Ultimate ancestry of Aryans a.k.a. Indo-Europeans

[J-WO]

And for those who do not know Aryan is or what it means other than what has been spoon fed from modern historic media, I would highly suggest picking up a real book. If this occurred, it would be learned that the term Aryan has nothing to do with Nazis, anymore than the Swastika does before this last century.

The Nazis were culture theives. Not heralds of modern terminology and image recognition for hatred.

I would also caution people to remain calm and kind hearted to opinions.

With all due respect, its not just a question of Fascism's purloining ways. Modern academia doesn't use the term Aryan, not because of any politically correct sentiment, but simply because its obsolete. As our understanding increases the measuring devices--as with any science--become more accurate. These days, as far as any academic output goes, Aryan only appears in 'Indo-Aryan' with reference to Indo european language groups found in the subcontinent (If memory serves me well).

Aryan of itself is not offensive, just imprecise.

And I, obviously, am a bit of a pedant.

 

[dustinzgirl]

With all due respect, its not just a question of Fascism's purloining ways. Modern academia doesn't use the term Aryan, not because of any politically correct sentiment, but simply because its obsolete. As our understanding increases the measuring devices--as with any science--become more accurate. These days, as far as any academic output goes, Aryan only appears in 'Indo-Aryan' with reference to Indo european language groups found in the subcontinent (If memory serves me well).

Aryan of itself is not offensive, just imprecise.

And I, obviously, am a bit of a pedant.

The term Aryan has been around for a very, very long time.

So...........................

Its also from the Sanskrit for Noble,

And was used to describe people who settled Iran,

The propoganda part didn't come around until the last century or so.

I think its sad that people tend to ignore history and just take the persuasive propoganda meaning of something to be the whole of the definition.

If I were in charge, I would strongly focus education on the fact that the Nazis stole words from Sanskrit and symbols and perverted them.

It makes me sad that people today would rather wallow in that perversion than learn.

The term is not used in modern academics due to the influence of white supremesists and nutcases.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/37468/Aryan

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/286348/Indo-Aryan-languages

Also, there was most definitely a group of Indo-Aryan peoples. And there most definetly is a collection of Indo-Aryan languages. This does NOT mean that the white supremecists and Nazi versions are CORRECT.

 

[dreamhunter]

Its also from the Sanskrit for Noble,

And was used to describe people who settled Iran,

The propoganda part didn't come around until the last century or so.

Also, there was most definitely a group of Indo-Aryan peoples. And there most definetly is a collection of Indo-Aryan languages. This does NOT mean that the white supremecists and Nazi versions are CORRECT.

I like it when folks feel stimulated n they respond. Not only Sanskrit, Dusty, but also ancient Iranian languages, like Avestan, which to me was likely a sibling language of Sanskrit, from an even older common parent. It might hv been sometimes spelt 'Airya' in Avestan.

More correct to say 'Iranian' or Iranic' peoples, than to say 'people who lived in Iran', simply because those ancient 'Iranian' or Iranic' peoples lived over an an area easily 4 - 5 times larger than today's Iran. Including places in today's northern India, n eastern n southern Europe.

If some guy feels uncomfortable about the word 'Arya' or 'Aryan', I cant help him.

Also, if some guy likes to believe his particular race - whatever meaning you attach to that - is superior to another, or others, than I cant help him either.

Taking into account the fact that every powerful nation in history -whether 'Arya' or 'non-Arya' - has always made a habit of claiming ethnic-national superiority and propagating/perpetuating that belief among its citizens. Presumably for patriotic, strategic, nation-building or other purposes.

Has WWII n its outcome put a stop to that die-hard habit? Nope. Apparently it hasnt.

My preferred meaning of 'Arya' is the most inclusive, not the exclusive 'blonde, blue eyed people' version. Not any hijacked meaning, certainly. My intent is to revive, liberate n expand the understanding n interpretation of 'Arya' n 'Aryan' back to their correct, broad-based, original meaning.

 

[dreamhunter]

PC problem. Post deleted.

