Persians,Greeks,Romans,Kelts,Teutons,Hindus and Slavs contin

[iranianguy]

4000-3000 BC is the aproximate date for the migration of Indo-Iranian tribes from their Central Asian settlement, however, recent Archaeological,and Anthropological discoveries in Central Asia seem to provide information leading us to believe that this date could have been later, closer to 2500 or 2000 BC.The Indo-Iranian settlement known as Iran-Vij to the Iranologists, based on the term Aerianem-Vaejou in Avesta, is a half mithical place whose location is an object of controversies. Opinions vary from Northern Caucasus to the western shore of Lake Aral (Kharazm) and the Oxus river. In Avesta and Veda, this place is described as "Heart of Cold" and supposedly the capital of the last common Indo-Iranian king. This king-hero, Yima (Yama in Sanskrit, Jamm in Modern Persian) was the source of all technology, and expander of the land. In one of the stories in Avesta, Yima realised that Iran-Vij is no longer big enough to hold all his people, so he decided to expand his land. He shoved his sword into the earth three times, and made it expand, respectively 1/3, 2/3, and 3/3, during a period of three 600 winters (Each winter being a year, since Iran Vij had only two seasons, Winter and Summer). This can be seen as a metaphor for the furthur Indo-Iranian migrations which led them into the Iranian Plateau and later on into India.Indo-Iranians themselves were later divided into two major sections, Indians and Iranians. Indians continued their way furthur into the Dakan (Northern India), were stopped by local Dravidians, and settled there. They mixed up with the people, kept their own religion, and became present day Indians. Iranians, on the other hand, were themselves divided into three major tribes with each having its own sub-tribes. These tribes and range of their initial domination in the Iranian Plateau wereMaad(Medians): central and north-western parts.
Paars(Persians): In south and south-western parts.
Parthav(Parthians):north-eastern and eastern parts.
Out of these, Parthians are believed to be half Iranian and half Scythian. This can be true, since the first Parthian who entered the pages of history, Arashk or Arsaces, is surely from a Scythian/Iranian nomadic background. For more information, please visit the Parthia.com web site.These tribes started their career in Iran as the hired warriors for the local chiefs, many arcaeological discoveries such as Syalk suggest this. Since they knew the secret to horse riding and had Iron weapon

[stavros]

is this related to King Alexander????

[stavros]

is this related to King Alexander????

[Efstathios]

Ok,lets see...
The indo-european theory as you said is a subject of controversion.It might be true to a point and it might be not.Like all other theories.There are not enough evidence to backup this theory.The common aspects of culture,language e.t.c of some civilizations does not indicate that they all came from one civilizatiion initially.It could be that yes,but it could also mean that one civilization among them influenced the others.So in this case the whole indo-european theory collapses. For example it has been stated by many people that the latin language has many things in common with the greek language especially to the origin of the words.But because the greek language existed long before the latin,and in conjuction with the fact that southern italy/sicily was a greek settlement before or at the same time latin began to form we may conclude to the fact that it "borrowed" some elements from the greek language and not that the latin and greek were initially originated from another language (indo-european). I do not know much about europe during 2.000 and 4.000 bc but it is certain that in the greek territory at that time there were tribes like pelasgoi and iones.If indo-europeans would descent from asia at some point at this era that mut have been known.It must have been a huge event.That event should have been transfered through history,mythology and generally verbal (or written)communication of the time and should have survived at the memory of the people.But there is no account of such an event.The only similar event that was publicly known was the descent of the dorians.

[Efstathios]

Furthermore,you talk about myths and mythology.If we are to talk about mythology then things get complicated.For example the greek mythology and the translators of it (Diodorus the Sicelian e.t.c) account many interesting facts about the era before 2000 bc but shall we take them as history,or seriously?There is saying that says: Mythology is actually history.Well the greek mythology tells us many things. From the flying chariot of Phaethon which crushed in italy,to the war between Zeus and the Titans.From the battle between the Athenians and the Atlantians(as dscribed in Plato and Diodorus) to the teachings of Hermes.From King Uranus,the first King/God to rule the world to Dionysus and his campaigns at Asia. The egyptians made a lot of efforts to account some of these stuff as they believed they were history.Diodorus and Solon visited Thebes to learn more about these events.If we are to take these things literally then we are talking about a civilization (Greek? or something else)that ruled the earth before the cataclysm of Deykalion (around 9500 bc)with unknown technology and culture. Some of these heroes/gods/persons though are accounted (by Diodorus) to have lived after the cataclysm and contributed to the effort of rebuilding the world,like Hercules. Anyway,it would take many books to analyse greek mythology (or other nations' mythologies too)but the point is that if we would take mythology literally then we would speak on another basis.indo-europeans would not be on that basis probably...

[iranianguy]

Well most of the evidence to back this theory up comes from the langwages of europe. I have read based on the research that Greek, Latin, German,Persian,and slavic langwages all share alot of stricking similarities. You cant expect me to believe that Indo-European langwage spread to all these places without the migration. The migration had to have happend because of the similaries in these langwages. And you said that if the migration took place there would have to be writen history or verbal history. Well guess what there is.In Iran even before this theory was developed by researchers there have bin storys past down from parents to childeren about the origins of the Persians. Dont for one secound think its just the Persians that believe this migration to have taken place.In Germany it is also believed that Germans(are decendents or at least partly decendents of Aryans/Indo-European race).

[Efstathios]

Here are some links of a site that you should all see.It's the Anthropological Association of Greece,and the site is also in English.It has to do with mr .Poulianos' work and it is very interesting because it not only proves wrong the indo-european theory,but also the theory that man came from africa. Here are the links:
http://www.aee.gr/english/4greeks_origi ... rs.htmland finally the main site:
http://www.aee.gr/english/1contents/contents.html