Talk:Aryan/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

"Aryan (/ɑːrjən/)is an English language". Really??? Source, please.

--Goldwin 18:03, 12 december 2006 (UTC)

Don't be daft. It's in English dictionaries so it's part of the English language. There is no need to "source" something so obvious. Like many other English words it was originally borrowed from another language. The point is that the form "Aryan" is English, just as the form "Arier" is German. It has specific meanings in English which it does not have in Sanskrit. The purpose of this sentence is to avoid claims that there is some true "original" meaning of the word and that other usages should be excluded or declared in the article to be "distortions", "erroneous" etc. Paul B 17:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

attention please it's in English dictionaries so it's part of the English language!!!

Yes, that's what defines being part of the English language, just like "restaurant", "eskimo" and "curry". Paul B 11:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

OP, re-read the sentence.. it does not say "Aryan is an English language." It says it is a word in the English language.Qureus1 08:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

It'd be good to have a citation for "The Japanese were made honorary Aryans during World War II."

--Almijisti 06:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)==Who keeps adding info about Paul theime?==

Listen carefully...instad of just going by what Paul said, why dont u read the information YOURSELF...If u read the history of the Aryans, meaning the actual text such as The Vedas, you will what a joke the information is by Paul Theime.

What "information" would that be? Paul Thieme is hardly a joke. Paul B 14:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Have you ever actually read the Vedas? Have you ever read the UPanishads? Or how about any other Hindu teaching?...I dont want to assume....so...if you have...can you please tell me where in any Hindu book does it say that the word Aryan means stranger....ACtually....can u even show me anythign close to that?....NO YOU CANT....AND THATS WHY PAUL IS A JOKE 71.107.54.199 05:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Under my Herodotus talk section I point out how Arayan could mean stranger to the Ancient Greeks seeing that they had three major recorded wars with them over a period of 2000 years.

One of the foremest scholars on this subject is not any kind of a joke. The point of this passage is to refer to theories and speculations about the earliest meaning of the word, not to the more specialised and developed meanings it has in Sanskrit. Thieme is trying to work out how the meaning of the word emerged in spoken laguage before any of the scriptures were written. So you are not going to find this meaning in a "Hindu book" are you? Thieme is speculating that its earliest meaning had to do with hospitality - with people who were "strangers" in the sense that they were not your own family and friends but who would nevertheless help your family rather than steal from it or try to murder you all if you approached them. In other words the earliest recoverable meaning of "arya", in his opinion, was something like "hospitable tribes" as opposed to "barbarian tribes" and from that developed the later meanings associated with people who, as it were, follow the moral path, or are "noble". Paul B 14:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Precisely, but since that can be read up in detail on Wikipedia itself, I just don't see why we have to point this out to everyone who stumbles on these talkpages instead of just reading. This is an encyclopedia, not a giant reference desk where stewards jump to rephrase our content to suit your individual cognitive faculties.

dab (ᛏ)

14:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes I feel the same way....What makes Paul and his strange opinions so important? Their are lots of scholars who have written strange opinions about anything in life. BUt this is a page about Aryans and should stick with facts. WHen you mention the strange opinion from Paul, and so fast in the article, people tend to take it as fact....IF his opinion is soooo important to you, then either put it at the bottom of the page or make a new article up for him!....I mean why are u picking and choosing his opinon? Why dont u get every scholars strange opinion on Aryans....U dont make any sense ARYAN818 18:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Because there's nothing "strange" about it, it's perfectly normal. He is an imporant scholar. The opinion is attributed to him, not presented as mere "fact", but it is a notable one, nor is his view unique to him. Other theories are also given. Paul B 00:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

