Ancient Persian influence on Hinduism
Ruby Lilaowala | Friday, August 17, 2007 10:28:58 IST
The Aryan settlers who lived in Persia and later, in India, had a lot in common by way of phonetics, language, spirituality and reverence for nature…
Hinduism pertains to Hindus but the word Hindu itself is actually a Persian word coined by Cyrus the great in the 6th century B.C. to describe people who lived beyond the river Indus which was the eastern boundary of the ancient Persian empire. The Persians had a phonetic problem with the letter ‘S’ hence, Sindhu became Hindu just as Rigveda’s Soma came from Zend Avesta’s Hoama. Such fascinating phonetic affinities!
Even the word Shudra in Hinduism’s caste-system came from the Persian word Hatoksha. Originally, there were only three castes but the camp followers collected by Persians on their travels were called Hatokshas. The Romans, who separated from the original Aryanstock at a much earlier date than the Brahmins called fire Athar. In old Sanskrit, lightning is called Atharvan. In ancient Persia Arthvan meant a priest and this word evolved to become Brahmin.
Persian herders of cattle were called Vastrayosh and after they settled down from their nomadic existence to become cultivators and later, traders, the word evolved into Hinduism’s Vaishya caste. In the Vedas, waters are called Apo-Devi and in the Avesta, Apo-Vanghuish. Also, the prominent deities of the Rig Veda like Surya, Varun and Aryaman have come from the Avesta.
In fact, originally, the Rig Veda was written in the Kharoshti script which like Persian is written backwards i.e. from right to left. The Brahmi script came much later and our Devnagri script even later than Brahmi. In Lemuria, Atlantis and Babylon, there was the Akhadian script, found on Babylonian tablets during excavations, from which the Pali script evolved. This is why, since ancient Persia was the melting-pot of civilisations, Sanskrit sounds like old Persian e.g. Veeg the seed became the Sanskritised Beej.
The Aryan settlers who lived in Persia and later, in India, had a lot in common by way of phonetics, language, spirituality and reverence for nature. The five elements of nature called Panchamahabhoot were worshipped, with fire and it’s apex in ancient India. This idea came from Persia and the oldest religion in the world viz. Zorastrianism which as and still is, the most eco-friendly religion in the world. It is a cardinal sin for a Parsi to defile any of nature’s elements which is why, a corpse, a filthy shell after it’s pranic energy has left it, is never to be burnt on fire. That would be a grave sin to the element of agni.
Rather, a Parsi feeds the fire within a fire-temple with sweet-smelling sandalwood and frankincense.
Persian warriors were called ratheshwars, and this word evolved into kshatriyas. Even wars were fought in a noble fashion through there’s nothing noble about a war to my way of thinking. In the ancient world, man lived with nature. He depended on nature for his food, shelter and livelihood. To him, the forces of nature and her five elements appeared to be pulsating with life. The sun, moon, stars, clouds, earth, springs, rivers, oceans, trees, grass, flowers were, he believed, presided over by invisible intelligences which is a cosmic fact. Geofrey Hodsun has proved this through his clairvoyant theosophical books.
In return for nature’s bounties and blessings, man gave homage which took the form of the various hymns and prayers in the Avesta as well as the Rig Veda. Hence, there are so many similarities and spiritual parallels between Ancient Persian theology and that of the pre-vedic and vedic times. The Persian Goddess of water was Ahurani, similar to the vedic Asurani. Feeding the sacred fire was common to the Persians as well as the pre-vedic society. So many similarities, so much in common, because, in the final analysis, it’s the same supreme energy we all worship!
This looks totally oposite…Persian words comes from hindu…because the sanscriti start from India…
The writer makes incorrect conclusions. The Avestan and Old persian words are derived from Sanskrit and Proto-sanskrit. Not the other way around. Note that the Vedas (circa 2000 BC to 1500 BC) predate Zarathustra.
Please remove this post. It is full of inaccuracies. No historian has ever said that Sanskrit words are derived from Persian, or that the Aryans came from Persia to India. The author tries to make a case that Hinduism is derived from Zoroastrianism, which has no historical backing whatsoever. Please check your references before writing such articles.
