Talk:Aryan/Archive 1

Aryan is an english language?
"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)

various topics
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 (&#5839;) 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)

EVIDENCE
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)

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

theosophy
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.

british raj
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)

moving around
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)

initial definition
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)

British Raj
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.

Naming scholars, using book titles and dates
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)

ARYAN
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.

removed paragraph
I removed the following: Because it's inaccurate or misleading. This is not a "national" theory (German or Soviet), nor is it outdated: It corresponds to the quite alive Kurgan hypothesis. The theory cherished in Nazi Germany, on the other hand, was that the "Aryans" originated on "German" soil. The sentence "the German people have a direct ancestry with the people of the Arya region in Iran" pretty much expresses what is accepted by virtually everybody, but instead of "people of the Arya region" we might as well say Albanians, or Slavs, or any other IE group. As to the belief in a particularly close relation of Iranians and Germans, this is afaik not something the Nazis (or anybody) assumed. If we want to quote it as a minority view, it should be attributed to specific scholars, and not to "German and Soviet" scholars collectively. dab 08:27, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * in particular, a school of German and Soviet scholarship at one time believed that this ethnic group originated in the Russian steppes. German philologists believed that the Germanic group originated from the steppes north of Historic 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)

Kluge Chair
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". dab 08:45, 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

"Genetics" section moved here:
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? dab 15:01, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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

Nazi Aryan
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 (&#5839;) 11:34, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, because of widespread misconceptions, people seem to use the term "Aryan" as simply a word meaning "White", and though the term "Caucasian" may be somewhat accurate, that aspect of "Aryan" is more theoretical than what can be understood from the ancient history. Furthermore, the Nazi's used the term, "Aryan" not just to signify a pre-existing race, but more so to encourage the creation and development of a new, paradigmically German race, that would be homogenous throughout the German Empire. Again for clarity, people think "Aryan" means "White", but the Nazi's used "Aryan" to signify a new race they were creating through eugenics and immigration control, based upon a strong belief in a glorious ancient race of Aryan people who had reached an evolutionary level that the Nazi's hoped also to reach.

-I think the original question is really not "do we need to discuss the Nazis", but "do we need to debate the Nazis". Every discussion about the word Aryan seems to involve an attempt to deny that there was ANY racial or ethnic group called the Aryans - people who are crusading against Nazism are hijacking the topic just as brazenly as the Nazis themselves were.[[User:johan77]

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)

Max Muller
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.'

deterioration
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 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. dab (&#5839;) 14:48, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * justify their edit here on the Talk page, or
 * give a satisfactory edit summary instead, or
 * cleanly cite their sources in the article.

oh really?
What... does it hurt to know the truth about "Aryan's" true meaning? I mean... after all that Nazi propaganda... it hurts to truly pull apart the concept of Nordic and true Aryan....


 * Are you making a specific point here? It doesn't sound like it. OK, to reply to Shashir.


 * 1. Aryan does not mean 'Indian'. At most, when used in an ethnic sense rather than with its spiritual meaning, it can mean 'North Indian' - i.e. native speaker of an Indo-Aryan language. It has never meant 'citizen of India.'


 * 2. Indo-Iranian is bracketed to explain the particular usage of the term Aryan in this context - i.e. a speaker of the proto I-I languages, but not a speaker of all the I-E languages. The latter is a different usage, and that's the one that eventually led to the Nazi meaning.


 * 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 English word Aryan, derived from, but not identical to Sanskrit arya-. dab (&#5839;) 19:21, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * And please remember that Aryan is not just a dharmic spiritual quality. It is used in Zoroastrianism as well! So not only is it not exclusively limited to the acceptance of the Vedas, but it isn't even the sole spiritual domain of the dharmic religions. I'm beating a dead horse though, just thought I'd throw in my two cents. Khirad 06:50, 26 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Zoroastrians have traditionally used the term "Aryan" to describe a race. And while "scholars" seem to prefer studying Europeans' opinion on the matter, Iranian and Indian histories regard the history of "Aryans" as a matter of fact that has been held true consistently for thousands of years, since the actual pre-Avestan, pre-Vedic people existed.

Herodotus
Herodotus didn't describe the Medes, Scythians etc. "as Aryan peoples". He probably said they were somehow related. I don't know what term he used, but he most certainly didn't say "Aryan". So maybe we should rephrase that bit, and give the precise reference. dab (&#5839;) 17:56, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * No, of course he didn't! He isn't exactly the shining bastion of accuracy when it comes to Persia either, though his observations are invaluable nonetheless. Khirad 06:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Herodutus was a Historian of those times so we must accept his teaching as being accurate he did refer to the members of the Persian empire as the Arayan its a historical accepted fact & has been for countless centuries. Seeing that Herodutus named the members of the Persian empire as being Arayan then no doubt other ancient greek & probably roman works also point out the same. Their were three major wars between the Ancient Greeks & the Arayan, the Trojan war, the Persian War & the war of Alexander the Great. The main languages derived from 'Aramaic the imperial language of the Persian or Arayan empire' are arabic, hebrew, farsi & turkish & its quite possible aramaic influenced the development of the sanskrit language. Also the swastika was used it italy & greece before the Villanovan culture 2000 bc, their may even be earlier records of its use in art & ceremony. It is possible the swastika was a symbol of solar worship in relation to agriculture & it could have been inherited from the Arayan tribes of Anatolia, (hittites) or it could have been a indigenous symbol of their own.

Is their a record of the swastika being used in ancient egypt ?

Also the first christian missionaries were egyptian, the apostle Mark was egyptian & so were many other apostles & disciples, note the Greeks were complicit in influencing Titus to purge Judah & crucify many people, Jesus may have been one of them, in revenge the so called Christians burnt down the libary of Alexandria in Egypt which held a vast amount of pre-christian or pagan knowledge. These christians as they were called spoke Aramaic the language of the Persian empire though others spoke both Aramaic & Greek. Scholars have claimed throughout the centuries that Jesus spoke Aramaic the language of the Persian or Arayan empire.

Is their a connection between Arianism & the Arayan, the followers of Arianism made the claim that Jesus was a creature who did not exist & many people in Europe would follow Arianism for hundreds of years, as opposed to follow the teachings of Jesus. They were regarded as heretics by the early church.

Indo-Iranian
Since there only was a little section on Proto-Indo-Iranians, but nothing on Indo-Iranians per se, I added this section. I will try to add more detail to other sections as well.


