Who were the Pactyans?

[Aryob]

Long story short, I am Pactyan :|

[Kushan Prince]

Were the Pactyans considered Indian? I ask this because in the translated version of the Histories Herodutes says this:
"Others however of the Indians are on the borders of the city of
Caspatyros and the country of Pactyïke, dwelling towards the North[91]
of the other Indians; and they have a manner of living nearly the same
as that of the Bactrians: these are the most warlike of the Indians,"
http://wps.pearsoncustom.com/wps/med.../herodotus.pdf

I have doubts about that translation. Hedrodutes mentioned them as an Aryan people who were related to the Bactrians. Don't know where the hell Indian came from, sounds like Indiancentric nonsense.

[tripledouble]

they were punjabi agents

[Smarty]

Sir Olaf's study on it is a must read

Read complete chapter here http://www.apnaorg.com/books/english....php?fldr=book

[Karachi]

Well in those days there no boundries, to Greeks perhaps pactyans were Indians, however obviously, it looks like from the sources they were living on the western edge of India, so basically like the pashtuns of today

[Badlun]

I love such thoughts and theories which prove existence of Pashtuns beyond the era of Islam or especially Islamism.

[Brown Skinned Savage]

@ Badlun

how come some of these quotes from ancient Greeks are saying Paktyan were speaking Persian or were a kind of Indian? Seems to contradict your belief.

[pashtanajan]

@ Badlun

how come some of these quotes from ancient Greeks are saying Paktyan were speaking Persian or were a kind of Indian? Seems to contradict your belief.

They were neither. The translation isn't accurate. The Paktyan and the Parsu are both mentioned as Aryan groups who fought together with other Aryan tribes in the Rig Veda. The Paktyans are Pashtuns and the Parsu are said to be Persians (Remember, Persians called themselves Parsi, before the letter 'f' became incorporated into Persian). One must note that ancient Indian holy scripture talks about a time where India did not exist and neither did the Indian race; similarly, Afghanistan did not exist, and neither did Iran. The Rig Veda mostly talk about a time where Aryans came down to the Ancient "India" and Elam (present day Iran) and fought with the indigenous people and basically colonized them. The Avesta, the ancient "iranian" text, is the sister text to the Rig Veda, and often has texts in it pertaining to historical times that are also mentioned in the Rig Veda, because the Avesta and the Rig Veda were written around the same time by descendants of ancient Aryans. Technically, both the Rig Veda and the Avesta are the ancestral texts of people from Iran to India, and calling them "Ancient Iranian" or "Ancient Indian" is sort of inappropriate.

Thus, the text may thus seem contradictory. Ancient "India" and Ancient "Iran's" history often overlaps, especially the further back you go, since Indo-Iranians and Indo-Aryans both have the same ancestors, the Aryans.

[Brown Skinned Savage]

[MENTION=3658]pashtanajan[/MENTION]

You seem to be reiterating the assumptions of people before us. But there are certain problems with the "Pactyan" theory. Namely that Linguists suggest that the "Sh" dialect of Pashto predates the "Kh" dialect so a "Paktyan" would not have been a designation for Pashtun based on that claim. Now the word "Pactyan" or "Pacta" may have existed, but this is clearly not a word native to Pashto. Like other regional names like "Ghazni" or "Kandahar" or "Zabul"" , these are names inherited from other peoples and their respective languages.

Also The Greek references to the region seem to be in focus around the later B.C. . where most of your contentions wouldn't apply

furthermore, if we're going by the Rig Veda, the word they use is "Paktha" but According to the Book "Misinterpretations of The Rig Vedas". The "Pakthas" were probably not Aryans.

http://voiceofdharma.org/books/rig/ch8.htm

33. VII.18.7: Pakthas: �the Pakthas and the rest mentioned in the first line of the stanza appear to have been non-Aryan tribes

Which implies that it's more likely that we're imposing our wish to render any word that possibly sounds like 'Pakhtun" into a reference about us rather than evidence that Pashtuns existed as a distinct people in ancient times.

[Brown Skinned Savage]

[MENTION=3658]pashtanajan[/MENTION]

Here's another reference which suggests that Paktha is a NON-Aryan name.

https://books.google.com/books?id=Zst_7qaatp8C&pg=PA18&lpg=PA18&dq=paktha+non-aryan&source=bl&ots=4IQI1TMB5M&sig=em--HJPiLf-7wube8TALY3oIM4g&hl=en&sa=X&ei=wvUjVe7iAcOEsAWf6oHoBQ&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=paktha%20non-aryan&f=false

"Many of these names are Non-Aryan viz: Shabara, Paktha, Kapi, Alina, Aja, Matsya, Sishnus....."

And Another that seems to suggest similarly

https://books.google.com/books?id=fTvQiXVFB0gC&pg=PA95&lpg=PA95&dq=paktha+non-aryan&source=bl&ots=BS8OXn_OOB&sig=NCquO5pnidt3ITc0LKuR8rbUgRo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=wvUjVe7iAcOEsAWf6oHoBQ&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=paktha%20non-aryan&f=false

"Paktha, Bhalana, Alina, Visanin. Of these , matsya= fish, alina= bee, are totemic; visanin =' horned', reminds us of the horned deities of Indus seals, as of the horned crowns of Mesopotamian deities; and the helmets of the Shardina at Medinet Habu in Egypt, they seem to be Non-Aryan although called holy (sivasas)"

[pashtanajan]

@pashtanajan

You seem to be reiterating the assumptions of people before us. But there are certain problems with the "Pactyan" theory. Namely that Linguists suggest that the "Sh" dialect of Pashto predates the "Kh" dialect so a "Paktyan" would not have been a designation for Pashtun based on that claim. Now the word "Pactyan" or "Pacta" may have existed, but this is clearly not a word native to Pashto. Like other regional names like "Ghazni" or "Kandahar" or "Zabul"" , these are names inherited from other peoples and their respective languages.

