Indus Pakistan
BANNED
- Joined
- May 7, 2012
- Messages
- 20,487
- Reaction score
- 182
- Country
- Location
I am a keen reader of Achaemenid history and Zoroastrianism and took a course on them both when i was at university so can tell you that what you have presented here is not correct.
Hendu / Hendi in Middle Persian (Indo / Indian in Latin/Greek) basically means 'Indian'. It was just a generic label for dark skinned natives of Pakistan and India. It didnt have any religious connotation to it like it does now, it was a racial label for South Asians. Hend and Hendustan in Persian historiography includes what is now central, eastern and southern Pakistan and basically the rest of India. Similar to how the Balkans and eastern Mediterranean in Middle Persian was generically called 'Rhum' (the old Greco-Roman heartlands).
Zoroastrianism never had any presence in South Asia until the 10th century CE when some Zoroastrian communities from Khorasan left Iran and eventually ended up taking refuge in western India in a coastal region called 'Saurashtra'. That was the first time in history that there had ever been any Zoroastrian community in the Indian subcontinent. The historical record for this first ever Zoroastrian migration to the east is a Middle Persian text called the Qissa-e Sanjan. The only other Zoroastrian migration eastwards that is known to have taken place was by the Sogdians and then the Sassanid elite to China after the Arab invasion but they all disappear from the Tang historical record a century or so after their migration and nobody knows what their fate in China became.
In the Avesta Zoroastrianism is tied to the Iranian identity and this is how the concept of Iran and Aniran came about in both the Iranian historical tradition and Persian mythology. It was never spread to foreigners until the later Sassanids tried to re-conquer and re-convert the Armenians well into the Christian era in the Middle East. Zoroastrianism was never spread east to South Asia or to any other conquered or vassal peoples, East or West.
The only non-Iranian peoples to have ever been Zoroastrian at some point in their history were the Armenians. Otherwise, Zoroastrians had been synonymous with the confederation of Iranian peoples (ie, the Ariya in Avestan and Old Persian). The 'Ariya' in Old Persian were the broadly the Persians, Medes, Parthians, Bactrians, Sogdians and Khwarazmians. The non-Zoroastrian Iranians, ie the various Scythian peoples of the north (Turan), were condemned for being 'Drujvant' and so fell outside of the Zoroastrian and Iranian fold, kind of like being expelled from the Ariya fold but were still considered to be a closely related kin to Iranians. All other peoples and lands were considered foreigners - Aniran, by the Achaemenids and Sassanids and so were subject to conquest and tribute to Persia whenever the great Kings of Iran decided to go to war against them.
Darius the Great basically invaded India to extract tribute from them and to subordinate this area of Aniran as vassals that would pay annual tributes in exchange for their freedom to govern their own local affairs. There wasnt actually a direct Persian presence in the three Indian vassal states beyond Darius the Great's invasion of India/Pakistan. You can read about the relations between Achaemenid Persia and South Asia in an archaeological survey undertaken by some historians from Cambridge University. The title of their paper is called "West of the Indus-East of the Empire: The Archaeology of the Pre-Achaemenid and Archaemenid Periods in Baluchistan and the North-West Frontier Province, Pakistan". According to the evidence for an Achaemenid influence in South Asia, which is quite limited, it was restricted mainly to the extreme northwest of what is now Pakistan, near the border with Afghanistan. There is practically no evidence for Achaemenid control in the rest of what is now Pakistan but small traces of Achaemenid influence can be found in some pockets there, probably as a result of occassional invasions to extract tribute from the natives and trade with the vassal states listed by Darius I.
If anyone wants to seriously read into Achaemenid history and Zoroastrianism i can recommened you some books to buy. Although be warned that many are quite dry and academic and are only intended for the serious rather than general reader, but they are in-depth and you will learn a lot about this great period of Iranian history.
Let me do some reading and I will get back to you. Are you Iranian and Persian speaker?