 * Hi, I've altered what you wrote a bit, but I'm inclined to think that it may be better to create a separate page on "Indo-Iranians" or "Indo-Iranian (peoples)", which would be referenced here. At the moment it rather overbalances the Aryan page. Paul B 09:15 Apr 27 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I was thinking that instead of doing that, I gradually add to the content of other pages.  But if you think it is odd here, I can remove it.  BTW, it is from my own essay, you guessed right.  Is it alright? Khodadad


 * Indo-Iranian is a disambiguation page right now. I think we should make it into a full article, and move the section there. dab (&#5839;) 09:40, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * By all means! Should I write the full article and move the contents there? khodadad
 * that would be great. just leave a disambiguation notice pointing to Indo-Iranian languages at the top of the new article. cheers, dab (&#5839;) 11:13, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I created Indo-Iranians. This would be now the place to discuss the proto-Indo-Iranians, and their subsequent distribution. dab (&#5839;) 09:27, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Ariya
All what you saying it isn't truth.

In some parthian bareliefs, Aryans pictured with bashlyks(Ancient turkic aiguille hats) & their horses had cuted tails. Only Kypcak(Ancient Turkic people) has cuted horses tails in that time.

P.S Many think that Sakae & Scythian people was so-called 'indo-europeans'. But I have explain of this myth, most ancient ancestors of turkic people was blue-eyed! But it doesn't mean that turks was europeans, no. Their Ancestors has migrated south to Iran & India, this an explain that sanskrit & some european languages have same-like words.

But if you want to see, that ancient mythical ancestors, you need only to seen Sámi people, they are most great proove of this theory. (from M.Adji book 'Kypçaks'.)

23:01, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * so you're basically saying the Aryans were really Turks, yes? dab (&#5839;) 08:37, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * And this theory asserts that the Sámi are the progenitors of the Turkic peoples?! Whaaaa? Isn't that anachronistic like saying La Tène was settled by the Irish? I think Richard C. Foltz and Paul Kriwaczek's theories, though often speculative (and admittedly so by the latter), are more grounded in if nothing else, geography. Khirad 03:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, from what I've studied, the Turks believe themselves to be the same people as the ancient Sumerians, which was a non-Semitic race that was conquered by Semitic Akkadians and Assyrians. Between a white, non-Semitic race in Mesopotamia, and the Persians right next door, there could be a direct link (though it's highly speculative).  That would account for a Turkish claim to being Aryan, originally.  Today, however, Turks are a mix of ancient Turks and Mongols, due to the days of the Mongol invasions, and the rise of the Tartars.
 * What a people considers itself to be, ethnically speaking, has often been shown to be motivated by collective self-aggrandizement. Compare the Ethiopian conviction of a Salomonic origin, or the Roman insistence on Aeneas of Troy as their progenitor:

The Trojans were (Anatolian turkish hittites) ancestors of the Sumerians according to archeoligical findings that pre-date Sumeria, though their culture in Sumeria became more advanced than their original culture in Turkey, this adds favour to the Armenian connection mentioned. Many Trojans from Turkey migrated to southern italy around 2000 bc after their city was trashed by the Greeks, they may have influenced the indigenous peoples of Italy. This also explains why southern italy has many dark hair & eyed peoples.

it means nothing but what popular legend ascribes to it.
 * Incidentally, controversial current research has indicated the Turkic linguistic tree might extend as far as remotely ancient China.
 * Nuttyskin 16:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

systemic bias
Some months ago Zosodada added this article to the list of those displaying systemic bias because it was "riddled with apparent confusion" and a "dearth of organization". It currently appears in the page WikiProject Countering systemic bias/open tasks/Linguistics, on which are language related articles deemed to display systemic bias because "suffer from an Indo-European point of view." Of course this is a reasonable objection in many cases, if general linguistic concepts are disussed using only IE examples. But it's difficult to see why there should be an objection that the "Aryan" article concentrates on Indo-European! In a discussion here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/open tasks/Linguistics I pointed out that the stated reasons for the listing - confusion and bad organisation - even if true of the article, are not systemic bias. I was advided to ask Zosodada on his talk page, which I did. After two months he has replied, but provided no explanation at all, only mentioning an unspecified "POV". For this reason I suggest the tag should be removed, since no reasonable explanation of the supposed systemic bias is to be found. Paul B 16:44, 28 June 2005 (UTC)
 * of course, the tag is nonsense. dab (&#5839;) 16:44, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Avestan
On the Avestan transliteration - this may be splitting hairs, but in Din Dabireh Aryan it is written airyana. It is still essentially the same as अार्य though, and there's no telling if there was a vowel shift or not from the Gathic Avestan until the development of the alphabet in the Sassanid era. Khirad 04:08, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Continued Usage in India
Paul Barlow's deletion of my sentence is strange to say the least. Arya and Aryan are two forms of the same word. As the word was orignially Iranian-Indian it needs to be understood it is still used in India. It is also important to understand that this Indian usage has no relation to the what happened in early 20th century Europe. To say the section makes no mention of Nazis is not convincing, the reason why Aryan is no longer acceptable in Europe is because of the Nazis. Jayanta Sen 04:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The point of the introductory section is to explain the complex interconnected usages of the term to mean, in different contexts, "Proto-Indo-European", "Indo-European", "Indo-Iranian" and "Indo-Aryan". We decided some while ago that the specific Indian and Buddhist usages would go in the article "Arya", though of course with a mention here. This was intended to avoid too much confusion here about a concept that's confusing enough as it is! Of course the distinction is to an extent artificial - just as the distinction between "Iranian" and "Aryan" is artificial, since they too are "two forms of the same word". But the point of maintaining these distinctions is to avoid the blurring together of different, and sometimes inconsistent, usages.


 * The Nazi usage arises from the meanings "Indo-European" and "Proto-Indo-European", with the added significance of "non-Jewish". This is explored in the Racist connotations section. If you think it should be in the introduction, fine, but I think we need to explain the Nazi usage first. As it is, your sentence is added to section in which two as-yet unexplained usages – one of which has not even been mentioned – are taken as already understood. The Nazi usage and the Hindu/Buddhist/Jain one are both discussed in later sections. So I think either the intro needs a bigger rewrite, or the sentence should go elsewhere.Paul B 10:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * As I stated up above in another section, the Nazi usage of "Aryan" was actually in the creation of a NEW race (via eugenics, the Nuremberg laws, and immigration control), based upon what was believed to be the glory of the ancient Aryan peoples, whom the Germans perceived as their ancestors. Since this NEW race that the Nazi's wanted to create specifically excluded Jews, Aryans under the Nazi's definition would have to be non-Jewish.  Furthermore, the Jews of Europe were Slavic peoples, and Hitler, in Mein Kampf, specifically viewed Slavs as being non-German, and would clearly have excluded them from the race he wanted to create, which explains his perception of Poland and Czechoslavakia as specific threats.