So ok let me recap here...Their is no Aryan scritpure saying that the word means stranger...Their is no Aryan writing that says anything about the Aryan word having to do with "Stranger"....And yet your telling me that we have to show Paul Theimes opinion on how he thought that it meant stranger?....Im sorry how does that make sense? ARYAN818 01:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Because he is reconstructing the meaning on the basis of surviving usage, notably the fact that in the RV some tribes are referred to as "Arya" and others are not, and because of the connotations of the term in early Iranian texts. Paul B 01:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Your not answering my question....Have you ever actually read an ACTUAL ARYAN SCRIPTURE? Have u ever read any Aryan scripture from India? Their is nooo mention of Aryan meaning stranger. THe world Aryan is mentioned god knows how many times, an has no reference to the word stranger.....So why does it matter what this Paul Theime says? Please answer my questions ARYAN818 01:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Your questions have been answered. Yes I have read a number of Hindu scriptires, but that's rather beside the point, since we are discussing what Thieme says, not what I say, and anyway, the word is not "owned" by Indians. Iran has something of a claim on it too. If you want more details on Thieme's arguments, go read Thieme's books. Paul B 14:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Your not making sense....In ancient times their was no seperation between the Indians & Iranians...They were the same people....Their was no boarder between India & Iran...It was all considered one land....THE LAND OF THE ARYANS....I never implied the word was OWNED by India...But the Aryan teachings were made by....Hindus....and where did Hindus live?....Around INdia & Iran....India & Iran became seperated, gradually over time, when Islamic invaders came.....But listen...you are not answering my question as alaways.....NO Aryan scripture talks about an Invasion, MIgration, the word "stranger", or any of the stuff this Paul guy believes in....SO for the 100th time im asking you again....Why is this part of the Aryan page? ARYAN818 19:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Well this is already well beyond Thieme's theory, but the sad thing about the article and nearly all the talk is that there's nary a mention of the Avesta. The Vedas are not, in any way shape or form, the only source of textual knowledge about the ancient Aryans (incidentally, "hinduism" didn't even exist until the last of the Upanishads was being written, several hundred years after the RV--Vedic culture is not Hindu culture). You're also implying that no political boundaries existed in ancient times--that's patently false. At least as early as the Achaemenids, the easternmost part of that empire was bounded by the Indus; the Zoroastrians were also very culturally separated from the Vedic culture long before that. That said, getting back to the topic, Paul Thieme was a highly respected philologist and indoeuropeanist (i.e., he specialized in indoeurpoean languages). His theory on the meaning of the proposed PIE root word *əri meaning "stranger", right or wrong, has been a very influential on other indo-iranicists and it is a verifiable source (read the Wiki Rules--it doesn't have to be correct). I personally disagree with this theory, but he was hardly a fool--there is a well-known issue in the Vedas regarding odd usages of the word ari to describe certain hostile people that Thieme was trying to figure out.--Almijisti 06:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to follow up on the specific matter of what I called "odd usages: of the word ari. I mistakenly left the impression that the word actually means hostile persons, but rather should have noted that the word is often used to mean "wealthy", albeit in a distinctly perjorative sense--a phenomenon that is well known to both western and Indian sholars of the Veda. I prefer Bailey's derivation of the words ari, arya, and cognates as derived from I-Ir *ar-, meaning "to acquire" or "to beget", thus the later common usage of arya as "noble" (undeniable in Classical Sanskrit) may simply connote one who is well born in the sense of having wealth. See, e.g., Bailey, H.W., "Iranian arya- and daha", Transactions of the Philological Society 1959; Bailey, H.W., The Second Stratum of Indo-Iranian Gods," in Mithraic Studies. Proceedings of the First International Congress of Mithraic Studies, v. 1. Manchester 1975.

Examples of such usage include RV viii,2,14:

"The utterance of a cow-less man, even while it is being recited, the Ari ignores, he ignores also the song while it is being sung." (Bailey's translation, Bailey 1959).

Other examples of ambiguous usages of ari cited by Thieme occur in RV vii,83,5 and vii,21,9. Thieme, P., Die Fremdling im Rigveda, Heidelberg 1938. He compares this usage with the Latin hospes and hostes meaning rival and host depending upon the context. Thieme, P. "Vorzarathustriern un bei Zarathustra," ZDMG 107, p. 67-104, 1957. The term arya is itself relatively rare in the RV and the eponymous group, ari is typically treated almost contemptuously in this, the oldest of the Veda. This ambiguity is not an "orientalist" theory, it is evident in the texts themselves and was even commented upon by numerous indigenous commentators for centuries. I disagree with Thieme's theory, as stated, but it is simply naive to pretend that the word ari (which is the word Thieme was commenting upon, not arya) isn't highly ambiguous.--Almijisti 04:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I cant believe in 2006 their are still people who believe in an Aryan invasion theory....as anyone actually ever read an Aryan scripture?....THey came from India & Iran!...It was all just one land known as the Land of the Aryans....I mean ADOLF HITLER believed in the Aryan invasion theory....What does that tell you? ARYAN818 05:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Aryan invasion theory is largest lie i have heard, unbeleivable that after the world found out that hitler was a lie, one of his lies continue and that is the aryan invasion theory.

you have to look at the cold hard facts, no presumptions here. while in iran the kings were playing polo, and had mastered agriculture and music, while in egypt they had advanced documenting systems and india too there was much advancement - the northern europeans were still living in caves and using clubs - there was a ridiculous gulf between the east and the west back then, it took 5000 years for the agricultre revolution to reach britain ( funny how britain was the last to get the agriculture revolution, but the ones who started the next ones , industrial revoluiton) nevertheless it is silly to even consider a less advanced group of people to take over a region wich was the cradle of civilisation.

could the aboroginals of australia ever come and occupy britain and impose there culture on the british empire. considering this and just this, only a feeble mind could ever beleive the aryan invasion theory.

there is not enough time to even point out the colder harder evidences from iran and india wich proves the aryans origins and identity. IRAN the word itself mean LAND OF THE ARYANS, darius carved and claimed himself of aryan lineage unto stone thousands of years ago, names like eraj wich are also thousands of years old mean LEADER OF THE ARYANS. the word aryan riddles the avestan and sanskrit, iran and india aryan connection is evident in the mass use of the swatstika in there holy sites. heredotus himself, the greatest biased author of all claimed the iranians to be aryans.

