Talk:Indo-Iranians/Archive 1

Indian/zoroastrians
Dbachmann: Veda monotheism can be argued from the famous sentence "Truth is One, though the sages know it variously". Hinduism derives all its current monotheism from that sentence. From a western point of view, the veda (and hinduism) proliferation in the number of gods can make us think to politheism, while in the indian culture a god is something less than the supreme being (brahman). You can't contest Abram collocation in 2100 bce because this is the more ancient of the many possible accredited ones. On the other side, it is true that you can collocate veda in 1500 bce and avesta in 1200 bce (in their oral tradition), but they both were deriving from elder traditions, that can be collocated even further earlier (3102 bce for ancient indian doctrines, and i don't know but for sure long before of zarathustra for the persian one). Now, in my sentence I had said "MAY", not "HAVE", and then it, just as a possibility, should be maintained. Also this is not fruit of my brain but it is normal doctrine in zoroastrian churches. They also say that judaism was created by moses, reading the past history of abram's family from a religious point of view, as abram himself had not done, or that abram learnt monotheism in current iraq, where he was born, but didn't understand it well, and then exported it to judaism. This last part i must agree with you seems pure fantasy, but the first part can still be possible. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.227.198.226 (talk) 12:56, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism#Historical_importance

- formative links to both Western Abrahamic and Eastern Dharmic religious traditions

- Zoroastrianism had a large influence on Judaism, Manichaeism, and Christianity because of Persia's connections to the Roman Empire and because of its earlier control over Israel under rulers such as Cyrus II the Great, Darius the Great and Xerxes I. Mithraism also developed from Zoroastrianism.

- By the 6th century, Zoroastrianism had spread to northern China via the Silk Road, gaining official status in a number of Chinese states (then confucianism could be understood as a development of Chinese zoroastrianism)

- Should it be before 1300 BCE (prior to Akhenaten) then Zoroaster would be the earliest monotheist known in any religion ... note that they are going far more than what i said... they are forgetting abram... but still zoroaster is not as old as the monotheistic tradition that he already found at his birth

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroaster

- Indo-Iranian religion is generally accepted to have its roots in the 3rd millennium, but Zoroaster himself did already look back on a long religious tradition

http://avesta.org/zfaq.html

- These are not works of instruction, but inspired, passionate utterances, many of them addressed directly to God; and their poetic form is a very ancient one, which has been traced back (through Norse parallels) to Indo-European times.

Then, as a matter of "MAY" (supposition" exposure of a possibility of a doctrine that is not of my invention and creation but is already present both on wikipedia and on the website of avesta, it should be kept.

Tell me your answers, and if i am wrong i will be pleased to learn some more from you! By. Luca — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.227.198.226 (talk) 13:12, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

rationale
vandalism by Crculver - Hmm. this user removed a sourced section, and blanked a paragraph, then edited one to reflect his WP:OR.`Bakaman Bakatalk 23:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I apologise for that one, in the easydiff view I missed the second paragraph. I have no major objections to the version you have reinstated, although one must mention that only Elst and his school support the theory today. If there is no record of peer-reviewed scholarship by multiple scholars, it is a fringe theory and WP rules of proportionality require that it be labelled such. CRCulver 23:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Genetics
under genetic section, that starts off as in 2004, ...etc

ancient/native Kazakhs were not of European origin, but the sentence seems to phrase it in that approach, Europeans came during the Soviet Union and make up only 25% of the country currently Nursingxmajor (talk) 08:34, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Origins
Should this use of "Iranian" have been "Indo-Iranian" ? I notice that some authors shorten the latter to just "Iranian." Kautilya3 (talk) 10:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess so; "Iranian" is the subgroup that "appeared" after the split between "Indo-Aryans" and "Indo-Iranians", as far as I know. you're the expert; what do you say?   Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   10:30, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I've only just noticed this! I think it should be yes, since "early" Indians could mean anyone from India, including the many non-IE Indian peoples. 20:03, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Typical Western Speculation
There has simply never been any solid, or even fair, evidence to refute that the Iranian people were, more or less, indigenous to their homelands. It seems to be a typical move by western historians to accredit ancient civilizations with Europe. The truth is that Andronovo shares almost no similarity to the earliest Iranian cultures, and BMAC shares little and vague commonalities. As the administrator of "Racial Reality" blogged, "There is about as much evidence that supports the Plains Indians as the Proto-Indo-Iranians, as there is to support the BMAC or Andronovo civilizations". Furthermore, there are plenty of cultures on the Iranian plateau, probably some that haven't even been unearthed, that date back far before the Andronovo, Steepe, BMAC or YAZ, and given the gradual South-North warming of the earth at the end of the ice age (and high population density), it's more likely that these cultures had a northwardly influence. In other words, it is certainly more plausible to the objective mind, that the earlier cultures of the Iranian plateau had an influence on central asian cultures.