 * Paul removed your sentence because this is already explored, amply, earlier in the article. We link to Arya in the intro. We have an "Indo-Aryan" section, before the "racist connotations" section, where we link to Arya again. The entire Arya article is about Vedic and post-Vedic sociological connotations of the Sanskrit term. Your edits were to the "racist" section, and offtopic there: that section is precisely not about the Indian meanings, already explained. There is no need to repeat the same point over and over again; read the article, and you'll know. Skip the article, jumping directly to the "racism" section, and you'll read about racism, don't blame the article for that. dab (&#5839;) 10:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Question
Good article but what I still dont understand it why are Germans aslo seen as Aryans? What connecection is there with them?


 * See Aryan invasion theory, Nordic theory and Aryan race. Paul B 10:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The Germans are linguistically connected to the Iranians and Vedic Sanskrit Indians, and the ancient German and Scandanavian religions are closely connected to the Avesta and the Vedas, of Iran and India respectively (and also to the Sumerian religion). Thor is basically the same character as the Zoroastrian Mithra, and Odin/Wotan is the same character as Ahura Mazda.  Also, it's likely that, like the Scythians, other Aryan warrior tribes migrated north into Europe, and those seem to be the old Teutonic peoples.

Iranian --> Aryan?
I think the Aryan section of this article has a biased POV. It is true that many of the ancient Persians are "Aryan" by ethnicity; however, keep in mind that Persia had many empires/nations that occupied it, thus influencing the demographics of Iran. For example, Arabs in Southern Iran, Turks, Azerbaijanis, Kurds.... --SeanMcG 22:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't understand your point. There is no Aryan '"section", since that's the whole topic. There is no "biological" Aryan identity, only an ethnolinguistic one. Paul B 01:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no "biological" Aryan identity? Explain your reasoning. --SeanMcG 00:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I mean there isn't, and never was, an anthropological category labelled "Aryans" with specific definable physical characteristics. Perhaps you could explain in more detail what you understand thre meaning of the term to be. Kurdish, is, by the way, an Indo-Iranian language, so they have as much claim to "Aryan" identity, should it matter to them, as do other Iranians. Paul B 01:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that, presently, there is no ethnicity that is Aryan. Perhaps Scythians could be considered Aryan? Many Scythians spoke an Indo-Iranian language as well, and they were certainly not ethnically Dravidian or Aramaic. --SeanMcG 03:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The Iranians always considered their ancestors to be of a hereditary, Aryan ethnicity. Darius said quite specifically that he's an Aryan of Aryan lineage.  "Lineage" cannot be construed as a purely linguistic term.


 * -I think your arguments above are way too biased in favor towards Iranian peoples. Aryan does not exclusively mean synomity with the Iranian groups. Iranian groups are a part of the Aryan ethnicity but the ONLY part. Another major part of the Aryans are the Indo-Aryans who are the older branch. And the branch that has preserved much of the older Indo-Iranian roots better than the Iranian languages. Aryan doesnt just mean Iranian. Iranian is just a branch of the Aryans, not the entire Aryans themeselves.

User: Afghan Historian


 * "The Iranians?" You can't generalize Iran in that way. That would be analagous to stating that all Americans link their ancestory to Britain. It is true that Darius stated that he was of Aryan lineage; however, when has a monarch such as Darius ever spoken for millions of his/her constituents? --SeanMcG 08:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, but 51% of what are now referred to as "Iranians", are racial Persians, which are of the Old Persian race, in the same way that a large percentage of Americans did, in fact, descend from the British people who founded this country. By "the Iranians" I was referring to those Iranians that had not intermarried with foreign peoples.  Zoroastrian tradition in Iran, which is still alive among Iranian Muslims as "Iranian custom", demands that Iranians not intermarry with foreign peoples.  Of course such intermarriage has happened, but to a minimal extent - maybe not as minimal as in Japan, but close.


 * Where do you get such data that 51% of Iranians are racial Persians? They may claim to be ethnic Persians in the modern nation-state of Iran, but that means squat. 91% of Chinese consider themselves Han Chinese, as descendents from the Han Dynasty, but genetics has revealed the Han Chinese ethnic group to be more diverse than modern Europeans. Two words: Conquest and assimilation, which led to expansion of ethnic group.
 * He is right, 51% of Iranians are Persian. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ir.html 136.159.187.178 07:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that someone on here stated that a large percentage of Americans or at least half descend from the British founders. This is utter garbage. The good majority of white Americans actually are of German origin. Only something around less than even a quarter, probably even just 5-10% of white Americans descend from English people. Germans dominate the White American gene pool. Afghan Historian 22:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Germans dominate US Gene pool? Not really. This comes from the US census where the largest group out of AMERICANS ABLE TO STATE ANCESTRY is German (15.2%). Many (white) Americans are unable or unwilling to state their ancestry and put “American” (7.2%) instead. The areas with the largest "American" ancestry populations were those mostly settled by English, Welsh, Scottish and Irish during colonial period. This suggests that percentages listed for those groups should be larger than as stated in the census: Irish (10.8%), English (8.7%), Scottish (1.7%), Scots-Irish (1.5%), Welsh (0.6%). This would give clear majority to ancestry from the British Isles*…if you exclude the Irish 10.8% and divide the “American” 7.2% in a conservative half….that still gives a majority from the current UK nations. This is from the 2000 census. In addition the studies show that top 15 surnames in the US are "British" -- which is interesting but doesn't even reflect race much less ethnicity.


 * There is no such thing as a “British” ethnicity.Jalipa 22:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I cannot talk about this Aryan thing because it is not my expertise, but as a Persian-speaking Iranian I'd like to inform you that our mothers have never told us that we are "Persians". They only show the map to us and say that we live here (Iran), and that our language is "Persian". "Persian people" is mostly ethnolinguistic group. In the old times (and now) there have been Iranians with dialects/languages other than Persian who have been called "Persian". A part of present Persian-speaking parts of Iran have been historically parts of Media and Parthia, so we cannot say that anybody who speaks "Persian" is a "Persian". You cannot even track it. Persian-speaking people of Iran are mixed with indigenous people of Iranian plateau who probably were not Aryan, other Iranians, Elamites, other Iranians and others. You may conventionally call Persian-speaking people "Persian" as they did and do, but you cannot strictly relate us to old Persians. There is a relation but not strict.--81.90.145.127 (talk) 01:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Saddening
It is saddening to see the efforts by the "moderators" to push forward "Aryan Invasion Theory" and the "Indo-European" centric origins as a legitimate foundation to the ancient aryan and vedic civilization that flourished in the Indian subcontinent. It is saddening because the notes on the Wiki pages seem to validate a theory that is widely suspected and championed by a narrow group of intolerant self-professed scholars. A neutral discussion/notes would have dealt the subject in its pristinity with enough room for all pertinent view points in the subsequnet expositions. But unfortunately, the Wiki pages have become the showcase of a potent but dying clique that want to revive a moribund racial-centric theory. The introductory paragraph/definition for the Aryan section is a simple example cleverly targeted at the new readers to buy the AI Theory at first sight than to give a unbiased introductory account of origins of Aryan word. Shame! Sriwiki 18:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Assertion is not argmuent nor evidence. This is mere assertion. This article is about the range of meanings and uses that the word has had. Paul B 21:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Assertion is making a point. Why make a point in defining things? All range of meanings can be presented with out any assertion. Readers then make assessments. But you do not want to give that opportunity to readers. Sriwiki 01:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * What opportunity? Is there a meaning that has been left out? If so, please tell us. Paul B 02:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

