or Ahura, as in Ahuramazda.
 
What evidence is there that the Aramaic language was being spoken, before the Old Persian inscriptions? 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


Posted By: Sharrukin
Date Posted: 22-May-2007 at 02:16
Darius's inscription was factual, and he mentioned Mazda, the progenator of man.  His inscriptions were not a legal document, poetry, mythology, or even philosphy.  It was an authentic IE. autobiographical history and "literal" work of art. 
 
You still have not told us what is the point this claim.  
 
Unless, one consider's that Zoroaster's "literal" work was composed before Sargon's, and, therefore Sargon's II's "literal" style is similar to Zoroaster's, right?
 
I can take this even earlier than Sargon II's.  Sargon II was merely an example.  We have the Calah Annals of Tiglathpileser III (744-727 BC), the Calah Annals of Adad-nirari III (810-782 BC), the Monolith Annals of Shamshi-Adad III (823-811 BC), the Black Obelisk Annals of Shalmaneser III (858-824 BC), the Ninurta Temple Annals of Ashurnasirpal (883-859 BC), the Annals of Tukulti-Ninurta II (890-884 BC), the Assur Annals of Adad-nirari II (911-891 BC), the Prism Annals of Tiglathpileser II (c. 1114-1076 BC), the Assur Palace Annals of Tukulti-Ninurta I (c. 1243-1207 BC), the Temple Annals of Shalmaneser I (c. 1273-1244 BC), the Annals of Adad-nirari I(c. 1305-1274 BC), and this annalistic trend among the Assyrians probably began with Arik-den-ili (c. 1317-1306 BC). 
 
Anticidents to even these include the annalistic introduction to the Hittite-Mitannian treaty by Shuppiluliumash I (c. 1380-1344 BC), and the War Annals of Thutmose III (c. 1479-1425 BC), although these last were in the third-person.  The more ancient annalistic traditions were probably not "autobiographical" but written in the reigns of their sons and successors.
 
As far as comparing Zoroaster with any of these, there is simply no comparison.  Zoroaster is not even in that tradition or style.
 
Sargon was allied with the IE. Cimmerians, and the place name, Assyria, and the invocation, Assur, resemble the Irano-Aryan Asura or Ahura, as in Ahuramazda.
 
Sargon was not in alliance with the Cimmerians.  As a matter of fact, he was killed by the Cimmerians!!! 
 
Here is another one of those 'similarities' with no basis of fact.  The name Assur, dates from at least the 25th century BC.  We know of several references to this city in the archives of Ebla and Mari, where a king of Mari styled himself "King of Mari and Assur" and that not long afterwards, the king of Ebla had a treaty with the king of Assur.  This was a time when Semitic populations inhabited the region with Hurrian-speaking populations inhabiting further north and west, and probably east.  There is no evidence of an IE presence during this period.
 
What evidence is there that the Aramaic language was being spoken, before the Old Persian inscriptions? 
 
Again, the earliest Aramaic inscriptions date from the 10th century BC at Tell Halaf (ancient Guzana) where the Aramaic king Kapara had an inscription made in Aramaic.  He is dated thus, because there is no apparent Neo-Assyrian influence in its artefacts in this period.  It did not conquer Guzana until about 894 BC. 



Print Page | Close Window