LGM maps show that Iran was habitable, albeit cold, throughout the ice age. In cave remains, there is a continuity in skeletal remains, clearly suggesting that the proto-Iranian was evolving during the ice age. This later became the ancestor to the white man. Genetic evidence, supports this scenario. The area about the Iranian plateau gives birth to more (if not all) Caucasoid specific haplogroups (J, R, perhaps, I) than, anywhere else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zadeh79 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

what does "western" have to do with this? And, for that matter, the LGM? The LGM was more than 10 kya. The BMAC was 4kya. That's closer to the present day than to the LGM. --dab (𒁳) 13:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The article is based on the western viewpoint and falls under the umbrella of "western" propoganda - which unfortunately, a lot of people like youreself, buy in to. The LGM has a lot to do with this, because after post-glacial melting of ice, a water mass resulted over present day Dasht e kavir (N. Central IRan), and populations were forced to move outwards from the Iranian plateau. This reflects a Neolithic movement which may have lasted as late as 4K B.C.

But what is partially reflected by R1a* (ancesteral to R1a1 that magically appeared from the steepes, in the western version) that is present in Eastern Iran, is a movement outwards from the Plateau, and likely due to high population densities. Other Y haplogruops certain to be Iranian include R1b* M343 (another Aryan haplogroup - formed in a zone through E. Turkey, NW. Iran, and the lower Caucaus states), haplogroup G, which ultimately formed Caucaus populations, and Haplorgroup J. In fact, a recent study, again found IJ* linker in Iran. The late expansion, of IE speakers out of Iran seems consistent with studies of population dynamics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.16.113.3 (talk) 22:18, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * There has simply never been any solid, or even fair evidence, that the Iranian people were, not indigenous to their homelands.
 * Nice way to start off, unintentionally telling the facts. Indeed, there is no such evidence, and plenty of contradicting arguments, that's why the Iranians are generally held to be intrusive to the region.
 * But if the Paleolithic Continuity Theory rocks your boat (Anglo-Saxon cavemen FTW!), then be my guest, just keep your hands off article space.
 * That said, you'll have to duke this one out with your Hindutva colleagues. They think that any theory that does not derive the Iranians from India is "typical Western speculation", too. Whoops!
 * What's your take on the genetic evidence for blond Indo-Iranians, BTW? Blond cavemen in Ice-Age Iran? Tee-hee.
 * Plains Indians didn't have horses before the 16th century, BTW. Another whoopsie (which elucidates how pathetic your quoted attempt at snark is).
 * Back to more serious matters, I'd be interested in how frameworks other than Kurgan and Out-of-India (and PCT, because I have to assume they simply assume that the Indo-Iranians have always been there, even where historical evidence shows they have not) view the emergence of the Indo-Iranian languages. Renfrew, Gamkrelidze–Ivanov? What's your take on Indo-Iranian, guys? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the OP, as the blogger Dienikes Pontikos once said, "there is about as much evidence that the BMAC's are Indo-Iranian, as there is that the Plain's Indians were". Western Philosophy tends to 'Westernize' their origins, as much as possible, and one strategy towards achieving this has apparently been to Easternize other nations, and Iran has been a target for of this for quite some time. In contrast to the more typical, deluded (and I would have to suggest, self-hating) view of history, such as the one Florian Blaschke upholds, most modern population genetics clearly support Iran as a source of major Caucasoid evolution, and there are also some very strong candidate genes for IE (Haplogroup J2, R1*, R1b*), that are traceable to the Iranian plateau. It's not surprising that some scholars have even suggested that reverse hypothesis; That outward migrations from the plateau, accounted for formation of IE speaking populations in Europe, Central Asia, and India (with India, it's likely secondary, "Gedrosian" movements, helped forge linguistic similarities). In fact, as a result of the scant evidence for it, many scholars today, refute the BMAC/Andronovo theory, altogether. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.41.122.130 (talk) 17:24, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * This does not even make sense. Firstly you, along with "blogger Dienikes Pontikos", are confusing "race" with language. The term "Indo-Iranians" simply means speakers of that language. Their 'origins' simply means the history of the spread of the language. Most Australian aboriginals speak English. That does not mean that their race originated in England. Whether or not 'Caucasoid' identity orginated in Iran is largely irrelevant to the separate question of where the language came from (which would have been much much later than the adaptive evolution of a morphological racial-type). Why any of this should have anything to do with being "self hating" is a mystery. Every ethnic identity you can think of ultimately involves migrations from somewhere else. Paul B (talk) 20:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * It looks like you haven't noticed that this article is more than just about language. The article clearly suggests that the Indo-Iranians were an ethnic group (a population) - it's not just talking about language.  