 

[dreamhunter]

something wrong with my PC

 

[dreamhunter]

With all due respect, its not just a question of Fascism's purloining ways. Modern academia doesn't use the term Aryan, not because of any politically correct sentiment, but simply because its obsolete. As our understanding increases the measuring devices--as with any science--become more accurate. These days, as far as any academic output goes, Aryan only appears in 'Indo-Aryan' with reference to Indo european language groups found in the subcontinent (If memory serves me well).

Aryan of itself is not offensive, just imprecise.

And I, obviously, am a bit of a pedant.

Why obsolete? Because some politicians said so?

Cant they say Iranian = Aryan? No, cos it would fly in the face of their whatever political leanings. But Iranian IS Aryan. For the word 'Eran' was simply the Persian way of saying 'Aryan'.

Funny, but nobody questions the historical correctness of the word 'Europe' or 'Europa'. Purportedly, it came from then name of a Phoenician princess, named Europa, who was kidnapped by God King Zeus, manifest as a bull, n carried off to Crete n made his queen.

Now I tell ya, Princess Europa was, again, Udatu-an-Isas (Adataneses a.k.a. Ar-is-Isah a.k.a. Arathka). While Zeus was a case of mixed-up identity between Udatu-an-Isas's husband, Japheth, n her brother-in-law, Shem, whose nickname was Teush, meaning teacher. Japheth was, meanwhile, eventually deified as Jupiter or Jove.

 

[Ursa major]

Why obsolete? Because some politicians said so?

I'm not going to join in the debate about whether or not Aryan is a useful term today - for no other reason than I am almost completely ignorant about such things - but lots of scientific terms have become obsolete without the need for the intervention of politicians. It happens when a term has been shown to have no current relevance**. Or should our chemistry textbooks still use the term, phlogiston and should our physics textbooks use the term, (luminiferous) aether?




** - Other than in books describing the history of science.

 

[j d worthington]

As indicated earlier, it became obsolete in this usage -- not necessarily linguistically, at least for sometime, when even there it became obvious it was imprecise (precision being one of the mainstays of scientific usage) -- because it was an error to use it ethnologically to begin with. It was a slip of the tongue which was picked up by those who wished to support their own ethnic/racial agendas in the nineteenth century. The term itself is not an offensive one, but it has taken on offensive overtones because of such abuse.

However -- the point is that ethnically, there never was an "Aryan" people; it's a nonsensical term -- again, see Muller's comments concerning dolicocephalic dictionary, etc. And recall that this comes from the man who was one of the major figures in the decipherment of the entire linguistic puzzle, and whose inadvertent slip began the entire mudslide in the first place; and his response to this slip was made long before use of the term in an ethnic connection became unfashionable.

Politicians be damned. The term is no longer used because it ceased to be the right term for what was being described; and was never the right term for a completely bogus set of ethnological assumptions which were based on folklore and myth rather than scientific fact.

 

[dreamhunter]

Whoa! You dont like politicians so much then, do you? LOL.

Apart from the word 'Eran' being the Persian way of saying 'Aryan', there is also still a state in today's India, called "Haryana'. Care to guess where the name came from?

So, what do you think of the word 'European' then? Do you reckon that there is, ethnologically, really, such a thing as a 'European' people?

Unless you really, really believe that all 500 million odd 'Europeans' of today are all descended from Princess Europa.

Like I said before, there is some value in lore, legend n myth. N scientists, no matter how smart they think they are, should still reserve some respect for them.

 

[j d worthington]

Dreamhunter: No; as I said earlier, the history of the various currently existing ethnographies is incredibly complex, and can't be reduced to anything resembling such a simplistic format. The term "European" itself simply indicates inhabitants of the landmass known as Europe. It has nothing to do with either ethnology or linguistics. As for "single ancestors" -- for that, you're going to have to go back one hell of a lot farther than the supposed Aryan forebears... about a million years farther, not much below the era of "Lucy" and her congeners.

