Talk:Pakhtas

Pakhtas

Regved mentioned pakhtas as a Indo Aryan people it's mean pakhtas are not pashtun becuase pashto are eastern iranic people not Indo Aryan. Pakhas are others people not pashtun or pakhtun. becuase pakhtun are iranic not Indo aryan. and pashtun are ethnic not tribe pashtun have 400+ tribes.

Strabo, the Greek geographer, in the Geographica (written between 43 BC to 23 AD) makes mention of the Scythian tribe Pasiani (Πασιανοί), which has also been identified with Pashtuns given that Pashto is an Eastern-Iranian language, much like the Scythian languages:

MostMost of the Scythians...each separate tribe has its peculiar name. All, or the greatest part of them, are nomades. The best known tribes are those who deprived the Greeks of Bactriana, the Asii, Pasiani, Tochari, and Sacarauli , who came from the country on the other side of the Iaxartes (Syr Darya)"

— Strabo, The Geography, Book XI, Chapter 8, Section Realone23 (talk) 12:40, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

The idea of them being "Indo-Aryan" is dubious. The people that participated in the battle of the ten kings were Vedic Aryans but not Indo-Aryan which didn't yet exist. Pactyans who are the possible descendants of the Pakhtas are mentioned 1500 years later by Herodotus living in Eastern Afghanistan which most historians connect with Pashtuns. Since Pashtuns are Iranic, its likeable that so were they. Akmal94 (talk) 18:45, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Vedic Aryans were Indo-Aryans. So there is no difference among them, unlike what you're portraying. Also what you're doing is original research. Cite reliable references in support of your claim about them being Iranic. Sutyarashi (talk) 03:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Prove that indo Aryan existed during the migration of Aryans coming into South Asia. 2607:FEA8:4D60:590:7844:D2A7:6FEC:3793 (talk) 18:38, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

There wasn't a single migration, but multiple in and out of south and central Asia. The earliest vedic/proto-avestan were a BMAC derived population, kinda analogous to Hittites situation. Later indo-iranian (of both indo-aryan and iranian linguistic affiliation) were absorbed in the exiting societies of Iran and south Asia, with bi-directional language shifts. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:54, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Hindus should stop relying so much on made up labels. "Indo-Aryan" and "Indo-Iranian" are orientalist created definitions and should not be used to describe people that lived 3000 years ago. The vedas simply mention these tribes as aryans not Indo-Aryans. ~2026-36590-13 (talk) 23:29, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

These are widely accepted terms by the linguists, not orientalists. And Vedas and Avesta used the term 'Arya' / 'Airya', while 'Aryan' is a western madeup term. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:54, 24 June 2026 (UTC)