DARIUS tried to invade Greece a people who were always indigenous to their land & the neolithic indigenous greeks & italians such as the villanova culture always decorated their burial items & sites with swastikas before the rise of the Persian empire, does not the swastika belong to ancient neolithic greece & rome it would still be used in later times. Dont forget Alexander the Great hellenised Persia & this is where the Iranian got their name from the Greek Arayan.123.3.2.189 18:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

it is true that germans and the irish are in ways aryan, but im sure as hell it did not start from cold landscape of northern europe. remember that people first emerged in africa, developed themselves in the middle east and moved around the world.... nobody originated from europe/ lets not forget that cool genetic discovery they made that us white people are genetic mutants, that black skin was the original colour and those who have mutated skin gene are white! hahaha that sucks for us.

None of this is about the real so-called "Aryan Invasion Theory", nor does it help improve the article. This page is not for discussion of the content. Paul B 10:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello. Well, the first edit of mine in the Wiki world will be to comment on this talk section. There is a wealth of archaeological and historical evidence from other regions that can be utilized in support of an historical definition of arya. After all, as little as 10% of the original Avesta survives and only a single redaction of the RV survives, though as many as five might have existed at one time. In contrast, the entire land mass is still there (minus what is lost to the earthquakes that occasionally rattle the region) and a surprising number of sites have been studied and many more lie buried (dozens of unearthed mounds are visible from the air just in the Helmand valley, a particularly important region for this research). Getting back to the Thieme theory of ari means stranger or rather guest, it is based entirely on the philological reconstruction, itself open to doubt though, as noted below, arya very well could be used to describe not only a stranger, but a mortal foe.

In fact, arya does not refer to either an ethnic or linguistic group in the Bronze Age texts (i.e., Gathas and RV ii-vii, as well as later anachronistic texts such as the SV and RV x. In these texts, the distinction between arya and anarya is simply that between those who practice the soma ritual and those who do not--regardless of ethnicity. Indeed, this is the only consistent connotation of the word across the spectrum of the texts. Some arya are clearly foes of the composers of the texts, and some dasa are clearly allies. Whatever it might have meant in the PIE era, by the time the texts are depicting (the Gathas are probably the only contemporaneous texts in the whole literature) arya denoted "those who practice the soma ritual"; perhaps this can be equated with "civilized" in a broad sense, but then there are many cruel and primitive arya (Zarathrustra constantly rails against the evils wrought by certain arya).--Almijisti 05:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

What do we know today about connections between Aryan and the Irish aire, as in bo aire?

aryans are one of the root races in theosophy. this article needs to point this out.

- I agree. Helena Blavatsky's use of the term "Aryan" had profound impact on race research and philosophy throughout the late 19th and early 20th century, and there should at least be a short paragraph about that and a link to Blavatsky. However, it should be pointed out that the most relevant significance of Blavatsky's work was to inspire widespread European study of Aryan history.

Did the British Raj really practice genocide? -- Zoe

No, the "beginning with the British Raj and continuing through the Nazis and neo-Nazis" talks about "justify racially discriminatory policies ranging from simple oppression to genocide", not just about "genocide". The British Raj should fall under the "simple oppression". Andre Engels 13:10 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC)

It still reads like the Raj practiced genocide. -- Zoe

It depends how you define genocide. For example, the British colonists systematically destroyed the Indian economy for their benefit, which led to massive famines that did cost more lives than the World Wars. --Isdu 12:50, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, deliberately destroying a nation's economy, even if it leads to starvation, does not fit the definition of genocide. Muddling issues like this does no-one any good, and only gives ammunition to racists.

Nuttyskin 16:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

"Generally speaking, genocide ... is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration ... the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups.

...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

   (a) Killing members of the group;
   (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
   (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
   (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
   (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

Genocide is much broader than mass murder, which in large part is why the United States became a state party to the convention against genocide in 1988, 40 years after the U.N. drafted it, and even then only with the proviso that it was immune from prosecution for genocide without its consent.Qureus1 09:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I have often heard of the Aryans moving around in the 4th & 2nd Milleniums BC but have never heard of any of the evidence upon which this has been based. I do think it would be a good idea to put a question over references like this until the sources for their emmergence can be found. I have read a lot of work by soviets and those under a recieved soviet hegemony where they are trying to assert that central Asia was Satem culture in order to justify Russian (Slavs are also Satem) occupations in those areas and in preparation of the annexing of Afghanistan -which never happened. The satem theory has fallen out of favour but the legacy of Satemizing the area remains i.e. in that those satem peoples were in fact Indo-Aryan. Anyway all archeological & Historical evidence points to a gradual conquest to the East & south of Indo-Aryan peoples starting from Kurdistan in the 1st Millenium BC. There is nothing Indo-Aryan before that just a lot of speculation. Plenty of caucasoid skulls but as we all know not all caucasoids are Indoeuropeans. I am not someone who says this because I always offer strange bits of theories from here and there in case someone with more knowledge can add to it or extract the truth from it and expose the origin of the falshood. But when one of these theories finds its way into the mainstream without having had this process applied to it, I am critical. So can anyone help by offering the original sources for these theories? Or is it all based upon religious scriptures without any kind of historical coroboration? (in which case the suspect nature of the theory should be explained in the article)user:zestauferov

