History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Forum LockedRegarding Aryans

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
Kerimoglu View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 05-Oct-2006
Status: Offline
Points: 313
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Kerimoglu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Regarding Aryans
    Posted: 26-May-2008 at 15:59
Dear Members, especially of those supporting and having knowledge of Aryans,

I wonder whether tribes like Scythians/Sakae/Sarmatians, + Saxons (as part of Germans) and even some other steppe people of Asia are considered to be Aryan or at least of Aryan origin?

Were Aryans Indo-European and were they Iranic, if they're Indo-European?

What are the methods that defines whether nemesis of Ancient Mesopotamian states had (probability) some relations to Aryans?

PLease to not send me links refering Aryans or Aryan history.

I just want to get answer to these questions given above.

P.S. I thought it is the right place for this topic to be post. If it is not, I apologize and ask moderators to change its place.

Wishes,

Kerimoglu
History is a farm. Nations are farmers. What they planted before will show what is going to grow tomorrow!
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3115
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-May-2008 at 21:40
Originally posted by Kerimoglu Kerimoglu wrote:

Dear Members, especially of those supporting and having knowledge of Aryans,

I wonder whether tribes like Scythians/Sakae/Sarmatians, + Saxons (as part of Germans) and even some other steppe people of Asia are considered to be Aryan or at least of Aryan origin?
 
First of all, we need to define what we mean under "Aryan" here. "Aryan" can have different meanings e.g.
 
1) "Aryan" as a speaker of "Indo-Aryan" i.e. Indo-European Indic languages (most widely used now in the linguistic science)
 
2) "Aryan"  as a speaker of Indo-Iranian languages (less widely used in the modern lingusitic science),
 
3) "Aryan" as a speaker of Indo-European languages in general (archaic term was used in the 19th centure and the beginning of the 20th century).
 
4) "Aryan" in a meaning of the fake Nazi racial mythology i.e. the Caucasian descendant of the Ancient Indo-European Aryans (who were "fair skin tall Caucasians" as well)-"Aryan" in this context is just bogus and is not used in serious science; except in neo-nazist literature and by followers of some dubious "spiritual teachings" AKA Theosophy by Madame Blavatsky (which BTW influenced Nazist fake theories as well)
 
Thus, "Aryan" is used mostly in linguisitics and linguistic paleontology as a synonim of Indo- European Indic languages or less as a synonim for a wider group of Indo-Iranian languages, it also used to be used as a synonim for Indo-European languages in general in the past. I won't even seriously discuss "Aryan" in the "Nazist-racial" meaning here.
 
So, since Scythians/Sakae/Sarmatians are believed to be Iranic speakers they can be considered "Aryans" in the 2nd meaning above.
 
Saxons (as part of Germans) can be called "Aryans" in the 3d meaning above, though it would be archaic term, since nowdays "Aryan" is used overwhelmingly for "Indo-Aryan" and "Indo-Iranic" languages in linguistics.
 
"Some other steppe people of Asia" it depends. If you mean Finno-Ugrian, Turkic, Mongolic and Tungus nomades? No. They are not Indo-Iranic or Indo-Aryan speakers. They are not Indo-European speakers at all.
 
However, if you mean by the other steppe people of Asia Ephtalites or Tocharians, yes they can be considered "Aryan" since they are believed to be Indo-European speakers.
 
Originally posted by Kerimoglu Kerimoglu wrote:


Were Aryans Indo-European and were they Iranic, if they're Indo-European?
Please see above
 
Originally posted by Kerimoglu Kerimoglu wrote:


What are the methods that defines whether nemesis of Ancient Mesopotamian states had (probability) some relations to Aryans?
AFAIK there is no any connection between Aryans and Ancient Mesopotamian states which were predominantly Semitic in origin.


 


Edited by Sarmat12 - 26-May-2008 at 21:42
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Kerimoglu View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 05-Oct-2006
Status: Offline
Points: 313
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Kerimoglu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-May-2008 at 08:10
Ok.

Thanks much.

You clearified it for me.

Now I have a wider view to that identity.

I know Ephtalites has been a topic of discussion in this forum for more than several times. if you consider them to be Indo-European, then you got to believe they're not of Turkic (actually Hunnic) identity. Am I right?

Also, Do you consider Tocharian being an Iranic culture?