What I am talking is very obvious. The entire text in the Aryan related articles is about elaborating an authentic migration theory with appendages on other audacious factional (and fictious) material. An excellent, sophisticated and comprehensive compilation of all the discussed material from the school of AIT/Indo-European/PIE. Hope you will agree with this. However, given the fact (if you agree) that the decades old theory is not undisputed the quality of the text is in jeopardy (because it fails to keep the disputants equidistant). By placing the AIT central to any description/exploration the Wiki page material is clearly motivated and adherent to an "established, obvious and real story". Whatever is the truth about the aryan civilization the material is based on a theory that is at loggerheads. The consequence is not just misinformation but failure to recognise and accomodate revealing knowledge where everything "else" is reposited as an appendage and sidelined.

The current pathological situation is probably not entirely due to a robust wilful tirade against a rival school but also related to the diagnostic darkness corresponding the ignorance. Darkness induced by a defective knowledge, or by one's own racial/national/political positions/affinities/disaffinities or due to one's own trusted intellectual and reasoning abilities or a mix of these or due to complete ignorance. The result a grand mockery of science, history and investigation. Sriwiki 04:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The theory is only in "jeopardy" or "disputed" when one believes the propaganda of certain fringe groups. It may seem surprising, but in reality the identification of the Indo-European language family, the reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European, and the historical veracity of the Aryan migration theory (and of the other migrations and cultural changes that are associated with the spread of the IE language family in the rest of Eurasia) are in no danger of dissapearing in some cloud of uncertainty brought on by apparently "revealing knowledge" from the fringe of academia. The evidence is clear, and although many people have alternate views, these are just that; alternate. Particularly the Out-of-India theory, much like the Nazi's claim that Indo-European culture originated in Northern Europe, seems to be influenced primarily by nationalist sentiment rather than actual evidence, and as such enjoys nowhere near the same level of support among pre-historians and linguists. The current way wikipedia deals with the issue accurately reflects this situation. --Krsont 22:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * In the end, there are two conceptions of the word "Aryan".
 * There's the ancient civilization described by the Avesta and the Vedas, from which Iran descends, and from which India is partially composed of (the other part being the dark-skinned Dravidian peoples).
 * The other conception of "Aryan" is the theoretical one, which claims that the Germanic peoples are also rooted in the ancient Aryan civilization. This theoretical conception, in one of its forms, claims that actually the Aryan civlization was based in the North, BEFORE it settled in Iran and invaded India.  The "North" though, refers to antediluvian continents, meaning Ultima Thule, or perhaps Iceland.  This branch of the theoretical conception of Aryans has merit because there were, actually, warm island continents in antediluvian times, and there WAS a period of worldwide flood and cataclysm for hundreds or maybe thousands of years at the end of the last ice age, where, if there had been a great civilization on a continent in the North, then it certainly would have been smashed and spread apart.  This period would have been somewhere around 10,000 BC, according to earth scientists.


 * There is mention of Blavatsky here, but more detailed discussion of her views is in the Aryan race article. Her views were only influential on the more esotericist participants in the debate. Hardly anyone disputes that "Germanic peoples" are rooted in "Aryan civilisation", if by "Aryan" you mean Proto-Indo-European. Perhaps the word "civilisation" might be queried. But there's no reason to single out Germanic peoples - the same is true of Greeks and Romans and others. The North European homeland theory does not derive from Blavatsky. Neither does the Atlantis theory - that comes from Ignatius Donnelly. I think you'd be hard put to find any scholars who think the theory still "has merit". Paul B 01:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think I said anything about Blavatsky in describing the different conceptions of "Aryan". Atlantis theories discuss evidence of ancient civilizations with technology that was lost before recorded history (e.g. advanced navigation, astronomy, masonry, etc.), but Atlantis theorists make no discussion of what races were involved.  However, racial theorists in Europe worked off of Atlantis theroists to detail a back-history for the Aryan race that stretched into antediluvian times.  But this is not a matter of science, so much as it is a matter of doctrine and belief held by the Nazi's and other Rosenberg type theorists. The Atlantis aspect of the theory has some merit, at least to the extent that there were ancient civilizations who had, at least, the ability to build ships that could sale the oceans, and perhaps have built pyramids.  What gives weight to the Aryan theorists is that such advanced civilizations are described in the ancient Aryan texts, the Vedas, and the Avesta.

I really don't think that discussions and explanations of theories, and traditions and evidence behind theories, is in any way "saddening". In fact, I think it's enlightening, and of great importance in uncovering historical fact.

it's very simple: ok? this article is really about the term itself. Its use, and the history of its use, in English. dab (&#5839;) 07:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * this article details the usage of the English term and its history (linguistic, ethnic, spiritual, racist, occult)
 * Arya deals with the Sanskrit term and the Hindu concept
 * Indo-Aryan and Indo-Iranian deals with the modern linguistic and ethnic concepts
 * Vedic Aryan (redirect) deals with the ancient ethnicity
 * Aryan race deals with the racist and occult notions.

Actually, Indian Hindu civilization isnt even just part Aryan, its is derived from the Aryan culture in general. Dravidian influence was great yes, but the structure, actual synthesis of beliefs and framework was set up by the Aryans. Therefore, it was founded by them. The fact that both the North and the South use the caste system and use Sanskrit as the liturgical language attests to the fact that the Hindu framework is still dominated by the Aryans. The origins, however, do derive from the Dravidians in a great deal. Afghan Historian 22:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Heja helweda's Querry
To answer your question, yes, I do know for sure that the name Arian (not sure Im spelling it right) was mentioned by Eratosthenes in 3rd century BC.

Also, I checked Dehkhoda, and he mentions that both Herodotus and Ptolemy mention it. But Im not sure which name is he talking about, because there are many variations of the name Iran, Iriana, Ariana, eire, etc. and he doesnt specify.

Nevertheless Im sure about Erathostenes.--Zereshk 23:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Arian, Ary, Hary
There exist in central Europe (Silesia) a folk song about hAry (ha-hary). Song text:

Translation:
 * Old women saying that Hary(-s plural) died.
 * But Hary-s are living and drinking mead and wine.
 * They look from above and have everything in *.

The leter H as described in renaissance : "H, acording to grammarian it is no leter"


 * where * = dupa in dative case.