I agree, this article is full of inaccuracies. Sanskrit and Avesta belong to P.I.E faily ie. Proto Indo-European languages.The Indo-European languages comprise a family of several hundred related languages and dialects, including most of the major languages of Europe, the northern Indian subcontinent (South Asia), the Iranian plateau (Southwest Asia), and much of Central Asia.
Of the top 20 contemporary languages in terms of speakers according to SIL Ethnologue, 12 are Indo-European: Spanish, English, Hindi, Portuguese, Bengali, Russian, German, Marathi, French, Italian, Punjabi and Urdu, accounting for over 1.6 billion native speakers. The Indo-Iranian languages form the largest sub-branch of Indo-European in terms of the number of native speakers as well as in terms of the number of individual languages. There is no Basis on which anyone can claim that Avesta influenced Sanskrit or vice versa.
As for the similarity in rituals, its solely because pre zoroastrian aryans and pre vedic aryans followed the same rituals back home in Central Asia before parting ways.
As for having hindu sounding Gods in Avesta, its again nothing more than pre zoroatrian Mithra influence which our common ancestors religiously followed as Aryans and even retained after they converted to zoroastrianism. Infact it points to the fact that though zoroastrians keep parroting “Purity” and “Monotheism” there isn’t much of that in reality.
Btw, the most popular name amongst the Zoroastrians – Mehr or Meher comes from pre zoroastrian Mithra diety. Mithra and Varun were sons of In Da Ra or Indra [all revered as original Aryan divinities much before Vedic or Zoroastrianism came into existence ]. Incidently, Zoroaster had opposed the worship of Mithra for which he was persecuted in his home town. The same Mithra reappeared in Avesta and in number of our rituals as the holiest deity and latter corruption to “Meher”, just 200 years after Zoroaster was gone. Speaks volumes about pre zoroastrian pre iranic influence over persian’s religion rather than persians influencing others.
And last but not the least Persians factually were aryan warrior tribe called “Parsua” from Central Asia who invaded present day Iran which was originally called Elam.
Im just reconstructing my reply thats posted above, as i felt it needs to have more detail to get the points across.
First, the above replies by Rk and Bharat, that boost of Sanskrit being the source of influence over Avesta and Persians is as frivolous and rediculous as saying Avesta influenced Sanskrit, just because both the languages have words that overlap in meanings and sound.
Common features, especially common words, shared by many of the languages used in Europe, India, and Asia, led scholars to believe that these languages may have developed from the same source.
That source language was never written down and is now extinct, but it has a name: it is called the “Proto Indo-European” language (“PIE”), and the family of languages believed to have developed from it is called “Indo-European” (“IE”). Sanskrit and Avesta both came from the same source[P.I.E. grp of lang], so its very likely they both have similarities. That hardly means Hinduism influenced Persians or vice versa. Besides just as any other religion, Hinduism is concoction of number of diversed ideas and schools of thought. Some of which are foreign.
There is enough evidence to show that Aryan warrior tribes, who were once inhabitant of Central Asian lands, split into two warring camps- Devas and Ahuras, and migrated to indianic plains and Iranian Plains[ called Elam] respectively, to escape harsh climatic conditions back home. These migrating Aryans brought with them their culture, their language and their Gods. Over the period, these new settlers mixed with the natives and adapted their culture, their languages and their Gods to creat an independent cultures but with similarities with their original beliefs and dogmas.
So most of the similarities that you see in the rituals of Hindus and Zoroastrians is because of the aesthetics, ideology and fundamental that they inheritated from their common ancestors-Aryans.
One such doctrine was of Indra as a supreme one God with two sons, Mitra and Varuna. The Mitra worship and animal sacrifies formed the basis of the cult back than as the way to please the chief God Indra.
While the Deva (Vedic) Aryans retained the original names of Gods and rituals, the Ahura aryan tribes, some of which were Zoroastrians, changed the rituals and names to suit their new philosophy of Zoroastrianism.
