Aryans?

[Verinen Paroni]

Who were them in your opinion?

Notice that Aryan and Indo-European are totally different things.

In my opinion Aryans immigrated originally from Tibet and Pamir area and some of them conquered India and made caste-system and some Aryans influenced later some nations in Iran-Afghanistan area and later also in East-Europe.

[dilisang]

verinenparoni said:

Notice that Aryan and Indo-European are totally different things.

What do you mean with "totally different"?

Didn't the Aryans speak Indo-European?

Aryans seems to be an ethnic topic (Aria in today's Iran at least is) and Indo-European specifies only a language group, but why are they "totally different"?

[Verinen Paroni]

dilisang said:

verinenparoni said:

Notice that Aryan and Indo-European are totally different things.

What do you mean with "totally different"?

Didn't the Aryans speak Indo-European?

Aryans seems to be an ethnic topic (Aria in today's Iran at least is) and Indo-European specifies only a language group, but why are they "totally different"?

Well, I think that Indo-Europeans lived in those areas before Aryans.

Here is the race-map about 4000 years ago:



Dark-Red in America=Clovisians/Native-Americans
Yellow=Semitic
Dark-Green in Africa=Hamitic-Berbers
Brown=Australoids
Black=Negroids
Pink in India=Dravidics
Dark-Purple in South-Asia=Malaijids
Orange=Caucasians
Red from India to Ireland=Indo-Europeans
Dark-Green in North=Paleo-Siberians
Light-Green=Altaics
Blue=Uralics
Red in China=Sino(Chinese)-Race
Ice-Blue=Aryans

[Temüjin]

Aryans were an Indo-Iranian tribe living in the Hakhamanish Empire, probably vanquished after Saka conquest of the area.

the Aryans out of Tibet theory was made up by the Nazis, hence the use of the swastika, but this theory hasn't any scientific basis.

[dilisang]

I don't like simplified maps. Even now you can see easily in England the people with round skulls and black hair, also among the Basques or in the Alpes (e.g. Adolf Hitler) from the pre-Indo-European era.
Dominant ethnics are often only 10% of the population, even if they determine language and society.

So, I think this map is not very meaningful. But this is not your point.

I hear this opinion the first time. Generally, Aryans are thought to be Indo-Europeans. On the other side, that doesn't mean much as also mainstream opinions are often wrong or have a political background.

But again my question: What language should have spoken those Aryans, originally?

[Verinen Paroni]

the Aryans out of Tibet theory was made up by the Nazis, hence the use of the swastika, but this theory hasn't any scientific basis.

Well, I have heard that from people who certainly are not Nazis or even their sympathizers.

But again my question: What language should have spoken those Aryans, originally?

Language propably was related to I-E languages, but not so similar.

[balamir]

temujin said:

Aryans were an Indo-Iranian tribe living in the Hakhamanish Empire, probably vanquished after Saka conquest of the area.

the Aryans out of Tibet theory was made up by the Nazis, hence the use of the swastika, but this theory hasn't any scientific basis.

Agreed

And ý want to ask that what Nazi guys think Aryans are higher?

[dilisang]

The Nazis told many things just for their own purposes. The also told that all Germanic tribes would have evolved from Northern germany.

Generally, people tell they are higher to justify aggressive behavour and cruelties. Therefore exists "God's own country", the "chosen people" and so on.

Steppe people had also very often an aggressive and cruel nobility, but "their" people were often mixed ethnics. Racism never was an issue. Also, the Germanic tribes comprised many different ethnics, the same the Huns.

[dilisang]

verinenparoni said:

Language propably was related to I-E languages, but not so similar.

But, when the language would have been related then there is generally assumed a common origin of these languages. Generally, no languages are related but have a completely differnet background.

Bear in mind, that IE languages is only a language group, and today have completely different people IE languages as their mother language:
Native indians in Central and South America: Spanish
Africans: English, French, Portuguese
e.g

They are obviously not a common ethnic and this could have been so for a long time of the history of IE languages, overall if the original ethnic would have been an aggressive people who conquered others and dominated them only by a little nobility or if they would have been traders, or both.

[H. İhsan Erkoç]

As far as I know, the name Aryan is a general historical term for the Indo-Iranian branch of the Indo-European peoples.

[Temüjin]

yes, that too, but Aryans are also an specific Indo-Iranian tribe after which this group is named after.

[sharrukin]

The Arya were understood by the writers of the Zend Avesta (who also identified themselves as the same), the oldest written source of Iranian languages, as the inhabitants of a land called Airyanem Vaejah ("the abode of the Airyas") which was watered by the Oxus (Avestan, "Vanguhi Daitya", Pahlavi, "Veh"). They then migrated south into the greater region of Iran, where they retained the name Arya. The Greeks knew the name of Iran as "Ariana". Herodotus knew that the original name of the Medes was "Arioi". The Persian king Darius called himself "an Aryan of Aryan seed", and wrote in the Aryan language (Old Persian). Evidently virtually all the peoples speaking Iranian languages, especially in old Iran retained their identity as Aryas. The Kushan king Kanishka, although of Tocharian ancestry, wrote in "Aryan" (which was the Iranic Bactrian language). The very name "Iran" is the culmination of some 3000 years of evolution. From "Airyanem Vaejah" came the Greek form Ariana, of which the Pahlavi version was Eran, and finally, Iran.

The Aryans were thus not a race, but rather a group of peoples bearing various tribal names but which spoke Iranian languages. Now, in the RgVeda the oldest source of Indian languages, the term is used both for a quality of man as well as an ethnic designation. Both of the earliest ancient texts of the Iranians and the Indians speak of either "Aryan nations" or "Aryan tribes". Since both Avestan and Sanskrit are related languages, it can be postulated the term as an ethno-linguistic one, may have already been in existence before the earliest Indo-Iranian speakers separated into their various groups.

As far as to what extant documentation we have, we cannot really talk about "race" without hazardous results. There is some archaeological evidence which seem to indicate a route of migration from the Oxus region, into both Iran and India, but this does not mean that they were the original speakers of Indo-Iranian languages, much less of one of the two major branches of the Indo-Iranian languages. On the other hand there is evidence to show that major cultural elements of the Oxus region did originate in Central Asia (specifically in Kazakhstan). If Central Asia was the origin of Indo-Iranian languages, in earliest historical times, we have evidence of the Iranic languages spoken there, such as Sarmatian and Sacian.

[H. İhsan Erkoç]

Interesting, thanks

[Azadan Januspar]

Yes I agree, I may disclose here, it is possible that many people of indo-iranian origin called themselves Aryans or it's variations and while were being called with different names by their neighbors. ( e.g Ossets call their homeland Iron )