 * What the hell is this section supposed to be talking about? I cannot be alone in wondering.
 * Nuttyskin 16:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Arya vs. Aryan
I'm moving the Wikipoject India template over to Talk:Arya, since that is the article reserved for the Indian/Sanskrit term. The template's presence here, and its absence there appears to attract a lot of editors who are unaware of the division. dab (&#5839;) 07:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, truely speaking I am quite confused about this division. Isn't there's just one word: Arya. The 'n' is added after it in English to make it sound like an English adjective. Is this two word formula "Arya" vs. "Aryan" really used by scholars or is it just invented on wikipedia for our convenience? I agree it's quite handy, but it gives people the wrong impression that Arya and Aryan are two different concepts, which we know of course is untrue. deeptrivia (talk) 06:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * do we? They are related concepts, Aryan is loanword from Sanskrit into English. ' is a Sanskrit term, belonging to our Hinduism articles like other Sanskrit terms we have articles about, mantra, guru, shakti, deva, karma, brahma, bhakti, bindi, bandhu, moksha, atman etc. etc.; English Aryan came to be a linguistic and racial term in 19th century Europe that has little to do with use of the Sanskrit term, and the Hindu concept remained unaffected by these developments. Claiming that ' and Aryan are identical concepts is a bit like claiming that Goth and Goths really treat the same subject and should be merged. dab (&#5839;) 11:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I think Goth vs. Goths gives a great example of what this division is all about. I understand it better now. One last question: In this case, do we need separate articles on Aryan and Aryan race? Isn't the European concept all about race? Or is the linguistic term "Aryan" also considered separate from "Aryan" used with racial connotations. Thanks for clearing my doubts. deeptrivia (talk) 19:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * well, 19th century scholars were careless about separating language and race, from today's perspective. In the 19th century, "Aryan" simply lumped together "Ancient Indo-European", people, race, language and all. Then there was fascism and WWII with all its racialist madness, and after 1945, people were extremely careful about equating language and race, for several decades, the topic was practically taboo. Today, good faith discussions of concepts of "race", and their connection to linguistics, are again possible, but the term Aryan race is strictly and exclusively a historical fascist concept. This whole discussion is really divided from India now, it is deeply connected with European history. In linguistics, good faith use of "Aryan" never really died out, and it is well possible, if a bit old-fashioned, to use "Aryans" as a synonym of "Indo-Iranians", in a strictly linguistic sense. So you see, the topic of this article is to explain the history of the term in the West in the 19th and 20th century. Today, the term is not needed in academic discussion, but you have to be aware of it because it's in the older literature.. All of Arya, Aryan race, Proto-Indo-Iranian, Indo-Aryans, Iranians are articles with unambiguous topics while this article is about the term itself. If you think that there should be no such thing, we may have to cut it down to a simple disambiguation page, like Gothic. dab (&#5839;) 08:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * There are not just two meanings, but many - Iranian(s); Vedic peoples; spiritually ennobled peoples; Indo-Iranian (peoples; languages); PI-I (peoples; languages); PIE (peoples; languages); Indo-European (peoples; languages); esoteric "Root Race" from Atlantis; Nordic/Germanic peoples. This list of meanings is so bizarre that some attempt at explanation must, I think, be made. Just having a disambiguation page may simply fuel confusion. With Gothic it's not so important, as there is a straight chain of connotations generating new denotations: Gothic peoples - Goths seen as barbaric - "barbaric" architecture labelled Gothic - Gothic generalised as a term for medieval art and design - the Gothic style becomes synonym for Medieval culture - Gothic literature emerges as revival of mystical medieval Romance literature - 'Gothic' generalised to signify supernatural - Gothic extended to refer generally to supernatural stories - Gothic appropriated by subculture as name for people who wish they were characters in such stories! Paul B 08:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * right, even the "Gothic" semanitc shifts are pretty contorted, but I agree. A thing we could consider would be to make Aryan the disambiguation page, putting the discussion at History of the term Aryan or similar, so we will prevent the constant well-meaning "corrections" to one side or the other here. Aryan could then simply be a dab page, linking to
 * History of the term Aryan for etymology and development
 * Arya for the meaning in Hinduism
 * Indo-Iranians, Indo-Aryans, Vedic Aryans, Iranians, for the ethnic meanings
 * Proto-Indo-Iranian, Indo-Aryan languages, Iranian languages etc. for the linguistic meanings (the PIE meaning is obsolete, it is to be discussed in the "history of the term" article, but not to be linked as valid usage)
 * Aryan race for the Nazi and Root Race stuff.
 * but we can of course also leave it as it is, and point out the rationale every couple of weeks.
 * dab (&#5839;) 08:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, you re right. That's good idea.Paul B 09:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the premise and believe that these articles (arya and aryan) should qualify for merger, except with respect to a specific philologically based meaning of the word arya (if that were even possible), which in any event, should appear in Wikidictionary, not here. Irrespective of one's opinion regarding the Nazi party interpretation of the conception of arya or aryan in the ancient texts, it is simply impossible and intellectually dishonest to separate the question of what arya meant in ancient times from an historical description of the word aryan itself. The usage of the latter is inextricably bound up with the interpretation of what the former means. By creating a dichotomy between the one and the other, it leads one to believe that there is only an accidental relationship, if any, between the two. The basis of the Nazi use of aryan was not simply the result of delusional fanatics imposing some notions created out of whole cloth--it was the logical extension of what was, without question, the most widely held European thesis regarding the meaning of the word arya at the time. That the 19th and early 20th understanding of arya led to the particularly unfortunate usages of aryan is an historically significant fact that has had tremendous repercussions for not just the field of I-Ir research, but the whole modern conception of what ethnicity, race, and language actually are (e.g., one need only recall the "ebonics" debate in the US a few years ago).--Almijisti 02:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Hitler

 * Hitler said thet "Germans and Indians are the same blood but living in different lands". He also said that the Aryan Wall Extended from Berlin to Calcutta. He said that Indians and Germans together as Aryans were the Purest race of them all. In th 1930's an Indian in Germany was given More respect than an Australian, Austrian or any european.

I'm deleting this as it seems problematic in several ways. What is the source for this quote? Does it apply to all indians? "an Indian in Germany was given More respect than an Australian, Austrian or any european"??? How do you know? Paul B 07:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

this is a lie, it is evident because it says that an indian was given more respect than an austrian. this is false because austrians are germans themselves, there is no way that an indian would have gotten more respect than other germans.Iranian Patriot 03:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Given that Adolf was Austrian himself, it seems unlikely to say the least. Paul B 01:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Just troll's BS. It's both untrue and seeming to reminiscence about the good old days when Hitler was in charge. Delete away. dab (&#5839;) 07:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Obviously some misguided Indian nationalist's BS.