"It has been suggested since the mid 19th century that certain Aryan tribes migrated into India, around 1800 BC–1500 BC, possibly waging war against the declining Indus Valley Civilization" Im doing a report on this stuff could u help out here

The Persians may have invaded or waged a war upon them they were very warlike

Yeah right. And on what evidence is this based? DONT MIX LINGUISTICS WITH HISTORY! - Linguistics is part of the evidence. Genetic evidence is another part of it. Archeology is a part of it, and so is comparative religion, not to mention Iran and India's internal histories. The Aryan Invasion Theory stands on high ground. Speaking of which, didn't there used to be a category in this section on the Aryan Invasion Theory?

"Aryan Invasion Theory stands on high ground"??? DEAR EDITORS, PLEASE TAKE A NOTE: With the Discovery of Dwarka, the ancient city of Lord Krishna, THE ARYAN INVASION THEORY HAS BEEN FALSIFIED. Please take note of it, and check this article: http://www.indiacause.com/columns/OL_051212.htm I suppose the Invasion theory has no solid ground or proof. If Max Muller is believed, there is enough grounds for Mahabharata to be treated as a fact and an actual accord of an ancient Nuclear War.

Hardly a new discovery. See Arkaim. The article you refer to also says that Japan was an Indo-Aryan culture. That's an improvement on Hitler. He only gave the Japs the title of "honorary Aryans". Paul B 23:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The reason for Hitler saying that was because he allied with them. He would obviously want to keep on good terms, but the fact that Japs have the same bloodline has Indians or even european is stupidity beyond the needed. It is known now that the Aryan Invasion theory is false and was only created due to eurocentrism, but the fact that people still argue for it proves that there is still ignorance which needs to be thrown out. STOP trying to say that ANYONE BUT INDIANS AND PERSIANS ARE ARYAN.

Maybe I should put this in the AIT page, but since it's raised here, here goes. Early assumptions of when Indoaryans (a term I prefer to differentiate them from the Iranoaryans) arrived in India, or that they "arrived" at all, were based on very inadequate knowledge of the material cultures of ancient Iran and India. There were no Bronze Age excavations in the entire region in Muller's day--not even Mohenjo-Daro or Harappa had been discovered. When excavations finally took place late in the 19th century, the hypotheses of early Indo-Iranicists were uncritically adopted by many of these archaeologists, resulting in much circular reasoning. That is, archaeological dating (pre-Carbon 14) was based upon linguistic conclusions about dates that themselves were originally based upon outdated or non-existent archaeological evidence. Most "dating" of I-Ir cultures by linguists simply lacks credibility in archaeological circles today. It has, in fact, proven practically impossible to date the RV based upon material remains, however. The RV rarely describes any distinctive objects and those that are described, tend to be ritual paraphernalia, almost entirely composed of impermanent organic materials. The geography of the RV covers a wide area including the Kabul River region, the Punjab, the Indus, and the westernmost reaches of the Ganges. It necessarily follows that the RV was composed at a time when it's users were familiar with these regions (or at least had a cultural memory of them). Beyond that, using the RV itself to try to date the culture is an exercise in futility--it's not a history book, it's a collection of ritual hymns that, while containing some quasi-historical material, was never intended for such purpose.

It is a simple fact that nowhere in the RV is migration or invasion mentioned, though it is, however, full of violence. But AIT was never based upon anything in the texts. It was and is a theory based upon the undisputable fact that I-Ir languages are related (sometimes very closely) to other IE languages. When the Indus Valley sites were excavated by Sir Mortimer Wheeler, it was he who first came up with what is now the "classical" Aryan Invasion Theory--he based this upon the mistaken belief that the cities were destroyed by some sort of carnage (there is some evidence of fires, but this evidence eventually proved to be limited in scope and ambiguous at best), and his own notoriously poor comphrension of the texts themselves. AIT was, nevertheless, a reasonable theory when it was in high vogue, regardless of whether it is or can be proven wrong (it's doubtful that any explanation of the IE dispersion can be "proven" for the reasons stated above). At present, there is far too much emotionally charged nationalist or anti-nationalist sentiment that has "invaded" Vedic studies such that little useful research into the question has been done in over 20 years; meanwhile up to the rise of the Taliban, valuable archaeological work was taking place in the Helmand valley in particular, and throughout Afghanistan in general, and also in Margiana--all of which sheds light on the problem. I have my own theories and research, of course, but WP's well-considered prohibition against allowing original research prevents their disclosure at this time.--Almijisti 05:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

69.29.255.17 23:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Yes, there is a linguistic connection. The AIT however, vastly predates the excavation of certain revelatory Harappan artifacts. Harappa does also tend to disprove the AIT in two key ways. It is a thriving city with no signs of invasion or foreign influx, whose civilization is thriving in the exact same spot at the exact same time that the Aryans are supposed to be. Finally, the AIT as a real theory and not a genocide tool was really used to explain the arrival of the Vedas into India. Well, the city of Harappa is where the single oldest piece of Vedic artwork has been found. I'm trying to find any information that the Aryans actually existed. All the evidence I can find points to the acts of the Aryans being falsely attributed to them from a number of other civilizations.