The "politicians be damned" was in reference to your comment about the disuse of the term "Aryan" being due to politicians. It was an emphatic way of saying: "Nonsense." As stated, the reason it has fallen out of use is because it simply isn't accurate or precise enough for the linguistic use it was originally intended for; and as far as the racial/ethnological/cultural aspect... I'm afraid that one never was worth a good damn, no matter how popular the myth became. It simply is refuted by every branch of science which has ever investigated it (which would include not only the linguistic sciences but archaeology, anthropology, historiography, paleontology, genetics, etc., etc., etc.) -- and this by no few members of the scientific community who would have been perfectly happy to have supported it.

Of course myth, legend, and the like have a value -- but not as a guide to facts; not unless there is supporting evidence which, in this case, there is not. You brought up Schliemann's search for Troy earlier. The point there is that this was a lot earlier, when archaeology was still in its infancy, and we had none of the knowledge or the precision tools we have now. Such things make an immense difference, just as such advances have made similar differences in, say, medical treatment of various illnesses. Or would you have us go back to bleeding people rather than using what we have learned through biology, microbiology, genetics, virology, radiology....?

That the nobles of particular tribes which used the same linguistic groups called themselves "arya" (nobles), and that that word has since been used as an element in place names proves only the commonality of these languages, nothing more. To claim any conclusions on ethnicity can be drawn from such would be like claiming that the inhabitants in the parts of Africa brought under Roman sway were of the same ethnicity as the inhabitants of the Imperial City.

Before denying the evidence which has been garnered by all the various branches of science mentioned, especially in favor of a mythologically-based ethnic or racial belief, I think you'd better familiarize yourself with how the evidence for each is garnered, sifted, and finally accepted. I think you'll find that the claims for really have nothing but a huge amount of verbiage to support them, whereas those against are based on very solidly attested and demonstrable fact. Otherwise, what you are spouting here is, frankly, very much in the realm of Symzonia or the flat earth theories....

 

[dustinzgirl]

You know, this thread is about 50% mythos, 45% archeological history, and 5% of....I have no idea.

I think that the problem is that for much of our modern anthropology and archeology, the majority of our understanding of ancient history is complicated by the influence of myths that conflict with modern science as well as the fact that much of the area that we are discussing has had its history destroyed by dust (yes, I did it!) and war and religion.

But I really like that this thread has turned into an interesting discussion (moving away from attitude and grumpiness) and I've been reading, and while my knowledge is rather limited in this area, everyone has added some interesting concepts.

Hopefully we can all continue to discuss such things in this same manner.

 

[dreamhunter]

The mythos part is what makes it interesting for me, I think. Ya know, lore, legend, fantasy. No wonder fantasy books sell so well. Even this very forum site has a substantial fantasy component, doesnt it? In fact, looking at its name, SF&F, it's almost like its raisson d'etre.

Ha ha. Dust destroyed its history? In that case maybe Dust could help resurrect it then. LOL.

Oh yeah, I like it that way too. Discussion should not only be exclusively for the highly knowledgeable, or dominated by the highly knowledgeable. It should be inclusive, open to everybody. That should be the spirit, I believe.

As Kung Fu Tze once said, "Let a hundred flowers bloom. Let a thousand thoughts prosper."

I agree. We shall continue to discuss n discourse in a happy, relaxed way. No point getting all worked up about something some guys are adamantly insisting didnt exist, is there?

 

[Peter Graham]

Still, if one goes by the idea that one man meets one womsn, starts a family, the family grows into a clan, the clan expands into a tribe, the tribe multiplies into a nation, then it just works out if we say that every ancient nation in history would have started from one man n his woman, or women.

I think this is a highly unsafe notion. Many cultures (and I only know about cultures who have been part of British history, so I shall limit my examples to them) have genealogies which trace the royal line back to one person. Sometimes, that one person is a god - with the exception of the royal house of Essex, every other Anglo Saxon kingdom traced their kings back to Woden, a non-existent deity. They would then give the names of other early Kings - apparently sons and grandsons of Woden - who had suspiciously similar names to one another and were often grouped in threes, which has echoes of the balladic form. Chances are that a few of these fictitious king-trios were chucked into each king list in order to provide the necessary vintage and pedigree for the real royal line.