I agree with Paul B here too, and by the way, I personally thank you for your neutral, reasonable comments about this article or other ones.Zmmz 23:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I dont know or care what psycho pathic hitler said, but, he did believe in an Aryan pureness and Indians are Aryan as well ARYAN818 05:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Language classification
The section titled "Etymology" says The Aryan, or Indo-Iranian group of languages is divided into three branches: Indo-Aryan, Nuristani, and Iranian. Is "Nuristani" one of the three branches under "Indo-Iranian" ? This is contradictory to what Ethonologue says. Is this a POV ? Perhaps we should remove the whole scentence. It does not seem to be adding extra information or support to the paragraph -- Sudarshanhs 03:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Etymologies
Based on the Indo-European roots section in the American Heritage College Dictionary, I have deleted the reference to "E/ire," the Irish name for Ireland, being related to Aryan. The dictionary instead gives the root *pei@, suffixed form *pei-wer- "fat; fetile" as the source "Iueriu" -- Celtic languages lose initial PIE /p/ -- and this has the benefit of being an actual attested ancient form of the island's name.

PIE /a/ vowels remained unchanged in the transformation to Celtic, and so the long /e:/ in "Eire" makes no sense if descended from *ar-yo-.

"Aristos" however IS descended from this root, but "heir" is not.


 * I've reverted your changes, since the earlier version clearly stated that these theories are now no longer widely accepted. It is worth mentioning them because they have a bearing on the later development of the term in the West. As for "aristos", do you have recent sources?Paul B 14:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * aristos should be widely accepted; and yes, I agree it is well to note that the Eire connection was proposed in the 19th c. even if it is untenable today. I don't know about 'heir' though - a connection with this word would have been untenable even in the 19th c.; I say we strike that until a reference is brought forward who exactly supposed a connection of 'heir' with 'arya'. dab (&#5839;) 15:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know where the claim regarding "heir" comes from. Schlegel suggested "ehre". Paul B 15:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

origins of Germanic peoples
So it would be interesting to see a discussion of the accuracy or inaccuracy of the purely descriptive/archeological aspect of the Nazi claims. That is, are Germanic peoples (say, Franks, Teutons, Aller Manni) actually descended from the Indo-Aryans or proto-Indo-Iranians or whoever? More so than, say, the Ashkenazim are? I genuinely don't know, and am kind of curious. Hopefully this question can be discussed independently of the racist Nazi mythology. --Trovatore 20:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * well, they just descend from the Proto-Indo-Europeans linguistically, and partly genetically (there is always a local substrate that stays in place when new groups arrive). See Proto-Germanic, Germanic peoples, Nordic Bronze Age. The Slavs and Balts are likely closer to the Indo-Iranians, not to mention the gypsies, who are Indo-Iranians, all of which were considered inferior by the Nazis. Your point is valid, of course, in that the North European "Aryan homeland" was once an innocent academic possiblity, say around 1880, as good as any other. It was only national mysticism that turned a hypothesis (which is now, moreover, untenable) into an atrocity. Quoth Albert Einstein, nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. dab (&#5839;) 21:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't have a "point" so much as a question, and thank you for your answer, which has been very helpful. Perhaps this information about the Slavs, Balts, and Roma, properly sourced, could be added to this article and Aryan race. --Trovatore 22:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

"race" section
sorry for expanding the "racist connotations" section maybe beyond what is its due (if this is to remain a brief help for disambiguation). Much of what I added should maybe be moved over to Aryan race. My motivation was to trace the temporal depth of the development of the term in English and German 1890-1930. dab (&#5839;) 17:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Deletion
The following paragraph strikes me as strongly POV and factually questionable, and so I have deleted it. RandomCritic 14:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

''Today, the concept of Aryans and Dravidians, as applied in India, is generally accepted to have been a tactic used by the British to subjugate the peoples of the Indian sub-continent, by using the age old divide-and-conquer paradigm, by pitting the northern and southern populations against each other. True to third world expectations, the Indian populace fell for this myth, and have perpetuated it to this day to serve their individual egos.''


 * well done. dab (&#5839;) 20:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Per the revert attempt: I didn't delete this because I disagreed with it, but because it's expressed in unencyclopedic language and because it's in the wrong place -- it doesn't have anything to do with the linguistic component of the "Aryan" concept.


 * Cutting out the attack on "the Indian populace", the central claim of the paragraph appears to be that "the British" used "the concept of Aryans and Dravidians" "to subjugate the peoples of the Indian sub-continent".


 * My perception of the truth of this claim is this: There is no question in my mind that the British used, very successfully, divide et impera tactics. They played caste against caste, region against region, religion against religion, thus both fragmenting any nationalist opposition and making their own presence seem necessary as a "disinterested" arbiter presiding over a pot of communal tensions -- some of which, it's fair to say, would have been there anyway even without the British.  It was after all not a united and peaceful India which the British took over in the late 18th-early 19th century.


 * However, the British administrators, while they were intensely caste- and color-conscious -- traits they probably imported from their experiences at home and in other colonies they had -- were not linguists or anthropologists, and to them one foreign language was as alien as the next. They do seem to have favored lighter-skinned northwestern Indians over other inhabitants of the peninsula, based partly on racial theories (and partly on the breakdown of loyalties in 1857), but although most of these groups were speakers of Indo-Aryan languages, the prejudice did not work any more to the detriment of Tamils or Telugu-speakers than it did to the detriment of the indisputably "Aryan" Bengalis.  British administrative divisions never recognized linguistic communities (unlike modern India) and I'm unaware of any British administrative classification of Indians by language type, although they obsessively classified the Indian populace by almost every other measure.  As far as divide and conquer tactics, pitting "northerners against southerners" would, if employed, have been far less effective than the known tactic of dividing Indians by religion (particularly Hindu vs. Muslim), as that had effective consequences in every urban center in India, while the Dravidian-speaking areas of the south -- then divided among a large number of provinces and "princely states", was not even recognizable as a unity, much less as a political force.


 * If the accusation is that the British "invented" the contrast between "Aryans" and "Dravidians" and left it as a ticking time-bomb under the seat of the nascent Indian state, I can only be impressed by the degree of foresight it attributes to the British -- who could not even foresee the end of their own empire. There is a real linguistic contrast to be made between languages of Indo-Iranian origin and those of other origin in India -- the latter including several other small groups beside the Dravidian group. This linguistic contrast does not, however, necessarily translate into political unity or factionalism, unless linguistic commonalties become an easily identifiable raft on which other, more relevant grievances can be floated.  If modern-day Indians are talking up "Aryan" or "Dravidian" identity, it probably has more to do with local imbalances or inequities in wealth and power, rather than with any long-term sinister project by the linguists of an empire sixty years dead. RandomCritic 16:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikidemia
LOL, this recent edit, based on this hilarious article really epitomizes what we have to put up with on Wikipedia in this field. People who have simply no notion at all of the concept of order of magnitude, let alone any basis of knowledge to judge anything by.
 * Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) tests of blood samples from people in the Indian subcontinent have confirmed that the human race had its origins in Africa and not Europe or Central Asia as claimed by a few historians.

