Ishwa helper Reged: 03/03/02 Posts: 553

Re: Aryans [Re: Lhotse] #12891 - 03/03/02 09:19 AM Edit Reply Quote

Correct, Lhotse, but the only problem with the term Iranian is that it is not correct. With that term many languages are covered, which might not be Iranian at all. The Pashtuni/Pakhtuni language has many relations with Persian, but is a local Afghani-Pakistani language, whith automatically many agreements with Indian languages. The Avestan language is now believed to be from Aryana-Afghanistan, and not Iran. Zarathushtra mentions many places which are only to be found in the regions beyond Iran proper. Many conscious Afghani feel really offended by the notion of being part of an Irani group, for they know that Dari has more links with the older Avestan than with Old-Persian. The Avestan language in its oldest Gathic component is very close to Sanskrit, which Old-Persian (from 6th century BC cuneiform inscriptions) isn't. I would like to see the case of Scythian-Shaka people investigated, who must be the Tuirya of the Avesta. In the Kashmirian chronicle the Turushka are called a Shaka tribe. We might see some glimpses of Turu-Tuirya in that name and also the ending shka for shaka or shk-uthai (scyth). Maybe this is a fanciful etymology, but it is worthwile to investigate. If true, than the Shaka people (they also called themselves Arya, which we can find in the name of a tribe, the Alana from Aryana) were different from the 'Irani' group, and maybe more related to the Greek group, who are as Yavana called as of Turvasu descent. All I want to say is that established academic terminologies aren't necessarily the correct ones.