Pashtuns are Yeptalites, Kushans, Scythians?

[Manzareh]

Id like to dedicate this thread for the input of fellow historians on the subject of Kushans, maybe here we will be able to share our sources and refrences as to the likelyhood of the Kushans, Yeptalites or even Sythians being our ancestors, hopefully im looking for some solid information that points the finger that we are indeed the decendants of these peoples. Well i'll start off with my input.

The mass land from Soghdia (today's tadjikistan) to Indus were inhabited by the Pashtuns with the avesta/old pashtu (with some derivitives such as pamiri and nuristani) the main language who pushed out the first time by the turkic Uzbeks during the 5th century A.C. Uzbeks made an alliance with Sassanids of Persia to defeat the Yeptalites/Abdalites and were able to defeat the yeptalites and kick them out of Soghdia for ever. So from this historic event we know that turkic people for the first time put their steps in the iranic lands a few decades before the islamic conquest.

It appears from the writings from one of the ruins in Ghazni that Yeptalites and their decentants, the Kabul Shahan, spoke Pashtu. While we know that Yeptalites were one of the tribes of kushan confederation who rebelled and defeated the weakening kushan kings with that said kushans were pashtu speakers themselves and therefore, the Gandahara civilization is a pashtun civilization.

NOTE: from the ruins of the kushanic temples, it appears they used to communicate in both Latin (legacy of Macedonians in Paktra) and a language very close to today's Pashtu.

So in conclusion, for me the Kushans are of Pashtun origin who for the first time in the history of world had two cities of Kapisa/Kabul and Peshawar as their capitals to adjust the politics according to their semi-nomadic nature.

[Manzareh]

another side note, Tajiks also claim to be the Kushans but this is a totally false claim and i strongly refute this. if anybody wishes to know why just ask lol

[Toramana]

It appears from the writings from one of the ruins in Ghazni that Yeptalites and their decentants, the Kabul Shahan, spoke Pashtu. While we know that Yeptalites were one of the tribes of kushan confederation who rebelled and defeated the weakening kushan kings with that said kushans were pashtu speakers themselves and therefore, the Gandahara civilization is a pashtun civilization.

Excellent Manzareh. You could be very good historian.

Could you quote your sources e.g., who mentions the writing in Ghazni ruins? Is there any other archeological evidence supporting this found?

NOTE: from the ruins of the kushanic temples, it appears they used to communicate in both Latin (legacy of Macedonians in Paktra) and a language very close to today's Pashtu.

What was that language? Has the link been established e.g. linguists, etc.?

So in conclusion, for me the Kushans are of Pashtun origin who for the first time in the history of world had two cities of Kapisa/Kabul and Peshawar as their capitals to adjust the politics according to their semi-nomadic nature.

This is an interesting conclusion but what we need is sufficient evidence to back that.

[Toramana]

another side note, Tajiks also claim to be the Kushans but this is a totally false claim and i strongly refute this. if anybody wishes to know why just ask lol

Why?

[Admin Khan]

another side note, Tajiks also claim to be the Kushans but this is a totally false claim and i strongly refute this. if anybody wishes to know why just ask lol

Why?

[Lemar]

another side note, Tajiks also claim to be the Kushans but this is a totally false claim and i strongly refute this. if anybody wishes to know why just ask lol

Why?

[Manzareh]

I start off with refuting the tajik origin of Kushan for the following reasons:

1) The term tajik is a turkic version of derogatory word tazi/tzahaki (tzahak a Bablian ruler who invaded Kabul and Paktra/Bactria). The term tazi used by Pashtuns to refer to the people of Arab origin and was first recorded as tadjik in 10th century by a Ghaznavid writer with arabic origin (Baihaqi) refering to himself and a few others (albironi) as such.

2) At the time of Islamic conquests, central asia and north Afghanistan have seen mass immigration of muslim arabs/tazis and elemite persians (regarded as tazis) who later on mixed with other turkic and native eastern iranian people producing the alpine tadjik ethnicity. These people in no way are the original inhabitants of central asia and Afghanistan, though claim being decended from the old Paktrian tribes.

[Manzareh]

Toranama, thats the thing iv always read into various books and works from Dupree,Mountstuart Elphinstone,Ghirshman etc but the thing is iv never made a refrence for specific things. Its more of conclusions derived from chronological events in history and logical reasoning, which is why i made this thread were likeminded people can provide solid evidence. although most of what iv wrote can be refrenced from a reliable pashtun historian by the name of Prof. Abdul Hai Habibi, i use his books and writings for my source which may have more credibility than the ones written by non-pashtuns with lots of language and cultural obstacles.

[Khidr]

another side note, Tajiks also claim to be the Kushans but this is a totally false claim and i strongly refute this. if anybody wishes to know why just ask lol

Brother, I think there is a great deal of subjective bias in your conclusion. What source do you have about your claim that Tajiks are not natives but rather the descendents of Arabs/Turks?

Before I give my opinion, it’s perhaps more important that I disclose my source. My source is Dr Richard Nelson Frye, who is widely regarded as the leading scholar of Iranic, and Central Asian Studies, he is the Professor Emertius of Iranian Studies at Harvard University. He’s specialization is the history of (Greater) Iran and Central Asia before 1000CE. He has also spent 2 years in Afghanistan, teaching at Habibia College.

Now. Tazik was a term given by Eastern-Iranian Peoples and Western-Iranian peoples to the Northern Arabs. Upon the Islamic conquest, and gradual conversion of the natives of Eastern Iran (today’s Afghanistan and Central Asia), the converts were labelled ‘Tazik’ in a derogatory manner by their own non-convert natives. With time, essentially villages and a whole region became “Tazik” that is "Muslim."