Today, every scholar agrees that all of the Yashts, except for the Yasna Haptanghaiti, were composed and written centuries after the time of Zarathushtra.
Be that as it may, the names of Indra, Varuna and Mithra are mentioned in the Haptanghaiti, and there is absolutely no question but that these are pre-Zoroastrian divinities, which today continue to hold prominent positions in the Vedas. Indra evolved into Verethragna or Behram Yazata, Mithra evolved into Meher Yazata and Varuna, in the female form of Varunani evolved into Avan Ardvisur Yazad, more commonly known as Anahita. The names of these and other pre-Zoroastrian divinities subsequently evolved into the Yazatas whose names are incorporated as the days of the month in the Zoroastrian calendar. The fact that these pre-Zoroastrian divinities now occupy and hold important positions in our liturgy, points to the fact that these are later additions to the religion introduced after Zarathushtra’s life time. Clearly, these portions of the Avesta conflict with the strict and unambiguous monotheism preached by the Prophet Himself. The point is, the similarities that you see in two religions, is not only because of common ancestors that we both shared, but also because we have over the time reintroduced pre Zoroastian ideas and culture into Zoroastrianism.
Sorry for repeating the post.
Zorastrianism is a corruption of Sanatana Dharma not the other way around. The Parsis were racist dissenters amongst the eternal religion who formed the “monotheistic” Parsi faith! Sanatana dharma inducted other people into the faith too though it lost momentum later and never ventured outside of India. To hear a Parsi speak of environmentalism in their faith is laughable! They say Fire is pure and is corrupted by Hindus with the bodies of the dead! Hindus believe the fire is pure because it has the capacity of purifying everything! Why do you boil water, why do you cook food? Bodies are also made up of the elements! Infact the parsis eat meat which is the single largest contributor of methane to the environment. The death of vultures is well documented. They blame the animals having diclofenacs etc! Doesn’t the parsi man’s flesh contain chemicals. Cremation is the best form of disposing bodies! Monotheism stands for inducting people into the faith while parsis use it as an excuse for racism. They have been sycophants who could not fight the islamic invasion, licked the boots of whoever was in power and now have the audacity to comment on Sanatana Dharma to which they owe deeply for their very survival!
They have seen the historical tolerance of hindus and they will see otherwise too if they make irresponsible assumptions like these!
A true hindu will never use sucha a language as bharat, hindu etc.. who appear to be the same person posting on. It is a shame that we have such people in our community. I am sorry on behalf of the entire hindu community.
Yeah, when I read it I was asking to myself what the Author wants to say: Did he read or not, Sanskrit is much older than Persian and it is said that old persian was derived from proto-sanskrit, no sanskrit word is derived from persian, persian just has an influence on urdu and modern day hindi (not pure hindi). Proto-Sanskrit is one of the old stages of sankrit.
But yes, there are 5 classic languages of Indo-European families and they are: Latin, Greek, Sanskrit, Persian and Pali. I don’t say Persian is derived from Sanskrit, if it was then Linguistics wouldn’t have said that persian is a classic language but yes it might have been derived from proto-sanskrit which many linguistics don’t deny but no one ever said that sanskrit is derived from persian
Farzana, sorry to say but my feeling is either you know nothing just some collected facts from internet and putting them in wrong oder or you know many things, but you are playing with them in a wrong way. (some of your facts, not all), either way you are doing the same thing.
the guy seems mistaken of sorts.to say tat sanskrit is influenced by avestan is totally laughable.
actually wat happned was tat in da harappan period da so called aryan people used to live alongwith other tribes of same origin as theirs..
aryan means “refined”…..so each tribe called themselves as aryan nd their enemies(of same origin ) as “dasyus” as a means of undermining them….one such war b/w indra(an aryan) nd another aryan(vritra) has bin mentioned in rigveda in wich indra slained him.
due to gradual climate changes nd possible dryin up of rivers due to a large no. of dams(note tat wars at tat tym wer mainly based on issues of water usage) d harrrapn urban civilisation broke up and people went away in search of greener pastures.
one of the two hostile tribes migrated to east in india nd other to west in iran.