It supports an archaic hypothesis, that is considered no longer viable by a number of prominent geneticists and archaeologists.  Dienikes Pontikos' quote is based on the lack of evidence based on genetics, language, archaeology, and culture.  It's not a mystery: any European who refutes the Near Eastern origin of Caucasians (including the gross abundance of European genes), despite clear genetic and archaeological evidence, can only be described as self-hating.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.41.122.130 (talk) 13:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, and ethnic group or population is not the same thing as a "race". Language only exists because there is a group of people who speak it. But they don't have to be of a single race in a biological sense. That does not mean one would not expect a significant degree of genetic continuity, as language-groups tend, for obvious reasons, to be endogamous. How "refuting" the "near eastern" origin of Caucasians is self-hating, still remains a mystery for the simple reason that what you say makes no sense. "Caucasian" is just a term for a particular human morphology or "type". It doesn't matter to anyone where it originated, any more than it matters where the first human with blue eyes was living at the time. It's kinda interesting, but of no personal relevance to anyone with blue eyes. Saying it happened one place rather than another does not logically make anyone self-hating. In any case, none of this has anything to do with the origin of Indo-Iranian languages. Paul B (talk) 13:55, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I can assure you, it makes a lot of sense, but you are simply in no capacity to understand it. And if you did, it would be unlikely that you would admit what is plainly true. This article attempts to make a fruitless argument that "Indo-Iranians"; whether considered as linguistic, ethnic (sub-racially), or cultural group, came from the Steepe or BMAC region - and there is very little evidence, of any type, to support such an argument. And it is quite a logical assertion to say that, individuals who refute genetic inheritance through, what is quite obviously, their ancestral populations, are self-hating. There isn't much to discuss with you, because you are apparently neither rational or empirical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.41.122.130 (talk) 14:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I understand what you say perfectly. It's just nonsense. For some nationalistic reason you want to believe that "Caucasians" originated in Iran (or at least in the "middle east"). You confuse that with the origin of Indo-Iranians (i.e. speakers of a sub-set of Indo-European languages). This is like arguing that the "English" can't have orginated in Germanic Northern Europe, because there were already "Caucasians" in Britain before the Anglo-Saxons. It's totally illogical. You then seem to think that Europeans who deny the Iranian origins of "Caucasians" are somehow "self hating", presumably because Caucasians who hate other Caucasians are hating themselves. That's even sillier. No-one is "hating" anyone, and even if they did it's perfectly possible to hate people who are related to you. Many people do. In World War II many people in Poland and Russia hated Germans. The fact that they were also "Causasians" doesn't invalidate reasons for hating them. What you say is simply so confused that argument is indeed unlikely to penetrate. The evidence for the steppe origin in IE is certainly not irrefutable, but it's the best model that exists, and it doesn't involve hating anyone, and has very little to do with 'race'. Most people in the world really don't care where any language group originated. Have you noticed that Arabs and Jews, who are certainly experts at hating each-other, never seem to think that disputing the geographical origin of the Afro-Asiatic languages is a matter of the slightest concern to them? Paul B (talk) 15:37, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

If you understand, then you know it's not nonsense, unlike the English/Germanic N. Europe analogy, which can be owed to your ignorance and confusion. Let me spell it out in a linear fashion: If it's true that West Asians are/were primary Caucasoids, whom are ancestral to Europeans, North Africans, and Middle Easterners, and South Asians, then it's also true that Europeans (as well as the other groups), as they can genetically be defined today, or at anytime in the past, cannot or could not have ever been, primary Caucasians. Because this is too much for some folks to accept, as it presents antagony against their own Eurocentric notions, although they can rationally acknowledge this, they make their best attempt to reject it. But although, they can lie to others, as they present their corrupted views of history which conceal such realities, they cannot lie to themselves. So inside, they are hurt by the fact that they are not the products of Paleolithic ancestors ("straight out of Africa", so to speak), whom walked straight into Europe. And often such hurt turns to an internalized blaming, known as self-hatred. It's either that, or they are self-deluded, and start to create and propagate fabricated versions of history. A somewhat less common symptom of those in denial. Take your pick...... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.21.249.45 (talk) 00:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