The Celts did something similar. Nearly all of the 5th and 6th century Celtic kingdoms of what is now northern England and southern Scotland traced their dynasties back to a chap called Coel Hen (and then beyond to the gods or heroes of Roman Britain).

Coel Hen (the Old King Cole of nursery rhyme fame) might well have been a real person, but by the time the genealogies were being committed to writing, he had already achieved semi-mythical status - in some accounts he had a wife whose old Welsh name translates as "Wall" and a son called "Street". These may have been their real names, but my guess is that those names are personifications of actual structures - Hadrian's Wall and the Stanegate and/or Ermine Street - which give us clues as to the context of Coel Hen, or at least those claiming legitamacy from his bloodline.

Myth is therefore a useful tool for preserving scraps of evidence - a bit like dinosaur DNA getting locked into bits of amber - but is less useful whan it comes to trying to understand what was really going on. The myth has to be stripped away and critically examined for whatever real clues are locked up in there.

People have a need for tribe, be that clans, families, nation states or empires. The further removed we are from the sources of that power, the more we try to order them - feuding warlords snatching power from one another will ultimately be neatly recorded as fathers handing power to sons, for example. If you believe some of our early acocunts, Totnes is the oldest town in the country and Britain is named after Brutus, a colleague of Aeneas who fled Troy. Similarly, the Anglo Saxon Chronicle tells us that Portsmouth is named after a warlord called Port, which is interesting until you realise that 'porth' is the Welsh word for a bay or inlet.

By that reasoning, we could then say that the Cymmerian/Kimmerian nation, for example, would have started from one man with a name close to Cymmer'Kimmer, or some variant of it. It would be a plausible explanation, wouldn't it?

I'm afraid not. Possibly the notion of a god of that name, but as a genuine attmpt to identify a once-living person, it falls down.

Accounting for the penchant of ancient people to name their clan, tribe or nation after the first founder that their ancestors have recorded.

Many just name their clans after where they live or what they do:-

Northumbrians - people living north of the river Humber.

Cumberland - the land of the fellow men

Cornwall - land of the Cornovian Welsh

Cornovii - people of the horn

I accept that the mac- and the o'- surnames do allegedly refer to real people, but if they did exist, those people would have lived much, much nearer to the modern day than your Cimmer example.

Regards,

Peter

 

[dreamhunter]

I was just going, when I saw your post.

About Woden, he was said to have a son called Thor, right? The God of Thunder. Some guys speculate that this 'Thor' was the mythification, or deification, of Tiras (Hebrew: Tursha; Egyptian: Teresh).

Other guys go further, saying, Tiras was the ancestor of the Trojans, the Thracians, the Etruscans, n possibly even the western Turks (Oghuz) n the early Bulgars (Olgar/Oghar, said to be a variant of Oghuz). The Thracians, by the way, were believed by some to be the first coloured-haired, coloured-eyed guys recorded in ancient history.

Will continue later. Stay cool.

 

[Brian G Turner]

(1) No, it's not. The Aryans, or Indo-Europeans, started out as one entity. Then at one point in time, they split into western, mostly Iranian, branch, n an eastern, mainly Himalayan branch. The Himalayan Indians themselves would be the first ones to admit to an 'Aryan' origin, with or without British endorsement. In ancient times their place was called Arya Varta, the Land of the Nobles.

(2) No, it's not. It does not live or die on such a precept. But Knive, you just said it. Armenia, Anatolia n the Western Himalayas were all the playgrounds of the Cymmerians. While Northern Europe, if that turns out to be true, could have been the cradle, the so called Arya Vaeja (which suddenly got too cold) of Persian legend. The Cymmerians split into 2 branches somewhere in northeastern Iran, at some point in time, due to pressure from another dominant tribe, possibly the then up and coming Medeans.

