|↓||Skip to table of contents||↓|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Indo-Iranians article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
BMAC is not Indo-iranian
the affilation 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)
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 220.127.116.11 (talk) 22:44, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
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!
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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)
Typical Western Speculation
There has simply never been any solid, or even fair, evidence 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 18.104.22.168 (talk) 22:18, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- There has simply never been any solid, or even fair, evidence that the Iranian people were, more or less, 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)
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)