Aryan isaword which means different things in different contexts. "The Aryans" existed in the sense that there isgenerally assumed to have been an Indo-Iranian culture. I know of no specifically "Vedic" artefacts found in Harappa. What are you referring to? Paul B 10:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The initial definition of Aryan in this article as "the people who spoke the parent language of the Indo-European languages" is only one of the modern western understandings, let alone modern Indian and Iranian understandings. It should be stated to be such. The original meanings in India or Persia had nothing to do with language. Imc 22:20, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yet this is an article about "Aryan" and not what Europeans think of it... good game.

"Aryan" was originally the term used to self-describe a nationality. That much is clear from the statement of Emperor Darius of Iran ("I am...an Aryan having Aryan lineage."). Furthermore, Herodotus was quite clear and saying describing several distinct groups (Persians, Medes, Scythians, etc.) as being originally part of the same Aryan group. What the ancients said is the most reliable source of information, because for them it was recent history. What the Europeans said about Aryans was based on a theory that Europeans, particularly Germanic Europeans, were racially and historically connected to the ancient Aryans. These theories are still just theories today, but are supported by linguistic and genetic evidence. Religious evidence of ancient connections is unreliable because Aryan / Zoroastrian religion was spread throughout Europe again after Alexander's invasion of the Persian Empire, and much more so when the Roman Empire adopted Zoroastrian Mithraism as the official religion of the Roman Empire, under the title "Sol Invictus". The swastika itself was a Mithrain symbol, but its existence in Europe cannot be used as evidence of the Euro-Aryan connection unless its archeology comes from pre-Roman Empire times.

its archeology does come from pre roman times, before Alexander the Great even in neolithic italy & greece such as the villanova culture burial items were decorated with swastikas signifying a particular religious belief, the swastika was a sacred indo european symbol in neolithic times before the bronze age, example italy & greece.

The Naqs-i Rustam inscription, at A,8-15, does not necessarily imply that Arya was a self-referant for a nationality or tribe, as you claim. An equally good translation of this is "I am Darius the King...and Arya of Arya seed," but the most one can say is that to Darius, arya was a bloodline. I guess I don't know what you mean by "nationality" here, given that the very concept of a nation is a late 17th century CE invention--doesn't this just beg the question? In the RgVeda, the arya are contrasted with dasyu on the basis of adherence to the sacrifices: "With distinct judgement know the Arya and those who are Dasyu; to the one who has the Barhis, make those who lack vows of worship subject by punishing them." (RV i,51,8). Besides, even if arya denoted a certain tribe or "peoples" by the time of Darius, this is indisputedly centuries after the RgVeda and the Gathas were composed, so it doesn't prove anything about what the word might have meant originally. Arya is never used in any lineage-sense at all in either the Gathas or the RV; it refers to one's status within the society that the text is directed to. In the case of the Gathas, the society was those who were mazda.yasnins (worshippers of mazda); in the case of the RV it's a bit more complicated because the text was, by its own terms, directed only to those who performed the sacrifices, thus it was written for the arya alone; nevertheless, the sociolocial environment of the RV was not homogenous and not strictly I-Ir, either. The RV itself contains numerous Dravidian and Munda borrowings, and even suggests that many non-Arya had prominent status in the society, despite their failure to perform the sacrifices.--Almijisti 05:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Believe it or not, the oppression by the British Raj was actually very minimal. It is about as much oppression as the American colonists received. This concept is commonly misunderstood. The rationale behind the majority of the theory behind Aryan Invasion is to identify Indians with the British so that the rule could go more smoothly. But it general knowledge that Aryans were predominant in India.

This article, on such a contentious topic, needs to identify the major authors of the ideas, and follow the scholarship forward in time, tracing it as it developed. A start might be to distinguish theories of "Aryan" linguistics from theories of "Aryan" race. Some of the philologists and historians probably already even have entries at Wikipedia, and could be linked. "It has at times been believed that... " just isn't informative or credible to the reader. "A school of German and Soviet scholarship at one time..." sounds anonymous out of ignorance or laziness. Once the groundwork is complete, then the modern "Aryan invasion" pro and con has something to work from. Wetman 05:56, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There is only one true definition of the word "Aryan" -- it means people who descended from the Iranians, Indians, or some Europeans. It means nothing else... all the other bastardizations of the word were done by stupid Europeans (mostly continentals). Shashir 05:42, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Your statement is misleading. It is believed that nomadic groups, as they moved north out of Africa, settled in the Middle East, then begane moving in various direction. By your definition, everyone is Aryan, witht he exception of the ancestors of people who remained in Africa.