One branch shifted northwest, to the Caucasus, from where they later spread further outwards, including to Armenia n Anatolia, as well as Southern and Eastern Europe, remaining initially as Cymmerians. This branch eventually clashed with the Assyrians in Anatolia n the Syrian-Mesopotamian regions. They later blended into their Iranian relatives, the Scythians, n later their former nemesis the Medeans.

The other branch moved southeast, to the Western Himalayas, where they later became known as the Kamboja, after some later Cymmerian king named Kambujiya. The Tajiks, Farsi speaking natives of Tajikistan, are said by some to be the modern day pure descendants of this Kamboja Cymmerians.

The Achaemenid Persian kings, beginning with Khouroush-e-Bozorg (Cyrus the Great), profess descent, through Hakhamanesh (Achaemenes), from this first King Kambujiya (Cambyses in Greek), whose name kept recurring among several post-Cyrus Achaemenid kings. By the time of Cyrus, however, the Cymmerians had blended into the Persians. Cyrus, in fact, was recorded as the half Medean, half Persian king who merged Medea with Persia.

Let me clarify, my Cymmerian can exist with or without the Aryan. It's up to the reader. The Persians would insist on the inclusive, I think. Anyway, all I'm saying, at this moment, is that, my Gomer/Kaiomerz/Gaiomard would still be founder of Cymmerian.

If an Aryan race existed, then Gomer/Kaiomerz/Gaiomard would also be the first Aryan. If not, he would be only the first Cymmerian.

A big problem, I think, with your reasoning, is that you're using near history to describe prehistoric events with a degree of certainty that would be difficult to accept.

For example, if we're talking about PIE, we're talking about a language that was in development around 5000 BC, and yet the peoples you're talking about are effectively bronze age and upwards.

 

[Peter Graham]

Will continue later. Stay cool.

Speaking as the least cool man in Britain, this may pose some problems!

About Woden, he was said to have a son called Thor, right? The God of Thunder. Some guys speculate that this 'Thor' was the mythification, or deification, of Tiras (Hebrew: Tursha; Egyptian: Teresh).

"Speculation" is the key word here. The further back one goes in time, the thinner the written records become, until eventually they vanish altogether. People can speculate all they wish, but without evidence, their claims must be regarded with extreme caution.

Look at King Arthur. On the basis of three scraps of dark age text, the earliest of which was written at least 100 years after he was supposed to have existed, so-called historians have seriously sought to argue that it is possible to surmise that not only did he exist, but that he was a king who really lived in a place called Camelot (or something like it) and was in charge of a mobile cavalry band who whizzed up and down the country beating up Saxons and Picts in equal measure before establishing a large, independent Celtic kingdom which he held and ruled effectively until his death. The theories leak like sieves are are usually predicated on certain assumptions which any sober look at the contemporary sources would tell you in an instant are utterly bogus. And this all relates to a period which was only 1500 years ago.

Your chosen period seriously predates surviving written (carved?) records, so in the absence of any other evidence, all you can really do is to point at a possible link between names which sound a bit similar when translated into modern English. It's not much, I'm afraid.

Regards,

Peter

 

[dreamhunter]

A big problem, I think, with your reasoning, is that you're using near history to describe prehistoric events with a degree of certainty that would be difficult to accept.

For example, if we're talking about PIE, we're talking about a language that was in development around 5000 BC, and yet the peoples you're talking about are effectively bronze age and upwards.

But I never stated with exact precision what my degree of certainty was, did I?

Anyway, Persian legend postulated that Kaiomerz/Gaiomard came around on the scene, paving the way for the foundation of the proposed Peshdad dynasty, like ca 10,000 BC.

Only later, someone else, influenced by Scripture, proposed that Kaiomerz/Gaiomard was actually the Gomer of Scripture, i.e. son of Japheth of the Big Flood story. While someone else later estimated the time of Gomer, i.e, Big Flood, was like 2665 - 2775 BC, something not yet fully attested, as I understand it.

