Let’s rewind to a time before the Mahabharata, before the rise of the great empires, before even the idea of “India” meant anything. In the beginning, there was a river. And then there was war.
So, there are some theories floating around that claim the exiled tribes from the Battle of the Ten Kings eventually migrated west, landed in Persia, and evolved into the Zoroastrian tradition. They usually point to linguistic overlaps, shared mythological motifs, and the general Indo-Iranian family resemblance as “evidence.”
Personally, I don’t buy it. There’s barely any solid evidence to back this theory. Zoroastrianism and Vedic religion are siblings, sure, but they probably branched off from a common Indo-Iranian ancestor long before the Daśarājña went down. By the time Sudās and his tribe were throwing down by the river, the Iranians were probably already off doing their own thing across the Hindu Kush.
Almost all of the kingdoms listed are Iranian beside Bharatas/Purus, Yadus, Anus, Matsya, and potentially Druhyu. These are also the only kings/clans listed to be born from King Yayati, who is a descendant of Manu.
Pakhtas = Pashtun, Parsus = Persians, Pani = Parni, etc., these are Iranians, and they are not mentioned to be descendants of Manu so we know they are not ethnically related to the Indian kings. The Bharatas were fighting a war against Iranians.
The Iranians already existed west of the Indus and in Afghanistan. The region of BMAC & the Indus. BMAC is the Iranian homeland and Iranians were already living there when the Vedas were composed. They weren’t from India and exiled to BMAC, they were from BMAC/Eastern Iran, invaded India and were driven out by Bharatas.
Zoroastrianism is nearly as old as the Vedas so they were contemporary.
did the exiled tribes from the ten kings move to persia and become zoroastrians?
So, there are some theories floating around that claim the exiled tribes from the Battle of the Ten Kings eventually migrated west, landed in Persia, and evolved into the Zoroastrian tradition. They usually point to linguistic overlaps, shared mythological motifs, and the general Indo-Iranian family resemblance as “evidence.”
Personally, I don’t buy it. There’s barely any solid evidence to back this theory. Zoroastrianism and Vedic religion are siblings, sure, but they probably branched off from a common Indo-Iranian ancestor long before the Daśarājña went down. By the time Sudās and his tribe were throwing down by the river, the Iranians were probably already off doing their own thing across the Hindu Kush.
We don’t have the expected ‘solid’ evidence for this rigvedic and kurukshetra war as well right?
We only have texts and also astronomical observances and dates from the texts
Almost all of the kingdoms listed are Iranian beside Bharatas/Purus, Yadus, Anus, Matsya, and potentially Druhyu. These are also the only kings/clans listed to be born from King Yayati, who is a descendant of Manu.
Pakhtas = Pashtun, Parsus = Persians, Pani = Parni, etc., these are Iranians, and they are not mentioned to be descendants of Manu so we know they are not ethnically related to the Indian kings. The Bharatas were fighting a war against Iranians.
The Iranians already existed west of the Indus and in Afghanistan. The region of BMAC & the Indus. BMAC is the Iranian homeland and Iranians were already living there when the Vedas were composed. They weren’t from India and exiled to BMAC, they were from BMAC/Eastern Iran, invaded India and were driven out by Bharatas.
Zoroastrianism is nearly as old as the Vedas so they were contemporary.