That is incorrect. The original Aryans originated in the areas of the Caucasus mountains, and then they migrated. One group when to South Asia (but not the parts of southern India), another to the Iranian plateau, and the last to northern Europe. The Germans claim to be Aryans. They are a Germanic people, apparently mixed with Aryans. The Kurdish people are the closest people to the original Aryans. After them, the Persian people of Iran are the most similar, but they have been heavily mixed with the dark, indeginous Elamites, along with the Greeks, Arabs, and Monogols. and the the Pashtoons of Afghanistan and Pakistan and Tajiks are Aryans too, but they have a much more east oritenal genetic influence, mainly the Mongols and Chinese.

Damn people have no sense.

1) Anatolia/Armenian Highland = Cradle of Civilization

2) Obviously most cultures and languages will be somewhat related.

3) ARYAN DOES NOT MEAN YOUR APART OF A NATION. IT SAYS THAT YOU ARE A WORSHIPER OF THE GOD AR, OR :PERSON OF THE SUN.

4) As Iranians are actually not really the same people who lived back in the days of Aryan (Persians were as far I am concerned, Iranians are more of an Arabic people).

STATEMENT 4 here is completely wrong. Persians/Iranians are the only people with a real claim to being part of an authentic "Aryan" race. Also, don't differentiate "Persians" from "Iranians". They always called themsleves Iranians. "Persians" was the name given to them by the Greeks. The Greeks also named the Canaanites "Phoenicians"

This is wrong the Phoenicians were the Minoans - what the english refer to as Minoans because of the Minotaur-Bull & their ceremonial dance with the bulls, also their God Baal was symbolised as a Solar Bull. The Phoenicians or Minoans also had settlements in modern day lebanon & israel as well as their main homeland crete. Their is no archeoligical evidence which proves that their were a people called the cannanites, the only evidence is that the Phoenicians were Minoans & they were also called Philistines in the bible, they all worshipped the same Gods in the same ceremony which is traced back to Crete the land of the Minoans & the Minoans also had links to Mycenean Greece. Archeology has proved this. If you wish to use the term cannanites then we must assume that they were Minoan, Phoenician, Philistine or Mycenean Greeks, they were all Greeks just different names have been used by different scholars & historians over time. Also the bible was first written 2000 years ago so it can not speak accuratly of cultures that existed 5000 years ago & earlier, only through archeology can we learn of the real cultures that lived in those times.

and they named the Ashurians "Assyrians". Arabs are Semitic people with a completely different lineage. This is true linguistically and genetically. Arabs are of the same origin as the Canaanites (Phoenicians), the Syrians, the Assyrians (Ashurians), and the ancient Hebrews (today's Sephardic Jews). The Aryans/Iranians come the Caucausus mountain area. The Aryan peoples settled south, but battled the Indus Valley Civilization in the east, and the Semitic Assyrians in the West (the Arabians were desert nomads and were mostly irrelevant to history until about 700 AD).

The Ancient Assyrians originally came from the Caucausus mountain area aswell with the Aryans but they settled in their capital at Nineveh. The Caucausus mountains today are sometimes even called The Mountains Of Ashur where Ashur was the King of Assyria and us Assyrians being Ashuri.iLLeSt 20:42, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Closest people to "Aryans" today would be probably Armenian people, as they have lived in the same spot the longest since the Aryans.

If you want to provide evidence that Armenia was the homeland of Proto-Indo-European, please do so on the appropriate page, which is Proto-Indo-Europeans. The origins of agriculture and of civilization are generally thought to have occurred in the Fertile Crescent, which includes parts of Anatolia, but not Armenia. Paul B 18:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

First, no I'm not Armenian, I'm from Sweden. I just took an interest in the subject a while ago. I'm don't really involve myself with more recent histories.

I'm not saying that at all, all I'm refering to is that Armenians have lived in that part of the world longer than most people living there. Plus the language and alphabet remains nearly unchanged for about 1600 years. All I'm pointing out is that if you want to find a meaning you could look into the Armenian language for meaning. And it has a clear meaning of what "Aryan" would mean. Writing the the term "ar" or "arh" has no inherent meaning is just stupid because *SURPRISE* a language that has remained nearly unchanged for 1600 years happens to live in the area.

On the part of cradle of civilization, it is becoming a more accepted theory that the Turkish(Anatolian) and Armenian highland (not referring as the ACTUAL Armenia existing then) that civilization started there. Many towns and monolithic structures are found in this area that predate the Sumerian city states. If you want a reference look at "Carahunge", a building very similiar to Stonehenge, however it is much older.