Huge difference, I agree, but then, there you are. That's what the scientists among us need to keep digging at. Let's put it this way, if ya cant pinpoint with absolute certainty where your grandpa was at 5 o'clock in the afternoon 3 years ago, n what he was doing then, how could anyone say with certainty when Gomer, or Kaiomerz/Gaiomard, was born, n whether they were the same one person, thousands of years ago. All ya could do was speculate, on circumstantial evidence, at best.

Another possibly related thing: the Gathas, the ancient scriptures of Zoroastrianism, were written in Avestan, believed to be the most ancient recorded Iranian language contemporary with Sanskrit, ca 2,000 BC. Which, to me, would suggest that Avestan as a language could possibly have emerged like even 1,000 years, or more, previously.

 

[dreamhunter]

Speaking as the least cool man in Britain, this may pose some problems!

"Speculation" is the key word here. The further back one goes in time, the thinner the written records become, until eventually they vanish altogether. People can speculate all they wish, but without evidence, their claims must be regarded with extreme caution.

Look at King Arthur. On the basis of three scraps of dark age text, the earliest of which was written at least 100 years after he was supposed to have existed, so-called historians have seriously sought to argue that it is possible to surmise that not only did he exist, but that he was a king who really lived in a place called Camelot (or something like it) and was in charge of a mobile cavalry band who whizzed up and down the country beating up Saxons and Picts in equal measure before establishing a large, independent Celtic kingdom which he held and ruled effectively until his death. The theories leak like sieves are are usually predicated on certain assumptions which any sober look at the contemporary sources would tell you in an instant are utterly bogus. And this all relates to a period which was only 1500 years ago.

Your chosen period seriously predates surviving written (carved?) records, so in the absence of any other evidence, all you can really do is to point at a possible link between names which sound a bit similar when translated into modern English. It's not much, I'm afraid.

Blimey! Could be bad for your heart, ya know. Especially with the unpredictable British weather. I'd be worried big time if I were ya. Now then, that's something to be dealt with, with extreme caution! He he he.

Oh yeah, the speculators who speculated wrongly had better watch out then. They might have to pay massive compensation for damages, losses incurred etc. LOL.

So your good friend Arthur was some kind of a whizz kid, then. I suppose he didnt beat up his Saxons hard enough then, since they're sitting on his lands now ha ha.

Afraid that's all we've got for now, mate. Links between names.

Japheth for Jupiter/Jove. Teush (i.e. Shem) for Zeus. Udatu-an-Isas (Adataneses) for Diti & Isis/Ishtar/Astarte. Tursha/Teresh (Tiras) for Thor, the Thracians, the Trojans, the Etruscans, the western Turks etc. Gamir/Gimirraa (Gomer) for Kaiomerz/Gaiomard, the Cymmerians, the Kamboja etc. Yaun/Yawan (Javan) for Ion, the Ionians. Well as as long as they make sense, why not?

 

[Urien]

DreamHunter,

What do you want to be true? I think that's what you're arguing for. As Peter said the evidence is virtually non-existant except for a few names that might vaguely sound similar, or are written similarly, what they sound like in foreign or dead languages is another thing altogether. Spanish and Portuguese look very similar written down, but spound very different; I believe Cantonese and Mandarin are identical when written (or very close to identical) yet are different spoken languages.

It's possible to force a square peg into a round hole, if you scrunch up your eyes when you look at the result it's possible to postulate that it fits.

We don't know what was in the time before written languages, we don't know who did what, or where. We have some DNA clues but little else. It's possible to argue that you are right as it's white space and therefore anything could be true. However, that a particular thing, namely your supposition is true, is vanishingly unlikely. Consequently although we do not know what was, it's fair to say your theory is highly improbable.

 

[dreamhunter]

No, I dont want anything untrue to become true. I just want for what was really, really true not to become untrue.

Yes, you can fit a square peg into a round hole. No, you dont have to scrunch your eyes.

All you need to do is, make the square peg a bit roundish, n the round hole a bit squarish, n then ... voila ... it fits!