The spirit, ha whose honour shrines are weak, Upreared of human hands.
-EYBON: Childe Harold.
MR. POCOCKE says: “I have glanced at the Indian settlements in Egypt, which will again be noticed, and I will now resume my observations from the lofty frontier, which is the true boundary of the European and Indian races. The Parasoos, the people of Parasoo Ram, those warriors of the Axe, have penetrated into and given a name to Persia; they are the people of Bharata; and to the principal stream that pours its waters into the Persian Gulf they have given the name of Ea-Bharates (Euphrat-es), the Bharat Chief.”‘
Professor Max Muller’s testimony is decisive on the point. Discussing the word Arya,’ he says: “But it was more faithfully preserved by the Zoroastrians, who migrated from India to the North-west and whose religion has been preserved to us in the Zind Avesta, though in fragments only.”2 He again says: “The Zorastrians were a colony from Northern India.”3
Professor Heeren says: “In point of fact the Zind is derived from the Sanskrit, and a passage in Manu
‘India in Greece, p. 45. 2Science of Language, p. 242.
3 Science of Language, p. 253.
(Chapter X, slokes 43-45) makes the Persians to have descended from the Hindus of the second or Warrior caste.”1
The old name of the country, Iran, was given by the first settlers there, who were Airan, the descendants of Aira, the son of Pururavas the son of Budha of the Lunar race. (Airan is plural of Aira),2 These settlers had been expelled from India after long wars, spoken of by ancient chronicles of Persia as wars between Iran. and Turan, Turan being a corrupt form of Suran, Sura the Sun, the sun tribes. The tribe of “ Cosscei” seen near the banks of the Tigris, are the people of Kasi, the classical name of Benares.
Sir W. Jones says: “I was not a little surprised to find that out of ten words in DU Perron’s Zind Dictionary, six or seven were pure Sanskrit.”3
Mr. [hug, in an interesting essay on the origin of Zoroastrian religion, compares it with Brahminism, and points out the originally-close connection between the Brahrninical and the Zoroastrian religions, customs and observances. After comparing the names of divine beings, names and legends of heroes, sacrificial rites, religious observances, domestic rites, and cosmographical opinions that occur both in the Vedic and Avesta writings, he says: “In the Vedas as well as in the older
Historical Researches, Vol. II, p. 220. 2lndia in Greece, p. 161.
3Sir W, Jones’ works, Vol. I, pp. 82 and 83,
portions of the Zind-Avesta (see the Gathas), there are sufficient traces to be discovered that the Zoroastrian religion arose out of a vital struggle against a form which the Brahminical religion had assumed at a certain early period.”‘ After contrasting the names of the Hindu Gods and the Zoroastrian deities, Professor Haug says: “These facts throw some light upon the age in which that great religious struggle took place, the consequence of which was the entire separation of the Ancient Iranians from the Brahmans and the foundation of the Zoroastrian religion. It must have occurred at the time when Indra was the chief god of the Brahmans.”2
It is not an easy matter to ascertain the exact period at which the Hindu colonization of Persia took place. It is certain, however, that it took place long before the 114 ahabharata. Colonel Tod says: “Ujameda, by his wife, Nila, had five sons, who spread their branches on both sides of the Indus. Regarding three the Puranas are silent, which implies their migration to distant regions. Is it possible they might be the origin of the Medes? These Medes are descendants of Yciyat, third son of the patriarch, Menu: and Madai, founder of the Medes, was of Japhet’s line. Aja Merle, the patronymic of the branch of Bajaswa, is from Aja ‘a goat.’ The Assyrian Mede in Scripture is typified by the goat.”‘
“-Haug’s Essays on the Parsees, p. 287.
2Haug’s Essays on the .Parsees, p. 288.
Of great importance for showing the originally-close relationship between the Brahminical and Parsi religions, is the fact that several of the Indian gods are actually mentioned by name in the Zind. Avesta, some as demons, others as angels.—Haug’s Essays, p. 272.
3Tod’s Rajasthan, Vol. I, p. 41,
Apart from the passage in Mann,’ describing the origin of the ancient Persians, there is another argument to support it. Zoroaster, the Prophet of the Ancient Persians, was born after the emigrants from India had settled in Persia, long enough to have become a separate nation. Vyasa held a grand religious discussion with Zoroaster at Balkh in Turkistan, and was therefore his contemporary. Zanthus of Lydia (B.C. 470), the earliest Greek writer, who mentions Zoroaster, says that he lived about six hundred years before the Trojan War (which took place about 1800 B.C.). Aristotle and Endoxus place his era as much as six thousand year before Plato, others five thousand years before the Trojan War (see Pliny: Historia Naturalis, XXX, 1-3). Berosos, the Babylonian historian makes him a king of the Babylonians and the founder of a dynasty which reigned over Babylon between B.C. 2200 and B.C. 2000. It is, however, clear that the Hindu colonization of Persia took place anterior to the Great War.
In the first chapter (Fargard) of the part which bears the name Vendidad of their sacred book (which is also their most ancient book), Hurrnuzd or God tells Zapetman (Zoroaster): “I have given to man an excellent and fertile country. Nobody is able to give such a one. This land lies to the east (of Persia), where the stars rise every evening.” “When Jamshed (the leader of the emigrating nation), came from the highland in the east to the plain, there were neither domestic animals nor wild, nor men.” “The country alluded to above from which the Persians are said to have come can be
]Manusmriti is admittedly much older than the Mahabharata.
no other than the North-west part of ancient India—Afghanistan and Kashmir—being to the east of Persia, as well as highland compared to the Persian plains.”‘
Mr. Pococke says: “The ancient map of Persia, Colchis,. and Armenia is absolutely full of the most distinct and startling evidences of Indian colonization, and, what is more astonishing, practically evinces, in the most powerful manner, the truth of several main points in the two great Indian poems, the Ramayana and the Mahahharata. The whole map is positively nothing less than a journal of emigration on the most gigantic seale.”2