BMAC is not Indo-iranian
the affiliation is theorized but have no value as BMAC is a unique and separate culture with no trace of "Indo-iranianity". http://www.archaeologyonline.net/artifacts/19th-century-paradigms.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nirjhara (talk • contribs) 03:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes the Indians and Iranians are mostly pure Aryan people, who probably split from a common Central Asian and neighboring Northwestern Indian subcontinent Aryan ancestor in about 10000 BC. We must only rely on Rigveda and Avesta the rest names do not exist for us and are planted to create a confusion.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.175 (talk) 15:39, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, and sorry you have to point out a fact that is so obvious. I can tell you that the genetic data certainly doesn't support the nearly random suggestion, that BMAC, Andronova, or YAZ cultures, are proto-Iranian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.16.113.3 (talk) 22:44, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

"We must only rely on Rigveda and Avesta the rest names do not exist for us and are planted to create a confusion.''

Your kidding right? typical indian propaganda instructing an ad-homiem to deny anything but his indian books have to say. Going by the rigveda, you know it painted Aryans as outsiders right? So how can indians and iranains on a whole descend from Aryans who mostly left their culture behind and not a genetic one? where is your proof for this? And the BMAC was most definetly a proto-iranian culture, this is where the indo-european languages originated from.Akmal94 (talk) 03:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Skepticism regarding 'indo-iranian' origins.
The Andronovo/BMAC/YAZD hypothesis is not well supported, thought it has long been suggested......

This is straight from the BMAC article:

A significant section of the archaeologists are more inclined to see the culture as begun by farmers in the Near Eastern Neolithic tradition, but infiltrated by Indo-Iranian speakers from the Andronovo culture in its late phase, creating a hybrid. In this perspective, Proto-Indo-Aryan developed within the composite culture before moving south into the Indian subcontinent.[14] As James P. Mallory phrased it:

It has become increasingly clear that if one wishes to argue for Indo-Iranian migrations from the steppe lands south into the historical seats of the Iranians and Indo-Aryans that these steppe cultures were transformed as they passed through a membrane of Central Asian urbanism. The fact that typical steppe wares are found on BMAC sites and that intrusive BMAC material is subsequently found further to the south in Iran, Afghanistan, Nepal, India and Pakistan, may suggest then the subsequent movement of Indo-Iranian-speakers after they had adopted the culture of the BMAC.[19]

The Indian archaeologist B. B. Lal has seriously questioned the BMAC and Indo-Iranian connection, and disputed the proclaimed relations.[20] Others maintain there is insufficient evidence for any ethnic or linguistic identification of the BMAC solely based on material remains, in the absence of written records.[21] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:882:100:D7B0:3CD9:3E01:463A:B1D2 (talk) 13:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Then where was there homeland? Do you mean they didn't migrate from Central Asia to South Asia and Iranian plateau? If Central Asia was not homeland of Iranic tribes, then how they appeared in Persia? From where? Can you give us a clarification about their origins instead of your repetitive comments on Indo-European talk pages? Out of India? Anatolian theory? --118.70.151.179 (talk) 17:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


 * A NW Iranian hypothesis, Armenian highland, or Anatolian, are all solid alternatives. At this point, claiming Indo-Iranians came from the Steppe is pure speculation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:882:100:EF90:9F6:663C:7564:4448 (talk) 06:45, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for noticing Lal; he's not WP:RS. I'll remove him from the BMAC-article. The hypotheses mentioned are not solid alternatives.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   08:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

rename of article
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Iranians = wrong
 * Indo-Iranians peoples is correct

pls see it: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aryanic_languages&redirect=no and :
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indo-Aryans&redirect=no — Preceding unsigned comment added by Callofworld (talk • contribs) 14:26, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Aryanic people
Indo-Iranian peoples, also known as Indo-Iranic peoples or Aryanic peoples or Aryan peoples by scholars, Indo-Iranic = Aryanic

pls add Aryanic to article with this source : http://cura.free.fr/xv/14boutet.html - One of its two stars, much like our own Sun, is on the white spectrum while the other is of a yellow-red tinge. Did not Enmerkar, the Sumerian king of Uruk have gifts of silver and gold to offer the Aryan overlord of Chariots? It is therefore possible that these two stars were not as close then as they are now. If one looks closer at the Sumerian legends, one finds many overlapping details with those of the Aryanic peoples. The wild-man of the Gilgamesh cycle for example, bears much resemblance with those found in Scandinavian, Celtic and Vedic myths. This takes us to the imagery found in astrology as well as in I.E. mythology. [16] The Rig Veda, selected, translated and annotated by Wendy Doniger O'Flaherty, 1.160 Vs 1-5, p. 203. « Text


