01-13-2006, 01:32 AM
The 'loom' or whatever in third picture definitely looks familiar.
I wouldn't reference iranchamber in public, it's generally considered unreliable. Among Indian things on which they have written "information", consider that:
(1) They claim Pallavas were Iranian. But there's no evidence or record that prior to the Pallavas speaking Prakrt (followed by Samskrt, followed by Tamil) they ever spoke any Iranian language. Secondly, prior to them believing in Hinduism, there is no evidence or record of them having believed in Iranian religions (Zoroastrianism or the religions prior to that).
Interestingly, they think all Reddys, Brahmins from the South as well as a whole bunch of castes in India are all Pallavas (Iranian). Basically they're making most, if not all, of the South into an Iranian population. I wonder if they would have included the Reddys if they had discovered that they were not an "upper" caste group during the Pallava period (the Pallava paper author and others at Iranchamber agree with the AIT in thinking that the caste system was a racial divide and that Dravidians are not "Aryans"). It was during Islam's entry into the South that the Reddys took on the position of Kshatriyas.
The claim that the Reddys are descendents of Pallavas must be because of the many goodlooking Reddy actors and actresses, I'm guessing. The same mistake the west makes about Aishwarya Rai, in thinking she can't be South Indian, "Dravidian".
All these claims without verifiable substantiation.
(2) They claim chess is not Indian but Iranian, without citing any valid proof against the long-existing weighty research into its Indian origin.
(3) They think Jats and Mauryas are all Iranian, because the former "looks European" and some Punjabi names sound a little European (Saxena, Hansraj) and the word "Maurya" contains the name Arya which they assume is Iranian.
About the European sounding names among Punjabis, these are Sanskritic names. Even the Saxons of England claimed their tribe's origins were in Scythia, located according to them near the Black Sea I think. That means the origins of the Saxons of Germany were in the Black Sea region too. See the Shaka/Scythian entry in wikipedia. The Black Sea isn't the part of Europe others have in mind in accusing the Sanskit names of being European, because the word Saxon and the name Hans are particularly Germanic.
(4) They've referred to euro-centrist writers, like L.A.Waddell, who believed in the Aryan race and the AIT, who wrote as far back as around 1900. They regard L.A. Waddell's shoddy work as very good.
Iranchamber is not trustworthy. Even though they claim to have some Iranologists onboard, there seem to be none as many of their conclusions are blatantly wrong and opposed to present and even past scholarship.
Curiously, a number of their authors are Muslims (taking pride in pre-Islamic Iran? it's a start!), and at least one has been said to support "Mughalstan" in India. I'm not saying everything on the site is wrong, just that it will be hard to separate propaganda from fact.
There are better Iranian sites out there for Iranian history, who know how much of the world's heritage is Iranian legacy. There are also good, reliable Zoroastrian sites (actually, the reliable Iranians sites are the Zoroastrian ones).
I wouldn't reference iranchamber in public, it's generally considered unreliable. Among Indian things on which they have written "information", consider that:
(1) They claim Pallavas were Iranian. But there's no evidence or record that prior to the Pallavas speaking Prakrt (followed by Samskrt, followed by Tamil) they ever spoke any Iranian language. Secondly, prior to them believing in Hinduism, there is no evidence or record of them having believed in Iranian religions (Zoroastrianism or the religions prior to that).
Interestingly, they think all Reddys, Brahmins from the South as well as a whole bunch of castes in India are all Pallavas (Iranian). Basically they're making most, if not all, of the South into an Iranian population. I wonder if they would have included the Reddys if they had discovered that they were not an "upper" caste group during the Pallava period (the Pallava paper author and others at Iranchamber agree with the AIT in thinking that the caste system was a racial divide and that Dravidians are not "Aryans"). It was during Islam's entry into the South that the Reddys took on the position of Kshatriyas.
The claim that the Reddys are descendents of Pallavas must be because of the many goodlooking Reddy actors and actresses, I'm guessing. The same mistake the west makes about Aishwarya Rai, in thinking she can't be South Indian, "Dravidian".
All these claims without verifiable substantiation.
(2) They claim chess is not Indian but Iranian, without citing any valid proof against the long-existing weighty research into its Indian origin.
(3) They think Jats and Mauryas are all Iranian, because the former "looks European" and some Punjabi names sound a little European (Saxena, Hansraj) and the word "Maurya" contains the name Arya which they assume is Iranian.
About the European sounding names among Punjabis, these are Sanskritic names. Even the Saxons of England claimed their tribe's origins were in Scythia, located according to them near the Black Sea I think. That means the origins of the Saxons of Germany were in the Black Sea region too. See the Shaka/Scythian entry in wikipedia. The Black Sea isn't the part of Europe others have in mind in accusing the Sanskit names of being European, because the word Saxon and the name Hans are particularly Germanic.
(4) They've referred to euro-centrist writers, like L.A.Waddell, who believed in the Aryan race and the AIT, who wrote as far back as around 1900. They regard L.A. Waddell's shoddy work as very good.
Iranchamber is not trustworthy. Even though they claim to have some Iranologists onboard, there seem to be none as many of their conclusions are blatantly wrong and opposed to present and even past scholarship.
Curiously, a number of their authors are Muslims (taking pride in pre-Islamic Iran? it's a start!), and at least one has been said to support "Mughalstan" in India. I'm not saying everything on the site is wrong, just that it will be hard to separate propaganda from fact.
There are better Iranian sites out there for Iranian history, who know how much of the world's heritage is Iranian legacy. There are also good, reliable Zoroastrian sites (actually, the reliable Iranians sites are the Zoroastrian ones).