Thanks,

Kerimoglu
History is a farm. Nations are farmers. What they planted before will show what is going to grow tomorrow!
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3115
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-May-2008 at 08:59
Yes, if we take Hephtalites as Turkic i.e. Hunnic we can't call them "Aryan."
 
As for Tocharians, it's not that easy, cause their language doesn't actually belong to the Iranic branch of Indo-European languages. Tocharian langage is centum which puts it in the same group with Italic, Celtic and Germanic languages, while Iranic languages are satem,
 
Tocharian language bears some Iranic influence, but this language is defintely not Iranic.
 
As regarding the culture. If call the cutlure of Central Asia at the time of Tocharians as "Iranic," then yes one could say that Tocharian culture was very possible close to "Iranic" in that sense.
 
But, frankly speaking, we still don't know that much about Tocharians.
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Kerimoglu View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 05-Oct-2006
Status: Offline
Points: 313
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Kerimoglu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-May-2008 at 10:27
Hmm.

Thanks a lot for the information.

I appreciate
History is a farm. Nations are farmers. What they planted before will show what is going to grow tomorrow!
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-May-2008 at 13:59

Very nice, Sarmat.

Even though septuagenarians may have different ideas about what is 'archaic' Smile.

 

Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3115
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-May-2008 at 18:52
Thanks Smile
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Ardeshir View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 29-Dec-2007
Location: Iran
Status: Offline
Points: 28
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Ardeshir Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Jul-2008 at 21:16

this is a good post, as this topic brings about much confusion and debate.  Im curious as to the original homeland of aryans as i get into this debate with many of my friends.

Some say its Persia, hence the reason we call it Iran, now i know this is not entirely true(am i correct), others point to a region near the Caucasus/Black Sea region as the original land from where they set out. 

Also, is it true that some Bulgarians/Hungarians are also of Iranic stock?

Thinking is the essence of wisdom
Back to Top
calvo View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 20-May-2007
Location: Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 848
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote calvo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Jul-2008 at 12:13
Originally posted by Ardeshir Ardeshir wrote:

Also, is it true that some Bulgarians/Hungarians are also of Iranic stock?

 
The Bulgarians are a mixture of the Turkic Bulgars and the Slavic tribes that settled in the Balkans; with the latter absorbing the former.
 
The Hungarians are descended from Magyars, a supposedly Ugric-speaking people with Turkic customs and attributes.
 
Both the Magyars and the Bulgars had supposedly come under the influence of Iranian nomads back in their homeland in Central Asia, but that would not make them Iranians.
Back to Top
omshanti View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 02-Nov-2006
Status: Offline
Points: 429
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote omshanti Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Jul-2008 at 11:10
 All the definitions in Sarmat's post are actually later borrowings of the term 'Aryan' by people or circles who did not exist at the time when the term originally came in to use. In order to understand how and by whom the term 'Aryan/Arya' was used, we need to look further back in time than the Nazis or the discipline of linguistics. As indicated by its usage in linguistics, the term is very strongly associated with Indo-Iranians who consist of Indic, Dardic, Iranic and Nuristani speakers. This means that in order to understand the term, we have to understand how it is used by Indo-Iranians.
 
 'Aryan' was used in Sanskrit and in India to mean noble, honorable or spiritual, and it was mainly from this group, the Indians, that the term travelled out of the Indo-Iranian speakers and was subsequently used in linguistics and Europe. 
 
 In Iran, the name of which is a cognate of the term 'Arya', it has been and is still used as an ethnic/national designation. If you go to Iran, you will notice that it is used for anything that can be named, from personal names, to company names, to shop names, to street names and .....etc,  which shows how deep the term is rooted in the society.
 
 However, in order to understand the term and its past better, we need to consider the history of Indo-Iranians. Where they came from, how they spread, and how the term 'Arya' was used within this context.
 
 Archaeological evidence suggest that Indo-Iranians originated in the Pontic-Caspian steppe as a branch of the greater Indo-European family, and spread from where the Srubnaya culture and Andronovo culture overlapped (north of Caspian sea). Their spread correlates with the spreads of these two cultures, especially the Andronovo culture which explains their spread to the east and south. The Indic group to which Sanskrit language belongs to, spread and became sedentary earlier, while the Iranic/Iranian group split into two groups, one who stayed in the Pontic-Caspian steppe mainly remaining nomadic, and another who spread from their homelands many of whom became sedentary.  The Avestan language originated in the latter group of the Iranics/Iranians. Historical documents such as the Avesta show that only the sedentary Iranians were referred to in the Avestan language as 'Aryans' (Farvardin Yasht 143~144) and that they called themselves as such. Within the Iranians,  'Aryan'  was basically a term to differentiate the sedentary and ''civilized'' Iranians in the south and east from the nomadic and ''barbaric'' Iranians to the north and west. From this we can see that Iranian peoples such as the Scythians, Sarmatians and Alans were not really Aryans.
 