(next post in some days)
Why don’t you see the similarities between Hinduism and the old Persian faith (Zoroastrism) ?
We descended from the same stock of (Aryan) peoples!!!
We share common ancestry… DNA… cultural heritage…
So don’t argue who’s the best, or who was the first one.
Well, i have seen so many arguments between many religions and languages as to which one is older. The older is somehow grantedly taken to be better, which is not necessarily the case.
The below argument is a totally unrelated one. But, pls tolerate it:
All I know is that parsis were evicted out of persia and that was a good thing to happen to India. Unlike other people who have come to india from different parts of the world, parsis are the only set of people who are highly civilized and who have done so much for India. Note that they never invaded india, but politely asked for the gujarat king to allow them to settle here. Once settled, they have been completely patriotric and have worked for the economic betterment of teeming millions of indians.
Irrespective of which language was born when and which one has influenced others ( It doesn’t matter unless you are just another boring academic), as a hindu, my highest respect of any communities is for parsis. I bow to you.
this massive grey area between persia and India is an emotionally charged one which came first?What derives from what? etc this is esp true because persia militarily has always been more powerful than India.
HOWEVER parsis have proved their loyalty,patriotism for India over and over again and the hindus who are posting threatening comments should be ashamed of themselves parsis are intelligent,honest patriots who have served their adopted land on a per capita basis several orders of magnitudes more than even hindus have.let us debate like two civilized people.god bless u parsees.
Parsis fled the Arab invasion and India welcomed them. They are 100% Indians and I am amazed to see how well they did. regarding who was who and who did this and that first, I would say that it doesn’t really matter. the most important is the final result.
Great hello from a Persian Parsy
To put to to rest any unease felt by the topic.
Theologically the birth of zarathushtra shouldnt be linked to start of the faith.
The religion itself is Mazdayasnism. The sudreh and Kusti predated Zarathushtra and so did mazdayasni festivals like Navrooz,ghambars etc.
All zarathushtra did was rekindle the faith.The birth of Zarathushtra in itself is not known, some place it 6000 BC and some much closer…area ranging from Azerbaizan to Afghanistan
Here comes the core….the reason for zarathushtra having to rekindle the faith was due to the split of the Aryans..into deavyasni and Mazdayasni…showing links…
There are thus many similarities and Sanskrit and Avesta are sister languages…the kusti of the mazdayasnisn and the janois of the hindus..etc
The differences are like Mazdayasnism talks of one god( concept borrowed by christian, islam etc) whilst hinduism talks of multiple Gods…theosphically difference like in hindusim one prays bare foot whilst mazdayasnism talks against paying or being barefoot as the yazad(angel) presiding over earthi.e spandamard is negatively affected…mazdayasnism talks against animal gods etc….
The magnificient aspect is ..like tilak did or most scholars have to ..is to link avesta with sanskrit and vice versa to really understand the 2…
Also Zoroastrianism/Mazdayasnism and Hinduism had links such as coinage in the Maurian era in India arriving from Sasanian silver and Mint…and other trade relations since time..
Persian/zoroastrian empire stretched all the way to Indus and thus we have Punjab a persian word whilst hinduisitic scholarshp like medicine etc were higly regarded by scholarisitc studies ..by all. including the greeks, zoroastrianis and vice versa…
The reason for the king confirming that the refuge takers were indeed of the mazda yasni faith inspite of diference in philosophies a times was because ike the Hindus or any ancient faith, zoroatrianism also never threathen to wipe out the other culture due to thirst of conversion…like the moguls and those who wanted to chrisianise Persia thus weakening it…
mutual respect for each other..
By then the term Persians included those faiths that actualy aided in destroying the original Persian faith..i.e Mazdayasnismm..
Hinduism and Zoroastrianism in a way showcase TRUE SECULARISM…at times linked , at times opposing philosophies ..yet mutual respect for both from within….and thus has seen us thru time…
It definately stands above..who came first and who was greater as both our forfathers acknowledged each others greatness, weakness and strengths without being embarassed..
