توضیح بر پست قبلی
بحث در مورد پست قبلی من:
امین جان! دلیلی که مرجع ارائه نکرده ام این است که اینها دلایلی است که خودم به آن رسیده ام و بنابراین مرجعی وجود ندارد.
محمدرضای عزیز! دیدگاه من یک دیدگاه علمی است به تاریخ نه دیدگاه محفوظاتی. در دیدگاه من شما می توانید به یک زبان ، قوم یا سرزمین اسامی متفاوتی بدهید ولی نمی توانید سیر علمی واقع در حوادث تاریخی را منکر شوید.
سن زمین با توجه به واپاشی عناصر رادیو اکتیو U238 و U235 ، 4.54 میلیارد سال با خطائی کمتر از 1% تخمین زده شده است (http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html) و سن انسان (هومو راست قامت) نیز به حدود 2 میلیون سال تخمین زده شده (http://www.mansfield.ohio-state.edu/~sabedon/biol1530.htm) یکی از اساسی ترین و مقبولترین تئوریهای کلیدی زمین شناسی بوسیله جیمز هاتن اسکاتلندی در قرن 18 میلادی بیان شد: "حال کلیدی از گذشته است". بسیاری از پدیده های زمین شناختی بر همین اساس بررسی و مطالعه می شوند. زندگی بشر نیز جزئی از تاریخچه زمین است، کوتاه اما بسیار تاثیر گذار، در این میان بررسی تاریخچه قسمتهای فوقانی کره زمین در دوره اخیر( هولوسن= از 10000 سال قبل به این طرف)، بدون در نظر گرفتن انسان غیر ممکن است. تاریخ انسان چون شواهد چینه شناسی چندانی راجع به آن وجود ندارد با توجه به ملاحظات صرفا زمین شناختی بسیار دشوار است. در واقع تاریخچه زندگی واقعی انسانها همانند لوحی است سنگی که در زیر خاک مدفون شده، یعنی نوشته شده اما کاملا خوانده نشده، و هر از گاهی شخصی قسمتهایی از این لوح را از گرد خاک پاک می کند و لغات یا حروفی را می یابد و برای خودش تفسیر می کند اما به یقین نمی توان آنرا قبول کرد چه ممکن است که باقی حروفی که در آینده از زیر خاک سر بر خواهند آورد تعبیری دیگر را موجب شوند پس همانند دیگر شاخه های علوم نگرش تعصبانه به تاریخ نگرشی غیر علمی خواهد بود چه شک پدر علم است.
به نقشه گروهای نژادی مقابل نگاه کنید (http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/commonwealth.html
). برای گروه نژادی مردمان شمال ایران فقط ذکر شده نژادهای دیگر! چرا؟ آیا این مردمان نژادی ندارند؟ اصلا نژاد به چه معنایی است ؟ این عبارت را برای مردمانی در جنوب روسیه، شرق و شمال ترکیه ، آذربایجان و قفقاز نیز آورده شده است. دو گروه عمده زبانی (که امروزه همان معادل نژادی در نظر گرفته می شود { به دلایل سیاسی} در منطقه دیده می شود: 1- گروهی از زبانها با خاستگاه مشترک که آنها را هندو اروپایی می نامند و من آنرا الف می نامم. 2- زبانهای شاخه زرد که من آنرا ب می نامم . حال سئوال این است کدام یک قدیمی تراند؟ آیا توالی در تقدم و تاخر این زبانها وجود دارد یا خیر؟ آنچه که تاکنون پذیرفته شده است این بوده که زبان مردم این نواحی اغلب الف بوده است ( با ریشه ای واحد) و سپس زبان ب از سوی مشرق درنتیجه تاخت و تاز اقوام ب وارد این سرزمین ها شده است. با فرض پذیرفتن مهاجرت آریائیها ، پس باید قبول کنیم که در ابتدا اقوامی ناشناخته (که شاید هم ب بوده اند) در مقاصد آریائیها زندگی می کرده اند و سپس آریائها زبان الف را جایگزین ب کرده اند. اگر این طور باشد پس سرزمین ایران سرزمین الف ها نبوده و ذاتا سرزمین غیر الف ها بوده است و الف ها همانند اعراب و مغولان آنرا اشغال کرده بودند. در این صورت چه بر سر اقوام غیر الف آمده است؟ تمامی نابود شده اند ( در این صورت اقوام الف خونریز و دد منش بوده اند) یا اینکه الف ها در غیر الف ادغام شده اند . حال اگر در نتیجه این ادغام اقوام غیر الف غالب باشند پس اقوام الف جایگاه قومی نخواهند داشت (مگر در چیرگی زبانی) یا اگر اقوام الف غالب باشند پس می باید خصوصیات اقوام الف در مبدا مهاجرت را نشان دهند. محمد رضای عزیز و دیگران نوشته اند که آریائیها از سرزمینهای شمالی آمده اند. کدام سرزمین منظورتان است: قزاقستان و ازبکستان و ترکمنستان فعلی ؟ که خود از نژآد زرد هستند یا یخهای قطبی که همین طور زرد پوستند یا اینکه از نژاد اسلاو و روس اند. پس اگر غلبه نژادی با نژآد الف در ایران موجود بوده است پس چرا مردمان ایران به هیچ کدام از این گروهها شباهتی ندارند (و شباهت ایرانیها به اردنیها و سوریها و لبنانیها ، که همگی امروزه عرب شناخته می شوند!، بسیار بیشتر است) و اگر غالب نبوده اند پس ایرانیها چرا کاسه داغ تر از آش شده اند. آیا این موضوعات سوال برانگیز نیستند؟
posted by Masoud @ Wednesday, May 17, 2006
9 Comments:
Mas'ude aziz,
bejoz morede axar(name majmueye sarzamihaye tahte eshqale Qezelbashha)ke mobtani bar asnade va shavahede tarixi mibashad. baqiyeye mavared (Irane avesta va irane shahname)tanha dar hadde teori va afsane mibashand.
Mas'ude aziz,