When the Turks came, they referred to the native Muslim people who were alien to them also Tazik. Tazik became the name used by foreigners (Turks) to label the natives who had gone through a cultural transformation by becoming Muslim. The natives, being sedentary peoples always distinguished amongst each other based on their concept of ‘manteqa’ ‘region’ such as Balkhi or Bakhtari or Taliqani or Heravi or Juzjani, et al.

Post Islamic Conquest. A broad collective term and identity like Tazik was still alien to the natives however there is ample evidence to suggest that when in contact with Arabs or migration to Arabia by the natives, that they referred to themselves as Khurasani and thus did recognize that the collective identity of their villages and regions and peoples as Khurasan and Khurasani.

For example, the famous "Abu Muslim Khorasani" was known as "Behzad e Balkhi" within Khurasan, but in the Abbassid Courts, he was referred to as "Abu Muslim Khurasani"

[Khidr]

Your unreferenced assertion that Tajiks are the decedents of non-native Arabs and Turks, can only be taken seriously by a politically/racially prejudiced and historically naive audience of your own ethnic group.


At the same time, given that we live in a region that has been a melting pot of different races, it would be naive of me or you or anyone to suggest that a modern ethnic group can claim direct descendent to any one or more of the old peoples of the region.


Today’s Tajiks are not just the direct descendent of Scythians, Soghdians, Kushan or Bactrian, but logic dictates that there is also Arab blood due to the last 1300 years, and others in Tajikistan as evident by their physical appear to have Turkic blood.


As for Pashtuns, I’m looking to learn more about their origins these holidays inshallah, although each tribe will have its own unique history, my initial perception is that they are racially Iranic. The Abdalis perhaps are descendents of the Hepthalites and the Ghilzais being decendents of the Ashvakas and Kambojas who adopted south-eastern Saka (Pashto) language of the Hephthalities.

This is not to say that Pashtuns are direct decendents and are "racially pure" Just like the Tajiks, obviously they too would be mixed with Arabs, Dravidian (or other Hindi peoples) and Turks.

[Khidr]

A good book (which is not "modern state of Iran centric") tha touches on the great cultural, political transformations and gives an idea of the racial origins of certain ethnic groups of the region, as well as the racial/cultural/political status of the region a century prior to the coming of Islam is "The Golden Age of Persia", by Richard Frye.

The book is very detailed and perhaps maybe a little too dry for a beginner. From the outset, the book gives its definitions and states that Iran is the name of the whole region of todays Iran, Afghanistan, Tajikistan, and some parts of Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. The author divides equal time going over both "Western Iran/Persia" and "Eastern-Iran/Khurasan" meticulously.

It's more of a historical narrative but in the last chapter the author gives their reason as to why in their opinion the greatest period culturally in the history of Iran was after the coming of Islam, and that the centre of this cultural renaisance was Eastern-Iran/Khurasan, today's Afghanistan.

[Emal_khan]

Manzareh

The term tazi used by Pashtuns to refer to the people of Arab origin

No my friend, you're wrong. the term tazik or tajik is unknown to us. in some area of east afghanistan we still call them degan not tajik. There are two theories for the origin of the term Degan.
1. Some consider that it is derived from the word Deqan, in parsi it means farmer.
2. some scholars connect the term degan with an ancient nomadic tribe the dahe(saka) which lived in the south of modern Kazakhstan.

[Khidr]

Deghan is a very very old term for Tajiks.

A few of my friends who are from Surkh Rod said the same thing. They still refer to the Farsi speakers in Nangarhar as "Degan."

It's definition and orgin basically implies one who is a 'settled' land-owner' and thus a farmer/dehqan. I assume it has it's origins amongst those ancesters of the Pashtuns who were nomadic thus referred to the settled people's they came across as Degans.

[Nick]

Manzareh


No my friend, you're wrong. the term tazik or tajik is unknown to us. in some area of east afghanistan we still call them degan not tajik. There are two theories for the origin of the term Degan.
1. Some consider that it is derived from the word Deqan, in parsi it means farmer.
2. some scholars connect the term degan with an ancient nomadic tribe the dahe(saka) which lived in the south of modern Kazakhstan.

Sorry but your first theory is wrong.
The theory behind the Dari word Degan has been creation of pan-Iranism, however no historic reference, despite its inaccuracy like always firstly it was published by Iranica, to candidate Degan=Farmers and Farmers= natives which turns into a Qwam. Wrong Degan simply means Farmers in Dari not in Persian/Parsi/Farsi. In fact the more proper word from Persian prospective is Keshawarz.

2. Again Dahe is one of many caste groups of India as well does that mean they are Saka? After all Saka's never had caste system like Persians or Indics but rather tribal like people ie such as Avghans/Rajputs/Abrahamics/Ethiopians/Alanics/Germanics/. I still don't know How could Deha came to be Degan or DeQans, which translates into Farmers but as far as my knowledge in Slavic languages "Dahe" means Nomads. Ask any Slavic speaking nation such as Ukraine or Russia and they will tell you that Dahe, means nomads. So I guess the Saka being Nomads has probably given a meaningful word for Slavic to reflect on its meaning. Just as Pakhtrian nomad tribe Kuchan, probably merged from Kushan, which might of been part of Saka tribe gave a meaningful word out of "Kuch", to Farsi, which means "moving loads", also Kuchi "those who move"

[KhalsaWarrior]

Manzareh, with the kind of assertions that you regularly make in your posts regarding Pashtun history it would be great if you could post references as well. Since you mentioned that you have read books by different authors please provide their names and the relevant section from the books. That ways it will b easier for others to check the basis behind your arguments and we will all have a much better discussion.