If avesta aided sanskrit or vice versa, it is indeed a pleasure for both and thus though oposing philosophies -at times..it has tood the test of time..
One only hopes that the majority never link the zoroastrians with the threath percieved from those who want to change the demograpghy of India thru conversions, be it a madressa or a missonery
Thank you all so much… Faz & rustom. It was amazing to know all this facts, hope have some input
thanks
Even as an Indian, i know Indian laguage and culture…also Hinduism hab been influenced by rich Persian qualities.
Perisans have influenced their brilliant culture and civilization through the whole region. Who can deny that!
A
Even as an Indian, i know Indian laguage and culture…also Hinduism hab been influenced by rich Persian qualities.
Perisans have influenced their brilliant culture and civilization through the whole region. Who can deny that!
As an History expert i admit that the whole region would have seemed totaly different without the Persian influence.
Thanks god they have ever existed(also a persian word like in Dutch God(Khod) originaly comes from Perisan( khoda/Goda)
Dear friends. As far as I know originally there were the Indo European aryans in Sogdiana ( now Uzbekistan).The european group of aryans went to Europe and the subfamily of Indo Iranian aryans came to Iran ( Elam).From there the Indo Aryans went to northern India while the Iranian Aryans stayed put in Iran.And yes, Sanskrit and athic Persian were not derived from each other;they were evolved from the proto ( first) Indo European language which was the parent of the 5 classical languages mentioned by Pearl.
Farhana is obviously being overzealous in her eulogy of Zoarastrianism. This says all from my point of view.
Personally I think that fire is polluted by cremation is not a very sound idea as fire is meant to purify things and it is also used in hawan to carry offerings like ghee to the heavens.
The patriotism,secularism and caliber of Parsis is well known and I as an Indian acknowledge their contribution to the nation in numerous fields. Long live Indo Parsi unity. Amen.
I AM IN IRAN AND WANT TO MAKE A DOCUMENTARY FILM ABOUT THE PARSIS IN INDIA, CAN YOU HELP ME TO KNOW MORE ABOUT THEM AND MAKE RELATION WITH THEM PLEASE?
This post isn’t correct – its sound way funny! First of all let me clarify Aryan is not a race. Secondly persia had indian influence and india had persian influence because in ancient times – both were approximately the same things.
Yes offcourse now the ground reality has totally changed !! (as today persia is totally a islamic nation and there were quite a few wars so i suppose lots of ancient text must have been destroyed)
Just think like in the ancient times persia would have a major indian influence same way in the later half (mughals and other muslim rulers of india) there were many persian influence as well! Thats why persian influence is there in the current indian languages especially because of urdu i guess!.
I think you must read this article on ancient iranian history – even here its written that ancient people from iran and india (there are numerous groups within india – including countries which later got created such as pakistan, afghanistan , tajakistan [also are called bactria during ancient times] ) were the same people [hence their languages must also have been approximately similar during that time – i guess during that time sanskrit would have been like a universal language in this region like hindi is a universal language in india and english is a universal language in the world now!
check this link about ancient iran – whether its matches or not!
http://iranpoliticsclub.net/culture-language/mythology1/index.htm
Also check the similarties between the ancient Persian and indian Gods
http://www.zianet.com/docdavey/persianmyth.htm
I have always been wondering, why do people find differences rather than similarities? Of course, as a student of history, we need to know those.
But when someone is trying to show similarities, it means we have a chance of strengthening the already strong bond between the Hindus and Zarthoshtis.
Do you mean that before Aryans came from Central Asia/Europe/Iran or whatsoever, north idnia was a piece of empty land without the existance of any religion.
If you mix geography with so called history (written by modern historians) North of India had almost every thing to cultivate any civiliazation. there were 6 season, water of rivers, mountaines from front north uptill down east. So from where all people came, settled, spread their relision, spoke same language etc ? If there was any civiliazation to cultivate in india was in india like many part of the world without any influence. for example Chinese, Dravidain, Arabic etc.