bejoz morede axar(name majmueye sarzamihaye tahte eshqale Qezelbashha)ke mobtani bar asnade va shavahede tarixi mibashad. baqiyeye mavared (Irane avesta va irane shahname)tanha dar hadde teori va afsane mibashand.
Dear friend,
Here are a couple of links to publicly available sources for the points you raised.
1. For Indo-European languages:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_languages
2. For Indo-European people: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_people
3. Iranian people: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_peoples
You are badly mixing "inguistic" ssues with "racial" issues.
Modern central asia is Turkic speaking and more or less dominated with mongoloid people because turkic-mongol populations have been moving west since 2nd century AD from what is now Chinese turkistan and mongolia.
Historic, linguistic, archeological and evidence shows that prior to these migrations (culminating in Mongol invasion) central asia was Iranian speaking (though may be not persian speaking) (see this link about turkic migrations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkic_people).
The pre-Aryan people of Iran (like Cassites or elamites) are indeed not studied racially. For one thing, we do not have enough material to do so. What we know about the Elamite llanguage is that it is either related to Dravidian languages of southern India or it is a single family language (like Basque in Spain and France). For all we know Cassites might have spoken a language similar to Georgian or other "caucasian" languages spoken even today not that far from northern Iran.
Notice that language substitution does not imply racial substitution. Iranians and many people from middle east have intermingled over millenia. They should look like each other. Also, the Aryan migration did not happen 2500 years ago. I started almost 4500 years ago. The traditional "2500 years" date quoted so often in Iran just denotes the start of the first Persian empire, not the migration of Iranian people. So, Iranians moved to Iran and mixed with the original inhabitants. What is so surprizing about it?
Also, again Russians and other slavs moved from baltic sea region to central europe and parts of Eurasin steppe between 700 to 1000 AD. Northern Indians (who are also Aryan) do not show European features If that's what you mean. Physical features change rather quickly, but the genetic markers show that there are some differences between Iranians and their neighbors.
Incidentally, C14 tests and genetic tests are pretty accurate tools in documenting human migrations and families. Many studies are under way in the US and Europe.
I am still failing to see your point. Turkic languages are relative newcomers in the western Asia (including Arab countries, Iran, Turkey, and Central Asia). Linguistic evidence shows that Iran, Turkey, Caucasus and central Asia spoke a wide variety of Indo European languages. Turkic languages entered the area between 4th and 10th centuries AD. So, it seems that Indo-European languages are "older", what ever that means.
You said: اما به یقین نمی توان آنرا قبول کرد چه ممکن است که باقی حروفی که در آینده از زیر خاک سر بر خواهند آورد تعبیری دیگر را موجب شوند پس همانند دیگر شاخه های علوم نگرش تعصبانه به تاریخ نگرشی غیر علمی خواهد بود. Correct, but you should also follow accepted scientific procedures in making statements. You should know the methodology of the discipline you are talking about, and you should know something about the theories and literature.
What I find disturbing in your two posts is that you really do not know hsitory, linguistics, and archeology. Yet, you dismiss the findings of these disciplines without a second thought. I believe what I just said is pretty accurate. By no means do I want to be harsh to you. On the contrary, I am trying to show you were you are making statements which are not supported by facts. As a scholar who has accepted, published scientific work (by the way congrats! I am also an academician. Keep on doing the good work!) you of all people should be extra careful in were you let your emotions mar your judgement.