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indo-Iranians&oldid=766316586 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Callofworld (talk • contribs) 18:24, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * thanks

Unreferenced sections
There are several parts that currently have no references. I included "cititation needed tags", but if someone has access to reliable sources, please include them. I will try to find more references about that but every help is welcome.--AsadalEditor (talk) 09:48, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Category:Indo-Iranian-speaking countries and territories
It is currently being proposed that Category:Indo-Iranian-speaking countries and territories be deleted. This article is related to that category. The relevant discussion is located at Categories for discussion/Log/2020 January 8. The deletion discussion would benefit from input from editors with a knowledge of and interest in Indo-Iranians. Krakkos (talk) 12:08, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Removed reference to EDIIIA carts and horses
After mentioning that the Indo Europeans introduced chariot warfare to the Near East, it said that chariots and horses were already known in Sumer. Gigir, however, was a slow moving 4 wheeled war cart, usually pulled by oxen. Horses were known in early Mesopotmia, but weren't used commonly for warfare until much later. These things are from William Hamblin, Ancient Warfare in the Near East to 1600 B.C. 64.222.113.252 (talk) 23:49, 6 March 2020 (UTC) John Dee

No mention of Rig Veda/Merv history
Add this

According to the Rig Veda, Vedic Aryans migrated from Meru to invade and settle the Indo-gangetic plains, and introduced Sanskrit to the region. Margiana, also known as Merv/Merw/Meru, in Turkmenistan, is the plausible homeland of Vedic Aryans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.190.155 (talk • contribs) 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Note: See follow-up. To avoid repitition, lets continue any discussion at Talk:Sanskrit. Abecedare (talk) 14:39, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:01, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * IE expansion.png

Removal of content
, check the references, all the words are mentioned in references, I am giving the references again, and I request toddy1 to check the references. 103.134.25.90 (talk) 14:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Only the cognates are mentioned, not the reconstructed Proto-Indo-Iranian terms. Do not add the Proto-Indo-Iranian terms without first having a source. Chariotrider555 (talk) 14:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)


 * this link can help finding out Indo-Iranian words. 103.134.25.90 (talk) 15:15, 3 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Dyáuṣ Pitṛ́ and Bṛhaspati are not cognates. Dyaush derives from Proto-Indo-European Dyeus, whereas Brhaspati derives from the BMAC substrate. Also neither Dyaush or Brhaspati originally meant Jupiter. Dyaush is the sky deity, and Brhaspati was originally a sage deity. Additionally from Gandarewa to Asman, the Sanskrit and Avestan words are flip flopped, and that needs to be fixed. Also nowadays the Avestan equivalent of Vayu is more commonly written as Vaiiu. Chariotrider555 (talk) 15:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You can fix or remove the contents what you are talking about, but not all, see this link, it can also help. 103.134.25.90 (talk) 15:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * By the way, do you know, what is the meaning of "Puramdhi"? 103.134.25.90 (talk) 16:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Cognate Terms
I have removed the cognate terms for now as most of them could not be liked to the listed sources. I would like to readd them to the article with the proper articles. Would Wiktionary's etymologies be acceptable? I am pretty sure they wouldn't be though, because sourcing other wikis is almost always unacceptable, and Wiktionary does not provide any sources for their etymologies. Chariotrider555 (talk) 17:16, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

user:Chariotrider555 i reverted your edit as it seemed deconstructive. please add a citation needed template instead of removing entire sections thank you.Pseudo Nihilist (talk) 17:24, 1 February 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock Chariotrider555 (talk) 13:38, 5 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Well if you want to keep it, you it is your WP:BURDEN to find a source for it. In the interim you may leave a tag for it, but it is YOUR responsibility to find sources for it if you want to restore that content. Chariotrider555 (talk) 17:30, 1 February 2021 (UTC)