Also The Greek references to the region seem to be in focus around the later B.C. . where most of your contentions wouldn't apply

furthermore, if we're going by the Rig Veda, the word "sthey use is "Paktha" but According to the Book "Misinterpretations of The Rig Vedas". The "Pakthas" were probably not Aryans.

http://voiceofdharma.org/books/rig/ch8.htm


Which implies that it's more likely that we're imposing our wish to render any word that possibly sounds like 'Pakhtun" into a reference about us rather than evidence that Pashtuns existed as a distinct people in ancient times.

Yes, that is also a possibility. However, according to some scholars it is not entirely clear if the "sh' dialect predates the "kh" dialect. It could very well be the case that the "kh" dialect is older. Pashto has no written history, so it is very hard to know whether "kh" vs "sh" is older. It's a common assumption that "sh" is older due to it being spoken in the Pashtun heartland, but a phenomenon could have occurred in Pashto that is similar to the phenomenon that happened to Persian. Iran, which is the "heartland" of Persian, has a form of Persian that is relatively new, whereas Afghanistan has an older form of Persian, Dari. I believe Sir Olaf explains his reasoning as to why the "kh" dialect might actually be older than "sh". I suggest you read the reasoning behind his conclusion if you haven't already. It could explain the "mysterious" ancestral history of Pashtuns. Thus, there is a chance that "kh" could be older (and interestingly the "kh" dialect is spoken by Paktiyawals) and thus the Paktyan theory could be correct. We shouldn't throw this theory completely out the window based on the assumption that the "sh" dialect is older than the "kh" dialect. In fact, I have found that a lot of words used in the "kh" dialect, especially the "kh" dialect spoken by the Karlani, are words indigenous to Pashto that are otherwise replaced by Persian words in the "sh" dialect. Many Kandaharis, for example, seem to say "seb" instead of "mana" for apple or "beron" instead of "owresh" (owresh is probably the actual pashto word). Thus, I have noticed that many speakers of the "kh" dialect have preserved more Pashto words or Ancient Eastern Iranians words, which has led me to ponder if the "kh" dialect is comparable to dari, and if the "sh" dialect is comparable to Iranian Farsi in terms of age, and the processes which have brought them about.

Nonetheless, the theory you propose could also be correct. However, it's important to not entirely dismiss either theories and to keep an open mind.

[Brown Skinned Savage]

Yes, that is also a possibility. However, according to some scholars it is not entirely clear if the "sh' dialect predates the "kh" dialect.

Which scholars for example?

It's a common assumption that "sh" is older due to it being spoken in the Pashtun heartland

Actually the reason why it is believed that "Sha" predates "Kha" is because Avestan and Sanskrit both use the "Sha" sound in cognate words which are in Pashto, like the word "Shaista" (while not exclusive to Pashto) is Shaistem in Avestan but Khaista in "Kha" dialect.

but a phenomenon could have occurred in Pashto that is similar to the phenomenon that happened to Persian. Iran, which is the "heartland" of Persian, has a form of Persian that is relatively new, whereas Afghanistan has an older form of Persian, Dari.

Our Dari is actually not the proper Dari either, while Dari pre-dates the colloquial Farsi of Iran, "our" Dari is not that, we speak a bunch of slang dialects. like "bobo jan" and "shahkoko" or "qandulak" would not be in the original Dari.

I believe Sir Olaf explains his reasoning as to why the "kh" dialect might actually be older than "sh". I suggest you read the reasoning behind his conclusion if you haven't already.

I'll look into it; but at the same time I feel some of his suggestions may have been antiquated by later theories.

Many Kandaharis, for example, seem to say "seb" instead of "mana" for apple or "beron" instead of "owresh" (owresh is probably the actual pashto word).

Well the word "mana" for example definitely exists in the "Sha" dialect although seldom used. Same with the word Wana over "derakht"

In Kandahar it may have lost or diminished in use because of the administrative and commercial center used more universal words/terms but go to nearby Zabul or Helmand who use similar dialect and you'll find more traditional Pashto words in tact.

Nonetheless, the theory you propose could also be correct. However, it's important to not entirely dismiss either theories and to keep an open mind.

Sure but I just find the other hypothesis to be quite weaker in evidence and more evidence exists that conflicts with it than corroborates it.

[Brown Skinned Savage]

Ancestor of Pashtuns is not the same as BEING Pashtun. Technically Africans are ancestors of all humanity. including Pashtuns if we take modern genetics as being valid.

[Kushan Prince]

Well in those days there no boundries, to Greeks perhaps pactyans were Indians, however obviously, it looks like from the sources they were living on the western edge of India, so basically like the pashtuns of today

Actually, there has always been boundaries between indo-iranian peoples and Indians. The indus river being one. Western Fringes i guess refers to North-Western Pakistan which back then there were no Pashtuns living there. The Pactyans who were from eastern afg were definetly an Aryan people as they were mentioned as one of the invading nomad tribes from central asia in the Rigveda.

[tripledouble]

Actually, there has always been boundaries between indo-iranian peoples and Indians. The indus river being one. Western Fringes i guess refers to North-Western Pakistan which back then there were no Pashtuns living there. The Pactyans who were from eastern afg were definetly an Aryan people as they were mentioned as one of the invading nomad tribes from central asia in the Rigveda.

not quite, it was no more a boundary than any river was, it no more a boundary than the denube,nile,tigris,missippi and ganga rivers were

& what do u mean by aryan?indics are indo-aryan too, so pactyans could have been indo aryans not neccesarily indo-iranians