Just to let you know, the former Armenian Kingdoms did include eastern Anatolia (http://www.geocities.com/master8885/Maps/cama_1840.jpg). All the kindoms before that too, like Urartu etc., were succeded by Armenians, however Armenians did live in that area before that (I think the Armenians moving from the Balkans about 7th Cent BC is bull. Why is do Armenians all share the common knowledge that their first king Haik established their nation about 2400BC, and still even hold their new year according to that calendar?).

I am not trying to discuss the origins of Indo-Europeans (this was necessary to show where Armenia and its language stands on this matter) rather to tell you that refering to the Armenian language for a translated meaning for "Aryan" would yeild good succes. As far as I gathered it from the language; Ar - There are a lot of words in Armenian with "Ar", which basically means - Sun/Star/Solar. Weird as it happens that their mythological patriarch "Haik"/"Hayk" is a legendary Archer and is a demi-god of some sorts (reminds me of Orion constellation, hence in relation to star/solar etc..). yan - I noticed that almost and nearly every name in Armenian families end in -yan. So I asked an Armenian friend for a translation; son. Like in Swedish we have "Sven Andersson" last name meanining son of Anders, in a name like Hakobyan: Hakob is a Armenian name, yan meaning son. Conclusion: Aryan = Star/Sun person/son. In ancient times I see a lot of people referring themselves as the sons of a god or something. The reason why I believe Aryan is such a hard word to localize to a certain type of people or culture is because; Since most indo-european languages stem from one or two ancient proto-language it can be concluded that the word Aryan stuck around with everyone in the ancient world. Why? Because the predominant gods and religions dealt with stars/solar or just a religion based on the Sun. Denying that the Sun was a major religion icon back then would be just stupid. What would you do if that big thing in the sky that gave you light, warmth, and food always showed up but you couldn't really explain what it was? So therfore couldn't Aryan just refered to the people who practised the a sort of religion or cult rather than a national thing? Plus I see it hard to put things in a national sense in the classical era and earlier than that. Why becuase it seems like most cities and "countries" were actually alliances of independent city states rather than a defined nation as we try to see today. Remember some things may not mean the same thing back then than they do today. Don't immediatly relate Aryan to Iran because they sound similair, infact I don't think they have a relation becuase the Iranians don't call themselves in the phonetic sense "Iranians".

"Iran" comes from a phrase meaning "Land of the Aryans." Iranian is synonymous with Aryan.

I am also informed that when Armenia converted to Christianity in A.D 301 that almost all non-Christian religious icons where destroyed along with their temples (one, Garni, which still stands today) which housed nearly all the books and written scripts of the Armenian language prior to the conversion. The Armenian Alphabet was reinstated later so the Bible could be translated into Armenian. However due to the conversion massive amounts of knoweledge was lost due to the purges and continueous invasions by other nations. That's why most Armenian written texts seem to appear after that period about 5th Cent.

OK I see a lot of bull here. Iran doesn't mean 'Land Of Aryans', Arya Varta (a.k.a INDIA) DOES. I am not denying that Iranians are Aryan...because they are but these are the ancient Iranians who have now mostly migrated to India as they were opressed when Arabs took over. India is the true Land Of Aryans. They are genetically the most closest as throughout the country the genetic patter is similar, while other countries such as Kurdish and Armenian etc. have mixed with Arabian people, thus mixing their 'aryan' lineage, if they had any in the first place. India though, widely remains unchanged in its culture, religion and genetics and today still mostly consists of true blooded Aryans. Anyone who defies this point doesn't know enough to be speaking on this.

I removed the following:

• in particular, a school of
  Khwarizm, and this Germanic group followed the Aryan group into Iran before splitting from Arya. It then migrated north to the Black Sea
  , where they again moved north to the Baltic lake. Thus, German philologists concluded, the German people have a direct ancestry with the people of the Arya region in Iran.

Much clearer. Thank you. Wetman 08:48, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• A major contemporary historian, the holder of the presitigious Kluge Chair of history in Washington, D.C., has also asserted that

This historian would be Romila Thapar who is herself too disputed to do this article any good. But the statement in question is pretty much communis opinio, and it is more than enough to say "probably".

section moved here for discussion:

Genetics:About 50% of Slavs and Balts,and about 30% of Central Europeans share the same Y chromosome (R1a1) with 50% of the people of the Indus Valley.R1a1 and/or J (M172) are considered to be Indo-european,Aryan or Scythian markers.

I do not oppose a section on Genetics. But so far, this doesn't do at all. First of all, we need sources (whose results are these? Cavalli-Sforza? secondly, we need an explanation: is 50% much? or little? thirdly, what are the "people of the Indus valley"?? How were they chosen? Who qulifies? And lastly, it needs to be incorporated into the existing arcicle: How does that pertain to the different meanings of "Aryan" as explained above? Why do we single out Balts, Slavs, Central Europeans and the mysterious "Indus valley dwellers" for this comparison?

- I think the best thing to do here would just be to provide links to some scholarly papers on the subject by reputable scientists.