Another point to note is that if north india was influenced by outside settlers than why didn’t they reach to Dravida part. In the ancient history dravidain culture was not influenced by any other cultures than Sanskritik (Sanatanic) let it it be culture, language or castism.
So i request all the readers not to twist history that one is mother of other culture just becuase few words/ritual are samilar in both cultures. It is like the people living on the borders speak both languages, exchange cultures. I mean punjabi leaving on the border of rajasthan can’t say punjabi is the mother of rajasthani language or vice versa.
You have to see the development of civilization with the phycological point of view as well. Every human was developed in different environment and he had marks of nature on its biology and sociology, like chinese looks chinese but people from many central south american countries also looks bit chinese. But this doesn’t mean that they hail from china or vice versa.
In similar way Iran than and India were close neighbours but like many mainstream religions/culture they both were independant and were habitants of the land. Hinduism had influence on other religion and other religion had influence on hinduism.
so please think from all the points.
I have seen many a comments with names “Posted by (aHinduName)” and all have praised persians and bashed the Indian commentors. Why don’t you actors bash the author of the article as well for publishing an ignorant article. Is the author taken by ego and false claims attributing everything to his mother tongue Persian. Is n’t that disgusting for a civilized and educated persian. I am sorry for the Author.
I THINK BOTH THE NOW DISTINCT IRANIAN & INDIAN PEOPLE USED TO STAY SIDE – BY – SIDE AND WERE ONE PEOPLE BELONGING TO ONE GROUP ( NOMADS IN THOSE DAYS ) & THEY HAD THERE ORIGINS AROUND THE RUSSIAN STEPPS , INFACT WHEN THE INDIAN GENEOLOGY WAS CONDUCTED , IT WAS FOUND THAT A LARGE SECTION HAD ONE GENE (Haplogroup R1a (Y-DNA)) WHICH WAS SIMILAR TO RUSSIAN PLAINS, UKRAIN TO RUMANIA., THE IRANIAN GENES ALSO EXHIBITED THE SAME GENES BUT IN LARGE PARTS ONLY IN SOUTHERN IRAN ( FROM BALOCHISTAN TO ENTIRE SOUHTERN IRAN COAST) & NORHHEN IRAN AND IN MEDIUM SCALE ACROSS IRAN , THE HYPOTHESIS GIVEN FOR THIS IS :-
From the disparate M198 frequencies observed for the north and south of Iran, it is possible to envision a movement southward towards India where the lineage may have had an influence on the populations south of the Iranian deserts and where the Dash-e Lut desert would have played a signifi cant role in preventing the expansion of this marker to the north of Iran. The lower frequencies of M198 in the region of Anatolia (11.8% in Greece and 6.9% in Turkey, with a statistically significant longitudinal correlation and the Caucasus (10% in Georgia, 6% in Armenia and 7% in Azerbaijan) suggests that population movement was southward towards India and then westward across the Iranian plateau. In addition, the detection of rare R1-M173* and R1a-SRY1532 lineages in Iran at higher frequencies than observed for either Turkey, Pakistan or India suggests the hypothesis that geographic origin of haplogroup R may be nearer Persia.
THIS MAY EXPLAIN MORE OF THE CROSS – CULTURAL EXCHANGE BETWEEN THE 2 GROUPS.
COPIED FROM WIKIPEDIA :
Indo-Iranian languages include three subgroups: first Indo-Aryan languages (the Indic branch including the Dardic languages); second Iranian languages (east and west) and third Nuristani languages. From these various and dispersed cultures a set of common ideas may be reconstructed from which a common, unattested proto-Indo-Iranian source may be deduced.
Beliefs developed in different ways as cultures separated and evolved. For example the cosmo-mythology of the peoples that remained on the Central Asian steppes and the Iranian plateau is to a great degree unlike that of the Indians, focussed more on groups of deities (*daiva and *asura) and less on the divinities individually. Indians were less conservative[citation needed] than Iranians in their treatment of their divinities, so that some deities were conflated with others or, conversely, aspects of a single divinity developed into divinities in their own right. By the time of Zoroaster, Iranian culture had also been subject to the upheavals of the Iranian Heroic Age (late Iranian Bronze Age, 1800–800 BCE[citation needed]), an influence that the Indians were not subject to.
