Who were the Pactyans?

[Kushan Prince]

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

Indo-Aryan is a lose and vauge term. Its only a linguistic term to refer to the iranian speaking people in india but they are not racially iranian unlike the pactyans who were. The term indo-aryan is stupid and wrong in the first place, and has no basis in linguistics.

And many people see rivers/seas as boundaries. Believe it.

[tripledouble]

Indo-Aryan is a lose and vauge term. Its only a linguistic term to refer to the iranian speaking people in india

no, it's term to refer to indic speakers of subcontinent, not iranian speakers, they are called iranic not indo-aryan

but they are not racially iranian unlike the pactyans who were.

of course not, they r racially indo aryans, and modern day iranian ppls are not longer racially iranian, mixing has occured since times of pactyaans, most linguistic terms no longer corelate wid race, mixing & formation of confedrations of tribes has changed things in 1000s of years

The term indo-aryan is stupid and wrong in the first place, and has no basis in linguistics.

it does, indic languages are indo-aryans branch of indo-european language family

And many people see rivers/seas as boundaries. Believe it.

seeing isn't a fact, then rivers being borders must mean germans west of danube are racially d/f from germans east of it, or indians being d/f across ganga river or iraqis being diferent across tigris and euphrates, it's funny how rivers are suddenly consider uncrossable ditch like atlantic ocean by pseudo intellectuals

[Kushan Prince]

no, it's term to refer to indic speakers of subcontinent, not iranian speakers, they are called iranic not indo-aryan



of course not, they r racially indo aryans, and modern day iranian ppls are not longer racially iranian, mixing has occurred since times of pactyaans, most linguistic terms no longer corelate wid race, mixing & formation of confedrations of tribes has changed things in 1000s of years



it does, indic languages are indo-aryans branch of indo-european language family

I think your a bit confused. The word Iranian means "Aryan" just an FYI. Indo-Aryan isn't a race, it never has been but rather a linguistic term of the languages of North India.

of course not, they r racially indo aryans, and modern day iranian ppls are not longer racially iranian, mixing has occurred since times of pactyaans, most linguistic terms no longer corelate wid race, mixing & formation of confedrations of tribes has changed things in 1000s of years

Its common knowledge that mixing has occurred in every part of the world since the emergence of man. Nobody is pure in the world and anybody who tells you otherwise is fooling themselves. This isn't a purity contest, but Pashtuns are an absolute sheer people who most of the time only mix between themselves. Even intermarriages between different tribes was not that common in the past as it is now. Look at the PER genetic spread sheets posted on this forum where afghan Pashtuns show very little mixing.

seeing isn't a fact, then rivers being borders must mean germans west of danube are racially d/f from germans east of it, or indians being d/f across ganga river or iraqis being different across tigris and euphrates, it's funny how rivers are suddenly consider uncrossable ditch like atlantic ocean by pseudo intellectuals[

You could have used a better example. Danube is a river that spans multiple countries in Europe, not just Germany. Indus is a prime example of the divide of Indo-Iranians and Indic people. There is even a saying that anything west of the indus is Pashtun land so even Afghans themselves recognize the indus as a boundary between them and Indians. Just like the Red Sea separate's Arabs from Africans and the Sahara desert is the divide between Caucasians and Bantu negroid's down south.