Tajiks, Farsiwan, and Persianized Pashtuns

[Aryana]

Tajiks are the only the only ethnic group that can claim to be Bactrian.

They spoke an Eastern Iranic language (probably to be Pashto's ancestor language), do Tajiks speak an Eastern Iranic language? On what basis do you lay the claim that Tajiks are "Bactrians". At most you can claim that Tajiks are descendants of Sogdians, that has at least some truth behind it. If however you have evidence to prove Tajiks are Bactrian, go ahead and show them.

We actually might be Sakas as they had a lifestyle that bore many similarities with Pashtuns, Bactrians and Kushans, probably not, as these were highly metropolitan cultures and Pashtuns had only become metropolitan recently.

Interesting to note my dad's family are from a branch called "Sakzai" but of course this isn't proof of anything, it's just something to note.

It is entirely possible that the Kushans and Bactrians might've fled to the mountains after waves of invasions and conquests by outsiders. Sakas spoke an Eastern Iranic dialect, and they were a tribal people, just like Pashtuns today.

[Firdousi]

They spoke an Eastern Iranic language (probably to be Pashto's ancestor language), do Tajiks speak an Eastern Iranic language? On what basis do you lay the claim that Tajiks are "Bactrians". At most you can claim that Tajiks are descendants of Sogdians, that has at least some truth behind it. If however you have evidence to prove Tajiks are Bactrian, go ahead and show them.

Wishful thinking. Once again.

No proofs, no evidences. Just suggestions and probabilities.

Bactrians were from Bactria, Balkh. Original people from Balkh are modern "Tajiks". Ergo Tajiks are Bactrians. Easy syllogism. Dayum you are d*mber even than AFB. Too much bachabazi I guess LOL

[Firdousi]

We actually might be Sakas as they had a lifestyle that bore many similarities with Pashtuns, Bactrians and Kushans, probably not, as these were highly metropolitan cultures and Pashtuns had only become metropolitan recently.

Interesting to note my dad's family are from a branch called "Sakzai" but of course this isn't proof of anything, it's just something to note.

Iblis, answer this: why Pashtuns are always making fairy tails up? Why Pashtun history is so scanty? I find hilarious how people like Aryana, AFB, Kushan,.. and so on are always trying to relate themselves to ancient and rich kingdoms such as Bactrians, Tocharians, Parthians but they fail miserably to provide any reliable evidence about it?

You are a quite reasonable guy. What do you think about this?

[Golden]

They spoke an Eastern Iranic language (probably to be Pashto's ancestor language), do Tajiks speak an Eastern Iranic language? On what basis do you lay the claim that Tajiks are "Bactrians". At most you can claim that Tajiks are descendants of Sogdians, that has at least some truth behind it. If however you have evidence to prove Tajiks are Bactrian, go ahead and show them.



It is entirely possible that the Kushans and Bactrians might've fled to the mountains after waves of invasions and conquests by outsiders. Sakas spoke an Eastern Iranic dialect, and they were a tribal people, just like Pashtuns today.

Where is current day Bactria? People living there are most likely modern descendent because identity/language change but genes are left behind. Without any proper evidence only people living with in current day Bactria or who have known recent ancestry from there can claim to be descendent of ancient people from paternal or maternal side.

[Win Butler]

Bactrians were urban/sedentary peoples like Tajiks. They were Persianized during the Islamic period. Both Tajiks and Pashtuns have Bactrian ancestry.

Take a look at Table S5 of this study. Tajiks from Balkh are mainly R1a1a

PLOS ONE: Afghan Hindu Kush: Where Eurasian Sub-Continent Gene Flows Converge

Bactrians were probably a mix of R1a1a, L, J, etc. based on this study.



Bactria also encompasses provinces like Takhar, Samangan, etc. whose Iranic population is mainly Tajik. It includes southern Tajikistan as well...

Anyway you guys should stop trolling so much.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

Iblis, answer this: why Pashtuns are always making fairy tails up? Why Pashtun history is so scanty? I find hilarious how people like Aryana, AFB, Kushan,.. and so on are always trying to relate themselves to ancient and rich kingdoms such as Bactrians, Tocharians, Parthians but they fail miserably to provide any reliable evidence about it?

You are a quite reasonable guy. What do you think about this?

I have the same exact concerns.

One argument relayed to me is that Pashtuns just kept oral history, and being pastoralists/nomads they didn't have room for books. However, Saka were pastoral nomads as well and have records and some literature left behind.

I would say whatever evidence we do have, relationship of Pashto to Avestan, Pashtun genetics and habits and customs of Pashtuns, definitely relate them to ancient peoples of the region but to whom exactly?

Most likely NOT the Bactrians or Kushans, who as I said earlier were metrpolitan peoples. Not really pastoral nomads, albeit they may have had some nomadism. after all Bactrian Camels right?

Pashtuns are one of the few present day breeders of Bactrian camels, but Saka also used bactrian camels.

Now your main question, why they keep insisting these tenuous associations with Kushans and Bactrians, my answer is political agenda by Nationalists that claiming they were Bactrians and Kushans legitimizes their social hegemony by claiming they had ancient kingdoms.

[Aryana]

Wishful thinking. Once again.