Sometimes certain myths developed in altogether different ways. The Rig-Vedic Sarasvati is linguistically and functionally cognate with Avestan *Haraxvait? ?r?duu? S?r? An?hit?. In the Rig-Veda (6,61,5–7) she battles a serpent called Vritra, who has hoarded all of the earth’s water. In contrast, in early portions of the Avesta, Iranian *Harahvati is the world-river that flows down from the mythical central Mount Hara. But *Harahvati does no battle — she is blocked by an obstacle (Avestan for obstacle: v?r??ra) placed there by Angra Mainyu.
Ma’am please know your facts…Zoroastrianism came after Hinduism and Sanskrit is the mother of all languages. This is all b.s., read more and then make such bold statements.
There is no doubt that Hinduism is a blend of ancient Aryan/Iranian and Dravidic-Mundic beliefs and customs. And Zoroastrianism is a blend of ancient Aryan/Iranian and Elamite/etc. beliefs and customs.
It has been proven that Aryans/Iranians migrated/invaded northern India around 1700-1200 BC in many waves from CentralAsia-Afghan-Pak region. Similarly some Aryan/Iranian tribes also migrated/invaded southward/southwest to present day Iran from CentralAsia-Afghan region.
Hinduism and Zoroastrianism are related and have similiaities because of their partly common ancestry, but neither is decended from the other!
“From the disparate M198 frequencies observed for the north and south of Iran”
Could someone explain in detail what is meant by the word “frequency” as stated above. I am aware of the techical meaning but am at a loss to know what it means in the above context.
DEAR BEHRAM & OTHER READERS ,
GENE FREQUENCY MEANT ON AN AVERAGE OCCURANCE ( COMMONLY FOUND GENE) OR IN OTHER WORDS A PARTICULAR GENE DESITY AMONG A GROUP OF PEOPLE OR REGION.
THIS WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE ALSO SAID THAT THIS GENE WHICH EXIST WITH HIGH DENSITY THROUGHOUT “SOUTHERN IRAN & CENTRAL IRAN EXIST IN EQUAL MEASURE ACROSS PEOPLE OF BALOUCHISTAN , SIND , RAJASTHAN , & GUJRAT , THOUGH THIS GENE DENSITY REDUCES FROM SOUTH GUJRAT & GRADUALLY DISAPPEARS BY THE KARNATAKA BORDER ( SOUTHERN MAH.) , THROUGH SMALL TRIBAL COMM. & CASTE COMM. DO EXHIBIT SAME GENES IN POCKETS OF INDIA.
THIS GENE GOES WEAK TOWARDS NORTH IRAN ( THERAN & SURROND AREAS ) – INFLUENCE OF MIDDLE-EAST , TURKISH & IRANS ORIGINAL GENES.
PARSIS MIGRATED FROM KHORASTAN , IT MEANS FROM CENTRAL ASIA CARRYING SAME M198 GENES & SOME FROM SOUTHERN IRAN.
IT IS STATED THAT KHORASTANI & CENTRAL ASIA’S ZORASTRIANS ( BUKHARA ) HAD MANY FIRE – TEMPLE , & BACK THEN ;-
SOURCE :- WIKIPEDIA
Despite these economic and social incentives to convert, Zoroastrianism remained strong in some regions, particularly in those furthest away from the Caliphate capital at Baghdad. In Bukhara (in present-day Uzbekistan), resistance to Islam required the 9th century Arab commander Qutaiba to convert his province four times. The first three times the citizens reverted to their old religion. Finally, the governor made their religion “difficult for them in every way”, turned the local fire temple into a mosque, and encouraged the local population to attend Friday prayers by paying each attendee two dirhams.[8] The cities where Arab governors resided were particularly vulnerable to such pressures, and in these cases the Zoroastrians were left with no choice but to either conform or to migrate to regions that had a more amicable administration.[8]
Among these migrations were those to cities in (or on the margins of) the great salt deserts, in particular to Yazd and Kerman, which remain centers of Iranian Zoroastrianism to this day. Yazd became the seat of the Iranian high priests during Mongol Il-Khanate rule, when the “best hope for survival [for a non-Muslim] was to be inconspicuous.”[12] Crucial to the present-day survival of Zoroastrianism was a migration from the northeastern Iranian town of “Sanjan in south-western Khorasan”,[13] to Gujarat, in western India. The descendants of that group are today known as the ‘Parsis’ – “as the Gujaratis, from long tradition, called anyone from Iran”[13] – and who today represent the larger of the two groups of Zoroastrians.