We will definitely talk more!
Where is the "aryans" or so-called Iranans' home of origin?
Why did they leave their own homeland?
How did their migration process take place?
How long did it take?
How could they occupy and settle in their destinatios?
Are there any solid evidences and historical proofs for each of the a/m questions?
There are several theories about the homeland of Indo-Europeans. The most widely cited places the Indo-Europeans somewhere between Black Sea, the Caspian Sea, and Caucasus mountains. This roughly translates into southern Russia and parts of Ukraine.
In particular, Aryans (which are the eastern branch of Indo-Europeans) migrated to the area that comprises modern Kazakhstan roughly 6000 years ago. Human migrations are pretty standard. Remember that Indo-Europeans, based on archeological evidence, were the first people to domesticate horses. They were nomads and like many other nomads followed their animals to better pastures.
Some of the Aryan tribes moved to India and Iran. The rest stayed in central asia (we call them Turani in our legends). Over time, these people expanded to the steppe north of Caspian and Black sea. Greeks called them Scythians, Sarmatians, or Alans. We call them Sakas. Ossetian people of Caucasus are the remnants of these tribes, based on their language which belong to the Iranian family, but based on the structure and words, was separated from the main branch (Persian, Kurdish, Gilaki, ...) a very long time ago.
Those people who moved to Iran and India called themselves Aryan, as shown in Rig Veda (the holy book of Hindus) and Avesta. These migrations started some time around 5000 years ago, and were completed almost 1800 years ago (when Sistan was settled by Sakas). The evidence is from he burial mounds across southern Russia, Ukraine, central asia, Afghanistan, and parts of Iran. The type of archeological findings like pottery and weapons, as well as bones of animals and humans, shows a disruption and then mixture in the Iranian and Indian areas of civilization between 5000 to 4000 years ago.
Many of these findings are Carbon-dated (like the famous Pazirik rug). Also, recently there have been several DNA studies on the findings of the human remains.
Given the similarity between Indo-Iranian languages and European languages, there is certainty that these languages belong to the same family.
As to why Indo-Europeans started their migration, again some theories suggest internal wars, some suggest climatic change, and some suggest a pattern similar to the migration of Turko-Mongols (i.e. the desire to settle, and plunder, more advanced and wealthier areas in the Middle East, India, and Mediterranean region).
They had one advantage over the locals when they moved: they had horses and were traditionally very good fighters (so they had a significant military advantage) and they were nomads in tribal confederations (hence they produced rather expensive animal products in large quantities versus the low value agrarian products of the settled people, like grains).
The archeological evidence mapping the migration is pretty solid. The linguistic evidence is the best out there for any group of languages (for one simple reason: Europeans and Americans speak Indo-European languages :)) The DNA evidence is recent, but so far the results are promissing.
I hope this is helpful.
One issue that I notice in your posts is that you are measuring ancient world with modern yardsticks. Given the time passed, one can not expect to see well documented, professionally written histories. By the way, how much do we know about Reza Shah's coup in 1299 or about 28 Mordad? These are vents which are not even 100 years old and no one can reach a consensus over them :) As far as an outsider is concerned, many of the works done on these two events are not factual, yet we can't dismiss them out of hand. One reads and rereads the sources, does good field work, and reaches some conclusions. A statement like "baqiyeye mavared (Irane avesta va irane shahname)tanha dar hadde teori va afsane mibashand" is not accurate. All scientific work is theory. It does not discount its usefulness.
Xaste nabi Masud jon. Alon ki ti daläyele b6xondam, de daram ki ti kär ch6ni arzesh dane. I yekte vänivis6 linkam banam v6rg6 webm6ji men. Ti j6 xähesh konam ki i selsele maqäläte edäme badi ki värede maquleye muhemmi buboy. Yä ali.
You ara right.In connection with history, the contents of "Aveta" and "Shahname" are not based on theories. They are merely fictional stories.
These stories indicate the essential intentions of the writers, which are obviously based on RACISM and ETHNIC DISCRIMINATION.
In this regard they are full of ANTI-SCIENTIFIC and NON-REALISTIC stuff.
For instance, by using the words such as VARANR and MAZANA in "Ave sta" which mean lie-worshiper and devil-vorshiper respectively, and developing the latter as MAZAN-DAR-AN in Shahname, both books have not only differrd them from so-called "aryans" but also have obviouly insulted both GILISH and TABARI nations.
Post a Comment
<< Home