I thought this quip was so great that it would be a pity to have it disappear in the edit history. At this point, the phenomenon is impossible to parody (assuming that this was not in fact intended as parody), I was momentarily overawed by the mere surrealism of the moment o_O I plan to keep this diff for future use for pointing out why we cannot be bothered to engage in discussion with anyone who throws around some terminology on talk dab (&#5839;) 15:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It's unlikely to be a parody. The late lamented Shivraj Singh was very fond of this type of evidence, repeatedly inserting it into the AIT and Max Müller articles. Paul B 15:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * not so much "late lamented" as enjoying an eventful afterlife :) dab (&#5839;) 15:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

here's another gem:
 * It is just a mischief of missionaries/Leftists and other westernised people.

this stuff is all over the internet! :oD I am really beginning to enjoy this madness "missionaries/Leftists and other westernised people" is brilliant! I am really afraid what the hindi Wikipedia on these topics looks like :p dab (&#5839;) 21:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Its called Farsi not Persian
I noticed somebody keeps typing in Persian. That is not the name of the language. The name of the language is Farsi. For example its as if someone were to say a person from India speaks Indian. That doesnt make any sense. Indians dont speak Indian & Persians dont speak Persian. They speak Farsi ARYAN818 01:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * See Persian language. And please note that new comments should be added at the bottom of the page. Paul B 01:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Im not going to read the article...All you have to do is go to Iran or ask any Iranian what they call their language....I have rarley, if ever, heard any Iranian call their language Persian....They all call it Farsi...But if you want to go by the article as your proof then be my guest. Sounds like this article is owned by you. ARYAN818 01:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This is an english Article and the english word for the Iranians language is Persian. 136.159.187.178 07:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Being illogical doesn't help. The language may be natively called Farsi, but in *English language* it is called Persian. I guess you don't call the far-eastern island nation "Nippon", rather call it by *Japan*. Similarly, there is no Bangla word "Bengali", but the language's English name is so. --Ragib 01:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * the language was called Parsi (the equivalent is Persian in english) and during the arab occupation, it was changed to Farsi because arabs do not have the letter p. therefore, iranians today use both farsi and parsi, and the both mean persian in english.  aryan, there is a lot of history behind things that may seem modern, i suggest you look into the history before you make accusations.Iranian Patriot 02:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok fine....The Aryans spoke Sanskrit and later on Persian lol...Ya that makes alot of sense...Just go to Iran and call it Persian, and see how they react....And by the way....after u go to Iran...Go to Bangladesh and call it Bengali lol ARYAN818 19:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * you are really that dense, aren't you? You've just been told that "Persian" is the English term for Farsi (like "French" is the English term for Francais). It's also the same name etymologically, the p (Parsi) was affricated to f. I really do not think Wikipedia talkpages are for such childish "debates". dab (&#5839;) 19:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

aryan, what are your reasons for being on wikipedia? to help create an encyclopaedia or start trouble? i just explained everything to you, and i go to iran, i am an iranian, i know how we think and act.Iranian Patriot 19:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Cause trouble? Because I dont agree with you your majesty?...Forgive me im sorry...All hail you ARYAN818 08:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * you are free to disagree with everybody, all day long. Just not on Wikipedia, unless you can put together a coherent cited argument. Otherwise, you have no business here. Wikipedia is NOT a soapbox or a discussion forum, try Usenet instead. dab (&#5839;) 11:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC) Same thing man. Six one one and half a dozen of the other!--Darrendeng 06:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC) oh yes? feel free to use on me then, I do heartily endorse WP:Verifiability. dab (𒁳) 09:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