 We can conclude that 'Aryan' was used distinctively only by the Indo-Iranians who migrated out of their homeland and became sedentary, from whom both Sanskrit and Avestan emerged.



 Below is a sentence from  wikipedia regarding the linguistic usage.      
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan#Indo-Iranian
In linguistics, the term Aryan currently may be used to refer to the Indo-Iranian language family. To prevent confusion because of its several meanings, the linguistic term is often avoided today. It has been replaced by the unambiguous terms Proto-Indo-European, Proto-Indo-Iranian, Indo-Iranian, Iranian and Indo-Aryan.



 Another sentence from  wikipedia regarding the usage in Iran.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan#Iranian
Since ancient times, Persians have used the term Aryan as a racial designation in an ethnic sense to describe their lineage and their language, and this tradition has continued into the present day amongst modern Iranians [6]. In fact, the name Iran is a cognate of Aryan and means "Land of the Aryans."


Edited by omshanti - 21-Jul-2008 at 14:52
Back to Top
EmperorTrebizond View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 14-Sep-2008
Location: Indiana Univ.
Status: Offline
Points: 0
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote EmperorTrebizond Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Sep-2008 at 11:13
Originally posted by Sarmat12 Sarmat12 wrote:

Yes, if we take Hephtalites as Turkic i.e. Hunnic we can't call them "Aryan."
 

As for Tocharians, it's not that easy, cause their language doesn't actually belong to the Iranic branch of Indo-European languages. Tocharian langage is centum which puts it in the same group with Italic, Celtic and Germanic languages, while Iranic languages are satem,

 

Tocharian language bears some Iranic influence, but this language is defintely not Iranic.

 

As regarding the culture. If call the cutlure of Central Asia at the time of Tocharians as "Iranic," then yes one could say that Tocharian culture was very possible close to "Iranic" in that sense.

 

But, frankly speaking, we still don't know that much about Tocharians.


Hephtalites were the "White and Red Huns" though I wouldn't be to keen on giving them any true relation to the Hunnic Empire of Atilla that pushed the East Germanic Tribes into the Roman Empire. The Huns were often confederations of various steppe peoples rather then just turks or another single Indo-european group. Though both probably consisted of Turkish Aristocracies, there still isn't the connection.

Tocharians were the eastern-most branch of the Indo-European family and to my knowledge it's own unique sub-branch. It's long extinct, but was prevalent in the Tarim Basin before being absorbed into Uighur tribes.    There are claims that it is descended from the Afanasevo and Andranovo cultures (3500BC-2500BC) to the north, and perhaps a very early beginning for Indo-European peoples, perhaps giving genetic and linguistic input into Indo-Iranian peoples (thus our Aryans, who arrived in the Indus Valley, giving rise to Indic culture and the Vedas, as well as various Iranian peoples all the way to the Pontic Steppe).

Edited by EmperorTrebizond - 14-Sep-2008 at 11:19
May the Empire of Constantine rise again...
Back to Top
Afghanan View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Durr e Durran

Joined: 12-Jun-2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1076
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Afghanan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Sep-2008 at 13:16
The Tocharians were not all absorbed by the Uighir tribes.  A nice big chunk (if not the majority) of Tocharians migrated out of Tarim Basin and into Afghanistan where they created the Kushan Empire.
 
Also, the Ephtalites were not the Red and White Huns, they were only the White Huns.  The Red Huns were the Kitharites.
 
 


Edited by Afghanan - 14-Sep-2008 at 13:18
The perceptive man is he who knows about himself, for in self-knowledge and insight lays knowledge of the holiest.
~ Khushal Khan Khattak
Back to Top
EmperorTrebizond View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 14-Sep-2008
Location: Indiana Univ.
Status: Offline
Points: 0
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote EmperorTrebizond Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Sep-2008 at 15:48
I guess "all" was too big of a word, but you're right.
May the Empire of Constantine rise again...
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.079 seconds.