Do we really need the discussion of the Nazi's here? I don't think a particular use of the term should be relevant to the actual meaning of the term. If the Nazi use is mistaken, then including and discussing its use promotes the mistaken definition.

yes we do. the term's semantics has been severely influenced by the Nazis. And, Nazis or not, theirs was just one meaning historically attributed to the term. There is no 'actual meaning', only a list of meanings that have been in use.

dab (ᛏ)

11:34, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Nazis did not invent the correlation between Aryan and White-European; that was a very well-established convention that was almost universally accepted (even in India) since about the 1830s, particularly after the works of Gobineau. It does have to be discussed here because it is an important subject directly relevant to the "real" meaning of the word Aryan and it is an historical definition of the term, whether or not there is any basis to the gloss of Aryan=white race in its ancient, original usage. It is not a different word or a case of disambiguation. In fact, it is probably a more well-known conception of the word in the modern world and its genesis needs to be explained; the Nazis obviously were the most extreme proponents of the Aryan=white ideology, therefore it is absolutely proper for this topic to be discussed under this heading. The point is, when people use Aryan to mean "white person" or european, they are not using a different word nor is it simply a case of misunderstanding (even if in ancient times that isn't what the word meant). It is an accurate definition of the word as it was used in a particular historical context (i.e., from the mid-19th century to the present), even by those who abhore the nazis--regardless of the philology.--Almijisti 06:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I have read Muller and while he spent a lot of time making distinctions between the issues of race and linguistics, Muller eventually stated clearly that the Aryan race originated in Central Asia, probably Iran. I will try to find the exact citation and post it here eventually.

please do. 11:34, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Was Müller referring to Iran or the extent of the Persian empire? Meaning, as later writers have said, that what we're talking about here isn't technically present day Iran - but Turkmenistan or Uzbekistan? No need to lecture me on Persia, I'm just talking about clarifying the modern usage. Khirad 04:08, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I heard Max Muller also stated something like 'Indians are the true aryans, there is no denying in that.'

this article deteriorates very quickly due to frequent addition of false claims by anonymous editors (Thanks to Paul Barlow for fixing the recent "Sanskrit is the original Aryan language"). I am growing tired with the perpetual cleanup and I hereby announce that I will revert anonymous editors with prejudice, unless they

• justify their edit here on the Talk page, or
• give a satisfactory edit summary instead, or
• cleanly cite their sources in the article.

Meaning, in cases of edits with 'some good, some bad' parts, I will throw out the good with the bad because I can't be bothered to clean up after people to keep this article in half decent shape.

I know these distinctions are complicated and confusing, but they have to be kept as clear and distinct as possible because of the multiple uses of this word. I will revert changes that are not discussed if the editor does not seem to appreciate these specific distinctions Paul B 27 Mar, 3:16 (UTC)

I disagree with the sentence: It can also be used as a synonym for the Indo-Aryan peoples of North India. This would only be correct linguistically, if it refers to speakers of Aryan as opposed to Dravidian languages. But in other senses (culturally and spiritually) this is wrong. For example, in one of the meanings, Aryan refers to people who for example belong to an Aryan religion, accept the Vedas. There is no clear definiton of Aryan, but it can (and did) also refer to people in South India.

(Needless to say, the remark by Sashir (see edit summary in the Aryan article) was very much out of place.) --Machaon 16:48, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Machaon, I disagree with your reasoning, Aryans never did refer to people of South India, who are Dravidians. The term Aryan is used as synonym for 72% of Indias population who have North Indian origins. For Instance Norwegian speakers of Italian languge would not be called Italian, similarly Dravidan people who speak of an Aryan languages like Hindi or Sanskrit would not be called Aryan. Aryan refers to the people, their culture (South Indian culture is very different from North Indian), and language - User: samirmokashi 0100, 5th August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not too happy that comment either. It was added as a kind of concession to Shashir. That usage does exist, but it's not common. I accept what you say about the spiritual meaning of Aryan, but it can apply to Buddhists as well as to Hindus, so I don't think it's just about accepting the Vedas. In any case, the Vedas have played a pretty minor role in some forms of South Indian Hinduism. In any case, 20% of Indians are not Hindu. And there's the difficulty of equating followers of the 'Arya Dharma[s]' with 'Aryans', which is not a common usage. However, change it if you think fit. --Paul B 21:48, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sorry man... I was too rash in criticizing you. I understand what you mean... and I do believe that you are correct to some extent. However, the word Aryan characterizes personalities or social order more than anything elese in India. A person can be Aryan if he shows generosity of good behavior... or if he was born into a revered social class. In regard to people, Indians (north) associated more with Persians in history than anyone else... considering Indians generally used to look upon them as the same people. When the word did reach Europe, it made something of a change in its meaning to suit whatever certain despots needed of it. --Shashir 08:06, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

these issues precisely are why we emphasize right at the beginning that the article is about the

dab (ᛏ)

19:21, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

23:01, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)