As a name
I have no doubt that "Aryan" exists as a first name, and as a surname. That it is a "common" name in "various" languages needs some sort of reference. Also, is it "Aryan" or "Aryān"? (I suspect the latter for I-A languages). That the surname is "categorized into" (whatever that is supposed to mean) the Arora community in particular also will need some sort of refenrence. These are precisely the sort of likely statements nobody bothers to check on Wikipedia, only to discover after a year or two that they are horribly inaccurate. dab (&#5839;) 08:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You can remove the Arora community thing, it's related to the Indian caste system. The Arora community are a Kshatriya community whose traditional homeplace is the Indus Valley. Those with the surname Arya are considered part of this community (see List of Arora last names). I don't think there is dispute on that but you may remove it as it isn't incredibly relevant to the article. Just a mention of Arya as a North Indian surname will do.  Noble eagle  (Talk)  09:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not trying to enter a pointless dispute here. I would just like to see some sort of reference, even online or whatever, because I would like to know how the name is spelled, where it is used, how common it really is, etc. You need to understand that this is the article about the English adjective on -n (i.e. the suffix is English, of Latin origin, -anus). The Indian name appears to be from Sanskrit -ana-, which is ultimately related, but we should be aware of the difference. Hindi is not English. dab (&#5839;) 12:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * if it helps, i have an iranian friend whose first name is Aryan, and it is spelled Aryan.Iranian Patriot 16:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Is this a joke?
You know im scrolling down this page...and everyone has an opinion about Aryans...Some say they came from Causasious mountains...Some say Europe...Some say Russia....and I ask myself have any of these people ever read an Aryan text or an Aryan scritpure?....The Aryans were Hindu....or if u dont like the word Hindu, they were originally of the Vedic religion....The first aryan text were the Vedas....Nothing is older then the Vedas....THere is no mention of an invasion or anything about white over black....THey came from the entire region of India, Iran, and Afghanistan...In those days it was one land....Were the heck are u people getting the rest of ur info? 71.107.54.199 06:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems like you support the Out of India theory.  Noble eagle  (Talk)  06:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't. It sounds like he hasn't a clue what he's talking about, especially since he doesn't even acknowledge that much of the ancient use of the word is Iranian, not Indian, and that many historians consider the Gathas to be older than the Vedas. Paul B 11:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It sounds like some editors dislike other points of view and uncomfortable questions.Bakaman Bakatalk 02:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You know, I've been thinking that myself, recently. Hornplease 03:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what the article deals with - things that are obviously very uncomfortable for nationalists. Paul B 09:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Please dont erase Indian
You know every time I see a Wikipedia article about something that has to do with India, someone seems to not want to give INdia credit for its history....And this article is a perfect example....It starts by saying Aryan was derived from Sanskrit & Iranian lol....NOw what kind of combo is that? If you use the word Iranian then u have to say Indian as well....However if you prefer to say Sanskrit instead of Indian, then u should type Farsi instead of IRanian lol....I mean it should say INdian & Iranian, or, Sanskrit & Farsi... 71.107.54.199 06:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Apart from the usual absurd Indian-victimhood-paranoia, I can see no logic to what you are saying. "Iranian" is the name of a language group. See Iranian languages. "Indian" is not the name of a language group. "Indian languages" covers three completely distinct main language groups, Indo-Aryan, Dravidian and Munda, plus many lesser ones. It is generally accepted that the Indo-Aryan languages are all derived from Sanskrit. So it is linguistically nonsensical and uninformative to use the word "Indian" when referring to a language, especially as the central point here is the fact that Sanskrit is related to the Iranian languages, while Dravidian and Munda are not. Paul B 09:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Why dont you type INDIAN?
You start of by saying Iranian and Sanskrit? THat makes no sense. IF you type in Iranian then give due credit to India by saying Indian as well....but if you have to type in Sanskrit then say Sanskirt and Farsi or Sanskrit and Old Persian....I dont understand the strange combo of IRanian and Sanskrit lol....and by the way....the original aryans spoke Sanskrit anyway so there was no Indian or Iranian terms lol ARYAN818 10:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * New comments should go at the bottom of the page. If you had gone there you would see that this question has already been answered. Paul B 10:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Its you again, mr paul b....Why do u get to decide what goes and what stays when your not even an Indian person that is familiar with Indian scriptures.....all im saying is this.....If you type in Iranian, then be fair and type in Indian as well.....But.....if you prefer to type sanskrit, then be fair, and type in old persian or farsi......I dont understand why your typing in Iranian and Sanskrit....Iranian is a nationality.....and Sanskrit is a language ARYAN818 23:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Iranian is also a language group.Khosrow II 23:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * And so is Indian....Indo-European....Indo-Iranian....and a bunch of other INdo's.....Look all im saying is be consistent....If you have to type in Iranian then type in Indian as well....But....If u have to type in Sanskrit then type in Old Persian or Farsi....I dont get why this guy types in a combo of "Iranian and Sanskrit.....its like me saying something about Mexican and Hindi....The combo of Iranian and Sanskrit doesnt make sense, and it takes away due credit to Indian history cuz alot of people dont know what Sanskrit is but they know what Iranian is ARYAN818 05:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * 'Indian' is not a language group, Iranian languages is. Read what it says above, and read Indian languages. There are not "a bunch of other Indos", the prefix Indo- refers to the existence of an Indian branch of a language group, which also has branches elsewhere. Language group have no respect for national boundaries. Purely Indian languages do not have the Indo- prefix. Indo-Aryan is a partial anomaly, since the "Aryan" component originally functioned to refer the broader Iranian and Indian family. Paul B 23:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * YOur going by a technicality....IRANIAN LANGUAGES ARE A BRANCH of the Indian-European languages.......anyway mr. paul....u havnt answered my question....who the hell gave u the right to say what goes and what doesnt?....u havnt read one ancient aryan text....i cant say that with 100% knowledge, because if u have read any aryan text, u would see what a joke this page is....i mean u still believe in an aryan invasion theory, and that alone erases anything else u type cuz the aryan invasion theory is a joke.....ive offered to talk tou about this on the phone, because typing online gets people nowhere, but of course u refused...which doesnt surprise me.....see this is why alot of people get sick of wikipeia because of users like u.....u bully people into accepting articles the way U WANT IT ARYAN818 09:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I've read lots of "Aryan" texts. Most scholars believe in a migration of IE speakers into india (which I presume is what yo mean by "Aryan Invasion Theory") As for my "rights", It just happens that I bother to respond to you, while other editors don't. Paul B 10:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

back to 1337, are we? I suggest you just read our article here, as well as WP:5P. Paul isn't required to explain Wikipedia to you personally, you are perfectly capable (I hope) of reading things up by yourself. dab (&#5839;)

Let's be simple
The term "aryan" means:

1. an indo-iranian (sanskrit arya, iranian airya) 2. perhaps an indo-european, if the term indo-european *aryos was the auto-ethnonym of the Proto-Indo-Europeans. In the XIXth century, "aryan" meant "indo-european" (Indians, Iranians, Germanics, Slavs, Greeks... and so later) because the specialists thought that the auto-ethnonym was indeed "aryan".

The existence of an indo-european god whose name was based over the root *aryo- seems to show that the XIXth century specialists were true, as Max Müller, Müller who fought the racial nordicist theories... This god is the indo-european *Aryomen, which became the indian Aryaman, the iranian Airyaman/Erman, the irish Eremon and the germanic Irmin. So if this god *Aryomen exists not only in India and Persia but also in Celtic and Germanic world, we may think that *aryos was indeed the auto-ethnonym of the Indo-Europeans.

About the AIT Theory,

The indian nationalists said that the Indo-Europeans come from India and not from Europe. This is a nationalist behaviour. I have even readen an albanian historian saying that the Proto-Indo-Europeans 'd come from Albania. No proof about that. And even if the indusian civilisation (Harappa, Mohenjaro) was sanskritic or indo-european, that is not a proof of origin. Perhaps the Indo-Europeans have come to India not in XVIth century A.C but in XXVth century A.C for example.

The fact is Southern India and a little Pakistan (Brahui region) are composed by dravidians. They have not appeared by spontaneous generation. So, the Dravidians were in India before the "Aryans" and then the "Aryans" must have come into India at a non determinate date. Harappa indo-european ? Why not but that is not a proof of indo-european autochtony in India.

Indians, Iranians and Europeans (except Basques, Caucasians and Uralics) are all indo-europeans, simply that. Because indo-europeanity is at first a linguistic question. The origin ? Paleolithic European (for Mario Alinei and so...) ? Kurgans ? Iran ? India ? Central Europe (Lothar Kilian) ? Scandinavie (Kossinna) ? Is it so important ? I do not think so. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.203.172.160 (talk • contribs).
 * partly true, but offtopic, and all discussed in Wikipedia articles already. dab (𒁳) 10:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Look at this persons logic.....The first Aryan scriptures were the Vedas (Of India)....There original teachings are of old Hinduism (Of India)....There first language was Sanskrit (Of India).....In there own writings they dont talk about coming from a far away land or pushing down Dravidian people to southern India....And last but not least....Any and all evidence about Aryans are from the Indian & Iranian area.......BUT OOO NOO.....This person ignores all that.....And says...."The Indian nationalists who say Indo-Europeans come from India and not from Europe have a nationalist behaviour"........Amazing isnt it? ARYAN818 22:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * people "ignore" most of your points mostly on the basis of their being simply not true, or "not even false" (that is, nonsensical). As we've iterated many times on these pages of course. dab (𒁳) 23:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)