HOPE THIS REDUCES TO HALF THE DISPUTE OF HOW IRAN & INDIA ANCHESTORS WERE COMMON ( MAINLY OF THE REGIONS I MENTIONED ) , A PART OF CENTRAL ASIAN ZORASTRIANS ARE NOW PARSIS ( THOUGH I WOULD CALL THEM INDIAN BECAUSE OF GENERATIONS OF GENES LOSS , BECAUSE OF WHICH SOME DISTINCT INDIAN GENES (FROM FEMALE SIDE) ARE FOUND AMONG PARSIS), & BACK THEN WERE FIERCELY PATRIOTIC TO THEIR RELIGION , COMPARED TO OTHER PARTS OF IRAN , & IT IS TODAY ONLY IN THIS PART OF IRAN THAT MAJORITY OF FIRE-TEMPLE, ZORAS. / AVEST. STILL LIVE.
Dear All, Let the modern technology of genetics decide the relation between the population spread in the entire Asia region. We may all be learning new lessons and finally come to rest our minds!
Let the mind posses the idea rather than the idea posses the mind. In the history of human civilization, no one group of humans can claim to be pure in their genetic structure. Let the knowledge guide us and not emotions.
Dear All, Let the modern technology of genetics decide the relation between the population spread in the entire Asia region. We may all be learning new lessons and finally come to rest our minds!
Let the mind posses the idea rather than the idea posses the mind. In the history of human civilization, no one group of humans can claim to be pure in their genetic structure. Let the knowledge guide us and not emotions.
We are arguing on a mere 6 to 10 thousand years of history. The human history is over 100 thousand years old! Now start thinking!!
the article is completely false.the fact is sanskrit is the most ancient language in the world.plz prefer wikipedia.sanskrit is made from dev vani.the language of gods.and indians were civilized thousands of year before the western and middle eastern countries.english,greek,persian,latinetc are made frm it.the article is completely opposite frm the fact.0,trigonometry,0,geometry and many many many more things were invented by india.i am not telling n e thing false.plz if u doubt on my comment u can see the wikipedia of aryabhatta,mohen jo daro,the family of ram etc.and only then u will understand.india is not the receiver but has given many things to the whole world.plz dont be jealous of my mother country.stop hatred,racism&communalism.
iranians use the word stan after the name of cities countries etc.the word stan is made from the ancient word ’sthan’.it is the samskrit word.this is the proof that farsi is influenced by indian culture.because 1500 years before it had covered more than half part of asia.even 65 year before it included pakistan,nepal,bangladesh.u can do research on bharatvarsh.the ancient name of india is not india or hindustan but bharat.
Read the book “The Geography of Rigveda” by Srikant Talegari. Persians used to live in Punjab before “Dasarajagna battle” described in Rigveda. They were driven oot of Punjab by the puru king Bharata.
Bhrigus are the priests of Iranians while Angeersas are the priests of puru kings.
Even puranas mention Maharshi Bhrigu and his son Shukra supporting Asuras while rest of the priest groups like Angeerasas, Vashistas and Viswamitras worship devas.
Puranas also mentions Devas and Asuras were born to same father.
Conclusion: Indoaryans and parusus (Parsians) used to live in India at differen localities before the war brokeout between them. The parsus finally setteled in Iran.
Rigveda is older than Avesta. Avesta remembers indian connection (Hatahindu is one of their lands) while rigveda knows nothing about central asia or Iran.