No proofs, no evidences. Just suggestions and probabilities.

Bactrians were from Bactria, Balkh. Original people from Balkh are modern "Tajiks". Ergo Tajiks are Bactrians. Easy syllogism. Dayum you are d*mber even than AFB. Too much bachabazi I guess LOL

What type of **** reasoning is that? What happened to Tajiks being "Persians"? Unless you can give me some proof that Tajiks are Bactrians (that will be hard to do anyway, Tajiks lost an identity hundreds of years ago), there isn't any reason to continue arguing. Don't you realise that by calling Tajiks "Bactrians" your dreams of being Persian will go away?

Bactrian language - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you can read that page, it clearly mentions Bactrian as an Eastern Iranic language.

Where is current day Bactria? People living there are most likely modern descendent because identity/language change but genes are left behind. Without any proper evidence only people living with in current day Bactria or who have known recent ancestry from there can claim to be descendent of ancient people from paternal or maternal side.

Iblis, answer this: why Pashtuns are always making fairy tails up? Why Pashtun history is so scanty? I find hilarious how people like Aryana, AFB, Kushan,.. and so on are always trying to relate themselves to ancient and rich kingdoms such as Bactrians, Tocharians, Parthians but they fail miserably to provide any reliable evidence about it?

You are a quite reasonable guy. What do you think about this?

I've never seen a Pashtun try to claim Parthians or Tocharians. Parthians were Persians and Tocharians were another group entirely. Just try to realise that take your own advice and actually give me some evidence for your claim that Tajiks are Bactrians. So far, the only **** you've said to support that idea, is that Bactrians came from Balkh, which is now inhabited by Tajiks. Scythians came from the Turkic states in a Central Asia, so Scythians are Turkic people now? Aboriginals come from Australia, which is now inhabited mostly by English, so Aboriginals are English?

[Golden]

this seem to be correct map of modern day Bactria.

[Aryana]

this seem to be correct map of modern day Bactria.

I guess ****ing Uzbeks and Turkmens have more of a claim to Bactrians.

[Golden]

^^
They also have claim, remember we are talking about likely descendants.

[Aryana]

^^
They also have claim, remember we are talking about likely descendants.

Tajiks, Uzbeks and Turkmen of course have some claim to being descendants of Bactrians. But to say that Bactrians were Uzbek, Turkmen or Tajik is just ludicrous.

[Forreigner]

What type of **** reasoning is that? What happened to Tajiks being "Persians"? Unless you can give me some proof that Tajiks are Bactrians (that will be hard to do anyway, Tajiks lost an identity hundreds of years ago), there isn't any reason to continue arguing. Don't you realise that by calling Tajiks "Bactrians" your dreams of being Persian will go away?

Bactrian language - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you can read that page, it clearly mentions Bactrian as an Eastern Iranic language.







I've never seen a Pashtun try to claim Parthians or Tocharians. Parthians were Persians and Tocharians were another group entirely. Just try to realise that take your own advice and actually give me some evidence for your claim that Tajiks are Bactrians. So far, the only **** you've said to support that idea, is that Bactrians came from Balkh, which is now inhabited by Tajiks. Scythians came from the Turkic states in a Central Asia, so Scythians are Turkic people now? Aboriginals come from Australia, which is now inhabited mostly by English, so Aboriginals are English?

Except we are talking about settled people. The Bactrians were settled people, not nomads who wandered around. And there is no documentation of massacring/genocide/mass migration so its probably logical to think the Tajis (both Afghanistan and Tajkistan) are main descendants of Bactrians. Balkh was the capital of Bactria (Bakhtar in persian).

Pashtuns (Pakhtuns) i believe are descendended mainly from Pactyans and Arachosians. Georgraphically this would makes sense:

[Golden]

In KPK there are pirachas and gujjars. Pirachas are traditionally urban, shopkeeper while gujjars are cattle herders semi nomads. Both speak indo-aryan but who's is more likely to be decendent of Gandharas if one of them was? Answer is obvious.

[Forreigner]

In KPK there are pirachas and gujjars. Pirachas are traditionally urban, shopkeeper while gujjars are cattle herders semi nomads. Both speak indo-aryan but who's is more likely to be decendent of Gandharas if one of them was? Answer is obvious.

Yes Afghanistan must lay claim to Gandhara. Gandara was not part of India. Thats a Bs Indocentricn lie. Just because they may have practised hinduism doesnt make them Indian. After all Bosnia is in Europe and European people but none can claim they are Arab just because they practise Islam.

Borders of ancient India started with Sindh/Hindustan.

[Forreigner]

There were different types of Bactrians. Not all were sedentary and many were nomadic like Kushan, Hephthalite, Saka etc.

No documentation of mass migration? Really? Migrations were constantly taking place by Huns, Yuezhi, Saka, Turks, and Persians also migrated to Sogdiana.

You make it seem so chaotic with everyone migrating constantly. Logical thinking makes this unlikely though. Some % of any populatipn might migrate, true, but the main core of any population stays intact (except undocumentes genocides occuring). Hence why we must conclude that Bactrians had their base around modern day Balkh region and the people who call themselves Tajis are likely their main descendants.